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