1st Timothy 3:1-11 Discussion

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

PROPHECYKID said:
That is true but it can apply to anything that destroys the temple. I'm talking specifically about things that are undoubtedly bad for you. Would you just pick up a millipede and eat it? If you interpret verses 4 and 5 to mean that the millipede is good and should not be refused, and the millipede is sanctified by the word of God, why can't just you pray over the millipede and eat it?

If you cook it right, it's fine. Since I don't know how to, I'd eat things I'd have more confidence or faith in you know? It's not about rules, it's about faith when it comes to eating, Paul even said as much.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

Dkh587 said:
Nice try, but did you recall what Peter said God showed him? Hint: it had nothing to do with the animals he saw in a vision.

Acts 10:28

So, my question remains, as you did not answer it: where did God sanctify unclean animals?

Ah so you're saying that the figurative is only true and refuse to acknowledge the literal meaning of the vision ... even though Peter afterwards started to live and eat like a gentile?

Colossians 2 would be a passage that relates to this the most expressedly, however.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

PROPHECYKID said:
I see that in my bible as well but I also have verse 27. Hopefully you have this verse too.

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.

Apparently Acts 11 however indicates that circumcised people took issue that he ate with Gentiles thus showing it is a literal and figurative instruction. As illustrated elsewhere in the letters of Paul.

Would anyone advocate that Peter somehow cajoled the gentiles he ate with to cook Kosher? No, he ate what he was given, that's why they took issue.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

The reason I'm taking time to correct the diet argument, is because the scripture being examined in this thread indicates that forbidding to eat any type of food is actually a teaching of demons. Since this is Christian Forums, allowing that would just be weird.

That being said, there are more topics in the OP, feel free to jump in anywhere with any of the questions presented.

God bless.

PROPHECYKID · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
Apparently Acts 11 however indicates that circumcised people took issue that he ate with Gentiles thus showing it is a literal and figurative instruction. As illustrated elsewhere in the letters of Paul.

Would anyone advocate that Peter somehow cajoled the gentiles he ate with to cook Kosher? No, he ate what he was given, that's why they took issue.

It was not so much that he ate with gentiles, its that he associated with them period. It had nothing to do with food. To a Jew, its sinful to eat or associate with a someone who was unclean so it had nothing to do with the food. It was a vision, Peter never actually ate any of the food. Peter never proclaimed anywhere after this event that God showed him that now all food is good for him to eat. The only conclusion he drew from the vision is what he stated in verse 27. If you are drawing something else from the vision, that is something you are adding.

com7fy8 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
In context of the passage for this thread, there is a dichotomy drawn between body care and godliness, and the instruction to progress in godliness.

I recognize the importance of eating well, but based on the tenor of Paul's epistles,it is evident that he is referring to progressing in Godliness, not so much about issues related to diet.

Diet would be only one item of concern, about caring for our temple. Sexual conduct is more obviously a moral aspect. But other things are also connected with godliness. Because godliness has us being a good example for children and others. Therefore, being godly includes how we do not abuse our temple with nicotine or food or immorality or other ways of abusing our bodies and therefore being bad examples to children.

It is godly to take right care of our body, and be God's example of this. Another scripture says if you destroy the temple of God, God will destroy you. So, godliness includes living so we do not destroy our temple, and are His example to children.

And godliness includes refusing to give in to lusts which take people into immorality and other ways of abusing our bodies. And God's word says "godliness is profitable for all things", in the passage above which you have quoted. So, yes godliness is profitable for "all things", which includes stopping various ways of abusing our temple. This is, in my opinion, because godliness in our character makes us immune to how abusive passions and drives and excuses would take us to hurt our own selves, plus be bad examples for our children and others, too.

Oldmantook · Aug 10, 2019

Dkh587 said:
Verse 4 is followed by 5, which says “for it is sanctified by the word of God”.

The word of God never sanctified unclean animals at any point in time.

God sanctified the clean animals. Unclean animals are not sanctified. God sanctified cows, goats, sheep etc - Leviticus 11

God did not sanctify swine, shrimp, lobster, rabbits etc

When Paul says “every creature”, it’s in the context of all the clean animals that God created to be received with thanksgiving, which are the clean animals, by them which know the truth. The truth throughout the history of the Scripture is the Torah, or Law. If you know the law, then we are permitted to eat clean animals...

Thanks for pointing that out as Christians believe the dietary laws have been made obsolete which I once also believed. Even before the time of Moses, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals as Noah apparently knew the difference between clean and unclean animals before he took them on the ark. Peter after Jesus' death/resurrection still states after his vision of unclean animals that he has never eaten anything impure or unclean. His vision was not about not eating unclean food but to proclaiming the gospel to the gentiles.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

PROPHECYKID said:
It was not so much that he ate with gentiles, its that he associated with them period. It had nothing to do with food. To a Jew, its sinful to eat or associate with a someone who was unclean so it had nothing to do with the food. It was a vision, Peter never actually ate any of the food. Peter never proclaimed anywhere after this event that God showed him that now all food is good for him to eat. The only conclusion he drew from the vision is what he stated in verse 27. If you are drawing something else from the vision, that is something you are adding.

Acts 15
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So the only carry over from the dietary laws was not eating food that was dedicated to another god, not to eat blood, not to eat things that were strangled like road kill.

The type of food does not matter, but eating it in a healthy fashion does matter.

These were the only instructions related to diet provided by the original elders.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

com7fy8 said:
Diet would be only one item of concern, about caring for our temple. Sexual conduct is more obviously a moral aspect. But other things are also connected with godliness. Because godliness has us being a good example for children and others. Therefore, being godly includes how we do not abuse our temple with nicotine or food or immorality or other ways of abusing our bodies and therefore being bad examples to children.

It is godly to take right care of our body, and be God's example of this. Another scripture says if you destroy the temple of God, God will destroy you. So, godliness includes living so we do not destroy our temple, and are His example to children.

And godliness includes refusing to give in to lusts which take people into immorality and other ways of abusing our bodies. And God's word says "godliness is profitable for all things", in the passage above which you have quoted. So, yes godliness is profitable for "all things", which includes stopping various ways of abusing our temple. This is, in my opinion, because godliness in our character makes us immune to how abusive passions and drives and excuses would take us to hurt our own selves, plus be bad examples for our children and others, too.

Incorrect.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Fornication or sexual sins including adultery is the only sin that actually sins against the body.

The concept of no smoking, no alcohol in terms of not abusing the temple is an old wives tale, which the passage says to not pay attention to.

You can choose to not partake of those things for the reason that it causes harm to your health, but creating a lie that it damages the temple, is wrong.

com7fy8 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
The concept of no smoking, no alcohol in terms of not abusing the temple is an old wives tale, which the passage says to not pay attention to.

You can choose to not partake of those things for the reason that it causes harm to your health, but creating a lie that it damages the temple, is wrong.

But these things do damage our bodies.

So, I think there is something else meant by fornication being the only sin against our bodies.

I find it odd how fornication might not physically harm our body. Yet, fornication is the sin said to be against our body, while others are "outside" the body, according to how ones have been interpreting 1 Corinthians 6:18.

In any case, there is something for me to learn here.

Among other things, unforgiveness is a sin which can be in my heart and therefore not outside my body. So, I think there is more to this.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

com7fy8 said:
But these things do damage our bodies.

So, I think there is something else meant by fornication being the only sin against our bodies.

I find it odd how fornication might not physically harm our body. Yet, fornication is the sin said to be against our body, while others are "outside" the body, according to how ones have been interpreting 1 Corinthians 6:18.

In any case, there is something for me to learn here.

I was thinking about that while I took a walk.

There must be a part of the body that only exists in this physical dimension, and the part of the body that is a dwelling for God in the Spirit.

In general, I agree, eating unhealthy is bad for the body.

Since harm is a form of sin, self harming through bad eating is also "missing the mark"

So the temple being harmed only through fornication must be another degree of sin.

It's kind of like in the Old testament, the word for evil can be used for a slight annoyance and for genocide and it would be a correct usage. So this nuance may be expressing itself through degrees of sin in the new testament writings.

com7fy8 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
In general, I agree, eating unhealthy is bad for the body.

In any case, we need to not get legalistic and into bondage of giving too much attention to diet, I think.

Also, if we pay the wrong kind of attention to what we are doing, we can miss how we need our deeper correction and maturing in Jesus.

You said:
There must be a part of the body that only exists in this physical dimension, and the part of the body that is a dwelling for God in the Spirit.

Well . . . I think God wants all of our body. So, we might still have something to learn.

I offer I get what you are saying about "degrees". And still I am open about this, too.

I think it could be meant, in any case, that fornication is a major betrayal and maybe even we could say an attack against our bodies. It is a major thing.

One thing I think of, right now > let's say I eat too much food. This can be out of ignorance or weakness. It might not be a calculated thing. But fornication can take investment and planning and justification much more involved and complicated, and arranging our location . . . on we could go . . . arranging with another person . . . actively betraying people who care about us, plus being a horrible example to whoever we do the fornication with, and other people.

And yet . . . But then . . . it involves more than sinning against our physical body, doesn't it? There is the spiritual level of sinning against love of people, and against God, of course.

A thing I think of is fornication makes a person one flesh with another person. This is sinning against the person your body belongs with, in love. What other sin can be against who you belong with, as one flesh?? So, I see this is a love teaching, about how we need to live so we are one flesh only with whomever God has for us.

Does it say you sin against your own body, or "your own flesh"? "Your own flesh" could mean all your brothers and sisters in Christ and anyone you belong with in marriage. Let's check the wording > :idea:

?? >

Well, it says "against his own body" . . . not "against his own flesh". Even so, I think we might have something here.

Dkh587 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
Ah so you're saying that the figurative is only true and refuse to acknowledge the literal meaning of the vision ... even though Peter afterwards started to live and eat like a gentile?

Colossians 2 would be a passage that relates to this the most expressedly, however.

If the vision was about unclean animals now being acceptable to eat, why wouldn’t Peter just say so?

Why didn’t Peter tell them that God showed him that it’s no longer a sin to eat unclean animals?

Where did God say anything to Peter about unclean animals now being holy/sanctified/set-apart?

Dkh587 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
The reason I'm taking time to correct the diet argument, is because the scripture being examined in this thread indicates that forbidding to eat any type of food is actually a teaching of demons. Since this is Christian Forums, allowing that would just be weird.

That being said, there are more topics in the OP, feel free to jump in anywhere with any of the questions presented.

God bless.

Was Leviticus 11 a teaching from demons?

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

Dkh587 said:
If the vision was about unclean animals now being acceptable to eat, why wouldn’t Peter just say so?

Why didn’t Peter tell them that God showed him that it’s no longer a sin to eat unclean animals?

Where did God say anything to Peter about unclean animals now being holy/sanctified/set-apart?

Paul said it, and the Peter letter acknowledges his writings as scripture, so that's that I guess.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

Dkh587 said:
Was Leviticus 11 a teaching from demons?

Elijah called down fire from heaven, and this was from God.

However, when the disciples suggested doing it, Jesus implied they were influenced by an evil spirit.

Mandate changes with the ages of God, so it is with Leviticus.

To follow the law now, is to say with your actions that Jesus died in vain, Paul said as much anyway.

Dkh587 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
Paul said it, and the Peter letter acknowledges his writings as scripture, so that's that I guess.

Paul said what?

Dkh587 · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
Elijah called down fire from heaven, and this was from God.

However, when the disciples suggested doing it, Jesus implied they were influenced by an evil spirit.

Mandate changes with the ages of God, so it is with Leviticus.

To follow the law now, is to say with your actions that Jesus died in vain, Paul said as much anyway.

God listed out all the clean and unclean animals. The clean animals were sanctified, and the unclean animals were not.

Paul followed the law, as did the other apostles and all of the assemblies that Paul was over, so are you sure that Paul said what you think he said? If so, then you make Paul out to be a false, lawless, flip flopping hypocrite of the highest order.

Ken Rank · Aug 10, 2019

Michael Collum said:
3 Forbidding to marry

Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, and God. It involves those 3 and their families, biblically speaking. The church took authority of marriage in the late 3rd century and no marriage outside of their approval was considered legitimate. One could argue that is what the verse refers to.

However, when the Reformation happened, the Protestants took back the authority of marriage from the church and gave it to the state which at the time was denominationally based. As we all know, as time progressed, the religious affiliations of each state gave way to the more secular system we have today, and in the process... marriage became a legal union between a man, a woman, and the state... not God (legally speaking). Since no marriage is approved without the states written (and paid for) consent, others (including myself) might point to this as fulfillment of that prophecy. But I admit I could be wrong.

Gregory Thompson · Aug 10, 2019

Dkh587 said:
Paul said what?

Dkh587 said:
God listed out all the clean and unclean animals. The clean animals were sanctified, and the unclean animals were not.

Paul followed the law, as did the other apostles and all of the assemblies that Paul was over, so are you sure that Paul said what you think he said? If so, then you make Paul out to be a false, lawless, flip flopping hypocrite of the highest order.

It seems you have your own canon to refer to. The passage we are examining in this thread says all creatures can be eaten, and are not to be rejected.

1st Timothy 3:1-11 Discussion

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Similar threads