Search results

I agree with your overall point, but, just to clarify on this one thing, in Mt 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees' attempts to be little "enforcers", worthlessly accusing Jesus of being a transgressor of their little manmade "authoritative" tradition (as if it were a command of God) of...

1. There is no sin that can exist without it being a sin against God--eg, in this case, you argue "it's a sin against one's own body", but that's the same argument Paul uses about immorality (it's a sin against one's own body). 2. YEAH, don't partake of food sacrificed to idols: a) IF, TO YOU...

Eating is to be done for the glory of God, not health. Clearly this is the case when you see that God DID NOT demand the Jews eat Genesis 1 diet, thus incurred many diseases on His people, and cut their lives very very short. Men used to live many hundreds of years before they ate meat. As soon...

1. So, again, with respect to the thread (about whether eating pork, etc, is sinful or permissible--not a discussion about health) you are in agreement that eating pork is permissible. I had lumped you in with the other users who believe it to be sinful. Glad that is cleared up. 2. To be clear...

God outlined a way of eating that was very suboptimal at Sinai--as with other matters, the diet outlined there was a concession. If you're not saying it's a salvation issue, then you agree that believers "may" eat pork.

Not to denigrate him, but even Peter, the head of the Apostles, didn't immediately understand the Gospel--eg, didn't understand that Gentiles could be saved at all! The other Jewish Christians were also astonished that God was saving Gentiles--despite being "Scriptural masters", which they boast...

Yeah, "The Gentiles could easily be acquainted with these four prohibitions, because they have had these things being taught in their cities, BUT we're not burdening them further." Interesting that the Apostles, in your view, left them to wallow in sins that would damn them to hell fire.

So? Even if I grant everything you're saying, it, in itself, proves nothing. The Orthodox claim icon veneration goes back to the original church--what that proves is that error crept in early, it doesn't change the text, which says we are free to either observe the day or not, and that Sabbath...

He'd be there, like white on rice, admonishing them to observe the 7th Day Sabbath--instead, we have the opposite: "Don't let anyone judge you about observing a sabbath because it was just a shadow but Christ is the substance" Col 2:16, 17 (just as Hebrews 10 says the Law contained mere...

Notice how when Paul speaks of "works of the flesh", or evil deeds, in various places, he NEVER denounces "sabbath breaking"? Galatians 5 19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger...

God has "changed His mind" already many times. Incest used to be a holy command--in Genesis 1, when He commanded, "Be fruitful and multiply", at bare minimum, God was commanding incest between brother and sister (and we don't know if that included parent-child relations, uncle-niece relations...

1. Yes, they complained that he had left the traditions, and that he had taught others to do the same--precisely what he did, yet, in another way, he upheld the traditions (ie, he taught the fruition of the tradition--though he taught the Law was no longer our authority on serving God, but it...

I wanted to make sure we were on the same page, because many others on your side are not on the same page. I am glad you agree--at least one of you is honest! 1. Either way, it's beside the point, because the discussion centers around sin and righteousness, not health. 2. The healthiest way to...

The Law did change with Christ--for instance, He denounced taking vows as "of the evil one" (Mt 5)--so, it's no longer "all or nothing", which is how the Gentile believers (it doesn't refer to lost Gentiles, but Gentile believers who have the Law written on their heart, which is a New Covenant...

Yes, there was no basis for their having arrested him. That is true. He became as one under the Law around those under the Law, became a Jew for Jews' sakes, so he is correct in saying he had been arrested under false pretenses. Yeah, they DID hear and complain about Paul's teaching!

Yet you're not bothered by the fact that Paul teaches that this is not binding on all Christians, that it's just a personal conviction. Truth is observing days and diet aren't binding on every Christian (Ro 14), yet you don't recognize that. Actually, they DID hear of what Paul was teaching...

He reprimands the Galatians because they are NOT following their convictions from the Spirit, not serving one another by faith which works by love, but have submitted to being under the Law. The ones who might have a conviction about a day or a food might be Jews who grew up under the Law, or...

Don't answer a matter before hearing it (Prov 18:13). I haven't encountered a single "Torah Observant" Christian who isn't an absolute fool.

Absolutely. Thanks for the opportunity.

Sounds great. Nice discussion.