Saul/Paul's Dinner Plate. It includes everything. Even human flesh.

[Stravinsk]

Not kidding. If you don't add numerous QUALIFIERS to it - According to his teaching in 1 Timothy chapter 4, where he talks about "hypocrites" who come in the "latter times" (his time, or our time?) who forbid to marry and abstain from meats.

According to verses 3, 4, and 5 of 1 Timothy 4:

- God has created meats to be received with thanksgiving "of them which believe and know the truth"

- Every creature of God is good and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

- Reason? It's sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

----------------
Those are some core principles that allow for a great variety of flesh, according to Paul. By strict definition, humans are also on the menu for other humans, because we are also "creatures of God" in the sense used in the verse. You can say that's wrong but that is the plain meaning of the language that he is using and to argue that it's wrong you have to add qualifiers not found in the text.

Of course, someone will argue that we "uphold the law" through faith. Cool, then you have to admit that the above verses by the same author contradict that and have(and will) inevitably be used to justify eating anything they want (like pork and shellfish in the west, for example).

If someone served you any of these, would you eat them because you actually believed they become sanctified and pure with a few words of prayer and whatever "word of God" Paul refers to (his own, maybe?)

- Mouse
- Rat
- Road kill (mouse, rat, birds, squirrels, cats etc)
- Vulture
- snake
- Dog
- Cat
- Human

Or do you just use this verse *selectively* to justify whatever eating habits are accepted in your culture? Like if you lived in the West, pigs are on the menu but vultures and rats and dogs and cats aren't. Or if you live in India, cows are off the menu but chickens are ok among the non-vegetarians. In China you might find Christians who eat dog and point to this verse.

Where is this "word of God" that Paul refers to? In Numbers 11 when certain Israelites complained about the manna and that they had no flesh, God was angry but gave it to them, but at the same time He also STRUCK THEM WITH A PLAGUE (Numbers 11:33) for this very reason.

So I ask again, where is this "word of God" that Paul speaks of? The only thing I can reckon is that he merely refers to his own words. Enjoy mouse, rat, dog, cat, vulture, maggots, and even human flesh, because that's what your apostle teaches with some of the language he uses, like it or not.

 

[tango]

I figure there's a difference between being allowed to eat something and being required to eat something.

As far as I can see olives have never been prohibited but I personally don't eat them because I can't stand the things. I think they taste disgusting. So if you live in a culture (e.g. in South Korea) where dogs are considered a perfectly normal thing to eat and you feel like eating dog meat, have at it. In other cultures where dogs are regarded as family pets rather than a food source, nobody says you have to eat them.

I know people who have eaten snake. I personally wouldn't, just because I quite like snakes and would rather not see them killed for food. But that's just me.

I personally wouldn't choose to eat human flesh except in a dire emergency. But in a situation where the choice was to eat the flesh from a recently deceased human or die myself, perhaps I would. I hope I never get put in such a situation but in a critical survival situation I imagine most people would do what it takes to survive.

 

[Josiah]

Not kidding. If you don't add numerous QUALIFIERS to it - According to his teaching in 1 Timothy chapter 4, where he talks about "hypocrites" who come in the "latter times" (his time, or our time?) who forbid to marry and abstain from meats.

According to verses 3, 4, and 5 of 1 Timothy 4:

- God has created meats to be received with thanksgiving "of them which believe and know the truth"

- Every creature of God is good and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

- Reason? It's sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

----------------
Those are some core principles that allow for a great variety of flesh, according to Paul. By strict definition, humans are also on the menu for other humans, because we are also "creatures of God" in the sense used in the verse. You can say that's wrong but that is the plain meaning of the language that he is using and to argue that it's wrong you have to add qualifiers not found in the text.

Of course, someone will argue that we "uphold the law" through faith. Cool, then you have to admit that the above verses by the same author contradict that and have(and will) inevitably be used to justify eating anything they want (like pork and shellfish in the west, for example).

If someone served you any of these, would you eat them because you actually believed they become sanctified and pure with a few words of prayer and whatever "word of God" Paul refers to (his own, maybe?)

- Mouse
- Rat
- Road kill (mouse, rat, birds, squirrels, cats etc)
- Vulture
- snake
- Dog
- Cat
- Human

Or do you just use this verse *selectively* to justify whatever eating habits are accepted in your culture? Like if you lived in the West, pigs are on the menu but vultures and rats and dogs and cats aren't. Or if you live in India, cows are off the menu but chickens are ok among the non-vegetarians. In China you might find Christians who eat dog and point to this verse.

Where is this "word of God" that Paul refers to? In Numbers 11 when certain Israelites complained about the manna and that they had no flesh, God was angry but gave it to them, but at the same time He also STRUCK THEM WITH A PLAGUE (Numbers 11:33) for this very reason.

So I ask again, where is this "word of God" that Paul speaks of? The only thing I can reckon is that he merely refers to his own words. Enjoy mouse, rat, dog, cat, vulture, maggots, and even human flesh, because that's what your apostle teaches with some of the language he uses, like it or not.

Stravinsk


I see this as Scripture PERMITTING foods; the Old Covenant restrictions on some foods no longer applying in the New Covenant. I see it as simply removal of some ceremonial restrictions. Paul often dealt with legalistic folks and with "Judizers" who insisted on making Christianity a matter of a bunch of legalistic, ceremonial rules (chief among them, circumcision).

IMO, there are things we should not eat at all because they are physically, biologically unheathful. Such would be a religious issue ONLY insofar as the moral Commandment "Thou shalt not murder" (which includes self), we are to be healthful toward our bodies.

I enjoy a lot of ethnic food and my parents taught me a very simple (and helpful) rule: Don't ask. Just don't ask what "it" is. 9 times out of 10, it's good... cultures have used centuries to make the things available to them rather tasty. If you don't know what it is - you'll likely discover it's good, lol. Exceptions of course. One one the foreign foods enjoyed very much by those who grew up with it but NOT BY ME is Menudo - a Mexican breakfast soup; I cannot do it, just cannot. But I'm perfectly okay with Mexicans enjoying it (in fact, they can have mine too).



- Josiah

 

[Stravinsk]

I figure there's a difference between being allowed to eat something and being required to eat something.

As far as I can see olives have never been prohibited but I personally don't eat them because I can't stand the things. I think they taste disgusting. So if you live in a culture (e.g. in South Korea) where dogs are considered a perfectly normal thing to eat and you feel like eating dog meat, have at it. In other cultures where dogs are regarded as family pets rather than a food source, nobody says you have to eat them.

I know people who have eaten snake. I personally wouldn't, just because I quite like snakes and would rather not see them killed for food. But that's just me.

I personally wouldn't choose to eat human flesh except in a dire emergency. But in a situation where the choice was to eat the flesh from a recently deceased human or die myself, perhaps I would. I hope I never get put in such a situation but in a critical survival situation I imagine most people would do what it takes to survive.

You answered one of my questions as to what you'd eat.

The remaining questions that you didn't answer are:

- Do you believe what Saul/Paul writes here that all flesh is "sanctified" by the "word of God" and prayer?

- What exactly is this "word of God" that Saul/Paul refers to and is it found somewhere outside his own writings?


Consider your answers in light of the Numbers 11 passage I quoted. Saul/Paul certainly wasn't thinking of this passage when he mentioned the "word of God". So he must be referring to another. Be interested to hear it.

As for surviving, I think you would be surprised what you could survive on without resorting to eating flesh - animal or human. Culture and habits have taught you different, but that is all they are.

 

[Stravinsk]

Stravinsk


I see this as Scripture PERMITTING foods; the Old Covenant restrictions on some foods no longer applying in the New Covenant. I see it as simply removal of some ceremonial restrictions. Paul often dealt with legalistic folks and with "Judizers" who insisted on making Christianity a matter of a bunch of legalistic, ceremonial rules (chief among them, circumcision).

IMO, there are things we should not eat at all because they are physically, biologically unheathful. Such would be a religious issue ONLY insofar as the moral Commandment "Thou shalt not murder" (which includes self), we are to be healthful toward our bodies.

I enjoy a lot of ethnic food and my parents taught me a very simple (and helpful) rule: Don't ask. Just don't ask what "it" is. 9 times out of 10, it's good... cultures have used centuries to make the things available to them rather tasty. If you don't know what it is - you'll likely discover it's good, lol. Exceptions of course. One one the foreign foods enjoyed very much by those who grew up with it but NOT BY ME is Menudo - a Mexican breakfast soup; I cannot do it, just cannot. But I'm perfectly okay with Mexicans enjoying it (in fact, they can have mine too).



- Josiah

It's past my bedtime, but let me ask you to do something -

Look up "shellfish poisoning" and trichinosis and get back to me with "ceremonial" laws. If they were merely some ceremonial thing that had no basis in health they wouldn't still be an issue with regards to acute poisoning and implications in disease. Also either proves that the "sanctifying by the 'word of God' and/or prayer" doesn't work, or that every sufferer didn't pray or have enough faith or something.

Please answer my questions also. Would you eat any of the things listed?

Would you eat them raw like real carnivores and real omnivores do - with full assurance you wouldn't get sick or diseased because of magical prayers?

 

[tango]

You answered one of my questions as to what you'd eat.

The remaining questions that you didn't answer are:

- Do you believe what Saul/Paul writes here that all flesh is "sanctified" by the "word of God" and prayer?

- What exactly is this "word of God" that Saul/Paul refers to and is it found somewhere outside his own writings?


Consider your answers in light of the Numbers 11 passage I quoted. Saul/Paul certainly wasn't thinking of this passage when he mentioned the "word of God". So he must be referring to another. Be interested to hear it.

As for surviving, I think you would be surprised what you could survive on without resorting to eating flesh - animal or human. Culture and habits have taught you different, but that is all they are.

I consider it to mean that there are no meats that we have to consider "unclean" because they were considered "unclean" in Old Testament times. I won't presume to know what Paul was thinking when he wrote his letter to Timothy.

I realise it's possible to survive on all sorts of things that don't include meat but I wouldn't assume anything about an extreme survival situation because if I ever were to find myself in such a situation there's little point in making assumptions about what it might look like from the comfort of my recliner in my centrally heated home. Perhaps I'd be hopelessly lost in a corn maze and could eat my way to safety but on the other hand perhaps I'd be lost in a freezing wasteland following a plane crash with little plant life to eat and be forced to get my on whatever animals I could catch and eat. Of course that all assumes I was able to start a fire to cook and keep hypothermia at bay, which isn't a given anyway.

 

[Andrew]

If I were a hotdog and my plane crashed into the Alps and I were stranded, I would eat myself.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Imalive]

When I was a diehard vegetarian and ppl would ask what I would do if I got stranded somewhere and could only kill a chicken or something, I said I'd eat my arm. Eeww.
I have eaten my fingers and crusts of blood as a kid from my knee. It tasted like spinach.
For anyone eating: enjoy your meal!

 

[Stravinsk]

When I was a diehard vegetarian and ppl would ask what I would do if I got stranded somewhere and could only kill a chicken or something, I said I'd eat my arm. Eeww.
I have eaten my fingers and crusts of blood as a kid from my knee. It tasted like spinach.
For anyone eating: enjoy your meal!

It's unfortunate they framed the argument that way, because there's no way out. Kill chicken or starve.

Eating chicken won't prevent scurvy. So unless you found *some* plants you could eat, or pine needles or something, then you'd still die. Come spring, those edible plants are also going to go to seed, providing more food.

The skin just beneath the bark of many trees (pine especially) is edible. Useful if it's winter and one is in the forest.

Anywhoo...

I've got one person saying he'd eat human flesh in an emergency and no one else is biting.

I'm not seeing great displays of faith in Saul/Paul's words here!!! C'mon people...my list isn't unfair! Would you eat any of those things? Would you eat them raw believing that they'd be fine if you just prayed over them and trusted that they were "sanctified by the Word of God and prayer"??

 

[Imalive]

It's unfortunate they framed the argument that way, because there's no way out. Kill chicken or starve.

Eating chicken won't prevent scurvy. So unless you found *some* plants you could eat, or pine needles or something, then you'd still die. Come spring, those edible plants are also going to go to seed, providing more food.

The skin just beneath the bark of many trees (pine especially) is edible. Useful if it's winter and one is in the forest.

Anywhoo...

I've got one person saying he'd eat human flesh in an emergency and no one else is biting.

I'm not seeing great displays of faith in Saul/Paul's words here!!! C'mon people...my list isn't unfair! Would you eat any of those things? Would you eat them raw believing that they'd be fine if you just prayed over them and trusted that they were "sanctified by the Word of God and prayer"??

In the war they ate anything, cats, even tulips and shoe soles. I know one guy who'd just pick a dead hedgehog from the road and eat it. That's forbidden btw, blood and suffocated but it isnt suffocated, hmm dunno, disgusting, I'll have a salad.

 

[Stravinsk]

In the war they ate anything, cats, even tulips and shoe soles. I know one guy who'd just pick a dead hedgehog from the road and eat it. That's forbidden btw, blood and suffocated but it isnt suffocated, hmm dunno, disgusting, I'll have a salad.

Eating a animal free salad is abstaining

I'm cool with that.

My questions are for any brave Pauline Christians who actually believe what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4. Because if they really believe it, I really want to feed them certain things. Even so called "clean" meats. RAW. They can say all the prayers they want...let them eat it RAW like real carnivores and omnivores - with the faithful prayer that it is *sanctified* by the "word of God and prayer" - so that I DON'T have to rush them to the hospital afterwards when they get violently ill!

 

[Imalive]

https://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl...ZxCz-N4X62EQosPFojCdwhk=&docid=6mUVisdjXelkZM

 

[MennoSota]

The reason why I don't practice lent.
I enjoy being married and eating steak while drinking a good dark stout.

1 Timothy 4:1-7
[1]Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.
[2]These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead.
[3]They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth.
[4]Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks.
[5]For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer.
[6]If you explain these things to the brothers and sisters, Timothy, you will be a worthy servant of Christ Jesus, one who is nourished by the message of faith and the good teaching you have followed.
[7]Do not waste time arguing over godless ideas and old wives’ tales. Instead, train yourself to be godly.

 

[Imalive]

Eating a animal free salad is abstaining

I'm cool with that.

My questions are for any brave Pauline Christians who actually believe what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4. Because if they really believe it, I really want to feed them certain things. Even so called "clean" meats. RAW. They can say all the prayers they want...let them eat it RAW like real carnivores and omnivores - with the faithful prayer that it is *sanctified* by the "word of God and prayer" - so that I DON'T have to rush them to the hospital afterwards when they get violently ill!

Nonsense. Raw is with blood and blood is forbidden in Acts. Paul didnt say eat blood.

 

[Imalive]

Not kidding. If you don't add numerous QUALIFIERS to it - According to his teaching in 1 Timothy chapter 4, where he talks about "hypocrites" who come in the "latter times" (his time, or our time?) who forbid to marry and abstain from meats.

According to verses 3, 4, and 5 of 1 Timothy 4:

- God has created meats to be received with thanksgiving "of them which believe and know the truth"

- Every creature of God is good and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

- Reason? It's sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

----------------
Those are some core principles that allow for a great variety of flesh, according to Paul. By strict definition, humans are also on the menu for other humans, because we are also "creatures of God" in the sense used in the verse. You can say that's wrong but that is the plain meaning of the language that he is using and to argue that it's wrong you have to add qualifiers not found in the text.

Of course, someone will argue that we "uphold the law" through faith. Cool, then you have to admit that the above verses by the same author contradict that and have(and will) inevitably be used to justify eating anything they want (like pork and shellfish in the west, for example).

If someone served you any of these, would you eat them because you actually believed they become sanctified and pure with a few words of prayer and whatever "word of God" Paul refers to (his own, maybe?)

- Mouse
- Rat
- Road kill (mouse, rat, birds, squirrels, cats etc)
- Vulture
- snake
- Dog
- Cat
- Human

Or do you just use this verse *selectively* to justify whatever eating habits are accepted in your culture? Like if you lived in the West, pigs are on the menu but vultures and rats and dogs and cats aren't. Or if you live in India, cows are off the menu but chickens are ok among the non-vegetarians. In China you might find Christians who eat dog and point to this verse.

Where is this "word of God" that Paul refers to? In Numbers 11 when certain Israelites complained about the manna and that they had no flesh, God was angry but gave it to them, but at the same time He also STRUCK THEM WITH A PLAGUE (Numbers 11:33) for this very reason.

So I ask again, where is this "word of God" that Paul speaks of? The only thing I can reckon is that he merely refers to his own words. Enjoy mouse, rat, dog, cat, vulture, maggots, and even human flesh, because that's what your apostle teaches with some of the language he uses, like it or not.

Where is that Word?
Jesus said what goes inside doesnt make you unclean. He said to Peter: get up slaughter and eat. What God calls clean you may not keep for unholy. That was about the gentiles but its connected and that was the reason for the unclean meats. It was a shadow. In Acts all the apostles said we didnt have to keep the food laws etc., only no fornication no blood no things strangled, no meat offered to idols.

 

[tango]

Eating a animal free salad is abstaining

I'm cool with that.

My questions are for any brave Pauline Christians who actually believe what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4. Because if they really believe it, I really want to feed them certain things. Even so called "clean" meats. RAW. They can say all the prayers they want...let them eat it RAW like real carnivores and omnivores - with the faithful prayer that it is *sanctified* by the "word of God and prayer" - so that I DON'T have to rush them to the hospital afterwards when they get violently ill!

You're still missing the point that the freedom to eat something isn't the same as the obligation to eat it. You'll have to show me where Paul says meat should be eaten raw, I'm not seeing it in my Bible.

 

[Stravinsk]

Nonsense. Raw is with blood and blood is forbidden in Acts. Paul didnt say eat blood.

Yes I know, I realize I'm getting a little off track here. I'm just asking the flesh eaters to behave like the real omnivores they say they are. You know, the ones with fangs and claws like bears that rip open their meats and eat everything - eyes, hair, sexual organs, anus etc..and eat it raw. Oh no, they aren't about to do that.

Insofar as blood goes, that's all well and good what you pointed out there. Did you notice that FAT wasn't included though in the Acts passage? Animal fat is also forbidden along with blood.

But Paul didn't mention that. Is it ok now? If one is a Christian on purely religious grounds listening to him, it's fine. If one leaves aside religion for a moment and just looks at the science and what it does to people's bodies - not so much.

Where is that Word?
Jesus said what goes inside doesnt make you unclean.

But sweety - the context here is unwashed hands, not pork or animals at all. Like I mentioned earlier, ceremonial washing before meals is in the Jewish Talmud, that's why they brought it up.

He said to Peter: get up slaughter and eat. What God calls clean you may not keep for unholy. That was about the gentiles but its connected and that was the reason for the unclean meats.

As for Peter, you are right in that it's only about Cornelius and not the animals at all. Clue as to why Peter is confused about the dream. If it was so clear cut and literal, he wouldn't have been. So it's not teaching the "added on" meaning of "eat whatever animal flesh you want".

It was a shadow. In Acts all the apostles said we didnt have to keep the food laws etc., only no fornication no blood no things strangled, no meat offered to idols.

Now we're getting to it! I'm going to leave aside the issue of meat sacrificed to idols, which Paul says is fine elsewhere in his writings (you know, the bit about only refraining for another's conscience, not your own), and point you to my list in my OP.

According to 1 Timothy 4 everything on my list is fine to eat. Nothing is to be refused. Be that cat, dog, mouse, rabbit, snake, vulture, maggots and anything else.
Including human flesh.

Because that is implied according to the language used. So would you eat anything on that list and expect not to have some rather immediate problems? A rat carrying disease maybe? Or a vulture? How about moral qualms. One of your friends who died (non strangulation). A relative? For it's all included in the language used by Saul/Paul.

 

[Imalive]

Yes I know, I realize I'm getting a little off track here. I'm just asking the flesh eaters to behave like the real omnivores they say they are. You know, the ones with fangs and claws like bears that rip open their meats and eat everything - eyes, hair, sexual organs, anus etc..and eat it raw. Oh no, they aren't about to do that.

Insofar as blood goes, that's all well and good what you pointed out there. Did you notice that FAT wasn't included though in the Acts passage? Animal fat is also forbidden along with blood.

But Paul didn't mention that. Is it ok now? If one is a Christian on purely religious grounds listening to him, it's fine. If one leaves aside religion for a moment and just looks at the science and what it does to people's bodies - not so much.




But sweety - the context here is unwashed hands, not pork or animals at all. Like I mentioned earlier, ceremonial washing before meals is in the Jewish Talmud, that's why they brought it up.



As for Peter, you are right in that it's only about Cornelius and not the animals at all. Clue as to why Peter is confused about the dream. If it was so clear cut and literal, he wouldn't have been. So it's not teaching the "added on" meaning of "eat whatever animal flesh you want".




Now we're getting to it! I'm going to leave aside the issue of meat sacrificed to idols, which Paul says is fine elsewhere in his writings (you know, the bit about only refraining for another's conscience, not your own), and point you to my list in my OP.

According to 1 Timothy 4 everything on my list is fine to eat. Nothing is to be refused. Be that cat, dog, mouse, rabbit, snake, vulture, maggots and anything else.
Including human flesh.

Because that is implied according to the language used. So would you eat anything on that list and expect not to have some rather immediate problems? A rat carrying disease maybe? Or a vulture? How about moral qualms. One of your friends who died (non strangulation). A relative? For it's all included in the language used by Saul/Paul.

I think it was too obvious to say that gentiles had to abstain from human flesh. Not only Paul says it. All the apostles said that. Paul only added the idols meat, which is weird, cause in Revelations it's evil. He would become a vegetarian though not to offend a brother. I wonder how many meat eaters would do that.

 

[MennoSota]

Nonsense. Raw is with blood and blood is forbidden in Acts. Paul didnt say eat blood.

...but...but...real presence...
Indeed, Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council helps make your point.

 

[Stravinsk]

...but...but...real presence...
Indeed, Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council helps make your point.

Let's eat, Jesus! :lick:

Let's eat Jesus! :Nooo:


:smirk: