Why do Christians eat Pork?

Commotion Ocean

Leviticus 11

Some animals chew the cud, but they don’t have split hooves.... rabbits are like that, so they are unclean for you. Other animals ...... don’t chew the cud. Don’t eat these animals. Pigs are like that, .....

This clearly says that the flesh of swine an rabbits are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Yet many Christians eat pork and rabbit.

I anticipate getting a response telling me that Jesus came to Earth to redeem us so we are forgiven for our sins.

If that's the case, then why does Christianity still have issues with homosexuality when it only prohibits it in the Old Testament and mentions nothing in the New Testament.

endacl

Because pork is tasty and nutritious?

uck51js9zml2yt

dfeo wrote: »

Leviticus 11



This clearly says that the flesh of swine an rabbits are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Yet many Christians eat pork and rabbit.

I anticipate getting a response telling me that Jesus came to Earth to redeem us so we are forgiven for our sins.

If that's the case, then why does Christianity still have issues with homosexuality when it only prohibits it in the Old Testament and mentions nothing in the New Testament.

You've obviously never read Romans.

Stealthfins

I can see a few porky pies coming up

Speedwell

It's a non-issue. Their precious St. Peter is quoted in Acts 10 as having had a vision directly from God saying that he could take and eat any one of a number of heretofore unclean animals, as a symbol that God was nullifying the "wall of separation" that prevented Gentiles from becoming targets for Christian conversion. This is understood by most Christians, explicitly or implicitly, as being a nullification of the law of kosher that prevents believers from eating, among other things, pork and rabbit.

As for homosexuality, "who are you to call unclean what God has called clean", indeed.

uck51js9zml2yt

Speedwell wrote: »

It's a non-issue. Their precious St. Peter is quoted in Acts 10 as having had a vision directly from God saying that he could take and eat any one of a number of heretofore unclean animals, as a symbol that God was nullifying the "wall of separation" that prevented Gentiles from becoming targets for Christian conversion. This is understood by most Christians, explicitly or implicitly, as being a nullification of the law of kosher that prevents believers from eating, among other things, pork and rabbit.

As for homosexuality, "who are you to call unclean what God has called clean", indeed.

The vision Peter had was to deal with the belief among Jews that the gentiles were unclean and to be avoided. The very next event was him going to preach to gentiles.

As for homesexuality...well that's for the super thread

Speedwell

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

The vision Peter had was to deal with the belief among Jews that the gentiles were unclean and to be avoided. The very next event was him going to preach to gentiles.

As for homesexuality...well that's for the super thread

Yes, yes, I know all about it. Still, that is the chapter and verse that were quoted to me when I asked in church as a child why Christians didn't observe kosher. I didn't say it was consistent or made sense.

uck51js9zml2yt

Speedwell wrote: »

Yes, yes, I know all about it. Still, that is the chapter and verse that were quoted to me when I asked in church as a child why Christians didn't observe kosher. I didn't say it was consistent or made sense.

But you still thought it was worth saying...thanks for sharing....i think!

Speedwell

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

But you still thought it was worth saying...thanks for sharing....i think!

Heh, I'm an ex-Christian; I see all this nonsense quite clearly as nonsense, but it is still as much of an explanation as there is. Saying that Christians deliberately turned their backs on kosher in order to differentiate themselves from the Jews is not exactly false, and probably stems from the early schism and power struggles between Jesus Christians who thought that they were engaging in a sort of reformed Judaism, and Paul Christians who thought they had broken off and formed something new. But if you ask around in churches, they'll quote the Acts passage.

Nick Park

Speedwell wrote: »

Heh, I'm an ex-Christian; I see all this nonsense quite clearly as nonsense, but it is still as much of an explanation as there is. Saying that Christians deliberately turned their backs on kosher in order to differentiate themselves from the Jews is not exactly false, and probably stems from the early schism and power struggles between Jesus Christians who thought that they were engaging in a sort of reformed Judaism, and Paul Christians who thought they had broken off and formed something new. But if you ask around in churches, they'll quote the Acts passage.

They would be more likely to quote other more specific passages.

Such as Mark 7:18-!9 - ‘Are you so dull?’ he asked. ‘Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.’ (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Or Romans 14:14 - As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.

Or Romans 14:20 - All food is clean.

However, bandying around proof texts is not the best way to approach this subject. Far better to try to understand the bigger argument as to why all food is clean. And for that you would do well to read the Book of Galatians, which explains how the ceremonial law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and therefore, having achieved its purpose, is not binding on Christians.

Speedwell

Nick Park wrote: »

They would be more likely to quote other more specific passages.

Such as Mark 7:18-!9 - ‘Are you so dull?’ he asked. ‘Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.’ (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Or Romans 14:14 - As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.

Or Romans 14:20 - All food is clean.

However, bandying around proof texts is not the best way to approach this subject. Far better to try to understand the bigger argument as to why all food is clean. And for that you would do well to read the Book of Galatians, which explains how the ceremonial law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and therefore, having achieved its purpose, is not binding on Christians.

Reminding you I'm an ex-Christian who grew up in the faith. I'm not a teenager staying up late to troll Christian boards, I deconverted after thirty. I've read the source material and found it lacking. I'm just attempting to describe for the inquisitive what I've been taught the reasoning, insofar as it is reasoning, is. When I'm at my grandmother's, we eat kosher because it's a cultural thing, actually. We are secular, though, and we have stopped assigning religious significance to dinner.

Nick Park

Speedwell wrote: »

Reminding you I'm an ex-Christian who grew up in the faith.

And I'm an ex-atheist who grew up outside the faith.

I'm simply pointing out that the reasons Christians eat pork (apart from it being very tasty) is not based on one proof text from Acts. It's due to a principle that is outlined fairly extensively in the New Testament.

The fact that you grew up in the faith doesn't give you a free pass to misrepresent a fundamental theological principle as a facile misinterpretation of a single passage.

Speedwell

Nick Park wrote: »

And I'm an ex-atheist who grew up outside the faith.

I'm simply pointing out that the reasons Christians eat pork (apart from it being very tasty) is not based on one proof text from Acts. It's due to a principle that is outlined fairly extensively in the New Testament.

The fact that you grew up in the faith doesn't give you a free pass to misrepresent a fundamental theological principle as a facile misinterpretation of a single passage.

Tell that to the people who misrepresented their own fundamental theological principle to me as a facile misrepresentation of a single passage from the scriptures they were supposed to be holding themselves out as experts on. I'm not defending it. Going to bed now, cheers.

Nick Park

Speedwell wrote: »

Tell that to the people who misrepresented their own fundamental theological principle to me as a facile misrepresentation of a single passage from the scriptures they were supposed to be holding themselves out as experts on. I'm not defending it. Going to bed now, cheers.

I'll leave it to you to tell them.

Sadly it certainly wouldn't be the first time that someone grew up in a church environment without actually understanding one of its fundamental and foundational beliefs.

The reason why Christians don't eat pork (and why they wear clothing of mixed fibres, and don't need to get circumcised etc) is because ceremonial law has been fulfilled. It was the foreshadow, and now the reality (Christ) has come.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)

Clampdown

Pretty sure Christ says something like 'It is not what you put into your mouth, but what comes out of your mouth, which defiles a man'.

So you can eat what you like but be mindful of what you say I guess.

However, I do wonder if Christ were alive today, would he eat bacon? I doubt it. I'd expect that he would avoid eating foods that were produced via death or suffering, which is easy to do in this day and age.

I'd say considering back then it was a lot harder to get food, someone figured out that unless they relaxed the rules they'd end up with a starving 'flock', which wouldn't be much good to them.

Delirium

Speedwell wrote: »

Heh, I'm an ex-Christian; I see all this nonsense quite clearly as nonsense, but it is still as much of an explanation as there is. Saying that Christians deliberately turned their backs on kosher in order to differentiate themselves from the Jews is not exactly false, and probably stems from the early schism and power struggles between Jesus Christians who thought that they were engaging in a sort of reformed Judaism, and Paul Christians who thought they had broken off and formed something new. But if you ask around in churches, they'll quote the Acts passage.

MOD NOTE

Please remember that you're posting in the Christianity forum and that referring to the Christian faith as nonsense is not appropriate for this forum.

Please remember this in future postings.

Thanks for your attention.

ABC101

Don't forget Pork is a rather unforgiving meat, if it is not cooked properly one can get a serious dose of food poisoning with copious amounts of diarrhea and vomiting, dehydration and possibility of death.

Throw into the fact that they did not have refrigerators either makes storing and preparing pork tricky. Best to avoid pork for those times.

Giacomo McGubbin

dfeo wrote: »

Leviticus etc. Why do Christians eat pork ?

Because unlike yourself, they've read the rest of the bible.

There are three types of laws in the old testament.

Jewish ceremonial/religious preservation laws, the civil/sate laws of the country that once was ancient Israel, and the Moral laws.

The Jewish ceremonial / religious laws were fulfilled by Christ, the state civil laws were only relevant to that ancient country, and the Moral laws of good and evil never change.

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm simply pointing out that the reasons Christians eat pork (apart from it being very tasty) is not based on one proof text from Acts

There are probably practical reasons why one shouldn't eat pork. I recall reading a series on medical practitioners and how their insider knowledge informed their eating habits.

An oncologist commented on how he'd managed to almost cut out the eating of cured pork (ham, rashers and the like). It was hard to cut it out completely, being tasty and ubiquitous. Cancer-causing is a motivation.

And pigs are the bottom feeders of the animal world - I worked in food industry for many years and the contents of factory grease traps (containing the stinking sludge washed down the drain over weeks and sucked out by tankers) was taken away to be turned into pig feed). That the grease contained cleaning chemicals and everything else that had been washed down the drain didn't seem to act as an impediment.

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are probably practical reasons why one shouldn't eat pork. I recall reading a series on medical practitioners and how their insider knowledge informed their eating habits.

An oncologist commented on how he'd managed to almost cut out the eating of cured pork (ham, rashers and the like). It was hard to cut it out completely, being tasty and ubiquitous. Cancer-causing is a motivation.

And pigs are the bottom feeders of the animal world - I worked in food industry for many years and the contents of factory grease traps (containing the stinking sludge washed down the drain over weeks and sucked out by tankers) was taken away to be turned into pig feed). That the grease contained cleaning chemicals and everything else that had been washed down the drain didn't seem to act as an impediment.

Hmm. Good point. We shouldn't eat food that has been nourished by filthy byproducts.

Therefore I'm going to turn over a new leaf and start eating more healthily. I'm starting by cutting out vegetables (given that farmers spread manure over the fields to make the veggies grow).

antiskeptic

Nick Park wrote: »

Therefore I'm going to turn over a new leaf and start eating more healthily. I'm starting by cutting out vegetables (given that farmers spread manure over the fields to make the veggies grow).

Manure? I thought it was a concoction of man-made chemicals which is spread, which produces results far in excess of mere manure.

Indeed, a head of food technology at one factory I worked in wouldn't eat green leaf vegetables of any sort - such vegetables turning the synthetic fertilizers spread onto them into carcinogens.

It appears easier to obtain salvation through good works than it is to avoid corrupted food

homer911

antiskeptic wrote: »

Manure?

Slurry!

homer911

Nick Park wrote: »

The reason why Christians don't eat pork (and why they wear clothing of mixed fibres,...

Typo?

LeinsterDub

People like Pork and the tips of their Penis which was making it difficult to convert the Romans at the time hence the "Revelation" that it was ok to get pork and keep a hood on it

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Or Romans 14:14 - As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.

Or Romans 14:20 - All food is clean.

There is something rotten at the bottom of my dustbin which proves these verses wrong.

Giacomo McGubbin

recedite wrote: »

There is something rotten at the bottom of my dustbin which proves these verses wrong.

No it just proves you don't have any concept of Scripture or spirituality.

1123heavy

Christians eat pork because they don't follow Christ.

Many will object to the above statement, to those people I simply ask, if you put a bacon butty in front of him, would he have eaten it? We all know the answer. So how can you claim to follow him?

Now there are some arguments that in Romans and other writings of Paul that all that was unclean has been made clean etc. These arguments are put forward by Paul. They were not well received by Christ's disciples (see the fights he had with many of them).

Now the OP correctly quoted Leviticus and a law detailed from the OT. So eating pork is banned under OT law. Now, let's take a look at what Jesus said about OT law :

For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

No sarcasm intended, but you're telling me he made such an implicit statement, knowing that in a few years time he was going to change this and make a complete U-turn? hmmmmm

If you're taking your chances and want to believe that, well I take it you've considered the next verse:

So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,

His stance on OT law is as clear as day. And no it wasn't just in that context. He applied it to all eternity on earth in what he said. Don't fool yourselves please.


If it still makes sense for you that he made such an implicit statement to then plan for some guy to come along a few years later, change it (Paul had huge fights with many of his disciples over issues like these, follow him at your peril) and make a complete 180° turn in the process.

Now I hear pork is very tasty :pac::pac::pac: So tasty in fact that it seems to cause people to kid themselves in what they're going to follow and go to some extent to deny implicit statements by the man himself ... rather you than me

Nick Park

1123heavy wrote: »

For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Indeed. And the Christian position, for nearly 2000 years, is that everything was accomplished at the Cross when Jesus fulfilled the Law and died for our sins.

It isn't really hard to understand.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Indeed. And the Christian position, for nearly 2000 years, is that everything was accomplished at the Cross when Jesus fulfilled the Law and died for our sins.

It isn't really hard to understand.

How does being crucified "fulfill the Law" ?
Unless you mean the punishment for heresy under Hebrew Law, or for political subversion under Roman Law. Then the Law may have been complied with, but that's about it. Laws don't end or "get fulfilled" after one person gets sentenced. They continue on, until they are repealed or changed.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

How does being crucified "fulfill the Law" ?.

The thread title asks why Christians eat pork. So the thread is about Christian belief.

In Christian belief, the whole point of the Law was to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. This is clearly described in the New Testament in the Book of Galatians.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24)

That word 'schoolmaster' is, in Greek, a pedagogue (παιδαγωγός). This was a slave in a wealthy household whose job was to care for a male child. He accompanied the boy wherever he went, ensured that he studied and did his homework, and was even authorised to discipline the boy when he misbehaved. But, when all was said and done, the pedagogue was still a slave.
Once the boy reached maturity, the pedagogue’s work was done. It was quite common for the family to then free the pedagogue from slavery, and it was not unusual for the former guardian to continue to work for the young man as an advisor, or even to become a valued friend. But under no circumstances would the pedagogue dare to assume a position of authority over the young man after he had reached maturity. Those days were gone for ever.
So it was with the Old Testament law. The law was good and God-ordained, but once Christ came its purpose was fulfilled.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

The law was good and God-ordained, but once Christ came its purpose was fulfilled.

You are quoting Paul again in citing his letters to the Galatians.
As already mentioned, that was not the view expressed by Jesus himself....

1123heavy wrote: »

Now there are some arguments that in Romans and other writings of Paul that all that was unclean has been made clean etc. These arguments are put forward by Paul. They were not well received by Christ's disciples (see the fights he had with many of them).

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

You are quoting Paul again in citing his letters to the Galatians.

Yes, I'm quoting Paul again because the thread, in the Christianity Forum, is about why Christians eat pork. Christians believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (not just the words of Jesus) to be the Word of God.

If you want to limit discussion to a small section of the New Testament then you are in the wrong forum and the wrong thread.

1123heavy

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, I'm quoting Paul again because the thread, in the Christianity Forum, is about why Christians eat pork. Christians believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (not just the words of Jesus) to be the Word of God.

If you want to limit discussion to a small section of the New Testament then you are in the wrong forum and the wrong thread.

You seem to have missed the whole point entirely. Christ said one thing. Paul said another. Why is this if they're both meant to be singing from the same hymn sheet?

You say we should take the whole NT, both words of Christ and Paul together. Well what about when the two are not reconcilable?

There are glaring differences between what they both said, Paul comes up with a faith of his own in many of the things he says which would have seen Jesus lose it if said in front of him.

Back to the pork.

I will rephrase about why Jesus would appear to say one thing then plan for another if you were to follow Christian belief .... why would he make such an implicit statement and effectively damn to hell those who break the law for all time on earth, while he knew in a few years he was going to the cross, an action that would "fulfill the law" and render it not worth the paper it's written on according to what you're saying?

Seems like one awful time wasting exercise if you ask me.

And the disciples who actually lived with Christ did not take to what Paul was coming out with very well. Surely of all the people to understand that the law was no more, it would be them. Did they start to eat pork after the law was allegedly fulfilled?

Please let's be people of reason.

4068ac1elhodqr

Pork is a funny thing, it's said that we have such similar DNA, that their organs can often be used as spare parts or to aid transplants or in the future - harvesting. They wee piggies also need sunscreen if left out in the sunshine too long.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, I'm quoting Paul again because the thread, in the Christianity Forum, is about why Christians eat pork. Christians believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (not just the words of Jesus) to be the Word of God.

Not just the words of Jesus! All of the words, especially Paul's.
So in a direct contradiction between these two, you choose Paul's words.
Surely that makes you a Paulian then, not a Christian?

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

Not just the words of Jesus! All of the words, especially Paul's.
So in a direct contradiction between these two, you choose Paul's words.
Surely that makes you a Paulian then, not a Christian?

No, there is no direct contradiction. The two, taken together, are perfectly compatible. The law would not pass away until all things were fulfilled. All things were fulfilled when Jesus dying on the cross, shouted "It is finished!"

Rather than trying to take the words of Jesus, or Paul, out of context, Christians read the New Testament as a whole.

And, coming back to the title of the thread once more, that's why Christians eat pork.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

All things were fulfilled when Jesus dying on the cross, shouted "It is finished!"

But life went on for everyone else, so all things were not fulfilled.

For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If heaven and earth had already passed away, we wouldn't be here discussing this, would we?

1123heavy

recedite wrote: »

But life went on for everyone else, so all things were not fulfilled.

If heaven and earth had already passed away, we wouldn't be here discussing this, would we?

Nick has conveniently ignored my most recent post where I very clearly highlighted the fallacies in this belief of most Christians using concrete logic that is impossible to deny.

Jesus would likely throw a ham sambo in your face is more like reality ! Now then tell him that HE actually said you could eat it .... well that's one way to make him a very angry middle easterner !!!

Yet on Christmas day Christian households are often rife with the smell of honey roast ham. Oh the irony ...

mach1982

dfeo wrote: »

Leviticus 11



This clearly says that the flesh of swine an rabbits are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Yet many Christians eat pork and rabbit.

I anticipate getting a response telling me that Jesus came to Earth to redeem us so we are forgiven for our sins.

If that's the case, then why does Christianity still have issues with homosexuality when it only prohibits it in the Old Testament and mentions nothing in the New Testament.

Because the Old Testament was old covenant, and when at Last Supper He made a new covenant.

uck51js9zml2yt

The council in Jerusalem in Acts clearly thought that certain things which applied to Jews no longer applied to Christians.
It's clear that Paul was in in minority but was still listened and that what was agreed became common practice among the Church.
Paul in his epistle makes his position clear in saying "all things are lawful" but not all things are expedient. He was speaking in relation to eating things offered to idols ,which no self respecting Jew would do.
From other places in in the NT,Paul's writings are made comparable to scripture by Peter, so Peter being a good former Jew had no issue with the things Paul said. I'm sure he would have dealt with it if he disagreed.


If we wanted to be Jews, we wouldn't eat pork, obey the Levitical laws and would be circumcised but we're not Jews, neither are we gentiles.... we're Christians.

recedite

mach1982 wrote: »

Because the Old Testament was old covenant, and when at Last Supper He made a new covenant.

I must have missed the bit where he says "If you're wondering why we're all having ham sandwiches for our last supper, its because pork is officially OK from now on."

Mancomb Seepgood

1123heavy wrote: »

Nick has conveniently ignored my most recent post where I very clearly highlighted the fallacies in this belief of most Christians using concrete logic that is impossible to deny.

Jesus would likely throw a ham sambo in your face is more like reality ! Now then tell him that HE actually said you could eat it .... well that's one way to make him a very angry middle easterner !!!

Yet on Christmas day Christian households are often rife with the smell of honey roast ham. Oh the irony ...

Well, Jesus was a Jewish, so offering him a ham sandwich would be more than a little rude. You'd probably deserve to have it thrown in your face.

In addition to what has already been said about the early church and the Jewish dietary laws, its worth pointing out that not even the most ultra-orthodox Rabbi would consider Jewish law binding on non-Jews. There are those such as Seventh-day Adventists who don't eat pork and avoid meat in general, and Ethiopian Christians spend much of the year fasting from meat in general. And some of us are vegetarian of course. There are a few reasons to avoid pork, but to be a good Christian isn't one of them.

1123heavy

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

The council in Jerusalem in Acts clearly thought that certain things which applied to Jews no longer applied to Christians.
It's clear that Paul was in in minority but was still listened and that what was agreed became common practice among the Church.
Paul in his epistle makes his position clear in saying "all things are lawful" but not all things are expedient. He was speaking in relation to eating things offered to idols ,which no self respecting Jew would do.
From other places in in the NT,Paul's writings are made comparable to scripture by Peter, so Peter being a good former Jew had no issue with the things Paul said. I'm sure he would have dealt with it if he disagreed.


If we wanted to be Jews, we wouldn't eat pork, obey the Levitical laws and would be circumcised but we're not Jews, neither are we gentiles.... we're Christians.

We seem to have missed the part where Peter and Paul wouldn't talk to each other over doctrinal issues. Then there's Barnabus. People that actually walked with Christ himself.

And what did Jesus say or contribute at the council of Jerusalem which would suggest he is changing a stance which he implicitly stated?

Sorry but Pauline authority has no authority over what Jesus has ordained. If you believe it does, then that's fine, but I would be reconsidering calling myself a "Christ"ian if I were you. Try Paulian. As that is indeed where you get this from.

Jesus appeared after his resurrection ... I see nowhere where he has said "the laws are no more" or anything to that affect. It is all Paul. This is a fact you have to accept no matter how tasty those fry ups are !

cnocbui

dfeo wrote: »

Leviticus 11



This clearly says that the flesh of swine an rabbits are unclean and shouldn't be eaten. Yet many Christians eat pork and rabbit.

I anticipate getting a response telling me that Jesus came to Earth to redeem us so we are forgiven for our sins.

If that's the case, then why does Christianity still have issues with homosexuality when it only prohibits it in the Old Testament and mentions nothing in the New Testament.

You seem to have missed the latest update. It's been out awhile now:

Leviticus 11.9.1

And lo I say unto you, for I have seen the Fridge, and the swine of the Fridge was good, and the use-by date was good. The freezer of the Fridge I have seen likewise and it too was good, a hundredfold I say unto you, and the swine of the freezer a hundredfold in its likeness.

Please check the box to acknowledge that you have read and understand all terms and conditions and that your soul is forfeit, and eternal damnation certain, should you breach any of the said terms and conditions.

Your System Administrator.

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

We seem to have missed the part where Peter and Paul wouldn't talk to each other over doctrinal issues. Then there's Barnabus. People that actually walked with Christ himself.

And what did Jesus say or contribute at the council of Jerusalem which would suggest he is changing a stance which he implicitly stated?

Sorry but Pauline authority has no authority over what Jesus has ordained. If you believe it does, then that's fine, but I would be reconsidering calling myself a "Christ"ian if I were you. Try Paulian. As that is indeed where you get this from.

Jesus appeared after his resurrection ... I see nowhere where he has said "the laws are no more" or anything to that affect. It is all Paul. This is a fact you have to accept no matter how tasty those fry ups are !

If I wanted to become a Jew , I could have just converted to Judaism.

Can you show me where Jesus implicitly stated that we had to abstain from pork....and how about circumcision?

1123heavy

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

If I wanted to become a Jew , I could have just converted to Judaism.

Can you show me where Jesus implicitly stated that we had to abstain from pork....and how about circumcision?

He implicitly stated we should NEVER change any part of the law.

One part of the law was to not eat pork.

Another part was that the males shall be circumcised.

I'm not trying to be a sarcy little <snip> but it really is very simple.

If I wanted to become a Jew , I could have just converted to Judaism.

Therein lies a key problem. Christians have this very ironic belief that practically everything Jesus taught does not apply to them ... "it's for the Jews" mentaility. Yet Jesus himself was a Jew by their own admission, so surely in following Jesus you would be following his faith and what he taught and lived his life by. Not some contradictory teaching from a man who never met Jesus.

I mean no disrespect but I really do get a sore head at the blatant leaps in logic that Christians use to justify their beliefs.

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

He implicitly stated we should NEVER change any part of the law.

One part of the law was to not eat pork.

Another part was that the males shall be circumcised.

I'm not trying to be a sarcy little <snip> but it really is very simple.

HE also said that He was the fulfillment of the law.
If its fulfilled, it needs nothing more.


The law also said to build cities of refuge and to stone adulterers... should we also do these things?...after all...its the law!

1123heavy

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

HE also said that He was the fulfillment of the law.
If its fulfilled, it needs nothing more.


The law also said to build cities of refuge and to stone adulterers... should we also do these things?...after all...its the law!

Jesus went to the money traders and flipped the tables up on them. I don't think he would have been the type to "modernise" any laws because the year happens to be 2016. You either take it all or leave it all. Just because it may not suit you doesn't mean Jesus would hesitate to apply it, because you know as well as I do that he wouldn't.

This fulfillment of the law. So what laws qualify to be disregarded? Will the RCC now allow divorce for example? You pick and choose what laws were "fulfilled". Flawed logic.

Christ was clear. His teachings were clear. If you want to deviate then that's your choice, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're following Christ. And again, did the disciples begin eating pork? Would Jesus, if he appeared today, eat pork? You can bet your house he would't ...

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

Jesus went to the money traders and flipped the tables up on them. I don't think he would have been the type to "modernise" any laws because the year happens to be 2016. You either take it all or leave it all. Just because it may not suit you doesn't mean Jesus would hesitate to apply it, because you know as well as I do that he wouldn't.

This fulfillment of the law. So what laws qualify to be disregarded? Will the RCC now allow divorce for example? You pick and choose what laws were "fulfilled". Flawed logic.

Christ was clear. His teachings were clear. If you want to deviate then that's your choice, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're following Christ. And again, did the disciples begin eating pork? Would Jesus, if he appeared today, eat pork? You can bet your house he would't ...

You didnt answer my question?

1123heavy

Bennett Melted Laser wrote: »

You didnt answer my question?

If you claim to follow Christ, you would advocate for all the laws that he did. I thought I got the point across in my previous post. Does that answer you?

uck51js9zml2yt

1123heavy wrote: »

If you claim to follow Christ, you would advocate for all the laws that he did. I thought I got the point across in my previous post. Does that answer you?

No it doesn't. Answer the question. Yes or No.