I think that the admonition regarding to “civility” is the right thing to say, but addressed to the WRONG person. Just read a few of the last posts and you will understand to whom this admonition should be addressed.
Now, the argument that God only had in mind sacrifices on the altar as He defined clean/unclean animals forgets to address the sheer NUMBERS of the ones and the others. Why this proportion of 7 to 1?! Were they supposed to do sacrifice so often?! Of course the numbers reflect animals to be used as FOOD and animals to be left on their own fulfilling their ecological role in nature--the unclean ones who would multiply unhindered by meat eaters.
As to the text found in Gen. Genesis 9:3, first I notice that NOBODY IS WILLING TO ANSWER THE BASIC QUESTIONS that I proposed as a start point for these discussions. I wonder why. . .
Now, despite the neglect of responding these basic questions, let’s go on. How about this discussion regarding the subject?:
Genesis chapter 9, verse 3--One Difficulty Resolved, 10 Still To Be
Genesis 9:1-3: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’”. – NIV.
The difficulty presented in these words is easily overcome when we take the Bible globally. The big problem of some false interpretations is always the undue segmentation of God’s Word, taking in isolation verses, clauses or even independent words to fit one’s presuppositions and prejudices, thus twisting the whole thought of the sacred author.
For example, the text says that all the beasts of the Earth would fear man. However, should we understand that in absolute terms? How about bears, leopards, lions, hippopotamus, crocodiles, sharks, animals man flees from, and with good reasons? It is certainly a serious risk to face such animals in their natural state.
“Will be food for you”. God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of the vegetation during the Flood. In the face of the emergency, man had permission to kill animals to eat. But this permission wasn’t certainly without restrictions. The phrase “all that moves upon the Earth” clearly excludes to eat cadavers of animals found dead by other beasts, as was later specifically recorded in the mosaic law (Exo. 22: 31; Lev. 22: 8). Even though the distinction of clean and unclean animals is not shown here, that doesn’t mean that the rule was unknown by Noah, as can be seen through Gen. 7:2 and 8:20.
Now, let’s remember that “everything . . . that moves” would include man himself! If the “everything” is to be taken too literally, wouldn’t that allow cannibalism among those early inhabitants of the planet?
“Green plants”. This involves the novelty of the permission to eat meat, besides green plants, which originally had been destined for man’s feeding (Gen . 1:29). But we should remember that although God gave man all green plants to eat, that is also limited to those non-poisonous ones. How about someone taking this order in absolute terms to eat “wild vine”? That would be a deadly attitude (see 2 Kings 4:39, 40). So, this “all” has its limitations. . . Man had also to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy food in the fields. . .
“Meet that has its lifeblood”. The prohibition applies to eating meat with blood, which was the costume of certain tribes in the past. This prohibition is an interesting counterpoint to the previous order. Now, the “eat-it-all” adherents understand that God changed His mind regarding discriminating what to eat and not to eat (now liberating everything for man’s consumption after having referred to the distinction of clean and unclean animals to Noah, later on reversing the order to set discriminatory rules on that again to Moses—a rather voluble God that doesn’t seem to fit the Bible picture of a God that “doesn’t change”. . .).
Among other things, this prohibition was a safeguard against cruelty towards animals and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals (and always clean ones), in which the blood, as life bearer, was considered sacred. Due to certain attachments to blood as a religious item in heathenism, besides other reasons not made clear (probably the fact that part of the blood itself is ‘unclean’, carrying bad toxins—before being oxygenated by the lungs), it was irrevocably prohibited to eat meat with blood. The apostles considered that this prohibition was still in force in the Christian age, as can be seen in the decision of what to recommend to the gentile Christians as things to abstain from (Acts 15: 20, 29). [Adapted from the SDA Bible Commentary].
And a final consideration: Moses’ writings don’t reflect a description of the diary journal type, being prepared as the events came to pass. He wrote on the scrolls at one time, and all was transmitted to the people jointly. There was not a report on Gen. 9:3 in a remote time, then a law about not feeding on dead animals found in the fields in another later period.
The specialists consider 1,450 BC as date to the Pentateuch writings, thus the people heard the reports all together and connected the narrated facts of ancient times with the divine instructions to them, which were consistent with the previous instructions. Besides, if the clean animals were taken sevenfold to the ark, in comparison to the unclean ones, and that was just because of serving to sacrifice, the fact is that we don’t see so many sacrifices to justify that much higher number of clean animals. It shows that they were supposed to be used for food, thus being intensely used and having to count with greater numbers for the supply not to become too scarce, in contrast to the animals that were not supposed to be eaten and that could multiply freely in the wild, since they were not supposed to be killed by man for food.
Well, since the Gen. 9:3 difficulty has been resolved, how about our objecting friends to resolve these 10 below?
1 – Why did God classify the animals as clean and unclean as early as in the Flood episode (Gen. 7:2)? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that His people should shun certain types of animals with no logical and practical reason for that? 2 – If said division aimed at sacrifices, why did God send to the ark seven times more clean animals than unclean ones, when nothing indicates that the number of sacrifices were so frequent and so numerous? 3 – Why did God only accept clean animals for sacrifice? [A tip: See 1 Cor. 9:13]. 4 – Being a divine principle that we should glorify God with what we eat or drink (1 Cor. 10:31), how could unclean meats—that would be excluded from the sacrifices (since they certainly were not fit for that purpose)—serve to glorify God soon after the Flood? 5 – Why were the restrictions regarding the consumption of blood instituted when God authorized the consumption of meat (Gen. 9:4, 5)? Shouldn’t full freedom prevail for man to eat whatever he wanted? 6 – How can it be proved that the order to eat “everything . . . that moves” included the unclean animals, since Noah had been notified of the division of clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7:2, 3), and even the manner as the text is written gives the clear impression that such division was already known by the patriarch, not being something new to him? 7 – How do you prove that the order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the meaning of such order, as being prohibited to eat meat that have been “torn by wild beasts” in Exo. 22:31, i.e., they should eat only animals that were alive, not those found dead? 8 – What was the advantage for humanity that God allowed men to feed freely from all kinds of animals, such as rats, raven, snakes and lizards, since today it is known that the consumption of some of them, as in the case of Africans, brings terrible diseases, such as AIDS, ebola fever and the bubonic plague, transmitted by rats, which caused the death of millions of people in Europe during the Middle Ages? 9 – Even though the divine order for Noah to feed of animals is contrasted with the previous order for man to feed of plants (Gen. 1:29), where is it said that as God to speak of “green plants” allowed for man’s consumption (Gen. 9:3) excluded those that are poisonous for the human being? 10 – How would Moses explain himself to the people of Israel, as they heard the reading of his Genesis text, being also aware that the animals found dead were not to be eaten? Wouldn’t they see the contradiction of this rule with Genesis 9:3, if they understood that God allowed Noah to eat “everything . . . that moves”? Wouldn’t they think that God was somewhat voluble, for He treats with Noah on clean and unclean animals, including what regards to worship to Him (sacrifices only with clean animals), than gives orders to ignore that classification, especially when the collection of books with instructions to Israel was gathered in just one time (specialists attribute it to 1.450 BC)?
Why were the food laws not clearly reiterated by Paul as being important? Why, instead, if you read the totality of Paul’s writings on this topic, that one would come up with an opposite conclusion to what you propose? When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write, he knew that people would interpret his writings the way the majority of the Christian world interprets it. 1Timothy is so clear on this. If God wanted people to not eat pork, Paul would have made an exception to the unclean foods, but the fact is he did not make any exception. It seems that the burden of proof would say that you are reading your Adventist views into the texts.
When Peter was given the vision of the unclean animals, it seems quite obvious that we are not to call unclean which God has called clean.
Jesus also declared all foods “clean” as so clearly stated in Mark 7.
Besides, why are we putting so much energy into this topic?
Romans 14 says “lets not destroy the work of God for the sake of food”.
This site is entitled “For the Gospel” This discussion is entirely irrelevant to the salvation of anyone. Or do you believe that one will forfeit his salvation if he enjoys some shrimp or lobster from time to time.
I don’t have a problem if one believes it is better to not eat pork for health reasons, but if you say that it has bearing on salvation, then the gospel is being compromised and becomes no gospel at all.
About 1 Timothy and other of the classical objections to the principles of the dietary rules (as far as Christians are concerned) I have already covered that in my “assessment” of these arguments. I suggest you check a few threads from the beginning of this topic and you will see what I had to say there.
Now, your argument on silence about the importance of these rules, not addressed by Paul, please, my friend. . . This is a very weak way of arguing in favor or against any point. How about not consulting the dead? Is that important? And how about the practice of bestiality or marriage between brother and sister? Aren’t these important principles? However Paul NEVER dealt with any of these subjects to give the Christian community guidance about.
Of course these things were and ARE important, but not everything of importance is covered because the New Testament authors certainly didn’t feel that there was such a need in the face of so many other points that cover these subjects, showing that God didn’t change His laws regarding these things.
.... Of course these things were and ARE important, but not everything of importance is covered because the New Testament authors certainly didn’t feel that there was such a need in the face of so many other points that cover these subjects, showing that God didn’t change His laws regarding these things.
You may find comfort in your explanations and obfuscations, but your hesitance to answer a simple question like Stan’s speaks volumes! These meat-eating Gentiles were brand new Christians who were desperately asking about what was required of them to be saved. While the Christians with a Jewish heritage/background were vehemently pushing them into the traditions (including the dietary laws) of their fathers. (Sound familiar?)
Your argument of “omission by lack of necessity” is illogical and fallacious.
Simply stated: How could strict Jewish dietary laws have been left unstated and assumed as remaining in force when the very people that were pushing the Mosaic traditions (the circumcision group) were the primary force against which the Apostles were countering? And they did so with this this very simple set of instructions and this “instruction set” ALONE:
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” Acts 21:25 (NIV)
It’s very interesting and telling that elsewhere in scripture the consumption of food “sacrificed to idols” is really of no consequence for those with a strong faith. But for the preservation of those having a weak faith, the strong of faith are to avoid the offense of eating these things in their presence:
1 Corinthians 8:4-11 (NIV) 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
So my point here is simply this: If the command to the new Gentile Christians to not eat food sacrificed to idols could be dismissed elsewhere in scripture for mature Christians who put no significance in idols; then how could the dietary laws have been omitted from the “instruction set” given in Acts 21? These instructions were given when the Jewish dietary laws would have had so much more weight if they were in fact to be “still in force” for new Christians!?!?
I can’t help but think that your continued refusal to address clear NT chapter and verse questions about eating meat is a way of declaring vegetarianism as being salvific. If you do consider OT dietary law to be a salvation issue for Christians; then I would strongly caution you that you are making your SDA “badge of honor” into an idol. With this heresy at the forefront of your thinking; it is clearly done at the expense of honoring Christ’s work in the Cross of Calvary. How much energy have you expended on this and other websites and blogs defending what Paul would easily describe as a disputable matter.
Romans 14:1-4 (NIV) 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
With a lowered head and clasped hands I fully acknowledge the Word of God above (Romans 14); Therefore, I flatly refuse to look down on you for your beliefs sir. By your faith you will stand or fall and it is not for me to judge. And by God’s command I will not judge you! But we (I) cannot stand by while you mislead others… As I’ve said elsewhere on this forum: We are commanded by scripture to ”contend” for the Gospel!
If I am wrong about anything I’ve written here then show me my error by the full Word of our LORD God and by His Word alone!
The problem is that I ADDRESSED all these questions in my “assessment” of the main objections on the part of the opponents of our position. I think you didn’t see it. I invite you to check on the previous page our “assessment” of the subject.
By the way, Romanos 14 NEVER EVER mention anything of “unclean meats”. By they way, the word “meat”, in Greek broma, is not even used all through the chapter, for Paul is speaking about FOODS in general, and SOLELY all the time, those that were sacrificed to idols.
And you made reference to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), which indicates that nor the Sabbath, nor the dietary rules were among the elements pressed on the Christian community by the judaizers. How do I kinow that? It’s quite simple: the four recomendations decided by the leaders (vs. 20 and 29) bring NO MENTION to the Sabbath. Remember, the 4 recomendations were NOT a type of “Tetralogue” which would replace the Decalogue, as some people imply. They were about things that the NON-Jews should NOT practice, and the Sabbath is NOT among them, which proves that it was NOT discussed as something to be excluded of the Gentile Christians practice. There was noi need to discuss something that everybody were agreed about (as no mention is made to not using God’s name in vain. . .).
Besides, out of the 4 recomendations, THREE dealt with. . . food restrictions! That is very significant. And the “blood eating” and “sufocated meat” had to do with DIETARY RULES (see Lev. 17:10,11), which is something veeeeery embarassing to those who want to use the episode of that council to dismiss either the Sabbath or the dietary rules as eliminated from the Christian practice. It’s indeed a shot that backfires.
If the reference in Romans 14 was not referring to meat, then what was the contrasting food against which vegetables were being compared....?
Romans 14:2 (NIV) 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
Why is the “everything” not prohibited or at least detailed?
Also, why are the Gentiles being warned to avoid “strangled” meat and not to avoid meat all together? Was the Greek word for “meat” that was referred to as “being strangled”, pointing to a food that did not breath? I don’t know of any non-meat food that can be strangled...! Clearly the Gentiles were being instructed on how to properly prepare an animal for consumption. No specific type of breathing food was mentioned implying that the clean -vs- unclean issue was set aside for the Gentiles at this point. Again, how can Paul, who is presumably speaking by the spirit of God, say these things to brand new Christians without qualification? The questions of “clean/unclean” and “meat/no meat” are not mentioned in their review of the letter that was sent to the Gentile church. Oh yea… Perhaps the Gentiles had Jewish neighbors who could fill in the blanks…
Come on now… Were all the theologians fooled up until 1844 A.D.?? The language and even the implications of God’s word are clear on this:
1 Timothy 4:1-4 (NIV) 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.
Oh, don’t forget that you still haven’t addressed the “Quail” question from Exodus...!
I am NOT discussing vegetarianism. I am NOT saying that there is a “law” regarding not eating any meat. What I am saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the intention of Paul’s words in Romans 14 was to “prove” that the Christians are free to eat unclean meats. There is no mention at all to any of the elements of the food restriction laws, but just a discussion on what was an issue at that time--foods in general offered to idols.
That was the subject of the discussion. The reference to vegetarianism shows an extreme situation of some few who were so sensitive to this issue of foods sacrificed to idols that have decided that they would just resort to that kind of food they knew or thought were not basically offered to idols.
Now, why don’t you say anything about what I commented on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and the shot that backfires when that chapter is used to advocate the end of the Sabbath rule for the Gentiles? What we have leads to an OPPOSITE conclusion--that no discussion existed regarding Sabbath keeping. Especially as the most influent and important Christian church at the time, that of Jerusalem, had a composition of mostly ethnic Jews who were “zealous of the law” (Act. 21:20). They would NEVER accept any changes in something so much relevant and deep-rooted in their religious and even secular culture as Sabbath keeping and food laws without a big discussion being raised about (as was the case with the circumcision debates).
There is no record of any polemics regarding day of rest of liberating food laws, because there was no such crisis at that time. The big issue was clearly foods offered to idols.
Besides, how about reading Hebrews 7 to 10 where all the meaning of the many rites and the priestly composition are explained in detail to a Hebrew public? Its very significant that there are THREE GREAT ABSENTS in these discussions--the Sabbath, the food laws, the tithe. No discussion in these chapters showing the typological, ceremonial aspect of any of these elements, so important to the Jews. How come the author of Hebrews would forget to address how these things were abolished on the cross, for having just a temporary value, since they were so much important to his readers, things related to their day-to-day?. . .
The THREE GREAT ABSENTS factor in Hebrews 7 to 10 confirm undeniably that none of these three things ceased under the Christian Era. There is no reason for their demise. . .
By the way, Romanos 14 NEVER EVER mention anything of “unclean meats”.
That would be true if you were to rip out verses 14 and 20 from Romans 14 in your Bible.
Jeremy
First of all, the problem again is the isolation of segments in the Bible, losing sight of the forest because of the trees. If a certain segment seems favorable to certain biased views, they will be explored at the most to benefit that particular view. Now, the 4 basic questions to be answered first of all before engaging in the discussion of the dietary laws in the Bible are simply IGNORED. Of course, to answer them would put things into the right perspective, the “forest” taken into consideration, while those who are distracted by the trees (even some mere bushes) get stuck in that limited environment and can’t see the whole picture.
Romans was written less than one year before I Corinthians where, in chaps. 8 and 10, what is discussed is clearly the foods sacrificed to idols issue, not any discussion regarding clean/unclean meats. Paul himself defines his “agenda” in these discussions: “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth” (1 Cor. 8:1). Shouldn’t Paul have been clearer and say, instead: “Now, as touching to things offered to idols, BESIDES THE UNCLEAN MEATS SUBJECT, we know that . . .” No, he didn’t make ANY mention to that other subject because it was not what he had in mind to deal with.
In Rom 14:14 Paul shows that the “common” aspect of the foods under discussion was mostly in the opinion of the believer. For him/her it would be common, which means, loathsome. The “weak” Chistian believed that he should not eat those foods (not only meats) offered to idols, turning that a conscience issue. So, others who didn’t think alike should patiently respect their “conscience” in that point, even though not agreeing with his viewpoints.
When in v 15 Paul says, “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died” it’s important to have in mind that the “meat” referred to is any kind of food--(broma in Greek)--not only flesh.
Also it is important to remember that the same Paul who said these things, also said: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31). He says that discussing the question of foods sacrificed to idols, where he comments in the immediate context: “For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?” (vs. 30). And he compares that to what belonged to Israel’s ritual: “Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (vs.18). Thus, he was dealing with the subject of foods that were used with thanksgiving--i.e., those that were licit according to what God had determined in His law, not unclean meats.
Peter, one of the main apostles, said that he had NEVER eaten unclean meats (Atos 10:14). This is confirmed in 1 Tim. 4:3 where Paul criticizes certain practices of extremists who prohibited marriage and taking foods “which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth”. That these foods COULDN’T include unclean meats is clear by the fact that God labeled them “abomination” (Deut. 14:3) and so far nobody showed me a single text stating that God had changed His mind, for even on that final reckoning day, “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord” (.Isa. 66:16-18).
Conclusion: There is not the least hint throughout the entire Chapter 14 of Romans that Paul’s intention was to speak about foods previously prohibited, which became licit to the Christian community. An additional proof of that is that he uses the Greek term broma, which refers to foods in general, not only meats, and koinon, translated as “unclean” (vs. 14), but having the meaning of “common”. In Acts 10:14 Peter uses two terms, “common or unclean”, with askarthos especifically for “unclean”, which Paul NEVER employs is his discussion.
Koinon was used for those things the Jews considered not in accordance to their religious practice and faith. The Gentiles, themselves, were considered koinon, despicable, and even today the strict Jews call the Gentiles goyim, which means “common” in Hebrew.
Paul’s emphasis is NEVER freedom for the Christian to eat anything, because it would be a violation of the context having him changing subjects so abruptly, especially if he were dealing with something so sensitive for the Jews, as the dietary laws. What he emphasizes is the necessity of harmony within the Christian community and the avoidance of discussions and debates regarding foods and drinks, whether sacrificed to the idols or not.
He also emphazed that when writing to Titus about those who engaged in hair-splitting discussions regarding details of the law and genealogies (Titus 3:9).
Speaking of putting things into due perspective, I think that it would be good to reinstate the 4 basic questiona that should be totally answered in order to engage profitably in the discussion of the dietary rules in the Bible:
Here are the questions, again:
1 – Why did God establish these food restriction laws, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of meat were not to be eaten, without any justifiable reason, and that was it?
2 – In what aspects were these dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they had no ceremonial character? In what ways did they point to the atoning sacrifice of Christ?
Note.: Somebody suggested that they would symbolize separation between Jews and Gentiles. But if it is so, would God be including is His law some negative element of man’s idiossincracies, since He is no respecter of people?
3 – How was the shed blood of Christ efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, snakes, lizards? Could it have accomplished some change in the structural composition of said meats, making them fit for human consumption?
4—Where is it said that God changed His mind from considering “abomination” the eating of these meats (Deut. 14:3), for until the final day, when all “nations and languages” are gathered for their reckoning time, those who eat pork, rat and practice idolatry will be jointly destroyed (Isa. 66:16-18)?
Your failure to acknowledge and discuss scriptural responses, your cultic dependence on Ellen, your autistic focus on FOOD, quoting Joel Olsteen as an authority. The tip off was you links to maritime SDA, who are so far out in left field that they have left the ball park, which caused me to realize, you’re pulling our leg, yanking our chain.
I mean, it’s got to be a joke, as no sane person would actually believe this stuff let alone post it.
So, YOU’RE NOT REALLY A SDA and this whole thing is a parody - right? You’re just pretending to be one as a ploy to reveal their extreme anti-gospel position and to show how ridiculous they are.
The way you DISTORT the facts regarding my posts is a little sample of how much you might distort the Bible text. First, I didn’t quote Joel Osteen as an “authority” on anything, but as an EXAMPLE of a non-Adventist Christian who has some glimpse of the truth on this matter. By the way, I also quoted a doctor of the highly reputed Johns Hopkins Univ. (according to a book published by a non-SDA editorial company) showing the different levels of toxidity of the unclean meats compared to that of clean animals, duly recorded in a careful research, and nobody said anything about that.
Also I didn’t quote the Maritime Forum for what their leaders say, but FOR MY OWN MATERIAL posted there in refutation of former SDA Pastor Dale Ratzlaff, who never showed any disposition to answer a few questions I addressed him and others in his team. I have the same material posted in some 10 different forums, both in English and Spanish.
Besides, you have FOUR questions to answer before any valid discussion of the dietary laws subject be started. And I did analyze with an open Bible--no Ellen White quotations at all--the objections of the other opponent here, couldn’t you see it?!
So, these challenging questions are a few threads above. If you don’t answer them, ONE BY ONE, I will consider that an act of APOLOGETICAL COWARDICE on your part.
I didn’t think anyone could be this dysfunctional without being committed to a little padded room.
I’m curious, have you ever been diagnosed as having an advanced case of Aspergers?
What is Asperger’s Disorder?
Asperger syndrome (AS) is part of a group of diagnoses called “autistic spectrum disorders” that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.
People so effected usually have a circumscribed area of interest which usually leaves no space for normal interests. Some examples are cars, trains, French Literature, door knobs, hinges, cappucino, meteorology, astronomy or history. (in extreme cases - female prophets and/or food)
I didn’t think anyone could be this dysfunctional without being committed to a little padded room.
I’m curious, have you ever been diagnosed as having an advanced case of Aspergers?
What is Asperger’s Disorder?
Asperger syndrome (AS) is part of a group of diagnoses called “autistic spectrum disorders” that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.
People so effected usually have a circumscribed area of interest which usually leaves no space for normal interests. Some examples are cars, trains, French Literature, door knobs, hinges, cappucino, meteorology, astronomy or history. (in extreme cases - female prophets and/or food)
John Douglas
Oh, I have no such syndrome, thanks to God, for I am a “regular guy”, with different interests. I watch good and funny movies, I love to travel, I have secular work, I go to walks with my dog around the block, etc.
Now, personal attacks, instead of constructive discussion is a clear syndrome of NOT HAVING WHAT TO SAY in the face of clear Bible expositions, and that for a simple reason: NOT HAVING THE TRUTH.
So, your accusatory obsfucation is a good pretext to deflect the focus from the issue to the person. And to NOT answering the basic questions. . .
