Doctrines of Demons - 1 Tim. 4:1-2

[BobRyan]

Walter said :

Col. 2:16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


Isn't the basis for repudiating those who judge others based upon "meat, or in drink" that the cross did away with Mosaic ceremonial laws written by the hand of Moses:

Both Christ before the cross (Matt 7) and Paul after the cross (Col 2) speak against the sin of judging others. Christ did not say in Matt 7 "some day I will die on the cross and THEN after that - you will not be allowed to judge others - but for now go ahead -- it is fine because you live before the time of my death".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter said

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross....16 Let no man therefore judge you


The dietary law was not written by God but by Moses in his "handwriting."

God said --
2Peter 1
"20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

Now I know you "could say" that I am wrong to claim that God said that - since it is only inspired scripture and Peter is the one actually writing - not God. But I believe that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God - which is why I refer to scripture as "The Word of God" and not "The Word of Peter" or David or Moses.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter

1. If Peter did not understand that God had made clean the animals in the vision in regard to eating them as God said kill and "EAT" then why didn't Peter object to excluding the dietary laws of clean and unclean from the decree to the Gentile chuches?

2. Why would Paul who was also present during that decree enforce it in Romans 14 when dealing with the Jewish and Gentile dispute whether it was permissible to "EAT ALL THINGS" or only a limited diet?

3. Why would Paul regard the brother (Jew) with the limited diet as "WEAK" and the one who believed in eating "ALL THINGS" as strong?

4. Why would Paul use the "clean" and "unclean" terms in a context about diet and days between Jews and Gentiles and say there is "NOTHING UNCLEAN" of itself if the dietary law was still in effect?


I will tell you why, because Paul rejected the dietary law as required for jews or gentiles and regarded those who made it required as only heretics whose conscience is seared:

You appear to be "freelancing as god again".

Stick with the text.

1. Paul said he ALWAYS observed the commandments of God as given in the OT in Acts 21:20-26 AND that he taught the Jews to do the same. He goes to great lengths to "prove that point' in Acts 21. Read the text.

2. You claim that Peter should object if he has a problem with deleting the entire Word of God in Acts 15 and replacing it with just 3 sentences for the Gentiles.

If nothing else Peter should have objected that Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, do not kill, do not blaspheme God, etc -- were all missing.

The reason Peter is perfectly happy with 3 short sentences in Acts 15 is due to Acts 15:21 - The OT text was being taught each Sabbath. And we SEE gentiles meeting with NT Christians "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13 IN the synagogues.

Thus there was no "this is to delete the Bible and give you a 3 sentence version instead" message. Rather the letter of Acts 15 was specifically to address points of controversy about circumcision and the requirement that Gentiles must observe all the customs of the Jews - as in "become Jews".

In Eph 2 Paul explains the fact that circumsion was the sign that you are in fact a Jew.

3. In Rom 14 Paul says the one who is weak "eats vegetables only" - (a command not found in the OT) - and the reason they do it is because of their strict obedience to Acts 15! In other words Paul argued in Rom 14 that to strictly follow Acts 15 is to be weak! In 1Cor 8 Paul goes so far as to say "I will never eat meat again" if it causes my brother to stumble - where once again he shows that such a brother is the "weak" one in the faith.

4. Peter explains the Acts 10 vision 3 times - and not once does he argue that it is a lesson about eating rats -- any more than John 6 is about cannibalism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Steadfast Fred]

BobRyan would have a valid argument if it were not for the Jerusalem Council in which Peter addressed those who were demanding that the Gentile Believers keep the Law of Moses.

Peter emphatically stated that the Gentile Believers were not to be put under that same yoke of bondage that the Jews were held to. As a matter of fact, Peter admitted that neither the members of the Council, nor their fathers were able to keep the Law of Moses.

Gentile Believers were not to be put under any dietary law except that they were to reject animals that had been strangled and from blood. Those were the only laws concerning the Gentile Believers that were to be observed.

There was no restriction of shellfish put upon the Gentile Believers.

The Gentile Believers were not restricted from eating weasels, mice, ferrets, tortoises, chameleons, lizards, moles, or snails.... as long as strangulation was not the method used to kill those creeping things.

The Gentile Believers were not restricted from dining on any of the animals that God had put upon the earth... again, as long as those animals had not been strangled.

The Jewish dietary laws contained within the Pentateuch were not put upon the Gentile Believers.

 

[BobRyan]

Well as I said regarding Acts 15 -

1. Paul said he ALWAYS observed the commandments of God as given in the OT in Acts 21:20-26 AND that he taught the Jews to do the same. He goes to great lengths to "prove that point' in Acts 21. See the text.

2. Some claim that Peter should object if he has a problem with deleting the entire Word of God in Acts 15 and replacing it with just 3 sentences for the Gentiles.

If nothing else Peter should have objected that Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, do not kill, do not blaspheme God, etc -- were all missing.

The reason Peter is perfectly happy with 3 short sentences in Acts 15 is due to Acts 15:21 - The OT text was being taught each Sabbath. And we SEE gentiles meeting with NT Christians "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13 IN the synagogues.

Thus there was no "this is to delete the Bible and give you a 3 sentence version instead" message. Rather the letter of Acts 15 was specifically to address points of controversy about circumcision and the requirement that Gentiles must observe all the customs of the Jews - as in "become Jews".

In Eph 2 Paul explains the fact that circumsion was the sign that you are in fact a Jew.

3. In Rom 14 Paul says the one who is weak "eats vegetables only" - (a command not found in the OT) - and the reason they do it is because of their strict obedience to Acts 15! In other words Paul argued in Rom 14 that to strictly follow Acts 15 is to be weak! In 1Cor 8 Paul goes so far as to say "I will never eat meat again" if it causes my brother to stumble - where once again he shows that such a brother is the "weak" one in the faith.

In Genesis 7 we see the clean and unclean animal distinction - and Noah was not a Jew.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:4)
--Pretty clear isn't. No reason to deny this truth of Scripture.

Your argument about Lev 11 is that Lev 11 - the Word of God - is "doctrines of demons"

No one said that. You are the only person that brought Lev.11 into this discussion. So that must be your argument, No??
Our stand is that the dietary laws of Lev.11 were fulfilled at the cross and are no longer applicable in the day and age of cross.

The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture being attempted here (when vs 4 is quoted without vs 5) is more than a little obvious to the objective unbiased Bible student that takes the time to "actually read" the text of scripture you are abusing.

Who is abusing the "text"??
Who is the one that has a bias (hint: SDA)?

1Tim 4:
"4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;

5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
I include both vs 4 and 5 when I said above "The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten. "

All food has been cleansed.
There is no such thing as unclean food.
No food is to be refused.
All food has been sanctified by God.
There is no reason not to give thanks for the food that the Lord has provided for us (whether pork or dog).

Hint: 1Tim 4:5 -- Paul specifically qualifies his statement approving "foods".

For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:5)
--You have a vivid imagination, or you are deliberately trying to deceive others on this board; perhaps the latter is more truthful.

3men who

forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.

1. The issue in 1Tim 4 is about “foods which God has Created to be gratefully shared” (eaten) by those who believe AND KNOW the truth.

It is a pastoral epistle written by Paul to Timothy. Of course Timothy, a pastor of the church of Ephesus, will be teaching those who believe and know the truth--the members of his own church. Why are you twisting this to make it mean something that it doesn't?

2.

NASB and others identify brwmatwn as “Food”. The KJV calls it “meat” in 1Tim 4:2 and in Gen 1:29.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

3. In Lev 11:29 God speaks about the “animals… which you have for FOOD”

4. In 1Tim 4:3 The food is “sanctified by the word” as food that is to be shared (eaten) by the saints. The food is identified and known by those who “believe and know the truth”.

5. The more general term for food instead of the specific term for flesh food – may indicate acetic practices that went well beyond animal meat offered to idols.

Absurd, foolish speculation.
Yes, the old English word "meat" often includes all types of food. That doesn't change the meaning of the verse any. All kinds of food are clean, and nothing to be refused. Don't call any of it unclean. Your differentiations between different kind of foods based on English words is absurd. There is nothing in the text that refers to ascetic practices. The only thing the text refers to, is the doctrine of demons referring to those that teach that abstaining from certain foods, such as pork is wrong. That is a doctrine of demons.

6.

In Lev 11:2, 11:47 God defines what is "edible" and what is not to be eaten.

That is for the nation of Israel, not for Gentile Christians.
What tribe do you belong to Bob?

The point would be clear to both gentile and Jewish believers who had access to scripture - that there were in fact "Animals which you have for food" and that all of that food "approved of" - sanctified by the Word of God is good.

Let's look at it again:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; (1 Timothy 4:1)
--Some are giving heed to doctrines of demons. What are they?

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)
--Those that command people to abstain from any kind of food (for religious reasons)--that is a doctrine of demons. The Bible is not a book of medicine.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (1 Timothy 4:4)
--Very clear statement. Nothing is to be refused. Every creature is good. Those who deny this Scripture, deny the Word of God, and live their lives in unbelief.

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:5)
--The food is sanctified. That is past tense. God has already sanctified.
One, therefore, can be thankful for it, and pray and give thanks.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Well as I said regarding Acts 15 -

1. Paul said he ALWAYS observed the commandments of God as given in the OT in Acts 21:20-26 AND that he taught the Jews to do the same. He goes to great lengths to "prove that point' in Acts 21. See the text.

Paul was a Jew. He was bound to the dietary laws of the Jews. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

2. Some claim that Peter should object if he has a problem with deleting the entire Word of God in Acts 15 and replacing it with just 3 sentences for the Gentiles.

It was not just Peter who came to the conclusion that Gentiles were not to be held to the Mosaic Law... James also came to the same conclusion.

If nothing else Peter should have objected that Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, do not kill, do not blaspheme God, etc -- were all missing.

Peter should have??? Are you trying to rewrite Scripture?

The reason Peter is perfectly happy with 3 short sentences in Acts 15 is due to Acts 15:21 - The OT text was being taught each Sabbath. And we SEE gentiles meeting with NT Christians "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13 IN the synagogues.

But you are supposing that that which was being taught in the synagogues was that the Gentiles were to eat only that which Jews were allowed to eat. The fact is, God never laid on the Gentiles any such law.

Thus there was no "this is to delete the Bible and give you a 3 sentence version instead" message. Rather the letter of Acts 15 was specifically to address points of controversy about circumcision and the requirement that Gentiles must observe all the customs of the Jews - as in "become Jews".

There was no deletion of the Bible. I have no clue where you get that from. The Gentiles had been eating many of those foods all along that the Jews were forbidden to eat. For instance, Daniel would not defile himself with the kings meat. (Daniel 1:8)
You falsely assume that God told the Gentile Believers to stop eating those foods that they were accustomed to eat. The fact is, they were only told (by letter of the Apostle's hand) that they were to abstain from things strangled and from blood.

In Eph 2 Paul explains the fact that circumsion was the sign that you are in fact a Jew.

That is not what Paul was teaching at all. He was conveying the fact that circumcision was a sign of a covenant, not that one was a Jew.

I was circumcised as an infant. I am no more a Jew than I am a football.

The Hivites certainly did not become Jews when they were circumcised.

3. In Rom 14 Paul says the one who is weak "eats vegetables only" - (a command not found in the OT) - and the reason they do it is because of their strict obedience to Acts 15! In other words Paul argued in Rom 14 that to strictly follow Acts 15 is to be weak! In 1Cor 8 Paul goes so far as to say "I will never eat meat again" if it causes my brother to stumble - where once again he shows that such a brother is the "weak" one in the faith.

Paul was saying no such thing. He said the one who is weak eats herbs.

But notice, Paul said the one who is not weak eats "ALL THINGS." All things includes shellfish, mice, moles, weasels, etc..

So, when you teach we are to abstain from mice, moles, weasels, shellfish, etc., you are in actuality telling us to be weak.

In Genesis 7 we see the clean and unclean animal distinction - and Noah was not a Jew.

Genesis 9 reveals that though both clean and unclean animal were taken on the ark, all animals that came off the ark were to be food for Noah.

Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The text of 1Tim 4 says that that which is approved by the Word of God is to be eaten. Your argument about Lev 11 is that Lev 11 - the Word of God - is "doctrines of demons"

The New Testament Scriptures are the Word of God and take precedence over Mosaic Law which the New Testament Word of God says has been abolished (Col. 2:14-16). The New Testament Word of God says,

"There is NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF" in a context that deals with food distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. The Word of God regards the brother who places limits on his diet as a "WEAK" brother in contrast to a Gentile brother who "believeth he can eat ALL THINGS" as the stronger brother in the faith:

Rom. 14:1 ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

This is the New Testament Word of God that sanctifies that "EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD" to eat. However, you have a seared conscience, seared by demons with false doctrine and do not care what the Word of God sanctifiese! You will continue to totatlly disregard God's Word because you have no capability of submitting to God's Word

...

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hint: Your bias is clouding your vision.

There was NT restriction saying that people had to "eat vegetables only". Thus Romans 14 is NOT about Lev 11! This is so obvious - even Robertson "gets the point" when commenting on 1Tim 4:3 - as he points to Rom 14.



The Romans 14 issue with "meat or vegetables only" was spelled out in detail in 1 Cor 8:5-13 - and it is specific to meat (food: most often animal) offerred to idols.

in Christ,

Bob

1. First, there is not one word about food offered to idols mentioned in Romans 14 - not one word!

2. Paul could not say "there is NOTHING unclean of itself" in the context of food differences if he actually believed the dietary law under Moses was applicable to Jews and Gentiles at the church of Rome or any other church.

3. Paul, Peter, James and the church at Jerusalem would have included the dietary law of Moses in the decree to the Gentiles in Acts 15 if they believed it was still applicable under the New Covenant. THEY DID NOT!

4. Why would Paul say that the person who eats "vegetable only" is the "WEAK" brother in contrast to the one who "beleiveth he can EAT ALL THINGS" as the strong brother if the backdrop was the foods offered to idols, since the food offered to idols included food condemned by the Levitical dietary law?

Your conscience has been seared by demonic doctrines and no amount of evidence will change your mind because you have no ability to submit to God's Word.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Both Christ before the cross (Matt 7) and Paul after the cross (Col 2) speak against the sin of judging others. Christ did not say in Matt 7 "some day I will die on the cross and THEN after that - you will not be allowed to judge others - but for now go ahead -- it is fine because you live before the time of my death".

in Christ,

Bob

What an absurd and rediculous rationale! Matthew 7 does not say a word about judging your brother in the context of food! Colossians 2:14-16 is in the context of food and in the context of Mosaic ceremonial ordinances or the Levitical laws of clean and unclean that have been ABOLISHED by the cross.

Again, if your legalistic view were correct then Paul, Peter, James and the church at Jerusalem would have included the clean and unclean dietary law of Moses in the decree to the Gentile churches! THEY DID NOT but YOU DO! You do because your conscience is seared by demons and their false doctrine and no amount of evidence or rationale will change your mind.

 

[Dr. Walter]

God said --
2Peter 1
"20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

Now I know you "could say" that I am wrong to claim that God said that - since it is only inspired scripture and Peter is the one actually writing - not God. But I believe that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God - which is why I refer to scripture as "The Word of God" and not "The Word of Peter" or David or Moses.


No one is denying that Moses wrote by inspiration! However, the first tablets were written directly by God without Moses. The latter Mosaic legistlation was by the handwriting of Moses. The Mosaic legislation in view here is the ceremonial ordinances found in Leviticus 10-23 or the laws of clean and unclean, the dietary laws, the ceremonial cleansing laws, the feasts, etc. They are no longer MANDATORY or part of the New Testament Covenant and the New house of God.

Again, the decree in Acts 15 proves they are no longer REQUIRED of Gentiles but Jews may freely choose to practice or not practice them. Bob are you a Jew or a Gentile? If you are a gentile the Apostolic decree denies you are REQUIRED to practice the dietary laws, the sabbatical cycles, the feasts, the laws of clean and unclean. Paul states in the context of disputes about food where one "believeth he can eat ALL THINGS" versus a person who restricts himself to a LIMITED diet that there is NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF (Rom. 14:14). He could not say there is "NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF" in a context of diet if he believed the Levitical dietary law was still REQUIRED!

However, no amount of evidence can change the mind of a person who has a conscience seared by demons and false doctrine - they will not change.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. Paul said he ALWAYS observed the commandments of God as given in the OT in Acts 21:20-26 AND that he taught the Jews to do the same. He goes to great lengths to "prove that point' in Acts 21. Read the text.

May I ask you if you are a Jew? Do you "shave your head" (Acts 21:24)??


24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Until you practice this don't preach to me! However, are you a Gentile Bob? Read the next verse Bob:

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

But you do not care what the Word of God actually says do you Bob because your conscience has been seared by demons and their false doctrines. If you did care what the Word of God said you would not make such a foolish argument and tell me to read the text. Read the text Bob! Read Acts 21:25 and find where the levitical dietary law is demanded of Gentiles? Can't do it, can you Bob? But you and I know you really don't care what it says. you are the one playing "god" and the readers know it.

2. You claim that Peter should object if he has a problem with deleting the entire Word of God in Acts 15 and replacing it with just 3 sentences for the Gentiles.

If nothing else Peter should have objected that Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, do not kill, do not blaspheme God, etc -- were all missing.

The only reason these things were commanded of the Gentiles was not because they are required by God but because Jews would not hear the gospel from their lips if they practiced such things. Read the text Bob and look at the reason given in Acts 15:21

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

1 Cor. 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

However, in regard to the Gentiles, in the very context of this restriction Paul denied that Gentiles were subject to the Levitical laws of clean versus unclean:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,

But Bob, you don't care what God's Word says do you? Your conscience has been seared by demons and their false doctrine and you will find a way, find a rationale that will contradict the above words to Gentiles and MAKE IT READ AS FOLLOWS:

"As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that THEY OBSERVE ALL SUCH THINGS"

There you go Bob, now the Bible reads the way you want it to read and the way you interpet it to read and the way your demons direct you to read it!

The reason Peter is perfectly happy with 3 short sentences in Acts 15 is due to Acts 15:21 - The OT text was being taught each Sabbath. And we SEE gentiles meeting with NT Christians "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13 IN the synagogues.

This is the demon's interpretation that Bob's seared conscience is in bondage to but this is not Paul's interpretation as Paul tells us explicitly that none of the other Levitical laws of clean versus unclean or sabbatical cycles and their feasts are applicable to Gentile believers:

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,

3. In Rom 14 Paul says the one who is weak "eats vegetables only" - (a command not found in the OT) - and the reason they do it is because of their strict obedience to Acts 15! In other words Paul argued in Rom 14 that to strictly follow Acts 15 is to be weak!

Here is the deranged demonically inspired interpretation that Bob's conscience has been "seared" to defend. Bob says their WEAKNESS is due to abiding by the Acts 15 decree! Yes, bob is actually saying that obedience to God's Word is the cause for their weakness?

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,[/COLOR][/SIZE] - Acts 21:25

You are "weak" if you obey this command of the Apostles according to Bob. However, this would mean that the one who "believeth he can EAT ALL THINGS" is strong" and the one who believes "THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF" is strong! However, Bob does not believe in the context of diet that "THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF"???? He rebukes Peter, Paul, James and the church at Jersualem and would intepret Acts 21:25 to read as follows:

"As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded they observe no such thing UNLESS they want to be a STRONG Christian because if they abide by these things in our decree they are WEAK"

In 1Cor 8 Paul goes so far as to say "I will never eat meat again" if it causes my brother to stumble - where once again he shows that such a brother is the "weak" one in the faith.

Here is the deranged demonically led interpretation of a seared conscience. However, Paul says the same thing in Romans 14:

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Bob, has reversed the text to teach the very opposite of what Paul is teaching. Paul declares that the STRONG know that in the context of FOOD there is NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF but for the sake of the WEAK brother who sees some foods as unclean, that the strong in the presence of such brethren will restrain their own liberty so not to wound the weak brothers conscience until he can be instructed and grow into the truth.

4. Peter explains the Acts 10 vision 3 times - and not once does he argue that it is a lesson about eating rats -- any more than John 6 is about cannibalism.

Peter never always kept the levitical dietary law up to the point that God told him that such animals were not "clean" and God told him to rise up kill and eat. After learning this, he violated the laws of clean and unclean in regard to Gentiles by coming into their homes:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Now he does what he admits he formerly viewed as "unlawful." He comes into their home. Next, he also does what he formerly viewed as "unlawful" according to the dietary laws, he not only comes into the homes of Gentiles but he EATS at their table what they EAT until LEGALISTS like Bob caught him doing it and then he flees:

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Paul rebuked Peter! Not for eating with the Gentiles but for acting like the Gentile food was unclean when people like Bob saw what he was eating and who he was eating with?

So Peter, did that which he formerly considered to be "UNLAWFUL" in regard to entering the homes of Gentiles as well as EATING with Gentiles.

However, none of this matters to Bob. Bob has a conscience seared by demons and no amount of Biblical evidence will change his mind because his mind is in bondage to these spirits - just watch and see his reactions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well as I said regarding Acts 15 -

1. Paul said he ALWAYS observed the commandments of God as given in the OT in Acts 21:20-26 AND that he taught the Jews to do the same. He goes to great lengths to "prove that point' in Acts 21. See the text.

Seeing the text is something you have not yet done? For if you had actually seen the text you would have read and seen the difference between verse 24 as applied to Jews and verse 25 as applied to Gentiles:


24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

However, Bob argues that what applied to Paul and Jews applied equally to Gentiles and only WEAK Gentiles obeyed this restriction! That is the kind of mind that operates within Bob.

2. Some claim that Peter should object if he has a problem with deleting the entire Word of God in Acts 15 and replacing it with just 3 sentences for the Gentiles.

If nothing else Peter should have objected that Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself, honor your parents, do not kill, do not blaspheme God, etc -- were all missing.

It is obvious that Acts 15 concerns the CEREMONIAL clean and unclean Laws not the Moral laws or the "whole word of God" as Bob tries to interpret it. It is the ceremonial law of circumcision that is the heart of this discussion (Acts 15:2). To be uncircumcised was to be ceremonially "unclean" in the eyes of the Jews. Therefore, the Apostolic decree points out only CEREMONIAL clean and unclean restrictions that are necessary to prevent offending the jews so that they will not even listen to the gospel.

The Gentile is not under any of these ceremonial laws EXCEPT in the presence of lost Jews and then only for the sake of sharing the gospel. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9 "To the Jew I became as the Jew" and to those "under law" he became as those under law in order to share the gospel.

In Genesis 7 we see the clean and unclean animal distinction - and Noah was not a Jew.

The clean and unclean animals had nothing to do with dietary laws prior to Moses but only to what was acceptable for use in sacrifices as the sacrificial animal had to be a proper TYPE of Jesus Christ. The fact that NO ANIMALS either clean or unclean were permitted prior to flood demonstrates the pre-flood distinction had nothing to do with diet but with sacrifice. The fact that ALL ANIMALS were considered CLEAN for diet after the flood proves the distinction between clean and unclean had nothing to do with diet:

Gen. 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

If Bob's argument had any weight the text would have said "Every CLEAN moving thing that liveth"! God did not say "EVERY green herb that exists" he gave for food but only "the green herb have I given." The only limitation is that which is considered edible and can be eaten for food.

Of course, no amount of argument, no amount of Biblical evidence can change a mind that is ruled by a conscience seared by demons and demonic doctrines.

1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused,

According to the NEW TESTAMENT WORD OF GOD which sanctifies it as 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is the WORD OF GOD that sanctifies it!.

 

[BobRyan]

God said --
2Peter 1
"20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

Now I know you "could say" that I am wrong to claim that God said that - since it is only inspired scripture and Peter is the one actually writing - not God. But I believe that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God - which is why I refer to scripture as "The Word of God" and not "The Word of Peter" or David or Moses.

No one is denying that Moses wrote by inspiration! However, the first tablets were written directly by God without Moses. The latter Mosaic legistlation was by the handwriting of Moses. The Mosaic legislation in view here is the ceremonial ordinances found in Leviticus 10-23 or the laws of clean and unclean, the dietary laws, the ceremonial cleansing laws, the feasts, etc. They are no longer MANDATORY or part of the New Testament Covenant and the New house of God.

Hint: Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

There is no such thing in the NT as "Delete these 14 chapters of scripture and keep the rest".

All such wild imaginings are good fiction for those who choose not to look in much detail at the text and simply seek an excuse for man made traditions - but very poor Bible study.

Again, the decree in Acts 15 proves they are no longer REQUIRED of Gentiles

Acts 15 says nothing about ignoring Lev 19:19 or any portion of scripture.

It is not a claim to burning the Bible and replacing it with three sentences - as much as some like to imagine that.

Walter said -
"believeth he can eat ALL THINGS" versus a person who restricts himself to a LIMITED diet that there is NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF (Rom. 14:14). He could not say there is "NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF" in a context of diet if he believed the Levitical dietary law was still REQUIRED!

Hint - even Robertson "gets the point" when he argues that the Rom 14 and 1Cor 8 issue involves meats offerred to idols.

==============================quote
Robertson – on 1Tim 4:3
To abstain from meats (apexestai brwmatwn).
Infinitive dependent, not on kwluontwn, but on the positive idea keleuontwn (implied, not expressed). Ablative case of brwmatwn after apexestai (present direct middle, to hold oneself away from). See 1Co 8-10; Ro 14; 15 for disputes about "meats offered to idols" and 1:22 for the Gnostic asceticism.
=============================end quote

You have already had this pointed out to you - and yet you simply ignore the Bible and try to find some shallow skimming of the text to make a case for man-made traditions.

Your practice of just making stuff up does not hold up to close review.

how is that supposed to hold up with those that are not mere "yes-men" for your man-made traditions?

How did you expect it to work?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
4. Peter explains the Acts 10 vision 3 times - and not once does he argue that it is a lesson about eating rats -- any more than John 6 is about cannibalism.

Walter said

Peter never always kept the levitical dietary law up to the point that God told him that such animals were not "clean" and God told him to rise up kill and eat. After learning this, he violated the laws of clean and unclean in regard to Gentiles by coming into their homes:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

In Acts 10 Peter does not quote any law in the OT (certainly not Lev 11) when he refers to Jews keeping company with one of another nation. He is speaking of Jewish tradition -- not scripture in vs 28.

But 3 times Peter gives the meaning of the vision as "call no man unclean" yet the rat-roast crowd seems to want to leap off the "eat cats and rats" cliff rather than listen to the inspired statement of Peter on what the vision meant.

Thus no cannibalism in John 6 and no rat roast in Acts 10 -- just the pure Gospel going to the gentiles by a God that "so loved the World".

You will have to take your rat-roast agenda to some other text to make you case for it -- Peter simply is not having it in Acts 10!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by SpiritualMadMan
I just now went through all my commentaries on this passage of scripture and all of them made the "point" of Peter's Vision the forth-coming visit to Cornelius' House not whether it was lawful to eat certain foods or not.

Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

And, Peter's own conclusion to the matter is as follows:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

I am deeply saddened and disappointed that people I have had the utmost confidence in as regards to scriptural integrity would take a passage so completely out of context to prove a point.

Good point -

Here is the Word of God - so instructive for the unbiased objective Bible students.

Acts 10
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Wow! no "rat roast" lesson as the inspired take away for that vision!

Three times Christ said "eat my flesh" in John 6
Three times Peter is told to eat rats and cats in Acts 10

Instead of the cannibalism and rat-roast outcome many had hoped for - what we see in both cases is "The Gospel"!

Acts 11:18
""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”

Acts 15:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ""Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 11
7 ""I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
8 ""But I said, "By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9 ""But a voice from heaven answered a second time, " What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'
10 ""This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.
11 ""And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea.
…
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.''

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hint: Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

There is no such thing in the NT as "Delete these 14 chapters of scripture and keep the rest".

All such wild imaginings are good fiction for those who choose not to look in much detail at the text and simply seek an excuse for man made traditions - but very poor Bible study.

I never said these chapters were "deleted" from the scriptures as any fool can see they are still in the book of Leviticus. But the New Testament deletes obedience to the OLD COVENANT and Colosians 2:14 deletes obedience to the ceremonial laws of clean and unclean found in those chapters! The ceremonial laws of clean and unclean have the moral law as their underlying principle and the principle is never abolished or deleted (Lev. 19:18) but the PRACTICE and OBSERVATION of the ceremonial FORMS are abolished. Do you still practice and observe the nazerite vow? Do you still observe and practice sacrificial rituals as prescribed in Leviticus 1-5? Do you still observe and practice the clean and unclean laws concerning leporsy or contact with gentiles???? Your demons will not allow your conscience to operate with common sense.

Acts 15 says nothing about ignoring Lev 19:19 or any portion of scripture.

It is not a claim to burning the Bible and replacing it with three sentences - as much as some like to imagine that.

By now the readers have picked up on your foolish and irrational arguments. The decree in Acts 15 is carefully intepreted by Acts 21:24-25 to prove that Gentiles are not under CEREMONIAL LAWS of clean and unclean and that these exceptions are merely to keep the door open to lost Jews to hear the gospel and not something they must observe privately or personally at all.


Your abuse of Robertson and your perverted idea that disobedience to the Acts 15 decree is the sign of Maturity while observing it is a sign of weakness exposes the demons behind your seared conscience

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
4. Peter explains the Acts 10 vision 3 times - and not once does he argue that it is a lesson about eating rats -- any more than John 6 is about cannibalism.



In Acts 10 Peter does not quote any law in the OT (certainly not Lev 11) when he refers to Jews keeping company with one of another nation. He is speaking of Jewish tradition -- not scripture in vs 28.

But 3 times Peter gives the meaning of the vision as "call no man unclean" yet the rat-roast crowd seems to want to leap off the "eat cats and rats" cliff rather than listen to the inspired statement of Peter on what the vision meant.

Thus no cannibalism in John 6 and no rat roast in Acts 10 -- just the pure Gospel going to the gentiles by a God that "so loved the World".

You will have to take your rat-roast agenda to some other text to make you case for it -- Peter simply is not having it in Acts 10!

in Christ,

Bob

Apparently you are incapable of reading. I have already thoroughly exposed the above irrational and unbiblical arguments and you offer absolutely no response to what I have said. All you do is repeat your seared rationale.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Good point -

It is only a "good point" if you ignore all the rest of Peter's actions in regard to this issue (Acts 15; Gal. 2).

You make a big deal that Peter's statement in Acts 10 that he never violated God's laws but then ignore that he admits he is violating the law that forbid him to enter into the home of a Gentile in Acts 10. You ignore the fact that as a consequence of this vision he later ignores the dietary law by EATING the food of the Gentiles (Gal. 2). You ignore the fact that as a consequence of this vision he later OMITS the dietary law from the decree sent to Gentile churches.

There is not question in my mind that I am dealing demons and their doctrines through "seared minds" as you ignore the Biblical context, deny what the scriptuers plainly state and your rational is perverted and twisted.

Acts 10[/SIZE][/FONT]
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Wow! no "rat roast" lesson as the inspired take away for that vision!

However, that is not the purpose I gave for quoting it! You know it is not and yet you intentionally pervert and twist my purpose for citing this verse! That is the sign of demonic presence. I cited this verse for one reason and one reason only and that was to prove that what Peter formly observed as law and admits what he has done is "unlawful" thus he has violated the law demonstrating that he now regards that law as invalid because of the vision. I also cited Galatians 2:12 for the same reason. Those who believed in the dietary law observed Peter "EATING" with Gentiles at their table with their food thus demonstrating he no longer observed the dietary law because of that vision which explicilty commanded him to rise up and kill and EAT of what was formerly pronounced as "unclean" but now God command Peter no longer to call it "unclean." I also cited Acts 15 with Acts 21:24-15 to demonstrate Peter's consequential view of the dietary law as no longer binding for Jews or Gentiles.

Three times Christ said "eat my flesh" in John 6
Three times Peter is told to eat rats and cats in Acts 10

Yes, and in all six cases the Lord makes it clear what he means. In John 6:35 and 47-48 he clearly defines as "eating" and "drinking" as merely metaphors for coming and believing in Christ or partaking of Christ by believing in the gospel. In Acts 10 he makes it clear that previously unclean animals are now clean and they are food for beleiving Jews and Peter is found "EATING such (Gal. 2:12) and allowing Gentiles to eat such (Acts 15 with 21:24-25).

Instead of the cannibalism and rat-roast outcome many had hoped for - what we see in both cases is "The Gospel"!

That is true. Believing in the gospel is defined by metaphors (eating and drinking) and the gospel of free grace no longer under law is seen in being able to eat what was formerly unclean under law as Peter claims in Acts 15 we are no longer under such bondage but under free grace

Acts 11:18
""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”

Yes, and granted them the liberty to believe that "NOTHING IS UNCLEAN OF ITSELF" and they can eat all things edible by omitting the dietary law in the Apostolic decree to Gentiles (Acts 15 with Acts 21:24-25) and illustrates it by his own eating habit (Gal. 2:12).

Acts 15:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ""Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Why not quote the rest Bob? Afraid? Your "seared conscience" won't allow you to quote the rest of what Peter went on to say about the ceremonial law of clean and unclean of which circumcision was part and parcel of and representative of?

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 11
7 ""I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
8 ""But I said, "By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'

Peter is admitting only to his FORMER practice before this vision. He is not stating his future practice after this vision. His future practice after this vision is that he does LITERALLY eat with the Gentiles (Gal. 2:12) and he does not require Gentiles to observe the dietary law (Acts 15 with Acts 21:24-25).

Bob, why not quote where God commands him to no longer call "unclean" what God "hath cleansed"? I will tell you why, because your demons who have seared your consciene won't allow you to. You are in their bondage and their servant to defend their doctrines.

 

[DHK]

Good point -

Here is the Word of God - so instructive for the unbiased objective Bible students.

Acts 10
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Wow! no "rat roast" lesson as the inspired take away for that vision!

Three times Christ said "eat my flesh" in John 6
Three times Peter is told to eat rats and cats in Acts 10

Instead of the cannibalism and rat-roast outcome many had hoped for - what we see in both cases is "The Gospel"!

Acts 11:18
""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”

Acts 15:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ""Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 11
7 ""I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
8 ""But I said, "By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9 ""But a voice from heaven answered a second time, " What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'
10 ""This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.
11 ""And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea.
…
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.''

in Christ,

Bob

This lame answer of yours was in agreement to Spiritualmadman's response to me. Again, here is his response to me:

I just now went through all my commentaries on this passage of scripture and all of them made the "point" of Peter's Vision the forth-coming visit to Cornelius' House not whether it was lawful to eat certain foods or not.

Act 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Act 10:18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

But notice that he (as you) avoided my question. The question was, where in the text does God record His exact words to Peter.? SMM did not answer that question in his quote and you agreed with his answer and did not answer it either, and never have. I had to spell it out to you like a little child because of your obstinacy. The only place in the entire account where we have God's exact words quoted are here:

And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(Acts 10:13)
And here:
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

What is this telling us? Since God is not telling Peter to rise and kill the Gentiles, we know that he is telling him to rise and kill unclean animals such as pork, something Peter protested against and refused to do. In fact he did so three times:

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (Acts 10:14)
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10:16)
--Three times Peter refused to eat the meat that God had called clean. He disobeyed the command of the Lord. All meat is clean and nothing to be refused. This is the only time the exact words of God are quoted in the passage--the only time. At other times we have Peter's rendition of what the Lord said to him. But here a voice from heaven comes, and his exact words are recorded by Luke, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the author of the book.