Is Eating Pork Wrong?

[EdSutton]

Who has suggested we are to "Break the law?" here? Have I missed this? I have read multiple posts where the poster doesn't think it applies, but that is not the same thing.
What is the 'jurisdiction' of "the law"? It never applied to me, as an unsaved Gentile, for I never had "the law" in the first place. (Rom. 2:14)
Does it apply to me now? Nope! I am not "under the law". (Rom. 6:14)
.


I, and we who are Christians, in fact, are dead to the law; free from the law; loosed from the law; delivered from the law; dead through the law; and redeemed from the law. I have already posted these things before, so will not go into the great detail again, for if it fell on deaf ears then, it probably will again, and I am not physically able to go through this all again, at this time. I will give a link to the thread, where I posted all this, before, at the end of thes notes. I want to center on two things, here. To whom does the law speak?

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19 - NKJV)

Hence, it does not speak to me, since as we have seen, we are not under the law.

The second thing has to do with "dead to the law" (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19) I will refresh your memory of a somewhat infamous individual in our recent history, the late Ken Lay of ENRON infamy. You may recall that he was convicted and sentenced to prison for his role in this. He appealed, and while awaiting his appeals and perhaps actual incarceration, died of a heart attack. HIs conviction was set aside. Why? Because he was really a 'good guy'? Hardly. But he was not able, as he had died, to make his appeal, and the conviction was taken away, for that reason. I died in Jesus Christ. Each and every demand the law could have ever had on me, were it even applicable is no longer valid. Why? The law has no claim on a dead person.

Dead? ("He's dead, Jim!")

Case closed!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Although I have more places than this where this subject has been discussed, here is one of the clearest:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33219

The most detail is found in posts starting with #38 or so, although I continue through the whole thread. This is a good starting place.

Ed

 

[Eric B]

Eric -

You are fabricating the idea that what someone does with Lev 19:19 forms a bible basis for ABOLISHING SCRIPTURE as it pleases you in a pick-and-choose model. But that has never been a Bible principle - ever!

That idea is not exegesis - it is not even Bible study at all. You are simply casting about you for excuses.

When "by contrast" the Bible says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and is profitable for instruction doctrine and correction.

Quote:Bobryan Said
Originally Posted by BobRyan
You can not justify turning a blind eye to Lev 11 "because God did not include poison plants".

That "too" is not a form of biblical argument - "at all".

You already lost that argument when you confessed that in Lev 11 when God said it was bad to eat decaying rotting flesh EVEN if it is of a CLEAN animal - that this in obviously a health issue.

[Note I said it is ONE issue that happens to involve health. It by itself is NOT the definition of "unclean". Again use the Bibles definition of the Hebrew word, not your own imagination!]
Try again.

But "even worse" for your argument our Creator God says that Lev 11 defines that which "is edible" that which IS food!!

Impossible to turn a blind eye to the text of scripture as you seek to do in this case.

So that means we have to listen to God when He says rats, cats, dogs and bats -- and even human flesh - is not food for humans.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric tried the "pick-and-choose which parts you want to keep" model declaring the "bad bible parts" to be abolished no matter what Paul said in Rom 3:31 to the contrary.

You're still deflecting the question, and not answering it. I told you, this is not about me and what I'm trying to justify/ I don't eat pork or those other meats.

I can and have answered why I keep or don't keep what I do. Lev.11, 19:19 and 23 are not unversal laws, and ceased at the Cross. 19:18 was held up as universal by t
Jesus and the New Testament. Its all the Word of God. No "bad Bible". But not all of it is binding on us today.

Now if you don't keep your linens separate in your clothes, it is either
1)it is inconvenient for you/overlooked it/just a plain double standard.

2)You are the one who believes it is a bad Bible or not the Word of God.

3)Not all of Leviticus is binding for today.

Now make your choice and quit fudging and trying to point a finger back.

 

[Eric B]

God allowed polygamy but it wasnt the best way to go

the original diet was a Vegetarian one. Genesis 1:29


God gave Adam and Eve the food He designed that the human race should eat. It was contrary to His plan to have the life of any creature taken. There was no death in Eden. God gave man no permission to eat animal food until after the flood. After the flood, everything had been destroyed upon which man eat, and therefore the Lord in their necessity gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals which he had taken with him into the ark. But this doesnt mean that animal food was the most healthful article of food for man to have.

The difference is, polygamy is spoken against in thr NT while meat is allowed; and in fact, commanding against it is what is condemned.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: He then makes a very bold statement:
"I wish that they were even cut off that trouble you."
I wish that they were cut off that teach the type of doctrine that SDA's teach--to keep the law of the OT.

HP: This IMO is a most troubling statement. Are you saying that you desire God to cut off from salvation those who IYO are teaching to keep the law of the OT? Is this not clearly judging their salvation, desiring that they be lost eternally?

Possibly I do not understand the remark. What do you mean by desiring that they be ‘cut off?’

 

[DHK]

HP: This IMO is a most troubling statement. Are you saying that you desire God to cut off from salvation those who IYO are teaching to keep the law of the OT? Is this not clearly judging their salvation, desiring that they be lost eternally?

Possibly I do not understand the remark. What do you mean by desiring that they be ‘cut off?’

Take the Scripture in the context in which it was written. The Galatians had received the Word of God. They were saved by grace. Under grace there is liberty--liberty from the law. Wherever Paul went he was followed by Judaizers, a sect that demanded one be "saved" by keeping the law and by being circumcized. This was not salvation at all, but a damnable heresy.

He then makes a very bold statement:
"I wish that they were even cut off that trouble you."
I wish that they were cut off that teach the type of doctrine that SDA's teach--to keep the law of the OT.

Paul, in making the statement "I wish that they were even cut off that trouble you," is in effect saying that he wishes that they were dead. That is the meaning of the expression of "cut off." It is better for those who spread false doctrine to be cut off then to continue to spread false doctrine and to face an even greater condemnation as they treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. Paul's wish/statement was harsh. But it was for the better. Those who try to take a Christian's liberty in Christ away by tying them to the law are spreading not only heresy, but a works salvation. They need to beware, lest God severely judge them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: "I wish that they were even cut off that trouble you," is in effect saying that he wishes that they were dead. That is the meaning of the expression of "cut off."

HP: I for one would be very cautious of what I wish for. Chickens come home to roost.

Remember Haman.

 

[EdSutton]

The difference is, polygamy is spoken against in thr (sic) NT while meat is allowed; and in fact, commanding against it is what is condemned.

While it is 'recognized', is polygamy ever 'recommended' in even the OT? Does not the Scripture in Genesis uses the singular husband and wife before even the fall? And did not the OT warn against the kings taking multiple wives well before the monarchy, even to the point of saying it should not be done?

Ed

 

[JonC]

If I understand correctly, the question has nothing to do with pork, but rather whether we are under the Law, or dead to the Law.

If we are under the Law, we don’t eat anything forbidden by the Law, we observe the laws of guilt offerings, burnt offerings, sacrifice peace offerings, etc. We observe the laws concerning illness, days of fasting, etc. We must avoid eating at restaurants that serve unclean food, because the cooking devices are unclean, as well as the cook. As far as eating according to the Law, we’d be good to simply eat kosher foods and go to kosher restaurants (we’d eat at home in Tennessee).

To simply say that I observe the Law in terms of what I eat, and ignore the rest is hypocrisy.

 

[EdSutton]

If I understand correctly, the question has nothing to do with pork, but rather whether we are under the Law, or dead to the Law.

If we are under the Law, we don’t eat anything forbidden by the Law, we observe the laws of guilt offerings, burnt offerings, sacrifice peace offerings, etc. We observe the laws concerning illness, days of fasting, etc. We must avoid eating at restaurants that serve unclean food, because the cooking devices are unclean, as well as the cook. As far as eating according to the Law, we’d be good to simply eat kosher foods and go to kosher restaurants (we’d eat at home in Tennessee).

To simply say that I observe the Law in terms of what I eat, and ignore the rest is hypocrisy.

Yep! As to the eatin'. Anyone who ever ate a cheeseburger at any 'grill' was 'breaking the law' as the meat and dairy product were cooked together. AND that is not even to suggest some other things. The original post does have to do with eating pork, but this cannot be separated, as one seems wont to do, as you also suggest, IM 'not so-humble' O.

Oh yeah, as to the hypocrisy bit, somewhat like the late Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, you , too, 'know it when you see it', I'd say.

Ed

 

[Eric B]

Paul, in making the statement "I wish that they were even cut off that trouble you," is in effect saying that he wishes that they were dead. That is the meaning of the expression of "cut off." It is better for those who spread false doctrine to be cut off then to continue to spread false doctrine and to face an even greater condemnation as they treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. Paul's wish/statement was harsh. But it was for the better. Those who try to take a Christian's liberty in Christ away by tying them to the law are spreading not only heresy, but a works salvation. They need to beware, lest God severely judge them.

Actually, thr word in the greek means "amputate" or "mutilate", and refers to total castration. It's sort of a pun. The context is those trying to get the Christians to be circumcised, with some apparently already persuaded, so Paul says in effect, they should just cut their whole organ off, if this is so imprtant to them.
Was shocked when someone first expounded this to me.

 

[Eric B]

Yep! As to the eatin'. Anyone who ever ate a cheeseburger at any 'grill' was 'breaking the law' as the meat and dairy product were cooked together. AND that is not even to suggest some other things. The original post does have to do with eating pork, but this cannot be separated, as one seems wont to do, as you also suggest, IM 'not so-humble' O.

Oh yeah, as to the hypocrisy bit, somewhat like the late Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, you , too, 'know it when you see it', I'd say.

Ed

Actually, meat and milk is really rabbinical tradition's interpretation of Ex.23:29. (which is not even in the "dietary" section of the Law. It is about the ceremonial rituals, and there is no reason not to intepret it literally).

 

[Claudia_T]

Well now people are saying I need to be castrated LOL!

 

[EdSutton]

Actually, meat and milk is really rabbinical tradition's interpretation of Ex.23:29. (which is not even in the "dietary" section of the Law. It is about the ceremonial rituals, and there is no reason not to intepret it literally).

You are correct, no doubt, as to the tradition, being derived, for I did look this up. However, I believe this probably comes from Deut. 14:21, which is in the 'dietary' section of the Law.

Ed

 

[DHK]

Fair warning: Once this thread passes the 30 page limit it will be closed.

 

[Amy.G]

Fair warning: Once this thread passes the 30 page limit it will be closed.

Thank goodness!:sleep:

 

[tragic_pizza]

Can't you go ahead and close it at the 30 page mark?

 

[BobRyan]

Are people compelled to post while it is open??

 

[BobRyan]

In Lev 11 God tells us not to eat rats, cats, dogs and bats -- and human flesh.

I am at a youth conference called GYC and here we heard a missionary give a report on witnessing to a tribal group in S. America that not only eats the human flesh of their enemies - they also eat their own dead within the tribe.

One thing that these missionaries will teach them is that they should not eat rats, cats, dogs, bats and human flesh as God states in Lev 11.

For some on this thread - that is just too great a hardship. But for others - it is obedience to the Word of God as our CREATOR tells us "What is food" for us.

It is biology and who knows it better than the Creator my friends?

In Lev 11 we are told not to eat decaying flesh even of clean animals. And in the same chapter our Creator ALSO tells us not to eat rats, cats, dogs or bats -- or human flesh.

How easy it is to read this text and "get the point". How much effort has gone into trying to "get around" this infallible instruction from our Creator is seen on this thread - and is a marvel!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Are people compelled to post while it is open??

No, had you left it alone it would have sunk into oblivion all by itself. However by posting on it you brought it up to the top of the threads again.