I just ate pepperoni, now what?

[inJC]

Jesus is the Creator. All things were made by Him and for Him. Col 1:16
It is Jesus who declared the flesh of certain animals to be unclean.
It was Jesus who taught Adam how to sacrifice, there would have been a lot of blood on the grass that day when God made coverings for them from the skins of animals. Gen 3:21 Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins. Heb 9:22
Adam taught his sons, Cain and Abel how to sacrifice. They knew what God required for a sin offering, an unblemished lamb (to represent the true lamb of God). Do not for a moment think that an unblemished young pig would have been an acceptable sacrifice. Certain animals were unclean, therefore unfit, Noah knew what was acceptable for sacrifice. Gen 8:20
This is the reality, animals were from the beginning of creation designated clean or unclean, thus a reality for ever. Lev 11:46

The bible uses the expression, 'every unclean and hateful bird' Rev 18:2 to describe the present and future condition of Babylon from which He is calling some of His people to come out of. Apparently these birds were not cleansed by Jesus as is insisted by some in Luke 7:19. Jesus has some of His people in this unclean birdcage and He is calling them out of her, they are His people but they are involved with the counterfeit teachings of Babylon, they cannot yet discern clean from unclean.

It was the pharisees who put forward their belief that the disciples were eating with 'impure hands' consequently thereby defiling themselves. Matt 15:1
Jesus answered this with His conclusion," but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man". vs 20 Case closed.

Unfortunately there are those who make other conclusions. They take the explanations of Jesus to mean something He was not even talking about (clean and unclean meats)
The disciples never concluded what some do, how else to explain the horror in Peter's voice in Acts 10, "Not so Lord! I have never eaten anything common or unclean", isn't it because Jesus never taught about cleansing the unclean to Peter? Matt 15:15

Faulty reasoning's lead to faulty conclusions.
Except by the Holy Spirit many will never understand. Stop eating the unclean and you will be in a better position to discern
the truth of the matter.

 

[inJC]

You complain about poor exegesis and then say this? Hmmm. Clearly Jesus gave legion permission to enter the pigs as legion had requested, but there is nothing in Scripture to lead us to believe that Jesus then sent the pigs into the sea. Your theory is quite washed up!

It is being insisted that Jesus did not actually send the pigs into the sea.
Can this withstand bible scrutiny?
Jesus had a choice, send the demons into the abyss or send them into the pigs.
The pigs under the influence of the demons did plunge into the sea.
Is it then being maintained that allowing the action but not commanding it absolves Jesus of responsibility?
There can be no doubt that Jesus knew what the result of His permission would accomplish.
It is disingenuous to make the case that Jesus did not send the swine into the sea.
Jesus gave the command, "Go" and they went into the swine.
Just what can be imagined by the decision of Jesus to allow the demons into the pigs in light of what they had been doing to the man. That the devil has come to destroy, should not be a surprise to some of us, it wasn't to Jesus.

Well, what about the loss of the pigs? How should we see this event in light of Jewish thinking of the time?
I suppose they would have the view of 'good riddance' as they had no use at all for pigs. They would have had no reason to criticize Jesus actions.

The Gentiles who no doubt liked pork and especially the owners who suffered a devastating loss would be blaming Jesus for this apparent catastrophe. In fact the whole city came out to meet Jesus and desired He depart from them.

The misguided Christians of our day who are fond of swine would likely sympathize with the owners of the pigs. There refrain must surely be, 'to what purpose is this waste', if we are to judge by the fondness of their comments regarding swines flesh.

The question is, did Jesus regard the destruction of the swine as a benevolent act?

 

[p_rehbein]

​.................

 

[Magenta]

You complain about poor exegesis and then say this? Hmmm. Clearly Jesus gave legion permission to enter the pigs as legion had requested, but there is nothing in Scripture to lead us to believe that Jesus then sent the pigs into the sea. Your theory is quite washed up!

It is being insisted that Jesus did not actually send the pigs into the sea.

No, that was not the claim.

Can this withstand bible scrutiny?

Since it was not the claim, it has already failed scrutiny.

Jesus had a choice, send the demons into the abyss or send them into the pigs.

Are you sure those were His only choices? On what basis do you make this assumption?

The pigs under the influence of the demons did plunge into the sea.

This is correct.

Is it then being maintained that allowing the action but not commanding it absolves Jesus of responsibility?

Who made that claim? Again you are fabricating.

There can be no doubt that Jesus knew what the result of His permission would accomplish.

Jesus did not claim to know everything.

It is disingenuous to make the case that Jesus did not send the swine into the sea.

Au contraire; it is disingenuous to insist that He did when it is not stated, nor implied, nor hinted at in any way, but only imagined by you, and insisted upon as evident truth and proper exegesis, regardless of the fact that your assumption is completely baseless.

Jesus gave the command, "Go" and they went into the swine.

He granted their request, yes.

Just what can be imagined by the decision of Jesus to allow the demons into the pigs in light of what they had been doing to the man. That the devil has come to destroy, should not be a surprise to some of us, it wasn't to Jesus.

Well, what about the loss of the pigs? How should we see this event in light of Jewish thinking of the time?
I suppose they would have the view of 'good riddance' as they had no use at all for pigs. They would have had no reason to criticize Jesus actions.

Another assumption on your part.

The Gentiles who no doubt liked pork and especially the owners who suffered a devastating loss would be blaming Jesus for this apparent catastrophe. In fact the whole city came out to meet Jesus and desired He depart from them.

The misguided Christians of our day who are fond of swine would likely sympathize with the owners of the pigs. There refrain must surely be, 'to what purpose is this waste', if we are to judge by the fondness of their comments regarding swines flesh.

The question is, did Jesus regard the destruction of the swine as a benevolent act?

Irrelevant.

 

[inJC]

You complain about poor exegesis and then say this? Hmmm. Clearly Jesus gave legion permission to enter the pigs as legion had requested, but there is nothing in Scripture to lead us to believe that Jesus then sent the pigs into the sea. Your theory is quite washed up!



It is being insisted that Jesus did not actually send the pigs into the sea.

No, that was not the claim.



Magenta stated that,” Clearly Jesus gave legion permission to enter the pigs... but there is nothing to lead us to believe Jesus sent the pigs into the sea.”


Does this not mean that you doubt that Jesus had any part in the pigs going into the sea? That is the claim I read, if it is not, then clarify what you are saying, for our benefit.


Can this withstand bible scrutiny?


Since it was not the claim, it has already failed scrutiny.



Magenta, why do you not clarify your thoughts for us?


Jesus had a choice, send the demons into the abyss or send them into the pigs.


Are you sure those were His only choices? On what basis do you make this assumption?



No, I am not saying that those were His only choices, but those are the ones we discern from the scripture. If you can edify us further, please do.
The pigs under the influence of the demons did plunge into the sea.


This is correct.


Is it then being maintained that allowing the action but not commanding it absolves Jesus of responsibility?


Who made that claim? Again you are fabricating.



Magenta, “ be kind”. I was only postulating in the way of a question. I am in no wise fabricating.

There can be no doubt that Jesus knew what the result of His permission would accomplish.


Jesus did not claim to know everything.



You do err denying the power of God. There never came a situation where Jesus was not in control. No one and nothing surprised Jesus. Col 2:3 Notwithstanding Phil 2:7,8 Jesus continually demonstrated that He was aware of the thoughts of the people who He interacted with. Matt 9:4


It is disingenuous to make the case that Jesus did not send the swine into the sea.


Au contraire; it is disingenuous to insist that He did when it is not stated, nor implied, nor hinted at in any way, but only imagined by you, and insisted upon as evident truth and proper exegesis, regardless of the fact that your assumption is completely baseless.



Jesus was always in control in every situation, He fore knew the outcome of His action. Again, you do err in not knowing and or denying the power of God.


Jesus gave the command, "Go" and they went into the swine.


He granted their request, yes.


Just what can be understood by the decision of Jesus to allow the demons into the pigs in light of what they had been doing to the man? That the devil has come to destroy, should not be a surprise to some of us, it wasn't to Jesus.

Jesus knew that to allow the demons into the swine was to allow and agree with their destruction. It is not a matter of assumption.


Well, what about the loss of the pigs? How should we see this event in light of Jewish thinking of the time?
I suppose they would have the view of 'good riddance' as they had no use at all for pigs. They would have had no reason to criticize Jesus actions.


Another assumption on your part.



The fact is the Jews considered swine to be unclean as well as gentiles to be unclean because they ate pigs. No assumption here! Read Acts 10

The Gentiles who no doubt loved pork and especially the owners who suffered a devastating loss would be blaming Jesus for this apparent catastrophe. In fact the whole city came out to meet Jesus and desired He depart from them.


The misguided Christians of our day who are fond of swine would likely sympathize with the owners of the pigs. Their refrain must surely be, 'to what purpose is this waste', if we are to judge by the fondness of their comments regarding swines flesh.


The question is, did Jesus regard the destruction of the swine as a benevolent act?


Irrelevant.



No! It is not irrelevant. We have Christians today who are fond of eating swine, so would they not like to know why Jesus allowed the destruction of so much potential tasty pepperoni. So the question is not only relevant but important.

I would like to know and those who are eating pork today, would surely like to know.


How did Jesus regard the destruction of the 2,000 swine?

 

[inJC]

Where are all those folks who are defiling themselves by eating the unclean thing? Also known as the abomination.
Where are the teachers and defenders of this heresy? Hello! Kindly answer the question. How did Jesus regard the destruction of the 2,000 swine?

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

He likely sees the man as more valuable then the swine, just as Jesus said ye are of more value then many sparrows, I would suppose the same value applies in regards to many swine.

 

[Depleted]

I just ate a bagel.

 

[inJC]

There is no question that Jesus regarded the man as more important than the swine, that goes without saying, ye are worth more than many sparrows!
But how did Jesus regard the 2,000 swine?

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Sort of like the fish in the river in Exodus that all died in there.

Must have been thousands in there, Jesus ate fish

 

[Depleted]

There is no question that Jesus regarded the man as more important than the swine, that goes without saying, ye are worth more than many sparrows!
But how did Jesus regard the 2,000 swine?

He created them?

 

[mpaper345]

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Do not worry for in the New Testament we can eat what we want to eat,for all meat is good,and that is because it is not a physical covenant,but a spiritual covenant,and the power of the Holy Spirit can cleanse,where that power was not in the Old Testament to work like that because they could not be spiritual in the Old Testament.

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;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Jesus took the physical ordinances of Israel out of the way,nailing them to His cross,because they were contrary to us,which means they had no spiritual impact on people in the Old,so let no man judge you in meats,which they cannot tell what you can,and cannot,eat.

But although it is alright to eat pork in the New Testament,if someone believes it is wrong to eat pork,and they eat it anyway,they have committed a sin,although God said it is alright,for whoever thinks something is wrong to do,and they do it anyway,it is sin,even if what they did is not a sin according to God.

 

[Depleted]

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Do not worry for in the New Testament we can eat what we want to eat,for all meat is good,and that is because it is not a physical covenant,but a spiritual covenant,and the power of the Holy Spirit can cleanse,where that power was not in the Old Testament to work like that because they could not be spiritual in the Old Testament.

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;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Jesus took the physical ordinances of Israel out of the way,nailing them to His cross,because they were contrary to us,which means they had no spiritual impact on people in the Old,so let no man judge you in meats,which they cannot tell what you can,and cannot,eat.

But although it is alright to eat pork in the New Testament,if someone believes it is wrong to eat pork,and they eat it anyway,they have committed a sin,although God said it is alright,for whoever thinks something is wrong to do,and they do it anyway,it is sin,even if what they did is not a sin according to God.

Here's one for you, since you believe what you just said. Hubby has/had high blood pressure and an eastern European stomach. (I don't quite get what that is, except many people on the eastern side of Europe have easily-upset stomachs directly related to what they eat. Often red meat -- cow and pig -- is simply too hard to digest. So, eventually, they either learn to live with that stomach or give up the red meat.)

We've eaten together for the last 35 years and we eat the same dinner. So, we don't use salt on food, we don't eat pig or cow, and we don't have mayo in the house.

Despite eating well, hubby had a heart attack last November. He's been busy (or sleeping, depending at which time I'm talking about lol) getting better at a hospital and now at a physical rehab, and guess who is free to eat what she has been missing.

Kielbasa! Man, I love kielbasa. Haven't had it for decades. Ooo, ooo! French fries WITH salt! Deli meat sandwiches with mayo. (Deli meat is out, because it has lots of salt.) Chicken Kiev. (Yeah. I said it. It has ham in it.) And Fritos! Fritos! Haven't had them in 20 years, and can't stop eating them.

BUT, I feel guilty for eating it all. Hubby knows and finds this amusing. If he could take it, all those things, but Fritos, (more of a potato chip guy, if he could eat greasy and salty lol), would be on his plate too, so he gets it. But I do feel guilty.

Soooo, am I sinning?

 

[integerlost]

When I first joined the forum I saw a discussion about people enjoying their bacon and chicken and shellfish.



Didn't think much if it but have come across clean and unclean food.

I ate some pepperoni yesterday and felt bad now knowing or having read this and feel very bad now having just eaten another piece.

Where do Christians stand with eating clean and unclean food.

Is eating unclean food now acceptable from NT writings??

Would really miss the clams and bacon and much of the food I saw on the unclean list.

Thank you

Don't have a cow man.

 

[inJC]

The 'Law of the Beasts" Lev 11:46 existed from the fall of man. The concept of clean and unclean existed from the beginning.
All animals sacrificed by Adam and his descendants had to be clean animals. Only clean animals could represent as a shadow the lamb of God (Jesus) Genesis 8:20 Clean and unclean existed before there ever was a Jew.

For those who are still confused about 1 Tim 4:1-5 consider how Paul qualifies his statements by his concluding statement.
'For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.'

What animals does the word of God sanctify to be eaten? see Lev 11

Thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God... Deut 14:2 see also and compare 1Peter 2:9

Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. Deut 14:3 see also 2 Cor 6:17-7:1

God has resolved to destroy all those who deliberately defile themselves with the abomination.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Acts 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I dont see bacon there

Again as touching the Gentiles in respects to the law he says,

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

And when eating with those who dont believe Paul says eat whatever is set before you (which could be pig) and yet he raises no concern on carefulness except ones liberty being judged by anothers conscience in respects to eating what has been offered to an idol.

1 Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

And in

1 Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not

He does not say, "if any man say unto you , This is bacon eat not"

Which is in accord with Acts 15:29, and Acts 21:25 there, or This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not

But when he also says, eat not in 1 Cr 10:28 it is for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: In 1 Cr 10:29 he clarifies, " Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?"

His liberty would be judged of anothers conscience.

As he said earlier,

1 Cr 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

I dont believe they were to say, "Is THIS bacon"? Because I cant eat pig because I would defile myself as bacon will make me all the worse before God, but abstaining from bacon makes me closer to God"


Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

 

[inJC]

To PilgrimPassingThru, Thank you kindly for your input. I wish you would have addressed my observations, nevertheless i
will respond to yours.

There was a serious division in the early church. Gentile and Jewish Christians were judging each other. Paul is writing about this in Romans 14. He begins by saying in vs 1 to accept those that are weak in the faith (new converts or ignorant ones) but not to doubtful disputations. What are doubtful disputations? These are disputable matters.
Disputable matters are those things in which we can have different opinions but they are not doctrine. What Paul will be addressing is not doctrinal.

The weak brother (gentiles) was eating only herbs (vegetables) because everything that was sold in the meat markets was dedicated to an idol. He felt it would be a violation to eat such things. The Jewish brother, knowing that idols are nothing would eat this food that had been dedicated to idols with no regard as to how it was impacting the weak brother. vs 2,3

The Jewish Christians still believed that the Jewish feast days were still valid and ought to be kept. The Gentile brothers were never taught this and therefore did not have respect for these feast days much to the consternation of the Jewish Christians.

The back and forth judging was a big problem that Paul is addressing.He exhorts them not to judge each other. vs 4,10,13

Regarding food dedicated to idols, Paul addressed this in 1Cor 8:1-13 He says in vs 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things which are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world. There is simply no wrong in eating this food but do not make your freedom a stumbling block to others. This Paul addresses again and again.

Paul never gives permission to eat the unclean thing. If you had read my post above you would know that Paul addresses defiling of the temple of God of which you are. 1Cor 6:16 to 7:1

He says in 1 cor 3:16,17 Know you not that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Did you not know this?

Acts 15 deals with certain (false?) brethren, Jews who came down from Judea and taught the brethren that they ought to be circumcised. vs1 This is the burden of Acts 15 now did these Jewish folks also teach the brethren to eat pork as well. Was this part of the discussion? It is inconceivable that this was part of their teaching so why would the council address a non issue? That is why there is no mention of unclean meat in the counsel of vs20

1 Cr 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Be careful how you interpret this verse, it deals with the question of food dedicated to idols (conscience sake) not the forbidden unclean thing.

You shall not eat any abominable thing. Deut 14:3 God has promised to destroy all those who so defile themselves.

Did the apple matter?

 

[Demi777]

Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

now go relax and eat some pork chops

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

To PilgrimPassingThru, Thank you kindly for your input. I wish you would have addressed my observations, nevertheless i
will respond to yours.

There was a serious division in the early church. Gentile and Jewish Christians were judging each other. Paul is writing about this in Romans 14. He begins by saying in vs 1 to accept those that are weak in the faith (new converts or ignorant ones) but not to doubtful disputations. What are doubtful disputations? These are disputable matters.
Disputable matters are those things in which we can have different opinions but they are not doctrine. What Paul will be addressing is not doctrinal.

The weak brother (gentiles) was eating only herbs (vegetables) because everything that was sold in the meat markets was dedicated to an idol. He felt it would be a violation to eat such things. The Jewish brother, knowing that idols are nothing would eat this food that had been dedicated to idols with no regard as to how it was impacting the weak brother. vs 2,3

The Jewish Christians still believed that the Jewish feast days were still valid and ought to be kept. The Gentile brothers were never taught this and therefore did not have respect for these feast days much to the consternation of the Jewish Christians.

The back and forth judging was a big problem that Paul is addressing.He exhorts them not to judge each other. vs 4,10,13

Regarding food dedicated to idols, Paul addressed this in 1Cor 8:1-13 He says in vs 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things which are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world. There is simply no wrong in eating this food but do not make your freedom a stumbling block to others. This Paul addresses again and again.

Paul never gives permission to eat the unclean thing. If you had read my post above you would know that Paul addresses defiling of the temple of God of which you are. 1Cor 6:16 to 7:1

He says in1 cor 3:16,17 Know you not that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Did you not know this?

Acts 15 deals with certain (false?) brethren, Jews who came down from Judea and taught the brethren that they ought to be circumcised. vs1 This is the burden of Acts 15 now did these Jewish folks also teach the brethren to eat pork as well. Was this part of the discussion? It is inconceivable that this was part of their teaching so why would the council address a non issue? That is why there is no mention of unclean meat in the counsel of vs20

1 Cr 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

Be careful how you interpret this verse, it deals with the question of food dedicated to idols (conscience sake) not the forbidden unclean thing.

You shall not eat any abominable thing. Deut 14:3 God has promised to destroy all those who so defile themselves.

Did the apple matter?

Yeah, 1 Cr 3:18 shows it was fornication (in 1Cr 6:18 respects to the their bodies being the temple of the Holy Ghost) which again is also adressed in that same letter

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

And as Jesus said,

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

So these defile the man (see the fornication again)?

1 Cr 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.
Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

See the Lord for the body and the body not for fornication (while defiles the man)?

1 Cr 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

He goes on to say,

1 Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

So he doesnt say "flee bacon "but flee fornication, Jesus said fornication which comes from within a man is that which defileth the man.

So, the Holy Ghost set forth what was necessary for the Gentiles whereas these other guys began teaching circumcision after the manner of Moses and to keep the law in order to be saved.

You just cant eat bacon, its unclean for you thats all.

 

[inJC]

You can not eat bacon either and expect a positive outcome.
God has been very very clear about the 'Law of the beasts" Lev 11:43-47
This law predates the Jewish nation, it was in effect from the beginning.

It is because you think that you serve a dithering God who continually changes His mind.
God has never abrogated His law, but you are insisting on playing with it.

He has made known which animals He considers as lawful for man to eat, to eat unclean animals
he labels as abomination, why do you not believe God.

There is not one verse in the entire bible that allows eating of the unclean, if you think so,
hear it correctly interpreted and you will have no case for your heresy.

God is unwilling to trifle with you, you must read His word honestly.

Hear what He say's to you on this issue. God is coming back to this earth and He will
exercise judgement on the wicked.

Listen carefully to His word:

Isaiah 66:15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render
his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Do you not see that this is talking about end time judgement?

16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.



17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst,
eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Jehovah God has spoken, do you think He is kidding you? Wake up!

Matt 7:21-23 It doesn't have to be this way.

I am sorry to have been so forthright, i am not trying to hurt you, only to warn you. Please.
Why will you die rejecting God's word. Turn from your way and live.