Why do Christians eat pork?

[ShibbOleth]

I may have slept missed the Gospel where Jesus said, "Let them eat pork!" Or perhaps it's from some obscure 5th century Papal bull. But why is that both Jews and Muslims eschew pork for religious reasons, yet I've never heard of a Christian sect, papist or not, denounce pork for religious reasons.




_______________________________________________
Why pork was proscribed by Hebraic law is still unclear, and some scholars believe that the Torah merely suggested not eating pork at certain restaurants. - Woody Allen

[zev_steinhardt]

IANAC, but my guess would be that Paul observed that Christians were freed from "the curse of the Law." As such, they do not keep kosher, nor keep many of the other commandments in the Torah.

Zev Steinhardt

[fluiddruid]

I have spoken with Christians who do not eat pork because they believe that the OT rules should still be followed (save circumcision). It is extremely uncommon, however.

[astorian]

You can read the full story in the Acts of the Apostles. However, the edited version is this:

In the early days of Christianity, all the Christians were Jews, and continued to follow the kosher laws, attend the synagogue, cicrcumcise their sons... all the things any other Jew did. over time, especially after the apostle Paul began preaching to and winning over large numbers of Greeks and other pagans, a debate arose.

To the Jewish Christians, it seemed obvious that Greeks who embraced Christ had a duty to become Jews and follow Mosaic law. Paul and the new Gentile Christians contended that it was enough to follow Jesus, that the old Mosaic laws were no longer necessary or binding.

At a council of the Church's leaders, it was decided that Gentile Christians did NOT have to follow the kosher laws, circumcise their sons, or follow most Mosaic laws.

[Gary T]

I believe at some point Jesus said something along the lines of "don't be concerned with what goes into your mouth, but rather with what comes out of it."

[Mangetout]

There's this:

Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.
8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
11 It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"
12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,
18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.
21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.
23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Gary T
I believe at some point Jesus said something along the lines of "don't be concerned with what goes into your mouth, but rather with what comes out of it."

I recently made that error on these boards too. The context there was not eating non-kosher food, but eating without washing first.

Zev Steinhardt

[ShibbOleth]

So, Mangetout, your name is the French translation of Romans 14:2? And did Paul or Peter write Romans?

[Mangetout]

Do I really eat everything? - I can't tell you that (Rom 14:22)

Paul, or that's what chapter 1, verse 1 says.

[Mangetout]

Oh, I forgot this :

[Hail Ants]

Because your heart can take it!™

The Pork Lobby

[abel]

Here's the story, in Acts 10, starting with verse 9...

Peter's Vision

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Courtesy of http://bible.gospelcom.net

[KneadToKnow]

Because bacon tastes gooooood. Sausages taste goooooood.

[yabob]

As a practical observation, whatever rationale he used for releasing them from it, Paul was going to have difficulties converting Greeks if he insisted on retaining adherence to Judaic law. Circumcision was directly counter to Greek sensibilities, which held it to be mutilation. Many Jewish dietary regulations flew in the face of Greek customs as well.

In a lot of ways, Christianity as understood today is actually "Paulism".

[Hari Seldon]

Along a similar vein, there is a lot of confusion about the sabbath. Many, perhaps most, modern Christians seem to believe that Sunday is the Christian sabbath, but that is not true. It is my understanding that originally Christians explicitly discarded the idea of a sabbath and then over the centuries one day, Sunday, got singled out for worship. But it is not the Sabbath!

[occ]

There was a thread by Cecil on this. I believe that the Sabbath is Saturday, as observed by the Jews. Sunday is actually the "day of rest", which eventually came to be the day that most (although certainly not all, several sects do observe the Sabbath as the day of worship) Christians attend church.

[kniz]

Originally posted by occ
Sunday is actually the "day of rest".

Look at a calendar, Sunday is the first day of the week not the last. Maybe that is why it is Sunday, because it is the day that God said "Let there be light".

[kniz]

And everything I said was metaphorically speaking!

[DPWhite]

Because it's tasty and nutrious!


Calling modern Christianity Paulism (Pauline is the more correct term) is a gross oversimplification. Pauline theology is essential to Christianity, particularly less orthodox versions, after all, Paul was the strongest advocate for bringing Christianity to the Gentiles. But the teachings of Jesus found in the four Gospels is the foundation of Christianity.

[tomndebb]

Very early in their history, the Christians began setting aside the first day of the week to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus. Since, by the end of the first century, most Christians were gentiles with no tradition of resting on the seventh day--and since trying to tell your boss (owner) that you could not work on a particular day each week was probably not a good idea (especially during those periods when Christians were being persecuted), there was very little in the way of "resting" on the Sabbath.

Once Christianity got past the persecution phase, various leaders pointed to the commandment to rest one day a week and decided that Christians should also follow that command. Constantine ordered a change to the Roman calendar to impose a 7-day week (replacing the various systems that the Romans used within each month, having no previous concept of a 7-day week). However, since they felt no direct link to Judaism (and often deliberately chose to ignore Judaism), and since they were going to their churches on Sunday (while the Jews were going to the synagogue on Saturday), the Christians made Sunday their day of rest.

[neisha]

It's the other white meat.

[Edlyn]

Zev, I'd like to point out that the "curse of the law" that you mention so frequently is from the letter to the Galatians, and references Deuteronomy 27:26

"Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out."

[Liberal]

That was I, and not Edlyn, who posted the above.

[scm1001]

For the same reason we no longer stone adulteress, or follow out any of the other 1000 crazy laws in the old testament. We have grown up.

[Liberal]

There is no Old Testament law requiring the stoning of adulteresses. Maybe you mean this:

'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. — Leviticus 20:10

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by scm1001
For the same reason we no longer stone adulteress, or follow out any of the other 1000 crazy laws in the old testament. We have grown up.

Boy oh boy, is describing Christianity as 'grown up' ever asking for trouble.

[plnnr]

There is a related thread over in the IMHO Forum - Christians eat pork so they can enjoy barbecue.

[everton]

Originally posted by kniz
Look at a calendar, Sunday is the first day of the week not the last. Maybe that is why it is Sunday, because it is the day that God said "Let there be light".

No cite, but I'm pretty sure Sunday was named for us after the sun by the pagan Romans. The other days are named after non-Christian symbols too - Monday (the Moon), Tuesday (can't remember but someone will be along soon who does), Wednesday (Wodin), Thursday (Thor), Friday (Frigg or Freya?) and Saturday (Saturn).

[Orual]

Tuesday is named for another Norse god: Tyr.

[FriendRob]

everton is right, "Sunday" predates Christianity. The original arrangement IIRC was

Day--------------------God/Planet------------------S.E.L.O.O.*

Sun.----------------------Sun----------------------Sunday
Mon.----------------------Moon---------------------Monday
Tue.----------------------Mars---------------------Martedi
Wed.----------------------Mercury------------------Mercoledi
Thu.----------------------Jove/Jupiter-------------Giovedi
Fri.----------------------Venus--------------------Venerdi
Sat.----------------------Saturn-------------------Saturday

(In English, some of the original Roman gods got replaced with their North European equivalents: Thor (Thursday) for Jove, e.g.)

"Sunday" was OK with the Christians because of its many associations: The first day of creation when light was created, Jesus as "Lord of Light", etc.

A major rival to Christianity as a religion at the time of Constantine was the worship of the "Invincible Sun", variously identified with other gods such as Mithras. Depictions of this god show a halo around his head - something that was later used for depictions of Jesus. So there is probably some syncretism of Jesus and the Sun God influencing the celebration of Sunday, too.


* Some European Language Or Other - apologies to Larry Gonick, the author of the Cartoon History of the Universe

[scm1001]

Originally posted by Libertarian
There is no Old Testament law requiring the stoning of adulteresses. Maybe you mean this:

good point - though stoning was the accepted punishment in Jesus times as he stopped one such an enlighted practice with the words "let those without sin ..."

Mangetout: I'm an atheist so my comments were meant to be ironical, (but irony often doesn't travel well by email)

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by scm1001
or follow out any of the other 1000 crazy laws in the old
testament. We have grown up.

Ah yes. Well, we non-grown-ups who do keep those "crazy laws" thank you for your opinion.

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Zev, I'd like to point out that the "curse of the law" that you mention so frequently is from the letter to the Galatians, and references Deuteronomy 27:26

True Libertarian (or Edlyn. However, it is based upon a misunderstanding of the verse. The verse doesn't curse anyone who breaks a single law. Just as an occassional jaywalk doesn't cause me to cease being a general law-abiding citizen, the verse doesn't curse one who breaks a single law. It refers to those who don't upkeep it.

This is, however, off-topic. If you want to open another thread on the matter, I'd be more than happy to continue it there.

Zev Steinhardt

[scm1001]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt


Ah yes. Well, we non-grown-ups who do keep those "crazy laws" thank you for your opinion.

Zev Steinhardt

hmmm, no offense intended Zev. Just out of interest though, are you ultra-orthodox, and do you follow or agree with every single law such as the putting to death of adulteresses? Most Jews I know (though I do not know any UO ones) seem to pick and chose from the old testament scriptures almost as much as christians do.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by scm1001


hmmm, no offense intended Zev. Just out of interest though, are you ultra-orthodox, and do you follow or agree with every single law such as the putting to death of adulteresses? Most Jews I know (though I do not know any UO ones) seem to pick and chose from the old testament scriptures almost as much as christians do.

Not quite. Orthodox Jews view all 613 commandments as in force and in place today.

Certain commandments, however, cannot be fulfilled due to circumstances. Many require the Temple in Jerusalem.

As for putting adulteresses to death, the law IS still "on the books" today. There are three reasons, however, that we don't actually do this:

1. Capital cases in Jewish law require a panel of twenty-three Judges. These Judges are required to have s'micha (ordination). This ordination has to come from someone who, himself, had s'micha from someone else who had s'micha, etc. in a line going back to Moses. This line was broken about 2000 years ago.

2. In order for any Jewish court to try a capital case, the Sanhedrin (Jewish supreme court) had to be sitting in their chambers on the Temple Mount. Since this is no longer the case, even if a panel of the aforementioned ordained Judges did exist, they could not try a capital case anyway.

3. Even when capital cases could be tried, death penalties were very rare. In order to impose a death penalty, the following circumstances had to exist:

• The crime had to be witnessed by two people
• The two people could not be related to each other, the perpetrator or victim (if any)
• They had to verbally warn the perpetrator that the action s/he was about to commit was punishable by the death penalty
• The perpetrator had to acknowledge their statement and say something to the effect of "even so, I'm going to commit the crime"
• The panel of Judges had to have at least 13 votes for the death penalty, but not all 23.
• When in deliberations, the judges could not issue a conviction on the same day. They had to "sleep on the matter."
• When deliberating a judge who previously argued for acquittal could no longer go back and argue for conviction if he changed his mind (although when it came time to actually vote, he could vote as he wished)

There are other rules involved. But as you can see, the issuing of the death penalty was extremely rare. The Talmud records a statement that a court that issued a death penalty more than once in seven years would have a reputation as a "murderous court."

So, in short, we don't "pick and choose" commandments. We actually keep them all as they apply in current circumstances.

Zev Steinhardt

[Tarkus]

What else are you gonna do with a pig?

[scm1001]

Thanks or the clarification Zev. Two questions then (sorry for sort off diverting the thread)

Many of these conditions (23 judges, temple mount etc) are not in the old testament as far as I can remember- I presume they are in the talmud?

What then is the difference between an ultra- and orthodox jew (briefly)

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by scm1001
Thanks or the clarification Zev. Two questions then (sorry for sort off diverting the thread)

Many of these conditions (23 judges, temple mount etc) are not in the old testament as far as I can remember- I presume they are in the talmud?

You presume correctly.

What then is the difference between an ultra- and orthodox jew (briefly)

None. I really don't like the term "ultra-orthodox." Basically all Orthodox Jews keep the same commandments, say the same prayers, etc. Usually, the media or others will use the term "ultra-Orthodox" to mean Hasidim, as opposed to non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews.

Zev Steinhardt

[Shodan]

Mark 7:18b-19 -

"Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

So it wasn't just Paul who thought that Christians did not need to keep kosher, but the writer of the Gospel of Mark as well. Mark is considered the earliest of the Gospels.

Regards,
Shodan

[zev_steinhardt]

OK, time for (yet another) a primer on Jewish law.

There is a concept in Jewish law called tumah. There is no direct English translation. The closest term I can think of is "uncleanliness," but this is not really an accurate translation.

People and items (including foodstuffs) can contract tumah. The usual method of contracting tumah involves coming in contact with or being under the same roof as a corpse. A person who contracts tumah cannot enter the Temple Mount, nor can s/he eat sacrifical foods until they are purified from the tumah.

A person who eats food which is tamei (contracted tumah) becomes tamei him/herself. The food, however, is not kosher, and one is perfectly permitted to eat it if one is willing to accept the restrictions that accompany the tumah.

What Mark may have been talking about was tumah and not about kashrus. It sounds like Mark is saying that since the source of tumah does not stay in the person, it does not render him/her tamei. (N.B. This is not normative Jewish law).

Zev Steinhardt

[GilaB]

Originally posted by scm1001
What then is the difference between an ultra- and orthodox jew (briefly)

I would call it a difference in attitude towards involvement with the outside world. Although I don't like either term (they're both gross oversimplifications, for one thing), I would probably say that the ultra-Orthodox feel that one should remain withdrawn from the outside world, with the exception of situations necessary to earn a living, because of negative outside influences. Non ultra-Orthodox, while they (we) are still observant of all the same commandments, are more involved in higher education, non-Jewish entertainments such as TV, etc. Certain other social attitudes differ as well, but many of them, I think, stem from this central one.
(Zev - I certainly know many people of a more Agudah bent who are certainly non Hassidic, but who would almost certainly fall in the ultra category, no?)

[Captain Amazing]

What about the term haredi? Would that be better than "ultra-orthodox"?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
The food, however, is not kosher, and one is perfectly permitted to eat it if one is willing to accept the restrictions that accompany the tumah.

AARGH!!

What I meant to say was that the food is kosher.

_{Memo to self: Proofread!}

Zev Steinhardt