Is vegetarianism or veganism against Christianity?

[Humblepie]

Jesus violated parts of the law.

Never!!!


He may have violated the oral law, but NEVER the law of moses.
There is a difference in the two and you should know that since you're the expert in the law and the lawlessness that went on with the savior and his lawless disciples.


Your lack of understanding brings nothing but blasphemy the discussion.

 

[electedbyhim]

Not a chance!!!!!


Jesus died perfect!


Turning Jesus into a common sinner with your belief, and calling him a savior.

So, not all foods are clean and cannot be eaten by Christians?

 

[electedbyhim]

Never!!!


He may have violated the oral law, but NEVER the law of moses.
There is a difference in the two and you should know that since you're the expert in the law and the lawlessness that went on with the savior and his lawless disciples.


Your lack of understanding brings nothing but blasphemy the discussion.

Free is pretty spot on in his theology.

I also agree with all he has posted.

Its pretty obvious that you are the one who does not understand.

 

[electedbyhim]

Did Jesus eat meat?

Yes, Jesus ate meat. Several passages lead to this clear conclusion.

Genesis 9:3 is the first mention of eating meat. After the Flood, God told Noah, “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”

Throughout the Old Testament, meat eating was the norm, from the Passover lamb (Exodus 12) to the quail that God provided in the wilderness (Exodus 16) to the portions of the animal sacrifices that the priests and Levites ate (Deuteronomy 18). Daniel and his three friends refused to eat the king’s food in Babylon, choosing only vegetables (Daniel 1), but this was probably because there was no guarantee that the meat would have been considered clean according to the Mosaic law. Vegetarianism was not the issue.

Jesus says nothing that would change or challenge the dominant meat-eating practices of the Old Testament. In Luke 24:41–43, Jesus ate fish. Jesus also served fish to His followers (Matthew 14), and He caused the fishermen’s nets to be filled on two different occasions (Luke 5 and John 21). The purpose of catching the fish was to sell them so they could be eaten. Jesus also cooked fish for His disciples (John 21:9).

The best biblical evidence that Jesus ate meat is that He observed the annual Feast of Passover. The lamb sacrificed at Passover time was roasted and eaten as part of the requirements of the law (Exodus 12:8). Jesus took part in the feast every year as a child (Luke 2:41), and as an adult He continued the observance of the law. The Lord attended Passover in John 2:13, John 5:1, and Matthew 26:17–30. Jesus would have been in disobedience of the Law if He had not eaten the Passover meal—a meal that included meat.

Mark tells us that Jesus declared all foods to be clean (Mark 7:19). The distinction between clean and unclean foods was among animals, not plants. Declaring all foods to be clean meant that more animals were being allowed. We also have some direct teaching from Paul the apostle. Romans 14:2–3 says, “One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The 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.” Later, we have this statement: “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself” (verse 14).

In the last couple of decades, some animal rights enthusiasts have claimed that Jesus was a vegetarian. Some groups have tried to apply Jesus’ teaching about kindness and compassion to animals. Some reason that modern methods of raising and slaughtering animals are inherently cruel, and, therefore, eating meat should be avoided. The humane treatment of animals, however, is a different issue. The answer to the question, “Did Jesus eat meat?” is a clear “yes.”

Gotquestions.com

 

[Free]

Not a chance!!!!!

Mar 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mar 7:20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (ESV)

So, Mark was wrong then? Did he so misunderstand what Jesus was saying that what he wrote is uninspired opinion that we can simply just dismiss? What other legitimate option is there? You can't just say "Not a chance!!!!!" and not provide a legitimate alternative understanding or interpretation of the Greek if you feel it is necessary.

Looking at what Jesus said, he clearly states that what "goes into a person from the outside cannot defile him." That right there is against the Mosaic Law, not merely the oral law, and supports what Mark wrote. Jesus's point is that that which morally defiles a person is that which is in their heart, not that which enters through the mouth.

What else do you think might be wrong in the Bible?

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
...
Rom 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
...
Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. (ESV)

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (ESV)

Is Paul wrong in these passages? Does he supposedly support what Mark said and upholds the Law or does he agree with Mark that all food is clean? Or, does he contradict Jesus?

Jesus died perfect!


Turning Jesus into a common sinner with your belief, and calling him a savior.

Of course Jesus died perfect and sinless. Nothing I have stated turns Jesus into a sinner. It is also notable that you're not actually addressing anything I posted. You're just giving your unsupported opinion.

Never!!!


He may have violated the oral law, but NEVER the law of moses.
There is a difference in the two and you should know that since you're the expert in the law and the lawlessness that went on with the savior and his lawless disciple

"NEVER the law of moses"? We have already seen that Jesus said that nothing that a person eats defiles a person, which Mark correctly understands as Jesus declaring all foods clean.

Luk 8:53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.
Luk 8:54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.”
Luk 8:55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. (ESV)

Here Jesus touches a dead body, which made him unclean.

Luk 5:12 While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy. And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
Luk 5:13 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him. (ESV)

Here Jesus touches a leper, which made him unclean.

Your lack of understanding brings nothing but blasphemy the discussion.

And, yet, you haven't even attempted to provide any understanding.

 

[Humblepie]

Here Jesus touches a dead body, which made him unclean.

Keep studying.

Unclean food is not the same unclean as touching a dead body. It goes back to the Greek words in the original text.


All the scripture you quote to support your position does nothing of the sort.
It actually supports my position when read in context.

Anytime FOOD is mentioned in Scripture it is food which has already been consecrated by God as food.

When they speak of FOOD being unclean it isn't pig they speak about, it's food that may not have been slaughtered the way the ((((Talmud ))))
Commands. Thus you can actually have a CLEAN animal according to the law, become unclean according to the oral law. (Commandments of men)

The only law Jesus did away with are the commandments of men.

 

[Humblepie]

(Thus he declared all foods clean.)

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?


Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.

People think Mark 7:19 says "Thus he declared all foods clean" The problem is "Thus he declared" was added, the other gospels don't support this, and no Bible I found said this till 1881 (RV). Is there a satanic agenda to trick people to disobey God?
Mark 7:19 contains a parenthetical comment that "Jesus declared all foods clean". Is there any historical evidence that this phrase was added after Mark's gospel was written?
According to the Codex Sinaiticus which was hand written over 1600 years ago and is the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the brackets are NOT in the original Greek.

A lot of newer translations included the bracket. “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Interestingly enough, the King James version doesn’t have this. But more importantly, the oldest Christian New Testament does not have it. In Mark:7 Jesus is pointing out the [[[[[[[[difference between]]]]]]]]] (((God‘s commandments)))) and (((((traditions of men))))), like washing your hands before eating food, which was not God ordain but man’s traditions.

Matthew 15 talks about the same story, but in the end, Jesus says “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone. “Jesus’ whole argument was that a person does not become unclean by eating with unwashed hands, but by the sin that comes out of the same person. Jesus was not abrogating God’s instructions regarding food, because to do so, would have been to go against his father’s instructions.

 

[Humblepie]

1 Timothy 4:5
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Only God can sanctify.
Where did he sanctify pig in the bible?.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

Is the law of moses given by deceitful spirits and teachings of demons?
Is that your stance?

 

[Humblepie]

1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Who are those that know the truth?
(Jews)



What does scripture say truth is?
(The law)

Received with thanksgiving by believing jews who know the truth that unwashed hands doesn't make that clean animal, unclean.


God sanctified clean animals for food, and nothing man can say or do will change that.
If God didn't sanctify the animal as food, then it's not food.






Washed hands or unwashed hands.

 

[electedbyhim]

Who are those that know the truth?
(Jews)



What does scripture say truth is?
(The law)

Received with thanksgiving by believing jews who know the truth that unwashed hands doesn't make that clean animal, unclean.


God sanctified clean animals for food, and nothing man can say or do will change that.
If God didn't sanctify the animal as food, then it's not food.






Washed hands or unwashed hands.

God sanctified clean animals for food, and nothing man can say or do will change that.
If God didn't sanctify the animal as food, then it's not food.

So, all animals are clean to eat, is that correct?

 

[Free]

Keep studying.

Unclean food is not the same unclean as touching a dead body. It goes back to the Greek words in the original text.

Then, please, explain.

All the scripture you quote to support your position does nothing of the sort.
It actually supports my position when read in context.

How so? You need to start proving your case.

Anytime FOOD is mentioned in Scripture it is food which has already been consecrated by God as food.

Please provide support.

When they speak of FOOD being unclean it isn't pig they speak about, it's food that may not have been slaughtered the way the ((((Talmud ))))
Commands. Thus you can actually have a CLEAN animal according to the law, become unclean according to the oral law. (Commandments of men)

Again, please provide support.

The only law Jesus did away with are the commandments of men.

The only law? I've asked you several times now and you have to yet to answer the questions: Are Christians supposed to only learn about the law or still adhere to it? And if Christians are to adhere to it, is that in full or in part? If in part, which part(s)?

You make a lot of claims, but provide no support for those claims. This is the Theology forum where it is expected that one supports their arguments with biblical, or other, proof.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.

What texts are you referring to? There is no variation in the MSS other than discrepancies over the word καθαρίζων being either neuter or masculine.

 

[Free]

19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?


Those words in Mark 7:19 are not found in the oldest manuscripts; you will find a footnote relating to that statement in most of the Bibles quoting it. If we examine texts prior to 1899, we find this to be true.

What words?

People think Mark 7:19 says "Thus he declared all foods clean" The problem is "Thus he declared" was added, the other gospels don't support this, and no Bible I found said this till 1881 (RV). Is there a satanic agenda to trick people to disobey God?

No, it's just appropriate to the context.

Mark 7:19 contains a parenthetical comment that "Jesus declared all foods clean". Is there any historical evidence that this phrase was added after Mark's gospel was written?

No.

According to the Codex Sinaiticus which was hand written over 1600 years ago and is the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the brackets are NOT in the original Greek.

They're just brackets. What is your point here?

A lot of newer translations included the bracket. “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

Interestingly enough, the King James version doesn’t have this. But more importantly, the oldest Christian New Testament does not have it.

And what makes it interesting? What point are you trying to make?

In Mark:7 Jesus is pointing out the [[[[[[[[difference between]]]]]]]]] (((God‘s commandments)))) and (((((traditions of men))))), like washing your hands before eating food, which was not God ordain but man’s traditions.

Except that is not a point Mark makes. His point is obviously a bit different than Matthew's.

Matthew 15 talks about the same story, but in the end, Jesus says “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone. “Jesus’ whole argument was that a person does not become unclean by eating with unwashed hands, but by the sin that comes out of the same person. Jesus was not abrogating God’s instructions regarding food, because to do so, would have been to go against his father’s instructions.

And, yet, Mark says something different. Why do you want what Matthew says to completely change the plain reading of what Mark says? Again, given that it is generally held that Peter dictated to Mark, and that Peter had had his vision on the sheet and the animals before Mark wrote his gospel, it stands to reason that Peter's (or Mark's) intent was to point out this meaning of Jesus's words.

Mar 7:18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (ESV)

The context is clear that those things which defile a person--makes them morally impure--are what is in one's heart, not the food that goes into a person. Hence why the comment fits the context.

 

[electedbyhim]

18, 19a. He said to them, Are you also so lacking in understanding? Do you not know that nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, since it does not enter his heart but his stomach and goes out into the latrine? Jesus seems to be saying, “That others—for example, the Pharisees and scribes, the people in general—do not grasp my teaching is not strange, but that you, who have associated with me for so long a period and so closely, are also so dense, that is inexcusable.” Cf. John 14:9. Do The Twelve fail to realize that whatever enters a man from the outside is finally eliminated from the body? And since during its journey through the body it enters man’s stomach but never his heart, the very core and center of his entire being (see on 6:52), how then can it render the man unclean, polluted, or defiled?

19b. Mark adds his own observation to the words of Jesus. It is the inspired evangelist’s interpretation of the significance of Jesus’ saying regarding ceremonial versus real defilement: Thus he pronounced all foods clean.

Actually the original says no more than: “declaring—or: making, pronouncing—clean all the foods.”325 The question is, Who or what is it that makes or pronounces the foods “clean”? As some see it, it is the latrine or “privy” that does this.326 Reasons for accepting the view of most commentators, namely, that what Mark means is that it was Jesus who, by the principle which he laid down in verse 15, made all foods clean, are the following:

a. How a privy can make or declare all foods clean is very, very difficult to understand.

b. The last time Mark mentioned Jesus by name was in 6:30, but by means of a pronoun, either independent or implied in a verbal form, he made reference to Jesus again and again afterward (6:31, 34, 35, 37, etc., and so again in ch. 7:1, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 18). Is it not natural to assume that the reference also in 19b is to Jesus?

c. If the widely held opinion that Mark was “Peter’s interpreter” (see Introduction, I) is correct, then we may assume that Peter’s own experience recorded in Acts 10:9–16 and 11:1–18 (the vision of the great sheet holding all kinds of unclean creatures) was included in his preaching and was by him brought into relation with Jesus’ saying as recorded in Mark 7:15. Peter’s conclusion, we may well believe, was the one which Mark remembered, accepted as his own belief, and reported in Mark 7:19b. Do we not find an echo of “Thus he [Jesus] pronounced all foods clean” in Acts 10:15 (cf. 11:9), “What God has cleansed you must not call common [or: unclean]”?

d. If the One who pronounced all foods clean is Jesus, then the logic is clear, for in Mark 7:15 it is he who declares that whatever enters a man from the outside is undefiling. Hence, all foods, also meat from ceremonially “unclean” animals, is in principle undefiling. Interpreters may differ on the question exactly when, according to God’s will, the abolition of the ceremonial laws regarding clean and unclean went into effect. Did it take place right now, at the very moment when Jesus spoke these words? Did it occur when Jesus was crucified? See Col. 2:14. On the day of Pentecost? Whatever be the answer, it remains true that in principle all foods were pronounced clean here and now.[1]



325 With βρῶματα cf. ambrosia: the imagined food of the Greek and Roman gods; also ambrosial: delicious.

326 See Lenski op. cit., pp. 188, 189. But Swete, op. cit., p. 152, correctly remarks that such a view scarcely calls for consideration.

[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, vol. 10, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 281–282.

 

[electedbyhim]

Mark 7:19

Mark’s parenthetical note explains that in making this statement Jesus in a moment obliterated the dietary laws of Judaism and declared all foods clean. The issue is not a person’s culinary choices but the spiritual condition of his inner person. Given Mark’s close association with the apostle Peter (see Introduction: Authorship), Mark’s comment was likely influenced by Peter’s own experience in Joppa (Acts 10:15; cf. 1 Tim. 4:3).

John MacArthur, Mark 1–8, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2015), 357.

 

[Free]

1 Timothy 4:5
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Only God can sanctify.
Where did he sanctify pig in the bible?.

Why did you leave out context?

1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (ESV)

That's also a pretty plain and clear teaching. What you're essentially teaching, by disagreeing with 1 Tim 3:3-5, is that not every creature created by God for food is actually good and should be rejected.

Is the law of moses given by deceitful spirits and teachings of demons?
Is that your stance?

Not at all. I'm not sure why you would even ask that question. Doctrines of demons, according to the above passage, includes rejecting as food those animals which God created good for food.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.(ESV)

Who are those that know the truth?
(Jews)

Really? Are you actually making the argument that only Jews know the truth?

What does scripture say truth is?
(The law)

I thought the Scriptures said that Jesus is the truth. Am I mistaken? Didn't Jesus tell those who believed in him that if they were to abide in his word, that they would "know the truth, and the truth [would set them] free"? Don't Christians have the Spirit of truth who guides believers into all the truth necessary for salvation?

This is relevant here:

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)

Received with thanksgiving by believing jews who know the truth that unwashed hands doesn't make that clean animal, unclean.

By Jews? How many times does Paul mention Jews in 1 Tim? Zero. Why do you think that is? Isn't Ephesus relatively far from Israel? Wouldn't it make sense that since Paul is writing to Timothy in regards to the church at Ephesus, that he is speaking of both Jewish and Gentile believers? Isn't it likely that the church at Ephesus is largely Gentile Christians?

God sanctified clean animals for food, and nothing man can say or do will change that.
If God didn't sanctify the animal as food, then it's not food.

Yet, you haven't provided any proof for either of those statements.

 

[Humblepie]

1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God

What food has been sanctified by God?



5 For it is sanctified by the word of God


Sanctify:
to ((((set apart)))) to a sacred purpose or to religious use.

Is pig now set aside for a sacred purpose?






All your Galatians quotes are out of context with the letter to the Galatians.

The context of Galatians is this.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


The other gospel paul writes about is what the acts 15 decision is ALL about.




This is the different gospel.

((((Unless you are circumcised,)))))) according to the custom taught by Moses, (((((you cannot be saved.”)))))


That is not what Paul taught.
That teaching paul wrote against
is the yoke.


Read Galatians and keep in mind Paul's 7 laws in romans, and also read it with the ((((other gospel))))) as the topic of the letter.

1) Follow the law first to be saved

2) Salvation is free and no works of the law are required to enter the faith, only that you love God and worship only him.



I read my Bible the same way you do, for 40 years.

Making the word conform to my belief instead of my belief conforming to the word.

Now I believe the WHOLE Bible is true, including the OT scripture that says the law is for ALL generations.
The law is good
Righteous
A lamp,
The truth,
Not too difficult,

My application of the law is what's different from yours.


Scripture backs my belief.

I believe that you are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God not of works of the Law.

I believe the law shows us what sin is and always will be. The Law shows us why we need a savior.


I believe that when one becomes saved they want to do what they believe is truth because they ARE saved.

The Bible calls the Law truth.

The law is NOT a doctrine of devils.

The only laws Jesus ever broke were the oral laws that MAN Wrote, not the Torah.

Example:

Jesus eats a goat with dirty hands,
Under God's law that animal is clean because it was sanctified by God as food.
Under the oral law, jews claimed the meat is now unclean because of unwashed hands.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What (((((God hath cleansed,))))))) that call not thou common.

 

[Free]

What food has been sanctified by God?


5 For it is sanctified by the word of God


Sanctify:
to ((((set apart)))) to a sacred purpose or to religious use.

Is pig now set aside for a sacred purpose?

What is the context? Food. You keep ignoring the context:

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (ESV)

You disagree with Paul that "everything created by God is good" (where "everything" means "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving"). Why?

Notice also that Paul is contrasting "those who believe and know the truth" with those who don't; the latter being those who teach the requirement to abstain from certain foods.

All your Galatians quotes are out of context with the letter to the Galatians.

The context of Galatians is this.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

No, my quote is in context and that is specifically why I quoted it. Paul is clearly addressing the error Peter made, who, being a believer, had been eating with Gentiles. That would mean he ate what they ate. But, when the Jews from James showed up, he began to withdraw from eating with the Gentiles, "fearing the circumcision party." That is, he started to follow certain aspects of the law which he had clearly set aside. That is all in agreement with Mark 7 and Acts 10 and 15.

The other gospel paul writes about is what the acts 15 decision is ALL about.

I agree. And what was the decision of the council? Four things:

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (ESV)

This is the different gospel.

((((Unless you are circumcised,)))))) according to the custom taught by Moses, (((((you cannot be saved.”)))))

The other gospel isn't just about circumcision; it's adding anything, any other requirement, for salvation.

That is not what Paul taught.

What isn't?

That teaching paul wrote against
is the yoke.

What teaching?

Read Galatians and keep in mind Paul's 7 laws in romans, and also read it with the ((((other gospel))))) as the topic of the letter.

1) Follow the law first to be saved

2) Salvation is free and no works of the law are required to enter the faith, only that you love God and worship only him.

What is your point? It isn't clear.

I read my Bible the same way you do, for 40 years.


Making the word conform to my belief instead of my belief conforming to the word.

Except that you're forcing Scripture to fit your beliefs. Shouldn't we just believe the council in Acts 15 and what Mark wrote in 7:19? Those are both very clear, simple passages.

Now I believe the WHOLE Bible is true, including the OT scripture that says the law is for ALL generations.

Of course the whole Bible is true. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Do you regularly sacrifice animals and present peace offerings? Do you stone adulterers and homosexuals? Do you wear mixed fabrics?

My application of the law is what's different from yours.

Once again, I've asked you several times now and you have to yet to answer the questions: Are Christians supposed to only learn about the law or still adhere to it? And if Christians are to adhere to it, is that in full or in part? If in part, which part(s)?

Scripture backs my belief.

You haven't yet shown that to be the case.

I believe that you are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God not of works of the Law.

I believe the law shows us what sin is and always will be. The Law shows us why we need a savior.

I agree. And that is why the law points to Christ and was fulfilled in him.

I believe that when one becomes saved they want to do what they believe is truth because they ARE saved.


The Bible calls the Law truth.

It is, but you need to be much more clear on the application of the law for believers--is it all the law or a specific part or parts?

The law is NOT a doctrine of devils.

Of course it isn't.

The only laws Jesus ever broke were the oral laws that MAN Wrote, not the Torah.

Example:

Jesus eats a goat with dirty hands,
Under God's law that animal is clean because it was sanctified by God as food.
Under the oral law, jews claimed the meat is now unclean because of unwashed hands.

And, yet, what you didn't address are those verses I gave where Jesus touched a dead body and touched a leper.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What (((((God hath cleansed,))))))) that call not thou common.

Right, which lines up with what Mark said--all foods have been declared clean.

 

[Humblepie]

1Ti 4:5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (ESV)

5 For it is (((((sanctified))))) by the word of God and prayer.(KJV)

You failed to address this in your rebuttal.


What has been sanctified as food for our consumption by God.

 

[Humblepie]

devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

Are you saying following God's law is a teaching of demons?