Message to all users:

Super Member Subscription

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, but if clicking on forum on homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
See more
See less


  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vegetarian

    Gen 1:29 Man was originally commanded to live upon vegetables only is clear. We do not know if there was any change made in the structure of our bodies after the flood to be suitable for other types of foods. It may have been incorporated when man was first created. We can see from Genesis no animal was originally designed to eat another; nothing is given to any beast of the earth for food besides green herbs of the field. Some say of Gen 9:3 That there is no positive evidence that animal food was ever used before this time. Others state of Gen 9:3 “These words do not affirm that man then first began to eat animal food, but only that God then for the first time authorized, or allowed him to do, what probably he had previously done in opposition to His will” (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament). Gen.6:12 does mention “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” This probably included their diet as well. The new command In Gen.9 to Noah extended to the animal kinds; with two restrictions- only use “that is alive.” This excluded animals that have died a natural death to be used as food. Also “Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye not eat.” The animal must be slain and the blood drained.
    White stated, “Those who eat flesh are but eating grains and vegetables second hand” (P.249 The ministry of Healing) Didn’t God know this when he gave the ok to Noah in Gen.9?
    As good intentioned as 7th day Adventists are in this area of diet Rom 14:2 states “For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. “It was a matter of faith and practice as Paul gives the principle that those who have the freedom should not exercise it if it will stumble those who do not have that freedom. But what of those who do not have that freedom by being convinced the bible says we can’t. They then legislate it to others saying they are breaking God’s law? It may not have dawned on some, but a strict vegetable and fruit diet may not be good for some people.
    Adventists insist God's original diet was vegetarian (no argument here), but the question needed to be asked is do we go back to this diet? Is it a command or a preference?
    “In the beginning God gave to man the best diet. Genesis 1:29, “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” God gave a simple diet of fruits, grains, nuts and later vegetables. After the flood, man began to eat meat. But note these amazing facts. The first eight generations before the flood living on God's original diet lived a long time. Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enoch lived 905 years, Canaan lived 910 years, Mahaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years and Methuselah lived 969 years.”( Bible Health Principles for an Abundant Life)
    The real question that needs to be answered is whether they lost their long life from bad diet of eating flesh or from the changing of the worlds conditions after the flood. Biblically we see mans decline in age because of the consequence of sin and Before Noah we find that Lamech lived a few hundred years less than his predecessors (Gen.5:30). The sin factor would take time to decrease mans lifespan. The age of man was already in decline but the flood speeded the process up as the protective layer over the earth let the ultra violet rays and other detrimental conditions in, it decreased the life span. If age was directly reduced to meat, than those cultures who eat the most meat would always be the most diseased and have the smallest life span. But this is simply not true, what is most beneficial is moderation in what we consume.
    Adventists teach “As God foresaw the destruction of the earth by water resulting in no plant life after the flood, He made provision for Noah to eat meat. But note, there were clean animals and unclean. Notice this was established long before Moses law and the Jews. You may say, “How do we know the difference between clean and unclean?” Leviticus 11:2-8, (Bible Health Principles for an Abundant Life prophecy seminars)
    What did God mean when he said for Noah to have the unclean and clean animals collected into the ark. Gen. 8:20 tells us every clean animal was used for sacrifice, not for eating. This is not in reference to dietary laws as with the nation Israel. So again the Adventists misrepresent the Bibles account. These were separated as unclean for the sacrifices that were to take place from the instruction of God to Adam. The reason is obvious, no one was told to eat meat before the flood. In Gen.9:3 God (specifically commanded) every living thing as food for them the only prohibition, don’t eat it with the blood. “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” This would be all animals not some of them.
    Clean animals according to the law of Moses were those that chewed the cud and had divided hooves (Lev 11:3). Some forbidden foods did serve as health precautions. An example is Pork. It must be cooked at high temperatures or the deadly parasites would not be killed. The people at this time never heard of trichinosis, but they were protected from it as they traveled by their food laws. Animal fat was also forbidden as food (Lev 3:16-17). We know fat is essential to good health, but when too much fat is eaten it becomes dangerous causing a buildup of cholesterol. Insects that had legs and leaped, such as the grasshopper, were allowed for food. Certain types of Fish could be eaten (Lev 11:9-12). A total of 20 different species of birds was rejected (11:13-19). The prohibition of “unclean” animals in Deut.14.2 in the Mosaic law were to separate Israel as God’s Covenant people “…Out of all the peoples on the earth…chosen…to be his treasured possession.” It was not that “unclean meats” are bad food, but are unclean to the Jewish people. God is not instructing the Jews to become healthy and the Gentiles to be sick. He gave them numerous instructions that would separate them from the other nations: in the way they dressed and conducted themselves. Israel was kept under the law of Moses until the Messiah would come (Galatians 3-4).

  • #2
    Some people disregard this teaching by the apostle Paul and want them to obey the law of Moses. The 7th day Adventists hold to foods being unclean today. “Many individuals have quoted from Peters vision in Acts 10 in an attempt to prove that it is all right for New Testament Christians to eat the unclean foods. Here is a prime example of how a text can be lifted out of its context and made to teach something that the original writer never had in mind. Let's notice the vision: Acts 10:9-17, “On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air, And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice; and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate.
    Most interpreters read the vision this far, stop and then devise their interpretation of the vision. But such is only man's interpretation. How much better to let the Bible explain itself.”
    First of all, notice that this was a vision, and not an actual occurrence. Peter did not literally eat these unclean animals. He merely saw them IN VISION. Second, notice in verse 17 that Peter did NOT understand the vision. He did NOT know what it meant. One thing he DID KNOW, and that was that it DID NOT MEAN that it was all right to eat the unclean foods. In the days when the early church was just beginning, most of the converts to Christianity were from Judaism. At first, there was no thought that the gospel message must also go to people of other nations. The Jews regarded anyone who was not a Jew as ceremonially unclean. They felt that such people had no right to have the gospel brought to them. The early Christians still had these same ideas.” (Bible Health Principles for an Abundant Life p.9)
    Now this is a complete contradiction since they claim the ceremonial laws are done away with in Col.2, but they bind them to their own people, just as they do the Sabbath Day. So if these food laws are still in effect then why not all of them? Why not the cleansing laws as well? The answer is simple because they pick and choose indiscriminately what they want to obey. Using no biblical guideline on how to decide (except on the basis of their prophetess’ teachings). When it comes to Col.2:16 they say that’s the ceremonial laws nailed to the cross. Well! What are the diet laws? (kosherut) Not just chopped liver! Either they are done away with it or not!
    Yet the Adventists insist “However, God did not want the Christian Church to be restrictive. He did not want them to think that salvation was only for the Jews, that all others were unclean, and therefore could not have the gospel of salvation brought to them. Thus God chose to give Peter this vision to teach people the great lesson that NO PERSON, NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE, should be considered unclean. Notice how the force of the vision comes to Peter in verse 28: “And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN.
    Here then was the explanation of the vision. They were not to call ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN. God wasn't talking about food at all when He gave the vision to Peter. He was talking about the Jewish practice of calling anyone of another nation unclean. This is the Biblical interpretation of the vision. Any other interpretation stands in direct contradiction to a plainly interpreted passage of Scripture. To attempt to apply this text to the unclean foods is a great misuse of Scripture, and certainly reveals the flimsy evidence that there is for attempting to justify the use of the unclean foods today. (Bible Health Principles for an Abundant Life p.10)
    So you see this vision isn't talking about food at all, It is talking about people and how God accepts anyone who will turn to him..." (Can we eat anything? 3ABN by Danny Shelton p.17).
    What Peter did not understand at first he did later through witnessing the work of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles. They had to learn about the new covenant which affected both foods and people. What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. God was speaking of food and using it as an example of what Peter already was familiar with as unclean to move him to the area of what he did not know yet about the Gentiles. Just because Peter not understanding immediately what was clearly meant does not give credence to canceling what God was saying to him.


    • #3
      What is written to the Church in the epistles after Peters revelation Col. 2:16 “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, … they are a shadow of things to come.” This is speaking of the Old Testament practices of Moses where they were judged. If the Colossians died with Christ they are not to controlled by the elemental things of the world. Paul questions their keeping these regulations like food, since these things will perish-- why live as if you are still under them? Don’t let them influence you and bring you into the bondage where you think you have become more spiritual by observing them. These often foster a false spirituality. Paul is saying not to let anyone pass judgment upon them for not keeping the the Mosaic Law, because the Law was transitory to the real relationship with God that was to come through Christ. V:19-23 “and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--”Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using-- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” If you participated in the cross with Christ the law has no benefit for your spirituality. The observance of Jewish ceremonies, which were only the first elements, a shadow of the substance, the beginning of the alphabet ABC, Christ is the alpha and the omega. He nourishes our spiritual life.
      Peters vision included “Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air, And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
      If this is not what the Lord meant then when Peter argued that he would not eat anything unclean, the Lord should have corrected him by saying “you misunderstand me.” Was God saying only food or both food and people are cleansed? God said EAT- the Adventists say do not eat!. Nowhere does he take the command back and furthermore, the institution of grace gave the people new freedoms they had need to understand. To say this vision had nothing to do with food is just ridiculous. Why did Peter need this vision? According to Adventists he already understood that the ceremonial law was done away with at the cross. The fact is that Peter (nor Paul) did not separate one type of law from another. And from this vision and his meeting with Cornelius he understood all things that were once forbidden are now clean. As v.12 states the Spirit told him to go into the house doubting nothing.
      Peter records in Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
      If the foods that were unclean are now clean so are the Gentiles who the Jews considered unclean. This is what binding and loosing was all about, permitting what formerly was not permitted. So the vision had a double meaning; the foods that were prohibited are now permissible because they are no longer under the Old Testament law, and the people that were forbidden to be part of the congregation and needed to be go through numerous rituals of cleansing were now allowed in by faith.
      Jews were not to eat things offered to idols either but we find this changed in the New Testament as well. 1 Cor.8:10-13: “For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” This is the spiritual principle, instead of lawful requirements it becomes a matter of conscience. Vs:28-31 “But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for “the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
      Levitical law had forbidden certain foods to keep the Jews separate. Paul in Rom.14:2 tells us For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak (in the faith) eats only vegetables, nothing could be clearer in this statement, he is comparing meats with vegetables.“Little faith means little freedom.” Rom. 14:14-15 “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.” Vs.17 tells us the kingdom of God is not food or drink.” If someone thinks they may not be able to eat a certain food or worship on a certain day, it may not be for someone else. The Law of Moses tells us not to eat pork or shelled seafood. The Law of Christ gives us liberty to eat it all, as long as it is by thanksgiving. It was Peter's vision that gave him a revelation that all are clean, both the former foods and the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-16). It was this event that opened the Church to those outside Judaism and finally fulfilled what Christ taught the apostles in his great commission. The epistles do not record teaching food laws of the Old Testament anywhere; except in reference to having liberty to eat all and stumbling someone who does not have this faith.
      1 Cor. 8:7-13 “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” Paul’s solution 1 Cor. 10:27-31 “If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” If you eat whatever is put before you that means all kinds of meats.


      • #4
        NOTE: Although she ate meat most of her life, Mrs. White spent much of her life advocating a pure vegetarian diet. Mrs. White prohibited eating flesh meat and butter while allowing for a limited use of eggs, milk, and cream. This diet goes far beyond the Biblical standard. Jesus left "us an example, that ye should follow his steps". (1 Pet. 2:21). How did Jesus eat?
        Clean Meats - Jesus ate Lamb at the Passover supper. (Luke 22:15)
        Fish - Jesus fed thousands of people with fish. (Matt. 14:19)
        Eggs - Jesus called eggs a "good gift" for children. (Luke 11:12,13)
        Butter - Jesus ate butter. (Isa. 7:15)
        In 1902, Mrs. White said that the people of God would soon need to stop eating dairy products and eggs (see Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 135). It may be good that very few followed her advice, because vitamin B12 is only available from animal products. Vitamin B12 deficiency can cause severe health problems.

        Recently scientists have discovered the importance of Omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in fish, meat, and eggs. Omega-3 fatty acids play an important role in the proper function of the cardiovascular, immune, and central nervous functions. Omega-3 fatty acids are very difficult to obtain from a purely vegetarian diet. One of these acids, DHA, is important for mental and visual function. DHA is found in red meat, animal organ meats, and eggs--all of which Mrs. White frowned upon.


        • #5
          "Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?"

          Answer: God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal
          sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the firstborn of his flock (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).

          God commanded the nation of Israel to perform numerous sacrifices according to certain procedures prescribed by God. First, the animal had to be spotless. Second, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Third, the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided a temporary covering of sins. Another sacrifice called for on the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin.

          Why, then, do we no longer offer animal sacrifices today? Animal sacrifices have ended because Jesus Christ was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus coming to be baptized and said, Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29). You may be asking yourself, why animals? What did they do wrong? That is the point since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. Jesus Christ also did no wrong but willingly gave Himself to die for the sins of mankind (1 Timothy 2:6). Jesus Christ took our sin upon Himself and died in our place. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, God made him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Through faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, we can receive forgiveness.

          In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute that is, the animal died in place of the sinner, but only temporarily, which is why the sacrifices needed to be offered over and over. Animal sacrifices have stopped with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrificial substitute once for all time (Hebrews 7:27) and is now the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. The only basis on which an animal sacrifice could provide forgiveness of sins is Christ who would sacrifice Himself for our sins, providing the forgiveness that animal sacrifices could only illustrate and foreshadow.


          • #6
            Was Jesus a vegetarian?

            by Matt Slick

            No, Jesus was not a vegetarian. He partook of the Passover Meal which was lamb.
            Exodus 12:3,6-7,11, Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers households, a lamb for each household 6 And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight. 7 Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it 11 Now you shall eat it in this manner: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste--it is the LORD'S Passover.
            Mark 14:13-14, And He *sent two of His disciples, and *said to them, Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, The Teacher says, Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?

            It is not wrong to be a vegetarian. Each person is free to make that choice for himself (Rom. 14:1-12).


            • #7
              Are Vegetarians Holier than Thou?

              by Wayne Jackson

              An organization known as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) toured the country this past summer protesting the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. They carried signs claiming: Pigs Are Friends Not Food.[When someone starts attacking hot dogs, they are very close to getting on my nerves!] On a more serious note, my real complaint is this. The PETA group launched an ad campaign recently which made the claim: Jesus Was a Vegetarian.
              Let's put this matter into focus. I have no quarrel with anyone, who, for personal reasons, elects not to eat meat. That is entirely a matter of choice. It is altogether a different situation, however, when: (a) folks attempt to bind this notion upon others; and, (b) they attempt to buttress their opinions by misrepresenting the Son of God.
              Let us reflect upon the following.
              Jesus once warned his disciples of the dangers associated with a corrupt mind. In that connection he noted that it is not what goes into a man which defiles him, but that which issues from his heart. Mark, one of the Gospel writers, commented that an incidental truth associated with the Lord' s statement is this: all meats are clean (Mark 7:19).
              Christ, on two occasions, fed vast multitudes with bread and fish (see Matthew 14:15-21; 15:32-39). It is rather unreasonable to argue that Jesus provided fish for these thousands, and yet ate none of the fare himself. Moreover, if it is sinful to eat meat, would it be any less evil to provide such for others?
              In Acts 10 the apostle Peter, by means of a heavenly vision, was instructed that God had cleansed meats even those considered ceremonially unclean under the Mosaic regime (v. 15). Granted, the ultimate application had to do with the reception of the Gentiles; be that as it may, the symbolism would have served no purpose if those animals were to be viewed as prohibited still.
              The apostle Paul stated that meat was created by God to be received with thanksgiving, and that to forbid such is an expression of apostasy (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
              No animal ever should be tormented or needlessly hurt. Sometimes, though, pest animals must be destroyed (e.g., rats, roaches, etc.). It certainly is permissible to kill animals for both food and clothing (cf. Genesis 3:21). It is not wrong to utilize animals, in a reasonable way, for medical research. Many health advances have been achieved in this fashion.
              Animals were placed upon this planet by the Creator to be used by men in a responsible manner, yes; but used nonetheless. There is no evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian, or that God views vegetarianism as a practice that is holier than eating meat.
              Finally, who imposed the rule which says we may not eat meat, but we may eat plants? Are not both living organisms? Are pigs our friends, but turnips our enemies? Some people are so desperate for a cause to provide their dreary lives with meaning, they resort to anything.
              Pass the mustard, please!


              • #8
                Mark 7:19 – Unclean Meats

                by Wayne Jackson

                Students of the Old Testament are aware of the fact that certain types of meat were considered “unclean” under the Mosaic economy. According to the regulations set forth in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, the Hebrews could eat:
                1. animals that were cloven hoofed and chewed the cud (e.g., cattle, sheep);
                2. fish with fins and scales;
                3. fowl that did not consume flesh (the vulture was forbidden);
                4. some insects (e.g., locusts).
                Some of these requirements likely had to do with health considerations. Overall, however, they were to set Israel apart as a “holy nation unto Jehovah” (Deut. 14:21).
                Some religionists do not understand that these dietary requirements were confined to the Mosaic system, and since that regime is not in force today (Col. 2:14), we are not restricted as to what kinds of meat we may eat.
                For example, the Seventh-day Adventists do not eat pork. An SDA writer asserts:
                “The New Testament did not abolish the distinction between the clean and unclean flesh foods” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, p. 285).
                This is incorrect.
                Christ taught many principles which were designed to prepare the Jews for the fact that the law of Moses was to be abolished. For example, Jesus once observed that it is not mere food that defiles a person; rather, evil thoughts are the seat of sin. An inspired writer gives an additional insight into the Lord’s statement. “This he said, making all meats clean” (Mark 7:19). Underline that affirmation.
                It is generally conceded by scholars that Mark’s Gospel was written from the perspective of the apostle Peter. If such was the case, Mark’s comment regarding meat may have reflected information from Peter pertaining to the fact that no creature of God, under the new covenant, was to be considered unclean (Acts 10:11-15) — a symbol of Gentile cleansing.
                Note also that Paul identified “commanding to abstain from meats” as a mark of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1-5).
                Thus, beside Mark 7:19 write: “See Acts 10:11-15; 1 Timothy 4:1-5.”


                • #9
                  Well I am glad to see that we can agree about Genesis 1:29. It would appear that God knew what He was doing by giving His creation a vegan diet, not a vegetarian diet. Once we have this thought correct then we can see that God never intended to need death to take care of the dietary issues of His people. Death is a function of sin, and sin and Jesus do not work hand in hand as partners.


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Greg Goodchild View Post
                    Well I am glad to see that we can agree about Genesis 1:29. It would appear that God knew what He was doing by giving His creation a vegan diet, not a vegetarian diet. Once we have this thought correct then we can see that God never intended to need death to take care of the dietary issues of His people. Death is a function of sin, and sin and Jesus do not work hand in hand as partners.
                    Christianity tell the truth! You tell lies!


                    • #11
                      Jesus made it plain that what we put in our stomachs does not defile us in any way:
                      "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.) (Mark 7:18-19 NLT)
                      Jesus had every opportunity to tell the disciples about the dangers of eating meat, and how it would destroy their physical, mental, and spiritual health. But He did not. Instead Mark tells us that Christ declared all foods "acceptable."

                      Let us examine eight examples in the Scripture to determine if anyone else had their spiritual life impaired by eating meat.

                      #1 - When three beings, in the form of men, including the Lord Himself, visited Abraham at Hain Mamre, Abraham served them butter, milk, and flesh meat:
                      And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set [it] before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat. (Gen 18:8)
                      Ellen White told us that we needed to "dispense with flesh food" in order to have the "companionship of heavenly angels", and yet here we find heavenly beings eating "flesh food" with Abraham. This would have been the ideal opportunity for the Lord and the angels to rebuke Abraham for serving food that would arouse their "animal passions", but nothing was said.

                      #2 - Notice that God instructed Aaron and the Levitical priesthood to eat meat:
                      And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram... (Ex. 29:32)
                      And the remnant of the meat offering [shall be] Aaron's and his sons... (Lev. 2:3)
                      And that which is left of the meat offering [shall be] Aaron's and his sons... (Lev. 2:10)
                      And all the meat offering that is baken in the oven, and all that is dressed in the fryingpan, and in the pan, shall be the priest's that offereth it. (Lev. 7:9)
                      And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar... (Lev. 10:12)
                      But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat...the flesh of them shall be thine... (Num. 18:17,18)
                      And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether [it be] ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. (Deut. 18:3)
                      Why did God instruct His holy priesthood to eat foods that would diminish their moral strength? Surely God could have commanded them to eat potatoes and bananas instead of meat!

                      #3 - Moses gave specific laws to the Israelites permitting them to eat wild animals that entered their towns:
                      These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you to may slaughter and eat meat within all your gates, whatever your heart desires, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike. (Deut. 12:1,15 NKJV)



                      • #12
                        The Bible never says anything against vegetarianism, and neither does it ever condemn the eating of clean meats. However, it does forbid us from teaching that abstaining from meats will make us holier:
                        In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils... Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. (1 Tim. 4:1,3,4)
                        The Bible could not get any plainer than this. One way to identify false teachers is that they teach people to "abstain from meats." Paul goes further to say that meats should be "received with thanksgiving".



                        • #13
                          Men Are Created in the Image of God; Animals Are Not.


                          Genesis 1:26-28

                          After He created all the animals (vv 21-25), God then created man. Man was made in God's image and likeness. This is never said of the animals. This teaching is based entirely on the concept of God as Creator and Ruler. It completely contradicts all evolutionary thinking, including Animal Liberation. [5:1; James 3:9]

                          This is the most basic issue in this study! If people were created fundamentally different from animals - if we partake of the character of God in ways that animals do not - then it is perfectly reasonable that the rights of people and our treatment of people should differ from animals. And it follows all the Animal Liberation arguments paralleling treatment of animals to treatment of men are false!

                          Genesis 9:2-6

                          God distinguishes between killing a man and killing an animal. Killing a man is basically wrong and should be punished, but this is not true of killing an animal. And the reason for this is that men are in the image of God. Killing or harming a man is fundamentally different in nature from killing or harming an animal, because the nature of man is fundamentally different from the nature of animals. Conclusions

                          This demonstrates the error in comparing man's treatment of animals to treatment of people of other races or genders, including mentally deficient babies. People of other races or the opposite sex are still people in the image of God. They deserve full treatment as humans. But that is not true of animals. Here is where all Animal Rights parallels and arguments break down.

                          The only response to this evidence by Animal Rights advocates that I am aware of is to ridicule it or deny the inspiration of Scripture. They repeatedly argue that animals should be treated similarly to people because of the similarities between people and animals. And they attempt to respond to the apparent differences between people and animals - except for those based on the Bible teaching that people were created in the image of God, and all the consequences that follow from that.

                          The basic error of Animal Rights is that it fails to recognize that man is fundamentally different in nature from animals because men are in the image of God, but animals are not! All other arguments we will make relate back to this one. But as we examine other evidence, we will repeatedly reinforce the strength of this truth.



                          • #14
                            Men Have Eternal Spirits and Eternal Destinies; Animals Do Not.


                            Ecclesiastes 3:21 - The spirit of man goes upward, but the spirit of a beast goes down to the earth. Animals have a spirit in the sense of animal life, but it does not continue past death.

                            Isaiah 31:3 - Just as men are not God, so horses are flesh and not spirit.

                            Zechariah 12:1 - God forms the spirit of man within him. [1 Cor. 2:11; Heb. 12:23]

                            Romans 2:6-10 - Speaking to men (vv 1,3), God promises to render to each according to His deeds, good or evil. Punishment is for "every soul of man" who does evil, Jew or Greek. Eternal life is for those who do good. The judgment of men will lead to eternal destinies.

                            2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1 - We have an inner man that can receive eternal glory, even though the outer man decays. Can this be said of animals?

                            [Job 32:8; Hebrews 4:9] Conclusions

                            We already learned that only people will be judged for their lives, but that judgment is where eternal destinies will be decreed (see also Matt. 25:31-45). Animals will not be judged, so they have no eternal rewards or punishments. This is true because people have an eternal spirit that will continue on after death. Animals do not.

                            All this follows from the fact man is in the image of God. Like God we have the power to make moral choices, and we are responsible for those choices. We have spirits that will exist forever, and our destiny will be determined by our choices. None of this is true of animals.

                            And please note that this difference is true of all humans, regardless of race, gender, age, or mental ability. All have a spirit created in the image of God, so all are fundamentally different from animals. That is why people have rights but animals do not have rights, so people should be treated differently from animals. Until Animal Liberation deals with these fundamental differences, they will forever misunderstand the true nature of people and of animals.



                            • #15
                              Jesus Died to Save Men, Not Animals.

                              This is the ultimate proof that animals are not equal in nature or in worth to men. Scriptures

                              Isaiah 53:5,8 - Jesus bore our punishment. He was stricken "for the transgressions of my people."

                              Romans 5:12,18,19 - Through the sin of one man (Adam), sin and condemnation came on all men. So through the righteous act of one Man (Jesus), the free gift of justification came to all men.

                              1 Timothy 2:4-6 - God wants all men to be saved. Jesus is our ransom, who came as a man (not an animal), so He could serve as mediator between God and man (not between God and animals).

                              Titus 2:11,12 - The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men - not animals.

                              Hebrews 2:14-17 - In order to release us from the power of sin and Satan, Jesus had to be made like us in all things - He had to come to earth in our form. He was made like us, so that he could make propitiation for the sins of the people - v17.

                              Note that He did not come to aid angels (v16), so He did not take on the form of an angel. It follows that the reason He did not take the form of an animal is that He did not come to save animals! He took on the form of a person because He came to save people.

                              [Romans 5:6-9; Titus 3:3-7; 1 Cor. 1:23,24; Rom. 6:5-7; Gal. 1:28; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 2:14-17; Revelation 5:9] Conclusions

                              John 1:12 - Those who believe in Jesus have the right to become children of God. Do animals have the right to be saved by the blood of Jesus and become children of God? Should animals be taught the gospel of Christ, so they can believe it, repent of sins, confess Christ, and be baptized for remission of sins? If animals do not have the right to obey the gospel and be saved by Jesus' blood, then no one can truthfully argue that animals have rights similar to those of people! And note again that God Himself here treats people differently from animals because we have a different nature from animals.

                              Here again we see fundamental proof that animals do not have rights similar to those of people and should not be treated by the same rules as people. And this proof is based on the fundamental differences that God established between men and animals. Each person has an eternal spirit, because we are made in God's image. We have intelligence to understand God's will and be accountable to live according to His standard of right and wrong. As a result, we are so important God sent His only Son to die to offer us forgiveness of our sins so we can receive eternal life at the judgment. All of this distinguishes us from animals.