Posted on 03/17/2009 6:57:11 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Did you know that Joel Osteen is kicking it old school now? And by old school, I mean Old Testament. Straight outta Hebron!
The new-agey motivational speaker preacher at Lakewood Church took a bizarrely old-fashioned approach recently when he advised his congregation against eating both pork and seafood, saying that "...for our health's sake, we have to be willing to make some changes."
He further explained his newfound nutritional path to salvation with deeply theological phrases like "back in the Bible days" and "this is kinda gross" before launching into a detailed diatribe about the inherent filth and evil associated with porcine digestive tracts.
He appealed to his followers, "I know some of you love pork chops. You love ham and cheese sandwiches. I grew up on all that. I love...bacon." (The marked pause makes me think Joel doesn't really love bacon.) But that they should follow the example set by his family -- who now eats turkey bacon -- and give up pork "to honor God."
He goes on to declare that his congregation should also avoid shellfish: "Shrimp, crabs, clams, oysters, lobsters..." because they eat the "excreetment [sic]" of other animals.
One can only assume that someone inadvertently left a Bible in the men's room at Lakewood, opened to Leviticus, and Joel -- since he hadn't brought his copy of The Six Figure Speaker with him that day -- read it to pass the time.
And having little to no theological education -- by his own admission -- nor context within which to understand the Old Testament's strictly-defined dietary laws, Joel interpreted the Bible's weird front pages that no one ever reads to mean that pork and seafood should be off-limits to Christians. Because, clearly, other Biblical scholars have been mistaken about this for years.
Good work, Joel! I look forward to your next sermon, wherein you discuss the segregation of women into red tents during their scary menstrual cycle each month. In the meantime, I'll be eating a SCCOLBLT. That's a shrimp-crab-clam-oyster-lobster-bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich, Philistine.
I have a strong view about the prosperity gospel preachers. Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, this guy. It’s not that they can’t say nice and flowery things, but the whole “God doesn’t want anyone poor” and that it is essentially your fault if you don’t ‘claim’ the promises and that your faith isn’t strong enough if you fail, etc. is false teaching.
I would also put Ken Copeland in this group as well. But there are other doctrinal problems with him.
Who knows, maybe it will make him grow a few inches?
I agree about Copeland & Hinn 100%. But I don’t think Joyce Meyers is the same.
You apparently hold the belief that the face meaning of a Biblical allegory can contain a false message? - I think that is a bizzare belief!
A growing movement.
For some with crone's disease a raw vege diet is all they can eat.
She is. Research her.
I’ve listened to some perfectly good messages from Joyce Meyer. It’s not the same as Hinn and Copeland.
What do you think Jesus intended here:
http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=mark+9:38-40
Yashua never spoke in parables?
“For some with crone’s disease a raw vege diet is all they can eat.”
Maybe so. But this guy was doing it to be RIGHTEOUS and PROUD, too.
I literally had to run away from him to get away.
Sometimes it’s “happily ever after,” and sometimes it’s “life sentence.” But what else were we going to do, be Crazy Cat Ladies?
I posted this in #48: Inspired scripture has both the Greek "KOINOS" (impure or made common) and ARKARTHATOS (unclean) in verse 14. There is a distinction between the two or God would not have had them both included in the same sentence.
I think there is much misunderstanding of these verses because of these two words. I think the point of this scripture is to convince Peter that the three men arriving in verses 17-20 should be dealt with.....even if they happen to come representing an Italian Gentile, Cornelius. Verse 28 reiterates that God wanted to make sure Peter considered no man Impure or Unclean.
Peter did not eat any unclean meat at that point....nor had he eaten any unclean meat up to that point. This scripture has nothing to do with telling us to eat any type of meat we should choose. It's simply God illustrating a point to Peter with regards to how he should view his fellow man.
We know that scripture still considers some meat to be "Unclean" (ARKARTHATOS) because the word is used in [Revelation 18:2] to describe.....guess what? An unclean bird not fit for consumption.
Maybe John didn't get the word about [Acts 10:13-14]????
Forgive me, but the problem with these celebrity preachers is that they always have to be innovating. They have a product to sell, they can’t allow any stagnation, and they have to find new verses, new quirks, new gimmicks.
How did you ever get that from this:
"You apparently hold the belief that the face meaning of a Biblical allegory can contain a false message? - I think that is a bizzare belief!"Do you believe that the face meaning of any of the parables was a falsehood?
No, I do not believe the face meaning of the interpretation of the dream is false either. Frankly, I do not care what you believe, go eat a pig!
I occasionally do!
A WHOLE PIG?!? Wow!
mmmm b-a-c-o-n
Actually, for most the point becomes moot. The food laws (and most others)were written to the people that are in the lineage of Israel. Most Christians today do not claim lineage to that family, therefor food laws do not apply.
>>Here, it makes it clear that Jews who accept Yeshua as Christ should, in fact, still follow the Law, including dietary issues.<<
I don’t understand which part of Acts 21 you are referring to, but I have never seen anything in the NT that implied that Jews that convert to Christianity should continue to follow the law.
Actually I believe the opposite is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.