Christianity 101: The Laying on of Hands

“But each of these instances is clearly pointing back to a deliberation, a judgment.” Don’t you even remember what your actual argument is? It is that “’judged’ doesn’t mean ‘sentenced’.”

Yes I do remember.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged KRINO) according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

You're argument is that "krino" in Revelation 20 IS not a period of judgment despite the meaning of the word "krino"...which is period of judging, trial or tribunal. This is important, because your religious cult teaches that men must follow Jewish dietary laws and celebrate their feasts.

You're wrong (again) and trying to change the subject.

but you have not specifically provided any evidence that Krino means “a period of time, are a [sic] given a choice.” Of course, you HAVE to make this claim, because otherwise there is no gap or any “period of time” in the actual text.

No, I have to make the claim because that's what the bible says. That's the truth.

Joh 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: The “judge” here is Krino, which is only Pilate saying that they should be the ones to try Him in their own court. They refuse, since they say they do not have the authority to kill Him. The meaning here can only be “to determine guilt,” according to their own law, and not to give him a “period of time, to give him a choice.”

Nonsense. The context here is that Pilate really didn't want to get involved in this so told them to go have their own trial. The sentence for what they were going to charge Jesus with was death. That's the only thing it means. It doesn't change the fact that Pilate wanted them to have a trial even if was just in a kangaroo court.

“As a point of fact I did not say “infallibly” nor do I believe that. The argument has been that God will give them a chance in the second resurrection to know the truth.” Earlier you said that “All of Israel, of every generation that has ever lived, will be saved.” This is “infallibly,”

No, that's you assuming that I meant something I didn't and then attempting to tear it down. A strawman argument.

“You, and traditional Christiany, change this to the choices of “everlasting life burning in hell and everlasting life.” This is exactly the choice given by Christ:

No, it's not.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Perish is Strong's G22 and it means "to destroy fully (reflexively to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively: - destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.".

Jesus was using it because he taught and understood scripture:

Malachi 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.

Over time a new "theory" was invented that changed the words of Christ to something he didn't say. Clearly and absoltely he says the choices for man are to be fully destroyed or to have everlasting life. This has been perverted to "Have eternal life and be tortured forever or have eternal life." This is not linguistically what Christ said as recorded in scripture. This is not what other scripture says.

The rich man in hell would sure wish that was the case. As were the Jews in Daniel doomed to “everlasting” punishment. Or, as in Isaiah, “where their worm dieth not”:

This really deserves a whole nother thread.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go out and see the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, nor shall their fire be put out; and they shall be an object of disgust to all flesh.

So first it's referring clearly to "dead bodies" and not any kind of eternal life. And the Hebrew definitely means "dead bodies".

The reason this confuses you and why you have to continue to misread and misapply scripture is that you have chosen to believe a tradition that we are immortal and eternal BEFORE we are saved by Christ. As a point of fact this was the original lie of Satan:

Gen 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' "
Gen 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.

Surely we WILL die, be destroyed fully. You are agreeing with the lie of Satan when you go against scripture and assert that we will NOT surely die.

“You’re argument is that “krino” in Revelation 20 IS not a period of judgment despite the meaning of the word “krino”...which is period of judging, trial or tribunal.”

You’re just repeating yourself, and you’re literally making circular arguments. If you could prove that Krino actually means “a period of time, where they are given a choice,” you’d be able to demonstrate it, instead of just ignoring everything I say and spamming me.

Unfortunately this is how cults like the UCB or the LDS or JWs behave when they have any claim of theirs refuted. They just repeat themselves, over and over again, and make pretend that you haven’t said anything. It’s just a statement of faith on your part. I don’t really care WHAT you believe. I care what you can prove.

“You’re wrong (again) and trying to change the subject.”

No, I’m quite right. The United Church of Beelzebub upholds Jewish dietary laws and feast days. You even have them listed on your homepage. Unless you mean “You’re quite wrong” about what the Apostles deliberated over, and decreed (Krino). In which case you’re still wrong, since they quite clearly said “circumcision AND the law of Moses.” Not just circumcision, as your cult would have it. If you don’t like it, then don’t make the claim. Being silent is better than speaking nonsense, I say. If you held to that rule, you’d do very little talking though.

“Nonsense. The context here is that Pilate really didn’t want to get involved in this so told them to go have their own trial.”

Exactly! But, apparently you do not know what a “trial” even is. I mean, it’s not where you take the criminal and you say, ‘Okay, we’re going to have a trial of endurance. If you renounce your crimes and run 100 miles, you’ll be considered innocent!”. It’s a court of law. The only difference though with the divine court is that, without the blood of Jesus, none of your works can ever be ignored and forgiven.

“No, that’s you assuming that I meant something I didn’t and then attempting to tear it down. A strawman argument.”

I literally quoted you saying “All Israel, of every generation, will be saved.” But then you changed your tune when I produced scripture of Christ and His saints standing in judgment over the 12 tribes of Israel.

I guess this is another way how religious cults handle things. When they can’t defend themselves, they just pretend like it never happened.

“No, it’s not.”

Actually, it is, you’re just not intellectually honest enough to even attempt refuting me.

“Clearly and absoltely he says the choices for man are to be fully destroyed or to have everlasting life. This has been perverted to “Have eternal life and be tortured forever or have eternal life.””

Death, in the biblical perspective, is separation from the body and the soul. Hence, these righteous souls, after martyrdom, go to heaven and dwell with God:

Rev_6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

Or in “Abraham’s Bosom,” paradise, before its removal up to the third heaven:

Luk_16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And the wicked, likewise, carried off into hell.

The second death is not a destruction of the soul, but is eternal separation from God:

Rev_14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

You can try to wiggle out of it all you like, but you can’t make this scripture square with the teachings of your Armstrong cult.

But if the members of the UCB weren’t spiritually blinded, then they wouldn’t be a member of such a stupid religious cult to begin with, would they?

“So first it’s referring clearly to “dead bodies” and not any kind of eternal life. And the Hebrew definitely means “dead bodies”.”

Well then, let’s ask a Jew what he thinks of that verse.

Rabbi Joseph Ben Uzziel, 30 years before Christ, in his Chaldee Paraphrase of the Prophet Isaiah (Targum):

“And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men, the sinners who have rebelled against my word; for their souls shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.” (Joseph Ben Uziel, Chaldee Paraphase on the Prophet Isaiah, Trans. Rev. C.W.H Pauli, p. 226)

Who should I believe? Joseph or some random guy from a religious cult who disagrees with 2,000 years of Christianity because some guy came and claimed he was a descendant of David and Christ’s modern Apostle?

“You are agreeing with the lie of Satan”

Obviously I’m not, but is this a manifestation of a rivalry between your Beelzebub and Satan? You need to pass this message up to the top. Just write down “Hey boss, you need to put aside your differences with Satan. A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

If the United Church of Beelzebub can’t get along with Satan, your whole organization will NEVER get as popular as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Even Scientology would look down on you.

“You’re argument is that “krino” in Revelation 20 IS not a period of judgment despite the meaning of the word “krino”...which is period of judging, trial or tribunal.” You’re just repeating yourself, and you’re literally making circular arguments. If you could prove that Krino actually means “a period of time, where they are given a choice,” you’d be able to demonstrate it, instead of just ignoring everything I say and spamming me.

It's not spamming to keep repeating what a word means. Since you don't get it or choose not to get it the only recourse is to repeat the definition of the word.

“You’re wrong (again) and trying to change the subject.” No, I’m quite right. The United Church of God upholds Jewish dietary laws and feast days.

You're wrong again. I'll explain it to you since you clearly aren't that educated on the topic. Jewish dietary laws, or kashrut are a set of dietary laws that evolved over centuries of tradition and are for the most part non-biblical traditions.

What I, and many others, do is not to eat the food that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded us not to. There are huge and significant differences between kashrut and the food prohibitions of Christ.

Attacking the food laws of Christ probably isn't something you should do. You profess to follow him.

Neither do I observe Jewish feast days. Jews do not see Christ in the feast days while scripture clearly reveals that he is the focus of the feast days.

Lev_23:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts.

Jesus Christ, the Lord, says these are HIS feasts. Feel free to blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ and his feast days. But be warned that it might not end well for you if you continue in your rebellion to the Lord.

You might want to review this "Did Jesus Declare All Meats Clean?" a Freerepublic thread from 2007. “So first it’s referring clearly to “dead bodies” and not any kind of eternal life. And the Hebrew definitely means “dead bodies”.” Well then, let’s ask a Jew what he thinks of that verse. Rabbi Joseph Ben Uzziel, 30 years before Christ, in his Chaldee Paraphrase of the Prophet Isaiah (Targum):

Really? The verse clearly says what it says and are you so desperate to have it mean what you think it should that you have to quote a non-believer's opinion, a paraphrase at that, as proof? I'll take that as meaning the bible doesn't agree with you.

“You are agreeing with the lie of Satan” Obviously I’m not

Yes, you are. Our Lord and Master tells us that those who don't or won't believe him will die, will fully perish. Satan's lie is that we will not surely die. Who to believe? You believe Satan. You think that we will NOT surely die and you make up reasons to believe Satan and Christ.

Sorry, I'll stick with Jesus.

“It’s not spamming to keep repeating what a word means.”

It is when you were already proven wrong, and you won’t even respond to that proof.

“Attacking the food laws of Christ probably isn’t something you should do. You profess to follow him.’

*YAWN*

“If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
(1Co 10:27-31)

“Jesus Christ, the Lord, says these are HIS feasts. Feel free to blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ and his feast days.”

Says the guy who thinks he’s going to become a God of his own planet after he dies:

“By a resurrection, we become born God personages — personages just as our God the Father and Christ the Son! We shall have the entire universe put beneath our feet (Hebrews 2:8).” (Herbert Armstrong, The Plain Truth (September 1980): 40)

As for feast days:

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”
(Rom 14:5-6)

“Really? The verse clearly says what it says and are you so desperate to have it mean what you think it should that you have to quote a non-believer’s opinion”

Actually, Uzziel is a famous Rabbi (though the Jews of today do not read him) from before the time of Christ by about 30 years. He was a believer, unlike you.

” I’ll take that as meaning the bible doesn’t agree with you.”

Says the spammy cult-guy who can’t even explain how an annihilated person can “neither rest day nor night” with their torment ascending up “forever”, in a place of suffering where their “worm dieth not” and where “he opened up his eyes, in torment.”

I guess you’ll believe though once you get there.

“Sorry, I’ll stick with Jesus.”

You mean the pagan Jesus. I’ll keep the Christian Jesus.

Paul is addressing the issue of whether or not Christians should eat otherwise clean meat that had been sacrificed to idols and then later sold in the meat market. Was it acceptable? Paul left it up to the conscience of the person. He addresses this same topic a number of times in his letters. The fact that you're not aware of it is understandable.

Says the guy who thinks he’s going to become a God of his own planet after he dies: “By a resurrection, we become born God personages — personages just as our God the Father and Christ the Son! We shall have the entire universe put beneath our feet (Hebrews 2:8).” (Herbert Armstrong, The Plain Truth (September 1980): 40)M

You do know Herbert Armstrong has been dead for almost 30 years and was dead for almost a decade before United was formed...right?

As for feast days: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” (Rom 14:5-6),

You really should look more at what the words say rather then putting just accepting the traditional spin on it. Romans 14 is about food, not holy days. The verse you quoted does not mention the holy days of the Lord, which in scripture are always called by the term "heorte" (transliterated from greek). For example:

1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast (heortazo), not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

In other words, Paul tells his congregation, a congregation composed of gentile and jewish Christians....to keep the feast of the Lord. That is the only meaning of heortazo. But neither heortazo nor heorte is found in romans 14.

Since Paul absolutely affirms that he and his congregations were keeping the feast days of the Lord Jesus Christ you really should re-think your interpretation of Roman 14:5,6.

Actually, Uzziel is a famous Rabbi (though the Jews of today do not read him) from before the time of Christ by about 30 years. He was a believer, unlike you.

Unlike me he couldn't have believed in Christ since he was from before the time of Christ.

Look, it's no shame to admit that you believe what you believe because you pick tradition over Christ and scripture. It is what it is.

What happened was that in the first century Judea revolted against the Roman empire three times. Because of this Jewish hatred was rampant in the Roman empire. Anything or anybody that even "looked" Jewish was persecuted and demeaned. As a result some early Christians began to distance themselves from the biblical teachings of Christ and invented their own stories of why these things didn't apply to them. They substituted man made holidays for biblical holy days. They gladly starting eating pork and other foods prohibited by the Lord to "prove" they weren't Jewish. As a result there was an entire branch of Christianity descended from those who couldn't take the heat of persecution for their beliefs and so decided to save their own skins by foregoing the commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Paul is addressing the issue of whether or not Christians should eat otherwise clean meat”

Actually, ALL meat is clean, whether it is sold in shambles or not, or offered to idols or not. The only cause of offense can be in confirming another in their idolatry, as Paul is quite clear “for their conscience” sake, and not our own:

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

Again, all things are lawful to me, though not all are expedient:

1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

We are no longer under law, but under grace, and thus, we are under no obligation to follow any dietary laws. Our only fear, then, is in offending others, since “all meat is pure,” but we ought not destroy another through it, such as in confirming them in their idolatry, or causing them to offend:

1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

This is the Gospel of grace. Not surprising that you would be absolutely ignorant of it.

“You do know Herbert Armstrong has been dead for almost 30 years and was dead for almost a decade before United was formed...right?”

Your website teaches his doctrines on the ‘God family’, and even calls him a “forgotten hero”:

http://www.ucg.org/news/forgotten-hero-herbert-w-armstrong-1892-1986/

I wonder if the UCB teaches against Lying or not.

” Romans 14 is about food, not holy days.”

Romans 14 is a twofer against your religion. It is both against your absurd dietary laws, as well as days, as it says specifically “one man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day the same. Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

“In other words, Paul tells his congregation, a congregation composed of gentile and jewish Christians....to keep the feast of the Lord. That is the only meaning of heortazo. But neither heortazo nor heorte is found in romans 14.”

I do believe the UCB does not teach against lying. Notice that you managed to turn the singular word “feast” into “feasts,” without flinching. Furthermore, that feast is identified as Christ our passover, not your feasts, which have already been fulfilled in Him, from the verse you ommitted:

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1Co 5:7-8)

Neither can sincerity or truth actually be eaten.

That said, the only “feast” we are to keep is the Lord’s Supper, which is specifically commanded to us:

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

No other command aside from the Lord’s Supper is given to us, and so no other command do we need regard. Furthermore, the feast of the Lord’s Supper was not tied to any particular day. Christians of old practiced it everyday:

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ” (Augustine, Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“Unlike me he couldn’t have believed in Christ since he was from before the time of Christ.”

All the better, since he’s a Jew who confirms what has been taught by Christians for 2,000 years.

” As a result some early Christians began to distance themselves from the biblical teachings of Christ and invented their own stories of why these things didn’t apply to them.”

The only people who might agree with you would be the Gnostics from the second century, but they denied the Old Testament and considered the God of the Old Testament as the evil demiurge. However, they were polytheists, and they also did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Up next would be the Arians from the 4th century, but they didn’t teach your “God Family” stuff.

The only “feast” we see practiced by Christians is the Lord’s Supper:

From Ignatius who perished between 95-115AD:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Let’s face it, neither history nor scripture agrees with you.

No, it's not. The Lord Jesus Christ said this:

Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
Lev 11:45 For I am the LORD who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Lev 11:46 'This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth,
Lev 11:47 to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.' "

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

Again the problem is that you have your talking points, but don't really study the scriptures you quote.

For example the word "unclean" here is a translation of the word "koinos". It means ceremonially unclean..such as the priests pronouncing someone clean or unclean after various activities. In the case of food the designation existed when the Levtical priesthood was in effect and it is still in effect among the jews.

There is another word usually translated "unclean" and that is akathartos. Akathartos is the term for meats that the Lord Jesus designated as not be eaten by his followers.

Acts 10:14 uses both terms:

Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

Common is koinos, unclean is akathartos.

In Romans 14, Paul uses the term "koinos" or common. The early Christians believed that clean meat could become ritually unclean (koinos) if it was sacrificed in a pagan rite. Paul didn't believe that happened because he understood that "koinos" is and was predominantly a remnant of the Levitical priestly system and especially of a body of tradition built up by the jews.

In 2 Corinthians Paul quotes scripture that shows that he absolutely believes that the designation of akathartos still exists for the people of God:

2Co 6:15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM. I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE."
2Co 6:17 Therefore "COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM AND BE SEPARATE, SAYS THE LORD. DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN (AKATHARTOS), AND I WILL RECEIVE YOU."
2Co 6:18 "I WILL BE A FATHER TO YOU, AND YOU SHALL BE MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS, SAYS THE LORD ALMIGHTY."

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1Co 5:7-8) Neither can sincerity or truth actually be eaten. That said, the only “feast” we are to keep is the Lord’s Supper, which is specifically commanded to us:

There is no feast (heorte) called the last supper. Paul was telling his gentile and jewish Christian brothers and sisters to keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread. That's why he uses the analogy of unleavened bread.

Keeping the feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ was normal behavior for the first Christians. Christ created and revealed his feast days to his people and when he incarnated he kept His feasts. His followers continued to keep the feasts of their Lord. To not do so would have been to violate the wishes of the Lord and the clear words of scripture.

Again, I get it. You are in rebellion against the Lord and don't want to do what scripture says to do though obviously you don't think so. So you explain away clear scriptures and lean heavily on traditional explanations made by those who turned away from scripture long ago. But at some point you're going to have to stand up and think for yourself my friend because the arguments you're making go against what the Lord teaches us in scripture and the example he and his disciples set for us by word and actions.

Scripture does, but you're invested too much into the history, the tradition, and so you can't recognize it.

In many ways you're like those first Christians who turned away from the Lord and his doctrine. You're afraid of what your friends and society will say about and to you if you go against the religious authorities...in this case the traditional beliefs that make up modern Christianity. At some point you're going to have to choose whom you serve.

“No, it’s not. The Lord Jesus Christ said this:”

This is Leviticus, and we are quite specifically “no longer under the law.”

Rom_6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

And again, the covenant we are under is different from the covenant given to the children of Abraham:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Hence the reason:

“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself:”

Also, if you are going to follow the law, you must follow all of it:

Gal_3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Therefore, not only must you follow ALL the dietary laws and feasts, you must follow EVERY command. For example, you must not wear threads of mixed colors, etc.

“For example the word “unclean” here is a translation of the word “koinos”. It means ceremonially unclean..such as the priests pronouncing someone clean or unclean”

According to Strong’s dictionary, it means both “common” and, in the context of foods:

“by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean.”

I’ll also add:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The same context is in Romans 14:

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things

Thus, all creatures of the Earth are for us to eat, so long as they are received in Thanksgiving.

“Act 10:14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.””

A good citation, since God commands Him to eat of both in the vision.

Compare:

Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

“In 2 Corinthians Paul quotes scripture that shows that he absolutely believes that the designation of akathartos still exists for the people of God:”

Akathartos is used broadly to refer to unclean foods, unclean objects, unclean spirits, unclean people, and unclean moral acts.

This is in the context of not fellowshipping with unbelievers in a religious sense, taking part in their sacrifices:

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Not to contradict his other statement, which regards it completely lawful to receive whatever is given to you during a feast:

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

The question is in knowing whether or not it has been sacrified for idols or not. Thus, the difference is in participating in their rituals and acts, and eating whatever they offer, which you must deny for their sake, and not your own.

“There is no feast (heorte) called the last supper.”

Yet, this is exactly what we are commanded to observe, and, unlike what you claim, it is the only thing we are actually commanded to observe from anything in all of the New Testament, which is demonstratively practiced from the first century all the way to our own.

You have no historical or scriptural evidence for your position.

“Keeping the feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ was normal behavior for the first Christians.”

Demonstrably false, and even you know it, because you turn around and say:

“Scripture does, but you’re invested too much into the history, the tradition... In many ways you’re like those first Christians who turned away from the Lord and his doctrine.”

So which is it? Is Ignatius an apostate? Or did he celebrate all the Jewish feasts and obey the dietary laws? Remember, he dates from the first century, not 400 years apart, and only died near the end of the 1st century or a little into the second. That means, you have to make me believe that, while the Apostle John was still alive, a Bishop of the church had already fallen into heresy and had given up the Jewish feast days in exchange for the eeeevil sacrament of the Lord’s table.

No, it’s not. The Lord Jesus Christ said this:” This is Leviticus, and we are quite specifically “no longer under the law.”

You have a gross misunderstanding of the law and the covenants if you believe that just because something appears in the book of Leviticus it's not applicable to Christians.

The food laws of the Lords really fall outside of any covenant. They existed long before Abraham existed and were in effect before the flood. For example:

Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female;

Note that this is LONG before Abraham and LONG before the old covenant.

In addition, these designations exist in the future kingdom:

Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says the LORD.

Ironically this appears in the same chapter where you erroneously believed clearly dead bodies were really alive.

In addition, Christ NEVER taught that the food laws were done away with:

Act_10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

These are the words of Peter and he said them 10 to 15 years after the death of Christ. Peter knew Jesus. Peter personally learned from Jesus. Peter was NEVER taught that the food laws were done away with. In other words, it's not a teaching of jesus Christ but is a tradition started by those, like yourself, who would deny the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, if you are going to follow the law, you must follow all of it: Gal_3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Again you show a misunderstanding of scripture. IF we depend on the law for salvation, then we MUST keep perfectly every aspect. However that's not my case or anyone else who believe's through Christ. Remember, Paul was warning about those Jews who did NOT believe in Christ. They believed they could be justified by keeping the law. And they could if they could keep it perfectly, which of course is impossible.

“Keeping the feasts of the Lord Jesus Christ was normal behavior for the first Christians.” Demonstrably false, and even you know it, because you turn around and say:

I've shown you Paul's specific command to his flock to keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened bread. I can't help that you retroactively apply the scripture to a modern day practice. Even if I couldn't show you any more examples (and I can) then as a Christian then we should as Christ walked.

1Jn_2:6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

John didn't say "walk as Christ walks...oh yeah, except when it comes to keeping the holy days he created and observed. We'll create out own in a couple hundred years and keep them. Oh, yeah, and that stuff that God wrote in the bible about food and that none of us violated? We'll get rid of that in a couple hundred years too."

Or how about Paul:

1Co_11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

No my friend, the simple truth is that you're heavily invested in tradition and simply can't see the truth when it hits you between the eyes.

Akathartos is used broadly to refer to unclean foods, unclean objects, unclean spirits, unclean people, and unclean moral acts. This is in the context of not fellowshipping with unbelievers in a religious sense, taking part in their sacrifices: 2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

The proper way to think of akathartos is to think of something that God designed as inherently unclean. Something that is unclean by nature as opposed to ceremony. Demons, sinners without Christ, sin, and the food that God has designated as unclean.

The fact that the bible and the doctrines of Christ began to be attacked in the 1st century isn't news. It's recorded in the bible:

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work,; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

Paul understood that there were those even then who were attempting to advocate the laws of the Lord were not in effect. Jesus warned against it:

Mat 24:12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
Mat 24:13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Jesus is speaking of now, these times, and about the exact same philosophy of lawlessness you are advocating.

John saw the church being broken up in his lifetime and control wrested from those who loved the Lord to those who loved power and tradition:

3Jn 1:9 I wrote a letter to the congregation. But Diotrephes, who loves to be in charge, won't accept us.
3Jn 1:10 For this reason, when I come I will bring up what he's doing. He's not satisfied with saying malicious things about us. He also refuses to accept the believers we send as guests. He even tries to stop others who want to accept them and attempts to throw those people out of the congregation

If this could happen to a congregation (presumably) established by John then it's no wonder that things began ot go off the rails.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
2Ti 4:4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

This is your Christianity today. You have heaped up tons of teachers and they've turned you to fables. You do the exact opposite of what Christ commanded. Keep these days holy. No, Lord, I'll keep these days because my teachers tell me this. Respect and keep my food laws. No Lord, I like pork and my teachers tell me it's okay. Don't keep pagan days. No Lord, I love easter and christmas and besides, my teachers says it's okay.

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

So my friend you sit there and tell me that Christ doesn't mean any of those things he created, taught and lived. And you then take scriptures and apply traditional, modern interpretations to them which twists the message, meaning and intent.

You should be ashamed of yourself. But I know that one day you will repent when the scales fall from your eyes.

Yet it was God commanding Him to eat of all those things, albeit, it was also a metaphor for Cornelius, considered “unclean” by the Jews. I’ll also add:

Obviously, if Peter is living as a Gentile, the Gentiles aren’t living as the Jews. I’ll also add that Peter is quite clear that the Gospel is that of grace, not of law:

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

And if by grace, it is not by works, not by merits, not to be received at the price of labor or works provided, otherwise grace is no more grace:

Rom_4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

By the way, none of your sophistry actually gets rid of:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

The same context is in Romans 14:

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things

Thus, all creatures of the Earth are for us to eat, so long as they are received in Thanksgiving.

You can’t squirm your way out of this one. Blame Paul if you don’t like it, but this is how it is.

1Ti_4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The opponents that the Apostles were facing were BELIEVERS who insisted on the law of Moses:

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”(Gal 2:12-16)

The Judaizers were those who came from Jerusalem, where James was leading the church, and they required that Christians follow the law, not of circumcision only, but of the Law of Moses as well, on top of their faith:

Act 15:5 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.

They were of the sect of Pharisees “which believed,” and so they required the full compliance of both faith in Christ and obedience to the Jewish law. That is why the Apostles met together in their council to address the question. To which the conclusion and decree/sentence (krino) was only to abstain from sin, from food offered to idols, and things strangled. (Though, not to contradict Paul, as the sense was “not to offend others,” as our liberty frees us from all such obligation.)

If the dietary laws were meant to be kept, then they would have been commanded here. Instead, we are only told that “all meat” is clean, provided it is received with thanksgiving, as has already been demonstrated. And no amount of ranting on your part will ever steal our liberty away.

“I’ve shown you Paul’s specific command to his flock to keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened bread.’

You also ignore Paul’s clear belief in the Lord’s Supper, which, unlike all your nonsense, is actually written in the scripture. All you offer is mere speculation and nonsense:

“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (1Co 11:19-30)

I’ll stick with Paul. You can stick with the United Church if Beelzebub and eat, or not eat, your way straight to hell:

1Co_8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

“If this could happen to a congregation (presumably) established by John then it’s no wonder that things began ot go off the rails.”

Notice that the only apostates actually spoken of aren’t those whom you claim are going wild eating and stuff. It is the ones who command to abstain from meats:

These are specifically called the “doctrines of devils.” IOW, from your own mouth, you alight yourself with Satan, even after accusing me of being a friend of his since I preach the liberty of Christ!

“These are the words of Peter and he said them 10 to 15 years after the death of Christ. Peter knew Jesus. Peter personally learned from Jesus. Peter was NEVER taught that the food laws were done away with.” Yet it was God commanding Him to eat of all those things, albeit, it was also a metaphor for Cornelius, considered “unclean” by the Jews. I’ll also add:

Peter understood the vision. He never ate the unclean food even in the vision. He refused because he knew it was wrong. Yet he finally did figure out the purpose of the vision:

Act_10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Gal_2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Obviously, if Peter is living as a Gentile, the Gentiles aren’t living as the Jews. I’ll also add that Peter is quite clear that the Gospel is that of grace, not of law:

Peter had a problem that God needed to correct. His statement in Acts about how it was not lawful for jews to keep company with gentiles was NOT biblical. It was an invention of the Jewish religion. God commanded Israel to treat gentiles like this:

Lev_19:34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

For a long time Peter had a tough time letting go of the non-scriptural, non-biblical parts of his religion. As you point out Paul called him out on it.

The jews of the time had thousands and thousands of such rules and laws that were developed over the centuries and were often elevated over scripture.

Christ understood this well:

Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men— the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
Mar 7:9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

It's a lot like today. Men would rather keep the traditions of modern Christianity rather then obey the Lord when it comes to what we can and cannot eat.

Jesus Christ, Peter nor Paul never spoke negatively about the food laws of Christ. They did speak negatively about the Jewish traditions and prohibitions that sprang up and evolved over the food laws of Christ. That's why scripture is emphatic about koinos.

” IF we depend on the law for salvation, then we MUST keep perfectly every aspect. However that’s not my case or anyone else who believe’s through Christ. Remember, Paul was warning about those Jews who did NOT believe in Christ.” You don’t know what you’re talking about. The opponents that the Apostles were facing were BELIEVERS who insisted on the law of Moses:

In some cases as you point out and is explained above...

But the real persecution came from unbelieving jews:

Act 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.

Act 15:5 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. They were of the sect of Pharisees “which believed,” and so they required the full compliance of both faith in Christ and obedience to the Jewish law. That is why the Apostles met together in their council to address the question. To which the conclusion and decree/sentence (krino) was only to abstain from sin, from food offered to idols, and things strangled. (Though, not to contradict Paul, as the sense was “not to offend others,” as our liberty frees us from all such obligation.)

The sect of the Pharisees were those who still held to many of the traditional, non-scriptural aspects of the Jewish religion.

The 4 things put into place were NOT the sum total of what was expected from new gentiles coming into the church. It was the minimum requirement and they were expected to learn more about the ways of Christ over time:

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

The 4 things were things that were most often associated with pagan rituals and rites. BUT Acts 15:21 shows that they were to learn about the ways of the Lord, from the old testament scriptures (the only scriptures they had) EVERY SABBATH.

The mistaken notion that these were the ONLY requirements of Christians leads to an endorsement and embracing of lawlessness. Murder must be okay. It's not listed. Robbery must be okay. Sabbath breaking must be okay. It opens up the door to rebellion, lawlessness and death.

All you showed was Paul calling Christ our passover, and beckoning us to eat unleavened bread through the consumption of sincerity and other virtues. You also need to find a way to put us under the burden of all the other feasts, since you can find only one, and at that, so spiritualized that it cannot be meant literally. You also ignore Paul’s clear belief in the Lord’s Supper, which, unlike all your nonsense, is actually written in the scripture. All you offer is mere speculation and nonsense

What day was Jesus Christ crucified on? Passover. When Jesus Christ commanded his followers to observe the his death what day was it on? Passover. What day was the wine and bread ceremony on? Passover. I fully embrace what Christ commanded his followers to on Passover as well as foot washing, which he also commanded to be done on Passover.

What I don't embrace is tossing out the observance of his holy days, including Passover, based on a misunderstanding of scripture.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1Ti 4:1-3)
These are specifically called the “doctrines of devils.” IOW, from your own mouth, you alight yourself with Satan, even after accusing me of being a friend of his since I preach the liberty of Christ!

The word translated "meats" in 1 Timothy is "broma". It doesn't mean just animal flesh. It encompasses ALL food. It's the greek equivalent of saying "food". If you want to say ALL meat (flesh) is good to eat then cannibalism is acceptable. Then we can also say that eating the flesh of animals that have toxic flesh is okay. Clearly there are limits.

If I had to apply this today I would say that this is a perfect descriptions of food nazi's. Those who say that almost everything we eat is bad for us.

It's certainly not talking about what Christ said not to eat. Paul was accused of a lot of things but was never accused of breaking scriptural precepts of Christ such as eating food prohibited by him.

In fact he said the opposite:

Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Paul certainly believed Christ when it came to food. Who am I to believe? The words of Christ? The words of Paul which are the same? Or YOUR interpretation of the words of Paul which makes Christ and Paul liars?

“Peter had a problem that God needed to correct. His statement in Acts about how it was not lawful for jews to keep company with gentiles was NOT biblical.”

The UCB also probably discourages its members in developing their reading comprehension. The text does not say anything about “keep[ing] company with Gentiles.” It is, explicitly, “If thou, being a Jew, LIVEST after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to LIVE as do the Jews?” The question isn’t on keeping company with anyone. It is in “compelling” the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, even when Peter himself lives as a Gentile.

Instead of answering my post, you just responded to something that doesn’t even exist in the scripture, and for a bunch of paragraphs too. Either you like to just write alot, or the brainwashing of the UCB is just THAT good.

“The sect of the Pharisees were those who still held to many of the traditional, non-scriptural aspects of the Jewish religion.”

Again, you’re just posting nonsense without even bothering to read the text. The text says NOTHING about Jewish tradition. It explicitly says:

“... 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.”

Again, from the text of the actual sentence (Krino) sent out from the church council:

The question at hand isn’t tradition. It’s whether or not the Gentiles must be compelled to live as do the Jews in keeping the LAW OF MOSES, of which NO COMMANDMENT has been given to do so. Notice also how similar it is to my responses to you.

The gibbering nonsense of the UCB about tradition is just a feeble and deceptive attempt to escape the plain words of the text.

“The 4 things were things that were most often associated with pagan rituals and rites. BUT Acts 15:21 shows that they were to learn about the ways of the Lord, from the old testament scriptures (the only scriptures they had) EVERY SABBATH.”

More sophistry from the United Church of Beelzebub. You took the name “Moses” and then imagined the sentence “Moses says that they were to learn abotu the ways of the Lord, from the Old Testament scriptures every Sabbath.”

In actuality, the “FOR” in front of the sentence shows that the preceding sentence is the REASON for James deciding:

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:21 They should not do any of these things, BECAUSE there are still men in every city who teach the Law of Moses. The words of Moses have been read in the synagogue every Sabbath day for many years.”

Furthermore, since the issue at hand is whether or not the Gentiles should be compelled to live as do the Jews, it does not follow that the Apostles should say that they ‘gave no commandment’ to do so:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

“What day was Jesus Christ crucified on? Passover. When Jesus Christ commanded his followers to observe the his death what day was it on? Passover.”

What you can’t provide for me is any COMMAND to celebrate the Lord’s Supper only on the Passover. The Supper is celebrated, historically, even everyday. There is no evidence, in 2,000 years of Christianity, in the scripture or history, for anything of which you claim.

“If I had to apply this today I would say that this is a perfect descriptions of food nazi’s. Those who say that almost everything we eat is bad for us.”

Luckily I never took you seriously to begin with, so comments like these do not make me lower my opinion of you. There were no health freaks 2,000 years ago worrying about cholestoral or vegetarianism. The issue that is dealt with again and again are Jewish BELIEVERS attempting to impose the law of Moses on Gentiles, specifically in the realm on what a person should or should not eat.

Hence why Paul says: 1Ti_4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Thus, to command to abstain from ANY creature of God, in this age of grace, as you do, is by definition a ‘doctrine of devils.”

“Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”

He is saying he BELIEVES in all things which are written in the law and the Prophets, which is Christ Jesus, the fulfillment of all the law and the prophecies:

“We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (John 1:45).

In that particular context, Paul is urging them to believe the Messiah, since it is grounded on all the teachings of the holy scriptures. Not that he is asking the Jews to remain under the law, since “by the law no flesh shall be justified,” which is the principle argument against the Believing Pharisees who demanded the contrary:

“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
(Act 15:7-11)

And if it is by grace, it cannot be by “circumcision and keeping the law of Moses,” as the enemies of Peter and the Apostles asserted.

“Peter had a problem that God needed to correct. His statement in Acts about how it was not lawful for jews to keep company with gentiles was NOT biblical.”
The UCB also probably discourages its members in developing their reading comprehension. The text does not say anything about “keep[ing] company with Gentiles.” It is, explicitly, “If thou, being a Jew, LIVEST after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to LIVE as do the Jews?” The question isn’t on keeping company with anyone. It is in “compelling” the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, even when Peter himself lives as a Gentile.

If you bother to go back and read my response you will see that I was referring to this passage in Acts:

Act 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

To live as as Jew involved observing all of the manmade laws and traditions...thousands of them. You might want to do a study on the Pharisee's and rabbinical Judaism...it will help your understanding of the dynamics between Peter, Paul and gentiles.

And gee, that UCB stuff just never gets old! And it doesn't make you look childish and petty in the least!

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, AND KEEP THE LAW to whom we gave NO SUCH COMMANDMENT. The question at hand isn’t tradition. It’s whether or not the Gentiles must be compelled to live as do the Jews in keeping the LAW OF MOSES, of which NO COMMANDMENT has been given to do so. Notice also how similar it is to my responses to you.

You're missing the overall context of Acts 15...:

Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

The question was whether or not they had to be circumcised to be SAVED:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

The Pharisee's then add in that they have to keep the law of Moses to be saved.

Clearly they didn't have to...in verse 3 they had described the conversion of the gentiles.

Act 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

The "yoke" they weren't able to bear was that they couldn't GAIN SALVATION by keeping the law of Moses alone. That's the whole point and is verified in verse 11.

The meaning being that the Jews, who heard the Law of Moses every Sabbath, who are in every city, would take offense at the Gentiles for engaging in any idolatrous practices, or anything related to them, and so the Gentiles must always be cautions and ought to be warned off from even even the appearance of it. That’s why the sentence begins with a ‘For” in the first place. Or as the ERV puts it:
Act 15:21 They should not do any of these things, BECAUSE there are still men in every city who teach the Law of Moses. The words of Moses have been read in the synagogue every Sabbath day for many years.”

Clever explanation. Too bad you depend on a verse where words have to be added to make it true. The words "They should not do any of these things" do not appear in the text. They're added to make a point a that doesn't exist without them.

Without adding words to scripture the verse is already clear...the law of Moses is preached every sabbath and has been for generations. They don't HAVE to learn and keep the law to be saved...Christ does that...they'll learn the law on the sabbath.

And I notice how you don't address at all the point about how ludicrous it is to believe that these are the only thing the gentiles were to observe.

Lawlessness is not something to proud of...

“If I had to apply this today I would say that this is a perfect descriptions of food nazi’s. Those who say that almost everything we eat is bad for us.” Luckily I never took you seriously to begin with, so comments like these do not make me lower my opinion of you. There were no health freaks 2,000 years ago worrying about cholestoral or vegetarianism.

Remember....it's a prophecy of the future...of today:

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
1Ti 4:2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
1Ti 4:3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

“Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”
He is saying he BELIEVES in all things which are written in the law and the Prophets, which is Christ Jesus, the fulfillment of all the law and the prophecies:

I'm sure he did, but that's not what he was talking about here. He was accused of breaking the law:

Act 23:29 I found out that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but had nothing charged against him deserving of death or chains.

And his answer was:

Act 24:13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.
Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Of course you have to make Paul out to be a liar in order to justify your continued rebellion against the law of God, but hey, that's on you.

One more verse:

Act 28:17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,

The customs of their fathers was to observe the holy days of God. The customs of the fathers were to obey the Lord's food laws. Yet again, you contend that Paul was doing something that he denies multiple times of doing. The Jews couldn't even convict Paul of the things that you're accusing him of but apparently you have no problems looking at events that occurred 2000 years ago and making up false stories and false accusations against Paul.

Simply put, every argument you put forth about what Paul believed and was doing is refuted by the words of Paul himself in scripture that were preserved by the Lord God. You have no credibility.

“If you bother to go back and read my response you will see that I was referring to this passage in Acts:”

Then why did you quote and respond to my text which says “If thou, being a Jew who livest after the manner of the Gentiles, compellest the Gentiles to live as the Jews” etc.?

Are you trying to conflate the two, so that you can fool us into thinking that the “manner of living” is actually just a matter of “accompanying Gentiles?”

It’s absolutely irrelevant and, honestly, just a feeble diversion. Probably you could write all day on this nonsense, but can’t squeeze out even one sentence actually addressing what is actually being spoken about.

“The “yoke” they weren’t able to bear was that they couldn’t GAIN SALVATION by keeping the law of Moses alone. That’s the whole point and is verified in verse 11.”

Notice how you still continue to put forward the false assertions you made previously, even after they were already refuted. Didn’t we already discuss that these were Jewish BELIEVERS, so why do you continue to say “follow the law of Moses ALONE,” as if these were not believers who were trying to combine faith with keeping the law?

“Clever explanation. Too bad you depend on a verse where words have to be added to make it true. The words “They should not do any of these things” do not appear in the text. They’re added to make a point a that doesn’t exist without them.”

Not only is it a “clever” explanation, it is the only one offered, since you do not even attempt to substantiate your claim from the sentence itself. That was from the ERV translation, and unless the ‘For’ means nothing to you, it is a fair translation of the text. The ISV gives the similar meaning:

Act 15:21 After all, Moses has had people to proclaim him in every city for generations, and on every Sabbath his books are read aloud in the synagogues.”

And all the other translations keep the “For” as well:

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

You have to remove the “for” in order to make it something other than the reason for the preceding text. From Barnes commentary:

“The meaning of this verse is, that the Law of Moses, prohibiting these things, was read in the synagogues constantly. As these commands wore constantly read, and as the Jewish converts would not soon learn that their ceremonial law had ceased to be binding, it was deemed to be a matter of expediency that no needless offence should be given to them.”

Such is the constant argument of Paul himself, who reckons it not good to fight over these matters, though we have full liberty to eat whatever we please:

1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

“And I notice how you don’t address at all the point about how ludicrous it is to believe that these are the only thing the gentiles were to observe.”

That’s just your own assumption, since you still can’t figure out that “tradition” was not at stake, but the law of Moses. Observe:

Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

This is the great question that they meant to decide upon, whether it was necessary to “be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.”

To which the reply is:

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This was the conclusion of the controversy, and no commandment is given to follow any of the Jewish ceremonial or dietary laws. I’ll also add that the Christians were well catechized already on how to “fulfill” the whole law, which is not done through anything complicated or ritualized:

Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Again:

Rom_13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

“Remember....it’s a prophecy of the future...of today:”

Don’t forget your own argument:

“The fact that the bible and the doctrines of Christ began to be attacked in the 1st century isn’t news. It’s recorded in the bible:

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work,; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.”

Hence why I brought it up to begin with, since the only people being condemned are not those who are running rampant eating stuff... it’s those who insist on adding to things which were never commanded, such as in abstaining from meats.

“The customs of their fathers was to observe the holy days of God. The customs of the fathers were to obey the Lord’s food laws. Yet again, you contend that Paul was doing something that he denies multiple times of doing.”

Notice though that you never actually engage in any text about the grace of God, or the fact that we are no longer “under law,” but, rather, “under grace.” You also keep ignoring the passages wherein Paul makes it pretty clear that “every creature of God” is good, and not to be refused.

You’re just repeating yourself, but you’re ignoring the most important points of the Bible: That is, HOW we are saved, of which the law plays absolutely no part.

Here's the bottom line GPH: You've borrowed constructed arguments that have been developed over centuries to justify NOT doing what the Lord says to do in scripture.

These arguments BEGIN with the premise that we don't have to obey the Lord and views scripture from this prism.

You accused Paul of things that would surely have been mentioned in scripture if true. For example you accused of him of willfully and purposely disobeying the Lord when it comes to his sabbaths. You accuse him of willfully and purposely going against the Lord and his prohibition of eating certain types of animal flesh. These things are never even brought up as a charge by neither the Jews not the Jewish Christians.

Thank God we have the words of Paul himself preserved that show that the arguments you present are nothing more than revisionist fantasies:

Act 23:29 I found out that he was accused concerning questions of their law, but had nothing charged against him deserving of death or chains.

In response to these charges Paul said:

If this were the only time that Paul said this it would be enough. Yet he also said:

You put forth a ludicrous argument that gentile Christians are "free" to do anything they want as long as they don't do 4 things. They can willfully and purposely commit virtually any sin they want in your view.

On top of that you accuse Paul and the rest of the Jewish Christians of willfully and purposely violating laws of the Lord Jesus.

Mat_7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Mat_13:41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,

Mat_23:28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Mat_24:12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

Rom_6:19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.

2Co_6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

2Th_2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

Heb_1:9 YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS MORE THAN YOUR COMPANIONS."

1Jn_3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

You need to put some serious study into the law and it's application under the new covenant my friend. Because what you are advocating and teaching puts you on very dangerous ground.

“You’ve borrowed constructed arguments that have been developed over centuries to justify NOT doing what the Lord says to do in scripture.”

Looks like you’re finally tuckering out. Your post is pitiful compared to the usual stuff you put out. Not to say that your other posts aren’t absurd, it’s just this one seems downright lazy.

“You accused Paul of things that would surely have been mentioned in scripture if true.”

It’s mentioned:

1Ti_4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Rom_6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

In fact, the latter is the primary message of the Gospel. It is, after call, called the “Gospel of grace” for a reason. It’s not the ‘Good News of still being under the law,” as your cult teaches.

“You put forth a ludicrous argument that gentile Christians are “free” to do anything they want as long as they don’t do 4 things.”

Actually, I never made that argument. I pointed out that those 4 things were the answer to the question “Are we required to be circumcized and to follow the law, as the believing Pharisees claimed?” To which the answer is a resounding no, “we gave no command” to be under anything like that. That’s basically the answer to everything you have claimed in this entire thread, really, There is “no command” for any of the things you have claimed. Therefore, I can just dismiss you as just another peddler of Demonic doctrines.

Well, that was obvious with the whole “We’re going to become gods of our own planet” theology of Armstrong. So really, I had dismissed you starting out into this thread, since I already knew you were pimping UCB doctrine.

“You need to put some serious study into the law and it’s application under the new covenant my friend. Because what you are advocating and teaching puts you on very dangerous ground.”

You are so lost in your religious cult that you don’t even understand the Gospel. I wonder, if it is even worth trying to educate you on the matter? It’s a sad thing! But, you can go ranting on about how eating or not eating is “lawlessness”:

1Co_8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

I’ll live under the Gospel of Grace, and you can go burn.

Looks like you’re finally tuckering out. Your post is pitiful compared to the usual stuff you put out. Not to say that your other posts aren’t absurd, it’s just this one seems downright lazy.,

Every interpretation you're posting of scripture is not original, not thoughtful, and not true. They were invented by those who wished to try and explain away scripture that contravenes their tradition.

The evidence of that is simple, the words of Paul and the words of Christ. They show absolutely that your interpretations are wrong. So I'll just continue to post them in hopes that you'll realize your error and repent.