Pork prohibited in the Bible

[don532]

God also instructed Moses and his brother Aaron about clean and unclean Foods (Leviticus 11).

Now, let’s look at Leviticus 11 and see what it says. In Leviticus 11:3, it says “Of all that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: you may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.”

In other words, God said if the animial has a completely divided hoof and it chews its cud, then you can eat it. But, if it has a completely divided hoof but does not chew its cud, you can’t eat it. Also, if it chews its cud, but does not have a completely divided hoof, you can’t eat it. So by Leviticus 11, you can’t eat Camels, Rabbits or Pigs. Pigs were also not even to be touched, alive or dead. You were also not to eat some sea creatures that don’t have fins and scales. Birds were not to be eaten because they were detestable, as were insects. The animals were clean and unclean, because God said they were: that is the only reason we know. We could guess some other reasons, but we have no reason to guess at God’s reasons, since He is God and we are not, and it’s right to do what He wishes, since He is God.

The Dietary Laws of Leviticus 11, continued through the reign of King David, and through to his son King Solomon and his temple, right through to the captivity in Babylon. The Dietary Laws lasted up until the days of Jesus

What happened that allowed Christians to eat these unclean foods, especially Pig? Was it man who changed?

Read the next to the last paragraph of your response. The dietary laws lasted up until the days of Jesus. That's what happened. Jesus. The old law was fulfilled by his death, burial and resurrection.

 

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Why does that the dietary laws was passed to the Jews?

 

[snakelegs]

Matt 5:17-25: 17"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. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

where does jesus change his mind from the above quote, which seems pretty clear to me?

 

[aadil77]

alright even if the laws changed or were changed, aren't they supposed to change for the better?

Still doesn't make any sense to me why Jesus would say stay away from it as its unclean, then change to saying that its only unclean for the person who thinks its unclean

Also why would Jews have their own certain 'dietry laws'? They didn't have any special dietry requirements as far as I know

 

[Keltoi]

You first have to understand what Mosaic Law is, and also the difference between the ritual law and the civil law. Dietary laws are found in the civil law. These laws were intended for Jews, both for obvious health reasons and to set the Jewish people apart. When Christianity came to the Gentiles, it was Paul who suggested it wasn't necessary for Gentiles to follow all Jewish law, especially not the dietary laws or the laws of circumcision. Christ never suggests that eating of unclean animals has been "purified", for lack of a better word, but Paul didn't believe it was necessary for Gentiles to follow these laws in order to achieve salvation. So most Christians do not follow these dietary laws. In any event, the breaking of dietary law wasn't seen as a major unforgivable sin by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[snakelegs]

why do they follow paul's words over jesus'?

 

[FatimaAsSideqah]

^ thats what I was going to ask! loq. :X

 

[Azy]

Jesus didn't say this, so it is not the teaching of Jesus....you are confusing the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.

Jesus said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Where did Jesus change His mind and then say He came to change Mosaic Law??

Who is lying? Jesus or Paul??

I'll just pop in the passage from the sermon on the mount for reference:

Matthew 5
17 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.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes 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.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.
26Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
---

What he was saying is that the scribes and Pharisees were exaggerating every tenet of law until it became a burden on the people and ritualistic behaviour became more important than the underlying principles.
This is more obviously stated in Matthew 23:

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
---

Jesus did not come to stop people from acting in the spirit of the Mosaic law, he was more concerned with the underlying principles of how man should treat man rather than the minute details of each law (as the priests were doing).

21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;

He is saying, you're missing the point, you should look beyond the letter of the law, you should always aim to behave with benevolence regardless of the specific situation, not be bogged down by a checklist of dos and don'ts.
He is not abolishing the law, but rather the dogmatic, ritualistic way of applying the law that was getting in the way of it's genuine application.

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The early Jews made sacrifices to god in order to repent for their transgressions against the law. When Jesus said he would fulfil the law it meant he would sacrifice himself and that would release all mankind from sin and from the literal Mosaic law.

 

[Keltoi]

why do they follow paul's words over jesus'?

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

 

[don532]

where does jesus change his mind from the above quote, which seems pretty clear to me?

20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Good question.

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

 

[snakelegs]

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

so you are saying that paul decided (against jesus) that the laws could be thrown out in order to make the religion easier/more appealing?

 

[snakelegs]

Good question.

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

in the context (from Azy's post), he doesn't seem to me to be saying this at all, but that he is going further than the pharisees in saying that not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged equally seriously.

 

[aadil77]

Where is God's intervention in this? isn't God supposed to be revealing to Jesus whats allowed and whats not? rather than an judgment of paul

 

[FatimaAsSideqah]

Its does surprised to me because it was rather to follow Paul than Jesus!

It doesn't make sense to me. Jesus is the Messenger of God and the Christians are supposed to follow Jesus, not to follow Paul.

 

[MustafaMc]

To try to understand Islam better, I read the Koran. If you want to understand Christianity better, you might consider reading the whole Bible, including the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled the old law. We don't follow the dietary laws given to the Jews. Christians don't make animal sacrifices for their sins, either. One of the passages relating to diet is from Romans 14:



Also, the dietary laws were given to the Jews. The Gentiles were never required to follow the dietary laws.

Greetings, Don532, I haven't heard from you in some time.

I notice that you again quoted from a letter written by Paul. Notice that Paul also did away with circumcision in opposition to Jesus' disciples. If one reads the book of Galatians with an open mind, he would see the fierce struggle between Paul and Jesus' disciples over adherence to the Judaic law.

 

[MustafaMc]

I don't think it was a matter of taking anyone's "word" over Christ, it was a matter of salvation...which is what Christianity is about. Paul understood that Jewish dietary law would seem pointless and alien to Gentiles, not to mention the practice of circumcision. It was a question of whether following dietary law or not was a matter of salvation...which Paul believed wasn't. Accepting Christ as the Messiah and Savior was much more important for future salvation than banning consumption of sea food and swine. It was the Pauline method to introduce Christianity into Gentile and Jewish societies by adapting to their particular cultural norms. Making Christianity more universal than Judaism, in other words. Obviously it was very successful. While Paul and the other traditional Jewish Christian leaders might have frowned on the practice, they didn't see it as being more important than the acceptance of Christ as Savior. It went both ways too, since Gentile leaders sent to Jewish communities were circumcized in order to obey cultural norms. Timothy being an example.

Yes, not only did Paul de-emphasize following of the Judaic Law, he also de-emphasized what Jesus actually taught and how he lived his life as an example to follow. The focus in Paul's message is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as an act of Divine Grace that precluded any works as the means to attain salvation.

 

[don532]

in the context (from Azy's post), he doesn't seem to me to be saying this at all, but that he is going further than the pharisees in saying that not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged equally seriously.

not only the actions matter, but what is in your heart is judged

I would say it like this. Not only the actions matter, but actions and what is in your heart is judged. Again, who is perfect in actions and in the heart?

 

[don532]

Greetings, Don532, I haven't heard from you in some time.

I notice that you again quoted from a letter written by Paul. Notice that Paul also did away with circumcision in opposition to Jesus' disciples. If one reads the book of Galatians with an open mind, he would see the fierce struggle between Paul and Jesus' disciples over adherence to the Judaic law.

I also quoted from the sermon on the mount.

 

[snakelegs]

I would say it like this. Not only the actions matter, but actions and what is in your heart is judged. Again, who is perfect in actions and in the heart?

yes, but you had said:

Who's righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? Nobody. No human is perfect. They were the most righteous, but to earn your way into the kingdom of heaven one's righteousness has to surpass even theirs. Only Jesus could do that. That's why we need Him as our redemption.

and i don't see this from his words at all, but rather that he is surpassing the pharisees is saying that what is in your heart is just as important as what you do. i see nothing about earning your way to the kingdom of heaven through the sacrifice, or his death being your redemption.

 

[don532]

and i don't see this from his words at all, but rather that he is surpassing the pharisees is saying that what is in your heart is just as important as what you do. i see nothing about earning your way to the kingdom of heaven through the sacrifice, or his death being your redemption.

Matthew 5
17 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.

What do you believe Jesus' fulfillment of the law to be?