isn't the clean v unclean food thing in the bible a contradiction and/or nonsensical?

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Posts

Total: 44
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
so God told his people in the old testament that there are unclean foods. then in the new testament he said there are no unclean foods because God made them clean. as far as i can see, this is a contradiction. 

some people say the food was considered unclean because it was unsanitary or something. but how does Jesus dying change that it's unsanitary? 


why does Jesus dying suddenly make some food clean when it wasn't before?

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
verse please???
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
leviticus 11:1 God lists the unclean food. then in Acts 10:15 it says not to call food unclean when God made them clean. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
As far as modern religion in America is concerned, God's laws have been done away. Indeed, most who call themselves Christians seem to realize that sinning, however they define sin, is wrong, but somehow Jesus Christ kept the law for us, so everything will be all right. Why become worked up over something that no longer matters?
One area that the world has surely done away with God's law is that of clean and unclean meats. Those who believe this quote passages from the Bible that seem to say that all food, even the unclean ones, have somehow been made fit for us to eat today. A common argument is that the clean and unclean laws were part of the Old Covenant, and that is "obsolete and . . . ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).
When one states that he does not eat pork, shellfish, or any of the other foods listed as unclean in Leviticus 11:1-23 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21, he is immediately labeled as "Jewish." However, God's law is applicable to all of mankind (notice the principle of universal applicability in Psalm 94:12Ezekiel 18:5-9Mark 2:27Romans 2:12-16), and it is absolutely vital for Christians to keep it to grow in righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:25Psalm 119:172).
Before we proceed, it helps to remember who the God of the Old Testament is—the God who commanded the laws, not just for Judah, not just for all Israel, but for the benefit of all mankind. That same God, Jesus Christ, says unmistakably:
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)
Since God gives only good things (James 1:17), and the apostle Paul certifies that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12), we know that His law is for our benefit.
If the Bible is not the basis for one's discussion of religious matters, then one may as well not argue. This study will not convince anyone whose mind is set through the unbelieving arguments of this world, but it will build a foundation of biblical logic for us to stand on regarding this subject.
A Pre-Sinai Law
The clean and unclean laws are specifically mentioned early in God's Word, in the account of the Noachian Flood, when Noah was commanded to take "seven each of every clean animal" (Genesis 7:2). When he and his family were back on dry land, Noah "took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20). This suggests that these laws were known and practiced before the Flood—even from the earliest days of mankind (compare Genesis 4:4, Abel's acceptable offering). Since there were no Jews or Israelites then—not even any Hebrews—these laws are obviously for all humankind.
Genesis 9:3 contains a command that has proven difficult for some to understand: God says to Noah, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs." Some take this to mean that God gives man carte blanche authority to eat any kind of animal. But is this what God said?
The key to this verse is "even as the green herbs." In other words, God gives mankind the authority to eat flesh within the same parameters as He allows us to eat vegetation. Does God allow us to eat poisonous plants like poison ivy, hemlock, deadly nightshade, etc.? Of course not! Just as certain plants are harmful to us, so are certain meats. As Herbert Armstrong explained in "Is All Animal Flesh Good Food?":
God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the Flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.
This does not give us permission to do as we please!
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 contain God's commandment to Israel concerning clean and unclean meats. In these passages, either He lists specific animals that are clean or unclean or He provides us with instructions about how to determine if an animal is clean or unclean. For instance, He tells us specifically that the camel, the hyrax (rock badger), the hare, and the swine are unclean (Leviticus 11:4-8), but regarding fish He instructs us to determine if a species possesses both fins and scales (verse 9).
People have varying reactions to these scriptures. Some will take the position that unclean animals are harmful to the body. Many of us have had experience, either personally or by an acquaintance, with poisoning by trichinosis (a disease caused by parasitic worm larvae) in pork or becoming deadly sick from shellfish. Then others will bring up "Aunt Sarah," who ate pork and crawdads, drank a bottle of whiskey, smoked cigars every day, and lived to be 102 years old. Indeed, God makes some with amazingly strong constitutions.
God designed many of the unclean animals for the specific purpose of disposing of the earth's garbage. For instance, without feeling any ill effect, vultures can consume 59 times the amount of botulin, the neurotoxin that causes botulism, that it would take to kill a man. Pigs are scavengers that will eat anything, and if pork is not fully cooked to kill the Trichinella spiralis in it, it can destroy a person's health or even kill him.
Even though people throughout the world eat unclean food and live, and even though we could probably do the same—and many of us once did—for Christians, it is more than a health matter. In the Bible, God never directly connects keeping the laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with health. In reality, it is a test commandment to see if we will obey God.
Peter's Vision
What scriptures does this world marshal to prove that eating unclean meat is approved by the Bible? There are several such "proof texts" in the New Testament, but we will see that they are all misunderstood passages. In fact, in the final analysis, none of them is even about clean and unclean meats!
Perhaps the best known passage is Acts 10:9-16, in which a huge sheet full of unclean animals is lowered from heaven, and a voice says, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." However, without hesitation Peter replies, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The Voice then responds, "What God has cleansed you must not call common" (verse 15).
First, what is the subject of Acts 10? It is evident from a thorough reading of the chapter that it is entirely devoted to the conversion of Cornelius, a Roman centurion (verse 1), the first Gentile baptized into God's church. Peter's vision must be understood against this background to be understood correctly.
Second, it is apparent that Peter himself does not at first understand what his vision meant (verse 17); he certainly does not jump to the conclusion that all meats are now clean. While he is pondering it, a delegation from Cornelius arrives and requests that he travel with them to Caesarea to speak to the centurion. God tells the apostle directly to go with the men, "for I have sent them" (verse 20). Obviously, God was orchestrating the whole affair.
Third, if unclean meats had been approved, would Peter have not understood this from what he had learned from Jesus? He lived with his Savior for over three years. If anyone knew that the law of clean and unclean meats had been abolished by Christ's sacrificial death, it would have been Peter, but at this point, a decade later, he is operating under no such notion.
Fourth, his reply to the Voice, which Peter identifies as the Lord's, is quite confident, even vehement: "Not so, Lord!" In our colloquial English, this is equivalent to "No way!" This was a command that the apostle knew went against everything he knew about God's law. Even though the Voice repeats the command twice more (verse 16), Peter never changes his mind!
Fifth, within the context, Peter himself reveals what the vision meant. To those assembled in Cornelius' house, he says, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28). The vision of unclean animals was merely an illustration God used to help Peter understand that salvation was open to those previously held at arm's length (see Acts 11:18). This is further evidenced by the Holy Spirit being poured out visibly on these Gentiles (Acts 10:44-47). Neither Peter nor Luke, the author of Acts, makes any further commentary regarding clean or unclean foods, as the vision had served a greater purpose.
Lastly, nowhere in the context is it ever said that God had cleansed unclean meats—this is something assumed by readers with a predisposition against this statute regulating what we should eat. As Paul says, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Romans 8:7). Acts 10:1—11:18 confirms that "what God has cleansed" is the Gentiles, not unclean foods.


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
that text u cited looks like a bunch of wiggling around the fact that the food was once unclean but somehow now they are clean. 

and, can you succinctly make an argument to me without pasting? it's too convoluted to follow, but of what i can make out, like i said, it's a bunch of coping out.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
or, do you still consider pork to be unclean? do you consider jesus' death such that it's not longer unclean, or do you just eat unclean food anyway?
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i should probably wait till a more coherent opponent argues here
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
Technically Christians still aren't supposed to eat blood, food that was sacrificed to idols, or food that was strangled. 

One of the first controversies in the early church had to do with whether or not non-Jewish converts would have to be circumcised or follow the law of Moses. It was determined that they didn't.

That said, you are still probably better off eating kosher. 

There was an early community of Jewish Christians that tried to keep itself set apart from those who were not by blood Jew, but eventually even this community ended up assimilating with the church at large. We still have some of their writings preserved in the church.


The Church is the house of Israel under the new covenant, as was spoke through the prophet Jeremiah,


"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I 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.
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 will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."



We don't believe that righteousness comes from following things like dietary restrictions. For even Christ said, "those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man"

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
Still, it is worth noting that in certain cases we still have dietary restrictions. For example, most monastics are required to eat a plant based diet.

It is worth noting that monastics voluntarily set themselves apart for a purpose, and so they do not marry either. There is nothing wrong with eating meat or marrying. In fact, marriage is considered a sacred mystery of the church!

n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Mopac
is pork still unclean or is it clean now? why or why not? do you consider there to be a contradiction in the bible here? 

BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,851
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
--> @Mopac


Mopac,

Your New Testament Jeremiah passage states what I have been saying all along, and that is if one wants to be a true Christian, then they have to be Jewish, period!  As we know, Jesus was King of the Jews, and Yahweh chose only the Jewish people to rule over from the beginning, and Jesus was ONLY sent for the Jews.

Therefore, what Jewish sect do you follow to be a true follower of Christ?  The one that suits me is the old Pharisee Jewish sect. 


.


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi

That rebuttaled nothing
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
the Acts verse is clear that God told peter that food is clean, unlike the old testament said. how does what you posted contradict that? do you even understand what you are arguing with your copy and paste? 

<br>
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
did you read it?
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Dr.Franklin
yes. it was a bunch of non sequitur. illogical. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,304
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @n8nrgmi
Press X to doubt

X
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi

is pork still unclean or is it clean now? why or why not? do you consider there to be a contradiction in the bible here?

Have you ever seen pigs? Ever hear of pig toilets? How many diseases come to people through pigs? Do you think porkchops are good for your heart even?

Of course pigs are unclean. 

But think about the difference between these two different mentalities...


Righteousness is observing this list of rules and commands.

And

Righteousness is abiding in the truth.



That is the difference between the old testament and the new testament. But here is the kicker. It was actually the spirit of abiding in the truth that brought about the law of Moses to begin with. That is why we say Jesus Christ fulfills the law and the prophets.






n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @Mopac
what do you make out of the fact the bible says God told moses some food was unclean, but told peter that the food was clean? 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @n8nrgmi
That dream Peter had was moreso about associating with gentiles than eating cajun food.


rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 420
1
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
1
2
6
--> @n8nrgmi
1. It isn't a contradiction if you don't accept the Christian bible as remotely valid.
2. The Hebrew is tamei and tahor. They don't exactly mean "unclean." There is no real English word for those statuses.

78 days later

n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,188
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
--> @ethang5

what do you think of the issues posed in this thread? 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @n8nrgmi
what do you think of the issues posed in this thread? 
They are tooth achingly silly.

as far as i can see, this is a contradiction.
God said they were unclean, then God made them clean. Where is the contradiction?

Do you even know what unclean means as used in the bible?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,028
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @BrotherDThomas
Mopac,

Your New Testament Jeremiah passage states what I have been saying all along, and that is if one wants to be a true Christian, then they have to be Jewish, period!  As we know, Jesus was King of the Jews, and Yahweh chose only the Jewish people to rule over from the beginning, and Jesus was ONLY sent for the Jews.


I keep telling them this , Brother but they seem to never see it. 

 In truth, they just don't want to believe it.  Even  Pontius Pilate agrees when he insisted  the scripted acronym that he had written on the head board above the crucified Christ remains as it was written and unchanged:

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM (Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which in English translates to "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews".

John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.                             22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.


It was made clear to everyone so there could be no mistaking as to who and what Jesus was by the fact it was write in three languages.

John 19:19 King James Version (KJV)
                                                          19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.
                                                               And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.

John 19:20 King James Version (KJV)
                                               20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city:
                                                    and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.


Jesus would have been absolutely appalled at the fact that a whole new religion had sprung up in his name.


Therefore, what Jewish sect do you follow to be a true follower of Christ?  The one that suits me is the old Pharisee Jewish sect. 

Jesus was supported by some of  the Pharisees. They  had a lot in common with "the poor" celibates of the  Qumran Community as did Jesus.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,028
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @Mopac
Have you ever seen pigs? Ever hear of pig toilets? How many diseases come to people through pigs? Do you think porkchops are good for your heart even?

Of course pigs are unclean. 

Your childish ignorance really amaze me  Mopac.. You are just incapable of considering the times that these biblical characters were living in.  They didn't have health and safety in those times, you see,  Mopca and cooking manuals and recipe books weren't written. 

People eat pigs/pork all over the world all of the time and never fall ill because of it ....... because they cook it longer than any other meant. 

Way back then many simply didn't cook it long enough and ended up with a tapeworm the size of the Nile trying escape from their arse.   And I am sure that  I would consider pork  and the man who ate it  with said tapeworm hanging from his arse hole  to be ' possessed ' when this happened. Yes Mopca, they really believed in possession too,  along with many other superstitions.