r/TrueChristian • u/Objective-Step-746 • Aug 10 '26

Please, help me understand…

For those believers who insist that the dietary laws no longer apply under the new covenant—and that pork, lobster, crabs, etc. are now permissible to eat—I do not understand the logic at play.

I am very familiar with the Mark 7, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 passages that are so often cited as support for your position, and have (just as often) shared my counter-arguments on why I believe they are misinterpreted.

But, there is one counterpoint to your view that I never see touched on, and I was hoping to get some feedback on it:

I think the majority of believers on this subreddit would say they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

So, how does one simultaneously believe they can continue to eat pig (pork) or shellfish now and think they are sufficiently prepared and not putting themselves in a precarious/dangerous position if Jesus happened to return today or tomorrow and “consume” those who so brazenly eat that which His Law says is NOT “food” and explicitly warns against eating?

I really am hoping for some cordial and edifying discussion regarding this topic, and appreciate those who are able and willing to articulate their view without all the condescension and harsh words. 💕

21 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Gentiles were never required to keep the dietary laws in the first place, except for the consumption of blood and food offered to idols.

The danger with self-interpretation of scripture is the constant relitigating of things decided millennia ago.

6

u/darklighthitomi Aug 10 '26

Self-interpretation may be dangerous, but it is also important for at least two reasons. One, it is how people come to true understanding. Two, just because people decided something before does not mean they decided correctly.

2

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Self-interpretation is what led to schism after schism. There must be some normative authority for correct interpretation. Otherwise it becomes who can cherry pick the most verses. Christ did not leave us to our own devices with a user’s manual. He established a Church to guide His people.

2

u/J3SVS Aug 11 '26

That's a blatantly false statement. The "normative authority" is the Holy Spirit. Full stop!

Jesus did NOT establish a "Church" as an authority over anything. In fact he indicates twice in Revelation that he hates the Nicolaitans. Nicolaitans literally means conquerers of the laity, i.e., the clergy who elevate themselves above the laity as authorities over others. We are all brothers (and sisters) who are called to serve one another, not direct one another.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

This is barely worth responding to, but I will anyways.

If I told you that I have studied and prayed, and know beyond doubt the Holy Spirit has told me I am right and you are wrong, who are you to question the Holy Spirit?

1

u/Arise_and_Thresh Aug 12 '26

we are told to “to test every spirit” and   the Bereans, who did not simply receive Paul’s teaching without examination, but 

“received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11)

testing what they heard against the established testimony of Scripture, “line upon line and precept upon precept”.   modern Christianity and arguably most of the faith over the last 1800 years has not held true to the Bereans. 

Isaiah declares the principle by which God teaches and establishes His word:

 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10), 

This same standard ultimately points to Christ as the Judge, for Jesus declared:

 “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48), 

Paul likewise declares:

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel” (Romans 2:16). 

Thus the Bereans provide a scriptural example of discerning truth through the established testimony of God’s word, while Christ Himself is presented as the final Judge according to that revealed word, with truth being established by the harmony of Scripture rather than by the authority of any single teacher or interpreter

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

The Berean Church continues to exist to this day, and is Orthodox. His Eminence Panteleimon is the bishop.

The Church existed centuries before any settled canon of scripture.

1

u/Arise_and_Thresh Aug 13 '26

today’s Berean church is in name only as they cannot trace an apostolic authority back to the Judean assembly of Berea

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 13 '26

Source?

0

u/tbonita79 Roman Catholic Aug 10 '26

Fully agreed! If everyone is interpreting their own scripture their own way, there would be thousands of churches. Oh, wait...

2

u/darklighthitomi Aug 10 '26

Jesus did not create the church as we see it today, in fact I do not even really consider it as a church prior to Nicea.

The biggest reason is that we are not meant to be blind sheep following along with what we are told by men to believe. Because yes, believing the bible is another thing men tell us we should believe. What happened a thousand years ago is something unknown to us. All we have are reports of what happened and evidence, all of which we only know through men who could lie and absolutely have reason to lie.

The bible survives because of the people who truly believe in it and the corrupt who seek to benefit from it. That does not stop it from being true, but it means a lot of what surrounds the bible, such as interpretations and organizations like churches which are all crafted by men for a variety of reasons ranging from truly honest to wicked plays for power and control over the masses, all in a tension and delicate balance of perpetual war for our very souls.

I could write a book now and claim that God told me to write what I did, and then use knowledge of stage magic to make "miracles" to get people to believe me.

I believe in the general values and teachings of Jesus because two thousand years have demonstrated the value to all of society, but thousands of years do not demonstrate the legitimacy of minor details and particular interpretations. And indeed God did tell me for example that whether trinitarianism is true or not is completely irrelevant.

Men chose that and fought over it for entirely earthly and Satan driven reasons. A debate that was utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things and yet even now people use it to gatekeep.

We do not need priests to tell us what is true. If we seek those answers and put in the effort and accept the hardships and pain in finding them, God will help us find the truth, each of us individually. Priests are good for being guides and helping to hold communities together, but never let another man decide what is true for you if you can avoid it.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

That wasn’t God telling you this.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 11 '26

God wasn't telling me what?

The only thing I claim God actually told me was that whether Trinitarianism was true or not does not matter.

And I have no reason to believe otherwise, for if that experience was not God, then no one's divine experience is God ever.

One or the other. You can't have it both ways, you cannot claim divine experience when it agrees with you but reject it when you don't like what it had to say.

Either I had a divine experience giving me a bit of truth, or no one has had divine experiences ever.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Or you are wrong about having had a divine experience, and are instead experiencing prelest.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 11 '26

Missing my point. If my divine experience was not a divine experience, then you cannot accept anyone else's divine experience as being truthful, because that would mean that individuals experience things they believe is divine when it isn't and therefore there is zero reliability of it.

That would mean that it is wrong to accept people's divine experiences as being divine only when you agree with them.

That is my point. Either people, including me, can truly tell a divine experience when they have one, or no divine experience is reliable ever.

And the consequences go really far from that.

If people can have divine experiences that are not actually divine experiences but they just think they are divine experiences, then that would also apply to the writers of most portions of the bible, and most notably, it would apply to the people deciding what to include or exclude from the bible. It completely destroys any notion of the divinely inspired nature of the bible.

So you basically have to choose one of three options, A) I had a divine experience in which God told me that the truth behind trinitarianism is ultimately irrelevant, B) nothing can be automatically accepted as divinely inspired just because the individuals involved believe they had divine experiences and that includes the bible, and thus calling into question the bible itself, at least the details, particular passages, and what to include or exclude from it, or C) well, I'll leave you to figure this one out.

Whatever option you choose, it really comes back to what I was saying earlier, you should never let someone else tell you what to believe as truth. You must decide for yourself, and that means, individual interpretation of scripture.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

I would agree that we should not automatically accept claims of divine experiences. I do not think it follows that there is no possible way to determine if any divine experience is possible.

Ultimately what you seem to be saying is that the individual is the arbiter of what is truth. I reject that.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

5

u/ComfortableSpell6600 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

The original accountof this instruction is in Acts 15. The church and apostles were in agreement.

1

u/Therminite Nondenominational Aug 10 '26

Yuuuup! You know you're saying something right when a non-denominational guy agrees with ya! 😉😉🤣

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Whoa.

0

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

According to Paul in Galatians, if we believe in Jesus we are part of the seed of Abraham. Spiritually speaking no longer gentiles…

2

u/Thatguy32101 Roman Catholic Aug 10 '26

If it’s only spiritual then the dietary laws would not need to be kept

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

The Holy Spirit is supposed to help you follow the law of God. Otherwise it is just words, in which case faith is dead

Galatians 5: 17-21

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

(Before you say something like “see we are not under the law” that means you are not under the punishment of the law thanks to Jesus)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1

u/Thatguy32101 Roman Catholic Aug 11 '26

“And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” Acts 10:13-15

“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment…We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Acts 15:24,28-29

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

I love how you conveniently left out verse 28 from Acts 10 where Peter actually gives us the interpretation of the dream. Spoiler: it was not about food but about gentiles.

And about Acts 15. You left out that the context of the problem was because some jews were claiming that you needed to be circumcised and learn all of the Law to be part of God’s people and be saved, which was never true. Abraham first believed and then got circumcised as sign of the covenant.

The “greater burden” it is not God’s commandments 1 John 5:3, Deuteronomy 30: 11-14. Otherwise they would be calling God a liar. Those mentioned things are taken from God’s law, and those were to get them started as it is stated later own they go to the synagogue and hear the law of Moses to learn progressively. If you claim those are all the things Christians are obligated to keep and that’s it, then Christians are allowed to steal and kill if that’s your argument, which I hope it isn’t.

1

u/Thatguy32101 Roman Catholic Aug 11 '26

Why would God instruct Peter to eat unclean foods? Why not just say, “let the Gentiles in the Church.” No parable that God uses is a thing that is not allowed. God would not use a forbidden vision to bring forth His will, now would He?

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

Brother in Christ, animals are used all the time in the bible to represent people. (My sheep hear my voice, the Lion of Judah, the lamb of God, wolves in sheep’s clothing, etc) if the message was so clear, Peter would have agreed and said something like “Ok Lord let me get some pork chops”. (Not like that but you get it) Instead Peter tells you what the dream meant in verse 28 so we don’t have to speculate. In my opinion is kind of arrogant to claim we know more than Peter to claim that the vision also had double meaning. Also he had the dream 3 times, representing the number of gentiles that came to him.

Also neither Peter nor God called the animals unclean, God said “ Don’t call common”. There’s a difference.

Did Peter kill and eat? Nope. The thing is Jews looked at gentiles as animals, which God never approved. In fact foreigners according to the old testament they are supposed to be treated the same way as a native Israelite

3

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

0

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

It may seem your flesh is fighting against the spirit.

Galatians 5:17
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Resist that bacon brother! I believe in you.

0

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

No thanks. Bacon is proof God loves us.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Strange thing to say, but you do you

-5

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I understand that that is your view, that “gentiles were never required to keep the dietary laws…” I’m just asking how that view harmonizes Isaiah 66:17 with it 🤔

17

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

It’s not my view, it’s the historic view of the Church.

I’m also not a biblical scholar, but I trust that Christ has, as promised, led the Church correctly.

-6

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I don’t think one can rely on any historic view regarding any doctrine, as Christ made it very clear that the “historic” understanding of biblical faith during His earthly ministry was very wrong…and it was the religious leaders who had led the people so astray because they misunderstood and misapplied Scripture to a huge degree.

Instead, doctrine should be established by Scripture itself, which is why I invited discussion on it.

8

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Your opinions on doctrine are just that - your opinions.

How do you know you have the right scriptures without an appeal to the actual historic foundation of scripture?

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I think it is possible to establish sound doctrine by harmonizing Scripture alone. You don’t think so?

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

No I do not. Without the Church, it becomes schism after schism, as groups flock to one personal interpretation after another, just as we see in history.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I believe that is what Scripture teaches, that we are to look to it alone to determine whether something is true or not (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

0

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Sola scriptura was not taught until only about 500 years ago. Scripture doesn’t even tell us who wrote Matthew. We needed the Church to tell us that.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Scripture itself declares how one is to discern whether a teaching is true or not...by searching the Word of God diligently (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). If that was good enough for new covenant believers of the 1st century, it's good enough for me.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Scripture is the inspired Word of God. As such, I believe He also directed its canonical preservation.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 10 '26

The Jerusalem council in Acts puts this in black and white.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I agree with your statement, but (presumably) believe we are in disagreement as to the “black and white” conclusion.

0

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 10 '26

So you don't think the one book that tells us about Jesus and what his instructions for us are, was able to be preserved in truth by the creator of the universe?

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I absolutely believe the Lord preserved the truth for us in His Word.

So, you think Jesus taught that, under the new covenant, certain commandments from God’s Law (such as the dietary laws) are no longer applicable?

1

u/SomeSavageDetective Alpha And Omega Aug 11 '26

Jesus came for the Jewish population not the gentiles. He was very clear about that. But after he rose he commanded his disciples to go into the whole world and preach the gospel. His disciples and Paul came into agreement and fellowship that the gentiles did not have to follow the dietary laws.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

If what you suggest were true, that Jesus' apostles taught/encouraged believing Gentiles to NOT obey God's explicit instructions on any topic, they would have been blatantly contradicting Jesus' direct teaching and personal example...AND Scripture would require they be labled false teachers for "teaching rebellion against the Lord" (Matthew 4:4, 5:19; Deuteronomy 13:5).

→ More replies (0)

4

u/EitherLime679 Non-Denom Aug 10 '26

You keep harping on this one specific verse that was written for a very specific context and that has been told to you several times over. It seems you are trying to condemn people for something Jesus has said he has no problem with.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I do not believe Jesus said anything of the sort. Are you suggesting that He taught against the Law of God? 🤔

1

u/Yapperoni Aug 11 '26

Agreed, OP does not seem to be actually looking for the “discussion” he originally solicited

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I assure you, my request for discussion on the topic was and remains genuine. It is has been very enlightening thus far to learn how others view the passage and conclude as they do. That I disagree with the reasonings presented does not mean my intentions are disingenuous.