DIETARY LAWS: Why and when were they established?
- Thread starter Deade
- Start date
-
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.
A
The vision was of unclean animals coming down a,d a voice saying eat and Peter refusing.....if you want to deny it that's your choice.
New Covenant versus old covenant rules..,,,it's not what is put in the mouth but what comes out that condemns.
I believe everyone should eat the diet God places in their heart. Personally I don't eat meat except fish or eggs so the keeping dietary law would be easy for me.
However I am not going to condemn folks who don't keep it.
I can give then health reason for not eating pork or ,eat of scavengers but I don't believe it's forbidden by scripture or under the New Covenant,
New Covenant versus old covenant rules..,,,it's not what is put in the mouth but what comes out that condemns.
I believe everyone should eat the diet God places in their heart. Personally I don't eat meat except fish or eggs so the keeping dietary law would be easy for me.
However I am not going to condemn folks who don't keep it.
I can give then health reason for not eating pork or ,eat of scavengers but I don't believe it's forbidden by scripture or under the New Covenant,
Ariel, I know all about Peter's vision:
Peter is given a vision in a dream:
Acts 10:15-20: “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”
So Peter goes off with the men to Cornelius’ house. He finds that God had sent him to a non Jew. The next day Peter gives the interpretation to his vision:
Acts 10:28: “And he said unto them, 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.”
He goes with Cornelius to a group of people to preach. Then the Holy Spirit falls on them:
Acts 10:44: “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”
This dream/vision was to open the door for the gentiles for salvation. It had nothing to do with food.
Peter is given a vision in a dream:
Acts 10:15-20: “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.”
So Peter goes off with the men to Cornelius’ house. He finds that God had sent him to a non Jew. The next day Peter gives the interpretation to his vision:
Acts 10:28: “And he said unto them, 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.”
He goes with Cornelius to a group of people to preach. Then the Holy Spirit falls on them:
Acts 10:44: “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”
This dream/vision was to open the door for the gentiles for salvation. It had nothing to do with food.
Yet Peter still followed them and there is no indication that he ever stopped after this vision. Did God write His Laws on Peter's heart?
Did Peter miss the memo? Or was he still following worthless Jewish traditions even with the Spirit of Truth, and power of the Spirit to heal the sick?
But you have to consider another option. What if Jesus and Peter and Paul followed God's Instruction regarding what is food and what is not because that is what true believers do?
What if it isn't Peter who is wrong here, but todays mainstream religious preachers that Jesus warned of over and over.
Just a thought.
Did Peter miss the memo? Or was he still following worthless Jewish traditions even with the Spirit of Truth, and power of the Spirit to heal the sick?
But you have to consider another option. What if Jesus and Peter and Paul followed God's Instruction regarding what is food and what is not because that is what true believers do?
What if it isn't Peter who is wrong here, but todays mainstream religious preachers that Jesus warned of over and over.
Just a thought.
Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I (Jesus) will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
So no more going to the Scribes and Levites to hear the Word of God, Jesus will write them on our hearts.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I (Jesus) will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So no more bringing a sacrifice to the Levite Priests for the remission of our sins. (Transgression of God's Commandments) Jesus, with His own Blood, cleanses our sins away.
So how do you get the re-writing or amending of the Instructions Jesus created before becoming a man out of this promise of the "New Covenant"?
The Bible teaches that the New Covenant is the "changing" of the Priesthood. As the New Testament teaches.
Heb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
The Levitical Priesthood pertained to two things. The Administration of the Law, and the atonement of sins.
So the New Covenant is the changing of this Priesthood.
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
What Law was changed?
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, but the Priesthood Moses gave was specifically for the tribe of Levi. So the Law was changed to allow Jesus, who wasn't a Levite, to become our High Priest.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Jesus wasn't picked as the High Priest because of a certain Bloodline or DNA according to the "ADDED" Law called the Levitical Priesthood, He was chosen by God and raised from the dead because He was faithful to God.
The New Covenant had nothing to do with the definition of sin or the changing of God's Commandments for the people. It was the changing of the Priesthood regarding how God's Instructions are administered and how sin's are forgiven.
If you can find scriptures that make it more that that, please show me.
So no more going to the Scribes and Levites to hear the Word of God, Jesus will write them on our hearts.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I (Jesus) will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So no more bringing a sacrifice to the Levite Priests for the remission of our sins. (Transgression of God's Commandments) Jesus, with His own Blood, cleanses our sins away.
So how do you get the re-writing or amending of the Instructions Jesus created before becoming a man out of this promise of the "New Covenant"?
The Bible teaches that the New Covenant is the "changing" of the Priesthood. As the New Testament teaches.
Heb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
The Levitical Priesthood pertained to two things. The Administration of the Law, and the atonement of sins.
So the New Covenant is the changing of this Priesthood.
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
What Law was changed?
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, but the Priesthood Moses gave was specifically for the tribe of Levi. So the Law was changed to allow Jesus, who wasn't a Levite, to become our High Priest.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Jesus wasn't picked as the High Priest because of a certain Bloodline or DNA according to the "ADDED" Law called the Levitical Priesthood, He was chosen by God and raised from the dead because He was faithful to God.
The New Covenant had nothing to do with the definition of sin or the changing of God's Commandments for the people. It was the changing of the Priesthood regarding how God's Instructions are administered and how sin's are forgiven.
If you can find scriptures that make it more that that, please show me.
I figured you’d say that.
So let’s look.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
see he him self did not understand the dream meant just yet until the 3 men came. Peter never would eat that, he says never lord Then in Act 10:28 And he said unto them, 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.
you should let the Bible interpret its self. Can you show me any were els that he says all meat is clean other than what we have been over.
So let’s look.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
see he him self did not understand the dream meant just yet until the 3 men came. Peter never would eat that, he says never lord Then in Act 10:28 And he said unto them, 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.
you should let the Bible interpret its self. Can you show me any were els that he says all meat is clean other than what we have been over.
Last edited:
1 Tim 4:1-4
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;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
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.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
KJV
Rom 14:13-15
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
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.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
KJV
Matt 15:11-18
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
KJV
Such a rude thing to suggest that I have been given over to such doctrines being as I am simply following the word of G-D and walking the manner in which the Messiah, HIMSELF, walked.
I expected someone to mention the book of Romans and indeed illustrate how unlearned they are with the teachings of Paul. You are cherry-picking and taking these verses out of context. Simply comparing your inferred conclusion of Romans 14 with the 13 previous Chapters of Romans leaves us with seeing Paul as a Schizophrenic.
Take a look:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Romans 7:12
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Romans 7:22
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
Paul obviously believed in and taught the law of God. If the above verses are established as true, what sense can we make of Romans 14, which supposedly teaches against God’s Law?
In case there is any confusion on how he defines the Law of God, Paul declares to the Jews that they are those who understand the Law. Paul is not inventing some new mystical Law of God, but the same one that was passed down through the ages.
Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law)
This is why Paul states that the Jews had the advantage in understanding these things.
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
Paul begins the chapter by declaring we are to still receive those who are weak in the faith and to not dispute over doubtful things.
These commandments, coming from Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, have always been clear and have never been matters of “doubtful things.” On the contrary, God’s Law is given to us to clearly define sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7 and 1 John 3:4) and to enable us to correct and rebuke others (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:14-17). Paul is speaking of things outside of God’s Law that were matters of contention for believers in the first century. Given that this is a letter to a specific group of people about a specific debate, we must extract various clues to assist us in piecing together exactly what Paul is teaching.
If we examine the context, we discover that in verse 15, Paul is speaking of what God’s Word already defines as food according to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The word used for “food” is “broma.”
Strongs:
G1033 broma bro'-mah from the base of G977;
food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Hebraic law.
Unclean animals have never been considered food (“broma”), regardless of what unbelievers outside of God’s Word might consider food.
Paul is not entertaining a debate whether unclean animals, according to Leviticus 11, are now suddenly clean and can be defined as food (“broma”). Paul is settling a debate whether Biblically clean food can be made unclean in ways not mentioned in Scripture.
And yet, again you have twisted scripture. Simple context, you conveniently leave out, tells us that these verses are speaking of eating BREAD with unwashed hands in accordance with Jewish Tradition, the Talmud/Oral Law. This scripture is not at all about eating unclean meats nor can it be applied to such matters as such is not in regard to the very words of Yeshua or the Father, whom declares such behaviors as sin for ALL GENERATIONS.
I expected someone to mention the book of Romans and indeed illustrate how unlearned they are with the teachings of Paul. You are cherry-picking and taking these verses out of context. Simply comparing your inferred conclusion of Romans 14 with the 13 previous Chapters of Romans leaves us with seeing Paul as a Schizophrenic.
Take a look:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Romans 7:12
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Romans 7:22
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
Paul obviously believed in and taught the law of God. If the above verses are established as true, what sense can we make of Romans 14, which supposedly teaches against God’s Law?
In case there is any confusion on how he defines the Law of God, Paul declares to the Jews that they are those who understand the Law. Paul is not inventing some new mystical Law of God, but the same one that was passed down through the ages.
Romans 7:1
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law)
This is why Paul states that the Jews had the advantage in understanding these things.
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
Paul begins the chapter by declaring we are to still receive those who are weak in the faith and to not dispute over doubtful things.
These commandments, coming from Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, have always been clear and have never been matters of “doubtful things.” On the contrary, God’s Law is given to us to clearly define sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7 and 1 John 3:4) and to enable us to correct and rebuke others (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:14-17). Paul is speaking of things outside of God’s Law that were matters of contention for believers in the first century. Given that this is a letter to a specific group of people about a specific debate, we must extract various clues to assist us in piecing together exactly what Paul is teaching.
If we examine the context, we discover that in verse 15, Paul is speaking of what God’s Word already defines as food according to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The word used for “food” is “broma.”
Strongs:
G1033 broma bro'-mah from the base of G977;
food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Hebraic law.
Unclean animals have never been considered food (“broma”), regardless of what unbelievers outside of God’s Word might consider food.
Paul is not entertaining a debate whether unclean animals, according to Leviticus 11, are now suddenly clean and can be defined as food (“broma”). Paul is settling a debate whether Biblically clean food can be made unclean in ways not mentioned in Scripture.
And yet, again you have twisted scripture. Simple context, you conveniently leave out, tells us that these verses are speaking of eating BREAD with unwashed hands in accordance with Jewish Tradition, the Talmud/Oral Law. This scripture is not at all about eating unclean meats nor can it be applied to such matters as such is not in regard to the very words of Yeshua or the Father, whom declares such behaviors as sin for ALL GENERATIONS.
I'm not saying there is anything sinful about eating fish, they are clean! and in Jesus' day really clean.
Today there is so much plutonium, mercury,lead, petrochemicals and plastic in the ocean that i wouldn't class it as healthy but everyone to there own.
In 2010, 215 million metric tones of plastic found its way into the ocean. In the most polluted places of the ocean the mass of plastic is more than 6 times the mass of plankton, and plastic only takes 500 years to fully break down.
I'm just promoting a healthy diet, and if you honestly research it the vegetarian diet is by far the better option today.
Today there is so much plutonium, mercury,lead, petrochemicals and plastic in the ocean that i wouldn't class it as healthy but everyone to there own.
In 2010, 215 million metric tones of plastic found its way into the ocean. In the most polluted places of the ocean the mass of plastic is more than 6 times the mass of plankton, and plastic only takes 500 years to fully break down.
I'm just promoting a healthy diet, and if you honestly research it the vegetarian diet is by far the better option today.
You need to study the context of these verses and most refuse to see the real issue here. The argument in Pauls day was food offered to idols not clean and unclean food, clean and unclean food was not debated, and you are presuming that the vision that Peter had applies to food as well, Presumption is not good.
If the dietary guidelines given where for health reasons than they still apply, praying over unhealthy food does not make it healthy, that is presumption, not faith.
If the dietary guidelines given where for health reasons than they still apply, praying over unhealthy food does not make it healthy, that is presumption, not faith.
Wow,
What a breath of fresh air. Thank you brother, you have no idea what your understanding does for this tired soul. In Matt. 15, Jesus just got done rebuking the Mainstream Preachers of His time for furthering their own religious traditions over the Holy Words of God.
The desire to rebel, disobey, dishonor, comes from within. whether it's our natural inclination to accuse or castigate a brother for no cause, or lust after a woman who God has not joined to us, or lust after something God has already deemed unclean, all these things come from within, not from without.
I am so thankful you have not fallen for the deception that this scripture erases much of Word's of Christ before He became a man.
Thank you for sharing.
What a breath of fresh air. Thank you brother, you have no idea what your understanding does for this tired soul. In Matt. 15, Jesus just got done rebuking the Mainstream Preachers of His time for furthering their own religious traditions over the Holy Words of God.
The desire to rebel, disobey, dishonor, comes from within. whether it's our natural inclination to accuse or castigate a brother for no cause, or lust after a woman who God has not joined to us, or lust after something God has already deemed unclean, all these things come from within, not from without.
I am so thankful you have not fallen for the deception that this scripture erases much of Word's of Christ before He became a man.
Thank you for sharing.
Man preaches that God deemed some animals as food and some as not food for health reasons. There is absolutely zero evidence that this is true. It is another creation of man to justify rejecting His Instructions which go against ancient religious traditions.
The term "Dietary Laws" is man made in it's entirely. It's much simpler than that. God created some things for food, and some things not for food. Even a child can understand this.
The term "Dietary Laws" is man made in it's entirely. It's much simpler than that. God created some things for food, and some things not for food. Even a child can understand this.
That is why I said it. 
But weren't you were referring unto what and what we couldn't eat? I was was referring unto the law of truth which requires we eat.
All the essential elements necessary for human health, development and life are contained in the seed of herbs and the tree which seed is it's fruit.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:Prov 1:8
"...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." Deut 8:3
Rich...
But weren't you were referring unto what and what we couldn't eat? I was was referring unto the law of truth which requires we eat.
All the essential elements necessary for human health, development and life are contained in the seed of herbs and the tree which seed is it's fruit.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:Prov 1:8
"...that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." Deut 8:3
Rich...
Last edited:
I did not expect you to accept scripture showing unclean animals clean.
1Tim 4:4 in context says that unmistakably but you have been brainwashed by a cult to the extent that anything that contradicts your cultic doctrine will always be unacceptable to you.
I answer you primarily to keep believers not yet grounded in the word, and seekers from being led astray.
1Tim 4:4 in context says that unmistakably but you have been brainwashed by a cult to the extent that anything that contradicts your cultic doctrine will always be unacceptable to you.
I answer you primarily to keep believers not yet grounded in the word, and seekers from being led astray.
I do not accept your argument because your argument does not hold up to the scrutiny of scripture.
There are many reasons why this verse you have taken COMPLETELY out of context does not at all teach such. If it were so then by your (false) interpretation cannibalism is now okay, as long as I pray over it.
Paul is the author of 1 Timothy and he is not making a distinction between creatures God created and those He did not create, for God created every creature. Every animal, every fish, every bird and every creeping thing is good because it was created by God. But not everything God created was created to be eaten!
Now, let's put it back IN CONTEXT:
Some people in the church of the first century were “departing from the faith” teaching false doctrines. These people were advocating celibacy (forbidding to marry) and vegetarianism (abstaining from certain foods or meats). This teaching or doctrine was forbidding activities that G-D desires His children to do. The Lord certainly ordained for us to marry and He created certain clean foods “to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (Psalms 119:142) Those who believe and know the truth? The truth contained in the Scriptures which is our guide to correct doctrine. Being armed with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of G-D (Ephesians 6:17), we are not likely to be deceived by a doctrine of demons. Deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons will contradict the Word of God and 1Timothy 4:1-5 warns us not to believe a doctrine which tells us not to eat foods that G-D has permitted for us to eat.
Now we understand that the purpose of the first part of 1Timothy chapter 4 is to address a false teaching related to marriage and eating. If we believe and know the Word of G-D, such false doctrine would find no place in us. Paul finishes this discussion of the foods that the Lord created and sanctified (set apart) for us to eat by directing us back to His Word:
1Timothy 4:5
For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer
Paul is actually confirming to us in 1Timothy 4:5 that we should eat only those creatures God has sanctified in His Word. The “it” refers to those edible creatures that are “set apart” for us by G-D in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. G-D’s word is exact and precise so that the children of God may “distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.”
(Leviticus 11:47)
By which cult have I been brainwashed? How then can you judge a tree you do not know, neither the fruit I yield. I am a Follower of the Messiah Yeshua Ben Davi'id, Son of Elohim, The one you call Jesus Christ, the Son of G-D. I believe in the eternal never changing word of G-D, just as G-D HIMSELF is unchanging. The G-D of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob calls HIS people to live set apart, Kodosh, Holy Lives, apart from sin(breaking G-D's Law).
I can show you without any tricks or outside influence/commentary where you are wrong. Sola Scriptura! Only Scripture! Scripture Alone! I have shown how you have twisted the scriptures just as you have been taught by men. If anyone here has been brainwashed between the two of us I would dare say it is you, the one who makes such false claims against Paul just as were made in Acts 21 where both he and James, the Brother of The Messiah, say "THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THESE CLAIMS(That Paul teaches against the Law and the Prophets)" And again Paul tells us He indeed does teach and obey the Law in Acts 24. As we see time and time again in Acts 18:20-21, Acts 20:17, Acts 27:9-10.
There are many reasons why this verse you have taken COMPLETELY out of context does not at all teach such. If it were so then by your (false) interpretation cannibalism is now okay, as long as I pray over it.
Paul is the author of 1 Timothy and he is not making a distinction between creatures God created and those He did not create, for God created every creature. Every animal, every fish, every bird and every creeping thing is good because it was created by God. But not everything God created was created to be eaten!
Now, let's put it back IN CONTEXT:
Some people in the church of the first century were “departing from the faith” teaching false doctrines. These people were advocating celibacy (forbidding to marry) and vegetarianism (abstaining from certain foods or meats). This teaching or doctrine was forbidding activities that G-D desires His children to do. The Lord certainly ordained for us to marry and He created certain clean foods “to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (Psalms 119:142) Those who believe and know the truth? The truth contained in the Scriptures which is our guide to correct doctrine. Being armed with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of G-D (Ephesians 6:17), we are not likely to be deceived by a doctrine of demons. Deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons will contradict the Word of God and 1Timothy 4:1-5 warns us not to believe a doctrine which tells us not to eat foods that G-D has permitted for us to eat.
Now we understand that the purpose of the first part of 1Timothy chapter 4 is to address a false teaching related to marriage and eating. If we believe and know the Word of G-D, such false doctrine would find no place in us. Paul finishes this discussion of the foods that the Lord created and sanctified (set apart) for us to eat by directing us back to His Word:
1Timothy 4:5
For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer
Paul is actually confirming to us in 1Timothy 4:5 that we should eat only those creatures God has sanctified in His Word. The “it” refers to those edible creatures that are “set apart” for us by G-D in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. G-D’s word is exact and precise so that the children of God may “distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.”
(Leviticus 11:47)
By which cult have I been brainwashed? How then can you judge a tree you do not know, neither the fruit I yield. I am a Follower of the Messiah Yeshua Ben Davi'id, Son of Elohim, The one you call Jesus Christ, the Son of G-D. I believe in the eternal never changing word of G-D, just as G-D HIMSELF is unchanging. The G-D of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob calls HIS people to live set apart, Kodosh, Holy Lives, apart from sin(breaking G-D's Law).
I can show you without any tricks or outside influence/commentary where you are wrong. Sola Scriptura! Only Scripture! Scripture Alone! I have shown how you have twisted the scriptures just as you have been taught by men. If anyone here has been brainwashed between the two of us I would dare say it is you, the one who makes such false claims against Paul just as were made in Acts 21 where both he and James, the Brother of The Messiah, say "THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THESE CLAIMS(That Paul teaches against the Law and the Prophets)" And again Paul tells us He indeed does teach and obey the Law in Acts 24. As we see time and time again in Acts 18:20-21, Acts 20:17, Acts 27:9-10.