GOD'S INITIAL PLAN FOR OUR BEST HEALTH!

What Would Jesus Eat? | 12/21/03 | Don Colbert M.D

[LiteKeeper]

And you both are absolutely wrong. Yours is a very bizarre interpretation...one that is not historiaclly validated.

[johnb2004]

This is slightly off topic, but I think there is wisdom here:


I was delighted to read the Manichaean ramblings of Daniel Paden, director of the Catholic Vegetarian Society (“Letters,” June 2003). It confirmed my theory that fanaticism in Western society alternates between nudism and vegetarianism, both of which contradict the order of grace.

As an optimist, I happily trust that Paden confines his extreme commitments to vegetarianism. Taste is one thing; it is another thing to condemn meat-eating as “evil” and permissible only “in rare and unfortunate circumstances.” Paden disagrees with no less an authority than God who forbids us to call any edible unworthy (Mark 7:18-19), and who enjoined St. Peter to eat pork chops and lobster in one of my favorite revelations (Acts 10:9-16). Does the Catholic Vegetarian Society think that Our Lord was wrong to have served up fish to the 5,000, or should He have refrained from eating the Passover lamb? When He rose from the dead and appeared in the Upper Room, He did not ask for a bowl of Cheerios, nor did He whip up a meatless omelette on the shore of Galilee.

Man was made to eat flesh (Genesis 1:26-31; 9:1-6), with the exception of human flesh. I stand on record against cannibalism, whether it be inflicted upon the Mbuti Pygmies by the Congolese Army or on larger people by a maniac in Milwaukee. But I am also grateful that the benevolent father in the parable did not welcome his prodigal son home with a bowl of radishes.

Vegetarians assume an unedifying posture of detachment from the sufferings of vegetables that are mashed, stewed, diced, and shredded. In expensive restaurants cherries are publicly burned in brandy to the applause of diners. It is not uncommon for people to submerge olives in iced gin and twist the peels of lemons. Be indignant, vegetarian, but not so selectively indignant that the bleat of the lamb and the plaintive moo of the cow drown out the whine of our brother the bean and the quiet sigh of the cauliflower. Vegetables have reactive impulses. Were we to confine our diet to creatures that lack sense and do not even respond to light, we could only eat liturgists and liberal Democrats.

Rev. George W. Rutler
New York City

This was in Crisis magazine.

[missyme]

My point is if G-d created Adam and Eve two human beings that were designed before the consumption of meat, they would of have lived long healthy lives by eating plant based foods, I don't beleive G-d changed his design of the human body after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Even though we are able to eat meat and some can be good for our health for the most part a diet of Fruits, Vegetables, Grains and Nuts is what are body reacts to more thus fighting off many diseases.

[Jimmy Simon]

If you will keep reading through to verse 35 of Acts 10, you will see that this is not at all referring to the issue of diet. This is in regards to how the Jews regarded the Gentiles in all the nations as unclean. You can read this very plainly in verse 28 where it was considered unlawful for the Jews to mix with the Gentiles because they were considered, even today, as unclean. However, Peter is aware that because of Christ's death, that even the Gentiles are to be considered clean, not only the Jews. The issue is about salvation. Verse 35 clarifies that even more. In 1 Corinthians the issue is about judgeing others based on what they eat. In verses 23-33 the Gentiles were accustomed to eating certain sacrifices that were not acceptable to the Jews. However,in verse 27, instead of offending someone by refusing to eat something they offer in kindness, we should go ahead and accept it and not place judgement on them. I don't see in these particular verses where there is approval or disapproval of any dietary style of living, since it doesn't relate to that. The Bible doesn't condemn us for eating meat, but God certainly gave us a diet to follow at creation. Fruits and nuts was the original diet God gave to our ancestors, Adam and Eve. Everybody has a choice. God Bless You in your studies.

[johnb2004]

I am in favor of a good diet and good health. Within reason.

Your assertions about before and after the fall may not be theologically accurate. I am no scholar.

One example that comes to mind is that of incest. At some point it became a sin, but early on Adam and eve and their children populated the earth. Right? So they must have had relations with each other. God allowed it for a time, then forbade it.

[DouglasKC]

And you both are absolutely wrong. Yours is a very bizarre interpretation...one that is not historiaclly validated.

Biblically validated, from the words of Peter in holy scripture:

Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

This is how Peter interpreted the vision that God showed him. This is the interpretation that is present in scripture. There is no other interpretation of this event in scripture. This is the authoritative source and the bottom line.

[johnb2004]

"This is the interpretation that is present in scripture. There is no other interpretation of this event in scripture. This is the authoritative source and the bottom line."

The only authority is the Holy Spirit who speaks infallibly through the pope. The Catholic Church decided on the canon of scripture and how to interpret it.

[LiteKeeper]

Then what do the words "kill and eat" mean?

[DouglasKC]

The only authority is the Holy Spirit who speaks infallibly through the pope. The Catholic Church decided on the canon of scripture and how to interpret it.

I'm not Catholic and I don't recognize the authority of that organization. If you are Catholic and you wish to submit to that authority and recognize their interpretation, it is your choice.

[DouglasKC]

Then what do the words "kill and eat" mean?

What does it matter? Peter did neither did he?

Even when he was having the vision, he still wouldn't kill and eat the unclean animals. If God's intent was to have Peter kill and eat the animals then Peter was guilty of violating a direct commandment of God almighty Himself.

God did not say one word about Peter not killing and eating the animals in the vision BECAUSE that's not why he sent the vision. He sent the vision to cleanse gentiles. Two entire chapters, Acts 10 and Acts 11, are devoted to what resulted from the vision...the cleansing and inclusion of the gentiles in the church.

[missyme]

The Israelites were only allowed to eat animals that had
cloven or divided hooves and that chewed there cuds Leviticus.11
The two main characters here are that a clean animal has cloven hooves and chews it's cuds and they are known as ruminants. A ruminanats stomach consists of 4 chambers BY having these 4 chambers the stomach acts like a washing machine thus they are able to to eliminate toxins, parasites and othe vermin that might end up in in the animals flesh.

Bible definition:
Clean animals include : Cattle, Sheep and Goats

Aminals for consumption: (Deut 14:4-5) Ox, Goat, Beer,Antelope and Mountain Sheep

[johnb2004]

Apparently you set yourself up as the final authority on scripture. I pointed out that anyone can claim it, but everyone has a different interpretation. So why do you claim unerring understanding?

[Joshua]

" The only authority is the Holy Spirit who speaks infallibly through the pope. The Catholic Church decided on the canon of scripture and how to interpret it. "

I'll bet the Jews were delighted when the Catholic Church finally told them what their scriptures meant.
Just think what might have been if the Pharisees had access to a catechism and the first Papal Bull. (No pun intended)

[johnb2004]

should I believe your interpretation or the guy across the street who interprets texts the exact opposite or the 30,000 other differing ideas? Or do we vote?

I only bring this up because someone wrote with great authority that his interpretation of a biblical quote was absolutely the only way to understand it. I just wanted to make sure we all agreed. I also wondered why he thought I might choose to bind myself to his interpretation. That's all.

[LiteKeeper]

BUT - God is the One that told Peter to "kill and eat." If Peter did not follow the command, that does not lessen what God had said. Our failure to obey God does not change His commands. And God would not have told him to "kill and eat" if He had not meant for him to do so.

[DouglasKC]

Apparently you set yourself up as the final authority on scripture. I pointed out that anyone can claim it, but everyone has a different interpretation. So why do you claim unerring understanding?

"I" don't claim unerring understanding. In fact, "my" understanding is imperfect, in error, and incomplete. Understanding comes from the holy spirit.

Scripture is God breathed, God inspired. So the first rule I use in trying to understand scripture is believing what scripture says. And scripture says that the interpretation of the vision in Acts 10 is this:

Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean

This is what Peter, in the bible, says that the vision meant. Can you show me where Peter interpretated his vision in any other way?

[DouglasKC]

BUT - God is the One that told Peter to "kill and eat." If Peter did not follow the command, that does not lessen what God had said. Our failure to obey God does not change His commands. And God would not have told him to "kill and eat" if He had not meant for him to do so.

Oh. so God told Peter (in a vision), Peter doesn't do it, Peter decides the vision is about the cleansing of gentiles, he witnesses the holy spirit pouring out on gentiles, he baptizes the gentiles, he tells all the other converts that gentiles have been cleansed and GOD NEVER CORRECTS THE MISTAKE? He just let it go on and on for a couple of thousand years now, pouring his Holy spirit out on gentiles because Peter didn't get it right? Please. :-)

Nope, he got it right, and he tells us exactly what the vision meant and I'm not going to add anything to it:

Act 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Act 11:2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
Act 11:3 saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Act 11:4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence, saying,
Act 11:5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to me,
Act 11:6 and when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling creatures and the birds of the air.
Act 11:7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, 'Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
Act 11:8 "But I said, 'By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
Act 11:9 "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.' Act 11:10 "This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.
Act 11:11 "And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea.
Act 11:12 "The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house.
Act 11:13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; Act 11:14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
Act 11:17 "Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"
Act 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.

[LiteKeeper]

You have still not answered the question I asked - what is the meaning of "kill and eat?" If it is as you say, isn't it rather an odd way of getting Peter to that point. Why did God tell Peter to "kill and eat?"

[DouglasKC]

You have still not answered the question I asked - what is the meaning of "kill and eat?" If it is as you say, isn't it rather an odd way of getting Peter to that point. Why did God tell Peter to "kill and eat?"

I don't think it was odd...it certainly worked because Peter understood what the vision was about as soon as the gentiles showed up. And it didn't make any sense to him until they showed up.

As for "kill and eat", Peter apparently comprehended that it had something to do with gentiles. Scripture doesn't indicate what exactly he thought of "klll and eat", but he knew he wasn't supposed to actually do it and that it symbolized something else.