RE: Eating Raw is said to be based Bibically [s]

[Guest guest]

Hi Debbie, Valerie, et al,

 

This religious question is really an endless discussion, one I have followed

and researched extensively in the past. Debbie, there are other passages in

the OT relating to food, following the Flood, in Daniel, etc. There are also

a couple of references in the NT. But in addition, did you know there are

actually 28 gospels? 4 were canonized by the Catholic Church

during/following the Council of Nicea around 320 CE (320 AD in the Christian

calendar). That was a time where the church at Rome rose to great power, the

Roman Emperor Constantine declared the church at Rome (and therefore its

brand of Christianity) the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313 CE.

 

There was great persecution of other, more spiritually inclined christian

groups, and a number proceeded to hide large numbers of scrolls in various

places, such as the Dead Sea, Egypt, etc. Some of these scrolls have been

found, and they contain information/writings that pretty much turn much of

established " Christianity " on its head.

 

During the 1920s, a scholar found some copper scrolls stored in the Vatican

library He translated these, and today they are published in 4 volumes

called " The Essene Gospel of Peace. " In the first volume, Jesus speaks with

crystal clarity about eating ONLY raw food -- never cooked or frozen, and

also about fasting on water only.

 

The problem is that no one in his/her right mind can possibly say what texts

are " real " or " authentic. " Most present-day English language translations of

the OT are based upon the Masoretic text, which is actually the newest, not

the oldest, of extant ancient versions of the OT. Versions found among

scrolls unearthed in Egypt and elsewhere have been almost completely ignored

and their publication even actively suppressed by some of the

organized/established churches.

 

In addition to problems determining what original text may be " most

authentic, " translation is also a massively complex problem. Ancient Hebrew,

and Aramaic written in Hebrew letters, was always written without vowels,

and with few or no spaces between words or sentences. So often, by simply

breaking the words in different places, one can obtain completely unrelated

meanings.

 

On top of all this, there is a collection of ancient books/scrolls, called

the Apocrypha, which the Roman Catholic Church and some other western

Christian denominations consider part of the OT, but Jews do not.

 

WRT (with respect to the NT, the oldest reasonably complete copies of the

canonized version are the Septuagint, written in Greek a couple centuries

after Jesus lived. So who knows who wrote what. Further,

competing/contradictory versions of these texts, and at least 2 dozen

gospels not canonized in the NT, have been found and at least partially

translated. These often clash sharply in meaning with the canonized NT.

 

As if that weren't enough, for some reason virtually all " Christian "

churches (in America, anyway) choose to rely upon the King James Version.

Now this version is the result of work done by scholars in the court of King

James I of England, between 1604-1611 CE. The first 7 scholars James asked

to do the work refused him outright. Finally he found some less scrupulous

" scholars " willing to take on his assignment: create a translation of the NT

and other documents that would support the destruction of the Church of

England and the reassertion of hegemony for the Catholic Church in England.

Now why ANY non-Catholic denomination would use this translation for

anything transcends my furthest imagination, yet almost all such

denominations seem to make this choice.

 

Anyway, by now you've all probably read far more on this topic than you

would ever have wished, at least in this group. Bottom line, IMHO: look at

Nature's Divine Design, not at these texts, the answers are all right under

our noses, quite literally in this instance! :)

 

Best to all,

Elchanan

 

 

Gypsi at www.aromaticwings.com [aromatic_wings]

Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:23 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Eating Raw is said to be based Bibically

 

 

 

 

 

First I want to say that I really am not trying to get into a religious

discussion here. but noticed something today in my research.

 

This research was ..bibically based as I have a software that will cross

reference scriptures. I ahd seen many times in many discussions that people

refer to Genisis 1:29-30 for one of the reasons why they eat raw and mostly

fruits. Well, my confusion now is what about the Other scriptures that

mention other foods we are to eat?

 

Are people basing the Genesis scripture as the original way we are to eat

and bypassing the other two scriptures because we eventually sinned and were

given something else we could eat?? I do not mean to be trouble here but if

this other food was mentioned also in the Bible by God then why can we not

eat these also? Other then the scientific resaons? Was this purposed as a

punishment to us at the time it was given? Since we just couldn't behave by

then...

 

Ok here are the two other scriptures I am speaking of Leviticus

11:3,9,21,22; Deuteronomy 14:4-6,9,11,20 and I know these are from the Old

Testament .. guess I am wanting now to know why they changed?

 

Debbie

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alrighty then.... whooooa I knew I would get a fantastic answer from this

group!! As always Elchanan your answers are very enlightening. And yes.. the

most simle way to know is to watch and see others an how their bodies react to

various ways of eating and for ones self how the raw life reacts in our own

bodies... Thank you for your explaination this gives me plenty to deal with and

know. I need not go any further with this as this has been satisfactorly

answered. All of the answers makes sense...Thanks again.

 

No need for further discussion. I am happy...

 

" INFO @ Vibrant Life " <VLinfo wrote:

Hi Debbie, Valerie, et al,

 

This religious question is really an endless discussion,........<snip>