FOOD

[Mirror]

PORK IS BAD. GOD SAYS SO. LEVITICUS 11:7

 

[William1]

Hi Mirror

I don’t know that we can say that the pork is bad. It seems to me that you have taken the liberty to translate the word unclean to mean bad, which is in error. There are in fact many things which are unclean for God’s people, as in “out-of-bounds, taboo, forbidden, however not all things which are unclean are bad.

Allow me to give you an for instance. When a husband and wife have sex, we are instructed that they are unclean and have to bathe, and then after evening, they are considered clean. So, is sex bad in this context, we would have to agree and say, NO. They become unclean, however, they have not sinned.

Likewise, if a person dies and you touch them, you become unclean, but here too we see that there is a remedy and no sin has been committed.

What I think you might have meant to say is, “to eat pork is sin(bad)”, and if that is what you meant, you are correct.

Pork in itself is a fine meat and tastes great, however it is a sin to eat it. Being forbidden to eat pork has nothing to do with the meat of a pig being of poor quality or that it was forbidden because people 2000 years ago didn’t know how to keep meat for an extended period of time and therefore was forbidden. I have even heard teachers say that it was forbidden because they didn’t have refrigeration. They obviously are in error.

There are many things which are illegal for God’s people to either eat or to do. So, when you see people eat things which are forbidden such as pork or you see them doing things which are unacceptable by God, it is rather an easy tell tale sign of who’s children they are.

Hope this helps your topic.
William

 

[BeanMak]

11 "It R568 is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."-Jesus

 

[adam332]

Beanmak,
That is completely out of context. He is specifically talking about dirt that was allegedly going into them because they didn't wash their hands. He turned their man-made accusations against them, by switching it to a spiritual lesson and implying that their man-made doctrines coming out of their mouth was more defiling than the dirt that went into His disciples mouths. Please read the whole chapter, there is NO MENTION of any unclean meats or the laws of God regarding them. I know pork is tasty...but there is no need to use a single verse about a completely different subject to justify eating it.

 

[BeanMak]

It is not out of context-Jesus is saying that the ritual laws of the Old Testement, that made Man right with God, no longer applied now that He had come into the world to redeem his creation. The hand washing was only one example of the rituals laws that the Pharisees took to extremes in an attempt to prove their justification before God. Peter also made even more abundently clear the concept of no food being "unclean."
Acts 5-5 "I R607 was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a R608 vision, an object F260 coming down like a great sheet lowered by four corners from the F261 sky; and it came right down to me, 6 and when I had fixed my gaze on it and was observing it I F262 saw the four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling F263 creatures and the birds of the air. F264 7 "I also heard a voice saying to me, `Get up, Peter; kill F265 and eat.' 8 "But I said, `By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy F266 or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9 "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, `What R609 God has has cleansed, no longer consider F267 unholy.'"

 

[adam332]

That would be the problem then....Clean and unclean meats were not ritual laws...they were civil laws. And still the passage you quoted had nothing to do with either, but instead were referencing man-made laws found in the Mishnah, not the Bible.

The clean and unclean meats predated the existence of jews. Noah was long before a jew existed yet he clearly knew what the clean animals were without God having to spell it out for them. Secondly offerings were not to be of unclean animals, yet there seems to have been knowledge of such as far back as Cain, for his offering was wrong. For it to have been improper offering the knowledge of the right offering must have already been known. Because without the law there is no sin.

The use of such meats in the process of an offering was a ritual law and was abolished. The eating of such meats has no bearing on the redemption and justification of the sinner...therefore the cross did not abolish it.

Now as to the other passage you have put forth...again this has absolutely nothing to do with unclean meats either...if you take the time to read the rest of the chapter we see that God used this vision of Peter's as a spiritual lesson...to show him that God was truly "not a respector of persons". And that it was okay to meet with the non-Jewish soldiers. Peter tells us exactly what this vision means....and it had nothing to do with what you should eat.... so again there is no need to try and use it to mean something else just because pork is yummy. Completely uncontextual and in contradiction to his own message concerning it.

 

[William1]

BeanMak,

I fear for you for you flippantly hurl your own meanings at any passage to try and support your doctrine. Like our friend Adam has pointed out to you, there is absolutely no context with your attempts at trying to support your ways in those passages. Like he said, the first passage which you threw into your blender actually has to do with germs. I guess my household has a similar law, for we ask all who dine with us, to first wash their hands.

I will post the following passage so as to help you with the event.

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. (KJV)

At this point I would like to draw your attention to the matter at hand. If you read carefully, you will note that the issue is, “the tradition of the elders”. Well guess what BeanMak, many traditions have value and by all means make sense to adhere to. I too believe in washing of hands when we eat bread. This however has nothing to do with the food laws.

Next you jump to yet another passage, which again you take totally out of context, and you again go about making your own way as if it is the new found freedom in Christ. At this juncture I would like to say, that if the Messiah had overridden the Ways of His Father, then He is no Messiah at all. Adam, in this case again took great time to explain to you how you are in error yet again with your interpretation, yet I hear no repentance from you. What is it you are after BeanMak?

The Passage in Acts has to do with Peter’s dream, which he then goes about to interpret for us. The meaning, simple, he was not to call a man unclean, whom God had deemed righteous. What you are trying to get us to swallow is that we are to believe your interpretation of Peter’s dream which he already had interpreted and all this while your interpretation is totally contrary to Peter’s revelation from God. You are interpreting Peter’s interpretation.

BeanMak, if you want to eat pork, go ahead. Matters not to me. Just don’t try and feed it to me.

William

 

[BeanMak]

Please don't call me flippant, I am not. Do not fear for me, I am not under Mosaic law. I under a covenant of Grace. I have the saving work of my Lord Jesus that justifies me before the Father. I am not under Mosaic law; I am a Greek, literally. I look forward to dining with my Savior. He will invite me to his table because of his Grace, not for the food I eat in this life. I will feed those at my table as best I can, be it matza or barbeque. I look forward to dining with you also, William. I am sure that whatever He serves, it will be without regard to old prohibitions, old covenants.

 

[adam332]

Did you not read anything? Unclean meats predate Moses!!!! They were obviously around from the beginning. Moses simply wrote them down as he did other civil laws that are for our benefit....such as don't look at your brothers wife naked. Do you feel it's ok to do that just because Moses was the first to write it? Do you think that Jesus death on the cross somehow made that behavior ok? How about don't associate with witches, do you think that was abolished at the cross too? The ceremonial laws that pointed to Christ are what was discarded. Not the entire OT...geez.

 

[BeanMak]

Wow Adam, I find your response rather vitrolic. I don't see any call for a "geez". The New Testement authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit said specifically that gentiles who become believers do NOT have to follow the diet laws of the Jews. It is mentioned more than once. You can refrain from eating as you wish, do not condemn me however for following the Apostles and the Holy Spirit.

I will not respond further to this thread

 

[adam332]

Bean mak,
first, geez is equivelant to wow. It's nothing rude...it simply shows that I am astounded by the fact that you are putting forth scripture that has nothing to do with the subject.

Secondly you said;
"The New Testement authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit said specifically that gentiles who become believers do NOT have to follow the diet laws of the Jews. It is mentioned more than once."

Again this is a completely false statement and no such scripture exists, period. You nor anyone else is willing to provide any so it is no wonder that you run off. You apparently can't face the fact that the scripture condemns you for the meats you choose to eat, so you seem more content with making stuff up than with complying with Biblical instruction.

 

[BeanMak]

I am not cutting and running because I don't have scripture- Here is the scripture:Acts 15 19 "Therefore it is my R897 judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things R898 F362 contaminated by idols and from fornication R899 and from what R900 is strangled and from blood. 21 "For Moses R901 from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he F363 is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

They decided at that time to not put other Judized prohibitions on the Gentiles.

 

[adam332]

AGAIN, there is NO MENTION of the unclean meats there at all. It is completely out of context. And AGAIN, it is not a Jewish prohibition it predates Jews the Bible clearly shows this. I have already pointed this out. Like I said you have not a single verse to rest your belief on, period.

 

[BeanMak]

Geez, I guess you haven't read Acts 15
- the chapter is about this very debate- do gentiles have to follow the rules of Torah in order to be Christians. The council decided that there are only 4 things they needed to do- avoid items contaminated by idols, fornication, strangled animals, and blood. There are not other rules that they have to follow. If these 4 things are avoided, they are not condemned for other practices.
It is assumed that Christians would follow the 2 great commands- love God, and love your neighbor. This is what is meant by following the Way. What else are we instructed by Christ? To preach the Gospel, baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Mirror]

BEANMAK show us were exactley it says in the bible that its O.K. to eat pork. in fact i recomend you read the chapter of LEV.11.

 

[Foundthelight]

I must take exception to an earlier statement about Peter's experience in Acts 10.

This vision does, indeed, work at two levels. First, that gentiles can receive grace just as the Jew. Second, that God has declared all the animals shown to now be clean. I say this because God does not lie. If He showed Peter in a vision that all these things are now declared clean, then all these things are clean. To deny this is to say that God is false.

 

[William1]

Hi Foundthelight

Obviously you do not interpret dreams and secondly, you are willing to go where no holy man would dare go. Dreams use items which the receiver is familiar with in order to convey a message. If the dream goes against sound doctrine, then it comes from the evil one, however these false dreams can be as a test for the recipient to see if they will falter. As we read in Peter’s account, he did not falter but rather interpreted the dream as a holy man would.

When Peter interprets the dream, he tells us what the dream meant. You can not after that go to a supposedly “next level” and declare all animals clean, it just doesn’t say that. Scripture is never ever that vague.

This occurs some 15 years after the resurrection of the Messiah and you got to wonder, when Peter has this dream he states that nothing unclean has come into his mouth, EVER. So how is it that now after some almost two decades, the rules change. Are you saying that the Messiah forgot to mention an important change in His Father’s Ways while eating with the disciples and spending years together with them? Hmm, sloppy sloppy Savior of yours. I guess he isn’t so perfect, huh? My goodness, next you will have the disciples sacrificing pigs. By the way, are you related to Anticus Epiphanies?

Finally, allow me to try and take you up to speed with the issue at hand.
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Firstly, foundthelight, has God ever said that, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation”? Don’t answer, allow me to. NO! This was a man made teaching which was false, however the Jews embraced it fully. Obviously Peter had fallen into this trap even though he had witnessed the Messiah eating and drinking with sinners, somehow he fell back into his old ways of discrimination. Actually we have an account of it in another area of the N.T which also testifies to this type of action.

Now, foundthelight, please read the following slowly “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Do we read the word animal in this passage? Don’t answer, allow me to. NO! We read the word “anqrwpon” in the Greek which means man.

Now in the dream we have the following “tetrapoda thV ghV” kai ta “qhria” kai ta “erpeta” kai ta “peteina tou ouranou” which means to say, Acts 10:12 ....fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Now this was the dream. The dream uses symbolism.

When it comes to the interpretation however, we do not see mention of any of the things which you speak of. It does not say, thus God declared all animals clean. The bottom line, if a man turns from his wicked ways and does righteousness, he is righteous.

William

 

[d0c markus]

PORK IS BAD. GOD SAYS SO. LEVITICUS 11:7

mmmmmm bacon!!!

 

[Foundthelight]

Hi Foundthelight

Obviously you do not interpret dreams and secondly, you are willing to go where no holy man would dare go. Dreams use items which the receiver is familiar with in order to convey a message. If the dream goes against sound doctrine, then it comes from the evil one, however these false dreams can be as a test for the recipient to see if they will falter. As we read in Peter’s account, he did not falter but rather interpreted the dream as a holy man would.

When Peter interprets the dream, he tells us what the dream meant. You can not after that go to a supposedly “next level” and declare all animals clean, it just doesn’t say that. Scripture is never ever that vague.

This occurs some 15 years after the resurrection of the Messiah and you got to wonder, when Peter has this dream he states that nothing unclean has come into his mouth, EVER. So how is it that now after some almost two decades, the rules change. Are you saying that the Messiah forgot to mention an important change in His Father’s Ways while eating with the disciples and spending years together with them? Hmm, sloppy sloppy Savior of yours. I guess he isn’t so perfect, huh? My goodness, next you will have the disciples sacrificing pigs. By the way, are you related to Anticus Epiphanies?

Finally, allow me to try and take you up to speed with the issue at hand.
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Firstly, foundthelight, has God ever said that, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation”? Don’t answer, allow me to. NO! This was a man made teaching which was false, however the Jews embraced it fully. Obviously Peter had fallen into this trap even though he had witnessed the Messiah eating and drinking with sinners, somehow he fell back into his old ways of discrimination. Actually we have an account of it in another area of the N.T which also testifies to this type of action.

Now, foundthelight, please read the following slowly “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Do we read the word animal in this passage? Don’t answer, allow me to. NO! We read the word “anqrwpon” in the Greek which means man.

Now in the dream we have the following “tetrapoda thV ghV” kai ta “qhria” kai ta “erpeta” kai ta “peteina tou ouranou” which means to say, Acts 10:12 ....fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. Now this was the dream. The dream uses symbolism.

When it comes to the interpretation however, we do not see mention of any of the things which you speak of. It does not say, thus God declared all animals clean. The bottom line, if a man turns from his wicked ways and does righteousness, he is righteous.

William

Interesting thoughts William. Off base, but interesting.

If you say that this goes against sound doctrine as given us in Leviticus, then you might as well say that the declation that Gentiles are now clean go against sound doctrine. In which case, using the same logic as you, this dream comes from the evil one and must be thrown out and ignored. Perhaps we can carry this further and say that all Christ's sayings that went against tradition and doctrine came from the Evil one? Throw out the Sermon on the Mount perhaps?

You seem to be saying that God cannot change his mind. In Leviticus He told us that certain animals are ritually unclean. Why can he not change his mind fifteen years after Christ's sacrifice? Is He held to some immutable law by an outside agency? Why would He use analogy that is untrue at its root to show Peter that is is allowed to go to Gentiles?

 

[Foundthelight]

I do not live by the law.

GAL 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

GAL 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

GAL 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."

GAL 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"—

GAL 3:14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Those who would try to put me, a Gentile, under the law are cursed many times by Paul. The Law does not bring salvation and righteousness. Those come only through Faith in the Lord.