Should Christians eat pork?

[I-can-see]

The old testament is against it...So that means no pork right?

 

[AlAyeti]

The old testament is against it...So that means no pork right?

For Israelites.

There are no prohibitions for anyone in the Church era. Per Peter and Paul.

Hmm, I think you're heading somewhere politics 2010 with this.

 

[I-can-see]

Soooooo...nothing wrong with eating pork?

 

[AlAyeti]

Soooooo...nothing wrong with eating pork?

Was it sacrificed to idols? And do I have knowledge that it was?

(I still smell a politically correct rat waiting around.)

 

[dayhiker]

Nope nothing wrong with eating pork. All things are clean to those that believe. Tit.1:15

Those laws were for the Isrealites. That's what Act.15 is all about. The Gentiles dont have to be under the Jewish law to be Christians. Paul said 5 times we aren't under the law even tho Jesus was born under the law.

dayhiker

 

[I-can-see]

 

[AlAyeti]

Nope nothing wrong with eating pork. All things are clean to those that believe. Tit.1:15

Those laws were for the Isrealites. That's what Act.15 is all about. The Gentiles dont have to be under the Jewish law to be Christians. Paul said 5 times we aren't under the law even tho Jesus was born under the law.

dayhiker

Interesting to note, that food was dealt with by Jesus, Peter and Paul, as was marriage and sexuality. Men and woman can eat what they want to, but if they seek food in a marriage, that would be an undefiled marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Yarddog]

Soooooo...nothing wrong with eating pork?

Are you Jewish? If not, then there is nothing wrong with you eating pork. Make sure it is cooked properly, though. You don't want ring worm.

 

[theFijian]

Bacon roll anyone?

 

[I-can-see]

xD

 

[OllieFranz]

Everyone seems to walking on eggshells concerning this question? Could it be that they don't want it to erupt into a question on the issue of "moral laws" vs "ceremonial laws"? Because such an eruption would lead to the fact that the Bible does not make such a distinction?

 

[dayhiker]

What do you mean by seek food in a marraige?

Interesting to note, that food was dealt with by Jesus, Peter and Paul, as was marriage and sexuality. Men and woman can eat what they want to, but if they seek food in a marriage, that would be an undefiled marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Armistead14]

The old testament is against it...So that means no pork right?

Hehe, Paul really had a good time when he had to get involved with churches where gentiles and jewish convers met together. They argued constantly over legal customs.

Paul said get along. If to the jew it was sin, so be it. To the gentile is wasn't. Paul said even eating meet given to idols wasn't sin as long as you didn't honor idols...Paul said "all things are clean"

If it bothers you to eat pork, don't eat it, but at the same time I have everyright to eat as I please. You're without sin, I'm without sin..

But I would take a 16 ounce ribeye over a slab of ham anyday

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

IMO no one should eat pig. It's been proven Pigs are easily as intelligent as dogs. I mean you could have one for a pet.
On the other hand it's been shown that octopi have the same brain capabilities as a cat...and I'm not going to stop eating kalamari!
(and yes before any technicality fans come along, I know perfectly well that Kalamari is squid not octopi.)

 

[theFijian]

Everyone seems to walking on eggshells concerning this question? Could it be that they don't want it to erupt into a question on the issue of "moral laws" vs "ceremonial laws"? Because such an eruption would lead to the fact that the Bible does not make such a distinction?

Maybe it's because this is obvliously a kind of 'gotcha!' thread? Maybe because Jesus said it's not what goes in to a man's mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out?

 

[OllieFranz]

Maybe it's because this is obvliously a kind of 'gotcha!' thread? Maybe because Jesus said it's not what goes in to a man's mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out?

The thing is, that if the question had been posted by certain of our regular posters, it would be intended as a "gotcha." But from the tone of the OP and the body of his other postings, I am not as sure that this was originally intended as a "gotcha" so much as an attempt to have a serious dialogue about the issues underlying why such questions have come to be seen as "gotchas."

Armistead alluded to Romans 14 and Colossians 2. Dayhiker mentioned Titus 1:15, Acts 15 and referenced 5 passages by Paul. You even referenced Matthew 15 and Luke 6 in your response I have quoted, but no one has discussed any of these passages, or Galatians, or Ephesians, or Acts 11.

I tried to discuss this issue and these passages in a thread some time back, but before the fifth post it had become derailed into a shouting match with no one bothering to read the "enemy's" post beyond scanning them for hot-button phrases.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?"

....There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

.... And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

~ Mark 7:5, 15, 18-19

The Old Testament Laws were only ever a foreshadowing of Christ's spiritual laws. We can see this in Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7 when Jesus says that the Law will never change, and in the very next verse starts changing the laws - for example he expands the law of "murder" from simply a physical act of violence to a spiritual act of simply being angry with your brother, and then expands the law of "adultery" from simply a physical act of sex outside of marriage, to a spiritual act of thinking lustfully towards another person (eg, inappropriate contentography).

In Mark 7, there are two purposes Mark has for writing this chapter. The first is to combat the Pharisaic legalism associated with hand-washing. This is what the Pharisees were originally referring to when they mentioned in 7:5 why Jesus did not follow the traditions of the elders. For example, here is an excerpt from the Jewish Mishnah, outlining exactly how a Jew was supposed to wash their hands before a meal to be kept spiritually pure:

The hands are susceptible to spiritual uncleanness and are rendered clean up to the wrist. How so? If one poured the first water up to the wrist, and the second beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand - it is clean. If he poured out the first and the second pouring of water beyond the wriest and it went back to the hand, it is unclean. If he poured out the first water on to one hand, and was reminded and poured out the second water on to both hands, they are unclean. If he poured out the first water on ot both hands and was reminded and poured out the second water onto one hand, his hand which ahs been washed twice is clean. If he poured out water on to one hand and rubbed it on the other, it is unclean
~ Mishah Yadayim 2:3

As you can see, this law-making is needlessly legalistic (if water from one hand splashes onto the other - sorry, they're still not clean, you have to go back and start the ceremony again). Clearly Jesus' comments about ceremonial hand-washing were a major point he was trying to get across - washing hands before a meal, for the Pharisees, goes far beyond simply ceremony, which is nothing but tradition and legalism.

However, a second motive for writing the passage is clear. Drawing on the Levitical Laws of clean and unclean foods in Leviticus 11, Jesus specifically addresses this point and tells the Pharisees in verse 18: "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?"

This comment is then expanded on with a commentary from Mark in verse 19 in which he states that Jesus thus declared all foods clean (though some people dispute this entry as a possible forgery, though without any real textual evidence as far as I am aware). Regardless, Jesus is expanding the physical law of clean and unclean foods (which was, after all, simply a health-law rather than spiritual acts of worship) and expanded this to be more than just food, but anything that goes into our mouths, and more importantly, what comes out of our mouths - it's not what goes into our mouths that make us unclean (types of food), but what comes out (slander, envy, swearing, gossip, etc).

Thus God continues the trend of giving spiritual meanings to Old Testament physical laws. I therefore see no problem in a Christian eating pork, or prawns, lobsters, or any other food outlined in this chapter (though personally I'm allergic to shellfish and therefore am unable to eat the seafood described in Leviticus 11 anyway, lol).

With that said, I understand and realise that some other Christians might not feel so comfortable about this. For these brothers and sisters who have a problem with it, we should not make it a matter for them to fall away. If they are in our house, we should not cook foods that were deemed unclean, for their spiritual benefit. Paul makes a reference to this in 1 Corinthians 8, and though he is specifically referring to food sacrificed to idols rather than unclean foods, I would argue that the same principles apply when dealing with our brothers and sisters who have these issues.

Hope this is a helpful commentary. Apologies for the length, I hope you have read this far, lol.

~ Regards, PA

 

[I-can-see]

Alright! The reason I asked is because my moms bf is always telling us that eating pork is wrong. Then he takes it a step further and says he can't stand the smell of pork, and says that it makes him sick to his stomach. Later he tells us that he USED to eat pork, then he read a book and found out it was bad for your health...

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Alright! The reason I asked is because my moms bf is always telling us that eating pork is wrong. Then he takes it a step further and says he can't stand the smell of pork, and says that it makes him sick to his stomach. Later he tells us that he USED to eat pork, then he read a book and found out it was bad for your health...

Hi, thanks for clarifying your question.

Most of the Old Testament laws on healthy eating were given for a reason. This is especially true in ancient Hebrew society when things such as refrigeration didn't exist (ever try eating prawns imported from the seaside, and transported for several weeks in a wagon, all without being cooled). Granted, as I said I am allergic to seafood so this particular analogy doesn't directly relate to me, but you get my point.

The foods are not the healthiest. However, with modern technologies keeping these foods fresh and free from contamination, they are about as healthy as any other food, statistically speaking.

Though if you ever get sick and the doctor isn't quite sure what's wrong, if he recommended particular foods to avoid, you can bet your bottom dollar that those on the Leviticus 11 eating laws top the list.

If your mom's bf is against it, either on moral or health grounds, and if he is also a Christian believer, then it may be best to employ Paul's statements about causing other Christians to falter - don't eat it, especially if he's around. Why cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble just because you don't want to stop eating a particular food.

~ Regards, PA

*btw, does this person have any moral or ethical problem with other foods banned by Leviticus 11 (shellfish, for example)? Or is it just pork.

 

[I-can-see]

*btw, does this person have any moral or ethical problem with other foods banned by Leviticus 11 (shellfish, for example)? Or is it just pork.

Just pork.