Quote: › What is God’s opinion about eating pork?

It is not healthy to eat pork. God don't have an opinion. What he says is more than an opinion. Don't eat it!

Quote: › It is not healthy to eat pork. God don't have an opinion. What he says is more than an opinion. Don't eat it!

Actually God does seem to have an opinion

Mat 15: 10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Lowell

Quote: › “It is not healthy to eat pork.”

That depends on your weight.

In many non-Western nations, eating pork might keep you from starving to death, so there it is not unhealthy to eat pork. And for many years, also in the West, eating pork was no problem at all. Only in very recent times many people are obese, but not so much from eating pork, but from just eating too much and moving too little.

Quote: › “God don't have an opinion. What he says is more than an opinion. Don't eat it!”

That is indeed what is written somewhere in the Bible, but at another place the Bible tells us that this law is not effective any longer and you may now eat pork.
What is God’s opinion? It depends on the times, it seems.

Lowell,

Quote: › It is not healthy to eat pork. God don't have an opinion. What he says is more than an opinion. Don't eat it!

Where is this found?

Pork is healthy as any other food.

Eat healthy apples all day long and see where that will get you.

Use of food or drink, or anything for that matter, in moderation is God's design.

Rerun:

Quote: › “Where is this found?”

Perhaps Lowell has read this in the Bible:
“Leviticus 11:7 - "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

And took that literally?
And missed the following, or thought it was a metaphor:

Mark 7:18-20 - "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man."

“1 Timothy 4:4 - "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving"


But why did God first tell us a pig is unclean, and then tells us that it’s no problem any longer?

Has the pig always be clean, but did God not tell us the truth at first in the OT?
Are Pigs still unclean, and did God tell a lie in the NT?
Perhaps pigs simply became much cleaner recently? Or relatively clean compared to what we eat today?
Did God have different sets of laws for different people, so effectively dividing the population in people who had to obey the Mosaic laws and people who didn’t need to obey the Mosaic laws? If so, why? As that first group will have ended up in Hell much quicker, even for picking up sticks on a Sabbath?
Perhaps a sinful stomach can cope better with unclean food than a righteous stomach?
Did someone liked bacon way too much so sneaked a false divine consent back into the Bible? Not that I have a problem with that as I love bacon.

This might sound a bit cynical at first, but what is going on here? Try answering those questions and see where you end up...

Harrie,

Quote: › But why did God first tell us a pig is unclean, and then tells us that it’s no problem any longer?

Improperly handled, pork is very dangerous for a persons health. In that desert environment, warm meat is not a good thing.

Properly handled though, pork is healthy enough. From the wiki:

Quote: › A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption. Modern day swine raising is very different from earlier times with greater exposure to toxins but reduced exposure to pests and disease.

Quote: › Has the pig always be clean, but did God not tell us the truth at first in the OT? Are Pigs still unclean, and did God tell a lie in the NT? Perhaps pigs simply became much cleaner recently? Or relatively clean compared to what we eat today? Did God have different sets of laws for different people, so effectively dividing the population in people who had to obey the Mosaic laws and people who didn’t need to obey the Mosaic laws? If so, why? As that first group will have ended up in Hell much quicker, even for picking up sticks on a Sabbath? Perhaps a sinful stomach can cope better with unclean food than a righteous stomach? Did someone liked bacon way too much so sneaked a false divine consent back into the Bible? Not that I have a problem with that as I love bacon.

You're being facetious.

Quote: › This might sound a bit cynical at first, but what is going on here? Try answering those questions and see where you end up...

All of the unclean animals in the OT were unclean for a good reason.

List them and you will see. A good list is on this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

Really read this carefully, Harrie. It will explain a lot of the misconceptions of how the OT laws relate to the NT law of Christ. Especially this part:

Quote: › Some Christians believe that there is proof in the New Testament that the Apostle Paul and his close followers actually opposed Christ's teachings on the Law of Moses and that most modern Christians follow Paul's erroneous teachings. Seemingly proof of this can be found in many passages, for example Christ said, " 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."Matthew 5:17-20 The fact that Christ was circumcised and kept every tradition & feast of the Law of Moses - including the Passover - is held by some to support the view that He expected future Christians to do the exact same thing. However, Christ and His death and resurrection are asserted by Paul, Peter, James, and John to be a permanent sacrifice for sins, once for all people. This then will mean that Christ fulfilled the Law in our place, and that Christians are no longer under the auspices of a dietary law: " 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."Romans 3:19-26

Rerun said

Quote: › In that desert environment, warm meat is not a good thing.

You could be right Rerun It makes you wonder why Jesus risked eating broiled fish in Jerusalem 15 miles from the nearest fish in the Dead Sea.

Mole,

That was after the resurrection. He proved to the disciples He was real and not a product of their imagination.

The fish was probably salted fish or dried fish. Easy to do to preserve the meat. Fish have little fat.

Pork has lots of fat. Hard to preserve it even with salt. Takes a lot of salt.

The Dead Sea doesn't have much aquatic life in it. Hence the term "Dead" in the title.

Yeah your probably right about the fish it could be dried or salted .There are fish in the dead sea but they tend to congruate near where rivers enter it. Possibly the pork wouldn't go off in the desert heat ,my workmates mother lived in Lebanon and apparently she walked to school in the snow at times, so it can't alway be baking hot around that area.

Edit spelling baking not backing.

Moleowner:

Quote: › my workmates mother lived in Lebanon and apparently she walked to school in the snow at times, so it can't alway be backing hot around that area.

I have visited Israel and traveled through the Sinai desert to Egypt: you are right, it can be pretty cold out there. I worked in a Kibbutz for a while and we had to use heaters to keep warm.

Rerun

Quote: › “Improperly handled, pork is very dangerous for a persons health. In that desert environment, warm meat is not a good thing.”

ALL improperly handled meat can be very dangerous for a person’s health!

So: Why did God first tell us a pig is unclean, and then tells us that it’s no problem any longer?

Quote: › “You're being facetious.”

There is definitely a serious undertone. As my: “This might sound a bit cynical at first, but what is going on here? Try answering those questions and see where you end up...” showed.

Let’s limit my question to this one than:

Did God have different sets of laws for different people, so effectively dividing the population in people who had to obey the Mosaic laws and people who didn’t need to obey the Mosaic laws? If so, why? As that first group will have ended up in Hell much quicker, even for picking up sticks on a Sabbath?
Does that sound fair?

Quote: › “All of the unclean animals in the OT were unclean for a good reason.”

At one moment in time they were forbidden, and at another point in time they were OK again. THAT is my point.

Quote: › “It will explain a lot of the misconceptions of how the OT laws relate to the NT law of Christ.”

Now that is more useful.

Quote: › “The fact that Christ was circumcised and kept every tradition & feast of the Law of Moses - including the Passover - is held by some to support the view that He expected future Christians to do the exact same thing. However, Christ and His death and resurrection are asserted by Paul, Peter, James, and John to be a permanent sacrifice for sins, once for all people. This then will mean that Christ fulfilled the Law in our place, and that Christians are no longer under the auspices of a dietary law.”

This is exactly that I do not understand for one bit about that Mosaic law.
Jesus tells us that nothing in the laws should ever be changed, but Paul, Peter, James and John, or more precisely: the people that wrote the papers that were later on claimed to be written by Paul, Peter, James and John, tell us that the laws now do not apply any longer, even when Jesus Himself stated very clearly they were not to be changed for even one bit.
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”
The reason that the laws no longer apply according to these gentlemen, is that Jesus, who is God in the Flesh in your system, fulfilled the requirements of the Mosaic laws.
So God made laws for the people, important enough to kill over, but than, about 1500 years or so, God came down to earth to take the punishment required by His own laws, so His Mosaic laws do not longer apply.
Is that correct?

Did people ever add something to the Bible that does not belong in your opinion? (LDS?)
Could that never, ever have happened in the past of your Bible?

Harrie wrote (View Post): › This is exactly that I do not understand for one bit about that Mosaic law. Jesus tells us that nothing in the laws should ever be changed...

I posted something related to this at about the 7th post in this thread. It may give you an overview.

Harrie,

Quote: › Why did God first tell us a pig is unclean, and then tells us that it’s no problem any longer?

To the ancient Jews, pork was unclean for health reasons. God wanted His chosen people, the Jews, to be healthy.

However, when Christ fulfilled the law, all of the ceremonial and national laws were done away with. The reason for this is NOT that God changed, God had given a way for ANY and ALL people, regardless of nationality or even diet, to freely come to Him through Christ.

Before that, you have to become a Jew in order to go to God. That was His requirement, not mine. Please do not ask me why, I have no idea. No one does.

God's law was fulfilled in Christ, by Christ. End of the law. No more do people have to become Jewish in order to go to God.

John 4:19-26

19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

Matthew 5:17-18

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.

Christ fulfilled the law so people don't have to. All who have faith in Him have, by default, fulfilled the law themselves. Belief in Christ is the only law we have to obey now.

Quote: › Jesus tells us that nothing in the laws should ever be changed,

Until all is fulfilled. And Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law in His life and on the cross.

Quote: › So God made laws for the people, important enough to kill over, but than, about 1500 years or so, God came down to earth to take the punishment required by His own laws, so His Mosaic laws do not longer apply. Is that correct?

Yes.

Quote: › Could that never, ever have happened in the past of your Bible?

No.

God protected His word.

Quote: › Did people ever add something to the Bible that does not belong in your opinion? (LDS?)

Yes they did.

Rerun.

Quote: › “To the ancient Jews, pork was unclean for health reasons. God wanted His chosen people, the Jews, to be healthy. However, when Christ fulfilled the law, all of the ceremonial and national laws were done away with.”

God wanted His chosen people to be healthy so he told them they were not allowed to eat pork, you say.
Than God fulfilled His own law, that was created for the people, by sacrificing Himself to Himself, and in that way He did away with His own law.
And now eating pork is healthy, or at least not unhealthy?

“The reason for this is NOT that God changed, God had given a way for ANY and ALL people, regardless of nationality or even diet, to freely come to Him through Christ.”
Obviously God had a different set of laws for people who lived during different times, don’t you agree? Why could an all mighty God not have given a way for any and all people during all times right away from the start?

Quote: › “Before that, you have to become a Jew in order to go to God. That was His requirement, not mine. Please do not ask me why, I have no idea. No one does.”

My best guess would be that God was originally a local tribal God, but made it big, with Christianity simply at first being a Jewish variation, perhaps like the LDS is today within Christianity; not really acknowledged by the main stream. Similar to how Judaism has branched off from older Babylonical religions. Religions evolve, just like life.

Quote: › “God's law was fulfilled in Christ, by Christ. End of the law. No more do people have to become Jewish in order to go to God.”

I don’t understand at all why God would treat people differently according to the timeframe they lived in. In my great naivety I would assume that a Divine God would be able to create laws from the start that would be suited for all people in all times.

Tell me what you feel when reading the next little story:

The children of the Smith family; James and Mary, each have their own bedroom.
But little James can’t resist the sweets that Mary has taken from the bowl in the middle of the table, and when dad finds out, they are both thrown out of their rooms forever and need to sleep in the broom closet. Several years later, another baby is born; John, and he needs to sleep in the closet too. After several years again, for no apparent reason, dad enforces rather strict rules on the children, for example: they are not allowed to put the thermostat higher on a Sunday, not even when they are freezing, or else they will be beaten and locked up in the cellar for a few hours. But there are many, many strict rules with harsh punishments the children need to obbey.
Several years later again, dad decides to beat himself and sits down in the celler for a few hours. After that, the strict rules are now not used anylonger, but they still all have to sleep in the broom closet. Shortly after, Patricia is born, and she only knows those old rules from stories that her older brothers and sister tell.

What do you think of dad?

Quote: › “Christ fulfilled the law so people don't have to. All who have faith in Him have, by default, fulfilled the law themselves. Belief in Christ is the only law we have to obey now.”

I also thought that you still needed to obey the Mosaic laws? Or else you would end up in Hell? Or wasn’t that you that said that?

Christ is God in the flesh.
God created the Mosaic law, important enough to kill people over.
GOD, created these laws, nobody else, and left them in place for many generations that had to live by them, and died because of them.
Why did God create these laws in the first place? Why?
If He had not created them in the first place, He would not have to come down to save us from them?
And why all this complicated and strange rituals to get rid of that law again, why did God not simply tell us that His laws did no longer apply? Why that strange sacrificing Himself to Himself to get rid of His own laws?
And why would God let part of humanity obey the Mosaic laws and another part not?

Quote: › “God protected His word.”

That would mean that absolutely nothing in the Bible could be incorrect or immoral, don’t you agree?
Or else you would get a serious discussion about what is God’s word and what is a human word.

I asked: “Did people ever add something to the Bible that does not belong in your opinion? (LDS?)”

Quote: › “Yes they did.”

What did God do to prevent that from happening? And imagine that this added part manages to survive for a few generations, do you think people would recognize it as being a human product, or would many people also belief that this added part is divine inspired?

How do you determine what is divine inspiration and what is not?

I will tell you my dilemma concerning the Bible:

IF the Bible is completely Divine inspired, than God is obviously not good, not all knowing or not all powerful. (Slavery, stoning, killing, sick games with people, flat earth with a dome and stars inside, sacrificing Himself to Himself to stop His own laws, killing innocent animals to punish people, needing a human to repopulate the earth with animals, etc)

IF the Bible is partly Divine inspired, then we will not know what is Divine and what not, and we would need to ask ourselves if God is not all powerful, or not good, for not being able or willing to convey His message correctly. Obviously belief in itself is not a guarantee for guidance by the Holy Spirit, hence the differences among Christians themselves that concern the core of the religion.
And when do you know you are guided by the Holy Spirit or mislead by Satan?
Once you think your religion is the reference to measure the truth, Satan would have you where he wants you, safely locked in?

IF the Bible is NOT Divine inspired, (perhaps some authors thought they were divine inspired, or claimed they were, like today the author of ‘Conversations with God,’) but anyway we have no reason to live by it, as it was written by people who lived thousandths of years ago in a completely different world than we do now. And this is to me still the most obvious explanation for the contents of the Bible, it explains the slavery, stoning, lack of knowledge about nature, etc.
It also explains why there is such a big difference between the OT and NT, as that is where a new religion branched off from the old one, but in this case still dragging the old one along but simply reinterpreting the old parts and give it a spin to make it fit better.
And that explains that rather messy ‘God sacrificing Himself to Himself to fulfill and end His own law,’ bit.

While studying the eposode of Jesus eating fish.I read Luke Ch 24 which says in verse 6 the women at the tomb were told what Jesus said while in Galilee .In other places in the bible the one or two Angel/men mention Galilee as being where Jesus was going.In verse 13 Jesus meets two people on the road to Emmaus (7 miles from Jerusalem) ,the two then return to Jerusalem that day, talk to the disciples and while doing so Jesus appears to the disciples v33-36.Jesus then goes to Bethany and ascends to heaven .He gets nowhere near Galilee.
But in Mat Ch 28 v7 the women are told Jesus is going on before him to Galilee and there you will see him.In Verse 9-10 Jesus tells the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see him and lo it thusly happens, Vs 16-17.Some of the disciples are even in doubt, no doubt because the fish eating and finger poking eposode of Luke had not occured (or had it) .I'm confused what is going on here ? Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples? Did the women see Jesus in Galilee? Have I split an infinitive in the 2nd sentance of the 2nd paragraph?