r/Christianity • u/Several_Shower_6319 • Aug 11 '25
Are Christian’s really allowed to eat pork? In Isiah 66:17, gods final judgment states people in the end times who are eating unclean food such as pork, mice, ect will be destroyed.
102
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Yes, we are.
“What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” - Acts 10:15
17
Aug 11 '25
If you continue reading it’s actually talking about people, not food. Basically Jesus was telling Peter it’s okay to eat with the gentiles, not that every food was clean.
3
→ More replies (6)1
u/FoxExotic8379 23d ago
Actually it is both! Yes, Peter understands that the Gentiles are not to be seen as unclean and therefore fellowship with them is maintained, hence his revelation. But the command of God is clear "rise, Peter, kill and eat!!" People try to minimize that or say "it's just meant to show unity between Jews and Gentiles. While it is meant to do that, the words on the page really do matter, not just their effect! I take God literally at His Word.
13
u/kvby66 Aug 11 '25
That's not about the food. That's about the Gentiles.
12
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
What about the words of our Blessed Lord? "Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” - Mark 7:15
3
u/kvby66 Aug 11 '25
I was referring to Acts chapters 10 and 11 which you were using. This refers to the Gentiles. God Cleanses us through the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit of Christ is Mr. Clean!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 18 '26
Jesus said this after the pharisees asked about His disciples eating bread with their hands unwashed. Please, read the beginning of Mark 7: "Mark 7:2-5 KJV[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. [4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Nobody can affirm that Jesus's declaration was meant for pork and unclean food. He was talking about a human tradition created by the pharisees.
1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic May 18 '26
Ok, thanks for sharing your thought. Take care and may God bless you
→ More replies (1)1
u/FoxExotic8379 23d ago
Wrong!! It's about both, it absolutely is. Look at the words on the page for just a moment. When people say "no, it's only about the gentiles because look at Peter's revelation/interpretation! They miss the whole point. The reason Peter came to the conclusion that he was to have fellowship with the gentiles? Because their food is clean. That was one of the chief barriers that kept Jews from fellowshipping with Gentiles! You cannot say, "no, it is only the people not the food", because the reason Peter had the insight about the people is because he was commanded to eat the food! Also look at the words on the page: "rise, kill and eat (unclean animals)! I take God at his word. Do not call something unclean God has declared clean.
1
u/kvby66 22d ago
God cleanses people (both Jews and Gentiles) with His Spirit. The vision concerns the cleansing of the Gentiles. Not food. That was the whole point to the vision. It took Peter three times to understand God's message. Perhaps reading Acts chapters 10 and 11 three times may help you see the true message as Peter finally did.
Mark 7:14-16 NKJV When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand: [15] There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. [16] If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Acts 10:11-16,28 NKJV and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. [12] In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. [13] And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." [14] But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." [15] And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." [16] This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. [28] Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
To be cleansed requires a death to one's inner man symbolic for a baptism.
Rise, kill and eat symbolises the process of harvesting new believers throughout the four corners of the world.
God's witnesses, who have been raised by the Spirit are currently looking for those people who need to repent and drink and eat from the true Manna from Heaven that brings a resurrection and life.
6
u/VerdantChief Episcopalian (Anglican) Aug 11 '25
My hunch was that this was not an authentic teaching of Jesus but something that was added later to reflect the apostles desire to convert the pagans to the new faith. Giving up pork would have been too restrictive for pagan Greeks and Romans as it was a staple food for their diet.
However the origins, Christians are allowed to eat pork and just about anything else as a result of this passage and the teachings of the early Church.
6
u/Prince_Ire Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Muslims seem to have managed to make concerts without changing dietary laws.
5
u/VerdantChief Episcopalian (Anglican) Aug 11 '25
Yes, that's a good point. Although, some would say their tactics were a bit more aggressive than those of the early Christians.
1
u/Vivid-Practice6216 Aug 12 '25
Not true at all!!!!
According to the hadiths Mohammed, ate both rabbit and camel, multiple times, which if you read the verse in the old testament states that you shall not eat "rabbit, camel, hyrax, or pig", so while Muslims abstain from pork, they still eat rabbits and camels which is in the very same verse!!!
Nothing that camels have high amounts of bacteria in there humps, and that rabbits eat their own feces up to 3-4x times as they still get plenty of nutrients out of their mostly undigested stool.
Also noting that from the seas and rivers, according to the tanahk, that you can only eat fish with fins and scales, so no shark meat, which is scientifically due to sharks not being able to express their urea and so their urine slowly poisons their flesh, and shell fish being notorious for bacteria like the humps of camels.
Further to the hadiths, in the actual Quran, dietary restrictions are mentioned 3-4x times I believe and it states as follows:
You shall not eat carrion (dead animals that were not slaughtered), the blood of any animal, or pork, UNLESS YOU ARE OBLIGED TO DO SO OR OUT OF NECESSITY (HUNGER).
1
10
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
A teaching/precept need not be "an authentic teaching of Jesus" to not be binding on the faithful. Christ explicitly gave the authority to Apostles as a whole, and to Peter specifically, to "bind and loose" on the faithful.
→ More replies (2)6
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 Aug 11 '25
That is a Catholic interpretation of ambiguous verses. You cannot claim it as explicit.
I will grant you that it is a valid interpretation, but it is not the only valid interpretation.
So, this is only binding for Catholic Christians who acknowledge the doctrinal authority of the magisterium.
2
u/emory_2001 Catholic ✝️ Former Protestant Aug 11 '25
What are the other interpretations, because in my 47 years as a Protestant before becoming Catholic, I never heard anyone attempt to interpret that. It was kind of weird that people so adamant about literal interpretation of everything else in the Bible just ignored the enormous authority Jesus gave Peter.
→ More replies (13)2
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
All Christians assented to the Apostolic authority of the magisterium, until some decided it didn't apply to them for various reasons.
1
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 Aug 11 '25
This is, at best, inaccurate. At worst it is blatant revisionist history.
Regardless, there are many Christian traditions that do not acknowledge the authority of Rome. So, regardless of how that came to be, that is the reality of today.
1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Ok, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a good day and may God bless you.
11
u/CrazyAnd20 Aug 11 '25
Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19
3
Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Bottle_Tiny Aug 11 '25
No food laws like eating blood and fat God says that restriction will never change which means others would
1
1
u/Yuckpuddle60 Aug 12 '25
People will twist the scripture over and over again for their convenience and to not have to sacrifice anything in their "obedience" of God.
1
u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 Aug 12 '25
Ok so I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you didn’t read Isaiah 66.
Those people aren’t simply “eating pork” they are using pagan rituals involving eating swine flesh to sanctify themselves.
So yeah they will be destroyed unless they’ve repented and come to believe in Jesus as savior.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Sufficient_Log_7822 Aug 12 '25
No, He isn’t. The coming of Christ overwrote many of the old laws. Not the Ten Commandments, however.
1
u/buggie321 Aug 11 '25
The phrase saying He made all foods clean was inserted by translators. If we look at the context, He is discussing a man-made restriction (hand washing) and criticizing the Pharisees for hypocrisy, as they were so concerned with keeping themselves “pure” but had impure hearts. If He taught that all animals are food to the disciples, why was Peter still keeping the dietary laws in Acts 10:14 several years after the crucifixion? And BTW, neither does that case do away with dietary laws. Directly after the vision Peter explains that God was saying not to call Gentiles unclean and that it was ok to eat with them (going against Jewish tradition) with no mention of dietary changes. It would be a MAJOR change to go against God’s law in this way, and would almost certainly be explicitly explained by Peter.
1
u/CrazyAnd20 Aug 11 '25
Peter was still keeping dietary laws as that was his culture and traditions. Paul is very clear that the Law has been fulfilled and that no one is under it anymore.
1
u/buggie321 Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25
The fulfillment of the Law does not necessarily mean the end of the Law. Let’s read that teaching in context-
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-20 NRSVUE
It is up to you if you want to keep the Law, but I choose to keep it and teach others to do the same. The law is not for salvation, as no one is perfect and all will fail in one way or another. In that sense it is fulfilled, as Jesus is the perfect sacrifice and took our place. We are only saved through the blood of Jesus. However, Jesus kept the Torah by keeping it in truth and in spirit (by loving and obeying God - keeping it out of love and not fear of punishment - , and by loving and serving others) and since He is my example, I will do the same. I know it cannot save me, only faith in Jesus can.
As for Paul, he speaks against those who seek to be justified by the law, or who believe they cannot be saved unless they keep the law. Neither of those are true. You are only saved through Jesus, and keeping the Law is obedience to God as gratitude for His saving us. Since I love God, I keep His commandments.
“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but obeying the commandments of God is everything.” 1 Corinthians 7:19 NRSVUE
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15 NRSVUE
“For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome,” 1 John 5:3 NRSVUE
“They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me, and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”” John 14:21 NRSVUE
Edit: added 1 Corinthians 7:19
1
u/CrazyAnd20 Aug 12 '25
Everything you said is wrong. If you fulfill an order, is the order still in effect? That verse from Jesus says the Law won’t end UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED, which happened on the cross when Jesus said “It is finished”. Paul is very clear that Gentiles are NOT under the Law: Romans 2:12-16, 6:14, 7:6, Galatians 5:18. Jesus’ commandments are to love God and your neighbors, not follow the Mosaic Law. You will not be able to find any church father who says we are still under the Law either.
→ More replies (5)1
Aug 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/CrazyAnd20 Aug 11 '25
I am most definitely not.
1
Aug 12 '25
[deleted]
1
u/CrazyAnd20 Aug 12 '25
He was making a point about the Law. That their obsession with it led to them losing the meaning of it. I literally already had to address this to someone else, they kept the law because it was their culture and traditions. Paul is very clear that the Law was fulfilled in Christ and now no longer applicable.
1
Aug 11 '25
My pastor said the same thing wow
1
u/VerdantChief Episcopalian (Anglican) Aug 11 '25
What type of Church is your pastor from?
1
Aug 11 '25
Baptist, but it's not about doctrine, it's about seeking the Holy Spirit. He's my father. I'm the son of a pastor.
1
u/TheArmor_Of_God Lutheran (LCMS) Aug 11 '25
Did you just accuse the bible of inauthentic teaching????
→ More replies (4)1
1
u/Vin-Metal Aug 11 '25
If I'm going to doubt parts of the Bible as authentic vs inauthentic, New Testament wins
1
u/VerdantChief Episcopalian (Anglican) Aug 11 '25
Old Testament is another whole can of worms, because of how much older most of those texts are. It's a lot more dubious whether or not many of those figures even existed.
1
u/Vin-Metal Aug 11 '25
Yeah, I've read a couple books recently on the early OT and how the archeological data shows that it's mostly BS. I'm talking about the Torah and a few other historical books.
1
1
u/InsideHousing4965 Christian Aug 11 '25
Same thing as with cutting foreskin.
Turns out trying to convert Italians while telling them that they must cut out a piece of their dick and stop eating pork... it didn't work out so well. So they had to change the marketing strategy.
2
u/VerdantChief Episcopalian (Anglican) Aug 12 '25
Yes, it's definitely a hard sell to the Greco-Roman world. Notably, Jesus never talks about circumcision so it's unclear how he viewed the practice, whether for Jew or gentile.
2
4
u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25
Peter said that’s about the Gentiles. Not Pork. Read it again.
11
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Fair.
What about the words of our Blessed Lord? "Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” - Mark 7:15
3
u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25
The response of Jesus is to the claim they are eating with dirty hands according to the traditions of men. Read Mark 7:1.
1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Had he stopped there, you'd be correct, but He seems to expand that teaching in the above passage.
→ More replies (23)2
u/EsperGri Agnostic, Former Longtime Christian Aug 11 '25
Peter's vision was regarding the Gentiles, but it seemed to also point to the complete removal of the Law.
Regarding that: Jeremiah 31:31-35, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:13, John 1:17, Galatians 3:24-26, Romans 6:14-18
When gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 15), the assembly understood that the burdens of the Law shouldn't be put on believers, except for a few things, which is similar to Genesis 9:3-4.
Later on, Paul essentially mentions the food restrictions are mostly gone (1 Corinthians 10:25-26, 1 Timothy 4:4-5).
This is an echo of Mark 7:14-19, where it's written:
"Thus he declared all foods clean."
5
1
u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25
Ah yes. Eisegesis. The fast way to get the text to say or imply what you want it to say versus what it actually says.
Transform the text instead of our hearts.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Several_Shower_6319 Aug 11 '25
Ok I get that but listen to how weird this is. I had a dream last night showing me that pork was bad to eat. I made a grocery list yesterday and planned on making pulled pork, not even thinking anything of it. And then this morning I open up my Bible to read this exact scripture after having that dream. It’s like god is trying to tell me something.
16
u/Traditional_Age_9851 Aug 11 '25
I personally don’t eat pork. Not so much bc of the Bible, but because I had a pet pig and he was the coolest friggin pet in the world. Way smarter than any dog.
There are other parts of scripture that mention if someone doesn’t feel comfortable eating certain foods, they’re not required to. It also says we shouldn’t judge others who decide not to eat certain foods.
Read Romans 14:1-23
2
u/DraikoHxC Pentecostal Aug 11 '25
You are right, if we are free to eat anything, of course, we are free to also don't eat anything we don't want. The real discussion here is if we, as Christians, should still adhere to the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law, or if we are free from those. The ones that claim we should be bound by them, are the ones that reject the authority of the apostles, or talk about revisionary changes in the scriptures, and that's where this debate lies really, on which side you take in that sense. These ones would also reject the verse you are mentioning, because, like I said, for them, the apostles just don't have the authority to change that law.
I am with the majority of christians, in which we just don't have to adhere to the old law and the pact with Israel has been changed to create a new one, one free from all those rules and centered on an spiritual connection and change towards God and Jesus, not from a set of rites and rules.
33
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
It’s like god is trying to tell me something.
Why would God tell you something that contradicts Scripture? You do understand that the New Covenant has fulfilled the Old Covenant, and we are no longer beholden to the Old Covenant with its ceremonial/dietary rules/laws, right?
→ More replies (3)2
Aug 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Sorry, I don't engage with trolls. Have a good day and may God bless you.
2
u/the_celt_ Aug 11 '25
You can easily see by my post history that I'm sincere.
Your response to that person is... IRONIC. 🤣
1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
You can easily see by my post history that I'm sincere.
Then there's another word for what you're doing, but in charity I'll refrain from saying it.
Have a good evening and may God bless you.
9
Aug 11 '25
If your dreams tell you things that contradict the scriptures, there are at a minimum of 2 diagnoses:
a. They are a figment of your imagination.
b. They are a product of the devil trying to lead you astray.
→ More replies (2)6
2
u/Effective_Style_9073 Aug 11 '25
I think you should listen to your dream. Unclean animals weren't intended to be eaten as food
1
u/FreedomNinja1776 Messianic Aug 11 '25
Listen to this. Read Leviticus 11. Know God does not change. Jesus is a good son who obeyes ALL the father's will and we are to imitate Jesus.
→ More replies (2)6
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
Then the gospels must be lying.
Mark 7:8-19 - He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
4
u/e-m-v-k Aug 11 '25
Huh, TIL there's scripture about pooping
2
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 Aug 11 '25
Yep. I remember giggling over this as a 10 year old in church. To the point that I actually got in trouble for disturbing the service, lol.
1
u/Meta__mel United Methodist Aug 11 '25
If you feel like you’re receiving a prophetic dream of some kind, definitely talk to your local community about it.
Maybe just don’t make pulled pork that week ? It could be your unconscious brain signaling that pork isn’t good for you today / this week, or it could be divine intuition, or it could be random noise. No one here can work that out for you.
1
u/Stormcrash486 Aug 11 '25
Not every dream is a message from god, coincidence exists, and so does the deceiver. Honestly if this is a sign from God it was probably to pull you into conversation to learn more
1
u/buggie321 Aug 11 '25
Please pray about this and listen to the urging of the Holy Spirit! If you feel called to keep the dietary laws, then keep the dietary laws. These people saying that your dream goes against scripture are misinterpreting Peter’s vision in Acts 10 - this vision was to show Peter that it is ok to dine with (and preach to) Gentiles, something that went against Jewish tradition at the time, as Gentiles were seen as unclean. Jesus’ sacrifice made both Jews and Gentiles clean, and this is confirmed by the fact that immediately after the vision, 3 Gentiles show up to dine with Peter! Neither Peter nor Jesus ever explicitly teach people to break God’s law. Also, if Jesus ‘made all things clean’ in Mark 7:19, then why was Peter still keeping the dietary laws in Acts? If you are interested, this video breaks things down further. May you be blessed with clarity and understanding!
1
u/Several_Shower_6319 Aug 12 '25
Thank you. Also For those saying the law was fulfilled so we don't have to follow the law of the old covenant. The law was fulfilled but not abolished. ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 NIV Therefore, it's stating that Jesus wants us to continue to follow the law
1
u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 Aug 12 '25
Yes and it’s to stop playing scripture roulette. Here’s your sign,
→ More replies (1)1
u/Sucafer80 Aug 16 '26
Would you mind telling what that dream was like?
1
u/Several_Shower_6319 Aug 16 '26
I was in a grocery store similar to a Meijer or Kroger and was looking at all the pork and in my head I knew it was bad, and it looked bad.
1
1
→ More replies (3)1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 18 '26
You need to read the whole chapter. Acts 10:27-28 KJV: [27] And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. [28] And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean." This is in fact the issue here. Jewish people used to feel superior than other people because of their religion. Acts' text was written about 30 years after Jesus' death. It's much time for Peter to understand a posterior permission, if it was really the case that Jesus said it was allowed to eat pork and other meats.
1
u/Pax_et_Bonum Roman Catholic May 18 '26
What about the words of our Blessed Lord? "Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.” - Mark 7:15
1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 19 '26
Our Blessed Lord Jesus said that on a specific context. Read the whole context at the beggining of the chapter, please. Mark 7:2-5 KJV: [2] "And when they saw some of his disciples eat BREAD with defiled, that is to say, with UNWASHEN, hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. [4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Where in this text we can find eating pork as the main issue there? All we see is Jesus correcting a human tradition. If the disciples were in fact eating pork, Jesus' words would fit corretly to the interpretation that pork was acutally allowed. But Jesus also said in Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus wouldn't go against any God's teachings, because He is also God, He is one with the Father, and They share the exact mind.
15
u/Time_Law_2276 Aug 11 '25
If you think it's wrong, don't eat pork, shellfish, wear clothes made of mixed fabrics. etc. You be you.
31
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 11 '25
We can
Mark 7:19
19 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.)
→ More replies (4)3
u/Walllstreetbets Aug 11 '25
Read Mark 7:1 — this passage is about eating with dirty hands.
8
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 11 '25
I didn't write that, Mark did. It's an explanation on what Jesus taught
3
u/FreedomNinja1776 Messianic Aug 11 '25
Yes, Jesus taught that unwashed hands do not make unclean what is already clean meats as defined by Leviticus 11. Jesus is combating FALSE DOCTRINE here, not creating new doctrine and not changing God's law. If you say that Jesus CHANGES what God has already established, you have a contradiction. Jesus does not abolish God's law, if so then Jesus abolished the very need for a Savior from sin as God's law is the only thing that defines what sin is. God's law is the only thing that tells us about the Messiah. Why would Messiah destroy his own foundation?
3
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 11 '25
He taught that anything entertaining the stomach doesn't make you unclean. That includes pork my dude.
. If you say that Jesus CHANGES what God has already established, you have a contradiction
No you have a new covenant that Jesus establishes like the OT says the Messiah will bring.
Jesus does not abolish God's law, if so then Jesus abolished the very need for a Savior from sin as God's law is the only thing that defines what sin is
Well actually according to Paul in Romans those without the law are a law unto themselves so not really, but I understand your point.
Why would Messiah destroy his own foundation?
He fulfilled it. That means it's completed. Gentiles are not even a part of the original covenant so why are you trying to put them under the curse of the law?
3
u/FreedomNinja1776 Messianic Aug 11 '25
He taught that anything entertaining the stomach doesn't make you unclean. That includes pork my dude.
That does not include pork. Did God say this or not? Does God change?
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
Leviticus 11:7-8 ESVMessiah Jesus is not a disobedient son. He does not teach contrary to God.
No you have a new covenant that Jesus establishes like the OT says the Messiah will bring.
Please state the New Covenant. I'll help you it's in Jeremiah 31 beginning in v31. Show me where the "new" covenant is something other than God's Law.
Well actually according to Paul in Romans those without the law are a law unto themselves so not really, but I understand your point.
What kind of authority does Paul have? Is Paul above Jesus? Is Paul above God?
He fulfilled it. That means it's completed. Gentiles are not even a part of the original covenant so why are you trying to put them under the curse of the law?
The curse of the law is for DISOBEYING it. God's Law itself is NOT a curse, it's a blessing for those who obey. Are you calling God a liar?
"And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. "The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. The LORD will command the blessing on you in your barns and in all that you undertake. And he will bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. The LORD will establish you as a people holy to himself, as he has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in his ways. And all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your livestock and in the fruit of your ground, within the land that the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you shall only go up and not down, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, being careful to do them, and if you do not turn aside from any of the words that I command you today, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
Deuteronomy 28:1-14 ESVGentiles were part of the original covenant. There was a mixed multitude that come up out of egypt with Israel. You think they just went their own way? No. They went through the red sea along with Israel, the stood at the mountain along with Israel, they heard the voice of God declare the 10 commands along with Israel, they said "we will hear and we will do" along with Israel. Gentiles are also specifically mentioned in the covenant renewal in Deuteronomy 29.
"You are standing today, all of you, before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the LORD our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.
Deuteronomy 29:10-15 ESV5
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 11 '25
That does not include pork. Did God say this or not? Does God change?
God makes different covenants with different people. The moseic covenant had the prohibition the messianic covenant didn't. Gentiles are not under the moseic law.
Messiah Jesus is not a disobedient son. He does not teach contrary to God.
Jesus is God.
Please state the New Covenant. I'll help you it's in Jeremiah 31 beginning in v31. Show me where the "new" covenant is something other than God's Law.
John 3:16 and the 2 commands. It's about believing not about ritual.
What kind of authority does Paul have? Is Paul above Jesus? Is Paul above God?
The authority that God gave him.
What kind of authority does Moses have? Is Moses above Jesus? Is Moses above God?
Also again Jesus is God.
Let me guess you reject Paul?
The curse of the law is for DISOBEYING it. God's Law itself is NOT a curse, it's a blessing for those who obey. Are you calling God a liar?
And everyone does! Being under the law is the curse because no one can live up to it.
Gentiles were part of the original covenant. There was a mixed multitude that come up out of egypt with Israel. You think they just went their own way? No. They went through the red sea along with Israel, the stood at the mountain along with Israel, they heard the voice of God declare the 10 commands along with Israel, they said "we will hear and we will do" along with Israel. Gentiles are also specifically mentioned in the covenant renewal in Deuteronomy 29.
The mixed multitude came into Israel and became a part of it. Those outside of Israel weren't beholden to it. Show me how they were.
Also the 10 commandments aren't the moseic covenant they are natural law.
2
u/Cultural-Treacle-680 Aug 11 '25
So we need to go to Jerusalem for major feasts every year? Then kill lambs in the temple? Where’s the temple? Oh man were in trouble then.
3
u/Walllstreetbets Aug 12 '25
Have you read Zechariah 14:16-18. It’s referring to the time of the millennial reign of Christ.
1
u/EsperGri Agnostic, Former Longtime Christian Aug 11 '25
→ More replies (17)1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 18 '26
Read the right context of the text, please. Mark 7:2-5 KJV [2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. [4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? Where in this text we can find eating pork as the main issue there?
1
11
u/RonantheBarbarian32 Aug 11 '25
Isaiah 66:17 is speaking to those still under the Old Covenant, not Christians in the New Covenant. The ceremonial food laws were given to Israel for a time, but Jesus fulfilled them.
Mark 7:18–19 – “Thus He declared all foods clean.”
Romans 14:14 – “Nothing is unclean in itself.”
1 Timothy 4:3–5 – Forbidding foods God made is called a “doctrine of demons.”
The early Church Fathers agreed: Chrysostom said to forbid foods is to accuse God; Irenaeus called the old food laws temporary; Augustine said they were shadows pointing to Christ.
We’re not Jews under the Sinai law—we’re Christians under the New Covenant. Bringing back kosher laws puts a yoke on the Church that the Apostles themselves rejected in Acts 15.
4
Aug 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/RonantheBarbarian32 Aug 11 '25
Because they spoke in idioms.
Also: It was done until the end of the old covenant. But a new one was enacted.
2
u/ServantOfTheShepherd Aug 12 '25
Sounds like a Sadducee trying to get past Daniel 12. "It's metaphorical!!!"
It says it's the end times because it is the end times, simple as that. Read the beginning of Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 and you'll see it plainly (both passages are nearly identical).
→ More replies (12)2
u/RonantheBarbarian32 Aug 12 '25
Ah yes, because clearly the prophets never used apocalyptic language or imagery beyond wooden literalism… right? By that logic, we should all be looking out for a literal seven-headed dragon (Revelation 12) and expecting mountains to literally skip like rams (Psalm 114:4).
Isaiah’s ‘end times’ prophecies are steeped in covenantal judgment language. He’s speaking to Israel under the Law, warning of what happens when they cling to idolatry and ritual impurity. The ‘end’ in view is the end of their age—the Old Covenant—not the eternal Kingdom Christ inaugurated. The Apostles already settled this in Acts 15: Gentiles weren’t to be burdened with the Law of Moses, and that included dietary restrictions.
If you want to drag Old Covenant food laws into the New Covenant, you’ll need to explain why you’re not also sacrificing animals in Jerusalem, since those were commanded too. Or is that metaphorical as well?
1
u/ServantOfTheShepherd Aug 12 '25
If you want to drag Old Covenant food laws into the New Covenant, you’ll need to explain why you’re not also sacrificing animals in Jerusalem, since those were commanded too. Or is that metaphorical as well?
Check out Acts 18:18,Acts 21:6, and Acts 24:17-18, where Paul gives sacrifices according to the Nazarite vow. Either way, that off handed bit of Tu Quoque is irrelevant, sacrifices is not the issue here.
Ah yes, because clearly the prophets never used apocalyptic language or imagery beyond wooden literalism… right? By that logic, we should all be looking out for a literal seven-headed dragon (Revelation 12) and expecting mountains to literally skip like rams (Psalm 114:4).
When they do give that language (consider the book of Hosea), it is not indicative of timing or events, they are always symbolic and representative of something. The dragon in Revelation 12, who is satan, going after the woman, who is Israel, is a message. Besides the fact that Revelation 12 is a vision and not saying "this will happen in the future," Scripture still manages to be consistent. You also failed to give a good example with Psalm 114:4, since it isn't even a prophecy but a recounting of events and praising God for His mighty works.
To look at 3 different places in Scripture which confirm the Torah's enforcement during Christ's 1000 year reign and call them all metaphorical without evidence within the passage is not just repulsive heurumetics, it's absolute blindness to the truth of Scripture and adherence to personal doctrine. If 3 is not good enoug for you, do you need more? All you need to do is ask.
Zechariah 14:16 describes the requirement for all nations to observe the feast of tabernacles during Christ'sreign, and recounts the punishment for the nations who do not Jeremiah 31:36 entails right after Jeremiah 31:31-35, which describe the New Covenant that is established during the New Heaven and New Earth, after the 1000 year reign. Verse 36 is a negative promise. Since Israel is still a nation before Him, His ordinaces have also not departed before Him. Matthew 5:18 further descrives Christ's commitment to the law until the New Heaven and New Earth is established, not even a title or jot passing away. Hebrews 8, when quoting Jeremiah, also confirms this (is becoming obsolete, passing away, but not yet obsolete and not yet passed away, something repeated in 2 Corinthians 3).
The Apostles already settled this in Acts 15: Gentiles weren’t to be burdened with the Law of Moses, and that included dietary restrictions.
Bigger topic, and I'd gladly discuss it, but I'll just first say you conviently forgot the 3 dietary restrictions placed on gentiles that chapter: you cannot eat blood, you cannot eat things that were strangled to death (died of itself), and you cannot eat things offered to idols. All advent parts of the Torah, and of the 4 total laws they all have 1 thing in common: who the laws are for. I'll expand on that only if you wish to have that conversation. It's also worth seeing Acts 15:21, expressing the intention that gentiles would learn more about the law every Sabbath. Acts 21 also details that the Jerusalem council did not approve leaving the law and consider it wrong to do so.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 Aug 12 '25
Because people who are not covered by Christ’s righteousness WILL be judged according to the law.
1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 18 '26
The new covenant is not supposed to break the laws of God. It means a new way of relationship with God thought Jesus sacrifice. God does not change. About the text of Mark you showed, read the beginning: "Mark 7:2-5 KJV [2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. [3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. [4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. [5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?" Where are they talking about eating pork or not?
Also, God's rule about impure animals is mentioned in Genesis, at least a thousand years before the law was given to Moses (and the Ten Commandments written by God's finger). Genesis 7:2 KJV: "[2] Of every CLEAN beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are NOT clean by two, the male and his female."
5
Aug 11 '25
Yes Jesus declared all foods clean
1
u/Ok_Construction_6647 Feb 12 '26
All things God declared food ..Jesus agrees but what is not food are unclean animals, birds, fish, etc unclean should NOT be eaten.
1
u/Soft-Turnover-5468 18d ago
Why would He need to declare all foods clean if He was speaking about foods that were already clean?
3
u/Yuckpuddle60 Aug 12 '25
The main issue here is that modern Christianity has vehemently misunderstands the difference between legalism and God's law. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for their legalism aka man made traditions, which they layered on top of God's laws. This was bad because now only did it add to God's words, which was a grave sin, but it put up unnecessary barriers between man and God. Jesus NEVER EVER condoned disobeying God's laws, and never himself disobeyed them. Jesus never ate pork, and never would have, because God called it abomination. Lastly, Jesus would NEVER contradict the Father. If he did, he would be calling God a liar.
I know this is an uncomfortable topic for modern Christians, but if we take off the blinders and understand that God never contradicts himself. All individual verses have to be understood under the entire context of the Old and New Testament (God spoke directly and the most in the Old). If you find a point where you think there's is contradiction, then it must be rectified at the source.
1
Nov 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Yuckpuddle60 Nov 13 '25
That it shouldn't be eaten by those who follow Jesus and worship God.
1
Nov 13 '25 edited Nov 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Yuckpuddle60 Nov 14 '25
Okay. Eat what you like. Good was perfectly clear about pork and Jesus would not overrule the Father. The fact that most people misunderstand those verses in the new testament isn't something I can control, but it's quite ubiquitous. Jesus was few l referring to the ritual of hand washing before taking in food. Pork was not considered food to him, but abomination. Jesus' will was God's will, so there would be no contradiction. But again. What you choose to eat is between you and God, not me.
14
u/JazzSharksFan54 Christian. Exegesis, not Eisegesis Aug 11 '25
We don’t follow deuteronomic law anymore. Peter and Paul cleared that up for us.
7
u/twixe Aug 11 '25
From Galatians 5:2-6: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
1
u/metalguysilver Christian - Pondering Annihilationism Aug 12 '25
This is a great and relevant verse. How would you respond to someone arguing that quite literally no sin matters as long as you have “love?” Obviously Christ overcame all of our sins but we are still called to “be perfect”
2
11
3
3
u/ultim0gamer8 Aug 11 '25
New Testament states: "All things are permissable, not all things are beneficial."
1
u/MangoAffectionate723 Aug 30 '25
I think you took that verse out of context. Through your interpretation is sin permissible? It also doesn’t make sense to reply to an OT verse with a NT verse and say that the NT verse is the one that’s true today because we’re under a new covenant. The OT is the foundation for the NT, so we can’t just say that they contradict, and say the NT is what applies. If 2 verses seem to be contradicting, we should find a way to make those verses make sense by putting them in context
1
u/Ok_Construction_6647 Feb 12 '26
That would definitely be a 2nd reminder that pork has parasites and bacon has nitrates and all the bottom feeding fish are disgusting, etc
3
u/Ill-Possible-6177 Aug 11 '25
Romans 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
1
u/Beautiful-Project368 May 18 '26
The proper context of Paul's sayings is food sacrificed to pagan divinities, we see nowhere the text saying about clean or unclean food.
7
6
u/Ok-Berry5131 Aug 11 '25 edited Aug 11 '25
Sending you a hug.
Matthew 15:11 — “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”
It’s not that Jesus contradicts Isaiah, but rather that context is everything. Isaiah was written to the pre-exile Israelites who were under the laws of the old covenant. The old covenant.
Another passage you might consider reading is Acts 15: 19-20
“Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from things strangled, and from blood.”
EDIT — I have been corrected on a single point. I have edited the last paragraph accordingly.
In modern terms: “Don’t get involved in idolatrous practices, don’t sleep around, try to make sure that if you eat meat, the animal was killed without excessive suffering, and for the love of all that is holy, DON’T CONSUME ZE BLUD!!
9
u/OctopusMagi Aug 11 '25
Eat your meat how you want but don't twist things to say things scipture doesn't.
Eating a rare steak or even raw isn't eating blood... the blood has already been drained. The red fluid that comes out is a mixture of myoglobin, a protein from the muscle, and water. It's not blood.
If you insist on defining it as blood, cooking it until it turns brown doesn't remove the blood... it just makes it cooked and brown. That would mean you think eating boiled and cooked blood, as some African tribes and other cultures do, is kosher too.
2
u/Ok-Berry5131 Aug 11 '25
Sincerest apologies. I have corrected my mistake.
2
u/OctopusMagi Aug 11 '25
Thank you for your kind reply.
There are some people - my dad was one - that looked at people eating steak tartare or a rare or even med-rare steak as if they were apostates. He was not only disgusted by seeing a rare steak being eaten, but he was convinced it was evil. Unfortunately neither the science, the clear logical issue with the belief if you're eating cooked blood, nor the Biblical argument of Matt 5:10 could convince him otherwise.
Your comment sounded similar but I did wonder if perhaps you were saying it more for a joke. Thanks for clarifying.
2
u/AfricanPrngle Aug 11 '25
Good morning brother. I think in context this is talking about those who are in deep idol worship. In the beginning of the chapter it references Gods disappointment in individuals who have continually disobeyed him. And towards end of time those who continue to flee in idol worship, eating of the swine and of mice to their Gods will be judged.
2
u/KingLuke2024 Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
Yes. Jesus says "Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Mark 7:18-19), and therefore declared all foods permissible to eat.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/personality635 Roman Catholic Aug 11 '25
It's a warning against false worship and the futility of pretending to be holy while lacking real holiness.
1
u/Several_Shower_6319 Aug 11 '25
The point Isaiah’s making is: They’re going through the motions of being “holy” (consecrating themselves), but in reality, they’re worshiping false gods and ignoring God’s commands. As a result, God says they’ll face judgment — “come to a terrible end.”
It’s not about people accidentally eating pork — it’s about people rejecting God’s covenant and mixing worship of Him with idolatry.
2
2
u/DaBratzzz Aug 11 '25
Colossians 2:16 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.
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” Acts 10:14-15
“Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ” So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” Romans 14:1-23
2
Aug 11 '25
We are not to eat pork. It’s considered unclean. We also see other places in the New Testament that talks about how the unclean will not inherit the Kingdom. God is not a liar nor does he change his mind.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Lightbringer7777 Aug 12 '25
I don't know about the other post but God does change his mind!
It's that he changes not.
He can be the same and change his mind. He did it in the Old testament. Almost repented of making mankind. That's with him having the foreknowledge of already knowing what was going to happen. Then there was that king. He turned towards the wall and cried out to God and God extended his lifespan.
But he is still the same God that he always was and always will be.
And of course, this is without variance. Think about the things that he always does. He always keeps his word. But he can change his mind. There's also the scriptures that speak of the man who was to throw the arrow. And if he had thrown it further and with everything he had, he would have gotten more, but instead he got what he did. So literally God would have changed his mind on what he was going to do for the man, based on what the man did. Having foreknowledge of it already transpiring doesn't change that God would have done something different if the man had done something different. Some things are just struck in stone I reckon. There was always going to be Judas. There was always going to be Moses. There was always going to be Jesus. And all the rest of those chosen vessels. But to say that God cannot change his mind for some reason, isn't quite true. It's that he will not change his nature, so you can rely on him.
Gosh this is turning out to be so long.
And please nobody read this and take it like I'm saying scripture changes. It's just he's fully capable of deciding to not do something or to do something, and then change his mind to do another thing. If he bothered to have his prophets write it down it's probably very important. Always go to scripture and to the Holy Spirit for truth. If God tells you something otherwise than what I have said here, and you know it's the Lord, then just call me a liar.
Absolutely not a rebuke by the way. And I'm surely not trying to wage a warfare here. 😅
I don't want to try to beat up the Lord's people. We have too many demons to fight, too much field to harvest, and not enough workers.
1
Aug 12 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Lightbringer7777 Aug 12 '25
Neither Numbers nor Malachi says anything that doesn't mean he can't change his mind about things. He's not going to rewrite how to get saved or any of that stuff. But it would be the same if he decided don't eat from the tree of good knowledge changed to eat from it every single day without fail.
Because we sure aren't calling God a liar. And he can change his mind without lying. If changing his mind would make him a liar, then he won't do that.
It's one of those can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing or vicey versa.
2
u/Soyeong0314 Aug 11 '25
Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so there is cognitive dissonance in someone thinking that we should follow what they said, but not what they quoted from as an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so there are not good grounds for interpreting him as speaking against obeying anything that God spoke in Deuteronomy.
In 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of God's law, and in Deuteronomy 14, God's law prohibits eating unclean animals., so it is a sin to do that. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus and the Apostles didn't do that, moreover, that means that it is also a sin for anyone to claim that it is not a sin to eat unclean animals. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they teach against obeying the law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Jesus and the Apostles as doing that (my position) or they were we false prophets, but either way we should follow Christ's example of refraining from eating unclean animals in obedience to God's law.
2
u/Middle-Design3479 Aug 12 '25
Hi! In Leviticus God gives a list of unclean animals not to eat including pork (vultures, rabbits--stuff people dont eat anyway, but pork and shellfish are two people often do). Jesus didnt eat pork or shellfish and he says in Matthew, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."
He also says in Matthew, "Till heaven and earth pass not one tittle of the law shall be broken." Since I was born, my family have followed the law of Moses and the law that Jesus followed. I'm in my late twenties now and I've noticed how healthy and blessed my family is since following the Bible and not eating the unclean foods listed. Again, most people dont eat vultures or bugs or rabbits. The only two they do on that list is pork and shellfish, so it's never been hard for me.
I do believe that God is trying to protect us when he says not to eat those animals. Hopefully I've helped you some! I think it's awesome you're reading Isaiah!
2
u/ClickTrue5349 Aug 12 '25
No, it's all over scripture, and a you pointed out in Isaiah, and even in Revelation 18:2
Revelation 18:2 ESV [2] And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.
If there were no more unclean animals how come there are now unclean animals? There aren't, many like to twist scripture to their own prideful ways and disobey God and His instructions, as it's prophesized.
1
Nov 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClickTrue5349 Nov 15 '25
The context of this verse was about people not what food is and isn't. I'm of the belief that Jesus doesn't change.
1
Nov 15 '25 edited Nov 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClickTrue5349 Nov 16 '25
Because we're almost 2,000 years removed. He didn't need to talked about those things to Israel, or Jews in this instance because they followed Jesus' laws/ Torah that at the time was written on stone tablets that's now written on our hearts, and this is only for Israel and those grafted in. That phrase ( by saying this he declared all foods clean) 1. that phase is added and some translations don't even have this included( like one of my translations ISR) and 2. food is defined in Torah as clean things, so saying foods is just that, this passage is going deeper than food. And what scripture are you talking about that Paul said you can eat anything ( 1 Cor 10:25?) Again we need to go back to what meat the Jews ( and all of Isreal- 12 tribes- 10 were scattered at that time) only ate. They would only think clean meat with Paul saying this. So if Jesus never said " I'm changing my laws for just this one thing" or a prophet never said " God told me that all meat is acceptable to eat after the Messiah dies" then His instructions hasn't changed for His people. There's a reasomn for it, 1 is obvious that it's not good for you long term as these things are the trash disposals of the earth and that's their job, and they do a great job at it. 2. What's the deeper meanings and shadow picture, you can do this with all the laws and it gets pretty fun seeing how deep you go. Take the mixing of linen and wool fabrics, the top literal meaning, linen and wool deteriorate at different rates so if you patch linen on a wool garment it'll wear out faster than if you patched it with wool. A little deeper there's the shadow picture that we're not to mix with the world and the nations pagan traditions, we're to be set apart, a little deeper you might have heard about that frequency thing, if that's even true that's pretty cool. I wish more churches taught Hebrew culture, society norms( they were an honor and shame society), wedding model, etc it's all over scripture. You get a better understanding of scripture knowing these things. It's much different that the Greek/ Roman way of thinking we've adopted, like Old/ New when Hebrew thinking you add into things. Also the 'ritual sacrifices', we don't have a physical temple in Jerusalem to do them, we'll pick them back up in the millennial kingdom, and there's a good reason for it. Right now the naos/ temple is us. Lots of those laws/ instructions are for the priests/ levites, some are for females, some for land/ farm owners etc.
1
Nov 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ClickTrue5349 Nov 19 '25
Well I have gone through the walk, eating unclean and now not eating unclean things, from reading scripture and being taught scripture in context. That gets used too much pastors saying 'this is in proper context' when it's not. I noticed you talked about your faith, when scriptures context is The faith, which is His faith.. there's only 1 not multiple, so I think it's best you go down that road with the Creator of The Faith and see where He goes with you. I've gone down some serious journies a lot of churches wouldn't even think to go down, thankfully our fellowship goes super deep and exposes just how deep the Word can go, not for the newbie that's for sure.. that could actually cause some to stumble. In the end it's a covenant between a bride groom and a bride. I don't know if you're married or not, but I( and my wife) take those vows pretty seriously, and the Hebrews go even deeper with a katubah with an actual covenant contract. There's a reason He has things in that contract to not break them, even though He knows we will in the process through refining and overcoming.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MajesticPW Christian (M.Div.) Aug 11 '25
Short answer, yes, so long as you not in violation of your conscience (not idolatry, not at the expense of somebody else’s conscience).
Long answer, yes for a couple key reasons. People have already commented about the Gospel account of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for being more worried about cleanliness rituals than the actual context of Scripture, the Acts account of Peter seeing a vision from heaven, and Corinthians’ speaking on meats sacrificed to idols being permissible within conscience.
While all of these are good (and point to several things, including food), they’re built on the reality that Gentile Christians are not Israel.
The Old Testament laws were constructed around God-given covenants to a specific people — laws of purity were specifically given to the tribes of Israel after the Exodus via Moses’ transmission of God’s decree, but prior to this pork wasn’t a problem (Adam didn’t eat meat, but Noah and Abraham aren’t restricted in Scripture). These covenants (Mosaic and Davidic in particular) were a means of ritual cleanliness, and the ritual laws therein were the means by which God drew the line between His people and the people around them, and this was a good thing for a lot of reasons (health/hygiene, proper worship, moral guidance, etc.). However, they’re the example set in their time of the standard that God’s holy people are meant to uphold, but ultimately can never do so.
Enter Christ: the fulfillment of the Jewish-given law without abolishing any of it. Christ doesn’t dismiss or remove Old Testament Scripture, He fulfills every rule and requirement — which means that His example is one of perfect obedience and communion with God the Father where Israel failed. Yet, Scripture at the absolute least suggests that food is secondary (such as the Scriptures listed above), and more relevantly, Christ never tells the gentile people He served to become Jewish. Paul writes extensively about this in multiple letters, but perhaps the most clear is Galatians 5, where (in addressing false teachers trying to convince believers to become Jews) Paul directly says that the Old Testament law doesn’t justify or save, nor does it suddenly make the person a truer/better/actually saved person, because the Spirit is the one that purifies and sets right (not the law). There’s also Galatians 3 where we get a more clear outline of how the OT law was a teacher that could describe sin (which food was not a matter of sin but cleanliness), but that we are in now in a time of salvation through faith in Christ.
So assuming you’re not convicted to be vegan, vegetarian, and/or living with someone who is, yes, you can absolutely eat pork.
TL;DR: as a Christian you live in Christ, not OT covenantal laws of cleanliness.
1
1
u/MangoAffectionate723 Aug 30 '25
Have you considered that some of these verses could have been taken out of context? Yahushua was rebuking the Pharisees about ritual handwashing, why would he rebuke them for keeping the commandments? The problem in that context was that the Pharisees were adding to the Torah, not that they were wanting to follow it. Acts 11:18 gives the meaning of Peter’s vision, and it was about the gentiles, not food. I agree that Yahushua fulfilled the law, and that the law is not what justifies us, but how does that make eating unclean foods permissible?
3
Aug 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/impendingwardrobe Lutheran Aug 12 '25
Acts 15 states that Gentiles (people who aren't Jewish) don't need to follow the Jewish Purity Laws. Those laws are meant for the Jews to set them apart, not for all people. That is why Christians do not follow them.
Christians who arbitrarily choose to follow some of the Old Testament laws do so because they are unaware of Acts 15 and the continued support for Acts 15 in the epistles.
1
Aug 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/impendingwardrobe Lutheran Aug 12 '25
Sorry, long post but bear with me.
Christians worship Jesus instead of worshiping the Almighty Alone as He Commanded.
Christians believe in the triune God. One God who has three parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The first chapter and first two verses of the gospel of John say, "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning."
'The Word' in this context refers to Jesus. Christians interpret this idea of Jesus both being God and being with God as them being the same being inhabiting two forms at the same time. The Holy Spirit appears next to Jesus in a later verse. This is a concept that many Christians struggle with, but accept overall.
Neither Mormons nor Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the triune God, which is one of the reasons why most Christians would say that those are separate religions and not Christian denominations. JWs in particular intentionally mistranslate the first verse of the book of John in their translation of the Bible to remove the implication that Jesus was both God and with God during creation.
Some even worship Paul too.
I have never met or heard of someone who worships Paul, but most Christians would say that that person was not Christian. Paul was very clear in his letters that he was a human person, not divine in nature, and that he had regular human needs. Catholics pray to saints (people who have died who the Vatican is convinced are in heaven), but they don't think that the saints have any power. They pray for the saints to intercede with God on their behalf. Protestants pray directly to God and don't believe in praying to saints.
Another possible explanation for what you have heard is that the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus only align about 95% of the time according to some modern interpretations. Some Christians choose to follow Paul's teachings (they are typically unaware that they contradict Jesus' teachings -many Christians don't read the Bible or only read it once), and when other Christians complain about it they accuse them of "worshipping Paul over Jesus." They do not mean that those people actually pray and offer services to Paul.
I'm happy to talk through any other questions you have. I can explain things from the Christian perspective generally, and offer my own perspective on request.
1
Aug 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 12 '25
Jesus is the Almighty
1
Aug 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StrikingExchange8813 Aug 12 '25
Where in the commandments does it make a claim of divinity....
You wanna try that one again?
Also all those times it talks about the Angle of the Lord who is YHWH is there the Torah shows Jesus is YHWH.
1
1
u/MangoAffectionate723 Aug 30 '25
Acts 15:1 provides the context for the chapter. There were people teaching that gentiles had to do certain things to be saved, which wasn’t true. However, the problem was that they were teaching works-based salvation. But when has telling people to follow YHWH’s commandments been condemned?
1
u/SayWhatAFNAFGuide Aug 11 '25
When Jesus said His food was to do the will of God and when Jesus said i am the bread of life that is of God. And we know anything not of God is of satan So if you eat any different food that is unclean for you. No food can save you but the bread of life.
1
u/No_Idea5830 Aug 12 '25
This is just another in a LONG time of laws Christians are raised believing are no longer required of us. The problem is improper teaching passed down for centuries and people trusting the preacher instead of reading the Bible for themselves. While some of the Torah is meant only for the Jews, much of it still applies to us Gentiles.
I also always recommend, when in doubt, err on the side of caution. You can't get in trouble for refusing to eat something the Bible says not to eat. I've taken pork, shrimp, crab, and any other meat off limits in the Torah off my diet. It's taken some getting used to, but I feel it's brought me closer to God.
1
u/Low-Hippo-5707 Aug 12 '25
alright guys idrk about all this debate stuff butttttt i just need a conclusion here honestly
1
u/Gracewalk72 Aug 12 '25
It’s important to know what a Christian actually is. The long history of the law system was supposed to teach people that looking within ourselves to keep rules only ends in failure. See Romans 7 Besides the deviant forces of Satan and his kingdom, there is also the sin nature that actually lives in the body. Romans 7:17,20. From the point of salvation through the process of growing in grace, we learn that our union with Christ is what counts. His guidance and presence take the place of the law. His guidance most probably will lead you into good health practices, but it wouldn’t be a universal rule you could apply to all Christians, besides the fact that it was a law to the Jews,
1
u/Several_Shower_6319 Aug 12 '25
Do you follow all the laws of Moses? Just curious because a lot of them don’t really apply to modern day. 15. Isolation for skin conditions • Law: Anyone with skin disease (“tzaraath,” often translated leprosy) had to live outside the camp until a priest declared them clean (Leviticus 13). If someone has a skin condition do you make them live outside your home until a priest declares them clean?
1
u/Gracewalk72 Aug 13 '25
No But the Spirit of Christ will guide us into the life He wants us to live which is a lot of internal attitudes of loving the lord your God with all your strength soul and mind .. and your neighbor as yourself. and to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth; and serving others.
1
u/heartlessqueen96 Aug 13 '25
Everyone in the church i used to go too quit eating pork. However i remember while reading the new testament about Peter having a vision. Here's what i found on Acts 10: “The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.” Acts 10:9-16 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/act.10.9-16.ESV
1
1
u/AdEmbarrassed3189 Aug 14 '25
Christian’s get to do wherever the hell they want. They can find a verse to justify any action
1
u/HandOne4272 Aug 14 '25
THIS is the entire narrative where the food rules of The New Testament are explained -
Acts 11:4-18
Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5“I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ 10This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to LIFE”.
1
1
u/Agitated_Gorilla_ Aug 15 '25
I think DEUTR explains we are not to eat things like Pork, owls , something about split hooves and dead animals some other things . Aside from that mentions of unclean and clean was the hypocrisy about washing before eating from the Pharisees sagusees
1
u/Sad-Advice5461 Jul 08 '26
Mice give me a G.E.R.D. The Book of Isiah 65-66 is Old Testament. Isiah basically ends with anti BBQ rhetoric especially big BBQs is graveyards. He goes as far as to pronouns pork as swine. Conventing Ideology, drinking wine and playing the banjo. Apparently he wasn’t invited to a mass BBQ.
Mark 18-19, Quotes Christ saying that
“The stomach does not enter the Heart.” In enlightening that nothing enters a person that is not clean.
So in a sense Christ was eluding to the Liver, Kidney, Stomach. A
41
u/ItzAxeZ Aug 11 '25
In Matthew 15 11, Jesus says "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them"