It's ok to eat pork?

[SatiyaH]

I have not read all of your threads , so sorry if I am repeating something.

I had a discussion not too long ago with a Baptist Pastor who was questioning me my views on eating pork (knowing my afiliation with Islam)

He used this quote from Acts to say that it is ok to eat pork.

Acts 11:4-10
But Peter rehearsed [the matter] from the beginning, and expounded [it] by order unto them, saying,


Act 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:


Act 11:6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.


Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.


Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.


Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.



He continued with:
Matthew 15:10-11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What
goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

And again in Matthew 15:16-20
""Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that
whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the
body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart,
and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil
thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,
slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed
hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

He claims that Jesus and Paul said that it did not matter what you ate which included pork. So, since Christians are followers of the New Testament--the grub on some pork...since Hebrews (or Jews) don't see Jesus as the Messiah, and they follow the Levitical Law they don't eat pork and Kosher their foods.

[1dell]

Nah dude, you just dont innerstand what I am saying. What I am saying is it's written to gentiles that KEEP the law. dayum. why is that so hard for you to grasp?

kAH said:

We goin backwards again! I thought I got yo punk ass to admit the letter was written to uncircumcised men. Here are your freggin words [comin back to bite yo punk mofo azz!]...

1dell says : "He is speaking to both but in that particular passage when he is refering to uncircumcized in flesh he is speaking to gentiles."

1dell now says : "It was written to men who kept the law. Now what? "

Final analysis, 1dell is a confused brother who changes his stance every time priest kah put a whoopin on him

[kAHANyAH]

like what the flying fucc nun!! nikka how you gone say you confirm this letter was written to UNCIRCUMCISED GENTILES who werent keepin the law, then have the unmitigated nerves!, to come back and say the letter was extolling them to now keep the law. Nikka! did you read the freggin letter in its entirety. The letter was telling them the law would kill them thru judgments!!!!

read this shizzle mang,

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

You see that ? "handwriting of ordinances". Do you know what these handwriting of ordinances the letter purports the gentiles would be blotted out from or taken out from underneath is ? Thats the freggin LAW! so how in the world would you say the same law the letter says we are not under , would then come back and say we should keep.

are you insulting my intelligence man!!! for real ? I am INSULTED! If that aint the most baffoonery of the baffoon statements Ive ever heard, I dunno what is.

1dell said:

Nah dude, you just dont innerstand what I am saying. What I am saying is it's written to gentiles that KEEP the law. dayum. why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[1dell]

I appreciate you sharing that Satiyah. I argue this with pastors my dayum self.

First of all he is wrong as hell for using Kepa in Act. Sure the Most high told Kepa to eat but what did Kepa say?

and I paraphrase "no lord I have not eaten anything unclean from my birth" so what does that mean? that means Kepa NEVER ate anything unclean. And this is some years AFTER Ishua had died!!! You mean to tell me that if Ishua was teaching to eat pork and eating pork why is Kepa saying he has never eaten anything unclean?

And when you get to the end of the VISION that kepa had he STILL didn't eat the unclean things. but what did Kepa say? and I paraphrase:

"from this vision I innerstood that I was not to consider the gentiles unclean" thats IT he didn't say from this vision I innerstood that I could have a pork chop and some ribs!!!! Christians PISS ME OFF with that!!!

And when IHaWaH said "what God has cleansed do not call unclean" this was all done to prepare Kepa's heart who was prejudice against gentiles. NOTHING MOOR!

Matthew 15:10-11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What
goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

Yeah but he is speaking to jews. who the hell had a pork chop on the table to eat? This had to do with the ceremonial washing of the hands before eating. It was eating with unclean hands that didn't defile a man not what came out. What jew innerstood that to mean it was ok to have a plate of chitterlings? thats bogus! The issue was NOT whether or not to eat shell fish or pork, the issue was washing hands before eating according to the traditions of the Perushiym!

and here is the KEY verse These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed
hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

Actually the christians deceive themselves if they think Paul and Ishua taught that. Their writtings are pro torah which means keeping Kashrut!

I have battles on both sides. I gets no rest!

SatiyaH said:

I have not read all of your threads , so sorry if I am repeating something.

I had a discussion not too long ago with a Baptist Pastor who was questioning me my views on eating pork (knowing my afiliation with Islam)

He used this quote from Acts to say that it is ok to eat pork.

Acts 11:4-10
But Peter rehearsed [the matter] from the beginning, and expounded [it] by order unto them, saying,


Act 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:


Act 11:6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.


Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.


Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.


Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.



He continued with:
Matthew 15:10-11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What
goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

And again in Matthew 15:16-20
""Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that
whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the
body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart,
and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil
thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony,
slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed
hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

He claims that Jesus and Paul said that it did not matter what you ate which included pork. So, since Christians are followers of the New Testament--the grub on some pork...since Hebrews (or Jews) don't see Jesus as the Messiah, and they follow the Levitical Law they don't eat pork and Kosher their foods.

[1dell]

ok first of all I never said that this was to gentiles who didn't keep Torah. I said they did keep torah.

2nd The handwritting of ordinances that was against them was those laws that forbade them to participate in the holy days as uncircumcised. The torah states in order for them to participate they must be circumcised. Thats the handwritting of ordinances. I address that already kah.

Now what?

kAH said:

like what the flying fucc nun!! nikka how you gone say you confirm this letter was written to UNCIRCUMCISED GENTILES who werent keepin the law, then have the unmitigated nerves!, to come back and say the letter was extolling them to now keep the law. Nikka! did you read the freggin letter in its entirety. The letter was telling them the law would kill them thru judgments!!!!

read this shizzle mang,

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

You see that ? "handwriting of ordinances". Do you know what these handwriting of ordinances the letter purports the gentiles would be blotted out from or taken out from underneath is ? Thats the freggin LAW! so how in the world would you say the same law the letter says we are not under , would then come back and say we should keep.

are you insulting my intelligence man!!! for real ? I am INSULTED! If that aint the most baffoonery of the baffoon statements Ive ever heard, I dunno what is.

[kAHANyAH]

1dell, the day he had the vision of the unclean animals falling from heaven [symbolic of the unholy angels falling from heaven] is when Peter first began to be decieved by the unholy spirit forces [ref., to my thread post in illuzion section titled : Paul and Peter, duped by the unholy spirit forces ].

After the master teacher's death, Peter stuck to the original teachings. Atleast up until he was possessed by the unholy spirit forces during that prayer incident. From that day forward, Peter taught against the original doctrine of Ishua.

Peter had become a dis-agreeable.

1dell said:

I appreciate you sharing that Satiyah. I argue this with pastors my dayum self.

First of all he is wrong as hell for using Kepa in Act. Sure the Most high told Kepa to eat but what did Kepa say?

and I paraphrase "no lord I have not eaten anything unclean from my birth" so what does that mean? that means Kepa NEVER ate anything unclean. And this is some years AFTER Ishua had died!!! You mean to tell me that if Ishua was teaching to eat pork and eating pork why is Kepa saying he has never eaten anything unclean?

And when you get to the end of the VISION that kepa had he STILL didn't eat the unclean things. but what did Kepa say? and I paraphrase:

"from this vision I innerstood that I was not to consider the gentiles unclean" thats IT he didn't say from this vision I innerstood that I could have a pork chop and some ribs!!!! Christians PISS ME OFF with that!!!

And when IHaWaH said "what God has cleansed do not call unclean" this was all done to prepare Kepa's heart who was prejudice against gentiles. NOTHING MOOR!

Matthew 15:10-11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What
goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes
out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " "

Yeah but he is speaking to jews. who the hell had a pork chop on the table to eat? This had to do with the ceremonial washing of the hands before eating. It was eating with unclean hands that didn't defile a man not what came out. What jew innerstood that to mean it was ok to have a plate of chitterlings? thats bogus! The issue was NOT whether or not to eat shell fish or pork, the issue was washing hands before eating according to the traditions of the Perushiym!

and here is the KEY verse These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed
hands does not make him 'unclean.' " "

Actually the christians deceive themselves if they think Paul and Ishua taught that. Their writtings are pro torah which means keeping Kashrut!

I have battles on both sides. I gets no rest!

[kAHANyAH]

you smoking some real good hash bros.! Pass the dutchy pon ya left hon side :-). lets get this straight... 1dell says the UNCIRCUMCISED gentiles were keeping the law Is that an oxy-moronic statement or what ? . Lets try it again. This time I will say it a lil slower... 1dell says the UNCIRCUMCISEEEEEDDDDDD gentiles were keeping the law.

LOL!!! Balls in your court.

1dell said:

ok first of all I never said that this was to gentiles who didn't keep Torah. I said they did keep torah.

2nd The handwritting of ordinances that was against them was those laws that forbade them to participate in the holy days as uncircumcised. The torah states in order for them to participate they must be circumcised. Thats the handwritting of ordinances. I address that already kah.

Now what?

[1dell]

Yeah kah, you are a trippin. I'll take the time to read that post and I am sure i will have a mouthful to say about it.

But first dayum that back to what we're talking about. Stop jumpin' 'round nilga

what da prollem is?

kAH said:

1dell, the day he had the vision of the unclean animals falling from heaven [symbolic of the unholy angels falling from heaven] is when Peter first began to be decieved by the unholy spirit forces [ref., to my thread post in illuzion section titled : Paul and Peter, duped by the unholy spirit forces ].

After the master teacher's death, Peter stuck to the original teachings. Atleast up until he was possessed by the unholy spirit forces during that prayer incident. From that day forward, Peter taught against the original doctrine of Ishua.

Peter had become a dis-agreeable.

[SatiyaH]

Well nowadays with the knowledge of bacteria we have we know we better wash our hands before we eat! (Especially kids )

I took the passages to mean that the gentiles were now to be included in the blessings of god--that the vision was symbolic. The animals in Peter's time were the same as those which had been in existence when the Laws were given, so there were still clean and unclean animals. There was no excuse, if Levitical law said that a certain thing should not be eaten, that law still stands if you follow those laws. I do not think that there is any justification to say that God has cleansed pigs, so that we may now eat their meat, neither may we take this as meaning that we may now eat anything else which is on the unclean list. How can they be unclean one day--then somebody has a vision and poof that same old swine is now clean?


When he was told to kill and eat unclean animals, twice it says he "wondered" what the meaning of the vision was! He wasn't some moron, he knew it must have a "symbolic" meaning. Peter knew, after spending over three years with Jesus, that unclean animals continued to be unclean an unlawful to eat. And he knew that it was highly unlikely that God would order him to defile himself by eating unclean meat. He knew the vision was a teaching metaphor that needed interpreting. There had to be a parallel meaning to it. This is what he was looking for when it says he, "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant." The next day Peter gives the interpretation and says... "But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Nowhere, anywhere in the Bible is there any indication that Peter, or anyone else ever interpreted this vision literally and saw it as God's green light on eating any kind of meat!

[1dell]

Exactly, if you were following me closely I explained why this was possible. The gentiles were keeping the law, and you must have missed when I quoted the entire 3rd chapter of Colossians where Paul is reminding them to keep Torah and he goes on to list Laws that they are reminded to keep among other things.

Maybe you missed it or something

kAH said:

you smoking some real good hash bros.! Pass the dutchy pon ya left hon side :-). lets get this straight... 1dell says the UNCIRCUMCISED gentiles were keeping the law Is that an oxy-moronic statement or what ? . Lets try it again. This time I will say it a lil slower... 1dell says the UNCIRCUMCISEEEEEDDDDDD gentiles were keeping the law.

LOL!!! Balls in your court.

[kAHANyAH]

BTW 1dell, since you dont know. Here is the central tenet of Torah. YOU MUST BE CIRCUMCISED IN THE FLESH in order to keep any hebraic law. Thats why a hebrew male is circumcised at 8 days old.

If you are not circumcised, you cannot participate in any keeping of hebrew law. Were the colossian men circumcised in the flesh ? Hmmm...



Do you know ?

[1dell]

EXACTLY Sati!!! 1dellfully put!!! I agree 100% Ishua wasn't against washing hand before meals he was against the Perushiym/pharisees religious traditions and burdens they would place on people. He was admonishing the Perushiym about their methods.

SatiyaH said:

Well nowadays with the knowledge of bacteria we have we know we better wash our hands before we eat! (Especially kids )

I took the passages to mean that the gentiles were now to be included in the blessings of god--that the vision was symbolic. The animals in Peter's time were the same as those which had been in existence when the Laws were given, so there were still clean and unclean animals. There was no excuse, if Levitical law said that a certain thing should not be eaten, that law still stands if you follow those laws. I do not think that there is any justification to say that God has cleansed pigs, so that we may now eat their meat, neither may we take this as meaning that we may now eat anything else which is on the unclean list. How can they be unclean one day--then somebody has a vision and poof that same old swine is now clean?


When he was told to kill and eat unclean animals, twice it says he "wondered" what the meaning of the vision was! He wasn't some moron, he knew it must have a "symbolic" meaning. Peter knew, after spending over three years with Jesus, that unclean animals continued to be unclean an unlawful to eat. And he knew that it was highly unlikely that God would order him to defile himself by eating unclean meat. He knew the vision was a teaching metaphor that needed interpreting. There had to be a parallel meaning to it. This is what he was looking for when it says he, "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant." The next day Peter gives the interpretation and says... "But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Nowhere, anywhere in the Bible is there any indication that Peter, or anyone else ever interpreted this vision literally and saw it as God's green light on eating any kind of meat!

[SatiyaH]

Matter of fact, they aren't even eating meat when the "Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat breadb]with unwashed hands?”<br>
As you can see, the discussion wasn’t about animal flesh at all. It was about “bread” which had become defiled by touching it without the ceremonial washing of the hands.

Also, a bit of research has shown me that the statement "thus purifying all foods" is clearly understood that swine was never considered a food, thus that statement didn't apply. It did not say purify all flesh it said "food".

[1dell]

Dude are you reading my posts? I already said that 2wice. That THAT is the handwriting of ordinances against them. That they must be circumcized in order to keep the feasts THAT is what Paul means LET NO MAN JUDGE/CONDEMN you in keep these feast.

lol man If you read Acts chapter 15 you will find out why they are not circumcised.

I'm out I am off work I'll pick this up when I get home or something

kAH said:

BTW 1dell, since you dont know. Here is the central tenet of Torah. YOU MUST BE CIRCUMCISED IN THE FLESH in order to keep any hebraic law. Thats why a hebrew male is circumcised at 8 days old.

If you are not circumcised, you cannot participate in any keeping of hebrew law. Were the colossian men circumcised in the flesh ? Hmmm...



Do you know ?

[kAHANyAH]

No, I understood what you said. You said "those laws" that precluded them from keeping hi holy days because they were uncircumcised. In other words you're saying some laws they cannot keep while uncircumcised but there are other laws they can keep. Well bros., what i am telling you is you cannot keep ANY law while you are uncircumcised. The letter was telling them, dont sweat it [being uncircumcised and not being clean to keep the law] 'cause they dont need to keep them laws anyhow. Thats why it said "let know man JUDGE you". You judge a person by using the law to condemn or pass judgment over them.

A'ight we will continue the azz whoopin when you get home.

When you arrive, break this down for me, what law permits the gentiles to not be circumcised but keep the law.

I shall await your bullshit when you get home.

1dell said:

Dude are you reading my posts? I already said that 2wice. That THAT is the handwriting of ordinances against them. That they must be circumcized in order to keep the feasts THAT is what Paul means LET NO MAN JUDGE/CONDEMN you in keep these feast.

lol man If you read Acts chapter 15 you will find out why they are not circumcised.

I'm out I am off work I'll pick this up when I get home or something

[xray]TEXT[/xray]