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

[Your closest friendnt]

On 5/17/2017 at 11:15 PM, Riccardo said:

You will not get an argument from me on abstaining from unclean animals, I agree 100% on all you have said & have brought up all those points in previous discussions.  

Peter's Vision is the absolute cliff hanger, after all those years after Christ's death. Date written A.D. 63-70. he still hadn't eaten anything common or unclean. Was he in denial or did Jesus forget to tell him? The answer was clear further on, Acts 10:28 he says God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean. 

Eating Pork, or not eating Pork is a personal thing if you are on your own. 

So if you want to eat pork eat pork. 

Eating Pork, or not eating Pork is also a cultural thing, or a religious thing, so not to provoke the cultural , and religious thing of others you are with, let it be and eat something else. 

Whether you are in your own family, or a freindly, or some cultural setting, where they don't eat pork, then don't eat pork.

We are not call to build walls around us. 

Be ready in season and out of season, maybe you might be called to witness, to either groups. 

Put the need for the Gospel first. 

[Riccardo]

BROTHER ,Your closest Friendnt,

The bible is not a cultural thing, if God says abstain from unclean animals & you have knowledge of it & do not, you are in rebellion against God.

[Guest shiloh357]

On 5/31/2017 at 7:12 PM, Riccardo said:

BROTHER ,Your closest Friendnt,

The bible is not a cultural thing, if God says abstain from unclean animals & you have knowledge of it & do not, you are in rebellion against God.

The command from God to not eat unclean animals was given to Israel, not Gentile believers.  Gentile believers are not required to abstain from pork or shell fish or whatever.

[Riccardo]

God  mentioned unclean animals long before any Jewish nation.

His people were to be an example for other nations to see & blessings of good health were involved if they listened to God. Modern science confirms the problems that can ocure with eating such foods. Just because we can eat it & not get sick, similarly a smokers can live to 100yrs old, that doesn't mean its not bad for ones health.

[BobRyan]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:37 AM, shiloh357 said:

The command from God to not eat unclean animals was given to Israel, not Gentile believers.  Gentile believers are not required to abstain from pork or shell fish or whatever.

The clean unclean distinction is in Genesis 6 and 7 long before there is a Jew or Gentile.

Isaiah 66 condemns mankind even at the end of the world for eating rats/mice.

The gospel is not at all trying to promote rat sandwiches. In Lev 11 rats and diseased flesh of cows and goats -- all condemned as unclean, as unfit for food. As abomination.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, BobRyan said:

The clean unclean distinction is in Genesis 6 and 7 long before there is a Jew or Gentile.

 

Doesn't matter.  I am talking about the command from God.  God told Israel to abstain from unclean animals.  He did not issue that command to the NT Church.

If someone wants to live under the OT economy and follow the dietary laws, that is right to do so, and I will not disparage that whatsoever.  But they have no right to obligate me.

[BobRyan]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Doesn't matter.  I am talking about the command from God.  God told Israel to abstain from unclean animals.  He did not issue that command to the NT Church.

If someone wants to live under the OT economy and follow the dietary laws, that is right to do so, and I will not disparage that whatsoever.  But they have no right to obligate me.

God did not tell the new testament church not to take God's name in vain. That command is only found in the OT.

Christ did not die on the cross so people could eat diseased beef (forbidden in Lev 11) or rat sandwiches.

[Guest shiloh357]

31 minutes ago, BobRyan said:

God did not tell the new testament church not to take God's name in vain. That command is only found in the OT.

But the NT does state that we are not make vain oaths, which is what it means when it says not take God's name in vain.  The idea behind the commandment was that we are not swear by God's Name when making a oath that we will not or cannot keep.   That is included in the moral paradigm of the NT.

But eating unclean animals is not a NT prohibition.

No one would argue that since bestiality is not repeated in the NT that we should allow it.  We naturally understand that the moral standard of the NT would disallow it even without it being mentioned, as it is a moral commandment.

The dietary laws were given to Israel and are not part of a moral code.  There is no moral/ethical value to those laws.

Quote

Christ did not die on the cross so people could eat diseased beef (forbidden in Lev 11) or rat sandwiches.

Jesus didn't die to enforce the dietary laws.   He died to redeem us from the penalty of sin.   He also didn't die so people could keep the Sabbath, or abstain from pork, or keep the festivals.   He died so that men and women could live free of the condemnation of the law and have eternal life.  

[Absolem]

19 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But the NT does state that we are not make vain oaths, which is what it means when it says not take God's name in vain.  The idea behind the commandment was that we are not swear by God's Name when making a oath that we will not or cannot keep.   That is included in the moral paradigm of the NT.

But eating unclean animals is not a NT prohibition.

No one would argue that since bestiality is not repeated in the NT that we should allow it.  We naturally understand that the moral standard of the NT would disallow it even without it being mentioned, as it is a moral commandment.

The dietary laws were given to Israel and are not part of a moral code.  There is moral/ethical value to those laws.

Jesus didn't die to enforce the dietary laws.   He died to redeem us from the penalty of sin.   He also didn't die so people could keep the Sabbath, or abstain from pork, or keep the festivals.   He died so that men and women could live free of the condemnation of the law and have eternal life.  

Yeah!

[BobRyan]

11 hours ago, BobRyan said:

God did not tell the new testament church not to take God's name in vain. That command is only found in the OT.

Christ did not die on the cross so people could eat diseased beef (forbidden in Lev 11) or rat sandwiches.

 

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But the NT does state that we are not make vain oaths, which is what it means when it says not take God's name in vain.  The idea behind the commandment was that we are not swear by God's Name when making a oath that we will not or cannot keep.   That is included in the moral paradigm of the NT.

Broad generalizations about "vain oaths" are not a quote of Ex 20 or of Lev 19.

Ex 20:7 "" You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

 

Swearing falsely by God's name is not a direct reference to Exodus 20:7 but rather to -- taking vows and fulfilling them.

Lev 19: ¹² You  shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.

Num 30:2 If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

Deut 23:21 When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the Lord your God will surely require it of you.

So then MAtthew 5:33

³³ “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’...But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”  Is not a quote of Lev 19 or of Ex 20 – but could be “generalized” in some broad way to include almost anything in the OT.

Just as 1 Tim 4:4-5 saying to eat whatever the Bible approves of – could be generalized in some broad way as a direct quote of Lev 11.

 

Lev 11 condemns the eating of rats and deseased flesh - even diseased beef -- a case where beef is normally called a clean animal but in diseased form is unclean in Lev 11.

 

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But eating unclean animals is not a NT prohibition.

 Even in the NT you can only eat what the Word of God approves -- 1 Tim 4:4-5. Jesus did not die on the cross so people could eat rats or diseased beef.

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No one would argue that since bestiality is not repeated in the NT that we should allow it.  We naturally understand that the moral standard of the NT would disallow it even without it being mentioned, as it is a moral commandment.

Man-made ideas that some statements in scripture (such as not eating diseased food or rats) is not a moral issue - ignores 1 Cor 3 and 1Cor 6 where we are told that our bodies are the temple of God and we should not engage in activity that works to destroy them.

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus didn't die to enforce the dietary laws.   He died to redeem us from the penalty of sin.    

Jesus did not die on the cross to 'enforce the law about not taking God's name in vain' - He died to pay for sins -- not to select a given law and enforce it.