The march of the meat eaters the nut eaters and the law givers

[justbyfaith]

Of course Romans 14:14 teaches us that there is nothing that is unclean in and of itself.

 

[Jocund]

Of course Romans 14:14 teaches us that there is nothing that is unclean in and of itself.

Yes, but only in the same manner that an idol is nothing in itself. Idolatry and uncleanliness are from within and in response to things perceived. Romans 14:14 still tells us that something is unclean to a person that esteems it to be unclean. And while the thing itself isn't unclean, the relationship between the person and thing can lead to uncleanliness.

 

[TMS]

Many people diligently search the Scriptures, not to find truth, but simply to gather support for their preconceived religious ideas. Their minds are not open to be taught by God's Holy Spirit, and therefore they can manipulate the sacred texts to mean exactly what they want to believe.

One of the great, basic principles of Bible study is to search out the truth on any given subject from all the texts in the Bible. It is literally true that you can prove almost anything you want to prove by using a single, isolated text of Scripture. That is why it is so important to bring together the consensus of what Moses, David, Jesus, Paul and all other inspired authors have to say on the subject. That may involve a hundred or more verses! And even then, there still might be some confusion, because five or six of those hundred texts can always seem to contradict the rest.

My next text will look at some of these texts. Be honest and don't look at them already decided.

 

[TMS]

Entire chapters, such as Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, have laid down detailed listings of the clean and unclean categories of animals. And since the original diet prescribed by God included no meat whatsoever (Genesis 1:29), we can be absolutely certain that no forbidden, "unclean" meat was included in the diets of those who lived before the flood and followed God's law.

After the flood, even though clean animals were introduced to the diets of the eight survivors due to the universal destruction of all vegetation, no unclean animals were permitted for food. God commanded the preservation of clean animals in the ark by sevens and the unclean animals by twos (Genesis 7:1-3). Obviously, this allowed only for the clean category to be eaten, while the male and female of the unclean animals were preserved for perpetuating the species. (Almost immediately, the life span of the human race fell from around 800 years to about 150 years.)

There were no Jews in Noah's day when the restriction was laid, by God Himself, upon all the human race. Furthermore, the Bible declares that the forbidden-meat law will still be in effect at the second coming of Jesus. (Isaiah 66:15-17.)

In Matthew 15:11, Jesus said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Peter asked Jesus, "Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15:15. This statement proves that Christ's words were not to be taken literally, because a parable is merely a story or statement to illustrate a point. Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of His figurative statement: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Verses 17-20.
From verse 2, we learn that Jesus was dealing with a controversy by the Pharisees, who insisted that the disciples give their hands a ceremonial washing before they ate food. Christ condemned their hypocritical tradition in verses 3-10. "These are the things that defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." That was the meaning of His parable. It did not refer to eating food, but rather to ceremonial washing.
Jesus is highlighting the fact that true defilement comes from harboring spiritual uncleanness in the mind.

Paul wrote to Timothy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

Paul affirms that any created thing in the food line is acceptable as long as it meets two tests -it must be approved (or sanctified) by the Bible, and it should be prayed over with thanksgiving. (For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."), Please take note that both of these requirements must be met in order for the food to be suitable for the Christian diet. Incidentally, the word "meats" in the original language is not limited to flesh foods. The Greek word "broma" simply means "food."

Perhaps the most common basis for the supposed cleansing of unclean meats is the story of Peter and his vision of the sheet let down from heaven. With a bit of background, however, we can clearly understand the true meaning of Peter's strange vision.
Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14. This proves that during his entire three and one-half years with Jesus, Peter had never seen or heard anything that made him accepting of unclean meats. In other words, Jesus had not changed the prohibition against eating the forbidden animals, because if He had, Peter would have known about it and would not have responded as he did.

Peter at first did not understand the meaning of the vision. Verse 17 says that "Peter doubted in himself" what it meant. And again, verse 19 says that "Peter thought on the vision."

While he was trying to figure it out, the three servants sent by Cornelius knocked on Peter's door. The next day Peter returned with them to Caesarea, where Cornelius had his family and friends gathered to welcome the apostle.
The entire narrative is found in verse 28, where Peter tells how the vision had been explained to him. He addressed the Gentile assembly with these words: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

Clearly God had used the vision of the sheet to teach the prejudiced Peter that he should no longer shun the Gentiles. The vision had nothing to do with eating and drinking. It was addressing Peter's attitude toward people, not toward food.

I'll look at Romans 14 in the next text.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, but only in the same manner that an idol is nothing in itself. Idolatry and uncleanliness are from within and in response to things perceived. Romans 14:14 still tells us that something is unclean to a person that esteems it to be unclean. And while the thing itself isn't unclean, the relationship between the person and thing can lead to uncleanliness.

In and of itself, nothing is unclean.

And that means that if you accept this understanding, nothing is unclean to you.

If you don't accept this teaching, then whatever you consider to be unclean, is unclean to you.

But it doesn't need to be that way; because nothing is unclean in and of itself.

 

[TMS]

There is a very important common theme running through the chapter. Almost every verse relates to the subject of judging.

There were two main groups in the early church -the Jewish Christians who had been converted from Judaism, and the Gentile Christians who had been won from heathenism. These two groups did not get along very well. They were constantly judging each other. Now let's notice what the division was all about. The Gentile Christians judged the Jewish Christians because they were eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. To the Gentile convert, such food was unfit to be eaten. Even though he was now a Christian, he could not forget how he once offered food to idols, and in his mind the eating of such food was connected to idol worship. The Jewish convert, on the other hand, had no such compunctions because he had always acknowledged only one God, and naturally felt no guilt about eating the meat which had been sacrificed to idols. It was sold in the market place at a cheaper price, and the Jewish Christians considered it a desirable bargain.

Romans 14 concerning the brother who was weak in the faith. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Romans 14:1-4.

Can we, by comparing other Scriptures, locate the weak brother? Can we also locate the problem which created the "judging" situation? Yes, we can. Paul had to deal with it at considerable length in 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 8. Notice his description: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." 1 Corinthians 8:4-9.

Here we locate the weak brother of Romans 14:1-3. He was the Gentile Christian who felt that it was sinful to eat the meat which had been offered to idols. Paul agreed with the Jewish converts that there was nothing wrong with the food, since there is only one God after all. But he advised that the food not be eaten in front of the Gentile believers lest it be a stumbling block to them. Compare this language with Paul's counsel in Romans 14:13: "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

In 1 Corinthians 8:11, 12, Paul asks this question: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." Compare that statement with this one in Romans 14:15: "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." Also read Romans 14:21: "It is gooder to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

Obviously the accounts in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are referring to the same problem. Identical language is used in describing them, and the same judging was taking place in reference to the problem.

One more point needs to be clarified. The meat in question was not "unclean meat" in the biblical sense. The question only revolved around food that was "esteemed" unclean by the Gentile Christians because it had been offered to idols. Actually, the heathen did not offer swine or other unclean animals in their sacrifices, as Acts 14:13 establishes. So when the Jewish Christians bought the food which had been offered to idols, it was not wrong in itself, as Paul pointed out. It became wrong only when it offended the "weak brother," or the Gentile Christian, who esteemed it to be unclean through association with the idol. Some of the Gentile believers were so strong against it that they abstained from meat altogether and ate only herbs for fear they might eat some meat that had been offered to idols. In Romans 14:1-3, Paul urges the Roman church to receive such people and honor their conscience. It was not a moral issue and should not be permitted to divide the church.

By examining these apparent contradictions in the Bible relating to diet, we have also discovered the root of much theological confusion in today's religious world. A simple understanding of the circumstances behind the writing enables us to grasp the words and phrases in their original format and to recognize the beautiful harmony and unity of Scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Entire chapters, such as Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, have laid down detailed listings of the clean and unclean categories of animals. And since the original diet prescribed by God included no meat whatsoever (Genesis 1:29), we can be absolutely certain that no forbidden, "unclean" meat was included in the diets of those who lived before the flood and followed God's law.

After the flood, even though clean animals were introduced to the diets of the eight survivors due to the universal destruction of all vegetation, no unclean animals were permitted for food. God commanded the preservation of clean animals in the ark by sevens and the unclean animals by twos (Genesis 7:1-3). Obviously, this allowed only for the clean category to be eaten, while the male and female of the unclean animals were preserved for perpetuating the species. (Almost immediately, the life span of the human race fell from around 800 years to about 150 years.)

There were no Jews in Noah's day when the restriction was laid, by God Himself, upon all the human race. Furthermore, the Bible declares that the forbidden-meat law will still be in effect at the second coming of Jesus. (Isaiah 66:15-17.)

In Matthew 15:11, Jesus said, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

Peter asked Jesus, "Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15:15. This statement proves that Christ's words were not to be taken literally, because a parable is merely a story or statement to illustrate a point. Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of His figurative statement: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Verses 17-20.
From verse 2, we learn that Jesus was dealing with a controversy by the Pharisees, who insisted that the disciples give their hands a ceremonial washing before they ate food. Christ condemned their hypocritical tradition in verses 3-10. "These are the things that defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." That was the meaning of His parable. It did not refer to eating food, but rather to ceremonial washing.
Jesus is highlighting the fact that true defilement comes from harboring spiritual uncleanness in the mind.

Paul wrote to Timothy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5.

Paul affirms that any created thing in the food line is acceptable as long as it meets two tests -it must be approved (or sanctified) by the Bible, and it should be prayed over with thanksgiving. (For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."), Please take note that both of these requirements must be met in order for the food to be suitable for the Christian diet. Incidentally, the word "meats" in the original language is not limited to flesh foods. The Greek word "broma" simply means "food."

Perhaps the most common basis for the supposed cleansing of unclean meats is the story of Peter and his vision of the sheet let down from heaven. With a bit of background, however, we can clearly understand the true meaning of Peter's strange vision.
Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14. This proves that during his entire three and one-half years with Jesus, Peter had never seen or heard anything that made him accepting of unclean meats. In other words, Jesus had not changed the prohibition against eating the forbidden animals, because if He had, Peter would have known about it and would not have responded as he did.

Peter at first did not understand the meaning of the vision. Verse 17 says that "Peter doubted in himself" what it meant. And again, verse 19 says that "Peter thought on the vision."

While he was trying to figure it out, the three servants sent by Cornelius knocked on Peter's door. The next day Peter returned with them to Caesarea, where Cornelius had his family and friends gathered to welcome the apostle.
The entire narrative is found in verse 28, where Peter tells how the vision had been explained to him. He addressed the Gentile assembly with these words: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

Clearly God had used the vision of the sheet to teach the prejudiced Peter that he should no longer shun the Gentiles. The vision had nothing to do with eating and drinking. It was addressing Peter's attitude toward people, not toward food.

I'll look at Romans 14 in the next text.

Actually, here is 1 Timothy 4:1-6 with its proper emphasis.

1Ti 4:1, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4, For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5, For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6, If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

 

[TMS]

Be honest ... If certain animals were identified as unclean before the flood; if they were still counted as unclean when Peter rejected them in his vision; if they are still called unclean in Revelation 18:2, where it speaks of "unclean" birds; and if Isaiah declares that all who are eating swine and the abomination at the time of the second advent will be consumed (Isaiah 66:15-17), how can we feel that they are now fit to eat? When did they become clean?

 

[justbyfaith]

There is a very important common theme running through the chapter. Almost every verse relates to the subject of judging.

There were two main groups in the early church -the Jewish Christians who had been converted from Judaism, and the Gentile Christians who had been won from heathenism. These two groups did not get along very well. They were constantly judging each other. Now let's notice what the division was all about. The Gentile Christians judged the Jewish Christians because they were eating meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. To the Gentile convert, such food was unfit to be eaten. Even though he was now a Christian, he could not forget how he once offered food to idols, and in his mind the eating of such food was connected to idol worship. The Jewish convert, on the other hand, had no such compunctions because he had always acknowledged only one God, and naturally felt no guilt about eating the meat which had been sacrificed to idols. It was sold in the market place at a cheaper price, and the Jewish Christians considered it a desirable bargain.

Romans 14 concerning the brother who was weak in the faith. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Romans 14:1-4.

Can we, by comparing other Scriptures, locate the weak brother? Can we also locate the problem which created the "judging" situation? Yes, we can. Paul had to deal with it at considerable length in 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 8. Notice his description: "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ... Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. ... But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." 1 Corinthians 8:4-9.

Here we locate the weak brother of Romans 14:1-3. He was the Gentile Christian who felt that it was sinful to eat the meat which had been offered to idols. Paul agreed with the Jewish converts that there was nothing wrong with the food, since there is only one God after all. But he advised that the food not be eaten in front of the Gentile believers lest it be a stumbling block to them. Compare this language with Paul's counsel in Romans 14:13: "Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

In 1 Corinthians 8:11, 12, Paul asks this question: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." Compare that statement with this one in Romans 14:15: "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." Also read Romans 14:21: "It is gooder to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

Obviously the accounts in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are referring to the same problem. Identical language is used in describing them, and the same judging was taking place in reference to the problem.

One more point needs to be clarified. The meat in question was not "unclean meat" in the biblical sense. The question only revolved around food that was "esteemed" unclean by the Gentile Christians because it had been offered to idols. Actually, the heathen did not offer swine or other unclean animals in their sacrifices, as Acts 14:13 establishes. So when the Jewish Christians bought the food which had been offered to idols, it was not wrong in itself, as Paul pointed out. It became wrong only when it offended the "weak brother," or the Gentile Christian, who esteemed it to be unclean through association with the idol. Some of the Gentile believers were so strong against it that they abstained from meat altogether and ate only herbs for fear they might eat some meat that had been offered to idols. In Romans 14:1-3, Paul urges the Roman church to receive such people and honor their conscience. It was not a moral issue and should not be permitted to divide the church.

By examining these apparent contradictions in the Bible relating to diet, we have also discovered the root of much theological confusion in today's religious world. A simple understanding of the circumstances behind the writing enables us to grasp the words and phrases in their original format and to recognize the beautiful harmony and unity of Scripture.

The weaker brother may also be the Jewish Christian who believes that he is still supposed to be obedient to the food laws of the Old Testament.

 

[justbyfaith]

Be honest ... If certain animals were identified as unclean before the flood; if they were still counted as unclean when Peter rejected them in his vision; if they are still called unclean in Revelation 18:2, where it speaks of "unclean" birds; and if Isaiah declares that all who are eating swine and the abomination at the time of the second advent will be consumed (Isaiah 66:15-17), how can we feel that they are now fit to eat? When did they become clean?

In Luke 11:41, all things were made clean by Jesus to those who practice alms.

Luk 11:41, But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.


There is also this,

Rom 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.

 

[TMS]

Actually, here is 1 Timothy 4:1-6 with its proper emphasis.

1Ti 4:1, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3, Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4, For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5, For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6, If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

your missing the context.
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Sanctified by the word of God = Where are the foods that are unclean become sanctified in the word of God.

with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

know the truth = understand the Teachings of God. The Bible does not contradict itself and the Bibles teaches that certain foods are unclean.

Science backs it up.

 

[TMS]

The weaker brother may also be the Jewish Christian who believes that he is still supposed to be obedient to the food laws of the Old Testament.

read the whole post.

 

[TMS]

As far as we can determine, all of the forbidden categories are so classified because God wanted His people to be healthy and happy. They simply were not suitable for human consumption, and God told His people not to use them as such.

This conclusion is verified by the findings of modern nutritionists, who have identified many of the "unclean" meats as heavy with deleterious fat or disease elements. In ancient times, God accused His people of destroying themselves for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6), and promised freedom from disease if they followed His laws (Exodus 15:26). Why should we continue the destructive rebellion which marked the course of Israel's past?

If you wish to go against the wise council of God, it is your choice. God gave us this council because He knows what is best. most people like to believe this is only for the old testament so they can indulge in the unclean habits.

 

[justbyfaith]

your missing the context.
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Sanctified by the word of God = Where are the foods that are unclean become sanctified in the word of God.

Luke 11:41 and Romans 14:14; as well as Mark 7:15,19.

with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

know the truth = understand the Teachings of God. The Bible does not contradict itself and the Bibles teaches that certain foods are unclean.

Science backs it up.

For example, lobster is unclean because when killed, it produces a poison throughout the system.

However, lobster will not produce that poison if it is boiled to death.

Pigs have worms in them but when the meat is cooked properly, they are rendered harmless.

 

[justbyfaith]

read the whole post.

See post #47 (https://christianchat.com/threads/t...eaters-and-the-law-givers.202061/post-4686813).

 

[justbyfaith]

As far as we can determine, all of the forbidden categories are so classified because God wanted His people to be healthy and happy. They simply were not suitable for human consumption, and God told His people not to use them as such.

This conclusion is verified by the findings of modern nutritionists, who have identified many of the "unclean" meats as heavy with deleterious fat or disease elements. In ancient times, God accused His people of destroying themselves for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6), and promised freedom from disease if they followed His laws (Exodus 15:26). Why should we continue the destructive rebellion which marked the course of Israel's past?

If you wish to go against the wise council of God, it is your choice. God gave us this council because He knows what is best. most people like to believe this is only for the old testament so they can indulge in the unclean habits.

No one is saying that God didn't give us those commandments in order to produce a healthier people.

What I am contending is that if someone eats a sausage/egg M<Muffin, for example, that this does not mean that they lose their salvation.

In other words, food laws have no bearing on salvation.

That is what we find in 1 Timothy 4:1-6.

Now, I myself have made a commitment not to eat anything that comes from shellfish or the pig; because I wanted to say to the Lord that I love Him more than those savoury meats.

But if I were to eat them, I am still saved to the bone.

 

[de-emerald]

Luke 11:41 and Romans 14:14; as well as Mark 7:15,19.



For example, lobster is unclean because when killed, it produces a poison throughout the system.

However, lobster will not produce that poison if it is boiled to death.

Pigs have worms in them but when the meat is cooked properly, they are rendered harmless.

You may have overlooked something in your way of reasoning here, the laws of deuteronomy is a list of a whole bunch of meats that are unclean for you to eat, then it says do not eat a dead carcus, after deauteronomy lists the meats that are unclean to eat. the dead carcus represents a rotten animal that has been rotten for a long time, where as the other meats that are listed there do not represent as a dead carcus group but still considered dead and unclean none the less. the dead carcus is listed seperately but why ? and is this correct to do so.

And if you notice that all the other meets people where told not to eat, there was no mention of then being refered to as a dead carcus all tho they where all dead meat right ?.

What you are saying as long as you boil any meat it is clean may not mean that is completely the reason why all meat where considered unclean in deuteronomy by the lord, because they where not boiled or cooked. Because if they where, God would have told them simply how to prepare there food also as he had done so many times. God would have said as long as boil meat it is ok for you to eat. and people then did know how to light a fire and people back then where told how to prepare food.

You could reason that boiling meat will make it cleaner but is that the only reason it was considered unclean by the lord ? because it was not boiled, there seems to be more reasons as to why food of this nature was considered unclean by the lord that perhaps many people are over looking too or have not spottedor left out..

People where told to not eat meat that still had blood in the meat as it will be unclean for you, but is this also the only reason why meat was considered unclean for you to eat.

Now if the eat mat that still has blood in it what can that do for you ?..

People here told not to eat a dead carcus but is this the only reason meat was considered unclean for you to eat.

early genesis adam and eve where told they only need to eat grain and plant food. but is the only reason why meat should be seen as unclean.

The raven would have brought elihja meat from a dead carcus and the laws had not been changed then,, the law of do not eat a dead carcus was in place then.. so is this only reason why meat was unclean for you to eat or clean for you to eat.. should meat be considered clean on the basis a raven brought elihja a dead carcus ?.

The lord had considered many meats unclean but then it changed,, we need to find out why it changed.

early genesis said you should eat only grain and plant food.. then it changed to you can eat any animal.. This we need to find out why this was allowed to happen why the change,

there was many foods considered unclean and they where not just unclean because they where being offered to idols that they where not God. theres many reason why meats where considered unclean.. this is a jigsaw puzzle to me that maybe we can work out if the right questions are asked and worked out.

It seems that there was those in the wilderness and those who where not.. it could seem there is two diffrent Gods at hand here one says a vegi diet for humans one say all animal meat for humans. Could this be true that there is two different Gods at hand.. well i dont know completely the answer to that question and i dont like my faith to be questioned that way as much as anyone else would.

but we are dealing with great decievers here angels that appear as light to decieve,

In the wild something that eats meat can change appearance to, which you can see with your own eyes, its called the octopus. this means the octoopus eats meat and changes appearance to decieve its prey so itcn be devoured, the octopus has evolved and why does it changed appearance, or how does it change appearance.. is it because it is always eating diffrent dna bllod from diffrent meat that it changes appearance.

an angel of light changes appearance to decieve also.. is there something in common here are the fallen angels in this world also creatures that are thirsty for blood,, well yes they are the bible says do not be alarmed brothers and sistes,, the devils are walking around looking to devour..this means devils are thirsty for blood and they also chnage appearence inorder to decieve and quite possibly to devour to.. its notoutof the realms of possibility that aldof hitler was the devil and look how many people he devoured... was the devil once an octopuss too who ate meat ?.

ill show you an octopus changing appearance and you should bare in mind that it is a meat eater

 

[de-emerald]

ok the octopus eats meat changes appearance and decieves and devours it prey.. please also note this is the character of devils.. the devil changes appearance is blood thirsty and devours people

ask your self a question can the octopus change appearance and decieve because it has evolved eating different dna from meat

 

[de-emerald]

"i know others inply it to mean the person who considers food to be unclean is wrong"

I'm always up for investigating other interpretations of scripture, but I'm not sure how anyone would reinterpret Romans 14:14 to mean the opposite of what it explicitly says. If one esteems something to be unclean to that person it is unclean. The relationship between the person and the thing can make it unclean. Paul brings up this concept in a different part of scripture when referencing idols. There is no need to avoid idols, for an idol is nothing in itself, unless it were to tempt someone into idolatry.

This is one one interpretation yes but can this and should this be reasoned as to what food we should eat ?.. We can also worship a false idol and not realise we are as many would of in the old testerment.. meaning you could be eating meat when perhaps you should not.

Now a person who deems meat unclean this way could be seen as reversing romans 14:14 but then has romans 14:14 already been reversed by a meat eater to suit his own needs back then..

I honestly dont know because of genesis saying only eat veg and grain.. and then genesis saying you may now eat any animal.. i think i have good grounds for questioning whether romans 14:14 has been deliberately reversed by a meat eater wanting to eat meat or whether romans 14:14 is a possible devil in somebodies mind who spoke those words pretending to be God.

 

[Dino246]

ok the octopus eats meat changes appearance and decieves and devours it prey.. please also note this is the character of devils.. the devil changes appearance is blood thirsty and devours people

ask your self a question can the octopus change appearance and decieve because it has evolved eating different dna from meat

There's a massive problem with your reasoning: nothing "evolved". God created things in their kinds, after which they have reproduced.

So no, the octopus does not "change appearance and deceive because it evolved different dna from meat".

Many predators use deception in one form or another. The octopus is far from unique in this.