It sincerely bothers me that this subject should even be open for debate.

It's like asking, "Is Jesus the Son of God?"

Some questions should be open, but some others were settled a *LONG* time ago.

The question about clean/unclean meats was settled a couple thousand years ago.

Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Acts 10:14.

I think Peter had a pretty good idea about whether meats should be clean or unclean. This was a good many years after Calvary.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

Perhaps these words by Paul are appropriate here:

quote:

---

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him....Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind....He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14:3,5,6.

---

I'm a lifelong vegetarian, but I do so for health reasons AND in prayerful compliance with this Bible principle:

quote:

---

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31.

---

Based on that principle, I believe it would be better to eat meat OF ANY KIND than to starve.

quote:

---

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. Ecclesiastes 9:4.

Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. Proverbs 4:23.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Matthew 15:17-18.

---

It seems to me, Stan, that part of living by faith is abstaining from getting ourselves out of problems by doing what God has forbidden.

For example, Abraham was told he would have a son, though he was childless. He should have just waited for the Lord to take care of his problem, rather than take things into his own hands by marrying Hagar.

Thus I do not think that eating an unclean animal or eating a human carcasse in an emergency situation would give glory to God.

Regarding Matthew 15, Jesus was talking about "meats" or foods (Mk. 7:19), something pork is never called in the Bible. What I mean is that Jesus was not saying that nothing you eat can defile your body. He wasn't saying that you can eat all the hemlock you want, and it won't kill you or make you guilty of the sin of murdering yourself.

Or another way to maybe look at it is that it isn't the pork that defiles the heart, but the choice to eat the pork that defiles.

Stan, you are a wise man.

I totally agree with your position. Not eating meat or pork, etc. is a health issue related to being a witness for God. However, it is not a moral issue in that it is a requirement for salvation. As Paul states, our approach is to witness and anything that causes our neighbor to stumble would be wrong.

So in private I could eat pork, but not around Bob, because that would obviously cause him to stumble.

quote:

---

Regarding Matthew 15, Jesus was talking about "meats" or foods (Mk. 7:19), something pork is never called in the Bible.

---

Not true Bob, Acts 10:12-13 indicates that unclean animals could be food by telling Peter to eat.

quote:

---

Or another way to maybe look at it is that it isn't the pork that defiles the heart, but the choice to eat the pork that defiles.

---

That’s just great Bob, salvation by food. What will you come up with next?


“Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.”

So look’s like all food is clean or pure, but the man who eats it even though he feels it’s wrong, it is wrong for that person. So I guess you shouldn’t eat pork Bob because you would be condemning yourself. However, please do apply your moral positions to others as it’s clearly not universal.

“1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.”

Lobo,

Your eating pork around me would not cause me to stumble. It would just tell me that you either didn't know what the Bible said on the subject, or didn't believe, or didn't care.

quote:

---

Not true Bob, Acts 10:12-13 indicates that unclean animals could be food by telling Peter to eat.

---

Look again. Acts 10 does not call swine "meat" or "food." Nor was that vision even about food.

The sheet came down three times because there were three Gentiles about to knock at the door. It was all about people, not pigs.

Do note that Peter thought it wrong to eat anything, and thus years after the cross was still obeying the Word of the Lord found in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14.

quote:

---

That's just great Bob, salvation by food. What will you come up with next?

---

I said nothing about salvation by food. Rather, I said that disobeying God on any matter can put one outside the kingdom in the end, even disobeying about food. Just ask Adam and Eve and they'll tell you all about it.

(That's a figure of speech. You'll have to wait until the resurrection to really talk to them.)

quote:

---

So look?s like all food is clean or pure, ...

---

Rom. 14 is likely talking about eating things sacrificed to idols, though it doesn't say for sure what it's talking about. Still, we have no Scripture that explicitly says that pork is "food," or in old KJV English, "meat." Until we find such a text, we can't use your text in finding an answer to this question. In other words, a text that uses the word "food" cannot be made to refer to pork until we have a text that explicitly calls pork "food."

quote:

---

However, please do apply your moral positions to others as it's clearly not universal.

---

I shall apply these universal principles to everyone at every appropriate opportunity, for I want no one to be lost for eating swine and mice when Christ returns, as Is. 66 clearly says will happen.

But regarding the probable issue of Rom. 14, that of eating things sacrificed to idols, I shall not be so forthright.

Let me be more plain.

Rom. 14 does not say "pork," and thus for you to try to put "pork" into that verse is a violation of the admonition to not add to or take away from Scripture.

According to 1 Cor., the issue Paul must have been dealing with in Rom. 14 was the eating of things sacrificed to idols.

quote:

---

I know the point of the passage is not eating, but it just shows that Peter understood that these unclean animals could be eaten or were used as food.

---

To the contrary, the passage shows the exact opposite of what you claim: Years after the cross, Peter understood that unclean animals could not be eaten. There is no indication whatsoever that he ever swerved from that position.

But please note, the voice from heaven only said that Peter was not to call the "cleansed" "common." The voice never said anything about the "unclean."

One scholar has pointed out that Jews added to Scripture in claiming that clean animals associating with unclean became defiled or common. In like manner they taught that Jews associating with Gentiles became defiled or common, though the Word says no such thing.

Thus, the vision taught that cows associating with pigs did not become common or unfit for food. Neither would Peter's associating with Cornelius make Peter defiled or common.

Or, we might say that God had cleansed Cornelius, and thus Peter had no right to look upon him as "common."

Now, has God cleansed the pig? Or is the swine just as filthy, dirty, and disgusting as he's always been? If God has not cleansed the pig, then you have no right to call him clean.

quote:

---

And yet you still have not be able to show were the kosher laws have been applied to gentiles other than not to eat blood.

---

I have shown you, remember?

I've shown you where Paul says not to touch the unclean thing, quoting an OT text that has nothing directly to do with marriage.

I've shown you where God told Noah to take aboard only two of the unclean, instead of seven, indicating that there weren't to be any extra for food after the Flood.

I've shown you where Gentiles in Lev. were not to eat unclean animals.

I've shown you where Is. 66 says those eating swine when Christ comes will be lost.

I've shown you that holiness was the reason for the laws against eating swine, and how holiness is still a requirement today.

I've shown you how the NT controversy regarding requirements for Gentile Christians was over circumcision, not over pork.

I've shown you how not one of the verses you've cited explicitly mentions "pork" as being all right to eat.

Counsels on Diet and Foods----PG- 392
694. The tissues of the swine swarm with parasites. Of the swine, God said, "It is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." This command was given because swine's flesh is unfit for food. Swine are scavengers, and this is the only use they were intended to serve. Never, under any circumstances, was their flesh to be
eaten by human beings.

*******
The Signs of the Times---- 04-13-04---Peter's experience. By Mrs. E. G. White.

Immediately after the interview with Cornelius, the angel went to Peter, who, weary and hungry from journeying, was praying upon the housetop of his lodging-house in Joppa. While praying, he beheld a vision. He "saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that a call not thou, unclean. This was done thrice; and the vessel was received up again unto heaven."


Here we may perceive the working of God's plan to bring to pass events whereby His will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven. Peter had not yet preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. Many of them had been interested
listeners to the truths which He taught; but in the minds of the apostles the middle wall of partition, which the death of Christ was to break down, still existed, excluding the Gentiles from the blessings of the Gospel. The Greek Jews had received the labors of the apostles, and many of them had become
believers in Jesus; but the conversion of Cornelius was to be the first one of importance among the Gentiles.

By the vision of the sheet and its contents, let down from heaven, Peter was to be divested of his prejudices against the Gentiles. He was to be led to see that through Christ the heathen were made partakers of the blessings
and privileges of the Gospel, and were thus to be benefited equally with the Jews.

The vision given Peter was an illustration presenting the true position of the Gentiles, showing that, by the death of Christ, they were made fellow heirs with Israel. It conveyed to Peter both reproof and instruction. His labors had heretofore been confined to the Jews; and he had looked upon the Gentiles as unclean, excluded from the promises of God. He was now being led to comprehend the world-wide extent of God's plan.

Notice how close the connections made in the working out of God's plan. While Peter was thinking about the vision, wondering what it meant, the men sent from Cornelius stood before the gate of his lodging-house, and the Spirit said to him: "Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

To Peter this was a trying command; but he dared not act according to his own feelings. He went down, and received the messengers sent by
Cornelius. They told him of their singular errand, and, according to the direction he had just received from God, he at once promised to accompany them on the morrow. He courteously entertained them that night, and in the morning set out with them for Caesarea, accompanied by six of his brethren, who were to be witnesses of all he should say or do while visiting the
Gentiles; for he knew that he should be called to account for so direct an opposition to the Jewish faith and teachings........

Yes, God hit Peter over the head with a 2x4, and got His point across. In what better way could He have done it?

Jesus said the Pharisees strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. He was the Master Teacher. He spoke in a way that folks could not soon forget His lessons.

“I've shown you where Paul says not to touch the unclean thing, quoting an OT text that has nothing directly to do with marriage.”


How can Paul’s statement here (2 Cor 6:17) not be connected to marriage, but his statement in 1 Cor 10:25 must be connected to food offered to idols? You are being inconsistent. Either the context dictates the meaning of the passage or not.

So if context does dictate the passage meaning then 2 Cor 6:17 is indeed referring directly to marriage (2 Cor 6:14). But if not, then 1 Cor 10:25 is not specifically referring to meat offered to idols.

Make up you mind, it can’t be both, which is it?


“I've shown you where God told Noah to take aboard only two of the unclean, instead of seven, indicating that there weren't to be any extra for food after the Flood.”

This is conjecture and fatly logic. First, based on what IS in scripture we must conclude that the higher number of clean animals was for sacrificial purposes as they had previously been used for this purpose.

Next, if the idea was to have no unclean animals, that failed miserably didn’t it.

The scriptural fact is that the only restriction on eating given after the flood was to not eat blood. The fact also is that the instruction was at that time to eat “Everything that lives and moves” (Gen 9:3). Sorry Bob, but there are no exceptions to the term “everything”. And the only qualification of “everything” that was given was animals that “live” and “move”. This would rule out the possibility of eating animals that had been dead for a while.

So that fact is that this remains the ONLY instruction given to ALL MAN in regards to eating.


“I've shown you where Gentiles in Lev. were not to eat unclean animals.”

Gentile converts to Judaism or those living inside the Jewish communities has no bearing on gentile people living outside the Jewish communities or gentiles as a people. If God had meant this to apply to all people, He would have called gentiles as a people just like he did Israel. Yet he did not. Only those gentiles in and around Israel were told anything. So the fact is that it was about the people of Israel and not about the individual gentiles living there.

The FACT is that gentiles as a people were not given any of the OT laws other that that of Noah ( Ps 147:19-20)



“I've shown you where Is. 66 says those eating swine when Christ comes will be lost.”


Isaiah 66 also says that gentiles will bring offerings by horseback to Jerusalem (66:19-21), and that dead bodies would be on the ground (66:24). So unless you also believe these things will be occurring on the new earth, then you are mistaken about the timeframe.



”I've shown you that holiness was the reason for the laws against eating swine, and how holiness is still a requirement today.”


This is contrary to scripture. The clean and unclean distinction was first given for animal sacrifices. As such, it was ceremonial in nature only.

Also, Jesus clearly states that nothing a man eats can defile him or make him unclean:

“What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'” Matt 15:11

So you are again mistaken.


“I've shown you how the NT controversy regarding requirements for Gentile Christians was over circumcision, not over pork.”

The controversy was over requiring anything beyond the four things decided upon in the Jerusalem council. Anything beyond these requirements was considered a “burden” (Acts 15:28). So the reality is that it was not just circumcision but any of these OT law items not included in the four. Paul also makes that clear when talking about the Judaisers:

“14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” Gal 2

So yes, the eating laws were also in this group and considered a “burden”.


”I've shown you how not one of the verses you've cited explicitly mentions "pork" as being all right to eat.”


You are correct, because pork by itself was never the issue. The issue was all meat that had previously been considered unclean. Since pork was one of these meats it falls into this category.

So the factual NT direction on eating is: “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,” ( 1 Cor 10:25).

Paul saying to eat “anything” sold in a pagan meat market (Corinth – the town with a statute to the Greek Goddess of Love) was very clear and very telling.

You may want to enslave yourself to these OT ceremonial requirements, but that is exactly what the Jerusalem council was trying to avoid:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”