Jesus didn't say eat pork.

[Shlomey]

Okay, I just witnessed some Jews and a Noahide Gentile basically silent all Christians on this one,.
Of course, the classic verses were used from Mark 7, to Acts 10 and 11.

However, the Acts 10/11 verses were to be read in context, and in the context Peter understood the vision to be pertaining to Gentiles being accepted into the Church, not only Jews.
Therefore, the Jews say that the vision was not about food at all, but rather about Gentiles being accepted into the Church.

I have found no Catholic anti-argument on that one…

Peter’s Dilemma

The apostle Peter once faced a dilemma on this matter of clean and unclean. Some ten years after the resurrection of Jesus he had a vision of “all kinds of quadrupeds. reptiles and birds” - dogs, cats, horses, frogs, alligators, snakes, spiders etc - being lowered before him in a huge sheet. A voice said “Rise, Peter, kill and eat”. A shocking command. For as Peter makes clear:

“On no account, Lord, for I have never yet [this was, remember, ten years after the resurrection!] eaten anything unhallowed or unclean”. (You can read the account in Acts 10.)

Peter knew the vision could not relate to food, so he was perplexed, but, as events unfolded, Peter came to understand the point of the vision: all men are equal in the eyes of God. Regarding salvation, there is neither Jew nor Gentile (vv.28-29). Peter was not to consider any man (Gk: anthropos) “unclean”! He did not say “any thing”. In the vision God was telling him that salvation is open to all men. The vision had nothing to do with food!

To make these unclean foods suitable for mankind to eat, their - or man’s - very anatomy and physiology would need restructuring. The digestive tracts of dogs and rats and pigs and oysters and crabs and vultures would have to be totally changed to properly process their flesh to be fit for human consumption. Yet all these unclean creatures are the same today as they were thousands years ago when the cleanness laws were written down! Where, in Scripture, has God ‘cleansed’ - indeed changed the very nature of - His long list of prohibited foods?

 

[ralphinal]

Okay, I just witnessed some Jews and a Noahide Gentile basically silent all Christians on this one,.
Of course, the classic verses were used from Mark 7, to Acts 10 and 11.

However, the Acts 10/11 verses were to be read in context, and in the context Peter understood the vision to be pertaining to Gentiles being accepted into the Church, not only Jews.
Therefore, the Jews say that the vision was not about food at all, but rather about Gentiles being accepted into the Church.

I have found no Catholic anti-argument on that one…

When you take that along with Acts 15, you get where the Gentiles do not have to accept the food laws, except for eating blood. Anyone descended from Gentiles would still not be required to follow the food laws.

 

[djconklin]

Anyone descended from Gentiles would still not be required to follow the food laws.

As Christians there is no Jew nor Greek. We are grafted into the family of God; the dead branches of unbelieving Jews were cut off.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Romans 11:17-21 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

We are not our own and our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

 

[ralphinal]

As Christians there is no Jew nor Greek. We are grafted into the family of God; the dead branches of unbelieving Jews were cut off.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Romans 11:17-21 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

We are not our own and our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Ghost.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

I agree. I was just pointing out that the Acts passage is only one part of the story.

 

[Sam_777]

For me personally, pork & alcohol can be summarized in:

(1 Corinthians 6:12):
“Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.”

 

[Eucharisted]

You know, this discussion on pork reminds me of something.

I remember reading an article in Time about a rise in kosher food in America and why this new trend was so popular. Of course Time only interviewed Jewish chefs in the article, who all gave various reasons for why kosher was the new trend, and one of them stated (as I expected) that it was the will of God, that God was leading America back to Himself.

The reason I bring this up is to make a point: We think too little of history. You’ll find, when you research history, that there are always ups and downs, and that there are no new trends in history - just old trends with new names and styles and ways of being spread. The kosher trend has always resurfaced in history from time to time. I don’t know why trends are popular, but they are, and so, they always come up with each new generation of man. It’s silly, really, to think we modern men have come up with something new - we haven’t. I can even give an example from an Islamic text: Do you think the term “girlfriend” is new, that it was invented in the 1990’s? Well, if so, you’re wrong, because the term has dated far back in history: there is an instance of it in a text on Mohammed’s favorite wife, where her friends are called “girl friends”.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

And so the argument goes on and on and on. By you’re logic, those of you who view pork as harmless, it is perfectly alright to polute your “temple” with cigarettes, strong drink (to excess), and mind altering herbs or whatever drugs can be produced from whatever plants are available without having to worry about any recourse from God. Think again.

 

[Shlomey]

Thanks to all answers

God bless

the issue has been resolved, pork is yummy

 

[ralphinal]

And so the argument goes on and on and on. By you’re logic, those of you who view pork as harmless, it is perfectly alright to polute your “temple” with cigarettes, strong drink (to excess), and mind altering herbs or whatever drugs can be produced from whatever plants are available without having to worry about any recourse from God. Think again.

At no point in time did I say any of that. If you want to take things out of context and run them to the most absurd level, I ask you kindly to leave me out of it.

 

[Shin]

St. John the Baptist lived on locusts…

We shouldn’t be too picky about what we eat.

… Fun Fact of the Day: Did you know locusts used to be kosher?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

At no point in time did I say any of that. If you want to take things out of context and run them to the most absurd level, I ask you kindly to leave me out of it.

No, nobody did, but the IMPLICATION is there throughout the thread.

 

[Shlomey]

St. John the Baptist lived on locusts…

We shouldn’t be too picky about what we eat.

… Fun Fact of the Day: Did you know locusts used to be kosher?

Nope,
mind telling us the story?
Are locusts now considered unkosher?
Or during the time of John the Baptist?

 

[LilyM]

No, nobody did, but the IMPLICATION is there throughout the thread.

Not a bit of it. Merely reiteration of the principle of ‘that which I have called clean, do not call unclean’. God nowhere calls drugs or drunkenness clean. Although He was wrongly taken for a drunkard because He wasn’t an utter teetotaller.

Which sounds rather like you taking us for advocates of drug use or drunkenness merely because we eat foods that the OT considered unkosher. By the way do you keep ALL the kosher laws of the OT, no shellfish, no dairy combined with meat, separate cooking pots and plates and all? If not why not, isn’t it ALL every bit as important as eating pork?

However, God DOES, in that vision of Peter’s in Acts, bid Peter in exactly so many words to eat of unkosher foods. Now it is true that vision seems to have had a double meaning, that’s not to say BOTH meanings aren’t valid.

Why else would Peter get dressed down by Paul for refusing literally to eat with Gentiles (who presumably weren’t keeping kosher as they weren’t keeping the laws on circumcision etc)? It can’t have been MERELY for the physical association - Jesus Himself associated with Roman centurions and Samaritan women.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Not a bit of it. Merely reiteration of the principle of ‘that which I have called clean, do not call unclean’. God nowhere calls drugs or drunkenness clean. Although He was wrongly taken for a drunkard because He wasn’t an utter teetotaller.

Is Jesus God or not? If he is God than he spoke in both the Old and the New Testament. As such he did condemn drunkenness in the Old Testatment. And drunkenness is spoken against in the New Testatment as well by the Apostles. Did Jesus not instruct the Apostles in all things? Drugs and drunkenness may not have been specifically called unclean, however, medical science has proven that these things are determental to our health. Are we not exorted by the Apostles to keep our bodies clean from things that would polute them? If we use logic and common sense we will find that these things go hand in hand. God reveals truth through different agencies and we need to be considerate of these revelations, using what the scriptures as a testing instrument in which to confirm the validity of the revelations.

Which sounds rather like you taking us for advocates of drug use or drunkenness merely because we eat foods that the OT considered unkosher. By the way do you keep ALL the kosher laws of the OT, no shellfish, no dairy combined with meat, separate cooking pots and plates and all? If not why not, isn’t it ALL every bit as important as eating pork?

No more so than you (not meaning you personally, but using “you” in a generalized form) take others for advovating things that are not entirely understood because of the refusal to seriously research what is presented.

No I do not eat shellfish, as to combining dairy and meat, it is a mute question for someone how abstains from meat products. Same for the question concerning separate cooking and eating utinsels.

However, God DOES, in that vision of Peter’s in Acts, bid Peter in exactly so many words to eat of unkosher foods. Now it is true that vision seems to have had a double meaning, that’s not to say BOTH meanings aren’t valid.

In you’re view there is a double meaning here, however, if you read Chapter 13 you will find Peter specifically interprets the vision himself, he does not relate anywhere in that interpretation that the laws of diet were changed or that those things that he saw were to be literally consumed.

Why else would Peter get dressed down by Paul for refusing literally to eat with Gentiles (who presumably weren’t keeping kosher as they weren’t keeping the laws on circumcision etc)? It can’t have been MERELY for the physical association - Jesus Himself associated with Roman centurions and Samaritan women.

The dressing down had nothing to do with eating with Gentiles, it had everything to do with Peter’s hypocricy of associating with Gentiles when there where no Jews around then disassociating himself when they were around. Paul’s point to be made at this instance was that we are all of the same family and there is no difference between Greek, Jew, circumsized or uncircumsized.

I suggest you look closely at the things God deemed clean and unclean and when they were declared so. This goes back as far as Noah. He loaded 2 of each unclean and 7 each of the clean onto the ark. So why was this distinction given at this time? Note also what the unclean animal (creatures) were and are used for. They are the garbage collectors of the natural world. Carrion eaters. Would you go to the dump to go grocery shopping or eat out of your garbage can anything that was total rotted and unfit to eat. That’s what these creatures do. More later, have to get back to work.

 

[Eucharisted]

They are the garbage collectors of the natural world. Carrion eaters. Would you go to the dump to go grocery shopping or eat out of your garbage can anything that was total rotted and unfit to eat.

Thanks for that, now I know why God said all food is clean: so Christianity could reach out to the poor.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Question? Has there ever been in your personal experience any foods, besides pork (for those of you that abstain) which you have used and now no longer use because science says it is unhealthy to eat?

 

[Shlomey]

Does not Paul teach us that we are not bound to dietary laws?

If you answer with yes, then that is good enough for me

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Does not Paul teach us that we are not bound to dietary laws?

If you answer with yes, then that is good enough for me

I see, so if our govenment said is was alright to murder then we would ignore the tenents of those expunged laws? I don’t think so. Your logic makes no sense. Just because we are no longer bound by those “dietary” laws, does that make them any less relevant? Should we throw caution to the winds and ignore the possibilities that GOD was right after all? Please, think what you say before saying what you say. Paul also exorts us to be wise in what we do. Do you think it wise just to ignore centuries of God given wisdom through preceived human thought? Yes, we are no longer “bound” by dietary laws. But we do need to be aware of the dangers of ignoring the wisdom God.

 

[LilyM]

I see, so if our govenment said is was alright to murder then we would ignore the tenents of those expunged laws? I don’t think so. Your logic makes no sense. Just because we are no longer bound by those “dietary” laws, does that make them any less relevant? Should we throw caution to the winds and ignore the possibilities that GOD was right after all? Please, think what you say before saying what you say. Paul also exorts us to be wise in what we do. Do you think it wise just to ignore centuries of God given wisdom through preceived human thought? Yes, we are no longer “bound” by dietary laws. But we do need to be aware of the dangers of ignoring the wisdom God.

But we’re not referring to any mere secular government law here.

Only to teaching from the Apostles themselves (to whom Christ gave the authority to teach on such matters). Which Apostles declared with their own lips that the prohibitions on pork (or anything apart from food offered to idols and blood) no longer applied, at least to Gentile converts. Don’t know about you, but as far as I know none of my ancestors was ever Jewish, so that means me adn 99.9% of all Christians.

In Acts 15 Gentile followers are told they need not abide by them Or are the plain words of Peter and Paul not good enough authority for you now?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

But we’re not referring to any mere secular government law here.

For Isreal, God’s law(s) were “governmental” laws. God’s law(s) encompassed all of the aspects of Isreal’s society, therefore when the comparison is made it is relevant.

Only to teaching from the Apostles themselves (to whom Christ gave the authority to teach on such matters). Which Apostles declared with their own lips that the prohibitions on pork (or anything apart from food offered to idols and blood) no longer applied, at least to Gentile converts. Don’t know about you, but as far as I know none of my ancestors was ever Jewish, so that means me and 99.9% of all Christians.

I don’t see it as you see it, as I mentioned before, Peter gave the interpretation of his vision vividly and there was no mention of abolishing the “dietary” requirements of the law. However, you are free to choose to eat what you will. I would again caution you on scientific evidence that shows that pork and other accepted animal produces which were considered unclean in the Old Testament do pose a health hazard and should be avoided.

In Acts 15 Gentile followers are told they need not abide by them Or are Peter and Paul not good enough authority for you now?

As I don’t have my Bible with me I cannot look up this Chapter, but I will as soon as I can. It’s not Peter’s or Paul’s authority I question, but rather the percieved authority of others, who may or may not have the understanding of what was written right.