All Foods Clean?

[Rossw]

"oh I see" was not in agreement with you, Tom, but an acknowledgement no Biblical evidence was given.

[Rossw]

On August 6, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

Now sit down and read through the whole book of Hebrews, while keeping in mind Jesus' own words of the new symbols of the new covenant pronounced in the upper room, symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of The One true and holy sacrifice.  (Pay special attention to chapters 8-10.) Notice how utterly  and jarringly radical those symbols  sounded in the ears of those Jewish men on that final Passover.  "Eat my flesh and drink my blood."  Even from the days of Noah, eating human flesh and drinking any blood was unthinkable.  But the old order of things pertaining to holiness for continual sacrifices was set aside by the final sacrifice of the one and only pure sacrifice.  

Did the institution of communion abrogate dietary laws or even laws on eating flesh or drinking blood?

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/3/2016 at 2:53 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

In the modern era, of which Adventists are very much a part, the idea of the dietary restrictions have a very strong health oriented basis.  That really was not the point of the clean vs. unclean distinctions of Leviticus or before.  Leviticus really much more strongly frames it consistent with what I have said of the purity  concept.  The whole idea of being "ceremonially unclean" related directly to holiness necessary to be able to enter the temple and its services before God.  The need to stand before God as "clean" or pure as possible was the objective.  Some might even conclude that the rules of Leviticus are primarily applicable to the tribe of Levi, the priestly class conducting the temple services.  

The LORD did not explain "the germ theory" of disease.  He just told them to bury their excrement outside the camp in a designated place.  He did not explain DNA mutations.  He just told them not to have sex with near relatives. 

It's really not difficult to figure out the health or safety reasons for the LORD's commands concerning things like: sodomy forbidden, don't eat fat or blood, stone people or expel them from the camp for serious offenses,  etc etc.  The circumstance at hand involved thousands of former slaves, living in hostile desert country - without means of cooking with consistent high temps, without sterilization (except by fire),  without means to incarcerate for extended periods, etc.  

The LORD stated His commands using terms the people could understand - "clean" vs "unclean".  I don't see the problem.  We don't explain germ theory to three year olds.  We just tell them that eating off the floor is "dirty". 

The ONLY thing that was "changed" was "the priesthood".  The command was that EVERY sacrifice must be brought to the Temple, to "the priest" - a descendant of Aaron.  If you "change" the priesthood, there is nowhere to take a sacrifice.  Thus the prophetic system of animal sacrifices would be gone - by replacing the exclusive Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood under the High Priest - Jesus Christ.   

[Tom Wetmore]

On August 6, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Rossw said:

"oh I see" was not in agreement with you, Tom, but an acknowledgement no Biblical evidence was given.

So what you are really telling me is that you chose not to consider the actual Biblical evidence I  did give you, a whole book of it... And then another whole book.  Look, I can't do your reading and studying for you.

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The LORD did not explain "the germ theory" of disease.  He just told them to bury their excrement outside the camp in a designated place.  He did not explain DNA mutations.  He just told them not to have sex with near relatives. 

It's really not difficult to figure out the health or safety reasons for the LORD's commands concerning things like: sodomy forbidden, don't eat fat or blood, stone people or expel them from the camp for serious offenses,  etc etc.  The circumstance at hand involved thousands of former slaves, living in hostile desert country - without means of cooking with consistent high temps, without sterilization (except by fire),  without means to incarcerate for extended periods, etc.  

The LORD stated His commands using terms the people could understand - "clean" vs "unclean".  I don't see the problem.  We don't explain germ theory to three year olds.  We just tell them that eating off the floor is "dirty". 

The ONLY thing that was "changed" was "the priesthood".  The command was that EVERY sacrifice must be brought to the Temple, to "the priest" - a descendant of Aaron.  If you "change" the priesthood, there is nowhere to take a sacrifice.  Thus the prophetic system of animal sacrifices would be gone - by replacing the exclusive Aaronic priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood under the High Priest - Jesus Christ.   

For me, the commands given to Israel demonstrate the presence of a supernatural intelligence - Who did understand "germ theory" and DNA mutations, and justice in government - Who also "saw" the future, and gave prophecies in the form of the sacrificial commands and the Feasts, which prophecies WERE FULFILLED by Jesus Christ. 

[JoeMo]

52 minutes ago, jackson said:

In choosing man's food in Eden, the Lord showed what was the best diet; 

Yet, In Deuteronomy 12:15-20, Moses tells the people that God says "

 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it. ¹⁶ But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. ¹⁷ You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. ¹⁸ Instead, you are to eatthem in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the Lord your God in everything you put your hand to. ¹⁹ Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.

²⁰ When the Lord your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat and say, “I would like some meat,” then you may eat as much of it as you want."

This is not saying to eat unclean things; but it seems to say eat all the clean meat you want.  "MEAT" not veggies.  I'm not putting down vegetarianism (905 of my diet is vegetarian); I'm just saying EGW doesn't seem to have much of a spiritual basis for pushing it so hard to the point of saying somewhere that those who are still eating meat at the end will not be translated. 

[Rossw]

On August 6, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

So what you are really telling me is that you chose not to consider the actual Biblical evidence I  did give you, a whole book of it... And then another whole book.  Look, I can't do your reading and studying for you.

No, I choose to reject your false beliefs in light of the evidence from Scripture. I don't want you to read and study for me because time and time again your beliefs prove to be false.

[Rossw]

We know the foods not be eaten are detestable. If eating unclean foods make the person unclean for the sanctuary services why does Leviticus make no mention of becoming unclean by eating the detestable animals? This eliminates the purpose of eating these foods purely for ceremonial reasons. 

Under your logic. If unclean foods cause uncleanliness for the sanctuary but were then done away with in the new covenant the wouldn't sin which defiles us be done away with also? 

[CoAspen]

Quote

I don't want you to read and study for me because time and time again your beliefs prove to be false.

 

 

You seem to have no clue as to getting along with others. Sorry we don't measure up to the high opinion you have of your opinions. But that's life. Careful of the blinders, the farmer did take them off now and then.

 

[phkrause]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Yet, In Deuteronomy 12:15-20, Moses tells the people that God says "

 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the Lord your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it. ¹⁶ But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. ¹⁷ You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. ¹⁸ Instead, you are to eatthem in the presence of the Lord your God at the place the Lord your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the Lord your God in everything you put your hand to. ¹⁹ Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.

²⁰ When the Lord your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat and say, “I would like some meat,” then you may eat as much of it as you want."

Here is the same verses from the Online Tanakh, with Rashi's Commentary:

15However, in every desire of your soul, you may slaughter and eat meat in all your cities, according to the blessing of the Lord, your God, which He gave you; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the deer, and as of the gazelle.		טורַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח | וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר כְּבִרְכַּת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יֹאכְלֶנּוּ כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל:
However, [you may slaughter and eat meat in all your gates,] in every desire of your soul: What is the text speaking about? If [you think that] it [is speaking] about [non-sacrificial] meat eaten to satisfy the appetite, to permit it for them without offering up any sacrificial portions, [we already have a reference to this, for Scripture] says elsewhere: “When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary… and you say, 'I will eat meat… [you may eat meat…]’” (verse 20). So what is this [verse] speaking about? It is [referring to] animals designated for holy [sacrificial] purposes that had [subsequently] become blemished, that they are to be redeemed [that is, replaced by their equivalent value in money] and they may [then] be eaten anywhere. Now one might think that [this rule applies] even if the blemish is a temporary one. Therefore, Scripture says: רַק -“However” [lit., “only.” This limits the permission to that of a permanent blemish]. — [Sifrei]		רק בכל אות נפשך: במה הכתוב מדבר, אם בבשר תאוה להתירה להם בלא הקרבת אימורים, הרי הוא אומר במקום אחר (פסוק כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך וגו' ואמרת אוכלה בשר וגו', במה זה מדבר, בקדשים שנפל בהם מום, שיפדו ויאכלו בכל מקום. יכול יפדו על מום עובר, תלמוד לומר רק:
you may slaughter and eat [meat]: You have no permission to shear or milk [the blemished animals], but only to eat the [meat] after their ritual slaughter. — [Bech. 15b]		תזבח ואכלת: אין לך בהם היתר גיזה וחלב, אלא אכילה על ידי זביחה:
the unclean and the clean [may eat thereof]: Since they formerly had holy status, about which it is stated: “And the flesh that touches any unclean thing shall not be eaten” (Lev. 7:19), it is necessary to give explicit permission for both the unclean and clean person alike to eat [from the meat, even] from the same dish…		הטמא והטהור: לפי שבאו מכח קדשים, שנאמר בהם (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל, הוצרך להתיר בו, שטמא וטהור אוכלין בקערה אחת:
as of the deer and as of the gazelle: of which no sacrifice is [ever] brought.		כצבי וכאיל: שאין קרבן בא מהם:
as of the deer, and as of the gazelle: This [comparison to a deer and a gazelle] exempts these [redeemed animals] from [the obligation of] “the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw” (see Deut. 18:3) [just as the deer and the gazelle are exempt from these gifts to the kohen]. — [Chul. 130a; Sifrei]		כצבי וכאיל: לפוטרן מן הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה:
16However, you shall not eat the blood; you shall spill it on the ground like water.		טזרַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם:
However, you shall not eat the blood: Although I said that these [animals] do not require sprinkling the blood on the altar, you shall not eat it.		רק הדם לא תאכלו: אף על פי שאמרתי שאין לך בו זריקת דם במזבח לא תאכלנו:
you shall spill it [on the ground] like water: [This comes] to tell you that it does not require covering [with earth (see Lev. 17:13)] (Sifrei ; Chul. 84a). Another explanation: [The phrase,“like water,” teaches us that] it is like water insofar as it renders seeds susceptible [for receiving ritual uncleanness (Lev. 11:38).] - [Chul. 35b]		תשפכנו כמים: לומר לך שאין צריך כסוי. דבר אחר הרי הוא כמים להכשיר את הזרעים:
17You may not eat within your cities the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your cattle or of your sheep, or any of your vows that you will vow, or your donations, or the separation by your hand.		יזלֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ וְכָל נְדָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּדֹּר וְנִדְבֹתֶיךָ וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ:
You may not eat within your cities the tithe of your grain]: Scripture comes to attach a negative commandment to this matter [i.e., eating the firstborn, tithes, etc., outside the walls of Jerusalem, in addition to the positive command (stated in verse 6)]. You may not [eat] [Heb. לֹא תוּכַל lit., “you cannot eat.”] Rabbi Joshua the son of Korchah said: You are able, but you are not permitted [to do so]. Similar to this, in the verse “As to the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out” (Josh. 15:63), they were [physically] able to do so but they were not so permitted, since Abraham had made a [non-aggression] treaty with them when he bought the cave of Machpelah from them. [In fact,] they were not Jebusites [of the Jebusite nation] but Hittites. They were, however, called Jebusites after the city, named Jebus. So it is explained in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 36). And this is what is stated [when David was about to drive out the Jebusites. They said to him], “Unless you take away the blind and the lame [you shall not come in here]” (II Sam. 5:6), [referring to] the images [that stood at the gates] upon which the oath [that Abraham had taken regarding the Jebusites] was written.		לא תוכל: בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על הדבר. רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר יכול אתה, אבל אינך רשאי, כיוצא בו (יהושע טו, סג) ואת היבוסי יושבי ירושלים לא יכלו בני יהודה להורישם, יכולים היו, אלא שאינן רשאין, לפי שכרת להם אברהם ברית כשלקח מהם מערת המכפלה. ולא יבוסים היו אלא חתיים היו, אלא על שם העיר ששמה יבוס [נקראים יבוסים]. כך מפורש בפרקי דרבי אליעזר. והוא שנאמר (שמואל ב' ה, ו) כי אם הסירך העורים והפסחים, צורות שכתבו עליהם את השבועה:
[You may not eat within your gates…] the firstborn of your cattle: This prohibition is addressed to the kohanim [in contrast to “the tithe of your grain,” since Israelites were never permitted to eat the firstborn, even within the walls of Jerusalem].		ובכורות בקרך: אזהרה לכהנים:
or the separation by your hand: This refers to the first fruits (see above on verse 6). - [Sifrei , Mak. 17a]		ותרומת ידך: אלו הבכורים:
18But you shall eat them before the Lord, your God, in the place the Lord, your God, will choose you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, and the Levite who is in your cities, and you shall rejoice before the Lord, your God, in all your endeavors.		יחכִּי אִם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ:
[But you shall eat them] before the Lord: [i.e.,] within the walls [of Jerusalem].		לפני ה': לפנים מן החומה:
and the Levite who is in your cities: If you have nothing to give him from his portion, such as the first tithes, then give him the tithe of the poor. And if you have no tithe of the poor, invite him [to partake of] your peace offering. — [Sifrei]		והלוי אשר בשעריך: אם אין לך לתת לו מחלקו, כגון מעשר ראשון, תן לו מעשר עני. אין לך מעשר עני, הזמינהו על שלמיך:
19Beware, lest you forsake the Levite all your days upon your land.		יטהִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲזֹב אֶת הַלֵּוִי כָּל יָמֶיךָ עַל אַדְמָתֶךָ:
Beware, lest you forsake the Levite: This [in addition to the positive command expressed in the previous verse,] is to attach a negative commandment to the matter.		השמר לך: ליתן לא תעשה על הדבר:
[Beware, lest you forsake the Levite…] upon your land: But in exile, you are not admonished regarding him more than poor Israelites. — [Sifrei]		על אדמתך: אבל בגולה אינך מוזהר עליו יותר מעניי ישראל:
20When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, "I will eat meat," because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul.		ככִּי יַרְחִיב יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר:
When [the Lord your God] expands [your boundary… and you say, “I will eat meat,”… you may eat meat]: The Torah teaches proper conduct, that one should not desire to eat meat unless [one lives] in abundance and wealth. — [Chul. 84a.]		כי ירחיב וגו': למדה תורה דרך ארץ, שלא יתאוה אדם לאכול בשר, אלא מתוך רחבת ידים ועושר:
[you may eat meat,] according to every desire of your soul: In the desert, however, the meat of a non-consecrated animal was forbidden to them, unless one first consecrated it and offered it up as a peace offering. — [Sifrei : Chul. 16b]		בכל אות נפשך וגו': אבל במדבר נאסר להם בשר חולין, אלא אם כן מקדישה ומקריבה שלמים:
ps:and if you can read the Hebrew even better! 4 hours ago, JoeMo said: I'm just saying EGW doesn't seem to have much of a spiritual basis for pushing it so hard to the point of saying somewhere that those who are still eating meat at the end will not be translated.  I never knew eating meat had a spiritual basis!! I'd like to see the quote that EGW says what your saying???? All I recall reading in her writings was basically that as time goes on, meat as food, would get worse and worse to eat because of disease. Oh and by the way I still eat meat. Have gotten away from eating red meat. My father who worked in the butcher line, used to bring home the best cuts of meat. Talk about fat free!! So its not like I have anything against eating meat.

[CoAspen]

Most interesting!!

 

[phkrause]

Here are two quotes I found:

The Course of Those Awaiting Christ’s Coming—Among those who are waiting for the coming of the Lord, meat eating will eventually be done away; flesh will cease to form a part of their diet. We should ever keep this end in view and endeavor to work steadily toward it. I cannot think that in the practice of flesh eating we are in harmony with the light which God has been pleased to give us.15 {CG 383.2}

We are not to make the use of flesh food a test of fellowship, but we should consider the influence that professed believers who use flesh foods have over others. As God’s messengers, shall we not say to the people: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God”? 1 Corinthians 10:31

The second one is interesting! There are about 499 quotes on eating meat, I went through roughly 50 so far and have not seen one pertaining to not going to heaven for eating meat!! Unless someone else knows of a quote like that, let them post it! But I'll say that there will be lots of meat eaters, not just those that have eaten clean, but also unclean in heaven!!

 

[Tom Wetmore]

On August 6, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Rossw said:

No, I choose to reject your false beliefs in light of the evidence from Scripture. I don't want you to read and study for me because time and time again your beliefs prove to be false.

Not accepting what I say or stating a naked opinion that what I say is false doesn't make it false. And quite frankly, such observations without even taking a little time to even read, much less think about and consider the actual evidence from the relevant Scripture really isn't helpful to the discussion.  

Your comment above far more reflects on you than it does on me or anything I have posted.  It sounds to me like the distinct sound of a closed mind snapping shut and throwing away the key. 

But really no big deal as far as I am concerned.  This is not a matter of importance to our salvation or faith. It really doesn't matter if you reject what I say or accept it.   Scripture to the point - Paul's statement in Romans 14:17 "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink.."

[Tom Wetmore]

On August 6, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Rossw said:

We know the foods not be eaten are detestable. If eating unclean foods make the person unclean for the sanctuary services why does Leviticus make no mention of becoming unclean by eating the detestable animals? This eliminates the purpose of eating these foods purely for ceremonial reasons. 

Under your logic. If unclean foods cause uncleanliness for the sanctuary but were then done away with in the new covenant the wouldn't sin which defiles us be done away with also? 

None of this makes any sense...

[Rossw]

On August 7, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

Not accepting what I say or stating a naked opinion that what I say is false doesn't make it false. And quite frankly, such observations without even taking a little time to even read, much less think about and consider the actual evidence from the relevant Scripture really isn't helpful to the discussion.  

Your comment above far more reflects on you than it does on me or anything I have posted.  It sounds to me like the distinct sound of a closed mind snapping shut and throwing away the key. 

But really no big deal as far as I am concerned.  This is not a matter of importance to our salvation or faith. It really doesn't matter if you reject what I say or accept it.   Scripture to the point - Paul's statement in Romans 14:17 "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink.."

The relevance is of your treatment to Scripture. The issue for me isn't so much over food itself but of how Scripture in interpreted. It says what it says, obviously, but, you add and subtract for your own pretext. 

How do you know I haven't read it? If I read it I'd have the same conclusions as you? False. What you've stated as your belief does not match with what is stated in Scripture. 

You haven't provided any proof my interpretation of chapter 11 is false. If I am I am humble enough to admit so but no evidence is provided.

[Rossw]

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

None of this makes any sense...

Sorry for the cluttered writing. The formatting for writing posts in this forum is difficult to say the least. Words disappear and the cursor jumps around.

 

[Rossw]

Tom, if not eating unclean foods was simply for the purpose of cleanliness for the sanctuary why doesnt Leviticus say so. It just says the food is detestable but no mention of uncleanliness from eating. Many normal functions of life cause uncleanliness and there are provisions for such but no provisions are made for eating unclean foods. This leads me to believe the unclean animals are just not to be eaten period with no connection to the sanctuary. If it is to remain in obedience or for the sake of holiness then, like the Sabbath , is relevant to this day.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

40 minutes ago, Rossw said:

if not eating unclean foods was simply for the purpose of cleanliness for the sanctuary why doesnt Leviticus say so. It just says the food is detestable but no mention of uncleanliness from eating.

I think canned cooked diced carrots are detestable... 

(okay, I know I'm off topic.... so back to topic)

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Romans 14:17 "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink.."

Context:

Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

The above is also connected to Col 2:16,17

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

These Sabbaths, food and drink had to do with the ceremonies that pointed to Christ.  See Leviticus chapter 23.  Paul is not reversing the proabitions against the eating of unclean flesh foods.  

Now it is true that we aren't under the Pentateuch (law), but we are under the guidance of the Spirit of God.  I believe He will lead the believer to, as a practice, set these unclean flesh foods aside. 

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Rossw said:

Tom, if not eating unclean foods was simply for the purpose of cleanliness for the sanctuary why doesnt Leviticus say so. It just says the food is detestable but no mention of uncleanliness from eating. Many normal functions of life cause uncleanliness and there are provisions for such but no provisions are made for eating unclean foods. This leads me to believe the unclean animals are just not to be eaten period with no connection to the sanctuary. If it is to remain in obedience or for the sake of holiness then, like the Sabbath , is relevant to this day.

 

This post is why I have concluded that you have not read and/or fail to quite understand the whole point of what is outlined in the whole book of Leviticus and Hebrews.  It was not about cleanliness for the sanctuary.  Animals were being slaughtered and burned and their blood spread all over the place. Blood was the holy cleaning agent.  Not clean in an earthly sense.  We know that blood contaminates things and it actually stains rather than cleanses anything. But blood was symbolically holy because it represented life and life is holy.  It is holy because God created it.  Remember God's words to Noah? It was about perfect purity, holiness for the sanctuary and its sacricificial services. That which was to be returned to God was to be a pure type of what he had originall created and declared to be good.  The perfect holiness was to be symbolic of the one perfect sacrifice that would be given from God, the perfect blood of whom would save the word and cleanse all of the stain of sin. Nothing of human origin or corrupted as the result of sin.

It was a holy place.  The tabernacle was holy because of whose place it was and whose presence was there.   Remember the Lord's words to Moses at the burning bush? His bare feet were no more holy or clean than his sandals.  But his sandals were man-made and put a barrier between him and the holy ground of God's presence.  

The people were to likewise do all they could to not come before the Lord with anything other than what God created for them, no barriers of sinful origin, nothing impure on them or in them. That is why anything not pure as God had designed/created it could be in their digestive system or on them from what they had touched.  All natural, God given. As for consuming something unclean, it wasn't that it caused someone to be sinful or even a long lasting condition that kept the person unclean.  Notice the timelines and rituals for becoming ceremonially clean.  And remember Jesus' response to the idea of consuming something unclean? He rather graphically said it goes in the mouth through the body and out the other end, thereby cleansing the person of that unclean thing. 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

But really no big deal as far as I am concerned.  This is not a matter of importance to our salvation or faith. It really doesn't matter if you reject what I say or accept it.   Scripture to the point - Paul's statement in Romans 14:17 "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink.."

It looks like the version you quote from has inserted a word that changes the meaning of the passage somewhat.  The Greek of Romans 14:17 does not seem to refer at all to what we eat or drink.  The way it is actually written seems to refer to whether we eat or drink.  That would make sense if Paul was trying to resolve the issue of whether a person should fast or not on all the traditional Jewish fast days that are not commanded in Scripture.

[Robert]

http://www.cognm.org/cognm/Sub Files/Fit Food.htm

 

[CoAspen]

Actually, TW is correct. Look at the following link and its many sources for explanation and commentary. The over all meaning was not wether we eat or drink, but what is important in the life of a follower of Christ.

Romans- 'eat or drink'

[CoAspen]

Swine Diet

Food

Food

[CoAspen]

We need to stay up with current day and times. What they (swine) were feed in ancient times or earlier this century is not applicable. When we give people incorrect information........