Subject: Hank - Diet ??? |
Bible Note: Hi Steve: Response 1) Gal. 2:11-14 The posing of your question has to many variables. I believe Peter was a follower of Jesus Christ and therefore followed the teachings of the OT and the NT. Jesus did not change the food laws so why would Peter do anything different than follow the dietary laws odf God which were intended to maked us healthy and live a long life. The unclean animals of the bible were generally (as I understand) carnivors. These animals were God's way of keeping the world clean and healthy. The clean animals were generally (as I understand) animal who fed off the vegetation of the earth. This was actually the original plan for man to eat fruits and nuts. Then because of the rebellion were banned from the garden to till the soil and eat vegetables as well. It makes logical sense that when God did open meat to our diet because of the flood that the animals we were able to eat were animals that ate the original diet of God - not meat eaters !! Also - quick fact that I did not know until I began researching this issue two years ago: Noah actaully took 2 unclean pairs of animals and 7 clean animals. God knew that man would not be eating the unclean but need mor clean animals so they would not be killed off !! 2) Wait wait wait - the food "bread" was clean prior to being touched by the unwashed hands. Do you not agree that the reason you wash your hands is so you do not trasfer the germ from your hands to the food and therefore goes into the mouth and then the stomach. Please read my last note again. I do not understand why you are even debating this point. The fact is Jesus talks about being defiled by what goes into the mouth. Whether it is the hands touching the lips or the "now contaminated food from the hands" that enters the mouth - the concluding fact is that the uncleanliness causes a defilement to the body. Jesus was saying not to make an issue of the concern that the pharisees had. He took it further to call them hypocrites because they accuse the disciples of not following the washing laws when they break other commandments of God. And just a note Steve: You made the point yourself that I was trying to explain before. You said the food was "clean" of itself. This fact is consistent with the entire bible because the followers of Jesus (disciples) would never have considered eating a unclean piece of meat. The reason I bring this up is cause there is some debate about the word "bread" - if it could have been meat. Anyway, The fact is the food was CLEAN (whatever it was bread or meat) according to the law of diet God gave when meat was introduced to the diet of man. 3) You last point is incorrect. I am using NKJV and Mark 7:19 says "thus purifying all foods". Please let us not have to go over and over that same obvious points. If you do not agree then the arguement should go to the Jesus who inspired this text. Finally, it does not destroy my arguement. There is a very direct and purposeful reason why Jesus said the uncleanliness of the food would be puried. Because Jesus knows our body can handle a piece a unclean food from unwashed hands. But if you try to compare food unclean due to dirty hands to a piece of pork or vulture - I really do not have an answer for you. I think it is pretty obvious. The contaminants on our hands do not compare to the defiled flesh of unclean meat. Do you think we are progressing in this discussion, Merv |