Most people are familiar with some of the basic distinctions between what is accepted as food and what is not within the dietary laws of the Mosaic code. The terms "clean" and "acceptable" are synonymous. What is clean is (from the Hebrew "tame") considered food and what is "unclean" is not.
Given that one needn't point out what is not food when no one in their right mind would ever consider to place it in their mouth in the first place, it needn't be articulated that things like feces, hair, ashes, rotting corpses, etc. are not considered clean, or acceptable as food. This is why they aren't articulated in the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law does point these things out when it becomes popular though.
However, it may be necessary to point this out when it comes to a parenthetical remark in Mark's gospel where a scribe has inserted: "(Thus he declared all food clean)". This remark is usually found in parenthesis due to the fact that it was originally penned by a scribe in the margins of the Codex Bezai around 400 AD, and found its way into the text of later translations.
What is disturbing is in noting that were this statement to be taken at face value, it would mean that rotting meat which is definitly not clean or acceptable would be now considered acceptable for consumption.
Most people would never consider such an idea, but fail to come to this conclusion when it is applied to swine, shellfish, catfish, etc. The scribe's remark is not precise enough to make any meaningful sense, except to those who already view swine, shellfish, etc. as food.
The problem here is in not noting that the bible doesn't view these things as food to begin with. They are categorized on the same level as feces, or rotting vegetable or animal material.
The sad fact is that if we are to take the injunction listed in 1 Timothy 4:4 "nothing to be refused being recieved with thanksgiving" seriously, then those who make these claims simply can't refuse a plate of rotting feces along side their peas and carrots.
To the modern ears of the gentile world this seems ridiculous, but the fact remains that the authors of the bible were all well aware that swine, shellfish, and feces are all detestable things if consumed. The parenthetical remark in Mark could only have been penned by a gentile ignorant of the biblical usage of these terms.
When Paul speaks of those who choose to eat "herbs" rather than a normal diet, he is in no way referring to the Mosaic law as the dietary laws do not restrict one to vegetarianism, therefore this is also of no use in supporting the idea that the dietary laws have been done away with.
When Peter's vision is interpretated by Peter, there is nothing from any of the texts that indicate the revelation he has just received is in any way false or incorrect. Therefore, given that the interpretation is explicitly referring to the fact that God has determined that Peter no longer refer to gentiles as 'unclean', there simply is no authority to pretend that the interpretation includes the negation of the dietary laws. Moreover, the symbols used in Peter's vision cannot refer to themselves as this renders the definition of a symbol meaningless. Symbols are signs, and a sign never refers to itself. Pedestrian crossing signs do not indicate pedestrian crossing signs up ahead, but instead they point to pedestrians crossing in cross walks.
When Paul refers to "the liberty we have in Christ" he cannot be referring to licensiousness. Even the most corruptable pagan knows that license is the lowest form of liberty there can be. For someone to take this meaning from Paul's words is not just patently false, it indicates a level of corruption and depravity that is frankly incomprehensible to me.
When Christ points out that the truth sets one free, he isn't suggesting that the truth allows one free will, but that one is freed from sin. It simply isn't a choice any more.
Redefining what God explicitly defines as sin is in itself an abomination along with any justification for it
Biblical definitions
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Biblical definitions
Post #21Straw man argument. I never claimed the dietary laws defined food for everyone, just those who were drawn to this God's definition of food "the Jew first, then the Gentile".postroad wrote: [Replying to post 13 by shnarkle]
Ok. The Bible is absurd. I get it. However your insisting that the dietary law defined food for everyone is also just as absurd.
Those who are not drawn to this covenant, are of no interest whatsoever to God, and really have nothing to do with this topic either. Those who are not interested in biblical definitions don't have to agree to any of them. I'm just pointing out what the bible defines as food.
The relevant clause is "foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving" God didn't create swine, catfish, shellfish, etc. to be received in the first place so it's a non starter from the bible's perspective. Neither clean nor unclean animals were created to be received. It was only after the flood that God abrogated that command and allowed the clean animals to be eaten "just as I gave you the herb of the field".1 Timothy 4:2-4 New International Version (NIV)
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
God didn't give humanity poisonous herbs to be eaten, and likewise he didn't give unclean animals to be eaten. There would have been no reason for God to command Noah to bring only one pair of unclean animals on board if they were going to be eating them.
They wouldn't be eating filthy animals therefore they need only bring one pair on board.
