Acts 15: The Jerusalem Council and the Gospel to the Nations

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Undergrace1 said:
Most people believe three of the laws given were only given to bring unity at the meeting
Click to expand...
unity was nor the purpose, the purpose was for remove burdens of the Law of Moses for gentiles especially all the additions the pharisees added to it for gentiles to please read acts 15 in full and take your time, you will understand then.
 
Im afraid not, God's applicable laws are not arbitary, you cannot pick and choose which laws you follow and which laws you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether to commit sin or not, you should know that
 
vassal said:
unity was nor the purpose, the purpose was for remove burdens of the Law of Moses for gentiles especially all the additions the pharisees added to it for gentiles to please read acts 15 in full and take your time, you will understand then.
Click to expand...
I understand now, it is you who do not
 
vassal said:
unity was nor the purpose, the purpose was for remove burdens of the Law of Moses for gentiles especially all the additions the pharisees added to it for gentiles to please read acts 15 in full and take your time, you will understand then.
Click to expand...
Some at the meeting wanted gentiles to be circumcised and obey all of the law of Moses, others did not, a compromise of sorts was reached
 
Undergrace1 said:
That argument is nonsense, and it shows you have not understood a single thing about Acts 15. The apostles did not give Gentiles a “license to sin.” They gave them the first steps out of idol worship. That is the whole point of the chapter. The four commands in Acts 15:20 are the emergency basics for people who had spent their whole lives eating food from idol temples, drinking blood, and living in ritual fornication. The apostles were cutting off the sins that tied them directly to idols.

James explains exactly why these four commands were given: “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him” (Acts 15:21). In simple words: stop the idol practices now, and then you will hear the rest of God’s laws every sabbath. That is not a “license to sin.” That is the start of repentance.

If his logic were true, then Jesus Himself would be guilty of giving a “license to sin,” because Jesus also taught people step by step, and He said plainly that His disciples would learn and grow as they continued in His word.

You can’t twist Acts 15 into a permission slip to break the commandments. Not when Jesus said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). Not when He said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments… shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

And certainly not when the apostles said the very opposite of his claim. Peter told the Gentiles to “fear God, and work righteousness” (Acts 10:35). John said, “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). James said the law is the “royal law” (James 2:8) and warned that breaking even one point makes you guilty of all (James 2:10).

So no — Acts 15 does not remove the law. It does not shrink the law. It does not weaken the law. It simply begins the Gentiles’ walk by cutting off the most urgent sins tied to idolatry, and then directs them straight to Moses being read every sabbath so they can learn the rest of God’s commandments.

Calling that a “license to sin” is not just wrong. It is reckless, shallow, and shows he has no clue what the apostles were doing. This isn’t hard. Read the chapter. Read what James actually said. The apostles were guarding the Gentiles from sin, not giving them permission to swim in it.
Click to expand...

Im afraid not, God's applicable laws are not arbitary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not, you should know that[/QUOTE]

Like it or not that what the Jerusalem council decided for gentiles They picked and choose, you can argue all you want that is what is written.
 
vassal said:
.Jesus never removed the laws of clean and unclean animals.
Peter still kept them.
Click to expand...


Mark 7:18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

It's not about washing hands. Why would you ignore what Jesus said?

Also Peter was Jewish and had a hard time adjusting to the freedom he has as a Christian.

Acts 10:13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

This shows the dietary laws were only for Jews, NOT Christians.


🥴
 
  • Like
Reactions: vassal
vassal said:
Im afraid not, God's applicable laws are not arbitary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you follow and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not, you should know that
Click to expand...

Like it or not that what the Jerusalem council decided for gentiles They picked and choose, you can argue all you want that is what is written.[/QUOTE]
Like it or not, the council would not have given gentiles a licence to sin
 
vassal said:
Jesus never removed the laws of clean and unclean animals.
.
Click to expand...


I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. Rom14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All(ALL) food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. verse20
 
vassal said:
search your bible for idols and meat and see that God says about it and why, there are warnings against it serious warnings, I want you so search for it then we will discuss. take your time no rush.
Click to expand...
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
But 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. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
1Cor8:4-11
 
2ndTimeIsTheCharm said:
Mark 7:18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

It's not about washing hands. Why would you ignore what Jesus said?

Also Peter was Jewish and had a hard time adjusting to the freedom he has as a Christian.

Acts 10:13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

This shows the dietary laws were only for Jews, NOT Christians.


🥴
Click to expand...
I understand what you write and for me it was a problem some time ago but the whole discussion in Mark 7 began because the Pharisees accused the disciples of eating bread without washing their hands. Jesus corrected their man-made tradition, not God’s law about clean and unclean animals. Nothing in the passage mentions pigs, shellfish, or Leviticus 11. The argument is about washing hands, and Jesus explains that defilement comes from the heart, not from touching food with unwashed hands. Because the context is only about human tradition, the older translations and the Greek text simply describe the physical process of food passing through the stomach. They never say that Jesus declared all foods clean.

This is why the KJV, ASV, and all Greek manuscripts say nothing about Jesus abolishing the food laws. The modern line “Thus he declared all foods clean” does not exist in the original text. It was added by translators in recent versions who believed Jesus removed the clean–unclean distinction, and they inserted their interpretation into the verse itself.
Here are the examples.
KJV (Mark 7:18 to 19)
“because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.”
No added sentence. No comment about clean or unclean.
ASV (Mark 7:19)
“because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught.”
Again, no added sentence, no change to food laws.
Now look at the modern versions where the added sentences appear. These are the words the translators inserted. They are not in the Greek and not in the historic English translations.
NIV
“(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)”
NLT
“(By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable.)”
ESV
“Thus he declared all foods clean.”
CSB
“(Thus he declared all foods clean.)”
NET
“(This means all foods are clean.)”
These sentences were not spoken by Jesus, and they do not appear in the earlier translations. They are editorial additions inserted to support a doctrinal interpretation. They change the meaning of the passage and make it appear as if Jesus abolished the food laws, even though the entire conversation in Mark 7 is only about washing hands.
When you compare the older translations with the newer ones, you see exactly where the added sentences appear. The KJV and ASV faithfully translate what Jesus said. The modern versions insert interpretive comments inside the verse itself. This makes it clear that the claim “Jesus declared all foods clean” does not come from Scripture, but from modern editors, and the context of Mark 7 never dealt with abolishing clean and unclean animals but only with the Pharisees’ tradition of handwashing. the fact also that Peter did hold on to the clean and unclean laws is important, the disciples followed Jesus and all his teachings.
 
Undergrace1 said:
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. Rom14:14

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All(ALL) food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. verse20
Click to expand...
see post 33
 
Undergrace1 said:
The council meeting concerned gentiles, as you know
Click to expand...
of course, them what laws must we follow, you wrote:"Yep, but there couldnt have been any applicable law left out! " what are the applicable laws left out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back