Spc Nobody Special,

There is a saying that what can be freely asserted can be freely denied.

Christ is God...and the only holy religion revealed by God is Old Covenant Judaism fulfilled by Christ in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

You use the word "clearly" twice....."clear" only to those who believe in the heretical doctrines designed by Mohammed.

Reply By: lulapilgrim

Ah, you missed my ususal DELICATE note of sarcasm. Also, spend some more time in comparitive religious studies (know thine enemy as thyself and in a thousand battles you will never lose. 2nd Armarments 3:16.....or Sun Tzu, whichever). I'm a christian, albeit not necessarily a great one, and my politics are pretty heavy on the right. I'll give you that I haven't blogged much for eight months since I've been busy in Iraq, (I'm also in the army, and home on leave halfway through a deployment) but even if you haven't read any of my stuff, the dead giveaway is Muslims don't do pork. It's haram. Forbidden. No way Jose. Hence the ham sandwich joke.

I haven't read the Koran in awhile, but I do believe that most of the dietary laws included a lot of the crap from Leviticus and Numbers that Jewish dietary law was based off of. In that climate and conditions, they were good not only for keeping you spiritually clean, failure to follow them was a good way to end up dead from contagion.

I got it...lol....the Ham Sandwich was a DEAD giveaway.

  

My apologies to all for my delayed reply as I am out of town and will be taking a class this week in Dallas, TX.



KFC, your case is built upon a false premise.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 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. (Acts 15:28-29; KJV)

You even disprove yourself by stating the reference points in Leviticus that show these two aspects as being Torah based.

....

What I see you stumbling on is this notion that Salvation came through Torah. It NEVER came through Torah. Never did and never will. You drive down the right side of the street and stop at stop signs but probably don't consider yourself a legalist to the rules of the US roads do you?

Salvation always has and always WILL come through the shedding of blood (in the NT case the blood of Messiah) and repentance.

Two things rooted in Torah as KFC, clearly pointed out.


On a different note:

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

I'm not stumbling on that. I agree with you. YOu should know that by now. We were NEVER saved by the law. I keep saying we are saved by Grace thru faith and NOT of works. We never could save ourselves then or now. It's only Christ who saves. It's not our doing at all.



I agree. Salvation comes from faith and it's faith in the Messiah who shed his blood for all who believe in him and accept his work on the cross on our behalf.

and.....glad to see you back.

Ok,so then please tell me why you went to such extent to show your own premise being false (that Jerusalem Council didn't uphold Torah)?

You and I agree the issue was salvation can be obtained through circumcision and adherence to Torah to being false.

You concluded that the Jerusalem Council didn't uphold Torah and then showed (yourself) that they encouraged the Gentile converts to start with two aspects of staying away from unclean meat (part of Kosher) and fornication by showing the references in Lev.

And then you contradict yourself saying the Torah is no longer applicable?

This leads me to believe that you aren't sure what the purpose of Torah is/was. Would you agree?

Have a good day!

No.

Did you read Romans 14? Did you thoughtfully read my Post #254?

The law was never meant to save nor was it given to us to keep. Paul, a Jew, himself said in Gals 3:24-28

"the law was our schoolmaster TO BRING US TO CHRIST, that we might be justified BY FAITH. But AFTER that faith is come, we are NO LONGER under a schoolmaster.........there is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for you are ALL ONE in Christ Jesus."

KFC, yes I have read Romans 14 and your post #254 as well.

According to your posting you suggest that Torah is done away with but only to first show that in Acts 15 that they supported it with referencing Lev.

You seem to skirt this issue and blow it off as of little importance. As I mentioned before your premise is false and you proved it yourself!

Maybe you didn't see it?

You said:



Then you said in reference to :



Your references above to Lev support the JC's letter to the Gentile Converts that they should observe two aspects of Torah! One being and aspect of eating the other about fornication.

You see your premise (second quote) is shown to be false as not eating blood as you presented (third quote) upholds KOSHER regulations. If your premise is found to be false I have no reason to address your conclusion as it can only result in False.

No I guess not. But I'm thinking you're not understanding what I'm saying...I guess it's hard on a forum such as this....

What I'm saying.... paying particular attention to Romans 14:17-21 (meat and drink=small stuff) is that for these Jews and Gentiles to worship together in peace certain concessions should be made by these Gentiles. Notice in Acts 15:29 where it says..."if" you do these things you'll do well. The verdict by James is given in v19-20 and he says..."my verdict." He's given a compromise here with love to be the basis of such a compromise.

What was happening in Jerusalem, as I said, was that the presence of new Gentile converts coming into the church was now coming to a head.

Peter had learned that no man is unclean...not even Gentiles (Chap 10) so the Jerusalem church had accepted these first Gentile converts without being cleaned up (circumcised). However some believing Pharisees (v5) went on the offensive. Another question was being raised; Should there be unrestricted social contact between Jewish and Gentile Christians? The Judaisic party separated themselves from those who did not follow the dietary laws and would not partack of the common meals. So this chapter in Acts is concerned with these two questions; circumcision and foods (socializing). Had the division over these questions prevailed the unity of the church would have been destroyed from the start.

The only reason James verdict was given was to promote peace between Jewish and Gentile believers. The Gentiles were asked to abstain from any practice abhorrent to Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians would then socialize with them (1 Cor 8:13)

Acts 15:29 says, "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. "



Does verse 29 reference Torah (Yes or No)?

Yes, Lev 17-18 as I've already referenced.

good.

Is verse 29 suggesting to the Gentile converts of Antioch to abide by these two aspects of Torah (yes or no)?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. Is it true that to follow your "one true faith" you have to be of Jewish descent? If so, how can you expect others to agree that people of your race are the only ones who can be saved and everyone else is condemned?

yes in keeping in the spirit of "My religion is better than yours is"
YOU must be a Jew born of a Jewish mother or a full convert or else you are doomed to an existence in the fiery bowels of hell. There just is no other way around it. I am not condemning anyone BTW, G-D All Mighty, blessed be his name is.

yes, of course. I've already covered this to be true.

Ok then can I conclude that, from the passage in Acts 15 that it does not suggest Torah being done away with (Yes or No)?

Well you can conclude whatever you wish but I wouldn't make such a conclusion. The Torah is much more than just these two things. I believe its because, as I said, using the other scriptures this was for unity between the Jews and the new Gentile believers. The food issue was a huge problem taking up several passages in scripture.

I'm not so sure I'd come out and say exactly that the Torah is "done away" with so much as the New Covenant is now in place. I have, for some time wanted to sit down and look carefully at each covenant and how they operated with the next covenant coming into play..like the Noahic Covenant, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, etc. Have you done this?

KFC, I know what you have said repeatedly utilizing the other scriptures (Paul's writings). The problem I see is that they aren't consistent with the text written in Acts 15.



but WHAT is this New Covenant and what is so NEW about it?



KFC, in all honesty you won't understand these covenants in it's fullness until you stop thinking in the Greek. The majority of the Bible was written in Hebrew by a Hebrew mind. Hebrew mindsets and Greek mindsets are practically 180 degrees.

Gotta go to class.

Good Day!

AD POSTS:




Verse 29 contains two parts of the Council of Jerusalem decree from which the Christian converts from Gentile background are to abstain.

The dogmatic part of the decree prohibiting fornication is a perennial moral teaching, is permanent and can never change because it has to do with a necessary part of God's salvific will.

The disciplinary part of the decree about abstaining from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood and from meat of animals killed by strangulation, were applied only for the time being as an act out of charity towards Jewish Christians. (otherwise the early Chruch would have had greater difficulty unifying).
These regulatory disciplines, while they were laid down and respected the Mosaic Law, were understood as not coming from Moses, and no longer oblige coming from that Law, but from the Apostles.

Regarding these disciplinary regulations, although St.Paul makes it clear that Christians were to act as they pleased, he will also ask them not to scandalize the weak. 1Cor. 8-10.

Now, that would be an interesting study.   

AD POSTS:

St.Paul's writings are totally consistent with the rest of Scripture. Scripture is all of God's Revelation to mankind from the Old Testament beginning with Genesis to the New Testament ending with the Book of the Apocalypse. Sacred Scripture is God's written salvation plan for mankind.

KFC POSTS:

AD POSTS #283

My response to your question will most probably elicit a fire-storm of comments, but here goes.

The beginning of the New Covenant in the Blood of the Christ meant the end of the Hebrew religion of the Old Covenant, of the Mosaic Law, its ceremonies, rites, and sacrifices. Although they were suited for divine worship at the time, they were established to signify something in the future. The New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant. At the moment of the Crucifixion when the Temple veil was rent from top to bottom, God was making it known that the ceremonies and rites of the ancient MOsaic Law were to be abolished by Christ and that heaven would be open for all.

St.Paul told the Galatians 3:10, the rabbinical rituals and laws of the OC, being abolished, now count for nothing, confer no grace, and save no one. Worse, they bring about a curse upon those who obstinately cling to them. He warned the Jews, "for as many as are under the works of the law, are under a curse." In his epistle to the Hebrews, St. Paul wrote, "there is an abrogation of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law brought nothing to perfection. In saying a new, He (Christ)made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end."

By Christ's death and the promulgation of the Gospel, the OC ceremonies, rites and Temple sacrifices ceased to be salvific. The New and Everlasting Covenant together with its mysteries, Sacraments, and sacred rites, was ratified for the whole world in the Blood of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer shed for the whole human race.

While Our Lord was preaching to the lost of the House of Israel, the Law and His Gospel were together in force...but on the Cross, Christ's death made void the Old Law with its decrees and established the New and Everlasting Covenant. To this extent, the Church teaches there was effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Temple to the Church, from the many sacrifices to the ONe Victim, that as OUr Lord died, the mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the Temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.

On the Cross the OLd Law died in order to give way to give way to the New COvenant of which Christ chose His APostles as qualified ministers.

St.Paul writes of the early Churchs struggle against "Judaizers" who thought they could combine the practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law under the OLd Covenant with the religion of the New Covenant. This tendency had to be fought becasue the rituals of the OC only foreshadowed the coming of Christ and the Sacrifice of the Mass and to persist in those rituals after His coming would be to implicitly to deny that He had come. Gal. 3:1-2, "Oh, senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ had been set forth, crucified among you, Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law or by the hearing of the faith?"


The struggle against the Judaizers came to an end as did biblical Judaism in 70AD when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.

I understand this. But I think you're trying to hang onto this in Acts 15 as your proof text without using other scriptures that help clarify. I know in my own experience when something didn't seem right to me or wasn't consistent it wasn't the scripture that was off but my thinking that was off.

Think about this. Right after we read this in Acts 15 we see that Paul has Timothy circumcised (16:3)? Why? Why was Titus exempt from circumcision? Didn't they all agree here at the JC that it wasn't needed? I think it's relevent to what we're discussing here. It's all tied in with the same principle at play.



Well the majority of the NT was written in GK with the OT almost all in Hebrew. But when put together they have the same mindset. The OT writers were in sync totally with the NT writers so there really shouldn't be a problem here.

I would agree with you about the mindset being totally different outside of having the mind of Christ. He's the one that brings unity to believers whether they be Jew or Greek, Slave or Free.

As far as the New Covenant is concerned, I wrote up quite a study on the Passover back a while including the New Covenant and how it came into play. I'll see if I can dig it up and get back to you with it. I'm sure you're aware that Christ instituted this new covenant just before he died at the last supper.

Let me ask this question if I may,why does scripture tells us that there is one torah for both the homeborn and the foriegnor?

Also why does scripture say we will go up to Zion and Jerusalem to learn the torah?

Last question,who are the two eternal witnesses and what are they called to bear witness of?
Terry

Because God is not a respector of persons. Although the Torah was given to the Jews as they were chosen by God Gentiles were adopted into the faith when they claimed the Hebrew God as their own. The reason he chose the Jews was so that Israel would be a light to the world pointing the way to their God who called them out of Egypt. This same people group would be the vehicle from which the Messiah would be born for the salvation of the world. The promise to Noah and to Abraham was that "all nations" would be blessed as a result of belief in the Messiah who would come from Abraham's seed.



Because Jerusalem is God's Holy City, always has been. It's where David bought the land that was first just a threshing floor. It's the place where his son would build the first grand Temple. And much before all this, it was the place where Abraham was willing to give the life of his son foreshadowing the son of God's ultimate sacrifice in the same place.



Not sure whom you're referring but I'm guessing you're talking about the two witnesses in Revelation? If so, many have their own ideas who these two could be. I tend to lean towards Elijah and Moses. Both died/were taken mysteriously. Nobody buried either one of their bodies and before Moses went up to the mountain to die it said he was in very good health not frail at all and only God knows where his body was buried.