U
Undergrace1
Guest
Well if there were any, the church gave gentiles a licence to sin, and that is an irrefutable fact
Acts 15: The Jerusalem Council and the Gospel to the Nations
- Thread starter vassal
- Start date
-
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.
U
Undergrace1
Guest
So now you think the person who wrote half the books of the NT is contradicting Jesus, the disciples and God?
Read what someone else wrote to you of Jesus words
this is nuts why do you say this, I asked you what laws you say were left out? well, what are they.
U
Undergrace1
Guest
Why are you asking me that?
Why do I say this:
Sin is the transgression of the law 1John3:4
Do you not agree?
Therefore, any applicable law not followed means you commit sin
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.
is it ok if you disagree with this. Now about Acts 10. Many people jump from Peter’s vision to say God made unclean animals clean. But Peter himself explained what the vision meant. When the sheet came down and the voice said, “Kill and eat,” Peter refused and said he had never eaten anything unclean. If God had changed the food laws, that moment would have been the perfect time to teach Peter and the whole church, yet Peter still refused because he knew Jesus had never abolished the food laws. And notice something very important. After the vision ends, Peter does not say, “God told me I can eat unclean animals now.” Instead he gives the explanation himself. In Acts 10:28 he says, “God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Peter says the vision was not about food. He says God was teaching him not to call Gentiles unclean. The vision was a symbol to remove the wall between Jews and Gentiles, not a lesson about pork or shellfish. If the vision were about food, Peter would have gone out and eaten unclean meats. But there is no verse in Acts, or in the whole New Testament, where he ever ate unclean animals.
Even after the vision, Peter remained obedient to God’s laws. The disciples followed Jesus’ teachings, and Jesus never removed the clean and unclean distinctions, that was an addition in some translation only and creates confusion. This is why Peter’s reaction makes sense. If Jesus had declared all meats clean, Peter would not have argued with the voice, and he would not say he had never eaten anything unclean. But he continued to follow the commandments as Jesus taught them.
So Mark 7 does not remove the food laws, because it is only about washing hands. The line “Thus he declared all foods clean” is a modern editorial addition not found in KJV, ASV, or the Greek. And Acts 10 does not remove the food laws either, because Peter explains that the vision was about Gentiles and had nothing to do with unclean animals. The disciples stayed faithful to what Jesus taught, and Jesus never changed the clean and unclean laws.
U
Undergrace1
Guest
Let me make it clearer for you, they were discussing the mosaic law, and so, if there was any applicable law in the Mosaic law gentiles should follow it would have been stated at the meeting gentiles must follow it. Otherwise, gentiles would be committing sin as sin is the transgression of the law
I thing they were clear they gave the 4 , I mentioned of the law of Moses for the reasons they explained. Love is the foundation of the Ten commandments and they are the foundation for the rest of the Law of Moses. but most of the law of Moses is no longer necessary today, once Jesus died, why would the disciples burden Gentiles with it. I never said gentiles have to follow the rest of the laws added by Moses, only the 10 Commandments this is what the disciples were teaching.
No, Jews from Judea wanted to convert the gentiles to make them fully Jewish with circumcision........... the council said NO
U
Undergrace1
Guest
The moral law was not being discussed, what was being discussed was what Paul termed disputable matters in Rom14:1. If the levitical unclean food laws were applicable the council would have been under obligation to instruct gentiles to follow that law, otherwise, they would be allowing gentiles to commit sin, as sin is the transgression of the law. In Rom14 Paul twice confirms this by plainly stating ALL food is clean
food sacrificed to Idols NOT the same as clean unclean foods not at all
U
Undergrace1
Guest
Never said it was. Ive given you irrefutable fact, but I do understand that does not matter, you must cling to your views no matter what
There is nothing in the chapter suggesting the instruction was just the first steps out of idolatry.
Wrong. Verse 5 refutes your error…
“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.”
Acts 15:5 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/act.15.5.KJV
you have to look at historical documents on the early church made by experts of that field. idolatry was prevalent then in cities and villages of the gentiles.
Act 15:1 Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
versr 1 proves it Act 15:1 Then some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”, I double checked and they were a pharisee sect from Judea that insisted gentiles were to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses, the Jerusalem council rightfully refused.
these sect of pharisee were from Judea the bible says so and documents i consulted say the same.
I have no doubt that idolatry was common. That commonality does not insert words into Scripture that the Holy Spirit did not inspire. You are making an argument from silence, and it doesn’t stand up to examination.
yes I know this they wanted to convert the gentiles into perfect little pharisees to follow all the law of Moses and all the hundreds of additions they made to these laws.
So why do you argue that Acts 15 only addresses circumcision, as you did in post 56?