Faith or Law?

[Nedsk]

Depends on the verse.

Lmbo

So you're suggesting they mean different things in different places and we have to rely on you to tell us when they mean the same and when they don't?

I'll try one more time with you. Four times Paul refers to "works of the law". In Hebrews he refers to "good works". Heb 10:24, "And let us consider how to spur one another to love and good works."

Heb 13:16, "Do not neglect to do good works and to share with others what you have, for these are the kind of sacrifices that please God."

Are these works the same as the works of the law? Yes or no? Last chance

 

[studier]

Lmbo

So you're suggesting they mean different things in different places and we have to rely on you to tell us when they mean the same and when they don't?

I'll try one more time with you. Four times Paul refers to "works of the law". In Hebrews he refers to "good works". Heb 10:24, "And let us consider how to spur one another to love and good works."

Heb 13:16, "Do not neglect to do good works and to share with others what you have, for these are the kind of sacrifices that please God."

Are these works the same as the works of the law? Yes or no? Last chance

Be careful, b's are necessary.

You and I haven't discussed this, so see who's posting.

My statement was accurate albeit maybe not in the context of where you were in your other discussion.

 

[Soyeong]

We do not necessarily correctly understand a verse the first time that we read it, so it is good to evaluate whether we have understood it correctly and there should be warning signs that we may have not correctly understood it. To use an obvious example, Romans 14:1 states "there is no God", so if someone someone interpreted that verse as denying the existence of God, then they should conclude either that that verse is incorrect or that their interpretation of it is correct, such as by taking it out of context, but they should not go around promoting that there is no God because we should take the Psalmist seriously.

Likewise, there are ways of interpreting Paul that make him out to be a false prophet, such as by interpreting him as speaking against obeying the Law of God (Deuteronomy 13), so if someone does that, then they should conclude either that Paul was incorrect or that their interpretation of him was incorrect, but they should not go around promoting that we should not obey the Law of God. When God has commanded something, He spoke against listening to anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and someone thinks that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against what God as commanded, then it should not be difficult to figure out whether God or Paul has the higher authority and which one we should follow.

 

[GiftofGod23]

It would be overwhelming to us for God to exhaustively teach us how to embody His character traits in every possible situation, so the point is to teach us those character traits by abstracting them from a limited set of instructions that all have them in common. If we correctly understand a character trait, then it will lead us to take actions that embody it in accordance with what God's law instructs even in situations that it does not specifically address, but correctly understanding a character trait will never lead us away from following the instructions that God gave for how to embody it.

Everything that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is in accordance with the OT. Jesus lived in perfect obedience to the Law of Moses, so that is the way that we have the gift of getting to live when he is living in us. Everything that Jesus did was in accordance with the Law of God, but even if he had lived by a higher standard than the Law of God, then at the very least it was still inclusive of obedience to it. God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit and the Law of God is His instructions for how to embody His character traits, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it and why someone who refuses to submit to it is not walking in the Spirit.

I still have Galatians in my Bible and I have read it, but I just don't agree that it should be interpreted as speaking against following Christ's example. Even if Galatians should be interpreted as speaking against being followers of Christ, then we should be followers of Christ rather than Paul.

God Bless us.
My brother. As iron sharpens iron we should know how to work with our tools, and yield our weapons and the true purposes of armor.

Psalms 1:1 begins explaing how we are to be the blessed. Not just have a blessing.
So as we that are to strive by faith, we also have a promise of rest and of a way to do right and gain insight of understanding clearly and correctly to and see how all things work together. Which inIsaiah 1:16-21
the blessed that we have been blessed to be. And it says first, is to not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. That means we do not look for counsel on how to obey God from anyone but God, and we have the prophets and priests that heard from God and wrote to us about who is Godly. Jesus said that no man knows God but the son and the son is Jesus. And he said power is in his name. His name is Salvation. So the counsel we are to seek from God is about salvation.
And our happiness should come from the law and we should meditate on it. That means to study for insight into the Word. Not look for things to know about the bible or how to see signs, but how to keep the commandments that work towards salvation.
Psalms 19:7-12 and John 16:7-11 where Lord spoke of the meaning of his death. And started by saying, Nevertheless I tell you the truth... so this is very important and then in
2 Peter 2:1-2. He warned us of because of the church not having knowledge, people teach all their own ways of what faith is.
[1]But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[2]And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And this is standing in the way of sinners. Not following the way laid out for us when we hear it, but wanting to stay in our own understanding. Which does not bring completion. And then said in2 Peter 1:1-11
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
[2]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
So its not just sitting on faith. And they couldnt teach the people the full understanding, because they couldnt let go of what they wanted their faith to mean. When we understand that law, you can understand judgment to explain to a sinner truly what is to come and we have the commandments and statues of the Lord, which if we work, make us come into the gift we have enough been afforded. Just just claim it.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
]For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
By these things. We dont sit in the seat of the scornful. Which is being the mockery of unbelievers because we fuss and are divided amongst ourselves and stay in that. Each said they speak the same thing and that which continues in prophesy is what we are to pay attention to.

 

[studier]

We do not necessarily correctly understand a verse the first time that we read it, so it is good to evaluate whether we have understood it correctly and there should be warning signs that we may have not correctly understood it. To use an obvious example, Romans 14:1 states "there is no God", so if someone someone interpreted that verse as denying the existence of God, then they should conclude either that that verse is incorrect or that their interpretation of it is correct, such as by taking it out of context, but they should not go around promoting that there is no God because we should take the Psalmist seriously.

Likewise, there are ways of interpreting Paul that make him out to be a false prophet, such as by interpreting him as speaking against obeying the Law of God (Deuteronomy 13), so if someone does that, then they should conclude either that Paul was incorrect or that their interpretation of him was incorrect, but they should not go around promoting that we should not obey the Law of God. When God has commanded something, He spoke against listening to anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and someone thinks that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against what God as commanded, then it should not be difficult to figure out whether God or Paul has the higher authority and which one we should follow.

It's all just men repeating their errors. It ends one day.

NET Jeremiah 8:8 How can you say, "We are wise! We have the law of the LORD"? The truth is, those who teach it have used their writings to make it say what it does not really mean.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and we all need forgiveness. We can't become right with God even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God because it was never given as a way to do that in the first place (Romans 4:1-5), so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law. The only reason that someone would need to have perfect obedience is if they are going to give themselves to pay for the sins of the world - the rest of us can thankfully repent and have our sins forgiven.

I make no claim to be sinlessly perfect, but then again there has never been a need for me to be sinlessly perfect. Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have not been sinlessly perfect, so if I needed to be sinlessly perfect for some strange reason, then repentance would have no value, but the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that I do not need to be sinlessly perfect. In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the way to become right with God is through sinless perfection, but rather the only way to become right with God that is testified in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ for all who believe.

Please reconcile your admission above that you are not always a doer of the law of Moses with your doctrines below which appear to be dependent on faithfull obedience to the law of Moses...

This is why the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works also upholds the Law of God (Romans 3:28-31). In Romans 2:13, Paul affirmed that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, so there is a reason why our righteousness requires us to close to be doers of it other than in order to be good enough to earn it, namely faith. We become someone who has faith, someone who will be declared righteous, and someone who is a doer of the Law of Moses all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our righteousness as the result of our works...​

​

Likewise, we can't earn eternal life even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing that in the first place. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was speaking about what is intrinsically required in order to experience to gift of eternal life, not about the way to be good enough to earn it as the result. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments, so again believing in Jesus is not an alternative to obeying God's commandments.​

​

It seems clear that your statements about your need for forgiveness disqualifies you from being a doer of the law of Moses (intrisically or extrinsically).

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

You've covered it very well indeed. They insist you must obey the law, without admitting alongside that they themselves transgress it, that has to be cajoled out of them. Some of them say it is easy to obey the law/ten commandments. In my view, such statements show a lack of understanding where the bar is set not commit sin.
Concerning your last point. Paul said if you rely on the law for justification you are under a curse, for you would have to do everything written in the book of the law to be justified, in other words, perfect obedience.(Gal3:10&11) That is why he states Law brings wrath in Rom4:15
So your performance according to the law can only bring rightness/righteousness by obeying it if you perfectly obey it.

Yes, you are right regarding the law fulfilling its role to bring about wrath and to avoid its wrath one must obey it without fail. The Galatians passage nails this without any wiggle room.

One of the more interesting words in Galatians 3:11 is "evident". It is easy and effortless for a person to conclude from the Scriptures that no one will be justifed by the Law in the sight of God because the Scriptures say that all the just ones will have received eternal life through faith (not through the law). And for those who rebell against that idea, they must contend with the next statement in verse 12 that "the law is not of faith". On the contrary, obeying the law is performance based.

 

[Nedsk]

Be careful, b's are necessary.

You and I haven't discussed this, so see who's posting.

My statement was accurate albeit maybe not in the context of where you were in your other discussion.

My apologies I had responded to another poster prior to replying to you and I thought I was talking to that poster.

My point is simply that works are not an automatic outcome of faith, we have to actively choose to do good works. Your thoughts?

 

[studier]

My apologies I had responded to another poster prior to replying to you and I thought I was talking to that poster.

My point is simply that works are not an automatic outcome of faith, we have to actively choose to do good works. Your thoughts?

Thanks.

As we know, it's a chaotic discussion among Christians. I've come to see these things as having sufficient ambiguities in the Text to keep us working on them. We all know of this verse:

NKJ James 2:17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

The original wording of these 2 underlined word/phrases tells me that "works" are an intrinsic part of "the faith". So, it seems to reason that if we have the faith spoken of here, then works will be done at some point.

But, I'm in agreement with you that we "choose" what to do and not to do. So, it's not cut and dry at some level - there is a range from infancy all the way to maturity in the faith.

Ultimately I don't see spiritual growth and good works as entirely optional for those in Christ. When you say "automatic" what I'm trying to cover is to bring some definition or explanation to this word. On the one hand, I don't think good behavior is automatic to a child and on the other hand I don't think we as Christians are lacking a perfect Father who disciplines and provides His capabilities to His genuine children, a perfect Spirit who leads and guides and teaches them, and a perfect first first-born brother and Lord whose faith is in them (the faith that works) and to whose likeness they are being conformed.

We were created in true righteousness and holiness for good works. Getting through the typical kicking and screaming of the growth phrase, IMO from the Text, good works are not optional and choosing to do them becomes natural.

 

[Soyeong]

God Bless us.
My brother. As iron sharpens iron we should know how to work with our tools, and yield our weapons and the true purposes of armor.

Psalms 1:1 begins explaing how we are to be the blessed. Not just have a blessing.
So as we that are to strive by faith, we also have a promise of rest and of a way to do right and gain insight of understanding clearly and correctly to and see how all things work together. Which inIsaiah 1:16-21
the blessed that we have been blessed to be. And it says first, is to not walk in the counsel of the ungodly. That means we do not look for counsel on how to obey God from anyone but God, and we have the prophets and priests that heard from God and wrote to us about who is Godly. Jesus said that no man knows God but the son and the son is Jesus. And he said power is in his name. His name is Salvation. So the counsel we are to seek from God is about salvation.
And our happiness should come from the law and we should meditate on it. That means to study for insight into the Word. Not look for things to know about the bible or how to see signs, but how to keep the commandments that work towards salvation.
Psalms 19:7-12 and John 16:7-11 where Lord spoke of the meaning of his death. And started by saying, Nevertheless I tell you the truth... so this is very important and then in
2 Peter 2:1-2. He warned us of because of the church not having knowledge, people teach all their own ways of what faith is.
[1]But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
[2]And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And this is standing in the way of sinners. Not following the way laid out for us when we hear it, but wanting to stay in our own understanding. Which does not bring completion. And then said in2 Peter 1:1-11
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
[2]Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
So its not just sitting on faith. And they couldnt teach the people the full understanding, because they couldnt let go of what they wanted their faith to mean. When we understand that law, you can understand judgment to explain to a sinner truly what is to come and we have the commandments and statues of the Lord, which if we work, make us come into the gift we have enough been afforded. Just just claim it.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
]For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
By these things. We dont sit in the seat of the scornful. Which is being the mockery of unbelievers because we fuss and are divided amongst ourselves and stay in that. Each said they speak the same thing and that which continues in prophesy is what we are to pay attention to.

I grew up being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Law of Moses, however, the Psalms express an extremely positive view, so I eventually realized that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they express a correct view of obeying the Law of Moses and that I therefore needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, according to to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so I could not continue to believe in the truth of those words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape my view of obeying the Law of Moses. Moreover, Jesus and the Apostles should be interpreted in light of the fact that they were incomplete agreement with the Psalms and if we interpret them as expressing views that are incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture, then that should be an indication to us that we have most likely misinterpreted them.

 

[James456]

To use an obvious example, Romans 14:1 states "there is no God",

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. Romans14:1

Or maybe you mean:

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
Psalms14:1

 

[Soyeong]

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. Romans14:1

That verse is in regard to the way to handle issues that are disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that. Human opinion must yield where God has given a command, so what was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command should not be applied as if it were said in regard to the commands of God. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul was not suggesting that we are free to break the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and disobey any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced it our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has give no command.

 

[James456]

That verse is in regard to the way to handle issues that are disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether or not someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that. Human opinion must yield where God has given a command, so what was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command should not be applied as if it were said in regard to the commands of God. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul was not suggesting that we are free to break the Sabbath, or commit idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and disobey any of God's other commands just as long as we are convinced it our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has give no command.

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 verse14
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.verse20

Im sure you accept, that as you feel entitled to overturn the plainly written word that is quoted to you, you accept others are allowed to do the same with what you quote to them!

 

[Soyeong]

Please reconcile your admission above that you are not always a doer of the law of Moses with your doctrines below which appear to be dependent on faithfull obedience to the law of Moses...

This is why the faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works also upholds the Law of God (Romans 3:28-31). In Romans 2:13, Paul affirmed that only the doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, so there is a reason why our righteousness requires us to close to be doers of it other than in order to be good enough to earn it, namely faith. We become someone who has faith, someone who will be declared righteous, and someone who is a doer of the Law of Moses all at the same time and anyone who is not one of those is also not the others, but we do not earn our righteousness as the result of our works...​

​

Likewise, we can't earn eternal life even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of Moses because it was never given as a way of doing that in the first place. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, and something that we inherit is a gift, so he was speaking about what is intrinsically required in order to experience to gift of eternal life, not about the way to be good enough to earn it as the result. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments, so again believing in Jesus is not an alternative to obeying God's commandments.​

​

It seems clear that your statements about your need for forgiveness disqualifies you from being a doer of the law of Moses (intrisically or extrinsically).

Someone being a doer of something is about direction, not about perfection. For example, a courageous person is by definition a doer of courageous works. Does someone need to have been perfectly courageous in every aspect of their lives in order to be considered to courageous? No, but courageousness characterizes their behavior and if there are instances when they have not acted courageously, then they repent and have the goal of being courageous the next time that they have the opportunity to do so. Abraham was still considered to be righteous even though he did not always act righteously. The Law of Moses came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so someone could continue to be a doer of it by repenting in accordance with those instructions even though they have not had sinless obedience to it. Likewise, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, none of the people who kept God's commandments in Revelation 14:12 had sinless obedience to them, but that they were people who had the goal of living in obedience to them who repented when they did not.

 

[Soyeong]

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 verse14
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.verse20

Im sure you accept, that as you feel entitled to overturn the plainly written word that is quoted to you, you accept others are allowed to do the same with what you quote to them!

That is another great example of where you should careful not take something that was only said in regard to the options of men and apply it as though it had been said in regard to the commands of God. The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of devilment, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so it would be equivocation for both words to be translated into English as "unclean" and then to interpret the authors use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead.

 

[James456]

That is another great example of where you should careful not take something that was only said in regard to the options of men and apply it as though it had been said in regard to the commands of God. The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of devilment, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so it would be equivocation for both words to be translated into English as "unclean" and then to interpret the authors use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead.

Schucks, I guess the translators of the KJV and NIV were not as knowledgeable as you in understanding the greek. Maybe we should not debate the bible in english translations, only in the greek!!

 

[Soyeong]

Schucks, I guess the translators of the KJV and NIV were not as knowledgeable as you in understanding the greek. Maybe we should not debate the bible in english translations, only in the greek!!

I did not say that I was more knowledgeable than the translators or that their translation was incorrect, but rather the problem is with you taking something that was only said in regard to the opinions of men and applying it as if it had been said in regard to the commands of God. Both words refers to a type of defilement, so both words can be accurately be translated into English as "unclean", but doing that does not maintain their distinction, which is causing you to make the error of treating them as being interchangeable. For example, in Acts 10:14, Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean (akathartos) but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common (koinos) and God only rebuked him refer referring to what He had made clean as being common (koinos) but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean (akathartos), yet his vision is commonly misinterpreted as if God had rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean (akarthartos).

 

[James456]

I did not say that I was more knowledgeable than the translators or that their translation was incorrect, but rather the problem is with you taking something that was only said in regard to the opinions of men and applying it as if it had been said in regard to the commands of God. Both words refers to a type of defilement, so both words can be accurately be translated into English as "unclean", but doing that does not maintain their distinction, which is causing you to make the error of treating them as being interchangeable. For example, in Acts 10:14, Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean (akathartos) but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common (koinos) and God only rebuked him refer referring to what He had made clean as being common (koinos) but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean (akathartos), yet his vision is commonly misinterpreted as if God had rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean (akarthartos).

Its all quite plainly written:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Possibly the greek would interpret Acts 15 as the gentiles being asked to follow all possible Torah?

 

[James456]

I did not say that I was more knowledgeable than the translators or that their translation was incorrect, but rather the problem is with you taking something that was only said in regard to the opinions of men and applying it as if it had been said in regard to the commands of God. Both words refers to a type of defilement, so both words can be accurately be translated into English as "unclean", but doing that does not maintain their distinction, which is causing you to make the error of treating them as being interchangeable. For example, in Acts 10:14, Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean (akathartos) but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common (koinos) and God only rebuked him refer referring to what He had made clean as being common (koinos) but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean (akathartos), yet his vision is commonly misinterpreted as if God had rebuked him for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean (akarthartos).

Why don't you just stick with the old testement. You'll be ok then. They were under the law, and required to follow all of Torah

 

[Soyeong]

Its all quite plainly written:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Likewise, the Bible uses "koinos" in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 where it is discussing the traditions of the elders in regard to whether someone can become "koinos" by eating bread with unwashed hands, which is a different issue than the commands of God in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals. I have no problem with what was plainly written in regard to the teachings, opinions, or traditions of men, but rather my problem is with you misinterpreting it as if it had been spoken in regard to the commands of God.

Possibly the greek would interpret Acts 15 as the gentiles being asked to follow all possible Torah?

The topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1).