1 Timothy 4:1-3

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

JOE8585: Peter went and ATE at Cornlielius's house, which would not have been a kosher keeping house. It is you and Symes who are denying the obvious meaning that Peter got right away. This concurrs with what Christ said, and what 1 Tim4 says as well. Remember that Peter went and ate with Gentiles which was strictly agains the food laws, he obviously got both meanings!

There is more than a slant to the Clear Word:

Exodus 5:5
KJV —And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.

CW — You've created enough problems by making them rest every week on your Sabbath.

This was not the case, Moses in fact requested a 3 day break to worship and it had nothing to do witht he sabbath.

KJV —Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people ...Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

CW — Say to the people, "Most importantly, remember to keep the Sabbath holy because it is a very special day for me, and it's a day of rest for you. It's a sign between you and me for all time to show that you are the people whom I have chosen and set apart. The Sabbath is holy and anyone who desecrates it by working on that day will be put to death, since that would be an act of treason against God's government. My people are to keep the Sabbath, celebrating it as a sign that they belong to me."

Note the massive change to show the sabbath is binding on all people not just Israel as indicated by the original texts

Leviticus 23:3
KJV — Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

CW — There has always been the weekly Sabbath.

Note the difference, in the original texts and all translations this verse is the first command to keep the sabbath and the CW changes all of that.

Colossians 2:16
KJV — 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.

CW — Don't let anyone control you life by giving you a set of ceremonial rules about what to eat, what to drink and what monthly festivals or special Sabbaths to keep. All these rules were given as a shadow of the reality to come and that reality is Jesus Christ.

Note again the massive difference. This is more than paraphrase, this is changing the meaning completely. The fact is the word in the Greek specifically referers to the weekly sabbath, which is removed in the CW.

No the CW is not just a paraphrase it goes way farther than that. It is not even paraphase actually. A paraphrase would keep the original meaning intact and the CW indeed does not. Thanks for playing!

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Symes, lest it get lost among the new posts, I still want you to be clear about what you are talking about, what evil are we supposed to be worrying about?

 

[deu58]

hello Joe 585

after the vision occoured three times. peter went to cornielius' house where he reccounts the story and applies it as follows. Peter said that God had given him a vision to show him that he shall not call any MAN uncommon or unclean. the vision was not about food but rather about Jews and Gentiles. and even in the next chapter, chapter 11, Peter retells the story to all the pharisees in Jerusalem and applies it the very same way.

if the meaning of the vision was food then Peter just denied God's direct orders three times. and as far as we can see, he never was repromanded by God for that, nor did he ever repent. and why is that, simply because it wasn't about food, so Peter did nothing wrong.

Sorry Joe but you should have kept reading yourself.

Ac 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Ac 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

Ac 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Ac 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,

Ac 11:5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:

the vision covered all things unclean, Gentile and food both.
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[JOE8585]

the law that peter was breaking was not the law of food, it was the law of association with gentiles. Peter gave only one explaination and that was, "God showed me not to call any MAN uncommon or unclean." if he was being questioned for what he ate, he would have answered differently in order to explain the vision.

say i'm a vegan. and i go out to eat dinner with my friends at steak house restraunt. just because i ate dinner with people that ate meat, doesn't mean that i did.

we can't read into the text and decide that just because they were gentiles and probably ate unclean foods that Peter did the same. and i know what you are going to say, "I can't read into that text and decide that he didn't eat the unclean food either." and thats true, but what we do read is that no where does Peter give the explaination of his new diet. which when there is silence we can only conclude that it is implied that what ever was before is carried of to the next.

 

[JOE8585]

oh and by the way i'm tired of the running and dancing that symes and flesh are doing.

flesh....symes thinks its the pope.

 

[deu58]

the law that peter was breaking was not the law of food, it was the law of association with gentiles. Peter gave only one explaination and that was, "God showed me not to call any MAN uncommon or unclean." if he was being questioned for what he ate, he would have answered differently in order to explain the vision.

say i'm a vegan. and i go out to eat dinner with my friends at steak house restraunt. just because i ate dinner with people that ate meat, doesn't mean that i did.

we can't read into the text and decide that just because they were gentiles and probably ate unclean foods that Peter did the same. and i know what you are going to say, "I can't read into that text and decide that he didn't eat the unclean food either." and thats true, but what we do read is that no where does Peter give the explaination of his new diet. which when there is silence we can only conclude that it is implied that what ever was before is carried of to the next.

sorry joe does not wash and we are not going to turn this into another unclean foods thread, This issue has been beat to death on two threads with symes already, one of them went round and round so long it got closed just because it was so repetitive,
personaly I am sick to death of the lame SDA foods arguments, we have been hearing them and seen them proved wrong for weeks now,

Theresa littleflower presented an article that was so complete and so scriptural it ended the entire debate with out question, Look her up and she can show you where it is at,

When taken in context with the rest of the New Testament acts 10-11 do not support the SDA position,

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

He needs to come out and say it then!

Gentiles did not keep kosher, there were laws on preparing and storing food, anything not prepared correctly would not have been clean. He went and ate with them, showing that he did not keep the food law. This coincides with Acts where we are told that we can eat anything in the market without any questions asked. There were laws regarding the way an animal was to be killed if it was to be kosher and we are told that those don't matter either. There are plenty scriptures that show we are not under the food laws any longer, Peter's vision is just one of them. It showed Peter two things, not just the one. This is evident with any exegetics.

 

[deu58]

This is evident with any exegetics.

Well, except one. SDA exegetics, Or would this be more descriptive of the SDA approach,
EISEGESIS, i.e. Reading into God's word what you have already decided to believe.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

hello Joe 585

oh and by the way i'm tired of the running and dancing that symes and flesh are doing.

flesh....symes thinks its the pope.

Well now that you have spoken for symes, what about you?

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[JOE8585]

sorry, i'm not trying to make this into a clean vs. unclean food debate. just trying to explain my understanding of Acts 10-11. lets not get all of our under-roos in a bunch.

deu...flesh....

im an SDA, and i want to give you a little background on me before you try to rip me apart like others. I beleive that there are Godly, Holy, moral, super-duper, and most of all Saved people in ever race, creed, denomination. in every town, state and country.

i one thing that i hate about people in my denomination is the close minded legalistic attitudes of old, the type of people that hurt more people than help, by judging them by their clothes or past. but by far the biggest and most disgusting thing to me is when i hear people nailing Catholics to a tree as sign just to label someone or something as the beast. Catholic people are not ****** to hell. people of the catholic faith are not the power of the anti-Christ. I don't flow that way. the people of a faith are never the problem or power the beast.

God loves all of us, whether baptist, medotist, catholic, or SDA. and its sad that people follow blindly, which is what leads most people into the areas they don't understand. Now, i'm not preaching to you telling you that SDA is the only right way. only that it is the way that i have found in my heart closest. as for EGW, im on the fence. i read some writings not for inspiration but for study. i have witness to many people, and have preached many sermons and have never once quote a EGW statement to one person.

but what i am preaching to you is that you feel like we are hunting down catholics and painting them as the number 1 emeny. when i as one speak for many in my church as to how we feel about other faiths. but my friend you seem to be far more guiltier of this crime then i and as guilty as others in my faith, only your target is SDA.

i will do like i do with everyone i meet and talk to. i pray that your anger and soul is at ease when dealing with other people of a different persuasion than yourself. not that you need it, but i sense some bias and anger in your post. and that is very thing you are condeming others for.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

JOE8585: You take me the wrong way. It is not the SDA church I have a problem with, it is members that are exactly what you describe and Symes is one of them. We have presented proof after proof to him and he simply ignores the ones he cannot explain away. This may come across as an attack on all SDA but it is far from it. I do feel that there are some major doctrinal problems in the church but have no desire to hunt them out. Symes has been the one to start all of these by presenting SDA doctrine as gospel truth and saying that we are all wrong. This is far from the case as we have proven over and over again with scripture.

However the SDA church does hold EGW up to be truth and that is a problem in an of itself. I would not be start threads just to run the SDA down though, which is what Symes is doing in this thread with the Catholic church. I am just trying to get him to be open about his motives. In other threads you can find that I have simply refuted the SDA doctrine with no vitriol until I have been told over and over and over that I am dead wrong and the scriptures do not support my position. I respond in kind as you can see in many threads. I have no desire to hunt down and refute SDA doctrine, I have only refuted what has been stated that does not line up with scripture and will continue to do so as long as it is stated.

 

[Symes]

flesh99 and Others.

This thread is not about food. it is about the following and in particular the verse dealing with marriage, which I will quote by itself.


1 Timothy 4:1-3


Instructions to Timothy

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth"

"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods"

Also we have a verse in Daniel 11:37 that needs to be looked at when viewing this verse.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

After looking at these two passages of Scripture we can get a very clear understanding of who we are looking at.

I have asked the question before and will do again.

What group forbids their ministers to marry AND abstain from certain foods?

There is only one group that does this.

That is the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[deu58]

Hello Symes


I think you are missing somethings here, The Catholic church does not demand that it's members remain single, There are lots of married catholics,


No catholic is forced to become a priest or nun, They agree to these things and they can also change their minds later and step down from being a priest or nun and still be a catholic and attend the church,

1ti 4:3 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

The command to abstain from meats and marraige covers every one not just the preisthood, again you have added to scripture to try and force a verse to fit SDA interpretation


yours in Christ
deu 58

 

[deu58]

hello symes


Although Mrs. White did not outright forbid the marriage practice, she was only a micrometer away from doing so and proscribed various restrictions upon marriage--restrictions that are not found in the Bible. These counsels along with her health message that SDA's should not eat any meat at all period and if they did so it could be considered sin and they risked being judged for it were not directed just at SDA pastors but at the entire church,

Spalding-Magan Pg 40
If appetite, which should be strictly guarded and controlled, is indulged to the injury of the body, the penalty of transgression will surely be the result. As nature's laws are transgressed, mind and soul become enfeebled. {SpM 40.3}
Christians should regard a transgression of these laws as a sin against God, to be accounted for in the day of Judgment, when every case shall come in review before God. {SpM 40.4}


Sister White strongly advises her followers not to marry

Testimonies, vol. 5 p. 366
In this age of the world, as the scenes of earth's history are soon to close and we are about to enter upon the time of trouble such as never was, the fewer the marriages contracted, the better for all, both men and women. Above all, when Satan is working with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, let Christians beware of connecting themselves with unbelievers.

Sister White says love is not a good enough reason to marry and some how they are supposed to know if their children are going to be born moral and healthy, Hmmm wonder how the average person in the 1800's was supposed to know these things.

The Adventist home ch6
Most men and women have acted in entering the marriage relation as though the only question for them to settle was whether they loved each other. But they should realize that a responsibility rests upon them in the marriage relation farther than this. They should consider whether their offspring will possess physical health and mental and moral strength. But few have moved with high motives and with elevated considerations which they could not lightly throw off--that society had claims upon them, that the weight of their family's influence would tell in the upward or downward scale. {AH 45.3}

Sister White paints a picture of marriage as being bondage.

Many seem to think that it is the attainment of perfect bliss; but if they could know one quarter of the heartaches of men and women that are bound by the marriage vow in chains that they cannot and dare not break, they would not be surprised that I trace these lines. Marriage, in a majority of cases, is a most galling yoke. There are thousands that are mated but not matched. The books of heaven are burdened with the woes, the wickedness, and the abuse that lie hidden under the marriage mantle.

Sister White counsels thoughts of marriage should be discouraged to give way to thoughts of serving God, which would naturally be through service to the SDA church

The Adventist Home ch7
Courtship and marriage occupy the mind, to the exclusion of higher and nobler thoughts. {AH 51.5}
The young are bewitched with the mania for courtship and marriage. Lovesick sentimentalism prevails. Great vigilance and tact are needed to guard the youth from these wrong influences. {AH 52.1}

Ellen White adds to the Biblical instructions regarding being unevenly yoked, although scripture strongly advises against this type of marriage it is not out and out forbidden

The Adventist Home ch9
God Forbids Believers Marrying Unbelievers.-- Never should God's people venture upon forbidden ground. Marriage between believers and unbelievers is forbidden by God. But too often the unconverted heart follows its own desires, and marriages unsanctioned by God are formed.

Ellen White tells young woman she must perfect her character before marriage,

The Adventist Home ch13
A Young Lady Counseled to Acquire Habits of Industry.--You have peculiarities of character which need to be sternly disciplined and resolutely controlled before you can with any safety enter the marriage relation. Therefore marriage should be put from your mind until you overcome the defects in your character, for you would not make a happy wife. You have neglected to educate yourself for systematic household labor.

I still feel the SDA church matches the church in 1 Tim 4:3 much more closely than the Catholic church

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[ChristFollowers]

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

Do the scriptures lie Symes? It is quite clear that it is refering to all meats being able to be eaten. And show me where tobacco is sin please, I don't find:

Thou shalt not roll up leaves in paper and set fire to them two inches from you noses

anywhere in scripture.

So everything God created is good? Can I eat humans if I receive them with thanksgiving? A human is created by God, right?

Deu....In your opinion, does all Churchs match the church mentioned in 1 Tim 4:3 except Christianity? Just curious in knowing.....

 

[deu58]

ahhh christfollowers

Nice to see you are still the same, how about reading the thread and you will see that this is not a pork thread this is a thread about the pope and catholic church,

If you have a problem with christianity then why do you post here?

deu

 

[Symes]

I still feel the SDA church matches the church in 1 Tim 4:3 much more closely than the Catholic church

yours in Christ
deu58

You are pulling my leg, you would have to be geeing me up to make such a statement. The SDA Church came into place in 1863. So it is ruled out immediately.

 

[Symes]

2 Cor. 6:14

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[2] ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"

If one is already married then the couple has to make the best of what is before them. God does not expect them to separate.

 

[Symes]

Spalding-Magan Pg 40
If appetite, which should be strictly guarded and controlled, is indulged to the injury of the body, the penalty of transgression will surely be the result. As nature's laws are transgressed, mind and soul become enfeebled. {SpM 40.3}
Christians should regard a transgression of these laws as a sin against God, to be accounted for in the day of Judgment, when every case shall come in review before God. {SpM 40.4}

due

Although this thread is not on EGW or health laws I will respond to this one as it does fall within the guidelines set out in the thread. Only just, but it is there.

What "appetite" is being talked about here? It would have to be food that has been banned by God. Read the whole passage again and you will see that what EGW has said and not what you have thought she said.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You are pulling my leg, you would have to be geeing me up to make such a statement. The SDA Church came into place in 1863. So it is ruled out immediately.

Why is your church ruled out because of the date it came into existence? That actually made me laugh! The way the SDA fits the bill better is simply that they say to refrain from CERTAIN meats. The Catholic church refrains from meat at certain times and that does not match the scripture at all.