Bacon eaters! Do you see?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by steaver, Apr 19, 2010.

?

Do you see that God forbid the eating of swine in Lev 11?

  1. yes

    10 vote(s)
    58.8%
  2. no

    7 vote(s)
    41.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    There is a sect of Christians, Seventh Day Adventist, who preach that a (professing) Christian who says that they see Lev 11 forbids the eating of swine but they choose to eat it anyways is in rebellion against God and therefore found to be a liar.

    Here is a quote from an SDA supporter;

    I replied to him with this;

    Bob's reply back was;

    My answer is yes. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and I also see what God said in Lev 11 concerning the eating of swine. I also choose to eat swine.

    SDA's look upon me according to my answers as hell bound. My belief in Christ to them is a lie.

    How does the board feel about these SDA standards?

    :jesus:
     
  2. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Bacon...yum! :)
     
  3. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Leviticus 11 forbids eating pork. But Acts deminishes that requirement.
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Steaver- you clarified your own point - saying that the person in that "diseased flesh" and "rat sandwich" scenario was in an act of open rebellion against God's Word.



    I am wondering if those who are responding to your baited question - know that this is how you have actually positioned the point.

    Just curious.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Lev 11 actually mentions things like not eating diseased flesh and rats etc - (as does Isaiah 66) - are you saying that that point is "diminished" by a reference in the book of Acts that makes no mention at all of "pork"??

    If so - how are Christians in the book of Acts either told to start eating diseased flesh, or rats or even pork?

    Or is the argument that some parts of Lev 11 are countered by a reference in acts that makes no mention at all of pork - but not all?

    (BTW - not all bacon is pork bacon as it turns out ;) )

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying Leviticus 11 makes no mention of Pork or that Acts revelation to peter does not lift the sanction on pork?
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am saying that there is no reference to Pork in the entire book of Acts. But there is a reference to a general category that fits rats,cats,dogs,bats,snakes etc. Peter then interprets that incident as teaching that gentiles are to be evangelized - instead of interpreting in a way that suggests that diseased flesh and rat sandwiches are the new item on the menu for Christians.

    Clearly Peter's focus on "preaching the Gospel to gentiles" in that case - is taking the high road.

    I am saying that Lev 11 mentions diseased flesh, and rats,cats,dogs,bats as being not fit for food - as well as mentioning swine.

    If the argument is that Lev 11 is made defunct by something in Acts that makes no mention at all of Pork - then I want to know how that can be and also want to be shown where NT authors began eating diseased flesh, or rats ... etc such that they declared Lev 11 and Isaiah 66 to be null and void.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #7 BobRyan, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2010
  8. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Didn't God say in the vision "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." And wouldn't the gentiles have on their menu food not "clean" according to Torah? Where by when they asked Peter to stay
    he would have eaten with them? And later when Peter was called to task he was accused of
    indicating unclean food. Peter does not say he had no unclean food but shows how the spirit filled them? And doesn't James later not put a restriction save for eating of blook on the gentiles?
     
  9. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    SDA's...or Jesus telling Peter to kill and eat (which was considered unclean). I'll take Jesus...and bacon, ham, pork chops and BBQ ribs :)
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In Acts 10 - Cornelius is introduced as a worshipper of the God of the Bible who also is on good terms with the Jews. In Acts 13 we see a similar example where gentiles worship with Jews in the Synogague each Sabbath.

    Thus it would be wrong to conclude that Cornelius is a pagan worshipper - eating diseased meat and rats in direct contradiction to the Bible that he views as being the sacred text for the God that he worships.

    So when Peter comes to Cornelius and gives him the same "news" that the Jewish Christians were already giving their fellow Jews about the Christ - this would be a good time for him to inform Cornelius that the eating of diseased flesh and rats that is condemned in Lev 11 -- is no longer a problem.

    But Peter relates the vision to Cornelius telling him that in fact the meaning of the dream is focused on evangelizing gentiles - and not on eating diseased flesh and rats.

    1. Peter is never accused of eating unclean foods by anyone - not even the Jews.
    2. The only thing he is accused of is eating "with" gentiles - as the Samaritan woman is amazed at Christ and says that she did not think Jews would "talk to" Samaritans much less ask them for water.



    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #10 BobRyan, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2010
  11. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    But for your well thought out rebuttle you miss the main vision. "get up, kill and eat" why would God indicate to specifically eat if eating wasnt the issue?
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The argument for pork is from silence regarding events that do not appear in the text - since the text does not say Peter ate rats "three times", rather we see the rats-cats-dogs-bats-snakes sheet brought down "three times" and three times Peter says "no". It is presented "as if" Peter thinks this is some kind of "test". In fact he says more than "no" - he affirms as if a matter of faith "I have NEVER done that".

    Those who argue that "three times Peter said YES and then ate rats and snakes" would have to make their case in direct contrast to the text.

    At the end of that event - the text says Peter is asking himself "what does this mean" and then come the 3 gentiles to his door. And then Peter repeats the story 3 times - telling first Cornelius - then the Jews what the dream meant.

    Not once did he say "it means we can eat diseased flesh and rats now". His interpretation (inspired as it is) is that the dream is specifically about gentile evangelism.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    On a side note - regarding the OP -

    Acts 24:14
    "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;

    Acts 28:22
    "But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere."

    The christian church in the NT was considered a sect of Judaism. That is why the Jews of the NT were so focused on opposing Christians. They did not oppose every "other religion in town" - but they opposed Christians because they viewed them as a branch of Judaism.

    :godisgood:
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    fellowship with people in that culture included eating with them. Often what the gentiles ate was prohibited. Why else the specific task of eating unless it includes fellowship which included eating?
     
  15. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no food prohibitions in the New Testament. Being under grace and not the law, we are allowed to eat whatever is edible--except each other. :eek:
     
  16. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
    4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
    5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)

    Let's restate verse four again:
    For every creature of God is good (including swine), and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.

    There is no possible way for the SDA's and other like-minded groups to rationalize this Scripture away. God has created all food good. None of it is to be rejected. Even rat is acceptable. It is only your cultural surroundings that make it so abhorrent to you. Many prisoners have survived on rats.
     
  17. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Its okay, as long as you use a fork!
     
  18. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, cooking it low and slow!!!
     
  19. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't expect a direct answer to your question.

    When debating an SDA you are actually debating the entire SDA "cut and paste" library.

    If it is not in the SDA library they are left without a response.
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thus the argument "from the text" is summarized as

    1. No mention at all of pork in the entire book of Acts - much less in Acts 10.

    2. The text says that three times Peter said "no" to the command to eat the rats,cats,dogs,bats snakes feast set before him. Those who imagine that the anwer was "yes and three times he ate rats" have to make that case from some other text - other than the book of Acts.

    3. Peter himself interprets this vision 3 times. All three times he declares it to be about the GOSPEL going to gentiles - instead of a command to violate the Lev 11 restriction against eating diseased flesh and rats etc.

    4. Cornelius is introduced in that chapter as being a follower of the God of the Bible - and so like the gentiles of Acts 13 - was familiar both with the Bible and the Jews.

    5. The Jewish traditional restriction on Peter was the same as with Christ in John 4 - where He drinks water given him by a Samaritan and talks with her. She expresses surprise that a Jew would do that. It has nothing to do with "bad water".

    As was pointed out in the case of John 4 the restrictions had nothing to do with "bad water" or "bad food" eaten by gentiles that were followers of the God of the Bible. Rather the John 4 case makes it clear that it was gentiles themselves that the Jews were avoiding. And as we see in Mark 7 in the case of "unclean wheat" - there was a lot of tradition being tossed in that had much more to do with being "in contact with a gentile" or a sinner - rather than actually having "bad water" or "bad wheat".

    Thus - trying to get out of a text that makes no mention at all of pork - the idea that diseased flesh and rats are ok for NT chrisitans to eat - is to argue from the silence of what the text does not say.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...