Do you eat pork?

SabbathBlessings said:

Paul never says anything about eating unclean meats that God deemed an abomination to Him, you are adding this to the Scriptures.

Paul would never go against God leading people to their own destruction Isa66:17

Obviously Paul is being taken out of context. But you are free to believe as you wish and I guess we shall see how it works out, my faith is in God and what He says, I know He only leads us back on the narrow path to reconciliation Rev22:14

Click to expand...

No I’m not, you’re quoting Isaiah out of context and are ignoring Isaiah 66:17 and are also, correct me if I’m wrong, you did say that the persecuted Coptic Christians of Muqattam are inexorably damned, is that right?

The Liturgist said:

correct me if I’m wrong, you did say that the persecuted Coptic Christians of Muqattam are inexorably damned, is that right?

Click to expand...

You are corrected, I guess that's why you don't have a quote of me saying as such.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Seems like a request to jump from the safety of Christ's bark (ship) into the raging sea of doctrinal turmoil of the 45,001 denominations. I decline that request.

Click to expand...

As do I - while our two churches may not be in full communion one can still trace a direct link between both of them and our Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, traditional Old Catholic and liturgical Protestant brethren and the Apostles - hence the move towards ecumenical reconciliation. Which makes me very suspicious of those denominations which promote their own growth at the expense of others rather than trying to reconcile and repair schisms.

SabbathBlessings said:

You are corrected, I guess that's why you don't have a quote of me saying as such.

Click to expand...

But they depend on pork to live, so…

The problem with your doctrine is you ignore the issue that there are many Christians who would starve were it not for food you reject as “unclean” and Acts 15 specifically says that we are required only to abstain from blood, food offered to idols and things strangled. It says that in an exclusionary manner. It says nothing about pork, the prohibition on which is part of the ceremonial law along with animal sacrifices and circumcision.

But because of Isaiah 66 being interpreted eisegetically, you regard this one clearly ceremonial aspect of Jewish law as still being in effect despite in others where people have pointed out that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law, insisting your denomination rejects the ceremonial parts of the law and is only focused on the ten commandments. Well, none of the ten commandments are violated through pork consumption.

BobRyan said:

pointless post... again?

Click to expand...

Not mine. I’m only attempting to have you actually engage in the debate but this is how you answer. Yes, your post is pointless.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Copilot says:

**Summary of Video 1 — The Day and Hour No One Knows? (Matthew 24:36)​

This segment argues that Jesus’ statement “of that day and hour no one knows” (Matthew 24:36) is not a blanket prohibition against understanding prophetic timing, but a phrase rooted in Jewish idiom and festival language. The video explains that first‑century listeners would have recognised this as a reference to the Feast of Trumpets, whose date could not be fixed until the new moon was sighted. It then connects this pattern to broader biblical cycles, emphasising that God consistently reveals His plans through appointed times (moedim) and prophetic templates. The overall thrust is that Jesus was pointing to a known pattern rather than forbidding eschatological understanding.

**Summary of Video 2 — Messiah 2030: The Prophetic Messianic Timeline – Part 2 (full segment)​

The sequel expands the argument by placing Matthew 24 within a larger prophetic chronology. It surveys typological structures—Sabbath cycles, Jubilee patterns, temple symbolism, and the prophetic “day‑for‑a‑thousand‑years” motif—to propose that Scripture encodes a coherent timeline from creation to the Messianic age. The video claims that major redemptive events align with these cycles, suggesting that the timing of the Messiah’s return follows the same pattern. It presents this not as date‑setting but as recognising the “fingerprints” of divine design woven through biblical history.

**Summary of Video 3 — Messiah 2030: The Prophetic Messianic Timeline – Part 3​

The third instalment attempts to synthesise all prior patterns into a single, unified eschatological framework. It argues that the convergence of prophetic markers—Israel’s restoration, global upheaval, astronomical cycles, and festival typology—indicates that humanity is approaching the culmination of the biblical timeline. The video emphasises that these patterns are meant to encourage watchfulness rather than speculation, portraying prophecy as a roadmap rather than a puzzle. It concludes by urging viewers to interpret Jesus’ teachings through the lens of Hebrew context, covenant structure, and recurring divine patterns.

Click to expand...

Also YouTube now has a built in AI to summarize videos which should prove useful.

Also there’s a high statistical likelihood that anyone who believes that is going to be disappointed in 2030 - every attempt to pin down the return of Christ to a specific date has failed, as the Millerites discovered in the Great Disappointment. Of course the choice on when God returns is up to God but he did warn that it would be unexpected.

The Liturgist said:

But they depend on pork to live, so…

The problem with your doctrine is you ignore the issue that there are many Christians who would starve were it not for food you reject as “unclean” and Acts 15 specifically says that we are required only to abstain from blood, food offered to idols and things strangled. It says that in an exclusionary manner. It says nothing about pork, the prohibition on which is part of the ceremonial law along with animal sacrifices and circumcision.

But because of Isaiah 66 being interpreted eisegetically, you regard this one clearly ceremonial aspect of Jewish law as still being in effect despite in others where people have pointed out that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law, insisting your denomination rejects the ceremonial parts of the law and is only focused on the ten commandments. Well, none of the ten commandments are violated through pork consumption.

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the passage that if God tells you not to do something, something He deemed an abomination to Him, that we can do it anyway if we can't find other means. I am familiar with this promise by God: But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. God takes care of our needs when we trust in Him in what He tells us to do. We see so many examples of this in the Bible people taking things in their own hands instead of trusting God in what He says.

People can point out all they want, that they think spending time with God on His holy day is only ceremonial so we can disregard, but God said its what doing righteousness Isa 56:1-2 and He blesses than man who does it and says those who don't He says are doing evil. Isa56:2 Neh13:17 how He invites everyone to join ourselves to the LORD, love His name and serve Him Isa56:6 someone trying to teach against this, well that will have to between them and God, since these were His direct words which we are told to live by instead of what man deems. God placed the 4th commandment in with the other 9 commandments all written by God Himself Exo31:18 and said Remember on this one for good reason, if we choose to pluck out one of them. the only one God said Remember and treat it differently as if God made a mistake when He didn't Ecc3:14 Psa19:7 Psa89:34, that will have to be taken up with Him.

We are so far apart in our understanding of God's Word that trying to reason I think is just impossible. I do wish you well, but I am going to move on.

SabbathBlessings said:

I am not familiar with the passage that if God tell you not to do something, something He deemed an abomination to Him, that we can do it anyway if we can't find other means. I am familiar with this promise by God: But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. God takes care of our needs when we trust in His in what He tells us to do. We see so many examples of this in the Bible people taking things in their own hands instead of trusting God in what He says.

We are so far apart in our understanding of God's Word that trying to reason is just impossible. I do wish you well, but I am going to move on.

Click to expand...

“Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Nothing here about the gentiles having to follow the Mosaic law including the food laws. You might want to become familiar with these verses.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Seems like a request to jump from the safety of Christ's bark (ship) into the raging sea of doctrinal turmoil of the 45,001 denominations. I decline that request.

Click to expand...

""Christ's bark (ship)""
When the Words of Jesus Christ are nothing but a "bark" to a person, then I try the words of men

but it seems unless the words are from Rome they are nothing.

Soon the Fatherland will join with the Mother Church and much sooner then any think.

The Liturgist said:

But they depend on pork to live, so…

The problem with your doctrine is you ignore the issue that there are many Christians who would starve were it not for food you reject

Click to expand...

Lev 11 says to reject pork. YOU then change it to SAbbath Blessing as the author of Lev 11???
Is that rational??

The Liturgist said:

as “unclean” and Acts 15 specifically says that we are required only to abstain from blood, food offered to idols and things strangled.

Click to expand...

Which is Lev 17

In context Acts 15 says it is about the "invented by tradition" idea that gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved. A command not found anywhere in the word of God... rather it is a case of made up tradition, just as we see condemned in Mark 7:7-13

The Liturgist said:

It says that in an exclusionary manner. It says nothing about pork

Click to expand...

Lev 11 says it
Acts 15 says nothing about the command "do not take God's name in vain" and "honor your father and mother' as well.

You are straying far from the text.

The Liturgist said:

, the prohibition on which is part of the ceremonial law along with animal sacrifices and circumcision.

But because of Isaiah 66 being interpreted eisegetically,

Click to expand...

false

You claim that taking Is 66 as it reads is "eisegesis" and failure to 'make stuff up about it" is the bad thing??? seriously??

The Liturgist said:

you regard this one clearly ceremonial aspect of Jewish law as still being in effect

Click to expand...

Peter himself regards it as still in effect in Acts 10.

You need to read more.

The Liturgist said:

despite in others where people have pointed out that the Sabbath was part of the ceremonial law

Click to expand...

Not according to Is 66, where we see it still in effect in the New Earth long after the cross.
Not according to the Westminster Confession of Faith where it is forever and for all mankind
Not according to the Baptist Confession of faith where it is forever and for all mankind
Not according to the Catholic Dies Domini where Sabbath is for all mankind and not at all like the ceremonial law

you need to read more

BobRyan said:

Do you mean Matt 5?

Click to expand...

yes this is from Matthew 5

BobRyan said:

Lev 11 says to reject pork. YOU then change it to SAbbath Blessing as the author of Lev 11???
Is that rational??

Click to expand...

And what Peter brought into the NT as still valid. 1 Peter1:16 quoting Lev 11 because the apostles followed God, not changed what He said. Abominations to the LORD stay that way Rev 17:4 Rev21:27 Isa66:17

BobRyan said:

Lev 11 says to reject pork. YOU then change it to SAbbath Blessing as the author of Lev 11???
Is that rational??

Click to expand...

I didn’t change anything. The Holy Apostles in Acts 15 explicitly stated what was required of gentile converts.

By the way Leviticus also mandates a system of animal sacrifices, are you performing those? I hope not, but for the same reason those animal sacrifices are not required, nor the wearing of fringes, nor other aspects of Hebrew liturgy, the ceremonial purity is no longer in effect, and pork was ceremonially unclean along with several other things.

You had previously stated Adventists reject circumcision - I don’t see a scenario in which you can reject circumcision or animal sacrifice while insisting “whoops, in this one special case of pork the Levitical Code is still in effect” - this after several threads where I pressed you on the ceremonial law and you claimed the SDA’s focus was on the Decalogue.

I’m frankly shocked at the idea of Restorationists deciding to condemn pork consumption and judge those who consume pork, specifically; I was aware of related vegetarian preferences (on a personal level since my friend Eddie who grew up as an Adventist but later converted to a mainstream denomination, and was traumatized by the experience of teachers at the SDA school mistreating him because his mother included meat in his lunchbox).

BobRyan said:

Not according to Is 66, where we see it still in effect in the New Earth long after the cross.

Click to expand...

That’s your interpretation of Isaiah 66.

BobRyan said:

Acts 15 says nothing about the command "do not take God's name in vain" and "honor your father and mother' as well.

Click to expand...

You say this, but in the past you drew a distinction between the moral law of the decalogue and the ceremonial law of the Torah. Since you have now invalidated that, why aren’t you performing animal sacrifices or circumcision?

The simple answer to your objection is that Acts 15 was focused on which aspects not pertaining to the moral law as summarized by Christ as “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “love God with all your heart mind and soul” were required for gentile converts and came up with a straightforward answer which is clearly based on the Noachide Law in Genesis mediated by the grace of Christ.

+

What I’d like you to do is reconcile Adventist view of pork consumption as damnatory on a verse by verse basis with Galatians 3:15-5:15 and also the corresponding sections of Romans and Ephesians pertaining to the nature and function of the Law, and also with the woman caught in sin in adultery and the unqualified nature of Christ’s promise of salvation in John 3:16,

Yup

Hentenza said:

“Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15‬:‭19‬-‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

https://bible.com/bible/2692/act.15.19-20.NASB2020

Nothing here about the gentiles having to follow the Mosaic law including the food laws. You might want to become familiar with these verses.

Click to expand...

Precisely, I would also note I’ve seen Adventists eat pizzas that were definitely not kosher. The kosher dietary code is extremely restrictive.

Also I’m really curious to know how much pork consumption causes damnation, since apparently its now counted that way. And do Adventists take into account circumstances, for example the Copts in Muqattam being too poor to afford other forms of sustenance and not wanting to see their children starve?

If it was just an individual matter of not selecting pork in a society with plenty I would not find this as objectionable, but since we have communities of Christians in the Middle East who are kept impoverished by the Muslim majority and can only survive by eating pork that the Muslims spurn, well, to my ears the arguments that the Copts in Muqattam are destined to be annhilated at the Last Judgement because they chose to feed their children in the absence of alternative foodstuffs, and the large number of European countries where this is also the case (as it happens pork consumption is extremely efficient since swine can feed off of things which other animals cannot yet, yet are entirely safe to eat if cooked properly…well, I don’t have a great deal of patience for this kind of legalism.

Indeed from my perspective this exemplifies why Christ came to set us free from the constraints of the law (a freedom explained in the NT text I can never get Adventists to exegete, Galatians 3:15-5:15 entire, instead even mentioning it invokes the automatic fallacious eisegetical shutdown of all Pauline writings on the basis of a misinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:16, which I would also note was in antiquity a disputed text, the main reason we have it in our Bibles is St. Athanasius insisting that no, 2 Peter was canonical, and having enough authority among ancient bishops so that his 39th Paschal Encyclical’s instructions were not only adopted in the Egyptian church but by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch and Catholicoi of Armenia and Georgia and the autocephalous Archbishop of Cyprus*, and 2 Peter was not included in the original Syriac translation of the Bible, the Peshitta, rather being later added by the Syriac Orthodox Church because the of the importance of St. Athanasius to the Oriental Orthodox, particularly the Coptic Orthodox of Alexandria (the same Christians who eat pork in Muqattam and are now catching Restorationist strays for doing so).

* Fun fact: some of our interlocutors reject the well documented history of the development of the NT canon and insist in the absence of historical evidence that because of Luke ch. 24 (which actually, as I’m sure you would agree, clarifies that the Law and Prophets are Christological prophecy), every church from the early first century on had the exact 27 book New Testament in its entirety

BobRyan said:

Lev 11 says to reject pork. YOU then change it to SAbbath Blessing as the author of Lev 11???
Is that rational??

Click to expand...

“The Lord spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

No. Lev. 11 tells Israel to reject Pork. It doesn’t tell anyone else to reject pork.

BobRyan said:

Which is Lev 17

Click to expand...

No. It’s Acts 15 which is totally unrelated to Lev. 17. Also Lev. 17 is spoken directly to Israel and not to anyone else.

““Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the sons of Israel, and say to them, ‘This is what the Lord has commanded, saying,”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭17‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

BobRyan said:

In context Acts 15 says it is about the "invented by tradition" idea that gentiles have to be circumcised to be saved. A command not found anywhere in the word of God... rather it is a case of made up tradition, just as we see condemned in Mark 7:7-13

Click to expand...

I guess you don’t read much scripture. No tradition here.

“Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

BobRyan said:

Lev 11 says it
Acts 15 says nothing about the command "do not take God's name in vain" and "honor your father and mother' as well.

Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant because that’s not the argument.