Eating Unclean Food Is an Abomination to the Lord!

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

12 minutes ago, Bro.Tan said:

I'll just add to that in Deuteronomy 30: 10 if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; 16 in that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. 

 

Also Paul says in (Rom. 13:7-10) (v.7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (v.8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. That’s the biblical definition of love, the keeping of God’s law. (v.9) For this, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, THOU SHALT NOT KILL, THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, THOU SHALT NOT COVET; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. (v.10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 

And that is what God’s holy commandments are all about; the first four tells you how to love God and the last six tells you how to love your neighbor. If you love your God you will not do any thing to offend him, like having other gods before him. You will do as he says like remember the sabbath day to keep it holy on the seventh day of the week. If you love him you will obey him when he tells you not to eat certain meats etc… And the same goes for your fellow man, if you love your neighbor you wouldn’t steal from him, you wouldn’t kill him, you wouldn’t try and sleep with his wife and so on and so forth. (See exodus 20: 1-17) 

We already know and had touched upon the fact that Paul went into what was given to the Gentiles concerning meats which are sacrificed unto idols Acts 15:29 and how it pertains to another's conscience (not thine own) 1 Cr 10:29 And he says, Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth Romans 14:22. So we already know not to sin against Christ in that way 1 Cr 8:12, that has been covered I thought.

I have never met anyone who sacrifices meat unto idols, or know of any idol temples or how that can be a possibility to eat something that was even sacrificed to some entity in this day and age that it even applies to anything in this day and age. So I don't even understand the big deal. 

I mean who goes through the burger King drive through and asks, "has my whopper meat been sacrificed unto an idol" who asks these sorts of questions.

And of Paul said, eat whatever is in the shambles not asking questions, and so if it were of dire importance I would think it would be more correct to ask.

Do you even know primitive people sacrificing meat to idols? i don't.

[Bro.Tan]

On 11/20/2023 at 5:37 PM, AFlameOfFire said:

I'll look into this 

 

Abraham being "a prophet" is shown having two which represent two covenants

Hosea 12:10 I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants

1 Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;  comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: 
for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

The one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

His third wife was after Sarah died and  isn't shown as the two covenants in that picture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes....so Paul is giving an example of two covenants using Abraham situation with his wives because the Galatians wouldn't stop the sacrificial laws, seeing that Jesus died on the cross, and took those priesthood laws off the table. In those times it seems as if more focus wasn't on the other laws (Commandments). Let' take a look in Galatians 4: 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? The they not hearing is written Exodus 20:1-17, the Lord's statues and Judgements.

Then in the next verse Paul goes in the story of the wives. The bond wife represent animal sacrificial laws, the freewoman represent Jesus free us from that law. Keep in mind the animal Sacrificial laws didn't start in Abraham time.

The covenant the Lord gave Abraham is in Genesis 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Pauls says in Gal. 3: (v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ. (v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.)  (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law. 

So let's take a look at something Paul said in Romans 9:  3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

 

[Bro.Tan]

24 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

We already know and had touched upon the fact that Paul went into what was given to the Gentiles concerning meats which are sacrificed unto idols Acts 15:29 and how it pertains to another's conscience (not thine own) 1 Cr 10:29 And he says, Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth Romans 14:22. So we already know not to sin against Christ in that way 1 Cr 8:12, that has been covered I thought.

I have never met anyone who sacrifices meat unto idols, or know of any idol temples or how that can be a possibility to eat something that was even sacrificed to some entity in this day and age that it even applies to anything in this day and age. So I don't even understand the big deal. 

I mean who goes through the burger King drive through and asks, "has my whopper meat been sacrificed unto an idol" who asks these sorts of questions.

And of Paul said, eat whatever is in the shambles not asking questions, and so if it were of dire importance I would think it would be more correct to ask.

Do you even know primitive people sacrificing meat to idols? i don't.

Oh it's a lot of pagan and Satanic thing been done which include food and idols. It's in the Bible so therefor is real, even to this day. This is why Paul says in Colossians 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

28 minutes ago, Bro.Tan said:

Yes....so Paul is giving an example of two covenants using Abraham situation with his wives because the Galatians wouldn't stop the sacrificial laws, seeing that Jesus died on the cross, and took those priesthood laws off the table.

 

He starts off in Galatians mentioning these in Gal 4:10

Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

And then here he says

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

And immediately takes us to Abraham as is shown us in the law

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

And it shows Abraham offered a burnt offering by Isaac Genesis 22:2 and as a prophet knew God would provide a lamb (Genesis 22:8) the same is shown in Jesus Christ (Son of promise) God's only begotten Son who is also the lamb God did provide (John 1:36)

Below, I cannot break the paragraphs to respond to each point you are trying to make and conversing with you is becoming a bit tedious.

Just back it up to Gal 4:10 and what they are not hearing as it pertained to observing those

28 minutes ago, Bro.Tan said:

 

In those times it seems as if more focus wasn't on the other laws (Commandments).

Let' take a look in Galatians 4: 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? The they not hearing is written Exodus 20:1-17, the Lord's statues and Judgements.

Then in the next verse Paul goes in the story of the wives. The bond wife represent animal sacrificial laws, the freewoman represent Jesus free us from that law. Keep in mind the animal Sacrificial laws didn't start in Abraham time.

The covenant the Lord gave Abraham is in Genesis 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Pauls says in Gal. 3: (v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ. (v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.)  (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law. 

So let's take a look at something Paul said in Romans 9:  3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

 

I have no problem with scriptures themselves, I might not agree with how someone handles them or the points they are trying to prove by them but I don't argue with them. 

With that, I do appreciate the time you have taken to engage in this conversation with me on these various offerings, meats, sabbaths etc and it could probably continue until the cows come home but it's run its course for me. I am getting a little bored with it, and cannot see the point in continuing any futher.

Peace God bless you

 

 

[FJK]

9 hours ago, Slibhin said:

Please show me links to the credible evidence, because I looked it up and couldn't find any.

Lots of references scattered around to look for in various  and assorted places, one here to look for if it interests you:

Kaiser writes, “The prohibition… has been explained since 1933 by a reference in a broken passage of a thirteenth-century B.C. Ugaritic text called “The Birth of the Gods Pleasant and Beautiful” (text 52, line 14). It is generally agreed that the reference is to a fertility rite that entails boiling a kid in milk; but there is no sure reference to the milk of its mother in the broken Ugaritic text.” Kaiser, W. C., Jr. Exodus. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 2: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 1990. 445.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

1 hour ago, Bro.Tan said:

Oh it's a lot of pagan and Satanic thing been done which include food and idols. It's in the Bible so therefor is real, even to this day. This is why Paul says in Colossians 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Thanks

[The_Patriot21]

11 hours ago, Slibhin said:

Yes, anyone who has known me and read my writings knows I'm big on government largess and having everyone on the government teat. 

I recall you posting before once or twice that you enjoy shooting animals that you do not eat for entertainment. If I have misunderstood you then I'll be the first to apologize and correct myself.

Hunting may or may not be a sin depending on how it's done. G-d forbids animal cruelty, end of story. In order for an animal to be kosher is has to be killed in a way that minimizes it's suffering. If you are not doing this then it's indeed a sin. The fact that you are questioning and shrugging it off is telling. When G-d says to do or not do something, we do it regardless of the reason or if he even elects to give us one. In addition, nowhere in the Torah does G-d say it's okay to be cruel or unjust as long as the victim isn't aware of how it's being treated.

The primary requirement for forgiveness is repentance. Offering a sacrifice if you were not remorseful was a waste of time and G-d has said as much. The purpose of animal sacrifices was to feed to priests but also to have some sort of economic impact on the sinner. Sacrificing livestock is expensive and not something done lightly. Most people will work hard to not have to do it very often. If the individual was poor they were allowed to offer birds, and if too poor for that they could offer grain. The point was not ending something's life, it was genuine remorse and some sort of restitution to G-d.

I refuse to believe you don't understand why cooking an animal in it's mothers milk is ghoulish cruelty, and if you really don't then you lack the basic empathy required for it to be explained. G-d has said repeatedly that other then honouring him, love, mercy and kindness towards others was the single most important thing. Even more then sacrifices.

As to the rest, you don't need to be some sort of zoologist to know animals can feel pain and suffering. Back home I lived in rural Ireland and sometimes my husband and other guys had to shoot wild animals because they were attacking livestock or otherwise dangerous. It was never something we enjoyed because they are animals just trying to survive, but we still did what we had to do.

I am not, but I am careful what I consume because I work as a model part time. I've been starving since I was a teenager.

My "Jewish thinking" is G-d said it and that's enough. read my preceding comments for the explanation.

Please show me links to the credible evidence, because I looked it up and couldn't find any.

Lol well you "remember" is somewhat faulty but not fully. 

When it comes to game animals, such as deer, elk, turkey, waterfowl, whatever I eat what I kill. It's the ethical thing to do. Do I thoroughly enjoy the hunt? Yes absolutely, for many reasons. But I also enjoy the meat, thoroughly and I use every bit of usable meat. I oftentimes will even use the organs. I don't eat the organs but I will often either grind them up and turn them into dog food, or use them for coyote bait.

Now, for nuisance animals, some of them I don't eat. Animals such as prairie dogs. They're inedible, disease ridden and unsafe to eat, and rarely have enough meat to eat anyway, but will destroy a rancher or farmers field in a matter of months. They get eliminated without prejudice. 

[The_Patriot21]

6 hours ago, AFlameOfFire said:

As much as bringing up the obvious having no need to be written in my eyes, I did not write the scripture.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the voice of the donkey, how is it that you think the voice coming from the donkey has anything to do with what the Angel said to Balaam concerning his donkey?

You bring up sentience

Sentience is animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself.

Who saw the angel?

Numbers 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

If anything Balaam lacked the qualities you claim animals do not possess

Numbers 21:21 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Says this

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Not to mention people without natural affection respond more to stories about cruelty using animals in them to see their own lack of empathy

Similar to when the LORD sent the prophet Nathan to point out how utterly heartless a thing he had done could be compared to.

2 Sam 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

2 Sam 2:13 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

Perhaps a little "senti"mental but the story is used by the LORD 

2 Sam 2:14 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

2 Sam 12:5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:

And ofcouse "Thou art the man"David

The lack of awareness is in Balaam and David, the animals here are pretty much shown as abused or used in a story to actually get the real beasts (the men) to repent of their own doings.

 

 

Balaam's donkey is really a poor example. Because quite frankly if you believe it was actually a donkey that was talking, well, it's rather nieve. That donkey wasn't really talking of their own accord.

Because donkeys don't have the capacity for speech. Literally. A donkeys vocal cords are physically incapable of speech. For it to talk would require divine intervention. Not alone carry on a conversation.

Fact is, the mother doesn't know nor care what you do with her milk. Neither does the baby donkey. Why? Because it's dead. And if you were the cruel sort to boil it alive (that would be ghoulish) I suspect it would be far more bothered by the fact it's being boiled alive then by what it's being in. The milk. At that point wouldn't even be on his mind.

And for that matter, why are you eating some poor donkeys baby? I mean, that doesn't bother you, but what you boil it in does?

Literally the only things in this conversation that would be bothered by said scenario are the people. Such as yourself. If it bothers you don't do it... pretty simple.

I'm not going to, not because it bothers me but because much to lazy to do that, I mean imagine how much work that would be, you'd have to milk that thing for months, find a place to store it so it don't go bad, probably by freezing it, then unthawing...nah to much work.

A BBQ grill or smoker is way easier. And I'm to lazy to even smoke my meat lol.

[The_Patriot21]

5 hours ago, Anne2 said:

I believe the issue is animal cruelty in the bible. For myself, I have been in the meat business, of the type that was from the farm, to the cooler to age and then, process for home freezer. So I have seen animal slaughter. For myself, the methods used as cutting the throat, I seen one time, as it was Muslims. I had to leave. To me that was slow and hard to see. The animals being brought i9n from farms, killed in the field, were shot between the eyes. Dead instantly. For me, it seemed more humane. Usda for commercial kill floors use a stun gun, then slit the throat. That too, seems more humane than just slitting the throat. But, when it comes to kosher, the blood is pumped out by the heart until of course it stops beating (it is slow). Same is true of a stunned animal. Therefore getting as much blood out as possible. The hunting method of bow and arrow bothers me the most. But thgere is the bow and arrow season. That imo is just cruel. when there are much better available.

Actually believe it or not, but a well placed arrow with the appropriate blade will often kill an animal far faster then a bullet will. Most modern broadheads have between 2-4 razor sharp tips that cut clean through everything, causing rapid bleed out while preserving the meat. 

The downside is a bad shot, can leave the animal dying a slow death.

But a poorly placed gun shot will do the same thing, the difference is with a gun it's often easier to get a good shot. 

I have done both. Never got anything bigger then a rabbit with the bow however. 

[Anne2]

17 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Actually believe it or not, but a well placed arrow with the appropriate blade will often kill an animal far faster then a bullet will. Most modern broadheads have between 2-4 razor sharp tips that cut clean through everything, causing rapid bleed out while preserving the meat. 

The downside is a bad shot, can leave the animal dying a slow death.

But a poorly placed gun shot will do the same thing, the difference is with a gun it's often easier to get a good shot. 

I have done both. Never got anything bigger then a rabbit with the bow however. 

All I know is we would find arrow heads in shoulders etc. It makes me sad to think how long it suffered. Some places enough to make it go down? Sure, it probably took a little time. It just seems there is a much quicker method than that.