• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Why do many eat pork on Passover/Easter

Discussion in 'Christian History' started by wayfarersoul1978, Apr 15, 2017.

  1. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    No, but my point is, we can blame the British for eating them all! ^_^
  2. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Indeed, Christianity was originally seen as a sect of Judaism and Jesus did not come to start his own religion, but was born a Jew, raised a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah, fulfilled Jewish prophecy, and will return as the Lion of Judah.

    It clearly was done to cause offense to Jews.

    Jesus was having a conversation about a man-made ritual purity law (Mark 7:3-4) where they were saying that someone could become defiled by eating kosher food with unwashed hands, so Jesus was simply countering that position. His statement at the end of the conversation in the parallel account in Matthew 15:20 also confirms that he was countering that position and never jumped topics to setting aside God's holiness. In Leviticus 11:44-45, God was straightforwardly giving instructions for how to act according to His holiness, so if if Jesus were to say that we can now eat unclean animals, then he would be doing away with God's holiness. He had just finished calling the Pharisees out as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God, so it would have been extremely hypocritical for him to turn around and set aside the commands of God a few verses later. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sit to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, and Jesus was born under the law, so if you think he did so, then you should think that he sinned and is therefore not your Savior. Jesus would have also qualified as a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, so His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him, and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but it was never even brought up, and no one even seemed to have noticed that he made such a complete and utterly radical statement as countermand the God of universe. It is far, far more reasonable to say that he simply was sticking to the topic of conversation.

    Indeed, Jesus set an example of keeping kosher, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22)

    It says that there were all kinds of animals let down in his vision, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean ones in accordance with God's command? Why did he object to doing what God's Law permitted? This again goes back to a Jewish ritual purity law (Mark 7:3-4) where something clean that came in contact with something unclean became defiled or common, so all of the clean animals bundled together with the unclean animals had become common. By saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, Peter was saying that he had never violated that man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary Law, and by refusing to kill and eat, he was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to clean animals as unclean, but for referring to clean animals as common, so his vision was not even about unclean animals, but the incorrect status of clean animals, which he interpreted three times as referring to the incorrect status of Gentiles. With no other vision in the Bible to we reinterpret it to mean anything other than the stated interpretation. If Peter had tried to speak against obeying God's dietary laws, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 13:4-5, and he would have needed to repent if he had not been stoned first.

    Throughout Acts Paul continued to identify as a Jew and as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). He also continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:24).
  3. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    Here where I live in South Africa the Coloured population eat pickled fish for Easter. It can be quite pungent.
    The Afrikaners tend to eat lamb though.
  4. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    Eastern Orthodox
    Ah, gotcha. I didn't catch your hint that we Aussies weren't unique. It's been a long day.
  5. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Also hot-crossed buns. Leaven is prohibited during Passover.

    It's as if the Christian world was trying to weed out Jewish believers from their ranks.
  6. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    Other Religion
    Legal Union (Other)
    My grandpa was a farmer and pork junky so we always ate ham growing up.

    Deviled eggs were another common Easter food. I like the ones with olives on top.
  7. Catholic_with_a_mic

    Catholic_with_a_mic New Member

    As a Christian I don't celebrate Passover. I celebrate Easter. Easter is NOT a Jewish Holy Day nor am I Jewish. So why wouldn't I eat pork.

    I'm curious, why would you link Passover and easter together as if they were one and than call it a Jewish Holy day? Jews don't celebrate Easter.

  8. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    A Christian is a follower of Christ and the example that he set for his followers to follow involved celebrating Passover and refraining from eating unclean animals, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6). In Leviticus 11:44-45 and 1 Peter 1:13-16, it does not say to have a holy conduct in order to act like a Jew, but to to have a holy conduct for God is holy, so refraining from eating unclean animals is part of God's instructions for how to act according to His holiness. In fact, all of God's laws are instructions for how to act according to his attributes, his holiness, righteousness, goodness (Romans 7:12), justice, mercy, faithfulness (Matthew 23:23), and other fruits of the Spirit (Exodus 34:6-7), so the Law teaches us how to reflect God's attributes to the world.

    The role of the Jews is to be a light to the nations, to draw them to God, to teach them how to serve Him, and to teach them how walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 4:5-6, Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6). So while I completely agree that the Law was only given to the Jews, it was never meant only for the Jews, but for all who would be followers of God and who would seek grace through to learn how to walk in His ways. You are a follower of a Jewish Messiah and the Bible does not say that only Jews should follow him, but Gentiles too. The Gospel went out to the Jews first and then to the nations so that they could fulfill this God-given role.

    When you celebrate Easter instead of Passover, you are guilty of falling under the same criticism that Jesus had for the Pharisees in Mark 7:6-9 of setting aside the commands of God in order to establish your own tradition. Why would you eat something that your God said is an abomination? Do you not think it is important to learn to walk in God's ways?
  9. Catholic_with_a_mic

    Catholic_with_a_mic New Member

    I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you, and so does scripture disagree with you. Jesus declares all food clean. You are coming across as a Judaizer like those Paul and Barnabus had to deal with in Acts. Scripture is clear, Jesus declares all food clean, Paul letters are exhaustive when it comes to making it clear that its not the law but Jesus saves us, and that we are no longer UNDER the law. The council of Jerusalem in Acts spoke against the very things you are saying. Paul tells us NOT to allow people to judge us by the feast, festivals and ..... there was one more thing.... something about new moons maybe.

    So I'm sorry but as Christian's we are not bound by the law. Through our baptism we are united to Jesus through is crucifixion, death and resurrection. The mosaic law has no authority over me and nor will it ever. Jesus Christ is my savior and his Church has authority of me. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, the completion. The law was "but a shadow" of things to come.

    I love my Jewish brothers and sister, I am inrolled in a online Jewish bible study to gain a better understanding of the OT as it was understood by the Apostles and early Christians. I have a close friend that is Jewish. My Lord and savior was Jewish. Jesus came for the Jews first and not the gentiles. So I have great respect for the Jewish people, but that doesn't mean that I have to follow the mosaic Law. The New Testemant is very clear that as Christian's we are not to do that.
  10. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    Look you are so wrong and you are going against what CHrist went to so much trouble to achieve.
    YOu have been given so many scriptures before and your giving misinformation to inexperienced Christians in the word.

    We are under Christs law and commands through faith.

    what the writers are talking about is the Old testament law.
    The law is an unbearable yoke. (Acts 15:10)

    The law reveals sin but cannot fix it. (Romans 3:20)

    If the law worked then faith would be irrelevant. (Romans 4:14)

    The law brings wrath upon those who follow it. (Romans 4:15)

    Christians are not under the law. (Romans 6:14)

    Christians have been delivered from the law. (Romans 7:1-6)

    The law is good, perfect and holy but cannot help you be good, perfect or holy. (Romans 7:7-12)

    The law which promises life only brings death through sin. (Romans 7:10)

    The law makes you sinful beyond measure. (Romans 7:13)

    The law is weak. (Romans 8:2-3)

    1 Corinthians
    The strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)

    2 Corinthians
    The law is a ministry of death. (2 Corinthians 3:7)

    The law is a ministry of condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:9)

    The law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:10)

    The law is fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:11)

    Anywhere the law is preached it produces a mind-hardening and a heart-hardening veil. (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)

    The law justifies nobody. (Galatians 2:16)

    Christians are dead to the law. (Galatians 2:19)

    The law frustrates grace. (Galatians 2:21)

    To go back to the law after embracing faith is “stupid”. (Galatians 3:1)

    The law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (Galatians 3:10)

    The law has nothing to do with faith. (Galatians 3:11-12)

    The law was a curse that Christ redeemed us from. (Galatians 3:13)

    The law functioned in God’s purpose as a temporary covenant from Moses till John the Baptist announced Christ. (Galatians 3:16 & 19, also see… Matthew 11:12-13, Luke 16:16)

    If the law worked God would have used it to save us. (Galatians 3:21)

    The law was our prison. (Galatians 3:23)

    The law makes you a slave like Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

    Christ has abolished the law which was a wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:15)

    Paul considered everything the law gained him as “skybalon” which is Greek for “poop”. (Philippians 3:4-8)

    1 Timothy
    The law is only good if used in the right context. (1 Timothy 1:8) (see next verse for the context)

    It was made for the unrighteous but not for the righteous. (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

    The law is weak, useless and makes nothing perfect. (Hebrews 7:18-19)

    God has found fault with it and created a better covenant, enacted on better promises. (Hebrews 8:7-8)

    It is obsolete, growing old and ready to vanish. (Hebrews 8:13)

    It is only a shadow of good things to come and will never make someone perfect. (Hebrews 10:1)

    Old Testament law keepers are putting themselves under the curse of the law why are you encouraging others to do that?
  11. 381465

    381465 Well-Known Member


    That is all.
  12. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

  13. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    Wow that is before the cross. It's part of the OT law.
  14. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    According to Titus 2:14, Christ gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so it would be teaching that we can return to our Lawlessness and don't have to do the good works instructed in His Law that would be going against what he gave himself to achieve.

    And you have been given many reasons why those verses don't support disobedience to God. You have actually been convinced that you shouldn't obey the what your God has commanded you, so it is pretty plain that that is false.

    Christ taught the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so if we are under the Law of Christ, then we are under the Mosaic Law. Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, but rather he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16).

    God said that what he commanded was not too difficult (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) and the NT also confirms that the commands of God are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), so if Acts 15:10 were referring to the Mosaic Law being an unbearable yoke, then they were in direct disagreement with God, and we should side with what God said on the matter instead of what man said, however, they were only speaking about man-made laws. Furthermore, Psalms 119 expresses the correct opinion of God's Law, which Jews who believed Scripture is true would have been in agreement with, and it expresses a very high opinion of God's Law that is not even remotely close to being an unbearable yoke.

    If you agree that the Law reveals what sin is and we should not do what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should live according to the Mosaic Law. The fact that the law doesn't fix sin is irrelevant because it wasn't given to fix sin in the first place.

    This is again irrelevant because the Law was never given for the purpose of becoming heirs in the first place.

    The fact that the law brings wrath for disobedience is hardly a good reason to disobey it. Do you honestly think that God reserves his wrath for those who repent and seek to obey His commands?

    I agree that we are not under the law, but it is important to correctly identify which law we are not under. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive and that he served with his flesh. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, so Paul was contrasting the two laws. It is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), that stirs up sin to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held us captive (7:6), that gave sin its power 7:8), that deceived him through the commandment and through killed him (7:9-11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do (7:13-20), while God's Law is not sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and is the good that Paul desired to do (7:14-20). So Paul described the law of sin as being a law where sin had dominion over him.

    Romans 6:14-15 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. Slaves to Righteousness 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

    These verses specify that the law that we are not under when we are under grace is a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not fit Paul's description of God's Law, but perfectly fits his description of the law of sin. Furthermore, Paul said that the God's Law reveals to us what sin is, so it would not make any sense to interpret Paul as saying that we are not under God's Law and then turn around and say that being under grace doesn't mean that we are not free to do what God's Law reveals to be sin

    The problem is not with God's righteous standard, but with the law of sin hindering us from obeying it, so the solution is not to do away with God's righteous standard, but to free us from sin so that we might obey it and meet is righteous requirement (Romans 8:4).

    It is the law of sin that Paul described as being the strength of sin.

    The Bible is up front with that fact that the law is a ministry of life and blessing for obedience and a ministry of death and cursing for disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:15-20), so the fact that the law brings death for disobedience is hardly a good reason to disobey it.

    Again, the fact that the law condemns our disobedience is hardly a good reason to disobey it.

    The Law needs to be obeyed by the guiding of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

    These verses say that there is veil when they read the Old Covenant, not that preaching the law produces a veil. Furthermore, the next verse says that when they turn to the Lord the veil is removed. Do you really think that turning to the Lord involves disregarding what He has commanded?

    Irrelevant because the Law was never given to justify anyone in the first place.

    It says that through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. Do you really think that living for God involves disobeying what He has commanded?

    Again irrelevant because the law was never given to produce righteousness in the first place.

    Paul is speaking about man-made works of law, not God's Law.

    According to Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier aspects of the Law, so the Book of the Law is of faith, and straightforwardly obedience to God's instructions is about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live.

    The Law bring blessings for obedience and a curses for disobedience, so being set free from the curse of the law is being set free from living in disobedience to it so that we can be free to enjoy the blessings of living in obedience to it.

    All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). John and Jesus both taught repentance from our sins, and the Law reveals what things are sin, so it is absurd to say that now that they have come we don't need to listen to their message of repentance. God's eternal righteousness or the way to act according to His righteousness did not change with the giving of the Mosaic Law or with the coming of Christ. John was the most recept prophet to teach repentance, not the end of the need for repentance.

    There is no sense in saying that the Law didn't work because it didn't do something that it was never given to do in the first place.

    Without faith the law is a prison, but it was never intended to be obeyed apart from faith, but rather God's Law was intended to be a law of liberty (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25).

    Wrong covenant.

    It makes no sense for Paul to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works and then to say a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works, but rather this is referring to man-made laws that created barriers of hostility between Jews and Gentiles, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles.

    A relationship with Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for all who have faith (Romans 10:4), so to obey the Law without being focused on growing in a relationship with Christ by faith is to completely miss the whole point, which is why Paul considered it to be rubbish.

    Speed limits are not needed for those who would normally drive at safe speeds even if there were no speed limits, but rather they are needed for those who would otherwise drive at unsafe speeds. The Law is God's instructions for how to do what is righteous, so it is needed for those who are not doing what is righteous and is not needed for those who are already doing what is righteous.

    Again irrelevant because it wasn't given to make us perfect in the first place.

    These verses do not say that God found fault with His righteous standard, but rather the verses that come after it say that he found fault with the people for breaking their covenant. It says that the New Covenant is enacted on better promises with a superior mediator, but it does not say that it also based on superior ways of doing what is righteous because that would involve following a superior God with superior righteousness.

    The Law instructs us how to live in accordance with God's eternal righteousness, so the only way for the Law to become obsolete is for God's righteousness to first become obsolete. However, this verse does not say that God's Law is becoming obsolete, but that the Mosaic Covenant is becoming obsolete.

    The Law is an important foreshadow of what is to come, but again was never given to make someone perfect.

    The Law brings blessings for obedience. Do you really think that God curses those who seek by grace through faith to obey His commands? No, all throughout the Bible God wants our obedience, not our disobedience.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  15. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    I think Israel got into serious trouble when they used to sneak out behind trees/idols and eat rats, opposed to YHWH'S Word.
    People keep making the same kind of mistakes over and over again.
  16. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    So ? YHWH'S WORD is ETERNAL. PSALMS as well as TORAH. PSALMS was not part of Old Testament Law, by most definitions.
    And PSALMS foretold JESUS over and over, as did TORAH, and the PROPHETS.
  17. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    Gentile celebrations.
    Specificity is important.
  18. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    Yes and as King and high priest of the New covenant he changed the Old covenant to the New covenant.
    Through Jesus Christ the word is eternal.

    John 4
    19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

    20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

    21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

    22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

    23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
  19. HeLeadethMe

    HeLeadethMe Active Member

    From what Jesus said, I believe the sons are exempt.....but so that we might not offend them.......means don't eat pork if it's going to offend or cause anyone to stumble. We can voluntarily submit to the Law when it is expedient, but we are not bound by it. Just like man's laws. Law is for the unrighteous not the righteous.
  20. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    I said those verses are talking about Old Testament law. Look your just twisting everything. Some your answers just don't make sense.
    I don't agree that we are not under laws. We are under Christ laws.