Proof the Dietary Laws are Still Valid

UNDER CONSTRUCTION !

ITS AT THE CROSS... NO ITS MARK 7... NO ITS ACTS 10

The Dietary Laws were done away with, fulfilled, ended at the cross, right? That's the way the doctrine goes from the theologians on the law abolishing doctrine.

But the same law abolishing crowd says that in Mark 7 that Messiah declared all foods clean.

Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach,and is eliminated, thus purging all the foods?”

So which is it Mark 7 or at the cross? This doctrine doesn't even agree with itself and then there's Acts 10.

So the above verse proves that all foods are purged in the stomach so the dietary laws are abolished right there... right? No.

Because there is more going on here than meets the eye. The writer is not intending to say the Messiah is saying that all foods are clean, which would include unclean meats.

Newer versions add to the confusion by inserting a statement that says "By saying this He declared all foods clean".

So here is where 1st century Hebrew culture comes into play and without it the intent is mis-interpeted.

If it is not clean it is not food. Pig is not food, Shrimp is not food, lobster is not food, no more than horse is food or dog is food or rocks are food.

The context here in Mark 7 is about eating bread with unwashed hands, the unwashed hands being the issue. The rabbis had added to the Torah by making a law that said that you have to not only wash your hands before you eat but you have to wash them in their ceremonial, ritualistic, mystical, kabbalistic way or your beef or lamb is now as unclean as pork.

But Messiah is saying no, no, no. It doesn't matter if you wash your hands that your clean food is still clean as it is purged through the stomach just the same as if you washed your hands.

Now let's look at Acts 10, the claim is that all the unclean animals were cleansed so now it's ok to eat them. Once again... No, that is not the intent here and Peter even says so as he gives us the interpretation of the vision twice and no mention of eating unclean animals.

Even though we just destroyed the erroneous doctirne that says that Messiah declared all foods clean in Mark 7. Let's say that is what is being communicated for a minute. If that is the case why didn't Peter get the memo? Why didn't he know Messiah declared pork clean in Mark 7? Afer all, Peter was there!

The events of Acts 10 take place at least 10 years after the Resurrection mabye as much as 20 years and here is the statement that the thelogians gloss over.

Act 10:14 But Kĕpha said, “Not at all, Master! Because I have never eaten whatever is common or unclean.”

So again why doesn't Peter get the memo? Why has he been living in "BONDAGE" for all those years and not walking in his "Christian Liberty"?

The answer is there wasn't a "memo" as has already been shown in Mark 7. So here is an extra layer of proof that Messiah didn't declare all "foods" clean, over 10 years after the Cross and Resurrection, Peter is still keeping the dietary laws and even defends himself has having done so before the Father.

If we had known Hebrew culture instead of eroneously applying Greco-Roman culture we would know that there were particular Gentiles that the rabbis had declared to be dogs and unclean beasts. So what is Peter shown? Unclean beasts then these particular Gentiles show up, which are know as unclean beasts. But just before this Peter is perplexed wondering what the vision could mean.

Why would he not have just said, WOOHOO! the pigs are clean, pass the pulled pork?! He did not say this because it violated the already established law of the Father. So he knew that was not the meaning.

But when the men show up that are known as unclean beasts and the Spirt had told him to go with them and that he should not call them common or unclean because the men had been cleansed, especially these particular men from Cornelius because Cornelieus and his men were not just run of the mill pagan Gentiles they were Israelites, who had been divorced by the Father in Jeremiah 3.

So once again when you put the passage in to it's intended culture and context the erroneous law abolishing doctrine falls apart.

1Ti 4:1 But the Spirit distinctly says that in latter times some shall fall away from the belief, paying attention to misleading spirits, and teachings of demons,

1Ti 4:2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having been branded on their own conscience,

1Ti 4:3 forbidding to marry, saying to abstain from foods which Elohim created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4 Because every creature of Elohim is good, and none is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

1Ti 4:5 for it is set apart by the Word of Elohim and prayer.

There are a few erroneous teachings that are taught from this passage, like saying that keeping Torah is a doctrine of devils this is great blasphemy to say that keeping the Law of the Father is a doctrine of a devil, it is His doctrine. Thus saying He is the devil.

Some also say this is just about the Jews or Judaizers because it says... saying to abstain from foods created to be received with thanksgiving. But this is about all erroneous religious beliefs of any religion from Judaism, to Gnosticism to Catholicism to Orthodoxy to Protestantism, etc.

It is Gnostics and Catholics that began the falling away from THE FAITH of Scripture it is the pagan preisthood/Cathloic preisthood are theh ones that forbid to marry. As for saying to abstain from foods this was a big Gnostic beleif that was eventually carried over into Catholicism to not eat desirable food, such as meat, as a spiritual exercise to not allow the body any kind of comfort.

But no, rather the Father has intend for us to eat these foods that are sanctified or set apart by the Word of the Father. So what foods are set apart in the word, which is Scripture? And since there was no New Testement Then what Word is Paul referencing?

The only Word he can be referrencing, the only word that sets apart certain foods is Torah, Leviticus 11, which after giving the dietary laws and Him saying do not abominate yourselves by eating these unclean things, then the Father gives us the first mention of what we know as "be holy for I am holy" or rather "be set apart for I am set apart". So eating only the meats that He has set apart for His people to eat is directly connected to the person being set apart as He is set apart.

Doing away with Torah, the Law of the Father was first a Gnostic belief that says that the things that the Father commands us not to do is evil (because He made us desire those things and then said don't do them) and that the things that the Son commands are good.

The the things the Son commands are the same as the Father.

Joh 7:16 יהושע (Y'shua) answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

But we are all told that nothing is unclean of itself, right? Well let's look at Romans 14, the chapter that is erroneously taught as the freedom chapter, in the sense that we are now free from keeping the Sabbath and free from dietary laws and anything else we want to invent.

This chapter is about when to eat or when not to eat... otherwise known as fasting, and if it matters to eat things that may have been sacrificed to an idol. If your weaker brother thinks it is a sin to eat meat on a particular day of the week or a sin to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to an idol then you shouldn't do it for the sake of your weaker brother.

Of which Paul says these are things of doubful disputations. These things are doubtful because they are not in Torah. Torah is never doubtful it is the everlasting Word of the Father. Is fasting a good thing? Yes but there is no command to fast or when to fast, but the rabbis had made commands to fast and then claimed it was Torah, that these traditions were established on the rabbis Mosaic Authority and thus the same as if from Moses.

So the verse in Romans 14 that everyone always erroneously turns to when they want to skirt around the Father's Law given through Moses conserning meat is...

Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Master יהושע that none at all is common of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common.

Rom 14:15 And if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not by your food ruin the one for whom Messiah died.

So as Peter says in 2 Peter 3:15-17 Paul is hard to understand and the untaught and untrained twist what Paul is saying commiting the error of the LAWLESS. On the surface this seems to say that nothing is unclean of itself. Meaning that even pig is clean unless you make it unclean but this is not the context of this passage.

First of all, remember this passage is about when to eat, i.e. fasting. So the doctrine in the first century was if you eat meat on the days you are not supposed to eat meat on then your clean meat, beef or lamb for example, is now unclean because you ate on the the wrong day. Anyone today can clearly see the foolishness of this but this is what was going on.

If you being stronger in the faith believe you can eat meat on those days but your weaker brother does not then don't destroy your brother with your food, meaning don't eat if it hurts the faith of your brother, likewise with meat bought in the market that might have been sacrificed to an idol.

The proof of this in this passage is again that pesky word "broma" in the Greek for food. So the context that is not represented in the English proves that the intent of Paul is not to say that pig or some other unclean meat is not unclean of itself but that "broma" clean meat is not unclean of itself, meaning the timing in which you eat it doesn't make it unclean or if it may have been sacrificed to an idol but you don't know one way or the other.

So what he is saying this...

That nothing that is clean meat is unclean or common based on when you eat it. But if you regard it as unclean to you it is unclean. And if your brother is grieved because of when you eat your clean food, then you are no longer walking in love toward your brother who is weak in the faith. Do not by when you eat your clean food ruin the one for whom Messiah died.

We are to love the Father and love our neighbor and Torah is how we love the Father and how we love our neighbor. Just like in a marriage each person has things that the other must do to make the other feel loved. The Husband can't decide the things that the wife needs to feel loved and do those things and the wife feel loved. Or maybe the husband likes doing the things that his old girlfriend needed to feel loved and now still wants to do those things to make his wife feel loved but her needs are completely different.

Torah is the instructions that the Father needs from us to feel loved and us have a good relationship with Him and Torah is what He knows we need to do to show love to one another and make good relationships with one another.

Torah is how to love Yah and love your neighbor.