I just found out that there is a tree called honey locust tree or in german Jonannisbrotbaum (John bread tree). This just makes me wonder if John really eat locust (wasn’t that even considered unclean?) and wild honey or if he just eat from wild honey locust? It makes me wonder if this just fits into the „eating any animal is ok doctrine“ they want us to believe and therefor a mistranslation or if the greek is pretty clear on that. Does anyone know?
I'm sure he did - locusts are listed as clean foods in Torah. If I remember correctly he ate locusts and wild honey. Someone help me out here please. Thanks!
Thank you!
In Leviticus 11 Locust are declared as clean food!
Does that include crickets.
These are the ones we can eat.
21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground.22 Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind.23 But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you.
So locust, cricket, and grasshoppers.
Well at least for those desperate times when you can't eat anything else, I don't know how I feel about eating an insect even if it is clean, lol.
I once met a missionary that told from the pulpit that he had eaten fried grasshoppers. He claimed they reminded him of McDonald French fries, only crispier. I don’t know but I would find it hard to eat unless that was all there was to eat.
Translation error of the scribes John was a vegan. He was set apart for Yahuah .
TLDR: Hebrew gives a description of the kind of insects you can eat doesn't name them. The English translation named them. So, yes John ate locust like the New Testament says.
Maybe a translation error if it mentioned only 1 but we can eat crickets and grasshoppers and its pretty precise with the whole thing about how the jointed legs above their feet should be and only have 4 legs. Not exactly the description of a tree now is it.
ok so I went to Hebrew to Leviticus 11
תֹּֽאכְל֔וּ So this is the word for eating
שֶׁ֣רֶץ This is the word for swarming insect
הָע֔וֹף This is the world for winged insect
Well importing Hebrew makes the text go to the other side. Ok so those are the 3 words in Hebrew for what they are describing. So, it doesn't not name them. They named them in the translation in the Hebrew its actually only gives a description of what kind of insects you can eat. So, you cannot grab the word locust and go find something else that is the same word in English and say this is what He ate. You want to be saying that it's a mistranslation then you need to say the Hebrew word that was mistranslated.
So, it wasn't not a mistranslation. Your error was thinking the Hebrew named them like our English translation does. Because in English we don't do that. The Hebrew gave the description instead of a name.
In Hebrew it was like this,
This would be a litter translation of the Hebrew:
You can eat insects that swarm and fly and are like this they have wings, that have 4 legs, and their legs are jointed above their feet and that can jump among the earth.
I hope that clears it up.
That is not a description of a tree.
I am going to have to disagree with Tertullian because he was a church father of the Catholic church and what he is talking about is subtracting from the LAW of YAHUWAH. He said what we can eat and what we can't eat. The Jews endless add to His LAW so that no one can follow, and Tertullian and his contemporaries talk about subtracting from it. Which is what the Christian's did and then they went and added Pagan worship.
We are in the future and can learn from all their mistakes. We do not want to be Tertullian subtracting from His LAW and we don't want to be Jews adding to it.
We have His LAW and what it says. Our goal needs to be sticking to that and that alone without adding or subtracting to it.
YAHUW came to perfectly obey the LAW of YAHUWAH so He didn't add or subtract to it and I am going to say that John the Baptist didn't either.
He has already set the standard and He doesn't say anywhere we are to be vegetarians and to keep the Passover LAW that is in the Ten Commandments John had to eat a lamb or he would now be a lawless one that doesn't follow the LAW and no longer be clean.
So, as I said before my definition of being Set Apart is doing as He has commanded us to do in His LAW. Anything that is not that isn't being Set Apart.
And you cannot substitute the lamb for Passover because YAHUW represents the lamb and the lamb represents our sins being forgiven and every time we eat it, we are supposed to remember that, so to substitute Him with something else would be totally inappropriate.
Like I saw people trying to have substitute meat for Passover but then you aren't eating the lamb, anymore are you? Are you going to tell me that soy now died for your sins and represents the True LAMB?
I do not think so, the LAMB died for your sins not soy, period. Therefore, soy protein or any other meat, will not do.
https://m.guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/life-a-style/health-benefits-of-locust-beans/
That is a tree not an insect, but very interesting.
https://www.honeytraveler.com/single-flower-honey/carob-honey/
Ok to be set apart to Yahuah and able to baptize the messiah. So he could receive the holy spirit John was not chasing bugs around in the wilderness. John was holy even before his mothers womb.
And you are basing this one what?
What makes you say that he wasn't Set Apart if he was eating bugs when as you can see, it was lawful to eat those bugs?
To be Set Apart is to follow the LAW of YAHUWAH so if he did because the LAW says you can eat locust why does that not make him set apart if he ate clean bugs???
There is nothing in the Torah and the Prophets about being a vegetarian to be clean?
So, if you can explain yourself other than just saying statements that don't match with the Word, please.
https://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-early-church-fathers.html
https://jamestabor.com/did-john-the-baptist-eat-bugs-beans-or-pancakes/
Set apart one be set apart as I am Holy. Not killing anything not consuming another of his creation. Sorry you can't believe or see but John didn't chase grasshoppers around and eat them and be set apart to baptize Yeshua. Matthew 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Yes, I choose to believe the Word and to follow the LAW and killing is allowed as long as it's done lawfully. Like we should kill any Nephilim we encounter they are all evil that think evil all day long. Killing is not bad, killing for no reason is what is bad or unlawful killing. Because if it is justified to kill when we need to do it. Like a murderer needs to die for what he has done, right?
You ask how can this be, but I tell you that anyone that disobeyed Moses died on the testimony of two witnesses, so when Moses killed them was it unlawful or lawful?
I tell you it was lawful for they promised to obey him because they didn't want to hear the voice of the Most High YAHUWAH and the Most High commanded them to obey His Prophet and His LAW. So, there is a time to kill and a time not to kill as Solomon says.
This must be done as He says and not how we want or when our anger wants, or any other emotion.
This is what I mean by taking away from His LAW. You want to be better than YAHUWAH, but who are you to say you are better than Him?
By adding what you think is right and wrong.
He has told us what His standard is of right and wrong.
You also don't believe in the LAW of YAHUWAH then because you are choosing your right and wrong and not His.
It is right to kill a murderer and it's wrong to kill your neighbor just because you hate him, don't like him, or any other reason you might want. Now you want to say all killing is wrong. But now you are the one saying that because the LAW doesn't say that.
Like the Most High revealed to me that David didn't build the Temple because of his one unjust killing. Not for all the other killing he did. The Most High told him to conquer and kill his enemies. But Uriah was an unjustified killing and that is the blood that didn't let him build the Temple not all the rest. If he had not killed that one man unjustly, he would have been the one to build the Temple.
You want your own law that has some of His LAW that you like and the part that you don't like well, let's take that away or we don't believe that part.
That is what the evil one does. He picks and chooses, he didn't want to obey YAHUWAH when, where or how he was told.
So again, who is the standard?
Are you going to add your standard to His or are you going to do as He says?
Funny this is the debate of what we all believe is based on.
Therefore, your definition of holy is not killing anything. But that is now your definition and that of Tertullian's. That is the definition of man!
You are now not following YAHUWAH because He tells us when we can kill and when we can't.
These are the problems all of mankind has had, I would say.
YAHUWAH says how He wants things, and we say no! We don't like it that way! We are going to do it like this, but we are going to pick from this part and that and take what we like. The Jews already did this.
Doing that is the path to lawlessness and last time I checked 2 Thessalonians 2 says that the son of destruction is the lawless one.
So do not follow him to lawlessness!
If you are going to choose one to follow, then let it be YAHUW because His path is the path to life and to do anything but what He did is to follow the ideas of man or the evil one. Put on the thinking of the Most High which is perfect obedience to His LAW.
Matt. 5:
47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We need to follow His standard and not add to it or remove from it.
It has nothing to do with belief. Its written down what He wants, how He wants it, when He wants it, no need to believe it's already there written.
Now the problem is are you going to do it and believe in it as it is that's the true question?