God's second greatest gift to humanity, (after Davey, or course), is the non-ordained self-appointed false prophet Bob Thiel.
The desperately searching for dollars "profit" is weighing in today on upcoming label changes to different cuts of pork in the market.
Bob is porking upset!
Porterhouse Pork?
Possibly following the lead of the fish industry, cattle and pork groups are trying to change the names of certain products, apparently with the intent of getting more people to eat of their products:
New meat names mean bye bye, pork chop; hello, ribeye
BBQ fans, brace yourselves: “Pork butt” will soon be a thing of the past.
In an effort to boost sales going into the grilling season and make shopping at the meat counter a bit easier, the pork and beef industries are retooling more than 350 names of meat cuts to give them more sizzle and consumer appeal.
Hello, My Name Is Porterhouse Chop. I Used To Be ‘Pork Chop’
Pork’s most popular cuts don’t have snazzy names. At least, not until now.
Coming soon to a grocery store near you are the New York chop, the porterhouse chop and the sirloin chop. Yes, pork is borrowing some of the nomenclature of beef cuts…
The changes should be introduced at grocery stores around the country this summer, just in time for grilling season. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/04/04/176149219/hello-my-name-is-porterhouse-chop-i-used-to-be-pork-chop
The non-ordained church leader writes:
Following the example of Jesus and His disciples, we in the Continuing Church of God do not intentionally consume pork. We do not accept that a bishop of the Church of Rome had the authority to change this in the late second century as they claim (Protestants have essentially followed the practice of the Greco-Roman changes here, not actually realizing that this was a change by the Greco-Romans, not the original apostles or their faithful followers).Since Bob has made it very clear that he does not eat pork, why does he care what it is called? Does he think he or one of his kids might accidentally order a "porterhouse" thinking it is beef and instead get pork? How silly can this little man get????
Calling pork chops, “porterhouse chops,” will be confusing, both in supermarkets and in restaurants. I am disappointed that many of these name changes are being allowed.
46 comments:
These changes are being "allowed"? By whom?
Why doesn't Prophet Bob call down fire from heaven to stop this horrible practice?
Or is it that Prophet Bob is one of those who is allowing the new pork nomenclature?
Got this third-hand (I think there are some typos, but you get the idea).
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It is with regret that I must inform you of the ecclesiastical decision we made here based on the biblical guidelines to mark, for the protection of our members, Mr. Thomas Baca II as an enemy of the Church. So, for your own spiritual well-being, you are advised not to contact this person and not participate in that assembled itself or its associates hold. Members of the Church of God should have no fraternization with a person who has been marked, either by telephone, letter, fax, internet or in person.
Three Bible verses are quoted in this warning: Romans 16:17-18, 2 Peter 2:10-12 and I Cor. 5:4-5
The Church of the Living God does not want Mr. Baca and we pray that God grants repentance.
sincerely,
Roderick C. Meredith
Is Baca now with Prophet Bob?
Are you saying he is a pig?
Please explain yourself.
How is this for a name for a new cut of meat...
THIEL VEAL !
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
Ministers have been "eating high on the hog" but up until now, it was beef.
Aww. Bacon sprouts. So cute.
Im not a chicken, but I have a beef with all of the pork money that gets dispensed in some of these COGs, and it looks mighty fishy.
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
I agree with Anon 8:56. Gotta love Booby's line: "I am disappointed that many of these name changes are being allowed."
Does he think that his faithful followers will be fooled into eating pork based on what a cut of meat is called?
Typical COG "leader," worried about his poor dumb sheep who can't think for themselves.
On second thought, that's probably justifiable, since anyone who follows Thiel obviously can't.
Tom Baca II works at LCGs Charlotte HQ . I believe that he is in the television production department.
Anybody else have more info to confirm NO2RCMs post?
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
Im not a chicken, but I have a beef with all of the pork money that gets dispensed in some of these COGs, and it looks mighty fishy.
Maybe Mr. Baca will re-veal the reason he was disfellowshipped?
Joe wrote: "Tom Baca II works at LCGs Charlotte HQ . I believe that he is in the television production department."
There's a Thomas Baca II out on the Linkedin website, who lives in Matthews, North Carolina, and works as a Production Manager. His Facebook pages says he "studied film-making at Cal State Long Beach." This would support your claim that he worked for the LCG TV department.
But let's look on the bright side: if Baca has left Meredith to join up with Thiel's "rapidly-expanding Work of God for the end-time" then at least we can expect Bob's videos to be of much higher quality, at least in terms of production standards. Now as to the actual CONTENT of the videos, I'm afraid even Baca's filmmaking expertise won't be of much help there. Perhaps a brain transplant may be more in order!
Hey Joe, you're a cattle man up there in Wyoming, I'm presuming, what do you know about all this talk of nomenclature-changing over pork, and to now start using beef terminology? It wouldn't surprise me, but is it true? Or do you just raise them?
Names of cuts of meat are all marketing plays. Done on the retail end.
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
What kind of cattle do you raise, or is it a mixture of varying breeds?
lol somehow Douglas Becker we KNEW you'd spin this away from the topic and onto the old standby
Jesus is quoted as saying something to the effect that man is made unclean by what comes out of his mouth, not what goes through his digestive system and comes out in the draft.
And, then, there is the vision of Peter which the ACOGs have spun through the Old Covenant to obtain their preferred meaning.
The Greco-Romans got their corrections directly from the source, but the Judaizing ACOGs have failed for nearly a century to "get" it. Had HWA really taken clean and unclean seriously, he would have insisted that the so-called Kosher laws from the Torah were equally and fairly applied to utensils being used for the preparation of mixed meats as is common in the slaughter house and in restaurants. Jesus and the disciples regularly subjected themselves to conditions which under the OT rendered one unclean. The New Covenant is on a much higher spiritual plane than is all of the schoolteacher legalism relating to the physical in the OT. HWA would also have taken the opportunities when he was served unclean delicacies by dignitaries as opportunities to spread part of his gospel rather than silently chowing down and feigning enjoyment.
BB
mmmm mmm mm bacon. I love when people don't eat that nasty ole pig...leaves more for me at a cheaper price. Everybody should go pork free, please.
Just think locusts and grasshoppers are "clean" meat...you eat that and I'll have the bacon...ok?
Kosher means that the animal has had a chunk of its throat cut out by a big ole machine and then allowed to stagger around until it bleeds to death through the gaping wound. A most horrible sight to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzNUG-GLRg
Bob's infatuation in trying to be a Jew (but failing for many reasons) is making him insane. He really needs psychiatric help.
Spot on Byker @ 12:27 PM. Someone here knows what he's talking about. As for Bob Thiel, yes he needs psychiatric help ASAP. Those who pretend to be Jews but are not are synagogues of Satan.
"Calling pork chops, “porterhouse chops,” will be confusing, both in supermarkets and in restaurants."
If anyone is that confused, they have bigger issues.
" Anonymous said...
Is Baca now with Prophet Bob?
Are you saying he is a pig?
Please explain yourself."
I'm with Anon, what are you on about??
"lol somehow Douglas Becker we KNEW you'd spin this away from the topic and onto the old standby"
The royal we ain't making you look too good either, Anon.
Bob laments:
"Calling pork chops, “porterhouse chops,” will be confusing, both in supermarkets and in restaurants. I am disappointed that many of these name changes are being allowed."
Well it's not difficult or confusing unless you have ........
DEMENTIA!!!!! :P
Thiel is instructing a number of newbies and placating to his well-seasoned followers.
All of today's false prophets are so boringly predictable.
I see that Plasma Dude's incomprehensible tweets have now seriously affected other bloggers. What in the world do we have going on here? - a contest as to who can post the most nonsensical, least intelligible comment in "Banned by HWA" history?
Come on, folks, do a little proof-reading here. As it is my old 3rd grade teacher Miss Morocco would be in a tizzy with all of you for failure to even write at 3rd grade level!
"a number of newbies"
I seriously hope not. I mean, I LITERALLY pray that this is not the case. Do you have any basis in fact for this statement, anon, or are you just speculating?
"Jesus is quoted as saying something to the effect that man is made unclean by what comes out of his mouth, not what goes through his digestive system and comes out in the draft."
But that's not what Jesus said, at all, Bob; the parenthetical "(and thus he made all meats clean)" was ADDED to the Bible --- and this parenthetical on Mark 7:19 is missing from the NRSV I presently hold in my hands. It is also missing from several other translations.
As for taking the vision of Peter literally, that unfortunately leaves poor Cornelius and his whole household out in the cold; especially since Peter unequivocally states the message of the vision a few verses down.
But I suspect you've heard all this before, and so will leave it at that.
Velvet, I'm not sure what your point is but it's clear in many parts of scripture that Gentiles need not concern themselves of the dietary laws. The best proof of that is Acts 15. The Jerusalem Church debated the issue of whether Gentiles needed to obey the Mosaic Law and be circumcised. The edict was they did not. In reality apostles like Paul actually believed this to be the case for Jews too but had much resistance by other followers of Jesus who stuck to their old Jewish ways, at least for a while longer. Many of course kept believing Jews had to effectively remain Jews under the Law. That was a mistake. We have groups like the Messianic Jews today but at least they try to follow the Mosaic Law as best they can, unlike the COGs who pretend they do but in fact cheat.
Velvet said...
"lol somehow Douglas Becker we KNEW you'd spin this away from the topic and onto the old standby"
The royal we ain't making you look too good either, Anon.
Multiple personality disorder for anon.
Probably from eating misnamed pork products.
I have to say, for only being in the Non-Prophet business for a couple months max, he's tackling the deepest and most profound, not to mention controversial yet agian, encouraging topics in the whole Gospel message.
He's getting all his courage up to tell it like it is about make up I'm sure.
I know I'm impressed.
"... Gentiles need not concern themselves of the dietary laws. .... the issue of whether Gentiles needed to obey the Mosaic Law and be circumcised"
One of these things is not like the other, Anon; and I really shouldn't have brought it up at all, since it's quite obvious neither you nor Bob nor I are going to see eye-to-eye on it, in this comments thread anyway. My apologies, I knew when I hit send I shouldn't have done it. Let's leave the comments thread to the others, and agree not to argue, shall we? Peaceably agree to disagree, etc.?
...and all this has me wondering when Thielogical Bob is going to start waxing wroth against Butterball Bacon.
Oh, excuse me, there's the microwave now.....
Velvet you are making the exact same argument as Bob Thiel did to me some time ago about Acts 15. He ignores the conclusion of the Jerusalem Church. So do you. The Mosaic Law indeed does include the dietary rules and to say otherwise is simply a poor argument to try and get around the fact that Gentiles need not obey any of the Mosaic laws to be saved (and nor do Jews for that natter).
He was disfellowshipped for snorting pork on the job.
"Go ye appropriate males into all the world and preach the gospel of pork, hair and no crosses unto all creatures. Throw in how money is not really money as one would count money and above all, preach ye against football which is not appropriate for appropriate males in the one last sole surviving True Church of the Nit Picking Non-Self Appointed Prophet."
M.T Prophet
The Paul of Acts 15 "agreed" to tell the gentile Christians to refrain from meat offered to idols as instructed.
However we see he really didn't do that either and proved his Galatians view that these men of repute, Peter, James and John, taught him nothing.
I Corinthians 8:
1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3But whoever loves God is known by God.a
4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak"
Paul didn't pass the "news" on but told them to merely be careful around the "weak" That is not what James said and the Paul of Acts agreed to.
Galatians 2:6
New International Version (©2011)
"As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message."
New Living Translation (©2007)
And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)"
"added NOTHING to me.." and "made no difference to me," are pretty none cooperative words in his own writings . The Acts 15 story is a whitewash of what was really going on and Luke's attempt to make Paul look more one of the boys than he actually was.
Once you get through one's head that Gentile Paul and Jewish James were never on the same page and Gospel Jesus would never recognize Paul's views, things clear up. IMHO
Do you know how many fat slobs have preached to us about Biblical dietary laws? Apparently cheeseburgers are perfectly fine. Lots and lots of cheeseburgers! Maybe pick up a carrot stick or two before you tell us what's healthy?
Bad PK
So, let's recap: My trying to make peace and saying I wasn't going to argue about it, resulted in two more comments trying to continue the argument.
Sorry, boys. My fault for starting it in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is finished.
Did you hear that, everyone? The conversation is finished. Velvet said so.
I'm not sure if it's the definitive Old Covenant WCG Velvet, the uncertain New Covenant WCG Velvet, the defiant atheist Velvet, or the law-observant GCI Velvet.
But it's finished. So there.
FWIW: I choose to simply state scriptural truth as I currently understand it, and leave it at that. It is useless for us to allow ourselves to be corrected by
Armstrongism, or to debate with Armstrongites. Better to let bogus discussions quickly die a quiet death, and just live our lives in the N/C.
But, I'll gladly discuss the weather with ACoG members! Is it warming up yet in Canada, Velvet? We're in the high 80s and low 90s in my state!
BB
Hey Velvet, I think it's perhaps more a matter of "choosing your battles" more wisely. I've found that many bloggers here just seem to want to quibble over marginal issues that really don't amount to the proverbial "hill of beans", perhaps because those are the only issues that they can discuss reasonably well. That's why I'm always encouraging folks here to read more, and read widely on many different subjects. That's what we were always instructed to do in the old Spokesman's Clubs, which is one of the more positive habits I acquired from my WCG days. When you read widely, you're able, not only to comment more intelligently, but more selectively as well. It's plainly obvious some folks here don't read anything more intellectually challenging than an occasional STOP sign.
Just trying to be helpful!
SATAN IS THE PRINCE AND POWER OF THE PORK!
"Hey Velvet, I think it's perhaps more a matter of "choosing your battles" more wisely."
That's actually what I tried to say, and instead received a round of personal (and slanderous) insults, instead. Thanks, Leo, I quite agree.
Velvet said "...the parenthetical '(and thus he made all meats clean)' was ADDED to the Bible --- and this parenthetical on Mark 7:19 is missing from the NRSV I presently hold in my hands. It is also missing from several other translations"
May I weigh into the debate and add the following (even though I know "it's finished")?
Re Mark 7:19 I believe it is retained in the majority of manuscripts, including the textus receptus. And even the link you quoted Velvet demonstrates that the majority of Bible versions include it.
And I believe that it was a comment added by the author of the gospel (Mark in this case) highlighting that Christ was emphasizing that it's not food that makes a person immoral. It's what's in his/her heart and mind that is demonstrated by his/her words and actions that makes him/her immoral.
Thus, I believe that all meat is "clean" in the sense that it cannot defile your heart and this principle was first taught by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself in this very incident. Besides God gave the original permission to Noah and his descendants to consume every moving creature (Genesis 9:3). And even Paul wrote to the mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome "All things are pure" (Rom 14:20) or in other words "all food is clean" and later on: "every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim 4:4-5). Isn't the NT the Word of God too? Or are we being selective as to what parts are to be followed like the OT dietary rules?
So if you were in the wilderness and was forced to eat "unclean" meat to stay alive wouldn't you? I know people who drink their own urine as they're under the (IMO false) belief that it'll cure them of cancer. Wouldn't your urine be just as "unclean" as pork if not more so? Nowadays there's so many different diets like gluten free, lactose free etc I don't think I'd really care if you follow the Jewish dietary laws anymore than someone who follows a vegetarian diet. To each their own I say...
Good job, Gordon. Somebody is thinking!
I certainly wish we'd allowed ourselves to think these things through back in the day.
Imagine this:
Avrum Fischbein, Christian brother from 55 AD moves his family from Jerusalem to Galatia to escape persecution. Avrum is "zealous for the law". According to the HWA model for "judaizers", Av begins teaching the brethren that you can only kill a mosquito on the sabbath if it has actually bitten you, and other such Pharisaic do's and don'ts. Av is very charismatic, and causes great confusion in Paul's congregation.
So, Paul responds by writing an epistle to the Galatians, in which he compares not Pharisaic case law to Hagar, but the covenant at Sinai itself. So deep is the confusion that all appeal to James and the council in Jerusalem. James, of course, resolves the issue not by speaking out against or proscribing the added laws of the Pharisees, but by advocating a defacto abolishment of the circumcision ritual, one of the very signs of the Old Covenant!
How theologically ignorant could we have been? But, on the other hand, better to have lived to see correction than to have died deceived!
BB
LOL!
--Thomas Baca II
Post a Comment