Proof that all foods have not be cleansed?

[wavy]

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

No way around it. This certainly proves at least one type of animal is unclean (which means all foods have not been declared clean, which logically directs us to the conclusion that if one is mentioned as unclean, so are others...unless one considers the Father to have a bias against birds).

Acts 10 is a midrash, a Hebraic principle of interpretation. Like allegory. It represented man. Peter undestood this by Acts 10:28. No food laws were reversed here.

Matthew 15 and Mark 7:19 do not reverse food laws. It is merely explained that whatever goes into a man cannot defile him (subject of the chapters are not even primarily focused on food), but only what's in his heart and this comes out of his mouth. "In this saying Jesus declared" (Mark 7:19), which is accepted in many translations, does not appear in the Greek text, but "purifying/cleansing all the foods" does (as a continuation of Messiah's words, not a note by Mark). Not even unclean meats can defile the inner man. Nothing from outside the body (paint, poison, unclean meat) can.

What does defile the man is making void the commandments of יהוה through tradition (Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:9), which is the product of what's in the heart and what comes out of the mouth and the works of the flesh mentioned in this passage. Certainly Messiah did not accuse the Pharisees and Sadducees of voiding commandments only to do it himself right afterwards. Also, if Messiah reversed kosher laws here there was no need for them to be reversed in Acts 10.


For more details on these passages & other passages that seemingly support an unkosher diet, see Holy Cow! Only Clean Foods For Believers

 

[cubedbee]

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

No way around it. This certainly proves at least one type of animal is unclean (which means all foods have not been declared clean, which logically directs us to the conclusion that if one is mentioned as unclean, so are others...unless one considers the Father to have a bias against birds).

Assuming this passage is talking about animals. The context, which lists birds alongside devils and spirits, instead of beasts of the field as is customary in other references to birds, seems like maybe this unclean hateful bird is of a spiritual, rather than a physical, nature.

As for the rest of your post, you are wrong--the NT makes clear, in the passages you listed, as well as others, that we are no longer under the dietary law of Israel.

1 Timothy 4:1-6 could not be clearer-- "For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. " There is no creature that is unclean, there is no creature which Christians cannot eat, every creature God created is good.


Acts 15 also could not be any more explicit that Gentile Christians are not under the Jewish dietary law.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

You can't overturn plain and clear Scripture with a single word in a figurative context from an apocolyptic prophecy. There are no unclean foods today, Christians do not have to follow Hebrew dietary law.

 

[wavy]

Assuming this passage is talking about animals.

Didn't say it was. Nevertheless an animal is mentioned.

The context, which lists birds alongside devils and spirits, instead of beasts of the field as is customary in other references to birds, seems like maybe this unclean hateful bird is of a spiritual, rather than a physical, nature.

"Seems like"??? Anyway that's not the point. The point is this cannot be a true statement if all foods have been made clean.

Also, in addition to being unclean for health purposes, animals were also named unclean for spiritual purposes, as were most things named "unclean" by the bible. This is not a good argument in my eyes.

The fact is that an unclean animal represented an unclean truth. If all animals were now made clean, this animal could not have been called unclean to respresent a spiritual truth.

As for the rest of your post, you are wrong--the NT makes clear, in the passages you listed, as well as others, that we are no longer under the dietary law of Israel.

"Of Israel"? I assume you are not under the new covenant then...

1 Timothy 4:1-6 could not be clearer-- "For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. "

There is no creature that is unclean, there is no creature which Christians cannot eat, every creature God created is good.

You obviously did not read the link and refute the points. This is not a good argument. Please read:

And lastly, what about 1 Timothy 4:4, where it is stated “every creature of God is good...� Taken purely out of context by most people. In 1 Timothy 4:3 he explains that in the last days people will forbid others to abstain from marriage and from meats (as opposed to vegetables, not clean versus unclean). He says Yahweh has created food/meat and that we can receive it with thanksgiving. Then it reads:

1 Timothy 4:4 Because every creature of Yahweh is good, and nothing to be thrust away, but having been received with thanksgiving;

Many stop at this verse here, but the first thing we must remember is that only clean foods were considered food for Yahweh’s people. Now on the next verse, which is key:

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

To sanctify something means to set it apart. To esteem it above other things as sacred. All foods can’t be sanctified, because if they were all sanctified, they wouldn’t be sanctified (if you get what I mean). The food Yahweh has created for us to eat is sanctified by his Word, as this verse states. Since the only word at this time is the Tanach wherein is the Torah, then the food sanctified by his Word must be the laws defined as in the 11th chapter of Leviticus. This is the undeniable truth. The quote “every creature†is talking about every creature that is set-apart in the Word (Torah).

Acts 15 also could not be any more explicit that Gentile Christians are not under the Jewish dietary law.

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Well, kill some one then. The only thing you have to do is is not eat blood or meats offered to idols and from forinication. Anyway, you do not get the point of this passage. James made it clear what was to be done as these new believers grew:

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anyway, I have a whole study on this. There was a reason these simple, necessary things were given.

You can't overturn plain and clear Scripture with a single word in a figurative context from an apocolyptic prophecy. There are no unclean foods today, Christians do not have to follow Hebrew dietary law.

You did not look at the link. I haven't overturned anything. Especially not with a "single word". That's what the link was for...

You have not done a good job in making a presentation. No offense, but all you've done is apply the mistaken, unlearned, biased, traditional, lawless, non-Hebraic mindset into the scripture. And I say again, you did not read the link...

 

[Vic C.]

Assuming this passage is talking about animals. The context, which lists birds alongside devils and spirits, instead of beasts of the field as is customary in other references to birds, seems like maybe this unclean hateful bird is of a spiritual, rather than a physical, nature.

Cubedbee, you make a good point here. Wavy, I think using Revelation 18:2 is stretching it a little.

The Bible uses birds and foul in a derogatory way many times, this being one of them. Look at the example in Matthew 13:4

And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

and Jesus' explanation

Mat 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

Plus look at the fouls in this passage

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

 

[wavy]

Cubedbee, you make a good point here. Wavy, I think using Revelation 18:2 is stretching it a little.

You must have skipped over what I said. The statement made in Revelation 18:2 about the unclean birds cannot be an accurate statement to represent a spiritual truth if no animals are unclean...

Your example of Matthew 13, imo, is irrelevant.

 

[Vic C.]

You must have skipped over what I said. The statement made in Revelation 18:2 about the unclean birds cannot be an accurate statement to represent a spiritual truth if no animals are unclean...

I'm not debating whether or not all animals are clean. I'm saying that Revelation 18:2 is not prooftext for whether or not all animals are clean.

But think about this concerning the Matthew verses I quoted, specifically Matthew 13:31-32:

What do the branches represent? Are the birds grafted into the "mustard tree" or are just lodging there? What happens to the Lord's ekklesia when too many of these unclean foul lodge in the branches? What do the birds eat while lodging in the branches? The "fruit" of the tree maybe? What do birds do after they eat and digest the "fruit"?

I think the birds in Revelation 18:2 are the ones who completely "foul" up God's ekklesia and His Word.

Wavy, how can birds be "hateful"?

2and he did cry in might -- a great voice, saying, `Fall, fall did Babylon the great, and she became a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hateful bird, (YLT)

 

[wavy]

I'm not debating whether or not all animals are clean. I'm saying that Revelation 18:2 is not prooftext for whether or not all animals are clean.

It has to be. It directly states that there is such thing as an unclean bird (which represents a spiritual truth). That means something that supposedly was declared clean and not to be called "common" was called just that.

What do the branches represent? Are the birds grafted into the "mustard tree" or are just lodging there? What happens to the Lord's ekklesia when too many of these unclean foul lodge in the branches? What do the birds eat while lodging in the branches? The "fruit" of the tree maybe? What do birds do after they eat and digest the "fruit"?

Need I say more?

Yes, you do. I don't know what you are saying exactly...

 

[wavy]

Wavy, how can birds be "hateful"?

Hateful to our perception (detestable) not that the birds can hate...

 

[Vic C.]

I must have been editing my post as you were posting. Go back and reread the ending. 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

Wavy, how can birds be "hateful"?

Hateful to our perception (detestable) not that the birds can hate...

LOL! Out of all the verses in Revelation, you take this literal just to prove your point? I know you can do better than that. ;-)

 

[wavy]

Yeah, perhaps they are the same birds mentioned. Who knows? It's possible.

However, the principle remains the same. He used the concept of a literal unclean animal to portay the uncleaness in Revelation 18:2. Impossible if all animals are clean. It'd be a bad comparison.

 

[wavy]

Wavy, how can birds be "hateful"?

Hateful to our perception (detestable) not that the birds can hate...

LOL! Out of all the verses in Revelation, you take this literal just to prove your point? I know you can do better than that. ;-)

Huh? This isn't literal...

I thought you were saying birds can hate (as in emotionally hate some one). I was saying that that's not what it means. It's like a spider. They are detestable (hateful) to most people.

In Revelation 18:2, the concept hateful birds (as well unclean birds), is used to represent the greater revelation.

I'm not making anything literal...

 

[cubedbee]

"Seems like"???

Yes, "seems like." I don't have the hubris to claim that I know what Scripture is definitively saying and that my understanding is the correct one.

Anyway that's not the point. The point is this cannot be a true statement if all foods have been made clean.

What 'statement' are you talking about? The clause "unclean and hateful bird?" In this same book of Revelation that you are talking about, I see multiple references to dragons. Many many more than the one to unclean birds. By your 'logic', which says that because 'unclean birds' are mentioned in a prophecy, there must actually exist unclean birds in today's world, then by the same exact logic, because dragons are metnioned in a prophecy, there must actually exist dragons in today's world. So where are the dragons? Or why does your logic change?

Also, in addition to being unclean for health purposes, animals were also named unclean for spiritual purposes, as were most things named "unclean" by the bible. This is not a good argument in my eyes.

The argument is that the entire book of Revelation is an allegory, and that it is quite possible and valid for allegorical books to allegorize things that don't really exist in our world, like unclean birds or dragons, as long as the correct spiritual imagary is being displayed.

"Of Israel"? I assume you are not under the new covenant then...

You assume quite wrong. And you know what they say about those who assume?

You obviously did not read the link and refute the points. This is not a good argument. Please read:

You are the one who did not make a good argument. The passage says what the passage says--all animals are sanctified by God and given to us to eat. If the passage had wanted to speak of only clean creatures, Paul definitely knew the word for clean and would have used it. It doesn't say that we can eat all clean creatures, it says we can eat all creatures. As far as sanctification goes---not all meat is sanctified--the passage is rather clear that it is the Word and prayer, something which only a believer would have, that sanctifies the meat.

Well, kill some one then. The only thing you have to do is is not eat blood or meats offered to idols and from forinication.

Well,actually Christians are told to do in more passages than this one---you need to read the entire New Testament--and killing is quite clearly forbidden.
Even Gentiles have some sense or right and wrong---it wasn't a debate whether Gentiles should refrain from murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. However, there were many things which the Jews thought were wrong but the Gentiles thought were right. This passage clarifies which of those Jewish practices are truly important, which reflect moral issues that a Gentile Christian should follow.

Anyway, you do not get the point of this passage. James made it clear what was to be done as these new believers grew:

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

.

Yeah, my Gentile church still reads and preaches Moses. But that doesn't mean we do, or should, obey all the rules that Moses laid out for Israel.

You can't overturn plain and clear Scripture with a single word in a figurative context from an apocolyptic prophecy. There are no unclean foods today, Christians do not have to follow Hebrew dietary law.

You did not look at the link. I haven't overturned anything. Especially not with a "single word". That's what the link was for...[/quote]No, I didn't look at your link, nor do I have to. All you're doing is attacking passages that clearly in plain language indicate Christians are not to follow dietary laws, and substantiating your opinion that we still have to follow the diets by a single word in a single verse. Without that single word, there would be absolutely no passage in the entire New Testament that supports your position---as it is there is one tenous passage and your efforts to reinterpret several clear ones to the contrary.

You have not done a good job in making a presentation. No offense, but all you've done is apply the mistaken, unlearned, biased, traditional, lawless, non-Hebraic mindset into the scripture. And I say again, you did not read the link...

You did not do a very job in your presentation, making logically questionable leaps, denying the plain words of Scripture, and against all passages in the New Testament trying to claim that Gentile Christians are obligated to keep all of Moses' Law. I'm not going to read your link, there is no point to me doing so.

 

[wavy]

What 'statement' are you talking about? The clause "unclean and hateful bird?" In this same book of Revelation that you are talking about, I see multiple references to dragons. Many many more than the one to unclean birds. By your 'logic', which says that because 'unclean birds' are mentioned in a prophecy, there must actually exist unclean birds in today's world, then by the same exact logic, because dragons are metnioned in a prophecy, there must actually exist dragons in today's world. So where are the dragons? Or why does your logic change?

"Dragon" does not have to mean the fairy tale creatures you are probably thinking of.

But anyway, it does not matter. We know a bird is a real animal. So an "unclean bird" mentioned symbolically, again, could not be a true analogy if birds (a real animal) were all clean.

The argument is that the entire book of Revelation is an allegory, and that it is quite possible and valid for allegorical books to allegorize things that don't really exist in our world, like unclean birds or dragons, as long as the correct spiritual imagary is being displayed.

I don't think it is "quite possible and valid". And besides, it doesn't matter. There is such a thing as an unclean bird as well as other animals. Check the 11th chapter of Leviticus.

You are the one who did not make a good argument. The passage says what the passage says--all animals are sanctified by God and given to us to eat. If the passage had wanted to speak of only clean creatures, Paul definitely knew the word for clean and would have used it. It doesn't say that we can eat all clean creatures, it says we can eat all creatures. As far as sanctification goes---not all meat is sanctified--the passage is rather clear that it is the Word and prayer, something which only a believer would have, that sanctifies the meat.

You still have not refuted the points, and again, non-Hebraic mindset. Leviticus 11 is in the Word, and in that passage is the sanctification for what is considered FOOD. You completely missed the "sanctified" point. All foods, logically, cannot be sanctified.

Paul does not have to say "clean". He would have, being a Jew and also a Pharisee, considered "food" to be clean animals.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

I'm sure he didn't mean lions and tigers and bears and butterflies and "birds" and spiders, etc...

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

I'm sure he did not mean the Messiah and the Father...

Well,actually Christians are told to do in more passages than this one---you need to read the entire New Testament--and killing is quite clearly forbidden.

My whole point. Which is why your quoting of Acts 15 is irrelevant, since you were using it in the context of "all we have to do" so that the Torah is automatically exluded. You had in large letters "no greater burden".

Also, "you shall not kill" is contained in the Torah.

Even Gentiles have some sense or right and wrong---it wasn't a debate whether Gentiles should refrain from murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. However, there were many things which the Jews thought were wrong but the Gentiles thought were right. This passage clarifies which of those Jewish practices are truly important, which reflect moral issues that a Gentile Christian should follow.

Baseless. And again, there is to be no distinction between believers. Not one set of laws for Jews and another one for "saved gentiles".

We want to create the distinction only when we refuse to heed the Torah. All other times we are one and the same with the Jews...

Yeah, my Gentile church still reads and preaches Moses. But that doesn't mean we do, or should, obey all the rules that Moses laid out for Israel.

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you Torah, and yet none of you keepeth Torah?...

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the Torah are just before Elohim, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified.

Be doer, not just a hearer. And keep James' words within the context of which he said them: he said that right after he mentioned the "necessary things". They did not need to go out and command them to keep the Torah. They would come to that progressively as they learned on the sabbath (not in Sun Day "gentile kirch").

No, I didn't look at your link, nor do I have to.

Well, that explains it then....

All you're doing is attacking passages that clearly in plain language indicate Christians are not to follow dietary laws, and substantiating your opinion that we still have to follow the diets by a single word in a single verse. Without that single word, there would be absolutely no passage in the entire New Testament that supports your position---as it is there is one tenous passage and your efforts to reinterpret several clear ones to the contrary.

How do you again assert that the "single word" is my only proof but admit you had not read the link and don't want to?

And from a biased, lawless veiwpoint, yes it is clear. Paul also seems clear. Peter disagreed in 2 Peter 3:15-17, saying that the "lawless" (anomos) twist his words and letters.

You did not do a very job in your presentation, making logically questionable leaps, denying the plain words of Scripture, and against all passages in the New Testament trying to claim that Gentile Christians are obligated to keep all of Moses' Law. I'm not going to read your link, there is no point to me doing so.

This was a silly statement.

"You have no evidence and no proof, but I will not read your link where you give far more evidence and proof!!!"

Accusing me of no presentation, but refusing to address the points I made...

Anyway, I'm done with this...

 

[cubedbee]

But anyway, it does not matter. We know a bird is a real animal. So an "unclean bird" mentioned symbolically, again, could not be a true analogy if birds (a real animal) were all clean.

You're hung up on this, and you're logic simply isn't correct. "True analogies" can and do involve creatures which do not actually exist. The truth of an analogy does not lie in whether we can go out and catch one of what we are comparing to, it involves whether the verbal imagery conveys the message.

I don't think it is "quite possible and valid". And besides, it doesn't matter. There is such a thing as an unclean bird as well as other animals. Check the 11th chapter of Leviticus.

"Unclean" has no meaning for a Christian. Read Mark 7:18-19. It says that nothing that enters our mouth can defile us. That includes food, despite your insistence that we still must follow Kosher. Read the other NT passages you reject which clearly say anything can be eaten. And more importantly, read all of the Letters that were written to Gentile churches, Gentiles who would not be following the dietary law and who Paul would not have assumed were following it, and notice how not a single letter to Gentiles command Christians to follow Kosher, even though there are hundreds of other commands.

You still have not refuted the points, and again, non-Hebraic mindset. Leviticus 11 is in the Word, and in that passage is the sanctification for what is considered FOOD. You completely missed the "sanctified" point. All foods, logically, cannot be sanctified.

I'm not a Hebrew, I'm not an Israelite, Leviticus 11 was not written to me anymore than the circumsion commandment ((or the uncleaness of a woman giving birth, or the commandment to sacrifice animals. ) at the beginning of Leviticus 12 does.

Paul does not have to say "clean". He would have, being a Jew and also a Pharisee, considered "food" to be clean animals

Paul was a Jew, but he was an ambassador to the Gentiles, who did not consider "food" to be the Jewish clean animals. Had he intended for his non-Jewish converts to only eat clean animals, he surely would have explicitly stated, because there is no way is audience would have assumed otherwise.

Baseless. And again, there is to be no distinction between believers. Not one set of laws for Jews and another one for "saved gentiles".

We want to create the distinction only when we refuse to heed the Torah. All other times we are one and the same with the Jews...

Jews no longer need to heed the Torah either--they need to accept Christ as their Saviour and allow him to change their lives. The Laws you are trying to have us follow are of the Old Convenant, not of the New Covenant. The conversation you are ignoring in Acts 15 is a conversatin between all Jewish Christians discussing which aspects of the Judaic law need to continue to be heeded by the Gentiles. It cannot get any clearer---if eating certain kinds of meat were required, it would have been mentioned here.

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you Torah, and yet none of you keepeth Torah?...

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the Torah are just before Elohim, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified.

Be doer, not just a hearer. And keep James' words within the context of which he said them: he said that right after he mentioned the "necessary things". They did not need to go out and command them to keep the Torah. They would come to that progressively as they learned on the sabbath (not in Sun Day "gentile kirch").

The problem with this is that we are commanded in the New Testament that we do not have to keep the Torah. Acts 15, the chapter we keep coming back to, explicitly says Christians do not need to be circumcised. The Torah explicitly says to be circumcised. Thus, Acts 15 explicitly says "Do not keep Torah."

And the rest of your logic doesn't make sense either. Every other thing James mentioned was also in the Torah, so why was he giving the Gentiles this command? If it was necessary to keep the Torah, which the earlier part of the chapter makes explicit that it is not, then why would James pick these couple things out of the entire Torah to list, rather than say "Follow the Torah?" You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest with this chapter in order to suit your views.

 

[wavy]

Didn't I tell you I was finished, cube?

But, I did find this interesting, however: :-D

The problem with this is that we are commanded in the New Testament that we do not have to keep the Torah. Acts 15, the chapter we keep coming back to, explicitly says Christians do not need to be circumcised. The Torah explicitly says to be circumcised. Thus, Acts 15 explicitly says "Do not keep Torah."

You ignored James' and Paul's words, for one. And the meaning of Acts 15 does not change regardless of how many times you refer me back to it (although I have read it many times). Nothing in Acts 15 says "do not keep Torah".

Please read as I refute this from a guy who tried to use this:

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Notice the context in Acts 15:1. Notice the terms "needful" and "command". This is added "works of law". They were not going to put themselves over their brother Ephraim or his equal believing companions (true non-Israelites). This is a burden, as is stated by Peter in Acts 15:10. The Pharisees, the strictest sect, was not going to give them and teach them true Torah as equals, as the new believers were learning in the synagogues on the sabbath (Acts 15:21). They were trying to enslave them to themselves.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe...

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

The letter to the Gentiles from the apostles concerning them that would put them under the law.

Indeed, not "under law". I noticed that you also skipped a few verses. I don't want to accuse you falsely so I won't say that it is certain, but it seems you skipped the verses because the inevitable is in them:

Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

The "certain" men of Acts 15:1 were denying them their salvation and saying it was impossible for them to be considered equals in right standing and justification unless they had first listened to them and were put under immediate subjection of all Torah at once ( with the added burdens of the time which were just as authorative instead of learning it as per Acts 15:21).

Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Those who try to put the Christian ekklesia under the laws of the ekklesia of Israel are in direct disobedience to the word of God and are to be rejected as hereticks.

These scriptures are always taken out of context. No, Judah should not give commandments to his brother or his companions, or lord over them. This was for the purposes of fellowship. You cannot eat with fornicators (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) and cannot take have company with idolatry (1 Corinthians 6:16) and cannot eat blood, which is abstaining from uncleaness of flesh (1 Corinthians 7:1). Things must be slit by the throat, not strangled so as retain blood. These are shochet (ritual slaugheter of kosher meat) principles.

My friend Georges has a thing on the Noahide laws that's interesting concerning this.

Also notice that they were keeping the sabbath according to Acts 15:21 and did not choose their own sabbath days. You, however, skipped over this verse also.

Telling me, "read Acts 15" or saying "it's clear, it's clear, your logic fails" does not refute the points. You can repeat this all you want to.

And the rest of your logic doesn't make sense either.

Backtracking a little bit, you must have missed the point I made about your "analogy" about the dragon and the unclean bird. A dragon is an attractive serpent creature. So is satan on a spiritual plane.

An unclean bird is an unclean bird. So are those mentioned in Revelation 18:2 on a spiritual plane. Your analogy argument is no argument at all...

Every other thing James mentioned was also in the Torah, so why was he giving the Gentiles this command?

Firstly, please read James 1:1 to see who James wrote this letter to.

If it was necessary to keep the Torah, which the earlier part of the chapter makes explicit that it is not, then why would James pick these couple things out of the entire Torah to list, rather than say "Follow the Torah?" You are being incredibly intellectually dishonest with this chapter in order to suit your views.

Hahahahahahahahaha! Lolololololololololololololololol!

So now you are promoting picking and choosing? James quoted specific ones that needed emphasis for unity in Israel toward each other (both brothers, Judah and Ephraim).

And by this very principle:

Matthew 22:37 יהושׁע said unto him, "Thou shalt love יהוה thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the Neviim.

...James is promoting Torah. Unless, of course, you assume we can pick and choose.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole Torah, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Torah.

He quotes Torah commandments here (the ones specifically for one's brother and neighbor, which is the reason for this letter and the ones he wants to put emphasis on).

You are playing mental gymnastics. You are saying it is not necessary to keep Torah, yet James, quoting from Torah, says it is. The Master also in Luke 10:26-28 tells us this is from the Torah of Moshe as given by יהוה (people don't like the idea that יהוה commanded it to Moshe; they stick only with the "Moshe" part...). These are Torah commandments (from which all the rest hang), not some new "law of Christ" or "New Testament law" or some abstract "moral law".

So do we or do we not keep Torah? You promote, as do millions of others, that we should keep Torah and yet we should not...

 

[cubedbee]

Nothing in Acts 15 says "do not keep Torah".

I can't respond to the rest of the post now, but I want you to tell me which statement you disagree with.

1) Acts 15 says that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised.
2) Leviticus 12, part of the Torah, commands that all men be circumcised

I honestly can't fathom how you disagree with either of these. If you do disagree, this conversation is over, because you're denying the clear words of the Bible.

If you do accept both of these, then using simple logic, one can conclude that if both 1) and 2) are true, then
3) Acts 15 says that Gentile Christians need not keep Torah.

3) is 100% definitely true if 1) and 2) are. So, no, Acts 15 doesn't use those exact words, but the message is nonetheless being conveyed.

 

[another dave]

LEGALISM

straining out gnats and swallowing camels


no matter what the law or reality


if a person considers something is unclean


then to them it is unclean


and no argument will change their mind :-D

 

[wavy]

I can't respond to the rest of the post now, but I want you to tell me which statement you disagree with.

1) Acts 15 says that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised.
2) Leviticus 12, part of the Torah, commands that all men be circumcised

The first one. "Gentile Christians" are not mentioned here, and as I have continually stated, this is in the context of "immediately or you will not be saved". But it is partly true. No one needs to be circumcised. :-D

My question to you is, do Jewish believers need to be circumcised?

I honestly can't fathom how you disagree with either of these. If you do disagree, this conversation is over, because you're denying the clear words of the Bible.

Finds these words in it: "Gentile Christians need not be circumcised".

If you do accept both of these, then using simple logic, one can conclude that if both 1) and 2) are true, then
3) Acts 15 says that Gentile Christians need not keep Torah.

3) is 100% definitely true if 1) and 2) are. So, no, Acts 15 doesn't use those exact words, but the message is nonetheless being conveyed.

And so you destroyed your argument above about the "clear words of scripture". You admit that this is implied by context. I do not by context. So the context is something we have to debate. You cannot impose what you have gotten "clearly" from the bible on me.

 

[cubedbee]

I can't respond to the rest of the post now, but I want you to tell me which statement you disagree with.

1) Acts 15 says that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised.
2) Leviticus 12, part of the Torah, commands that all men be circumcised

The first one. "Gentile Christians" are not mentioned here,

Then who are the "Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia."? Are they not Christians? Then why does Paul and the other apostles seem to think they are?

and as I have continually stated, this is in the context of "immediately or you will not be saved".

Please, I have failed to notice you showing which verse uses the word 'immediately'

My question to you is, do Jewish believers need to be circumcised?

No.

Finds these words in it: "Gentile Christians need not be circumcised".

Find the words "Christians need to keep Kosher". I can certainly find words that definitely mean those exact things--since you have problems with reading comprehension, I will highlight them for you.


5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

31Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

And so you destroyed your argument above about the "clear words of scripture". You admit that this is implied by context.

No, it's not implied by context, it is a forced logical conclusion from the context. There's a huge difference. They explicitly said number 1) and number 2), and the fact that the are both true logically require 3) to be true.

I do not by context. So the context is something we have to debate. You cannot impose what you have gotten "clearly" from the bible on me.

There's no context here. I'm reading the verses for what they say. I really think your being absurd here. We need to break it down further. I know the exact statement doesn't appear, but which word of the statement do you disagree with and think cannot be supported from the passage?

Gentile Christians need not be circumcised