For Real Christians only plz !! What does the bible say about eating pork ?

Question

Was the old covnent abolished cause in Matthew 5:17 it says nothing was abolished.. So Im confused.. And if it was then that means its ok to commit incest cause thats also in the old covnet. So plz help..

Answer 1

How does a dispensational (administrational) view of Scripture help to resolve apparent Bible contradictions?





We believe that many theological arguments could be settled, and many apparent “contradictions” resolved, if the truth of administrations were more widely understood. Carefully reading the Bible shows many changes in the way God has related to mankind. There have been changes in sacrifices, the time and place of worship, dietary restrictions, financial giving, etc. The list is extensive. Also, recognizing the dispensational aspect to the unfolding of Scripture explains why people often continued some practices even after God eliminated any requirement for them.



For instance, Ephesians 4:5 says there is only “one baptism” relevant to the Church. If water baptism is still to be practiced by the Church, then there are two baptisms, the other being the baptism of the spirit (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5; 1 Cor. 12:13, etc.). Christians who do not have a dispensational viewpoint must resort to vague assertions of the value of water baptism—most saying that although it is not required for salvation, it should still be practiced. Interestingly, that still does not solve the problem that in the Church today there are, in practice, two baptisms, one of water and one of spirit. A dispensational understanding of Scripture solves the apparent contradiction by noting that water was part of the administrations before Pentecost, and the “one baptism” of Ephesians is baptism in holy spirit.



The fact that the disciples of the first-century Church continued to practice water baptism can be easily explained within a dispensational framework. Al­though God's requirement had changed on the Day of Pentecost, His people had not yet relinquished their old customs and practices. The words of the risen Christ to his disciples, “John baptized with water, BUT you shall be baptized with holy spirit” (Acts 1:5) were not enough to change centuries of entrenched custom. 6 However, Ephesians 4:5, written years later to clarify the new administration, succinctly settled the question by saying there is “one baptism.”



There is another, very glaring contradiction created by non-dispensational thinking that is very simply and elegantly explained by recognizing that not even Jesus knew about “the Secret.” Jesus Christ told his disciples in Matthew 16:28 that some of them would not die before they would see him come to es­tablish his Kingdom. And again in Matthew 24:34 Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,” referring to the events that would precede the inauguration of his Kingdom. These statements seem to be clear and straightforward, and refer to the literal, future Kingdom of which he spoke so often. He appeared to believe that his Kingdom would be established soon after his death and resurrection. His disciples also believed in the imminence of this Kingdom. When they were assembled with him before his ascension, they asked Jesus if he would be finally establishing his Kingdom at that time (Acts 1:6-11). He replied that only the Father knew, and that until it happened they had a job to do—to preach the Gospel and be his witnesses.



As the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament make known, the Kingdom was not established at that time, and was deferred to an unknown future time. The problem then becomes explaining how Jesus could have been so mistaken about something that was such an integral part of his message: the soon coming of the Kingdom. If Jesus always did the will of God and spoke truly from his Father’s heart, then how could he have not known that the Kingdom was not coming when he said it was?



Theologians have attempted to explain this by saying that he was not referring to the coming of his literal Kingdom, but was referring to either his Transfiguration or to the Day of Pentecost. They argue that he “came into his glory” in a temporal way at the Transfiguration. But the Transfiguration was an unknown future event, of which there was no prophetic anticipation or fore­warning by Jesus. How could he have expected his disciples to know that he was talking about something of which they would have had no advanced knowledge? Would they not have naturally thought he was talking about the well known Kingdom that they and their ancestors had expected for years? There is simply no good reason to equate the well known and expected “Kingdom” with an unknown and unexpected vision of that Kingdom.



If Christ were speaking of the Transfiguration, then what he actually said does not make any sense at all and is not even factual. He said, “some who are standing here will not taste death [i.e., die] before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). However, the Transfiguration occurred shortly after Christ made the statement. In Matthew, the Transfiguration oc­curs in the very next chapter, less than a month after his statement that some would not die. It is safe to say that all of his disciples were still alive a month later. Perhaps one of them had died within a month’s time, but that is still no justification for him to say that only “some” would be alive. Furthermore, since only Peter, James and John were present at the Transfiguration, and they were strictly told to tell it to no one (Matt. 17:9), Christ saying to his disciples that “some” would not die before it makes no sense.



The only reason that anyone says that the Transfiguration or the Day of Pentecost is what Christ was talking about in Matthew 16:28 is that the people he was speaking to died without seeing his Kingdom, which makes Christ clearly mistaken in what he said. Without an adequate explanation, this fact is a rather stark embarrassment to the Christian faith. But this is precisely the kind of apparent contradiction that is resolved by having a dispensational view of Scripture.



Jesus, just like the prophets of Old, could not go beyond what was previ­ously written in Scripture or had been particularly revealed to him. Draw­ing from what the prophets had written, he would have expected certain events to take place in a certain order. His first coming would have been in suffering, and end in death. After being resurrected, he expected a time of Tribulation before establishing his Kingdom. He would have had very good scriptural reason to believe that this Tribulation would come very shortly after his death and resurrection. According to the prophet Daniel, the time of the Tribulation would be seven years, a lot less than the duration of the generation Christ was speaking to. This teaching of Christ’s is also repeated in Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32.



The words Christ used when he said that “This generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled” were simple and straightforward. “All” those things were not fulfilled, and the generation is dead and gone. If the end of the world had come during that generation, everyone would applaud how accurate and simple to understand Christ’s words were. The only difficulty is caused when we think that he cannot be wrong about the timing of his coming. However, as has been pointed out, he only spoke what God revealed to him, and God had hidden the time, even from His own son. The Grace Administration has delayed Christ’s coming. Thus, a dispensational view of Scripture resolves this contradiction quite simply and elegantly. Other explanations strike us as exceptionally convoluted and contrived.

Endnotes:

6 Interestingly, the words of the risen Christ about outreach were also misunderstood. Although Christ said to go to “all creation” and “to the ends of the earth” (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8), for years the disciples went only to Jews. They finally went to the Gentiles only when the Lord Jesus gave Peter a vivid revelation (Acts 10:9-23). Even then, Peter’s traditional belief was so ingrained in him that he argued with the Lord about it.

Answer 2

Not all Christians eat pork. I'm a Christian and I choose not to eat pork because Deuteronomy 14:8 says not to and because Jesus didnt change that part of the Old Testament. At the same time, I don't judge other Christians about what they choose to eat or not eat. Everyone has their reasons why they choose to eat or not eat certain things according to their beliefs. Colossians 2:16-17 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Romans 14:20-21 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

Answer 3

Hi, this is why "rightly dividing" the Bible is important. Anybody can make the Bible say anything about any subject but if taken out of context doesn't matter. You get you neighbors bill and open it by accident and think "Oh no I owe the Mastercard $1,000." ?No you don't the letter was addressed to you neighbor, not you so it does not apply to you.
In the OT old testament of the Bible pork and many other foods were considered unclean (of course most folks don't worry about cat fish, but it was banned too as a bottom feeder). Adam and Eve did not eat meat at all, Noah was told to to eat most things but not blood ot some birds, later God told the Jews to not eat pork and a lenghty list of other foods under Jewish law. How do we decide what applies??? Go to the most recent instructions. If you vote tomorrow using an old ballot will it count? Peter had a dream in Acts 11: 4-10 where a sheet will all manner of foods came down from heaven and god said "What God hath cleansed call not common". and later Paul and Peter said Acts 21:25, just avoid food offered to idols and later Paul says all things are acceptable if thanks is given. We are not under law but grace.
grace

Answer 4

I think this falls under the "spirit of the Law". If it's bad for you, you shouldn't eat it, or do it or be around it. There are many things that are bad for us that God doesn't say "Don't do". I mean specifically the Bible doesn't say anything about pornography, but yet we know it's bad for us. The Bible doesn't say anything about eating metal, but yet we know we shouldn't because it's bad for us. The Bible doesn't point out all the ways we can sin, because their are limitless ways we can sin and do stuff that's bad for us. Back when the Bible was written, there were certain practices that we consider common place now, that weren't even known about then. God gave them what they needed to survive. He didn't give them what WE needed to survive. Back then people didn't bathe as frequently as we do, they didn't know about germs and worms that get into different kinds of meat (like pork) that if consumed can/could wipe out an entire population. So it was just easier for God to say "Don't eat pork. Don't eat shellfish." than it was to explain why they shouldn't or what needed to be done to ensure that it was safe to eat. Now days pork is safer to eat (assuming you cook it thoroughly) and most shellfish now days is farm raised on a specific diet. Catfish is also a bottom feeder, but thanks to catfish farms, it's now eaten all across the country with no ill effects.
God has said that He won't tell us what to do specifically if we can figure it out ourselves. (I'm paraphrasing.) So while the Bible and other scriptures are wonderful in explaining Gospel Doctrine, and we can gleen from it many wonderful truths and learn about how life must have been like back in OT and NT times, we must realize our cultures are totally different. There were reasons, both societal and health, for a lot of the Law. Those reasons don't take away from the spiritual aspects and symbolisim of the Law. But since times have changed our look at the health aspects of the Law must be modified as well.
Also, as has been said, Jesus fullfilled (not abolished) the Law.

Answer 5

In his letter to the Romans, Paul speaks of a situation about which opinions varied. He writes: “One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats vegetables.” Why was that? Well, under the Mosaic Law, pork was not an acceptable food. (Romans 14:2; Leviticus 11:7) However, that Law was no longer binding after Jesus died. (Ephesians 2:15) Then, three and a half years after Jesus’ death, an angel told the apostle Peter that from God’s standpoint no food should be viewed as defiled. (Acts 11:7-12) With these factors in mind, some Jewish Christians may have felt that they could eat pork—or enjoy some other food that had been prohibited under the Law.

However, the very thought of eating those formerly unclean foods would likely have been repulsive to other Jewish Christians. Such sensitive ones might have felt instinctively offended at seeing their Jewish brothers in Christ eating such food. Moreover, certain Gentile Christians, whose religious background likely never included dietary prohibitions, may have been puzzled that anyone would make an issue over food. Of course, it was not wrong for someone to abstain from certain foods, as long as he did not insist that such abstinence was necessary to gain salvation. Still, the different viewpoints could easily have fueled controversy in the congregation. The Christians in Rome would need to be careful that such differences did not prevent them from glorifying God “with one mouth.”

Answer 6

No answer just a statement: Remember in bible days they had no way of curring pork. Once people began smoking pork, pork was not as dangerous because it could be kept for longer periods of time. So just think back, like incest and things of that nature, stories were fabricated so the red flag would go up and people avoided those acts. It was a way of our holy father warning his kids, just as you would if you were trying to keep your children safe. Many many stories in the bible where metaphorically fabricated because it induces fear or faith. The bible is about using your common sense. Yes adultery is one of the 10 commandments but also just think about all the STD's and multiple families you eliminate alone not to mention mental distress, with just listening to the rules. Again common sense.

Answer 7

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about this, because I think that a lot of things like this really depend on your own personal Christian freedom. If you still feel like you are violating something eating pork, then I would say honestly not to eat it. :)
But this is how it was explained to me:
Laws to keep us holy
Laws to keep us clean, healthy ect
and Laws to keep us seperate as a people from the pegans.

The first laws, laws to keep us holy are still important. These are like the ten comandments, not having intamate relationships with animals, things like that.
Laws to keep us clean and healthy, these are things like not mixing our fabrics, not eating pork, not having relations with your wife while on or right after her period. touching a dead body. These are things a wise God layed down to keep us from being sick. Pork is a dirty animal, so that is why they didn't eat it. It's also been shown today that pig flesh needs to be cooked at a higher tempature in order to get fully cooked and not allow someone to get sick.
The third type of law, is the laws of seperation. Don't allow a pegan into your home, don't get tattoos, or marks for the dead, and everyones favorite the removing of male foreskin.
But when Jesus came, he came not just for the jew, but also for the pegan, and so he opened the door for us to be mixed, so they will be in our homes, and he is now circumsicing our hearts instead of our bodies.

Now the reason the first laws stay, and the seconds and third ones ae a matter of christian freedom is because when Christ came, he completed the second two elelements of this law, and we no longer had to seek after being clean so that we might take place in Gods grace because the grace is already there with Jesus. But we are still to persue trying to be holy, and things that are lined up in the first type of law are those that make us holy.

I hope this helps. If you still have more questions, send me a message and we can talk one on one.

Answer 8

I was curious about the same thing because the OT says to stay away from shellfish, I love shrimp and lobster. As it turns out, pigs, and shellfish and all creatures who eat dead flesh (scavengers), have a digestive system that fills the flesh with toxins, unlike herbavores who's sytem passes out the toxic wastes much easier through the digestive tract. So, in a nut shell, pork and shellfish are walking garbage cans. It would be like eating buzzards.

Answer 9

Nothing is abolished. It's just that Christ fulfilled that old covenant and brought under a new covenant, actually He is the new covenant. So it doesn't matter what you eat. It's not what goes into a man that's unclean, but what come out (that's a scripture somewhere). Eating certain foods has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation. Hope this helps.

Answer 10

In Acts chapter 10, God removed the law regarding eating clean/unclean things.

Regarding the OT, Jesus came to fulfill it, not abolish it. It is still valid for teaching. Incest is a sexual sin and as such it is forbidden in the new testament.

Answer 11

eating pork is an abomination.the old covenant types(sacrifices,feasts) were fullfilled by Jesus, the only thing that did not change was the worship day,Sabbath(saturday). i believe that before our sinful nature became to great that God forbide us to keep having those types of relationships. once the 3rd. or 4th. generations of Adam and Eves children were born, there was sufficent separation of families to marry outside of your immediate family line.