Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[Servus]

I suggest the YouTube videos of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Fr. John Behr and Fr. Josiah Trenham, and also the noted bible scholar Dr. Hank Hanegraaff, 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.

I've been listening to Lazar Puhalo and Kallistos Ware also. But I recommended Brad Jersak because I think he's easier to follow when starting out. And I've also listened to Hank Hanegraaff some regarding EO and read some of his statements on the CRI website. I didn't care for John MacArthur's response. I sent a video of that to another member which lead to the thread Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

 

[Religiot]

Meat or fish?

Both.

PS: Sorry for the late response, I thought I had already responded, but it looks like I didn't.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

oh your referring to the Gentiles who will gather the Jews (who were seeking to be justified by the law) and bring them back to repentance? I’m confident they will bring the SDA back along with the Jews seeing that they’re both stumbling over the same stumbling block.

Not really dear friend, read the scriptures shared with you. It is you that seems to be stumbling over the scriptures shared with you. Let's talk scripture instead avoiding it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Don’t you think it’s strange that it’s the Gentiles who are eating swine who will bring the Jews who don’t eat swine back to repentance?

Who says it is just referring to Gentiles eating swines flesh? Although as Jesus says "Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. For many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

 

[Servus]

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

In this case I was mainly referring to SDA edicts. But it could also be applied to talking to Pentecostals about tongues or Calvinists about predestination etc.

The EO cannon is against consuming pure blood far as I know.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That is untrue. The official religion of Ethiopia and of the Imperial household, the Solomonic Dynasty, which the Ethiopian historical epic Kebra Negast states was descended from King Solomon and Queen Kandake (Candace); their son, Prince Solomon, became the first Jewish Emperor of Ethiopia. This is why the Ethiopian Old Testament is one of the oldest translations in the world and preserves books lost in Hebrew except in fragments, or bits partially recovered at the Dead Sea Scrolls. And the Ethiopian Jews, the Beta Israel, worship in a manner very similar to Ethiopian Christians; most fled to Israel after Emperor Haile Selassie was strangled by the evil Derg communist regime.

Also the Old Testament canon of the Beta Israel is the same as the Old Testament canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox, including books like 1 Enoch, which we know used to be widely used among the Jews, since Jude quotes it in his Epistle. The Pharisees and their successors the Rabbis excluded books like 1 Enoch, Judith and Tobit from the canon.

Some Christians also reject them, but for different reasons which are doctrinally sound. However, I accept all of them.

Of course what I posted was true. I will let you argue with yourself on this one. I only stated the Judaism was not practiced by the whole country of Ethiopia nothing more. Please don't make arguments about things I am not talking about.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Kosher meat is clean meats that have been treated to have the blood removed (see here). Acts 15 tells Gentiles not to eat meat with the blood in it this is from the old testament dietary laws (scripture already provided earlier from Deuteronomy).

Your response here.

No it doesn’t. It says not to eat blood. But it clearly is no longer in effect.

What? I just provided the link. Go google what kosher is if your not sure what it is and where it comes from.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

We have scripture, we show you the scripture, and you reject it on dubious grounds. And Ellen White is the elephant in the room, because if she had not written about this, we would not be having this discussion.

Nope. You have provided no scripture to support your teaching that the dietary laws are no longer a requirement for God's people. What scripture have you or anyone else here provided that has not had context added back in to show it is not saying what people are reading into it? - none. Only scripture has been provided in this thread and it is the scriptures that disagree with you. Understandably you want to change the topic and make it about EGW because you have no scripture to support your position. If you did you would not be trying to change the subject matter to EGW over the scriptures when no one has been talking about EGW. Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures. Until then of course we will agree to disagree as for me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God as discussed by Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No that’s not what it says at all. It says that those who are paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons will ADVOCATE ABSTAINING FROM FOODS GOD HAS CREATED TO BE RECEIVED BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH.

FOR EVERYTHING CREATED BY GOD IS GOOD AND NOTHING IS TO BE REJECTED IF IT IS RECEIVED WITH GRATITUDE.

So are you telling me to abstain from food which God has created to be received? Are you telling me that I must reject something even if I receive it with gratitude? Because I always receive it with gratitude.

Sure it is how it reads. In fact it is exactly how it reads as I only quoted directly from the scriptures. Your isolating a single section of the scripture from it's context to try and read into the scripture what it is saying without the context it is surrounded by...

As posted earlier read the whole scripture and context together it is not saying what you are suggesting...

1 Timothy 4:3-5 [3], Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving OF THEM THAT BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH. [4], For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: [5], FOR IT IS SANCTIFIED BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER.

This scripture links to...

John 17:17 SANCTIFY THEM THROUGH THE TRUTH THY WORD IS TRUTH...

It is God's Word and following God's Word that is truth that santification comes from accoring to these scriptures. So it is through the Word of God that we are told in 1 Timothy 4:3-5 that all food created by God is to be received in thanks giving to those who know the truth for it is sanctified by the Word of God. That is, God has told us what foods are clean to eat and unclean to eat through the Word of God! (see Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-29 where God tells us what foods he has created to be received with thanks giving and those that are not to be eaten).

Hope this helps

 

[LoveGodsWord]

According to Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers it means, From blood.—As distinguished from the preceding rule, this forbade the separate use of blood, as with flour and vegetables, or in the black-puddings of modern cookery, as an article of food. Dishes so prepared were common in the cuisine both of Greeks and Romans, and here also, therefore, the restriction would have involved a frequent withdrawal from social life, or a conspicuous singularity.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary says, They were counselled to abstain from things strangled, and from eating blood; this was forbidden by the law of Moses, and also here, from reverence to the blood of the sacrifices, which being then still offered, it would needlessly grieve the Jewish converts, and further prejudice the unconverted Jews. But as the reason has long ceased, we are left free in this, as in the like matters. Let converts be warned to avoid all appearances of the evils which they formerly practised, or are likely to be tempted to; and caution them to use Christian liberty with moderation and prudence.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says, And from blood - The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14. See notes on Romans 3:25. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Ley Hebrae., p. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, edit. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, p. 588-626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the pagans, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., p. 377-380 But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. On this opinion see the notes on Romans 3:25. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; it is founded in the nature of things; it has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and it is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason, its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given, and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Genesis 9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps, also, there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all people naturally revolt from it as an article of food.

Matthew Poole's Commentary says, And from blood; they were also much more to abstain from blood, when shed out of the body of any slain creature, Leviticus 3:17 Deu 12:23. That blood was forbidden might be to teach them meekness, and to abstain from revenge. It is certain, that such nations as feed on blood are most barbarous and cruel. It is also probable, that these being included in the precepts which they called, The precepts of Adam, or Noah, and to which all the proselytes of the gate were obliged to yield obedience, the apostle would have the observance of them to be continued upon them that came from amongst them over unto Christianity. For though all these ceremonies were dead, (with Christ), yet they were not then deadly, and did wait a time for their more decent burial. If any wonder that the council did not treat of and write about greater matters; as of worshipping God the Father, through the Son; of denying of ourselves, and taking up the cross; he ought to consider, that the question they met upon was about other matters, and that those great things were never in question amongst such as feared God.

I am not sure how you think those commentaries support a belief that it is fine to eat meat with the blood in it in opposition to Acts of the Apostles 15:20? The second two commentaries do not support this position. The first commentary where is says "we are left free in this" does not support the scriptures used in Acts 15:20 where blood is forbidden to be eaten. You were provided scripture in Acts 15:20 about not eating the blood is a requirement for new Gentile Christians. You were also shown that this is a dietary law from Deuteronomy 12:23 and now your trying to counter scripture with someones opinions to justify eating blood. Let me ask you again why do you think the Jews practice the Kosher laws today of removing the blood from the meat? You do know that the Jew practice the dietary laws and that is where kosher comes from right? God's Word says not to eat the blood. You provide someone opinion saying we can eat the blood. Who should we believe here God or man *Romans 3:4. You will not find the truth of God's Word by trying to find it in commentaries because even the commentators do not agree among themselves.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑Kosher meat is clean meats that have been treated to have the blood removed (see here). Acts 15 tells Gentiles not to eat meat with the blood in it this is from the old testament dietary laws (scripture already provided earlier from Deuteronomy).

Your response...

You should have just said "Kosher meat is clean meats that have been treated to have the blood removed" from the start rather than play around.

What??? Did you read what your quoting from?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No I've been shown the SDA interpretation of scripture, which virtually all the rest of Christianity doesn't follow.

"for all those who believe and follow them (John 10:26-27)" suggests to me that you're saying only SDA are the sheep who follow the commandments of Jesus.

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

So I better become a Seventh Day Adventist if I want to be saved, Right? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying.

First I'm not on the narrow path, and now this.

Not really dear friend. You have been shown scripture that disagrees with you tradition of eating unclean foods is not biblical when looked at through the scriptures in detail. Remember making an argument that your right because the majority of people do something is not an argument for not believing and following God's Word. As the scriptures teach the "many are called" but only the "few are chosen" (Matthew 24:14). Or wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and "many there be which go in thereat because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and "few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14) and again in Paul Isaiah also cries concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, "a remnant shall be saved" which agrees with John when he says "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the "remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God", and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Making an appeal to majority according to the scriptures is not a case against not believing and following Gods' Word as the majority according to the scriptures are the lost.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So explain to me then how you can say we obey every word that comes from the mouth of God, but we don't have to obey all the laws because we are not under the Old covenant?

I'm not disagreeing with Jesus; I'm saying that if certain words are not addressed to us, they are not meant to be kept by us.
Just as Paul's words to Timothy "stop drinking water but drink wine because of your frequent illnesses", do not mean that we all need to start drinking alcohol or have an excuse to drink more.
A word/passage in Scripture can easily be inspired by God - his word for those people in that situation - without it being for all believers.

Both the old and new testament scriptures are the Word of God. Those laws that are fulfilled in the new testament and continued based on better promises are all outlined in God's Word. Everything is addressed to us in the scriptures *1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 4:4.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

That is not biblical at all.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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

What nonsense. What has been shared with you from EGW here in this forum? You have only had scripture shared with you which is God's Word not mine. What you mean is you do not agree with the scriptures shared with you that disagrees with your teachings and diet right?

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

Goodness hear we go again. Let's not talk about the scriptures right? You have been provided scripture we have even looked at all your proof texts and shown once context is added back in then it does not support any claims that the clean and unclean food laws have been abolished. My study of the scriptures is mine given to me from God in a prayerful study of God's Word alone and nothing to do with EGW. You seek to discuss EGW because you do not want to discuss the scriptures with me is the reason you and others seek to bring her up right? I think that is the real reason. If that is not true then discuss the scriptures with me. It seems for some reason your wanting to avoid this discussion. Yet I am happy to continue. For me only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God according to Jesus in Matthew 15:3-9 (see Romans 3:4).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

In this case I was mainly referring to SDA edicts. But it could also be applied to talking to Pentecostals about tongues or Calvinists about predestination etc.

The EO cannon is against consuming pure blood far as I know.

Yes anyone but you and scripture right? Why not discuss the scriptures and the topic of the OP?

 

[Servus]

I am not sure how you think those commentaries support a belief that it is fine to eat meat with the blood in it in opposition to Acts of the Apostles 15:20? The second two commentaries do not support this position. The first commentary where is says "we are left free in this" does not support the scriptures used in Acts 15:20 where blood is forbidden to be eaten. You were provided scripture in Acts 15:20 about not eating the blood is a requirement for new Gentile Christians. You were also shown that this is a dietary law from Deuteronomy 12:23 and now your trying to counter scripture with someones opinions to justify eating blood. Let me ask you again why do you think the Jews practice the Kosher laws today of removing the blood from the meat? You do know that the Jew practice the dietary laws and that is where kosher comes from right? God's Word says not to eat the blood. You provide someone opinion saying we can eat the blood. Who should we believe here God or man *Romans 3:4. You will not find the truth of God's Word by trying to find it in commentaries because even the commentators do not agree among themselves.

I was pointing out that Ellen G. White's interpretation of scripture isn't the only interpretation available.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I was pointing out that Ellen G. White's interpretation of scripture isn't the only interpretation available.

Indeed because your not able to address the scriptures with me. So is your view now why not talk about anything else but scripture? Let me know when you want to discuss the scriptures? You seem to want to spend all your time not talking about scripture and discussing EGW from what I am reading in your posts. If you have scripture address my posts to you. If not then I guess there is no point in continuing as I am only interested in discussing God's Word because only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God according to Jesus in Mark 7:1-20 which is from the same scriptures we have been discussing here of late.

 

[Servus]

Your response...

What??? Did you read what your quoting from?

That wasn't the start, that was several pages down the line of you playing around instead of just coming out with it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

That wasn't the start, that was any pages down the line of your playing around instead of just coming out with it.

What do you mean. I added a definition link of kosher in the same line for you to help the discussion. There was no playing around my side.