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.
Correction: He has “hoof IN mouth” disease
True. If he wasn't just stammering, he would tell his followers to only eat animals that chew the cud and split the hoof. (Leviticus 11:1-8)
I'm so gonna try that.
The so-called “Blue Laws” enacted in many states proved the disparegy of “honoring the Sabbath,” they could sell you a dirty paperback book or magazine but NOT a baby bottle!
In a related story the Osteens have cancelled thier summer vacation beach trip this year. No seafood restaurants for them. LOL!
Well the writer has a sense of humor I'll say that.
“but I have never seen anything in the NT that implied that Jews that convert to Christianity should continue to follow the law.”
Then you’ve never read it:
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.”
It’s pretty plain. A Jewish convert pointed out to me here on F.R., and I followed up with my own plain vanilla preacher, who concurred.
Peter’s explanation was not the face meaning, but the parallel meaning.
When Peter answered the Lord, he spoke of eating, or more correctly, of not eating, and the Lord corrected: “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”
God cleansed the beasts, and Peter knew that, or should have known it, since Paul obviously did, but had not accepted the cleansing of the Gentiles, because it had become an important part of Hebrew culture to regard themselves as superior. (This superiority was never scriptural) Christ’s payment on the cross had placed men at liberty, so the eating of the previously forbidden flesh should not have given him any pause.
Peter also knew that it was the Lord speaking, and his reply was disobedient; he put the tradition of men above a spoken cammand of the Lord.
The passages you presented are about punishment as a nation; Acts 10 is about opening the ministry to a nation.
somedays I worry that this whole large family thing will turn my brain to mush and I WILL become one of those cat ladies someday - hee hee!
I’ll look into it. I don’t discount the possibility it is as you say.
However, everything I have heard from her has been perfectly fine, unlike Hinn & Copeland, who are charlatans bringing Christianity into disrepute every time they open their mouths.
Meantime, think about what Jesus meant in Mark 9:38-40. I have seen many christians who think they are well-meaning spending ridiculous amounts of time trashing perfectly good teachers when they should be going after Islam, or Liberal Humanism.
There are 2 cities, the city of God and the city of Satan. There are islamists and humanists who are building the city of Satan. Attack them. There are people in the city of God who are tearing down buildings, like Hinn & Copeland, attack them. These are good uses of your time. But I have seen some perfectly good buildings built by Meyer, and she is not tearing down. Maybe she has built some that are less than perfect, I haven’t seen them. OK, send in the demolition crews and attack the building, but leave the less-than-perfect builder. This is the kind of pragmatic approach Jesus was advocating in Mark 39. If you spend your entire life attacking that which is not perfect, you will get nothing done
No, I do not agree with the assertion that modern farming and advances in biology and nutritional information have made it okay to eat the flesh of swine. But again, that’s just me and my understanding of what I have read. I don’t think that YHVH was mistaken when he wrote any of the Bible. If it was a simple matter of micro-biology (he is the author of all science) he could have simply given good cooking directions.
I know how you feel.
I've wondered if perhaps age ailments are caused by eating unclean foods...arthritis, alzheimers, vascular problems, etc. Could it be a build-up of the toxins from the food eaten over the years?
If the very detailed list of unclean foods wasn't good for humans long, long ago...I would assume it still isn't. But, maybe not. Those willing to take the risk should shoot and serve buzzard next chance they get. Yummm, I bet they're great served with carrots and parsley and wrapped in bacon. Come and get it....time for Mom's famous Buzzard explosion!
my arteries are getting clogged by looking at that pic
Perhaps that is why He specified that the fat was to be burned and not eaten.
I don’t see Paul teaching here. I DO see him being sensitive to the Jews after his trip into “gentile” land and making a seven day purification “vow”.
So when you say “It’s pretty plain”. It doesn’t say anywhere that they SHOULD follow the law. It does imply that they were following it, and Paul did not object. But everything is about “why”. That is, WHY are they keeping the law of Moses?
The hint of that is in the part about eating certain meats and sexual impurity. It’s a good idea for everyone, but it is not a religious thing. It also does not mention pork, meat boiled in milk, etc.
But you may already see it that way as well.
That may be the disconnect I am having here.
That's a strawman. - The question is whether a man can be mistaken in his interpretation of what YHWH wrote.
***The so-called “Blue Laws” enacted in many states proved the disparegy of “honoring the Sabbath,”***
Those were SUNDAY blue laws. Ah yes, I remember them well. Glad they are gone!
Well, technically, if oneu stick to the Hebrew dietary laws, it is much healthier for the body. Lots of fish, olive oil, grains, fresh fruits and veggies, lean meat and chicken...that’s a recipe for a longer life. Joel may actually be on to something.
How is it then that both Peter and Paul lived like gentiles when they were among the Galatians? Paul never encouraged anyone to continuing to follow the scruples of the Mosaic law. A wrong reading of Acts 21 would lead one to conclude that rigorously following the Mosaic law was still required for a certain segment of the Church, even today.
It is poor interpretive methodology to isolate a single passage from the rest of the Bible and think you have it right.
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.