Speaking of meat...Daniel's refusal to eat it.....for fear of idolatry?

[ALAYMAN]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

 

[Hooper]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Your hero is seriously flawed as mentioned by Yahshua.

Revelation 2:14

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Revelation 2:20

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

 

[Tim]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Maybe the king liked pork and Daniel refused to eat due to his devotion to God and the Laws given to Jews.

No matter what - I see little how this is a issue since I am free to eat meats such as beef, chicken, fish or pork. If I choose to not eat meat it isn't about my religion or service to God but about my own personal preference.

 

[Hooper]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Maybe the king liked pork and Daniel refused to eat due to his devotion to God and the Laws given to Jews.

No matter what - I see little how this is a issue since I am free to eat meats such as beef, chicken, fish or pork. If I choose to not eat meat it isn't about my religion or service to God but about my own personal preference.

They weren't Jews, they were Israelites. Anyone can become a jew and you are free to eat whatever you want but that does not mean that it is pleasing to God. God did not give us animals to eat nor did Christ ever eat meat.

 

[Tim]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Maybe the king liked pork and Daniel refused to eat due to his devotion to God and the Laws given to Jews.

No matter what - I see little how this is a issue since I am free to eat meats such as beef, chicken, fish or pork. If I choose to not eat meat it isn't about my religion or service to God but about my own personal preference.

They weren't Jews, they were Israelites. Anyone can become a jew and you are free to eat whatever you want but that does not mean that it is pleasing to God. God did not give us animals to eat nor did Christ ever eat meat.

Jesus ate Fish and cooked Fish for men to eat.

 

[Hooper]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Maybe the king liked pork and Daniel refused to eat due to his devotion to God and the Laws given to Jews.

No matter what - I see little how this is a issue since I am free to eat meats such as beef, chicken, fish or pork. If I choose to not eat meat it isn't about my religion or service to God but about my own personal preference.

They weren't Jews, they were Israelites. Anyone can become a jew and you are free to eat whatever you want but that does not mean that it is pleasing to God. God did not give us animals to eat nor did Christ ever eat meat.

Jesus ate Fish and cooked Fish for men to eat.

Nope.

 

[Anchor]

Daniel1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.


Many commentaries point to the reason for Daniel's objection to the meat was that it was  first offered unto idols, but we know per Paul in Corinthians that the one who stumbles due to conscience because of idol meat is weak.  So in effect, the commentators who opt for this interpretation are stating that this great hero of the faith has a major flaw and ethical/moral limitation.  Do you agree with this analysis of his motive, or would you be more likely to conclude that his abstention was due to some Levitical dietary restriction?

Lev. 11 describes one who eats of the unclean as being defiled (vs. 43-44) and practicing abomination.  There is no reason to think that Daniel's concern that he not "defile himself with the portion of the king's meat" is anything other than that, especially since the king's idolatry and its significance is not mentioned up to this point.  To presume other is really a bit of a stretch.

On the other hand I think you need to do a bit more study in the meaning of weak in I Cor. 8 FF.  It is not "a major [character] flaw and ethical/moral limitation" at all.  The imperative of I Cor. on meat is that it will inevitably lead one back into idolatry; therefore "flee from idolatry".  That fleeing looks like abstaining from temple meat both at the temple itself and at the levels of basic commerce ("sold in the shambles") and cultural custom ("if any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go...") when knowledge of its association is sure--"...if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not...." That is why Jesus Christ Himself took such issue with it in His messages to Pergamos and Thyatira in Rev. 2.

 

[Ransom]

Your hero is seriously flawed as mentioned by Yahshua.

Speaking of seriously flawed, I notice we're just supposed to take your word for it that there's a connection between Daniel and these two spoof-texts of yours.

 

[Ransom]

Nope.

Yep.

"When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread" (John 21:9).

The only person on shore at the time was Jesus. He prepared the fish.

Stop lying, Hooper.

 

[Hooper]

Your hero is seriously flawed as mentioned by Yahshua.

Speaking of seriously flawed, I notice we're just supposed to take your word for it that there's a connection between Daniel and these two spoof-texts of yours.

You're free to disagree.

 

[Hooper]

Nope.

Yep.

"When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread" (John 21:9).

The only person on shore at the time was Jesus. He prepared the fish.

Stop lying, Hooper.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Your scriptures are polluted. And you don't have the ability to know what parts are true.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lev. 11 describes one who eats of the unclean as being defiled (vs. 43-44) and practicing abomination.  There is no reason to think that Daniel's concern that he not "defile himself with the portion of the king's meat" is anything other than that, especially since the king's idolatry and its significance is not mentioned up to this point.  To presume other is really a bit of a stretch.

This is pretty much my opinion as well

On the other hand I think you need to do a bit more study in the meaning of weak in I Cor. 8 FF.  It is not "a major [character] flaw and ethical/moral limitation" at all.  The imperative of I Cor. on meat is that it will inevitably lead one back into idolatry;

Not that I totally disagree with <some of> your points, but if you don't mind, develop what you mean here a bit more.  How is it that you come to the conclusion that meat will "inevitably" lead one back into idolatry?  It's my understanding that the one who will be led back is the weak one.  An idol is no thing, and as such, (assuming the idol meat interpretation is applicable and valid for the Daniel motivation) did Daniel have a different understanding of the matter of conscience than Paul?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe the king liked pork and Daniel refused to eat due to his devotion to God and the Laws given to Jews.

The word "meat" doesn't necessitate flesh.  It may simply mean food.  If it was pork that was being offered it would be a clear violation of Levitical restrictions and would be understandable why he protested the food.

No matter what - I see little how this is a issue since I am free to eat meats such as beef, chicken, fish or pork. If I choose to not eat meat it isn't about my religion or service to God but about my own personal preference.

The broader issue is one of conscience, and what you may be willing to abstain from for the sake of others.  If Daniel abstained because of the meat's pollution due to it being offered to idols then it <potentially> shows that he limited his liberty due to those around him (as Paul said he would do).

 

[Ransom]

You're free to disagree.

You're free to justify your choice of verses by showing the connection. Any particular reason you decline to do so, apart from obfuscating the fact that you pulled them out of your rear?

 

[Ransom]

Your scriptures are polluted. And you don't have the ability to know what parts are true.

You have provided no proof of these assertions. Assertions made without proof are no better than lies.

So stop lying, Hooper.

 

[Hooper]

Your scriptures are polluted. And you don't have the ability to know what parts are true.

You have provided no proof of these assertions. Assertions made without proof are no better than lies.

So stop lying, Hooper.

Find your own proof.

 

[Ransom]

Find your own proof.

In other words, you're too lazy to back up your opinions.

So be it, liar.

 

[FSSL]

Find your own proof.

I have the BHS and the critical apparatus. You don't. You wouldn't even understand it. So, why the charade?

 

[Anchor]

...
Not that I totally disagree with <some of> your points, but if you don't mind, develop what you mean here a bit more.  How is it that you come to the conclusion that meat will "inevitably" lead one back into idolatry?

I Cor. 10: 7-11 "Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. ... Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Referencing the narratives of Exodus 32:6 FF and Num. 25:1-3 Paul explains how the matter of meat will inevitably lead to idolatry.  Particularly in Numbers where the Moabites were counseled by Balaam (31:16) to entice the Israelites into idolatry and immorality ("...they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods [proximity]: and the people did eat [participation], and bowed down to their gods [practice] {25:2}") it is clear that the participation at the "meat" level results in practice as a general rule.

In case we miss that Paul continues in 10:18-21 with the truth laid down in chap 9 (participation is unity) when he says "...Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?  What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

There are any number of other passages that illustrate the same thing. The last 2 verses of Dt. 7 illustrate clearly: "The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing."  Paul restates in II Cor. 6:14-18 "...And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

Paul is just coloring in the sketch given by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, which basically stated that you didn't have to practice cultural Judaism to be saved, but you couldn't retain your pagan identity either and be in fellowship with the body of Christ. Therefore some "necessary things" were given them to practice--"...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well (15:28-29)."

 

[Hooper]

You're free to disagree.

You're free to justify your choice of verses by showing the connection. Any particular reason you decline to do so, apart from obfuscating the fact that you pulled them out of your rear?

I would but would do so from the The gospel of the holy twelve and the Clementine Homilies. There's only one here that may acknowledge their validity.  I have already mentioned other examples found in the Bible .  The Clementine homilies show a Peter that did not eat meat but  bread and olives.  Peter tells Clement that people were changing his letters while he was still alive.  This fits well with what we know Constantine was up to when he made the Bible.  Pagan sun worship  has been much more prevalent than Christians give it credit for.