Sudsy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 4:52 pm
Sorry, I guess I'm too old to follow this. To me, the word 'common' is perhaps better translated as 'unholy' or 'unclean' and is in various Bible versions. The word is κοινόϛ (koinos) and means common in a sense that it is set apart from the consecrated or holy and in secular Greek it refers to something that had little value. The Jews considered themselves the only ones set apart by God and the Gentiles were (common, unholy), of little value.
So, I don't get the 'unclean' being different from the 'common' when they both mean unholy. Actually in Acts 10:28 reads - 'Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.' Seems to me these words here are meaning the same.
Matthew 15:11 says - "A man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, but by what comes out of it."
So, what do you think happens to a Christian who eats pork ? Is this living in disobedience and in danger of hell fire ? Also are all 613 OT laws, in your opinion, still applicable today for a believer ?
In Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32, "common" or "koinos" is used for what everyone possessed as a community:
Acts 2:(44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Acts 4:(32) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
These items were not "defiled", they were in contact with many different people, and that is why they were called "common" or "koinos".
In Mark 7:2, "koinos" is rendered "defiled":
Mark 7:(2) And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
"Defiled" is not unclean, but your unwashed hands were supposed by the Pharisees to be in contact with something unclean, which made them "common". So "common" is when something pure comes in contact with something unclean, just like Peter's vision.
In Acts 10:22, Peter said (as a result of the vision) that it was not right to call any
man common or unclean.
In Acts 10:15, the voice said that only the common
animals - that had been in contact with the unclean animals, that the common animals had been cleansed. The voice did not cleanse the unclean animals, just the "common" ones. And the vision had nothing to do with allowing people to eat unclean animals, it was about Gentiles like Cornelius coming into the church.
So Acts 10:15 and Acts 10:22 are different in wording, and correct in their contexts. One is about men, one about animals.
Matthew 15:11 is talking about eating food with unwashen hands that enters your mouth, which does not defile you like the thoughts, words, and deeds that come from your heart, which is what defiles you.
Matt 15:(11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
This verse is in the context of eating with unwashen hands. It is not a universal declaration that all foods are clean.
Jesus summarizes that this is about eating with unwashen hands in verse 20:
Matt 15:(20) These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Eating with unwashen hands is not forbidden in the Bible, it is something made up by the Pharisees and put into their Talmud, or "tradition of the Elders" (Matt 15:2) That is what Christ was attacking, the additions that the Pharisees made in opposition to Deut 4:2 that we not add to, or take away for the Word of God.
Modern men are definitely adding to, and taking away from Matt 15 to make it seem like the dietary laws have been overturned. If Christ had overturned the dietary laws of Lev 11, the Pharisees would have lynched Him, in accordance with Deut 13.
I find it amazing that the "sheet let down" in Acts 10 is interpreted to overturn Leviticus 11, from a vision about Cornelius. It is deliberate. The misinterpretation justifies where the church is now, and so this passage is misused to show how they got there. It is about Gentiles entering the church, not eating unclean animals.
I am not anyone's judge, as I have enough beams in my own eyes. (Matt 7:1-5) Christ never authorized eating unclean food. If He did, the Pharisees would have ridiculed Him for it. 1 Peter 1:15-16 quotes from Leviticus 11:44 that avoiding unclean food is how we are to be holy in all manner of living.
So what happens to a Christian that eats pork? They have high blood pressure, or get trichinosis. What happens to a Christian that eats a horse. He can get tetanus. What happens to a Christian that eats rabbits? He can get tularemia. What about eating shellfish in a month without an "R"? They can be toxic in warm weather. What about eating a slug. It can kill you. What about eating a "poison arrow frog"? It will kill you when you touch it.
What about eating a dead buzzard with maggots all over it? Should you "pray over it, asking no questions questions for conscience sake? No.
And eating a dead buzzard with maggots is really gross to even think about. But if the rules have changed so that "everything is clean", then why not eat a dead buzzard? Crickets.
Isaiah 66:15-17 talks about the return of the Lord, and that those that eat swine's flesh, and two other animals, will have a real problem. The Lord also does not like those that purify themselves with a tree in the midst - "I wonder that that means?"
I just wouldn't do it. You don't have to give up a lot, and not eating unclean food is a lot healthier for you.
The person that convinced me not to eat pork said to try "the Pork Test". You avoid all pork for 30 days, to let it clear out of your system. Then you eat nothing but pork for 2-3 days, and see how you feel. If you do that, you will find the answer.
Have a great day, and I appreciate everything you have said.
John
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."