bible somebody explain the important parts to me ( whole bible )

GBzone

Inactive
Brother, I'll be happy to clear up the confusion for you as to why the Bible does not condone cannibalism:
  1. Advocates, such as you, for the consumption of filthy, toxic, diseased, unclean meat such as pork and shellfish always appeal to Paul when he said "every creature" is not to be refused.
  2. To demonstrate that "every creature" does not mean "every creature that crawls across our plate", I challenge these advocates to consider that humans are creatures as well - which at this point they should be saying, "Whoa, we're not supposed to eat humans! What does Paul mean?"
  3. To those who accept the challenge to seek what Paul truly means, I simply point them to the context of Paul's words: It is every creature that is "sanctified (sanctified means set apart for particular use) by the Word of God" as an acceptable menu item in Leviticus - those that are clean - that Paul is referring to.
  4. As lagniappe, I share with them that Paul is speaking of the same religious system that the other prophets so often spoke of - an end time, unholy religious institution that forbids its priests to marry and commands its members to abstain from clean meat on certain days.
So, you see, it is the strict interpreter of Paul's words which claims he means "every creature that crawls across your plate" that advocates cannibalism, not those of us who understand that Paul is speaking of "every creature" that is "sanctified by the Word of God".

The justification of cannibals is a spurious argument . Though its original user I think had his tounge in his cheek .
Man is creature as a creation . But not one as an 'animal'

in Christ
gerald
 
This is nonsense .

He was specifically speaking about food on the one hand as to what a man eats or goes INTO his mouth is then purged by the natural order of the body. math 15:11
and that the kingdom of God is not in meat and drink .Romans 14:7
and what really does defile a man that what comes OUT of his mouth.

It would be profitable to any one to actually do a word search on the mouth in scripture as to what can and does defile and words that do not as well as other things.

Now as to Isaiah . It is not I that sent down a sheet from heaven with both clean and un clean things upon it and commanded Peter to eat and it is not I who recorded that Peter refused saying I have never allowed anything unclean to pass my lips (or eat) .
It is not me who said say not a thing is unclean what I have cleaned Acts 10

But there is also

Roman 14:4 though does say "................ there is nothing unclean of itself ,but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean to him it is unclean"

It is not then ( like others with the Sabbath ) for you to impose you faith on others but each must be" fully persuaded" in his own heart and mind .Not on the perceptions of one man but on the whole of scripture .
For those same scriptures teach in the Old testament WHY God made a difference (as already stated ) between the clean and the unclean and by inference what really defiles a man .
For meat and drink is all about externals .
The kingdom of God is about internals .

in Christ
gerald
Brother, I'm afraid you are wrong. He was chided by the Pharisees for not washing ceremoniously.
 
The justification of cannibals is a spurious argument . Though its original user I think had his tounge in his cheek .
Man is creature as a creation . But not one as an 'animal'

in Christ
gerald
There is the Creator and His creatures, period. If Paul means literally "every creature is not to be refused" then who are we to exclude humans? But, if Paul means "every creature that is sanctified by the Word of God for use as food in Leviticus" which I 100% believe it true then unclean animals are still off the menu.
 

GBzone

Inactive
There is the Creator and His creatures, period. If Paul means literally "every creature is not to be refused" then who are we to exclude humans? But, if Paul means "every creature that is sanctified by the Word of God for use as food in Leviticus" which I 100% believe it true then unclean animals are still off the menu.

As Paul said . I am fully persuaded of the matter as to what a man can eat.
You willingly wish to ignore THAT all together what he taught and the lord also .
But no one should be swayed by your argument that does not resolve the natural contradictions of the WHOLE argument .
about food and drink. That the scriptures speak of . Both in the Old and New Testament .
That are only resolved IN Christ . But are not outside Him.

in Christ
gerald
 
Brother, I'll be happy to clear up the confusion for you as to why the Bible does not condone cannibalism:
  1. Advocates, such as you, for the consumption of filthy, toxic, diseased, unclean meat such as pork and shellfish always appeal to Paul when he said "every creature" is not to be refused.
  2. To demonstrate that "every creature" does not mean "every creature that crawls across our plate", I challenge these advocates to consider that humans are creatures as well - which at this point they should be saying, "Whoa, we're not supposed to eat humans! What does Paul mean?"
  3. To those who accept the challenge to seek what Paul truly means, I simply point them to the context of Paul's words: It is every creature that is "sanctified (sanctified means set apart for particular use) by the Word of God" as an acceptable menu item in Leviticus - those that are clean - that Paul is referring to.
  4. As lagniappe, I share with them that Paul is speaking of the same religious system that the other prophets so often spoke of - an end time, unholy religious institution that forbids its priests to marry and commands its members to abstain from clean meat on certain days.
So, you see, it is the strict interpreter of Paul's words which claims he means "every creature that crawls across your plate" that advocates cannibalism, not those of us who understand that Paul is speaking of "every creature" that is "sanctified by the Word of God". Humans, pigs, shellfish, mice, monkeys, and many other creatures are not set apart as menu items and those knowingly consume any of these that God has forbidden will not be meeting Jesus in peace according to Isaiah 66 because they will have been found to presume upon His grace, what King David calls the "Great Transgression".

You do error yet once again by refusing to believe the Word of God as stated clearly in.........

1 Tim. 4:1-6
1Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Colossians 2:16 ...........
" Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ."

The claim you make is done all the time by those who are Judiazers and is often made that some animals are forbidden food because they are scavengers. YOU also made that claim because that logic appeals to YOU, but it is not confirmed by Scripture, nor can it be applied universally. THINK!!! Chickens will scratch around in excrement and eat from it, and goats eat paper, but they are not forbidden food.

You can not have it both ways my friend.
 
(facepalm) LOL. Brother, if you re-read that post, you'll see that my verse from Isaiah was my proof text that Jesus and the Jews were discussing the validity of their supposed ritualistic remedy of "spiritual defilement" by ceremonial handwashing, and NOT discussing menu items. The verse in Isaiah proves this, in that this same Jesus' inspired Isaiah to warn of the destruction of pork eaters at His second coming. Nothing was destroyed, my bro.

Why do you question my grasp of the Scriptures? Because I read them critically, instead of just going along with popular notions? Brother, if Isaiah says Jesus is going to destroy pork eaters when He returns, they maybe pork lovers need to stop searching the Scriptures for "proof" texts in order to excuse behavior that God condemns. Jesus was NOT establishing unclean pork as now clean by His words to the Jews, He was rebuking Jews for their useless rituals as a means of removing defilement and pointing them to the true source of man's defilement - his unconverted heart. A pig is still a filthy animal that we have never been given permission to consume, either in the OT or the NT.

I make the comment of your grasp of Scripture because YOU do not accept them within the context that they are given. YOU take them and apply them to what YOU want them to be saying so as to support your personal agenda. Because you are a Judiazer YOU must always be looking for Scriptures that can be twisted and misapplied for your personal edification.

As for Isaiah 66:15-17 that you used, there is NO indication whatsoever with all of the rest of God's Word as found through out the Bible that God will reject and destroy Christians that eat pork. Isaiah is speaking specifically to those who are in unbelief because those people WOULD IN FACT have been breaking God's Law at that time. They would be UNBELIEVERS and because they are, they would be eating the things you are speaking of.

That means for those WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE LORD BUT STAY IN UNBELIEF.......
"The Lord will come with fire, like a whirlwind, with fury, with flames of fire".

The picture drawn by Isaiah here is reflected in 2 Thess. 1:7-8 where Christ is seen at His Second Coming returning to the earth in firey judgment ON THE UNRIGHTEOUS.

Romans 14:14 -
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Mark 7:19 -
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Romans 14:1-23 -
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
 
This is nonsense .

He was specifically speaking about food on the one hand as to what a man eats or goes INTO his mouth is then purged by the natural order of the body. math 15:11
and that the kingdom of God is not in meat and drink .Romans 14:7
and what really does defile a man that what comes OUT of his mouth.

It would be profitable to any one to actually do a word search on the mouth in scripture as to what can and does defile and words that do not as well as other things.

Now as to Isaiah . It is not I that sent down a sheet from heaven with both clean and un clean things upon it and commanded Peter to eat and it is not I who recorded that Peter refused saying I have never allowed anything unclean to pass my lips (or eat) .
It is not me who said say not a thing is unclean what I have cleaned Acts 10

But there is also

Roman 14:4 though does say "................ there is nothing unclean of itself ,but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean to him it is unclean"

It is not then ( like others with the Sabbath ) for you to impose you faith on others but each must be" fully persuaded" in his own heart and mind .Not on the perceptions of one man but on the whole of scripture .
For those same scriptures teach in the Old testament WHY God made a difference (as already stated ) between the clean and the unclean and by inference what really defiles a man .
For meat and drink is all about externals .
The kingdom of God is about internals .

in Christ
gerald

I agree with you Gerald.
 
Brother, I'll be happy to clear up the confusion for you as to why the Bible does not condone cannibalism:
  1. Advocates, such as you, for the consumption of filthy, toxic, diseased, unclean meat such as pork and shellfish always appeal to Paul when he said "every creature" is not to be refused.
  2. To demonstrate that "every creature" does not mean "every creature that crawls across our plate", I challenge these advocates to consider that humans are creatures as well - which at this point they should be saying, "Whoa, we're not supposed to eat humans! What does Paul mean?"
  3. To those who accept the challenge to seek what Paul truly means, I simply point them to the context of Paul's words: It is every creature that is "sanctified (sanctified means set apart for particular use) by the Word of God" as an acceptable menu item in Leviticus - those that are clean - that Paul is referring to.
  4. As lagniappe, I share with them that Paul is speaking of the same religious system that the other prophets so often spoke of - an end time, unholy religious institution that forbids its priests to marry and commands its members to abstain from clean meat on certain days.
So, you see, it is the strict interpreter of Paul's words which claims he means "every creature that crawls across your plate" that advocates cannibalism, not those of us who understand that Paul is speaking of "every creature" that is "sanctified by the Word of God". Humans, pigs, shellfish, mice, monkeys, and many other creatures are not set apart as menu items and those knowingly consume any of these that God has forbidden will not be meeting Jesus in peace according to Isaiah 66 because they will have been found to presume upon His grace, what King David calls the "Great Transgression".

777..There is NO confusion on my part at all.

Of course the Bible DOES NOT condone cannibalism!! I never said it did. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED THAT not me!

Ahhhh, the beauty of the computer in remembering the words said!!!!

IN comment #36 Your exact words were indicating ...........
"A human is a creature, but humans aren't sanctified (set apart) by the Word of God FOR FOOD ".
 
I make the comment of your grasp of Scripture because YOU do not accept them within the context that they are given. YOU take them and apply them to what YOU want them to be saying so as to support your personal agenda. Because you are a Judiazer YOU must always be looking for Scriptures that can be twisted and misapplied for your personal edification.

As for Isaiah 66:15-17 that you used, there is NO indication whatsoever with all of the rest of God's Word as found through out the Bible that God will reject and destroy Christians that eat pork. Isaiah is speaking specifically to those who are in unbelief because those people WOULD IN FACT have been breaking God's Law at that time. They would be UNBELIEVERS and because they are, they would be eating the things you are speaking of.

That means for those WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE LORD BUT STAY IN UNBELIEF.......
"The Lord will come with fire, like a whirlwind, with fury, with flames of fire".

The picture drawn by Isaiah here is reflected in 2 Thess. 1:7-8 where Christ is seen at His Second Coming returning to the earth in firey judgment ON THE UNRIGHTEOUS.

Romans 14:14 -
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Mark 7:19 -
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Romans 14:1-23 -
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
My dear brother, a mere claim to be in "belief" or "unbelief" does not excuse behavior that God has condemned. If you are truly in "belief", then your deeds will evidence that. If you know that Isaiah prophesies destruction to those who commit the sin of consuming unclean animals, do not seek to excuse your pork eating with ridiculous claims that "I'm OK b/c I believe", whatever that means - rather, seek to follow Jesus' example of "not My will, but Thy will" and scratch it off your menu, plain and simple. :)
 

GBzone

Inactive
I make the comment of your grasp of Scripture because YOU do not accept them within the context that they are given. YOU take them and apply them to what YOU want them to be saying so as to support your personal agenda. Because you are a Judiazer YOU must always be looking for Scriptures that can be twisted and misapplied for your personal edification.

As for Isaiah 66:15-17 that you used, there is NO indication whatsoever with all of the rest of God's Word as found through out the Bible that God will reject and destroy Christians that eat pork. Isaiah is speaking specifically to those who are in unbelief because those people WOULD IN FACT have been breaking God's Law at that time. They would be UNBELIEVERS and because they are, they would be eating the things you are speaking of.

That means for those WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE LORD BUT STAY IN UNBELIEF.......
"The Lord will come with fire, like a whirlwind, with fury, with flames of fire".

The picture drawn by Isaiah here is reflected in 2 Thess 1:7-8 where Christ is seen at His Second Coming returning to the earth in firey judgment ON THE UNRIGHTEOUS.

Romans 14:14 -
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Mark 7:19 -
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Romans 14:1-23 -
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.

I do not hold to the current practice of so called 'proof texts' for I see nowhere in the scriptures that justifies it .
What I do see however especially in the letter of Paul and in particular as the finest examples the principle of a Biblical argument .
There you too will see his use of scripture .
You say I take the verse out of context . But do not prove that in the way I have used it I have in any way twisted them out of their meaning . Or indeed the context .
One verse does not make a doctrine .
Men do not "arrive at the truth" or "come to a knowledge of the truth " by one verse. Indeed very often its not by the scriptures at all at first as to coming to Christ and being converted . But men are LED by Him who si the faithfull shepherd of our souls to consider the state of our hearts before God and in the light of His goodness . that it is indeed "desperately wicked end deceitful above all else and who can know it "?
and our corresponding great and desperate need for a saviour .
He who speaks the truth or confesses the truth about himself who he does know and recognises it . he who led him to that truth will then lead him to the truth about Him who he does not know .
My dear brother, a mere claim to be in "belief" or "unbelief" does not excuse behavior that God has condemned. If you are truly in "belief", then your deeds will evidence that. If you know that Isaiah prophesies destruction to those who commit the sin of consuming unclean animals, do not seek to excuse your pork eating with ridiculous claims that "I'm OK b/c I believe", whatever that means - rather, seek to follow Jesus' example of "not My will, but Thy will" and scratch it off your menu, plain and simple. :)
and there it should rest .

But I doubt if it will.

For they who seek to establish their own righteousness by what they eat or do not eat or what day they hold Holy unto God will always and only come back to that one thing and show that they needs must have every one conform to them that they may feel justified.

Yet clear scripture shows that if by faith you hold oen day or all of them Holy unto the Lord .Then there should be no contention.
Or if one cannot eat in faith and another can in faith there should be no contention .
Let all be done in faith and good will towards ones neighbour or brother .
But avoid foolish contentions and vain debates when they are manifestly so.

in Christ
gerald
 
I do not hold to the current practice of so called 'proof texts' for I see nowhere in the scriptures that justifies it .
What I do see however especially in the letter of Paul and in particular as the finest examples the principle of a Biblical argument .
There you too will see his use of scripture .
You say I take the verse out of context . But do not prove that in the way I have used it I have in any way twisted them out of their meaning . Or indeed the context .
One verse does not make a doctrine .
Men do not "arrive at the truth" or "come to a knowledge of the truth " by one verse. Indeed very often its not by the scriptures at all at first as to coming to Christ and being converted . But men are LED by Him who si the faithfull shepherd of our souls to consider the state of our hearts before God and in the light of His goodness . that it is indeed "desperately wicked end deceitful above all else and who can know it "?
and our corresponding great and desperate need for a saviour .
He who speaks the truth or confesses the truth about himself who he does know and recognises it . he who led him to that truth will then lead him to the truth about Him who he does not know .

and there it should rest .

But I doubt if it will.

For they who seek to establish their own righteousness by what they eat or do not eat or what day they hold Holy unto God will always and only come back to that one thing and show that they needs must have every one conform to them that they may feel justified.

Yet clear scripture shows that if by faith you hold oen day or all of them Holy unto the Lord .Then there should be no contention.
Or if one cannot eat in faith and another can in faith there should be no contention .
Let all be done in faith and good will towards ones neighbour or brother .
But avoid foolish contentions and vain debates when they are manifestly so.

in Christ
gerald

I would tend to agree. The Scriptures are to be considered as a whole so that proper context can be understood as a complete unit.
 
777..There is NO confusion on my part at all.

Of course the Bible DOES NOT condone cannibalism!! I never said it did. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED THAT not me!

Ahhhh, the beauty of the computer in remembering the words said!!!!

IN comment #36 Your exact words were indicating ...........
"A human is a creature, but humans aren't sanctified (set apart) by the Word of God FOR FOOD ".
Do you strictly interpret "every creature" to mean every creature that may wind up on your plate, or do you believe Paul meant to exclude some creatures, like humans, pigs, shellfish, and any other creature that is not "sanctified by the Word of God" in Leviticus?
 
I make the comment of your grasp of Scripture because YOU do not accept them within the context that they are given. YOU take them and apply them to what YOU want them to be saying so as to support your personal agenda. Because you are a Judiazer YOU must always be looking for Scriptures that can be twisted and misapplied for your personal edification.

As for Isaiah 66:15-17 that you used, there is NO indication whatsoever with all of the rest of God's Word as found through out the Bible that God will reject and destroy Christians that eat pork. Isaiah is speaking specifically to those who are in unbelief because those people WOULD IN FACT have been breaking God's Law at that time. They would be UNBELIEVERS and because they are, they would be eating the things you are speaking of.

That means for those WHO DO NOT RECEIVE THE LORD BUT STAY IN UNBELIEF.......
"The Lord will come with fire, like a whirlwind, with fury, with flames of fire".

The picture drawn by Isaiah here is reflected in 2 Thess. 1:7-8 where Christ is seen at His Second Coming returning to the earth in firey judgment ON THE UNRIGHTEOUS.

Romans 14:14 -
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Mark 7:19 -
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Romans 14:1-23 -
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
I think I understand your logic: As long as we eat pigs as "believers", we're safe, but if we eat them as "unbelievers" we'll be subject to the Second Coming destruction that Isaiah warns of in chapter 66. Let's go with that for a minute, shall we?

Isaiah's warning against eating unclean creatures is immediately preceded by his warning against those who partake in occult nature worship in the trees of the groves. Do you know that this still takes place today? Ever heard of the Bohemian Grove in Calif?

Yes, grown men, powerful leaders of state, industry, finance, etc., go up there once a year and partake of some of the most abominable, homo-sexually licentiousness that you can imagine, which includes the worship of a 30 foot stone owl. President Nixon had some choice words on audio tape for what takes place there:

According to your logic, Major, any person who is a "believer" can go to the Bohemian Grove next year to partake of those reprehensible occult festivities and afterward enjoy a nice pork sandwich all without fear of Isaiah's warning because that person is a "believer", right? Please explain.
 
Last edited:
Acts 10:10-15(NASB)


10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”

peter
 
I think I understand your logic: As long as we eat pigs as "believers", we're safe, but if we eat them as "unbelievers" we'll be subject to the Second Coming destruction that Isaiah warns of in chapter 66. Let's go with that for a minute, shall we?

Isaiah's warning against eating unclean creatures is immediately preceded by his warning against those who partake in occult nature worship in the trees of the groves. Do you know that this still takes place today? Ever heard of the Bohemian Grove in Calif?

Yes, grown men, powerful leaders of state, industry, finance, etc., go up there once a year and partake of some of the most abominable, homo-sexually licentiousness that you can imagine, which includes the worship of a 30 foot stone owl. President Nixon had some choice words on audio tape for what takes place there:

According to your logic, Major, any person who is a "believer" can go to the Bohemian Grove next year to partake of those reprehensible occult festivities and afterward enjoy a nice pork sandwich all without fear of Isaiah's warning because that person is a "believer", right? Please explain.

WHY try to explain? You are obviously bound by your own thinking and agenda. It would be a blessing if you were able to understand the Word of God instead.

Honestly and with all due respect this conversation is really nonsense. However, in the spirit of friendship and Christian love I will explain this one more time and then I am done with it.

What we are talking about comes from reading the Old Testament. The Law of God said that it was wrong for Jews under the Law of Moses to eat pork. In Leviticus 11, God gave the Israelites a list of animals that were permissible to eat, but the text specifically labels swine (pork) as unclean and forbidden (vs. 7).

Then throughout the Old Testament, the act of eating pork was viewed as an abomination to the Israelites—wrong and sinful.
You posted correctly for the Jews in Isaiah 66:17. The One primary reason for this prohibition in the Old Testament against eating the meat of unclean animals, including pork, was to protect the Israelites from diseases, infections, and bacteria that were more commonly carried in scavenger animals such as vultures, catfish, and pigs. That is especially why the Law said to not eat the BLOOD as it contained the things that would cause death when eaten and not cooked.

Now the question comes and it is what we are involved in is ............ if it was wrong for those under the Old Law of Moses, is it still wrong for those who are following God under the New Law of Christ?

The straightforward and simple answer to this question is a “NO.” It is not wrong to eat pork. Or shell fish and the other kinds of animals that you have listed at one time or another. Now WHT then is that the case. Is it LOGIC as you have incorrectly said. NO once again.
It is however understanding the contextual teaching that comes out of the Word of God in the New Testament.

I am of the opinion that I really should not have to go into this kind of depth for someone who is as well read as you are in the Bible. However, YOU asked for the explanation so................when Jesus Christ died, He nailed the Old Law to the cross.

Colossians 2:14.......
"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."


Then in the book of Hebrews, the writer explains that Christ made the Law of Moses obsolete and replaced it with the New Covenant.

Hebrews 8:13..........
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

Paul then explained to Christians that the Old Law was cast out and replaced by Christ’s New Law.

Galatians 4:21-31...........
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[a] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more han those of the one who has a husband.” 28 Now you,[b] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

As a result, the regulations about clean and unclean foods were jettisoned, along with rules for animal sacrifice, ritual washings, annual feast days, Sabbath observance, and a host of other ceremonial trappings.

As evidence that the food regulations were abolished, the book of Acts includes an account in which the apostle Peter saw a heavenly vision of unclean animals being lowered from heaven.

Acts 10:11-16................
"and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

A voice from heaven said to Peter, “Rise, Peter, kill, and eat”. Peter responded that he did not eat unclean animals. The heavenly voice countered by saying, “What God has cleansed you must not call common”.

In the immediate context, the vision was designed for Peter to understand that God was arranging for the Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. But the interchange also manifests the fact that the regulations for clean and unclean animals had been altered so that animals that once were unclean to the Jew were now fit to eat.

In a passage that has a direct application to the eating of pork, Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:1-5............
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer".

Under the New Law of Christ, it is no longer wrong to eat animals such as pigs or catfish, since such regulations have been removed. Those who want to be accepted by God no longer have to offer up physical animal sacrifices, since Christ offered Himself on the cross as the ultimate, permanent sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 9:28............
"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Now then, that is about the best explanation that I can give you. If someone else can add to this....please do so that our brother can understand WHY it is now acceptable for us to eat pork or catfish or lobster. As for ME....I am done with his particular conversation as I said in the beginning that it is actually pure nonsense.

777....If you want to keep to the dietary laws of the Old Testament then YOU go right ahead and do so if it makes you feel righteous. Of course that completely destroys the words of Scripture in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says...............
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

I find it disturbing that you are able to choose the Bible verses YOU want to follow and accept and how easily you reject those that do not fit your agenda.

However IMO it is not proper neither is it acceptable or necessary to condemn those who do not believe as you do about keeping the dietary laws of the Old Testament Jews.
 
Do you strictly interpret "every creature" to mean every creature that may wind up on your plate, or do you believe Paul meant to exclude some creatures, like humans, pigs, shellfish, and any other creature that is not "sanctified by the Word of God" in Leviticus?

So then by your question YOU have affirmed YOUR real problem.

You are rejecting Paul's words from God when he said......"Every creature".

Do you not see that you are wanting the Scriptures to say WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY and you are not accepting them as what God actually did say. That my brother is the pattern of your misunderstanding the Word of God.

Listen, if we can change "every creature" in the verse in front of us can we then also question and change Romans 3:23.????????

Romans 3:23....
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

By your logic....."ALL" does not have to mean every single human being now does it????

How about John 14:6......
"I AM THE WAY the truth and the life and NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME".

Did Jesus really mean "NO ONE". Maybe He only meant the Jews or the Romans or the people living in Alabama.
 
WHY try to explain? You are obviously bound by your own thinking and agenda. It would be a blessing if you were able to understand the Word of God instead.

Honestly and with all due respect this conversation is really nonsense. However, in the spirit of friendship and Christian love I will explain this one more time and then I am done with it.

What we are talking about comes from reading the Old Testament. The Law of God said that it was wrong for Jews under the Law of Moses to eat pork. In Leviticus 11, God gave the Israelites a list of animals that were permissible to eat, but the text specifically labels swine (pork) as unclean and forbidden (vs. 7).

Then throughout the Old Testament, the act of eating pork was viewed as an abomination to the Israelites—wrong and sinful.
You posted correctly for the Jews in Isaiah 66:17. The One primary reason for this prohibition in the Old Testament against eating the meat of unclean animals, including pork, was to protect the Israelites from diseases, infections, and bacteria that were more commonly carried in scavenger animals such as vultures, catfish, and pigs. That is especially why the Law said to not eat the BLOOD as it contained the things that would cause death when eaten and not cooked.

Now the question comes and it is what we are involved in is ............ if it was wrong for those under the Old Law of Moses, is it still wrong for those who are following God under the New Law of Christ?

The straightforward and simple answer to this question is a “NO.” It is not wrong to eat pork. Or shell fish and the other kinds of animals that you have listed at one time or another. Now WHT then is that the case. Is it LOGIC as you have incorrectly said. NO once again.
It is however understanding the contextual teaching that comes out of the Word of God in the New Testament.

I am of the opinion that I really should not have to go into this kind of depth for someone who is as well read as you are in the Bible. However, YOU asked for the explanation so................when Jesus Christ died, He nailed the Old Law to the cross.

Colossians 2:14.......
"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."


Then in the book of Hebrews, the writer explains that Christ made the Law of Moses obsolete and replaced it with the New Covenant.

Hebrews 8:13..........
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

Paul then explained to Christians that the Old Law was cast out and replaced by Christ’s New Law.

Galatians 4:21-31...........
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[a] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more han those of the one who has a husband.” 28 Now you,[b] brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

As a result, the regulations about clean and unclean foods were jettisoned, along with rules for animal sacrifice, ritual washings, annual feast days, Sabbath observance, and a host of other ceremonial trappings.

As evidence that the food regulations were abolished, the book of Acts includes an account in which the apostle Peter saw a heavenly vision of unclean animals being lowered from heaven.

Acts 10:11-16................
"and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

A voice from heaven said to Peter, “Rise, Peter, kill, and eat”. Peter responded that he did not eat unclean animals. The heavenly voice countered by saying, “What God has cleansed you must not call common”.

In the immediate context, the vision was designed for Peter to understand that God was arranging for the Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. But the interchange also manifests the fact that the regulations for clean and unclean animals had been altered so that animals that once were unclean to the Jew were now fit to eat.

In a passage that has a direct application to the eating of pork, Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:1-5............
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer".

Under the New Law of Christ, it is no longer wrong to eat animals such as pigs or catfish, since such regulations have been removed. Those who want to be accepted by God no longer have to offer up physical animal sacrifices, since Christ offered Himself on the cross as the ultimate, permanent sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 9:28............
"so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Now then, that is about the best explanation that I can give you. If someone else can add to this....please do so that our brother can understand WHY it is now acceptable for us to eat pork or catfish or lobster. As for ME....I am done with his particular conversation as I said in the beginning that it is actually pure nonsense.

777....If you want to keep to the dietary laws of the Old Testament then YOU go right ahead and do so if it makes you feel righteous. Of course that completely destroys the words of Scripture in Ephesians 2:8-9 when Paul says...............
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

I find it disturbing that you are able to choose the Bible verses YOU want to follow and accept and how easily you reject those that do not fit your agenda.

However IMO it is not proper neither is it acceptable or necessary to condemn those who do not believe as you do about keeping the dietary laws of the Old Testament Jews.
Wrong, Major, we are not talking about the OT, we are talking about Isaiah's END TIME SECOND COMING prophecy. As a believer "under the New Law of the New Testament", are you as free to engage in the occult worship of the Bohemian Grove as you are to eat pork, and avoid the destruction of which Isaiah speaks? Also, why did God tell Isaiah to warn our generation of the destruction that awaits any of us who partake of occult worship and the eating of eat pork if He intended for Christ's sacrifice to do away with such prohibitions?
 
Last edited:
So then by your question YOU have affirmed YOUR real problem.

You are rejecting Paul's words from God when he said......"Every creature".

Do you not see that you are wanting the Scriptures to say WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO SAY and you are not accepting them as what God actually did say. That my brother is the pattern of your misunderstanding the Word of God.

Listen, if we can change "every creature" in the verse in front of us can we then also question and change Romans 3:23.????????

Romans 3:23....
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

By your logic....."ALL" does not have to mean every single human being now does it????

How about John 14:6......
"I AM THE WAY the truth and the life and NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT BY ME".

Did Jesus really mean "NO ONE". Maybe He only meant the Jews or the Romans or the people living in Alabama.
I asked you a question. Does "every creature" mean literally every creature or not?
 
Wrong, Major, we are not talking about the OT, we are talking about Isaiah's END TIME SECOND COMING prophecy. As a believer "under the New Law of the New Testament", are you as free to engage in the occult worship of the Bohemian Grove as you are to eat pork, and avoid the destruction of which Isaiah speaks? Also, why did God tell Isaiah to warn our generation of the destruction that awaits any of us who partake of occult worship and the eating of eat pork if He intended for Christ's sacrifice to do away with such prohibitions?

See comment #56.
 
Top