Can We Eat Pork, Shellfish, And All Torah Forbidden Foods Under The New Testament?

[James Pierce]

Anyone?

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

1st Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 does in fact speak to these very issues as well as the original. Paul is speaking as the Apostle to the Gentiles, and interestingly, he is clearing up problems and establishing rights that were also addressed and attacked within Galatia. Pharisees went about trying to undo the work GOD sent him to do. Acts 15 is evidence of the original talks that the believing Pharisees brought before the Apostles. Though it was not addressed DIRECTLY at the problem, two birds are killed with this one stone, as the Word of GOD usually does anyway!

[Joseph Gill]

It is interesting that the Jerusalem Council did address Gentiles eating both meat forbidden by Mosaic law (it excused them from this dietary restriction) and meat sacrificed to idols (it enjoined them from eating that meat). And, I suppose, you could make the argument that by offering a principle to handle meat sacrificed to idols, Paul also helped resolve any controversies regarding meat forbidden by Mosaic law. Still, it doesn't seem to me that Paul is addressing the dietary laws in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on that.

But why quibble over the small stuff. Your pairing of Genesis 9 and Acts 15 is an excellent example of allowing scripture to comment on scripture.

[Zealot X]

The meat that was being sold in the markets wasn't labeled. So no one really knew when they were buying whether or not the meat was leftover from idolatry. This was about conscience. If they knew the source of the meat then they were to avoid it. If they didn't know then they could eat it with a clear conscience. He wasn't really telling them that they could eat any kind of meat they wanted.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Does that still speak against what can be eaten and what can't according to GOD's Word? The food wasn't exactly "kosher" and they knew it.

[Zealot X]

No they did not know it. What they knew is that some of it was. But the meat that was wasn't labeled. Please understand that they were being antagonized by those who did not actually want them to covert. Remember, Rome was occupying Israel just like America is "occupying" countries in the middle east and even having a hand in picking their leaders. The Israelites in general did not like the Greeks and Romans. And the feeling, if not then, became mutual.

If you understand the hostile environment in which these students were trying to learn you can then have some sympathy to what they were going through. How could they eat ANY meat if they didn't know which meat had been sacrificed to idols? Their accusers wanted to make life as hard for them as possible. That's also why circumcision was used against them. And the pharisees were extreme legalists. If you know what legalism is (many think they do and do not) then you know it is when one acts like a lawyer, exploiting the law by their interpretation of the letter of the law. Paul's students basically had lawyers coming after them telling them they couldn't eat meat because they didn't know what meat was "okay". But the law isn't against those who "don't know". The law is against intentionally doing it because it was against being involved with pagan beliefs and practices. Remember, the Israelite priest actually ate sacrificial meat offered to G-d.

shalom

[Zealot X]

Shalom Trevor,

Just because you quote something doesn't mean its in context.

For example, the students that were under Paul were ex-pagans who had mainly only heard the gospel. They did not have a foundation yet. All they knew was what they were taught. Do you think they were taught the whole bible in a day? No, it took them time to study and do their own research. And Paul was not trying to set himself up as their dictator. He wanted them to be fully persuaded.

Romans 14:5 - One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

He wasn't telling them what to do, nor saying they were allowed to do whatever they wished. Even if we aren't, Paul was very aware that he didn't have the authority to do such things. To claim such authority would be blasphemy. You have to keep the history in context with this story. These gentile students were butting heads with Judaizers or... people of the former covenant (contract) who believed they had to simply conform to their way of doing things. But their way of doing things had not conformed to the understanding of Yeshua. So even though they seemed credible and represented the leaders in Israel, even though they were apparently trying to convert them to their own form of pharisaic Judaism, Paul wasn't telling them not to listen. His answer was for them to study themselves and be convinced by the word of G-d. You can get a person who walks into church from off the street and you tell him everything the bible says he's supposed to do. But if he did not gain any knowledge himself and if he isn't convinced in his own mind he's not going to stick to it.

So instead of telling them what to do in a dictatorial fashion, Paul gave them some basic guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_laws), things they should avoid doing while they were still learning. And after they learned more they could make up their own minds and go further.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Whats this, the Israelites drafted a Ninja for the debates?? LOL I LOVE IT!!

Lets lay it all out: the epistles and the doctrine of the Apostles were authoritative for the Church. You said that he didn't have such authority, and thats absolutely positively not true in any way shape or form (You must not understand the office and authority of an Apostle, do you?). Are you saying that Paul was trying to feed them "bit by bit" the ways of Torah? Thats an interesting approach, even though its wrong. The teachings of the Apostles were not a "warm-up" to the Torah, they were the actual new covenant contract.

[Zealot X]

Of course the apostles were bound to the Torah. Look who their master was. He was a teacher of the law. It would be one thing if you were suggesting that they were to be considered "righteous gentiles" but what you are suggesting is that there was a new law for all Christians. Let me say first that I understand where you are coming from. This is something that Christianity has taught over generations. Waking out of these errors is like being woken out of the matrix. It's not easy. And there is no guarantee that you are even in a place where you can accept the whole truth.

First of all, how were the epistles the authoritative for the church if they did not agree with Torah? Keep in mind that these epistles didn't even exist when the congregation first began. And this congregation obviously did not go by the name "Christian". The name "Christian" was most likely a derogatory title given by the pagan inhabitants of Antioch. The reality is that the "Nazarenes" (the group Paul was accused of being a ringleader of) were keeping the law, including the feast days, even after the death and ressurrection of the messiah. The messiah did not say that when he died the law would no longer be in effect. He said

Matthew 5:18 - 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.

The disciples never went against Torah. They had no such authority to do so. And ask yourself this question. Why would G-d need to alter his law just because you have trouble following it? And yes Paul was feeding them Torah bit by bit. Here is the evidence.

Acts 13:27 - For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

Acts 13:42 - And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

They didn't run out and build gentile churches down the street from the local synagogue. There was a time when gentiles were kept on the outside. But here they are basically included. This is what they did in the early days of the gospel. This was NOT a new religion. They read from the Scriptures every sabbath just as the Israelites were doing before.

I am going to offer up a statement that you're not going to agree with and you're not going to like. I apologize in advance. You seem to not understand what a covenant is. A covenant (feel free to look it up) is a promise or contract. The covenant with Israel before was for YHWH to be their G-d. In exchange they would keep the law. Keeping the law was the covenant, not the law was the covenant. The difference seems small but it is important. If you read about the New covenant we find that it was about writing the law on their hearts.

Psalms 119:11 - Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

2 Corinthians 3:3 - Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Messiah ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

This was the difference. The Israelites had broken the contract by failing to keep the law. In what world does a divorced couple, who divorced because the wife cheated 10 times, get remarried with the difference of removing the vow that disallowed her to cheat? Do you understand? Why would YHWH now permit the very things that caused them to break the contract? There's no logic in that. The difference is that he wrote the law in their hearts through the power of the ruach haKodesh. This is why the second contract is better than the first. The law doesn't change. It is where it is written that changes. Covenant does not mean law. It is a contract or promise between two parties.

shalom

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

oh brother.....

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

John 7:19-23 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Romans 13:9-10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

1john 5:1-3 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

The Love of God is the keeping of the commandments, so if love worketh no ill will, then you are keeping the commandments. Does that not say the Love of God is that we keep his commandments?

If that is the case that we don't keep the dietary law or the Feasts of the Lord, or the 7th Day as a Sabbath, or be physically circumcised, what makes you physically different from the sinner?

What is sin?

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

That was not a new covenant scripture. The funny thing is just because the Gospels are "officially" listed amongst the NT scriptures, doesn't mean everything in it is of the new covenant. The new covenant in the Gospels started when JESUS died and rose from the dead. From that point on, all the teachings they spoke of were for the new covenants contract.