Bob Thiel is out with his semi-annual and typically Church of God defining practice of keeping what can be eaten and what cannot in mind.
This post is the "Why Not?" of eating or not eating the creatures on the planet, and debating all the "health" reasons for doing or not doing so. Every one of them can be refuted or argued endlessly about. For example, today the answer to the health concerns over
"There was much speculation as to the reasons why certain species of animals should be allowed as food and others forbidden. In the Letter of Aristeas (lines 144-154) it is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to form the character."
"One should not say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," but "I would and could eat it had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, iii. 29), although they were not capable of explanation."
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals
" Whether justified in doing so or not, the great majority of West European Jews have broken away from the dietary laws; and the question for the Reform rabbis of the nineteenth century was whether the religious consciousness of the modern Jew should be allowed to suffer from a continual transgression of these laws, or whether the laws themselves should be submitted to a careful scrutiny as to their meaning and purpose and be revised—that is, either modified or abrogated by the rabbinical authorities of the present time. "
"A proposition to this effect was made at the Rabbinical Conference of Breslau (see Conferences, Rabbinical), and a committee consisting of Drs. Einhorn, Holdheim, A. Adler, S. Hirsch, and Herzfeld was appointed to report at the next conference, which, however, was never held. Dr. Einhorn's report, on behalf of the committee, was nevertheless published in "Sinai" (1859 and 1860). Its leading idea is that the dietary laws, with the exception of the prohibition of blood and of beasts that have died (or die) a natural death, are inseparably connected with the Levitical laws of purity and the priestly sacrificial laws, and are therefore of a mere temporary ceremonial character and not essentially religious or moral laws."
"G. Wiener in an exhaustive work of 524 pages, M. Kalisch, and K. Kohler have pleaded for a revision of the dietary laws. S. R. Hirsch and M. Friedländer have written in favor of the full retention of the laws (see bibliography below). Sam Hirsch gives a symbolic and allegorical interpretation of these laws in his Catechism, 2d ed., pp. 55-64, Philadelphia, 1877. As a matter of course, this question of revising or abrogating Biblical and rabbinical laws has no bearing upon the majority of Jews, who believe in the immutability of the Law, both the written and the oral. See Abrogation of Laws; Articles of Faith; Reform Judaism."
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5191-dietary-laws#anchor7
Personally, I find this interesting...
I. Animal and Plant Names:Arguments in Favor of Totemism.
A considerable number of persons and places in the Old Testament have names derived from animals or plants. Jacobs ("Studies in Biblical Archæology," pp. 94-103) has given a list of over 160 such names, including Oreb (the raven) and Zeeb (the wolf), princes of the Midianites; Caleb (the dog), Tola (the worm), Shual (the fox), Zimri (the chamois), Jonah (the dove), Huldah (the weasel), Jael (the ibex), Nahash (the serpent), Kezia (the cassia), Shaphan (the rock-badger), Ajalon (the great stag), and Zeboim (the hyena). Many of these, however, are personal names; but among the Israelitish tribes mentioned in Num. xxvi. are the Shualites, or fox clan of Asher; the Shuphamites, or serpent clan of Benjamin; the Bachrites, or camel clan; and the Arelites, or lion clan of Gad. Other tribes having similar names are the Zimrites, or hornet clan, and the Calebites, or dog tribe. In the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi.) several animal names occur, such as Shobal (the young lion), Zibeon (the hyena), Anah (the wild ass), Dishan (the gazel), Akan (the roe), Aiah (the kite), Aran (the ass), and Cheran (the lamb). The occurrence of such a large number of animal names in one set of clan names suggests the possibility that the Horites, who were nomads, were organized on the totem-clan system.
(NOTE: I always wondered why Moses would raise "the serpent in the wilderness" for healing of snake bite when such images were strictly forbidden in the Big Ten "
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8)
Gospel Jesus confirms this use of the Serpent as meaningful pointing to his own being "lifted up" John 3:14-15. So as a totem perhaps it was fine.)
Members of a totem clan did not eat the totem animal. As such totems gradually spread throughout the nation, a list of forbidden animals would arise which might be analogous to the list of forbidden animals given in Lev. xi. and Deut. xv. Jacobs, however, has shown that in the list of animal names given by him forty-three are clean as against forty-two unclean."
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14460-totemism
The point being that for the Jewish people and throughout their history since the law of clean and unclean were written by the priests, the "Why?" has many possible reasons with none agreed upon.
It is truly a case of "Because I said so is why!"
The simplistic idea given by the Churches of God that "because the unclean animals are not good for you and the clean ones are", is shallow and weak.
Ask about the health benefits of eating any "unclean" creature, such as shrimp and you will scientifically get...
"Health Benefits
Because they're low in carbs and calories and packed with nutrients, shrimp are an ideal choice if you're trying to shed some pounds.
The antioxidants in shrimp are good for your health. These substances can protect your cells against damage. Studies suggest that the antioxidant astaxanthin helps prevent wrinkles and lessens sun damage.
Shrimp also has plenty of selenium. Some studies suggest this mineral prevents certain types of cancer, but there's not enough research to know how well it works."
The problem with any meats, from Chicken to Pork to Beef to Fish, is in the caution in preparation and not in the nutritional value. Even pork rinds, (fried pork skins) are considered a much better choice than the standard potato chip which I am sure Church of God types have no problem scarfing down.
https://drhealthbenefits.com/food-bevarages/meats/health-benefits-of-eating-pork-skin
The point being that the topic of "Why?" are some creatures considered clean and others unclean is a three thousand year old debate amongst the People of the Book themselves with many differencing conclusions drawn.
Ultimately, "Because God says so" seems to be the best they can do until other come along and say, "Well, that question today and in the New Testament is rendered moot".
Others will scream, "Is not! Is not!"
31 comments:
As I sit here reading this I am eating a delicious ham sandwich for my lunch break. Cheers to the ACOG ministry hog pin. 🐷
Every time Bob posts this drivel I go out and buy a big ham sandwich, grilled sourdough with melting swiss cheese and slathered in Mendocino mustard.
Flu like Covid can go between animals and humans.
Pig meat and organs are very similar to humans. In fact that is why there is research in using DNA altered pig organs for transplants.
Avian flu, goes from birds (where it is not transmissible to humans) to being defecated in pig/hog pens, where it is eaten by the swine and given the opportunity to mutate to humans.
Swine serve a purpose in nature. However, if you are eating them, then , (by necessity), there will be close human interaction with them, and thus the spread of flu. This is probably why many flu variants originate in China, where there is a lot of unclean animal and human interaction.
God may have created the swine caveat not because of the meat being bad for you, but because of the social contact with them causing disease transfer.
What? 1 Tim 4:3-4 was not addressed?? But there is verse 5. Pork, shrimp, prawns, lobster, etc are not sanctified by the Word of God. Yet I was told in my youth that aforenamed and other "unclean" meats were OK to eat. Now I think no. Relatives have died of brain cancer and I'm blaming prawns and shrimp but cannot prove there is a causal link.
Fascinating topic Dennis.
At the end of the day the last people I would see clarification from about what is ‘clean or unclean’ food would be the Bob Thiels of the world.
I don’t eat pork. I can’t stand it. But I do love a good cheese burger with all the trimmings.
As it is written, let each be convinced in his own mind, and let’s not judge those who do eat of the humble ‘pork chop’.
Perhaps if the cog movement practiced ‘mere Christianity’ there would not be the divisions and controversy’s within.
Hands up who thought politics was divisive; well it’s got nothing on religion,lol.
Pigs excel at turning anything into manure. Several American farmers per year fall into pig pens, only to be eaten by the pigs.
If anyone truly believes in God, and believes what He says, then the answer to why we should not eat what God has made unclean is simple. Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Lev 11:45 ((For)) I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. (((You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.)))
If God tells us not to eat unclean animals because He wants us to be holy as He is, why the discussion? If The creator is God, then worship Him in obedience. If you do not believe He is not God, there's no need to look for loopholes, do what you want. Lack of belief, in God's omnipotence and right to command man, does not change or weaken God. It was His idea to give us the choice to obey or disobey. We are free to choose to disobey. God will punish or reward , when He is ready to do so
People could also be clean or unclean. Moreover, in addition to eating or touching "unclean" animals, normal bodily functions, disease, genealogy, intercourse with aliens and/or participation in certain rituals could render a human "unclean." Indeed, the impetus for making a distinction between clean and unclean is strong throughout Scripture, and the implication is that God's people must be able to distinguish between that which is holy, and that which is not.
Hence, the physical manifestations of being "unclean" were clearly secondary to the larger spiritual principle behind them. And MOST Christians would say that the physical representations of uncleanness are no longer relevant for us in light of Christ's work to make us clean.
As Dennis pointed out in his post, Christ told his disciples that the things which they ingested could not really make them unclean. Moreover, we have the story of Christ making clean the leper (Matthew 8:2-3, Mark 1:40-42 and Luke 5:12-13). Likewise, we have the story of Christ reprimanding the Pharisees for making clean the outside of the cup while neglecting what's inside. Clearly, from Christ's perspective, it was only sin that could truly render someone "unclean." Finally, in the gospel according to John, we have this statement attributed to Christ: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3)
The same principle is also evident in the story of Peter's vision which Dennis also cited in his article - God/Jesus has the ability to make someone "clean." Finally, it is interesting in this connection to also note the symbolism of the "fine linen, CLEAN and white" employed in the book of Revelation. Hence, whatever the Jews think about these distinctions between clean and unclean, from a Christian perspective, it is clear that Christ has made his followers "clean" or Holy by removing their sins.
Bob Thiel is not an authority on this topic nor is he even scripturally sound in his defense. of the topic. He needs to go back to peddling his snake oil concoctions and leave it at that. A theologian he is not.
I do not eat anything that is unclean by my layman's interpretation of levitical standards. I think there must be some reason why God made these distinctions. I don't know what the reason is. Maybe it has something to do with what the various unclean animals feed on or where they are on the food chain. But for me it is not a religious issue, it is a physical health issue. There are also some clean creatures I won't eat. I won't eat a grasshopper. And I won't eat cheesecake. Not now, not ever.
The dietary laws have had a profound impact on the theological formation of Armstrongism. Consider how the dietary laws appear to be neither God's eternal moral law nor ceremonial laws. So HWA created a new class of laws that resulted in the incorporation of certain Mosaic Laws into the New Covenant.(See David Albert's book titled "Difficult Scriptures") These were the so-called "physical laws of health." This led to the doctrine of physical sin and some very unusual ideas about healing. My guess is that the dietary laws are just ceremonial in nature just like the atheist brother is asserting. But I still follow them as matter of health. Hedging my bets. Plus I don't like most of the stuff on the unclean list. I will eat it only under duress.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I loved good olde Arnold the pig on the TV series Green Acres.
The thought of eating him/ her tears me up,lol.
I understand the point made here in Mark's version of Jesus' views and the analogy etc, but if there is anything we know today is that washed hands before eating, first aid or surgery is vital to survival. Gospel Jesus did not seem to appreciate the theory of disease transmission, or if he did, ignored it. No wait..he didn't! :) Maybe one is not defiled spiritually, whatever that means, in not engaging in handwashing, but it can kill you at times if you don't. Doctors of the past finally figured out what was killing their patients. Infection from unsterile procedures.
Verse 15 is not literally true. What goes in can not only defile but kill you with unwashed hands.
That Which Defiles
7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
...14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” [16] [
He had an article up recently where he claimed a particular saint died refusing unclean meats. But the document he referred to clearly speaks of meat offered in sacrifice in the cult of the emperor. I think Bob just saw what he wanted to see in that case.
1.50 PM
Dennis, there are many laws on washing and cleanliness in the OT. Christ was aware of unclean animals, so I doubt that His "nothing" in "nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them" literally means nothing.
During plagues like the black death, infection rates were much lower in the Jewish quarters because of their observance of the cleanliness laws. This promoted accusations of the Jews being responsible for the plagues.
As usual, Dennis cherry picks and twists scriptures.
I left the church back in 1975 when it was proven that keeping the sabbath, holy days, tithing, and eating only clean meats was not the cause for God to provide proper understanding of end time prophecies. Ouch! We got stung, bigtime!!!. Yet "they" are still saying, almost 50 years after the disappointment, and getting it wrong once again at least every 3-5 years, that keeping the Levitical or Mosaic laws means that God will only provide the accurate timing of the prophecies of Revelation and Daniel to His "true" church, because they keep these things.
Amazing!
However, what about the dietary laws? What about the understanding of the Jews?
It's OK now that you've left the church to read materials forbidden to the followers of HWA folks! There are books which provide a basis for Jewish thought and belief, books written during the times between the New and Old Testament, a time of Helenization when gentlie law was being forcibly imposed upon the Jews. These books are labeled by various sources as "The Apocrypha" or the "Deuterocanonicals".
II Maccabees 7 tells the tale of a mother and her 7 sons who were commanded by the king to violate Jewish law, and to taste of swine flesh. They were tortured and killed for refusing in adherence to their faith. II Maccabees 10:6-8 also provides the basis for Hanukkah which we know that Jesus kept from John 10:22-23.
If you the reader do not have a Catholic or a Greek Orthodox Bible, it is easy to Google the chapters and verses from II Maccabees so that you can see for yourself.
I don't have a dog in this fight, so am not taking sides in this discussion. I have never been able to recover from the revulsion for unclean meats caused by WCG/HWA. The thought of eating them makes me sick. If they are offered in a social situation, I generally volunteer that I grew up keeping the Jewish sabbath, holy days, and dietary laws from Torah. In our wonderful era of multiculturalism, this is no longer considered to be a stigma.
Does bring up an interesting thought, though. If Bob or some other COGlodyte had a failing heart valve, would they be "defiled" by a replacement valve from a pig? Or does defilement only matter in consumption?
"We're not going to worry if the "Thus" was a later editorial opinion or part of the author's intent. It's in the Bible."
ummm, no it's not...commentary added by a translator is not "in the bible", it's merely in the print produced by the translator.
unknowingly or accidentally eating something unclean will probably not hurt you, simply passing through your system and out the back door (provided you aren't sloppy with your eating habits and it's a rare occurrence).
knowingly and deliberately eating the unclean thing when you know better is rebellion, and that comes from the heart...hence you are defiled.
only God can change a rebellious heart.
BTW, he's crying about Gary again: https://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/what-does-satan-hope-you-will-believe-now/
Dennis wrote, "Gospel Jesus did not seem to appreciate the theory of disease transmission, or if he did, ignored it."
At the center of this controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees is the statement: "thus observing the tradition of the elders." The Pharisees said to Jesus and his followers, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders." Jesus' response is,"You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."
There is a theme of strict cleanliness running through the Torah. People were always washing and/or quarantining for some reason. Jesus was fine with this pragmatic cleanliness. He was not in agreement with the traditions the Pharisees developed beyond the Torah for ritual cleanliness.
In this conflict, the Pharisees were essentially asking of Jesus: "Why aren't you and your disciples Pharisees like us?" And Jesus pointed out that their unneeded and excessive practices did not originate with God but were invented by men. "The Jewish Annotated New Testament", 2011, p. 73 points out that most Jews did not follow this Pharisaical requirement for ritual hand washing. This included the Sadducees. Are we then to conclude that most Jews did not wash their hands? I think that is veering into an extreme interpretation. No doubt Germ Theory was then unknown but Torahic cleanliness was.
I do not see in this that Jesus and the disciples were eating food with filthy, germ laden hands, but were following normative, Torah-based practices of cleanliness.
Sidebar: I know - just because there is a Godly tradition of cleanliness in the Torah that doesn't mean that everybody washed up before eating. When I was at AC/BS I was surprised at how many male students, even upperclassmen, came into a restroom, took a leak and walked out without washing their hands. Apparent cleanliness, private filth. One would think that the Armstrongist emphasis on purity would have shaped their behavior but apparently it did not. I would guess that, likewise, there were Jews who never were influenced by the cleanliness theme of the Torah. I doubt that the disciples were of that bent. And this passage in Mark 7 is not about cleanliness but ritualism.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The Catholic church teaches that the wine and bread turn into the blood and flesh of Jesus. Peter said he had never eaten anything unclean. Yet, at the Passover, Jesus told his disciples to drink and eat his blood and body. Both were unclean. Peter didn't object to the command of Jesus. Yet in Acts he did object to eating unclean meats and even claimed to have never eaten anything unclean. Peter objected to having Jesus wash his feet. He surely would have objected to eating blood and flesh if the elements were really the blood and flesh of Jesus. I wonder how the catholic get around this? Also, why wasn't Peter killed on the spot for lying as Ananias and Sapphira were for lying to God?
The laws of clean and unclean were given to one group of people, the Israelites. It was a way of reducing contact with outsiders, reducing social interaction and worship. If these laws were for our health, why didn't God give them to those before Moses and after Pentecost? Didn't God care about the health of Noah or the early church members? If health was the main reason for restricting what they ate, why didn't God tell them to boil water before drinking it? Tainted water was and still is dangerous. Why didn't God tell them how to identiify poisonous plants or how to detect spoiled food?
Bob sells health foods and supplements. Anyone who believes in the claims made by the makers of such items in his store is not to be trusted. His theology is as unreliable as his belief in the benefits of much of what he sells.
I used to joke "if you throw up after communion, is it reverse transubstantation?"
Anonymous 8:15 wrote, "If health was the main reason for restricting what they ate, why didn't God tell them to boil water before drinking it?"
Or why didn't God reveal that certain mushrooms were devastatingly poisonous? Humanity left the Garden of Eden a long time ago. Could an early Christian have harvested a basketful of poisonous mushrooms and eaten them? And died? Maybe and maybe not. There was conventional wisdom to rely on. And if it falls within God's purposes, the intervention of God.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
It is humorous to think back on the WCG people I knew who would get neurotic about food. I still dont eat "unclean" meat by choice - simply because aside from one or two things, I never developed the taste for it. However, if dining in someones home and being served pork barbecue or andouille jambalaya or whatever, Ill gladly eat it - offending or discomforting the host is typically counterproductive and petty, so I see no need to be super strident about it.
But I well remember some others who would drive service staff in restaurants absolutely nuts, demanding to know what was "really" in the special stew or scouring labels obsessively to see if there was any lard in the cookies or quibbling over what fast food french fries were fried in what. It was often a big show of fake "piety" that tended to reflect badly on the member. Reasonable avoidance is one thing, but making a fetish of it is stupid.
And now in the latest news - a man receives a pig's heart as a transplant for his human failing heart.
If he continues to live, we will probably see more of these.
This could inspire a number of comments from COG leaders.
BTW - the first 3 gospels focus on Jesus the law keeper - and keep it better to its full spiritual intent. He was against the added oral laws - not the written law, and advocating keeping it. Plus he was big on the prophetic coming of the son of man.
Then later on, Paul changed Christianity to be open to all, and faith was the main requirement.
Even the jailer was allowed to have an overnight repentance and be baptized.
We all cherry piked the Bible to support our beliefs.
8.15 AM
God spoke directly to Adam and Eve, so He would have taught them the ten commandments, including His health laws. That would have been passed on to their descendents.
Considering it only seems to have taken two or three generations for every other white family in the American South to claim to be "part Cherokee" instead of their real origins, I don't buy that convenient little bit of speculation.
And now, Henry Louis Gates has had a little update for many of these same Southern White folk!
Did you know that Ambassador College students actively looked for Jewish roots in their family trees? That was a thing back in the late '60s and early '70s. Students listened with special attention when one of the Jewish students, or student from Germany offered their
opinions and insights
I found out 18 years after I left the WCG, that my paternal ancestors had Jewish roots. I'm glad I found out after I left, because knowing I had Jewish roots during my time in the WCG might have caused me to stay in longer, perhaps the rest of my life.
I did hear of such a thing, yes. DNA testing has probably upset a lot of those hopefuls now.
Thing I don't get about the god of Israel's dietary rules is how he could persuade his chosen people that those tough, tasteless bagels are fit to eat but shrimp are not.
Must have been another one of his pranks, like leading them around hither and yon for forty years instead of taking them directly to Canaan by the shortest route.
Post a Comment