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

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

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

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Why do many eat pork on Passover/Easter

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

  1. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +225
    Christian
    Single
    Actually, many Jews do eat lamb, notably the Sephardic Jews (those of Spanish descent). Many Sephardic Jews live in Israel today. It is the Ashkenazi Jews (those of eastern European descent) who do not eat lamb – as a reminder that the temple no longer stands and the lamb cannot be sacrificed. Turkey, chicken, or beef might be served instead.
     
  2. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +4,004
    Messianic
    Single
    The major problem with that is that the OT Law is not one where sin had dominion over us and that is how Paul described the law that we are not under. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul made a clear distinction between the Law of God that he delighted in obeying, which is the OT Law, which he served with his mind, and the law of sin, which caused him not to obey the OT Law, which he served with his flesh, so it is important to determine which law he he referring to us not being under. The verse itself, as well as the surrounding context does not at all fit with not being under the Mosaic Law. For example:

    Romans 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

    The Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to present ourselves to God as instruments for righteousness and how to avoid presenting ourselves as instruments for unrighteousness, so it wouldn't make any sense in the next verse to say that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. If you think that I am interpreting these verses wrong, then please make the case for how we can know that he is speaking us not being under the Mosaic Law instead of just insisting that he is without giving any support.

    In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, but that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of Lawlessness, so we can be confident any interpretation of Paul that supports Lawlessness is wrong, which means that I am trying to untwist everything.

    Please let me know which answers didn't make sense to you so that I can clarify them.

    I agree that we are under the Law of Christ, but I see no reason to think that the Law of Christ is anything other than how he taught to obey to the Mosaic Law by word and by example. The Son 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).
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  3. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +4,004
    Messianic
    Single
    To start with, in Matthew 7:19, there is no "thus he declared" in the Greek, and a number of translations do not say that Jesus declared all foods clean, but even if that were the correct translation, it would still not mean that we could eat pork. Concepts of what things are food vary from culture to culture and in order to correctly understand the verse in context we should not insert the things that we consider to be food, but rather we should seek to understand what the people talking considered to be food. When you have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, the only thing that they were talking about are the things that God said were food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Jews did not even raise pigs, so eating pork would never even have crossed their minds. The Greek word used also reflects this meaning:

    Strong's #1033: broma (pronounced bro'-mah)

    from the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.

    So at most Jesus was only declaring what was kosher was clean, which was countering the position that the Pharisees had taken in the discussion he was having with them.

    In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that they made void the Word of God for the sake of their tradition (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they taught as commands the doctrines of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so the role of Jewish laws was a major source of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, and to interpret the next thing Jesus did as setting aside the commands of God is to make him out to be a massive hypocrite. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God had commanded, so to interpret him as subtracting God's dietary laws is to make him out to be a sinner who could therefore not be our Savior. In addition, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5 the way that God instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded them, even if they performed signs and wonders, so according to God if you think that Jesus set aside His commands, then you should consider him to be a false prophet even though he rose from the dead. His critics would have tried to stone him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but they never even mentioned this incident, much less even noticed that he had made such a radical statement as to countermand the God of the universe.

    Rather, it is far, far more reasonable to interpret Jesus as simply sticking to the topic of conversation in speaking against a man-made law that said kosher food could become unclean by eating with unwashed hands. His statement at the end of the account in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still talking about that and never jumped topics.

    In Acts 15:1, the Judaizers were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. While there are some instances where God did require some Gentiles to become circumcised, nowhere did God require all Gentile to become circumcised, and certainly not for the purpose of becoming saved. While all Jews were required to become circumcised, not even they were required by God to become circumcised in order to become saved. If God did not require it, then it is therefore a man-made requirement, and by rejecting this man-made requirement the Jerusalem Council was upholding God's Law. We must obey God rather than men, so it is important not to take something that was only against obeying the laws of men as being against obeying the Law of God, and in order to avoid making that mistake it is important to understand that much of what is said about laws in the NT is only in regard to man-made laws. For example, the Law mentioned in Acts 10:28 is a man-made law that is not found anywhere in God's Law, and it was this man-made law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-15 when he stopped visiting or associating with Gentiles.

    I completely agree that we are not saved by keeping the Law, but the Law was never given for that purpose in the first place, and it does not follow that because we shouldn't keep the Law for the specific purpose of becoming saved that therefore we shouldn't keep the Law for its intended purposes in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers to follow.

    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.

    You are referring to Colossians 2:16. If you take that verse by itself, then it is ambiguous as to whether it is saying not to let anyone judge them for observing God's appointed times or for not observing them, but if we look at the context, as well as keep in mind the broader theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear.

    Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

    Paul would never have described those teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition. Jesus lived in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, so it wouldn't make any sense to say that those who are teaching to follow Christ's example are teaching what is not according to Christ. Furthermore, that would be pitting the Son against the Father. Paul went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

    Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

    So the Colossians were keeping God's appointed times in accordance with God's commands, they were being judged by those teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man keep them from obeying God.

    Do you agree that the Law was given to reveal what sin is and that as Christians we should not do what God has revealed to be sin? In Titus 2:11-14, it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good and trained to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, and that is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, and God's Law is His instructions to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). That Law is an important foreshadow of what is to come.

    I am glad that you are doing those things, but I think that when we are careful determine whether the Bible is speaking against obeying God's Law or man's law, then we will see that it only speaks against obeying man's law. Jesus set a perfect example of obedience to the Law, and as his followers 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), not that following Jesus is only for Jews.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  4. HeLeadethMe

    HeLeadethMe Active Member

    417
    +366
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    All things are lawful......but all things are not always expedient, because we don't live to ourselves alone, but consider others as well. We're not to cause our brothers/sisters to stumble because of a matter of meat.
     
  5. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +4,004
    Messianic
    Single
    There are 1,050 laws in the NT, so the position that everything is lawful is to take a verse out of context and to ignore the rest of the Bible.
     
  6. HeLeadethMe

    HeLeadethMe Active Member

    417
    +366
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    Please do look at the context......1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Corinthians 10.....I didn't say anything out of context.

    Though I can't help but wonder what we are to do with the whole book of Galations. And Paul rebuking Peter.

    I just want to say......be very careful that your Messianism/Hebrew roots doesn't lead straight to the new antichrist Temple in Jerusalem when it is rebuilt, because that is going to be a very strong delusion, taking the whole world captive. Do not rejoice in it.

    Galations 2:18-19

    For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
    For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.


    Whereas:

    Acts 15:14-17

    Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
    (ie, Abraham)

    And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

    After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

    That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.


    In other words, the tabernacle of David is not a physical building, it is the church/ekklesia, and this is also written explicitly elsewhere.

    And by all means let us look at the context, please do look at the context of Acts 15 as well.

    Just remember, regarding the antichrist interfaith Temple...... that Rome and Babylon were both interfaith and multicultural........they welcomed all their multicultural citizens to keep their own various religions as long as they ALSO bowed down to Caesar as god and whatever Babylon set up as their idol. Sadly Jerusalem is "that great city" Babylon.....it is also called Sodom and Egypt. Whereas we are, like Abraham, looking for a city that is not of this world.

    I'm not staying to argue though.
     
  7. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +4,004
    Messianic
    Single
    1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.

    In the immediately preceding verses Paul listed a bunch of things that are not lawful to do, so it is absurd to say that in the same breath he said that we are permitted to be adulterers, etc., it's just beneficial. Rather, the Corinthians misunderstood the freedom that we have in Christ as the freedom to do whatever we want and perverted God's grace into a licence to sin, so their idea that everything is lawful is one of the major issues with the Corinthians that Paul was writing his letter to correct.

    During the 1st century, there was large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, and it is critically important to correctly distinguish between what is said about God's Law and what is said about these man-made works of law. For example, in Acts 15:1, the Pharisees were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. While God's Law does require all Jews to become circumcised and there are some instances where Gentiles were required to become circumcised, neither Jews nor Gentiles were ever required to become circumcised in order to become saved, and if God didn't require that, then it is therefore a man-made requirement that the Jerusalem Council rejected. Likewise, the law mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles isn't found anywhere in God's Law, so it was this man-made law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-15 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. His actions were giving credence to the people who were saying that Gentiles had to obey the Mosaic law according to their traditions in order to become saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are saved by faith and not by man-made works of law.

    According to Daniel 9:27, the antichrist will put a stop to the daily offerings before setting up the abomination that causes desolation, so the offerings will first need to resume by grace through faith in accordance with God's commands before they can be stopped. So support for the third temple does not lead to following the antichrist, though we must all be on guard against the strong delusion.


    Do you agree or disagree that following what God has commanded by grace through faith is the way to live unto God?

    The Septuagint refers to the church/ekklesia of Israel in the wilderness, so Israel is the Church and this is a prophecy of God restoring Israel so that Gentiles can become members of God's chosen people.

    According to Acts 15:21, Gentiles will continue to learn about Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, so it is expected that Gentiles will continue to learn how to obey the Mosaic Law by grace through faith every Sabbath.

    Do you have references? Jerusalem is also symbolic, so it is not just about a physical city.

    I invite you to continue discussing, but that is your choice.
     
  8. HeLeadethMe

    HeLeadethMe Active Member

    417
    +366
    Canada
    Christian
    Married

    Well, I'll just say that some people sure do work hard trying to put a burden on Gentiles, when the bible says not to, other than a couple of things, strangled meat, blood, etc. Wow, talk about chutzpah.
     
  9. HighCherub

    HighCherub Active Member

    361
    +157
    United States
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Republican
    The frivolous Jewish laws were done away with by Jesus, having omitted work based conundrums by the Pharisees.

    Chicken and turkey are more unclean than pork, but they eat them all the time- birds are dirty and contagious animals; in fact, pigs are relatively clean animals despite popular myths about them.

    Abstaining from pork is a principle thing of Jews and Muslims who do not have the grace of Christ; rather, they follow a strict line of conduct which is nothing more than ideological and burdening.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
Loading...