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.