Free Gift Of "Salvation: Do you Have It?"

[Studyman]

Didn’t he?

That would depend on what definition of "Judaism" you attach to the word, as it doesn't exist anywhere in Scriptures. A question I asked you twice, in detail and that you refused to answer twice. Should you look in a mirror and ask yourself why you treat others in this way?

Didn’t he. I don’t recall Jesus sitting around the fire with the Pharisees and singing Kum By Ya.

The Pharisees were not obedient to God. Much of the law and doctrines they promoted, was not from God. The Jesus of the Bible, the Prophets sent by God before them, and Paul have all told you this undeniable Biblical Fact.

Just because you may not believe them, doesn't make their representations of the Pharisees false.

Yep, like no need for the sacrifices, no circumcision, no dietary restrictions.

In this world's religions, this is true. No need for obedience to God, no sacrifices needed, no circumcision or removal of fleshy matters of the heart needed, no need for God's Judgments concerning being Holy and what that might entail.

As you said "Human understanding and perspective is fickle, even in the best motives, thus kosher Jews are going to view some things differently than non-Jews and we are free to follow our own perspectives (regarding food) as long as we are doing so in faith (not law).

I get that this is your adopted religion. And it's a great marketing strategy for this world's religious businesses.

I am just posting God's Word, that Paul said could be trusted for doctrine, correction and instruction in righteousness. You are free to rely on your own perspective.

I just think a man of God should let God's Word direct his footsteps, not their own "perspectives".

I get it that you don't agree.

Jesus isn’t teaching a physiology lesson or a biological process about how food is processed after being eaten.

I agree, HE is exposing a popular religious tradition as from man and not God. And also showing that rudeness, disobedience, dishonesty, deception, wicked thoughts, lies, false doctrines, lust for the forbidden of God, all comes from within, and defiles a man.

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Yes, no difference.

Finally, and honest answer from your heart. Thank you.

Nothing! The concessions in the edict from the Jerusalem Council were to placate the Jewish community in the areas where the Gentiles were being saved and brought into the church.

You have absolutely no evidence to support this philosophy. Not one word of scripture teaches that the Apostles directed the Gentiles to submit to God in just these 4 few things "to placate the Jewish community".

Since there is nowhere in the Bible that even implies such nonsense, perhaps you can show me where this teaching comes from?

They were pragmatic concessions, with the exception of fornication, which is an absolute requirement.

Acts 15 made no difference between eating animals that were strangled and fornication. Paul simply told them to abstain from these 4 practices, while they listen to Moses being taught in the Synagogues every Sabbath of God.

This is the exact same instruction Jesus gave the apostles and the multitudes when they were new converts.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

This would include being "Learned of the Father" concerning His Judgments, including what is Food and what is not Food.

Paul teaches the Corinthians in 1 Cor 8: “7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

And yet, if the food was an animal that was strangled, Paul instructed Gentiles to Abstain from eating it.

But the Jewish community, and the new Jewish believers in Christ, would have a more difficult time with the elimination of all the dietary laws, so they kept some minimal restrictions, though Paul clearly saw nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to idols.

You are projecting your disobedience to God and dismissal of God's Judgments onto Paul. If a calf or sheep was sacrificed unto idols, it doesn't make the calf or sheep "unclean". Just as bread is not made "unclean" when eaten with hands that have not been washed in a certain way, as defined by the manmade tradition of the disobedient Jews.

But a pig, or a dog, or slugs or animals that have been strangled, that have been offered to idols, this would be a different story. You conflate the two for the purpose of justifying your own disobedience to what you know are God's Judgments.

You have zero Biblical Evidence that Paul is doing the same.

It’s just meat that affects nothing good or bad regardless of whether it is eaten or not. It is neither righteous or unrighteous in itself. Only your attitude in relation to a brother can make it bad.

Disobedience, dishonor to God, manmade traditions that cause those who adopt them to transgress God's Commandments, fleshy lusts to walk after the imagination of one's own hearts, these all come from within a man, and defile him.

A true brother can only show God's Word, he cannot make others believe them.

 

[Studyman]

First, I never said Cornelius offered “swine flesh” for dinner. I simply said that it would not have been kosher, at least not to the normal standard of a conservative, lifelong Jewish man.

Again, this would depend on the traditions of the man, Yes? If the man above had adopted and was teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, like the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches the Pharisees taught, then any animal or food that was eaten with hands that were not washed in a certain manner, according to the traditions of men, would not be "kosher".

But if the man adopted the "instruction in Righteousness" created and promoted by Jesus' Father and my Father, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna and the other examples of faithful man in the Bible, including the Son of God Himself, then his understanding would be different than that of disobedient Jews.

This distinction seems important for men seeking truth, while maybe irrelevant to men just seeking justification.

All of Cornelius’s family were there, and we are not told anything about them, but it is not likely that they were eating kosher.

Again, Cornelious was a Just man that feared God. It is not "naive" to believe that his family also respected God. While the Pharisees were deceivers and liars who "Professed to know God, but by their disobedient works they denied Him".

Ignoring what is actually written in this regard, may be a great way to justify yourself and your adopted religion. But certainly not a good way to know God and understand His teaching.

I have said, and say again, that the vision of the sheet full of forbidden food is not just about “Gentile” people being ‘kosher’ but that all things like Gentile food are also kosher. It is the elimination of two types of people, Jews and Gentiles, and making them one!

That is your religion. I am only saying that Peter told both you and I, Inspired by the Spirit of God, "EXACTLY" what the vision meant.

Just because you don't believe what Peter said, doesn't make what he said a falsehood.

Eph 2:14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Doug

Who created "Law and Commandments" that separated men by their DNA?

Of course you cannot answer this question. Because if you say God did, then I would post from God's Own LAW, where HE forbids this separation, thus exposing another false doctrine.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you "as one born among you", and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

And I would post Paul's words where he himself tells you who were calling faithful members of the Body of Christ "uncircumcised".

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision "by that" which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

I could ask you, "who were the circumcision made with hands" that were calling circumcised in the heart men, "the uncircumcision"?? You couldn't answer, because to do so would expose another adopted religious philosophy that it was God who declared Gentiles as "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world".

When Paul said himself that it was the Pharisees who taught for doctrines the Commandments of men and not God, that declared such a philosophy.

So it wasn't God's Law that created a wall of separation based on DNA. It was the tradition, philosophies and doctrines of men, that Jesus exposed. To believe the Catholic religion, and by extension you, I would have to believe the following.

Col. 2: 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, (You preach is the Spirit of God) he made a shew of them (God and His LAW and Prophets) openly, triumphing over them (God, His Father) in it.

When the truth according to what is actually written is;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, (Prince of this world's religions) he made a shew of them (Disobedient men who profess to know Him) openly, triumphing over them (Men who teach for doctrines the commandments of men) in it.

 

[TibiasDad]

I will ask you another question, in your religion, would this verse not also apply to Cornelious "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

“In the vanity of their mind” is the contextual qualifier of the “Gentiles walk”. Contextually, The “vanity of their mind” is referring to non-believing people. The Pharisees kept all the laws, yet were still on the outside looking in.

The vanity of mind is the same for all humanity outside of Christ, namely the “me first” mindset. But Paul has already established what a life worthy of our “calling” and that is to be “humble, gentle, and patient” with one another. (Eph 4:1-2) These are the contrasting qualities that stand against “the vanity of their mind”.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Who created "Law and Commandments" that separated men by their DNA?

What part of “set aside” is hard to understand. His death set aside “the law with its commands and regulations.”

The dietary regulations were set aside, because eating food is not a part of Kingdom mentality; love for each other and God are the sole rule in the Kingdom. Only when eating destroys another person is eating bad. Not what you eat, per se, but what you are eating in relation to someone else who sees what you are eating and hasn’t come to understand that no food is, in itself, sinful.

Doug

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Free Gift Of "Salvation: Do you Have It?"

Yes - next question???

 

[TibiasDad]

That is your religion. I am only saying that Peter told both you and I, Inspired by the Spirit of God, "EXACTLY" what the vision meant.

You make the logical error of taking Peter’s statement as exclusively specific to the idea of meaning only Gentiles as a class is the meaning.

Hebrew thought paints a very broad image of meaning by using a specific thought. God did not use the sheet of food to speak only of Gentiles as a class of people, but rather the idea of what it meant to be a Gentile as opposed to being a Jew.

Peter is thinking and expressing a thought in a Hebraic manner, not as a Greek would speak.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

That would depend on what definition of "Judaism" you attach to the word, as it doesn't exist anywhere in Scriptures. A question I asked you twice, in detail and that you refused to answer twice. Should you look in a mirror and ask yourself why you treat others in this way?

There is only one biblical definition of Judaism, and that is the necessity keeping the Jewish laws and customs as a predicate of being truly Christian.

Paul calls them “Those from James” in Galatians 2, and he rebukes Peter saying, “When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said…“Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?”

Note that ‘the Jewish laws discarded’ by Peter and the ‘Jewish traditions’ that Peter was “trying to make these Gentiles follow” are the same thing!

Note also that Paul specifically confronted Peter because “before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”

To “eat with the Gentiles” (like Gentiles as a class of men”) does not have a single focus of intent, but means not just in the presence of Gentiles but that he was eating what the Gentiles ate”, ie, non-kosher food! In other words, Peter was not keeping the old Jewish dietary restrictions.

Paul’s specific phrase for the Judaizers , was “those who belonged to the circumcision group.” They were the ones who accosted Peter in Acts 11 about what Peter was eating as well as who he was staying with.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

And yet, if the food was an animal that was strangled, Paul instructed Gentiles to Abstain from eating it.

This is nonsensical! Paul can’t say that food sacrificed idols is just meat and that idols are nothing at all, yet say strangled animals are still forbidden. It is an all or nothing argument. Either both are “nothing” or neither are!


Doug