No Profanity *** No Flaming *** No Advertising *** No Anti Trappers ***NO POLITICS
No Non-Target Catches *** No Links to Anti-trapping Sites *** No Avoiding Profanity Filter


Home~Trap Talk~ADC Forum~Trap Shed~Wilderness Trapping~International Trappers~Fur Handling

Auction Forum~Trapper Tips~Links~Gallery~Basic Sets~Convention Calendar~Chat~ Trap Collecting Forum

Trapper's Humor~Strictly Trapping~Fur Buyers Directory~Mugshots~Fur Sale Directory~Wildcrafting~The Pen and Quill

Trapper's Tales~Words From The Past~Legends~Archives~Kids Forum~Lure Formulators Forum~ Fermenter's Forum


~~~ Dobbins' Products Catalog ~~~


Minnesota Trapline Products
Please support our sponsor for the Trappers Talk Page - Minnesota Trapline Products


Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357662
09/17/21 09:17 AM
09/17/21 09:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,482
PA
P
PAskinner Offline
trapper
PAskinner  Offline
trapper
P

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,482
PA
I sure have heard a lot of vegans try to say the Bible teaches their religion and many of them are also into the gay thing, so that seems to fit.
I think at Paul's time there were cults teaching a kind of monk type of religion where discipline in diet and no sex etc, gets one to heaven.
Every generation probably has similar false teachers.


Right now I’m having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I think I’ve forgotten this before.
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: waggler] #7357705
09/17/21 10:06 AM
09/17/21 10:06 AM
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,908
Arkansas
J
J Staton Offline OP
trapper
J Staton  Offline OP
trapper
J

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,908
Arkansas
Originally Posted by waggler
Why are you just quoting verse 3? This is exactly what happens when people don't read things in their context. If you read verses 1 through 3 you will see that the meaning is entirely the opposite of what you are getting out of it. This particular scripture warns about cults that put crazy restrictions on people, such as forbidding them to marry or to eat meat.

[Linked Image]

Before you start throwing stones I did read the whole passage. Many think when Peter was called to kill and eat that which was unclean, it was about unclean animals. Really in that passage God was using that to show Peter if God says preach the Gospel to the unclean ,in other words Gentiles,do it!


James 1: 19-20
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: waggler] #7357706
09/17/21 10:08 AM
09/17/21 10:08 AM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Greene County,Virginia
R
run Online sick
trapper
run  Online Sick
trapper
R

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,800
Greene County,Virginia
Originally Posted by waggler
Why are you just quoting verse 3? This is exactly what happens when people don't read things in their context. If you read verses 1 through 3 you will see that the meaning is entirely the opposite of what you are getting out of it. This particular scripture warns about cults that put crazy restrictions on people, such as forbidding them to marry or to eat meat.

[Linked Image]

X2.


wanna be goat farmer.
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357785
09/17/21 12:00 PM
09/17/21 12:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
I think a case can be made that this passage not only speaks to cult like practice but also to liturgical rite and tradition.

Specifically an argument could be made against both catholic celibate priesthood and baptist prohibition.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: warrior] #7357796
09/17/21 12:11 PM
09/17/21 12:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 793
Central montana
.
.204 Offline
trapper
.204  Offline
trapper
.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 793
Central montana
Originally Posted by warrior
I think a case can be made that this passage not only speaks to cult like practice but also to liturgical rite and tradition.

Specifically an argument could be made against both catholic celibate priesthood and baptist prohibition.


Baptist prohibition?


And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement!
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357802
09/17/21 12:24 PM
09/17/21 12:24 PM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,650
Southeast Ohio
amspoker Offline
trapper
amspoker  Offline
trapper

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,650
Southeast Ohio
I shamelessly copied this from an article on the topic.

Food for thought....



The apostle Paul wrote the following to the young evangelist Timothy: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 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 Timothy 4:1-5).

Paul is here warning of a latter-day apostasy from the true Christian faith. Notice what these heretics would advocate:

Giving heed to demons.
Enforced celibacy and abstention from marriage.
Enforced abstention from certain foods that God gave and approved.
Could this refer to God’s law about clean and unclean animals?
Now let us consider whether these warnings could possibly refer to God’s ban on consuming meats labeled “unclean” in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

First, Paul identifies the aberrant doctrines as originating with demons. The laws of clean and unclean animals originated not with demons, but with God Himself, who gave them to Moses to pass on to the Israelites (Leviticus 11:1-2). And this knowledge goes back much further, since Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean before the Flood (Genesis 7:2).

Also, there are many examples in the writings of the apostle Paul where he quotes the Law of Moses approvingly. (See, for example, 1 Corinthians 5:13, which quotes Deuteronomy, and 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. There are many more.) Nowhere does the apostle Paul refer to laws God gave through Moses as originating with demons! That would have been blasphemous!

Second, the reference to abstention from certain foods is mentioned in the same context as enforced celibacy and forbidding marriage. These truly are demonic doctrines, ones that never originated in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures, but which have been enjoined by some religious authorities since the time of Christ. Indeed, required celibacy for religious leaders has been blamed for serious abuses and scandals in recent years.

Third, these heretics would seek to ban the consumption of certain foods that God created to be enjoyed. “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving” (verse 4). Does this mean human beings should consume just anything: Leeches? Rats? Poisonous frogs? Cockroaches? Flies? Obviously no.

So what does 1 Timothy 4:1-5 mean?
The meaning here is not that we should go ahead and just eat anything; the reference is to the heretical doctrine of abstaining from foods that God gave and approved. “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (verse 5, emphasis added). The Word of God, in the Old Testament, defines which meats are to be consumed and which not.

Through the last 2,000 years of history, some religious leaders have sought to impose vegetarianism on their followers, while others have taught abstention from certain foods, such as meat, on certain days. Such doctrines do not originate in the Bible and are therefore heretical. Paul was warning of those heretical teachings, not of the biblical requirement to avoid pork and shellfish.

So we see that 1 Timothy 4:1-5 does not abolish God’s law about clean and unclean animals.


Levi
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: waggler] #7357808
09/17/21 12:29 PM
09/17/21 12:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 493
PA
R
RKG Offline
trapper
RKG  Offline
trapper
R

Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 493
PA
Originally Posted by waggler
Why are you just quoting verse 3? This is exactly what happens when people don't read things in their context. If you read verses 1 through 3 you will see that the meaning is entirely the opposite of what you are getting out of it. This particular scripture warns about cults that put crazy restrictions on people, such as forbidding them to marry or to eat meat.

[Linked Image]

Because man would rather be wise in his own eyes, than to gain Godly understanding.

In Proverbs, wisdom asks, How long, simple ones, will you love simplicity?

Satan tried the same thing when he tested Jesus in the wilderness. Out of context challenges. Hath God really said?
Same old lie. At some point, Christians should learn to identify it.

Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357831
09/17/21 12:57 PM
09/17/21 12:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
Originally Posted by jwill
Originally Posted by warrior
I think a case can be made that this passage not only speaks to cult like practice but also to liturgical rite and tradition.

Specifically an argument could be made against both catholic celibate priesthood and baptist prohibition.


Baptist prohibition?


The one most notable in it's flouting.

Southern Baptists in particular are staunch teetotalers with many congregation having actual temperance literature.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357832
09/17/21 12:58 PM
09/17/21 12:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
And yours truly is guilty as charged.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357836
09/17/21 01:09 PM
09/17/21 01:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
I say "are" as in as the convention has yet to reverse past statements against the consumption of alcohol. It's really a quandry to me as it's one of those things we claim as tradition yet do otherwise in individual practice.

For me I interpret read Paul's all things in moderation and instruction to Timothy to take a little wine plus the warnings against drunkenness to mean consumption is allowable if consumption itself doesn't become the issue. But then there is also Paul's warning to refrain from an allowable activity if it should be cause for another to stumble.

Last edited by warrior; 09/17/21 03:00 PM.

[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: warrior] #7357886
09/17/21 02:28 PM
09/17/21 02:28 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
J
James Offline
"Minka"
James  Offline
"Minka"
J

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
Originally Posted by warrior
I say "are" as in as the convention has yet to reverse past statements against the consumption of alcohol. It's really a quandry to me as it's one of those things we claim as tradition yet do otherwise in individual practice.

For me I interpret Paul's all things in moderation and instruction to Timothy to take a little wine plus the warnings against drunkenness to mean consumption is allowable if consumption itself doesn't become the issue. But then there is also Paul's warning to refrain from an allowable activity if it should be cause for another to stumble.


And I thought you said the Bible isn't subject to interpretation.

Jim


Forum Infidel since 2001

"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357901
09/17/21 02:57 PM
09/17/21 02:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
It isn't


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357902
09/17/21 02:58 PM
09/17/21 02:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
Poor choice of word on my part. Read would've been better.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357907
09/17/21 03:01 PM
09/17/21 03:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
J
James Offline
"Minka"
James  Offline
"Minka"
J

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,379
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
In context of the rest of your words, the difference isn't material.

Jim


Forum Infidel since 2001

"And that troll bs is something triggered snowflakes say when they dont like what someone posts." - Boco
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: warrior] #7357935
09/17/21 03:39 PM
09/17/21 03:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 793
Central montana
.
.204 Offline
trapper
.204  Offline
trapper
.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 793
Central montana
I would say that to equate the SBC's stance and statement on alcohol to demonically inspired is beyond a stretch. Can you name one drug in this country that has destroyed more families than alcohol? I am not SBC by any means.But I do not think it even remotely relates to the context of this passage.
Originally Posted by warrior
I say "are" as in as the convention has yet to reverse past statements against the consumption of alcohol. It's really a quandry to me as it's one of those things we claim as tradition yet do otherwise in individual practice.

For me I interpret read Paul's all things in moderation and instruction to Timothy to take a little wine plus the warnings against drunkenness to mean consumption is allowable if consumption itself doesn't become the issue. But then there is also Paul's warning to refrain from an allowable activity if it should be cause for another to stumble.


And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement!
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: .204] #7357946
09/17/21 03:57 PM
09/17/21 03:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
Originally Posted by jwill
I would say that to equate the SBC's stance and statement on alcohol to demonically inspired is beyond a stretch. Can you name one drug in this country that has destroyed more families than alcohol? I am not SBC by any means.But I do not think it even remotely relates to the context of this passage.
Originally Posted by warrior
I say "are" as in as the convention has yet to reverse past statements against the consumption of alcohol. It's really a quandry to me as it's one of those things we claim as tradition yet do otherwise in individual practice.

For me I interpret read Paul's all things in moderation and instruction to Timothy to take a little wine plus the warnings against drunkenness to mean consumption is allowable if consumption itself doesn't become the issue. But then there is also Paul's warning to refrain from an allowable activity if it should be cause for another to stumble.




Valid point and I can't argue the SBC stance against alcohol abuse and the ills that accompany it. I would opine that the holding to a tenet without basis until it becomes sinful.

To give an example the tenet itself led to the split of a family within the church of my upbringing.

This family was one of the older families and well established. All God fearing members of the Baptist church. One brother owned one of the two (at the time) local gas stations that sat at one of the two forks in the road. It was a prime location where everyone stopped to get cokes and chips or bait before heading to the river.

Well this brother decided that with the river traffic he should add beer to his offerings. Almost instant disfellowship, unwelcome at family gatherings and no one from the community (at least the baptists and their families) dared set foot on the property lest it be thought they might be imbibing.

I was of driving age before it became acceptable to shop there.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357959
09/17/21 04:20 PM
09/17/21 04:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
D
danny clifton Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
danny clifton  Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
D

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
I thought Jesus had wine delivered to a wedding after the host ran out? In fact a superb wine. Now me personally, I would think at a wedding people were at least slightly intoxicated, especially after all the hosts wine were drank, probably dancing and singing and celebrating the union.


Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357961
09/17/21 04:21 PM
09/17/21 04:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
D
danny clifton Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
danny clifton  Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
D

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
At least thats what I think is where the water into wine story came from


Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357964
09/17/21 04:30 PM
09/17/21 04:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
warrior Offline
trapper
warrior  Offline
trapper

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,424
Georgia
He did indeed and I've heard sermons through the years explaining that the actual words were grape juice or vinegar and anything but alcohol.

My point exactly where the teaching of non biblical beliefs become demonic and lead people astray. The longstanding epithet for baptists in the south is hypocrite and has long been the stumbling block for many.

If indeed there is a concern for alcoholism and abuse then let more properly refer to scripture than warns us of drunkeness.

I would opine looking around my denomination that we might be better served with a temperance movement directed towards food. Or maybe we should start studying scripture warning against gluttony.

Also, guilty as charged.


[Linked Image]
Re: 1 Timothy 4:3 Question [Re: J Staton] #7357970
09/17/21 04:39 PM
09/17/21 04:39 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
D
danny clifton Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
danny clifton  Offline
"Grumpy Old Man"
D

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 29,750
williamsburg ks
When i was a kid I was taught the proper interpretation for water into wine was water into grape juice. But when you read the tale it goes on to say it was a particularly excellent wine. The host was asked why it wasn't served first. Seems an odd thing if talking about grape juice. I also find it hard to believe that ancients used the same word for wine and grape juice. Also without refrigeration or chemicals grape juice begins fermenting immediately upon pressing it out. The warnings against drunkenness' only make sense if they knew the difference and were not calling fresh squeezed grape juice wine.

Not really a big deal to me till church folk look at me cross-eyed when I am enjoying a nice hoppy beer of an evening.


Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread