Is vegetarianism or veganism against Christianity?

[Humblepie]

Mark said--all foods have been declared clean.

Negative.
Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.

Among the many verses which are presented as proof texts to say that “the food laws are no longer in effect”, these words written by Paul to Timothy take center stage. Is Paul saying that everything is sanctified just by our prayers, even if God says some things are in fact not holy according to His Word? We must carefully dissect what Paul is saying, before we jump into conclusions and become someone who abolishes God’s Law.

1Ti 4:1-5 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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The 2 erroneous doctrines addressed here by Paul are:
1. Forbidding to Marry 2. Abstinence from food*

These 2 doctrines are brought forth by people who:

1. Depart from the Faith
2. Turn their minds towards misleading spirits
3. Turn their minds towards teachings which are not from God, but evil/demonic
4. Promulgate erroneous doctrines under false pretenses
5. Have consciences which are rendered unsensitive towards God

Looking at the above 2 erroneous doctrines and the signs of the people who bring them, we can be assured that it goes against God’s Word. In fact Paul equates these 2 erroneous doctrines to “doctrines of devils”. The only way a person could say that the above verses speak of “God’s separation of Clean/Unclean Meats” spoken of in Lev 11 & Deut 14, is to equate God’s Law to doctrines of devils. God’s Law, of which Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) said that not a jot or tittle will pass and that the person who breaks the least of the commands would be the least in His Kingdom(Mat 5:17-19), would suddenly have to be equated to “doctrines of devils”.
Furthermore, the word translated “meats” in the original Greek Manuscripts of 1Tim 4:3 is not specifically speaking of meat of animals, rather of food in general. (G1033 – βρῶμα – brōma – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: that which is eaten, food)

While abstaining from foods such as in the case of vegetarianism or living a celibate life does not go against God’s Commands, enforcing such practices on others and teaching it as God’s Word(when there is no mention of such commands in the Scriptures), could be equated to doctrines born from evil. Such practices were known to be part of the doctrine of Gnostic sects in the 2nd Century AD, and the seeds of their teachings may have been prevalent even in Paul’s time. There is another simple reason Paul could not have been speaking of God’s Food Laws here. In verse 3 Paul says of “meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” Meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving were listed by Him as clean animals mentioned in Lev 11 & Deut 14. Additionally, Paul also speaks of “people who believe and know the truth” in the end of verse 3.

What is Truth? According to the Bible, “Truth”
is God’s Word(John 17:17, Psa 119:151).

Verse 5 is a must when reading verse 4. In verse 4 Paul seems to be saying that we can eat everything irrespective of what God said in the Scriptures. But in verse 5 this is clarified – nothing is to be refused as it is sanctified(made holy) by the Word of God and prayer. Now the question is what exactly is sanctified by the Word of God…. If God says “eat this” and “don’t eat this”… surely what He says to eat, is what is sanctified. Whatever He deemed unclean cannot be sanctified by His own Word.

So, Paul cannot be talking of people who were adhering to God’s Commands, in the passage in question. These were foreign doctrines which were not from God. Paul, who walked perfectly according to God’s Law (Acts 21:24), would have adhered to God’s dietary instructions – and when he speaks of Food which should be received with thanksgiving, as it is sanctified by God’s Word and Prayer – he could not be speaking of the food that God deemed unclean and unholy.

 

[Humblepie]

And, yet, what you didn't address are those verses I gave where Jesus touched a dead body and touched a leper.

Are you saying Jesus sinned and broke God's law because he touched these two?

No sin was committed according to the Law of moses.

Or are you saying he was ritually unclean according to the law of moses?


What's your point?

Jesus never sinned, he did not say all animals are clean or he would've been sinning just stating it.

Jesus followed not only the letter, which was the bare minimum, but he also followed the spirit of the law, and pork was never, and will never be a part his obedience to his father.




Num 19
11 “Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for seven days. 12 They must purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then they will be clean. But if they do not purify themselves on the third and seventh days, they will not be clean. 13 If they fail to purify themselves after touching a human corpse, they defile the Lord’s tabernacle. They must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on them, they are unclean; their uncleanness remains on them.

14 “This is the law that applies when a person dies in a tent: Anyone who enters the tent and anyone who is in it will be unclean for seven days,


It's not a sin to be unclean in that way.

 

[Free]

5 For it is (((((sanctified))))) by the word of God and prayer.(KJV)

You failed to address this in your rebuttal.


What has been sanctified as food for our consumption by God.

You previously stated:

"What food has been sanctified by God?


5 For it is sanctified by the word of God


Sanctify:
to ((((set apart)))) to a sacred purpose or to religious use.

Is pig now set aside for a sacred purpose?"

There is nothing whatsoever in this text to suggest Paul is talking about food being "set aside for a sacred purpose," unless we want to consider that eating itself is sacred. There were, apparently, some false teachers teaching that certain foods had to be avoided. Paul's rebuttal to that requirement is that those are "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving . . . For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected."

His point is very clearly about food for consumption and that "by the word of God and prayer," all food is made holy for the purpose of eating. It is about thanking God for his provision and setting it apart for use through his word and through prayer.

Again, you disagree with Paul that "everything created by God is good" (where "everything" means "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving"). Why?

Are you saying following God's law is a teaching of demons?

Of course not. We've been over this already. You keep refusing to answer questions which is why you're now repeating things.

Negative.
Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.

This, too, has already been addressed. There is no evidence that this was a late insertion into the text.

1Ti 4:1-5 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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The 2 erroneous doctrines addressed here by Paul are:
1. Forbidding to Marry 2. Abstinence from food*

These 2 doctrines are brought forth by people who:

1. Depart from the Faith
2. Turn their minds towards misleading spirits
3. Turn their minds towards teachings which are not from God, but evil/demonic
4. Promulgate erroneous doctrines under false pretenses
5. Have consciences which are rendered unsensitive towards God

Looking at the above 2 erroneous doctrines and the signs of the people who bring them, we can be assured that it goes against God’s Word. In fact Paul equates these 2 erroneous doctrines to “doctrines of devils”. The only way a person could say that the above verses speak of “God’s separation of Clean/Unclean Meats” spoken of in Lev 11 & Deut 14, is to equate God’s Law to doctrines of devils. God’s Law, of which Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) said that not a jot or tittle will pass and that the person who breaks the least of the commands would be the least in His Kingdom(Mat 5:17-19), would suddenly have to be equated to “doctrines of devils”.

I don't see how any of this addresses anything I stated. You're (still) completely avoiding the latter half of verse 3 and the entirety of verse 4, hence you taking everything else out of context.

Furthermore, the word translated “meats” in the original Greek Manuscripts of 1Tim 4:3 is not specifically speaking of meat of animals, rather of food in general. (G1033 – βρῶμα – brōma – Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: that which is eaten, food)

While abstaining from foods such as in the case of vegetarianism or living a celibate life does not go against God’s Commands, enforcing such practices on others and teaching it as God’s Word(when there is no mention of such commands in the Scriptures), could be equated to doctrines born from evil. Such practices were known to be part of the doctrine of Gnostic sects in the 2nd Century AD, and the seeds of their teachings may have been prevalent even in Paul’s time. There is another simple reason Paul could not have been speaking of God’s Food Laws here. In verse 3 Paul says of “meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” Meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving were listed by Him as clean animals mentioned in Lev 11 & Deut 14. Additionally, Paul also speaks of “people who believe and know the truth” in the end of verse 3.

Clean and unclean animals are irrelevant, as stated by Mark and is also Paul's point here. It is also implied in Gal 2 in his confrontation with Peter.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (ESV)

What is Truth? According to the Bible, “Truth”
is God’s Word(John 17:17, Psa 119:151).

Verse 5 is a must when reading verse 4. In verse 4 Paul seems to be saying that we can eat everything irrespective of what God said in the Scriptures. But in verse 5 this is clarified – nothing is to be refused as it is sanctified(made holy) by the Word of God and prayer. Now the question is what exactly is sanctified by the Word of God…. If God says “eat this” and “don’t eat this”… surely what He says to eat, is what is sanctified. Whatever He deemed unclean cannot be sanctified by His own Word.

So, Paul cannot be talking of people who were adhering to God’s Commands, in the passage in question. These were foreign doctrines which were not from God. Paul, who walked perfectly according to God’s Law (Acts 21:24), would have adhered to God’s dietary instructions – and when he speaks of Food which should be received with thanksgiving, as it is sanctified by God’s Word and Prayer – he could not be speaking of the food that God deemed unclean and unholy.

You're fallaciously begging the question in regards to what Paul tells Timothy. And you're putting a burden on Gentile believers that not even the first council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was willing to. Why? You're also still avoiding the fact that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Paul says everything is good; you say not everything. Why?

So, to sum up the biblical evidence:

In Gen 1 God declares "good" all that he created and in Gen 9:3 God clearly gives "every moving that lives" as food. God then gives the Israelites food laws, that is, those food requirements are specific to them to, at least in part, separate them from the surrounding nations. When Jesus came, he taught that nothing that goes into a person makes them unclean, hence why Mark's comment that Jesus had "declared all foods clean" is perfectly consistent with Jesus's teaching.

In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from about people, yes, but uses animals to make the point, rather than simply just using people. In Gal 2, Paul confronts Peter, of all people, who had been eating with Gentiles, consuming what they had been consuming, but retreated for fear of certain Jews when they showed up. Then, in dealing with certain false teachers where Timothy was, Paul says that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."

There is simply no requirement for believers to follow the dietary laws in the OT, just as there is no requirement to stone certain sinners or offer sacrifices.

Are you saying Jesus sinned and broke God's law because he touched these two?

No sin was committed according to the Law of moses.

Or are you saying he was ritually unclean according to the law of moses?


What's your point?

Jesus never sinned, he did not say all animals are clean or he would've been sinning just stating it.

Jesus followed not only the letter, which was the bare minimum, but he also followed the spirit of the law, and pork was never, and will never be a part his obedience to his father.




Num 19
11 “Whoever touches a human corpse will be unclean for seven days. 12 They must purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then they will be clean. But if they do not purify themselves on the third and seventh days, they will not be clean. 13 If they fail to purify themselves after touching a human corpse, they defile the Lord’s tabernacle. They must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on them, they are unclean; their uncleanness remains on them.

14 “This is the law that applies when a person dies in a tent: Anyone who enters the tent and anyone who is in it will be unclean for seven days,


It's not a sin to be unclean in that way.

Where did Jesus go to purify himself or to cut himself off from Israel after touching the dead girl or the lepers? You're missing a much larger point here regarding the Law and how it relates to Jesus.

 

[Humblepie]

You previously stated:

"What food has been sanctified by God?


5 For it is sanctified by the word of God


Sanctify:
to ((((set apart)))) to a sacred purpose or to religious use.

Is pig now set aside for a sacred purpose?"

There is nothing whatsoever in this text to suggest Paul is talking about food being "set aside for a sacred purpose," unless we want to consider that eating itself is sacred. There were, apparently, some false teachers teaching that certain foods had to be avoided. Paul's rebuttal to that requirement is that those are "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving . . . For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected."

His point is very clearly about food for consumption and that "by the word of God and prayer," all food is made holy for the purpose of eating. It is about thanking God for his provision and setting it apart for use through his word and through prayer.

Again, you disagree with Paul that "everything created by God is good" (where "everything" means "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving"). Why?


Of course not. We've been over this already. You keep refusing to answer questions which is why you're now repeating things.


This, too, has already been addressed. There is no evidence that this was a late insertion into the text.


I don't see how any of this addresses anything I stated. You're (still) completely avoiding the latter half of verse 3 and the entirety of verse 4, hence you taking everything else out of context.


Clean and unclean animals are irrelevant, as stated by Mark and is also Paul's point here. It is also implied in Gal 2 in his confrontation with Peter.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (ESV)


You're fallaciously begging the question in regards to what Paul tells Timothy. And you're putting a burden on Gentile believers that not even the first council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was willing to. Why? You're also still avoiding the fact that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Paul says everything is good; you say not everything. Why?

So, to sum up the biblical evidence:

In Gen 1 God declares "good" all that he created and in Gen 9:3 God clearly gives "every moving that lives" as food. God then gives the Israelites food laws, that is, those food requirements are specific to them to, at least in part, separate them from the surrounding nations. When Jesus came, he taught that nothing that goes into a person makes them unclean, hence why Mark's comment that Jesus had "declared all foods clean" is perfectly consistent with Jesus's teaching.

In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from about people, yes, but uses animals to make the point, rather than simply just using people. In Gal 2, Paul confronts Peter, of all people, who had been eating with Gentiles, consuming what they had been consuming, but retreated for fear of certain Jews when they showed up. Then, in dealing with certain false teachers where Timothy was, Paul says that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."

There is simply no requirement for believers to follow the dietary laws in the OT, just as there is no requirement to stone certain sinners or offer sacrifices.


Where did Jesus go to purify himself or to cut himself off from Israel after touching the dead girl or the lepers? You're missing a much larger point here regarding the Law and how it relates to Jesus.

I'm not missing the point, you are.

I have shown you with scripture but you are entrenched in you position so there would be no point in debating you any longer.

I see your point because I once believed as you do. When and if you're ready to accept the same gospel that Jesus and the disciples taught without contradiction to the OT, let me know.

I do know that the whole Bible is true and that not one word of the law will pass away till heaven and earth pass.

When he said his law is for ALL generations in the OT, it isn't a contradiction to what the NT says about the law.

The law is still valid including food laws and those that have grace will not be judged according to the law.
Thank God for grace.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Only NATURAL foods created by God are sanctified. Twinkies, Cheetos, cereals, hot dogs, anything in a box or a bag with a long list of ingredients and chemical additives are sanctified by the FDA, not God. If you insist that those are sanctified by God too, you're taking the Lord's name in vain, and you're putting your own health at risk.

 

[Humblepie]

And you're putting a burden on Gentile believers that not even the first council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was willing to. Why?

The yoke in Acts 15 isn't the Law, its keeping the Law ((((first))))) for Salvation.

You Keep ignoring the context of the yoke in Acts 15 to fit your belief.

The law is NOT the yoke or burden he speaks about. The burden or yoke is trying to earn righteousness by keeping the Law perfectly.

We no longer carry the yoke of works based justification because our faith is counted as righteousness.
As a believer we no longer live under the CURSE of the law and we are not judged by the law as Paul states we are not under the law ( of sin ) and (sin and death)
Those are the laws we are not under according to Paul.




The only sins that exist are written in the law.


Who do you follow?
Men?
Jesus?

Jesus own words.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You can follow the traditions of men.

I can't.

 

[Hopeful 2]

You previously stated:

"What food has been sanctified by God?


5 For it is sanctified by the word of God


Sanctify:
to ((((set apart)))) to a sacred purpose or to religious use.

Is pig now set aside for a sacred purpose?"

There is nothing whatsoever in this text to suggest Paul is talking about food being "set aside for a sacred purpose," unless we want to consider that eating itself is sacred. There were, apparently, some false teachers teaching that certain foods had to be avoided. Paul's rebuttal to that requirement is that those are "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving . . . For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected."

His point is very clearly about food for consumption and that "by the word of God and prayer," all food is made holy for the purpose of eating. It is about thanking God for his provision and setting it apart for use through his word and through prayer.

Again, you disagree with Paul that "everything created by God is good" (where "everything" means "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving"). Why?


Of course not. We've been over this already. You keep refusing to answer questions which is why you're now repeating things.


This, too, has already been addressed. There is no evidence that this was a late insertion into the text.


I don't see how any of this addresses anything I stated. You're (still) completely avoiding the latter half of verse 3 and the entirety of verse 4, hence you taking everything else out of context.


Clean and unclean animals are irrelevant, as stated by Mark and is also Paul's point here. It is also implied in Gal 2 in his confrontation with Peter.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (ESV)


You're fallaciously begging the question in regards to what Paul tells Timothy. And you're putting a burden on Gentile believers that not even the first council in Jerusalem in Acts 15 was willing to. Why? You're also still avoiding the fact that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Paul says everything is good; you say not everything. Why?

So, to sum up the biblical evidence:

In Gen 1 God declares "good" all that he created and in Gen 9:3 God clearly gives "every moving that lives" as food. God then gives the Israelites food laws, that is, those food requirements are specific to them to, at least in part, separate them from the surrounding nations. When Jesus came, he taught that nothing that goes into a person makes them unclean, hence why Mark's comment that Jesus had "declared all foods clean" is perfectly consistent with Jesus's teaching.

In Acts 10, Peter receives a vision from about people, yes, but uses animals to make the point, rather than simply just using people. In Gal 2, Paul confronts Peter, of all people, who had been eating with Gentiles, consuming what they had been consuming, but retreated for fear of certain Jews when they showed up. Then, in dealing with certain false teachers where Timothy was, Paul says that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."

There is simply no requirement for believers to follow the dietary laws in the OT, just as there is no requirement to stone certain sinners or offer sacrifices.

Isn't that the opposite of what you wrote above, regarding certain meats ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The yoke in Acts 15 isn't the Law, its keeping the Law ((((first))))) for Salvation.

You Keep ignoring the context of the yoke in Acts 15 to fit your belief.

The law is NOT the yoke or burden he speaks about. The burden or yoke is trying to earn righteousness by keeping the Law perfectly.

We no longer carry the yoke of works based justification because our faith is counted as righteousness.
As a believer we no longer live under the CURSE of the law and we are not judged by the law as Paul states we are not under the law ( of sin ) and (sin and death)
Those are the laws we are not under according to Paul.




The only sins that exist are written in the law.


Who do you follow?
Men?
Jesus?

Jesus own words.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You can follow the traditions of men.

I can't.

Yeah, God's general dietary guide (Gen. 1:29, 9:3) and then kosher law are simply a food satefy regulation. I don't understand why this has sparked so much controversy. The "yoke" was never the law itself, but the identity politics and rigid religious traditions.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Only NATURAL foods created by God are sanctified. Twinkies, Cheetos, cereals, hot dogs, anything in a box or a bag with a long list of ingredients and chemical additives are sanctified by the FDA, not God. If you insist that those are sanctified by God too, you're taking the Lord's name in vain, and you're putting your own health at risk.

Even those foods are sanctified by thanksgiving and prayer. (1 Tim 4:5)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Even those foods are sanctified by thanksgiving and prayer. (1 Tim 4:5)

No they're not, they are not "creature of God". We've debated on this before, I don't wanna go over this again.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:4-5)

 

[Hopeful 2]

No they're not, they are not "creature of God". We've debated on this before, I don't wanna go over this again.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:4-5)

You are welcome to keep your own law...or whatever you are comfortable with.
I will go with..."...and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:4-5)
I thank God for my twinkies and chips.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You are welcome to keep your own law...or whatever you are comfortable with.
I will go with..."...and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:4-5)
I thank God for my twinkies and chips.

I go with the holy word of God at the BEGINNING of these verses - every creature of God - which determines the context, instead of taking a part out of context to justify your own sin of gluttony. You're not sinless as long as you crave twinkies and chips.

 

[electedbyHim]

I go with the holy word of God at the BEGINNING of these verses - every creature of God - which determines the context, instead of taking a part out of context to justify your own sin of gluttony. You're not sinless as long as you crave twinkies and chips.

Craving twinkies and potato chips are a sin?

That's great stuff.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Craving twinkies and potato chips are a sin?

That's great stuff.

No, it's not. It's a form of idolatry. You're seeking comfort and relief from these highly palatable junks with no or little nutritional value.

 

[electedbyHim]

No, it's not. It's a form of idolatry. You're seeking comfort and relief from these highly palatable junks with no or little nutritional value.

You said in your post it's a sin.

You really believe we need to only eat kosher and organic foods?

Should I stop eating sinful pasta?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You said in your post it's a sin.

You really believe we need to only eat kosher and organic foods?

Should I stop eating sinful pasta?

Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. A truly saved person wouldn't abuse God's grace by living recklessly and enjoying sins, the result is being vomited out. Eating kosher and organic foods is for health and wellness, not for religious observance. It's also an excercise of self-discipline, one of the spiritual fruits. If you can't even resist the temptations of twinkies and chips, how would you be able to resist greater temptations at a more taxing, more stressful, vulnerable time?

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Rom. 6:1)
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev. 3:16)

 

[electedbyHim]

Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. A truly saved person wouldn't abuse God's grace by living recklessly and enjoying sins, the result is being vomited out. Eating kosher and organic foods is for health and wellness, not for religious observance. It's also an excercise of self-discipline, one of the spiritual fruits. If you can't even resist the temptations of twinkies and chips, how would you be able to resist greater temptations at a more taxing, more stressful, vulnerable time?

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Rom. 6:1)
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev. 3:16)

Having a twinkie or potato chips is gluttony?

I understand what gluttony is.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Having a twinkie or potato chips is gluttony?

I understand what gluttony is.

No you don't. You're not just gonna one twinkie or one chip, these junk are designed to make you want more. Before you know it you've guzzled up at least half a bag, and you still don't feel full.

 

[Corn Pop]

No you don't. You're not just gonna one twinkie or one chip, these junk are designed to make you want more. Before you know it you've guzzled up at least half a bag, and you still don't feel full.

I have no idea how so many products are legally allowed to be classed and sold as food when they are clearly not fit for human consumption and full of chemicals.

Just because something might have a tiny little bit of a fruit or vegetable in it for example does not make it food and fit for human consumption.

I don't know how it's legal to sell people chemicals , diabetes, and heart disease and call it food as so many products and prosessed so called foods do.

Look at how unhealthy many people are now and it's also long term illness that come from unhealthy diets not only pysical but mental health as body effects mind. It's disgusting.

 

[Humblepie]

and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim. 4:4-5)

The first verse in 1 Timothy 4 sets the context.

4 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;

Is the law of moses and dietary instructions from God, a doctrine of devils?

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Has YOUR conscience been seared with a hot iron so your sin doesn't bother you anymore?

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 central point of this discourse is found in the preceding verse, “…to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” And it is substantiated in the verse immediately following, “for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” So what does it mean to “know the Truth?” The truth being that the dietary instructions are abolished? No. God’s law, which includes God’s dietary instructions (Lev. 11), is declared by a Scripture to be the truth.

Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth. If all animals are now clean and suitable for eating, then as a consequence Leviticus 11 is no longer truth. For example, if all animals are now made clean, is the following statement true?

Leviticus 11:7-8 Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses. Doesn’t seem like it……or what about this statement, is this still true?

Leviticus 11:46-47 ‘This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’” Those statements by God are either still true or they are not. There is no “in between”…There is no, well yes it is still true but we are not to do that truth…The command is either true or it is now false…Paul says that all Scripture is not only still truth but also still instructions in righteousness.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. If Paul says that, then how can we conclude anything different? How can we say that Leviticus 11 is no longer instructions in righteousness? How can we say that Leviticus 11 is no longer Scripture? Again, the law of God is truth…

Psalm 119:42 Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. That is a definitive statement…. 1 Timothy 4 verse 3 clearly says: …and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Verse 3 provides the context. It states that these are men who commanded believers to abstain from eating meat that God has already said is good to eat according to the Truth of His Word. Thus, these false teachers are commanding believers not to eat beef, chicken, and other meat already declared food….not by man, but declared food by the truth of God's Word. Guess where God’s Word declares what was created for food? That’s right, Leviticus 11, which happens to be part of God’s law…and what is God’s law? and thy law is the truth. Not was truth, but IS truth…

These false teachers are not telling believers to abstain from eating pork for example, which is not defined as food in Scripture, by the way. Keep in mind, when this was written to Timothy, the Scripture was, in fact, the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn’t been written yet. Where in Scripture (the Word of God) are we told that swine, lobster, etc. are created to be good for food? Since when are animals that are unclean defined in Scripture as clean food? They are not, Leviticus 11 makes that clear.

Why is this important? Paul wrote 1 Timothy 4. Paul was a Jew. Paul wrote from a Hebraic context. Food, according every Hebrew that authored every book of the Bible, was defined by Leviticus 11. Pig, lobster, dog, cat, etc., are not considered to be food according to the Bible! We cannot read 1 Timothy 4:3 with our society’s definition of food. Do we consider dog or cat to be food? No, we do not. But our society believes pig and lobster to be food, and there lies the problem when we read 1 Timothy 4:3 from our perspective, instead of a Jewish perspective, like Paul.

What does it mean in verse 5 that the food is “sanctified by the Word of God and prayer?” For something to be sanctified it means it is to be holy or set apart, hallowed or made uncommon. Here is the Greek word for sanctified… hagiazō (ἁγιάζω) According to the Newman Greek Dictionary it means: set apart to or by God, sacred, consecrated.
In Scripture, for something to be holy, it literally means to be “set apart,” it is the opposite of common or profane. If all animals are now clean as supposed, then the animals would not be holy or set apart. Consider this, animals that are set apart for eating must be separate from animals that are not set apart for eating. This is by the very definition of the word sanctified. The very fact that there are animals sanctified means that there has to be a separate group of animals that are not sanctified.

We cannot conclude that all animals are set apart or sanctified, when there in fact would be nothing to set them apart from if all animals were made clean. How can animals even be set apart and holy if they are all rendered the same? If all animals were made clean, then by that very definition, they would then be common, unholy, or not set apart. They would not be declared sanctified, but instead, declared profane or common.
So, this is very important to understand. The very fact that Paul states that these animals are sanctified absolutely proves that there are still some animals that are NOT sanctified. It proves that there are still some animals that are NOT set apart or holy, which is contrasted against the animals that ARE set apart, that ARE sanctified.
So, here is the question must still be asked that if all animals are now clean and set apart then what in the world could they be set apart from? Logically it should be obvious that it cannot be possible the clean is no longer set apart – sanctified - from the unclean because supposedly there is no such thing as anything unclean! For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.
We cannot declare that all animals are now set apart or made holy. It simply does not make sense. It is literally an oxymoron. It is contradictive to what Paul just said. This is why Paul had to state in verse three that those who believe and know the truth, God’s law, will understand what he is saying. Too many people are reading Paul in 1 Timothy 4 and do not know God’s law. People are reading 1 Timothy 4 and trying to evidence what they want Paul to be saying, or what they have been told Paul is saying.
The animals that are sanctified or set apart for food from animals that are not set apart for food are defined very clearly in Leviticus 11. If we believe and know the Truth that means we believe and know the law of God. The very fact that some animals are declared to be “consecrated", or “sanctified” or “made holy” or set apart by the Word of God means that some animals are obviously NOT "set apart" by the Word of God. Something can only be "set apart" if there is something to be "set apart" from. That is not too complicated at all.

verse four (4) uses the qualifier IF it be received in thanksgiving. The ONLY animals that are to be prayerfully received in thanksgiving for food according to Scripture are those listed as such in Leviticus 11. We are told by His Word to be thankful for clean animals as food, not for unclean things. Why would we be thankful for eating animals God told us were unclean?

As it has already been established, God’s law is declared as Truth throughout Scripture. Unless we want to contradict Scripture, God’s law, which is Scripturally defined as Truth, cannot be fables and commandments of men. God did not turn Truth into not Truth. Fables and truth are polar opposites, they are obviously not the same thing.


Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

In this verse, Paul again contrasts Jewish fables and commandments of men with the Truth, meaning that Jewish fables and commandments of men are not the same thing as commandments from God. Surprisingly, mainstream doctrine often confuses commandments of men with commandments of God.

As long as we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we will correctly conclude that usage of the word “fables” in 1 Timothy 4 verse 7 is not equating to God’s commandments but is instead referring to commandments and doctrines of men. Does God cunningly or deceitfully or sneakily devise anything? Is that His nature? Is the law of God deceitful or cunning?