Dietary Law?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dietary Law: Yes or No?

  • Yes, Law is still in place

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • No, I can eat what I want

    Votes: 10 62.5%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
Add to the list poison dart frog. MMMM, yummy.
I would eat it. I'm a Christian and am allowed to. God approves! However, I would not eat a frog in front of anyone that would be offended over that. I eat frogs, go giggin' for bullfrogs a week a year at night while in season.

The dart frog pictured is only poisonous in the wild if it has the right insects and centipedes in its diet. Those in captivity (zoo or pen where they are delicacies) can be fed crickets only and will not be poisonous. As with any frog you skin it. The dart's poison is in the mucus on the skin. I use non-slip plastic gloves to hold frogs securely while skinning. Using the gloves, skin the dart, flushing with water. The flesh of any frog is good and tasty fried, though there would be very little serving on one dart.
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
Here is another bulletin...

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

So, three packs a day, no problem?
Straw man arguments don't impress. Why dodge the scripture Matthew 15:11 (KJV) [SUP]11 [/SUP] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

The issue was not spiritual defilement, but one concerning food. and washing hands before eating. The Pharisees claimed Jesus' disciples didn't obey the law to wash hands before eating. Your burden is to prove the disciples actually were in violation of the hand washing law, not on their way to enter the temple or anything similar. They were innocent of law breaking! They would be "clean" by sunset anyway.

Matthew 15:2 (KJV) [SUP]2 [/SUP] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The Pharisees were exposed by Jesus as false teachers, that God would root out. They condemned the disciples while they themselves faked in the tithe.

Jesus concluded his answer to them with Matthew 15:19-20 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[SUP]20 [/SUP] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

See the level of sin that defiles. Food and even dirt and germs can't defile us. Idols can't defile us, knowing they are not alive. ONLY THE EVIL PRODUCTS OF OUR HEART CAN DEFILE US. Jesus didn't teach the men to wash their hands, nor did he show a bit if concern they didn't wash. By the words of Jesus in that passage, food consumption and eating with dirty hands is not a concern with Jesus. Where the law actually demanded he observe such things, as a Jew he obeyed. He put his life on the line with those words in Mat 15. Hand washing was a symbol of innocense, and was required of priests involved in the temple worship, and concerning the fitness of a Jew to satisfy the law of Moses. It wasn't required of a person on a journey, at work, etc when not going to worship in a synagogue or temple. It was of ceremonial intent.

Christians need to stick with Jesus and his apostles. I understand why quasi-Christians are offended in Jesus, wanting to add the law back into the gospel. It is devilish. One cannot possibly be saved serving both masters. A supposed Christian serving Moses is living in fear, hedging his bet, living a virtual straw man filled life.

Whatever a person stuffs in his or her mouth can't defile him or herself. Jesus said that, making the Pharisees mad enough to begin plotting to kill (murder)him. It's what God hears out of a man or woman's mouth that either defiles or justifies. The best servants of the law had no problem murdering because the law only serves up knowledge of sin and penalties for it. Murderers know they murder, but that doesn't stop them. The apostle John took the issue beyond Moses when he taught that just hating a brother makes the hater a murderer. 1 John 3:14-15 (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
[SUP]15 [/SUP] Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


The Pharisees, even Moses, didn't dwell on the matter of a clean heart in any way approaching what Jesus dealt with. They dwelt on the law, the external. External defilement was far more serious than "theological" aspects of spiritual defilement. How a jug was covered to keep flies out was more important than a person's spiritual condition. That's just one reason the law and it's lawyers failed to save or please God. The apostles agreed, none from Moses onward could keep the law, but they could oppress people with it.

I find sufficient commandments and promises in the New Covenant to not require knowledge of the old covenant at all.
 
K

Karraster

Guest
Straw man arguments don't impress. Why dodge the scripture Matthew 15:11 (KJV) [SUP]11 [/SUP] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

The issue was not spiritual defilement, but one concerning food. and washing hands before eating. The Pharisees claimed Jesus' disciples didn't obey the law to wash hands before eating. Your burden is to prove the disciples actually were in violation of the hand washing law, not on their way to enter the temple or anything similar. They were innocent of law breaking! They would be "clean" by sunset anyway.

Matthew 15:2 (KJV) [SUP]2 [/SUP] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

The Pharisees were exposed by Jesus as false teachers, that God would root out. They condemned the disciples while they themselves faked in the tithe.

Jesus concluded his answer to them with Matthew 15:19-20 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[SUP]20 [/SUP] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

See the level of sin that defiles. Food and even dirt and germs can't defile us. Idols can't defile us, knowing they are not alive. ONLY THE EVIL PRODUCTS OF OUR HEART CAN DEFILE US. Jesus didn't teach the men to wash their hands, nor did he show a bit if concern they didn't wash. By the words of Jesus in that passage, food consumption and eating with dirty hands is not a concern with Jesus. Where the law actually demanded he observe such things, as a Jew he obeyed. He put his life on the line with those words in Mat 15. Hand washing was a symbol of innocense, and was required of priests involved in the temple worship, and concerning the fitness of a Jew to satisfy the law of Moses. It wasn't required of a person on a journey, at work, etc when not going to worship in a synagogue or temple. It was of ceremonial intent.

Christians need to stick with Jesus and his apostles. I understand why quasi-Christians are offended in Jesus, wanting to add the law back into the gospel. It is devilish. One cannot possibly be saved serving both masters. A supposed Christian serving Moses is living in fear, hedging his bet, living a virtual straw man filled life.

Whatever a person stuffs in his or her mouth can't defile him or herself. Jesus said that, making the Pharisees mad enough to begin plotting to kill (murder)him. It's what God hears out of a man or woman's mouth that either defiles or justifies. The best servants of the law had no problem murdering because the law only serves up knowledge of sin and penalties for it. Murderers know they murder, but that doesn't stop them. The apostle John took the issue beyond Moses when he taught that just hating a brother makes the hater a murderer. 1 John 3:14-15 (KJV)
[SUP]14 [/SUP] We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
[SUP]15 [/SUP] Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


The Pharisees, even Moses, didn't dwell on the matter of a clean heart in any way approaching what Jesus dealt with. They dwelt on the law, the external. External defilement was far more serious than "theological" aspects of spiritual defilement. How a jug was covered to keep flies out was more important than a person's spiritual condition. That's just one reason the law and it's lawyers failed to save or please God. The apostles agreed, none from Moses onward could keep the law, but they could oppress people with it.

I find sufficient commandments and promises in the New Covenant to not require knowledge of the old covenant at all.
Where in scripture is the hand washing law? TIA
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
Here is another bulletin...

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

So, three packs a day, no problem?
More straw man arguments! 1 Cor 3 has nothing to do with food or cigarettes. It has to do with carnality in the Church, as Elin said, keeping them on Paul's milk of the word.

The same apostle that wrote that chapter is on record in other epistles reaffirming the impotence of mixing Moses with the New Covenant. It's like trying to mix oil and water. Let the mixture sit, then discover the two ingredients are once again separate.

Serve the law or serve the Spirit.
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,666
100
48
Where in scripture is the hand washing law? TIA
That "law" they tried to enforce in that case was one of the many rules the Pharisees added to Moses with their own strength of law. When the priesthood winked at the corruption of the holy, God turned against all of them, having crucified Jesus while blatantly breaking many actual laws of Moses. The result was destruction of the Temple and Israel, and ruin of the nation at large, with the citizens thereof put in exile.
 
K

Karraster

Guest
That "law" they tried to enforce in that case was one of the many rules the Pharisees added to Moses with their own strength of law. When the priesthood winked at the corruption of the holy, God turned against all of them, having crucified Jesus while blatantly breaking many actual laws of Moses. The result was destruction of the Temple and Israel, and ruin of the nation at large, with the citizens thereof put in exile.
Yes, the hand washing ritual was added by the religious leaders. Interesting to read the Talmud, as it gives insight as to how outrageous it seemed in their eyes (Leaders) how Messiah cut no slack, and made a clear distinction between His Father's Laws (Torah) and theirs (Talmud).

I think where our disagreement is, you think the Church replaces Israel, and/or there are 2 bodies of believers with 2 sets of rules? Pardon if I'm wrong there.

I don't think so. I think there is 1 body of believers, and that must be grafted into the Messiah, and to hear and obey all He said, and to be as like Him as we can. I think He came to restore what the Almighty intended for us, as the office of priest had corrupted..and today is no different. Though the Son of Almighty came as a man to instruct us, still today many do not care to find out what He said to do.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
I should have been more clear.

I was not referring to moral defilement, but to those things specifically categorized
as ceremonially "clean" and "unclean,"
food, persons (sexual intercourse, childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges),
garments (destructive mildew), houses (mildew).

All things previously ceremonially "unclean" are now clean to us.


So what is the connection between beastiality and the Sabbath?
MBFM

What is clean about mold and mildew? You would live in a house that is infested with black mold because it is (supposedly) clean now?

You wouldn't wash your hands after touching a dead body because it is (supposedly) clean now?

You wouldn't last long Liberia.

What is the number one way to prevent the spread of the disease? The good ole, time tested method of quarantine. Don't touch bodies that are infected with ebola.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
More straw man arguments! 1 Cor 3 has nothing to do with food or cigarettes. It has to do with carnality in the Church, as Elin said, keeping them on Paul's milk of the word.

The same apostle that wrote that chapter is on record in other epistles reaffirming the impotence of mixing Moses with the New Covenant. It's like trying to mix oil and water. Let the mixture sit, then discover the two ingredients are once again separate.

Serve the law or serve the Spirit.
OK, then, same book, three chapters later...

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
Here is a more direct reference that you reject...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

You and I and many other people know that the word for rest here is Sabbatismos and refers to keeping the Sabbath, yet if this reference is mentioned, you squall like a mashed cat.
I should have been more clear.

I was not referring to moral defilement, but to those things specifically categorized as ceremonially "clean" and "unclean;" i.e., against the law,

food, persons (sexual intercourse, childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges),
garments (destructive mildew), houses (mildew).

All things previously ceremonially "unclean" are now clean to us.

So what is the connection between beastiality and the Sabbath?
MBFM

What is clean about mold and mildew? You would live in a house that is infested with black mold because it is (supposedly) clean now?
You fail to understand the difference between biologically unclean and
ceremonially unclean; i.e., against the law of the obsolete Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:13).

The covenant is obsolete making the regulations on which it was based also obsolete,
and nothing is ceremonially unclean anymore; i.e., against the law.

It has nothing to do with biology, as Ge 9:3 shows.

You didn't answer my question.
 
Last edited:

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
You fail to understand the difference between biologically unclean and
ceremonially unclean; i.e., against the law of the obsolete Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:13).

The covenant is obsolete making the regulations on which it was based also obsolete,
and nothing is ceremonially unclean anymore; i.e., against the law.

It has nothing to do with biology, as Ge 9:3 shows.

You didn't answer my question.
You fail to understand WHAT caused the problem and why it became obsolete.

The problem was not the Covenant nor was it the terms and conditions...

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

The problem was the heart of the people, not the Laws...

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Here is another bulletin...

1Co 6:19
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

So, three packs a day, no problem?
When it comes to being spiritually defiled, that is true. When it comes to properly fueling and maintaining the body that is not ours...

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
In context, Paul is not speaking of food.

He is speaking of the one temple, the church, the body of Christ, being
defiled (corrupted, destroyed) by factions and quarrels (3:2-4).
what utter nonsense the church has wheat and tares
When context doesn't matter. . .

And then there's the grammatical construction of the Greek in 1Co 3:17:


"If anyone destroys (
phtheiro--to destroy by means of corrupting) God's temple, God will destroy (phtheiro) him; for God's temple is sacred, and
you
(plural - Gr: humeis) are that temple (singlular, not "temples").

Paul calls the whole single body of Christ in Thessalonica the single temple of God.
In this case, the grammatical construction of the Greek does not allow each individual
as an individual temple
, as Paul states in 1Co 6:19.
In 1Co 6:19, Paul is not saying what he is saying in 1Co 3:16-17.

In 1Co 3:16-17, Paul is not talking about either destroying each individual temple, nor by food.
Paul is saying that, if they destroy in Thessalonica the body of Christ, the temple, by their factions
and quarrels (3:2-4), God will destroy them. . .no light nor small threat.


While in 1Co 6:19 Paul is talking about individual bodies as individual temples, but
he is not talking about food., he is talking about sexual immorality.

Neither 1Co 3:16-17 nor 1Co 6:19 are about food.
One is about factions and quarrels, and the other is about sexual immorality.
You will have to go elsewhere for support of OT food laws in the NT.

So is this what you mean by my interesting twists of the Scriptures?
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
elin said:
john832 said:
Here is a more direct reference on beastiality that you reject...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

You and I and many other people know that the word for rest here is Sabbatismos and refers to keeping the Sabbath, yet if this reference is mentioned, you squall like a mashed cat.
You fail to understand the difference between biologically unclean and
ceremonially unclean; i.e., against the law of the obsolete Mosaic covenant
(Heb 8:13).


The covenant is obsolete making the regulations on which it was based also obsolete,
and nothing is ceremonially unclean anymore; i.e., against the law.

It has nothing to do with biology, as Ge 9:3 shows.
You didn't answer my question:
So what is the connection between beastiality and the Sabbath?
You fail to understand WHAT caused the problem and why it became obsolete.

The problem was not the Covenant nor was it the terms and conditions...

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

The problem was the heart of the people, not the Laws...

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
The relevant point is its obsolesence.
Are you saying it is not obsolete?

You did not answer my question.
 
Last edited:
E

ELECT

Guest
Going back to the original diet for Adam and Eve….

Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)
[SUP]29 [/SUP] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[SUP]30 [/SUP] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


Let’s not make up doctrines supposedly taught in the Bible, or go against science knowledge of biology.
Notice man was initially given seed bearing flora for food (except the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil), but no flesh. Animals were allowed any green herb. After sinning God narrowed it down to a curse of having to till the cursed ground and eat the herbs of it.
Next we read of Cain being a farmer, tilling the ground, but Abel is a shepherd of sheep. From that time on people ate sheep as well as produce of the field and wild animals from the wilderness. I don’t know about when or why God began allowing flesh for food, unless it was after he slew animals to make coats of skin for Adam and Eve. IOW, I’d say God started the practice of killing animals for human use. That would have unleashed animals killing and eating animals and men. All of that is blamed on Adam’s sin
.


People survived by using common sense before eating stuff like poison ivy. A good survival training course teaches you to handle one day, and taste the next if there’s no rash. The old advice of choosing on the basis of animals grazing on it is bad. Many edible plants look like poison ivy that are edible for man. If a rash appears the next day, you know not to consume it. Birds eat the poisonous red berries, but men have learned to avoid red berries. Berries are fruit bearing seeds, originally allowed for food, but no more for some.

Hemlock (Conium mac.) was used in ancient times as a sedative and antispasmodic.6-8 leaves can cause death, though. Men learned not to stew a pot of it.


Note that everything God made in Genesis one was very good. Due to sin even nature has been distorted to allow plants and animals to rebel against man and other plants and animals.


Clean and unclean had to do with fitness for sacrifice, not health. The Bible doesn’t teach about any flesh being bad for health. Jesus made it clear there is no food going in the mouth that defiles us, but what comes out can, that is, evil speech. There is no way to take that and say he only meant kosher. It was obvious what he said offended the Pharisees, and Jesus didn’t back down.

Where does it say hogs "are for" eating garbage? I know many schools put leftover lunches in barrels for hog feeding (farmers supply the barrels, lids, and handling). But the fact is wild hogs love to eat up fields of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, all precious human food. People have multiplied on earth eating pork in every generation. They are eating up a lot of forest plants, robbing deer of forage, etc. What about that diet is garbage?


“Clean” goats approved by the law eat garbage like hogs do. We had one that ate the new asphalt shingles off our root cellar lid. All the kitchen garbage went into a large pan that was always licked clean. We did that after feeding regular feed. Goats stay hungry full time. If we forgot to give out the garbage the goat would climb a tree and eat the bark of small branches.


Nobody, even orthodox Jews, ought to use the Bible to command Gentile Christians to eat only ritually clean animals. There is no Bible teaching that any animal flesh is bad for health. Yes, some has become poisonous after the fall of man. But we know the ancients had knowledge of which was dangerous, described in Plato concerning the death of Socrates, for instance. Many plants and animals, including insects, were long ago found to be good for medicine, though sometimes not edible as food.
Will man eat dust in the new kingdom ?
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
The relevant point is its obsolesence.
Are you saying it is not obsolete?

You did not answer my question.
Is the OC obsolete?

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - NKJV

It is BECOMING obsolete and is READY to vanish away.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,389
193
63
The relevant point is its obsolesence.
Are you saying it is not obsolete?

You did not answer my question.
Bestiality is not referred to in the New Testament. We draw an inference, but not a direct reference. The reason is that it NEED NOT be repeated. There is no condition that does away with it.

Carefully note that the same logic applies to the Sabbath except for the fact there a direct reference about keeping it...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

And I am not going to bore you and everyone else again with the true meaning of Sabbatismos. You already know that it means "keeping the Sabbath".
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
So what is the connection between beastiality and the Sabbath?
Bestiality is not referred to in the New Testament. We draw an inference, but not a direct reference. The reason is that it NEED NOT be repeated. There is no condition that does away with it.

Carefully note that the same logic applies to the Sabbath except for the fact there a direct reference about keeping it...
So the situations are not analogous and their is no connection, right?
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Is the OC obsolete?

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - NKJV

It is BECOMING obsolete and is READY to vanish away
.
It was "becoming" obsolete until the destruction of Jerusalem when it "became" obsolete
and vanished away.