DO YOU BELIEVE ITS OKAY TO EAT PORK, AS A BELIEVER IN GOD ?

[thereselittleflower]

4 hours ago, Shar said:

This one fact you quote does not go with the actual times.  Peter was a Jew and remained so.  The Jews did not adopt the pagan lifestyle.  The Gentiles were not the non-Jews of today.  They were an extremely idolatrous, sexually perverted, blood drinking, non-kosher, polytheist people group.  Remarkably unclean and to be avoided.  These people were now open up to being brought into the faith through the blood of Messiah.  The only faith was a biblical form of Judaism, that Paul often referred to as "The Way".  Acts 15 gave the first 4 basic requirements that these pagans must do to clean up their act in order to be able to be brought in and have the Jew teach them the faith.  These Gentiles were required to give up their lifestyle, NEVER did G-d instruct the Jew to adopt pagan lifestyle in ANY form. 

A clear example of how the Church has deviated from the original faith is our failure to practice, even as stated by Paul to keep, is The Passover (1 Cor. 5:8).  How could we ignore one of the G-d's greatest festivals, that marked the actual death, burial and resurrection of our L-rd, and justify switching it for the pagan feast of Ishtar?  Ishtar (Easter), the fertility goddess, and all it symbols of the eggs, the bunnies, etc.  We take the Passover, throw it away, and say our L-rd resurrected on this pagan feast?

Do a thorough study of the Church's history and you will be astonished on how far we have deviated.  Constantine moved to make Christianity the religion during his reign for political reason.  They then took the worship of their Sun god on Sunday and switched out Sabbath and switch Passover for the pagan feast of Ishtar (Easter) and our L-rd's birth (Festival of Succoth) for Saturnalia, the birth of their Sun god, Saturn. 

  

Shar, what I am suggesting to you is the way you are interpreting scripture flies in the face of the historical reality.

There is absolutely no proof that the Early Church held to the Jewish dietary laws.

There is absolutely proof they did not.    Peter living as a gentile and not as a Jew, which is specifically, clearly, umambiguously and explicitly stated in scripture.  For your interpretation to be correct, Paul then is a liar and the scriptures lie.    

Paul was not a liar, and the scriptures do not lie.   Peter lived as a gentile and not as a Jew - and this specifically included eating.

You called this a fact.    Logically we must then conclude:

1. That it is a fact means it is true.  
2. That it is true means your interpretation, and your claims about how Peter lived and thus how all believers lived and were to live, are wrong.

 

Paul was not instructing to keep the passover, but in how to live our entire lives.    He is speaking metaphorically about our lives being unleavened.

 

Acts 15 was not an instruction of what the pagans had to do to be "brought  in"   they were already "in."    The instructions given by the Council were very limited and DO NOT INCLUDE abstaining from any particular food from any particular animal.   It has already been explained by myself and others what was happening here -  and it is explained in the text itself.    Let's look at it again:

	Act 15:19	“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
	Act 15:20	“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,fn from things strangled, andfrom blood.
	Act 15:21	“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

 

So what was laid on the gentile believers was specifically and only this:

• abstain from things polluted by IDOLS
• sexual immorality
• things STRANGLED
• from BLOOD

That's it.

There are no specific food restrictions.   Nothing about Mosaic dietary laws, nothing.

Why didn't the Council in Jerusalem lay Mosaic dietary laws on the gentile believers? Obviously if such were required of believers in Christ, then they would have had to do so.  But they didn't.   

They expressly said: 

• we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles

 

So why did the Council in Jerusalem lay even these restriction regarding foods  - ie regarding foods offered to IDOLS,  things STRANGLED and from BLOOD ?

Verse 21 answers why using the word  "FOR"   

• γάρ gár, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles):—and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

 

• γάρ, a conjunction, which according to its composition, γέ and ἄρα (equivalent toἀρ), is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, "the thing is first affirmed by the particle γέ, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ἄρα (Klotz ad Devar. ii. 1, p. 232; cf. Kühner, ii., p. 724; (Jelf, § 786; Winers Grammar, 445f (415f))). Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for (Latinnam,enim; German denn); or some previous declaration is explained, whence γάρ takes on an explicative force: for, the fact is, namely (Latinvidelicet, German nämlich). Thus the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory; cf. Rost inPassow's Lexicon, i., p. 535ff; Kühner, ii., pp. 724ff, 852ff; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word). The use of the particle in the N. T. does not differ from that in the classics.
• Thayer's Greek Lexicon

 

• and, as, because, for

  A primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles) -- and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

 

So what was the reason the Council in Jerusalem laid these 4 things on the gentile beilevers?    

FOR THE REASONS -  BECAUSE -  Moses was taught in all the cities which meant Jews lived in all the cities and this meant that gentile believers, not understanding the Jewish faith and not understanding how they could be offensive and close the door on communication with the Jews, and thus harm their witness and the message of the gospel, were, for a time, told to avoid these things.  Of course sexual immorality is to always be avoided - and they chose to emphasize this because of the times they lived in, and how gentiles (non believers) overall perceived this.    But the prohibition against eating food offered to idols, for example, was not intended to be permanent, but temporary to address the situation of new gentile believers among the Jewish people..    

Christianity was, up to the conversion of gentiles, only a jewish sect.    And that is how the Jews understood it.    Now gentiles were also followers of Chirst.  Now suddenly regular Jewish people were confronted not only with a sect that had arisen within Judaism, but now the gentiles too?  This, in and of itself would be a great source of confusion and misunderstanding.   

And so, the Council in Jerusalem, understanding the delicacy of the situation and its impact on Jewish non believers, wanted to limit the offense Jewish non believers would feel seeing Gentile believers engaged in what had been only a Jewish phenomena before.

And so the reason for these prohibitions was because of the Jewish non believers and their sensibilities; to limit the opportunity of the Gentile believers to be a source of offense and thus a stumbling block to the conversion of Jewish non-believers among them.

So this was for the sake of the Jewish NON-believers.

Once things changed dramatically in 70 AD, and the Jewish people lost Jerusalem, their temple, and their priesthood and were sent fleeing, these prohibitions against food offered to idols, things strangled and the blood were not in force.  

In fact, Paul tells us long before 70 AD that to eat something offered to idols is nothing, for the idol is nothing, and that believers were to eat anything in the market place, or set before them at a feast, without asking questions - this included not only food offered to idols, but foods you claim christians should not eat for much of the food offered in the market place was food forbidden under the Mosaic law, as well as being offered to idols when they were slaughtered. 

This demonstrates how very temporary the prohibition, by the Council in Jerusalem, actually were.    Of all those 4 things gentiles were to abstain from, the only one that was carried forward to remain in force was that against sexual immorality. 

By the way, I have done a very thorough study of Church history, going back to original writings.  What I found does not match up with what you claim.

 

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

3 hours ago, Shar said:

This is in reference to the sacrificial system, since the Messiah's sacrifice made us righteous, "he died once for all".  This did not do away with all of G-d's law.  Remember the precious words of our L-rd in Matthew 5:17.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (the O.T).  I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (to make their meaning full)  them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter or the least stroke of the pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."  Immediately after this He goes into giving the full meaning behind several parables the Jews were already familiar with and gives them their true meaning.  He starts with the teaching on Anger.

The reference "to fading" means that it is moving forward to the time when it is all completed, then it will be obsolete, but is not so yet.  Not all has been accomplished as our L-rd requires.

Also, English translations poorly use the word "Law" for both of the words meaning either legalism or for teaching/guidelines of G-d.  You need to drive down those meanings when confused by the meaning of "Law".  Most times in the negative sense it references legalistic in character, which Paul often spoke against, not the reference to G-d's teachings.

 

I shared this in another thread:

He said not one jot nor tittle would pass away until all (the law) was fulfilled.

Notice that word "UNTIL - TILL"

• Mat 5:18

  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

What happened after Jesus spoke those words?

Jesus fulfilled all the law.

The condition for it passing away was met. 

Then Paul tells us it indeed was passing away.

Regarding the verse that speaks about the Old Covenant having become obsolete, etc  I went into that verse looking at the key words in the original language and there it is so clear there is no room for debate about what Paul said.

It obviously cannot mean "fading" to some future point the way you suggest it does - that it pointed to a future time when it would become obsolete.  It was already obsolete right then.  Please take time to read through the post -  the PERFECT tense used puts it squarely in the present time when those words were penned. This is all explained in the post linked to above:

• The Perfect Tense means this:

  5778 Tense - Perfect
  
  The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, .

 And it matches exactly what Jesus said about  not one jot or tittle would pass away till all the law was fulfilled-  and He fulfilled all the law.  

 

Jesus gave the condition,

He met the condition, and

Paul announced its final end.

 

 

[Ezra]

Those who make dietary restrictions an issue are in fact opposing Christ and His apostles, and all that is revealed in the New Testament. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed (John 8:36).

[post]

why are these kinds of arguments only about pork, anyway? 

how about leviathan? is anyone going to be all tore up if eat some leviathan? 

 

 

Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces,

and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

(Psalm 74:14) 

His sheep are fed by His hand; amen! 

[post]

6 hours ago, Shar said:

The Gentiles were not the non-Jews of today.  They were an extremely idolatrous, sexually perverted, blood drinking, non-kosher, polytheist people group.  Remarkably unclean and to be avoided.

wow dude, doesn't that strike you as an awfully pharisetical thing to say? Gentiles are and were any non-Jew. so you just lumped every single person in the world who was not an Israelite together and judged & accused and condemned them over all those things. including Cornelius of acts 10. good job. 

regarding Paul & the passover & 1 Corinthians 5:8 -- you're completely tearing this snippet out of context if you think Paul taught that all Gentiles who have come to faith should be required to keep the Jewish feast. completely. have a simple look back at 1 Cor. 5:7 -- Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed. now tell me how you're going to keep - as a requirement - the Jewish festival according to Torah, which involves sacrificing another lamb? by spitting on the one that's already been sacrificed, that's how. as though His sacrifice was insufficient. Paul is using the shadow found in the Torah to teach the truth found in Christ here, not commanding Gentiles to keep rituals and feasts and to observe days. 

first it was talk of judgement according to food, now according to festivals. why'd ya skip drink? and why is it i suddenly don't feel like reading any sabbath threads?

 
 

Edited January 3, 2016 by post

[thereselittleflower]

18 minutes ago, post said:

wow dude, doesn't that strike you as an awfully pharisetical thing to say? Gentiles are and were any non-Jew. so you just lumped every single person in the world who was not an Israelite together and judged & accused and condemned them over all those things. including Cornelius of acts 10. good job. 

regarding Paul & the passover & 1 Corinthians 5:8 -- you're completely tearing this snippet out of context if you think Paul taught that all Gentiles who have come to faith should be required to keep the Jewish feast. completely. have a simple look back at 1 Cor. 5:7 -- Christ, our passover lamb, has been sacrificed. now tell me how you're going to keep - as a requirement - the Jewish festival according to Torah, which involves sacrificing another lamb? by spitting on the one that's already been sacrificed, that's how. as though His sacrifice was insufficient. Paul is using the shadow found in the Torah to teach the truth found in Christ here, not commanding Gentiles to keep rituals and feasts and to observe days. 

first it was talk of judgement according to food, now according to festivals. why'd ya skip drink? and why is it i suddenly don't feel like reading any sabbath threads?

 
 

I agree.  

I haven't read that one thread either - the legalism is a bit much.

• for all the law in one word is fulfilled -- in this: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;'
• Galatians 5:14

 

•  Galatians 5 

• 13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

        16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 

 

[thereselittleflower]

Also, in further response to the argument that Hebrews 8:15 was only in reference to the sacrificial system,

     

6 hours ago, Shar said:

This is in reference to the sacrificial system, since the Messiah's sacrifice made us righteous, "he died once for all".  This did not do away with all of G-d's law. 

 

 

I hope you can see how such an argument and claim contradicts scripture here:

 

• Col 2:13	And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
  	Col 2:14	Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

• This word "ordinances" is interesting:

• δόγμα dógma, dog'-mah; from the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical):—decree, ordinance.

•  

• the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment

• https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1378&t=KJV

 

God nailed to the cross the rules and requirements of the law of Moses.  Nothing is excepted here.   God nailed All of it to the cross.

 

 

 

 

[Shar]

22 hours ago, Shar said:

4 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Shar, what I am suggesting to you is the way you are interpreting scripture flies in the face of the historical reality.

There is absolutely no proof that the Early Church held to the Jewish dietary laws.

There is absolutely proof they did not.    Peter living as a gentile and not as a Jew, which is specifically, clearly, umambiguously and explicitly stated in scripture.  For your interpretation to be correct, Paul then is a liar and the scriptures lie.    

Paul was not a liar, and the scriptures do not lie.   Peter lived as a gentile and not as a Jew - and this specifically included eating.

You called this a fact.    Logically we must then conclude:

1. That it is a fact means it is true.  
2. That it is true means your interpretation, and your claims about how Peter lived and thus how all believers lived and were to live, are wrong.

 

Paul was not instructing to keep the passover, but in how to live our entire lives.    He is speaking metaphorically about our lives being unleavened.

 

Acts 15 was not an instruction of what the pagans had to do to be "brought  in"   they were already "in."    The instructions given by the Council were very limited and DO NOT INCLUDE abstaining from any particular food from any particular animal.   It has already been explained by myself and others what was happening here -  and it is explained in the text itself.    Let's look at it again:

	Act 15:19	“Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
	Act 15:20	“but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,fn from things strangled, andfrom blood.
	Act 15:21	“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

 

So what was laid on the gentile believers was specifically and only this:

• abstain from things polluted by IDOLS
• sexual immorality
• things STRANGLED
• from BLOOD

That's it.

There are no specific food restrictions.   Nothing about Mosaic dietary laws, nothing.

Why didn't the Council in Jerusalem lay Mosaic dietary laws on the gentile believers? Obviously if such were required of believers in Christ, then they would have had to do so.  But they didn't.   

They expressly said: 

• we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles

 

So why did the Council in Jerusalem lay even these restriction regarding foods  - ie regarding foods offered to IDOLS,  things STRANGLED and from BLOOD ?

Verse 21 answers why using the word  "FOR"   

• γάρ gár, gar; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles):—and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

 

• γάρ, a conjunction, which according to its composition, γέ and ἄρα (equivalent toἀρ), is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, "the thing is first affirmed by the particle γέ, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ἄρα (Klotz ad Devar. ii. 1, p. 232; cf. Kühner, ii., p. 724; (Jelf, § 786; Winers Grammar, 445f (415f))). Now since by a new affirmation not infrequently the reason and nature of something previously mentioned are set forth, it comes to pass that, by the use of this particle, either the reason and cause of a foregoing statement is added, whence arises the causal or argumentative force of the particle, for (Latinnam,enim; German denn); or some previous declaration is explained, whence γάρ takes on an explicative force: for, the fact is, namely (Latinvidelicet, German nämlich). Thus the force of the particle is either conclusive, or demonstrative, or explicative and declaratory; cf. Rost inPassow's Lexicon, i., p. 535ff; Kühner, ii., pp. 724ff, 852ff; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word). The use of the particle in the N. T. does not differ from that in the classics.
• Thayer's Greek Lexicon

 

• and, as, because, for

  A primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles) -- and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.

  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

 

So what was the reason the Council in Jerusalem laid these 4 things on the gentile beilevers?    

FOR THE REASONS -  BECAUSE -  Moses was taught in all the cities which meant Jews lived in all the cities and this meant that gentile believers, not understanding the Jewish faith and not understanding how they could be offensive and close the door on communication with the Jews, and thus harm their witness and the message of the gospel, were, for a time, told to avoid these things.  Of course sexual immorality is to always be avoided - and they chose to emphasize this because of the times they lived in, and how gentiles (non believers) overall perceived this.    But the prohibition against eating food offered to idols, for example, was not intended to be permanent, but temporary to address the situation of new gentile believers among the Jewish people..    

Christianity was, up to the conversion of gentiles, only a jewish sect.    And that is how the Jews understood it.    Now gentiles were also followers of Chirst.  Now suddenly regular Jewish people were confronted not only with a sect that had arisen within Judaism, but now the gentiles too?  This, in and of itself would be a great source of confusion and misunderstanding.   

And so, the Council in Jerusalem, understanding the delicacy of the situation and its impact on Jewish non believers, wanted to limit the offense Jewish non believers would feel seeing Gentile believers engaged in what had been only a Jewish phenomena before.

And so the reason for these prohibitions was because of the Jewish non believers and their sensibilities; to limit the opportunity of the Gentile believers to be a source of offense and thus a stumbling block to the conversion of Jewish non-believers among them.

So this was for the sake of the Jewish NON-believers.

Once things changed dramatically in 70 AD, and the Jewish people lost Jerusalem, their temple, and their priesthood and were sent fleeing, these prohibitions against food offered to idols, things strangled and the blood were not in force.  

In fact, Paul tells us long before 70 AD that to eat something offered to idols is nothing, for the idol is nothing, and that believers were to eat anything in the market place, or set before them at a feast, without asking questions - this included not only food offered to idols, but foods you claim christians should not eat for much of the food offered in the market place was food forbidden under the Mosaic law, as well as being offered to idols when they were slaughtered. 

This demonstrates how very temporary the prohibition, by the Council in Jerusalem, actually were.    Of all those 4 things gentiles were to abstain from, the only one that was carried forward to remain in force was that against sexual immorality. 

By the way, I have done a very thorough study of Church history, going back to original writings.  What I found does not match up with what you claim.

 

 

 

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

You copied well.  Your failed to show how early Christians fled when Jews were being persecuted, as to no longer be identified with them and avoid the persecution.  How Constantine substituted the Jewish feasts for the pagan feasts, such as Easter for Passover, Christmas (Saturnalia) for Succoth.  The list of anti-Semitism goes on and on throughout Church history.  Peter was an apostle to the Jews, as they agreed Paul would be the apostle to the Gentiles.  Peter did not become a Gentile Christian.   We now agree to disagree.  God Bless.  Shalom

[other one]

22 hours ago, Shar said:

We disagree that the Peter's vision was a dual purpose and made unclean foods clean.  I believe he was referencing Gentiles, henceforth Peter went to Cornelius, not to get a ham sandwich.  That is the point of the discussion.  You state why you think so.  I state why I think so.  I could accuse you of false doctrine too, but we should not act in such a manner.  I do not throw stones at those who want to eat everything.  Those who do, must make sure they do the same for those who believe they need to remain kosher.  Remember, the matter of the heart is our greatest concern.

Well, I personally fail to believe God would use something that was a lie to make a point....   which is exactly what you are saying he did.

[SINNERSAVED]

15 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Brother SS, My wife has follow your  invitation to abstained from eating anything that had pork products.

But when Adam follow Eva in her new way, he had no choice, because there was only one woman in the world. 

My self I don't face exactly the same Situation.

But take a carefull look to what my wife said.

From now on:

a) you are not allow to bring any pork, or pork byproducts in our home.

b) you can not consume any pork, in my presents, or enter any place that has in storage, or for sale any pork products.

c) not even thinking of touching her, or use anything in common use, till I am cleance and purified and sanctified first.

Our situation has become even more stressful, because we do not really know, how one is cleanced from the pork contamination, and we don't if that's possible. 

and by looking at the people behind the tree, they were just destroyed, there was not cure available to them. 

You may find this very strange, that  I was able to convince my wife who had lock me out of our home, and I thought that I am lucky, that she listen to me, when I said to her, that she is not cleansed and purified and sanctified from the pork defilement,  just by stoping eating pork. 

As a result, she is in a distressful state, waiting for the Lord to execute his vengeance on her, and me for the same reasons.

For some strange twist of all those sircumstanses there is a verse from the bible framed on the wall that says "The trouth sall set you free", 

That makes it even more perplex, because the Lord took his vengeance on the man behind the tree, that's how the Lord found his peace.

Can you correctly identified the man behind the tree, his ethnic background, the faith of his coulture, and his own faith in what? 

We have these facts:

a) the grove, and some tree.

b) the man doing some rituals, as  to purified, and sanctified himself.  

c) the eating of pork.

d) the "mouse".

e) the abomination.

The Lord taking offence. 

Did the Lord kill him? And destroyed the Grove?

When did that happen? 

Who was the King of Juda when that happen? 

Is this applicable to me and my wife, we don't have a grove and or a tree, and even if we had, we never went behind a tree to eat, is that the same as "pick-nicking", 

Because always we use to eat our P-k in our Kitchen, indoors. 

and never for purification or sanctification, and invide the mouse or the abomination to eat with us.

We did not even know that we have to perform rituals for Purification and Sanctification, before eating Pork. 

Can you also say something about the Mouse, because my wife has lost her sanity, over the mouse. She is looking for her pictures she took in disney land, her wearing a mickey mouse hat , posing with Mikey Mouse, and she wants to destroyed them, believing that's the same mouse as in the scripture, and also she is starting to believed that I am the Abomination. 

The " Truth sall set you free",

Really? 

 

 

Okay, now what I stated is not to  destroy people , but to make them aware of a view and opinion, I found, and I have battled this until no end,

tell your wife, that , when Jesus spoke to the women that they wanted to stone for the act of adultery , that He told her, women where is your accusers

and she said they are gone, and she looked at yashua, and He told, her, neither do I condemned you , GO AND SIN NO MORE !

so you see under Grace we are all forgiven of SINS all of it, it is repenting of and letting the holy spirit deal with it, if we are faithful to repent and willing to sin no more He is faithful and just to forgive,

 it is not as if you are behind a tree, and have a grove etc, it is the word of God that speaks to us , of what he accepts and what He hates, this verse is to all people , that are rebellion against him, and all is subjected to the word of God,  so do not fret, it is a individuals own choice to do this, depending on there own conviction, and following God, I am not by no means saying this is what you need to do , but what I have decided and why I do what I believe to be the truth , so that no one can say I am teaching something that is false, so , to be ,poliitically correct . I have to say this is my view or opinion,

do I follow what I said , Yes, I do , but for all the time that I ate bacon and pork chops , it was not known to me , until recently ,I came across this scriptures and researched this all, God has a way of showing us things , that we were probably not aware , and now that we are aware and have the information, and the conviction, it is up to us to use our own judgment to decide is this something we should or not do ,

many will say , it is not what God is saying , and I can say , it is what God is saying, so there , for each person is judge by there own choices as they walk in the spirit of the word of God,

I believe to be following what I my self believe is the right thing for me and my family, and if  for any reason I was wrong, then it doesn't lesson anything ,but to place me into a discipline of righteousness, trying to be the best witness ,bond  servant, I can be, I am willing to sacrifice, pork , and to do what ever else I need to be in the spirit of honor to God, for we are to honor God with our bodies and temples, and this I believe is a step in the right way,

 if anyone says I am working my way to heaven that is not what I am doing, for faith with out works is dead, and in james it explains how not of worls but by faith produces fruit and works that is pleasing and right with God, so I have not violated any law or Grace by this,  for I believe the dietary  law, stands today as it did in the past, and if God spoke that it is a abomination to Him, why would I continue to reject Him or say  grace has cleared me from His own law that was not abolished, and grace was given by the same God that gives us the Torah, or the law, give all your sins and cares to Yashua and you will be cleansed and free, the truth sets you free, and do not go on sinning, and you will be fine

and if we did sin we have a advocate the son of God that is able to forgive ,restore our souls and to give salvation to those that call upon his name , amen..

I hope I have cleared this up for you, and that scripture Isaiah 66 15 -17 , is about God coming in the future to those that reject his dietary laws , this is plain and simple and so clear , it cannot be dismissed, thank you and blessing,