Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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 promise (Jer 31:31-34)) are deemed "doers of the Law" who will be "repaid eternal life" despite not having or knowing the Law (Ro 2:5-16).
I did... say the law changed, so you're preaching to the choir on that point.
Irrelevant to the matter about God's creation involving eating healthy vs. eating unhealthy.
I wanted to make sure we were on the same page, because many others on your side are not on the same page.
1. Either way, it's beside the point, because the discussion centers around sin and righteousness, not health.
I don't think that is the discussion. The discussion, to me, is about "God's will", and whether people are permitted to eat foods that had been designated "unclean".
I know and appreciate where you're coming from, but I think you're missing something: the Jewish Christians, afterward, came and confronted Peter about having eaten with Gentiles. The vision meant the Gentiles were accepted AS THEY ARE, WITH THEIR DIET, and, since Jesus already commanded, "Eat what ever is set before you", that command meant that Peter was to eat with the Gentiles their diet of unclean foods, that that Law had been done away with just as many other laws had been. The main point today is glorifying the Lord Jesus (which was what Peter was engaged in doing while at Cornelius's house), not foods you eat, therefore, "whether you eat or drink or what ever you do, do all for the glory of God". Why else would God have indicated the cleanness of the Gentiles by telling Peter to get up and eat with them? Why would God not have chosen some other practice of theirs which God DOES NOT accept (eg, idolatry)?
Well all Greek texts do not support this Peshitta translation. Nothing about keeping the Sabbath. However Jewish believers are still under the command to keep Sabbath for it is an eternal covenant God made with Israel.
This is all just silly deflection.
They complained about much of his teaching, true, mostly about circumcision. Never about Paul or the disciples sudden ceasing their previous observance of the Sabbath. Even the gentiles asked Paul to meet with them on Sabbath, and the entire city showed up. See acts 13.
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 was because It Itself demanded Its own retirement (Ro 7:1-6, 8:3; Gal 2:19), and that, nevertheless, grace and faith established the Law/made adherents righteous (Ro 3:31))!
You think it may be a possibility that the reason God forbade His people from eating pigs, and shellfish and carrion birds etc, was for that very reason... He knew they were unhealthy and therefore never intended as food? You guys seem to believe God then changed His mind, and said, it's now okay for my precious church, the apple of My eye, to eat whatever and die early of disease and have blood issues, and no longer be effective witnesses for Me. That simply makes no sense, and you are giving God a bad name. All to satisfy your cravings for appetite and taste.
Yes. All food!!!
God has "changed His mind" already many times.
Notice how when Paul speaks of "works of the flesh", or evil deeds, in various places, he NEVER denounces "sabbath breaking"?
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 shadows), and REPRIMANDING the Galatians for being under Law and observing special days like the 7th day sabbath (Gal 4:10).
Not only in the synagogues. Where their was no Jewish presence in some cities he would meet people wherever they gathered together...on riverbanks, in homes. But never on Sunday... Not once. Or any other day. Not that he wouldn't witness or pray or worship probably every day, but sacred solemn meetings for corporate worship in the early church for several hundred years after the resurrection, were held on the Sabbath. This was the common practise not just for converted Jews, but in nations where there was no Jewish presence such as in Britain. The early Celtic church of Britain were Sabbath keepers. As was the Assyrian church of the east, and the church in Goa begun by the apostle Thomas, even churches as close as Italy itself, except in Rome. Sabbath keeping as a practise didn't cease without opposition and persecution.
That council didn't include a lot of things. Like preaching the gospel. Baptism. It only adjudicated on things over which there was controversy or confusion. 4 things. Apart from those 4 things, the scope for Christian living according to those today who use it to deny God's authority in appointing a day sacred to Him, is very wide isn't it. Get away with anything if you've a mind to.
Well then you have to say god changed His mind about lots of things.
You think pork and eels and venison is the only witness problem within the Christian church? How about tobacco? Alcohol? Rock music? What do those things say to unbelievers about respect for God and His word? What does it say about the character of God that He allows those things, even sent His Son to die so you could do them? How about the common belief regarding God's determination to roast unbelievers in fire for all eternity?
First off I do not think that the prohibited meats of the Mosaic Law are a poor witness if believers eat them.
