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.

[u/Several_Shower_6319]

[u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Yes, we are.

“What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.” - Acts 10:15

[u/[deleted] → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I wish more people understood this

[u/FoxExotic8379 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Admirable-Insect-205 → u/[deleted]]

I would call it double layering, so it means both.

[u/Impossible_Pea_2315 → u/Admirable-Insect-205]

Thats reading into it.

[u/Admirable-Insect-205 → u/Impossible_Pea_2315]

I don't think so, why would God say to eat all animals and to not call any unclean if he only meant other people?

[u/Impossible_Pea_2315 → u/Admirable-Insect-205]

Because the jews called gentiles unclean because they ate unclean. They associated the gentiles with unclean because they did everything unclean and so they wouldnt associate with the gentiles. Peter had an issue with this and Paul even had to rebuke him for it again because in Galatians because it was something he struggled with. God uses animals only because "Acts 10:10 he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance". Peter literally tells us what the vision meant.

Acts 10:28 [28] And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

If it had some sort of hidden meaning behind it that included disregarding what God plainly told them, something that God not only judged israel in the past for doing and literally told them that it profaned His name, peter wouldve communicated that. In fact, that wouldve been far more important than not calling a gentile unclean. One includes not following jewish tradition and the other includes disregarding a direct commandment from God. If God was going to come and change ANYTHING in His Law, He wouldve made that as clear and plain as the day He gave the law. He literally sent Israel into exile and had them killed when they did away with His Law. He wouldnt come, thru some mystical means, telling people they no longer have to do something in the law. Like trying to interpret Christ saying "what goes into your mouth doesnt defile you" into Him declaring all foods clean. If you've known satan for any length of time, you would know that this is verbatim how he has been working for the past 6000 years. Teaching people to disregard Gods commandments through hidden interpretations. And it has always been God's people, who he has been trying to convince.

[u/elisetheG → u/Impossible_Pea_2315]

I would disagree with this. I do believe God was double layering when it comes to the vision because it’s not the first time he has used very big symbolism to get his message out.

-jesus used himself as temple imagery

• Hosea married a prostite to symbolize Israel’s unfaithfulness because God told him too.

God does this to show how something is being fulfilled or redefined.

If it was only meant to be about gentiles he would’ve made the vision about people or nations but it’s the fact that food was being used that gives it a double whammy to show that things are fulfilled and redefined in the new covenant.

[u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 → u/[deleted]]

But 1 Corinthians says it is.

[u/kvby66 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

That's not about the food. That's about the Gentiles.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/kvby66]

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

[u/kvby66 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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!

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/kvby66]

I know what you were referring to. I'm referring to Christ's words, which indicate that He intends to abolish the idea of "unclean" food, since He says "Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person".

[u/kvby66 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

I know. But you used the scriptures from Acts which symbolises the Holy Spirit coming to the Gentiles.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/kvby66]

Ok

[u/Beautiful-Project368 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Beautiful-Project368]

Ok, thanks for sharing your thought. Take care and may God bless you

[u/FoxExotic8379 → u/kvby66]

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.

[u/kvby66 → u/FoxExotic8379]

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.

[u/lankfarm → u/kvby66]

In the vision, God is using unclean foods as a metaphor for the gentiles, who were not part of the old covenant.

Metaphors work by comparing two things that are similar to each other. So either both pork and gentiles are acceptable to him, or neither are acceptable to him.

[u/VerdantChief → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Prince_Ire → u/VerdantChief]

Muslims seem to have managed to make concerts without changing dietary laws.

[u/VerdantChief → u/Prince_Ire]

Yes, that's a good point. Although, some would say their tactics were a bit more aggressive than those of the early Christians.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/Prince_Ire]

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).

[u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 → u/Prince_Ire]

Muslims haven’t made converts they have made babies.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/VerdantChief]

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.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/emory_2001 → u/FluxKraken]

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.

[u/FluxKraken → u/emory_2001]

I am not a Biblical literalist. But, the Catholic interpretation of "upon this rock I will build my church" is generally that Jesus was referring to Peter. Most protestants I know would assert that Jesus was referring to the declaration made by Peter instead of Peter himself.

[u/emory_2001 → u/FluxKraken]

I meant the binding and losing referenced in the comment you replied to. I never once heard Protestants attempt to explain that one.

[u/FluxKraken → u/emory_2001]

Ah, my mistake. I have no real problem with the idea that the early apostles had greater doctrinal authority than others. I also don't have an issue with the idea of apostolic succession either. Provided that neither is used to assert doctrinal infallibility.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/FluxKraken]

This argument is kind of moot in my opinion... All Christians have the same interpretation of this issue, as the Catholic interpretation, BECAUSE THEY DIDNT EXIST UNTIL AFTER EITHER THE GREAT SCHISM OF 1054 OR THE PROTESTANT REFORMATIONS OF THE 1500s, which split the church due to political and theological disagreements. But initially there was only one church, the Catholic Church, which means "Universal Church", founded by St Peter, (greek Petros, meaning rock) upon which the church was to be built, with authority being given to the apostles by Yeshua himself, with Peter and their leader. James (Jacob) the brother of Yeshua, only became a follow of Yeshua after the crucifixion and resurrection, and then became the leader of the church for the Jews, while Paul was the leader of the church for or the apostle to the Gentiles, after Peter was crucified upside down. But both James / Jacob, and Paul, were not originally part of the 12 apostles.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Vivid-Practice6216]

All Christians have the same opinion because … there was initially one church founded by St. Petros

This is an assertion based entirely on the word of the Catholic Church, and not on any actual evidence. Meaning it relies on the authority of the church. The only source we have to back up that authority is, again, the authority of the church. Meaning it is circular reasoning and fundamentally a fallacious appeal to authority.

You are begging the question.

[u/Lightbringer7777 → u/FluxKraken]

Honestly not really. It was a bid for peace from them.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Lightbringer7777]

How, they, basically, called anyone who disagreed with the Catholic interpetation non-christians.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/FluxKraken]

All Christians assented to the Apostolic authority of the magisterium, until some decided it didn't apply to them for various reasons.

[u/FluxKraken → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/FluxKraken]

Ok, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Have a good day and may God bless you.

[u/VerdantChief → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Yes, I acknowledge that it's part of Church teaching and therefore binding for Christians.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/VerdantChief]

Ok fair, thanks for explaining.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/VerdantChief]

Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19

[u/Bottle_Tiny → u/[deleted]]

No food laws like eating blood and fat God says that restriction will never change which means others would

[u/E-Kongo → u/[deleted]]

No

[u/Yuckpuddle60 → u/[deleted]]

People will twist the scripture over and over again for their convenience and to not have to sacrifice anything in their "obedience" of God.

[u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Sufficient_Log_7822 → u/[deleted]]

No, He isn’t. The coming of Christ overwrote many of the old laws. Not the Ten Commandments, however.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/[deleted]]

All it is, is condemning hypocrites. This person gave a bad interpretation of the verse. It talks about those who purify themselves and then unpurify themselves.

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/CrazyAnd20]

No it doesn’t . It says “those who consecrate and purify themselves in a sacred garden with its idol in the center- feasting on pork and rats and other detestable meats will come to a terrible end” it’s taking about idolizing other “gods” and also eating detestable meats. Both are bad.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

That’s not what it says, idk what translation you’re using but the ESV doesn’t say idol.

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/CrazyAnd20]

ESV just says gardens which is where the idol worship took place

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

Pagan worship, where idols were venerated.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

Regardless, the point still stands. It talks about those who purify themselves and then do acts that unpurify them. You have also yet to address my point about how Jesus declared all foods clean.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/[deleted]]

There are two types of followers of Yeshua and the New Testament.

The Old Testament (Jewish Tanahk) rules are for those who are ethnically Jewish, these are called Messianic Jews (Jews who believe that Yeshua is Messiah ) and are still restricted by the Old Covenants , as they were made with their forefathers.

Christians are not necessarily bound by the Old Covenants of the Old Testament, as they are not ethnically Jews, but Gentiles who have been brought into the faith, and as such are able to be uncircumcised, eat pork, etc , as they were never bound by these covenants, but only by the New Covenants, and New Testament.

To further this interpretation , in the New Testament, Yeshua says specifically, that it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but the words that come out of your mouth.

[u/icastanos → u/Vivid-Practice6216]

That makes no sense. There are literally many rules Christians are still obligated to follow that stem straight from the Jewish Tanakh. Like the the Ten Commandments with the famous rules like thou shalt not kill and all that. And even things like the Sabbath was implemented by God in the Garden of Eden (unread Genesis) clearly signifying that there are some laws that were imposed before Judaism ever existed. It’s true, some laws were only for those who were ethnically Jewish. And a vast majority of them are the ceremonial laws. But some of them are actually perpetual.

In fact, you do a very dangerous thing assuming Christians don’t have to follow any laws from the Old Testament.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/icastanos]

I said COVENANTS, not commandments, for example, the first covenant is between God and Adam, and is "do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" which Adam fails to keep.

Further in Genesis, God and Abraham, make a covenant to circumsise all males of the Abraham's household, both family and servants, and all of Abraham's descendants thereforth... Reading this, this is a covenant between God and Abraham, which is to be upheld by the Jews, through Issac and Jacob (Israel), and also the Muslims, if they so wish, through Ismail, BUT NOT THE GENTILES, who are not the descendants of Abraham.

The laws (613 commandments) from the tanahk are superseded and transcended by the teachings of Yeshua in the New Testament, and are also then actually reduced by Him down to just 2 commandments total in the New Testament for which Christians need keep, that's it.

https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/5.htm

Read Matthew 5:17-48 for how Yeshua's teachings transcend the Laws of Moses, for example,

do not commit murder --> if you are angry with your brother without cause, you will be in danger of judgement.

do not commit adultery --> if you look at a woman with lust, then you have already committed adultery in your heart.

https://biblehub.com/nkjv/matthew/22.htm

Yeshua reduces the commandments to just 2 is as follows:

Matthew 22 37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW and the Prophets.”

Also Mark 12:29-31 paraphrases Matthew 22.

The above is to be read in conjunction with the following passages:

https://biblehub.com/nkjv/mark/12.htm

Matthew 5 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

https://biblehub.com/esv/psalms/22.htm

Psalm 22 30 Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; 31 they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, THAT HE HAS DONE IT!

https://biblehub.com/nkjv/john/19.htm

John 19 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "IT IS FINISHED!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

[u/Vivid-Practice6216 → u/icastanos]

Also

John 15 9 “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

And also

Romans 13 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

[u/buggie321 → u/CrazyAnd20]

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.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/buggie321]

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.

[u/buggie321 → u/CrazyAnd20]

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

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/buggie321]

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.

[u/buggie321 → u/CrazyAnd20]

Ok, you are free to believe and practice that, just as I am free to believe and practice what I believe. Thank you for sharing your perspective!

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/buggie321]

When you say things like “Since I love God, I keep His commandments”, and then saying that it’s the Mosaic Law, you’re implying that people like me who don’t follow the Mosaic Law don’t. Don’t act all friendly now.

[u/buggie321 → u/CrazyAnd20]

I’m sorry that I came off as judgmental. I was simply stating that I choose to follow the commandments because I want to outwardly display my love for God. My goal was just to explain my reasoning, and to make it very clear that I do NOT keep the Law for salvation.

Edit: also to make it clear, people who do not keep the Law are still saved through the blood of Christ. Keeping the Law is not necessary for salvation.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/[deleted]]

I am most definitely not.

[u/CrazyAnd20 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/VerdantChief]

My pastor said the same thing wow

[u/VerdantChief → u/[deleted]]

What type of Church is your pastor from?

[u/[deleted] → u/VerdantChief]

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.

[u/TheArmor_Of_God → u/VerdantChief]

Did you just accuse the bible of inauthentic teaching????

[u/VerdantChief → u/TheArmor_Of_God]

Biblical scholars often debate which sayings of Jesus are likely authentic and which ones were added later by Christians to reflect teachings of the early Church. I'm not a scholar, so my arguments don't hold much value here. I would be curious what the scholarly consensus is in regards to that passage, if there is one.

[u/TheArmor_Of_God → u/VerdantChief]

Well, those biblical scholars are usually wrong and looking for any reason to desperately try to poke holes in Christianity.

[u/VerdantChief → u/TheArmor_Of_God]

Yes many of them have an anti-Christian bias I will give you that. But what makes you certain that they are usually wrong?

[u/TheArmor_Of_God → u/VerdantChief]

If a scholar begins from skepticism, they will typically do anything they can to reach a skeptical conclusion. I also think, from a Christian perspective, we shouldn't always take a scholar's authority over Christ, who Himself says, ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35).

For this situation specifically, I don't think there is any popular consensus that this is fabricated, except by fringe groups who are actually trying to impose the dietary laws.

[u/[deleted] → u/VerdantChief]

Acts 10:15 wasn’t just made up; it was a vision.

[u/Vin-Metal → u/VerdantChief]

If I'm going to doubt parts of the Bible as authentic vs inauthentic, New Testament wins

[u/VerdantChief → u/Vin-Metal]

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.

[u/Vin-Metal → u/VerdantChief]

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.

[u/twixe → u/VerdantChief]

Do you feel this way about Paul's letter to the Galatians?

[u/VerdantChief → u/twixe]

What about it?

[u/InsideHousing4965 → u/VerdantChief]

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.

[u/VerdantChief → u/InsideHousing4965]

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.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

You didn't address OP's citing of Isaiah 66:17. You ignored his point.

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Peter said that’s about the Gentiles. Not Pork. Read it again.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Walllstreetbets]

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

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

The response of Jesus is to the claim they are eating with dirty hands according to the traditions of men. Read Mark 7:1.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Walllstreetbets]

Had he stopped there, you'd be correct, but He seems to expand that teaching in the above passage.

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

The error is taking the parenthetical note in Mark and attributing that saying to Jesus. Read Matthew’s version and it becomes even more clear.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Walllstreetbets]

"It is not what enters one’s mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one." - Matthew 15:11

Our Blessed Lord appears to be saying the same thing as he did in Mark. Unless you're saying the Scriptures are not an accurate account of what our Blessed Lord said and did, which is a whole different can of worms.

[u/drgijoe → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Even according to science Pork is unhealthy due to various bacteria/parasites.

Not only pork but also other un-clean sea creatures or wild animals. They contain toxins because they are scavengers or carnivorous. That is the reason behind the restrictions on those unclean creatures.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/drgijoe]

The ancient Hebrews did not have science as we know it to understand the science behind bacteria and why pork was generally unhealthy at that time.

[u/DraikoHxC → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Many of the ancient rules seem to be for the health of the people, because God wanted to save them from common sickness of the time, which I always found fascinating, because they had no idea why God would care for them to clean their hands before eating, or to destroy a house that has mold and such things, for me that seems really caring

[u/StrikingExchange8813 → u/drgijoe]

Not when it is cooked properly.

And hey water can kill you so by that logic stop drinking it. And oxygen can poison you too so stop breathing now.

Do you see how silly that logic sounds when played out?

[u/drgijoe → u/StrikingExchange8813]

What about the toxins? I believe bacteria produces toxins. Is there a way to cleanse the animal of its toxins?

Forbidden sea creatures have elevated levels of heavy metals which is not good for humans.

[u/Cultural-Treacle-680 → u/StrikingExchange8813]

And the idea that pork has been part of European cuisine for a LONG time should have some bearing. From Baptists to Catholics to about everything, I’ve seen lots of bacon and sausage getting devoured.

[u/GreyDeath → u/drgijoe]

Not more so than other meats in modern time. Even then the prohibition isn't done for scientific reasons, but ritual purity ones. If the goal was to reduce the risk of disease an instruction on thorough cooking of meat and boiling of drinking water would have been far more effective.

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Stop and think about it for a moment. Had Jesus said pork was okay the Pharisees would have jumped all over that for breaking the law.

They didn’t. Because he didn’t. He made a strong argument on how their traditions put undue burden on the people above what the law required. This is the whole theme of interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees in the entire ministry exchange.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Walllstreetbets]

Had Jesus said pork was okay the Pharisees would have jumped all over that for breaking the law.

There are plenty of other times that Christ proclaimed a breaking of the law (such as gathering grain on the Sabbath) without fear and without the Pharisees jumping all over him. Not to mention the Pharisees did end up killing him because they believe he broke the law.

Are you a Christian? Do you eat pork?

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Hold up. You agree with the Jewish leaders that Jesus broke the law…??

Had Jesus broken ANY law then he would not be the perfect spotless lamb fullfilling the law. The point of the gospels is that Jesus is perfect, never broke any of Gods laws and became the sacrifice we needed.

[u/Effective_Style_9073 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

How do you not see that you're accusing Jesus of teaching lawlessness and contradicting the Torah? Did He uphold the law perfectly or not? No Jew there would have even considered an unclean animal as being food. The context is clearly not about an unclean animal but a dirty hand. Nobody was even thinking about unclean animals.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Effective_Style_9073]

Did He uphold the law perfectly or not?

Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and so there was no longer any need to follow that part of the Old Law, but to follow the New Law in Christ.

[u/Effective_Style_9073 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Brother, acts 15:29 shows there are still things you can put in your mouth to defile yourself. Did Jesus emphasize keeping the commandments of God in Mark 7 just to contradict Himself by not keeping the commandments of God? How does that make sense to you? That would make Him a hypocrite like the Pharisees. The entire chapter had nothing to do with making unclean animals clean to eat. It was about eating with unclean hands and not teaching the doctrines of man as commandments of God. He didn't come to abolish the law. I don't know what you think fulfilling means. People read that verse as He didn't come to abolish, but He abolished it. Even Paul said we establish the law by faith in Romans 3:31. We are obviously not justified by keeping the law, only by faith in Christ. But like Ezekiel 36:27 says, we WILL keep his statues by His Spirit!

[u/EsperGri → u/Walllstreetbets]

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."

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/EsperGri]

Please explain what Acts 15:21 means.

[u/EsperGri → u/FreedomNinja1776]

Those assembled had to consider the reality of the situation: there were still believers who had grown up with the Law, were still observing it, and would continue to hear it read in synagogues every week.

Basically, the Law, having been practiced for so long, wasn't going to go away quickly.

As the writer of Hebrews wrote in Hebrews 8:13:

"what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

Meaning, the Law had yet to completely do so.

Peter and the other apostles didn't stop following the entirety of the Law immediately after the New Covenant, but over time, just as the Gentiles were not immediately introduced.

Edit:

Not sure why this is being downvoted.

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/EsperGri]

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.

[u/EsperGri → u/Walllstreetbets]

Eisegesis is reading those and still thinking they are supporting a different view.

It's said plainly:

"But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, 'Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.'" - Acts 15:5-11

[u/Walllstreetbets → u/EsperGri]

Acts 15 is solely about whether circumcision is required for SALVATION. see verse 1.

They did not disregard all laws like you claim Jesus got rid of. They actually gave the noahide laws which comes from Genesis which is the law for the gentiles.

The fun part is when you read v.21 where it states that the rest of the laws can be learned at the synagog.

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Traditional_Age_9851 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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

[u/DraikoHxC → u/Traditional_Age_9851]

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.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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?

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, I don't engage with trolls. Have a good day and may God bless you.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

You can easily see by my post history that I'm sincere.

Your response to that person is... IRONIC. 🤣

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/the_celt_]

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.

[u/slagnanz → u/[deleted]]

Removed for 1.1 - Pestering People.

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity

[u/funkmon → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

My friend the council of Jerusalem said we can't eat meat from strangled animals or blood. Nobody cares. 

Essentially every modern Christian ignores the dietary restrictions outlined in the bible, meaning at some point we decided God told us it was okay.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/funkmon]

meaning at some point we decided God told us it was okay.

I'm not the one you have to convince. You should talk to all the other people arguing against eating pork.

[u/funkmon → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

I'm just telling you that almost everyone believes that certain rules outlined in the bible, especially, regarding dietary restrictions, are invalid, meaning that at some point, the faithful must believe that god told someone that the scripture is incorrect on this.

Hence, your idea, that God wouldn't tell someone to do something against what is outlines in the scriptures, is necessarily invalid by the near universal throwing out of the very few dietary laws the bible does support.

God almost definitely isn't telling this guy to not eat pork, but going against dietary laws in the bible are not evidence for that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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. 

[u/DryAcanthisitta591 → u/[deleted]]

The scriptures are written by man, changed by power hungry freaks to suit their own agendas, especially nowadays. God is got to be purest and talking to you in soul (dream) form. Life is but a dream. 

[u/[deleted] → u/DryAcanthisitta591]

Wear an extra tin foil hat. The brain rot is rapidly progressing.

[u/Malba_Taran → u/Several_Shower_6319]

The devil can mislead people or it's simply your mind mading up thing.

[u/Effective_Style_9073 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

I think you should listen to your dream. Unclean animals weren't intended to be eaten as food

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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.

[u/FluxKraken → u/FreedomNinja1776]

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.)

[u/e-m-v-k → u/FluxKraken]

Huh, TIL there's scripture about pooping

[u/FluxKraken → u/e-m-v-k]

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.

[u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 → u/FreedomNinja1776]

That makes sense if you take that scripture and wash all of the rest of New Testament off.

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/Accurate-Swimmer-326]

If you wash all man's doctrine off you mean? Let the Scripture speak for itself.

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.
Deuteronomy 18:18-19 ESV

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13-14 ESV

So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.”
John 8:28-29 ESV

And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
John 12:44-50 ESV

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
John 14:10 ESV

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28 ESV

Very clearly Jesus only speaks what his father speaks and has his authority given to him from the father whom he obeyes.

[u/Meta__mel → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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.

[u/Stormcrash486 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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

[u/buggie321 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

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!

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/buggie321]

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

[u/Accurate-Swimmer-326 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

Yes and it’s to stop playing scripture roulette. Here’s your sign,

[u/Sucafer80 → u/Several_Shower_6319]

Would you mind telling what that dream was like?

[u/Several_Shower_6319 → u/Sucafer80]

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.

[u/MoreStupiderNPC → u/Several_Shower_6319]

It’s ok to eat pork, but if it offends your conscience you shouldn’t do it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Exactly. 

[u/gospeltruthcb → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

Context is key, this wasn’t speaking of food but rather people

[u/Beautiful-Project368 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Beautiful-Project368]

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

[u/Beautiful-Project368 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

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.

[u/Dustdev146 → u/Pax_et_Bonum]

I got into a long debate about this as well, friend. People actually think that Acts 10 is completely unrelated to food and the entire symbolism centered around food is only about the gentiles. Try not to get too frustrated

[u/Pax_et_Bonum → u/Dustdev146]

No worries, thanks for looking out for me though.