This is pasted from The Abomination of Desolation, from pp. 825-829

B.2 “Abstaining from foods” is Satanic/Gnostic (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

We have touched on this briefly (Chapters 4, 5 and 12), and given the full explanation of the meaning of this passage in our discussion of Romans 14 in Chapter 10, where it is related to 1 Timothy 4:2. However, this may be seen as standing alone from the rest of the context of Scripture, so as to be employed as a seemingly disparaging remark about vegetarianism or any other dietary restriction. Of course, this is how the Christians typically read it, so it certainly deserves more attention than we have given it so far. The passage reads as follows, according to the NIV:

¹ The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. ² Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. ³ 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. ⁴ For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵ because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Our main premise, first of all, is that humans were led away from their original vegan diet by evil gods. This needs to be understood before a realistic interpretation of the 1 Timothy passage can be gained. We already know that the word translated as ‘thanksgiving’ here (εὐχαριστίας, G2169) is a reference to the Eucharist, whence that term comes. We also know that the Eucharist is the same thing as the agape feast, though the connotation is generally the agape feast of the Passover, specifically. The literal meaning of this passage, then, is that no part of the Eucharist is unclean, and the intent is to say that all that is eaten at the table of Christ is acceptable for food, so if anyone despises a certain item, he is in error. This necessarily only applies to whatever has been blessed by the Eucharistic rites, which literally rules out everything that any “Christian” ever eats.

The only reason we have not addressed 1 Timothy 4:3 directly in this book is to give it its own place here, seeing as it is probably the most common (and by far the best and most reasonable) objection levied by Christians who have a basic familiarity with the Bible. Frankly, this is an ironic outcome, because it demonstrates how true Yahshuah’s remarks are concerning the standard that people are to be judged by (i.e. their own). We can understand how what is being described in this passage is difficult to make out, due (only) to the cultural barriers between the ancient Christians and the modern ones. The ancient Christians kept to themselves for the most part, so their views and their lifestyle are enshrouded in mystery, and they left no explanatory notes with their writings to aid succeeding generations in interpreting them. So this passage will only be understood at first glance by someone who already knows that the early Christians were all (necessarily) vegetarians and that they did not consider poisonous organic compounds which commonly pass for “food” as actual food. It is actually very important that we realize that the word ‘meat’ was not even in their vocabulary, and that when they spoke of βρῶμα (broma), they never meant ‘meat.’ Without this understanding, the passage is necessarily read with the meat-eaters’ bias, even when the word in question is properly translated as ‘foods,’ because animal flesh passes for food in our society, though not in our bowels or in our cell nuclei.

What makes no sense, based on this passage, either in isolation or in the greater context of Scripture, is the notion that everything is acceptable as food. The main source of confusion seems to be that the word for ‘foods’ in v. 3 (βρωμάτων, G1033) is rendered ‘meats’ in the KJV, a mistake which is repeated by the other versions of the KJV (including the ASV), the ERV, Darby, and the Catholic Bible (i.e. the most subversive of the English translations, minus the NIV). We have covered the issue of the actual meaning of ‘meat’ in KJV English, so we will not belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that the word should be ‘foods’ in modern English, not ‘meats.’ And we know that God did not create animals as foods to be received with thanksgiving, so even if we erroneously suppose that he was not making reference to the early Christian Eucharist, this could still in no be interpreted as meaning that animals are allowed, especially in light of the rest of Scripture.

When the rest of Scripture is taken into account, which thus negates the possibility that Paul was sanctioning meat unless he was deliberately contradicting himself, the meaning of the passage is necessarily understood as pertaining to dietary differences between different classes of vegetarians. In other words, this is the only passage in the whole of the Bible which could actually be invoked to justify a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet instead of making veganism a mandatory rule for all Christian communities, yet the Christians have not even employed it to this end because doing so would still necessary constitute an admission that it mandates vegetarianism, though not necessarily strict vegetarian. Even then, the present incarnation of the Eucharist is necessarily a vegan meal, because all true Christians of the present era are vegans, without exception. (Only he who obeys the commandments is a true disciple of Christ.) The debate which Paul is settling in this passage is between the Christians, and those among them who got their views from the Essenes who were not necessarily Christians. Consider that he modifies his allowance with the phrase “by those who believe and who know the truth.” It ought to be understood by now that “belief” in the Bible consists of obedience, rather than simply designating oneself as a disciple of Jesus or whatever. This is the clearest indication we could possibly have that the very allowance being made here only applies to people who have already been set-apart from the world and are already rigorously practicing a vegetarian lifestyle. So to call us “heretics” based on this is to concede that we are the ones for whom the passage was written, being those who know the truth and practice faith, in contrast with the “orthodics.”

Moreover, the fact that Paul describes the foods he is allowing as “consecrated by the word of God and prayer” necessarily means that they are foods which have been regarded as suitable according to both Essene custom and the rest of Scripture! He is not making an allowance for new foods, but simply reiterating that the customs which are in place—being fundamentally vegetarian—are enough, and that no new rules need to be applied. The hypocrites, then, are clearly those bringing in “destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1), which entails condemning certain foods which God made an explicit allowance for in the Garden of Eden. We think there is plenty of cause to wonder whether this could possibly apply to anyone more than Christians who eat or advocate low-carb diets.

Furthermore, the blind association with ancient Gnostic sects which typically characterizes this objection is completely arbitrary and based on ignorance of both the Gnostic and the Essene/Christian beliefs and practices. Paul is a describing a particular group which both shunned marriage and celebrated the Eucharist and/or the agape feast. Therefore, it is not a general statement that anyone who advocates any one of the things he describes is a damnable heretic, rather than a concise description intended to help Timothy identify the differences between the two groups. If it was actually the case that it was a general statement, then no 1^st century Christian would pass his test, for they all celebrated the Eucharist and partook in the agapē feasts as essential characteristics of their faith! They were, in fact, more serious about these observances than Christians today are about their own Eucharist and the so-called holidays.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that the contention is between the Christians and the general Essene population, which also forbid marriage (as discussed in Chapter 11), as both issues are expressly covered right there in the passage in question. We have already established that the question of marriage was actually the major point of contention between the major sects of Essenes—they being, essentially, the Zealots and the Christians, respectively. So the condemnation here pertains to the various people who would later be loosely associated with the Zealots, as “hypocrites” (v. 2, rendered “hypocritical liars” in the NIV), a word which means ‘actors’ in Greek, and which Yahshuah also employed against the Pharisees (out of whom the sect of Zealots was sprung). In other words, they had the appearance of godliness, which, if we are to take the description Paul gives in his other epistle to Timothy (3:2-8) seriously at all, can only possibly mean that the one thing they had right was their commitment to a vegetarian diet.

In other words, it is not their diet that Paul is condemning, but their hypocrisy. This really should be common sense. The fact that the Zealots ultimately sought restitution and continuation of the Temple sacrifices demonstrates just how hypocritical they really were, as well as how they had the “form of godliness,” as their justification was that they aimed to strictly adhere to the Law of Moses.

Paul is clearly not equating abstinence from meat with doctrines of devils, but rather insisting that Christian fellowship be based on mutual obedience to Yahshuah’s teachings and to God’s law in general, which necessarily entails vegetarianism as a cardinal rule. The point is that attempting to make further specifications about what is or is not to be eaten, in a way comparable to the specifications of the Law of Moses, is a wasted effort, because all foods that were part of the Eucharist were allowed, as nothing was part of this meal if we were not designed to eat it. (In the modern application, the condemnation would apply to no one so much as those advocating gluten-free diets.) He also condemns obsessing over genealogies for the same reason (1 Timothy 1:4)—the difference being that he does not call the issue about diets a “foolish question” as he does the latter (Titus 3:9). The alternative, to suggest that Paul identifies vegetarianism as a doctrine of devils, is to suggest that he himself (e.g. Romans 14), and every other prophet and apostle espoused demonic doctrines, and that the Bible is little more than a book chock full of heresy.

We concede that the Bible does not explicitly and consistently mandate veganism, necessarily, though it certainly does advocate what would essentially constitute a plant-based diet (just not a strictly plant-based diet). What it proscribes, in a nutshell, is violence (especially killing), and therefore animal slaughter, and therefore meat. The confusion which the early Christians experienced concerning the difference between what would today be called veganism and what would today be called vegetarianism is therefore understandable, even as many vegetarians are similarly confused now (presumably because they do not understand that they are directly contributing to the suffering of dairy animals by consuming dairy products, or else have chosen vegetarianism for other reasons), and there is ambiguity as to whether it is necessarily wrong to do other things that are related to this matter, which could be seen as inflicting harm on animals to a lesser degree than killing. There would be no room for confusion, however, if the difference was simply between eating meat and abstaining from it; anyone can see that an animal must be dead to be eaten, and that the difference is vast, and not open to interpretation.

1 Timothy 4:3 definitively establishes that Paul did not require the members of his congregations to be raw vegans, or fruitarians, or that they eat only vegetables instead of a variety of vegan options. What it does not do is establish that he made allowances for all types of “foods” which are not foods at all. If anything, this shows the wisdom of the Bible, because variety is essential to proper nutrition. It also shows the compatibility between Paul’s view and the mandate of the Garden of Eden, wherein meat was proscribed, but everything else was allowed. (The common perception that the Garden of Eden diet is frugivorous is mistaken, as herbs were also prescribed, first and foremost.)

In any case, what the Bible condemns, implicitly or explicitly, is only an afterthought to what it mandates, which is the ethical spirit of veganism. Due to the present conditions of animal farming, this mandate does not allow for consumption of dairy products any more than it does meat, because animals on dairy farms suffer far more than others, and still wind up in the same place, as do the calves from whom the milk is stolen, or the chicks that are born male and therefore have no value to the farming industry. Suffice it to say that regardless of whether or not he ever drank milk, Yahshuah would not condone or even make an allowance for the products of the modern dairy industry, and neither do we.