Posted on 04/21/2007 9:24:38 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Just be sure you don’t consume mouse and abomination along with your pork-ribs and eat in moderation and I’m sure you’ll be alright.
BTW, mayhap you should research the linkage between rodents and trichinosis.
“Would Jesus wear a Rolex on his television show?”
In Galatians, Paul is also often referring to JEWISH "laws" which are not necessarily scriptural. For example:
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 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.
Here Paul upbraids Peter for adhering to JEWISH customs. There is no SCRIPTURAL injunctions for Jews NOT to eat with gentiles. But the Jews, the Judiazers, were concerned about the aspects of "uncleanliness" that had built up about gentiles. These are the kinds of aspects of the "law" that Paul often referred to.
do you keep this part of the old law ?
Exo 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Israel, when God created it, was a theocracy with God as it's head. This is a criminal penalty for violation of a criminal law for the theocracy of Israel that existed at that time.
To many just want to pick and choses parts of the old law. That law was done away. Wake and learn the truth.
You would do well to study all aspects of "law" as it's applied and used in scripture.
Nonsense.
Acts 10:
Verse 10, Peter became hungry while they were preparing (gentile) food.
Verse 11-13, Jesus tells Peter to chow down.
Peter wasn't dreaming of eating Cornelius.
Verse 23, Peter stayed the night.
Do you think he went hungry?
Would Christ need a watch or a television show?
Who was preparing "gentile" food and where does it say that in scripture?
Verse 11-13, Jesus tells Peter to chow down.
And Peter promptly disobeyed his Lord and Master:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Peter wasn't dreaming of eating Cornelius. Verse 23, Peter stayed the night.
Scripture tells us EXACTLY what Peter's vision meant, or at least what Peter thought it meant.
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Now since this was written people have interpreted scripture and Peter's vision much differently than he did. But that's their problem.
The issue of the day was the admission of Gentiles into the majority-Jewish group that followed the teachings of Christ. Stuff like what food we eat is not important; the admission of all peoples into full membership in the church was important.
That's right. This was to further illustrate that gentiles are also saved through Christ. Food doesn't matter, circumcision doesn't matter, etc.
RITUAL aspects ADDED by Jewish tradition and law didn't matter. But God given commands about what types of meat were to be consumed DID matter. In Acts 10, nobody took Peter's vision to mean that they could eat pork. The only scriptures they had TOLD them that God had commanded that they not do it. That's why Peter didn't eat. Acts 10 occurred anywhere from 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ, but in all that time Peter never ate any unclean meats. It wasn't a teaching of Christ that the food laws he created were done away with.
“Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?”
"Time keeps flowing like a river..."
“Slipping, slipping slipping into the FUE-Ture!”
There's no such thing as "unclean" meats after that.
You and I disagree and that's fine. Pass the sauce.
So take me away,
I don't mind
You just better promise me I'll be back in time
I gotta be back in time
So, do you disagree with this?
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” Acts 15:28,29
They were addressing the very topic of what burdens should be placed on Gentile believers. The whole church together decided that Gentile believers should not be burdened with any other requirements. Two thousand years later you’ve decided they were wrong. You can’t parse the context to make your original point and keep any integrity. Why do you feel it is important to lay additional burdens on people?
Judaizer alert!
There's no such thing as KOINOS meat (common), ritually unclean by Jewish tradition. But there is still AKATHARTOS (unclean).
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common (KOINOS) or unclean (AKATHARTOS).
Study the issue of Koinos vs. akathartos. When Christ made his statement in Mark, he used koinos.
Paul also spoke of koinos:
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean (KOINOS) of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean (KOINOS), to him it is unclean (KOINOS).
Where is the scoundrel!?!?!
Acts 15? Seems like you’re skipping over the strongest rebuttal.
Do you think this statement in Acts was an all inclusive list of what was expected of gentiles when they became Christians? They could still kill people? They could rob? They could steal? They could worship false Gods? They could take the Lord's name in vain?
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.