Which law God abrogated in a vision to Peter.
REALLY? !!!
Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and God's command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals, but his refusal to do that was the point God was making to him in his vision. Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common. Furthermore, if God had been abrogating His own laws, then he would have rebuked Peter for calling unclean what he had made clean, but God did not do that, rather He only rebuked Peter for calling common what He had made clean. So Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and had correctly refrained from eating them, but he had incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and had incorrectly declined to eat them. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about any of God's laws being abrogated, so his vision had nothing to do with that. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet or dreamer who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so God simply did not leave Himself any room to abrogate any of His laws through means of a vision and that was not what He was doing.
- "He said to them: 'You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.' "
Are you serious? Your abuse of the NT Scriptures is egregious.
Acts 10:28 - "He said to them: '
You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.' "
I don't see how you can deny that this verse refers to a law that forbids Jews to associate or visit with a Gentile. This is not a law that is found anywhere in the Mosaic Law and is therefore a man-made law. In Galatians 2:11-16 Peter stopped associating or visiting with the Gentiles, so he was straightforwardly following this law.
The traditions (Christian teaching) given to them in his letters and preaching! (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Are you not aware there is accountability for misrepresenting the Word of God? (1 Corinthians 3:13-15), for just plucking words and phrases from the texts, with no consideration for their meaning in context?
The NT is a closed book to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
The above verse instructs them to follow the traditions that they were taught, so I accurately represented these verses and did not take them out of context.
A Sabbath day's journey was a measurement, limited to about 3/4 mile. It is not referring to a Sabbath Day observance.
The Mosaic Law does not state a measurement for how far someone can travel from a city on the Sabbath, so being limited to about 3/4 mile is an example of man-made tradition, which is why I cited it. I did not claim that it was referring to a Sabbath Day observance because that had nothing to do with the point I was making.
, you say, when he states that "all who rely on the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10).
I completely agree with Paul that those who rely on works of the law instead of the Book of the Law are under a curse and have never spoken in favor of relying on works of the law in order to become justified.
So Paul, who received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally, in the third heaven, got it wrong. . .and you got it right?
What's wrong with this picture?
Anyone who disagrees with God is wrong, however, Paul said nothing to disagree with God, so he was not wrong. The people who got it wrong are those who interpret Paul as being in disagreement with God, and that is what is right with this picture.
Shoe-horning again. . we are told no such thing.
Acts 21:20-26 is one of the examples of Paul becoming "all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22), where "to the Jews I became like a Jew. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. . ." (1 Corinthians 9:20-21).
Becoming zealous for doing good works is the the correct respond to believing in in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Titus 2:14). The Mosaic Law is profitable for equipping the man of God to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that is what the Jews who were coming to faith were correctly doing and what they were rejoicing about in Acts 21:20. Yes, you trying to insert 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 into Acts 21:20-26 is a good example of shoe-horning. If Paul was intentionally sinning by deceiving people in order to win them for Christ, then that would have completely undermined the Gospel message. If you need turn Paul into a deceiver who was openly admitting to deceiving people while hoping no one caught on in order to maintain your theology, then you are cutting off the branch you are sitting on because that would mean that we can't trust anything that he said. Rather, in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law, so he was equated the Mosaic Law with the Law Christ. Furthermore, he was not speaking about deceiving people, but in context he was speaking about giving up his rights in order to meet people where they were at.
Again to remind you: there is accountability for misrepresenting the Word of God.
(1 Corinthians 3:13-15)
The Mosaic Law is the word of God (Deuteronomy 5:31-33) and I'm not the one is is misrepresenting the word of God by making it out to be speaking against obeying the word of God, so you should heed your own advice.