Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[Strong in Him]

At this point I feel like going out and buying 5 lbs of pork chops to eat.

Me too.
Actually, I'm having one for lunch tomorrow.

 

[Strong in Him]

Of course they were...unless you think Peter and James and John were wrong

Well you must be saying that Paul was wrong then; he said there was nothing wrong with it, and he was one of those who was at the council and delivered the letter.

If the text said "this is a binding command from God for all people everywhere", then it would be taught today and we wouldn't have these kinds of debates.

 

[Strong in Him]

Pigs clean up human waste and as a result are infested with maggots. It was very good advice at the time, and so were all similar laws.
.

Maybe - and what was food hygiene/refrigeration like at that time in that climate?
If pork wasn't fit for human consumption it wouldn't be sold. If gammon/pork/bacon was sold with even ONE maggot on it, they'd doubtless be a law suit and claims for compensation.

And refraining from something because it is not healthy is not at all the same as never having it because God has commanded it.

 

[Servus]

Me too.
Actually, I'm having one for lunch tomorrow.

Tisk tisk, broad is the path that leads to destruction.

 

[Strong in Him]

The 2000 year old Orthodox Church still adheres to them in its Canons.

The Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding, and this includes the prohibition on eating blood. Two canonical sources which uphold the restriction of Acts 15 are:

Canon LXIII (63) of the Apostles: If any bishop, or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same let him be excommunicated.

Canon LXVII (67) from the Quinesext Council: Divine Scripture has commanded us to ‘abstain from blood, and strangled flesh and fornication’ (Gen 9:3-4, Lev 17 & 18:3, Acts 15: 28-29). We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If therefore anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated.

Well thank goodness I am not Eastern Orthodox then.
They can't excommunicate me because I don't belong to their church.

 

[Servus]

The 2000 year old Orthodox Church still adheres to them in its Canons.

The Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding, and this includes the prohibition on eating blood. Two canonical sources which uphold the restriction of Acts 15 are:

Canon LXIII (63) of the Apostles: If any bishop, or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same let him be excommunicated.

Canon LXVII (67) from the Quinesext Council: Divine Scripture has commanded us to ‘abstain from blood, and strangled flesh and fornication’ (Gen 9:3-4, Lev 17 & 18:3, Acts 15: 28-29). We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If therefore anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated.

What does "eat meat in the blood of its soul" mean?

 

[Servus]

Amen I’ve seen this happen so many times and it is extremely common among Christians today. Too many people reject what the scriptures actually say in order to keep their doctrines intact. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say that in John 15:2 the branches that were cut off were not really in Christ when Jesus specifically said that they were.

It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for someone devoted to a denomination to view certain scriptures objectively.

 

[Servus]

Here we go with EGW again. You and a few others like to talk about this.

Because they don't agree with EGW's interpretation of scripture.

Is it because you have no scripture to support your view?

They have presented scripture to support their view, but it was rejected by those who go by EGW's view of scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for someone devoted to a denomination to view certain scriptures objectively.

I have to admit it’s not easy to completely rearrange your entire theology. John 15:1-10 caused me to re-evaluate my theology and as a result I’ve come to a bit more of an Orthodox understanding of the scriptures although I don’t consider myself to be an Orthodox because there’s some beliefs that I’m uncertain about. So I consider myself to be a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Orthodox teachings. So I can relate to a nondenominational theology because some people’s beliefs just don’t quite fit into any mainstream denomination. If I were to claim any theology it would be Eastern Orthodoxy but I can’t rightly say that I’m an Eastern Orthodox if I choose to remain neutral on beliefs like Mary’s perpetual virginity or Mary’s assumption. I don’t reject these teachings but at the same time I can’t endorse them either because I can’t find conclusive evidence pointing in either direction.

 

[Servus]

I have to admit it’s not easy to completely rearrange your entire theology. John 15:1-10 caused me to re-evaluate my theology and as a result I’ve come to a bit more of an Orthodox understanding of the scriptures although I don’t consider myself to be an Orthodox because there’s some beliefs that I’m uncertain about. So I consider myself to be a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Orthodox teachings. So I can relate to a nondenominational theology because some people’s beliefs just don’t quite fit into any mainstream denomination. If I were to claim any theology it would be Eastern Orthodoxy but I can’t rightly say that I’m an Eastern Orthodox if I choose to remain neutral on beliefs like Mary’s perpetual virginity or Mary’s assumption. I don’t reject these teachings but at the same time I can’t endorse them either because I can’t find conclusive evidence pointing in either direction.

I've taken an interest in Eastern Orthodoxy lately.

I highly recommend youtube videos of Brad Jersak talking about Orthodoxy, to anyone interested in learning about it.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well you must be saying that Paul was wrong then; he said there was nothing wrong with it, and he was one of those who was at the council and delivered the letter.

If the text said "this is a binding command from God for all people everywhere", then it would be taught today and we wouldn't have these kinds of debates.

So Paul changed his mind?...It is taught today, just not in YOUR church I assume?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I can’t rightly say that I’m an Eastern Orthodox if I choose to remain neutral on beliefs like Mary’s perpetual virginity or Mary’s assumption. I don’t reject these teachings but at the same time I can’t endorse them either because I can’t find conclusive evidence pointing in either direction.

Sounds like you have some problems with Church Tradition then...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

What does "eat meat in the blood of its soul" mean?

Blood is the life...Leviticus 17:11-14

 

[Leaf473]

So a chicken is the same as a vulture or crow?

As far as I know, vultures only eat animals that have been dead for a while. Crows and chickens eat both plants and animals.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sounds like you have some problems with Church Tradition then...

Well I like to see conclusive evidence to support my beliefs and I haven’t seen any on these topics yet despite several studies on these subjects. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept the infancy gospel of James as conclusive evidence seeing how it claims to be written by James in the opening statements yet it appears to have been written some time in the early second century which would’ve made James around 140 years old if he was the author. So I’m a bit skeptical since it was not discovered until the second century. So I see no need to base any assumptions on these matters as they do not pertain to my salvation nor my walk with God, so I prefer to remain neutral on these matters as opposed to just believing what I’m told.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well I like to see conclusive evidence to support my beliefs and I haven’t seen any on these topics yet despite several studies on these subjects. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept the infancy gospel of James as conclusive evidence seeing how it claims to be written by James in the opening statements yet it appears to have been written some time in the early second century which would’ve made James around 140 years old if he was the author. So I’m a bit skeptical since it was not discovered until the second century. So I see no need to base any assumptions on these matters as they do not pertain to my salvation nor my walk with God, so I prefer to remain neutral on these matters as opposed to just believing what I’m told.

Understand...

 

[The Liturgist]

It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for someone devoted to a denomination to view certain scriptures objectively.

The EOs no longer enforce that canon. Seriously, red meat is exceedingly popular in the Orthodox lands.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sounds like you have some problems with Church Tradition then...

Well, to be frank, some people do a better job of presenting it than others. In the Orthodox Church, there are a lot of Hyperdox Herman types who read the Pedalion and then acquire a legalistic mindset, which is exactly what the Pedalion is intended to avoid. The bishops no longer enforce the canons on eating blood but apply oikonomia lest most of the laity get excommunicated. On the other hand, the canons that preclude priests from managing the money of their parishioners have been recently brought back into focus, after incidents of fraud akin to those which prompted the canon together.

I've taken an interest in Eastern Orthodoxy lately.

I highly recommend youtube videos of Brad Jersak talking about Orthodoxy, to anyone interested in learning about it.

I suggest the YouTube videos of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Behr and Fr. Josiah Trenham, and also the noted bible scholar Dr. Hank Haanegraaf, who joined the Orthodox church and received massive amounts of hate from some evangelicals like John MacArthur. He was fighting cancer at the time and you had alleged evangelicals telling him he was going to Hell. Evangelical Christianity is supposed to be about the Good News of Christ and not abusing fellow Christians over minor denominational differences.

Also, speaking of evangelicals, in the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church was not allowed to operate Sunday schools, perform adult catechesis, or preach freely. They worked out an ingenious solution to this and invited the Reverend Billy Graham, who received a blessing on his arrival from the Patriarch of Moscow and preached to massive crowds throughout Russia. He was able to do what the Russian clergy could not do because he was an American and was diplomatically untouchable. The Russian church remained eternally grateful and with Billy Graham during his final days before he reposed in the Lord was Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, who is in charge of External Church Relations and is also a gifted composer of sacred music and a scholar in ancient Russian chant, who has recorded several albums that adorn my large collection of Russian Orthodox music.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The EOs no longer enforce that canon. Seriously, red meat is exceedingly popular in the Orthodox lands.

There is no prohibition on eating meat (well unless you are fasting) so not sure regarding your response what your meaning is...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

In the Orthodox Church, there are a lot of Hyperdox Herman types who read the Pedalion and then acquire a legalistic mindset, which is exactly what the Pedalion is intended to avoid. The bishops no longer enforce the canons on eating blood but apply oikonomia lest most of the laity get excommunicated. On the other hand, the canons that preclude priests from managing the money of their parishioners have been recently brought back into focus, after incidents of fraud akin to those which prompted the canon together.

I usually see this type of behavior in some new converts, trying to be more Orthodox than the Orthodox. Some converts are Russophiles too, obsessed by anything and everything Russian, joining The Church just to pretend they are Russian. Some join just because they think they can freely be anti-semitic! My only point was that they ARE still on the books in the Canons of the EO Church...