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

Bob's position has been thoroughly refuted.
But just too add, if Bob used examples like "shrimp or lobster" (also forbidden in Lev.11), instead of "Your rat, cat, dog, bat roast post speaks for itself," it wouldn't have so much shock value would it.

I wonder if Bob breaks the law by eating shrimp or lobster?

 

Well not in "real life" but if that is what you need to tell yourself - ok.

You have to be kidding right?

You imagine a Lev 11 Word of God that says "Here are the animals that are not food for -- unless you really want to disregard my Word in a few cases and then well ... your preference trumps My Word".

Is that really the kind of Bible you hold in your hands?

Unbelievable!

in Christ,

Bob

 

1. THREE times in John 6 Peter is told to "eat Christ's flesh" in John 6 (also condemned in Lev11). But he knew this was symbolic - of teaching - of the Gospel.

2. He was told not to eat the leaven of the pharisees in Matt 16 - and was later informed that this referred to the teaching of the pharisees not to literal leaven.

3. He was told to eat rats in Acts 10 -- and then explained THREE TIMEs (for those slow to get the point) that this was about "Calling no man unclean".

4. In the "Eat whatsoever is set before you and ask no questions" text of the NT the point is made explicitly that the "question" or the "information" that is missing is "whether the meat was offerred to an idol" such that IF they do include that information then -- DO NOT eat it. (The key portion of the text DHK carefully avoids when referencing it)

5. At no point in all of scripture has "going to a gentile home" been taken to imply that anyone going there must literally eat rats.

That least debunks about half dozen rabbit trails that have been used to try and bring in the rat-roast idea to 1Tim 4 and Acts 10 ...


Suppose that in John 6 when Christ told Peter THREE TIMES he must eat his flesh -- that Peter jumped to the wild conclusion "God has revoked the law of unclean concerning the animals in Leviticus 11 and forbids Christians to "call" such things "common" or unclean!"

Well if Peter had done that -- then in Acts 10 he would not tell God THREE TIMES "by no means Lord".

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I wasn't kidding Bob. I was serious. Yes, Leviticus 11 defines what animals can and cannot be eaten. Most shell fish cannot be eaten. Shrimp and lobster fall into that category.
"You've got to be kidding" doesn't give me an answer.
Do you avoid these foods.
Do you keep all the Levitical diet?

 

Not the same thing at all!

1. It was voluntary.

2. He abstained from all food; He didn't make a distinction between meat from one animal, and meat from another. Matthew 4.2 says:

And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
​

Luke 4.2 says:

being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry.
​

The context of 1 Peter 4.3 is of forbidding the eating of certain foods.

 

I am sure you meant 1 Timothy and not 1 Peter.

 

Not if God commanded it. Jesus IS God. Hmmm...

WM

 

And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, (Luke 4:1)
--Where is the command?
God doesn't force us to do anything. Notice Christ was led, not commanded. There is a difference.

 

But Jesus IS God. There is the difference - and a non-trivial one at that.

WM

 

Why, when Jesus being God, did He not turn the stones into bread, as He knew he could have when he was being tempted? What sin would there have been in eating bread?

In another scenario, when Jesus was on his way to the cross Peter took his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus rebuked him and told him to put up his sword. Then he told Peter he could have called 12 legions of angels (72,000), to rescue him from going to the cross. If Jesus had such authority as God, why didn't he use it to rescue him from going to the cross and enduring all the pain?

Yes Jesus is God. But He didn't have to be tempted. He didn't have to go without bread. In fact, he didn't even have to go to the cross, did he?

 

Yes I did. Thanks for pointing out my error, Fred.

 

Jesus fasting in the wilderness is still nothing like the idea of human beings forbidding themselves or others others eating certain kinds of meat.

 

When I fast, I forbid myself from eating certain kinds of meat....

WM

 

Yes - He had to sacrifice Himself in atonement for the sins of the world. No other sacrifice would have been acceptable.

WM

 

Thus the choice was his. "I lay my life down; I take it up again." No one forced him to do it. And no one forced him to be tempted in the wilderness as you proposed.

The teaching in 1Tim.4:1-5 is that "some (false teachers) are teaching doctrines of demons...forbidding (others) to marry, and commanding (others) to abstain from (certain) foods.

That is the teaching of the verse, or how those verses read when summarized. The teaching is very clear, and your previous verses have been quite bogus when it comes to any rebuttal, for you haven't been exegeting the Scripture at all, not even looking at the meaning with any carefulness whatsoever.

 

That is what I was saying. When you fast, you "forbid myself from eating certain kinds of meat". Jesus in the wilderness ate nothing for those forty days and nights. As I said in Post 265 of this thread, He didn't make a distinction between meat from one animal, and meat from another, so it's wrong, in my view, to take what He did in the wilderness as support for the notion that forbidding people to eat certain kinds of meat is not what 1 Timothy 4.1-3 says it is, a "doctrine of demons".

 

I most certainly have been exegeting the Scripture - I simply grow tired of repeating the same thing over again. Would it change your mind if I continued? No and your incessant protestations will not change mine.

Look - there is simply no way that you or anyone here can take those passages that Paul was clearly directing at heretics of the day, then skew them, torture them, and direct them to the RCC with any shred of credibility - especially when you freely admit your utter disdain for them. I know. I know. You don't believe that Roman Catholics are Christians and that is certainly your right. But to show such hatred and contempt is, in my opinion, VERY un-Christ like behavior. And yes – they are our brothers and sisters – whether you like it or not.

Thus far, it has been my experience here that many of you never pass up the opportunity to pounce on the RCC – a fact made even more egregious by their under or non-representation here.

That is MY opinion...

WM

 

They aren't forgetting about it; simply ignoring it out of necessity.

WM

 

If you stick to the passage at hand and not go off on tangents that are not possibly related to this topic we might make some progress. You have to admit that using Christ as an example is way off topic. No false teacher or organization compelled Christ to fast or to abstain from eating food. That argument is completely bogus. Please admit to that much.
If you exegete the text there is no possible way that you can come to any such conclusion as that. So "exegesis" involves rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim.2:15), and coming to the right conclusions of what the Bible is saying.

My view of the RCC is irrelevant. The RCC is simply one religion that forbids certain of their members to marry, as the SDA (and we have some on our board) forbid their members to abstain from eating certain foods--the two doctrines mentioned here as doctrines as demons.

Are their others that have the same practice?
The Mormons command their members to abstain from certain foods, even coffee and tea.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church bishops are not permitted to marry.

The Essenes, in the time of Christ, did not permit marriage among any of their members. Propagation of their sect was by conversion (or by adoption). They were ascetics. And as such they were vegetarians, thus they also commanded to abstain from certain foods, that being all meat.
--Paul could have been referring directly to this group at that time. But the application is made to all groups who have the same teaching. The Bible is not a static book.

The Shakers did not advocate marriage. They slowly declined in numbers.

All of the above teach doctrines of demons. It is not just the RCC. I don't have a hatred for the RCC, but only for their doctrines. I don't hate my extended family--all RCC, but only the false doctrine that they are caught up in.

What contempt? What hatred? I have never shown any contempt or hatred to any Roman Catholic, to the doctrine of the RCC, yes; but not to the individual. As I said, most of my relatives are RCC. How can I hate them? I stand strong against the false teaching that is sending them to hell. Salvation is by grace through faith and it is not of works. They believe that it is of works. They are wrong.

The doctrine, not the person.
But then again, I have only used the RCC in this discussion as an example. The SDA I have used just as much as an example. Why have you not complained about them? Now I have given you plenty of others who also teach doctrines of demons.

 

Oh come on DHK... I was pulling your theological leg as it were. You people take yourselves WAY too seriously.

Hmmm... Rightly dividing the word of God according to your interpretation of it? And by what authority do you claim to have rightly divided the Word of God over that of others who are just as sincere? In the end you must concede that you are personally interpreting scripture based upon your OWN authority and thus believe that you are correct and everyone who differs from you is wrong.

Then for 1500 years all of Christendom was practicing a "doctrine of demons." Lets see... yesterday was fat Tuesday and today is ash Wednesday.
Alrighty then...

Well then DHK, just about 90% of all Christianity are practicing a "doctrine of demons". I'm sure God would approve.

True the bible is not a static book... yet it is only a book... and one put together by people guided by the Holy Ghost... and one interpretated by humans... falible ones at that - 2000 years after after the fact.

That is because they frowned upon procreation in the laity. This is not like the RCC.

Well then, you have certainly fooled me.

That is not the issue; none-the-less, I haven't met a RC who believes that!

And you are right? Why not let God sort that out DHK.

I sincerely hope that there aren't any non-Christians roaming around here. For if there are, and they see this kind of behavior from you and others, they might just run as fast and as far away from this version of Christianity as they can. Do you really think that God intends us to behave like this? Seriously, does God give anyone the right to judge others? Who are my brothers and who are my sisters?

WM