Guinadili nga Kalan-on

[NASYO]

---

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

shellfish (talaba, tahong, takubo)
swaki
nokos
kugeta


Tubag gikan ra sad sa bibliya;

Mark 7 : 19
It does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then it goes out of the body.' By saying this, Jesus meant that food does not make a person dirty.

[j.alob]

abi nakog unsan na gi answeran naman d i...

[kebotDiNaMute]

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

shellfish (talaba, tahong, takubo)
swaki
nokos
kugeta


Tubag gikan ra sad sa bibliya;

Mark 7 : 19
It does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then it goes out of the body.' By saying this, Jesus meant that food does not make a person dirty.

Sak2, mao na mga hudiyo dili japon mo kaon ana... kay they still consider it dirty. Sa panahon sa una brad nihit kaau freshwater para e limpyo anang mga SCAVENGER ANIMALS, indeed daghan kaau mga tawo alergy ana tungod kay hugaw jud na na mga food <confirmed by science>.

Si Mark ni ingon yes naa ra nmo if mo kaon ka. Kini para na ni sa tanan. Because after the old Testament God included the Gentiles sa iyang covenant.

[yorts]

Please read Mark 7:1-23 to really know the whole story and not just a single verse.

First, the context of Mark 7 was the Pharisees complaint that Jesus' disciples did not wash their hands in the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:1-3)--it had nothing to do with unclean meats. If it did, the Pharisees would have most likely raised this charge against Jesus when they brought Jesus before Pilate. In case Jesus' meaning was unclear, in Matthew's synoptic account he plainly taught what He meant: "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man" (Matt 15:20).

Secondly, Jesus did not consider all animals to be food. If Jesus declared all animals to be clean, would the Bible still use unclean animals as symbols of uncleanliness? In Matt 13:47-48, Jesus tells a parable about fishing with a net and catching "every kind" and then separating the good from the bad; possibly meaning the clean from the unclean--there would be no "bad" if Jesus was declaring all meats as clean. In Luk 11:11-12, Jesus teaches that bread, fish, and eggs, but not stones, serpents (snakes, an unclean animal), or scorpions are good for food (see parallel account in Matt 7:9-11). Unclean animals are never mentioned as food anywhere in the New Testament--they are either mentioned as beasts of burden (Jn 12:15) or mentioned in a negative fashion (Matt 7:9-11; Luk 11:11-12; Rev 16:13; 18:2).

Thirdly, after the incident in Mar 7 (and Mat 15) Jesus said, "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Mat 23:24). Thus Jesus apparently still considered gnats and camels to be unclean, thus this verifies that He never declared all animals to be clean.


But I like pork. Will God destroy me if I eat it?

"For, behold, the Lord will come with fire ... and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves ... eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." Isaiah 66:15-17.

Answer:

This may be shocking, but it is true and must be told. The Bible positively states that all who eat "swine's flesh," the "mouse," and other unclean things that are an "abomination" will be destroyed with fire at the coming of the Lord. When God says to leave something alone and not eat it, we should by all means obey Him. After all, the mere eating of a piece of forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve, a sinless couple, brought sin and death to this world in the first place. Can anyone say it doesn't matter, when God so clearly shows it does? God says men will be destroyed because they "chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4.


But didn't this law of clean and unclean animals originate at Sinai? Wasn't it for the Jews only, and didn't it end at the cross?

"And the Lord said unto Noah, ... Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens ... and of beasts that are not clean by two." Genesis 7:1, 2.

Answer:

No indeed! The Bible has ample evidence that there were clean and unclean animals from the very dawn of Creation. Noah lived long before any Jews existed, but he knew of the clean and unclean, because he took into the ark the clean animals by "sevens" and the unclean by "twos." Revelation 18:2 refers to some birds as being unclean just before the second coming of Christ. The death of Christ had no altering effect whatever on these health laws, since the Bible says that all who break them will be destroyed when Jesus returns (Isaiah 66:15-17). The Jew's stomach and digestive system in no way differs from that of a Gentile. These health laws are for all people for all time.

[redline]

Please read Mark 7:1-23 to really know the whole story and not just a single verse.

First, the context of Mark 7 was the Pharisees complaint that Jesus' disciples did not wash their hands in the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:1-3)--it had nothing to do with unclean meats. If it did, the Pharisees would have most likely raised this charge against Jesus when they brought Jesus before Pilate. In case Jesus' meaning was unclear, in Matthew's synoptic account he plainly taught what He meant: "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man" (Matt 15:20).

Secondly, Jesus did not consider all animals to be food. If Jesus declared all animals to be clean, would the Bible still use unclean animals as symbols of uncleanliness? In Matt 13:47-48, Jesus tells a parable about fishing with a net and catching "every kind" and then separating the good from the bad; possibly meaning the clean from the unclean--there would be no "bad" if Jesus was declaring all meats as clean. In Luk 11:11-12, Jesus teaches that bread, fish, and eggs, but not stones, serpents (snakes, an unclean animal), or scorpions are good for food (see parallel account in Matt 7:9-11). Unclean animals are never mentioned as food anywhere in the New Testament--they are either mentioned as beasts of burden (Jn 12:15) or mentioned in a negative fashion (Matt 7:9-11; Luk 11:11-12; Rev 16:13; 18:2).

Thirdly, after the incident in Mar 7 (and Mat 15) Jesus said, "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Mat 23:24). Thus Jesus apparently still considered gnats and camels to be unclean, thus this verifies that He never declared all animals to be clean.


But I like pork. Will God destroy me if I eat it?

"For, behold, the Lord will come with fire ... and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves ... eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord." Isaiah 66:15-17.

Answer:

This may be shocking, but it is true and must be told. The Bible positively states that all who eat "swine's flesh," the "mouse," and other unclean things that are an "abomination" will be destroyed with fire at the coming of the Lord. When God says to leave something alone and not eat it, we should by all means obey Him. After all, the mere eating of a piece of forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve, a sinless couple, brought sin and death to this world in the first place. Can anyone say it doesn't matter, when God so clearly shows it does? God says men will be destroyed because they "chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4.


But didn't this law of clean and unclean animals originate at Sinai? Wasn't it for the Jews only, and didn't it end at the cross?

"And the Lord said unto Noah, ... Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens ... and of beasts that are not clean by two." Genesis 7:1, 2.

Answer:

No indeed! The Bible has ample evidence that there were clean and unclean animals from the very dawn of Creation. Noah lived long before any Jews existed, but he knew of the clean and unclean, because he took into the ark the clean animals by "sevens" and the unclean by "twos." Revelation 18:2 refers to some birds as being unclean just before the second coming of Christ. The death of Christ had no altering effect whatever on these health laws, since the Bible says that all who break them will be destroyed when Jesus returns (Isaiah 66:15-17). The Jew's stomach and digestive system in no way differs from that of a Gentile. These health laws are for all people for all time.

mangutana ko nmu bro asa may sak2 sa new or sa old testament to be apply nowadays?

[NASYO]

I had a friend here in istorya that once told me that he will only eat edible ones.

[Peenut]

Aahw..if bawal ni nganu naa man nag sell pa?....

[kebotDiNaMute]

mangutana ko nmu bro asa may sak2 sa new or sa old testament to be apply nowadays?

Brad sak2 ang duha. But Old testament is intended for the JEW. New testament is intended for us. If you obey both you can nobody will stop you. So tubag ani brad NEW TESTAMENT for us. (sorry dko sure sa mga jew unless anyone can elaborate)

[kebotDiNaMute]

I had a friend here in istorya that once told me that he will only eat edible ones.

Then why do you have to care brad if he want it that way? he never said sugo sa iyang Religion dba? or is it?

Rule Number One: "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS"

[Ramini]

mao btaw gilansang kai nagmugna2x ug iyaha.