Well you feel that whatever made it to the bible is inspired, I however don't hold that view. Just because it made it to the canon, it doesn't mean they're inspired and thus we should take it as true. In fact, I can't trust what even the gospels say for so many reasons.
Well, don't tell the other Christians here :aimiel: but I don't believe in Biblical infallibility, either. I believe in inspiration, but only in the ordinary sense of the word, and not in the "write-a-1500-word-essay-on-the-doctrine-of-inspiration" sense that implies so much more.
Anyway, I hadn't noticed you weren't a Christian when I responded previously, so I suppose that changes some things.
There's a difference there, I am speaking of the Kosher Laws to gentiles. Kosher Law is a part of the Law of Moses (without it being the 10 commandments). What Paul speaks of here in 1 Thes is about the 10 commandments.
As nearly as I can tell, Peter and Paul agree that Gentiles do not need to keep kosher dietary laws, with one notable exception.
Judaism from antiquity has held a separate set of standards for Gentiles for righteous living, based on God's covenant with Noah (Genesis 9), which stipulates that nobody should drink blood, or eat meat which still has the blood in it (which also includes the meat of any animal killed by strangulation, which causes the rupture of vessels throughout the muscles). Both Paul and Peter, and the first synod of apostles (headed by James) affirm that this restriction remains in place for Gentiles (Acts 15).
I think Paul has been both misunderstood, yet at the same time did also teach lawlessness. For example, he has been misunderstood perhaps by the followers of James from James's epistle where Paul supposedly taught justification is by faith 'alone'.
Paul never says "faith alone." Martin Luther and the Reformers created that doctrine a millennium+ later, but those words aren't in Paul's writings.
Likewise, while James' epistle specifically repudiates "faith alone," there is no mention there of Paul. History suggests that James epistle writes against the teachings of the 1st century heretic Cerinthus; not Paul. Acts suggests that Paul and James met and had no occasion for quarrel.
2 Peter 3:15 means nothing to anyone unless they truly believe it to be inspired.
This is silly rhetoric meant to appeal to a fundamentalist's zeal to protect the sanctity of Scripture. I'd rather have an honest discussion than a passionate argument. Play nice?
Peter's gospel IS different to Paul in that Peter recognise the importance of Law for salvation..that's what Paul agrees with too, but where they disagree is in Peter believing there are 'requirements' to gentiles for them to be saved. The Kosher Law for gentiles is among them. Therefore, this diametrically opposes Paul's spin on these types of Laws.
My reading of Scripture has led me to different conclusions:
1) That both Peter and Paul require that Gentile proselytes adhere to the standards of righteousness for Gentiles which are outlined in Genesis 9.
2) That the two each require that Gentile proselytes keep the 10 commandments, and more specifically, keep them according to the interpretation given by Jesus (Matthew 5 and elsewhere).
3) That they agree that the Levitical priesthood has been done away with, and that all the regulations of it, required sacrifices, feasts and sabbaths are no longer required.
4) That they agree that all the "commands of Christ" must be kept, which include somewhat more than the 10 commandments, and somewhat less than the entirety of the Mosaic covenant.
Your turn. Would you care to explain how you arrived at your conclusions?
Jarrod
