Zone1 Did Jesus Declare "Unclean Meats" Fit for Human Consumption?

[Meriweather]

I expected challenging arguments from the Catholic/Protestant crowd. I'm disappointed, but not surprised

Why? What goes into the mouth is not what makes people unclean, it is what goes out of the mouth. Jews consider their Kosher diet as an act of obedience to God. You may as well. What you do or do not put into your mouth is of no interest to me--and probably to few others.

Tell me, if you ran into someone you don't know, could you tell what they eat simply by how they treated you? Could you measure their love of God?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I'm dealing with lightweights on this forum.

I expected challenging arguments from the Catholic/Protestant crowd. I'm disappointed, but not surprised

You seem to forget that Jesus came so they would know Grace. You are focusing on the laws, such as a Pharisee would. Old Testament is about Laws, and the Coming of Our Lord Jesus is about Gods Grace in the New Testament. You can not have the laws without Grace, nor can you have Grace without the law.

Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
It is true that certain foods had been forbidden in the time of Moses......yet Jesus did say all foods/meats were acceptable.........

Mark 7:18-23

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You seem to forget that Jesus came so they would know Grace. You are focusing on the laws, such as a Pharisee would. Old Testament is about Laws, and the Coming of Our Lord Jesus is about Gods Grace in the New Testament. You can not have the laws without Grace, nor can you have Grace without the law

Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or th prophets. I have not t come to abolish, but to MAKE FULL.

I'll deal with the other Scriptures you've listed when I have a little time

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It is true that certain foods had been forbidden in the time of Moses......yet Jesus did say all foods/meats were acceptable

No, He didn't. You misinterpret His words. You have to put your self in His time period and really look at what He was speaking about.

But thank you for raising the level to something a little more challenging

 

[Vastator]

Why? What goes into the mouth is not what makes people unclean, it is what goes out of the mouth. Jews consider their Kosher diet as an act of obedience to God.

You simply don't know what you're attempting to talk about. Context is everything...

1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

This story is yet another account of Jesus confronting the Dogma of the Pharisees. Not a green light to eat that which God has commanded otherwise. The Phariseeical handwashing was a man made tradition, observed, and practiced by the Pharisees. Further it is applies specifically to the eating of bread, or matzah. Which is specifically what was being eaten. Context is everything.

Additionally to complete the ritual a recitation is made.

Full Text of Netilat Yadayim
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל נְטִילַת יָדַיִם

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav vitzivanu al n’tilat yadayim.

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.

What is interesting here is that there is no such command in the Torah that requires this. This is tradition. Origin of this tradition..?

Origins of Netilat Yadayim
The tradition of netilat yadayim prior to eating bread originated with the rabbis of the Talmud. It derives from various practices concerning ritual impurity from when the ancient Temple stood in Jerusalem. The priests who performed the temple rituals were given gifts of oil, wine and wheat that could be eaten only after ritual washing. For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals. Some sources suggest that the practice was instituted so the Temple’s washing ritual would not be forgotten.

But in the end; this passage is about Jesus confronting the Pharisees for placing their Dogma, on par with the Law, and to basically let it be known that God never said eating with soiled hands would make one impure. It is not however a countermand to any command God has previously laid out.

 

[norwegen]

The least you can do is make up your own rules and not plagiaeize ours.

Death Angel seems to be conflating Christianity with an ancient tribal religion. Christians need not observe those ancient laws on usury, slavery, etc. And not their dietary laws, either.

Jews may have regarded their edicts passed in the tradition of Moses as righteous at one time, as they regarded themselves God's favored people, but those laws would not stand forever. And certainly by the time their temple and culture were destroyed, they should have realized they were no longer God's chosen. Jesus even said so, and even claimed he would come to destroy them.

Christianity's repudiation of ancient Judaism doesn't mean they forgo the more righteous edicts of the Israelites; it just means they incorporate them into their two laws that encapsulate righteousness: to love others and to love God. That's not plagiarism.

 

[norwegen]

Jews were a small minority of the Palestinian population and appeared to the pagans a rather quaint lot in their worship of one God exclusively (or their professions of worshiping that one God), not to mention in their practice of circumcision, their abstinence from eating perfectly good foods, their refusal to commit to a full week of work, and their unwillingness to participate in outside festivals and observances. Not just to foreigners were these customs peculiar either, as even some Jews began to question them once the Messiah had come; even dietary restrictions had started to come under fire (Mk 7:19; Rom 14:17; Heb 13:9).

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or th prophets. I have not t come to abolish, but to MAKE FULL.

I'll deal with the other Scriptures you've listed when I have a little time

Agreed, He came to fulfill the law........but also as I had said......you can't have law without Grace & Mercy, nor can you have Grace & Mercy without law. What is the point of Grace & Mercy, if there were no law?

You must have law (Moses/Old Testament) to know that you've broken it and need mercy, for without mercy (Christ/New Testament) you would be put to death

No, He didn't. You misinterpret His words. You have to put your self in His time period and really look at what He was speaking about.

But thank you for raising the level to something a little more challenging

From Mark 7:18

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)




KJV.........Mark 7:18-19


And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?




God wants your heart, not your belly or understanding because the heart is the key to your soul

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Agreed, He came to fulfill the law........but also as I had said......you can't have law without Grace & Mercy, nor can you have Grace & Mercy without law. What is the point of Grace & Mercy, if there were no law?

You must have law (Moses/Old Testament) to know that you've broken it and need mercy, for without mercy (Christ/New Testament) you would be put to death





From Mark 7:18

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)




KJV.........Mark 7:18-19


And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?




God wants your heart, not your belly or understanding because the heart is the key to your soul

"Grace" isn't license to continue breaking the Law. Protestants misunderstand so much on this topic

 

[Vastator]

Agreed, He came to fulfill the law........but also as I had said......you can't have law without Grace & Mercy, nor can you have Grace & Mercy without law. What is the point of Grace & Mercy, if there were no law?

You must have law (Moses/Old Testament) to know that you've broken it and need mercy, for without mercy (Christ/New Testament) you would be put to death





From Mark 7:18

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared




God wants your heart, not your belly or understanding because the heart is the key to your soul

From Mark 7:18

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

False. That is most certainly not what that means. And contextually it makes no sense.

1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

This story is yet another account of Jesus confronting the Dogma of the Pharisees. Not a green light to eat that which God has commanded otherwise. The Phariseeical handwashing was a man made tradition, observed, and practiced by the Pharisees. Further it is applies specifically to the eating of bread, or matzah. Which is specifically what was being eaten. Context is everything.

Additionally to complete the ritual a recitation is made.

Full Text of Netilat Yadayim
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל נְטִילַת יָדַיִם

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav vitzivanu al n’tilat yadayim.

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.

What is interesting here is that there is no such command in the Torah that requires this. This is tradition. Origin of this tradition..?

Origins of Netilat Yadayim
The tradition of netilat yadayim prior to eating bread originated with the rabbis of the Talmud. It derives from various practices concerning ritual impurity from when the ancient Temple stood in Jerusalem. The priests who performed the temple rituals were given gifts of oil, wine and wheat that could be eaten only after ritual washing. For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals. Some sources suggest that the practice was instituted so the Temple’s washing ritual would not be forgotten.

But in the end; this passage is about Jesus confronting the Pharisees for placing their Dogma, on par with the Law, and to basically let it be known that God never said eating with soiled hands would make one impure. It is not however a countermand to any command God has previously laid out.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

"Grace" isn't license to continue breaking the Law. Protestants misunderstand so much on this topic

You ever play ball in the house when you knew you weren't supposed too? Got carried away and knocked over your Moms rare antique priceless family heirloom vase??? Shattered into millions of pieces and not repairable?? She may have shed a few tears at the loss, but instead of whooping your ass like you deserved, she wrapped her arms around you and forgave you instead???

So because of her forgiveness, you never played ball in the house again because you didn't ever want to see her tears again??? In fact, you WANTED to be good after that???


Agreed that Grace isn't a license to break the law. The laws are there for a reason, to give us a standard to live by, but I really don't think I'll be called on the carpet for liking to eat pork. I will probably be called to account for my sins against the 10 commandments

 

[JustAnotherNut]

False. That is most certainly not what that means. And contextually it makes no sense.

1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[3] But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

This story is yet another account of Jesus confronting the Dogma of the Pharisees. Not a green light to eat that which God has commanded otherwise. The Phariseeical handwashing was a man made tradition, observed, and practiced by the Pharisees. Further it is applies specifically to the eating of bread, or matzah. Which is specifically what was being eaten. Context is everything.

Additionally to complete the ritual a recitation is made.

Full Text of Netilat Yadayim
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל נְטִילַת יָדַיִם

Baruch ata Adonai, Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kidshanu b’mitzvotav vitzivanu al n’tilat yadayim.

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.

What is interesting here is that there is no such command in the Torah that requires this. This is tradition. Origin of this tradition..?

Origins of Netilat Yadayim
The tradition of netilat yadayim prior to eating bread originated with the rabbis of the Talmud. It derives from various practices concerning ritual impurity from when the ancient Temple stood in Jerusalem. The priests who performed the temple rituals were given gifts of oil, wine and wheat that could be eaten only after ritual washing. For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals. Some sources suggest that the practice was instituted so the Temple’s washing ritual would not be forgotten.

But in the end; this passage is about Jesus confronting the Pharisees for placing their Dogma, on par with the Law, and to basically let it be known that God never said eating with soiled hands would make one impure. It is not however a countermand to any command God has previously laid out.

Here.....you forgot the other one..........

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?




But if you and Death Angel believe otherwise, then all the more power to you

 

[Augustine_]

This is the RELIGION FORUM.

Ok I'll leave you to your pretend play

 

[Vastator]

Here.....you forgot the other one..........

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?




But if you and Death Angel believe otherwise, then all the more power to you

You realize that in context he's literally describing the taking of a dump. Shitting. Neither Jews, nor Christ, nor his followers would have been eating unclean meats. As such shitting out, or purging that which they HAD consumed was the only point relevant to the overarching theme that eating with dirty hands cannot render one impure. The entire baseline context of this entire chapter is about unclean hands, and not observing the Pharisees handwashing rituals.

 

[presonorek]

You lack a serious amount of understanding of the purpose Father in Heaven sent Jehovah to the earth as Jesus. He came to fulfill the law and to introduce the higher law Moses originally had with him when he came down from the mountain the first time. He saw Israel could not handle the higher law and destroyed it. So, he came down with the lesser law and the lesser priesthood of Aaron as well. The law of Moses and all the writings of the prophets were to bring the house of Israel to be ready for the higher law and priesthood of Melchizedek. His upcoming atonement would make all things clean unto him and thus most of the taboos of the Torah would no longer be part of the new and everlasting covenant of Jesus Christ. Thus, he removed the food laws as part of the new law. That doesn’t mean later on that the Lord might reinstitute a new health law after the great apostasy.

I approach this from an atheistic perspective. Moses and Jesus had different political goals. Moses' goal was to unite the people to get out from underneath the oppression of the Egyptians. They had to have a distinct and extraordinary culture to unite them as a people so that they would have the will to rebel so Moses made up this fancy little story about talking to a new god that the "Hebrews" never heard of before.

Jesus's political goals was to stick it to the religious leaders that were restricting human freedom. He was freeing all of humanity from the religious oppression of the Pharisees and the Saducees. Jesus had to use the right language to motivate average people to rebel without getting himself killed. (Side note - He didn't succeed at not getting himself killed.) So I just don't see Jesus's political goals requiring any dietary standards. I do see how Moses' political goals required strict dietary standards.

This is just how I see it as an atheist. Every founder of any religion was/is an atheist. Think about that for a minute. Jesus didn't believe in any god. Moses didn't believe in any god. Muhammed didn't believe in any god. Joseph Smith didn't believe in any god. Buddha didn't believe in any god. Just think about how easier it is to manipulate people when you don't have some weird god in your head hindering your objectives and giving you that guilty conscience. If God really wrote the Bible then I guess we can argue one way or the other about Jesus's intentions in regards to dietary requirements. If we see it as a tradition then dietary customs have no role in Christianity. There is a story in Acts about Jesus telling Peter to eat unclean animals but I am too lazy to look it up.

 

[buttercup]

The laws are there for a reason, to give us a standard to live by, but I really don't think I'll be called on the carpet for liking to eat pork.

That's highly debatable. If you look at the diabolical ways that pigs (who btw are ranked even smarter than dogs) are treated before they get to one's plate, I do believe that God is going to hold Christians accountable. Especially when it's completely unnecessary, and there are so many reasons to not do it, not only related to ethics but also health reasons.

Participating in it breaks so many commands and principles. The command to be merciful, the command to do all things in love (let love be one's motivation, not selfishness), to not participate in animal cruelty, to be gentle and peaceful with others, and I could go on and on.

This reminds me of a great quote:

“Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by what is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?” - Pierre Troubetzkoy

 

[buttercup]

You realize that in context he's literally describing the taking of a dump. Shitting. Neither Jews, nor Christ, nor his followers would have been eating unclean meats. As such shitting out, or purging that which they HAD consumed was the only point relevant to the overarching theme that eating with dirty hands cannot render one impure. The entire baseline context of this entire chapter is about unclean hands, and not observing the Pharisees handwashing rituals.

^ THIS. The context was eating with dirty hands, that is always ignored by those who want to use that passage for other reasons.

But for me, the question of whether or not those laws on clean/unclean meats are still valid is completely irrelevant. Because the bottom line is: eating pork or any flesh is not God's will, Christians are supposed to aim for God's perfect will, which is different than God's permissive will.

"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

 

[Cougarbear]

I approach this from an atheistic perspective. Moses and Jesus had different political goals. Moses' goal was to unite the people to get out from underneath the oppression of the Egyptians. They had to have a distinct and extraordinary culture to unite them as a people so that they would have the will to rebel so Moses made up this fancy little story about talking to a new god that the "Hebrews" never heard of before.

Jesus's political goals was to stick it to the religious leaders that were restricting human freedom. He was freeing all of humanity from the religious oppression of the Pharisees and the Saducees. Jesus had to use the right language to motivate average people to rebel without getting himself killed. (Side note - He didn't succeed at not getting himself killed.) So I just don't see Jesus's political goals requiring any dietary standards. I do see how Moses' political goals required strict dietary standards.

This is just how I see it as an atheist. Every founder of any religion was/is an atheist. Think about that for a minute. Jesus didn't believe in any god. Moses didn't believe in any god. Muhammed didn't believe in any god. Joseph Smith didn't believe in any god. Buddha didn't believe in any god. Just think about how easier it is to manipulate people when you don't have some weird god in your head hindering your objectives and giving you that guilty conscience. If God really wrote the Bible then I guess we can argue one way or the other about Jesus's intentions in regards to dietary requirements. If we see it as a tradition then dietary customs have no role in Christianity. There is a story in Acts about Jesus telling Peter to eat unclean animals but I am too lazy to look it up.

Thanks for the opinion. At least it was honest. By the way, you should like to know that Moses grew up being taught to follow the gods of Egypt. When Jesus was 12, he reminded his mother and step father that he was here to do his Father in Heaven's business or calling. That was before he began his 3 year ministry. Joseph Smith learned to read from his mother teaching him through the Bible. His family and him were church goers and believed in Jesus Christ. After reading James chapter 1, he went to a quiet grove and prayed to the Father to know which church to join meaning which church was his. I have no idea about Buddha and Muhammed. But, the other three obviously believed in God. Buddha probably believed in many gods. Muhammed believed in the same God of Abraham as Ishmael is the father of the Arab people. So, every founder of any of the 4200 religions isn't atheist at all. Especially the one of the OT, NT and BofM.
By the way, how do you get the idea that the Hebrews never heard of Elohim, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Of course Israel knew of God while in captivity. <shaking head>

Jesus had no political goals. None. His goals were specific to the reason He came off his throne as Jehovah to become the Christ Jesus. He came to give the people, not only the Jews, the new and everlasting covenants and new laws to abide by. Fulfilling the law of Moses didn't mean to end all of the laws and traditions that had developed. The Ten Commandments were still under his new law. The laws and traditions He gave the ancient Israelites served their purpose at that time. He didn't come to remove the Romans nor the oppression either. He came to establish his Church with the necessary authority to perform the new priesthood ordinances of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. He also established new temple ordinances as well. There was a solemn assembly in the Los Angeles Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1969 where information about an archeological find was made by some Jesuit Catholic Priests in Jerusalem that John had written. On it was Jesus having his disciples perform endowment rites that we as the LDS Church recognize. There were other religions that were summon to Israel for the finding as well. Why don't we see any of this? Simple. We won't reveal ourselves any ordinance that goes on in the Temple. So, it won't come from us and only spoken about in the Temple. Second, no other church will admit these things including the Jews themselves. So, there you have it. Just like our FBI and CIA, there are things that the people don't know about because of reasons you don't like. Back to the reason Jesus came to the earth, his main goal was to teach, preach and end his ministry by atoning for the sins of those who believe in Him. The atonement includes the resurrection so that we all will be resurrected again. This is the "grace" or gift Paul talks about. Our bodies won't be left in the grave. Even the wicked. Why? Because we consented and covenanted with the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) in the pre-earth life where we were spirit children of our Heavenly parents to follow the Father's plan and come to the earth. The gift or grace for that is we will all be resurrected. A third of our brothers and sisters rejected the Father's plan and followed Lucifer (Satan) and were cast out of Heaven into the earth never to receive a physical human body. The Atonement was Jesus purpose. Not political stuff with the Romans or the leading bodies of Judah.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

You realize that in context he's literally describing the taking of a dump. Shitting. Neither Jews, nor Christ, nor his followers would have been eating unclean meats. As such shitting out, or purging that which they HAD consumed was the only point relevant to the overarching theme that eating with dirty hands cannot render one impure. The entire baseline context of this entire chapter is about unclean hands, and not observing the Pharisees handwashing rituals.

No, it's more about a dirty heart & soul

 

[hobelim]

he Torah prohibits Jews from eating certain animals (Lev. 11; cf. Deut. 14; Negative Commandments #172-179). We can assume that Jesus would not have violated these commandments. (Otherwise, he would have been condemned by the words of Torah, and would have been a sinner.)

People of every nation, language, kingdom, and tribe on every continent worldwide have been comparing other people to lower beasts to either praise or insult ever since people could talk.

The specific reason that swine have been judged as unclean by God is because they do not ruminate which has direct human implications. It follows then that every creature, whether clean or unclean, represents a human archetype, their flesh represents their thinking, beliefs, ideologies etc., in other words, teaching. This is affirmed by the command to refrain from the flesh of anything that crawls on its belly, a clear reference to the talking serpent in the garden of Eden.

If the law is to be taken literally Jesus was a sinner. Only if the deeper implications reflect the will and wisdom of God was Jesus without sin, by discovering a more rational way to fulfill the Law.

Case in point: One cannot comply with the literal interpretation of the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate without violating the deeper implications of the exact same law because the teaching that the concern of God is about food is the flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate. The truth, the very truth, is that Kashrut was never about whats for dinner.

Only the deeper implications reveal the wisdom of God in giving the Law to confused people.

Thats why Jesus said that unless you eat my flesh, accept my teaching, that the words of the Law are figurative and the subjects hidden (not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used), and drink my blood, do it, (comply with the law in this light) you cannot have the eternal life promised for complying with Divine commands in you.

Life is in the blood, in the doing.