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

[BobRyan]

10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13 A voice came to him, ""Get up, Peter, kill and eat!''
14 But Peter said, ""By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.''
15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "" What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.''
16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;


But Watler said: "Peter was not confused at all! "


The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "


but Walter said: "Peter was not confused at all! "

What part of this glaring contrast in the form of exact contradiction of scripture by Walter is supposed to have slipped past the objective unbiased Bible student?

Peter was not confused at all about what God said. He was not confused that God said to rise and eat. He was not confused that God rebuked him for calling such unclean. He was not confused that God said such has been cleansed.

He was confused about the immediate application God had in mind for this vision.

Indeed - just as Christ commanded three times to "Eat my flesh" so Peter was challenged 3 times to eat rats.

Just as in John 6 -- Peter in Acts 10 "does not bite".

But the text of scripture ends that vision this way -- instead of engaging in a rat-roast Peter was "greatly perplexed"

The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "

Walter

Soon he was not confused about the immediate as well as overall application as we find him EATING formerly unclean food in the home of Gentiles

A good bit of fiction to add as you point out - would be to imagine that Acts 10 said that Peter went to Cornelius' house and ate rats there -- or perhaps some "other form" of unclean food.

Sadly for the storytelling form of eisegesis - we do not find that in scripture at that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Your "seared" conscience does not care what God's Word says and God's word says clearly and explicitly:


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

Bob said -

You and DHK have been sooo careful to "lift that text" out of the chapter and avoid vs 5 at all costs.

So we will simply include the scripture IN that you are so anxious to avoid so as to see the context.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I am always amazed at the proclivity of some to turn a Gospel teaching into nothing more than a complaint about why they are not allowed rat, cat, dog and bat sandwiches that God says are "not food" in Lev 11.

Oh well - to each his own. God has sovereignly chosen to allow each of us the priviledge, responsibility and consequences of free will decisions - no matter how those decisions reach for the cat-sandwich over the word of God.


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


The eisegetical snippet-quote out-of-context bend-and-wrench of the text of scripture you are attempting 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.

Hint:
"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."

The Word of God is not as favorable to rat sandwiches as your wild ideas would have the reader believe.

But of course the "rat-roast" group is going to just turn a blind eye to vs 5 and continue to "lift vs 4" out of context in a true "so much scripture to ignore - so little time" model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

THREE times in John 6 Jesus said to "Eat my flesh"

THREE times in Acts 10 Peter is given the eat cats rats dogs command.

In BOTH cases Peter does not "bite".

The fly in your ointment is that each time Peter did not obey God in Acts 10 he was REBUKED by God for disobedience.

No - not even once.

But in Matt 16 Peter IS rebuked "Get thee behind me Satan".

So obviously in the presence of actual rebuke - Peter did not repeat rebellion in Matt 16 as if it were a sign of loyalty.

But in John 6 Jesus says THREE TIMES "eat my flesh" and Peter "does not bite".

In Acts 10 THREE TIMES God says to eat rats - and Peter "does not bite" but affirms his faithfulness to the scripture in Lev 11 on this point.

Then Peter is "greatly perplexed" at the end of that vision -- because one thing is for sure - God did not really want him to bite Christ or eat rats.

Then Peter said that he got the message - - God wanted him to call "no MAN unclean".

Walter said went into gentile houses after that and ATE THEIR FOOD

Hint: Nothing in Lev 11 said that food served/cooked by gentiles is by that fact "unclean".

Though - here again you seem more than happy to make stuff up when the text of scripture itself does not suit you.

Walter
God rebuked him through Paul.

11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 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.

Here again - nothing said about eating unclean food or failing to eat rats etc.

Your fictions find no support in the actual text of scripture.

We know the Judiazers not only condemn EATING with the Gentiles but even entering their homes as they considered their food no kosher as well as their homes and person - all unclean.

You nicely obfuscate between the man-made-traditions of judaizers and God's Word - in Lev 11 as you seek to condemn both!

How sad.

The objective unbiased bible student is not going to be so easily duped by such tactics. you need something a bit more sneaky if you expect to be successful on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

================================quote
Acts 10

10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13 A voice came to him, ""Get up, Peter, kill and eat!''
14 But Peter said, ""By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.''
15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "" What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.''
16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;


But Watler said: "Peter was not confused at all! "

The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "

but Walter said: "Peter was not confused at all! "

What part of this glaring contrast in the form of exact contradiction of scripture by Walter is supposed to have slipped past the objective unbiased Bible student?


Just as Christ commanded three times to "Eat my flesh" so Peter was challenged 3 times to eat rats.

Just as in John 6 -- Peter in Acts 10 "does not bite".

But the text of scripture ends that vision this way -- instead of engaging in a rat-roast Peter was "greatly perplexed"

The Bible said: "17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, "

======================= end quote of prior post

Peter relates this account three times - and in all three cases it is the Gospel lesson -- of Gospel going to Gentiles that is the high ground. Much as the rat-roast promotion group may wish to avoid that portion of scripture.

=================================================================quote
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.''
=======================================================================================end quote of prior post



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You need to put what Peter said in Acts 10 in the overall context of how Peter applies this altogether with Galatians 2 and you will see that he not only applies it to the Gentiles who were also unclean according to Levitical laws but to the food they ate.

Gal 2
11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 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.

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. - Rom. 14:14


Paul was speaking in context of days, food and drink

The texts you are lifting out of context:

Rom 14 is contrasting the eating of meat with "vegetables only" this is not a Lev 11 question (nothing at all is said about unclean meat in Rom 14) -- this is a 1Cor 8 and 10 question (an Acts 15 question) about meats offerred to idols where Paul says "I will never eat meat again if it offends my brother".

There is no "never eat meat again" in Lev 11.

Those whose freely resort to bending-and-wrenching the bible to make a point will overlook these no so subtle details.

In Gal 2 nothing at all is said about unclean meat. Rather Peter is accused NOT of failing to 'eat gentiles" but failure to eat WITH gentiles (as Peter himself mentioned in Acts 10 regarding the man-made-traditions of Jews with regard to gentiles).

The idea that Paul was telling Peter in Gal 2 to "eat more rats" is a fiction that does abuse to the context and text of scripture in Gal 2.

Try a more subtle tactic if you want the unbiased objective Bible student to fall for something.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

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.''

Here is what DHK asked Bob to do:

Originally Posted by DHK
Bob's words are: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter.

It was a clear reference to the previous post where Bob had taken a verse out of context, changed the verse and substituted the word MAN, changing the meaning of the verse, just like a cult would do. It is reprehensible.
When challenged on this, see the above post, where Bob does not respond to my direct question but goes all over the board with various other Scriptures but refuses to quote the one he supposedly quoted which is:

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10:16)

Three times Peter was commanded to eat; three times Peter refused.
God firmly told Peter not to call the animals unclean for he has declared them clean. He said nothing about man. Bob is changing the Word of God to suit his own purposes. The Word of God says something about that too.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

 

[scriptmemory]

Bob: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

DHK: "Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter."

DHK: "Bob had taken a verse out of context, changed the verse and substituted the word MAN, changing the meaning of the verse, just like a [usual prejudice]. It is reprehensible. When challenged on this, see the above post, where Bob does not respond to my direct question but goes all over the board with various other Scriptures but refuses to quote the one he supposedly quoted which is: "And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (Acts 10:15) ... He said nothing about man. Bob is changing the Word of God to suit his own purposes. The Word of God says something about that too. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)"


And yet after all of DHK's usual bluster, we find Acts 10:28 reads just like Bob quoted, "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."

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Bob: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

DHK: "Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter."

DHK: "Bob had taken a verse out of context, changed the verse and substituted the word MAN, changing the meaning of the verse, just like a [usual prejudice]. It is reprehensible. When challenged on this, see the above post, where Bob does not respond to my direct question but goes all over the board with various other Scriptures but refuses to quote the one he supposedly quoted which is: "And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (Acts 10:15) ... He said nothing about man. Bob is changing the Word of God to suit his own purposes. The Word of God says something about that too. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)"


And yet after all DHK's customary bluster, we find Acts 10:28 reads just like Bob quoted, "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 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.

Especially when there are more than ample passages that support the contention directly.

I don't like it when my Pentecostal and Charismatic peers do it.

But, I never expected it from DHK and Dr. Walter.

Again, none of my Commentaries agrees that the Vision of Peter in Acts 10 was about eating or not eating according to ceremonial law...

 

[DHK]

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.

Back in post #34 I asked Bob a simple question:

Bob's words are: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter.

In the previous post you note that Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean." This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie.
That is why I asked him chapter and verse. Quote the chapter and verse!

Notice that Bob has not done that. He has quoted many other verses. He has quoted applications. But he has not quoted God's exact words to Peter those words which I asked him to quote, those words which he purposely misquoted, and misconstrued.
But purposely twisted the Scripture for his own ends. What were the exact words of God to Peter??

 

[BobRyan]

And yet after all of DHK's usual bluster, we find Acts 10:28 reads just like Bob quoted, "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 keep insisting that the Bible students are going to notice these little details.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

This makes a good point. Regardless of the point of view that one takes - it still does not pay to bend and wrench the text out of context just because you think that with a little tweaking it could be tailored to one of your views.

In the same way that Albert Barnes is making a valid Bible observation in his text on 1Cor 16:2 - where each one is saving funds by himself alone - at home each week. Barnes is not trying to promote Sabbath keeping - he is simply admitting to what the text of 1Cor 16 says.

IN the same way - whether or not you approve of Lev 11 - the text of Acts 10 is dealing with the Spiritual and Gospel concept of "Gospel to the gentiles" and it is opposing the Jewish man-made-traditions about not going to Gentile homes or eating with gentiles. Those who wish to side track Acts 10 to some kind of 'rat-roast' promotion are doing great harm to the text itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Back in post #34 I asked Bob a simple question:

In the previous post you note that Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean." This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie.

Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."


-------

One more time - "with feeling" -

Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."


Let the Bible students that care to read Acts 10 -- notice vs 28 and decide if Peter is telling the truth - or if DHK is telling the truth.

God has created a free will system - each person is asked to make their own choice.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This is the post where I fully endorse and explicitly quote BOTH 1Tim 4:4 AND 5. Then it is followed by Walter claiming I am not doing such a thing - as I did so early in this thread.

Originally Posted by BobRyan

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 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.

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. "

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I keep insisting that the Bible students are going to notice these little details.

in Christ,

Bob

Here is what Bible students are going to notice Bob?

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10:16)

Why do you refuse to quote THE EXACT WORDS OF GOD AS I ASKED YOU?
What does it say?
What God has cleansed, do not call common or unclean.
It was said three times.
Three times Peter rebelled and refused to eat.
The context is that of eating unclean animals.

The Lord verified this in 1Tim.4 when he said "All creatures are good and nothing to be refused."

But you have refused the Scriptures, Bob, and have accepted doctrines of demons in its place.

 

[DHK]

This is the post where I fully endorse and explicitly quote BOTH 1Tim 4:4 AND 5. Then it is followed by Walter claiming I am not doing such a thing - as I did so early in this thread.

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. "

in Christ,

Bob

Questions that need to be answered by Bob.

Concerning pork and dog meat:
1. Can you and will you give thanks for the meat served you?
2. Will you accept that God has already sanctified it?
3. Will you thankfully accept it by offering thanks in prayer for it according to God's Word: "In everything give thanks."

That is the meaning of the passage Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."


-------

One more time - "with feeling" -

Peter said:
Acts 10:28 God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

But DHK said: "Bob had said that God commanded him (Peter) to call no MAN unclean. This is inaccurate, if not a downright lie."


Let the Bible students that care to read Acts 10 -- notice vs 28 and decide if Peter is telling the truth - or if DHK is telling the truth.

Here is what Bible students are going to notice Bob?

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)

.

As it turns out - actual Bible students take a "BOTH AND" approach to scripture NOT the "vs 15 OR vs 28" solution that you propose.

Again - just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Questions that need to be answered by Bob.

Concerning pork and dog meat:
1. Can you and will you give thanks for the meat ....

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 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.

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. "

We all see you take the "either or " hatchet to 1Tim 4 just as you did with Acts 10 -- in your constant avoidance of vs 5 each time you hold up dog meat before the reader.

What part of this is supposed to be working for your argument DHK?

At some point - it pays to throw away your shovel and stop digging that hole.

Just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...

1. Those churches that command celibacy. That is an example of a doctrine of demons or devils (otherwise translated). It is a devilish doctrine. It comes from Satan and not from God. Even the qualifications of both bishop and deacon speak of having a wife and their children in submission, their household in order. It infers that they are married. Celibacy was not God's plan in the leadership of the church. It is a doctrine of demons, and is so declared here.

snip...

Celibacy is not completely condemned in scripture - for SOME, it is lauded.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. BUT if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am [celibate]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Now let’s turn to Jesus’ thoughts on the subject…

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some.

Just my thoughts...
WM

 

[DHK]

Celibacy is not completely condemned in scripture - for SOME, it is lauded.

Before going any further, have you done a complete in depth study on the entire chapter of 1 Cor.7? Do you know the background? Do you know the reasons why Paul was saying things that seemingly contradict what he had said previously on marriage? You need to find those things out. Context goes a long way before making foolish statements.

Take a look at 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it:

First stop here. How many are capable of it. Did you read the first few verses of the chapter? Why does Paul say at the beginning of the chapter:
"Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife.
So Paul really didn't endorse it, did he? Scripture out of context is not wise.

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. BUT if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

Context:
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Corinthians 7:7)
--This was Paul's desire, not God's will. He states it as such. But you have deliberately misconstrued what he has said by omitting verse seven and thus taking verses 8 and 9 out of context.

It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am [celibate]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).

How you twist the Scriptures. God's will from the beginning of creation is for every man to have his own wife. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. Let every man have his own wife, he says. Marriage is a beautiful relationship likened unto the church as the bride of Christ described in Ephesians chapter five which Paul also wrote. Is Paul a schizophrenic? No, but you don't understand what he is saying and the context in which he is writing. If this is your view on marriage I feel very sorry for you and for your wife if you have one. If you are single, I advise you to remain single until you can sort these things out.

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

And why does he say that? Here is why it is so important to do research and know the background of why Paul is writing that which seems to go against all that he has written previously on marriage--all that Christ has said on marriage; all that the Lord God has said on marriage in Genesis one and two. Paul does not contradict himself, but you take what he says out of context and make a religion or false doctrine for yourself.

The background:
Paul was writing to Christians who were undergoing intense persecution. They were being persecuted by the Roman government under Nero to some of the most horrific deaths. Some were being used as human torches in his garden. Others thrown to the lions, and others tied up on stakes and set on fire. Many were just crucified as common criminals. In this setting Paul gives advice about marriage.
To the unmarried it is better to remained unmarried.
In these circumstances why marry if there is a 90% chance that your newly wedded husband is going to be thrown to the lions. You will suffer greater grief and hardship in life than if you had never married at all.

Paul never advocates celibacy. He gives practical advice in a time of persecution. There were practical reasons for some people to remain single. One of them was the great possibility of looming death.

Specific scripture here is this:
I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. (1 Corinthians 7:26)
--The present distress was the present persecution.
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (1 Corinthians 7:27)
--Because of that "present distress" he gives the advice not to marry.

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1 Corinthians 7:28)
--Obviously marriage is not sin; it is God's will. But in this situation they will have trouble in the flesh. Why? In times of persecution it will not and cannot be a peaceful marriage. They will not have the time together that they need.

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Marriage is God's will, but if you do not marry in these circumstances you will do better to avoid heartache. You have misunderstood the entire passage.

Now let’s turn to Jesus’ thoughts on the subject…

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some.

Just my thoughts...
WM

Please not the context again:
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (Matthew 19:10)

Jesus was clearing up the statements he had made on divorce and remarriage.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

A second marriage is a continuous state of adultery unless your first wife dies. That is the summary of what he had said. His disciples were astonished at such a "hard" teaching, saying, "It is good not to marry."
Jesus replies, that in only in a very few cases do men not marry, but it is not normal. That is the context. He never advocates celibacy.

For a church to advocate celibacy as the norm, as does the RCC for their clergy, it is a doctrine of demons.

 

[DHK]

Bob's words are: "Peter states that God commanded him to call no MAN unclean"

Now Bob, will you please quote the exact chapter and verse that quotes God's words to Peter.

"God's words to Peter."

Please quote God's words to Peter. That is what I asked you. I can repeat the question in French and a few other languages if you don't understand the question. I did not ask for Peter to tell us what the Spirit told him. That is a different question. In fact Peter might be putting into his own words what the Spirit told him, not a direct quote.

What were the exact words that God told Peter? There is only one answer to that question. And yet Bob refuses to give an honest answer to it. He wants to give applications and other answers. But the honest answer to this question he avoids at all costs.

BTW, this is a quote from post #34.