Dietary laws

[Robbinson]

I’m happy you took your time to answer… . .

So to make a summary: how are the dietary laws supposed to be fulfilled in Christ?

A few thoughts.

Lets look at Peter’s dream:

"He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” "

This vision (not a dream, a vision) by its literal terms tells us that God has made all these animals “clean”. This is strikingly similar to the verse in Mark (Jesus declared “all foods clean”) and consistent with the verse in 1 Tim 4:

My point is that Peter than takes the principle behind this vision (that all animals are clean and nothing declared clean by God should be unclean) and extends it by analogy (properly) to Gentiles (also similarly unclean in the eyes of the Jews). That “broadening” of the meaning of the vision does not void the literal teaching of the vision itself. If there were no other NT verses on this subject - perhaps (and even then, IMO, only perhaps) one could take this narrower view. But when read in conjunction with these other verses - this is quite clear to me.

I also continue to think it is significant (so I’ll state it again) that God initially (after the flood) gave us “all animals to eat”. It was only with the giving of the “mosaic law” was fulfilled by Christ and is no longer binding upon us) that these dietary laws were imposed. Unlike circumcision (which pre-dates the mosaic law and is a separate command of God to the Jews but which is addressed separately by Paul), these restrictions are no different than the laws of purification, temple riturals; laws re: wearing tefillan, etc.

As to the Muslums - I don’t see how their following a version of the dietary laws has any bearing on whether the laws pre-dated Sinai. The muslums accept (in part) the Torah and reject the NT so to them the mosaic law continues and they view themselves as the sons of the promise (the chosen people) rather than the Jews.

Anyway - Happy Easter (if you celebrate that holiday) and Happy Passover

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Cristian_B]

A few thoughts.

Lets look at Peter’s dream:

Acts 10:11-15

It is ironical that these passages are actually those that prove we are supposed to follow the dietary laws, and not the opposite.

We find Peter saying: “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

~Acts 10:14
This just proves it. Peter never ate any unclean animals. Note that this happened after spending 3 years and 6 months with Jesus, 40 days before He ascended and another at least 3 years after His ascension, and yet he never ate unclean animals. After at least 3 years with Jesus and after at least 3 years after His ascension, looks like Peter never got the idea from Jesus that he can eat unclean animals.

So if he never got an idea from Jesus that unclean animals are good to eat, then it means Jesus actually didn’t declare all unclean animals clean.

This vision (not a dream, a vision) by its literal terms tells us that God has made all these animals “clean”.

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.

This is strikingly similar to the verse in Mark (Jesus declared “all foods clean”)

If you refer to Mark 7:18 then I believe I answered somewhere above.

and consistent with the verse in 1 Tim 4:

Do you refer to 1 Timothy 4:4? I’ll answer it in the next post because of space issues (only 6,000 letters permitted).

My point is that Peter than takes the principle behind this vision (that all animals are clean

God never said that all the unclean animals are clean.

and nothing declared clean by God should be unclean)

This is true. But consider that God was speaking about the Gentiles. The Gentiles have been cleaned by the blood of Jesus. How or by what were the unclean animals cleaned?

and extends it by analogy (properly) to Gentiles (also similarly unclean in the eyes of the Jews). That “broadening” of the meaning of the vision does not void the literal teaching of the vision itself. If there were no other NT verses on this subject - perhaps (and even then, IMO, only perhaps) one could take this narrower view. But when read in conjunction with these other verses - this is quite clear to me.

He does not broaden the meaning to apply it to the Gentiles, because it only applies to the Gentiles.He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.

~Acts 10:28
Peter clearly understood what God showed Him: he was not supposed to call the Gentiles unclean because they were cleaned by Jesus’ blood. He never understood that he could eat unclean animals.

I also continue to think it is significant (so I’ll state it again) that God initially (after the flood) gave us “all animals to eat”. It was only with the giving of the “mosaic law” was fulfilled by Christ and is no longer binding upon us) that these dietary laws were imposed.

It is not true because God makes a difference between clean and unclean even in Noah’s time. So the dietary laws were probably passed from father to son orally (the principles aren’t really so hard to memorize), but then it was written down.

Unlike circumcision (which pre-dates the mosaic law and is a separate command of God to the Jews but which is addressed separately by Paul), these restrictions are no different than the laws of purification, temple riturals; laws re: wearing tefillan, etc.

They are very different because these ritual instructions were given at mount Sinai, but the clean and unclean animals existed from at least Noah’s time. So they aren’t the same. Plus, study a bit and you’ll see that these animals aren’t actually the best for the human body.

Anyway - Happy Easter (if you celebrate that holiday) and Happy Passover

Blessings,

Brian

Thank you. May God bless you and you’re house, because God’s blessing ‘are forever’ (1 Chronicles 17:27)! Happy holidays.

 

[Pug]

No they were not. Please notice that of unclean animals only one pair of each unclean animal was sent to Noah while on the other hand seven pairs of clean animals were sent. Some were sacrificed and some were eaten. If Noah ate unclean animals, we wouldn’t have those animals today because only one pair of each was sent to Noah. So if Noah had eaten the male or the female female of that pair of unclean animals, then they wouldn’t exist today, because a pair is needed to reproduce, and if one is missing, they would die. Since it was the only pair, if they were eaten those animals would have disappeared, but looks like we have them today, which means Noah did not eat unclean animals.

I referred to the direct words of scripture Gen 9:1-3, indicating that God gave all four categories of creatures to Noah for food, and you are replying by instead supplying an argument based on another verse of scripture. It is true that the clean animals entered the ark by sevens. But scripture does not say that he ate only them. Rather, you have supplied an argument of your own that you suggest guarantees that he ate only them.

Does scripture itself mention those clean animals? Yes, it does. It says directly that Noah sacrificed clean animals to the LORD upon an altar when he exited the ark. Gen 8:20. They are mentioned in the context of sacrifice.

Is there any reason to accept your argument that Noah could never eat rabbits and camels and such on account of then they would not exist? No. If I had a pair of rabbits, I need only wait a bit and then I could eat some and still be assured of having more rabbits. Wait until they reproduce and grow, then eat some. The wait would not be long.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Okay, I will not debate the authority of the Catholic Church.

But I ask: why? Is there Scriptural evidence for it?

I was originally thinking to make this a thread about what is written in the Bible about the dietary laws. I am grateful for your opinion, but could you also post scriptural evidence for this claim? Thank you.

I agree, No on the authority of the Church.

I leave it there as the Catholic Church is not a Bible only Church, we do not just have the Holy Scriptures but we also have Tradition.

 

[Cristian_B]

I will answer something about 1 Timothy 4:4, which Robbinson took as proof.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

~1 Timothy 4:4
This seems like a closed case, doesn’t it? Keep reading and read it in context.
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

~1 Timothy 4:4-5
As you see, it says: because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Yes, the one who is writing is the same Paul that said said: Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, (1 Corinthians 10) and it is the same Spirit speaking trough him.

Now keep in mind that verses in Scripture must be seen in the light of other Scriptures and in the light of the whole Bible.

What does it mean to be consecrated by the word of God? Consecrate, or made holy, it means to put something apart for a specific purpose. Where does the word of God put the food apart for a specific purpose? In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. There he puts the clean food away for the purpose of eating it. We also consecrate food by praying over it and consecrating it and making it good to eat. But notice that Paul says ‘and’ and not ‘or’. So it must be consecrated by the word of God (considered clean) and by our prayer. It must fulfill both requirements, and not only one of the two.

I believe this makes a ‘closed case’. It’s the Spirit’s word. He says that it must be consecrated by the Word and prayer.

 

[Cristian_B]

I agree, No on the authority of the Church.

I leave it there as the Catholic Church is not a Bible only Church, we do not just have the Holy Scriptures but we also have Tradition.

But the Sacred Tradition simply cannot go against the Bible. I have proven to you that the it is written in the Bible that we must not eat unclean animals. What must fit in? Tradition in the Bible or the Bible in Tradition? I believe it is the last: the tradition in the Bible, because it cannot and mustn’t contradict the Bible. But on this one Tradition does contradict the Bible, by declaring all food clean. Read 1 Timothy 4:5 and you’ll see that food must be made holy by the Word of God and by our prayers to be eaten.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But the Sacred Tradition simply cannot go against the Bible. I have proven to you that the it is written in the Bible that we must not eat unclean animals. What must fit in? Tradition in the Bible or the Bible in Tradition? I believe it is the last: the tradition in the Bible, because it cannot and mustn’t contradict the Bible. But on this one Tradition does contradict the Bible, by declaring all food clean. Read 1 Timothy 4:5 and you’ll see that food must be made holy by the Word of God and by our prayers to be eaten.

I do not see this Tradition going against the Bible.

The Church does the interpretation of the Bible, Catholics do not believe in individual interpretation (except for private matters) as binding upon the Church.

I trust the Church in doing this interpretation and telling us that all food is clean.

But there is Romans 14:20.

Though as I said, it is enough to say it is on the authority of the Church that all food is clean.

 

[Cristian_B]

But there is Romans 14:20.

But doesn’t the same Spirit and the same Paul say in 1 Timothy 4:4-5 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.??

Doesn’t this say anything to you?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But doesn’t the same Spirit and the same Paul say in 1 Timothy 4:4-5 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.??

Doesn’t this say anything to you?

Yes, it tells me exactly what Paul is saying in Romans 14:20, it is all good so all is clean.

Again, the Church interprets this passage, and the whole Epistle, to speak “against false asceticism that … regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation.” (from the notes on 1 Timothy 4:1-5 in the Catholic Study Bible)

 

[Cristian_B]

Yes, it tells me exactly what Paul is saying in Romans 14:20, it is all good so all is clean.

Again, the Church interprets this passage, and the whole Epistle, to speak “against false asceticism that … regards certain foods as forbidden, though they are part of God’s good creation.” (from the notes on 1 Timothy 4:1-5 in the Catholic Study Bible)

Look it in the light of the rest of the Bible.

Paul said all food is clean and it is received with thanksgiving because it was consecrated by the Word and by prayer. See the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Look it in the light of the rest of the Bible.

Paul said all food is clean and it is received with thanksgiving because it was consecrated by the Word and by prayer. See the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.

Yes, all food is clean, so we agree.

Where is the argument?

You are also falling to individual interpretation which Catholics do not believe in. The Church interprets the Bible for the Church, not each person individually.

I am a Catholic and trust in the Church’s Teachings.

 

[Cristian_B]

Yes, all food is clean, so we agree.

Where is the argument?

You are also falling to individual interpretation which Catholics do not believe in. The Church interprets the Bible for the Church, not each person individually.

I am a Catholic and trust in the Church’s Teachings.

No. Not all food is clean. Also, you still haven’t addressed the passages where God says He is going to destroy pork eaters along with rat eaters. Why would He say that?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. Not all food is clean. Also, you still haven’t addressed the passages where God says He is going to destroy pork eaters along with rat eaters. Why would He say that?

God says that in the OT, in the NT he says that all food is clean.

Again, the authority of God’s Church and no private interpretation of the Scriptures.

I think I am done here now, I have stated what Catholics believe and why, that is enough. If you can not buy into it that is fine but it is Catholic Teaching.

All food is clean.

 

[Robbinson]

God says that in the OT, in the NT he says that all food is clean.

Again, the authority of God’s Church and no private interpretation of the Scriptures.

I think I am done here now, I have stated what Catholics believe and why, that is enough. If you can not buy into it that is fine but it is Catholic Teaching.

All food is clean.

I certainly agree.

Christian B (if you are reading this) - there is some irony in your suggestion that the Catholic Church has used tradition to contravene scripture (which it has not). To the contrary, it has been shown in this thread that scripture plainly teaches (i) in the Hebrew scriptures before the Mosaic Law as given that God gave mankind “all animals” to eat (not some, but all, not only clean, but all) and (ii) in the NT that we are not to judge oneanother by the foods we eat, that all foods are available to us and plainly stated in Peter’s dream that “all animals are made clean”.

Yet you are reading into the scriptures, based upon “tradition” or personal interpretation, that the dietary laws pre-existed the law on Mt. Sinai and that God didn’t mean it when he said we were given “all animals to eat” and read into that all “clean” animals.

I understand the line of thought but you are connecting dots through personal interpretation in deriving that conclusion (which is contrary to the plain words of the hebrew scriptures and contrary to many verses in the NT) based upon your assumption that God’s references to clean and unclean animals in the story of the Ark was getting at the dietary restrictions.

Just a thought.

I don’t know your background (if you are a messianic jew or Hebrew Roots Gentile), but to me the epistles of Hebrews and Galations go a long way to addressing these same themes which were suggested by Judaizers and refuted by the apostles.

That being said, I am a Jewish believer who embraces the authority of the Catholic Church, but fellowship with many messianic Jewish friends. I think that anyone who chooses to follow the dietary laws or other aspects of the mosaic law out a desire to please God and given Him glory is doing a wonderful thing - but when it morphs into a belief that we remain under the Law or that this affects justification or sanctification, that is where I think there doctrinal error.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Cristian_B]

So Brian, do you believe we can eat humans? Because the only reason it’s forbidden is because it does not fulfill the requirements. So can we be cannibals?

 

[Robbinson]

So Brian, do you believe we can eat humans? Because the only reason it’s forbidden is because it does not fulfill the requirements. So can we be cannibals?

Chrisitan

I don’t think that is a serious question (and so that is a little disappointing). But I’ll give you a serious answer.

No - we can’t/shouldn’t engage in canabalism - man is made in the image of God - there is a greater moral law embedded within the 10 commandments which I believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, has always been with us - it was written down on tablets as part of the Mosaic Law but reflected the moral law written in our hearts, but wounded by sin. This law was written in our hearts anew by the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. Interestingly, if not significant, 9 of these 10 commandments (as I noted in an earlier thread) were repeated expressly in the NT (all but the Sabbath which was fulfilled in Christ who is our “shalom” our “rest” today and everyday.

Canabalism is a sin against this moral law which fails to show love for our neighbor and love and respect for God.

If I may, perhaps I can ask you a question.

Which of the 613 commandments in the Torah do you believe continue (aside from the dietary laws)?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So Brian, do you believe we can eat humans? Because the only reason it’s forbidden is because it does not fulfill the requirements. So can we be cannibals?

Strawman argument.

I would say that man is not an animal. Man is a rational animal. Something completely different.

But you already knew this you are just trying to prove your personal interpretation against the interpretation of God’s Church.

If you deem the dietary laws are necessary for you, then fine I would not stop you, but to attempt to push your personal beliefs onto everyone against what the Church Teaches is wrong.

 

[Cristian_B]

Canabalism is a sin against this moral law which fails to show love for our neighbor and love and respect for God.

How so? It’s just an old man that just died 10 min ago. You didn’t kill him. So? Where would be the problem in this case?

 

[Robbinson]

How so? It’s just an old man that just died 10 min ago. You didn’t kill him. So? Where would be the problem in this case?

Because man is made in the image of God. Would you denegrate the image of a loved one (would that be morally correct?). Does your instinct/conscience tell you that cannabilism is ok?

If you are trying to have a purely legalistic discussion of scripture to fit a personal interpretation - while that might be fun in a vacuum, its not worth the effort as I could take virtually any text out of context and make it fit my own personal interpretation of scritpure.

This is what Peter warned about when he said that Paul’s writings were hard to understand and many would come to twist his words to their own destruciton.

This is why Jesus established a visible Church with authority, led by the apostles, where disputes could be resolved. The Church is, of course, the body of Christ, but it is more than that, it is a visible institution where disputes could be resolved. The writings of the earliest christians (if you study history) show us this is in fact how the earliest christians and the direct disciples of the apostles understood it - and this is the Catholic Church today.

The Magisterium preserves the historical understanding and teachings of the apostles on core doctrines relating to faith and morals. The Reformation has shown by its fruit (spintering of the body into over 40,000 denominations) what the consequence of personal interpretation devoid of traditional teachings of the Church will lead to.

But as I said before, and as ByzCath just reiterated - no one here would/should suggest that you can’t live you life following the dietary laws or other mosaic laws if done for the glory of God. The apparent dispute appears to be with your understanding/assertion that all or some part of the mosaic law (and/or dietary law if you continue to believe it exists outside/prior to the mosaic law - albeit without scriptural authority) remains binding on us.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How so? It’s just an old man that just died 10 min ago. You didn’t kill him. So? Where would be the problem in this case?

Now your true colors show.