Why do Christians get to eat pork?

[MattRose]

I understand that burnt sacrifices are no longer required because of Jesus dying on the cross, but when did the cloven-hoofed animal ban get lifted?

 

[texastig]

I understand that burnt sacrifices are no longer required because of Jesus dying on the cross, but when did the cloven-hoofed animal ban get lifted?

Matt 15:11 [Jesus is speaking]
"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

 

[E.C.]

I understand that burnt sacrifices are no longer required because of Jesus dying on the cross, but when did the cloven-hoofed animal ban get lifted?

Because Christians are not bound by the Jewish dietary laws.

 

[razeontherock]

There are plenty of other Scriptures to say we can eat whatever we want too. There are also Christians who refrain due to their Faith. Me, I mostly don't eat pig just cause it makes me feel bad.

 

[texastig]

Bacon, pork chops and ham are the best. I thank God for Him making the pig.
On a side note,

"The amazing 'pixie dust' made from pigs bladder that regrew a severed finger in FOUR weeks".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-severed-finger-FOUR-weeks.html#ixzz14uiTWP2q​

 

[Maky]

B

 

[salida]

This is why. There are many scriptures here but this is my favorite.

The Vision Peter Saw-Acts 10:12-14
That day Peter was in the home of a man named Simon the Tanner. About noon he went on the rooftop to pray. That's when people would prepare the midday meal. As he was praying and fasting, he entered a trance and he began to see one of his visions there. It was a vision of food. He saw the heavens open and a great cloth like container with four corners hang and come down. The text says, "All kinds of animals, animals that creep on the field, birds of the air were in it," (verse twelve). Then, a voice came, "Peter, get up, slay and eat." It was the voice of the Lord. But, Peter replied, "Lord, no way! I have never eaten a thing that was impure or defiled," (verse fourteen). [He said that] because all the things that were in it were "unclean things" prohibited by the law for eating.

Peter was learning that he wasn't under jewish law anymore by God.

Mt 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

[MattRose]

Actually I'm surprised that no one brought up Romans 14. I researched some of your replies and most of the passages mentioned only vaguely covered food laws. Romans 14 makes it OK to eat what you want or to abstain without offense to God. How far does this stretch though? Does Romans 14 or other passages revoke many of the other laws listed in the OT?

 

[razeontherock]

Very observant Matt! I think Romans is one of Paul's best works, and one of his last. He certainly got better as he went. Romans 14 brings us up out from under OT law, and into "the perfect law of liberty." We also see "the royal law of love." Another term for the same thing is "walking in the Spirit." Or after the Spirit.

Following Jesus sets us free from the OT law, seeing as Jesus fulfilled it and is (presently) the fulfillment of it. He is LORD of the Sabbath!

To have even an inkling of what it truly means just to be a Christian is an awesome thing. We are "seated with Him in heavenly places." "Joint heirs with Christ." Can you even imagine?

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

No. No you can't imagine it.

(Not to nitpick, but Acts 10 is not about food. It's about G-d's acceptance of the Gentiles. No dream or vision has ever been interpreted for us in Scripture as being literally the same as what was seen. Makes me get a kick out of those who run to newspaper headlines looking for the fulfillment of Revelation in literal terms

 

[MattRose]

What other laws from the OT are now moot? What laws are still in effect? Just mention the biggies please, as I'm sure there's a bunch in each category.

 

[razeontherock]

ALL OT law is moot in Christianity, since it was fulfilled BY Christ, and since a believer is IN Christ, it is fulfilled in us so that we ARE "the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus."

How's THAT for a big picture?

So, what do we do with no law? Or were you going in a different direction?

 

[MattRose]

ALL OT law is moot in Christianity, since it was fulfilled BY Christ, and since a believer is IN Christ, it is fulfilled in us so that we ARE "the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus."

How's THAT for a big picture?

So, what do we do with no law? Or were you going in a different direction?

Got it. No stoning of sassy kids anymore... *sigh* and I just bought some nice pointy ones too. Hmm... actually Mark 7:10 says that the stones aren't a requirement just the fact that you kill them is sufficient. So we're left with NT vengeance on our little brats, sans rocks, and we're in with God.

What about the other OT laws that are topical such as homosexuality and doing in that witch in Delaware Christine O'Donnell? (Her constant denials just make it worse for her.)

 

[razeontherock]

I appreciate the humor, but Mark 7:10 refers to MOSES. Meaning, OT law. It doesn't say "go throughout the planet and do this to them until the end of the world."

Now, your expression "topical law" is a good one. The Biblical term is "precept," specifically as in "here a little there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept." You might find it interesting to see from the rest of that passage WHY G-d did that:

"that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

From Isaiah 28.

And yet Jews find it offensive when we point out G-d intentionally hardened their hearts, blinded their eyes, etc etc so this very thing would occur. Now that puzzles me! Their history supports the idea; proves it even.

Back on point:

G-d intentionally made the (larger) point too obscure to be fathomed, by anyone, including satan himself. Sometimes people caught a glimpse, and sometimes that was recorded as Scripture; but more often even Scripture itself is negative example.

The point can't be understood until Jesus' resurrection, and even then, any of us that think we really "get it" are quickly proven wrong. We too are limited to a glimpse at best, but are also clearly told we can have more now than they did then. So in the big picture, a common complaint by unbelievers on this board that Christians are so diverse it dilutes any claims, misses the point. We're each kind of like a shard in a kaleidoscope, that after you look closely enough for long enough, and twist it just the right way, you get a picture. And then twist it another way and you you can bring another picture into focus.

Personally I don't see a way of "bringing into focus" G-d smiling on homosexual acts, but neither can I say that's anything worse than I've been forgiven of. Speaking of focus, even w/o google I was pretty sure your O'Donnell reference was to a politician, but I have no clue if she won? Voting results? And clicking on their autofill for witchcraft, I think I remember reading about her autobiographical foray into witchcraft, solely because it was raised by our many pagans here in the outreach section. Honestly, I remember their comments better than hers, because I think they had more merit.

No she wasn't a witch, and no most that do actually identify with that label have nothing at all to do with the Biblical term. The more prominent of two witches in the Bible was sought out by Kings by age 15, and apparently made a career out of being a freelance consultant. He was talented at making figurines and using water somehow, along with branches of a certain tree, to predict the outcome of war. Can you place his name? I'll give you a hint: he ended his life as "the man who has his eyes open," which was a new event for him and a direct product of G-d's Mercy.

I think that speaks a lot to God's stance re: both witchcraft and homosexuality.

 

[MattRose]

OK, I have your prespective. Since no one else is joining in I would like to go off topic and point out something that I find interesting.

Speaking of focus, even w/o google I was pretty sure your O'Donnell reference was to a politician, but I have no clue if she won? Voting results?

The fact that you aren't sure who this person is points to a huge difference in our priorities, at least politically. Christine was a tea party candidate who had very little qualifications intellectually. She was a occassional guest on the Bill Maher show for over 10 years. She was quite outspoken on christian ideals and mentioned that she dated a guy who was into witchcraft. The tea party liked her because she shared their beliefs. I didn't really think her mention of witchcraft was very important as she never said she was a witch, but it made me suspect she wasn't too bright.

Now I and many others detested her because she said things like, "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." I don't understand how someone could vote for her after hearing statements like this. Even if she shared my beliefs 100% I wouldn't vote for her as she doesn't posses the reasoning power to be in government. The reason I get incensed with people like her is that I care what happens to this country a lot more than I care about what happens to me after I die. Christine isn't fit to lead and all of us should agree on that. If her political opponent is at least marginally qualified, he immediately becomes the only choice. The vote wasn't close, but I was mortified that 40% of Delawarians (is that what they call themselves?) voted for her. You on the other hand aren't as interested in politics because your focus is on what happens to you after this life. If you were into politics at all you would have heard about this cretin. Your judgements and priorities are linked to how something will affect your soul. With such a large difference in our prespectives, it's unlikely we can agree on many topics. I don't consider this a detriment to either one of us, but merely the reason that christians and atheists will often disagree.

 

[razeontherock]

She got 40% of the vote??

Since you find it interesting, a little more about our different world views.

I'm a big picture guy. I registered to vote one time, to vote for Steve Forbes. He was eliminated from the primaries before they ever made it to my State. I thought he might have injected some financial sense into our Country. That was registering to vote one time too many. If I ever saw a candidate I thought was even 1/4 way decent, I'd register. I don't expect that to happen, but if you see somebody you think qualifies, lemme know ok?

You assume I don't care about politics because of being more concerned with the hereafter, or how things affect my soul. Note that I'm not faulting you for this, just pointing out assumption is never a good policy!

It would affect my soul very much to vote in good conscience. I simply can't do that. "The hereafter" has almost no bearing on my Christianity, nor do I see it as being of primary concern within Christianity itself. Our Jewish roots, the hereafter was/is no part of it. (At least according to some Jews)

What do you know about the Fed? When do you think they were created? For what purpose? What else was going on in the world at that time? Answering this is the short track into what I'm calling "the big picture."

 

[MattRose]

That was registering to vote one time too many. If I ever saw a candidate I thought was even 1/4 way decent, I'd register. I don't expect that to happen, but if you see somebody you think qualifies, lemme know ok?

I almost think it would take protesting where dozens actually are killed to significantly alter the cesspool we call Wash. D.C.

"The hereafter" has almost no bearing on my Christianity, nor do I see it as being of primary concern within Christianity itself. Our Jewish roots, the hereafter was/is no part of it. (At least according to some Jews)

If I believed that then I could guarantee that at least one of us is being naive.

What do you know about the Fed? When do you think they were created? For what purpose? What else was going on in the world at that time? Answering this is the short track into what I'm calling "the big picture."

That sounds a bit like conspiracy theorism. I'm one of a select few who know the reason why there are so many conspiracy theorists, but I can't talk about it openly.

 

[razeontherock]

Conspiracy theory? A few dozen being killed in DC would accomplish nothing. Our Founding Fathers thought armed revolt every 20 years would be necessary to maintain the type of G-v't they established, and granted us the right to bear arms accordingly.

We've forfeited all our rights, and been walked all over ever since. There's your conspiracy. I see no evidence of the unarmed revolution even scratching the surface, but I still think it's not time to shoot the [bless and don't curse] yet

Fitting for "eating pork," eh?

 

[Sketcher]

I understand that burnt sacrifices are no longer required because of Jesus dying on the cross, but when did the cloven-hoofed animal ban get lifted?

For most Christians, it's not a matter of a ban being lifted or not. It's about the ban never applying to us, because most of us are not Jewish.

There are certain commands which are universal, all human beings must follow them. Jews understand this as the Seven Laws of Noah. The Law of Moses, which was only given to the Jews, includes these laws and adds many more. Among these many additional laws is the ban on pork, rabbit, shellfish, etc. The Jews in the time of Jesus and the Apostles would have had this understanding, and we must remember that all of the New Testament authors except for Luke were Jews, as was Jesus himself.

In Acts 10, we read about how the Holy Spirit moved Peter to preach the Gospel in the house of a Gentile for the first time. And he showed Peter and his companions very clearly that you do not have to become a Jew first in order to become a proper Christian. The church formally recognized this in Acts 15, and the rest is history. Gentiles came to Christ in droves, and the church no longer had a Jewish majority, but a Gentile one.

 

[seashale76]

I understand that burnt sacrifices are no longer required because of Jesus dying on the cross, but when did the cloven-hoofed animal ban get lifted?

The Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles clarified a lot of things for Christians- especially those who weren't Jewish converts. Someone did post the specific scripture that speaks of things being acceptable. Also, you asked in a later post if there are any things that are still prohibited? Yes, there are. These things are referred to in the New Testament as being prohibited to believers and are still in effect as far as the Church canons are concerned. We are to abstain from what has been strangled, from blood, and from any food and other things offered to idols (and sexual immorality since you also mentioned that earlier). One could say that these fall in the realm of what some refer to as Noahide laws.

So, no eating good Indian food at Diwali and no black pudding for me.

Act 15:19-20
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[razeontherock]

So black pudding = blood intentionally cooked, or cooked into food. What does "things strangled" mean? I mean the last time a flock of geese decided to attack me I challenged it's leader, threatening to wring it's neck and eat it for dinner. It took the hint and they chilled out. Is that what this pertains to?