Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[The Liturgist]

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Of course, but I can’t sit idly by when some well meaning people inadvertently promote traditions of men that are in opposition to the Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church interpreted using Reason in light of the Experience of the selfsame Church. That is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the same John Wesley who famously agreed to disagree with a Calvinist colleague.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Forgive me, but your interpretation makes no sense at all, because our Lord actually said “what goes into a man does not defile him.” It’s that simple. The convoluted attempt to suggest Jewish ceremonial laws, which the dietary restrictions are considered to be a part of, even by Jews, are binding on Christians amounts to casuistry. Why should we interpret the New Testament in such a non-literal manner while interpreting the Old so literally?

But we also have a more compelling witness, that being the ancient church which compiled the NT canon. The bishops at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and the other ecumenical councils, as well as the great martyrs and confessors who led the church of the second and third centuries, such as Saints Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, and Peter of Alexandria, did eat pork and shellfish except during the fasts, and they also worshipped on Sunday, and the proof of their doctrinal correctness is the blood they and their disciples shed. St. Ignatius, for example, was devoured by lions in the Coliseum. The holy martyrdom of the early church, first at the hands of the Roman Empire until Theodosius came to power (there was also a brief respite under Constantine, but when he died, his Arian son took over, and the Arians persecuted the Christians), and the Persians and Indians (St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred there), and later the Muslims and the Communists, validate their doctrines. And this church condoned the eating of pork and shellfish. Indeed shellfish and caviar are the only meats permitted to the Eastern Orthodox during Lent, and only in some EO churches, and only on certain days of the week.

The bottom line is this: the New Testament has priority. Jesus Christ, who is God, declared a New Covenant. The Old Covenant is no longer in effect. This is why we no longer sacrifice animals, because He sacrificed himself for our sakes, and in the Eucharist we partake of the blood of the new covenant. This is why in another post I argued the SDA needs to put crosses in all its churches, to remind parishioners of what our Lord God Incarnate did for them.

As a strict aside, based on Acts 15, I privately believe only the Noachide Laws are in effect, and not the Ten Commandments per se, because the Ten Commandments were epitomized by our Lord into two, and his more concise way of expressing them is superior to the more verbose manner they were expressed by Moses (I believe that the Two Commandments were on the two tablets of stone, and the Ten Commandments were an exegesis thereof, but since I was not present on Mount Sinai, this is what the Greeks call a theologoumemnon, or Theological Opinion. As such I do not teach it in church or regard it as doctrine).

No forgiveness needed dear friend. I hope you can receive God's Word in the spirit that it has been shared with you. As shown in the contexts of the post you are quoting from in Mark for example that context you left out is not to clean and unclean foods but to the washing of pots and cups and hands.

The same post also looks at the Greek and the Lexicon views of the chapter and along with the context that you left out of your interpretation of a single verse in post # 198 linked. Jesus was not telling Jews who followed the old testament dietary laws that they no longer need to follow the clean and unclean dietary laws of Leviticus 11, and there is no scripture anywhere that teaches this.

Remember the scriptures of the very words of Jesus, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.[18], For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19], Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-19

Reading the scriptures here you can see that your interpretation of Mark 7 has Jesus contradicting himself.

For me I do not find any credibility in sources outside of the Word of God that contradict Gods Word as it is not the Word of God. For me that is a red flag as we should be able to correctly divide the Word of truth with the Word of truth IMO. If it is not in the bible or contradicts the scriptures it should not be trusted.

Acts 15 has nothing to do with Noahchide law. It is about circumcision being a requirement for salvation (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). Circumcision is a "shadow law" of a new heart received by faith and fulfilled in God's new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiahs 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; see also Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4 and Romans 2:28-29.

An interpretation of Act 15 that God's commandments are no longer a requirement for Christian living also has Paul in contradiction to himself when he says to the Corinthian believers some time later...

1 Corinthians 7:19 [19] CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

My prayer is that you may receive God's Word and be blessed.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Of course, but I can’t sit idly by when some well meaning people inadvertently promote traditions of men that are in opposition to the Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church interpreted using Reason in light of the Experience of the selfsame Church. That is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the same John Wesley who famously agreed to disagree with a Calvinist colleague.

Yet you do not follow man-made teachings and traditions that are not biblical that break the commandments of God as warned about by Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9?

 

[The Liturgist]

For me I do not find any credibility in sources outside of the Word of God that contradict Gods Word as it is not the Word of God. For me that is a red flag as we should be able to correctly divide the Word of truth with the Word of truth IMO. If it is not in the bible or contradicts the scriptures it should not be trusted.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired and contain His Gospel but are not themselves the word, nor were they divinely authored, although the correct interpretation of them is infallible.

Yet you do not follow man-made teachings and traditions that are not biblical that break the commandments of God as warned about by Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9?

Nope.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired and contain His Gospel but are not themselves the word, nor were they divinely authored, although the correct interpretation of them is infallible.

Jesus is indeed the living Word of God who gave us His written Word of God. God's Words (the scriptures) are indeed the divinely authored Word of God given for the salvation of all mankind. All scripture is God breathed and divinely inspired from God according to 2 Timothy 3:16 and is why Jesus says man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God in Matthew 4:4 from Deuteronomy 8:3.

Nope.

That I believe would be debatable as already shown through the scriptures here, but another time and place for that so we do not get off topic to the OP in the Spirit of good will and friendship. Thank you for the discussion

 

[ozso]

No forgiveness needed dear friend. I hope you can receive God's Word in the spirit that it has been shared with you. As shown in the contexts of the post you are quoting from in Mark for example that context you left out is not to clean and unclean foods but to the washing of pots and cups and hands.

The same post also looks at the Greek and the Lexicon views of the chapter and along with the context that you left out of your interpretation of a single verse in post # 198 linked. Jesus was not telling Jews who followed the old testament dietary laws that they no longer need to follow the clean and unclean dietary laws of Leviticus 11, and there is no scripture anywhere that teaches this.

Remember the scriptures of the very words of Jesus, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.[18], For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19], Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-19

Reading the scriptures here you can see that your interpretation of Mark 7 has Jesus contradicting himself.

For me I do not find any credibility in sources outside of the Word of God that contradict Gods Word as it is not the Word of God. For me that is a red flag as we should be able to correctly divide the Word of truth with the Word of truth IMO. If it is not in the bible or contradicts the scriptures it should not be trusted.

Acts 15 has nothing to do with Noahchide law. It is about circumcision being a requirement for salvation (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). Circumcision is a "shadow law" of a new heart received by faith and fulfilled in God's new covenant promise of Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiahs 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; see also Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4 and Romans 2:28-29.

An interpretation of Act 15 that God's commandments are no longer a requirement for Christian living also has Paul in contradiction to himself when he says to the Corinthian believers some time later...

1 Corinthians 7:19 [19] CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

My prayer is that you may receive God's Word and be blessed.

What about Acts 15:19-20? Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What about Acts 15:19-20? Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Hi MMXX (Brian),

The context of Acts of the Apostles 15 is to the question. "Is circumcision a requirement for salvation?" Not is God's 10 commandments are a requirement for Christian living like many Church's falsely teach (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). The Jewish believers were seeking to get new gentile Christians circumcised like proselytes to Judaism in order to be saved and made physical members of Israel.

The decision at Jerusalem was to show that the "shadow law" of circumcision was not a requirement for salvation as it was a physical shadow law pointing to a new heart received by faith under Gods new covenant promises (see Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiahs 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; see also Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4 and Romans 2:28-29). As new believers they were to continue learning God's Word every Sabbath *Acts of the Apostles 15:21. Paul goes on sometimes latter after the Jerusalem decision when he went to visit the Corinthians believers and confirms this where he says...

1 Corinthians 7:19 [19] CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

Because this was what physical circumcision in the old covenant pointed to. - Gods new covenant promise to be born again of a new heart in the Spirit through faith in God's Word.

God bless.

 

[ozso]

Hi MMXX,

The context of Acts of the Apostles 15 is to the question. "Is circumcision a requirement for salvation?" Not whether if God's 10 commandments are a requirement for Christian living (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). The Jewish believers were seeking to get new gentile Christians circumcised like proselytes to Judaism in order to be saved and made physical members of Israel. The decision at Jerusalem was to show that the "shadow law" of circumcision was not a requirement for salvation as it was a physical shadow law pointing to a new heart received by faith under Gods new covenant promises (see Hebrews 8:10-12 from Jeremiahs 31:31-36 and Ezekiel 36:24-27; see also Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4 and Romans 2:28-29). As new believers they were to continue learning God's Word every Sabbath *Acts of the Apostles 15:21. Paul goes on sometimes latter after the Jerusalem decision when he went to visit the Corinthians believers and confirms this where he says...

1 Corinthians 7:19 [19] CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, AND UNCIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING, BUT THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.

Because this was what physical circumcision in the old covenant pointed to. - Gods new covenant promise to be born again of a new heart and Spirit through faith in God's promises.

God bless.

Acts 15:20 isn't addressing circumcision.

Things polluted by idols - not about circumcision.

From sexual immorality - not about circumcision.

From things strangled, and from blood - not about circumcision.

What it appears to be saying is that Gentile Christians are to only abstain from eating meat that's been sacrificed to idols, meat from animals that have been strangled, and from blood.

What's more this is repeated in verse 29:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."

So what about that?

 

[Strong in Him]

He was NOT speaking about food, He was speaking about GENTILES...please read things in context!

He was given the vision of unclean foods and told that he should not consider something unclean when God has declared it to be clean.
Peter didn't know then about Cornelius. He didn't say, "ah, this is a metaphor and God is showing me that I must accept Gentiles from now on." All he knew was that God had showed him that if he (God) declared something to be clean, Peter was not at liberty to contradict him and say it was unclean.

There must have been a reason God did this - it would have been perfectly possible for God to have just given Peter a vision of Cornelius, for example, and they had a conversation about his being a Gentile.

 

[Strong in Him]

The CONTEXT was eating with unwashed hands...there is NO mention of allowing the consumption of non-kosher food...

It started off being about having unwashed hands. Jesus and his disciples then went into the house where he taught them that NOTHING that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean, because it passes out of the body again - what really makes someone unclean is having impure, wicked thoughts and desires because these come from inside a person; from the heart.

Unless Peter and the Holy Spirit made a mistake when they told Mark to write, "by saying this he declared all foods to be clean", Mark 7:19.
Mark could have just said, "thus Jesus declared that clean food eaten with unwashed hands was still clean". He didn't.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Of course, but I can’t sit idly by when some well meaning people inadvertently promote traditions of men that are in opposition to the Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church interpreted using Reason in light of the Experience of the selfsame Church. That is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, the same John Wesley who famously agreed to disagree with a Calvinist colleague.

Where have I promoted ever the traditions of man? When you put a church above Gods laws one that has altered His Words in favor of traditions what you are accusing me is exactly what you seem to be doing. Gods Words are pure and not to be changed. Proverbs 30 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Jesus warns us of changing His laws in favor of traditions. Mathew 15: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

God asked us to obey all His commandments, not nine, not eight, His Words are a shield, we are not to add to His Words or change them. Christ is our Church
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
God church is not institutions that lead many to break His commandments. God asked us to keep His commdmants so I will put my trust in Him and His Sacred words only.

This is Gods promise, no church can offer what God can:

Revelations 22:14 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It started off being about having unwashed hands. Jesus and his disciples then went into the house where he taught them that NOTHING that goes into a person's mouth can make them unclean, because it passes out of the body again - what really makes someone unclean is having impure, wicked thoughts and desires because these come from inside a person; from the heart.

Unless Peter and the Holy Spirit made a mistake when they told Mark to write, "by saying this he declared all foods to be clean", Mark 7:19.
Mark could have just said, "thus Jesus declared that clean food eaten with unwashed hands was still clean". He didn't.

Well no, that is NOT the context. That phrase was a later addition and was not in the original text. The original text uses the Greek word "katharizon"...that does not mean what you are trying to imply that it means...the context is with the word "aphedroma"...

 

[mama2one]

Mark 7:19

because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.

 

[Questioning Brother]

So you think that verse wipes out all the laws?

I think its best to let God speak for Himself and not question or add words to it. He said swine is unclean, not sure He has to give a reason why, but I am trusting its not heathy for us. God was going to know we would advance and the heath laws are just as revenant today as His eternal laws, the commandments. If you read each one they are just a relevant as they were when He wrote and spoke them. He is all knowing and second guessing Him because of this or that is not something I think we should do.

Ok, so you go and show the priest if you have a skin infection so he can tell if it is leprosy? Or for a stain in the wall so he can judge if the house needs to be burned down? Or maybe you avoid any contact with a menstruating woman? I am pretty sure you aren’t following those.
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Here’s a link to 37 vesrses that show we are not under the law:
37 Scriptures That Prove Christians Are Not Under The Law

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Mark 7:19

because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? [This he said], making all meats clean.

Again, that is NOT the context. That phrase (this He said)was a later addition and was not in the original text. The original text uses the Greek word "katharizon"...that does not mean what you are trying to imply that it means...the context is with the word "aphedroma"...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

He was given the vision of unclean foods and told that he should not consider something unclean when God has declared it to be clean.
Peter didn't know then about Cornelius. He didn't say, "ah, this is a metaphor and God is showing me that I must accept Gentiles from now on." All he knew was that God had showed him that if he (God) declared something to be clean, Peter was not at liberty to contradict him and say it was unclean.

There must have been a reason God did this - it would have been perfectly possible for God to have just given Peter a vision of Cornelius, for example, and they had a conversation about his being a Gentile.

It was about GENTILES! "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean" The CONTEXT is VERY clear if you read the entire passage! Peter did not immediately go out to find a snake and to eat it...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

because the Ten Commandments were epitomized by our Lord into two, and his more concise way of expressing them is superior to the more verbose manner they were expressed by Moses (I believe that the Two Commandments were on the two tablets of stone, and the Ten Commandments were an exegesis thereof, but since I was not present on Mount Sinai, this is what the Greeks call a theologoumemnon, or Theological Opinion. As such I do not teach it in church or regard it as doctrine).

The 2 taught by Yeshua appear originally IN THE TORAH. In Deuteronomy and Leviticus...the 10 were given on Har Sinai BY God...not Moshe. Yeshua did and taught Torah...the Will of His Father. If not, a divided house can not stand...

 

[1an]

It clearly states in Deuteronomy 14:8 that we’re not to eat pork. In fact, Deuteronomy and Leviticus clearly state a lot of things that we don’t adhere to.

13:6 through18: We’re instructed to kill without mercy -even your own family members- anyone who tries to convince you to worship other gods.

17:2 through 13: Kill anyone who does evil-such as worshipping the stars- and violates the covenant. And if you’re not sure if the party is guilty, take it to court and if the Judge finds the party guilty and you refuse take part in stoning the defendant to death, then you should be killed too.

21:18: Kill your own son if he is rebellious.

Thou shalt not kill, but Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus is full of examples like this where we are to kill people for sinning. What about “as we forgive those who trespass against us”? I seem to have made executing people the theme here, but there are instructions/laws on other topics as well that we don’t follow, I’m assuming because they just don’t seem consistent with our faith.

So why is it OK to have a pork Bratwurst at the church fundraising event these days when God clearly forbids it?

You could argue that things were different back then and don’t apply today. But that would nullify the Ten Commandments. These laws I’m referring to were issued on the same day. They just didn’t make the top ten list.

Forget the Old Testament, it is not for Christians, and Jesus replaced it.
.

 

[ozso]

Where have I promoted ever the traditions of man? When you put a church above Gods laws one that has altered His Words in favor of traditions what you are accusing me is exactly what you seem to be doing. Gods Words are pure and not to be changed. Proverbs 30 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Jesus warns us of changing His laws in favor of traditions. Mathew 15: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

God asked us to obey all His commandments, not nine, not eight, His Words are a shield, we are not to add to His Words or change them. Christ is our Church
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
God church is not institutions that lead many to break His commandments. God asked us to keep His commdmants so I will put my trust in Him and His Sacred words only.

This is Gods promise, no church can offer what God can:

Revelations 22:14 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

You say "God asked us to obey all His commandments, not nine, not eight"... But God gave 613 commandments. So if you're going to obey all of His commandments, you're going to have to obey all 613. Not 425, not 579, not 611, but all 613.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But God gave 613 commandments. So if you're going to obey all of His commandments, you're going to have to obey all 613. Not 425, not 579, not 611, but all 613.

That is a fallacy, NO ONE can obey all "613" and never could nor ever will...

 

[ozso]

That is a fallacy, NO ONE can obey all "613" and never could nor ever will...

Exactly. So how do we pick and choose which ones to obey? Why should Leviticus 11:7 be obeyed while other commandments in Leviticus are ignored?

Most Christians probably don't even know what any of the others in Leviticus are. It's just the one about pork that stands out to them. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that was started by the cattle industry.

What about Leviticus 24:16?

Or better yet, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Does anyone here want to have unruly children stoned to death?