Posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:50 PM PDT by Salvation
Obey whom? God? You?
I obey God. I still don’t see what your problem is.
“I obey God. I still don’t see what your problem is.”
I certainly hope so, but since you said you did not have time to obey God with Bible study because you “had a life”, I was hoping and wondering if that has changed?
“Abraham’s lie about his wife almost destroyed a nation. There was no intent to hurt anyone there, was there?”
Abraham willingly lied and sacrificed the purity and safety of his wife to preserve his own self. He almost sacrificed the purity of the future Jewish nation. His lie did hurt his wife and hurt Abimelech by almost destroying him and his kingdom. That was wrong on so many levels.
Abraham had no integrity, trust in specific promises God made, etc. He even tried to blame God that he was wandering. Nor did he apologize to Abimelech. The deception of his lie had vast consequences and God intervened.
Please note that the one thing God does not do in this passage is rebuke Abraham.
That's misleading. Paul actually explains the "meat offered to idols" problem, and his explanation sheds much light on why the Jerusalem Council decided what they did:
1Cor 8:6-9 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 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. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
This makes it pretty clear the Jerusalem statement concerning Gentiles was aimed at those with the weaker conscience, the Jews who had their whole life been engrained into thinking there was great sin in certain acts of eating. Rather than trouble their conscience, and to keep the peace between the two newly joined factions, these minimums were set forth, not to justify some eventual return to the entirety of the Jewish dietary law, but to keep peace between newly found brethren. That this was in fact the effect is shown here:
Act 15:30-31 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
As for the one non-dietary restriction, if the "minimum" to keep Gentiles out of trouble only included fornication, and not murder, idolatry, theft, covetousness, etc., then does that mean, at that time in the church's life, that it was OK for gentiles to murder, steal, covet, etc.? Of course not. That additional restriction probably reflected a point of particular conflict between Jewish and gentile culture, the pagans having significantly less formal objection to fornication than the Jews, as fornication was actually built into pagan religious practices.
So no, this was not an accommodation to mollify the Jews while the Gentiles caught up on all the shadow practices of Moses. This was just a practical example of Paul's principle of avoiding unnecessary conflict, to promote peace between brothers in Christ, in fulfillment of the royal law of love:
James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Peace,
SR
Good grief, I have taught Bible studies — probably over 12 books....and weekly too.
I still don’t see why you are harassing me.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: [12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. [13] And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. [14] But Peter said: Far be it from me; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. [15] And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common.(Acts 10:11ff)
Clearly then, the theophany was meant not to create Judaism LITE for the Gentiles, but rather lead the Jews, such as Peter, out of the constraints and unnecessary burdens (Acts 15:28) of the Jewish law.
Placemarker
“I still don’t see why you are harassing me.”
I did not harass you at all. I asked you a follow up question based on your specific previous comment to me.
If you do not wish to answer it, that is no problem. YOU asked what I meant and I politely explained our conversation in response. It was personal only in the sense that I quoted you.
Good bye and I will pray for you.
Grudges of things long past rarely serve a useful purpose.
Salvation, I always appreciate prayers. I will return the favor.
I am glad you do not hold a grudge over this. I agree they serve no useful purpose.
There is a reason why this question, as with certain others, is not answered in the affirmative.
Meanwhile, who put together the works of “church fathers” that we see on the Internet?
No sir.
The discussion of the Jerusalem council was due to the interference of the Pharisees, attempting to inject their false laws into the congregations of the dispersed northern Israelites in Asia Minor. The dispute centered mostly on circumcision, not diet.
The intent was to gently steer them back to the true Torah that Yeshua had been sent to restore to his people.
Aside from his mission to fulfill Passover, Yeshua’s daily mission throughout his life was to restore Torah to the Kingdom of Yehova, which he did bit by bit as he denounced the Pharisees false worship that we have come to know as Judaism.
In Matthew 5 he sets out that Torah is the law of the Kingdom, until all things are accomplished, and the physical universe is dissolved.
Throughout the gospels, but particularly in Matthew 15,16, and 23, he demolishes Judaism/Phariseeism, and calls for the return to the commandments as they were delivered at Sinai.
This is also reinforced by Paul’s and James’ clear declarations that only doers of Torah would be justified.
.
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials:
I know...
Those idiots screwed up the translation because they didn't use the HEBREW language NT as a basis...
No.
So the Catholics invented Christianity HEAVY.
Oh foolish Galatians...
You keep forgetting the rest of their instruction, to hear Moses every Sabbath day in their synagogue.
You also keep on ignoring every word that Yeshua ever spoke.
To believe in him is to believe and do all that he taught. Intellectual belief is Satan’s level of belief.
Nobody screwed up that translation, but you seem to wish that they did.
Act 15:20-21 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
And while it is true circumcision was an issue, it is clear from Paul's harsh exchange with Peter that much more was entailed. Consider this passage:
Gal 2:11-12 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) 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.
Notice here this issue is eating with the Gentiles. Peter was fine with it because, as AA has rightly pointed out, he understood the dietary laws to be suspended. It was only when the Judaizers showed up that he backed out of his eating with Gentiles, and other Jews in the local congregation followed his lead, much to their spiritual harm. So it cannot be argued that dietary rules were not an issue here, which is further confirmed here:
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?
Notice here there is no fine distinction made between the false excesses of man-made rules of the Pharisees versus the legitimately Mosaic laws of diet, festivals, etc. No, it is all lumped together. Peter is found out by Paul to be a hypocrite here, because he really believes he is free in Christ to "live after the manner of Gentiles," whilst he binds gentile believers to "live as do the Jews."
Paul is clear here. Peter knows better. This isn't just about circumcision, or the "false worship" of the Pharisees. This is about the nature of Christian justification, our legal acquittal before God, by which we transition form being hell-bound convicts to heirs in Christ of God's most amazing mercy and blessing, forgiven. That change of status is not ever the result, in a causal sense, of compliance with the law, but is based directly on faith in, belief in Jesus Christ:
Gal 2:15-16 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) 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.
Note Paul's positioning of himself and Peter, such that even though they were Jews by nature, not even they could be justified by the law, but could only be justified by faith in Christ. The broader point being that it makes no sense to hold the Gentiles in bondage to a system that cannot save, especially when they already have a Savior Who CAN save.
There is more to say, but it's late, and I must go to bed.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.