why can we eat pork?

[Cajun Huguenot]

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

I don't drink blood:o and I don't know anyone who does.

Kenith

 

[OObi]

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

I have shown why the interpretation you are using on this is wrong. The Acts council did not do away with dietary laws. Read post 7. James and Paul were Jews, they most certainly did not teach anything contradictory to Torah. Like I said, I've given my bit about keeping the Torah, and I used the Bible to do so. If you want to leave this without trying to disprove my point you are only choosing to live in ignorance (no offense).

 

[Wizzer]

why can we eat pork?

Because we now have the George Foreman grill!

 

[rstrats]

Cajun Huguenot ,

re: "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..."

To put Acts 11 in perspective, the concordances that I have agree that much of Isaiah, and particularly chapters 65 and 66, is referring to latter times. Verses 3 and 4 of the former and verse 17 of the latter list a number of things that will provoke the Lord to anger. His anger is not just confined to those worshiping idols, sitting among graves, and spending nights in tombs, but also to those eating SWINE’S flesh and OTHER abominable things.

There is no evidence that Peter ate unclean animals after the vision or said anything to the apostles regarding a change in the dietary laws. Even after Peter had been told 3 times to "kill and eat" - and by the "Lord" no less - Peter refused to do so. He says that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. This event occurred at least 10 years after the Messiah had ascended to heaven. Peter had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. the Messiah promised that His disciples would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). If the dietary rules had been canceled, why do you suppose the apostle Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 years and who was filled with the Holy Spirit, didn’t know about it some 10 years later? Peter was perplexed. He didn’t have a clue as to what the vision had meant. It wasn’t until the "Spirit" told him that three men were looking for him and that he was to doubt nothing, that he realized what the vision was all about. in verse 28, Peter says "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 has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean". There is no evidence that he ate unclean animals after the vision or said anything to the apostles regarding a change in the dietary laws. The only thing that we are told is that he explained to Cornelius that God had shown him that he should not call any MAN common or unclean. And later on we are told that he recounted the vision to the "those of the circumcision" at Jerusalem, who after hearing it said, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life". There is no indication that he said anything to anybody about a dietary law change. If the distinction between clean and unclean animals had ended with the vision and if Peter had believed that to be the case, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t have been shouting it from the rooftops to the believers.

An additional note: If in Mark 7, the Messiah had indeed pronounced all animals clean, Peter was there and would have heard it. Yet he acted like he had never heard of such a thing and the thought of eating unclean meat was repulsive to him when he was given the Acts vision and told to kill and eat animals that he believed to be unclean. Apparently Peter hadn't gotten out of Jesus' words what many teachers today would have us think.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have shown why the interpretation you are using on this is wrong. The Acts council did not do away with dietary laws. Read post 7. James and Paul were Jews, they most certainly did not teach anything contradictory to Torah. Like I said, I've given my bit about keeping the Torah, and I used the Bible to do so. If you want to leave this without trying to disprove my point you are only choosing to live in ignorance (no offense).

OObi,

To use your phrase "Like I said" your understanding is a departure from 2,000 years of the Christian/biblical understanding of those texts. Sorry, but I understand those verses very differently than you do.

I agree with the Early Church Fathers and almost all the church until even up to our own day. It is possible that the Fathers and all the church was wrong until recent times, but I don't think it likely. The burdon of proof is on those who disagree, so far I think your case has not been made.

I think Paul taught what the Church has always believed he taught on the issue. I think you are wrong.

See you on another thread,

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello rstrats,

Thank you for your comments and for the PM letting me know that you had commented on my earlier post.

No one can doubt that Jesus and His disciples all kept the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. That has never been questioned by any Christian. I would also add that Acts 11, all by itself, would not be a strong argument for the passing away of the dietary laws either, but that passage while having some relevance to the subject is not a major player.

During the first century the Gospel went from Israel, to Samaria and then to the pagan Greek and Roman World. There was a great cultural divide between Israel and the pagan world, because God had put that divide in place by means of the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, which were (during the life time of the Apostles) passing away. In Hebrews 8:13 we read, “In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

The vestiges of the Old Covenant that were “shadows” which pointed to the reality that is fulfilled in Christ were then passing from the scene and completely passed when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

During the Apostolic age, as the Gospel went into the Pagan world there was a good deal of tension between Hebrew and Gentile Christians. They were culturally very different, because God had caused Israel to be different. Many Hebrew Christians thought Gentile believers should become fully Hebrew and come under and observe the “laws” as the Jewish Christians still did.

Paul vehemently opposed those that promoted that idea. Eventually there was a Council of the apostolic leaders of the Church, headed by James, to decide the matter.

Many Jewish Christians thought the Gentile Christians should observe the ceremonial laws as they themselves did, this includes the dietary laws. In the Roman/Greek world pigs were commonly used in sacrifice and as food. This is why the decision of James at the Jerusalem Council is so telling.

He instructs Paul, who is accused of doing away with the law, to go through the purification rites (which were even then “becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” The reason for this was “many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses…”

James tells Paul to keep the ceremonial laws to placate the Jews. Next he says, “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

James and all at the council knew that pork was a common part of the Gentile diet and yet he limits his decision to things offered to idols, blood, things strangled (because the blood would not be drained from the meat as it usually is).

It should be noted that the restriction against eating blood predates the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant and goes back to Noah. It is to Noah that God first gives permission to eat meat. In Gen. 9 we read “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” So James in his statement at Jerusalem reaches back before the Ceremonial law is given and stresses what God said in Gen. 9. Notice that there is no restriction against pork in the pre-mosaic statement on meat and that is what James repeats for the eating restrictions of the Gentile Christians.

It is clear in the second century that the Church had no aversion to Christians eating pork (I quoted some of the Early Church Fathers statements earlier) and this is true for the whole Christians era until our own time.

If any Christian wants to bind himself to the ceremonial restrictions of the Old Covenant -that is between him and the Lord - but if he tries to bind his neighbour then he is committing a grave sin that Paul addressed in his writings.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Cajun Huguenot ,

re: "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..."

To put Acts 11 in perspective, the concordances that I have agree that much of Isaiah, and particularly chapters 65 and 66, is referring to latter times. Verses 3 and 4 of the former and verse 17 of the latter list a number of things that will provoke the Lord to anger. His anger is not just confined to those worshiping idols, sitting among graves, and spending nights in tombs, but also to those eating SWINE’S flesh and OTHER abominable things.

There is no evidence that Peter ate unclean animals after the vision or said anything to the apostles regarding a change in the dietary laws. Even after Peter had been told 3 times to "kill and eat" - and by the "Lord" no less - Peter refused to do so. He says that he had never eaten anything common or unclean. This event occurred at least 10 years after the Messiah had ascended to heaven. Peter had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. the Messiah promised that His disciples would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). If the dietary rules had been canceled, why do you suppose the apostle Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 years and who was filled with the Holy Spirit, didn’t know about it some 10 years later? Peter was perplexed. He didn’t have a clue as to what the vision had meant. It wasn’t until the "Spirit" told him that three men were looking for him and that he was to doubt nothing, that he realized what the vision was all about. in verse 28, Peter says "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 has shown me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean". There is no evidence that he ate unclean animals after the vision or said anything to the apostles regarding a change in the dietary laws. The only thing that we are told is that he explained to Cornelius that God had shown him that he should not call any MAN common or unclean. And later on we are told that he recounted the vision to the "those of the circumcision" at Jerusalem, who after hearing it said, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life". There is no indication that he said anything to anybody about a dietary law change. If the distinction between clean and unclean animals had ended with the vision and if Peter had believed that to be the case, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t have been shouting it from the rooftops to the believers.

An additional note: If in Mark 7, the Messiah had indeed pronounced all animals clean, Peter was there and would have heard it. Yet he acted like he had never heard of such a thing and the thought of eating unclean meat was repulsive to him when he was given the Acts vision and told to kill and eat animals that he believed to be unclean. Apparently Peter hadn't gotten out of Jesus' words what many teachers today would have us think.

 

[Warrior4ChristAL]

ok, so I guess you are a vegan or something. Anyway, I'm more confused now than I was before... I do agree that the Acts passage was pretty vague and I don't really resign to the argument, "Christ died for our sins, therefore we can now ignore God's past laws".

Paul said that he because ALL THINGS to ALL MEN that he might win some. He also rebuked Peter who rejected the Gentile's dinner because it wasn't kosher.

We are commanded NOT to each anything sacrificed to idols however, we are also told to eat what is set before us and bless it IN CHRIST.

For we are not just what we eat but also how we present Christ. If we think we are holy because we do not eat pork but we sin against our neighbor then how can we consider ourselves HOLY?

Dietary laws are having to do with physical health and also not to eat animals sacrificed to other gods. Domestic pigs are not scavengers anymore. We feed pigs what WE eat and they are fed from our table. The pork today is not filled with toxins and poisons as they were in the Bible days. No one kept pigs as pets. They roamed around the countryside eating what they wanted. Now we breed them primarily for food and feed them only good foods. I do not see it the same as when they ate unclean things or dead carcusses and foul things of the earth.

If anyone can find another good use for a pig than food, please share it.

Thanks.

 

[OObi]

For we are not just what we eat but also how we present Christ. If we think we are holy because we do not eat pork but we sin against our neighbor then how can we consider ourselves HOLY?

YHWH's commandment is YHWH's commandment. Whether or not you consider it important God has still made the commandment (I know that sounds rude, but just saying...) and He made it with the intent of it being kept. We aren't allowed to just say "I think that commandment is relevent anymore" because then the law would become subjective to man's opinion and then that would be a whole mess.

We are commanded NOT to each anything sacrificed to idols however, we are also told to eat what is set before us and bless it IN CHRIST.

Yes, as in food. I'm sure you wouldn't consider the computer table that is in front of you food if you bless it in Christ's name. We are also commanded to NOT eat anything unclean! You remember to command regarding idols, but when it comes to Leviticus 11...

For we are not just what we eat but also how we present Christ. If we think we are holy because we do not eat pork but we sin against our neighbor then how can we consider ourselves HOLY?

I don't think we can consider ourselves holy, but I'll avoid that 'cause I have no knowledge in it. Anyway, all of God's laws have purpose. One of the purposes of the dietary laws is health, yes. But another part of that law is to teach separation. It teaches us that there is a division between things of God and things of man. The spiritual and the eartly, the holy and the profane. This teaching of separation is just as important as anything else.

Loving your neighbor may seem like a more honorable and harder to achieve command, and it is. But, if you don't keep the commands concerning meats, then you have still broken a command. You see? Even if it be the least of the commands, you have still broken it.

Dietary laws are having to do with physical health and also not to eat animals sacrificed to other gods. Domestic pigs are not scavengers anymore. We feed pigs what WE eat and they are fed from our table. The pork today is not filled with toxins and poisons as they were in the Bible days. No one kept pigs as pets. They roamed around the countryside eating what they wanted. Now we breed them primarily for food and feed them only good foods. I do not see it the same as when they ate unclean things or dead carcusses and foul things of the earth.

I have to have my girlfriend e-mail the paper that was written on this, but it shows how pigs are one of the most unhealthy animals to eat. They are the only animals that carry diseases even after applying purification methods, such as cooking. There are interesting things to read such as they don't sweat, they just keep all that good stuff inside them. Pigs are still incredibly unhealthy to eat, and you will even find people that don't eat the animal because of that, having nothing to do with Biblical matters! A lot of diets will say to cut out pork (even the diet coming from the best Nutritionist, YHWH!).

If anyone can find another good use for a pig than food, please share it.

Thanks.

Just to point out again, food is not a good use for a pig. In Matthew 8:28-34 Yeshua found a good use for pigs. He didn't think much of sending demons into them knowing they would kill themselves in the river. Would like to stress again that one of the big purposes of the pig was for YHWH to test us and see if we would respect His request for separation.

In hope that this helps someone, OObi

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello OObi,

We do have to obey the commands and precepts of God. We differ in what we think those precepts are. I hope you will take time to look at post #126.

I know everyone here is talking pork, but the Old Covenant dietary laws also apply to many other things we eat today. Things like Shrimp, crab, crawfish, catfish, oysters, squid, etc... also fall under the Old Covenant dietary ban. (along with a number of other things we Cajuns eat—rabbit, squirrel, bullfrog, etc..)

Looking back at post 126, you will find that these items too (like bacon, ham and pork chops) are now allowed for our diet, because God through, the James declaration at the Council at Jerusalem, has mad clear to us that we are not bound by the dietary laws of the Mosaic Covenant. However, we are still under the dietary stipulations given to Noah after the flood.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[OObi]

In Hebrews 8:13 we read, “In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what iswhat is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Yes, there is a new covenant, but what is that covenant? It certainly wasn't a law covenant! Yeshua Himself said that He did not come to destroy the law in Matthew 15.

During the Apostolic age, as the Gospel went into the Pagan world there was a good deal of tension between Hebrew and Gentile Christians. They were culturally very different, because God had caused Israel to be different. Many Hebrew Christians thought Gentile believers should become fully Hebrew and come under and observe the “laws” as the Jewish Christians still did.

Uh... those laws were the talmud, not the Torah, which YHWH intended that everyone keep for all time.

Paul vehemently opposed those that promoted that idea. Eventually there was a Council of the apostolic leaders of the Church, headed by James, to decide the matter.

Many Jewish Christians thought the Gentile Christians should observe the ceremonial laws as they themselves did, this includes the dietary laws. In the Roman/Greek world pigs were commonly used in sacrifice and as food. This is why the decision of James at the Jerusalem Council is so telling.

Oh... is that what that passage was about? Well!! Someone should tell Luke that he very deceptively introduced this council as issue of circumcision! (read the first verse in this chapter to see what the council is really about... or you could just read post #7 for a detailed understanding of this passage)

James tells Paul to keep the ceremonial laws to placate the Jews. Next he says, “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

James and all at the council knew that pork was a common part of the Gentile diet and yet he limits his decision to things offered to idols, blood, things strangled (because the blood would not be drained from the meat as it usually is).

I'm sorry, but seriously... where are you getting this stuff from? What James actually knew was that if you kept these 4 things, you would be able to enter the synagogues. And why is it important that we enter the synagogues? Well, we find out in the very next verse, which most people seem to leave out.

Acts 15:21
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Hmmm... Moses was taught in the temple? Well, Moses is the law, as in the Torah, and it was taught in the temple? Why would James stress such a thing as the Torah being taught in the temple... (it would be because he planned on them actually learning the rest of the law and obeying it)

It should be noted that the restriction against eating blood predates the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant and goes back to Noah. It is to Noah that God first gives permission to eat meat. In Gen. 9 we read “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” So James in his statement at Jerusalem reaches back before the Ceremonial law is given and stresses what God said in Gen. 9. Notice that there is no restriction against pork in the pre-mosaic statement on meat and that is what James repeats for the eating restrictions of the Gentile Christians.

There is no restriction of pork before Noah... (I'm learning a lot of stuff here!)

Noah was indeed aware of the clean and unclean animals bit. In Genesis 7 we see that Noah is commanded to take with him 7 pairs of each animals that was clean. And just one pair of all the others. He was commanded to take 7 pairs of the animals that were approved of eating and for sacrifice, and oh dear! This was beofre Mt. Sinai!

It is clear in the second century that the Church had no aversion to Christians eating pork (I quoted some of the Early Church Fathers statements earlier) and this is true for the whole Christians era until our own time.

I don't eat pork... are you saying I'm not a Christian with your "whole Christian era" phrase? Anyway... because the Catholic church said it, it's right? I don't find the logic behind that. You would take the word of the church fathers over the Word of God? I don't find the logic behind that either.

If any Christian wants to bind himself to the ceremonial restrictions of the Old Covenant -that is between him and the Lord - but if he tries to bind his neighbour then he is committing a grave sin that Paul addressed in his writings.

Binding your neighbor is a sin, so you should practice what you preach. I have given my study on the council of Acts and shown where the Catholic church is wrong, and you have done nothing but say "You are wrong, people have been sinning for 2000 years so you shouldn't go against the flow." If you truely believe what you are saying here, they you would show me where I was wrong instead of letting me bring however many people that read this with me to stumble. But you have not done that. Maybe because it's hard to disprove a truth.

Shalom, OObi

 

[OObi]

Hello OObi,

We do have to obey the commands and precepts of God. We differ in what we think those precepts are. I hope you will take time to look at post #126.

I know everyone here is talking pork, but the Old Covenant dietary laws also apply to many other things we eat today. Things like Shrimp, crab, crawfish, catfish, oysters, squid, etc... also fall under the Old Covenant dietary ban. (along with a number of other things we Cajuns eat—rabbit, squirrel, bullfrog, etc..)

Looking back at post 126, you will find that these items too (like bacon, ham and pork chops) are now allowed for our diet, because God through, the James declaration at the Council at Jerusalem, has mad clear to us that we are not bound by the dietary laws of the Mosaic Covenant. However, we are still under the dietary stipulations given to Noah after the flood.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Yes, sorry, I meant to get to this before, but I glanced at it real quick and it looked long and I didn't have the time to disect it then. But... look above for my response.

In Christ, OObi

 

[Warrior4ChristAL]

YHWH's commandment is YHWH's commandment. Whether or not you consider it important God has still made the commandment (I know that sounds rude, but just saying...) and He made it with the intent of it being kept. We aren't allowed to just say "I think that commandment is relevent anymore" because then the law would become subjective to man's opinion and then that would be a whole mess.



Yes, as in food. I'm sure you wouldn't consider the computer table that is in front of you food if you bless it in Christ's name. We are also commanded to NOT eat anything unclean! You remember to command regarding idols, but when it comes to Leviticus 11...



I don't think we can consider ourselves holy, but I'll avoid that 'cause I have no knowledge in it. Anyway, all of God's laws have purpose. One of the purposes of the dietary laws is health, yes. But another part of that law is to teach separation. It teaches us that there is a division between things of God and things of man. The spiritual and the eartly, the holy and the profane. This teaching of separation is just as important as anything else.

Loving your neighbor may seem like a more honorable and harder to achieve command, and it is. But, if you don't keep the commands concerning meats, then you have still broken a command. You see? Even if it be the least of the commands, you have still broken it.



I have to have my girlfriend e-mail the paper that was written on this, but it shows how pigs are one of the most unhealthy animals to eat. They are the only animals that carry diseases even after applying purification methods, such as cooking. There are interesting things to read such as they don't sweat, they just keep all that good stuff inside them. Pigs are still incredibly unhealthy to eat, and you will even find people that don't eat the animal because of that, having nothing to do with Biblical matters! A lot of diets will say to cut out pork (even the diet coming from the best Nutritionist, YHWH!).



Just to point out again, food is not a good use for a pig. In Matthew 8:28-34 Yeshua found a good use for pigs. He didn't think much of sending demons into them knowing they would kill themselves in the river. Would like to stress again that one of the big purposes of the pig was for YHWH to test us and see if we would respect His request for separation.

In hope that this helps someone, OObi

First of all, I don't see pork as "unclean" and I have never been condemned by YHWH for eating bacon with my eggs. That's the difference with being under grace verses the law, everything I eat is provided BY YHWH and I thank Him for providing for my food.

I could care less if YOU approve. It's about pleasing YHWH anyway, not the Jews. If YHWH doesn't have a problem with me eating thoroughly cooked food and not eating meat with blood still in it, then I don't see a problem at all. Genesis is very clear that God gave us meat to eat. Name one reason for a pig on the earth outside of food and then perhaps I can accept what you are saying is a sin unto YHWH. I don't think we come out of the womb knowing the entire Torah. You were raised to observe such things. I was not. Christ was very clear that while you can observe the Law, if you have evil in your heart, you do the Law an injustice and do not honor YHWH anyway.

The Holy Spirit is MY convictor on sin, not you. If I am sinning against YHWH for eating bacon with my eggs then it is HE that I answer to, not you.

You want to argue and debate the Word of God as if eating pork is the most ultimate sin you can commit against God or man. I would beg to differ on that one. It is a dietary law and NOT a sin unto death. For the heart of the man is what can separate you from a loving, merciful God, not a strip of bacon!

And . . . BTW - Jews are very good at demanding that Gentiles observe all the Law in order to be cleansed from all unrighteousness, but I have noticed that the Jews cannot atone for their sins by offering a sacrifice to the Lord yearly. For a man's sins can only be atoned with the shedding of blood and that blood being poured on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Testimony, so how do YOU atone for your sins? How are YOU cleansed from unrighteousness?

By not eating pork?

LOL!!!!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello OObi,

Thanks for taking time to reply. Below you will find my comments to your own.

Uh... those laws were the talmud, not the Torah, which YHWH intended that everyone keep for all time.

So you say, but you have to show that it is so. THis is something that you have not done.

I think the text is very clear. James clearly refers back to the diatary stipulations given to Noah, which were less restrictive than those given to Moses, during the giving of the Law.

Oh... is that what that passage was about? Well!! Someone should tell Luke that he very deceptively introduced this council as issue of circumcision! (read the first verse in this chapter to see what the council is really about... or you could just read post #7 for a detailed understanding of this passage)

You give a nice bit of rhetorical flare in your response, but the fact is James address' dietary restrections at the end of the Jerusalem Council and they did not bring the Pork eating Gentiles under the dietary laws found in Moses. James repeated the restrictions given to Noah.

I have a good understanding of thes passage and it is one that has been held by the Christian Church for 2000 years. Your view is the doctrinal anomally here, so again the burdon of proof is on you and thus far you are falling very short of the mark.

I'm sorry, but seriously... where are you getting this stuff from? What James actually knew was that if you kept these 4 things, you would be able to enter the synagogues. And why is it important that we enter the synagogues? Well, we find out in the very next verse, which most people seem to leave out.

Acts 15:21
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Hmmm... Moses was taught in the temple? Well, Moses is the law, as in the Torah, and it was taught in the temple? Why would James stress such a thing as the Torah being taught in the temple... (it would be because he planned on them actually learning the rest of the law and obeying it)

OObi, this is interesting speculation on your part, but the facts remain that the restrictions that james gives for the gentiles fall far short of the O.C. dietary laws. You can make lots of speculative pronouncements but the words of James remain very concise and clear and they do not include the Mosaic dietary laws.

There is no restriction of pork before Noah... (I'm learning a lot of stuff here!)

Noah was indeed aware of the clean and unclean animals bit. In Genesis 7 we see that Noah is commanded to take with him 7 pairs of each animals that was clean. And just one pair of all the others. He was commanded to take 7 pairs of the animals that were approved of eating and for sacrifice, and oh dear! This was beofre Mt. Sinai!

OObi, don't read things into my statements that are not there. No one said that there were no distinctions in Noah's day. I said the dietary restrictions were not those of Moses. Here is what God to Noah about what meat he could eat "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

The dietary pronouncements are clear here. The LORD (YHWH) said "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" and then He stipulates "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat"

Noah is told that he can eat "very moving thing that liveth" except "the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

James simply reiterates the dietary stipulations given to Noah.

Again, I will repeat what was said earlier -- It is possible that the WHOLE church has been wrong for 2,000 years and OObi and the modern messianic folks finally got it right. I don't think that is very likely, but it is possible.

I don't eat pork... are you saying I'm not a Christian with your "whole Christian era" phrase?

Again you have a nice bit of rhetoric, but it is hardly what I said. Either you are purposefully distorting what I did say, or you need to reread my statement so you will know what I actually did say.

Anyway... because the Catholic church said it, it's right? I don't find the logic behind that.

There is not much logic in that and that is not what I wrote. Again lets deal with what is actually on the table. Straight forward. Deal with the real points I've made.

If this were an issue that had been debated by Christians in the early, medieval or Reformation eras of the Church you might have a leg to stand on, but it was not. this is a topic that ALL the church has held to for millennia. You hold to a heterodox view here. That does not make you an unbeliever, but it does bring your understanding of the New Covenant into question. (If you are only 16, you should have lots of time to learn better.)

You would take the word of the church fathers over the Word of God? I don't find the logic behind that either.

Again you distort what I actually wrote. My argument has been wholly from the Scriptures. I brought in the Church fathers to show that what I said was the common believe of the CHurch from the earliest days of the Christian Church.

If you think I tried to prove this point by using the Fathers, you need to reread the argument, but I was not that unintelligible in what was written. This looks more like a squirm and less like a sincere attempt to deal with the real deal.

Binding your neighbor is a sin, so you should practice what you preach. I have given my study on the council of Acts and shown where the Catholic church is wrong, and you have done nothing but say "You are wrong, people have been sinning for 2000 years so you shouldn't go against the flow." If you truely believe what you are saying here, they you would show me where I was wrong instead of letting me bring however many people that read this with me to stumble. But you have not done that. Maybe because it's hard to disprove a truth.

Now OObi where have I tried to bind your conscience? You are free to never eat one slice of bacon or ham. I don't care. I am sure the dietary laws given to Moses make for a healther diet than I have. I have not said it is sin to follow those laws. I said that is is sin to bind the conscience of others where God has given us liberty. I do think you and others in "Messianic" Christinsity are doing just that. I do think that y'all are modern Judisers and that your heterodox theology is dangerous and has placed many Christians in needles bondage. (NOTE: Just so you understand me -- you seemed to have missed the points made earlier -- I am not questioning your salvation nor your sincerety, but I do doubt your theology and your hermeneutic.

I wish you well and pray that the Lord or God will bless and keep you. I hope that he will yet reveal the errors of the position you hold.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I hope you will actually deal with the points made and not read into them things that are not there.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[OObi]

I don't think we come out of the womb knowing the entire Torah. You were raised to observe such things. I was not.

I was raised in an diest household untill I was 14. I became a Christian by a chance meeting then, and I didn't start learning Torah untill a year after that meeting. I'm coming up on my one year aniversary of Torah observence soon.

First of all, I don't see pork as "unclean" and I have never been condemned by YHWH for eating bacon with my eggs. That's the difference with being under grace verses the law, everything I eat is provided BY YHWH and I thank Him for providing for my food.

Most people aren't met with a personal condemnation by YHWH for sinning. By your defenition of grace and law, I would be able to kill people without sinning. Correct? If I'm not, then why do you say that? Is it because the law prohibits me from doing that? Grace does not mean no law. It just means a different understanding of the law.

I could care less if YOU approve. It's about pleasing YHWH anyway, not the Jews. If YHWH doesn't have a problem with me eating thoroughly cooked food and not eating meat with blood still in it, then I don't see a problem at all.

I don't see a problem with anyone eating food either? I hope no one does anything for me, but do it all for the glory of God. Just because something can be cooked doesn't mean it's food. YHWH said that the meat was unclean and it is never recorded in the scriptures that He changed His mind. Unless you have the 'extended' Bible that does include God revoking His commands on meat, I don't see why you are so intent on eating pork.

Genesis is very clear that God gave us meat to eat.

THE EVENTS IN GENESIS TOOK PLACE BEFORE LEVITICUS WHEN THE LAWS REGARDING MEAT WERE GIVEN!!! OBVIOUSLY YHWH DIDN'T MEAN EAT UNCLEAN MEAT WHEN HE SAID EAT ALL ANIMALS!!

Name one reason for a pig on the earth outside of food and then perhaps I can accept what you are saying is a sin unto YHWH.

I already gave you a reason, you just refuse to accept it. It shows separation, are you or are you not going to show God that you can respect the boundaries He set?

The Holy Spirit is MY convictor on sin, not you. If I am sinning against YHWH for eating bacon with my eggs then it is HE that I answer to, not you.

Maybe posting on these forum boards is God's way of showing you the truth. I have given my thoughts on the subject and all I've gotten back is something like "that is so ridiculous that I refuse to believe it" (that would be you) or something like "we've been eating pork for a long time... so it's okay now".

You want to argue and debate the Word of God as if eating pork is the most ultimate sin you can commit against God or man. I would beg to differ on that one. It is a dietary law and NOT a sin unto death. For the heart of the man is what can separate you from a loving, merciful God, not a strip of bacon!

(was not this thread about pork...)

And . . . BTW - Jews are very good at demanding that Gentiles observe all the Law in order to be cleansed from all unrighteousness, but I have noticed that the Jews cannot atone for their sins by offering a sacrifice to the Lord yearly. For a man's sins can only be atoned with the shedding of blood and that blood being poured on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Testimony, so how do YOU atone for your sins? How are YOU cleansed from unrighteousness?

By not eating pork?

LOL!!!!

I was cleansed from unrighteousness by Yeshua, just like everyone else. I've just chosen to love Yeshua back for what He did (John 15:10)

 

[OObi]

You give a nice bit of rhetorical flare in your response, but the fact is James address' dietary restrections at the end of the Jerusalem Council and they did not bring the Pork eating Gentiles under the dietary laws found in Moses. James repeated the restrictions given to Noah.

I have a good understanding of thes passage and it is one that has been held by the Christian Church for 2000 years. Your view is the doctrinal anomally here, so again the burdon of proof is on you and thus far you are falling very short of the mark.

Okay... let us go over the passage in detail.

Acts 15:1-4
1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2Paul and Barnabas, disagreeing with them, argued forcefully and at length. Finally, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent the delegates to Jerusalem, and they stopped along the way in Phoenicia and Samaria to visit the believers. They told them--much to everyone's joy--that the Gentiles, too, were being converted. 4When they arrived in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were welcomed by the whole church, including the apostles and elders. They reported on what God had been doing through their ministry.


Okay... I'll even leave the interpretation up to you. What is being discussed here? Is it food? Is it dietary laws? What is the issue? (It's cicumcision incase anyone else wants to tag along this)

Acts 10:5-6
5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. 6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

So, the apostles came together to consider this matter? Correct? Well... again, what is the matter that we are considering here? Meats? Or circumcision?

Acts 15:7
At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: "Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe.

Do you know what this is referring to? It is speaking of back in chapter 10, when Peter was instructed to go to the unbelievers and preach the Gospel. Why would he bring this up if meats was the discussion here? But if saving work was his mission, then that would make sense to bring up since the topic being disscussed is salvation (as in whether by circumcision or not).

Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows people's hearts, confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he gave him to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he also cleansed their hearts through faith. 10Why are you now questioning God's way by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? 11We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the special favor of the Lord Jesus."


Okay, so here we are with Peter's last couple of words here, and what do we have? A conclusion on meats or circumcision? We are all saved the same way, not by keeping the law, but by grace.

Acts 15:12-17
12There was no further discussion, and everyone listened as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13When they had finished, James stood and said, "Brothers, listen to me. 14Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself. 15And this conversion of Gentiles agrees with what the prophets predicted. For instance, it is written: 16After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the Lord who does all these things.'

Okay, so here we have the conclusion. Speaks of the restoration of the tabernacle of David, and mankind seeking the Lord, and following the law. But do we see meats here...

Acts 15:18-20
18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19And so my judgment is that we should stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20except that we should write to them and tell them to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, and from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals.

HEY!! WE HAVE MEATS FOR THE FIRST TIME!! So yeah, what was the entire discussion about up untill this point? Salvation right? So why the meats? Well, let's take this slowly now. James says to not trouble the Gentiles turned to God, and teach them these 4 things. Did he mean don't follow anything else? I'll leave that question to you. However, if you use this passage to say that you can eat pork, you are stuck with answering yes to that question. But, if you want the truth, then just read the next verse, and we'll see why these 4 things were mentioned.

Acts 15:21
For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations."

So, here we are again. Like I said, these 4 things were the 'bare-bones' requirments for getting into the synagogues. But why are we stressed about getting them into the synagogues? Because the Torah/Moses was taught there. When they attended the Sabbath meetings, they would be taught the rest of Torah either over a 1 or 3 year cycle. There they would learn how to live. This council was about "instead of trying to scare the believing Gentiles about circumcision, just get them into the synagogues where they can learn how to live, because they are already saved." Meaning, this wasn't about defying God and eating pork. This was all about salvation.

OObi, this is interesting speculation on your part, but the facts remain that the restrictions that james gives for the gentiles fall far short of the O.C. dietary laws. You can make lots of speculative pronouncements but the words of James remain very concise and clear and they do not include the Mosaic dietary laws.

Correct, but they were expected to learn them in the synagogues and obey them later, just as it says in verse 21.

The dietary pronouncements are clear here. The LORD (YHWH) said "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" and then He stipulates "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat"

And the pronouncements in Levitcus 11 are very clear, and that time frame is much later then Noah.

Noah is told that he can eat "very moving thing that liveth" except "the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

James simply reiterates the dietary stipulations given to Noah.

Again, he does this not because he was saying don't follow the other stuff. He gave these stipulations because they were the minimum to get into the synagogues.

Again, I will repeat what was said earlier -- It is possible that the WHOLE church has been wrong for 2,000 years and OObi and the modern messianic folks finally got it right. I don't think that is very likely, but it is possible.

Well... if the church has been right all this time, then that wouldn't leave much room for the restoration prophecies now would it?

Now OObi where have I tried to bind your conscience? You are free to never eat one slice of bacon or ham. I don't care. I am sure the dietary laws given to Moses make for a healther diet than I have. I have not said it is sin to follow those laws. I said that is is sin to bind the conscience of others where God has given us liberty. I do think you and others in "Messianic" Christinsity are doing just that. I do think that y'all are modern Judisers and that your heterodox theology is dangerous and has placed many Christians in needles bondage.

But if you are wrong, and these things are still in effect, then you are teaching others to not obey God. That is what I was pointing out. You keep saying that I haven't dealt with your points and I just keep running around. Well, it's been there the whole time, I don't know if you just wanted me to write it again, but there it is. The study on Acts 15, you haven't yet commented on it, hopefully you will now.

In Christ, OObi

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello OObi,

I don't think we will make much progress, but I would like to address a couple of matters before I go on to other matters and leave this thread.

First, it is clear that you have been a believer less than to years and in that time you have discovered that all the church for the previous 2,000 years has been wrong on this issue. That is to me very troubling, again if your are only 16 there is time for you to grow in respect for the countles believers who came before you.

It is possible that they have all been wrong up until now and it took the Messianic movement to discover these things, but again I find that very doubtful. You may do h what you like with what I am about to say, but I hope you will consider it. It would show wisdom on your part to consider the reasons the whole church believed differently on this subject up until recent times. Yes, perhaps I am wrong, and all who came before me and a 16 year old boy, who is yet a babe in Christ is correct, but again it is not likely. A little humility on your part might make you desire to look at the "why did they think differently" before our movement. It may prove useful for you.

Next the issue for Paul going to Jerusalem was circumcision but as we see in verse but as we see in verse 5 that is expanded by the Pharisees who converted. These men insisted that "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." This would of course include the dietary laws. There is the expansion and that is why James includes them in his pronouncement at the council.

Notice as we continue reading chapte 15 that the council then sends a letter to the Gentile Christians expaining their decision.

Lets look at that letter:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, *saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

Notice again that in this letter to the Gentiles we once again find that the specific stipulations are those given to Noah and not those given to Moses.

Perhaps think that Paul and the others may have added a verbal addendum to these specific pronouncements, but once more that is speculation that is not found in the text or drawn from the text (exegete). It is something that you (and those with whom you agree) must read into the text (eisegete).

The traditional (almost universal) undestanding of the church on this issue has been solidly in line with my own understanding.

OObi, I have no doubt that you are a bright young person, and it is good to see that someone so young has so much zeal, but I do hope that you will look at the teacing of those outside the particular sect that you have come into the faith of Christ through.

You and I can repeat ourselves many more times, but I don't see any need or use for that. I am wholly willing for others look at our separate arguments and the Scriptures and decide which is correct. With that said I don't plan to comment again on this thread.

I wish you and all others in this discussion well. I also pray that you will consider your age and experiance in the faith and be humbled enough to consider what ALL branches of the Church have taught on this issue for 2000 years. Before jettisoning 2000 years of Christian scholarship and teaching I hope you will spend much time in prayer, study and fear and trembling.

I will say it one more -- All the church may have been wrong for the previous 2000 years, but it is not likely.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[crusadernoel]

And there's the fact that it's delicious. God created all and wants us to eat his tasty bounty.

 

[OObi]

First, it is clear that you have been a believer less than to years and in that time you have discovered that all the church for the previous 2,000 years has been wrong on this issue. That is to me very troubling, again if your are only 16 there is time for you to grow in respect for the countles believers who came before you.

It is possible that they have all been wrong up until now and it took the Messianic movement to discover these things, but again I find that very doubtful.

Oh yes, it was me that knew all this stuff all along! Very perceptive.

I have read books written by men who have studied the issue for years. And as you correctly attributed the credit to later, it was the Messianic movement that is learning all this stuff. It would require a movement of that proportion to be heard. Not coming from a 16 year old boy. That is why I don't show my age, because people like you (no offense) will no longer take me seriously and instead of debating Biblical issues, you've now gotten into shutting me out because I'm younger then you. Of course we aren't going anywhere now because you aren't going to take me seriously anymore.

A little humility on your part might make you desire to look at the "why did they think differently" before our movement. It may prove useful for you.

Okay, let's look at why we might have thought differently back then...

In the days of the Apostles, Christianity was not a separate entity of Judaism. An honest reading of the New Testament will back this up, even as you so graciously pointed out earlier.

No one can doubt that Jesus and His disciples all kept the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. That has never been questioned by any Christian.

Yeshua was a Jewish teacher. He kept the Torah, read it and taught it. He denounced the Sadducees and the Pharisees correcting their errant teachings, but He didn't not come to institute a new religion.

He and the Apostles all kept the Torah. They met weekly in the synagogues on the Sabbath and followed the dietary commands and kept the festivles. They were Jews.

Then non-Jews began to enter the faith. This is what Acts 15 was about. They came in and they were allowed certain dispensations. They didn't need to be circumcised, nor denounce their ethnic identity. But they were all going to learn Moses or the Torah. Many religious authorities didn't like this idea and they demanded that they follow the ritual conversions, again, what Acts 15 was about.

At the end of the book of Acrs, we see a picture of the Yeshua movement still in the cradle of Judaism, still a sect within it. It is about the year 65 AD, Paul was a prisoner in the city of Rome and ministering to the believers there. Within two years, Paul went to meet the Master when Nero the Emperor had him beheaded. Nero began an open persecuton against the believers, blaming them for the burning of Rome. A short time later, Peter too found martyrdom in Rome when Nero had him crucified. Nero then added to his infamy by launching a massive military campaign against the Jewish state. He sent the dreaded 10th legion, under the famous General Vespaian, to put down the revolt in Judea. Suddenly, Jews were regarded as enemies of the state.

Nero died, Vespasian is the emporer, and he brought Rome's army against Jerusalem. Believers fled, and the temple was burned.

The Jewish war gave rise to the politics of anti-semitism. A Gentile attending the Sabbath worship servie, formally known as Tony the believer is now Tony the Jew or Tony the enemy of the state.

Vespaian followed the war by imposing a heavy, heavy tax on all Jewish households. He determined the households by those who worshipped in the Jewish manner. Such as observing the festivles and eating Kosher.

Now, with this generous tax, the Gentile believers had financial, political, and cultral reasons to distance themselves from Judaism.

Shortly after the war, the synagogues were mad at Rome and institued a new benediction in the daily liturgies that was actually a curse on those who believed in Yeshua. The synagogues expelled anyone who didn't say the curse.

This expuslsion left the believers no place to worship or gather on the sabbath.

Then, turn of the century, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, afraid of another Jewish revolt, led many more Jewish persecutions. This one leading to the death of John.

Okay, so your question is why would all of a sudden Jewish believers turn away from the Torah?

put yourself in the sandals of the average non-Jewish believer. One the one hand, the synagogue has thrown you and your family out because you are offensive to Judaism. On the other hand you are seeing you friends and family imprisoned, even tortured and killed, because they are being identified with the Jewish religion. You are guilty by association with a religion that doesn't want you associating with them in the first place. Does that answer your question? A lot of people seem to leave this out of the history books. A lot of people forget to mention that Paul, Peter, and John, did die because of their belief, but they died also because they were Jewish.

Next the issue for Paul going to Jerusalem was circumcision but as we see in verse but as we see in verse 5 that is expanded by the Pharisees who converted. These men insisted that "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." This would of course include the dietary laws. There is the expansion and that is why James includes them in his pronouncement at the council.

Why do you insist on always neglecting to read the conclusion of the council? What did they conclude? "Don't bother the newly believing Gentiles at this time. Just send them to the synagogues to learn the rest of the Torah over time!

Notice as we continue reading chapte 15 that the council then sends a letter to the Gentile Christians expaining their decision.

Lets look at that letter:

Quote

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, *saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment-- it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

Notice again that in this letter to the Gentiles we once again find that the specific stipulations are those given to Noah and not those given to Moses.

If this means what you are trying to make it mean, then I can murder and it wouldn't be a sin. I could steal and it wouldn't be a sin. I could have pre-marital sex and it wouldn't be a sin. If you twist these words to mean what you say, then these are the only laws that we hve to abide by. But as I keep telling you, they are not the only laws we must abide by because the reason they gave these specific laws was to grant access of the Gentile believers into the synagogues so they could learn the rest of the Torah.

OObi, I have no doubt that you are a bright young person, and it is good to see that someone so young has so much zeal, but I do hope that you will look at the teacing of those outside the particular sect that you have come into the faith of Christ through.

I have studied many faiths, even going against the warning and instruction of my teachers. I take pride in being one of the most unbiased people I've met. I wouldn't follow a lie, and I wouldn't live in something that I didn't know for sure was true. I have studied many denominations, and the conclusion was that the truth is we must look at the New Testament from the lens of the Torah, and not the other way around, which many people make the mistake of doing.

I will say it one more -- All the church may have been wrong for the previous 2000 years, but it is not likely.

Unless... of course, as I gave reason for above, they willfully wanted to be wrong.

 

[OObi]

And there's the fact that it's delicious. God created all and wants us to eat his tasty bounty.

You would eat something because it is tasty...

Many things are tasty that will kill you.

I haven't ate pork in the longest time, but I can remember what it taste like. To tell the truth, I don't find it appetizing anymore. I actually find it repulsive and gross. I can't believe I ever ate something like that.

 

[Nazaroo]

two weak arguments here:

(1) the ad hominem against OOBI because of his age and/or number of years as a Christian.

It would have been better to just stick to the topic.

(2) The argument that church has believed 'x' for 2000 years etc. and somehow OOBI is alone against the united tradition of 'all Christians'.

This is an exaggeration. The 'church' has never been a united entity holding a set 'perfect doctrines'. Nor can it ever be, given the nature of the case. The church has individual members constantly entering and leaving, and is made up of a body of believers at every stage of spiritual and intellectual development. It can never be united in doctrine or fixed in its state of knowledge.

OOBI is hardly alone in choosing to follow the basic food laws of the Bible. Large portions of both the Jewish people, Protestant Christians, and even Muslims also have long recognized and follow the food laws.

It is only in dirty Europe and Gluttonous North America that cultural groups have wholesale abandoned the common sense of the biblical teachings about food.

Neither Catholicism nor traditional Mainline Protestantism have any claims to 'longstanding traditions' or beliefs about food. The most that can be said is that following Paul, most Christians don't make it a 'salvation matter', and avoid disputes about it.

But open debate, examining scripture and traditional doctrine is a good thing, strengthening and clarifying the beliefs of Christians who participate.