This world is poisoning our food and drink

[Bawb]

1 hour ago, anynmsfmly said:

I agree.  I can't eat it right now. 

And you do well. Have you ever been around swine and see the things they eat. Also, they keep toxins in their flesh. A pig can get bitten by a snake and not be harmed in most cases. Although, no animal is immune to snake bites, pigs have a thicker layer of skin than most animals that minimize the effects. This is due to the thick layer of adipose tissue that makes it harder for venom to seep into the bloodstream. Pigs will eat their own feces. They are listed in Leviticus 11-16 as 'unclean'.

Whether you can eat something and whether its good for you are two totally different issues. A lot of people misunderstand scripture and especially Paul's writings "All FOOD is good to eat". Some things are not classified as food by Abba-Yah. How about a skunk sandwich with some poison ivy lettuce? I mean if you can eat anything, why not have at it?

 

[The_Patriot21]

6 hours ago, Bawb said:

Not really funny... Anyone who thinks the "Old Covenant" was done away with has failed to UNDERSTAND what they've read in the Bible. Please refer to Matthew 5:17 through 19 - 17 “DO NOT THINK that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

It clearly stated DO NOT THINK and yet you do think? Have you seen heaven and earth pass away? Has ALL been fulfilled? Are we now residing in the kingdom? Have all of the seals been broken? Have you received your glorified body yet?

Do you realize the "New Testament" wasn't was written down until roughly the 3rd century After Yeshua Ascended? What "Scriptures" do you think Yeshua and the Disciples were quoting? Are YeHoVah and Yeshua not one?

What you speak is a remnant of the RCC's doctrine and found NOWHERE in the Bible. Surely Yeshua would have told His Disciples if HE changed any laws, but yet He specifically told them in John 14:15 - If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. Are YeHoVah and Yeshua not one? God never changes. YeHoVah and Yeshua are not schizophrenic, yet your statement imply they are.  Numbers 23:19 - 19 God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should change His mind. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

The only difference in the "New Covenant" and the "Old Covenant" is that the Torah was written upon our hearts. See Jeremiah 31:33 - “But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Where does it say ANYTHING else was changed?
 

Also Peter's dream admittedly WAS NOT ABOUT FOOD.

Just one of numerous medical opinions about pork...

https://www.silverdoctors.com/gold/gold-news/yes-the-scientific-evidence-says-that-eating-pork-does-cause-cancer/

https://draxe.com/nutrition/why-you-should-avoid-pork/

https://www.webmd.com/colorectal-cancer/news/20021115/colon-cancer-rise-linked-to-beef-pork

https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/does-eating-meat-cause-cancer---meat--cancer.h00-158672634.html

I can go on if you want me to...

Im going to respond to scripture only, an internet doctor can google anything and get the result they want, and quite frankly, according to the state of California everything causes cancer so your links mean nothing to me. So i am limiting this discussion to what can be proven in scripture.

Now....I wasnt being funny, i was being serious....if one thinks that we are still limited by the OT dietary restrictions then they are ignoring the New Testament, and that is a fact.

Acts 10:15: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean"

Mark 7:19 "19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

of course thats just a snippet, but reading the entire story makes it pretty clear. And Im not one to call God a liar.

I also never said the old covenant was done away with. You made the accusation based upon a faulty assumption. 

i dont believe God did away with old covenant, that is unscriptural. Jesus never came to do away with the old covenant but to fulfill it

Galatians 3:24-26  So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

scripture is clear-the law was fulfilled, we are saved by Grace and not of works. Now does that mean we throw it out? Absolutely not, for there is a clear reason for the law, and that us to define sin.

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

the law defines sin and what is not sin. If theaw says it us sin, then it is sin, except in certain circumstances, and every exception made in the law, Jesus made in the New Testament-the two big ones is the path to salvation, in that we no longer need to make blood sacrifices for our sins, and the dietary restrictions which He on at least 2 occasions specifically stated He lifted them.

when in college we had a rule of thumb, and that was never to argue with words in red. If Jesus said it, its irrefutable. Jesus said the dietary restrictions were lifted not once, but twice that Im aware of. Seems pretty irrefutable to me.

[The_Patriot21]

6 hours ago, Bawb said:

You throw the term "legalistic" around a lot. I'm not sure you know what it means. The word “legalism” does not occur in the Bible. Please refer to the text below...

Basically, legalism involves abstracting the law of God from its original context. Some people seem to be preoccupied in the Christian life with obeying rules and regulations, and they conceive of Christianity as being a series of do’s and don’ts, cold and deadly set of moral principles. That’s one form of legalism, where one is concerned merely with the keeping of God’s law as an end in itself.

Now, God certainly cares about our following His commandments. Yet there is more to the story that we dare not forget. God gave laws such as the Ten Commandments in the context of the covenant. First, God was gracious. He redeemed His people out of slavery in Egypt and entered into a loving, filial relationship with Israel. Only after that grace-based relationship was established did God begin to define the specific laws that are pleasing to Him. I had a professor in graduate school who said, “The essence of Christian theology is grace, and the essence of Christian ethics is gratitude.” The legalist isolates the law from the God who gave the law. He is not so much seeking to obey God or honor Christ as he is to obey rules that are devoid of any personal relationship.

There's no love, joy, life, or passion. It’s a rote, mechanical form of law-keeping that we call externalism. The legalist focuses only on obeying bare rules, destroying the broader context of God’s love and redemption in which He gave His law in the first place.

To understand the second type of legalism, we must remember that the New Testament distinguishes between the letter of the law (its outward form) and the spirit of the law. The second form of legalism divorces the letter of the law from the spirit of the law. It obeys the letter but violates the spirit. There’s only a subtle distinction between this form of legalism and the one previously mentioned.

How does one keep the letter of the law but violate its spirit? Suppose a man likes to drive his car at the minimum required speed irrespective of the conditions under which he is driving. If he is on an interstate and the minimum posted speed is forty miles per hour, he drives forty miles per hour and no less. He does this even during torrential downpours, when driving at this minimum required speed actually puts other people in danger because they have had the good sense to slow down and drive twenty miles an hour so as not to skid off the road or hydroplane. The man who insists on a speed of forty miles per hour even under these conditions is driving his car to please himself alone. Although he appears to the external observer as one who is scrupulous in his civic obedience, his obedience is only external, and he doesn’t care at all about what the law is actually all about. This second kind of legalism obeys the externals while the heart is far removed from any desire to honor God, the intent of His law, or His Christ.

This second type of legalism can be illustrated by the Pharisees who confronted Jesus over healing on the Sabbath day (Matt. 12:9–14). They were concerned only with the letter of the law and avoiding anything that might look like work to them. These teachers missed the spirit of the law, which was directed against ordinary labor that is not required to maintain life and not against efforts to heal the sick.

The third type of legalism adds our own rules to God’s law and treats them as divine. It is the most common and deadly form of legalism. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees at this very point, saying, “You teach human traditions as if they were the word of God.” We have no right to heap up restrictions on people where He has no stated restriction.

Each church has a right to set its own policies in certain areas. For example, the Bible says nothing about soft drinks in the church’s fellowship hall, but a church has every right to regulate such things. But when we use these human policies to bind the conscience in an ultimate way and make such policies determination of one’s salvation, we venture dangerously into territory that is God’s alone.

Many people think that the essence of Christianity is following the right rules, even rules that are extra-biblical. For example, the Bible doesn’t say that we can’t play cards or have a glass of wine with dinner. We can’t make these matters the external test of authentic Christianity. That would be a deadly violation of the gospel because it would substitute human tradition for the real fruits of the Spirit. We come perilously close to blasphemy by misrepresenting Christ in this way. Where God has given liberty, we should never enslave people with man-made rules. We must be careful to fight this form of legalism.

The gospel calls men to repentance, holiness, and godliness. Because of this, the world finds the gospel offensive. But woe to us if we add unnecessarily to that offense by distorting the true nature of Christianity by combining it with legalism. Because Christianity is concerned with morality, righteousness, and ethics, we can easily make that subtle move from a passionate concern for godly morality into legalism if we are not careful.

This excerpt is from How Can I Develop a Christian Conscience? by R.C. Sproul

To state my position perfectly clear. I don't believe that following "the law" is a salvation issue. But it WILL be a judgement issue. If we are JUDGED by every idle word, do you knot think we will be judged by willingly NOT obeying YeHoVah's instructions?

I do throw it around a lot....and no the word legalism isnt found...but neither is the word God found in the book of esther. Doesnt make Esther false teaching, and it doesnt mean legalism isnt a problem.

And in many circumstances legalism can be a good thing. We should absolutely remain true to scripture.

However, legalism can also draw away from scripture. When one lets legalism take over it can often fly right in the way of Gods grace. One becomes so obsessed with following the letter of the law, that they forget that we are saved by grace and it can cause us to lose our witness. If were contstantly nitpicking at people because they are not up to christian standards, or at least what we perceive them to be, we will just run people off.

And we forget, the pharisees were the definition of legalists. They followed the law to the letter, and if memory serves Jesus called them white washed tombs and a pit of vipers. Yes, they followed the law to the letter, but they failed to follow the intent of the law. 

The intent of the law, is to define sin. The intent of Jesus is to provide us salvation through grace, because He loves us. Not because were perfect, but because were not and there is absolutely no way to Christ without Christs Grace.

So thats why i throw it around a lot...because legalism is a problem among churches. All churches and denominations struggle with it. Its not the end of the world but it is a problem that needs addressed, and a problem i will address when i see it. Especially when the legalism is unscriptural.

[R. Hartono]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:51 AM, missmuffet said:

Our drinking water has chemicals and chlorine in it to a level that is not safe. The authorities tell us that it is safe but it is not. There is an addiction in our world today of coffee and alcohol. Neither are safe to drink in large qualities but many are doing just that.  Our oceans and rivers are polluted with chemicals and bacteria which makes our fish unsafe to eat. There are recalls everyday  of our food being tainted with salmonella, listeria and plastic and glass particles. Our produce is saturated with pesticides which causes cancer. We live in an unsafe world. 

Have you included the chemtrail ?

[Starise]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:11 PM, missmuffet said:

So what is your reasoning on this Star? I say God has given us all free will. 

In Keith's case I think the drugs did something similar to him that happens when we smoke meat. His innards are so bad nothing else wants to live in there. He looks like a human leather glove. 

[Bawb]

On 12/3/2021 at 5:11 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

Im going to respond to scripture only, an internet doctor can google anything and get the result they want, and quite frankly, according to the state of California everything causes cancer so your links mean nothing to me. So i am limiting this discussion to what can be proven in scripture.

Now....I wasnt being funny, i was being serious....if one thinks that we are still limited by the OT dietary restrictions then they are ignoring the New Testament, and that is a fact.

Acts 10:15: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean"

Mark 7:19 "19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

of course thats just a snippet, but reading the entire story makes it pretty clear. And Im not one to call God a liar.

I also never said the old covenant was done away with. You made the accusation based upon a faulty assumption. 

i dont believe God did away with old covenant, that is unscriptural. Jesus never came to do away with the old covenant but to fulfill it

Galatians 3:24-26  So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

scripture is clear-the law was fulfilled, we are saved by Grace and not of works. Now does that mean we throw it out? Absolutely not, for there is a clear reason for the law, and that us to define sin.

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

the law defines sin and what is not sin. If theaw says it us sin, then it is sin, except in certain circumstances, and every exception made in the law, Jesus made in the New Testament-the two big ones is the path to salvation, in that we no longer need to make blood sacrifices for our sins, and the dietary restrictions which He on at least 2 occasions specifically stated He lifted them.

when in college we had a rule of thumb, and that was never to argue with words in red. If Jesus said it, its irrefutable. Jesus said the dietary restrictions were lifted not once, but twice that Im aware of. Seems pretty irrefutable to me.

You failed to address Matthew 5:17... How do you rectify that?

In Acts 10:15 - Again, this speaks about MEN and NOT FOOD! Peter even admitted this...

Mark 7:19 - All FOODS are clean, but all animals are not FOOD! There were "unclean animals in the First writings and there are unclean animals in Revelation. Do you think Abba-Yah just keeps changing His mind about clean and unclean animals?

Romans 10:4 - The word Paul stated in the original Greek was the word ‘telos’ meaning mean ‘goal’ or ‘aim,’. Do you honestly think Yeshua is telling us to be "lawless" since this is the "end" of the law??? If you must use the word end, consider the saying "does the means justify the ends"...

Ephesians 2:15 = Having annulled in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances, so that He might create in Himself the two into one new man, making peace. The ORDINANCES against Yeshua when He was nailed to the cross stated in 3 different languages 'The King of the Jews'. These were the ordinances nailed to the cross against us.

"the law was fulfilled" So in your context your marriage vows end because you fulfill them?

Let me put this up again  to clarify it. Matthew 5:17 - So you believe in this sentence Yeshua is saying "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to end them? This does not even pass the smell test...

You stated "Jesus said the dietary restrictions were lifted not once, but twice that Im aware of. Seems pretty irrefutable to me." What you stated there, using context provides the answer:

One of the foundational principles for understanding a scriptural passage is to examine the context. What is the topic of discussion here?

We should first notice that the subject is food in general, not which meats are clean or unclean. The Greek word broma, used in Mark 7:19, simply means food. An entirely different Greek word, kreas, is used in the New Testament where meat—animal flesh—is specifically intended (see Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 13:8). So this passage concerns the general subject of food rather than meat. But a closer look shows that more is involved.

The first two verses help us understand the context: "Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault" (Mark 7:1-2). They asked Jesus, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (Mark 7:5).

Now we see the subject further clarified. It concerns eating "with unwashed hands." Why was this of concern to the scribes and Pharisees?

The covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai was based on many laws and other instructions that ensured ritual purity. Jewish observance, however, often went beyond these in embracing the "oral law" or "tradition of the elders"—passed on by word of mouth and consisting of many additional man-made requirements and prohibitions tacked onto God's laws. Mark 7:3-4 provide a brief explanation of the specific practice the Pharisees and scribes were referring to in this account: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders ..."

Notice that food laws are not in question here. The topic is ritual purity based on the religious traditions of the oral law. The disciples were being criticized for not following the proper procedure of ceremonial hand-washing prescribed by these revered religious traditions.

Peter's testimony is significant

Can we find other biblical evidence that this view is correct, that Jesus never changed the biblical food laws? We find a telling event from the life of Peter well after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Peter is a central figure in the early Church. Jesus charged Peter to strengthen the brethren (Luke 22:32). Peter delivered a powerful sermon that led to the conversion of thousands (Acts 2:14-41). His boldly claiming the name of Christ resulted in the miraculous healing of a lame man. He powerfully preached on repentance to those who gathered to witness the miracle (Acts 3:1-26). Later the mere passing of Peter's shadow over the sick resulted in dramatic healings (Acts 5:15).

Surely Peter would have understood something as fundamental as whether Jesus had repealed the laws of clean and unclean meat. Yet, years after Christ's death and resurrection, when he experienced a vision of unclean animals accompanied by a voice telling him to "kill and eat," notice Peter's spontaneous response: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (Acts 10:14, emphasis added throughout).

Ironically, many believe the purpose of this vision was to do away with the dietary restrictions regarding clean and unclean meats. Overlooked is the significance of Peter's initial response. He obviously did not consider these laws as having been rescinded by Christ!

This strange vision came to Peter three times, yet he still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (Acts 10:16-17) and "thought about the vision" (Acts 10:19). Peter did not jump to conclusions as too many do today. He already knew what the vision did not mean. Later God revealed the true meaning: "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28).

Peter came to realize that the significance of the vision was that God was opening the way of salvation to gentiles (non-Israelites), so Peter shortly thereafter baptized the first uncircumcised gentiles God called into the Church (Acts 10:34-35; Acts 10:45-48). Peter was never to eat unclean animals, but he did learn this vital lesson in the plan of God.

"because legalism is a problem among churches. All churches and denominations struggle with it. Its not the end of the world but it is a problem that needs addressed, and a problem i will address when i see it. Especially when the legalism is unscriptural." The problem with churches today is that they have no idea what the Bible says even though some pastors have it memorized. They cherry pick verses without knowing context. They just regurgitate the denominational doctrine that was taught to them in the seminary. Also, they are not preaching repentance, but "the law was done away with". That is a doctrine  from hell... 

[Bawb]

34 minutes ago, Starise said:

In Keith's case I think the drugs did something similar to him that happens when we smoke meat. His innards are so bad nothing else wants to live in there. He looks like a human leather glove. 

So how come when we smoke, it's bad for us, but when we smoke meat it's cured?

[Starise]

30 minutes ago, Bawb said:

So how come when we smoke, it's bad for us, but when we smoke meat it's cured?

You might have missed my attempt at humor here

There are small quantities of carcinogens in smoked meat so it probably isn't good for us to eat it all the time. The potential for it to be harmful is very small if you only eat it occasionally.

Meats are both smoked and salted for preservation and you probably know. You can leave a salted preserved ham out all the time unrefrigerated and it will keep.

 

[Bawb]

5 minutes ago, Starise said:

You might have missed my attempt at humor here

There are small quantities of carcinogens in smoked meat so it probably isn't good for us to eat it all the time. The potential for it to be harmful is very small if you only eat it occasionally.

Meats are both smoked and salted for preservation and you probably know. You can leave a salted preserved ham out all the time unrefrigerated and it will keep.

No I got it, just expanded on it... Kind of like why do we drive on the parkway but park in the driveway sort of joke...

[Starise]

59 minutes ago, Bawb said:

So how come when we smoke, it's bad for us, but when we smoke meat it's cured?

Oh I get it now! I'm slow tonight.