That is simply inaccurate. There is no bible basis for that statement at all.
In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true in that the Acts passages about Peter, Cornelius, the evangelization of the gentiles, and the Council of Jerusalem ALL indicate the acceptance of gentiles without ANY legal requirements other than those specifically mentioned in Acts 15. No blood, no road kill, no sexual immorality, and no idol worship.
Peter's hypocrisy most specifically says that Peter was living just as gentiles do, and that strongly implies far more logically that he had set aside food laws even for himslf than it would ever suggest that the gentiles were now bound up by old Jewish food laws.
This is simple common sense, and it is impossible for anyone to prove this point wrong. They are free to observe dietary restrictions all they desire, but they cannot claim that such a lifestyle is biblically required for gentile Christians. IT is unscriptural, illogical, and trending toward bondage rather than toward freedom.
They know that. They have never been able to produce a single verse to support the notion that gentiles were expected to and did, in fact, follow the cultic food laws of Israel.
This gets down to a case of trying to be holier than God. Gentiles eating like Jews, old covenant Jews for that matter. Following the traditions of rabbis rather than the teaching of Christ's apostles.
There is no reason for any Christian to observe food laws unless it is to avoid giving offense (Rom. 14:20,21).
There is ample historical and logical evidence that when coupled with biblical examples show this to be show. For example:
Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Cornelius had a "good report" among the Jews. It's doubtful that Jews would think so highly of Cornelius unless he were obeying the laws that the Lord gave them.
In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true in that the Acts passages about Peter, Cornelius, the evangelization of the gentiles, and the Council of Jerusalem ALL indicate the acceptance of gentiles without ANY legal requirements other than those specifically mentioned in Acts 15. No blood, no road kill, no sexual immorality, and no idol worship.
I think we discussed this already and we agreed that this is not an all inclusive list of things expected of gentiles. It can't be unless gentiles were "allowed" to kill, steal and commit any other sin not listed.
Peter's hypocrisy most specifically says that Peter was living just as gentiles do, and that strongly implies far more logically that he had set aside food laws even for himslf than it would ever suggest that the gentiles were now bound up by old Jewish food laws.
I'll bet he did set aside food laws. Food laws that were created and instituted by the Jewish religious system. But I'll guarantee that he respected the food laws created by the Lord.
This is simple common sense, and it is impossible for anyone to prove this point wrong. They are free to observe dietary restrictions all they desire, but they cannot claim that such a lifestyle is biblically required for gentile Christians. IT is unscriptural, illogical, and trending toward bondage rather than toward freedom.
What's unscriptural is the idea that we are to go against the express wishes of the Lord and consume animals that he said not to. What's illogical is to believe that brand new Christians would ignore thousands of years of tradition and the word of the Lord in absence of any tradition, apostolic teaching or scripture to the contrary. And it's not bondage to follow the desires of the Lord whose spirit lives in us.