Dietary laws

[Cristian_B]

I will not address the rest of your reply because your first comment is an outright lie.

As you wish.

When you come to debate you can not do this.

Do what?

Romans 14:20-21For 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?

I have said previously what the context is. It was about meat sacrificed to idols. Some had doubts of whether one should eat food that has been sacrificed to idols. If one was strong in faith, he should no that it was not impure even though it was sacrificed to idols, and that he could eat it. But there were some with weaker conscience that didn’t know if it could be eaten or didn’t want to eat it. Those were advised not to eat it.

But (he is talking to the ‘strong in faith’) if one eats what was sacrificed to idols and the weaker brothers sees him, he may provoke his weaker brother’s fall. So this is why he said: For the sake of food, do not destroy the work of God. He should not provoke the brother’s fall just because he wants to eat something that was possibly sacrificed to idols.

Then he says that everything is indeed clean. In context, he is talking about food sacrificed to idols, that is: food in the markets. Everything, in that context, means what is in the market. He is not even speaking about clean and unclean animals, but clean and defiled animals (defiled because they may have been sacrificed to idols).

Also, note that the word for clean in this chapter is ‘katharos’ and the word for unclean is ‘koinos’. Since previously Paul used the opposite word, koinos, and not the one used for unclean animals, so he was not speaking about clean and unclean animals at all.

Just as Paul said in context. If eating sacrificed meat will be a stumble block for others, we should stop so we won’t provoke the fall of the work of God. Everything is clean (the opposite of ‘koinos’, which means defiled here), but then he goes back at the sacrificed meat: if it is a stumbling block for many, we should not eat it, for it is not good to eat or drink causing your brother to fall. He would fall because he would have had a weak conscience.

This taken out of context might serve. So what makes you think that he just for the rest of the chapter is speaking about defiled and undefiled animals and on that particular spot he just goes out of context and speaks about another thing (e.g.: clean and unclean animals) without warning?

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.

Men appointed by God said the Messiah was going to be someone that will release the from the Roman Empire … those men that were appointed by men that were appointed by men that were appointed by men that were chosen by God.

How do you know I am not telling the truth?

Now that you have shown your true colors once again and attempted to lie about what we have said here,

What lie?

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,

Taken out of context to make them a pretext to eat whatever we please?

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.

As you wish. I cannot force you to talk.

 

[Cristian_B]

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.

I know you’re joking, but people can actually ask themselves that.

Note that we can deduce what herbs are bad for us. We can see the immediate consequences for example. Or some of those poisonous fruits taste bad. After eating a bad plant, your stomach might hurt or you can get a diarrhea. These are just examples. My point is that men can in a very big part deduce what plants are bad or very bad for the body.

But … how was one supposed to know that pork is unhealthy? God didn’t put a microscope in our hands to observe the flesh and neither a book that explains the illnesses. So between a poisonous fruit and a pear, the man can make a distinction. But how can he make a distinction about a sheep and a pig? How does he know which one is healthier? As I said, he cannot observe microscopically and they have long term effects, which means they aren’t noticed immediately … in fact, one may not even notice the change.

So, since man can know in a very big part what plants are bad but he cannot know what animals are bad, God made the distinction of the animals for the man, for He knows better, and He knows better what is good for the body.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Thank you for your insightful post. I do not think it is off topic at all. It is totally on topic.

I had long ago determined that Christian B was an Adventist but wonder why he feels the need to hide this and the authority he is using when we are all honest and open as Catholics. Seems like he is trying to sneak in and give something that he has found in the Scriptures which as Catholics we wouldn’t take anyways as private interpretation of the Scriptures is not binding nor would Adventist Church interpretation be binding.

As for the Romans verses, it says food and it says everything is clean, if food is not part of everything then what does everything mean?

As I stated in the beginning, the Catholic Church is the authority and it does not bind us to the dietary laws. sorry but that’s how it is, don’'t like it, tough, we are not bound and as the Catholic Church is God’s Church and has been given the power to bind and loose it is the true authority and the one I follow.

You may disagree but doing so here will not get too far as this is a Catholic Forum after all.

 

[Pug]

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?

I suppose what might qualify as fulfillment depends on what you think the dietary laws were “for”. Why did God make them? I don’t view them as centered in hygiene. I view them as about separation and holiness. God separates Israel from the other nations, and so Israel separates herself and worships only God and not those other nation’s gods and Israel eats a restricted, separate diet, and Israel doesn’t practice the ways of those other nations. The dietary laws are ideal for keeping groups of people separate. Also, it seems logical that by engaging daily life, taste, the stomach, it permeates. This would bring who you are as a person, and your ethics to the fore, daily. It would be impossible to eat a single bite without thinking of God. As a tutor, it seems like it would work well.

Why do I ascribe it to holiness and to being separate? Because as far as I can tell, this is the reason given by the bible. For example,Lev 20:24 'Hence I have said to you, “You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 'You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
So, then, what remains? How is it fulfilled? I don’t know for sure. Holiness sure has expanded. First there was the tent, then the whole camp, then the land. Even the people were to be holy, but just Israel then. Now, Christ has purified for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds. I suppose I figure it is kept when we walk in the deeds prepared for us, when all that comes out of our hearts is pure, and not evil thoughts and deeds. This is only imperfect in your typical Christian. If we love and walk in God’s way, then this is separation from the world, this is holiness, at least our *response *part of it. Remember though, we are holy on account of Christ, as I mentioned (he purified for himself a people).

 

[crazzeto]

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.)

Sorry for snipping so much, this is the part I really wish to address directly. As for the rest of your post, I appriciate your ability to see this debate from multiple angles. Now with regard to “official interpretations” of sacrade scripture, beleive it or not there really aren’t any “official interpretations” of scripture to speak of in the Catholic Church.

What we do have, is a core set of doctrinal teachings, and yes we use a logical (actually infallible, as the Magisterium is doing the interpreting in this case) interpretation of scripture to support the doctrinal teachings, as well as the application of Sacrade Tradition. In many cases what you’ll find is that a given passage in scripture will have multiple meanings. One specific case for instance might be the Woman in Revelation. Believers might see Mary, Israel or perhaps the Church. And in a certain sense, they’re all correct all at once.

A good interpretation of the verse was already given by ByzCath, in context Paul is talking about food, and connected with that object Paul says “everything is clean”. That’s pretty staright forward. One other view on this verse might be found in Haydock’s commentary:

Rom 14:20 Destroy not the work of God for meat. That is, do not hinder your brother’s salvation, for whom, whoever he be, Christ died, who may be so offended at the liberty which you take, as to quit the Christian religion; or you may make him sin against God, by eating by your example against his weak conscience. (Witham)

This is also a true interpretation of the verse, they are not mutally exclusive, they are both logically derived from the verse when read in context.

 

[Cristian_B]

As for the Romans verses, it says food and it says everything is clean, if food is not part of everything then what does everything mean?

It depends in which context.

If I say everything is destroyed by ‘everything’ I mean everything I am talking about. It is not everything in general, but in the context.

Paul was speaking about meat that was sold in the markets and that was sacrificed to idols. The pagans sacrificed clean animals as well, so there weren’t tigers or lions to sell as food in the markets … or not generally. When he said everything he meant everything about what he was talking about.

If you study that chapter he is talking about clean meats and unclean, defiled meats that supposedly were defiled and unfit to eat because they have been sacrificed o idols. Everything there in that context means what was sold in the markets and possibly was previously offered as a sacrificed to idols. Taken out of context it might work, but it’s not talking about clean and unclean food (for Leviticus 11) at all, but about meat that was sacrificed to idols and whether it was good to eat or not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It depends in which context.

If I say everything is destroyed by ‘everything’ I mean everything I am talking about. It is not everything in general, but in the context.

And the context can be found in the verse quoted.

Paul speaks of food in the sentence before he says that everything is clean.

To ignore this is to read into it the context you want rather than what is found there.

 

[Cristian_B]

I suppose what might qualify as fulfillment depends on what you think the dietary laws were “for”. Why did God make them? I don’t view them as centered in hygiene. I view them as about separation and holiness. God separates Israel from the other nations, and so Israel separates herself and worships only God and not those other nation’s gods and Israel eats a restricted, separate diet, and Israel doesn’t practice the ways of those other nations. The dietary laws are ideal for keeping groups of people separate. Also, it seems logical that by engaging daily life, taste, the stomach, it permeates. This would bring who you are as a person, and your ethics to the fore, daily. It would be impossible to eat a single bite without thinking of God. As a tutor, it seems like it would work well.

Those dietary laws weren’t originated at mount Sinai. An example of this is the fact that Muslims don’t eat pork. The reason for this is because they have a common ancestor (with the Jews), and that is Abraham. They come from Ismael, and the Jews from Isaac. Ismael lived long enough with his father (Abraham) to learn the dietary laws. Then he passed them on to his sons and so on. This proved that Adam did observe the dietary laws. Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. ~Genesis 18:7 Abraham offered a tender calf as a meal and not a ‘fat pig’ which according to some is t most delicious. There is no record of any man (of God) in Genesis eating any unclean animal.

 

[Cristian_B]

And the context can be found in the verse quoted.

Paul speaks of food in the sentence before he says that everything is clean.

To ignore this is to read into it the context you want rather than what is found there.

Yes, about food: but what food? Some of that food he calls ‘unclean’ (*koinos | *κοινός) and the other one ‘clean’ (katharos | καθαρός). But if he were speaking about clean and unclean animals as listed in Leviticus he would have said ‘clean’ (katharos | καθαρός) and ‘unclean’ (akathartos | ἀκάθαρτος).

But he doesn’t say akathartos as referring to unclean animals as listed in Leviticus but koinos referring to defiled (obviously clean) animals. He does not speak about clean and unclean animals as listed in Leviticus 11 but about clean animals and defiled animals that are listed as ‘clean’ in Leviticus 11. So yes, he speaks about food. But not food in general. But specific food (or rather meat). One which he calls koinos (defiled) and the other one katharos (clean); if he were talking about clean and unclean animals (not clean and defiled) he would have used akathartos instead of koinos for the so called ‘unclean’ animals, if he were talking about clean and unclean, not clean and defiled.

 

[Cristian_B]

ByzCath, what do you think of the following passages?
Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together; declares the LORD.

Isaiah 66:17
The Lord declares that those who eat pigs are in the same category as those who eat rats, and that they will be destroyed. So what do you believe about this passage of the Scriptures?All day long I have held out My hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations- a people who continually provoke Me
to My very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
and burning incense on altars of brick;
who sit among the graves
and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
**who eat the flesh of pigs,
and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat; **
**who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me,
for I am too sacred for you!’ **
Such people are smoke in My nostrils,
a fire that keeps burning all day.

~Isaiah 65:2-5 (NIV, italics and bold mine)
The Lord is calling those who eat pork and other unclean animals hypocrites, and it is detestable to Him; because they believe they are holy, but they don’t realize that eating unclean animals (among doing other things) makes them unholy. ByzCath, what do you believe of the previous passages of the Bible?

It is interesting that it is written:Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) and also: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14) and also: …and the Word was God. (John 1:1). So God is the Word. And since God doesn’t change, neither does the word, since He is the word. But this following verse should suffice: I will not … alter what My lips have uttered. (Psalm 89:34). So God won’t modify nor alter what He said, and those passages in Isaiah are His words.
So what do you believe of the previous passages?

 

[juliamajor]

ByzCath, what do you think of the following passages?
Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together; declares the LORD.

Isaiah 66:17
The Lord declares that those who eat pigs are in the same category as those who eat rats, and that they will be destroyed. So what do you believe about this passage of the Scriptures?All day long I have held out My hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations- a people who continually provoke Me
to My very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
and burning incense on altars of brick;
who sit among the graves
and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
**who eat the flesh of pigs,
and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat; **
**who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me,
for I am too sacred for you!’ **
Such people are smoke in My nostrils,
a fire that keeps burning all day.

~Isaiah 65:2-5 (NIV, italics and bold mine)
The Lord is calling those who eat pork and other unclean animals hypocrites, and it is detestable to Him; because they believe they are holy, but they don’t realize that eating unclean animals (among doing other things) makes them unholy. ByzCath, what do you believe of the previous passages of the Bible?

It is interesting that it is written:Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) and also: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14) and also: …and the Word was God. (John 1:1). So God is the Word. And since God doesn’t change, neither does the word, since He is the word. But this following verse should suffice: I will not … alter what My lips have uttered. (Psalm 89:34). So God won’t modify nor alter what He said, and those passages in Isaiah are His words.
So what do you believe of the previous passages?

That may all sound well and good to you but what you have is a “smoke and mirrors” kind of dietary laws.Insubstantial.
The problem with quoting Hebrew scripture is that it refers to hebrews-so of course it reflects their ethos and their taboos.Notice -I said Hebrews.If you really want to be Jewish or act Jewish-yeah, go right ahead. But the dietary laws you promote were part of the Lev.Holiness code for hebrews-no one else.There is not a real Jew is this world that would say that being kosher was necessary for non Jews to obtain salvation.NEVER.They would simply say to be in right with the Almighty they hAve to obey the Noahide laws. Nothing else.Hebrew laws are for hebrews and no one else so your analogy is rather silly.Isaiah is talking about Israelites not obeying the laws of kashrut- no one else.
the problem with saying that dietary laws existed inthe time of Noah is a misinterpretation of the text.The animals are simple listed as clean and unclean .that is itOne is good and sound for rituals the other is not.where do you see pigs or rats being mentioned? For food? there may have been taboos but there were no laws before Sinai guiding the israelites in dietary laws. besides there are contradictions about noah’s animals there. One part of noah’s story says that the animals came two by two.The other says that there were more clean animals the allowed than unclean:shrug:Which story is truer? Many scholars believe this reflects a Priestly source who redacted the story to fit temple protocols-or just two different source materials.
Quoting Paul proves nothing.Since the early church did not require a gentile becoming christian to become Jews first, not even to be circumscised- why the heck would they want them to obey dietary laws?.That’s just silly.To be a Jew you had to be circumscised.
no ifs and or buts.Not being kosher may make you a sinful Jew but you’d still be a Jew.To want the one without the other is just plain ludicrous. Your whole SDA dietary extravaganza is just a pile of rubbish.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, about food: but what food?

Food, all food, is clean, that is what it is about food.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath, what do you think of the following passages?Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together; declares the LORD.

Isaiah 66:17
The Lord declares that those who eat pigs are in the same category as those who eat rats, and that they will be destroyed. So what do you believe about this passage of the Scriptures?All day long I have held out My hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations- a people who continually provoke Me
to My very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
and burning incense on altars of brick;
who sit among the graves
and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
**who eat the flesh of pigs,
and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat; **
**who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me,
for I am too sacred for you!’ **
Such people are smoke in My nostrils,
a fire that keeps burning all day.

~Isaiah 65:2-5 (NIV, italics and bold mine)
The Lord is calling those who eat pork and other unclean animals hypocrites, and it is detestable to Him; because they believe they are holy, but they don’t realize that eating unclean animals (among doing other things) makes them unholy. ByzCath, what do you believe of the previous passages of the Bible?

It is interesting that it is written:Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8) and also: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14) and also: …and the Word was God. (John 1:1). So God is the Word. And since God doesn’t change, neither does the word, since He is the word. But this following verse should suffice: I will not … alter what My lips have uttered. (Psalm 89:34). So God won’t modify nor alter what He said, and those passages in Isaiah are His words.
So what do you believe of the previous passages?

That they had their place for the Jews.

The NT is the fulfillment of the law and our understanding of it. The NT clearly states that all food is clean and the Church does not bind us to any dietary laws.

That is enough for me.

 

[Pug]

Those dietary laws weren’t originated at mount Sinai.

You have not established an origination of those laws prior to that, nor have you established their universality.

An example of this is the fact that Muslims don’t eat pork.

And they do eat camel.

The reason for this is because they have a common ancestor (with the Jews), and that is Abraham. They come from Ismael, and the Jews from Isaac. Ismael lived long enough with his father (Abraham) to learn the dietary laws. Then he passed them on to his sons and so on.

It appears to be a belief of Islam that they are descendants of Ishmael, a son of Abraham. I agree that a son might choose to do as his father did. Nevertheless, that a son follows a rule is not proof that his father did as well. Nor are the practices of Islam proof that God commanded it of all people.

Abraham offered a tender calf as a meal and not a ‘fat pig’ which according to some is t most delicious.

Abraham gave the three visitors a calf to eat. This suggests perhaps that a calf was hospitable to offer to a guest. I believe he also gave them curds and milk.

 

[Splinker]

I believe the dietary laws are given, historicaly, after Abraham. Since Abraham is around about 500-600 years before the Jews are delivered from slavery and given the Torah. I doubt Abraham taught dietary laws to either Ishmael or Issac.

 

[Splinker]

I don’t believe Christians are required or should be required to keep the dietary laws (Unless they choose to develop such a tradition).

Do Christians believe that Jesus kept kosher? It would seem likely to me.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t believe Christians are required or should be required to keep the dietary laws (Unless they choose to develop such a tradition).

Do Christians believe that Jesus kept kosher? It would seem likely to me.

Jesus was a good Jew who perfectly kept all the covenant laws, one would expect this since Jesus was he who put said laws into place for his own purposes (salvation of humanity, please refer to the messaiah thread in this same forum for scriptures). Your belief is correct Splinker, I walked Christian through Acts of the Apostles and demonstrated how trium God offered Peter a vision explaining percisly how the dietary laws were fulfilled by the coming of the messiah.

 

[jasev]

I can’t believe this thread continues.

Christian B. - if you’ve never read this, you might enjoy it: The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats, whiteestate.org/issues/clean-uncl.html . (Note, this is from the White Estate directly.)

I always loved this little nugget:

Adventists of today, with their understanding of the distinction between clean and unclean meat, need to give due weight to the general lack of such teaching in the Adventist church of her time. In 1883 W. H. Littlejohn, in a question and answer column in the Review, said he was not sure whether oysters would properly come under the prohibition on unclean meats found in Leviticus 11. If they did, he said, it would be because there was some natural reason.20 It was also just at this time that Uriah Smith expressed his strong disavowal of the application of the Mosaic law in this matter, as mentioned above.

Peace.

 

[Pug]

I don’t believe Christians are required or should be required to keep the dietary laws (Unless they choose to develop such a tradition).

Do Christians believe that Jesus kept kosher? It would seem likely to me.

In his day he was sometimes accused of breaking the Law, but we believe he did not break the Law, which includes dietary provisions.