why can we eat pork?

[jess91877]

It is simply this...we are under a new covenant since Jesus has dies, and been raised from the dead. In the old covenant, a blood sacrafice was required for remission of sins, and it was sinful to drink anything with blood due to what it represented in the old covenant. Since Jesus has paid the ultimate price for our remission of sins, we are no longer under the old covenant where we sacrficed animals to cleanse us from our sins. As long as we bless the food in Jesus's name before partaking in it, we are now able to eat things which were formerly unclean (i.e. food with "blood").

A better explanation can be found in a book detailing Jesus' life called "The Murder of Jesus" by John MacArthur. It really helped clarify the old Vs. new covenant more clearly.

 

[rstrats]

jess91877,



re: "As long as we bless the food in Jesus's name before partaking in it, we are now able to eat things which were formerly unclean (i.e. food with ‘blood&#8217."

Do you have any scripture that says that an animal was categorized as unclean because it had blood in it?

 

[abadsign]

No, I don't support these... but for some reason, they are still around? It seems that whether or not I support them they are going to be around untill the end of world because people like to sin.

This is nothing but an excuse not to change your own behavior. "Everybody's doing it, why can't I?"

I don't need to be worried about being a vegitarian, Yeshua himself said so.

Both the Old and New Testaments are full of instructions on how to treat your slaves, and how slaves are to serve their owners. We've grown up as a people since then, and realized that even though people who lived 2000 years ago thought slavery was okay and just the way things were, slavery isn't okay and it shouldn't be how things are. Your line of thinking is parallel to the thinking used 200 years ago to justify slavery. It was lazy thought then and it's lazy thought now.

How can you seriously say that you don't need to worry about the well-being of other animals besides humans? Would you kill a pet cat? Would you stand there and watch someone else do it? Would you not need to be worried about stopping them? Of course this is absurd. You would have to stop them, you would be a moral failure if you did not. Now step back and look at yourself honestly and tell me how cows and chickens are any less deserving of life.

 

[shamtul]

Mathew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Someone prolly already posted this.. but oh well haha

 

[Nazaroo]

Mathew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' ..."

...nor does it make the food 'clean'.

Instead, Jesus goes on to explain that the body, not the food is made clean, because the food is excreted out the other end, purging the body.

So Neither does putting unclean things into the body make them 'clean'.

 

[jess91877]

jess91877,



re: "As long as we bless the food in Jesus's name before partaking in it, we are now able to eat things which were formerly unclean (i.e. food with ‘blood’)."

Do you have any scripture that says that an animal was categorized as unclean because it had blood in it?

Yes, part of the old covenant a.k.a Old Testament. It is not the animal that was unclean, just its blood.

Leviticus 3:17
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 7:26
Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

Leviticus 7:27
Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

 

[rstrats]

Yes, part of the old covenant a.k.a Old Testament. It is not the animal that was unclean, just its blood.

Leviticus 3:17
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 7:26
Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

Leviticus 7:27
Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

jess91877,

I’m afraid that I don’t see where your Leviticus references say that the "unclean" animals identified in chapter 11, were identified as such because they had blood in them. I assume that the animals identified as "clean" also had blood in them.

 

[jess91877]

jess91877,

I’m afraid that I don’t see where your Leviticus references say that the "unclean" animals identified in chapter 11, were identified as such because they had blood in them. I assume that the animals identified as "clean" also had blood in them.

Yes, they did...it's the blood which is unclean in the clean animals. Just emphazising the uncleanliness of blood. Not saying we should go out and drink a pint, but under the new covenant, we no longer need koshier foods. Jesus paid the ultimate price.

I think that in my original post I may have accidently interchanged unclean and clean animals, sorry about the oversight in my part.

 

[Nazaroo]

Note that Jesus 1st Coming ended the Levitical Sacrifices.

And Israelites were not allowed to eat food unless it was properly killed and prepared according to those laws.

Therefore the logical inference is that Jesus ended the practice of meat-eating, not that He opened the door to eating garbage.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Note that Jesus 1st Coming ended the Levitical Sacrifices.

And Israelites were not allowed to eat food unless it was properly killed and prepared according to those laws.

Therefore the logical inference is that Jesus ended the practice of meat-eating, not that He opened the door to eating garbage.

That is not good logic. What do the Scriptures say about eating meat AFTER the ascension of Christ? THat is where we find the BIBLICAL Standard for us today.

Here was determined at the Jerusalem Council by James, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." and the council sent a letter to the gentile Christians at Antioch that said "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

The Church clearly did away with most of the dietary laws of the Old Covenant but maintained those mentioned in the letter. We are still under the terms of what that letter said. That is our dietary law.

Pass me another porkchop and some gravy.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Nazaroo]

That is not good logic. What do the Scriptures say about eating meat AFTER the ascension of Christ? THat is where we find the BIBLICAL Standard for us today.

Here was determined at the Jerusalem Council by James, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." and the council sent a letter to the gentile Christians at Antioch that said "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

The Church clearly did away with most of the dietary laws of the Old Covenant but maintained those mentioned in the letter. We are still under the terms of what that letter said. That is our dietary law.

Pass me another porkchop and some gravy.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

It may indeed be true that later on the Israelite food laws were at least temporarily simplified so that Gentiles could be included in the New Covenant, and so as not to hinder the progress of the Gospel to all nations.

However, your reference to Acts here doesn't do what you wish it did.

(1) Clearly it confirms that even Gentile Christians are under some form of simplified food laws. (as you admit above)

So food laws did not just 'pass away' like styles of fashion. These rules were ratified and imposed by the united early Christian church under James. If what you think were true, James would not have needed any rules so that Jewish and Gentile Christians could have fellowship together: He would have just said as you wish to believe, "Anything goes!".

(2) Pork, as it is killed, prepared and sold today clearly contains the blood. This law was never changed or repealed in anyway. Take that 'pork chop' and throw it in the garbage as an abomination.

(3) Don't try to suggest a "don't tell, don't ask" rule for guidance in this issue, when you already have St. James, acknowledged leader of the Church, to whom Paul gave honour and deference to, has already given you an explicit rule regarding.

Paul's rules about not asking the origin of 'meats' in the marketplace had to do with IDOLATRY, not meats that obviously still contained blood. Check the plain context. Meat was often sacrificed to Idols, then smuggled off and resold in open markets, unknown to their buyers. This would not be something for which one could inspect, and one would have to inquire as to the source. Paul reassures Christians (Jew and Gentile) that such facts do not affect the actual quality of the meat in any way, since idols are nothing.

Extending Paul's "don't ask" rule to cases of meat full of blood, 'blood-puddings', and jars of oxen-blood would be absurd. Even a blind man would be aware that these were forbidden non-food items.


(4) 'gravy', made primarily from the blood of roast meats, would be an abomination in any case. It is not a food, but a forbidden and poisonous byproduct of sacrificial killing.


James' simplified food laws cannot be extended to cover pork chops with gravy.


Peace,
Nazaroo

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

It may indeed be true that later on the Israelite food laws were at least temporarily simplified so that Gentiles could be included in the New Covenant, and so as not to hinder the progress of the Gospel to all nations.

However, your reference to Acts here doesn't do what you wish it did.

(1) Clearly it confirms that even Gentile Christians are under some form of simplified food laws. (as you admit above)

So food laws did not just 'pass away' like styles of fashion. These rules were ratified and imposed by the united early Christian church under James. If what you think were true, James would not have needed any rules so that Jewish and Gentile Christians could have fellowship together: He would have just said as you wish to believe, "Anything goes!".

(2) Pork, as it is killed, prepared and sold today clearly contains the blood. This law was never changed or repealed in anyway. Take that 'pork chop' and throw it in the garbage as an abomination.

(3) Don't try to suggest a "don't tell, don't ask" rule for guidance in this issue, when you already have St. James, acknowledged leader of the Church, to whom Paul gave honour and deference to, has already given you an explicit rule regarding.

Paul's rules about not asking the origin of 'meats' in the marketplace had to do with IDOLATRY, not meats that obviously still contained blood. Check the plain context. Meat was often sacrificed to Idols, then smuggled off and resold in open markets, unknown to their buyers. This would not be something for which one could inspect, and one would have to inquire as to the source. Paul reassures Christians (Jew and Gentile) that such facts do not affect the actual quality of the meat in any way, since idols are nothing.

Extending Paul's "don't ask" rule to cases of meat full of blood, 'blood-puddings', and jars of oxen-blood would be absurd. Even a blind man would be aware that these were forbidden non-food items.


(4) 'gravy', made primarily from the blood of roast meats, would be an abomination in any case. It is not a food, but a forbidden and poisonous byproduct of sacrificial killing.


James' simplified food laws cannot be extended to cover pork chops with gravy.


Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo,

Sorry my friend but pork was a common food in the world of the Roman Empire. Pigs were common sacrificial animal in that day.

James and all those at the council knew that pork was a common food for non-Jews of the time. The stipulation is was mae an written to allow pork to remain in the diets of Gentile converts to the Faith.

THis pretty simple and has been commonly understood by Christians for almost two millennia. Are we so much smarter today so that we can figure this out, while Christians for the previous 20 centuries had missed it?

I will keep my pork chops and the gravy they are clearly biblical.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Nazaroo]

Dear brother in Christ:

We may freely concede:

(1) that Gentiles the world over were often willing to both kill and eat pork,

(2) and also they made sacrifices to idols using pigs.

(3) We may further concede that these 'sacrifices' probably did not follow proper biblical ordinances as to draining the blood from the animal and leaving it at the altar as a burnt offering.

(4) We can also concede that many Jews (Judaeans) as well as Israelites (not the same thing at all) knew these facts or suspected most of them.

(5) We may also acknowledge that these practices did not 'make Gentiles unclean' to share table with or break bread with at a 'kosher' meal such as the Lord's Table.

Again this basic background does not support your claim that:

(1) Christians both Gentile and Israelite accepted the idea that men including Israelites could now eat whatever they pleased.

(2) nor that your interpretation of the scope and modifications to the food laws were as you say, or

(3) that the majority of Christians and Israelite-Christians accepted this view of yours.

History speaks differently to both of these issues, as is obvious in nearly every letter of Paul where he shows many different disputes arising regarding both the Torah and Israelite/Judaean customs and their relevance and scope.

The fact that the Roman church largely followed Paul's teachings as they understood them is granted, but not without much difference of opinion as to the exact understanding of those teachings from time to time and throughout the empire.

A great example of these differences of opinion is illustrated by the case of Martin Luther and Calvin, who as we know differed quite radically from a Roman Catholic understanding of Paul.

Also, this discussion will be adversely tainted with the historical fact that the words in Greek representing 'food' have been traditionally translated 'meat', while the English word 'meat' has changed meaning quite drastically over the centuries.

Now almost all English speaking people understand 'meat' to mean animal flesh, whereas originally it was simply a synonym for ALL 'food', which could be either vegetable, or animal, or both, depending upon the context and intent of the speaker.

Finally, I think you must concede that you haven't dealt adequately at all with the issue of BLOOD, which you have simply skirted.

 

[Warrior4ChristAL]

Yes the answer is found here, but the answer is not you can eat pork. The answer is what it always has been, unclean animals are still unclean.

If you read the passage you would notice that YHWH says "Don't call anything unclean that I have made clean". Now, my first question: when did YHWH make common animals clean? He didn't say in this passage that they are clean, all He said was what I've called clean, you call clean. Pretty simple. (In case you don't pick up on it, don't look for a verse that says unclean animals are clean 'cause you won't find it. It was a rhetorical question)

Now, it was common of the Talmud followers to not associate with the uncircumsised. What does that mean? Well, bluntly, unbelievers. The believers weren't to let the unbelievers into their house (according to Talmud). But this is what Peter was doing. You will notice that he wasn't eating anything, but that he would soon be encountering men that were unbelievers. The men from Cornelius. Long story short, they came, they left they're there and they worship Peter. He says don't worship me!

But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. 26

Two verse later you will see a summery of what I said above, and the actual meaning of this passage.

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 28



If you are going to throw out just this part of the law, why not get rid of the rest and lie, steal, and murder?


Shalom, OObi

I'll say this, lying, cheating, stealing and murder is done with a corrupt heart.

Eating pork cannot defile because pork enters not into the heart to corrupt the man, for whatever you take into your body is eliminated.

It is the HEART that YHWH judges, not the clogged arteries.

Your flesh is going to grow old and die, regardless, but your soul can be destroyed for all eternity based on the evil in your heart and an unrepentive one at that.

Dietary laws are to keep a person healthy in body. Moral laws are to keep one righteous. Which is eternal? The corrupt heart and redemptive soul or the flesh of a man?

Something to think about any way.

Abraham wasn't a Jew and didn't have the Law but HE was considered righteous because of his faith in YHWH. Circumsising the flesh was an outward sign of an inward covenant. However, it was the INWARD MAN that God was concerned about. That is why God tested Abraham with his son, not with his pig. Because it is the heart of the man that matters, not what goes into his belly.

 

[Chivahead103]

It is simply this...we are under a new covenant since Jesus has dies, and been raised from the dead. In the old covenant, a blood sacrafice was required for remission of sins, and it was sinful to drink anything with blood due to what it represented in the old covenant. Since Jesus has paid the ultimate price for our remission of sins, we are no longer under the old covenant where we sacrficed animals to cleanse us from our sins. As long as we bless the food in Jesus's name before partaking in it, we are now able to eat things which were formerly unclean (i.e. food with "blood").

A better explanation can be found in a book detailing Jesus' life called "The Murder of Jesus" by John MacArthur. It really helped clarify the old Vs. new covenant more clearly.

The old covenant was given to Moses (i.e. Moses' Law) and eating clean and unclean meats was done way before that. When Noah came out of the ark, there was no vegitation. So God allowed Noah to eat meat from clean animals. So clearly eating unclean mea is not of the "old covenant."

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Nazaroo,

This is in response to your last post.

Your understanding of these things is far outside the what has been understood by the church. Clement of Alexandria (circa 150 to 216 AD) in his book Paedagosus (Bk 2 chapter 1 [titled “On Eating”]) gives the commonly held New Covenant view of eating pork that is still held today.

And John, who carried temperance to the extreme, “ate locusts and wild honey.” Peter abstained from swine; “but a trance fell on him,” as is written in the Acts of the Apostles, “and he saw heaven opened, and a vessel let down on the earth by the four corners, and all the four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and the fowls of heaven in it; and there came a voice to him, Rise, and slay, and eat. And Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten what is common or unclean. And the voice came again to him the second time, What God hath cleansed, call not thou common.” The use of them is accordingly indifferent to us. “For not what entereth into the mouth defileth the man,” but the vain opinion respecting uncleanness. For God, when He created man, said, “All things shall be to you for meat.” “And herbs, with love, are better than a calf with fraud.” This well reminds us of what was said above, that herbs are not love, but that our meals are to be taken with love; and in these the medium state is good. In all things, indeed, this is the case, and not least in the preparation made for feasting, since the extremes are dangerous, and middle courses good.


Other EarlyChurch fathers who clearly teach that Christians could eat pork include Tertullian and Origen. We can debate the differences between our two positions. I think it is very clear in Scripture that the New Covenant church was not bound by the “shadows” that made up much of the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant (including the dietary laws).


In St. Augustine’s Reply To Faustus the Manichaean we find Augustine giving part of the Manichean Argument against the Christians in these words “I reject the observance of Sabbaths as superfluous: I suppose you do the same. I reject sacrifice as idolatry, as doubtless you also do. Swine’s flesh is not the only flesh I abstain from; nor is it the only flesh you eat. I think all flesh unclean: you think none unclean. Both alike, in these opinions, throw over the Old Testament.”

In his lengthy response St. Augustine shows that pork is now clean to eat even though it was ceremonially unclean under the Old Covenant dispensation.

So Augustine agrees with Clement, Tertullian, Origen who all agree with Paul and James (at the Council of Jerusalem) and I agree with all of them and the rest of the Fathers as well.

I will stick with the traditional understanding that is expressed by the fathers (all of which agree with Paul and James and the Council of Jerusalem (despite your own interesting take on it).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Dear brother in Christ:

We may freely concede:

(1) that Gentiles the world over were often willing to both kill and eat pork,

(2) and also they made sacrifices to idols using pigs.

(3) We may further concede that these 'sacrifices' probably did not follow proper biblical ordinances as to draining the blood from the animal and leaving it at the altar as a burnt offering.

(4) We can also concede that many Jews (Judaeans) as well as Israelites (not the same thing at all) knew these facts or suspected most of them.

(5) We may also acknowledge that these practices did not 'make Gentiles unclean' to share table with or break bread with at a 'kosher' meal such as the Lord's Table.

Again this basic background does not support your claim that:

(1) Christians both Gentile and Israelite accepted the idea that men including Israelites could now eat whatever they pleased.

(2) nor that your interpretation of the scope and modifications to the food laws were as you say, or

(3) that the majority of Christians and Israelite-Christians accepted this view of yours.

History speaks differently to both of these issues, as is obvious in nearly every letter of Paul where he shows many different disputes arising regarding both the Torah and Israelite/Judaean customs and their relevance and scope.

The fact that the Roman church largely followed Paul's teachings as they understood them is granted, but not without much difference of opinion as to the exact understanding of those teachings from time to time and throughout the empire.

A great example of these differences of opinion is illustrated by the case of Martin Luther and Calvin, who as we know differed quite radically from a Roman Catholic understanding of Paul.

Also, this discussion will be adversely tainted with the historical fact that the words in Greek representing 'food' have been traditionally translated 'meat', while the English word 'meat' has changed meaning quite drastically over the centuries.

Now almost all English speaking people understand 'meat' to mean animal flesh, whereas originally it was simply a synonym for ALL 'food', which could be either vegetable, or animal, or both, depending upon the context and intent of the speaker.

Finally, I think you must concede that you haven't dealt adequately at all with the issue of BLOOD, which you have simply skirted.

 

[LAMBofGOD306]

because we are under grace; He makes all things new.

 

[OObi]

It is simply this...we are under a new covenant since Jesus has dies, and been raised from the dead. In the old covenant, a blood sacrafice was required for remission of sins, and it was sinful to drink anything with blood due to what it represented in the old covenant. Since Jesus has paid the ultimate price for our remission of sins, we are no longer under the old covenant where we sacrficed animals to cleanse us from our sins. As long as we bless the food in Jesus's name before partaking in it, we are now able to eat things which were formerly unclean (i.e. food with "blood").

A better explanation can be found in a book detailing Jesus' life called "The Murder of Jesus" by John MacArthur. It really helped clarify the old Vs. new covenant more clearly.

...and the Biblical proof...? You show me where God said that I can eat a pig, and I will change my ways. As long as we are throwing books around to read, I would suggest Restoration.

This is nothing but an excuse not to change your own behavior. "Everybody's doing it, why can't I?"

Ah... but there is a difference in what I said, and what you are portraying me to say. I said that whether or not I do anything, the problem will continue. I didn't say so partake in the problem. I meant that since the problem will continue, just do your part and live a godly life, and do your best not to sin. This doesn't include being a vegitarian.

Both the Old and New Testaments are full of instructions on how to treat your slaves, and how slaves are to serve their owners. We've grown up as a people since then, and realized that even though people who lived 2000 years ago thought slavery was okay and just the way things were, slavery isn't okay and it shouldn't be how things are. Your line of thinking is parallel to the thinking used 200 years ago to justify slavery. It was lazy thought then and it's lazy thought now.

If there are laws for slaves, then there is nothing wrong with slavery. The Biblical laws protect slaves, but slavery back in Civil War times was not following the Biblical laws.

How can you seriously say that you don't need to worry about the well-being of other animals besides humans? Would you kill a pet cat? Would you stand there and watch someone else do it? Would you not need to be worried about stopping them? Of course this is absurd. You would have to stop them, you would be a moral failure if you did not. Now step back and look at yourself honestly and tell me how cows and chickens are any less deserving of life.

YHWH gave us dominion over all the animals. That doesn't mean torture them, but that does mean we can eat them.

Mathew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Someone prolly already posted this.. but oh well haha

That is not good logic. What do the Scriptures say about eating meat AFTER the ascension of Christ? THat is where we find the BIBLICAL Standard for us today.

Here was determined at the Jerusalem Council by James, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." and the council sent a letter to the gentile Christians at Antioch that said "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Yes, it was posted and taken care of already. Please read post 86, thanks, it'd save me a lot of writting.

Yes, they did...it's the blood which is unclean in the clean animals. Just emphazising the uncleanliness of blood. Not saying we should go out and drink a pint, but under the new covenant, we no longer need koshier foods. Jesus paid the ultimate price.

And He paid that price so I can be with Him in heaven, not so I can have another option on the lunch menu. Yeshua Himself said in Matthew 5:17 that He didn't come to destroy the law.

The Church clearly did away with most of the dietary laws of the Old Covenant but maintained those mentioned in the letter. We are still under the terms of what that letter said. That is our dietary law.

Pass me another porkchop and some gravy.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Yes, I agree... the church did do away with the dietary laws. Now that we are in agreement, let us move on to what Yeshua did and did not do away with.

Nazaroo,

Sorry my friend but pork was a common food in the world of the Roman Empire. Pigs were common sacrificial animal in that day.

James and all those at the council knew that pork was a common food for non-Jews of the time. The stipulation is was mae an written to allow pork to remain in the diets of Gentile converts to the Faith.

THis pretty simple and has been commonly understood by Christians for almost two millennia. Are we so much smarter today so that we can figure this out, while Christians for the previous 20 centuries had missed it?

I will keep my pork chops and the gravy they are clearly biblical.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

The laws in Leviticus clearly state what is and is not unclean. This is what the standard of the day was and if anything changed then it should be clearly stated and shown where. So, my friend, the burden of proof is on you to show where God had changed His mind. As I've shown above, the council in Acts is not to be used as support for eating un-kosher.

I'll say this, lying, cheating, stealing and murder is done with a corrupt heart.

Eating pork cannot defile because pork enters not into the heart to corrupt the man, for whatever you take into your body is eliminated.

It is the HEART that YHWH judges, not the clogged arteries.

Your flesh is going to grow old and die, regardless, but your soul can be destroyed for all eternity based on the evil in your heart and an unrepentive one at that.

Dietary laws are to keep a person healthy in body. Moral laws are to keep one righteous. Which is eternal? The corrupt heart and redemptive soul or the flesh of a man?

Something to think about any way.

Yes, YHWH does judge the heart... first off, let me ask if you are telling me some of YHWH's laws were unneccesary? Next, when you stand before YHWH with this idea, you will come to find that the dietary laws taught a concept of separation. A separation between the holy and the eartly, the divine and the profane. He will say that you didn't have enough obedience in your heart to follow one of (in my mind) the simplest commands. If you can't control what goes in your belly, how can you control the rest of your life? This is clearly a matter of the heart.

because we are under grace; He makes all things new

We can defy His law because we are under grace....

so I can kill someone now? I don't understand what you are saying?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello OObi,

I think the biblical reasons for why we can now eat pork are very clear. We find them in Acts and the writings of Paul. THe Whole of the Church for almost two thousand years (Latin and Greek, Protestant and Catholic, the Early Church Fathers and todays Christians).

It is true that almost all the church has been wrong since the Apostles passed from the scene, but it is not very likely. I think the Scriptures are clear about the change in the dietary laws, which were part of the shadows of the Old Covenant that were passing away because they were fulfilled in Christ.

You are free to adopt heterodox beliefs. I wish you well.

I will stay with what James declared at the Council of Jerusalem and Paul taught. I will hold to the teachings of the Church Fathers who were in agreement with James' declaration, Paul and the Apostolic Church on this issue.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[BrandonGray]

The Acts passage says we can eat the meat, but how does that change the blood drinking?