Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[Religiot]

Well, no. In Acts 10, St. Peter initially took your position, and God had to school him.

Incredible!

--That can't be the only scripture you incompletely cite to justify your love of swine!

Right?

 

[Religiot]

or even wholesale eisegesis.

That's ironically very funny, for eisegesis works best when partially citing scripture, and wholesale eisegesis is required when citing none, lol--well done, sir: now I think we're getting somewhere.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I'm sorry you didn't know this, but I'm sure glad you asked!

Actually, I did know that but but misunderstood your statement. Thanks.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, my response doesn't actually imply it, but denotes it: we are capable of obedience, otherwise, we could not obey the Lord's command to believe on Him.

If that were true then we would not need Jesus but could depend on our own ability. Don't know about you but I can't cut the mustard on that.....

we could not obey the Lord's command to believe on Him.

WE can't, which is why God gives us Faith.
'Faith is a gift of the Lord to undeserving people, the outworking of God’s electing grace and the atonement of Jesus for His own. Ephesians 2:8 confirms the truth that faith is ultimately a gift of God. “The gift of God” in the original Greek appears in the neuter grammatical form, which means that it refers back to both grace and faith earlier in the verse. Grace and faith are divine gifts, and our Father does not give them to all people. Only this view of faith is consistent with the biblical teaching on the pervasiveness of our depravity and our desperate state apart from Christ.'
God's Gift of Faith

 

[civilwarbuff]

and then offered the opinion that it was probably less dangerous than beef.

That is probably true depending on the cut....ham, sausage and bacon excluded.......mmmmmmm, bacon.

 

[Religiot]

If that were true then we would not need Jesus but could depend on our own ability. Don't know about you but I can't cut the mustard on that.....

WE can't, which is why God gives us Faith.
'Faith is a gift of the Lord to undeserving people, the outworking of God’s electing grace and the atonement of Jesus for His own. Ephesians 2:8 confirms the truth that faith is ultimately a gift of God. “The gift of God” in the original Greek appears in the neuter grammatical form, which means that it refers back to both grace and faith earlier in the verse. Grace and faith are divine gifts, and our Father does not give them to all people. Only this view of faith is consistent with the biblical teaching on the pervasiveness of our depravity and our desperate state apart from Christ.'
God's Gift of Faith

How can faith come by hearing, if it is first a gift?

 

[civilwarbuff]

How can faith come by hearing, if it is first a gift?

The Jews 'heard' the prophets and yet had no faith because they did not take the words to heart. Only by taking God's word to heart can you be given faith. Surprised you did not understand that.....
Eph 2:8 8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;

 

[Jipsah]

Do you really not know that Peter understood the vision to mean that God had also provided salvation unto the Gentiles?

Yep, that too. Also meant what God actually said, too, however that may offend those who would prefer that it didn't. As Bro. Buford noted: "Every Christian sect or denomination has doctrines so dearly held that the Bible cannot be allowed to damage them.". Looks like we've identified one of yours.

 

[Jipsah]

I have only one dearly held doctrine, that is the Doctrine of Christ.

After having corrected it to fit your doctrine, anyway.

You, on the other hand, are promoting beliefs based on partial citations of scripture

Nope, I just included the part that y'all have to explain away to keep your a priori doctrines intact.

and that, solely to justify your love of consuming swine--c'mon, man!

Nah, I just have a consuming distaste for intentionally ascribing a "meaning" to Scripure that adds to or removes from what is actually said, with the sole intention of making it suit your sect's dogmas. Doubleplus ungood.

 

[Jipsah]

Incredible!

--That can't be the only scripture you incompletely cite to justify your love of swine!

Not so much my love of swine as my dislike of people removing Scripture and replacing it with their own hand-rolled dogma and then proclaiming the result blob to be the Word of the Lord. So maybe it's just my dislike to dishonesty, intellectual and otherwise, layered on top of arrogance and seasoned with sanctimony, hold the bacon.

 

[Jipsah]

That is probably true depending on the cut....ham, sausage and bacon excluded.......mmmmmmm, bacon.

She was thinking specifically of E Coli contamination in beef, which is far too common. We eat undercooked beef at our own peril.

 

[Jipsah]

That's ironically very funny, for eisegesis works best when partially citing scripture, and wholesale eisegesis is required when citing none, lol--well done, sir: now I think we're getting somewhere.

Wait, have you lot removed Acts 10 from your canon altogether? I guess that would make your position more easily defensible.

 

[The Liturgist]

Doubleplus ungood.

I bellyfeel your Newspeak.

 

[Religiot]

Yep, that too. Also meant what God actually said, too, however that may offend those who would prefer that it didn't. As Bro. Buford noted: "Every Christian sect or denomination has doctrines so dearly held that the Bible cannot be allowed to damage them.". Looks like we've identified one of yours.

Really? Yet mine stands on what is actually written, but yours on an emotional assertion.

The irony of your doubling down on accusing me of what you're actually doing, is very entertaining, but also very dishonest: I'm the one actually proving by the scriptures what the vision meant, by citing Peter's very understanding of it; yet you are contradicting Peter's own understanding, simply by assertion.

I get it, you're a pork lover, but to what end?

 

[BobRyan]

It's the interpretation of what comes from the Bible that's the issue. .

Well we have exegesis for that. As I said no one here is claiming to "interpret this text according to what an Adventist told me to think".

That part remains the same.

Imagine the Protestant Reformation having to deal with such claims where someone said "well that's just Martin Luther's view of justification" ignoring every detail in the Bible text given - anyone could say that. It is not "proof" of something being true.

Acts 17:11 the believers in the OT in Berea "studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by Paul - were SO".

If all they did was "well hmm there is ONE Paul and there is MANY of my Jewish priests and scholars saying Paul is wrong - so Paul must be using his own interpretation" the result would have been very different than what we see in that text.

 

[Religiot]

After having corrected it to fit your doctrine, anyway.

Care to actually prove that by the scriptures, or are you just gonna keep on making assertions?

Nope, I just included the part that y'all have to explain away to keep your a priori doctrines intact.

That's patently false and hypocritical: I don't remove that part of scripture, but you did remove what Peter actually understood by that part of scripture! --Incredible!

Nah, I just have a consuming distaste for intentionally ascribing a "meaning" to Scripure that adds to or removes from what is actually said, with the sole intention of making it suit your sect's dogmas. Doubleplus ungood.

Wow, here it is, the tripledown, amazing--you literally, just a few posts up, asserted, that the vision meant more than what Peter understood it to mean: this, you did, without any substantiation, whatever! --yet you're now reasserting, that I'm the one doing that! ...impressive.

 

[BobRyan]

Religiot said: ↑
I have only one dearly held doctrine, that is the Doctrine of Christ

After having corrected it to fit your doctrine, anyway. .

because those sorts of accusations are easy to make .. ??

 

[atpollard]

You could argue that things were different back then and don’t apply today. But that would nullify the Ten Commandments. These laws I’m referring to were issued on the same day. They just didn’t make the top ten list.

Boy did you miss the mark on that one.
When exactly did the LORD lead your fathers out of Egypt and make that particular covenant with them?

 

[atpollard]

Judaism = no bacon
Islam = no bacon
Christianity = WE’VE GOT BACON!!!

 

[BobRyan]

Boy did you miss the mark on that one.
When exactly did the LORD lead your fathers out of Egypt and make that particular covenant with them?

The New Covenant -- is it for you or "just Jews"?

Heb 8:7 "“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,"

Rom 2:26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.