Couple Brutally Attacked For Ordering Ham On Their Pizza

Youness Boussaid and Fatah Bouzid, both 27, launched a brutal attack on the pair after warning them they would “go to hell” because the pizza they were eating contained ham.

The victims left Le Mix Bar, a nightclub in Cambrésis, France, where they had spent the evening, and ordered pizza from a nearby food vendor. They were approached by Boussaid and Bouzid soon after, who offered the young couple cocaine.

Noticing ham on the pizza, the two Arabs told the pair they would “go to hell” for eating it. Islam forbids the consumption of meat from pigs.

Seeking to humiliate the woman, the assailants caressed her blonde hair and forced fingers into her nose, which caused her to fall and lose consciousness. When her companion tried to protect her, the two Arabs began to beat the young man before security staff from Le Mix Bar intervened.

It's open to interpretation. I think it's clear what Jesus was referring to. From Wikipedia. Jesus is quoted in Mark 7:14–23 as saying "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him ... whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly"; and in Matthew 15:10–11. "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." These statements are often cited for support of the view that practicing Christianity does not include dietary restrictions. Supporters of the liberal view also point to Peter's vision reported in Acts 10:10-16 and Acts 11:5-10 in which God invited him to "kill and eat" from the animals in the "great sheet" containing "all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air". They also draw support from the writings of apostles Timothy (1 Timothy 4:3–5, "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer") and Paul (Colossians 2:8–16, "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"). While the majority of Christians agree that the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament were lifted with Christ's New Covenant, a view known as Supersessionism, there are Torah-submissive Christians who believe that they should still be observed. Supporters of this view may argue, for example, that in the Old Testament, Daniel spoke of unclean food and drink as "defiling one's body" Daniel 1:8, and that in the New Testament one's body is said to be the "temple of God", and "If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him".[20] Some read Jesus's reply to questioning by the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-2 and Matthew 15:19-20 as implying that his statements about "which goeth into the mouth" (Mark 7:14–23 and Matthew 15:10–11) referred to the question of hand washing, rather than clean and unclean foods.[21] Others also argue that the dietary restrictions predate Leviticus, and that Paul in Colossians 2 was referring to the ceremonial feast days such as the Feast of Unleavened Bread and not clean and unclean foods.[22] Others argue that the liberal view would imply the acceptance even of alcohol, tobacco, rats and roaches as "clean food";[23] and that God never declares something an abomination and then changes His mind.[24] Supporters of the stricter view have also disputed the interpretation of Peter's vision Acts 10:5-10, claiming that God was merely instructing him not to refer to gentiles as "unclean" since salvation had been extended to them.[25] This is expressly stated by Peter later in the chapter at Acts 10:28 ("but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.") In Acts 10:14 Peter makes a distinction between "common" (Greek κοινόν) and "unclean" (Greek ακάθαρτον) to which God replies in the next verse "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common [κοίνου]".

Here is what I believe this passage means

the passage already tells you what it means.. it says "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean".. if there is additional meaning, it is because you put it in there.

Essentially, another way to look at it was this was all part of the putting away the old law and bringing in the new law under Christ….animal sacrifices were done and over with since Christ died as a permanent (and ultimate) sacrifice.

-why does the law need to be put away?
-why did sacrifices continue after Jesus came and left?
-why did jesus command the leper in Matt 8:4 to offer the sacrifices put forth in Leviticus 14?
-why did paul take a nazirite vow in acts 18:18 which requires sacrifices (one of which is a SIN offering) to end?
**Nazirite vow: Numbers 6.. verses 13-16 for ending the vow
-why did he offer sacrifices (and pay for other peoples sacrifices, some of which were SIN sacrifices) in Acts 21:24?
-why does it say in Hebrews 10:28 (written long after Jesus came and left) that anyone who sets aside the Law of Moses dies on the word of 2 witnesses?

peter's vision is not open to interpretation, because it says right in the scripture what it meant

In Mark 7 and Matt 15, Jesus is saying what defiles you is what comes from the heart and out of the mouth.. in Rabbinical law, one of the few things that cannot be 'unclean' is dung.. so in a way, eating food is purified as it goes through your system.

if jesus had broken or even changed the law of moses, he would have been disqualified as the 'messiah' according to the law of moses, see Deuteronomy 13. he also would have been rightfully stoned as he would have been guilty (see hebrews 10:28, written long after Jesus)

the same goes for timothy and paul.. if they were breaking the law of moses, then they would have been stoned, so either 1. they are not actual disciples or 2. they are saying something other than what you think they are saying.

do you subscribe to "supersessionism"?

there is more to this than a wiki cut-n-paste, but if thats all you got then this will be a short conversation

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.