why can we eat pork?

[rockytriton]

I'm just wondering why it is ok for christians to eat pork and shell fish and things that the bible says that we can't eat.

 

[Jesusong]

The answer is found in Acts chapter 10:9-16

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

 

[PaladinValer]

Because the ritual/holiness laws were repealed thanks to Jesus the Christ.

Feel free to eat shellfish, cheeseburgers, pork, and drink all the blood you want.

 

[rockytriton]

great, thanks guys, I've had this carton of blood in the fridge I've just been waiting to drink!

 

[AngCath]

drink all the blood you want.

good old PV

 

[PaladinValer]

**stops drinking AngCath**

Huh?

 

[OObi]

The answer is found in Acts chapter 10:9-16

Yes the answer is found here, but the answer is not you can eat pork. The answer is what it always has been, unclean animals are still unclean.

If you read the passage you would notice that YHWH says "Don't call anything unclean that I have made clean". Now, my first question: when did YHWH make common animals clean? He didn't say in this passage that they are clean, all He said was what I've called clean, you call clean. Pretty simple. (In case you don't pick up on it, don't look for a verse that says unclean animals are clean 'cause you won't find it. It was a rhetorical question)

Now, it was common of the Talmud followers to not associate with the uncircumsised. What does that mean? Well, bluntly, unbelievers. The believers weren't to let the unbelievers into their house (according to Talmud). But this is what Peter was doing. You will notice that he wasn't eating anything, but that he would soon be encountering men that were unbelievers. The men from Cornelius. Long story short, they came, they left they're there and they worship Peter. He says don't worship me!

But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. 26

Two verse later you will see a summery of what I said above, and the actual meaning of this passage.

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. 28

Because the ritual/holiness laws were repealed thanks to Jesus the Christ.

Feel free to eat shellfish, cheeseburgers, pork, and drink all the blood you want.

If you are going to throw out just this part of the law, why not get rid of the rest and lie, steal, and murder?


Shalom, OObi

 

[Jesusong]

If you read the passage you would notice that YHWH says "Don't call anything unclean that I have made clean". Now, my first question: when did YHWH make common animals clean? He didn't say in this passage that they are clean, all He said was what I've called clean, you call clean. Pretty simple. (In case you don't pick up on it, don't look for a verse that says unclean animals are clean 'cause you won't find it. It was a rhetorical question)

But God told Peter to kill and eat what was before him. And what was before him was non kosher foods. God told him that what Peter considered non kosher according to the law is now kosher in God's eyes, because the law has been fulfilled through Jesus' blood. We are no longer under the law, but under grace.

 

[Nazaroo]

But God told Peter to kill and eat what was before him. And what was before him was non kosher foods. God told him that what Peter considered non kosher according to the law is now kosher in God's eyes, because the law has been fulfilled through Jesus' blood. We are no longer under the law, but under grace.

Unfortunately, this isn't the point of the vision at all.

As a matter of fact, the interpretation of the vision is presented by the Lord and expounded by Peter immediately afterward in Acts:

It was a symbolic dream against racism.

That is the main message and purpose of the dream, and no other watered-down interpretation is possible if we wish to keep the integrity of the vision and its careful exposition immediately following.

The Lord was not instructing Peter that he could eat any foods he wished under the New Covenant, but rather that RACISM had to go the way of the dinosaur.

What the Lord had declared CLEAN in this instance is clearly the Roman and his family, by the straightforward sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

The message was that the Lord had opened the Way not just to Jewish converts (as previously accepted by the Jewish Christians), nor even the apostate Jews of the Diaspora (namely the ten lost tribes, also already received at Pentecost) but clearly goyim (Gentiles), without the requirement that they become Jews or Israelites.

A similar misunderstanding has been perpetuated among Western Protestants, who think that:

(a) the dietary laws were only given to Jews or Israelites.

(b) Jesus nailed the requirement for obediance to God's laws to the cross, when in fact only the *curse* was nailed to the cross.

A moment's reflection is all it takes to clarify these points:

(1) If the Lord indeed declared all foods clean, this was not done at the time of Peter's dream, but rather according to Mark during Jesus' earthly ministry!

(2) Declaring all foods (as defined by God Himself) clean is not at all the same as declaring all things to be food.

(3) If this was indeed possible under the New Covenant, it could hardly apply to those NOT UNDER IT, for instance, those of other nations who had not heard of or accepted the Gospel. These people would still remain under the Food Laws for mankind.

(4) As any scientist, or even any FARMER can tell you, every animal has an ideal diet. The further you stray from this ideal diet, the more quickly the animal gets sick and dies.

(5) When we break these rules with animals under our care and stewardship, they get sick and die, whether we pray for them or not, and whether the farmer is a Christian or not. Cows eat grass, end of story etc.

(6) Science confirms that MAN ALSO has an ideal diet, and that unlike other animals, he cannot digest cellulose like grazing animals, nor manufacture his own vitamin C like lower animals and plants. This is true for Christians as well as Non-Christians!

(7) Almost all of the modern diseases of Western man come from poor diet: If Christians were immune from this effect, it would be immediately obvious. However, they are obviously NOT immune. Christians who eat low quality fast food all day at McDonalds develop diabetes and suffer from obesity just as much as NON CHRISTIANS.

(8) All of these KNOWN SCIENCE FACTS ought to give every Christian careful pause about just what he may and may not do, and remain within the Spirit of Christ.

(9) While after the Great Flood Noah was indeed given permission to eat CLEAN animals as a temporary measure, (provided they were also sacrificed to the CORRECT God!), obviously according to the BOOK OF HEBREWS the Sacrifices were meant to end, and in fact they DID end. Christ's sacrifice at least according to Protestant and small 'c' catholic doctrine is a once only event, sufficient for all sin.

(10) If this is so, how is one lawfully supposed to acquire meat? Under the old system the only acceptable meat was that which was duly sacrificed according to the Law.

(11) NO ONE is suggesting that food laws are directly relevant to salvation, or that salvation is dependant upon keeping food laws, any more than salvation is dependant upon washing hands. But ask yourself, If a son asked a FATHER for food, would He give him a stone? NO. He'd give his son both good food, and good guidelines and instructions on how to identify good food.

(12) To interpret the New Testament in a way that permits anyone anywhere anytime to eat anything they want, is just a distortion of the actual focus of the various scriptures. Did Paul preach Lawlessness? God forbid! Plainly no.

(13) Not judging (condemning) others is not the same as witholding good advice or important scientific facts. If I know that you get scurvy from lack of vitamin C, then it is wrong to suggest that 'anything goes'. If I know there is a health risk from parasites in meat, then it is wrong to withold that information from a brother or sister. If hundreds of people have died from Mad Cow disease, it would be foolish to think that I should not take precautions against it.

(14) Is it wrong to eat pork? Yes, it is clearly wrong for the pig! Is that good stewardship? The fact is, animal farming is actually inefficient as well as bad for the animals. The same land dedicated to growing fodder for animals could more effectively provide much needed food for most of the third-world countries. Food would be plentiful, if prime farmland wasn't wasted growing corn for cattle, and tobacco for idiots.

(15) Is it morally right for Christians to support industries that mistreat animals or place them in inhumane conditions? No. It is morally wrong to allow unnecessary suffering, even when it 'saves money'. Locking up chickens 24 hours a day inside cages and keeping them awake, force-feeding them and forcing them to lay eggs is an outrageously inhumane condition, and wholly unnatural for the chickens. Can this be considered moral? no. Can we stop it? Yes! By boycotting products that require unnecessary suffering, even for animals. "It shouldn't even happen to a dog!"

(16) Is it morally right to inbreed animals for hedonistic pleasure? Is it morally right to allow 'scientists' for large corporations to genetically engineer freak-life forms to increase 'efficiency' (=profit) for gluttons? No. Do Christians have the right to exercise their God-given power to boycott products and change market structure LEGALLY to relieve suffering? Yes! And this would be completely lawful.

Did Jesus declare everything food on the day of the Crucifixion, or the Ressurrection, or Pentecost? or the time of Peter's Dream? NO. There is no physical or scientific evidence that indicates in any way whatsoever that the basic biology of animals or even just MANKIND changed in any fundamental way after the time of Christ. All the same diseases are here, and they are from all the same causes.

If we believe that it is wrong to engage in free sex, and that disease which spreads and follows from this are a punishment from the Lord, how much more should we acknowledge that diabetes, chronic overweightness, Anorexia and Bulemia, depression, and hosts of other modern sicknesses are an obvious result of ignoring basic biological laws, WHICH ARE CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE FOOD LAWS given by the Lord Himself?

 

[rockytriton]

ok, so I guess you are a vegan or something. Anyway, I'm more confused now than I was before... I do agree that the Acts passage was pretty vague and I don't really resign to the argument, "Christ died for our sins, therefore we can now ignore God's past laws".

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Well, God said you can eat anything, thus you go by that. We are under the spirit of the law anyway. And Jesus fufiled the law, He didn't rid it...but His fufilment made it that we don't live by the letter of the law, but the spirit of it instead, hence: just the act of murder isn't sin, but also hate of someone in your heart...the act of adultry isn't just sin, but also the thoughts or imagining it in your mind is...and etc.

 

[OObi]

Well, God said you can eat anything, thus you go by that.

I'm not aware where He said this, can you document?

to go the way of the dinosaur.

I love this saying, I think I'll use it.

Declaring all foods (as defined by God Himself) clean is not at all the same as declaring all things to be food.

I have been looking for a way to say that for so long, thank you.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Because the ritual/holiness laws were repealed thanks to Jesus the Christ.

Feel free to eat shellfish, cheeseburgers, pork, and drink all the blood you want.

*runs off to tell his girlfriend the good news*

Plus, the early laws concerning food, I am told, were given because God knew that shellfish and pork went bad easily, and were difficult to cook properly in those days. And really, its still true today. Pork needs to be more thouroughly cooked, and shellfish go bad at the drop of a hat. He was giving his people health instructions, or so it seems for that part of the law. Isn't God awesome?

 

[PaladinValer]

No, it was because it was something Gentiles did. That's a rationalization, not a because.

The entire ritual/holiness law was about keeping a Jewish identity over things Gentile. Things Gentile were things done in their rituals. As such, the Jews, as they were supposed to be a light to the world, were not supposed to emulate or copy them.

 

[jengoesup]

There is also this verse:

Mat 15:1-20 GNB Then some Pharisees and teachers of the Law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and asked him, (2) "Why is it that your disciples disobey the teaching handed down by our ancestors? They don't wash their hands in the proper way before they eat!" (3) Jesus answered, "And why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? (4) For God said, 'Respect your father and your mother,' and 'If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death.' (5) But you teach that if people have something they could use to help their father or mother, but say, 'This belongs to God,' (6) they do not need to honor their father. In this way you disregard God's command, in order to follow your own teaching. (7) You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! (8) 'These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. (9) It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!' " (10) Then Jesus called the crowd to him and said to them, "Listen and understand! (11) It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean." (12) Then the disciples came to him and said, "Do you know that the Pharisees had their feelings hurt by what you said?" (13) "Every plant which my Father in heaven did not plant will be pulled up," answered Jesus. (14) "Don't worry about them! They are blind leaders of the blind; and when one blind man leads another, both fall into a ditch." (15) Peter spoke up, "Explain this saying to us." (16) Jesus said to them, "You are still no more intelligent than the others. (17) Don't you understand? Anything that goes into your mouth goes into your stomach and then on out of your body. (18) But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these are the things that make you ritually unclean. (19) For from your heart come the evil ideas which lead you to kill, commit adultery, and do other immoral things; to rob, lie, and slander others. (20) These are the things that make you unclean. But to eat without washing your hands as they say you should---this doesn't make you unclean."

In my opinion, the bolded parts are the words which exempt Christians from rituals of cleanliness, including pork.

~Jen

 

[Paladin Dave]

No, it was because it was something Gentiles did. That's a rationalization, not a because.

The entire ritual/holiness law was about keeping a Jewish identity over things Gentile. Things Gentile were things done in their rituals. As such, the Jews, as they were supposed to be a light to the world, were not supposed to emulate or copy them.

And were the Jews not very commonly healthier than the Gentiles? Daniel, Shadrack, Meshack(I can never spell these guys names right. If they were German, I could spell it perfectly, but I am not good with Hebrew spelling), and Abendigo, for example? Or was that just a one time thing?

So are you trying to say they were not to emulate their rituals, or were they not to emulate their lifestyles? I mean, both make sense, I guess. I'm just curious as to what you meant.

 

[PaladinValer]

Health had absolutely nothing to do with the ritual/holiess laws of the Torah. For example, many famous ancient Egyptians lived a great many years; into their 80's. That's pretty impressive; the average lifespan of men in the US is I believe between 79 and 81, though I may be being generous.

Records in other Gentile countries show the same. If the dietary laws were due to health, then surely records would show that Hebrews were living longer than Gentiles. That is not the case.

The Jews were meant to be a light to the world; that was God's envision of them. However, to protect that envision, He required them to abstain from things foreign so that the Chosen People wouldn't loose sight.

Mirroring worship? Well, the Jews performed sacrifices just like the Gentiles. The big difference is, the Jews didn't sacrifice humans. That's the key point of the story of Abraham and Isaac; Gentiles offered their own children to the fires...Jews aren't to do that. Of course, there are other examples too.

Other forms of prohibited worship include temple prostitution. For the exchange, the recipient would receive blessings; be it personal fertility or field fertility. What was believed also is that the priest or priestess would become an avatar of the deity...needless to say, Jews would object not only to the fornification aspect, but moreso to the blasphemous concept of any deity even regardless of God doing such an action. It was horrific to them; that's why those Hebrews who were caught faced the ultimate penalty: death.

Lifestyle? Closer, although both Gentiles and Jews lived similar lives. Both traded (even with each other, mind you), both taught their children, both had various kinds of authoritative, theocratic governments, etc. But it was the unique cultural identities that couldn't be crossed. In order to be a light to the world, the Jews couldn't start adopting unique practices among other nations and countries; it would literally pollute their own nation and tarnish the light they were supposed to be.

The whole idea of Torah is the Golden Rule: if you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others. Likewise, if you want something done to you which is positive, then do that to others.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Yeah, I knew how different their religious practices were, having studied Near Eastern mythology. And, to be honest, I figured that their lifestyles were not TOO different, minus the laws, but I just wanted to be sure of what you mean.

 

[OObi]

There is also this verse:

Mat 15:1-20 GNB Then some Pharisees and teachers of the Law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and asked him, (2) "Why is it that your disciples disobey the teaching handed down by our ancestors? They don't wash their hands in the proper way before they eat!" (3) Jesus answered, "And why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? (4) For God said, 'Respect your father and your mother,' and 'If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death.' (5) But you teach that if people have something they could use to help their father or mother, but say, 'This belongs to God,' (6) they do not need to honor their father. In this way you disregard God's command, in order to follow your own teaching. (7) You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! (8) 'These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. (9) It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules as though they were my laws!' " (10) Then Jesus called the crowd to him and said to them, "Listen and understand! (11) It is not what goes into your mouth that makes you ritually unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes you unclean." (12) Then the disciples came to him and said, "Do you know that the Pharisees had their feelings hurt by what you said?" (13) "Every plant which my Father in heaven did not plant will be pulled up," answered Jesus. (14) "Don't worry about them! They are blind leaders of the blind; and when one blind man leads another, both fall into a ditch." (15) Peter spoke up, "Explain this saying to us." (16) Jesus said to them, "You are still no more intelligent than the others. (17) Don't you understand? Anything that goes into your mouth goes into your stomach and then on out of your body. (18) But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these are the things that make you ritually unclean. (19) For from your heart come the evil ideas which lead you to kill, commit adultery, and do other immoral things; to rob, lie, and slander others. (20) These are the things that make you unclean. But to eat without washing your hands as they say you should---this doesn't make you unclean."

In my opinion, the bolded parts are the words which exempt Christians from rituals of cleanliness, including pork.

~Jen

Without consideration of the context, this verse seems to be saying that we may eat anything without being condemned or contaminated. But when we examine the entire chapter, we find that it has nothing to do with diet. From verse 2, we learn that Jesus was dealing with a controversy by the Pharisees, who insisted that the disciples give their hands a ceremonial washing before they ate food. The purpose of this bath was to cleanse away the defilement of touching any Gentile person or object. Christ condemned their hypocritical tradition in verses 3-10, declaring that they were worshipping Him in vain by teaching manmade laws. Then in verse 11, He made the statement about defilement coming out of man, not going in.

Afterward, Peter asked Jesus, "Declare unto us this parable." Matthew 15:15. This statement proves that Christ's words were not to be taken literally, because a parable is merely a story or statement to illustrate a point. Notice how Jesus explained the meaning of His figurative statement: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." Verses 17-20.


Now the whole story begins to clear up. Jesus knew that these religious leaders had murder in their hearts against Him, and yet their greatest concern was not over those evil dispositions, but only for a foolish tradition based on prejudice. Christ called those inward sins by name and then declared: "These are the things that defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." That was the meaning of His parable. It did not refer to eating food, but rather to ceremonial washing.
Some have been puzzled by the addition of three words in Mark's account of the same incident. There Jesus is quoted as saying, "It cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats." Mark 7:18, 19, emphasis added. Does the expression "purging all meats" indicate that anything put into the body is somehow sanctified as wholesome and healthful? Of course not! Again, Jesus is highlighting the fact that true defilement comes from harboring spiritual uncleanness in the mind. Physical food passes through the purging processes of digestion and is separated from the body, while sin remains as a permeating poison.


This passage in scripture is not a order from YHWH making all things clean.

In Christ, OObi

 

[rockytriton]

Ok, so God also said in the Torah that a man who lays with another man in the way that he should lay with a woman was unclean and should be put to death. The same goes for a man who lays with a beast. So does this whole idea of everything being clean now make it ok to lay with a man? If so, wouldn't that make it ok to lay with a beast too?