Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

  • Thread starter LittleLambofJesus
  • Start date

Is it lawful for Christians to eat pork under the NC?

  • Yes! It is now lawful under the NC!

  • No! It is still unlawful under the NC

  • I am not sure

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

Good question.

So then for example "do not take God's name in vain" --- all those Christians at war with that commandment of God - raise your hands.

Jeres a quick story that might help

Four young men are walking down a street, they see two big glass houses...

I was hoping for something more like a Bible solution that you might have for your POV.


Instead of 1 John 3:4 saying "Sin is no longer transgression of the LAW --the LAW is no longer of concern for NT saints" -- 1 John 3:4 says "sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- even for NT saints.

Instead of Jer 31:31-33 saying "the New Covenant does away with the need for God's Law" -- it says "This IS the New Covenant... I will write My LAW on their heart and mind"

Instead of Rom 3:31 saying "our faith makes void and obsoletes the LAW" it says "ON THE CONTRARY - we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Instead of Rev 14:12 saying "the saints have faith in Jesus instead of having any concern about the Commandments of God" -- the actual Bible says "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Instead of 1 Cor 7:19 saying "what no longer matters once we become Christians -- is keeping the Commandments of God" it says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Instead of Romans 8:4-10 saying "neither the saved nor the lost have any real need to regard the LAW of God" the text says that the saved keep it while the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"

Instead of 1 John 5:2-3 saying "this IS the LOVE of God that we no longer be all that concerned about the commandment of God" -- the text says "this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"

"IF you Love Me, KEEP My Commandments" 1 John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Exodus 20:6
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand why we would go to the bible about diet related issues

How about - because God made people and God wrote Lev 11 and as Christians we believe the Bible is the Word of God ?

Just a thought.


. The comments about food were a BC cultural issue

And what? you think maybe God did not know as much back then??

No I dont think people knew much about those things back then

Do you think God "got smarter when people got smarter"???

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16

And do you think God "got even smarter" since Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and now even 2 Tim 3:16 is no longer "true"???

=============================

And if indeed you do have such low regard for the infallible Word of God - would you at least admit to this obvious fact -- that people who do NOT choose your path -- and who DO choose to view the Bible as the infinite and infallible Word of God - would NOT take the path you are choosing and WOULD view all of it as true for all time?

Is this not a logical and obvious conclusion regarding the way in which those two paths diverge?
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The bible simply ISNT the book of evrything. I am bewildered that when a question comes up on topics unrel
How about - because God made people and God wrote Lev 11 and as Christians we believe the Bible is the Word of God ?

Just a thought.




And what? you think maybe God did not know as much back then??



Do you think God "got smarter when people got smarter"???

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16

And do you think God "got even smarter" since Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and now even 2 Tim 3:16 is no longer "true"???

=============================

And if indeed you do have such low regard for the infallible Word of God - would you at least admit to this obvious fact -- that people who do NOT choose your path -- and who DO choose to view the Bible as the infinite and infallible Word of God - would NOT take the path you are choosing and WOULD view all of it as true for all time?

Is this not a logical and obvious conclusion?
What your missing is Lev was written by man during a culture that had poor knowledge of the things we discuss. Being inspired to write something means something different to me - I get inspired to write things as well but it doesnt mean I am necessarily speaking wih infinite knowledge.

You keep referring to how smart God is which is getting totally off topic
 
Upvote 0

Dig4truth

Newbie
Aug 23, 2014
563
132
✟38,877.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Good question.

So then for example "do not take God's name in vain" --- all those Christians at war with that commandment of God - raise your hands.



I was hoping for something more like a Bible solution that you might have for your POV.


Instead of 1 John 3:4 saying "Sin is no longer transgression of the LAW --the LAW is no longer of concern for NT saints" -- 1 John 3:4 says "sin IS transgression of the LAW" -- even for NT saints.

Instead of Jer 31:31-33 saying "the New Covenant does away with the need for God's Law" -- it says "This IS the New Covenant... I will write My LAW on their heart and mind"

Instead of Rom 3:31 saying "our faith makes void and obsoletes the LAW" it says "ON THE CONTRARY - we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Instead of Rev 14:12 saying "the saints have faith in Jesus instead of having any concern about the Commandments of God" -- the actual Bible says "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Instead of 1 Cor 7:19 saying "what no longer matters once we become Christians -- is keeping the Commandments of God" it says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Instead of Romans 8:4-10 saying "neither the saved nor the lost have any real need to regard the LAW of God" the text says that the saved keep it while the lost "do not submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they"

Instead of 1 John 5:2-3 saying "this IS the LOVE of God that we no longer be all that concerned about the commandment of God" -- the text says "this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments"

"IF you Love Me, KEEP My Commandments" 1 John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Exodus 20:6


Excellent!
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand why we would go to the bible about diet related issues

How about - because God made people and God wrote Lev 11 and as Christians we believe the Bible is the Word of God ?

Just a thought.


. The comments about food were a BC cultural issue

And what? you think maybe God did not know as much back then??

No I dont think people knew much about those things back then

Do you think God "got smarter when people got smarter"???

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16

And do you think God "got even smarter" since Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and now even 2 Tim 3:16 is no longer "true"???

=============================

And if indeed you do have such low regard for the infallible Word of God - would you at least admit to this obvious fact -- that people who do NOT choose your path -- and who DO choose to view the Bible as the infinite and infallible Word of God - would NOT take the path you are choosing and WOULD view all of it as true for all time?

Is this not a logical and obvious conclusion regarding the way in which those two paths diverge?

The bible simply ISNT the book of evrything. I am bewildered that when a question comes up on topics unrel

What you're missing is Lev was written by man during a culture that had poor knowledge...

What you're missing is that most Christians view the Bible as the "Word of God" (option A) rather than the "the Word of Cave man in pre-scientific ignorant cultures trying to come up with the best ideas they could think of at the time" (Option B).

Any atheist could choose option "B" and have it in perfect harmony with his/her atheism.

I think we can all see that.

of the things we discuss. Being inspired to write something means something different to me - I get inspired to write things as well but it doesnt mean I am necessarily speaking wih infinite knowledge.

The text says "inspired by God" -- "All scripture is given by inspiration from GOD" 2 Tim 3:16 not "inspiration from your own self"

You have chosen the "lowest" level of value for the Bible it is merely "your own inspiration" ... the inspiration of ignorant man in pre-scientific cultures.

Surely you can not "assume" that bias for everyone else looking at the topic. Many of us view the Bible as the Word of God "instead" since that is what it says it is.

"holy men of old moved by the Spirit of God - SPOKE from GOD" 2 Peter 1:21

the very OPPOSITE view that you claim to have of it
 
Upvote 0

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
How about - because God made people and God wrote Lev 11 and as Christians we believe the Bible is the Word of God ?

Just a thought.




And what? you think maybe God did not know as much back then??



Do you think God "got smarter when people got smarter"???

"ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16

And do you think God "got even smarter" since Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and now even 2 Tim 3:16 is no longer "true"???

=============================

And if indeed you do have such low regard for the infallible Word of God - would you at least admit to this obvious fact -- that people who do NOT choose your path -- and who DO choose to view the Bible as the infinite and infallible Word of God - would NOT take the path you are choosing and WOULD view all of it as true for all time?

Is this not a logical and obvious conclusion regarding the way in which those two paths diverge?



What your missing is that most Christians view the Bible as the "Word of God" (option A) rather than the "the Word of Cave man in pre-scientific ignorant cultures trying to come up with the best ideas they could think of at the time" (Option B).

Any atheist could choose option "B" and have it in perfect harmony with his/her atheism.

I think we can all see that.



The text says "inspired by God" -- "All scripture is given by inspiration from GOD" 2 Tim 3:16 not "inspiration from your own self"

You have chosen the "lowest" level of value for the Bible it is merely "your own inspiration" ... the inspiration of ignorant man in pre-scientific cultures.

Surely you can not "assume" that bias for everyone else looking at the topic. Many of us view the Bible as the Word of God "instead" since that is what it says it is.

"holy men of old moved by the Spirit of God - SPOKE from GOD" 2 Peter 1:21

the very OPPOSITE view that you claim to have of it
Arent you denying the point that it was actually written by men. Of course they were inspired to write - most writers are inspired when they write. But when authors write they do it within the context of their knowledge and existing culture. Its not Gods hand that wrote those words and if it was then there would not be so much debate on every single little topic within the bible because it would have been a perfect text. Its NOT a perfect text - far from it. And this is why I hold to the position of focusing on the paradigm and not literal details - to me the little details are unnecessary and at worst highly inaccurate.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Arent you denying the point that it was actually written by men. Of course they were inspired to write - most writers are inspired when they write.

The Bible does not say "were inspired when they write like all writers are" it says "inspired by God" the very detail you need to deny in your POV.

But when authors write they do it within the context of their knowledge and existing culture. .

True of all ignorant caveman culture writing and also today... we all agree that this is how people write.

We do not agree that such writing is "inspired by God" or that they are "moved by the Holy Spirit and speak from God" unless some supernatural spirit-of-prophecy work of God the Holy Spirit is directly at work on them.

That is not the confusing part.

The Bible explicitly says that what you are describing is NOT what is going on.

2 Peter 1
9 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
If you deny the supernatural work of God in authoring the Bible -- then what about the supernatural work of God in causing the New Birth, causing the incarnation of God the Son into Jesus Christ, causing the bodily resurrection of Christ?

The entirety of Christianity goes up in smoke once it is all nothing more than "men writing the best ideas they can think of in ignorant prescientific cultures"
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I dont see it as all or nothing. Theres countless examples that we have set aside as being unecessary in the bible and it doesnt affect our capacity to live our lives according to a strong christian paradigm. Im an example of it.

A Christian paradigm where no actual Christian Gospel fact is even true???

So then an atheist says " I am atheist but would like to adopt Christian moral values"
While another atheist says "I am also atheist but I choose to adopt Buddhist moral values".

How does that differ from what you are proposing??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
A Christian paradigm where no actual Christian Gospel fact is even true???

So then an atheist says " I am atheist but would like to adopt Christian moral values"
While another atheist says "I am also atheist but I choose to adopt Buddhist moral values".

How does that differ from what you are proposing??
I sense you are getting wound-up. If an atheist says he wants tyo adopt christian values well...fine by me no objection.

But look youre getting upset - and in the interest of not dominating this thread with my views and not hijacking it - I'll bow out. You know my views and of course I respect yours.
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Devin P said in post #616:

When Jesus comes to reign on earth for 1000 years, there will be His chosen (those that are saved) and those that aren't still living in the land.

That's right.

For Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:37-39 don't mean (as is sometimes claimed) that all non-Christians will be killed by Jesus Christ at His future, Second Coming. For Luke 17:34-36 and Matthew 24:40-41 go on to show that some non-Christians will be left alive at that time (Zechariah 14:16-19). So in Luke 17:26-30 and Matthew 24:37-39, the point of the comparison is not that all non-Christians will be killed by Jesus at His Second Coming, but that none of them will be expecting to be killed, but will be eating and drinking without worry right up to the day of the Second Coming.

Those "left" where they are at Jesus Christ's Second Coming (Luke 17:34-36, Matthew 24:40-41) will include non-Christians who will be forced to come up annually to worship the returned Jesus in Jerusalem during the future Millennium (Zechariah 14:16-19). These non-Christians will have to be ruled with a rod of iron by Jesus and the physically resurrected Church during the Millennium (Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 20:4-6, Psalms 2, Psalms 66:3, Psalms 72:8-11). And their descendants will be deceived by Satan after the Millennium into committing the Gog/Magog rebellion (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

Jesus' Second Coming will be like "the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37) and "the days of Lot" (Luke 17:28,30) in that just as Noah went into the ark before the temporal (not the eternal) judgment of the Flood from God, and Lot went out from Sodom before its temporal (not its eternal) judgment (cf. Ezekiel 16:53-56) from God, so the Church will be raptured into the sky at the Second Coming (Matthew 24:30-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Revelation 19:7), before Jesus Himself begins the Second-Coming, temporal (not the eternal) divine judgment of non-Christians alive at that time (Revelation 19:11 to 20:3, Luke 17:26-30, Matthew 24:37-39).

Also, nothing in the Bible says or requires that Christians or non-Christians will not continue to eat pork and other meats during the Millennium.

Devin P said in post #616:

What is the feast of tabernacles? In Leviticus 23, God tells us what it is.

Zechariah 14:16 refers to the future celebration of what will be a New Covenant form of the feast of tabernacles, not the feast of tabernacles of the forever-abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16).

Devin P said in post #616:

It's an amazing feast to God, where we take a week and go camp essentially, where we take our tithe money from all year that we saved up . . .

Note that tithing isn't a New Covenant/New Testament commandment, but was a part of the Old Covenant, the letter of which Jesus Christ abolished on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6). Christians thinking that they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe is just as mistaken as Christians thinking that they have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision (Acts 15:1-11). If Christians keep the letter of the Old Covenant tithe thinking that they have to, then they are as fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) as Christians who keep the letter of the Old Covenant circumcision thinking that they have to (Galatians 5:2). They have become debtors to perform the letter of the entire Old Covenant law (Galatians 5:3). They have placed themselves under its curse (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26). It is sad that some pastors even go out of their way to also lay the specific, Old Covenant curse of Malachi 3:8-9 on their congregations.

Jesus Christ taught that Christians have to obey His New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 15:10), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29), and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). Jesus' New Covenant commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:20-48). For Jesus' New Covenant requirement is that Christians do much more than merely tithe. They must forsake everything that they have (Luke 14:33).

*******

Devin P said in post #617:

Jesus never taught to eat unclean meats, we have to guard ourselves from things like that.

Note that Jesus showed that Christians do not have to worry about what they eat (Mark 7:18-19).
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
SAAN said in post #627:

The bible clearly states no one can change a commandment, except God himself.

Note that Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

SAAN said in post #627:

Jesus came to uphold his fathers commands . . .

Note that Jesus changed some of the Old Covenant commands to His New Covenant commands (e.g. Matthew 19:3-9, Hebrews 8:6-7).

SAAN said in post #627:

Paul has no authority to come behind and say , you can eat whatever you want . . .

Note that Paul did have authority to say that (Romans 14:14), as the apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1).

Do you reject the apostle Paul, and so reject the books of the Bible written by him? If so, that is a serious mistake. For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That is why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to Christians confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There is no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful work on behalf of Jesus proves that he is not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true Christians (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians, and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, shouldn't think that what they have done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or in deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent, and to ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).
 
Upvote 0

Bible2+

Matthew 4:4
Sep 14, 2015
3,001
375
✟91,195.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
BobRyan said in post #641:

Instead of Rom 3:31 saying "our faith makes void and obsoletes the LAW" it says "ON THE CONTRARY - we ESTABLISH the LAW"

Romans 3:31 means that Christians establish the Old Covenant Mosaic law not in its letter, but in its spirit (Romans 7:6), by loving others (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, Matthew 7:12).

BobRyan said in post #641:

Instead of Rev 14:12 saying "the saints have faith in Jesus instead of having any concern about the Commandments of God" -- the actual Bible says "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Revelation 14:12 is not referring to the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For on Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52), of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the second covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,503
Georgia
✟899,782.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I sense you are getting wound-up. If an atheist says he wants tyo adopt christian values well...fine by me no objection.

no objection from me either... I don't think that is the same thing as being saved - but it is at least a noble idea for him to have as a lost person.

But look you're getting upset

Not at all.. I am asking about the "logic" in the argument that you are making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
4,507
921
America
Visit site
✟265,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
FredVB said:
Zechariah 14:20-21 refers to the boiling (the "seething") of sacrificed meat in pots at the future, Millennial temple building in Jerusalem. Compare the "seething" of sacrificed meat in 1 Samuel 2:13.

That is how such is translated in the version you use, from assumptions and beliefs of those involved, it is not translated that way in a number of other versions. So that it is sacrificed meat is not conclusive.

Devin P said:
Is it just his translation?

If we read the first verse, we see what time God is referring to:

Zechariah 14:1 - 14 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

The day of the Lord's coming. This is after the last days when Jesus returns to war against the antichrist and his followers.


18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

I highlighted everything in 18 and 19 because it's all important. God is calling the disobedient ones Egyptian because the coming of Jesus is called the second exodus. In the second exodus, those that are disobedient ate likened unto the Egyptians. My point is, is that not only will they receive no rain, but if they continue again the next year to fail to keep Sukkoth (the feast of tabernacles) they'll be smote even more than no rain.

What is the feast of tabernacles? In Leviticus 23, God tells us what it is. It's an amazing feast to God, where we take a week and go camp essentially. We were supposed to set apart money all year so that when Sukkoth comes, for that week, we can afford to buy whatever our heart desires. Lamb for cooking, cow for cooking, cattle for farming, alcohol, it doesn't matter, whatever you want (so long as it's not breaking God's Torah, and you enjoy yourselves.)

This isn't an issue with my or his translation, this is reflected in the kjv, the niv, the Septuagint, and the Tanakh (the original hebraic texts).

It is not translated as seething as with meat in all the other translations, because that is not the determined meaning. See how it is translated here.

"Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holy unto Yahweh of hosts; and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and boil therein: and in that day there shall be no more a Canaanite in the house of Yahweh of hosts."

Even with the one translation available to Christian Forums, that I see from my access, will show it this way. And I don't give priority to any one translation. If you show KJV or any other one to have priority, I can show some fault with that.

Pointing out that this was about when Jesus returns was not needed, we all understood that. I have no issue with the rest, except the assumption that eating meat from animals and drinking (just as long as your not getting drunk) is just going to go on is not a valid one. It remains disregarded or ignored how bad the animal products are for us, and Yahweh wants what is better for us. But I do say that for those who are really redeemed there are much better things ahead.

The relevance of showing Proverbs 12:10 is not the issue of having meat at all. It is that it is responsibility to you, along with others, with your demands, as that involves you, to know the animals involved for that demand, and there are many, are not experiencing abuse, and avoiding to look into it does not absolve you or any of the responsibility of that with the choices you make. Knowing of the abuse is reason to not continue those same choices. Otherwise there is that cruelty without repentance that this passage speaks to.

The meaning in Isaiah 11:6-9, and of Isaiah 65 where it is repeated, is not for being reinterpreted with another passage such as that mentioned. Marrow could be how translations show it in what you referenced, but the passage is to be understood as communicating abundance coming for the redeemed that is to be trusted as such, it will be abundance, and it will be glorious. But there won't be any slaughter, this is not how heaven is, there will be no hurt or harm, and there won't be any exceptions when that is in place. Creatures won't hurt each other or people, it won't be left to people to harm them. It is still being neglected that plant-based eating, if it is not with using processed foods, is by far the best for us, studies are already showing this abundantly, this way is Yahweh's perfect will for us, it was in the design for us in the beginning, from when there was no death, as there will be the return to, and was the permission available to humanity for well over a thousand years. All creation is groaning for relief, with hope, and there is to be return to that way, for perfection before Yahweh, that of humanity will only be for the redeemed who come with repentance in Christ to be included in that.

Animal abuse is a horrible thing and I am against it, as others are, and it is desirable that yet more were against it.

LoveofTruth said:
They were told by Paul to eat anything the gentiles put before them

1 Corinthians 10:27

"If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake."

and God told peter to slay and eat unclean animals etc

"13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."(Acts 10:13-15 KJV)

SAAN said:
OUT OF CONTEXT!!!

Indeed the Corinthians passage is used here out of its context and actual meaning, and we are certainly not all told to eat anything that is placed right before us.

And is a shame that posters post about the sheet vision, with their conclusion from it we are to kill and eat any animal, without looking at what is already said about it, over and over, it is such a shame that scripture passages can't be read and understood in their context. It was a vision, no creatures were killed right there, and Peter, the one who saw it, did not understand the meaning until he saw he was to go with the gentiles and enter into the centurion's home, presenting the gospel of Jesus to them, not calling any unclean, and he repeatedly said that he understood that the vision was meaning this, since then.

Steve Petersen said:
"Context" is not well defined in these discussions.

What do we mean when we use the word?

Literary context is trying to understand the passage against the rest of the Bible.

Historical context is trying to understand the passage in light of the history and culture of the writers and recipients.

It should be obvious, it isn't difficult. We are talking about scripture passages. Over everything else the contexts have the surrounding texts dealing with the subject, and other passages in the same book about it. Those should not be disregarded in using passages. And then historical contexts can be taken into account, without contradicting other teachings in the Bible for what is understood from that.
 
Upvote 0