the Apostle Paul kept the Torah!

[tzadik]

Maybe. I doubt Peter, after being with Jesus, would consider either thing "unclean".

I think that especially being with Messiah would've strengthened all of their Torah obedience...instead of weakening them.

This is in line with Peter's utter shock when he first encountered God's vision.

"me? eat something unclean?? NEVER!"
Nothing but, complete obedience to God's Holy Instructions.

 

[Frogster]

[/INDENT]Doesn't say what he ate tho.

Any idea what Peter would pick off this menu if he came down to Texas today?

if it weren't unclean, would the circumcision have taken issue?

 

[Frogster]

I think that especially being with Messiah would've strengthened all of their Torah obedience...instead of weakening them.

This is in line with Peter's utter shock when he first encountered God's vision.

"me? eat something unclean?? NEVER!"
Nothing but, complete obedience to God's Holy Instructions.

antioch was later...:o

 

[tzadik]

antioch was later...:o

And good ol Antioch says absolutely nothing about WHAT food they ate.

assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.

 

[Frogster]

That's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't CARE what he ate. The Bible doesn't tell us. You have to ASSUME that he ate pork chops in order to support your theology.

What I do know is that Peter told us that he NEVER ate anything unclean in his life in Acts 10. that's a fact. that's not assumed.

Again, I can ask you the same question in this verse...
"Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples." - Mark 9:10
Was Messiah eating pork chops??

"Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, "This man receives sinners and eats with them." Luke 15:1-2
Was Messiah eating shrimp?

Assumptions are not facts, and therefore we can't built sound theology from them.

all u prove is that they were under law them, but he then redeemed the SLAVES in gal 4....


we all know they lived under law...u prove nothing.

 

[Frogster]

You're funny brother.
Of course it says eat.

It also said that Messiah ate with sinners and tax collectors.
Are you telling me that Messiah was also a porkchop, shrimp scampi eater?

sorry,,but u keep ignoring the context, and history, antioch was later...

why does it say that peter started judaizing afterwards, if the proir action were not food laws?

give us something, it says eat, we know food laws were an issue, give us something, we got EAT, u argue from absense, not me, EAT...EAT...EAT..

 

[tzadik]

all u prove is that they were under law them, but he then redeemed the SLAVES in gal 4....

we all know they lived under law...u prove nothing.

 

[tzadik]

sorry,,but u keep ignoring the context, and history, antioch was later...

why does it say that peter started judaizing afterwards, if the proir action were not food laws?

give us something, it says eat, we know food laws were an issue, give us something, we got EAT, u argue from absense, not me, EAT...EAT...EAT..

ring around the rosie all night long with this one.

It says eat eat eat eat eat eat.
But as long as it doesn't say what they ate, what they ate, what they ate....your argument...continues to be constructed out of straws of assumption.

 

[Frogster]

And good ol Antioch says absolutely nothing about WHAT food they ate.

assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.
assumptions.

u keep bringing up the i never ate unclean, from an earlier time in acts 10 before antioch, and before peter learned the lesson, not me!

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ok so we have no eating WITH Gentiles Paul calls Peter on (them having been given the Holy Ghost) and Peter making it a thing after the flesh (uncircumcision) after that manner. Then we have Paul telling us who NOT eat WITH and that was (whether Jew or Gentile) he that calleth himself a brother, who was either a railer, fornicator or covteous. WITH such a man do not eat. However, he tells that he was NOT speaking of the fornications, covetous etc OF this world (because in that case) you would have to leave the world. But then elsewhere he says if an UNbeliever invites you to a feast (and you are disposed to go) GO and eat "whatsoever" is put before you (not asking question) for conscience sake, yet not your own (but his). This was in respects to food sacrificed to idols (not unclean or unclean foods) but that whole "whatsover is set before you" (and that by an UNbeliever) and theres no garentee that food would be considered clean would it? Or even that they were instructed to ask about whatsoever it was that was set before them.


Gotta cook dinner, (again its all kosher) back later

 

[Frogster]

ring around the rosie all night long with this one.

It says eat eat eat eat eat eat.
But as long as it doesn't say what they ate, what they ate, what they ate....your argument...continues to be constructed out of straws of assumption.

u right, i surrender, peter was bird watching.

 

[Frogster]

ring around the rosie all night long with this one.

It says eat eat eat eat eat eat.
But as long as it doesn't say what they ate, what they ate, what they ate....your argument...continues to be constructed out of straws of assumption.

either they all were living in wild parties, as u suggested on another thread, or it was the food, it had to be something for the jerusalem boys to scare peter, well...which one?

wild parties in antioch, or EAT..EAT..EAT.. u tell me, i await.

 

[Jenna]

What is so hard to understand, that the common Jews of the day would have been flipping out on Peter, for having been in the company of gentiles? It has nothing to do with food. Just his BEING THERE was enough to cause the Jews who kept the oral law to begin accusing him.

 

[weathered]

What is so hard to understand, that the common Jews of the day would have been flipping out on Peter, for having been in the company of gentiles? It has nothing to do with food. Just his BEING THERE was enough to cause the Jews who kept the oral law to begin accusing him.

I let Paul's teaching guide me concerning this issue, and the apostles do not disagree with him either, he said the kingdom isn't about meat and drink. He says others things too concerning food, its all good and to be accepted because its sanctified through prayer.

 

[ananda]

What is so hard to understand, that the common Jews of the day would have been flipping out on Peter, for having been in the company of gentiles? It has nothing to do with food. Just his BEING THERE was enough to cause the Jews who kept the oral law to begin accusing him.

Yes, man's traditions/Oral Law (not YHWH's Torah Law) prohibited Israelites from associated with Gentiles.

 

[Jenna]

Paul never said that all things were food. You have just made a mistake in the conclusion you've arrived to. There are many, many Christians who take a snip of scripture here, and a snip there- and they teach others to view the law of God in ways that Paul never taught. I don't mean that with any ill will. There was a time when I jumped to those same conclusions, instead of looking further into it.

 

[ananda]

I let Paul's teaching guide me concerning this issue, and the apostles do not disagree with him either, he said the kingdom isn't about meat and drink. He says others things too concerning food, its all good and to be accepted because its sanctified through prayer.

These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.Rev 2:18-22 ... These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges ... I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Rev 2:13,14

 

[weathered]

Paul never said that all things were food. You have just made a mistake in the conclusion you've arrived to. There are many, many Christians who take a snip of scripture here, and a snip there- and they teach others to view the law of God in ways that Paul never taught. I don't mean that with any ill will. There was a time when I jumped to those same conclusions, instead of looking further into it.

He said all meat is food and not to be refused if its taken in thanksgiving. That's the way i read it.


1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[weathered]

These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.Rev 2:18-22 ... These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges ... I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Rev 2:13,14

Paul actually rebukes eating meat offered to idols, but hes teaching something about it too, hes saying idols have no power but he goes on to say that eating meat offered to Gentile gods would provoke Gods jealousy.

 

[ananda]

Paul actually rebukes eating meat offered to idols, but hes teaching something about it too, hes saying idols have no power but he goes on to say that eating meat offered to Gentile gods would provoke Gods jealousy.

Thanks, but I read it differently I see Paul as approving of eating meat sacrificed to idols, because idols, to him, have no power, and so the heathen are sacrificing to nothing. For Paul, as long as you don't cause a weaker brother to stumble, you can freely eat those meats. That's what I understand Paul to say.