All That Really Matters

Do you know what really matters?

Not long ago I was faced with the prospects of two jobs after a year of unemployment.  One job was at a large bank doing the kind of work that I love to do.  This job offered excellent benefits and long term stability.  The other job was doing the kind of work that I had not done in five years and that I did not wish to return to doing.  This job was a short term contract position with limited benefits.  On the surface, it seemed like an easy decision to make but I was not at all certain which job was the right job for me.

You see things like long term stability, higher wages and excellent benefits are not the most important things to me.  I learned a long time ago that it is always better to be doing what the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) wants than looking a company to take care of me.  He is the one that takes care of me and doing His will is all that really matters.

I brought this up to my congregation when they asked for prayer requests.  I was not well at the time and every time I tried to get quiet so I could clearly hear from the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) I would end up falling asleep.   I thought I knew what to do but I was not 100% sure.  I told the congregation how I had pursued the first job and was on the short list to get it.  In fact, they had advertised for months to find someone with my skills and I was the only candidate they had interviewed that actually had the experience they were looking for.  This other job came about because a recruiter kept calling me and I reluctantly agreed to interview with her company because I believed that would put an end to her pursuits.  After all, five years is a long time to have not worked in a technology.  Still I wanted the will of the Father of Truth more than I wanted my own will because that is all that really matters.

In a short time His will became known.  The first job simply vaporized.  In fact, a friend I have that worked in the information technology department of the bank told me that the entire department was being reorganized.  At the same time I had an interview with the client company and gave a mediocre interview even though I was doing my best.  Within two hours, the recruiter called me back with a counter offer from the client company.  I accepted with the understanding that I might get a better offer from the bank.  I'm not sure what I would have done if I had been given a better offer because for me doing His will is all that really matters.

I started the next Monday and things were less than stellar.  I was still recovering from another illness that I got from a mosquito bite and my daughter was in the hospital.  I learned that I would not even be working for the man that hired me but for another manager in a technology that I had never even heard of.  I was not given my own workspace but instead we were placed around a table to work.  I had worked from home for eight of the last ten years and had always been given a cube in the corner with a lovely view when I worked in an office.  I found it quite distracting to be working so close to other people.  On top of that we had no coding to do at first but rather spent out time setting up our development environment and learning about their project management methodology.  I was able to accomplish setting up my environment much quicker than everyone else and it was obvious to me that the project management methodology used by the company would not produce solid results as quickly as the way I was used to working.  On top of that, there were long periods of time where we were told to sit tight while they figured out what we should do next.  If people could actually die of boredom then I think I would have.  I was not at all happy with the way things were going but I remembered that I had asked for the Father of Truth for His will instead of my will because that was all that really matters.

However, this turmoil and trouble was no indication of being out of His will.  I always enjoyed helping people so I started helping them set up their development environments.  Then we began to talk about things that were unrelated to work since we had nothing else to do and we were sitting around a table by ourselves.  Most of them were from India and I had always had a fascination with India ever since I had heard stories from Miss Luther about her adventures there as a missionary when I went to vacation Bible school as a young man.  So I asked them all kinds of questions about India and told them all kinds of things that I knew about India.  They told me that they were not all Hindus but one was Muslim and one was a Knanaya which were a branch of Nasrani (Saint Thomas Christians) that immigrated to India from Edessa (just north of Syria in Turkey) in 345 AD.  Soon they began to ask me questions as well and in particular about what I believed.  That is when I began to tell them about all that really matters.

We often ate together in the office and I agreed to leave the office to eat lunch with them once a week.  As time went on we became great friends particularly Reddy, Shamira and I.  We were an unlikely trio, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Child of Truth (one who obeys the Father of Truth because they love him) but we came to love each other as our own souls.  They were not just my friends but my family opened up our home to them for the holidays, family barbeques and the like.  They met my daughter Savannah who the Man of Truth had saved from death in a miraculous way on three different occasions.  They loved to discuss and laugh with Miranda about my quirks. Shamira even wants us to come to India for her upcoming wedding.  They became like family to us because we included them in our lives to show them all that really matters.

They began to see for themselves that there was a difference between their religions and being part of the family of the Father of Truth.  One day, Reddy asked me if he could go with me when I met with my congregation and has been attending every since.  You see it was being isolated from the rest of the company on the top floor with people that were interested in hearing about the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) and not having enough to do that allowed me to talk about all that really matters.

Eventually, space became available in the main part of the office.  I was working from home on that day but Reddy and Shamira made sure that I had a cube that was next to their cubes. We continued to help each other in so many ways.  I figured out what was important to our manager and helped them to make sure that we made her look good to her boss.  I helped them become better programmers while they helped me improve my people skills.  It turns out that working alone for years on end had caused me to lose many of my people skills.  I loved being around people but it had been necessary to work from home to take care of Savannah.  I needed to regain my people skills because I need to communicate with people all that really matters.

Of course by this time we had gotten quite used to eating together at lunch and talking about whatever was on our minds.  Sometimes we would go back to the top floor but other times when we were shorter on time we spend a few minutes eating together in one of our cubes.  One day, a Jewish man (by religion) that was in the cube next to Reddy let me know that he found our conversations entertaining and interesting.  I had been explaining to Reddy how the Man of Truth had fulfilled all that the Prophets of Truth had written about him and apparently he had overheard.  My voice carries and apparently other people had been hearing me talk about all that really matters.

A new developer joined our team named Jonathan and it soon became apparent that he too was a Child of Truth.  I had been surrounded with people that went to church on the weekend but they would never dare talk about the Man of Truth or anything like that to their co-workers - even when they were out of the office on their lunch hour.  They were simply more afraid of losing their jobs than their co-workers losing their souls.  It was so refreshing to find someone else that was not ashamed of the Man of Truth.  So we began to include him in our lunchtime discussions of all that really matters.

Then suddenly, without any warning, our manager, who had became fond of us, told us that the company had decided to get rid of all contractors.  She was very upset and explained that the company was really ran by stockholders and analysts.  While our division had been very profitable the other divisions had not performed as well as expected.  So the executives had decided to break faith with all of their contractors across the company to make their end of year report look better to the stockholders.  Just like that it was over even though our manager stressed that she had been pleased with our performance.  I am so glad that I took this job and that I did not wasted my opportunity to talk about all that really matters.

You see the story does not end there.  Reddy wants to stay in Tulsa and continue to learn about the Man of Truth with me each weekend.  Even though Shamira wants to stay in Tulsa she is going to move to where her fiancée lives so that she can get married.  They are like family to me so this is really hard for me because I have no assurance that I will ever see them again.  I want them to be part of His forever family then I know I will see them in eternity.  That is all that really matters.

How about you?  Do you spend your life in pursuit of temporary things that you will either one day lose or leave behind?  Will you put His will in front of your will?  Are you ready to trade in the boredom of living for temporary things to gain the joy that comes from living for all that really matters?

A lot of subjects are covered in the weekly posts of this blog. None of them are meaningless for each post provides answers from the Book of Truth (The Bible) to important life questions.  However, that does not mean that they are all of equal importance.  The answer to the question of what you are doing with your life is all that really matters.

People are the only thing that you can take with you when you leave this Earth and the eternal well being of other people is the only thing really worth pursuing (Proverbs 11:30).  If you spend your life seeking security by storing up treasure on this Earth then one day you will die and realize that you have been a fool (Luke 12:19-21).   At the end of life it will not matter how much you earned or accumulated because you are not taking any of it with you (1 Timothy 6:7).  People are the only thing that you can take with you and they are all that really matters.

Do not get me wrong.  I am in no way advocating that you should become a "holy loafer" and not work to earn money.  The Father of Truth wants you to gain wealth so that His covenant can be established in the Earth and the human race can be saved (Deuteronomy 8:18).  He wants you to be diligent in your work so you can prosper (Proverbs 10:4).   He wants you to be diligent so that you can be put into a leadership role (Proverbs 12:24).  He wants you to be diligent in your business so that you can influence those in power (Proverbs 22:29).  He just does not want you to accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulating wealth but to give into His hands by using it to bring people into His kingdom so that your treasure is in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-21).  He wants you to gain wealth so that you can help send others to reach people that you could never reach (Romans 10:13-15).  If the Father of Truth has placed wealth in your hands then He did it so you could use it to help bring other people to know the Man of Truth because that is all that really matters (Hebrews 11:24-26).

The great work that the Man of Truth has given to every Child of Truth is to tell other people the Good News because they are living in a burning house (Mark 16:15-16).  However you will face opposition if you decide to live like you are not are not ashamed of his name (Luke 21:16-17).  Do not let this discourage you for the Man of Truth has already overcame everything that the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) can throw at you (John 16:33).   He laid down his life for you so now you need to lay down your life for him (Romans 12:1).   So whether you are out in the workforce in a regular job or a religious professional you need to make every day count (Ephesians 5:15-17). You need to use every opportunity to rescue people from the burning house that they are living in because that is all that really matters (Colossians 4:5-6).

If you are a Child of Truth then you must be more concerned with doing the will of the Father of Truth than your own comfort or safety (Matthew 7:21).  If you do not proclaim the name of the Man of Truth to others then he will not proclaim your name to His Father (Matthew 10:32-33).  If you do not confess him before those you work with then it is because you love their praise more than you love His praise (John 12:42-43).  If you love the Man of Truth then you will remain in the House of Truth by obeying him to the best of your ability and understanding (John 14:21-23).  If your love for him is not deep enough to obey him then you will be put out of the House of Truth because that is all that really matters (Revelation 3:15-16).

Perhaps you have yet to come into the House of Truth because no one has had the courage to tell you the truth until now.  The truth is that you must come into the House of Truth by surrendering everything to the Man of Truth because that is the only way for you to come to know the Father of Truth (Matthew 11:27).  He is pleading with you to come into the House of Truth and let go of your heavy burden of sin (Matthew 11:28-30).  You can only come into the House of Truth to meet His Father by obeying the Man of Truth (John 14:6-7).  The truth is that you must come into the House of Truth by making the Man of Truth your boss in every area of your life because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9-11).  You must come into the House of Truth so that your name will be in the Book of Life and you will not suffer in the Lake of Fire for all eternity because that is all that really matters (Revelation 20:15).

Come into the House of Truth.

I Did Not Mean That

How can you accurately understand the Book of Truth (the Bible)?

Have you ever had someone put words in your mouth that you did not say?  Have you ever then had someone assign a meaning that you did not mean to the words that you did not say ?

I have had this happen to me more than once and it is always very frustrating. It invariably leads to confusion and never ends well.  I really hate it when someone does this to me.

I have investigated these incidences several times and have found one consistent underlying cause.  The other party already had an idea about what I thought on the subject and was then interpreting everything I said to match up with their idea.  I did not say anything to match up with that idea or even said the exact opposite of what they imagined that I thought.  Yet they would somehow insert something that I did not say into their recollection of the conversation that matched up with what they were so sure was my opinion on the subject.  This invariably lead to their response based on something that I did not mean.

Of course I did not mean that and I never even said it.  I have had other witnesses (and at least once a recording) of the exact words I said and without exception it came out that I never said the words that upset them nor did I mean the meaning that they had assigned to those words.  What can I say in such a case except "I did not mean that"?

I am not alone in this frustration.  It is bad enough that people have done this to me but it is far worse that they have done it to the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD).  He too has a recording of His exact words in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that make up the Book of Truth.  Yet translators sometimes put words in His mouth that He did not say and readers assign meanings to His words that He did not mean.  What can we expect Him to say in such cases except "I did not mean that"?

I have investigated many of these incidences and have found one consistent underlying cause.  The translators or readers already had an idea about what the Father of Truth thought on a subject and was began interpreting everything He said to match up with their idea.   In these cases He did not say anything that matched up with their idea and in some cases actually said the exact opposite.  Yet they would somehow insert something that He did not say into their translation or interpretation that matched up with what they were so sure was His opinion on the subject.  This invariably lead to their response based on something that He did not mean.

To show what I mean we will look at three cases involving the subject of food.  In each case we will look at the words that were not in the record of what actually He said and/or the interpretation of what He meant that does not match what He actually said.  It will be plain why He would say "I did not mean that".

We will start with a little background information about somethings that the Father of Truth actually did say in the Law of Truth about food.

Some things that people eat are abominable and the Father of Truth told people in the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) that He gave to Moses to not eat them (Deuteronomy 14:3).  Abominable means filthy or disgusting.  In other words those things that people can eat but should not eat are referred to as filth.

For the most part the definition of those things that people should eat and not eat concern animals. 

The meat of land animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, antelopes and the like are called food (Deuteronomy 14:4-5).  The meat of all land animals that have split hooves and rechew their food (owing to a multi-chambered stomach) is called food (Deuteronomy 14:6).  The meat of fish that have easily removed scales is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:9).  The meat of most birds is also called food (Deuteronomy 14:11).  The meat of grasshoppers (the word translated as "beetle" is the akrida or sword-tailed grasshopper) is also called food (Leviticus 11:21-22).

The meat of everything else is called filth in the Law of Truth.

Even animals whose meat is food still have some parts that are filth that must be separated from the parts that are food.  These animals are referred to as being clean (although "cleanable" would be a more accurate translation).  The bodies of other animals cannot be cleaned of filth by separating those parts because their entire bodies are filth. These animals are referred to as being unclean (although "uncleanable" would be a more accurate translation).  So in the Law of Truth that the Father of Truth gave to Moses people are told which animals are cleanable because the parts of their bodies that are food that can be separated from the parts of their bodies that are filth and which animals are uncleanable because every part of their bodies is filth (Leviticus 11:46-47).

Now that we have looked at what the Father of Truth did say in the Original Covenant (Tanach aka Old Testament) we will look at what He did not say in the Renewed Covenant (B'rit Chadashah aka New Testament) concerning food.

The first passage worth examining is Mark 7:18-19.   If you read the NIV translation or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.").  On the surface it seems that the Man of Truth is saying that does not matter what you eat.

However, the surface reading will lead you to the wrong conclusion for several reasons.  The first reason is the entire sentence  (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). If you read the KJV translation or or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive , that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? The KJV is missing that entire sentence.  The fact is that this sentence is also missing from all of the Greek manuscripts that were used to compile the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant.  This sentence was simply added by the translators of the NIV and other translations because they thought it should have been there.  If you want to know more about it then you can read One Disturbing Sentence.

The second reason that people jump to the wrong conclusion is that the sentence added by the translators (but it is not in the Greek text of the Renewed Covenant) draws their attention away from what actually lead up to the Man of Truth telling parable.   The controversy that prompted the parable was the issue of the washing of hands before eating (Mark 7:1-2).  The point of the criticism from the Pharisees and Scribes was not that the disciple had eaten things contrary to the Law of Truth but that they had eaten with unwashed hands contrary to the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3-5).  That being the case then it would be bad hygiene that the Man of Truth was advocating instead of eating food that the Father of Truth called filth in the Law of Truth if that was actually the point of the parable.  In fact, if that was actually the point of the parable then it would be wrong for the Children of Truth to teach people to wash their hands before they eat!

Third reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is because the Man of Truth was not saying that it does not matter what people put into their bodies when he told the parable (Mark 7:14-16).   If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people eat a plateful of hemlock which would kill them.  If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people drink too much alcohol and become drunk even though that will keep people out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  If that was the case then he would be saying it does not matter if people ingest every kind of narcotic even though the Renewed Covenant says those that do so will not inherit the kingdom of His Father (Galatians 5:19-21). [ The Greek word translated as "sorcery" is "pharmakia" and literally means taking hallucinogenic drugs.]

The fourth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth only said that whatever was on their unwashed hands could not defile them because it would leave their bodies and end up in the sewer in the same way that all food is eventually purged from the body (Mark 7:17-19).  In fact the people that he was talking to were all religious Jews and they knew that he was talking only about eating what the Law of Truth called food.  Their issue was not the food that the disciples ate being unclean but whatever was on the hands of the disciples that was not cleaned off by washing their hands before eating.  This is what would be purged from the body.

The fifth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the Man of Truth never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth.  The Father of Truth said that His will was that people did what was in the Law of Truth and that no one could change it (Deuteronomy 12:32).  The Man of Truth did not come to destroy the Law of Truth but to fulfill it by do everything it required (Matthew 5:17).  He said that the Law of Truth would still be in effect as long the Earth and the universe exist (Matthew 5:18).  He said that those who taught others to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth would be the least in his kingdom so you can be sure that he was not teaching that people should eat the things that the Law of Truth said were not to be eaten (Matthew 5:19).  He only did the will of His Father which was expressed in the Law of Truth (John 6:38).  He never did anything contrary to the Law of Truth because sin is transgression of the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4).

That being the case anytime he talked about food he was using the same definition as the Law of Truth.  The sentence that said (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."), would have only been saying the same thing as the Law of Truth - that which the Father of Truth says calls food is clean while everything else is filth that cannot be made clean.  He certainly would not have been trying to change the definition of food given in the Law of Truth to include what it called filth.  He would have been sinning by transgressing the Law of Truth if he had tried to do that.  Yet that was exactly the intent of adding this sentence even though it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts. 

The sixth reason it is the wrong conclusion that this parable is advocating eating what the Law of Truth calls filth is that the point of this parable was that it is the human heart that causes people to think evil thoughts and commit evil actions (Mark 7:20-23).  Even if that sentence was actually there (but it is not) it is apparent from the context of story and the parable that the Man of Truth was not using this parable to teach that anything about food or eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:18-20).  He was teaching in this parable that the human heart is the source of the doing things that are contrary to the Law of Truth so that people are defiled with sin.

Those who knew what the Father of Truth commanded them to not eat but ate it anyways were defiled with sin (Leviticus 11:42-44).   The willful breaking of the Law of Truth by eating filth showed that those who did so were defiled by sin (Romans 7:7).  This is why Daniel purposed in his heart to not eat anything that the Law of Truth called filth (Daniel 1:8).

So in short when someone uses this passage to show that the Man of Truth was advocating eating what the Law of Truth called filth then he would have to say "I did not mean that".

In like manner there is another story that bears examination to see what it says about food.

In this story Peter (Cephas aka Simon) the Jew got hungry while waiting for lunch and had a vision (Acts 10:9-10).  In this vision he saw a bunch of animals that the Law of Truth says are unclean that he was told to kill and eat (Acts 10:11-13).  He refused but the Father of Truth told him to not call unclean what He was calling clean (Acts 10:14-15).  This occurred three times (once for each Gentile man sent by Cornelius) so that he would have no doubts about what he had seen and heard (Acts 10:16).  On the surface it would seem that the Father of Truth had sent a message that He had made the animals that He had once said were not fit to be eaten were now fit to be eaten.

Was this vision about food?

Peter the Jew wondered what that vision could have meant when three Gentile men that had been sent by Cornelius asked for him (Acts 10:17-18).  While he was still trying to figure it out when the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) began to clue him in to what this vision was really about (Acts 10:19-20).  By the time that Peter the Jew arrived at the house of Cornelius the Father of Truth had already showed him that the vision about not calling people unclean (literally uncleanable) (Acts 10:28).  Peter the Jew quit wondering what the vision was about once he realized that the vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin by the Father of Truth if they would repent (Acts 10:34-35).  The sacrifice for sin that the Man of Truth made on the cross was able to clean anyone from sin that believed that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Acts 10:42-43).  Just to make sure that everyone understood that the Gentiles had been cleaned from sin they were baptized in the Spirit of Truth with the evidence of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46).  There was no denying that the Father of Truth had cleaned the Gentiles from sin even though the Jews had thought that the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin so the Gentiles were then baptized in water (Acts 10:47-48).

So this vision had nothing to do with food.

Since the Father of Truth Himself said that this vision was about the Gentiles being cleanable from their sin then who are we to say that He got it wrong and the vision was really about calling things food that He had previously declared to be filth?  Then why do people insist that this vision was about eating?

The truth is that they think that the Father of Truth somehow changed His mind about what was food and what was filth. What does the Book of Truth say about the Father of Truth?

The Father of Truth never changes (Malachi 3:6).  His word never changes (Psalm 119:89).  He remains the same forever (James 1:17).

You might be thinking then why did He change His mind about the Gentiles?  If so, then I would ask you whose mind was really changed?

Peter the Jew had called the Gentiles uncleanable from their sin because he was following a law that the Jews had established until he had the vision of unclean animals and the Father of Truth told him what it meant (Acts 10:28-29).  It was the Jewish believers that had called the Gentiles uncleanable from sin to the point that they would not even eat with them (Acts 11:2-3).

The Prophets of Truth had always said that the Gentiles would be cleaned from their sin by faith in the Man of Truth (Acts 10:43).  The Father of Truth had said that the Gentiles were cleanable from sin from the very beginning (Acts 15:16-18). 

The Jewish believers changed their minds about the Gentiles being uncleanable from sin due to the events that had started with the vision of unclean animals (Acts 11:16-18).  The vision of unclean animals and the events that fulfilled the vision had opened the eyes of the Jewish believers to what the Father of Truth had already spoken through the Prophets of Truth (Acts 15:13-15). 

So this vision was not given to show that the Father of Truth had changed His mind about what could be cleaned from filth to be fit to eat but to change the mind of the Jewish believers about who could be cleaned from sin to be fit for His kingdom.  This vision had nothing to do with food.

It was no different than all other dreams and visions that the Father of Truth had given to people that involve animals and eating.  The animals always represented something else and were never about the actual animals. The seven fat cattle and seven lean cattle in the dream that Pharaoh had represented the seven years of plenty that would be consumed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:26-28).  This dream was not about literal cows that ate other cows.  The fourth animal that Daniel saw in a vision that devoured the previous three animals represented a kingdom that would replace the three kingdoms that came before it (Daniel 7:17-19).  This dream was not about a literal indescribable animal made of iron that ate a winged lion which had became a man, a bear that with three ribs in its mouth and a leopard with four wings.  The dragon that John (Yochanon) saw which tried to eat the baby as soon as the woman gave birth represented the Father of Lies (HaShatan aka Satan aka The Devil) who makes war against the Children of Truth (Revelation 12:15-17).  This vision was not about a literal serpent that was waiting for a woman to give birth so it could eat her son as soon as he was born.  In the same way the animals that could not be cleaned from filth so as to be fit to eaten represented the Gentiles who the Jews thought could  not be cleaned from sin so as to be fit to be saved.  This vision was not about Peter the Jew eating literal animals that were called uncleanable in the Law of Truth.  This vision had nothing to do with food.

So to anyone that says that the Father of Truth sent this vision to show that the animals which He had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant He would say "I did not mean that".

Then there is what Paul (Shaul aka Saul) the Jew wrote to the believers in Rome.  Paul the Jew wrote that he was persuaded by the Man of Truth that nothing was unclean of itself but that it is only unclean when someone regards it as unclean (Romans 14:14).  He even wrote in the same passage that all things were pure but it was evil for a man to eat anything that would cause him to stumble (Romans 14:20). [The Greek word translated as "meat" in this passage is "broma" and is literally "food".]  So once again on the surface it seems that the Renewed Covenant is saying that it does not matter what you eat.

However, if we decide to dig deeper than the surface we will see things much differently.  This passage starts off with a command for believers to accept each other rather than judge each other when they are on different sides of a particular controversy (Romans 14:1). The division is between believers that eat all kinds of food with and those that eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2).  The believers that eat all kinds of food are not to judge those that eat only vegetables as not being believers and vice versa because the Father of Truth has accepted both of them (Romans 14:3).  The controversy was over rather to eat all food or to only eat vegetables.  It was not a disagreement between eating the meat of animals that the Law of Truth called clean and those that it called unclean.

The believers that at all kinds of food were not to cause grief to their fellow believer that thought believers should only eat vegetables by the food they ate (Romans 14:15).  In particular the believers that eat meat are not to eat any flesh for it could cause those believers that eat only vegetables to sin by eating meat because they would not being doing so in faith that eating meat is right (Romans 14:21-23).   If anything this passage is not giving people the right to kill and eat anything that moves but rather to avoid eating meat altogether.

This probably seems a little strange to most people today that believers would take eating meat so seriously that Paul the Jew had to write about this.  In order to understand what is really going on we have to look a little deeper than just the surface.

First we have to consider who Paul the Jew was writing to.  He wrote this letter to the believers in Rome (Romans 1:7).  However he had never been to Rome to reach the Gentiles there when he wrote this letter  (Romans 1:13-15).  Yet he greeted by name a number of believers that were in Rome and thanked some of them for their previous help (Romans 16:3-15).

This brings up several questions.  How did he know these believers?  Where did he meet them?  Why had they went to Rome?

He knew these believers because he had met them before in Corinth, for example Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-3). They were Jews that had moved to Corinth when Claudius Caesar expelled all of the Jews from Rome in 50 AD (Acts 18:2).  These same Jews, for example Aquila and Priscilla, returned to Rome when the Nero Caesar allowed the Jews to return to Rome in 56 AD (Romans 16:3).  So Paul the Jew was writing to Jews in Rome that he had met in Corinth along with Gentile believers that they had reached when they returned to Rome.

Next we have to consider who was doing the writing.

Paul the Jew circumcised Timothy (Timotheus) the Jew so that unbelieving Jews would listen to him (Acts 16:1-3).  After he wrote to the Jews in Rome he was accused of teaching Jews that came to faith in the Man of Truth to forsake the Law of Truth (Acts 21:18-21).  Paul the Jew was advised to take on a vow to show that he was still keeping the Law of Truth and had never done any such thing  (Acts 21:22-24). He took on the vow and went to the Temple because he was still keeping the Law of Truth and still taught Jews to keep the Law of Truth (Acts 21:26).  He even still identified himself as Pharisee after he wrote his letter to the believers in Rome (Acts 23:6).  Paul the Jew never taught the Jewish believers to do anything contrary to the Law of Truth.

We need to consider the overall theme of the letter.

Paul the Jew makes it very plain that he is addressing Jewish believers that they have been taught the Law of Truth (Romans 2:17-20).  He confronts them about not keeping it (Romans 2:21-23).  He confirms that it is better to be a Gentile who kept what is contained in the Law of Truth than a Jew that did not (Romans 2:25-27).  He reminds them that Law of Truth said the the real Jew was the one whose heart had been circumcised by the Father of Truth  (Romans 2:28-29).  He points out that the Law of Truth is fulfilled when they love their neighbor as themselves in the passage proceeding the passage on the controversy of eating meat or only vegetables (Romans 13:8-10).  In fact, the Law of Truth is discussed in more than 50 verses in the letter to the believers in Rome which is more than any other book in the Renewed Covenant.  Paul the Jew stresses in the letter that he too is a Jew and the Father of Truth accepting the Gentiles believers does not mean that He has cast away the Jewish believers  (Romans 11:1).  This letter is very focused on Jewish issues.  Now it makes sense why so much of this letter to the believers in Rome concentrates on the Law of Truth and other issues faced by Jewish believers.

Lastly we have to examine what he wrote carefully to understand what the controversy in this passage was about.

The flesh that Paul the Jew said that people should avoid eating to prevent those that ate only vegetables from stumbling is at the heart of the issue (Romans 14:21).  What flesh?  The answer is right there in plain Greek (Romans 14:21 Greek Text).  The Greek word translated as "flesh" is not the usual word for "flesh" but is actually quite specific.  The Greek word is "kreas" and is the flesh of a sacrificed animal (kreas).

In summary, Paul the Jew was writing to Jews, had never taught the Jewish believers to break any commandments of the Law of Truth (including the laws about what was food and what was filth) and the flesh at the center of the controversy was that of animals that could be sacrificed.  This flesh of sacrificed animals that was at the center of the controversy could only be the meat of clean animals .

The Rabbis had added many rules in addition to those in the Law of Truth about how to properly prepare the meat of clean animals so that it was fit to eat.  These Rabbinic dietary laws are called kashruth.   The Rabbis had also taught the Gentiles were uncleanable from sin unless they first became Jews by taking on Jewish customs and being circumcised.  The Law of Truth said that if the meat of clean animals was touched by something that was unclean then it also became unclean and was not to be eaten (Leviticus 7:19).  Therefore the Rabbis taught that any meat touched by the Gentiles was unclean because they were unclean.  Vegetables however were always clean.

The believing Gentiles knew nothing about these laws and only the basics from the Law of Truth that the Jewish believers had taught them.  So some of the Jewish believers would not eat the meat of clean animals that Gentile believers had touched.  They were afraid that the meat was not really clean because they were not really sure that the Gentile believers had not somehow made the meat unclean.  So they only ate vegetables when they ate with the Gentile believers. (Similar to what Daniel had done when he had to eat with Gentiles.)  Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was weak.  Other Jewish believers would eat the meat of clean animals that the Gentile believers had touched because they believed that the Gentiles were able to prepare the meat of clean animals without first learning kashruth.  Their faith that the Father of Truth had really cleaned the Gentile believers from sin without the Gentiles first learning Jewish customs and being circumcised was strong.

These Jews in Rome were not alone in struggling with these kinds of issues when it came to eating with the Gentiles.  Peter the Jew, other Jewish believers and even Barnabas the Jew had even went so far as ceasing to eat with the Gentile believers when James the Jew had sent certain Jewish believers to the church in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-13).  No Jewish believer wanted to be accused of eating filth.

Some translations even say Paul the Jew was persuaded by the Man of Truth that no food was unclean (Roman 14:14 translations).  Like in the passage we examined earlier the word "food" does not even appear in the Greek Text and was added by translators who were sure that the point of the passage containing this verse was that Paul was sharing some secret revelation that what the Father of Truth had called filth in the Original Covenant He was now calling food in the Renewed Covenant (Romans 14:14 Greek Text).   Even if the word "food" had been there then Paul the Jew would have been referring to what the Law of Truth called food and not what it called filth because He was talking to Jewish believers about a Jewish issue.

So it was the meat of clean animals that the Man of Truth convinced Paul the Jew was not unclean in itself  (because it did not need kashruth to be made clean) but for those Jews that thought it was still unclean then it was unclean to them (Romans 14:14).  The Man of Truth was not teaching that Jews were to disregard what the Law of Truth calls food and filth when he met with Paul the Jew after his resurrection while he had taught that people were to obey the Law of Truth before his death because he never changes (Hebrews 13:8).  The Man of Truth was still not teaching that people should eat filth.

So to anyone that says that the Paul the Jew was teaching that the animals which the Father of Truth had called unclean in the Original Covenant but He was now calling them clean in the Renewed Covenant Paul the Jew would say "I did not mean that".

So in all of these passages neither the Man of Truth nor the Father of Truth nor Paul the Jew meant that animals that were uncleanable from filth were now cleanable from filth.  In fact the Book of Truth plainly says that this will never be the case (Job 14:4).  They would all say "I did not mean that".

So let us be careful to not put words in the mouth of the Father of Truth that He did not say nor assign meaning to those words that He did not mean.  His Word is holy and we should treat it as such.  This is essential to accurately understanding the Book of Truth.

However, what can be cleaned from filth is people.  The Father of Truth did say that we are to not say that there is anyone who is uncleanable (Acts 10:28).  The blood of the Man of Truth is able to clean everyone from the filth of their sin (1 John 1:7).

Anyone can come into the House of Truth by submitting to the Man of Truth in total surrender because they believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10).  Anyone that comes into the House of Truth will cleaned from their sin (Romans 10:11-13).

Come into the House of Truth.

One Disturbing Sentence

How can you be sure that you are reading an accurate translation of the Book of Truth (The Bible)?

Do you read the Book of Truth?  Have you ever wondered why there are so many English translations?  Have you ever looked up a verse in multiple translations and discovered that they do not seem to say the same thing?  Have you ever wondered why different translations can be so different?  Have you ever wondered if there is an easy way to tell which translations are the most accurate translations?

These questions have plagued the Children of Truth (followers of the Man of Truth) for years.  The Book of Truth was written to be read by all people and not just ancient language experts.  People should not have to learn how to read Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek to understand the message that the Father of Truth (Yahoveh aka Yahweh aka God aka The Lord) has recorded in the Book of Truth.  People should be able to have confidence that they are reading a translation of the Book of Truth that is the result of a real effort to accurately convey the message that the Father of Truth has given to the entire human race in their own language.

Fortunately, there is a single sentence that you can look for in any translation that speaks volumes about the reliability of that translation.  This sentence has a profound impact on the meaning of the passage that contains it because it changes the entire focus of the passage. This sentence has a profound impact on the entire message of the Book of Truth because it shapes how people see the Man of Truth (Yah'shua aka Yeshua aka Jesus aka Mashiach aka Messiah aka Christ).  This sentence can create an unresolvable conflict about the the Man of Truth being the Messiah that cannot be overcome  This is one disturbing sentence.

What is that sentence? The sentence is: (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). This is one disturbing sentence for a number of reasons.  The first and foremost reason is that this sentence does not appear in all translations.  This is not just a case of wording something different, for this sentence is worded considerably different from the NIV (New International Version) that I quoted in other translations that contain it.  This sentence simply does not exists in some translations while it exists in others.

Its presences in some translations and its absence in others could mean that some translations were produced out of faulty Greek manuscripts that were significantly different than other accurate Greek manuscripts.  If so, then how do you tell which Greek manuscripts are really what the Father of Truth said and which are frauds?  If there are fraudulent Greek manuscripts that cannot be distinguished from the genuine Greek manuscripts then the Word of Truth has been compromised and the Father of Truth was not able to preserve His Word throughout the ages.

If there is no such discrepancy in the Greek manuscripts, then it is the translators that are questionable as well as the translation that they produced.  If the Greek manuscripts contain this sentence then those translators that left it out either did so unintentionally or edited it out of their translation of the Book of Truth.  If the Greek manuscripts do not contain this sentence then there can be little doubt that the translators edited it into of their translation of the Book of Truth.  Either way, it means that someone has either added to or taken away words from the Book of Truth in their translation.  This is one disturbing sentence.

So what is the story here?  Is the problem with the Greek manuscripts or is it with the translators?

To answer these question we have to start by examining Mark 7:18-19.   If you read the NIV translation or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:18-19 says: Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."). (A New translation rarely starts from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts but rather are based on a previous translation to which changes are applied to gain better clarity.)

However even a very surface examination shows a serious problem.  If you read the KJV (King James Version) translation or or a translation based off of it then Mark 7:19 says: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive , that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? Now it is obvious that there is a serious problem.  The entire last sentence in the NIV ( (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") ) is completely missing from the KJV and related translations.  This is quite a discrepancy between the two translations.  This is not a mere matter of choosing different English words or restructuring a sentence to improve the clarity for the people that cannot read Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek.  This is an out and out contradiction between the two translations.  One translation says that the Man of Truth declared all food clean and the other translations does not.  Which one is right?

In order to answer that question we have to dig a lot deeper than we usually do.  We have to go an look at the Greek text that each were based off of.   The Greek text used by each translation is different.

The original KVJ translation was based off of the Textus Receptus Greek text that was first published in 1516 AD. Western Europe did not have access to original Greek Manuscripts from the time that the Western Roman Empire fell (476 AD) until the Byzantine Empire came to an end (1453 AD).  It was only then that the Greeks, who had kept the original Greek manuscripts, began to allow access to these manuscripts to non-Greeks and Greek scholars were force to move to western Europe where they could help people translate the Greek manuscripts into other languages.  So everyone in Western Europe had to rely on the Latin translation from the original Greek manuscripts called the Latin Vulgate for about a thousand years.  The first English translation, the Wycliffe translation, was a translation of the Latin Vulgate.  The Textus Receptus Greek document was mostly based on six original Greek manuscripts but a few passages were back translations from the Latin Vulgate into Greek to fill in the gaps in the Renewed Covenant that were not contained in these six original Greek manuscripts.   The more modern translations that are based on the KJV, such as the one that is normally used in our discussions, have made corrections in places when the original Greek manuscripts that were later recovered filled in the gaps in the original six Greek manuscripts.

The NIV translation was based off of the Westcott-Hort Greek text that is often more simply known as the Greek New Testament that was first published in 1881 AD.  This Greek text was based off of four older complete Greek manuscripts that each contained the entire Renewed Covenant.  (One manuscript even contained the entire Septuagint (Greek Translation of the Original Covenant.))  According to the compilers, Westcott and Hort, they found no evidence that the Greek manuscripts used to compile the Textus Receptus had been tampered with an any manner when they compared them to the manuscripts used to compile the Greek New Testament during the the 28 years it took them to do so.  In fact, they reported that the occurrence of a trivial difference that had no significance in meaning was only about 1 in 60 words while a difference that had any significance in meaning was less than 1 in 1000 words.  In other words, the Textus Receptus was reliable and the Father of Truth had indeed preserved His word through out the ages. 

That being the case then why is there a complete sentence in the NIV ((In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")) that is not in the KJV?  Did the KJV translators leave it out by some mistake and the translations that used it as a starting point kept repeating the mistake? Or did the NIV translators add it and the translations that used it as a starting point kept repeating the mistake?  The answer is plain to see if you simple look at Mark 7:19 in the Textus Receptus and the Greek New Testament (GNT).  You can plainly see that the entire sentence is missing from both Greek texts (Mark 7:19 Greek texts).  You do not have to be able to read Koine Greek to see that both Greek texts end with the same word translated as "meat" in the English text in the Greek to English mapping that is inserted between the two Greek texts.  You can see that the variation of the Greek word translated as "meat" is the last word in both Greek texts.

However, the NIV does not rely completely on the Greek New Testament but also upon other Greek manuscripts that contain only parts of the Renewed Covenant but are older than 400 AD.  So just to be thorough I searched the web and found a list of these other manuscripts.  I then went and read Mark 7:19 in each manuscript.  This took me a good part of a Saturday afternoon.  (Oh the wonders of the internet!  It is great that I could do this from the comfort of my home in an afternoon instead of having to travel all over the world to read these manuscripts.  Not only that but the websites for most of the manuscripts not only made the Koine Greek contained in the manuscripts available but also transliterated the Greek into English characters.  Most even gave an English translation of each word.  For most of the Greek manuscripts there was no need to be able to read Koine Greek as long as you could read English.)  Not one single Greek manuscript contained this sentence.  For example, you can see for yourself in the Codex Sinaiticus.

Even if a Greek manuscript had contained this sentence then it still would not have proof that this one Greek manuscript containing it was right and all others were wrong.  The oldest manuscripts are partial manuscripts that have usually survived because they had some sort of mistake that could not be fixed.  The original writers of the Renewed Covenant were all Jews and the scribes that kept making copies of the Renewed Covenant had learned how to do so from the Jewish believers.  They used as system known as the jot and tittle system to insure that there were no mistakes. Basically each letter of a copy goes through a 32 point inspection by a more experienced scribe to ensure that it looks exactly like the letter from the original document. (Hebrew letters are made from jots and tittles that is why it is called the jot and tittle system.)   If a mistake is found and it cannot be fixed then that portion is not allowed in the overall document.  However, since the Word of Truth that surrounded the mistake is considered holy they would not simply throw the portion with the mistake in the trash or burn it.  Instead they would place it in a metal box and give it a burial.  This was especially common in Alexandria, Egypt.  Needless to say, manuscript pieces that were buried in a metal box in the desert lasted a lot longer than manuscripts which people actually used.  So often the reason that the oldest manuscripts are still around is because they contain some sort of mistake.  If all of the Greek manuscripts but one contain the same text then the text that is different is undoubtedly the mistake.  We are not to base our understanding of the Word of Truth on a single Greek manuscript that is different from all other Greek manuscripts.  The Book of Truth (the Bible) says that every word must be established by at least two witnesses (2 Corinthians 13:1).

So you might be wondering if that sentence is not any of the Greek manuscripts then why does it appear in the NIV and similar translations?  The short answer is because the NIV translators thought that it should have been there.

There are two methodologies commonly used in translating from the original languages into other languages.  One methodology is called word-for-word translation where each word is translated from the source language into the target language and then changes in word order, etc., are applied to make the meaning more clear in the target language.  

 

This is the method used by the KJV translators and is why some words are in italics.  The italicized words are words that were either added to form proper English or the translators were uncertain that the words were properly translated.  The words were italicized to show that this was the case because the translators held the very words of the Book of Truth in high regard and did not want these words to be mistaken as being the words of the Father of Truth.  

 

In fact, the structure of the entire English language was restructured to be more like that of Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek when William Tyndale made the first English translation of the Book of Truth from the Hebrew and Greek text in phases that started with the Renewed Covenant in 1526 and ended with the complete Book of Truth in published within four years of his death. (He was executed in 1536 at the behest of the Church of England for translating the Bible into English.)

The other methodology is called thought-for-thought translation where the translator reads a portion of the source language that forms a thought and then attempts to write something in the target language that conveys the same thought.  

 

This is the method used by the NIV translators for this verse.  

 

This methodology is often useful in cases where the translator can ask the source for clarification to be sure that the correct thoughts are being translated.  For example, a direct translation between the speaker of the source language and the hearers of another language.  This is often done by translators for missionaries that are speaking to large crowds who speak a different language.  The value of this method rests upon knowing for certain the thoughts of the originator of the source language so that they can correctly translated those thoughts into the target language.

So which is the right methodology for translating the Book of Truth?  The Book of Truth itself answers this question.

It says that we cannot know for certain the thoughts of the Father of Truth unless He tells us (Isaiah 55:9).  It say that we cannot know His thoughts based on our ability to find them out (Romans 11:33-34).  It says that we can only know those thoughts of His that the the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) reveals to us (1 Corinthians 2:9-11).  The Spirit of Truth has revealed His thoughts in the Book of Truth (2 Peter 1:19-21).

It is the very words in the Book of Truth that we live by (Matthew 4:4).  It is His words in the Book of Truth that tell us what He thinks so that we can do His will (2 Timothy 3:14-17).  If we add to His words or take away from His words then we will not spend eternity with Him (Revelation 22:18-20).

The Book of Truth clearly comes down on the side of word-for-word translations and against thought-for-thought translations when it comes to the Book of Truth.  That is why we have been using a translation that based on the word-for-word methodology by men that took great pains to ensure that we knew when they added even something as small as "of" when necessary for clarification.  These men have made every reasonable effort to handle the Word of Truth carefully.

On the other hand the NIV translators of Mark 7:19 simply added their own opinion to the actual words of the Man of Truth.  They literally put their own words in his mouth.  The NIV translators had no right to put words in the mouth of the Man of Truth that he never said because they thought that he should have said them.  The sentence that says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") is not part of the Book of Truth because it is not in any of the Greek manuscripts that record what the Man of Truth actually said.  That is why it is one disturbing sentence.

In an American court of law this would be called hearsay and thrown out as inadmissible evidence.  The fact that the NIV translators took such liberties with this verse by adding an entire sentence that was nothing more than their own opinion makes their entire work suspect and unreliable. This is the danger of thought-for-thought translations and why they should be avoided altogether. 

Since this one disturbing sentence, (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."), was never said by the Man of Truth and is not part of the Book of Truth then we will not go into any depth at this time over all of the most of the problems that it causes.

However there is one problem with it that must be addressed.  If he had actually said this then he would have been breaking the Law of Truth because he would have been changing it and thus breaking one of the commandments (Deuteronomy 12:32).  We would have no hope because then he could not have died in our place as our sinless sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8).  We could not have been made righteous unless he was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21).  He would not have been sinless in that case because sin is transgression of the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4).  This is there most important reason that (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") this is one disturbing sentence.

So you can be sure that the original language manuscripts accurately contain the words of the Book of Truth. You can be sure that the Father of Truth has preserved His word throughout the ages in the Book of Truth and that it does indeed endure forever (1 Peter 1:25).  You can be sure that if you are reading a word-for-word translation that there was a real effort to make the most accurate translation of the Book of Truth into your language.   All you have to do is look at Mark 7:19 and see if it contains this one disturbing sentence.  If it contains (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") then you would be better off to find a translation where people did not put words in the mouth of the Man of Truth that he never said in order to assign meanings that he never meant.

You can be sure that the message of the Book of Truth is accurate.  You can be sure that you need to come into the House of Truth because you have sinned against the Father of Truth by breaking the Law of Truth (Romans 3:21-23).   You can be sure that you can only come into the House of Truth by submitting in total surrender to the Man of Truth because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10).  You can be sure that everyone that does not come into the House of Truth will spend eternity suffering in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15).

Come into the House of Truth.

What's for Dinner?

Is there a diet that will make you healthier and feel better?

What's for Dinner?

That can be a loaded question.  The person doing the cooking might not want to answer if they are not sure about the tastes and opinions of the person asking.  The person asking might not want to hear the answer if the person doing the cooking does not share their perspective on what is safe and satisfying to eat.

The issue is further clouded by all kinds of cultural issues as well.  What might be preferable in one culture may be considered repulsive in another.  What one culture considers delicious may be considered too bland in another.  What one culture considers normal may be considered too intense in another.

Then there is all of the conflicting advice about what is healthy and what is not.

Some people say that people must eat meat to be healthy but these people rarely agree on what kind of meat is healthy and what is not.  When I was in school we were told to eat organ meat (kidneys, livers, and the like) three times a week because those organs were the filters of the body where many nutrients accumulated.  However, my kids were told to never eat organ meat because those organs were the filters of the body where many impurities accumulated.  Both statements about organ meat were true so how can you decide if organ meat should be consumed regularly or avoided like the plague?

Some people say to not eat any meat but just to consume plant and dairy products if you want to be healthy.  Other people say that you must only eat plant products.  Even those people have all kinds of disagreements over which plant products are good for people and which ones should never be eaten.

On top of that there is the entire GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) nightmare.  What about corn that has had its DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid ) altered by splicing in a pig gene to make it grow faster and larger?  Is corn that has been reconstructed from various parts of different organisms like the monster created by Doctor Frankenstein safe to eat? Can such FrankenCorn really be good for anyone?

What's for dinner?

All this makes such a simple question seem too complex to answer.  Is there any reliable guide to give an answer that is always safe to eat and satisfying to the eater?

Fortunately, there is.  The Book of Truth (The Bible) tells you all that you need to know to answer this question without any hesitation about whether or not you are offering something that is both healthy to eat and that will satisfy the eater.

What's for dinner?

Answering this question begins with realizing that what people eat matters.  The very first commandment that the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) ever gave to the human race was about what to eat and what not to eat (Genesis 2:16-17).   The very first lie that the Father of Lies ever told to a person was about what to eat and what not to eat (Genesis 3:2-5).  The very first act of rebellion against the Father of Truth by the human race was eating what He said not to eat (Genesis 3:6-7).  The very first time people sought to hide from the presence of the Father of Truth was when they ate what He said not to eat (Genesis 3:8-10).  The very first trial of the human race was about eating what He said not to eat (Genesis 3:11-13).  The very first judgment ever passed on the human race was because people ate what He said not to eat (Genesis 3:14-19).  It was eating what the Father of Truth said not to eat that brought death upon the entire human race (Romans 5:12).

It also matters what people eat because His healthcare plan is based on whether or not people eat only what He says they should eat (Exodus 23:25-26).  Although there is a lot more to gaining all of the benefits of His healthcare plan than just eating it still spends a lot of time giving instructions about what people should eat.

What's for dinner?

The best place to begin is that the fact that not everything that people can eat is actually considered to be food in the Book of Truth.  Only somethings that people eat are considered to be food (Leviticus 11:2).   The Father of Truth spelled out what is food and is filth in the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) that He gave Moses so that His people could live a life that reflects His holiness (Leviticus 11:45-47).  Other things that people eat are considered to be abominable (filthy or disgusting), which is to say that they are filth instead of food (Deuteronomy 14:3).

What's for dinner?

Not everything that walks around on four legs is food. The meat of animals that walk upon the land like cows, sheep, goats, antelope and deer is food (Deuteronomy 14:4-5).  These animals have split hooves and rechew their food (have a multi-chamber stomach) (Deuteronomy 14:6).  They all are even toed ungulates. The multi-chamber stomach destroys out any bacteria that may be in their diet and the split hooves act as shoes to keep parasites and disease from entering their bodies from the ground.

Odd toed ungulates (like camels) have the multi-chamber stomach but the are lacking the split hooves that keep disease and parasites from entering their bodies from the ground so their meat is filth (Leviticus 11:4).   Other animals with multi-chamber stomachs do not even have hooves but rather paws (like rabbits and coneys (similar to a woodchuck or marmot)) so their meat is also filth (Leviticus 11:5-6).  In fact the meat of any animal that has paws (like a dog or cat or bear or opossum or raccoon) is filth (Leviticus 11:27).

Even the meat of even toed ungulates that lack a multi-chamber stomach (like pigs) that filters out disease from their food is also filth (Leviticus 11:7).  The meat of pigs is especially filthy when one considers that in the wild pigs are omnivores (eat both plants and animals) and scavengers (eat animals that have died from disease). They are basically the hoofed garbage disposals of the land.  This is why swine cannot be made fit to eat even if they are only fed grain.

What's for dinner?

Likewise not everything that swims is food.  Only those animals that swim or live in the water which have both scales (the Hebrew word implies easily removed scales) and fins are food (Leviticus 11:9).  Everything else that people call sea food is really sea filth (Leviticus 11:10-11).  Fish that lack easily removable scales (like catfish) are bottom feeders that eat the poop and other filth that is on the bottom of the water they live in. Animals that lack fins (like lobsters, shrimp, oysters and clams) live in that same filth and also eat it.  They are the garbage disposals of the waters.  So the meat of fish with removable scales (like perch, bass, cod, tilapia) is food (Deuteronomy 14:9).  The meat of everything else that comes from the waters is filth (Deuteronomy 14:10).

What's for dinner?

Also not every bird or other flying animal is food (The Hebrew word translated as "fowl" literally means anything that flies with wings).  The flying animals whose meat is filth include birds of prey (eagles, hawks, osprey, owls, vultures, etc.), storks, wading birds (the word "cuckow" (cuckoo) here is translated as gull in the Greek translation (Septuagint), and the word "swan" here is translated as "purple legged" in the Greek translation (Septuagint) ("purple legged" is the name for ibises and flamingos among the ancient Greeks)) and bats (Leviticus 11:13-19). These birds are all either scavengers, or wade in the filth that is at the bottom of water while scooping up that the filth at the bottom, while they eat.  (Of course, bats are not even birds but are more like flying mice.)  They are the flying garbage disposals of the land and waters.  The meat of most birds is food (Deuteronomy 14:11).  However, the meat of these flying garbage disposals is filth (Deuteronomy 14:12-19).  The meat of every bird that is not one of these flying garbage disposals is food (Deuteronomy 14:20).

What's for dinner?

Almost the meat of almost no other animal is food.  The meat of almost all animals that crawl around on all fours (most insects only use their back four limbs as legs and feet to crawl but use their front two limbs as arms and hands to grab things) or otherwise crawl along the ground is filth (Leviticus 11:20).  The only insects whose meat is food are those with a legs above a foot that lays flat on the earth so they can leap (or hop) (Leviticus 11:21).

These insects are all members of the grasshopper family (called locusts when they swarm) (Leviticus 11:22). (The word "beetle" here is translated as "akrida" in the Greek translation (Septuagint) which is the sword tailed grasshopper.)  Grasshoppers are vegetarians that are unique among insects in that they chew their food and have a more developed digestive system that filters out disease.  Crickets, while similar in appearance, lack a foot that lays flat on the earth that is used for hopping.  Crickets are scavengers (they will even eat other crickets that died) and lack the more developed digestive system to filter out disease.  So crickets are not listed along with grasshoppers even though they are similar in appearance.  All other insects are either small garbage disposals (like crickets) or they lack the more developed digestive system needed to filter out disease from their food so their meat is filth (Leviticus 11:23).

What's for dinner?

So to recap the meat of even toed ungulates with four chambered stomachs (cows, sheep, goats, deer, antelope, etc.), fish with easily removed scales, birds that are not scavengers or waders, and grasshoppers are food.  The meat of every thing else is filth, just like the meat of weasels, mice, tortoises, ferrets, chameleons, lizards, snails, and moles is filth (Leviticus 11:29-30).

The meat of some animals is fit to eat and the meat of other animals is not fit for human consumption.  The Maker of the human body calls those animals that are fit for human consumption clean and the Father of Truth calls all other animals unclean.  The animals were already being called clean or unclean before the Law of Truth was ever given to Moses (Genesis 7:7-9).  The Law of Truth was given so people could discern between what was fit for human consumption and what was not (Leviticus 10:9-11).  (The Hebrew word "tame" translated as "unclean" is translated as "akathartos" in the Septuagint (Greek translation) which literally means "uncleanable from pollution".) It is as useless to try to make the meat of an unclean animal into food, as it is to make a rotten apple that was found floating in a sewer fit to put in a pie.  The Father of Truth wants His people to not treat both what he calls clean from pollution and what He says is uncleanable from pollution as being food (Leviticus 20:25).  The meat of an unclean animal is still filth and there is no way for people to turn filth into food (Job 14:4). 

However, there is more to meat than just not eating animals whose meat is filth.  Even some parts of animals that are fit to eat are still filth.  The organs of the gut cavity are the garbage disposals of the body so they are filth that is to be thrown away instead of being eaten (Leviticus 3:4).  Everything in the gut cavity including the organ meat is not fit for human consumption so that it had to be taken away instead of being eaten by the priest when an animal was sacrificed to the Father of Truth (Leviticus 3:14-15).  All blood and the fat of the gut cavity is filth (Leviticus 3:17).  The fat of the gut cavity of animals that are fit for human consumption, is still filth (Leviticus 7:23).  The blood of animals that are fit for human consumption, is still filth (Leviticus 7:26).

This why when people catch a fish they must clean it before eating it.  When they clean a fish they are removing the scales to get rid of any outer filth, removing the inner filth in the gut cavity when they gut the fish and cutting it open allows the blood to drain.  This why people field dress a deer as soon as they kill it by hanging it upside down, cutting off it head (why the head is the part that gets mounted) to drain the blood,  remove the skin to get rid of any outer filth and gutting it to remove all inner filth.  Hanging any animal that is fit for human consumption upside down and cutting off its head like when a deer is field dressed gets rid of the blood (Deuteronomy 15:22-23).  An animal that is fit for human consumption must be cleaned by separating the parts that are filth from the parts are food before it can be eaten.  So the Hebrew words translated as "clean" and "unclean" would be better translated as "cleanable" and "uncleanable" to convey the correct idea.

What's for dinner?

Of course, there is more to a healthy diet than just avoiding eating meat that is filth.  People also eat plant products as well.  In fact, in the beginning everyone in the human race was a vegetarian (Genesis 1:29).  Animals were only slain as sacrifices to God (Genesis 4:4).   It was only after the flood, when the world was changed, that people needed to eat meat, so they had to be told to not eat the blood (Genesis 9:3-4).

The seed of the plants must be not be contaminated with water that was made filthy by the body of a dead animal whose meat is filth or it will also be filth along with its produce (Leviticus 11:36-38). The seeds of different varieties must not be planted in the same field to avoid contamination from cross pollination (Leviticus 19:19).  So surely mixing the DNA of other organisms like GMO would also make any plant to be filth and not food.

The fruit of fruit trees is not always ready to be eaten.  The fruit that a tree produces is not fit to eat until it is harvested in the fifth year that the tree produces fruit (Leviticus 19:23-25).  Just as a girl can start having children when she is twelve but is not fully ready to have children until she is twenty so also a fruit tree starts producing fruit early but it is not fully ready to produce fruit that contains full nutrition until the fifth year of fruit production.

Plants must be properly grown to contain the nutrition that the human body needs.  This begins with the soil containing the proper nutrients.  For this reason the soil must rest every seven years (Leviticus 25:3-5).  After seven sets of seven years the land needs one extra year of rest so that it rests eight years out of every fifty years (Leviticus 25:8-11).  This need for the land to rest so that it contains the proper nutrients is so important that the Father of Truth told the children of Israel that He would put them out of the land of Israel so it could rest if they did not let it rest (Leviticus 26:33-35).  He would not even let them return to the land of Israel after they repented until the land had finished its rest (Leviticus 26:40-43).

For these reasons letting the land rest (being fallow) continued to be practiced in Europe for hundreds of years from when Christianity was introduced until the four crop rotation system was introduced in the 1600's. They had learned by observation that the food of the Jews that was grown on land that had rested was tastier and more nutritious.  In some places, like Greece, they did this because they said the Apostles had taught them to do so.

What's for dinner?

Not only must people eat food instead of filth and plant products that have the been raised and harvested correctly to gain the benefits of the healthcare plan of the Father of Truth but the food must also be prepared correctly.

This starts with clean cookware and a clean kitchen.  If anything that should not be eaten (like blood) touches metal cookware then it be cleaned by scouring it with hot water (Leviticus 6:28).  If the body of a dead animal whose meat is filth touches anything that is made from organic material then that item can be cleaned by washing it and then not using it until the next day (Leviticus 11:32).  If the body of a dead animal whose meat is filth or even water that has touched that body comes in contact with cookware that is made of any other material such as ceramic or glass then it must be broken and thrown away (Leviticus 11:33).  This is because the filth cannot be removed from these items because they are porous.  (That is why if you clean the outside of an aquarium with Windex it will seep into the water and kill the fish.)

Also any food or drink that comes in contact with the body of a dead animal whose meat is filth or is in a vessel that has been so polluted and not cleaned then also becomes filth and must be thrown out (Leviticus 11:34).  Even cooking devices that are not made of metal like clay ovens must be destroyed if they come in contact with filth (Leviticus 11:33-35).

Lastly, any dish where an animal is cooked in its own mother's milk is filth (Deuteronomy 14:21).

Note that there is nothing said about eating meat with milk in the same meal except for avoiding the sick practice of the idolaters of the Canaanites to cook a young goat in the milk of its own mother.  (I almost threw up the first time I read this.)  To say that this means to never eat meat and dairy in the same meal is putting words in the mouth of the Father of Truth that he never said.   Who are we to add our rules to His rules?  We must never add or take away from what He has said (Deuteronomy 12:32).

It is for this reason that beef and dairy breeds of cattle were developed.  If you make hamburger gravy using meat from a beef breed like an Angus and milk that comes from a dairy breed like a Holstein then you can be sure that you are not cooking the meat from the animal in the milk of its own mother.  If you want to err on the side of caution then never have eat a meal where the meat and the milk are from the same type of animal.  So eat your chicken pizza in confidence that knowing you are not eating a chicken that has been cooked in the milk of its own mother.

What's for dinner?

Of course, one problem with keeping the diet laid out by the Father of Truth is that people do not grow and process all of their own food.  That is why Daniel refused to eat what the king of Babylon ate (Daniel 1:8).  This is why Daniel and his friends only ate vegetables because fresh vegetables are always food and never filth (Daniel 1:11-13).  Because they stuck to the diet given by the Father of Truth they were healthier than those that ate the diet of Babylon (Daniel 1:14-16).

What's for dinner?

Gaining the benefits of His healthcare plan do not end with just eating food and avoiding filth.  Self control to not eat too much is also required particularly when it comes to sweets (Proverbs 25:16).  That is why people need the Spirit of Truth (Ruach HaQodesh aka The Holy Spirit aka The Holy Ghost) living in them to help them keep the diet of the Father of Truth (Galatians 5:22-23).

Also it is important to thank the Father of Truth for the food.  You should thank Him after you eat and tell Him that you are satisfied with what He has given you (Deuteronomy 8:10).  (I started doing this and then realized a month later that I had lost 15lbs without making any other conscious change to my eating.  I thought it over and realized that once I had started thanking the Father of Truth after meals I had stopped snacking between meals and eating smaller portions at meals.  Thanking Him silenced every lie that said I was hungry when I was not.)  You should also thank Him for your food before you eat like the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) did (Luke 24:30).

Those that do not keep the diet of the Father of Truth can eat and not be satisfied (Micah 6:14).  So if you want to serve something that is always satisfying then stick to His diet.  Otherwise you are likely to eat too much because you will find yourself still hungry shortly after you have eaten.

What's for dinner?

This is the diet that Moses kept and is part of the reason that he lived to 120 years of age without any need for eye glasses and died in full strength showing that he received all the benefits of the healthcare plan of the Father of Truth (Deuteronomy 34:7).

This is the diet that the Man of Truth kept who obeyed the Law of Truth completely (Matthew 5:17). You can be certain of this because he was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).  He would have been committing sin if he broke any part of the Law of Truth including the diet of the Father of Truth (James 2:10).  Sin is nothing more than transgressing the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4). 

This is part of the reason that the Man of Truth died in full strength as promised in the healthcare plan of the Father of Truth (Matthew 27:50).

This is the diet that Peter (Cephas aka Simon aka Simeon) kept (Acts 11:7-8).

He did not die from disease but was killed for the sake of witnessing that the Man of Truth was the Messiah when he was old (John 21:18).  He died in an old age after living a life full of health which he used to serve the Man of Truth (2 Peter 1:13-15).

This is the diet that Paul (Shaul aka Saul) kept.  He was accused of teaching Jews that followed the Man of Truth to break the Law of Truth  (Acts 21:20-21).  He was advised to take on a Nazarite vow to show that there was no truth to this accusation (Acts 21:22-24).  Paul (Shaul aka Saul) consented because he kept the Law of Truth including the diet of the Father of Truth  (Acts 21:26).

He lived to be an old man who still preached the Gospel (Philemon 1:8-10).   He still planned on traveling a thousand miles on ship and then walking hundreds of miles when he got out of prison (Philemon 1:22).   He did not die from disease either but was killed for the sake of witnessing that the Man of Truth was the Messiah when he was old (2 Timothy 4:5-7).

What's for dinner?

You might be thinking that you do not need to keep the diet of the Father of Truth that is laid out in the Law of Truth to come into the House of Truth and you would be right (Acts 21:25).  But why would you not want to gain all of the benefits that come from keeping the diet of the Father of Truth?  Is it not better to be healthy than sick?  Is it not better to eat and be satisfied than to be feeling like something is still missing even though you are stuffed?

The truth is that it does not matter what you eat unless you also come into the House of Truth. You do not come into the House of Truth by keeping the diet of the Father of Truth because no one comes into the House of Truth by keeping the Law of Truth (Romans 3:19-20).  You come into the House of Truth by making the Man of Truth the boss of every area of your life because you believe that the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:8-10).

Come into the House of Truth.