• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

How does Pork Kill you?

Fembot said:
You have pointed out quotes on judging and friendship. I see no where God saying IT IS NOW OK TO EAT THIS ONCE FORBIDDEN ANIMAL.
These are not texts only in respect to "judging and friendship".

What is so disturbing about this is that you simply ignore texts that clearly work against your position while providing precisely zero texts that support it (see below). There are many of texts that are clear and unambiguous - the restrictions on foods have come to an end. I have posted some, FoC has posted some.

The question on the table is this: Do you, or do you not, believe in the authority of the scriptures? If you do, then you have no argument. Jesus declared the end of the food laws, as did Paul.

Now let's turn to your texts:

Romans 14:1-23 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
This is clearly not any kind of endorsement of the food laws - Paul is merely accomodating the fact that some will have difficulty making a change to the new order. Paul is not saying that it is still prohibited to eat pork. If he were, would he say "let not the one who abstanins pass judgement on the one who eats". If the food laws were still in force, Paul, in his Pharasaic tradition would insist that this not be tolerated.

More in the next post....
 
Revelation 14:12: Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
This clearly begs the question at issue by simply assuming that each command is eternal. Fembot, do you sacrifice animals in the temple to atone for sins? Using your line of argument, you should still be doing this since it is in the Torah, right alongside the food laws.

Acts 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.â€Â
As has been clearly shown in the other thread, Peter is about to get a lesson that no foods are unclean, even though at the beginning of the lesson he thinks otherwise, as Acts 10:14 indicates. Context is key. Sure, Peter starts his interaction with the angel believing that some foods are unclean. But then he is told that all foods are now clean.

Matthew 5:18
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
This is the only text of yours that is have even the slightest strength in supporting the continued applicabilty of the food laws. I have provided a detailed argument about this in the other thread. I will repost it shortly.

1 Peter 1:14-16
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.â€Â
Again, this clearly begs the question just as the Revelation 14 text does - you are simply assuming that the written code of Torah is eternal. Paul clearly believes otherwise, Jesus clearly believes otherwise.
 
Fembot said:
Matthew 5:18: For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€Â.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light


What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are many other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.
 
Even more evidence that Jesus saw that the Torah - the written law - was coming to an end:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these." 32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."


What did the Torah - the written law - have to say about sacrifices and burnt offerings? That they were vital and important and must be carried out.

What is Jesus saying? When he says "you are not far from the kingdom of God", He is telling the man that he (the other man) has realized something important: the sacrificial system is coming to an end as Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom. And is this part of Torah ends, so do all the other parts, including food laws.
 
Drew said:
What is Jesus saying? When he says "you are not far from the kingdom of God", He is telling the man that he (the other man) has realized something important: the sacrificial system is coming to an end as Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom. And is this part of Torah ends, so do all the other parts, including food laws.

This is made clear in the letter to the Hebrews. The shadows of the good things to come (sacrifial laws, dietary restrictions) are no longer necessary. Just as the signs that say "Phoenix, 50 miles" on the interstate have no more importance when you actually have reached Phoenix...

Regards
 
Fembot said:
Acts 10:14
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.â€Â

Fembot, I love ya sister, you know I do. But I am seriously wondering about why you would quote this particular verse and totally ignore the very next sentence:
Acts 10:14 & 15
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.†and again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
 
handy said:
Fembot said:
Acts 10:14
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.â€Â

Fembot, I love ya sister, you know I do. But I am seriously wondering about why you would quote this particular verse and totally ignore the very next sentence:
Acts 10:14 & 15
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.†and again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Good question... :clap
 
Fembot said:
"If this keeps up I'll dig out information about the every day foods....blah, blah, blah"

Sorry 3 words doesn't cut it. Follow through with what you said you would do. Dig up the everyday foods WE eat and make a detailed list of the ingredients (as you promised :-) )
blah blah blah....
AND if THREE words were ALL that we had, FB, then you MIGHT have some semblance of an argument here ;)
Too bad THREE words isnt all that there is to present in the matter.



And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed principalities and powers, He mocked them in public, triumphing over them in it.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.
(Colossians 2:13-17 EMTV)


I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; except to him considering anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved on account of your food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food the one on behalf of whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be slandered. For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(Romans 14:14-17 EMTV)
 
Fembot said:
You have pointed out quotes on judging and friendship. I see no where God saying IT IS NOW OK TO EAT THIS ONCE FORBIDDEN ANIMAL.
Of course you dont... :nono
Sorry but the issue was about the meat being UNCLEAN in the Mosaic Code...what part of THAT is it that you are missing or ignoring ? :)
Pork would have been UNCLEAN while the Jews were under the law.....Paul and Jesus BOTH show now that NO meat is 'unclean'...thus the issue is dead entirely even if some wish to remain under the law.

What I presented wasnt about judging and 'friendship' it was about NOT allowing ourselves to be judged by someone such as yourself in what WE eat or drink....and it was about NOTHING (foods) being 'unclean' any longer...a point which you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp for whatever reason...
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the midst, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed principalities and powers, He mocked them in public, triumphing over them in it.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or of a new moon or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.
(Colossians 2:13-17 EMTV)


I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself; except to him considering anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved on account of your food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food the one on behalf of whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be slandered. For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(Romans 14:14-17 EMTV)


Romans 14:1-23
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Which is only more evidence against you, FB.
You are in NO position to judge those who eat meat, now are you ? :)
We stand to Him...not you...

Revelation 14:12
Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
Show me again where Jesus said meats are still 'unclean' ...

Acts 10:14
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.â€Â
And as handy pointed out you very conveniently 'forgot' to mention the REST of the passage....
Acts 10:14 & 15
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.†and again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Interesting.
Did you forget or leave or omit in intentionally ??? :)

Matthew 5:18
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Great.
Shall we start looking at all 600+ laws to see which ones I KNOW you dont follow to the letter? Including one about mixed fibers in your clothing ?
1 Peter 1:14-16
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.â€Â
Not even remotely relevant to this discussion.
 
Did Jesus eat bad meat ?

Did Jesus eat bad meat ?
posting.php?mode=edit&f=14&p=471571

All this nonsense about pork and the supposed health issues makes me want to talk about fish.
When PORK is PROPERLY prepared it is completely safe to eat...as is pretty much any meat.
Lets see if anything Jesus ate could have presented the same type of problems if it wasnt PROPERLY prepared...

THE RAW FISH DISEASE
http://www.abcsalutaris.com/english/content/view/92
diphyllobothriasis

Definition

Diphyllobothriasis is an infection caused by a fish parasite, also known as fish tapeworm.
The infection is similar to the taenia solium and the taenia saginata, which contamination occurs through the ingestion of undercooked beef and pork. Humans are the definitive hosts, but other mammals such as dogs and cats that eat raw fish can serve as host.

Cause

The fish parasite is a worm scientifically called Diphyllobothrium latum, and represents one of the species of flat helminths (platehlminths) reaching the largest size among the helminths.
Humans become infected when they eat raw or undercooked fish containing the worm larvae.
Huh....something just like a pork contamination that can happen when FISH (like Jesus ate) is consumed but not PROPERLY prepared.
Imagine that...pork isnt the ONLY problem meat in the world when its not PROPERLY prepared... :naughty
 
handy said:
Fembot said:
Acts 10:14
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.â€Â
Fembot, I love ya sister, you know I do. But I am seriously wondering about why you would quote this particular verse and totally ignore the very next sentence:
Acts 10:14 & 15
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.†and again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Handy, I love ya sister, you know I do.
Peter saw the vision. Peter knew the law. He told the gentile about the law:
Acts 10:28 said:
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation [allophulos];
Then and in the same sentence he interpreted the vision given by God:
Acts 10:28 said:
but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man [anthrÃ…Âpos - the 'manfaced': any certain man] common or unclean.

  • According to Peter, what was being spoken about in the law, was gentiles or 'nations' (allophulos).[/*:m:a9lindbp]
  • According to Peter, what was being shown him in the vision, was mankind, the 'manfaced' (anthrÃ…Âpos).[/*:m:a9lindbp]

Thayer's Greek Definitions said:
G246
ἀλλÃŒÆÅλοÂ
allophulos
1) foreign
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G243 and G5443
Citing in TDNT: 1:267, 43
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance said:
G246
ἀλλÃŒÆÅλοÂ
allophulos
al-lof'-oo-los
From G243 and G5443; foreign, that is, (specifically) Gentile: - one of another nation.

The vision was given by the Holy Spirit to a Spirit-filled and baptized (immersed) Peter about God's decision as confirmed and announced later in Jerusalem by Peter also: "like as we"


As far as the "why" of Fembot's choice I can only speculate. Maybe she is aware that we are all commanded to "prove the truth and hold it fast." Even if she were wrong about the scripture she quoted (she isn't) that does not mean we should try to wrestle it away (and I know this isn't the case).

The right scripture to consider IMOO (in my opinion only) to address the issue Fembot speaks of is found on the lips of Paul (the Apostle of the Gentiles) as many of our brothers and sisters have pointed out. Paul had the authority to speak about such things and he wasn't talking about the vision of Peter but spoke from his own conclusion drawn from the revelation that the Holy Spirit gave HIM, not Peter. The discussion we witness in the bible shows even more examples and goes well beyond the subject of "The case of Porky Pig and the Jewish notions and laws as applied to the Gentiles who were being brought into the family by the anointing of the Holy Spirit at that time".

The discussion goes beyond me and I can not fully fathom it but I can glimpse it somewhat. How did the Apostles (sent by God for various purposes) resolve their differences? Please correct me if I am wrong but Peter remained for the most part in Jerusalem and could be considered the leader of the anointed of Christ there, yes? Paul went on in his ministry later and called himself "The Apostle of the Gentiles" confirming his office, yes?

Conclusions: Is it sin for a gentile to eat pork? Only if his or his -or- her conscience forbids it. For that one, yes. It is sin. Am I right or am I wrong? Can we take authority over others? As our friend Mr. D. Slayer is fond of saying "Is it Biblical? Is it Scriptural?" --sometimes I ponder the wisdom of opening a thread with a question and leaving it straightaway. Today I wonder if that isn't the better way. Certainly it has qualities of meekness about it, yes? In that I am jealous of our dear Dave Slayer. But sometimes my bones burn and I can not hold onto what is given me. I must rise and grab my spear and thrust it through both Jew and Gentile alike so that the curse of the house of Sparrow Hawke that has broken out might not continue. I pray that each understands that this can only be done in faith. Faith well placed in the Resurrected Christ who can resurrect my fallen brethren - for my spear is only an analogy and the wound that is inflicted is easily remedied.

~Sparrow
< may all men present know that each here has "come in the name of the Lord" to aid in what could be termed the distress of their friends. Blessed be the man who comes in the Name of the Lord, binding his lips to the Word of Truth in kindness. >
 
Sparrowhawke said:
According to Peter what was being spoken about in the vision was gentiles (allophulos
We have, of course, been down this road before. Your argument appears to be based on the following (demonstrably incorrect) reasoning: Since ultimate point is about the cleanness of the Gentiles, Peter cannot be told the additional thing that all foods are now unclean.

There appear to be some who believe that since the main lesson of Acts 10 is that Gentiles are to be seen as clean, it is therefore “impossible†that the animals on the sheet are also being declared clean. There almost seems to be a belief that Paul is not allowed to declare more than one thing clean in a single argument. Where does that rule come from? In this passage both the animals and the Gentiles are being declared clean. In fact, a declaration that that the animals are clean is the very basis for the wider point that the Gentiles are clean – one of the primary reasons the Jew deemed the Gentile to be unclean is that the Gentile ate the unclean foods.
 
Drew said:
Sparrowhawke said:
According to Peter...

Drew please, MY argument is mine and was only expressed to those who have an ear to hear it. You will pardon me if I prefer Peter's explanation to yours. In the spirit of reconciliation let again say that I fully agree with your conclusion as they are drawn from the writings of Paul. It is not sin for Gentiles to eat pork. Yet herein comes another quote from Peter. Remember first that Peter was described as an "unlearned" man - a fisherman. He too could be called "common" and probably was by the Pharisees of his day. Contrast this with Paul, well learned of the law and called "A Pharisee of Pharisee's" -- that's like our saying "A man's man," today. The quote is found in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Pe 3:16&version=9; --- it is one of the "3:16's" found. I'll leave it to you to study it at your leisure.

Cordially,
Sparrow

[*First Edit to add the words called "the spirit of reconciliation"]
[*Second Edit to add hyperlink to the 2Peter 3:15 quote: that all may see.]
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Even if she were wrong about the scripture she quoted (she isn't) that does not mean we should try to wrestle it away (and I know this isn't the case).
She is wrong - the statement is taken entirely out of context. The statement that Fembot quoted represents Peter's view before the lesson is to begin. And the lesson is that Gentiles are clean and that Peter is to see this in terms of the foods that Gentile eat now being declared to be clean.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Drew said:
Sparrowhawke said:
According to Peter...

Drew please, MY argument is mine and was only expressed to those who have an ear to hear it. You will pardon me if I prefer Peter's explanation to yours.

Cordially,
Sparrow
No. I will not "pardon" - in the sense of not responding to - demonstrably incorrect material. You, of course, are free to express your view, as I am to respond to it.

Readers - do not be misled; just because the object of the lesson is that Gentiles are clean, this does not mean that the foods are not also being declared clean. It appears that this is what is being implied by sparrow - that since the main point is that Gentiles are clean, there cannot be a parallel assertion that foods are also declared clean.

That is manifestly incorrect logic. If that is not your argument, please set me straight as to what your argument is.
 
Sparrowhawke said:
In the spirit of reconciliation let again say that I fully agree with your conclusion as they are drawn from the writings of Paul. It is not sin for Gentiles to eat pork.
But that is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that Jesus declares that the Levitical food laws have been overturned for the Jews. And of course, they never applied to the Gentile in the first place, so there is no issue there.

Sparrowhawke said:
Yet herein comes another quote from Peter. Remember first that Peter was described as an "unlearned" man - a fisherman. He too could be called "common" and probably was by the Pharisees of his day. Contrast this with Paul, well learned of the law and called "A Pharisee of Pharisee's" -- that's like our saying "A man's man," today. The quote is found in 2Pe 3:16 --- it is one of the "3:16's" found. I'll leave it to you to study it at your leisure.
Here is the text to which you refer:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction

Is your point that those of us who disagree with you are distorting scripture? If so, please explain how this statement, made to Jews, can legitimately be read as consistent with the view that certain foods still defile?:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him

Now who is distorting? The one who reads this as it stands and concludes that Jesus is saying that all foods are clean, or the one who insists that Jesus is saying this:

Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him, except pork and all the other things prohibited in the Levitical foods laws
 
Again, I am limiting my discussion here.
  • First it is written only to those who have been given by the Holy Spirit an "ear to hear". That is quickly followed by my prayer, "Let them hear, Lord." [/*:m:3axrp96l]
  • Secondly I only addressed your conclusion as it was drawn from the writings of Paul.[/*:m:3axrp96l]
  • & Third and upon this I must insist, as already stated, My argument is mine.[/*:m:3axrp96l]
You might not see the wisdom in my voluntary limits but they do restrict me and not you. Why object?

~Sparrow
 
Re: Did Jesus eat bad meat ?

follower of Christ said:
Did Jesus eat bad meat ?
posting.php?mode=edit&f=14&p=471571

All this nonsense about pork and the supposed health issues makes me want to talk about fish.
When PORK is PROPERLY prepared it is completely safe to eat...as is pretty much any meat.
Lets see if anything Jesus ate could have presented the same type of problems if it wasnt PROPERLY prepared...

THE RAW FISH DISEASE
http://www.abcsalutaris.com/english/content/view/92
diphyllobothriasis

Definition

Diphyllobothriasis is an infection caused by a fish parasite, also known as fish tapeworm.
The infection is similar to the taenia solium and the taenia saginata, which contamination occurs through the ingestion of undercooked beef and pork. Humans are the definitive hosts, but other mammals such as dogs and cats that eat raw fish can serve as host.

Cause

The fish parasite is a worm scientifically called Diphyllobothrium latum, and represents one of the species of flat helminths (platehlminths) reaching the largest size among the helminths.
Humans become infected when they eat raw or undercooked fish containing the worm larvae.
Huh....something just like a pork contamination that can happen when FISH (like Jesus ate) is consumed but not PROPERLY prepared.
Imagine that...pork isnt the ONLY problem meat in the world when its not PROPERLY prepared... :naughty


Yes, Jesus ate fish, not pork. All pork has worms, not all fish. Yes, nothing is wrong with properly prepared, unclean worms. :-)
 
BTW, I am not judging anyone. I've said it several times. I'm over arguing with you Donald.
 
Back
Top