Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

[Wgw]

Agreed as half the crap of the store selves are so full of steroid and preservatives that they would be considered unclean per biblical standards,

Case in point: Kellogg's Cereal and Graham Crackers, whoch were originally promoted by Adventists for purposes of discouraging the sexual appetite, among other Victorian misconceptions of "health benefits."

but any way you look at it, pigs and shellfish are pretty much real life garbage disposals and have extreme amount of toxins in them.

Chickens contain salmonella and can kill of eaten raw, whereas several varieties of shellfish can be safely consumed uncooked.

This is why God said dont eat them, not that its bad for Jews and good for Christians.

No, because if this were the case, He would have precluded the consumption of chicken, and red meat (which is delectable quite unhealthy).

No amount of prayer is going to make a roach, rat or snake clean,so they will never be for food.

Actually, snake meat is relatively safe to eat.

While pork ribs can be very good, pig fat is still full of toxins and no amount of prayer can change that either.

Fat in general is bad for the health.

The pig was never meant top be a main source of food, neither were shrimp aka sea cockroaches or crabs and lobster.

Your idea that shrimp are "sea cockroaches" simply is driven by a certain religiously-advised horror.

At present, I should also lament to point out, eating large quantities of kosher forms of seafood, such as various fish species, is dangerous due to mercury contamination of seawater.

My objection to your argument is that you are seeking to build up a psuedoscientific rationale for adhering to dietary customs which were ceremonial in nature, and specific to Judaism.

I will note however with some pleasure that adhering to Orthodox dietary restrictions in Lent, for example, is actually quite legitimately healthy. Cutting out dairy products, vegetable oil and meat is of some benefit.

 

[Lulav]

Commands which were specific to the Judaic faith. Christians have consumed pork since the first century; we are under no obligation not to. The idea that, for a Christian, consuming pork is somehow sinful, is entirely erroneous and frankly laughable.

Yet it is interesting is it not that Muslims do not eat pork but in their book, the Qur'an, they quote Jesus as saying:

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50

 

[Wgw]

Yet it is interesting is it not that Muslims do not eat pork but in their book, the Qur'an, they quote Jesus as saying:

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50

This is an interesting point which I would address from teo angles:

Firstly, Islamic opinion regarding Christian praxis is irrelevant. Their religion distorts the teachings of our Lord and indeed His identity to a staggering degree; I reject the opinions of Islam as being no more relevant, and perhaps less relevant, than the Dalai Lama. Mohammed was a practitoner of South Semitic Paganism who was mis-catechized by a Nestorian or Arian monk, and whose idea of Christianity was thus grossly distorted from the start; there are also compelling reasons to suspect that Gabriel dod not appear to him, but rather, he was the victim of what amounted to kaikodaimonical oppression.

Now, secondly, I believe the Islamic perspective on this issue has to be regarded as thinly-veiled anti-Byzantiniism. All of the Christians of that era, with the exception of the Ethiopians, consumed pork; by that era, the Ebionites were most likely extinct. Furthermore, it is well known that for various economic reasons, pork was the preferred meat for human consumption in the Byzantine Empire and several other regions.

Thus I think we have to interpret the Islamic ban on pork as an attempt, on the basis of exposure of Mohammed and other Islamic figures to Judaism, to criticize Christianity on the basis of moral laxity and imply "uncleanness" on our part. This is what the historical context suggests.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yet it is interesting is it not that Muslims do not eat pork but in their book, the Qur'an, they quote Jesus as saying:

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50

It is interesting that Jews and Muslims are allowed to raise them for the gentiles to eat.
There just appears to be something wrong with that reasoning, but I just can't lay my finger on it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/africa/p...nks-to-tourists/2008/04/01/1206850863399.html

"I'm a practising Muslim.
I don't eat pork and I don't drink alcohol but it's just a breeding operation like any other and no Imam has ever reprimanded me for it," he said of raising pigs -- whose consumption is prohibited in both Islam and Judaism.

Morocco's swine industry comprises some 5,000 pigs raised on seven farms located near Agadir, Casablanca and the north-central city of Taza.
The breeders include a Christian, two Jews and four Muslims.

Annual production is currently estimated at 270 tonnes of meat, bringing in some 12 million dirhams (1.6 million dollars) in revenue.

The breeders include Jean Yves Yoel Chriquia, a 32-year-old Jew who owns the country's main pork processing factory along with a farm of 1000 pigs.
Chriquia also buys pigs from Samouk and another local farmer at 22 dirhams a kilo.

Pepperoni - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pepperoni is a spicy food Italian-American variety of salami (a dry sausage) usually made from cured pork and beef, but poultry may be added, if labeled correctly, for less expensive versions.

To order in Italy a very similar food to what in America is called "pepperoni" one would request salamino piccante to get the spicy sausage (but made only of pork beef, and never with meat from other animals as in the american version).


.

 

[Lulav]

Chickens contain salmonella and can kill of eaten raw, whereas several varieties of shellfish can be safely consumed uncooked.

The FDA wouldn't agree with that. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2009 Food Code allows food service establishments to serve raw or undercooked foods at a customer’s request as long as the customer is informed about the risks associated with consuming undercooked food and the customer is not part of a high-risk group. In an effort to educate customers on the risks associated with consuming raw and undercooked foods, the Food Code requires all restaurants that sell raw or undercooked animal products to post a raw food warning for customers. This warning is often seen as a posted sign in fast-food or self-service restaurants or, more commonly, as a written statement at the bottom of a restaurant menu.

No, because if this were the case, He would have precluded the consumption of chicken, and red meat (which is delectable quite unhealthy).

AFA Red meat, if eaten in the manner ascribed in the Torah, it is safe.

Actually, snake meat is relatively safe to eat.

Why would anyone want to eat any reptiles? And specifically the creature that according to the Bible is said to represent the Satan?

Fat in general is bad for the health.

Beg to differ because it isn't true. There are good fats and bad fats. That is why certain fats were prescribed to be sacrificed on the altar. These specific fats contain artery clogging cholesterol and were not to be eaten. This is different than the fats that are in other parts of the animal. It all depends on it's diet as well. For instance a cow that is left natural to graze on grass produces milk that is high in omega-3 fatty acids and high in Vitamin K. Whereas those who are fed a 'man-made' diet of grains, sugars and such do not contain that much. These help to balance out the other fats in the animal. Grass fed (the way God intended) animals are much leaner in fat and much healthier to eat.

Your idea that shrimp are "sea cockroaches" simply is driven by a certain religiously-advised horror.

Actually it is not driven by such but by much research. If we take God out of the picture then we can pooh-pooh this, but when we consider that it was Him who created all things and knew what purpose they served who gave these regulations then it makes sense that the maker should know better than we do about his creation. We who are humans can say that being human we know all about us, but that is not so, they are still discovering what makes us tick and there is still much more to learn, so how can we propose to believe we know even more about the whole creation and it's symbiotic relationship?

G-d created the earth and all that was in it. In the beginning it was all good, as he says. But then it became corrupted and death entered in. We know that in Noachs time there were pairs of unclean animals brought on the ark and seven pairs of 'clean'. My theory is that during this long time on board the animals were put in to a limbo or hibernation of sorts and that the LoRD did some genetic changes to their DNA. We have a hint of this in the verse that tells us that :"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea". Fear is fueled by Adrenalin and was not present in the antediluvian world. Anyway, getting too far off track but since death entered in and in order to keep the world from totally corrupting a way was needed to keep it clean as much as possible. One of the way was through the animals on the earth and animals in the seas given this job.

It is well known that crabs, shrimp, lobsters, oysters, clams, etc are the oceans cleaners. They clean up the dead and their bodies contain the toxins. Some purify the water itself. But eating them is like opening up your trash compactors bags and serving it for dinner.

It's funny too how what is perceived to be one of the 'luxuries' of life and the 'best' eating is lobster which used to be thought of as the poorest of poor mans food served to the displeasure of inmates, in prisons.
They were mainly used for fertilizer but not held in any esteem other than that. They are also cannibalistic as well as eating their own exoskeleton.

At present, I should also lament to point out, eating large quantities of kosher forms of seafood, such as various fish species, is dangerous due to mercury contamination of seawater.

Yes, this is very true, but not because of the species itself but because of the pollution of man that has blighted them. But not only in the seas, but Farm raised is one of the worst. So while Ocean caught Salmon is Kosher and good for you (young and not eating the dark parts) eating farm raised can be very detrimental.

My objection to your argument is that you are seeking to build up a psuedoscientific rationale for adhering to dietary customs which were ceremonial in nature, and specific to Judaism.

I will note however with some pleasure that adhering to Orthodox dietary restrictions in Lent, for example, is actually quite legitimately healthy. Cutting out dairy products, vegetable oil and meat is of some benefit.

See that's the thing. The dietary laws were given for the health and well being as well as the Holiness of G0ds people. The Jews did not come up with these laws, the Creator of all did. He should know what is best for us. That is why he said if you kept these laws they would bring life.

A good example of this is the Bubonic Plague that wiped out nearly 1/3 of Europe during the Middle Ages. The Jewish population was actually blamed for this and killed because they didn't die in the numbers of the Christians. Sad but true. But it is believed that they were relatively spared from it because of keeping the Commandments regarding eating and hygiene. The cause of the (Bubonic) Plague, is now known to be spread because of lack of hygiene and by eating weak and injured animals.

All those things are covered in the Commandments. So it was through obeying Gods commandments that the Jews lived (but then were killed because of it) and the Christians who said 'That's not for me' died in huge numbers.

I think it's best to follow the adage in my signature. I for one do not think I know better than my creator.

 

[Wgw]

The FDA wouldn't agree with that. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2009 Food Code allows food service establishments to serve raw or undercooked foods at a customer’s request as long as the customer is informed about the risks associated with consuming undercooked food and the customer is not part of a high-risk group. In an effort to educate customers on the risks associated with consuming raw and undercooked foods, the Food Code requires all restaurants that sell raw or undercooked animal products to post a raw food warning for customers. This warning is often seen as a posted sign in fast-food or self-service restaurants or, more commonly, as a written statement at the bottom of a restaurant menu.

Whereas there are some risks associated with eating raw meats, one can enjoy oysters and other shellfish, raw, in relative safety; one can for that matter savour uncooked cured prok products like proscuitto without fear of contradicting a deadly disease, and I myself have done so with great relish on many happy lccasions.

On the other hand, eating raw chicken in any substantial quantity is entirely unsafe, and would very likely require hospitalization.

AFA Red meat, if eaten in the manner ascribed in the Torah, it is safe.

Consuming red meat increases one's risk factors for heart disease.

Why would anyone want to eat any reptiles? And specifically the creature that according to the Bible is said to represent the Satan?

Well, I should rather eat the devil, than allow the devil to eat me. I have always relished consuming predatory animals for this very reason; were they not endangered, I expect I would greatly enjoy eating tiger, which I am told by people in a position to know, is very lean.

Beg to differ because it isn't true. There are good fats and bad fats. That is why certain fats were prescribed to be sacrificed on the altar. These specific fats contain artery clogging cholesterol and were not to be eaten.

This is a pious sentiment, however, I fear I cannot accept it as anything other than rationalization.

This is different than the fats that are in other parts of the animal. It all depends on it's diet as well. For instance a cow that is left natural to graze on grass produces milk that is high in omega-3 fatty acids and high in Vitamin K. Whereas those who are fed a 'man-made' diet of grains, sugars and such do not contain that much. These help to balance out the other fats in the animal. Grass fed (the way God intended) animals are much leaner in fat and much healthier to eat.

I agree.

Actually it is not driven by such but by much research. If we take God out of the picture then we can pooh-pooh this, but when we consider that it was Him who created all things and knew what purpose they served who gave these regulations then it makes sense that the maker should know better than we do about his creation.

These regulations never applied to non-Israelites (they are absent from, for example, the Noachide Laws), and we have works from early Christians like the psuedepigraphical 1 Barnabas which show a Patristic argument did exist to the extent that these were never meant to be literally adhered to by the Jews. I don't neccessarily agree with the author of 1 Barnabas in this point, but I think it's an interesting point that should not be glossed over. We do know that Judaism had become burdened by legalism and an overly literal, juridicial interpretation of Scripture by the first century AD, and Inwould not be astonished to learn that they had in terms of purity laws overreached on this point as well.

We who are humans can say that being human we know all about us, but that is not so, they are still discovering what makes us tick and there is still much more to learn, so how can we propose to believe we know even more about the whole creation and it's symbiotic relationship?

Well, this is an interesting argument, however, given that Judaism itself does not regard it as sinful for non-Jews to eat pork products, or for Jews ro provide them with those products commercially, I find myself doubting its applicability.

G-d created the earth and all that was in it. In the beginning it was all good, as he says. But then it became corrupted and death entered in. We know that in Noachs time there were pairs of unclean animals brought on the ark and seven pairs of 'clean'. My theory is that during this long time on board the animals were put in to a limbo or hibernation of sorts and that the LoRD did some genetic changes to their DNA. We have a hint of this in the verse that tells us that :"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea". Fear is fueled by Adrenalin and was not present in the antediluvian world. Anyway, getting too far off track but since death entered in and in order to keep the world from totally corrupting a way was needed to keep it clean as much as possible. One of the way was through the animals on the earth and animals in the seas given this job.

It is well known that crabs, shrimp, lobsters, oysters, clams, etc are the oceans cleaners. They clean up the dead and their bodies contain the toxins. Some purify the water itself. But eating them is like opening up your trash compactors bags and serving it for dinner.

I can, in relative safety, eat a raw clam or a raw oyster. I cannot safely eat raw chicken.

It's funny too how what is perceived to be one of the 'luxuries' of life and the 'best' eating is lobster which used to be thought of as the poorest of poor mans food served to the displeasure of inmates, in prisons.

I can think of about 20 things, some of them Kosher, which are more expensive than lobster, and frankly, make for "better eating."

They were mainly used for fertilizer but not held in any esteem other than that. They are also cannibalistic as well as eating their own exoskeleton.

Which does not worry me greatly; my uncle raised cattle, and I have seen enough distilled bovine grotesquerie so as to be thoroughly untroubled by the various hijinks lobsters get up to when I'm not looking.

Yes, this is very true, but not because of the species itself but because of the pollution of man that has blighted them. But not only in the seas, but Farm raised is one of the worst. So while Ocean caught Salmon is Kosher and good for you (young and not eating the dark parts) eating farm raised can be very detrimental.

Eating farm raised salmon is safer than eating oceanic tuna. Also, more sustainable.

See that's the thing. The dietary laws were given for the health and well being as well as the Holiness of G0ds people. The Jews did not come up with these laws, the Creator of all did. He should know what is best for us. That is why he said if you kept these laws they would bring life.

In the case of the Coptic Christians of Muqattam, the Islamic-influenced slaughter of their pig heards had rather the opposite effect, I fear.

A good example of this is the Bubonic Plague that wiped out nearly 1/3 of Europe during the Middle Ages. The Jewish population was actually blamed for this and killed because they didn't die in the numbers of the Christians. Sad but true. But it is believed that they were relatively spared from it because of keeping the Commandments regarding eating and hygiene. The cause of the (Bubonic) Plague, is now known to be spread because of lack of hygiene and by eating weak and injured animals.

The plague was splead by flea bites transmitting the virus to humans from infected rats.

All those things are covered in the Commandments. So it was through obeying Gods commandments that the Jews lived (but then were killed because of it) and the Christians who said 'That's not for me' died in huge numbers.

Our Lord himself stresses what we are to "take away" from the commandments, and I do not see how abstaining from pork fots into this picture.

I think it's best to follow the adage in my signature. I for one do not think I know better than my creator.

Nor do I, nor does the Orthodox Church; since we in general allow pork consumption, and always have, I feel comfortable eating pork, snails, mushrooms, oysters and other non-kosher delicacies. I should also note that a great many Christian people depend on these foodstuffs for sustenance.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This argument fails, as a Kosher diet is not inherently physically healthier than various non-Kosher diets.

That's ambiguous... nothing like stating a fact now is there.

 

[Wgw]

That's ambiguous... nothing like stating a fact now is there.

Kosher diets can be quite unhealthy; look at the delicious but rather cholesterol rich cuisine of Eastern European Jews. Whereas on the other hand, decidedly non-kosher cuisine can be very healthy.

 

[BobRyan]

Commands which were specific to the Judaic faith. Christians have consumed pork since the first century; .

you are "quoting you" again. Use the actual Bible

 

[BobRyan]

C
At present, I should also lament to point out, eating large quantities of kosher forms of seafood, such as various fish species, is dangerous due to mercury contamination of seawater.
.

Christ did not die on the cross to get the mercury out of seafood. Nor to make the rat sandwich healthy to eat.

None of the sicknesses of the Egyptians fell upon Israel in the 40 years of wandering in the desert - and during the time of the Black plague - the Jews were doing much better than those "eating rats".

In the "real gospel" - Christ died because of our sins - He paid the debt we owe due to sin - He endured all that - so that we might not go to the lake of fire as the debt owed for sinning.

He did not go to the cross to change the "skin of the rat" or "make rat sandwiches food for humans" -- I think this comes as a big surprise to some.

 

[Wgw]

you are "quoting you" again. Use the actual Bible

I am not quoting myself, but am rather referring to known historical facts regarding the early church. That said, without wishing to sound rather too vainglorious, I daresay that most of my posts, with a few embarassing exceptions, are reliable enough for me to cite as references, on their own terms.

Christ did not die on the cross to get the mercury out of seafood.

Which is good, given that at that time mercury contamination was not a serious problem.

Nor to make the rat sandwich healthy to eat.

A rat sandwich would be distasteful, but not inherently unhealthy if it were cooked properly. Actually I daresay plump, farm raised rats rather than free range rats might be tasty if skewered; squirrel has its admirers. However, given that most people eat neither rat nor squirrel, this is rather a red herring.

None of the sicknesses of the Egyptians fell upon Israel in the 40 years of wandering in the desert -

We don't know that. To the extent they may have been healthier, furthermore, I would be inclined based on what we know now to attribute it to leaving the unhealthy, potentially malarial banks of the Nile and the unsanitary conditions of ancient Egyptian cities, in favour of the pristine, relatively sterile desert environment of Sinai.

and during the time of the Black plague - the Jews were doing much better than those "eating rats".

The black plague was not due to rat consumption.

In the "real gospel" - Christ died because of our sins - He paid the debt we owe due to sin - He endured all that - so that we might not go to the lake of fire as the debt owed for sinning.

This is only partially correct. He died and was resurrected so as to facilitate our own resurrection and union with Him in the eschaton, in Theosis, so that we might become through grace what He is by nature. The remittance of sin is only half the battle.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Kosher diets can be quite unhealthy; look at the delicious but rather cholesterol rich cuisine of Eastern European Jews.

Whereas on the other hand, decidedly non-kosher cuisine can be very healthy.

That is worth investigating. Thanks for that info.

http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/myths-facts-is-kosher-food-healthier-2738
Myths & Facts: Is Kosher Food Healthier?

So, while kosher food has been gaining more credibility, we have to ask: is there any truth to the claim that it is healthier?

Is it Healthier?

Many consumers believe that kosher food is healthier, because it’s watched and screened more carefully than other foods. They’re probably correct; based on a Wall Street Journal interview with Joe Regenstein, a professor of food science at Cornell University. Regenstein, it is forbidden by kosher dietary laws to eat any bugs, so all vegetables and fruits are carefully washed and checked thoroughly for any insects. Lettuce and cabbage are screened in particular.

Also, in order to get your company kosher certified, you have to agree to random screenings by a representative from the kosher authority, and adhere to strict rules, such as making sure all meat products are separated from all dairy products. You also have to accept the fact that your facility will be watched carefully. That means that kosher food production companies will usually be more on top of things and keep an extra eye on everything going on to make sure they adhere to these rules.

Foodborne Outbreaks?

Since kosher dietary standards also have strict rules on which animals can be eaten and how they must be killed, some people say kosher facilities are less likely to have a bacterial outbreak. That’s true, as well: prior to being killed, animals must be checked thoroughly by an authority, and they will not be used if they have any signs of disease or wounds. All kosher meat is also thoroughly salted prior to being sold, which also reduces the chance of bacteria thriving and ending up on your plate.

The Bottom Line

All in all, there’s nothing to suggest that kosher food is healthier from a nutrition standpoint than non-kosher foods. You can find just as much sodium and sugar in products that are kosher as in ones that are not. Plus, kosher items are usually more expensive (somebody has to pay for all that checking). However, it’s definitely something to consider if you have food allergies or intolerances, as the labeling process can help you know exactly what’s in your food. But if you’re looking for a quick way to still eat what you love and miraculously be healthier, the kosher diet probably isn’t it.




.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

you are "quoting you" again. Use the actual Bible

A Gentile Church in the area of The Gaderenes/Gerasenes/Gergesenes had the foundation laid for the later conversion of the Gentiles twas laid in the deliverance of the demoniac [or the two, as one account states] who lived in their land.

Jesus did not tell them to stop eating swine, and the Council in Jerusalem received the Holy Spirit's declaration on it, that no, the Gentiles who came into Christ did not have to keep Moses. Jesus never put Gentiles under Moses.
There is an interesting read on the event @ http://ldolphin.org/gadara.html

The Jerusalem Council of the Apostles in Acts 15 set Judaizing of the Gentile converts off limits, forever.
Read it, believe it.

Luke 8:
26 Then they sailed to the country of the Gadarenes,[c] which is opposite Galilee. 27 And when He stepped out on the land, there met Him a certain man from the city who had demons for a long time. And he wore no clothes,[d] nor did he live in a house but in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before Him, and with a loud voice said, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me!” 29 For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For it had often seized him, and he was kept under guard, bound with chains and shackles; and he broke the bonds and was driven by the demon into the wilderness.

30 Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?”

And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. 33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned.

34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled and told it in the city and in the country. 35 Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. 36 They also who had seen it told them by what means he who had been demon-possessed was healed. 37 Then the whole multitude of the surrounding region of the Gadarenes[e] asked Him to depart from them, for they were seized with great fear. And He got into the boat and returned.

38 Now the man from whom the demons had departed begged Him that he might be with Him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you.” And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A Gentile Church in the area of The Gaderenes/Gerasenes/Gergesenes had the foundation laid for the later conversion of the Gentiles twas laid in the deliverance of the demoniac [or the two, as one account states] who lived in their land.

Jesus did not tell them to stop eating swine, and the Council in Jerusalem received the Holy Spirit's declaration on it, that no, the Gentiles who came into Christ did not have to keep Moses. Jesus never put Gentiles under Moses.
There is an interesting read on the event @ http://ldolphin.org/gadara.html

The Jerusalem Council of the Apostles in Acts 15 set Judaizing of the Gentile converts off limits, forever.
Read it, believe it..........................
.

Give me Abraham over Moses any day of the week............

Gal 3:8
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Btw, both Abraham and Moses are mentioned in this covenantle parable in Luke 16

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus

LUKE 16:
25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.
26 " 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "
30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

Yielding himself to his destiny, the rich man asks one more thing of his forefather Abraham. He pleads with him to send someone to warn his brothers, so that they may escape "this place of torment" (basanou), the testing and punishment that he was undergoing.


The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah (Gen. 29:35).
He had five full-blooded brothers: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (Gen. 35:23).

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking.
They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable.

This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!.......................................

.....................................................................

.

 

[BobRyan]

Commands which were specific to the Judaic faith. Christians have consumed pork since the first century; .

you are "quoting you" again. Use the actual Bible

A Gentile Church in the area of The Gaderenes/Gerasenes/Gergesenes had the foundation laid for the later conversion of the Gentiles twas laid in the deliverance of the demoniac [or the two, as one account states] who lived in their land.

Jesus did not tell them to stop eating swine, and the Council in Jerusalem received the Holy Spirit's declaration on it, that no, the Gentiles who came into Christ did not have to keep Moses. Jesus never put Gentiles under Moses.
There is an interesting read on the event @ http://ldolphin.org/gadara.html

The Jerusalem Council of the Apostles in Acts 15 set Judaizing of the Gentile converts off limits, forever.
Read it, believe it.

The gentiles in Gaderenes mentioned in the gospels before the Cross - were not Christians, were not living after the cross but before the cross.

Details matter.

The Jerusalem council said nothing at all about ignoring the scriptures in Lev 11. Nor did they argue for ignoring Deut 6;5 regarding the command to Love God with all your heart.



Luke 8

And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. 33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned.

34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled and told it in the city and in the country. 35 Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. 36 They also who had seen it told them by what means he who had been demon-possessed was healed. 37 Then the whole multitude of the surrounding region of the Gadarenes[e] asked Him to depart from them,

The demons knew that the swine business was not protected by God nor promoted by God and was condemned in the Bible in Lev 11. They claimed that the pigs were theirs - and that God had no interest in protecting that business.

Jesus agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Bob, the swine committed suicide when a legion of demons entered them. They were owned by Gentiles in that area of the gentiles, and Jesus did not come to punish Gentiles for not keeping Moses, but came to be the Savior of them which was promised to all the seed in the loins to come forth in the Adam who all were in the loins of the firstborn son of God of the human being kind in Paradise, and heard then, the promise of the Savior of all men, who did not come to make more rules to keep on earth to make one acceptable to enter Paradise as a son of God, again, but who came to Be The Way, the Truth, and the Life to all men.

Israel was named with His New Man name and give the Living Oracles to rehearse til all was fulfilled, but Gentiles were never given those Living Oracles to rehearse.
It was not a sin for Gentiles to keep herds of swine, and the article I linked gave interesting history, but as to the delivered demonized man or men, they were Gentiles, sent home to tell what God had done for them, and how. So, later, a large Gentile Church was in that area, built on the sign and wonder of what Jesus did, not based on what Moses taught.

I know Christians who "keep swine", and God blesses.

 

[Wgw]

you are "quoting you" again. Use the actual Bible

For someone who allegedly quotes himself, I should like to point out that at least I do not habitually recycle elements of my own prior posts, for example, the baseless allegation that I wuote myself, which you have copy pasted quite literally word-for-word. I daresay this is more self-referential than my own posts, although, I would again note, perhaps with an excess of self-congratulation, that I do regard myself as being reliable enough to quote in many of my posts. Not all; I have made a few factual blunders to my great chagrin. So perhaps I might take up reviewing my own posts for accuracy, and then as the corpus of vetted topical posts increases, take to quoting them in preference to other source material.

The gentiles in Gaderenes mentioned in the gospels before the Cross - were not Christians, were not living after the cross but before the cross.

Details matter.

The Jerusalem council said nothing at all about ignoring the scriptures in Lev 11. Nor did they argue for ignoring Deut 6;5 regarding the command to Love God with all your heart.

Not true; they specifically waived the requirement of circumcision.

Luke 8

And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. 33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned.

34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled and told it in the city and in the country. 35 Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. 36 They also who had seen it told them by what means he who had been demon-possessed was healed. 37 Then the whole multitude of the surrounding region of the Gadarenes[e] asked Him to depart from them,

The demons knew that the swine business was not protected by God nor promoted by God and was condemned in the Bible in Lev 11. They claimed that the pigs were theirs - and that God had no interest in protecting that business.

Jesus agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

This is an interesting and novel argument, but one which we can reject on the basis of the many unpleasnt incidents over the years to befall other agricultural industries. I do not believe one could rationally articulate a unique divine protection on any source of food production, in this phase of human history.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I daresay this is more self-referential than my own posts...

Ahhh, the age old "who's more referential" argument... of course, by it's nature, it can never be won...

Not true; they specifically waived the requirement of circumcision.

Why is it whenever the topic of which foods God intended for mankind to eat, does the argument of circumcision come up? Circumcision was debated and not required/enforced upon gentiles because it was a physical sign that God gave as part of the old covenant through Abraham. The dietary laws were mentioned at the flood and therefore not a part of the covenant made with Abraham.

The idea that there were universal laws for mankind that were also incorporated into the Mosaic law for the Israelites should not come as a surprise. Does anyone truly believe that before Sinai, there were no laws in regard to worship, and societal function?[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, the swine committed suicide when a legion of demons entered them. They were owned by Gentiles in that area of the gentiles, and Jesus did not come to punish Gentiles for not keeping Moses, but came to be the Savior of them which was promised to all the seed in the loins to come forth in the Adam who all were in the loins of the firstborn son of God of the human being kind in Paradise, and heard then, the promise of the Savior of all men, who did not come to make more rules to keep on earth to make one acceptable to enter Paradise as a son of God, again, but who came to Be The Way, the Truth, and the Life to all men.

so then Jesus was "totally surprised" in your view that DEMONS might do something "bad" to any group of livestock that HE gave them permission to possess?

And was He also surprised that HIS own Word - HIS scriptures - in Lev 11 condemned that business of raising pigs??

And was He shocked and surprised to learn that DEMONS would take advantage of this Bible fact claiming their right over that business? They sought "permission" - HE granted it!!

And yet was surprised at the outcome????

And that makes sense to you right??

================== by contrast -- some Bible facts in this case.



Luke 8

And he said, “Legion,” because many demons had entered him. 31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

32 Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. 33 Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned.

34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled and told it in the city and in the country. 35 Then they went out to see what had happened, and came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. 36 They also who had seen it told them by what means he who had been demon-possessed was healed. 37 Then the whole multitude of the surrounding region of the Gadarenes[e] asked Him to depart from them,

The demons knew that the swine business was not protected by God nor promoted by God and was condemned in the Bible in Lev 11. They claimed that the pigs were theirs - and that God had no interest in protecting that business.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FredVB]

The FDA wouldn't agree with that. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2009 Food Code allows food service establishments to serve raw or undercooked foods at a customer’s request as long as the customer is informed about the risks associated with consuming undercooked food and the customer is not part of a high-risk group. In an effort to educate customers on the risks associated with consuming raw and undercooked foods, the Food Code requires all restaurants that sell raw or undercooked animal products to post a raw food warning for customers. This warning is often seen as a posted sign in fast-food or self-service restaurants or, more commonly, as a written statement at the bottom of a restaurant menu.

AFA Red meat, if eaten in the manner ascribed in the Torah, it is safe.

There are good fats and bad fats. That is why certain fats were prescribed to be sacrificed on the altar. These specific fats contain artery clogging cholesterol and were not to be eaten. This is different than the fats that are in other parts of the animal. It all depends on it's diet as well. For instance a cow that is left natural to graze on grass produces milk that is high in omega-3 fatty acids and high in Vitamin K. Whereas those who are fed a 'man-made' diet of grains, sugars and such do not contain that much. These help to balance out the other fats in the animal. Grass fed (the way God intended) animals are much leaner in fat and much healthier to eat.

Actually it is not driven by such but by much research. If we take God out of the picture then we can pooh-pooh this, but when we consider that it was Him who created all things and knew what purpose they served who gave these regulations then it makes sense that the maker should know better than we do about his creation. We who are humans can say that being human we know all about us, but that is not so, they are still discovering what makes us tick and there is still much more to learn, so how can we propose to believe we know even more about the whole creation and it's symbiotic relationship?

G-d created the earth and all that was in it. In the beginning it was all good, as he says. But then it became corrupted and death entered in. We know that in Noachs time there were pairs of unclean animals brought on the ark and seven pairs of 'clean'. My theory is that during this long time on board the animals were put in to a limbo or hibernation of sorts and that the LoRD did some genetic changes to their DNA. We have a hint of this in the verse that tells us that :"The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea". Fear is fueled by Adrenalin and was not present in the antediluvian world. Anyway, getting too far off track but since death entered in and in order to keep the world from totally corrupting a way was needed to keep it clean as much as possible. One of the way was through the animals on the earth and animals in the seas given this job.

It is well known that crabs, shrimp, lobsters, oysters, clams, etc are the oceans cleaners. They clean up the dead and their bodies contain the toxins. Some purify the water itself. But eating them is like opening up your trash compactors bags and serving it for dinner.

It's funny too how what is perceived to be one of the 'luxuries' of life and the 'best' eating is lobster which used to be thought of as the poorest of poor mans food served to the displeasure of inmates, in prisons.
They were mainly used for fertilizer but not held in any esteem other than that. They are also cannibalistic as well as eating their own exoskeleton.

Yes, this is very true, but not because of the species itself but because of the pollution of man that has blighted them. But not only in the seas, but Farm raised is one of the worst. So while Ocean caught Salmon is Kosher and good for you (young and not eating the dark parts) eating farm raised can be very detrimental.

See that's the thing. The dietary laws were given for the health and well being as well as the Holiness of G0ds people. The Jews did not come up with these laws, the Creator of all did. He should know what is best for us. That is why he said if you kept these laws they would bring life.

A good example of this is the Bubonic Plague that wiped out nearly 1/3 of Europe during the Middle Ages. The Jewish population was actually blamed for this and killed because they didn't die in the numbers of the Christians. Sad but true. But it is believed that they were relatively spared from it because of keeping the Commandments regarding eating and hygiene. The cause of the (Bubonic) Plague, is now known to be spread because of lack of hygiene and by eating weak and injured animals.

All those things are covered in the Commandments. So it was through obeying Gods commandments that the Jews lived (but then were killed because of it) and the Christians who said 'That's not for me' died in huge numbers.

I think it's best to follow the adage in my signature. I for one do not think I know better than my creator.

It is not the case that red meat, if eaten in the manner ascribed in the Torah, is safe.

"There are good fats and bad fats. That is why certain fats were prescribed to be sacrificed on the altar. These specific fats contain artery clogging cholesterol and were not to be eaten. This is different than the fats that are in other parts of the animal. It all depends on it's diet as well. For instance a cow that is left natural to graze on grass produces milk that is high in omega-3 fatty acids and high in Vitamin K. Whereas those who are fed a 'man-made' diet of grains, sugars and such do not contain that much. These help to balance out the other fats in the animal. Grass fed (the way God intended) animals are much leaner in fat and much healthier to eat."

That also isn't so good, and the different treatment in our modern world is in reality token differences anyway, for commercial purposes to appeal to more of certain customers.

Plant-Based Addict

Be sure to see this, and see why change that way is desirable.
www.forksoverknives.com

The actual best thing to follow is what was given as the provision in the original design in Yahweh's creation, Genesis 1:29-30.

What was shown with provision for meat was associated with sacrifices, there was still to be responsibility to life, and none of the blood was to remain when it was to be prepared for having. That permission was not meant for having it frequently, without regard to other things.