Reg Kelly: Can I Eat Pig and Go To Heaven?
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
F
Actually, I don't, I like beef. But I do really love the word of God, and hate false doctrine. I will stand up for what God has said, and I will defend the truth if someone is trying to bind on others something that the NT does not.
You say there is on passage when i just showed you several that all imply there is no food that is a sin to eat, concerning meats.
Yet you want a passage that says specifically "Pork" which is what one does usually when they wont accept what the truth says, and just want to hold to what they believe no matter the evidence against them.
If you are consistent in your logic then you must also believe it is okay for us to stone people under the New Testament.
Because God once commanded it, even for disrespectful children, yet no where does it say, we cannot stone disrespectful children in the NT, or the OT. So by your logic, it must be okay to still do so. If not why not?
You say there is on passage when i just showed you several that all imply there is no food that is a sin to eat, concerning meats.
Yet you want a passage that says specifically "Pork" which is what one does usually when they wont accept what the truth says, and just want to hold to what they believe no matter the evidence against them.
If you are consistent in your logic then you must also believe it is okay for us to stone people under the New Testament.
Because God once commanded it, even for disrespectful children, yet no where does it say, we cannot stone disrespectful children in the NT, or the OT. So by your logic, it must be okay to still do so. If not why not?
F
I will say scripture allows it, because it does. "every creature" "nothing to be refused" how many times to I have to repeat this? Scripture says by saying that, all meat, none is refused as sinful, and let no one judge me concerning "meat or drink", so of course I will say scripture allows it. It does.
So what about stoning?
So what about stoning?
F
Right Loveme, your not stoning me. Yet your logic makes stoning okay. You have reminded me that God once said certain meats are not okay to eat, before he changed the covenant, and now tells us that all meat is good to eat as long if we do it with thanksgiving.
In fact I have given you much evidence, and I have shown you passages that clearly imply pork, and other animal is not to be refused as sinful, and passages commanding Christians not to let anyone judge them on these things because they are nailed to the cross, and false teachers will try to bring you into bondage, with "touch not, taste not". yet you have ignored all this evidence because you dont see the word "pork".
It is not my job to keep showing you what you willingly ignore.
The HS choose certain words to convey his message to us concerning this matter.
He choose the word:
"EVERY Creature" and "Nothing to be refused" when speaking of what we can eat.
The definition of the words the HS chose for us, refute your teachings. If you look up these words in the Greek, or the English, we get the same definitions.
Every - means all inclusive, nothing excluded - Every creature, would mean all creatures none excluded.
Nothing to be refused, again - nothing excluded from the the command given concerning every creature none excluded.
Since it is you arguing with the rules of language and basic definitions of words, you have the bizarre interpretation. So the burden of proof lies with you, even though I have given you a mountain of proof.
You need to prove how "every creature" excludes pork, though it is not written there.
You need to prove how "nothing to be refused" means "except for pork" which again is not there.
You need to prove how "let no man judge you in food in drink" means "except in pork"
and you need to prove how when God said "what God has cleansed" did not include pork.
And since your logic of "it does not say specially pork", you need to prove how this logic does not make stoning okay since it is not specifically mentioned as a sin in neither the old and new testaments.
I am tired now of showing you evidence, and you ignoring it. you prove what your saying, otherwise, I am done here, I tried. I hope at the least you will not bind anything on anyone until you can deal with theses NT passages in a valid and reasonable way. Take care.
In fact I have given you much evidence, and I have shown you passages that clearly imply pork, and other animal is not to be refused as sinful, and passages commanding Christians not to let anyone judge them on these things because they are nailed to the cross, and false teachers will try to bring you into bondage, with "touch not, taste not". yet you have ignored all this evidence because you dont see the word "pork".
It is not my job to keep showing you what you willingly ignore.
The HS choose certain words to convey his message to us concerning this matter.
He choose the word:
"EVERY Creature" and "Nothing to be refused" when speaking of what we can eat.
The definition of the words the HS chose for us, refute your teachings. If you look up these words in the Greek, or the English, we get the same definitions.
Every - means all inclusive, nothing excluded - Every creature, would mean all creatures none excluded.
Nothing to be refused, again - nothing excluded from the the command given concerning every creature none excluded.
Since it is you arguing with the rules of language and basic definitions of words, you have the bizarre interpretation. So the burden of proof lies with you, even though I have given you a mountain of proof.
You need to prove how "every creature" excludes pork, though it is not written there.
You need to prove how "nothing to be refused" means "except for pork" which again is not there.
You need to prove how "let no man judge you in food in drink" means "except in pork"
and you need to prove how when God said "what God has cleansed" did not include pork.
And since your logic of "it does not say specially pork", you need to prove how this logic does not make stoning okay since it is not specifically mentioned as a sin in neither the old and new testaments.
I am tired now of showing you evidence, and you ignoring it. you prove what your saying, otherwise, I am done here, I tried. I hope at the least you will not bind anything on anyone until you can deal with theses NT passages in a valid and reasonable way. Take care.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you see I do not need to prove a thing.
I have read it is unclean and that is enough for me.
I have quoted where Yahvah God said it is unclean to eat.
I have quoted where he says it is abominable.
Always in favour of Yahvah God is my motto.
Do not assume a verse means pork, when you have it on good authority that it is unclean.
I have read it is unclean and that is enough for me.
I have quoted where Yahvah God said it is unclean to eat.
I have quoted where he says it is abominable.
Always in favour of Yahvah God is my motto.
Do not assume a verse means pork, when you have it on good authority that it is unclean.
F
Okay, you showed you will not deal with the evidence against you, nor the logic that opens the door for all kinds of things. If reading is enough for you, then why would you dismiss what the HS says in the NT, and assume the words he used do not really mean what they mean?
That is a far fetched assumption. It seems now your just out to pointlessly argue with no evidence or support, or any valid reasoning, just your big opinion. Like I said, I hope you will not continue to bind opinion on others, remember that's is what the Pharisees did.
And if your not willing to prove what you say as true, or have no support, why not just keep it to yourself, or say what you believe in a humble way without condemning others who don't believe what you do?
That is a far fetched assumption. It seems now your just out to pointlessly argue with no evidence or support, or any valid reasoning, just your big opinion. Like I said, I hope you will not continue to bind opinion on others, remember that's is what the Pharisees did.
And if your not willing to prove what you say as true, or have no support, why not just keep it to yourself, or say what you believe in a humble way without condemning others who don't believe what you do?
You are still not answering his question.
And he also cited that all creatures are ok to eat.
So either you both turn vegan, or just accept the fact that you cannot take the Bible 100% literally, otherwise you are no better than a fundamentalist muslim, who believes stoning people to death is alright.
You've got to try a Cuban restaurant serving chicharrones. You'll love it!
And he also cited that all creatures are ok to eat.
So either you both turn vegan, or just accept the fact that you cannot take the Bible 100% literally, otherwise you are no better than a fundamentalist muslim, who believes stoning people to death is alright.
You've got to try a Cuban restaurant serving chicharrones. You'll love it!
I will share the truth if it makes you feel condemned then consider the message was for you.
Nothing you wrote condemned me for not eating pork, speaks volumes.
A man above made fun of this conversation, putting a picture of pork in full view with a smiley face and you liked it.
So, do not preach humble if you will not correct the man above for behaving in an uncalled for manner.
Last edited:
Freedm: OOOPS!! Here we go again with all this throw out the law stuff! The really bad thing about it is there is truth to it, but it gets blown up into what isn’t the truth! Satan uses the truth to gain his ends, we have to use caution.
Lets look at what was going on at the time Paul was writing, and what Paul was up against. A huge crowd of gentiles wanted to be included, and rabbis had taught that they couldn’t be unless they became Jews. All the way, circumcism, diet, the whole thing. Jews were heads of the church, like gentiles are in our day. The book of Acts tells us about it.
Now, do you think that as Paul was counteracting this wrong idea that he, as he reported what God was telling him, would mean that we are to throw out all that these current day zealots tell us need to be thrown out? At its extreme it gets to be throw out all God the Father says, toss all the covenants because we have a new one, and toss every law!
Christ, God the Father, and the HS is in the law!
It isn’t wrong to practice the suggestions God gave for a life dedicated to God with the rituals. Not necessary, it is only necessary to obey the principles behind the rituals when we can and ask forgiveness when we can’t. The only thing that is wrong is to decide we become so holy though them that we don’t need God’s grace.
Lets look at what was going on at the time Paul was writing, and what Paul was up against. A huge crowd of gentiles wanted to be included, and rabbis had taught that they couldn’t be unless they became Jews. All the way, circumcism, diet, the whole thing. Jews were heads of the church, like gentiles are in our day. The book of Acts tells us about it.
Now, do you think that as Paul was counteracting this wrong idea that he, as he reported what God was telling him, would mean that we are to throw out all that these current day zealots tell us need to be thrown out? At its extreme it gets to be throw out all God the Father says, toss all the covenants because we have a new one, and toss every law!
Christ, God the Father, and the HS is in the law!
It isn’t wrong to practice the suggestions God gave for a life dedicated to God with the rituals. Not necessary, it is only necessary to obey the principles behind the rituals when we can and ask forgiveness when we can’t. The only thing that is wrong is to decide we become so holy though them that we don’t need God’s grace.
Freedm3: My entire study is in sorting out the man ideas from the God facts! I never want to say a thing that isn’t only based on scripture. I like that you want that, too. I have been where you are in your walk with the Lord. Someone challenged me. Paul’s scripture has brought me to tears when I had to make all scripture say the same thing. It does, it takes study and prayer. I’m still working hard.
You said you love the word and will stand up for what the Lord has said. I like that. It is how I feel when you talk against the law.
One thing I did was get out a Complete Concordance and read every scripture in the bible concerning law. I can’t give that in a post.
The best scripture to explain law is Psalm 119. I feel isolated bible verses often give wrong emphasis. The first chapters of Romans give a good overall picture of how Judaism fits together with Christ. Not one verse, but chapter study. For how the Lord looks at our works, again it is best to use a concordance and get a complete picture.
I found it very useful to study how the church got its doctrine by studying history, especially the first 350 years. You can compare it with scripture, then with today’s doctrine. The emperor Constantine still has influence in today’s church. There is almost always some difference between doctrine and God’s word.
At the moment I am using bereansonline.org as a study guide for Galatians. It is 126 pages long, and so far I have only gotten the scriptures about gentiles in the OT, and the way the Jews saw us back then according to the Talmud. I can say God wanted us included, but not the list of many scriptures saying this. I am up to page 69!! And you want scripture! Stand back and give me room here!!!
You said you love the word and will stand up for what the Lord has said. I like that. It is how I feel when you talk against the law.
One thing I did was get out a Complete Concordance and read every scripture in the bible concerning law. I can’t give that in a post.
The best scripture to explain law is Psalm 119. I feel isolated bible verses often give wrong emphasis. The first chapters of Romans give a good overall picture of how Judaism fits together with Christ. Not one verse, but chapter study. For how the Lord looks at our works, again it is best to use a concordance and get a complete picture.
I found it very useful to study how the church got its doctrine by studying history, especially the first 350 years. You can compare it with scripture, then with today’s doctrine. The emperor Constantine still has influence in today’s church. There is almost always some difference between doctrine and God’s word.
At the moment I am using bereansonline.org as a study guide for Galatians. It is 126 pages long, and so far I have only gotten the scriptures about gentiles in the OT, and the way the Jews saw us back then according to the Talmud. I can say God wanted us included, but not the list of many scriptures saying this. I am up to page 69!! And you want scripture! Stand back and give me room here!!!
F
Red, that's great you are studing Gal, it is a great book. Please know that I am not saying we do not have a law under the NT. Many on here are confused to the writings saying we are not under law but grace, and interpreting that to mean we have no law at all, I am NOT one of those.
I am saying that the law of Moses had a beatuful purpose, it foreshawdowed Christ and his church. It has been fullfilled.
We are not under the word of Chirst, this is what will judge, this is what we will be accountable for in the day of judgment - Jn 12:48.
God said "hear ye him", impliying NOT MOses, nor Elijah, but Christ.
We are not to bind any of the law of MOses on anyone. That is what the false teachers were doing in Gal, and Paul fought hard against this, because by the law, the Gentiles were excluded. That is why he tells the Col "the writing that were against us"... meaning the entire Law of Moses.
I would encourage you study the "types" found within the law, and there "anti-types" in the NT. You can do a google search on those terms, and it is an intertresting study.
For example - Moses was a type of Christ - Christ was the anti-type.
We this in:
Both Christ and Moses
Left Royalty to be with their brethren, Moses left Egypt, Christ left Heaven
Both used the Powers of Miracles to defeat the Enemy - Moses with Pharaoh, Christ with Satan -
Both freed their people from bondage - Moses freed Israel from Egypt, Christ frees all from sin - Jn 8:32
Both recived the laws directly from God - Moses on Mn Sinai - Christ when he said "I have not spoken of myself"
Both left their authority for others to carry on - Moses with Joshua, Christ with the Apostles.
This is why Moses said in DUE 18:18, he shall raise up a prophet LIKE UNTO ME him shall ye hear. We are to hear Christ, he is the fulfillment of the law and prophets.
Any way this may seem off topic, sorry, good luck with your studies, I hope you will obtain much from it.