Dietary laws

[crazzeto]

So? We are not justified by keeping the commandments. But if we are not justified by keeping the commandments, does that mean we can brake them?

We are justified by the Grace of God alone… Our free response to God is our faith, working through love.

 

[Cristian_B]

We are justified by the Grace of God alone… Our free response to God is our faith, working through love.

I did not ask you that. If we are not justified by keeping the commandments, can we brake them?

 

[crazzeto]

I did not ask you that. If we are not justified by keeping the commandments, can we brake them?

I answered your question, but you seem to be a little lost.

Edit
I’ll work on rephrasing it later on, I don’t have the time right now sorry (not trying to slight you). But please read Acts 10 very carefully, with Galations and Romans. Oh yes, and don’t forget James particularly Ch 2

 

[Pug]

But the difference between clean and unclean was made before Mount Sinai.

And part of the previous Law was fulfilled. Explain to me how have the dietary laws been fulfilled.

So can we eat dogs, giraffes, tigers and everything else we desire?

Is it your contention that nothing in the bible before Sinai is fulfilled in Christ? And that everything at Sinai that was not at all from before is? So the whole law at Sinai is not fulfilled in Christ? What about stuff after Sinai?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I did not ask you that. If we are not justified by keeping the commandments, can we brake them?

No we can not break them. To break the commandments is grave matter and may be a mortal sin for Catholics if the three conditions (knowledge that it is grave matter, knowledge that it is a sin, and free consent of the will) are present.

As was stated, we are only justified by the Grace of God.

If we were justified by keeping the commandments (of with the dietary laws are not part of) then we are justified by our own work which is not how it is.

 

[Cristian_B]

Is it your contention that nothing in the bible before Sinai is fulfilled in Christ? And that everything at Sinai that was not at all from before is? So the whole law at Sinai is not fulfilled in Christ? What about stuff after Sinai?

No. But I don’t know why people assume that absolutely everything before and at Mount Sinai was fulfilled.

How was it fulfilled? Fulfilled means kept. For example the sacrificial system has been fulfilled in Christ. But it’s not like we don’t have to make sacrifices for sin anymore, but it’s that we already made the sacrifice. This is just an example. There are many. So how is everything before and at Mount Sinai fulfilled in Christ? How have we kept the dietary laws in Christ?

 

[Cristian_B]

No we can not break them. To break the commandments is grave matter and may be a mortal sin for Catholics if the three conditions (knowledge that it is grave matter, knowledge that it is a sin, and free consent of the will) are present.

As was stated, we are only justified by the Grace of God.

If we were justified by keeping the commandments (of with the dietary laws are not part of) then we are justified by our own work which is not how it is.

So… you basically agree with me. We are not justified by keeping the laws but that doesn’t mean we can break them. And example would be that we are not justified by keeping the dietary laws, but that doesn’t mean we can break them or not keep them.

Thank you for supporting me!

God bless you, and may His grace be with you and your family!

 

[crazzeto]

So… you basically agree with me. We are not justified by keeping the laws but that doesn’t mean we can break them. And example would be that we are not justified by keeping the dietary laws, but that doesn’t mean we can break them or not keep them.

Thank you for supporting me!

God bless you, and may His grace be with you and your family!

No, he didn’t agree with you.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So… you basically agree with me. We are not justified by keeping the laws but that doesn’t mean we can break them. And example would be that we are not justified by keeping the dietary laws, but that doesn’t mean we can break them or not keep them.

Thank you for supporting me!

God bless you, and may His grace be with you and your family!

No, the dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments.

Also, God has cleared us of the Dietary Laws within the New Testament and says that all food is clean.

You may hold to them if you wish but everyone is not called to.

May I ask what Christian denomination you belong to?

 

[jasev]

Some quick background info:

I have been Adventist for most of my life. A very fundamentalist Adventist during my early adult years. I kept reading the Bible and realized we were full of it on a number of things. This whole clean/unclean meat thing was one of them.

Second background point: I’m not Roman Catholic. Frankly, I’m not really anything I guess at the moment. I’ve stepped back into the hall and have been exploring the other rooms in the house for a while.

That being said, “Christian B” if you’re not a Seventh-day Adventist you certainly seem to reason like one. =)

The Adventist argument, which you may or may not be buying into Christian B, is that the Lev 11/Deut 14 laws were not “ceremonial” and not done away with at the cross since there was always a distinction between clean and unclean animals.

For me personally, this fell apart on Genesis 9:3: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” So, why the clean and unclean animals on the ark? “And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” Gen 8:20.

(Really though, if you are an Adventist and can get your hands on the Adventist commentary set, you’ll notice them saying on 9:3 essentially - ‘yeah, we know what this says, but surely it can’t mean THAT!’ My grossly interpretive paraphrase, of course. =)

Clean critters were for sacrifices. Everything else was for snacking. Seem gross to you? Well, IMHO to each his own… but not all cultures in the world eat a Western diet let alone a kosher diet… hence the decision that matters of diet should not get in the way of spreading the Gospel as it was to spread to the “gentiles.”

The Lev 11/Deut14 restrictions served their purpose for their audience for their time.

 

[Spirithound]

Do you actually believe eating balut is God’s will for us? And the list of things could go on.

His permissive will.

In that vision He informed Peter that He made the Gentiles clean with His blood, and He isn’t actually speaking about food, but that food represents the Gentiles. So He wasn’t speaking about food here.

You can’t have a spiritual reading of Scripture without also having the literal reading. Otherwise the metaphor is based on a lie, and is therefore invalid. Can you imagine an interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son which says that God will always take us back, but human fathers are justified in shutting out their intransigent sons?

 

[Cristian_B]

No, the dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments.

I understand. But where is it written that everything else has been done away with?

Also, God has cleared us of the Dietary Laws within the New Testament and says that all food is clean.

No, He didn’t.

You may hold to them if you wish but everyone is not called to.

Do you believe God lets us do whatever we lust after?

May I ask what Christian denomination you belong to?

Irrelevant.

 

[Cristian_B]

The Adventist argument, which you may or may not be buying into Christian B, is that the Lev 11/Deut 14 laws were not “ceremonial” and not done away with at the cross since there was always a distinction between clean and unclean animals.

For me personally, this fell apart on Genesis 9:3: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” So, why the clean and unclean animals on the ark? “And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” Gen 8:20.

(Really though, if you are an Adventist and can get your hands on the Adventist commentary set, you’ll notice them saying on 9:3 essentially - ‘yeah, we know what this says, but surely it can’t mean THAT!’ My grossly interpretive paraphrase, of course. =)

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb have I given you all things.

~Genesis 9:3
Are all green herbs good to eat? I thought some were poisonous! Are all animals to eat? I will give you two example only:Example 1:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_dlkAw43cLC0/S...oisonous-animals-in-the-world-puffer-fish.jpg
(Image credits: Wikipedia)

Puffer Fish are the second most poisonous vertebrate on earth (the first one is golden dart Frog). The meat of some species is a delicacy in both Japan (as fugu) and Korea (as bok-uh) but the problem is that the skin and certain organs of many puffer fish are very poisonous to humans.

This puffy fish produce rapid and violent death. Puffer’s poisoning causes deadening of the tongue and lips, dizziness, vomiting, rapid heart rate, difficulty breathing, and muscle paralysis. Victims die from suffocation as diaphragm muscles are paralyzed. Most of the victims die after four to 24 hours. There is no known antidote, Most deaths from fugu happen when untrained people catch and prepare the fish.

Statistics show that there were 20 to 44 incidents of fugu poisoning per year between 1996 and 2006 in all of Japan and up to six incidents per year led to death. Since Fugu’s poison can cause near instantaneous death, only licensed chefs are allowed to prepare it.

Source, color mine]

Example 2:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_dlkAw43cLC0/S...-poisonous-animals-in-the-world-dart-frog.jpg
(Image credits: ucumari)

If you ever happen to be running through the rain forests somewhere in Central or South America, do not ever pick up beautiful and colorful frogs – it can be the Poison Dart Frog. This frog is probably the most poisonous animal on earth. The 2 inch long (5cm) golden poison dart frog has enough venom to kill 10 adult humans or 20,000 mice. Only 2 micrograms of this lethal toxin (the amount that fits on the head of a pin) is capable of killing a human or other large mammal. They are called “dart frogs” because indigenous Amerindians’ use of their toxic secretions to poison the tips of their blow-darts. Poison dart frogs keep their poison in their skins and will sicken or kill anybody who touches or eats it.

[, color mine]](http://villageofjoy.com/10-most-poisonous-animals-in-the-world/)As with plants, there are some that you don’t eat because they are not good for your body, and some lethal; and so is with animals, there are some unclean animals that are not good for the body, and as seen above: some very lethal.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.

~Genesis 1:29
This seems to support my argument above. We are given all the green herbs and fruits in the world… but I believe you know that there are fruits that aren’t healthy and poisonous, right? One example would be some kinds of berries. Berries are fruits, and some are dangerous. There are many other examples like some tree fruits and such.

So God said that in the same way He gave us all green herbs and fruits to eat, He gives us the moving flesh. But, are all green herbs and fruits good for us? Majority, yes. All? No. So, in the same way, not all animals are to eat: and God calls those animals unclean.

Clean critters were for sacrifices. Everything else was for snacking. Seem gross to you? Well, IMHO to each his own… but not all cultures in the world eat a Western diet let alone a kosher diet… hence the decision that matters of diet should not get in the way of spreading the Gospel as it was to spread to the “gentiles.”

The Lev 11/Deut14 restrictions served their purpose for their audience for their time.

 

[jasev]

A bull, even for our Jewish friends, is clean. Stick a fork in it out in the pasture and he’ll stick his horns in you! Clearly, God expects his image-bearing creatures to use their heads.

God said, sure - you can eat whatever you like. He didn’t say it would always be a great idea.

You end your post with, “I know culture is important … but should we go that far as accepting all of it?”

Well, where do you get the idea that it is our job to accept or reject what our brethren elsewhere in the world choose to eat? What they choose to eat, or not eat, is between them and God. You’ll say, “even cannibalism!?” Yes, even that is between them and God - He will ultimately be their judge. However I think we can safely say it’s murder and condemned because of that and additionally we have an obligation to object to and prevent that kind of behavior (murder).

One more point - you note that not “all green herbs” are good for us. The Bible never gives us laws about clean and unclean “herbs” so stating this doesn’t really work well in the favor of arguing there is a moral rationale for rejecting certain critters. Then again maybe the “clean herbs” were known through sacred tradition! Okay, just kidding.

 

[JohnCS]

Then why was Peter wondering about the meaning if it was so obvious? And why didn’t he share the same interpretation with us that you have? But he instead tells us that God told him not to call any Gentile unclean, and He said not a word about clean and unclean animals. God used a parable or allegory. What He called clean man should not call unclean. God called the Gentiles clean for believing in Him, and man was not supposed to call Gentiles unclean for He cleaned them. Show me where He actually calls all unclean animals clean and that we can eat them, and not in a parable that is not even speaking about animals, but people.

So what you are getting at this whole time is that cannibalism really is okay? You keep coming back to it, and now Peter’s vision is actually referring to gentiles; kill and eat! So God is telling Peter to kill and eat the gentiles! YES! I knew that I was missing something this whole time. We need to kill and eat each other! Thanks ChristianB for clearing all of this up for us!!! (looks out his window for his first meal)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, He didn’t.

Yes He did, you just have a different interpretation of the New Testament than the Catholic Church does.

Do you believe God lets us do whatever we lust after?

Yes, that is what free will is all about. You can do what ever you want, even sin. But there are no dietary laws for Christians so that has nothing to do with this,

Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, it will help us understand a bit more where you are coming from.

I must ask you though, why you would come to a Catholic Forum and argue this when you know this is not what the Catholic Church Teaches?

This is just becoming a waste of time. You will not accept the God’s Church’s Teaching in this, that there are no dietary laws, that all food is clean, nor will you except God’s Church’s interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. You want us to accept your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and your statements that the dietary laws are still in effect.

I am sorry but I will stand with God and His Church on this one.

 

[Cristian_B]

So what you are getting at this whole time is that cannibalism really is okay? You keep coming back to it, and now Peter’s vision is actually referring to gentiles; kill and eat! So God is telling Peter to kill and eat the gentiles! YES! I knew that I was missing something this whole time. We need to kill and eat each other! Thanks ChristianB for clearing all of this up for us!!! (looks out his window for his first meal)

Great to see someone using sarcasm!

 

[Cristian_B]

Yes He did, you just have a different interpretation of the New Testament than the Catholic Church does.

You haven’t shown me a passage where God is talking about food and He says that all are clean. None actually.

Yes, that is what free will is all about. You can do what ever you want, even sin. But there are no dietary laws for Christians so that has nothing to do with this,

There are dietary laws for Christians. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. You haven’t shown me where God has canceled them or has done away them.

It is not irrelevant, it will help us understand a bit more where you are coming from.

I believe it was obvious.

I must ask you though, why you would come to a Catholic Forum and argue this when you know this is not what the Catholic Church Teaches?

Because I like to debate.

This is just becoming a waste of time.

Why do you say that?

You will not accept the God’s Church’s Teaching in this,

I don’t accept your church’s teachings because we are supposed to listen to God rather than men. Judge for yourself whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. Even if some don’t like it, your church is made of men. And we are to obey God rather than men. Since the church is made of men, we are to obey God over church.

that there are no dietary laws, that all food is clean, nor will you except God’s Church’s interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

So many people want to live without laws … to do whatever they lust after.

You want us to accept your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and your statements that the dietary laws are still in effect.

Am I telling the truth?

I am sorry but I will stand with God and His Church on this one.

I fail to see how you stand with God if He said nothing about all unclean animals becoming clean.

One thing I just remembered. The word used for unclean spirits (demons) [akathartos] is exactly the same word used for unclean animals. I don’t believe unclean spirit will actually become angels of God … clean spirits. Do you?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You haven’t shown me a passage where God is talking about food and He says that all are clean. None actually.

I will not address the rest of your reply because your first comment is an outright lie. When you come to debate you can not do this.

Romans 14:20-21
For the sake of food, do not destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is a stumbling block by eating; it is not good to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

So what about this? “Everything is clean” does not include food?

You are not taking God’s Word. You are applying your own interpretation. I am taking God’s Church’s interpretation. You are applying what man says, I am apply what men appointed by God say.

Now that you have shown your true colors once again and attempted to lie about what we have said here, namely that we have not shown where God says all food is clean, when we have done so from the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, I will no longer discuss this with you as you have no integrity and are therefore not worthy to debate with as you make up the rules as you go along as you have shown in this thread many times.

I would advise all other Catholics to do the same.

 

[jasev]

Byz,

Here’s the deal - those that beleive we must abide by these diatary laws don’t beleive that passage in Romans has anythign to do with clean and unclean meats and is instead addressing either/or (sometimes both/and):

a) what is permissible to eat that has been sacrificed in a pagan temple,
b) the food discussion is there because the larger context is assumed to be talking about Christian freedom in choosing which days to fast.

Given either, or both, of these interpretations it is believed that citing this passage does not constitute an excuse for pigging out. Get et? Never-mind.

It doesn’t matter to them what the Magisterium says on this topic. (BTW - has the Magisterium given an official interpretation on this passage in Romans? Not sure if they’re even in the business of doing that actually.)

Christian B,

Really - it doesn’t matter to these fine Catholic folk how you interpret the Bible. Do you really think you’re going to come into a forum, spring a Bible verse on them, and have a mass conversion? Same thing used to bug me a decade ago when I was a “defender of the faith” on Adventist boards. People would come in and quote something like Colossians 2:16 as if we had never read that before in our lives.

Here’s the bigger context. Catholics are being up front about their reliance on the Church in general and the Magisterium in particular when it comes to defining what they must believe. This, really, should not be any big surprise to anyone after 500 years now. What you’re not taking into account - if I assumed correctly that you are an Adventist - is that you in essence have your own Magisterium in Ellen White and the Adventist Biblical Research Institute. The difference is that Adventists assume that since EGW and the BRI tell you not to take their word for it but to go back to the Bible yourselves, they must be correct in their interpretation! Think you’re free to disagree with them? Only as much as a Catholic is free to disagree with the Roman Church. Really, try it - bring a shrimp ring to your next potluck and see what happens. Better yet, inquire as to what happened to all of the Adventists, especially pastors and theologians, that could no longer preach the 1844 Day of Atonement nonsense. At least the Catholics are on the level about their source of authority.

I know that all might have seemed off topic, but really its not. I just have the perspective to see why both “sides” are completely missing each other on this. Carry on.