This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
He is still only talking about food that was consecrated by God. He is not talking about swine because swine isn't mentioned in the context of "food"
What am I dismissing?
That's never a "burden", shame on you for framing it with such rhetorics. Ask yourself, man, which sounds more like a burden, navigating through all kinds of modern fad diets and nutrition labels, obsessing with weight and calories, or simply trust in God and follow His simple and beneficial dietary instruction? It's not like we're living in scarcity with little choice but to gobble up whatever scrap we can get, we have control over what goes into our stomach. Yes, Jesus did say that what goes into the stomach is eliminated and won't defile you, but what if it's not entirely? What about food poisoning that did end up defiling you? Does what prove Jesus wrong? Or prove you wrong?
So, you disagree with James for framing it that way then? Would you prefer I use “yolk” as Peter did?
The point is, God’s dietary law was only for the Jews, not Gentiles, and all food was declared clean, as the passages everyone has given shows.
Haven't you read the context? Is this statement really about diet? Or circumcision? Show me what 15:1 says. Show me.
First of all, the TOPIC is whehter "vegetarianism or veganism is against Christianity", not whether "kosher or unkosher is against Christianity"; second, "torah", commonly and universally understood as "law", primarily means "TEACHING" or "INSTRUCTION". As long as God is God of all mankind, his instructions are truthful and effective to all mankind, not just for the Jews.
Where did I suggest that you MUST eat or MUST not eat this or that? Eat organic and kosher is a simple dietary guideline written in the bible, especially the organic part - honest to yourself, man, who puts a herbicide resistant gene into staple corps' genomes, man or God? Who puts in a variety of additives, perservatives and colorings, man or God? And who sanctified such foods - which are rather more accurately called "food-like edible substances"? Are these abominations created by God? Or man? The last time I checked, Gen. 1:29 and 9:3 were written for all mankind, not just Jews. Jews didn't even exist at the time of Adam or Noah. You're throwing the same Strawman fallacy at e posted in #17.
I don't mean to be personal or mean, but you and several others seem to be totally ignorant of the kosher law and its purpose, and you're showing an antinomianism sentiment. Kosher law is first and foremost a dietary guideline, informing the Israelites in the wilderness what is fit for human consumption and what is unfit, and it only covers animal products, all plants and plant-based foods are by default kosher; within the category of animal products, cross off pork, shellfish, wild animals except deer and naturally sick and deceased animals, that's it. For kosher animals, trim the fat and drain the blood - most toxins are stored in the fat issues, blood causes a foul taste and shortens shelf life, so salt was commonly used as a preservative, known as the kosher salt, and that's the "salt of the earth" Jesus was referring to in the Sermon on the Mount. Even if the blood is not thoroughly drained, the meat must be cooked, then there will be no blood, you don't eat it raw. All of these are just common sense for our benefit, how is it a burden? If you don't consider any FDA food regulations a burden, then neither should Lev. 11 be a burden.
The context could actually be showing something different.
Where is that fact stated? Where does Peter say "that the Gentiles can learn the law as their faith grows"?
I guess your username means you like to attempt to dish out humble pie, not that you are an example of humble pie, correct? Let's look at the context of Acts 15.
Well, they don't say "first," as they are also talking about those Gentiles who are already believers.
Where does "Peter's group" say that "you only need to quit worshipping other gods first to be saved"?
Where is it stated that any believer, much less Gentiles, should "learn the Law in the synagogues as you Grow in the Faith"?
I never said it was.
Which seems to be speaking of Jews, not Christians, since that it was Jews had done for centuries at that point. The meaning seems to be that Jewish believers had no need to be told of what to abstain from, since they knew what the Law of Moses stated, whereas Gentile believers likely did not.
They determined there were only four things Gentile believers needed to do in regard to the law. Remember, the context has to do with obeying the law.
So, you believe in works salvation? I don't because the NT teaches very much against that.
No, other than pointing out the obvious burden of the law, but I can pull from the NT, which I did. Those were Peter's and James's words, not mine.
Of course it doesn't, except for the few times it actually seems to. But those are copyist issues not original ones.
Of course, but the question is, should we actually follow any of it?
Yes, and this is the backdrop of Paul's and Barnabas's dispute with the Judaizers as well as Peter's comments. Those three, and likely others at the council, understood that salvation was by grace alone through faith alone, not by trying to follow the law.
How much of the law? All of it? Part(s) of it?
Verse 21, it's plain as day.
You can't combine what happened in Acts 10 with Acts 15. It's two totally separate events years apart.
You see, the law is for spiritually immature new believers, the amateurs who always have to be monitored and regulated, they have to be constantly reminded by the law to watch over their words and behaviors. It was never meant to be a "yoke", but a mirror that reflects our sins and shortcomings. For spiritually mature believers, law has become a part of their identity, they understand the original intention of the law, and they automatically act according to the rule of unchanging law instead of the rule of whimsical man, they don't have to be told what to do and reminded what is right or wrong like new believers, they don't need to be taught that murder, theft, adultery, perjury and coveting are wrong, that those are offenses against God and other people, they defile your own character. These laws are naturally written in their hearts.
No, it isn't plain as day and, no, that isn't called context. You stated that Peter said, "that the Gentiles can learn the law as their faith grows," but that is not at all what is said. First, there is no mention of growing in faith. Second, knowledge of the law is very clearly limited to four things, as the immediate context states:
As you like to say, "context." You also have to take what I, and others, say in context. I was quoting Acts 15:8-9, which is speaking of what happened in Acts 10, although it could also be
You haven't shown that to be the case; it doesn't say.
Except that was not what was debated. It was that they didn't have to follow the law at all, apart from four things, right?
No, that is not at all what is stated.
If one has to practice certain things prior to entering the faith, then that can be nothing but works salvation, which is directly opposed to salvation by grace through faith. That is a different gospel, and one Peter disposes of in verse 11, right? If you deny that you are teaching salvation by works, what do you mean by your statement? Maybe you would like to reword it, especially since the four things were for after Gentiles had converted.
We can learn about the law, and we should, but how it is applicable to believers, and what parts are applicable, is more tricky and still debated.
Too late. I already read what you wrote LOL I remember this which I believe is true for every post on the net. We will never be judged for what someone else posts. All are called to judgment for only their thoughts, actions, etc. This means nothing offends me, but I do seek to make wise decisions on posts in terms of what I believe is right or wrong about them.
The whole context of Acts 10 is about whether Gentiles can be accepted into the church, especially Roman occupiers such as Cornelius, that was at the infancy of Christianity when it was yet a sect of Judaism, known as the "Way" sect; Acts 15 is about the controversy over circumcision in PARTICULAR. The law and custom of Moses were mentioned, but nothing in particular was mentioned other than circumcision. Those are the contexts which you have totally ignored, you've just cherrypicked some verses to back your doctrine.
Try reading my posts again.