Christian view on dietary restrictions

[Sketcher]

The point is God never made a distinction between Jew and Gentile in following the law as it applies to both. Care to cite scripture which states differently? You also forgot to include the part where the gentile needs to be circumcised (Ex 12:48).

"You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." - Deuteronomy 14:21

"At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD's release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release. - Deuteronomy 15:1-3

"When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother." - Deuteronomy 17:14-15

"You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. - Deuteronomy 23:19-20

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29

"Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision." - 1 Corinthians 7:18

"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." - Galatians 5:2-4

 

[coffee4u]

What is the Christian view on dietary restrictions?

Blood, strangled animals and food that's been sacrificed to idols.
Acts 15:28-29
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 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.

 

[Oldmantook]

"You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." - Deuteronomy 14:21

"At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD's release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release. - Deuteronomy 15:1-3

"When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother." - Deuteronomy 17:14-15

"You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. - Deuteronomy 23:19-20

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." - Acts 15:28-29

"Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision." - 1 Corinthians 7:18

"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." - Galatians 5:2-4

You cite verses as proof-texts without providing context which can make for poor interpretation.
The distinction you fail to grasp is that the passages you cite in Deuteronomy are indeed different per the law for the foreigner who is not a convert. However, if one wanted to convert to Judaism, the law would be same for the foreigner, sojourner, gentile.

And in the NT, scripture states that the wild olive is grafted onto the cultivated olive - not the other way around (Rom 11:17-19). In the faith, there is no difference between Jew and gentile as Acts 15:9 declares "there is no difference between us and them."
Since this is the case, do you suppose Jewish brethren in Christ follow what gentile brethren in Christ teach? Or, do gentile brethren in Christ follow what Jewish brethren in Christ teach?

The answer is found in Acts 15 where the the Jewish council headed by James declared what the requirements for the gentiles who are turning to God in order to not put too much of a burden on them (vs.19,28). These requirements are part of the Mosaic law, i.e, refrain from foods offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication (vs.20,29).
These essentials of the law were the minimum requirements in order to not put too much of a burden on the gentiles (vs.19,28). That is why in v.21 James stated: For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
As gentile converts to the faith hear what is read at the synagogues every Sabbath, they will understand in greater depth and application the law and what is required of them. Thus James' own words prove that the gentile believers out of obedience still need to follow the law.

Regarding circumcision, Paul's point was that the law does not justify anyone (Rom 3:20). On the other hand, those who wanted to impose circumcision on others wanted to BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW (Gal 5:4). They wanted to return to the law by imposing circumcision as a requirement for salvation. And that is precisely why Paul warns them in Gal 5:2 that circumcision profits them nothing. These were believers who wanted to return to the law of circumcision as a requirement for salvation rather than being circumcised as a result of salvation.

 

[Sketcher]

The distinction you fail to grasp is that the passages you cite in Deuteronomy are indeed different per the law for the foreigner who is not a convert. However, if one wanted to convert to Judaism, the law would be same for the foreigner, sojourner, gentile.

I never stated or implied otherwise. When I say Gentile, I mean someone who has not been born Jewish nor converted to Judaism.

And in the NT, scripture states that the wild olive is grafted onto the cultivated olive - not the other way around (Rom 11:17-19). In the faith, there is no difference between Jew and gentile as Acts 15:9 declares "there is no difference between us and them."
Since this is the case, do you suppose Jewish brethren in Christ follow what gentile brethren in Christ teach? Or, do gentile brethren in Christ follow what Jewish brethren in Christ teach?

The answer is found in Acts 15 where the the Jewish council headed by James declared what the requirements for the gentiles who are turning to God in order to not put too much of a burden on them (vs.19,28). These requirements are part of the Mosaic law, i.e, refrain from foods offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication (vs.20,29).
These essentials of the law were the minimum requirements in order to not put too much of a burden on the gentiles (vs.19,28). That is why in v.21 James stated: For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
As gentile converts to the faith hear what is read at the synagogues every Sabbath, they will understand in greater depth and application the law and what is required of them. Thus James' own words prove that the gentile believers out of obedience still need to follow the law.

Except that if they did still need to follow the Law, James would have agreed with the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 rather than give the restrictions he gave in verses 19-21 and 28-29. And Paul wouldn't have had to write Galatians at all. The Law is a package deal, you can't be obligated to it and not be circumcised. Good thing I'm not obligated to it.

Regarding circumcision, Paul's point was that the law does not justify anyone (Rom 3:20). On the other hand, those who wanted to impose circumcision on others wanted to BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW (Gal 5:4). They wanted to return to the law by imposing circumcision as a requirement for salvation. And that is precisely why Paul warns them in Gal 5:2 that circumcision profits them nothing. These were believers who wanted to return to the law of circumcision as a requirement for salvation rather than being circumcised as a result of salvation.

Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that circumcision should be the result of salvation. The only New Testament circumcision that is spoken of positively is when Paul had Timothy circumcised, primarily to keep the peace - and Timothy was born to a Jewish mother, which made him Jewish by birth anyway.

 

[Oldmantook]

I never stated or implied otherwise. When I say Gentile, I mean someone who has not been born Jewish nor converted to Judaism.

You cited Deuteronomy to point out that those who were not Jews need not follow certain aspects of the law. I agreed, but I also pointed out to you that those who converted to Judaism needed to follow the law. I also pointed out to you that gentiles are grafted onto the root - not the other way around - which you ignored.

The Law is a package deal, you can't be obligated to it and not be circumcised. Good thing I'm not obligated to it.

Again you ignored what I wrote? Why is that? I wrote that believers are not obligated to the law as a means for salvation. Rather, they are obligated to the law as a result of their salvation. The law is a package deal - and you obey it because you are saved. You don't have the freedom to ignore it as you do although that is your prerogative.

Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that circumcision should be the result of salvation. The only New Testament circumcision that is spoken of positively is when Paul had Timothy circumcised, primarily to keep the peace - and Timothy was born to a Jewish mother, which made him Jewish by birth anyway.

You have made an argument from silence which is always an exceedingly weak argument - not to mention inaccurate in this case.
I suggest you compare Acts 15:1 with Acts 15:5. Tell me what you find? I won't do your homework for you.

 

[Sketcher]

You cited Deuteronomy to point out that those who were not Jews need not follow certain aspects of the law. I agreed, but I also pointed out to you that those who converted to Judaism needed to follow the law.

If you convert to Judaism, you're a Jew. It comes with the territory.

Again you ignored what I wrote? Why is that? I wrote that believers are not obligated to the law as a means for salvation. Rather, they are obligated to the law as a result of their salvation. The law is a package deal - and you obey it because you are saved. You don't have the freedom to ignore it as you do although that is your prerogative.

If Christians were obligated to the Law, then circumcision would be spoken of positively in the New Testament, rather than being spoken of as having no importance (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 6:15). Sabbath would be enforced too, rather than being a matter that one isn't supposed to judge you on (Colossians 2:16-17. Romans 14:1-7).

You have made an argument from silence which is always an exceedingly weak argument - not to mention inaccurate in this case.

Actually, what I'm arguing is that you have zero New Testament evidence for your position. You need positive New Testament evidence, in context, to support it. You have shown none.

I suggest you compare Acts 15:1 with Acts 15:5. Tell me what you find? I won't do your homework for you.

Both go against what the Jerusalem council concluded.

 

[coffee4u]

Again you ignored what I wrote? Why is that? I wrote that believers are not obligated to the law as a means for salvation. Rather, they are obligated to the law as a result of their salvation. The law is a package deal - and you obey it because you are saved. You don't have the freedom to ignore it as you do although that is your prerogative.

We are not under Mosaic law at all. That ended when Jesus said "it is finished" and God tore the temple curtain in two.
If we were obligated to follow the law as the result of our salvation then that would mean we would be obligated to sacrifice bulls, rams or goats.(Numbers 15)
The whole point of the law was to show God's people that they could not fill the law and needed a saviour who could do so for them.
When they put the blood on the doorway or sacrificed an animal it was a shadow of what was to come, done in place of Christ.

Exodus 12:7
Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs.

John 1:29
The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

We are under grace not law.
Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

 

[Oldmantook]

We are not under Mosaic law at all. That ended when Jesus said "it is finished" and God tore the temple curtain in two.
If we were obligated to follow the law as the result of our salvation then that would mean we would be obligated to sacrifice bulls, rams or goats.(Numbers 15)
The whole point of the law was to show God's people that they could not fill the law and needed a saviour who could do so for them.
When they put the blood on the doorway or sacrificed an animal it was a shadow of what was to come, done in place of Christ.

Exodus 12:7
Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs.

John 1:29
The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

We are under grace not law.
Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

The problem is I could quote you a slew of verses which state the opposite of what you believe such as Rom 3:31 which states: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Jesus himself plainly stated: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Matt 5:17

Instead of interpreting your verses in light of what Jesus stated, you have done the opposite and interpreted your verses despite what Jesus stated. That of course, is your choice but I prefer to believe Jesus.

If you want me to explain further, I can do so but I don't want to waste my time or yours explaining things to people who have their doctrine set in stone and won't change their mind about anything.

 

[coffee4u]

The problem is I could quote you a slew of verses which state the opposite of what you believe such as Rom 3:31 which states: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

You might want to look either side of what you just pulled out there.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
This is not talking of the Mosaic law but the new Covent Law which is written on our hearts.

Jesus himself plainly stated: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Matt 5:17

Exactly, he fulfilled the Mosaic law so ending it.

If you are under Mosaic law then you must go and sacrifice. You will need the sin offering, burnt offering, whole offering, heave offering, Passover sacrifice, meal offering, wave offering, peace offering, drink offering, thank-offering, dough offering, incense offering, red heifer, scapegoat, and first-fruits offering. I see a lot of people on CF talk about 'keeping the law' yet I don't see them sacrificing anything.
Since one whole section of the law included the Tabernacle, the Temple in Jerusalem and the Ark of the Covenant -good luck in following those.

Instead of interpreting your verses in light of what Jesus stated, you have done the opposite and interpreted your verses despite what Jesus stated. That of course, is your choice but I prefer to believe Jesus.

If you want me to explain further, I can do so but I don't want to waste my time or yours explaining things to people who have their doctrine set in stone and won't change their mind about anything.

I believe in Sola Scriptura.
Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Scripture tells me that I am free of the written law.
I am not judging you for it since if something is sin to you it is sin. (Romans 14) How you live is between you and the Lord, but if you try and teach others that they have to follow Mosaic law then I will comment.

 

[Oldmantook]

You might want to look either side of what you just pulled out there.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
This is not talking of the Mosaic law but the new Covent Law which is written on our hearts.

You ignore Jesus' own words. That is your choice. He stated that he did not come to abolish the law. I prefer to believe Jesus. You can ignore him.

Exactly, he fulfilled the Mosaic law so ending it.

If you are under Mosaic law then you must go and sacrifice. You will need the sin offering, burnt offering, whole offering, heave offering, Passover sacrifice, meal offering, wave offering, peace offering, drink offering, thank-offering, dough offering, incense offering, red heifer, scapegoat, and first-fruits offering. I see a lot of people on CF talk about 'keeping the law' yet I don't see them sacrificing anything.
Since one whole section of the law included the Tabernacle, the Temple in Jerusalem and the Ark of the Covenant -good luck in following those.

You are ignorant of the requirements of the law. FYI good luck is not necessary as sacrifice is not possible as the temple was destroyed.

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Scripture tells me that I am free of the written law.
I am not judging you for it since if something is sin to you it is sin. (Romans 14) How you live is between you and the Lord, but if you try and teach others that they have to follow Mosaic law then I will comment.

Read the verse! It states "dying to what once bound us." What do believers die to in their lives? Answer is "sin" - not the law. Are the 10 Commandments as contained in the law no longer binding so you are now free to lie, murder and steal? Yes or No??

 

[coffee4u]

You ignore Jesus' own words. That is your choice. He stated that he did not come to abolish the law. I prefer to believe Jesus. You can ignore him.


You are ignorant of the requirements of the law. FYI good luck is not necessary as sacrifice is not possible as the temple was destroyed.


Read the verse! It states "dying to what once bound us." What do believers die to in their lives? Answer is "sin" - not the law. Are the 10 Commandments as contained in the law no longer binding so you are now free to lie, murder and steal? Yes or No??

We have the spirit of the law upon our hearts, we also have the commandments of Jesus, not the old written law. We are to love God and love our neighbour. Of course, we are not to steal, lie or murder, we know that is wrong because it is upon our hearts, not because it is written down somewhere and we follow it.
we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
How else can you read that but for what it says, we are free of the Old Testament law.

 

[Oldmantook]

We have the spirit of the law upon our hearts, we also have the commandments of Jesus, not the old written law. We are to love God and love our neighbour. Of course, we are not to steal, lie or murder, we know that is wrong because it is upon our hearts, not because it is written down somewhere and we follow it.
we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
How else can you read that but for what it says, we are free of the Old Testament law.

Jesus never said you are free from the law. The 10 Commandments are part of the law so you are still bound to keep it. The only difference now is that the indwelling Spirit enables you to keep the law in the way your flesh was previously unable to. The law didn't vanish just because the Spirit came. Rom 3:31 states Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Your view totally contradicts with Scripture.

 

[John Helpher]

What is the Christian view on dietary restrictions?

Christians can eat anything. The OT laws about unclean food were never meant to be moral rules; they were health rules. As happens with most issues, the people took those health rules and twisted them into moral rules to make themselves better than others. This is why Jesus said it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean, but rather what comes out of the heart.

A practical example of this is demonstrated in Acts 10 and ll, where God gives Peter a vision of a huge sheet full of unclean animals and tells Peter to eat; his stubbornness regarding dietary rules was preventing him from witnessing to others who did not follow the same dietary rules. In other words, his perspective on food was stopping him from offering the truth to others.

It would be like say, "Sorry God but I didn't speak the truth to those people because I didn't want to eat the pork chop they offered to me". When Jesus sent his disciples out two by two, one of the instructions he included was for them to eat whatever was set before them. We should not let dietary rules blind us to what's really important.

 

[Oldmantook]

If you convert to Judaism, you're a Jew. It comes with the territory.

Of course it does. But if one coverts to Christianity, one is grafted onto the wild olive not the other way around. A gentile who becomes a Christian follows what Jesus and Paul taught - both of whom were Jews and followed the law. Jesus said "follow me."

If Christians were obligated to the Law, then circumcision would be spoken of positively in the New Testament, rather than being spoken of as having no importance (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 6:15). Sabbath would be enforced too, rather than being a matter that one isn't supposed to judge you on (Colossians 2:16-17. Romans 14:1-7).

Incorrect. What you fail to distinguish is that circumcision is not required to become saved as only faith in Christ produces salvation, however it is a matter of obedience in keeping God's commandments which are eternal, once one is saved.
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 1 Cor 7:19
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal 5:6
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Gal 6:15

In Col 2:16-17, the Colossians were being judged because they were observing food/drink with respect to keeping the feast days, new moon and Sabbath days. Not because they were not keeping them as you presume.
In Rom 14:1-7, why do you presume the dietary law is being referenced here? V.2 makes it clear the subject is vegetables - whether one eats only vegetables. Furthermore, v.6 states "He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."
This verse has nothing to do with the Sabbath but refers to a special day - fasting day - for the individual who may wish to abstain from food.

Actually, what I'm arguing is that you have zero New Testament evidence for your position. You need positive New Testament evidence, in context, to support it. You have shown none.

Ironically as I have just showed you above, you have grossly misinterpreted all of the passages you claim to support your view. Also Acts 15:20 clearly shows that gentiles were required to observe the short list of prohibitions prescribed in the law. V.21 also makes it clear that as they attended synagogue every Sabbath, they would learn more of what the law of Moses required.

Both go against what the Jerusalem council concluded.

Nope.
1But certain ones having come down from Judea were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you are not able to be saved.”
5Now certain of those who believed, from the sect of the Pharisees, rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.”

V.1 identifies a certain group not identified as believers or unbelievers, who claim that one has to be circumcised in order to be saved.
V.5 identifies believers who said that it is necessary to circumcise, command and keep the law of Moses. In the Greek, these three verbs are in the present tense which indicate that all three of these actions are continuous/ongoing.
From these two verses we can conclude that the first group claimed that a person needs to circumcised in order to be saved. The second group however were believers who claimed that a person needs to be circumcised not in order to be saved - but as a matter of keeping the law of Moses in order remain obedient to God. This parallels perfectly with - Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 1 Cor 7:19

 

[Sketcher]

Of course it does. But if one coverts to Christianity, one is grafted onto the wild olive not the other way around. A gentile who becomes a Christian follows what Jesus and Paul taught - both of whom were Jews and followed the law. Jesus said "follow me."


Incorrect. What you fail to distinguish is that circumcision is not required to become saved as only faith in Christ produces salvation, however it is a matter of obedience in keeping God's commandments which are eternal, once one is saved.
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 1 Cor 7:19
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal 5:6
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Gal 6:15

In Col 2:16-17, the Colossians were being judged because they were observing food/drink with respect to keeping the feast days, new moon and Sabbath days. Not because they were not keeping them as you presume.
In Rom 14:1-7, why do you presume the dietary law is being referenced here? V.2 makes it clear the subject is vegetables - whether one eats only vegetables. Furthermore, v.6 states "He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."
This verse has nothing to do with the Sabbath but refers to a special day - fasting day - for the individual who may wish to abstain from food.


Ironically as I have just showed you above, you have grossly misinterpreted all of the passages you claim to support your view. Also Acts 15:20 clearly shows that gentiles were required to observe the short list of prohibitions prescribed in the law. V.21 also makes it clear that as they attended synagogue every Sabbath, they would learn more of what the law of Moses required.


Nope.
1But certain ones having come down from Judea were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you are not able to be saved.”
5Now certain of those who believed, from the sect of the Pharisees, rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.”

V.1 identifies a certain group not identified as believers or unbelievers, who claim that one has to be circumcised in order to be saved.
V.5 identifies believers who said that it is necessary to circumcise, command and keep the law of Moses. In the Greek, these three verbs are in the present tense which indicate that all three of these actions are continuous/ongoing.
From these two verses we can conclude that the first group claimed that a person needs to circumcised in order to be saved. The second group however were believers who claimed that a person needs to be circumcised not in order to be saved - but as a matter of keeping the law of Moses in order remain obedient to God. This parallels perfectly with - Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 1 Cor 7:19

1 Corinthians 7:18 says you're wrong about all that:

"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."

I apologize for not including it in my previous response, it wasn't as complete as it could have been. Either Paul is wrong, or you are wrong, and Paul's words here are canon.

 

[Oldmantook]

1 Corinthians 7:18 says you're wrong about all that:

"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."

I apologize for not including it in my previous response, it wasn't as complete as it could have been. Either Paul is wrong, or you are wrong, and Paul's words here are canon.

I don't see anything at all in your reply that contradicts with my view. That verse merely relates to calling - which is election - which pertains to salvation. As I said all along, circumcision is not required in order to become saved, however it is a matter of obedience once one is saved. Just like water baptism which is not a requirement in order to become saved but is a matter of obedience once one is saved.

 

[Sketcher]

I don't see anything at all in your reply that contradicts with my view. That verse merely relates to calling - which is election - which pertains to salvation. As I said all along, circumcision is not required in order to become saved, however it is a matter of obedience once one is saved. Just like water baptism which is not a requirement in order to become saved but is a matter of obedience once one is saved.

If it was a matter of obedience, Paul never would have told uncircumcised believers to not become circumcised. We have nothing similar for baptism.

 

[Oldmantook]

If it was a matter of obedience, Paul never would have told uncircumcised believers to not become circumcised. We have nothing similar for baptism.

Apparently you are not aware of the need to obey after one is saved do you?

 

[Sketcher]

Apparently you are not aware of the need to obey after one is saved do you?

Oh, I believe in obedience. I don't believe that Gentile Christians need to obey the Law after we get saved. I believe there is plenty that the New Testament does tell us to obey that is well short of the Law, but also not convenient. If I believed in convenience over obedience, I wouldn't try to follow what I try to follow.

 

[Oldmantook]

Oh, I believe in obedience. I don't believe that Gentile Christians need to obey the Law after we get saved. I believe there is plenty that the New Testament does tell us to obey that is well short of the Law, but also not convenient. If I believed in convenience over obedience, I wouldn't try to follow what I try to follow.

So why would James in Acts 15 specify the short list of things that are contained in the law that gentiles must adhere to in order to be saved. Why would he also mention in the very next verse that the reason being is that Moses is preached every Sabbath in the synagogues? Why did James also warn believers in Js 2:9 this? "But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law." Yet you claim that gentile Christians don't need to obey the law? James plainly stated that you don't obey the law when you show favoritism and thus sin.
You have to ignore the plain teaching of the scriptures in order to cling to your belief.