Oh boy. Here's another troll looking for a banning.

@fredsbend And yet, the rest of the NT makes it clear enough that the dietary restrictions in the Mosaic law are no longer in effect for Christians. So Peter's vision is a case of both/and, not of either/or.

@fredsbend Many Christians think all sorts of ridiculous and false things are perfectly reasonable theology.

The problem is that superimposing these later, anachronistic "reasons" for what's in the Bible distracts from what the Bible itself actually says, and why. Moses and the ancient Israelites did not know about germs. So in the context of that culture, and for the purposes of that culture, the supposed germ-filled nature of pork was not the reason eating pork was banned.

Much more likely is the ancient idea that some animals are good and others are evil. Remember, this was before modern concepts of the web of nature, the predator/prey relationship as beneficial to both predator and prey species, and so on. Fierce, predatory animals were commonly (but not consistently) seen as "evil," especially if they ate carrion, where as peaceful, vegetarian animals were commonly (but not consistently) seen as "good."

So a whole set of practices grew up around that, including rules about what animals were ritually clean--which were consistently "good" animals, and what animals were ritually unclean, which were "bad" animals. Eating and sacrificing good animals was seen as pleasing to God, whereas eating and sacrificing bad animals was seen as unpleasing to God, and likely to bring down a curse upon those hapless humans who did it.

Physical health and sickness had little or nothing to do with it. Yes, overeating was recognized as physically unhealthy because it made you fat and weak. But eating the wrong kind of animal was a ritual issue that had to do with one's relationship with God, not an issue of physical health and disease.

Besides, millions of people today eat pork and live good, long lives. The supposed inferiority of pig meat compared to cow meat or sheep meat is rather overblown. Properly cooking meat kills most of the problematic pathogens anyway. And the ancient Jews did cook their meat before eating it.

@fredsbend Your points here are why it's important to read the text of the Bible, including the Old Testament, in its own light rather than imposing later meanings on it and saying, "This is why they did that." Ancient Israelite culture had its own reasons for doing what it did. Distinguishing itself from other nations was one of those reasons. Doing what was believed to bring divine favor, and avoiding what was believed to bring divine anger was another reason.

Avoiding germs was not one of the reasons. And whether Christians believe it or not, prefiguring Jesus Christ was not one of the reasons ancient Israelites did what they did. That is a later meaning which, though I believe is valid, has nothing to do with why the Jews practiced animal sacrifice, required a perfect, unblemished animal for the sacrifice, and so on.

Reading Christian theology into the Old Testament causes all sorts of wrong understandings of the text, and even wrong translations. Such as the NIV and NRSV translating the Hebrew word for "sin offering" as "penalty for sin." There is no linguistic reason to translate it that way. Put flatly, it is a mistranslation. But because Protestant theology says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Protestant translators back-translate the OT to accord with that theology.

In fact, the sacrifices had nothing to do with paying a penalty, nor does the Hebrew text of the OT ever say that. The purpose of a sin offering was not to pay a penalty, but rather to bring the individual and the community back into harmony with God's will through recognizing their sin, repenting from it, and obeying God's commandment no longer to sin in that way. This was concretely memorialized by offering a sacrifice to signify these things.

tl;dr: It's critical to read the OT in its own light, based on its own culture and that culture's reasons for saying and doing what they did. This is the only way we can accurately understand the text of the Bible. From there we can add whatever superstructures of spiritual interpretation we want.

But not before having a proper foundation, which is a proper reading of the text of the Bible in its own contemporary light, free from later cultural, historical, and scientific developments and interpretations.

@fredsbend And yes, that includes seeing where the text of the Bible is inconsistent, and not trying to smooth that over based on much later literary standards.

@fredsbend And yes, Christianity is now divided into thousands of sects based primarily on differing doctrines. And yet, Christ himself said people would be known as his followers by their love. And the two Great Commandments he gave, on which he said the entirety of Scripture depends, were to love God and love the neighbor.

"Christianity" so-called has wandered very far away from what Jesus Christ taught, and no therefore longer deserves to be called Christian.

@curiousdannii Just so strange. I mean, is he trying to be funny? It's not internally consistent, which is usually a good indicator of a joke, though it would be quite a tasteless one.

I can't imagine a proper Christian would say such a thing, even joking.

If one thing is worse than murder it's genocide.

Sorry about the bogus declined flag @curiousdannii, it was perfectly valid and useful but I hit the wrong buttons for the wrong flag.

@LeeWoofenden "No longer in effect for Christians." They never were, so I'm not sure of your point.

@Caleb We demand restitution! You must pay, or give one pound of flesh.

@LeeWoofenden I don't know of the technical and scientifically supported health differences between meats, but it's given among many (even doctors) that among the common American meats there is an hierarchy that largely coincides with clean and unclean.

@LeeWoofenden This is the line between exegesis and systematic theology. An easily blurred line among "infallibility/inspired" believers.

@LeeWoofenden I think the message was more "sin brings death". I can concede Israelites never viewed it as an act that confers grace, but that's why the gospel was so convincing. Suddenly, they had a promise of salvation. Christ's death became the last death.

That "Christ saves" is the central message to all soteriological explanations. It's the forms of Christianity that reject soteriology altogether that separate the church, not the minutia that hopes to explain it technically.

@LeeWoofenden My point is that such interpretations we are criticising are not invalid, given their starting points. You have to dismantle the starting points. I'm sure I've asked before, but do you believe the scripture to be infallible, inspired word of God, as typical understood among Christians?