Shrimps and piggmeat defiled

[Amanuensis]

Posted first, Wednesday February 17th, 2016.
This morning the scripture comes to mind, Exodus 34:26-27, The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
After the tenor of these words is the Old Covenant predicated. These words testify to us what is the spirit of the law.
A. The first of the firtfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
1. God wants us to put Him first. And that which we hold to be first in our lives we are to give to Him.
2. We are to take steps in giving Him what we hold to be first in our lives. The Israeites were to physically bring the firstfruits of the land to the house of the LORD.
B. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
1. We obey this because God tells us to obey it.
2. We obey this because it is against our moral sensibilities to seethe a kid in it mother's milk: to do so would be an abomination morally. Therefore the spirit of the law is to obey our moral sensibilities.
3. If not for the morality of the statement, one might think, "What's the big deal? Why can't I seethe a kid in its mother's milk? People don't like restrictions that don't carry an explanation. If one doesn't think about the commandment one might think that it is there for no reason and therefore disobedience would not seem like it is such a bad thing.
4. There has never been a necessity to seethe a kid in its mother's milk because the normal way to seethe a kid (baby goat lol) is to boil it in water.
5. In order to seethe a kid in its mother's milk one has to go out of their way.
6. To seethe a kid in its mother's milk may seem right to a person (for that it seems to be convenient) except for the fact that it is morally insensible. see Proverbs 16:25.
7. The tendency of the human heart is to test the boundaries and see what would happen if I seethed a kid in its mother's milk. If I did so, there would be no apparent harm done. Except that I would have violated the spirit of God's law and my heart would be corrupted so that greater immorality would not be a big deal to my conscience.
8. The wet paint principle is therefore inherent in the verse. Tell a sinful human being not to do something and he will want to do it and see why the restriction is there. see Romans 7:7-13
9. The spiritual mind is subject to the law of God. Someone with a born again heart will hear the commandment and say, "That is a morally sensible commandment and I will never do such a thing as to break it." see Romans 8:5-7.
10. These principles apply to every commandment in the OT and NT laws.

Google it. You should be able to come across some documentation that says that this was something that the pagans did to secure a good crop.

Now you not knowing this may lead you to conclude that they did not know this but they did know about it.

The people at the time it was written were aware of this pagan practice. They would understand him as telling them not to trust in those incantations and pagan practices to trust false gods to secure their crops or incantations and spells, but to trust God who would provide for them.

They would have understood why he said don't do it even if you don't because you were not aware of these pagan practices by reading this text alone.

This is why it is good to read Old Testament Survey books that can clue you in to all the cultural and historical data that is assumed by the authors of various books of the bible. You have to get into the head of those that would be the immediate readers. Many things were not explained because they would already know about them. We have a 4000 year cultural gap and must close that gap by reading commentaries and other reference material to help us understand these texts as the initial readers would have understood them.

 

[Amanuensis]

Posted first, Wednesday February 17th, 2016.
This morning the scripture comes to mind, Exodus 34:26-27, The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
After the tenor of these words is the Old Covenant predicated. These words testify to us what is the spirit of the law.
A. The first of the firtfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
1. God wants us to put Him first. And that which we hold to be first in our lives we are to give to Him.
2. We are to take steps in giving Him what we hold to be first in our lives. The Israeites were to physically bring the firstfruits of the land to the house of the LORD.
B. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
1. We obey this because God tells us to obey it.
2. We obey this because it is against our moral sensibilities to seethe a kid in it mother's milk: to do so would be an abomination morally. Therefore the spirit of the law is to obey our moral sensibilities.
3. If not for the morality of the statement, one might think, "What's the big deal? Why can't I seethe a kid in its mother's milk? People don't like restrictions that don't carry an explanation. If one doesn't think about the commandment one might think that it is there for no reason and therefore disobedience would not seem like it is such a bad thing.
4. There has never been a necessity to seethe a kid in its mother's milk because the normal way to seethe a kid (baby goat lol) is to boil it in water.
5. In order to seethe a kid in its mother's milk one has to go out of their way.
6. To seethe a kid in its mother's milk may seem right to a person (for that it seems to be convenient) except for the fact that it is morally insensible. see Proverbs 16:25.
7. The tendency of the human heart is to test the boundaries and see what would happen if I seethed a kid in its mother's milk. If I did so, there would be no apparent harm done. Except that I would have violated the spirit of God's law and my heart would be corrupted so that greater immorality would not be a big deal to my conscience.
8. The wet paint principle is therefore inherent in the verse. Tell a sinful human being not to do something and he will want to do it and see why the restriction is there. see Romans 7:7-13
9. The spiritual mind is subject to the law of God. Someone with a born again heart will hear the commandment and say, "That is a morally sensible commandment and I will never do such a thing as to break it." see Romans 8:5-7.
10. These principles apply to every commandment in the OT and NT laws.

Without knowing that there was a pagan practice of doing this to conjure up favor from a false idol to bless their crops (but his original readers would know this) It is natural for you to think about what must be wrong about seething a goat in his mothers milk on some kind of moral level, but it really doesn't make sense to think so.

Is it ok to boil a goat in it's aunts milk? Who boils goats in milk anyway? Is that a dish they liked to cook? No. It was a magic spell of the pagans.

And now we can quit thinking of the moral implications of the relationship between the kid and whos milk it is boiling in as this is silly. There is nothing moral or immoral about boiling a goat in milk no matter where the milk came from. The issue was the pagan attempt at conjuring the favor of a false god.

 

[EternalSoul]

sacrifices and idolatrous practices.

Because the dietary laws were given to teach them separation from the idolatrous nations that surrounded them. They were to have nothing to do with these animals as a sign to these idolatrous neighbors who were using these animals in their sacrifices and idolatrous practices. It had nothing to do with nutrition. It was typology.

Now after the new birth, being born again, filled with the Spirit we have illumination and understanding about spiritual truths that are greater than these typological revelations. We have an understanding about holiness that is greater than aseticism. We know how to separate from sin in the heart and mind and be truly holy. What we eat has nothing to do with holiness. THAT IS WHAT HAS CHANGED.
They did not comprehend why they were to eat what they were to eat and why they were to not eat other things, other than it was an act of separation and to not be like the other nations. They were to just obey.

Some think that it was because of health. But they did not think that. They understood it as religious reasons not nutrition or health.
Modern writers have tried to apply it to health or sanitation because of the pig example but this does not apply to all of these animals.

You can try and make a sanitary point about pigs and shrimp but this line of reasoning fails with most of the other forbidden and Kosher animals. Lamb is a fatty meat that is less nutritious than rabbits. Rabbits are better for you than Lamb from a sanitary, scientific and nutrition analysis.

When he said not to seeth a kid in his mothers milk that was because the pagans did that in an attempt to get their false gods to bless their crops.

So in the same way the other forbidden animals had to do with being separate from the pagans.

Now we do this by not sinning with the lusts of the flesh as others do and living holy lives in purity of heart and mind devoted to Jesus in righteousness in works of love and separation from the lusts that are indulged in by the world around us.

Eating pork does not defile us. And the lesson does not need to be taught by not eating pork because now you should be able to understand what they could not before Jesus came and the Holy Spirit was given.

We don't go back to the typology of the OT which was a shadow of a lesson that we now understand in a better way from the Teachings of Jesus and the NT epistles.

That is what has changed.

if so then what sacrifices and idolatrous practices are u speaking of involving pigs and seafoods??? Doesnt sound right.. what does sound right is that wild pigs and seafood are very contaminated foods and “shouldve ben stayed away from”

 

[EternalSoul]

Google it. You should be able to come across some documentation that says that this was something that the pagans did to secure a good crop.

Now you not knowing this may lead you to conclude that they did not know this but they did know about it.

The people at the time it was written were aware of this pagan practice. They would understand him as telling them not to trust in those incantations and pagan practices to trust false gods to secure their crops or incantations and spells, but to trust God who would provide for them.

They would have understood why he said don't do it even if you don't because you were not aware of these pagan practices by reading this text alone.

This is why it is good to read Old Testament Survey books that can clue you in to all the cultural and historical data that is assumed by the authors of various books of the bible. You have to get into the head of those that would be the immediate readers. Many things were not explained because they would already know about them. We have a 4000 year cultural gap and must close that gap by reading commentaries and other reference material to help us understand these texts as the initial readers would have understood them.

People have used everything as dirty sacrifices and what not… doesnt mean that the piggs n shrimps cant be eaten

 

[Amanuensis]

People have used everything as dirty sacrifices and what not… doesnt mean that the piggs n shrimps cant be eaten

I guess you did not understand my point? I believe all meats can be eaten by a Christian. I was explaining that the Jewish dietary laws were to teach them something (not about dirty/unsanitary animals). Clean and Unclean in the OT context was about holy and unholy. Clean and Unclean meant useful or not useful for temple service or for religious purposes. People are using the wrong definition of clean and unclean because of not understanding what that means in the context of temple law.

However Jesus brought a better revelation and illumination by the Spirit within us we understand what is holy and unholy and do not need these object lessons of dietary laws, that apparently most of us still don't understand anyway. LOL.

 

[Amanuensis]

sacrifices and idolatrous practices.

if so then what sacrifices and idolatrous practices are u speaking of involving pigs and seafoods??? Doesnt sound right.. what does sound right is that wild pigs and seafood are very contaminated foods and “shouldve ben stayed away from”

Hermeneutics is not based on what "sounds right" to someone who is missing contextual cultural information. Interpreting the scriptures requires gathering all the facts. It only sound right to you based on your application of limited knowledge. For example if I tell you that Lamb is a fatty meat and full of parasites without medications, but a rabbit is usually very lean and nutritious then why was Lamb allowed and rabbit not? Your Pig being dirty and shrimp being a bottom feeder theory does not apply. Lamb is as bad for you health wise as pig. There are select cuts from both animals that are less fatty but both are a bad choice if you are going to argue for nutrition. There is not a ghost of a hint in the text that these laws were for nutrition. It plainly tells them it was so that they were to be separate from the nations.

That is the lesson.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe that this is a good teaching on the subject of Exodus 34:26-27.

Posted first, Wednesday February 17th, 2016.
This morning the scripture comes to mind, Exodus 34:26-27, The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."
After the tenor of these words is the Old Covenant predicated. These words testify to us what is the spirit of the law.
A. The first of the firtfruits of thy land shalt thou bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
1. God wants us to put Him first. And that which we hold to be first in our lives we are to give to Him.
2. We are to take steps in giving Him what we hold to be first in our lives. The Israeites were to physically bring the firstfruits of the land to the house of the LORD.
B. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
1. We obey this because God tells us to obey it.
2. We obey this because it is against our moral sensibilities to seethe a kid in it mother's milk: to do so would be an abomination morally. Therefore the spirit of the law is to obey our moral sensibilities.
3. If not for the morality of the statement, one might think, "What's the big deal? Why can't I seethe a kid in its mother's milk? People don't like restrictions that don't carry an explanation. If one doesn't think about the commandment one might think that it is there for no reason and therefore disobedience would not seem like it is such a bad thing.
4. There has never been a necessity to seethe a kid in its mother's milk because the normal way to seethe a kid (baby goat lol) is to boil it in water.
5. In order to seethe a kid in its mother's milk one has to go out of their way.
6. To seethe a kid in its mother's milk may seem right to a person (for that it seems to be convenient) except for the fact that it is morally insensible. see Proverbs 16:25.
7. The tendency of the human heart is to test the boundaries and see what would happen if I seethed a kid in its mother's milk. If I did so, there would be no apparent harm done. Except that I would have violated the spirit of God's law and my heart would be corrupted so that greater immorality would not be a big deal to my conscience.
8. The wet paint principle is therefore inherent in the verse. Tell a sinful human being not to do something and he will want to do it and see why the restriction is there. see Romans 7:7-13
9. The spiritual mind is subject to the law of God. Someone with a born again heart will hear the commandment and say, "That is a morally sensible commandment and I will never do such a thing as to break it." see Romans 8:5-7.
10. These principles apply to every commandment in the OT and NT laws.

If the cultural information prevents you from seeing or believing the reality of this teaching, then you would do well to disregard the cultural information.

I have said in times past that cultural context can even diminish one's understanding of certain scriptures; and I think that this is one example of that.

 

[Amanuensis]

I believe that this is a good teaching on the subject of Exodus 34:26-27.



If the cultural information prevents you from seeing or believing the reality of this teaching, then you would do well to disregard the cultural information.

I have said in times past that cultural context can even diminish one's understanding of certain scriptures; and I think that this is one example of that.

I will leave you to your own views on hermeneutics. We all have to make our own choices as we are lead along by the Holy Spirit.

But if you are interested in the subject I suggest "How to Read The Bible for All Its Worth" By Gordon Fee and Douglass Stuart. It is a very good introduction to the subject and many bible colleges use it for the first year course.

Also "How To Read a Translation For All Its Worth" by the same authors. That is an amazing book and every serious bible student should read it. It is basic information concerning the need to go to the source text and how there is no such thing as a word for word English translation. That book is also very much a part of hermeneutics. I praise God for the day He got that in my hands. I felt like I grew from a kintergarten bible student with many wrong notions to at least middle school level student well on my way to discovering authorial intent of scripture from just that one book.

 

[CS1]

How come the seafood and the pigmeat were suddenly acceptable to eat? What was it that happened? Why would god change his mind bout that?

Why would he change his mind when only ONE person needed it

we learn to give thanks before we eat it

 

[justbyfaith]

I will leave you to your own views on hermeneutics. We all have to make our own choices as we are lead along by the Holy Spirit.

But if you are interested in the subject I suggest "How to Read The Bible for All Its Worth" By Gordon Fee and Douglass Stuart. It is a very good introduction to the subject and many bible colleges use it for the first year course.

Also "How To Read a Translation For All Its Worth" by the same authors. That is an amazing book and every serious bible student should read it. It is basic information concerning the need to go to the source text and how there is no such thing as a word for word English translation. That book is also very much a part of hermeneutics. I praise God for the day He got that in my hands. I felt like I grew from a kintergarten bible student with many wrong notions to at least middle school level student well on my way to discovering authorial intent of scripture from just that one book.

I do believe that extrabiblical information has the capacity to convolute what you are reading so that you lose sight of what the scripture is saying as it is plainly stated when you are being digressed by cultural and archaeological information so that you do not see what the scripture is saying as the Holy Spirit would minister it to you. That extra information can get you sidetracked so that you don't see the trees in the forest; but all you see is the forest. So the Holy Spirit cannot minister to you specifically what He may want you to receive because you are distracted by the cultural and archaeological information so that all you see is that information and are not letting the holy scriptures minister to you as they were written.

I find that I am very blessed to read my Bible alone without any additional information as concerning archaeology or cultural context of what is written. All of the information of that sort that you even need is found within the Bible itself; information that you may get from an extrabiblical source is usually irrelevant and will sidetrack you from what the Holy Ghost wants to say to you with that particular scripture.

 

[Amanuensis]

I do believe that extrabiblical information has the capacity to convolute what you are reading so that you lose sight of what the scripture is saying as it is plainly stated when you are being digressed by cultural and archaeological information so that you do not see what the scripture is saying as the Holy Spirit would minister it to you. That extra information can get you sidetracked so that you don't see the trees in the forest; but all you see is the forest. So the Holy Spirit cannot minister to you specifically what He may want you to receive because you are distracted by the cultural and archaeological information so that all you see is that information and are not letting the holy scriptures minister to you as they were written.

I find that I am very blessed to read my Bible alone without any additional information as concerning archaeology or cultural context of what is written. All of the information of that sort that you even need is found within the Bible itself; information that you may get from an extrabiblical source is usually irrelevant and will sidetrack you from what the Holy Ghost wants to say to you with that particular scripture.

It could be a distraction if you read information that was not useful.

However, learning that seething a goat in its mother's milk was a pagan practice to intreat the favor of the false gods is useful information for understanding obscure passages such as that one and not making the common mistake of thinking there was something unkind to the kid being done. LOL

Or understanding what the 10 virgins wedding tradition was about would keep one from thinking these 10 were all going to marry the groom as some have thought by reading the text alone. People make many assumptions that are wrong when they don't do their due diligence to close the 2000 year culture gap. There are so many mistakes people make because they don't put themselves in the shoes of those who wrote it and read it in the cultural context of that time.
Think about Candlesticks in Revelation. One could go on and on in a sermon about the properties of a candle, the wax, the wick, and the candlestick holder and think they could say that the Holy Spirit told them all these things. Just to learn that wax candlesticks were not used until the middle ages and the KJV should have written Lamps as in (oil lamps) and Lamp Stands in which case the sermon has to be re written. Oops! KJV scholars thought they were making it easier to understand by using candlesticks but that was one case in point when they departed from the actual literal text and ignored the fact that candlesticks were not used at the time John saw Oil Lamps and Lampstands. So those details are important and I agree with you that they are, but those details require some background information and the ability to read Greek and Hebrew to notice when mistakes are made in interpretations based on our own point of references and what things meant to them when it was said.

The Kid in the mothers milk is a classic example. You have yet to give up your erroneous view that it had to do with sounding like something cruel. As if the kid is boiled alive. But that is not what it means. And boiling any animal alive in anyone's milk would be wrong. So we agree about that. But this text is talking about a pagan practice and not making a point about the fact that milk belonged to the mother but that the pagans cooked a kid goat in its mothers milk as a ritual. It would be the same thing as saying Do not examine the entrails of a bull to try and determine your future. Don't do these things that the pagans do with their false religion.

Following your logic I would agree that learning 1st Century Greek, and taking three years of Greek courses will allow you to read the scriptures and focus on the words and their meanings as they were given. What did it mean to the readers at that time who read it or heard it in Greek? Being able to sit alone and read the original text and understand them in their original context is the key to correct interpretation.

Contending for the English word in a verse for example, could cause one to be insisting on something Jesus never said, since Jesus did not speak to them in English.

 

[Amanuensis]

I do believe that extrabiblical information has the capacity to convolute what you are reading so that you lose sight of what the scripture is saying as it is plainly stated when you are being digressed by cultural and archaeological information so that you do not see what the scripture is saying as the Holy Spirit would minister it to you. That extra information can get you sidetracked so that you don't see the trees in the forest; but all you see is the forest. So the Holy Spirit cannot minister to you specifically what He may want you to receive because you are distracted by the cultural and archaeological information so that all you see is that information and are not letting the holy scriptures minister to you as they were written.

I find that I am very blessed to read my Bible alone without any additional information as concerning archaeology or cultural context of what is written. All of the information of that sort that you even need is found within the Bible itself; information that you may get from an extrabiblical source is usually irrelevant and will sidetrack you from what the Holy Ghost wants to say to you with that particular scripture.

It is not saying that you can boil a kid (baby goat) in another goats milk, but you better not boil it in it's mother's milk or you are being immoral. Do you understand this? It is referring to a pagan practice. Do you agree? And this is the kind of background information people can use. Correct?

 

[justbyfaith]

It is not saying that you can boil a kid (baby goat) in another goats milk, but you better not boil it in it's mother's milk or you are being immoral. Do you understand this? It is referring to a pagan practice. Do you agree? And this is the kind of background information people can use. Correct?

I find that it would in fact be immoral to boil a kid in its mother's milk and that it would not be immoral to do so in the milk of another goat.

There is just something perverted about it.

I find that it is reprehensible.

There is something about it that speaks to me of the fact that a mother is supposed to nurture her offspring and that that is violated when you boil a kid in its mother's milk.

 

[justbyfaith]

It could be a distraction if you read information that was not useful.

However, learning that seething a goat in its mother's milk was a pagan practice to intreat the favor of the false gods is useful information for understanding obscure passages such as that one and not making the common mistake of thinking there was something unkind to the kid being done. LOL

Or understanding what the 10 virgins wedding tradition was about would keep one from thinking these 10 were all going to marry the groom as some have thought by reading the text alone. People make many assumptions that are wrong when they don't do their due diligence to close the 2000 year culture gap. There are so many mistakes people make because they don't put themselves in the shoes of those who wrote it and read it in the cultural context of that time.
Think about Candlesticks in Revelation. One could go on and on in a sermon about the properties of a candle, the wax, the wick, and the candlestick holder and think they could say that the Holy Spirit told them all these things. Just to learn that wax candlesticks were not used until the middle ages and the KJV should have written Lamps as in (oil lamps) and Lamp Stands in which case the sermon has to be re written. Oops! KJV scholars thought they were making it easier to understand by using candlesticks but that was one case in point when they departed from the actual literal text and ignored the fact that candlesticks were not used at the time John saw Oil Lamps and Lampstands. So those details are important and I agree with you that they are, but those details require some background information and the ability to read Greek and Hebrew to notice when mistakes are made in interpretations based on our own point of references and what things meant to them when it was said.

The Kid in the mothers milk is a classic example. You have yet to give up your erroneous view that it had to do with sounding like something cruel. As if the kid is boiled alive. But that is not what it means. And boiling any animal alive in anyone's milk would be wrong. So we agree about that. But this text is talking about a pagan practice and not making a point about the fact that milk belonged to the mother but that the pagans cooked a kid goat in its mothers milk as a ritual. It would be the same thing as saying Do not examine the entrails of a bull to try and determine your future. Don't do these things that the pagans do with their false religion.

Following your logic I would agree that learning 1st Century Greek, and taking three years of Greek courses will allow you to read the scriptures and focus on the words and their meanings as they were given. What did it mean to the readers at that time who read it or heard it in Greek? Being able to sit alone and read the original text and understand them in their original context is the key to correct interpretation.

Contending for the English word in a verse for example, could cause one to be insisting on something Jesus never said, since Jesus did not speak to them in English.

I believe that God was intimately involved in the translation of the kjv and that this means that His unadulterated message has been preserved in it.

There is in fact one bridegroom that the ten virgins will be married to as we are the bride of Christ as His church...it would seem that your understanding is different because of added extrabiblical information.

As for the idea of candlesticks, you only prove my point. Going into details about what a candlestick is is delving too deeply into the details (which normally, the devil is in the details). We want to draw out the spiritual meaning of the text and going too far into details like that can lead a person into going off into doctrines that are unbiblical.

As long as you do not delve into explicit details, it does not make much of a difference whether you are talking about a candlestick or a lampstand...the main detail that is to be understood is that the candlestick or lampstand is a source of light.

 

[ankagirl]

How come the seafood and the pigmeat were suddenly acceptable to eat? What was it that happened? Why would god change his mind bout that?

Why would he change his mind when only ONE person needed it

I suggest that you read Acts 10:9-18, as well as Romans 14:17-23.

 

[Amanuensis]

I find that it would in fact be immoral to boil a kid in its mother's milk and that it would not be immoral to do so in the milk of another goat.

There is just something perverted about it.

I find that it is reprehensible.

There is something about it that speaks to me of the fact that a mother is supposed to nurture her offspring and that that is violated when you boil a kid in its mother's milk.

I find that it would in fact be immoral to boil a kid in its mother's milk and that it would not be immoral to do so in the milk of another goat.

There is just something perverted about it.

I find that it is reprehensible.

There is something about it that speaks to me of the fact that a mother is supposed to nurture her offspring and that that is violated when you boil a kid in its mother's milk.

OK, I can understand that reasoning. I am leaning toward the pagan ritual because it goes along with the reason given for the dietary laws and that was to be separate from the nations around them. So I see the original intent of the dietary laws as a religious context (clean/unclean as in holy/unholy) and not in nutrition, or sanitation. If this is true then the pagan ritual would make more sense as it fits the overall motif of separation from pagan practices. Don't eat these meats because the pagans use them in their sacrifices and rituals or they worship them as dieties and you are to have nothing to do with them, don't even touch them as a message of holiness to the one and only God and a message of condemnation on what the pagans were doing with these animals.

Now we can agree to disagree on the reasons for the dietary laws and wait until we know in full to find out but that is why I say all meats can be eaten since this separation by what you eat no longer applies to the enlightened Christian. As a matter of fact, Paul strongly condemned the false teachers for trying to teach the christians that they should abstain from certain meats as though doing so would make them more spiritual. This was called doctrine of demons and that is a clear statement that it takes away from the Gospel message.

 

[justbyfaith]

Now, Jesus taught us (Matthew 5:17-20) that if we obey and teach others to obey the least of the commandments in the OT...including the dietary laws...that we will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I conclude that in 1 Timothy 4:1-6, it is referring to those teachers who would teach that obeying dietary laws are necessary for salvation.

But for those who obey and teach the dietary laws, giving the understanding that one can ignore them and still be saved; but that they have the option of obeying them and being blessed (James 1:25, 1 Corinthians 8:8), this is not the doctrines of demons.

The doctrine of demons that Paul is fighting against is the concept that teaches that we must obey all the law of Moses or else be condemned...and that therefore you will be condemned if you do not obey the dietary laws.

Now, in Galatians 3:10, we find that if anyone is seeking to be justified through law-keeping, works, or personal merits, that they are required to obey all of the dietary laws along with all the rest of every moral tenet in the Old and New Testaments.

However, for the one who is in Christ, that one has been delivered from the letter of the law and has been set free to obey the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6)...

Which means that simply by walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4).

And therefore for the believer who knows that he is justified through faith in the blood of Christ, obeying dietary laws is not necessary for salvation...for he has been redeemed through the blood of Christ.

While he has the option of obeying dietary laws if he so chooses (1 Corinthians 8:8) for the sake of being called great in the kingdom of heaven if that is his desire (Matthew 5:17-20) or for the sake of being blessed in this life (James 1:25).

 

[Amanuensis]

This Thanksgiving, instead of traditional turkey try
Pork Carnita Street Tacos
Shrimp Civiche

Amazing Tex Mex Dishes for those who are free to enjoy all meats sanctified by prayer and thanksgiving.

 

[Amanuensis]

Now, Jesus taught us (Matthew 5:17-20) that if we obey and teach others to obey the least of the commandments in the OT...including the dietary laws...that we will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I conclude that in 1 Timothy 4:1-6, it is referring to those teachers who would teach that obeying dietary laws are necessary for salvation.

But for those who obey and teach the dietary laws, giving the understanding that one can ignore them and still be saved; but that they have the option of obeying them and being blessed (James 1:25, 1 Corinthians 8:8), this is not the doctrines of demons.

The doctrine of demons that Paul is fighting against is the concept that teaches that we must obey all the law of Moses or else be condemned...and that therefore you will be condemned if you do not obey the dietary laws.

Now, in Galatians 3:10, we find that if anyone is seeking to be justified through law-keeping, works, or personal merits, that they are required to obey all of the dietary laws along with all the rest of every moral tenet in the Old and New Testaments.

However, for the one who is in Christ, that one has been delivered from the letter of the law and has been set free to obey the spirit of what is written (Romans 7:6)...

Which means that simply by walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4).

And therefore for the believer who knows that he is justified through faith in the blood of Christ, obeying dietary laws is not necessary for salvation...for he has been redeemed through the blood of Christ.

While he has the option of obeying dietary laws if he so chooses (1 Corinthians 8:8) for the sake of being called great in the kingdom of heaven if that is his desire (Matthew 5:17-20) or for the sake of being blessed in this life (James 1:25).

Without trying to continue the debate, I will simply add this for benifit of those who do like to learn the background information.

This is a good example of why it is important. You are suggesting that they taught that abstaining from meats was the way to be saved. However, that is not what the Gnostics taught. By reading the documented scholarly studies on what we can know about these first century false teachers Paul is addressing is that they taught that those who did these things were more spiritual, not that it was the only way to be saved. They were trying to convince them that this was a path to enlightenment and the way to be initiated into the fuller secret knowledge of the elite spiritual and to communicate with angels. They did not condemn the others of not being saved or part of the church but of being less than them in their illumination. And this was what Paul called doctrines of demons.

Google "what did the false teachers teach about abstaining from meats in Ephesus" or in the book of Timothy, or something similar and you should soon find some of the scholarly references to what we can know and not know about it. What we can know is helpful in understanding who and what Paul was dealing with when he wrote this to Timothy concerning those in the church at Ephesus.

1The 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. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

 

[justbyfaith]

Mat 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18, 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.
Mat 5:19, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments (including the dietary food laws), 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.
Mat 5:20, For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.