Archive through May 22, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » Adventist Health Message » Archive through May 22, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lori
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 6:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Are there foods that are unclean????

Where does EGW get her basis for the health ministry???

Are there foods that we are to abstain from???

1 Timothy 4:1-5
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will ABANDON THE FAITH and FOLLOW DECEIVING SPIRITS and THINGS TAUGHT BY DEMONS. SUCH TEACHINGS COME THROUGH HYPOCRITICAL LIARS, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They 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. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

According to these verses where does the SDA "health" ministry come from?

It comes from hypocritical liars following a deceiving spirit and being taught by demons!! It says their consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

What happens to something living when it is seared with something hot? What happens to the skin when it is severely burned? You lose all feeling....your skin no longer has any live nerve endings....it feels nothing. People that no longer have nerve endings are in critical danger because they have nothing to warn them of the danger they are in, no nerve endings to let them know they are where it is too hot or too cold. When your conscience is seared you have no 'danger' mechanism any longer!!! These hypocritical liars played in the fire and they got burned----now they no longer have the capacity to see the 'fire' as danger!!!

There are two things identified in these verses as being teachings of hypocritial liars (deceiving spirits, things taught by demons) and they are:
1. forbidding people to marry
2. order to abstain from certain foods

What religious organization can you name right off the top of your head that teaches #2?

(If it were only a 'best foods for healthy living' message......that would be one thing......but it is identified as part of the gospel....part of the perfecting process.....part of the 'greater light' message. This message is not Scriptural!!!!!) And if you believe otherwise........maybe your conscience has already been seared!!!

What else does Scripture have to say about our diet??? What is identified as clean and unclean?? First, let's go back to Noah.....what did God tell him to eat after he came out of the ark???

If you are well versed in Adventism, then you know he was told to eat only the clean animals!!!!

EGW quotes this verse in Patriarchs and Prophets pg. 107 "EVERTHING THAT LIVES AND MOVES WILL BE FOOD FOR YOU. Just as I gave you the green plants I now give you everything." however, she adds her own thought which just don't go along with what the scripture says, she adds: "Before this time God had given man no permission to eat animal food: He intended that the race should subsist wholly upon the productions of the earth; but now that every green thing had been destroyed, HE ALLOWED THEM TO EAT THE FLESH OF THE CLEAN BEASTS THAT HAD BEEN PRESERVED in the ark."

Were the 'clean beasts' the only things that lived and moved? Of course not!!!!

Is this the beginning of the teaching to abstain from certain foods AGAINST the commands of God?? (the commands of God to Israel do not apply to this age!)

What did Jesus say about foods??

Mark 7:18-23
"Are you so dull?" he asked, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the ouside can make him unclean? For it does not go into his heart but into his stomach and then out of his body. (In saying this Jesus declares all foods clean) He went on, what comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. For from with you, out of man's hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean."

Only the things that 'come from inside us' (our sin nature in control) makes us unclean, nothing that we can 'put inside of us' (food) makes us unclean before God.

What does our faith have to do with what we eat? The teaching of Adventism is: the more you grow in Christ, the more you will have the desire to abstain from certain foods. How scriptural is this?

Romans 14:2
"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables."

Well, scripture indicates just the opposite....
WEAK FAITH EATS ONLY VEGETABLES!!

he message here is this: Any religious group that teaches abstaining from foods or forbidding to marry is teaching a doctrine of demons!! Do you really think that the remnant church is going to follow teachings identified as the teachings of demons? Do you really think that all Christians that will be heaven are going to be filtered through a church that is based upon the teachings of hypocritical liar?

"...God created (all food) to be received with thanksgiving by THOSE WHO BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." 1 Timothy 4: 3,4

May God richly bless those 'kidneys and livers' out there that are filtering out the 'toxins of false doctrines' and making a stand for the Truth!!!

Lori
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 12:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori,

Enjoyed your Bible study and agree 100% right straight!

I read an article in Ministry: [SDA official] International Journal for Pastors a couple of months back (how I wish I hadn't thrown my copy of that issue away) that examined in great and erudite detail what Jesus has to say in Mark 7 about what's clean and what's not, concentrating in general on foods and in particular on flesh foods, most pointedly that of the swine.

The author (don't remember who, but he was a theo heavyweight) quoted from the NIV (Mark 7:19): "'For [food] doesn't go into [a man's] heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')"

Then -- and this is what's so mind-blowing -- the learned author expounded throughout his article how that Jesus, being "under the law," couldn't possibly have been have been declaring in favor of your Easter honey-baked ham, for that would be tantamount to declairing against HIS OWN LAW as written with his own finger on Mr. Sinai! Oh, preposterous conconclusion! On, doctrine of demons!

And so just what was the inescapable conclusion?This: Jesus must have been declaring only CLEAN foods clean!

Let's all give it up for that one! What say?

"Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!"

Jude
Steve
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 7:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good stuff, Lori

I've always liked Jesus' statement that you refer to regarding the fact that nothing that goes into the mouth makes a man unclean, but what comes from the heart.

I used to eat crab, a lot (being from San Francisco, crab, a loaf of extra sourdough French bread with lots of real butter, and a glass of wine was a regular meal).

Even as a Christian, me and my Christian friends would go out just for that, or similar meals, whenever we could. The food never got in the way of my walk with Christ. And because of the fellowship shared over those meals, I can say that my walk with Christ, and with my Christian brothers and sisters was actually strengthened during those times.

When I became an Adventist, my refusal to share certain food with those same people was quite a stumbling block (for who, I'm not quite sure). They began to leave me out of times together. I drifted away from them, and for many years have had absolutely no contact with them. I MISS THOSE TIMES TERRIBLY!

But it was my gluttony that separated us. Gluttony? How is that gluttony? C. S. Lewis defines gluttony as not only gorging oneself on one's favorite foods, but being picky to the point of not accepting certain foods over other foods!

So perhaps we SDAs are gluttons, and don't even know it.

Now, I'm to the point where I'll probably eat anything, just to spend time with people. It's sad, but we Adventists have turned food into a stumbling block. But isn't Jesus the stumbling block? Isn't he the Rock of Offense that the Builders chose as the Cheif Cornerstone? We SDAs have turned everything but Christ into that stumbling block.

We have been stumbling along, tripping over everything BUT Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. It is He over whom the Jews stumble, and the Greeks (modern Philosophers) find offensive (I Corinthians chapter 1.)

I recently ate some pork (probably pork, but no one knows for sure). My wife was in shock and revealed it to our relatives when we were at dinner one Sabbath.

I can never tell her, but I got very sick that night. My system went into overtime and I had diarrhea like I hadn't had in quite a long time. I know that it was psychological. But what a psychological grip that old thinking had (has?) on me.

It's kind of like purifying our water to the point here in the United States that we can't drink from a stream anymore. It's not that the streams are more filthy. It's that our bodies can't handle the little "bugs" that naturally live in the water. My wife is from South America. When I visited her relatives down there, I got real sick (bleeding heavily out the rear) from parasites. But they usually don't get sick. Their bodies are strong from handling the water that they have available to them.

When we "purify" ourselves too much from this world, (eating rubber meat, charmed chicken, and virtual crab) we are actually doing our bodies a disservice, after all, we're not in heaven yet. We're telling our bodies that they don't have to process anything tougher than gluten.

God Bless,

Steve
Maryann
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 9:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori and Steve,

Great post's!

I'm a firm believer that rubber meat, charmed chicken, and virtual crab are harder to digest than the real thing. The processing involved for the consistancy and flavor etc is an insult to the human body. (I think, even though I like it)

I believe that all things are clean. BUT, there is a NON SDA that I've listened to that claims that shell fish and pork are not the best for several reasons. One being that they are by nature a toxic meat. (how can something that taste that good be toxic?:-() He claims that in studies that students have participated in, the ones that ate shell fish and pork were much more dull and sluggish and tested with lower scores than the others. Interesting.

Steve....This same guy said that if you don't eat pork for a time, then go back to it, your body can revolt from the toxins. Sounds like you experienced that. Everyone is different. I've never had food poisoning, but George has on several occasions had it. The same water that gives some the "trots" doesn't even phase me? Steve, it sounds like your body didn't like the pork.

I don't think the SDAs have the corner in the market as far as healthful living is concerned, but they DO have a lot of good principles. They have a lot of good doctors too. Just because it is SDA it doesn't automaticly condem it!

Diet wasn't my point here. I just want to affirm the above. Putting a barrier between people that isn't a matter of principle or right or wrong is a conceited, righteous shame. How many people have walked away from religion because of some ridiculous dress code or food gospel? How many times did a good SDA turn away a cold glass if ice tea that someone very thoughtfully brought to them? How did this person feel about the SDAs God or any God for that matter.

Unless there is a really good physical reason for abstaining from certain foods, it's way better to accept graciously what is put before you. Even if it means eating it with "long teeth".

Maryann
Maryann
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jude,

About 40 years ago when I was little, we attended a wedding at Wildwood Ga. It was Bernell Baldwin and Margie Jacobson (Jacobs?). Just some trivia.

What do you know about Dr. Baldwin? He's a Brain Scientist. Is he on target? Are his studies legit? I was raised to believe and still do believe that soybeans are an awesome food. He has really big guns on them and a host of other things.

I don't think to much of some of his theology like saying that, we "will" be son's and daughters of God and that we are in training to be V.I.P.s of Heaven.

Love to have your opinion.

Maryann
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 10:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greetings Maryann,

I know nothing about Dr. Bernell Baldwin. In what does he have his doctoral degree? From what university? What was his area of concentration and the subject of his dissertation? "Brain Scientist" sounds spooky to me, not academic. How much genuine scientific research has he published? And in what peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Until I know the answers to these questions I couldn't give you an opinion on whether his studies are legit.

From what you've told me about his theology, I can tell you that it appears to be "right down the line" SDA conservative orthodoxy.

Spiritually speaking, we won't be anything in the kingdom of heaven that is over our heads that we are not already in the kingdom of heaven that is under our feet.

Already walking in the kingdom of heaven,

Jude
Joni
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 3:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Steve,
My brother who has never been a vegetarian, who always made fun of me, gets deathly sick on pork. The crazy guy will still eat it at times.

Pork affects some people and not others. Same as shell fish. I think its more genetics. Another good reason not to judge others on what they eat.

I love Hebrews 13:9 "DO NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY VARIED AND STRANGE TEACHINGS; FOR IT IS GOOD FOR THE HEART TO BE STRENGTHENED BY GRACE, NOT BY FOODS, THROUGH WHICH THOSE WHO WERE THUS OCCUPIED WERE THUS OCCUPIED WERE NOT BENEFITED"

As always I enjoy all your posts. Thanks.
Joni
Steve
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 4:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Joni, Maryann, and All,

I think Y'all are right. I was raised eating pork. We at it a lot, and at Grandmas house and on Easter there was always a pork roast.

I think what Joni and Maryann have said may be true in my case. My body has become sensitized. It reminds me of a story a doctor told me once when I was having a serious reaction to potassium iodide solution.

I was rushed to the hospital with a heart rate of nearly 200 beats per minute. As the nurse went to get the drug that would counteract that drug, the doctor told me of a story:

Once, he was going to do a brain scan of a patient who grew up in the Philippines. He had eaten shellfish his entire life, but hadn't for years since coming to the United States. He gave this man an injection of iodine (I think), turned around to do about 20 seconds of paperwork, then turned back around. The man was dead. (Of course, this was TERRIBLE bedside manners while my heart was still racing out of my chest!)

Perhaps my body has become sensitive to something in the pork. (Or, perhaps it's psychological, which I think it is, but I'd rather not try my luck again.)

I guess I'm now "Porkless" for all the right reasons. But, I'd like to eat crab again someday. I'll really have to watch myself next trip to San Francisco, I might go "hog wild", act like a crab, and have to "mussle" my way to the restroom.

Onward,

Steve
Maryann
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 5:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Steve ;-)

I have the answer!!! Your body is still a Seventh-Day Adventist!! :-) :-) :-)

How's that saying go? The mind/heart is willing but the body isn't! Boy, you got work to do;-(

I just had a dose of that potassium iodide solution Monday. Fortunately, the only problem I had was I had to sneeze. Wow, it took every bit of concentration not to as I was to stay perfectly still!

With chuckles....Maryann
Maryann
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 7:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jude,

I'm really puzzled? I will have to chase down Dr. Bernells pedigree for sure now! It was impressed upon me that he was one of SDAs brightest lights? Sooooooooo?

:-( Maryann
Lori
Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2000 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can see the Adventist twist on Mark 7 and how they conveniently say he only declared the already clean foods "clean again"......but how do they answer the I Timothy 4:1-5? Anyone know?
Steve
Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2000 - 6:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori,

Good to "see" you around the FAF website.

I'll try to answer the question you pose above. I think the key for SDAs lies in verse 3.

We have always stressed in this passage the phrase, "abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."

The interpretation has been that God did not create swine, crab, etc. to be "gratefully shared in" by us. He only created clean foods to be "gratefully shared in". Therefore, the logic goes, this can't be talking about everything God created for food, only those "clean" things God created for food.

Of course, we have been extremely careful to avoid the phrase "doctrines of demons." But those among us, especially the very strict (as opposed to the very loving) vegetarians must have doctrines of demons. After all, we have always been quick to use this passage against the Catholic priesthood. We should apply the scripture as equally to ourselves.

Oh yeah, we do apply the White translation of the Holy Scriptures to ourselves. I guess that makes it all OK.

This Swine's for you,

Steve
Steve
Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2000 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One more thought on the I Timothy passage.

It also refers to "those who believe and know the truth." Of course we SDAs have claimed that those of us who believe and "know the truth" gratefully accept those foods that God created to be "gratefully shared in" by "those".

The thinking seems to be, that those who know the truth, would know which foods were to be gratefully shared in.

So it seems to follow that knowing the SDA "truth", and doctrines of demons, are one in the same (which of course is the thought that Lori started this Discussion with.)
Maryann
Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2000 - 7:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Steve and Lori,

I just had two pieces of fish baked in lemon and pineapple juice piled high with almost ripe diced up mangoís. Thought Iíd mention that in light of you guyzez line about 1 Tim. 4:1-5. Seems to me that verses 6 and 7 ought to be included too? Either I didnít read them right or it says that youíre to be a good minister to remind ìthemî that everything is sanctified and to toss the old wives tales?

Besides, Jesus ate fish! Or yeh, He didnít have the light yet!

This fishís for you....copycat ;-)

Maryann
Lori
Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2000 - 10:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, what about 1Timothy 4:4, it seems to clarify what kind of 'food' is being refered to. It DOESN'T say--For everything clean that God created is good and not to be rejected, it DOES SAY:

"For EVERYTHING that God created is good, and NOTHING IS TO BE REJECTED if it is received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

Genesis 9 :3 is in agreement:

"EVERTHING THAT LIVES AND MOVES (I suppose 'unclean' animals did not live and move back then?) will be food for you . Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you EVERYTHING."

And, Maryann, I agree vs. 6 and 7 should be included in this discussion,
"If you point these things out to the brother, youw ill ba a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the TRUTHS OF THE FAITH and of the godd teaching that you have followed. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GODLESS MYTHS AND OLD WIVES TALES, rather train yourself to be godly."

Catch you later,

Lori
Maryann
Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2000 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori,

Sure good to have you showing your typingmanship around here again. Keep it up!

Maryann
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2000 - 4:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi, Lori, again,

Re 1 Timothy 4:3-5 NIV: "[Hypocritical liars] order [people] to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

SDAs say Paul was talking about FOODS OFFERED TO IDOLS! Take the clean foods grapes and pomegranites, for instance. If they were offered to idols, go ahead and eat, because idols have no spiritual reality anyway. Only God has spiritual reality.

But suppose that Lydia had made a honey-baked ham especially for Paul and Silas to be served on Easter when they visited Philippi (Acts 16:40). And suppose, further, that the porker had been offered to an idol immediately after it was slaughtered but before it went to market where Lydia's servant had picked it up.

In this case, SDAs will tell you, the fact that the food had been offered to an idol would not have made it "off limits" to Paul and Silas. What would have made it "off limits" would have been its prohibition in the Old Testament law. Leviticus 11:7-8.

Does that answer your question?

Jude
Lori
Posted on Monday, May 22, 2000 - 5:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That answered my question!
Lori
Posted on Monday, May 22, 2000 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The real issue is the covenants!!!! If you understand the covenants, everything else falls right into place!!
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Monday, May 22, 2000 - 3:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lori,

Absolutely right on -- go to the covenants for an answer. For, "The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink."

The covenants: In general we can say that EVERY ONE of God's covenants is unconditional. Meaning there's NOTHING we can do to keep it or break it.

What, for example, can you do to force God to keep his covenant with NOAH and all of his descendants (including us) not to destroy the surface of the earth again by flood? Answer: Nothing at all. And the sign of that agreement is God's beautiful "bow" set in the storm clouds! (Makes me shiver every time I see it!)

But in the Old Testament God did make two covenants that were CONDITIONAL. Meaning, if God is "one party" to the covenant, then there IS something "the other party" can do to keep it.

The FIRST ONE of these was the covenant between God as "one party" and ABRAM and all his descendants as "the other party." The "thing" they could do to keep up their end of the bargain: be circumcised. (Women members of the covenant had the choice to marry only a circumsized man.)

The SECOND ONE of these was the covenant between God and MOSES [including all the Children of Israel (seed of Abraham)] at Mt. Sinai. The "thing" they could do to keep up their end of the bargain: "All that the Lord hath said [and would continue to say till all 613 of the OT laws had been said] we will do."

(Since the circumcision law was restated in this covenant, our own FAF theologian Bill Twisse IS NOT WRONG in his insistance that there is only one CONDITIONAL covenant in the OT that concerns NT Christians.)

And so, within the confines of these two CONDITIONAL covenants -- including, for example, the prohibitions against unclean foods, such as pork -- Israel FAILED to keep up its end of the bargain.

Now, it wasn't as though God was surprised at this. For before the foundations of the earth were laid He planned to create his chosen race, Israel, knowing in advance that they would not be able to keep up its end of the bargain to keep all 613 of the laws -- including the anti-pork, anti-crab, anti-clam-chowder, etc., laws.

The sign of this covenant was the keeping holy of the seventh day of creation, the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. It's like the rainbow sign, except there IS something "the other party" can do: keep it holy. (God didn't ask us to "keep the rainbow holy.") The difference between the two signs shows the difference between an UNCONDITIONAL covenant (that of Noah) and a CONDITIONAL one (that of Moses).

This unsurprised God created a NEW UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT, but one with a BIG DIFFERENCE: It replaced the OLD CONDITIONAL COVENANT (with its Sabbath sign and food laws) completely, totally, awesomely, majestically with .....

A NEW UNCONDITIONAL COVENANT in the Person of Jesus Christ the righteous, fully human, fully God, fully perfect, fully sinless.

Such a replacement (complete with the old, imperfect and temporary STATEMENT of God's law on Mt. Blessing replacing the new, perfect, and eternal STATEMENT of God's law on Mt. Sinai) is complete, unconditional and eternal.

And any going back to the old statement is therefore a denial of Jesus Christ as the new unconditional covenant.

Grace and peace,

Jude

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration