Reply #25: Not all. [View All]

[Igel]

Peter's conclusion of what he claimed to see in a vision was that he was told to call no man common or unclean; to apply what he said to food implies he was talking of cannibalism, and when he said he hadn't broken the food laws it wasn't like he was corrected or told it was pointless. Then again, a lot of preachers say just that.

Paul is more vague, and more justifiably in keeping with disposing of the food laws: if some food is considered unclean, so be it for that person, but Jesus taught him nothing was unclean of itself. I've heard this expounded in far, far too many ways, and personally it has to do with ambiguous things and matters of conscience (like eating food sacrificed to idols, part of Paul's context).

Many of the kashrut laws are inferences, you're right; some are explicit in the original text. Some people reject most of the inferences. Few reject all of them. While wapiti are covered (N. American elk) by an explicit rule, chickens aren't: birds are classed by list. Neither were known in the Middle East when Leviticus was written and codified. Rabbis deduced a rule to cover birds; chickens, by that rule, are clean.