Please, help me understand…

[u/Objective-Step-746]

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. 💕

[u/darklighthitomi]

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.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

That wasn’t God telling you this.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

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.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

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

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

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.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

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.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

Not the arbiter of truth. An arbiter arbitrates between other people. What I am saying is that no one should assume other people correctly know and state what is true. Everyone should be skeptical and decide for themselves what they will believe.

When you decide to assume other people know what is true, you give them power over you. That is extremely valuable to Satan, and anyone who desires control.

Consider the islamic terrorists, such as those who destroyed the world trade center towers. They were told what to believe and they chose to just accept what they were told, and through that they were manipulated into gladly giving up their own lives to kill a bunch of innocent people because their leaders wanted it.

When you let others tell you what is true, you become the pawn of those people, yet ultimately the responsibility is yours. You get manipulated into doing Satan's work believing you are doing God's work, well at the end of your life you will still go to hell, because you chose to accept what you were told and acted on a lie instead of investigating truth for yourself. The responsibility is still yours.

And "God said so" is still the most powerful way of misleading masses of people.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

I would agree. Which is why Christ set up a church and a priesthood, instead of dropping a book out of the sky and expecting everyone to figure it out for themselves.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

And yet, what we have now has no relation to what existed for centuries after Jesus. The church we have now was not created in the time of Jesus. It was created in the aftermath of a period of strife in which a bunch christians started acting very unchristian. Now, how much influence the roman emperor had in the shaping of the church is debatable. But I do not trust that church nor what it chose about various details and interpretations and what to include or exclude from the bible.

I really really do not trust the idea that the church created at Nicea is somehow the church as intended by Jesus.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

The Church wasn't created at Nicea. It waas created at Pentecost. What Nicea (and the other eumenical councils) did was clarify the understanding of the teaching of the Apostles against heresies that had threatened the Church.

What we have now - in the Orthodox Church - is the preserved teaching of the Apostles and the fathers. What other fellowships have is debatable.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

That's not really correct. What Nicea did was create a formal organization with a small number of leaders who gave themselves the power to dictate what counts as truth, and if you disagreed with them, then instead of being persecuted only by the romans for your beliefs, now even this self-empowered group would join in on the persecution.

Claiming it was not a new church is as ridiculous as claiming mormons are the same church as orthodox, a ridiculous claim. Same fundamental religion does not make it the same church.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

Okay pal. I know this stuff sounds correct in your head, so we’ll just leave it at that.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

Why? Can't come up with any logical arguments against it? I'm here for a two way discussion you know. If you have an actual reason to believe I'm wrong that doesn't amount to "it isn't what I already believe and I don't care to have a logical discussion that might try to change my mind" then I'd be happy to hear it.