beloved57
Well-known member
Do you believe that the old testament saints will be conformed to the image of Christ? Rom 8:28-30?
Who is the Remnant Church?
- Thread starter Pipiripi
- Start date
Do you believe that the old testament saints will be conformed to the image of Christ? Rom 8:28-30?
Right Divider
Body part
That is completely irrelevant to the term "remnant". That term is ONLY applied to members of the nation of Israel in the Bible.
beloved57
Well-known member
No it's not irrelevant, please answer the question.
Right Divider
Body part
beloved57
Well-known member
Nothing silly about the truth. Who does David mean here Ps 17:15
As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Is that only a likeness in what one looks like or does it include how one lives...a lifestyle...you know...claim to abide in Him...must live as He does...1 John 2:6
or indeed would Abel Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Elijah balk at water baptism or the Lord’s Prayer...or communion?
Or Sabbath, festivals, and clean meats?
“No no no...all that’s just for Jews...NOT DISPENSED TO ME”...
I am doubtful they would...
and that likeness man was created into extends into a lifestyle he was created for...before sin...Inclusive of seventh day Sabbath and NOT eating unclean meat...
I would have included the entire chapter. The context is very important as it demonstrates what David meant by "likeness".
beloved57
Well-known member
I'm not you. I believe that the likeness meant is the image and likeness of his Savior and Head the Lord Jesus Christ Rom 8:29
I would also add to my last post Psalm 51.
Notice that David, in his repentance for killing Uriah and taking Bathsheba as his own wife, asks God for a new, clean, heart. This is the very essence of being born again. And remember Jesus quite clearly chided Nicodemus, a teacher in Israel, for not understanding what it meant to be born again. This means the concept of being born again should have been known to the Jews of Jesus' day. Otherwise there was no foundation to Jesus' chiding of Nicodemus. In other words, if the concept of the new birth was not taught in the OT Jesus was lying by chiding Nicodemus for not understanding it. And we know Jesus never sinned.
David includes the concept of the Holy Spirit and it's importance in the role of obedience to God. You know, like Paul's statement: for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. And he says that the presence of the Holy Spirit in his life is the foundation for him to be able to teach others about God. Especially notice the last 4 verses in which David shows how the Isrealites understood true repentance. It was a broken spirit and a contrite heart that God accepts as repentance. And then David links that to the sacrificial system of burnt offerings to demonstrate their true meaning.
Remember also that David lived 1500 years before Jesus. This was the long time understanding of the sinner's position before God and what was meant by repentance in the teachings of the Bible. It's no wonder Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for not understanding the Bible. They had moved a long ways away from a relational understanding of salvation to the legalistic ideas they held in Jesus' time. Jesus was not revealing anything new. He was cleaning away the rubbish that was hiding the truth during His days on earth.
So those who point to the Pharisees as holding a Biblical position on salvation, law keeping, the new birth, righteousness, etc... are dead wrong. The Jewish leadership during Jesus' day had pretty much everything wrong. That's why they hated Jesus. He showed how corrupt and wrongheaded they were. And they hated that. There was no attitude of repentance and asking for a change of heart within them. They were satisfied with who they were without God in their lives. That is self-righteousness, and the Bible teaches that is a belief that leads to death starting with the writings of Moses. In other words, from the very beginning of the Bible.
Notice that David, in his repentance for killing Uriah and taking Bathsheba as his own wife, asks God for a new, clean, heart. This is the very essence of being born again. And remember Jesus quite clearly chided Nicodemus, a teacher in Israel, for not understanding what it meant to be born again. This means the concept of being born again should have been known to the Jews of Jesus' day. Otherwise there was no foundation to Jesus' chiding of Nicodemus. In other words, if the concept of the new birth was not taught in the OT Jesus was lying by chiding Nicodemus for not understanding it. And we know Jesus never sinned.
David includes the concept of the Holy Spirit and it's importance in the role of obedience to God. You know, like Paul's statement: for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. And he says that the presence of the Holy Spirit in his life is the foundation for him to be able to teach others about God. Especially notice the last 4 verses in which David shows how the Isrealites understood true repentance. It was a broken spirit and a contrite heart that God accepts as repentance. And then David links that to the sacrificial system of burnt offerings to demonstrate their true meaning.
Remember also that David lived 1500 years before Jesus. This was the long time understanding of the sinner's position before God and what was meant by repentance in the teachings of the Bible. It's no wonder Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for not understanding the Bible. They had moved a long ways away from a relational understanding of salvation to the legalistic ideas they held in Jesus' time. Jesus was not revealing anything new. He was cleaning away the rubbish that was hiding the truth during His days on earth.
So those who point to the Pharisees as holding a Biblical position on salvation, law keeping, the new birth, righteousness, etc... are dead wrong. The Jewish leadership during Jesus' day had pretty much everything wrong. That's why they hated Jesus. He showed how corrupt and wrongheaded they were. And they hated that. There was no attitude of repentance and asking for a change of heart within them. They were satisfied with who they were without God in their lives. That is self-righteousness, and the Bible teaches that is a belief that leads to death starting with the writings of Moses. In other words, from the very beginning of the Bible.
I'm not you. I believe that the likeness meant is the image and likeness of his Savior and Head the Lord Jesus Christ Rom 8:29
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
It's clear you have no idea as to what I meant. That entire chapter is speaking about being conformed into the image of God.
Rondonmonson
New member
All the first verses you cite are about a Remnant of Israel. They are the 1/3 who repent just before the Day of the Lord (Zechariah 13:8-9) who repent when Elijah is sent back just before the DOTL as Malachi 4:5-6 says.
But, the Rev. 12:17 verse can not be Jews by its very definition. It is the Remnant Church who becomes saved after the Rapture. We know it can not be the Jews because its in the very verses we read in Rev. 12. You see, the Dragon turns from the Woman (Israel) because he can't get at her, and goes after the Remnant. So the 1/3 who repent can't be the remnant the Dragon sends the Anti-Christs army after to hurt, because it says in the verses, he can't get at her and thus gets angry. We know it can't be the 2/3 of the Jews who do not repent because the Remnant is said to have the ......IMPORTANT......Testimony of Jesus Christ, well, we know that doesn't fit the 2/3 which Zechariah says will perish. So, that SPECIFIC REMNANT can only be the Remnant Church, the same ones seen under the Altar at the 5th Seal, which by the way stands for all 42 months of Martyrs by the Beast. Thus the Bride is Raptured and all those Gentiles who come to Christ Jesus afterwards are te Remnant [Church]. A small part that is left.
Those living in Israel today are the WHOLE HOUSE of Israel, there were never any lost tribes. ONE SEED from any tribe meant the tribe survived, there was never a time that all the seeds of Israel did not abide in Jerusalem until 70 AD, so when Israel was dispersed, they were seen as Jews, but they were dispersed as ONE STICK (Ezekiel 37) and one nation like the 2 Sticks become one stick prophecy prophesied they would be. And they came back as Jews, but they are all 12 tribes of Israel in reality.
Last edited:
beloved57
Well-known member
Evidently you have no idea what I meant, I'm speaking of the one speaking in that particular verse. I believe it refers to the ot saint being Glorified and conforming to the image of Christ.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
beloved57
Well-known member
Oh wrong friend, let's read Rev 7:9-10
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
,
As to a saint being glorified and conforming to the image of Christ I asked you:
would Abel Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Elijah balk at water baptism or the Lord’s Prayer...or communion?
Or Sabbath, festivals, and clean meats?
I mean "copy me as I copy Christ" is the image of Christ which Paul was encouraging yes? Establish the Law? Is why he kept Sabbaths and festivals...
Any claims to be IN HIM is to LIVE AS HE DID...said John...that would be conforming to the image of Christ yes?
His lifestyle...His Way...His keeping of His Father's commandments...you know those in the OT...
I mean "copy me as I copy Christ" is the image of Christ which Paul was encouraging yes? Establish the Law? Is why he kept Sabbaths and festivals...
Any claims to be IN HIM is to LIVE AS HE DID...said John...that would be conforming to the image of Christ yes?
His lifestyle...His Way...His keeping of His Father's commandments...you know those in the OT...
Yes, Jesus is the Creator.
No, not the Head of.
Adam and Eve were, indeed, fellowshipping with God, on the condition that they do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is a symbol of the Law (the concept of law, not any specific law or group of laws)
Yes, Christ was there at Sinai with the Church of Israel.
No. Christ was not the Head of anything.
Question begging two things here:
1) that Christ was the "Head" of something.
2) that Israel was "His Body."
You're eisegeting, not exegeting.
Agreed.
Israel is not referred to as His body, but as a house, a nation.
Yes.
Yes.
Question begging.
Except it's not, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, because your posts are so convoluted.
Question begging, and addressed already.
"Now" is not the ends of the ages.
Cite?
Supra.
The phrase, "those of Jacob and those not of Jacob" indicates a distinction between Jew and Gentile.
In the Body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile.
In other words, a distinction...
Which is talking about Israel and her covenant with God, and is NOT talking about the Body of Christ, which did not and would not exist for another 600 years.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Agreed.
But "King" implies a nation, not an organism like the Body of Christ.
Yes.
Cite?
All talking about Israel. Nothing to do with the BoC.
Again, the New Covenant was for Israel.
Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8
Paul's gospel WAS a separate dispensation, no distinction between Jew and Gentile, whereas the New Covenant made such a distinction.
Things that are different are not the same.
Duh.
You seem to be confused on something, maybe this will resolve the issue:
Prior to Paul's conversion, there were still two olive trees, one wild, the Gentiles, and one natural, the nation of Israel.
Acts 9, Paul is converted, and God simultaneously cuts off the unbelieving Jews, the branches on the natural tree that bore no fruit, and grafts in the wild branches. (Consider for a moment that today, we can graft in branches from cultivated plants onto other cultivated plants, even if they aren't the same species. But what we cannot do is graft branches from wild plants onto cultivated plants. God is amazing, isn't He?)
Again, the grafting in of the Gentiles occurred in Acts 9 at Paul's conversion.
Peter, in verse 7, is referring to his interactions with the Gentiles, but whether before or after Paul's conversion is not specified, and perhaps he could be talking about both, but in verse 8 he clearly switches to talking about from Paul's conversion onward.
The council was called because there was a conflict between what Paul was teaching (don't circumcise (according to the custom of Moses) to be saved) and what was taught by the twelve in Jerusalem. Note what was said at the beginning of verse 7: "And when there had been much dispute..."
Things that are different...
Then the Pharisees jump in and demand that the Gentiles (Paul's converts) should circumcise.
No one said they were...
You would do better to steel man my and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's position than to straw man it.
Um, no, they weren't, as far as I'm aware, unless you would be so kind as to provide citation... in which case I would be more than happy to address it.
Again, the Acts 15 council was called because of a conflict on circumcision, not specifically the Sabbath.
What does the Old Testament (not talking about the covenant) have to do with this?
I have literally no idea where your train of thought went to here...
Are you saying that God cannot graft something in from a different family?
Agreed.
Except that God divorced Israel several centuries before Christ. That's why the book of Lamentations is sometimes called God's certificate of divorce to Israel.
Israel killing her Messiah isn't ever described as the woman killing her Husband... so I'm not sure why you would use that analogy...
Also, while God intended marriage to be "until death parts us", God, being merciful, allows divorce because man is sinful (hence the certificate of divorce, Lamentations).
Except that they weren't cut off at the point they rejected their Messiah, because God is merciful. Also, as Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," since God had used their blindness and deafness to accomplish His will, that Christ would lay down His life for the sin of the world. In other words, what Christ asked for of His Father was that He forgive them for being blind and deaf to the Gospel, because it was the means He used to bring about His crucifixion.
You seem to have missed or forgotten what both God and Paul said, that God WILL take Israel back if she repents! God is MERCIFUL!
Which is what He is hoping Israel will become once again, but which will not happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
No idea what you're talking about here, as such a phrase isn't used in the Bible, as far as I'm aware, not even indirectly.
Which is why Israel has her "house rules," and the Body of Christ has it's "house rules,"
Oh, by the way, "House rules" in Greek?
oikonomia
oikos = house
nomos = rules
That's where we get the word "economy" from, and is is translated as "dispensation."
Could you rewrite that sentence so I can actually understand what you're saying?
In any case: The Body of Christ is not a nation, and doesn't have "citizens," per se, but members. We (BoC) are "citizens" of heaven, so to speak, but not because Heaven is a nation to be a citizen of, but rather that we are citizens of the overarching Household of God, Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:17, 20.
You're conflating the "household of Israel" with the "household of God."
The former is part of the latter, but does not include all of the latter. The Body of Christ is part of the latter, but not the former.
Speaking of the latter, above, not the former. Remember, Acts 10 comes AFTER Acts 9.
Referring to the New Covenant, which was meant for the former, above, but not the latter.
The word "body" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.
The word "head" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.
Here Paul is talking about unbelieving Israel returning to her Creator, not as members of the Body, but as a nation as a whole, the Household of Israel.
Under their New Covenant...
Denying the difference between the wild and natural olive trees is the main reason for your confusion.
Yes, both produce olives, but they're still two different plants!
When you only look at the similarities between two things, you start to get tunnel vision, and it causes you to think they're the same thing.
Start looking at the differences also, and maybe you'll start to see that they're different.
The wild branches grafted in were not supported "from the beginning at creation."
Yes, that describes the Body of Christ, not Israel.
Maybe this will help:
Remember how above I said that the household of Israel is only part of the overarching household of God?
To link that analogy with the wild and natural olive trees analogy, the natural olive tree is the household of Israel, the Gentiles are the wild olive trees in the world, but the new olive tree God made by grafting in the wild branches to the natural root describes the overarching household of God.
Again, if you only look at the similarities, you'll become convinced it's the same. Take off your blinders, and look at the differences also.
Cite?
First: Except that's not what it concluded.
Read it again:
Spoiler
Did you catch what was said in verse 24?
Spoiler
In other words: The Twelve did not tell anyone go go out and tell the Gentiles to "circumcize and keep the law."
Meaning? They never wanted any of the Gentiles to do so.
Second: The following verses are NOT absolute commands, but, as stated in verse 31, an encouragement to those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Spoiler
In other words, the Twelve were not saying "You must keep these following laws," but rather, "We encourage you to not cause the bretheren to stumble," as Paul pointed out that there's nothing inherently wrong with eating things sacrificed to idols or drinking blood, and even goes so far as to reprimand some of his converts for partaking in sexual immorality, yet without giving them a law to follow.
Yes. God does so when a person believes.
Unless what you meant to say is, "can that which is defiled be CALLED holy," in which case the answer is no.
No. God's authority is above man's.
Well no, not quite.
God is holy. It's an aspect of His nature.
Therefore anything that is holy is so because it aligns with who God is, not because He declared it to be so.
Now, God CAN arbitrarily assign something that has no moral value to be clean or unclean, with how that relates to holiness, and in that context, I would agree with you.
But God does not "set" the standard for holiness, He IS the standard.
Which was a result of violating the condition God had set for them to be able to fellowship with Him directly... not a standard of holiness.
No idea what you're talking about.
False.
The origin of idolatrous thinking comes from the lust to be "god" in one's life.
Again, new fig tree is not Israel, but overarching household of God.
Go read Romans again, please.
Spoiler
==========
As for the rest of your post, your post was too long for me to reply to in one post. I will respond to the rest when I have time. I did the best I could at keeping my response in this post here as short as I could, but it's still very long because of how long yours was.
Please learn to shorten your posts a bit, and try to compose your posts better, rather than just leaving it in the form of a stream of thoughts that come from your mind (which is a good way to put thoughts into words, but terrible for reading).
Saved unto what?
Saved means different things in different contexts, Clefty!
Under the New Covenant, salvation is when Christ returns, but under the "covenant of grace" given to Paul, salvation was provided at Christ's resurrection.
Last I checked, Christ hasn't returned yet, but He HAS been raised from the dead...
Which hasn't happened yet...
Which He hasn't done yet.
Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't say new moon as well... but I understand your figure of speech.
Perhaps for those in Israel. But certainly not those in the Body of Christ.
More question begging. See my previous post.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:18&version=NKJV
Think about it for a moment, Clefty.
If I have a lemonade stand, and I'm selling one glass per person, people who come to the stand are being refreshed, no?
Does that mean that they're constantly drinking lemonade for the rest of the day? NO! It means once they've drank the lemonade, they're refreshed!
In the same way, people were being saved at that time, but their being saved is a one time thing.
Ergo, the "are being saved" here is still referring to a saving that has been completed, especially now that they're long dead.
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. - 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:1-2&version=NKJV
Do the Corinthians in that verse already stand in the gospel which Paul preached to them? They who were dead in their sins, but raised in Christ Jesus?
Supra.
Which isn't a command or law that one should remain faithful.
Again, God's overarching kingdom includes the household of Israel, which has different house rules than does the Body of Christ.
Paul wrote Romans 6, Mid-Acts dispensationalists did not. Go read it again, please.
And?
Cite?
Incorrect. Peter stated the following (transliterated Greek):
"But by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we believe to be saved, in the same manner as they also."
I'd like to clarify something I said before, by using this verse to do it.
Peter here is saying that "we, Israel," here as of Acts 15, are saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, and that goes back as far as Acts 9.
PRIOR to Acts 9, however, the New Covenant was in effect, and those under it remain under it even after Acts 9.
In other words: Those who became believers under the New Covenant remained under the New Covenant, while those who became believers under Paul's covenant of grace were never under under the New Covenant.
I'm going to respond to the rest of your post in another post, as I'm having trouble with my keyboard since there's so much text in this post already.
Why? Because they were in the Body of Christ, Romans 7.
"In the Body of Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile."
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Acts 15 is AFTER Acts 9, in which the Body of Christ began with Paul, and anyone who believed after Paul did is in the Body of Christ under the covenant of grace...
Why were they obedient? Because it was a requirement for their salvation? or was it a result of them placing their faith in Christ?
What was Paul NOT teaching the Gentiles that the men from Judea wanted the Gentiles do do?
Circumcize and keep the law.
That includes the dietary commandments and the sabbath and the clothing laws...
Paul wasn't teaching any of it. In fact, he was teaching to NOT keep the law or to circumcize!
You seem to be concluding that "no distinction between Jew and Gentile" must mean that there is no distinction between what Paul taught and what Peter and Twelve taught, and that's just not what the text says!
How about visiting Abram, who, at the time, was a Gentile, and making Him into the father of many nations, one of which He made into a people for His name... Isra-EL...
In other words, no, NOT the Body of Christ.
So? The qualification was "a people for His name," not "a Jew" or "Jewish"...
No, not "twisted."
This is what I mean by straw man vs steel man.
You're straw manning my argument.
Are you referring to 2 Timothy 3:10?
Because that's the only place in the Bible where "manner" and "purpose" are found in the same verse...
If not, to what are you referring?
Again, to what are you referring?
Yes, a new program, one kept secret since before the creation of the world. Paul calls it a mystery kept secret.
The remnant of Israel were the Sabbath keeping believers. What Paul's gospel was separate from was the New Covenant, which was made with the same two parties as the Old Covenant, God and Israel.
Question begging.
No idea what you're talking about, since "manner of purpose" isn't in the Bible.
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Again, cite?
What?
The REASON FOR the Acts 15 council was BECAUSE of the new program given to Paul.
Things that differ, ya know?
Your point?
Cite?
Cite?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Question begging. Take the blinders off, Clefty.
Under both the Old and New Covenants, a Gentile was free to enter into a relationship with God, but He had to become a proselyte to do so.
Under the covenant of Grace, a Gentile no longer has to become a proselyte.
Things that are different are not the same...
Of course I do!
Right, they (the Gentiles) became proselytes.
Yet, in the Body of Christ, a Gentile does not have to become a proselyte Jew, he just has to trust in Christ.
Things that are different...
Question begging won't help your argument, Clefty.
NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE is Israel referred to as a body or as having a head.
ONLY THE BODY OF CHRIST!
Things that are different...
Uh, yes, he did.
This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” - Genesis 17:10-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis17:10-14&version=NKJV
And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it.A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones.All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” - Exodus 12:43-49 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus12:43-49&version=NKJV
Yes, under the Old Covenant.
Not the covenant of grace given to Paul, which has no such requirement.
Agreed.
Rather, it was in their trust in the law, as opposed to their faith in God.
What did Paul say?
Romans 9:31-10:4
Cite?
Yes, under the Old Covenant.
Not under Paul's covenant of Grace.
Check the context, please.
Which was under the Old Covenant God had with Israel, which included the Sabbath...
Not under Paul's covenant of grace.
More question begging.
Stop it.
Read the following passage carefully.
Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. - Romans 2:17-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans2:17-29&version=NKJV
Who is Paul talking to?
No, not "established," but rather "establish."
The law is a tutor. The unbeliever rejects God and so rejects His law, so a believer, when witnessing, should establish the law, to show that the unbeliever is condemned and in need of a Savior.
Who is Paul speaking to?
(Hint: It's not the same group as in the latter part of chapter 2 of Romans.)
False.
Don't take things out of the context they are in.
There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ.
However, when comparing the Body of Christ to the believers in the New Covenant, the former is made up of Jew and Gentile, whereas the latter is made up of only Jews and Proselyte Jews.
Which were Jews and proselytes... No Gentiles...
What's your point?
I want you to believe what the Bible says.
The Bible says that YHWH made a covenant with Israel, then said He would make a New Covenant with Israel, and then it says that because unbelieving Israel would not believe, He cut them off and grafted in the Gentiles with a new covenant called grace, and Paul called it a mystery kept secret.
Believes what?
Also...
Comparing Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who are believers, to Satan now?
Shame on you.
Paul, not Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, says we are not under the law, but under grace.
Why do you kick against the goad?
Define "all."
All in the New Covenant?
All believers ever?
All humans?
The former I would agree with, but the latter two you would be hard pressed to assert.
Did you notice that adoption is only mentioned by Paul in the New Testament?
Never by any of the circumcision authors.
Things that are different...
How can it be the same if adoption isn't mentioned by any of the Twelve, let alone the circumcision authors?
The condition for adoption is belief.
... In the Body of Christ...
Things that are different...
so technically Head of all creation or? I mean I understand your need to resist this description...but it is a better one than High Priest or pope right?...
oh ok so NOT the Head established the Laws standards and conditions? Who then?
Is it the word "Head", maybe? How about Ruler? Judge? King Creator? but certainly Leader...you know like a shepherd his flock...leader of a group...also known as chief...boss...HEAD of state?...
But I understand your reluctance to admit He is the Head of a Body of believers so soon...yes yes NOT known as Christ...that is the mystery revealed later...
ok good...so you are familiar with poor Stephen's definition of ekklesia in the OT wilderness...congregation, church body yes?...but with NO HEAD? But Christ was there at Sinai...
Please help with these terms and descriptions...I have it as ANY who have faith and obey are His...and more than one is a group, fellowship, congregation, body...following well...its Head
so NOT in the pillar of fire by night and shade casting cloud during the day? They were NOT His people?
I mean Abel Enoch Abraham Isaac Jacob Moses followed Who? Not the Head? Yes yes...certainly not known as "Jesus"
just following poor Stephen's lead..."ekklesia" being congregation, assembly, church of believers, body...and Stephen claimed He was there...now I dont suppose He followed Moses right?
OT writers also have Israel as a Wife, a Servant...which necessarily means there is a household with a head or?
ok
yes yes...no head of households there though right? No head of the nation? Again, Israel is referred to as Wife and Servant...Whore as well...but that is later...
Trust me, I understand your resistance to accepting Him as Head of a Body...but Stephen did NOT and readily called Him there when the assembly was in the OT wilderness...and as its Leader
ok so we'll stick to "church of Israel" as you called it...and agree He was there at Sinai...(just NOT as Head) and so we also agree it was ALREADY THEN IN THE OT WILDERNESS and ALREADY full of those NOT OF JACOB...
ok right and they gentiles ALSO partook belonged and were saved from Egypt and lived the SAME LIFESTYLE by the SAME LAWS...ONE LAW for native and foreigner alike...
even later? "your people shall be my people...your God shall be my God..." does NOT have Ruth worship other gods or other ways right?
well less so...I mean it is a body of believers yes? and necessarily needs a head...you really are reluctant with that phrase...LOL but again understandable...
convoluted? Paul was here in 1 Cor 10 describing to the gentile Corinthians he was writing that ALL THAT WHICH OCCURED IN THE OT became OUR example...and their failures became WARNINGS that WE NOT follow them their disobedience...”nor let us tempt Christ AS SOME OF THEM ALSO TEMPTED and were destroyed”...
See? Paul concludes these examples “are OUR admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come” 1 Cor 10:11
Same promise to the same group by the SAME LAW...as it was clear in the OT ONE LAW for native and foreigner the strangers within your gates as demonstrated in the Sabbath commandment...
hope that clarified the “convolution”
well...except that you admit it being a church of Israel and well...and churches do have a Head yes? I mean I do understand your need for Him NOT to be its Leader known as the Head and of the BODY of Christ...already back then...as Stephen described it...
they all ALREADY THEN felt pretty apocalyptic in their teaching and epistle writings...and NOW even more so or? I mean rapture is coming and stuff right?
1 Cor 10:6 "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did."
12 "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!"
Most of chapter 10 actually...a warning NOT to do as the ekklesia did in the OT...I mean Paul was writing the Corinthian synagogue full of gentiles right?
yes yes...I understand anything but "body" or "head" as they necessitate each other...but as you said this "church of Israel" needs a head, chief, boss, shepherd...pope, pastor, high priest?
yes. Agreed. However BOTH were under ONE LAW in the "church of Israel"
right AGAIN and since the OT Wilderness...ONE LAW...as in what you call the BOC they are NOT TO SIN...or? and by the SAME STANDARD? or?
makes sense there is a continuation though...as a HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND...
NOPE...all those within this body are under the SAME LAW...I mean two groups one keeping the Law and the other claiming "not for me" would be distinguishing...Peter was clear Yah made NO DISTINCTION Acts 15:9 BECAUSE the gentiles were keeping the Law...with hearts circumcised...faith and OBEY...SAME LAW
right...and already a good foreshadowing as to the PROMISE IN HIM being FOR ALL...on condition...you know ONE LAW...His...as in the Sabbath made for MAN...ALL MAN...not just for Jews...
resistance noted...ok but by now we can agree it is an issue of wording and descriptions...I mean a shepherd is the head of his sheep remains a good analogy? or Bridegroom Head of His House and Bride yes? King head of the state...etc...
and even more than their King...
organism? LOL...you mean organization? I mean the church is not normally understood as an organism...especially a biological organism...and yet you wish to argue it is and with a body NOT doing as its head...that would be an odd biological organism...
and much more besides changing much to make new laws and further idolatry to match the world its ways...and NOT follow Him His Ways...as He was their Leader, God, King, Chief, Head of State...
for what the temple being PLAN B? or C? Even the tabernacle was already a model of what was in Heaven...you know...pure...Holy...a place of Law and order and heirarchy...and authority...again of Law
"I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"'2 Samuel 7:4-7
LOL...Yah getting ornery...
So apparently it is true...He needs NO temple made by human hands...but people love all that pomp and circumstances and power
trust me...I know I know...hard for Zionists to fathom that...and for those MAD at the Sabbath supporting them with their another gospel of the divided kingdom...temporal POWER
yes IS WHY I noted it...all of it in the OT a foreshadowing as to how this Sabbath keeping clean meat eating root and trunk body continues to grow...and into the New Covenant with branches now grafted into it producing the SAME FRUIT...your BoC is from silence or would have been understood BEFORE Jesuit Scofield and Darby 19th century commentaries...
understood...JUST SAID THAT...for ANY AND ALL Whosoever believe and OBEY...His SAME LAW He NOW put NOT into a temple but into circumcised hearts and "inner Jew" Christ like minds...His LIFESTYLE demonstrating the NT way PRIOR His death..."if you claim to abide in Him you must live as He did"...but which you and yours claim is "NOT FOR ME"
you are hoping to convince yourself and others...but so far an argument from silence...twisting scripture to squeeze something that resembles “Grace ALONE...no obedience necessary...certainly NOT OT laws” Paul’s CERTAINLY NOT was about NOT living in sin...which is KEEPING His Law...
AS BOTH WERE KEEPING THE SAME LAW... the Romans even getting upset that Paul was "advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice." Acts 16:21 you think Paul was teaching Romans Sabbath is NO LONGER binding on them and eat PIG? LOL
Peter insists the Holy Spirit is to ALL that OBEY Acts 5:32
You keep rejecting that Paul was teaching the PRACTICE of the LAWS...that WE ESTABLISH THE LAW Romans 3:31 "Let no one judge you"....
Paul followed and worshipped as a member of "the Way" zealous for the Law...NO EVIDENCE he taught or practiced otherwise presented at ANY of his trials...
NOPE NONE MADE Peter taught Acts 15:9...would be quite easy to distinguish groups meeting different days or eating different menus...
oh they are different all right...much different than before He abolished the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and abolished the Jew's enmity towards "unclean" goyim
and you claim a difference without evidence...despite Jew and GENTILE NOW IN HIM BOTH citizens of Israel...both JOINED into one temple building...as it was already when this ekklesia was in the OT wilderness...
Gentiles grafted into Sabbath keeping root and kosher trunk...bearing the SAME FRUIT...is WHY Acts 15 helped to clarify exactly HOW to keep clean meat CLEAN...and NOT defile it...
right...both believing Jews and believing Greeks BORE the SAME FRUIT...not olives from fig branch...as James says can not happen...
oh my...according to who? Two olive trees from where? Zechariah and Revelation who are the anointed ones Moses and Eliyah?
...believing Gentiles were already IN THE NATURAL TREE...during the WHOLE OT wilderness thingy...and after...long after...even 4 gentile ancestors of Yahushua actually...
...all this in chapter 9? I see not a hint of this...
Paul immediately teaches at synagogues in Damascus and Jerusalem and DISPUTED AGAINST the Hellenists...good time to mention A NEW PROGRAM for A NEW BODY....but NOTHING...
actually chapter 9 ends with PETER raises a gentile to life...STILL NOTHING about a suspension of Israel and a WHOLE NEW BODY established...a the Head Christ but His way "NOT FOR ME"
WHAT? you can NOT graft an apple tree with orange branches no matter how cultivated they are...biological grafts have to be same of the SAME family
of course you can...take a wild apple branch from the woods and graft it into ANY apple tree in the orchard and it will produce...apples
but yes Yah is amazing...to think He went to the gentiles FIRST...and included them SINCE THE BEGINNING...and needs NO TEMPLE...well except a faithful obedient ekklesia ASSEMBLY congregation...to Him and His Way...yup a BODY of believers...which He joined from Jew and Greek...despite the Jews best efforts to monopolize the Promise since...well a long long time...
Cite. (Ha that is fun)
Peter already at Pentecost referenced Joel 2:32 “WHOEVER calls on the name...shall be saved...”...and taught Yah raised Christ to His throne...a throne of ALL nations not just David’s...
Peter already in his second sermon Acts 3:25-26 confirms gentiles were to be blessed...AND ”to you FIRST” necessarily implies there is a second...and not “to you Jews ONLY”
yes of course much dispute as IT WAS NEVER TAUGHT IN THE OT that 1) circumcision SAVED and B) gentiles HAD to be cut in order to live amongst and fellowship within their gates...3) oh AND the 12 were NOT teaching circumcision because of 1 and B
Oh yes and that “on the 8th day” thingy...
but certain Jews from Jerusalem who came to spy DID...
even still in chapter 21 it is rumored that Paul teaches this error and he takes a vow to prove he does NOT...but walks uprightly and keeps the law Acts 21:24
Jews tried the SAME FALSE WITNESS with Stephen Acts 6:13-14 claiming he taught "Jesus changed the customs Moses delivered" Luke was clear this was FALSE WITNESS as Stephen DID NOT teach that...and Yahushua DID NOT do that...
would have been a VERY OPPORTUNE time to discuss your MADness about a NEW WAY...another gospel...but NOTHING
either from Stephen OR Paul but slandering Jewish false witnesses claiming EXACTLY as YOUR MADness DOES...changes occured...things different...no more Sabbath something something....
in the custom of Moses...where adult men become 8 day old infants again? LOL again throughout the OT ONE LAW for native and strangers alike...ONLY PASSOVER required circumcision but the other festivals did NOT...
the burden was the decision to circumcise and NOT ONE JEW there had to bear that burden of deciding whether or not to be cut as their parents decided for them...that is the burden they did NOT lift...is exactly WHY it never saved...others did it to you...is why we no longer sprinkle infants...
Yahushua spoke against placing burdens on people the Pharisees did NOT lift themselves...TWICE
it certainly is implied that Paul taught the Law for the BOC is “NOT FOR ME”...you know a new way as Israel was suspended...yada yada yada...oh and other days of worship were kept and Ham sandwiches all around...you know "things are different"
Steel man? LOL...All that MAD stubble will be burnt...as if His kingdom is divided...
Acts 13:44 such crowds as to provoke Jews' jealousy...BTW Paul’s epistles went to synagogues not churches...and synagogues full of gentiles...
true...primarily about circumcision and Paul STILL CIRCUMCISED...Timothy LET him...
but yes the Sabbath was NEVER on the list of “what is NO LONGER REQUIRED” is WHY James concludes gentiles will continue to hear Moses read and taught on every Sabbath in every city Acts 15:21
The 4 other things listed were CLARIFICATION as gentiles were unfamiliar with the nuances of the Torah as how clean meat can be made UNCLEAN to eat...
But yes Sabbath was NOT on the “WHAT DO WE DO” list as it was UNDERSTOOD TO STILL BE KEPT...hence the LET NO ONE JUDGE YOU...we establish law...copy me as I copy Christ...et al
namely everything...the OT already showed what those NOT OF JACOB were to OBEY as to be strangers within thy gates of THOSE OF JACOB...this council referenced these 5 things the OT ALREADY required of THOSE NOT OF JACOB to follow
The Sabbath, clarification on sexual immorality, and 3 dietary laws...
is why for centuries this Body of Christ also known as "the Way" was seen by Rome as a superstitious Jewish sect...and NOT a new religion...
understandable you are NOT able to see that these NEW BRANCHES being grafted INTO the root and trunk MATCHED the FRUIT of branches ALREADY growing there and NOT cut off for unbelief...
You are so MAD it blinds you to the Sabbath and other OT instructions for those NOT OF JACOB PRACTICED TO fellowship in this ekklesia ALREADY found in the OT wilderness...when already back then it too was full of those NOT OF JACOB
There is NO DISTINCTION between the OLIVES from branches NOT cut off for unbelief and those grafted INTO the family...BECAUSE THEY BOTH KEEP THE OT LAW
oh He prolly can...that tree in the Rev bears 12 different fruit for the Nations...oh and ALSO NOT JUST FOR JEWS...btw
But what I am saying is that HE DID NOT graft different branches with differing fruit...that would divide His body house kingdom church etc...ONE LAW for Native and Foreigner just like in the OT...remember the Sabbath? Strangers within thy gates? IRONIC the ONLY commandment that inclusive...
good and because that bride did NOT follow her husband...you know...the Head of her household...she was put away
and?
because that is exactly what happened...that bride which was put away finally killed her groom when He came to call her back...and death did PART them...
right being merciful means to ALLOW CHOICE and they chose...to MURDER Him and suspended all covenants...He seeks a NEW BRIDE much like the first...faithful and obedient...to Him
is what was taught for centuries until modern Zionism developed...thanks jesuit Darby and Scofeild their counterfeit abomination...well except already by 2nd century the church CHANGED His ways to their own...you know like Israel did in the OT...making NEW laws leading to idolatry
He is merciful yes...but His are distinct and obedient and complicit...being forgiven does NOT repent them...repenting they JOIN HIS...not have their own way in...I AM THE WAY...
And those that do re join are NO LONGER Jews...and no longer NEED a temple...
Ahhh yes Judas...
so there are TWO brides? You would think the trouble Abram went through would have taught Him something...LOL
those TEMPORAL covenants are done away with...His death parted them...only Spiritual remains...
and please clarify...do Jews accept Yahushua and join the BOC (forced of course as 2/3 are killed) or do they remain their own kingdom with their own way....the MADness never clarifies itself when I ask specifics
is happening...when Jews come to Him however they NO LONGER SEEK TEMPORAL POWER...they are IN HIM...
and your MADNESS IS? LOL...His covenants with Israel are ALL CONDITIONAL...they failed as a blood nation having KILLED the TESTATOR...
But the NT covenant is to ALL with the SAME FRUIT...NO DISTINCTION from the OT...in sum “if you abide IN HIM you must live as He did” but yes yes...you reject that as “NOT FOR ME”
as you ADDED...to the word...as Eve did in the garden...
so you divide His house...nice...and call your indolence grace...
right your economy has counterfeited His coin...idolatry at its finest...quite close to the real but NOT a currency issued by Him...
Citizens joined into the commonwealth of Israel follow the laws of Israel...its Laws are NOT changed by the new immigrants
but in a day and age when immigrants reject host nation laws and even the natives want LESS POLICING...your stance is completely evident...and demonstrated...celebrated...
The demonic spirit of the times...has so many claim that rules are “NOT FOR ME”...demanding entitled promises without the condition of obedience...the irony...
yup...NO WONDER our country is fallen...decades of MADness have taught cheap GRACE ALONE and disdain for any Law...
Paul described the Celts in Galatians as former strangers and foreigners following their own customs and man made traditions...UNKNOWN by YAH...but NOW knowing Him they KEEP HIS WAYS and are “rather KNOWN by YAH”
You know He knows His own...as they are ONE GROUP...not segregated or seperated as He KNOWS His OWN are NOT in an APARTHEID STATE.
so you as citizen of heaven DO NOT keep His Commandments? LOL
See? It is Member vs Citizen is all in the optics of this...and yours are so MAD you desperately attempt to counterfeit and produce your own...believing but NOT obeying...as the first chief of your sect did claiming “I would be like the Most High” and leads the spirit to change both times and law...
right...how much more progressive can this get? How much more diverse and multiculti Marxist does this become?
The body NOT in harmony with the Head...LOL
NOT doing AS HE DID claiming His Ways “NOT FOR ME” exactly like the original dissenter who was also kicked out of heaven...
and yet Cornelius was devout to what? his former customs and ways? Feared his former gods? Gave alms to the pagans?
Paul in 9 went to the synagogues...not gentiles...you WISH to insert here what has ALWAYS BEEN...His House remains for ALL NATIONS...on condition...OBEDIENCE to the SAME law as the natives...
but NOOOO yours claim a new program suspending Israel yada yada yada...
you force a distinction where there is NONE...as if the NEW COVENANT was NOT for gentiles...as if the OLD COVENANT was NOT for gentiles...your MADness NEEDS to blind you
Sabbath was made for MAN...not just Jews...was His teaching...but you insist “NOT TO ME”
I will stand with poor Stephen who understood this congregation this assembly has been around A LONG LONG TIME...certainly since the OT wilderness...
Your NECESSARY word game is abominable...counterfeiting what ALWAYS was: His going to the gentile to seek out a people for His NAME...
right because you rather read into this that A NEW PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED HERE SUSPENDING ISREAL rather than ALL are to turn to Yah...you know the Boss...Chief...Head Honcho oops sorry that word again...Head
and you would rather read INTO His Word that His WAYS are "NOT FOR ME" and reject that Christ was the FIRST to resurrect from the dead to proclaim to ALL...not just Jews...
Your MADness at Him His Ways causes this rebellion...as it did another who believes but does NOT obey...and seeks another kingdom here on earth...LOL
LOL...
Happily Paul clarified he was NOT MAD like you...but wished ALL who heard him that day to be as he was a citizen of Israel...
But even the Jews believing and NON believing Jews heard him that day (hmmmm...now it is awkward for you and yours as Jews are another class right?)
But Paul wished that day they ALL were as he was...except for the chains...
exactly what he wrote...”copy me as I copy Christ”...written to the gentiles crowding synagogues in Corinth...and its Jews
right...the same He modelled and taught FOR ALL...and like in the OT gentiles are adopted IN...as it was for them too...
remember the Sabbath?...made FOR MAN...even the strangers within thy gates...and NOT just JEWS...
that ALONE should have you rethink...but NOPE...your rebellion continues its "NOT FOR ME"
two different plants? but NOW BRANCHES FROM ONE ARE GRAFTED INTO THE OTHER and YES PRODUCING OLIVES...not claiming "NOT FOR ME"
don't distract from the fact that the branches which REMAIN for their BELIEF bear the SAME FRUIT...NO DISTINCTION...and DO NOT MAKE an entirely NEW category of "oh these new grafted in branches are just for show...another group for which bearing fruit is NOT FOR THEM"
LOL...of course they were and given the Sabbath...and out of the gentiles He chose to make a people for His Name...
yes IN HIM the middle wall of separation was destroyed gentiles could COME IN...and the enmity of Jews towards unclean gentiles was ABOLISHED in His flesh...so these wild branches COULD BE GRAFTED INTO AND BEAR FRUIT WITH NO DISTINCTION
BRAVO...and now this THIRD tree it bears FIGS? the grafted olive branches having caused the roots and branches to change fruit? LOL
of course NOT...there is NO NEW TREE...the NEW branches match the remaining OLD BRANCHES and produce THE SAME FRUIT...OLIVES...
just like when this tree was in the OT WILDERNESS and those NOT OF JACOB were ALREADY within thy gates...and given the SABBATH...et al...ONE PEOPLE...and ONE LAND...not two classes...even the foreigners received LAND and KEPT THE SAME LAW...imagine Ruth eating Ham and insisting working on Sabbaths to make extra money...LOL
LOL trust me they ALL wanted to eat after worship services and EVERYWHERE different menus... is why the Jerusalem council...so "LET's EAT!" But DIFFERENT recipes...IS WHY the clarifications as to what is clean were needed...
Other differences included differing holy days...again “Let NO ONE JUDGE BUT THE BOC”
what? that James 3:12My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
James even pushes it further that ONE SOURCE HAS ONE TYPE OF WATER...As if out of Yah's mouth there are TWO messages...two ways...two dispensations...LOL
oh my...
King Jimmy was already preparing the way for your “NOT FOR ME” rebellion by adding "circumcize and keep the law"
notice it is missing in the Greek originals:
It has come to our attention
Ἐπειδὴ (Epeidē)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 1894: Of time: when, now, after that; of cause: seeing that, forasmuch as. From epei and de; since now, i.e. when, or whereas.
that
ὅτι (hoti)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 3754: Neuter of hostis as conjunction; demonstrative, that; causative, because.
some
τινὲς (tines)
Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 5100: Any one, some one, a certain one or thing. An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object.
went out
ἐξελθόντες (exelthontes)
Verb - Aorist Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 1831: To go out, come out. From ek and erchomai; to issue.
from
ἐξ (ex)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1537: From out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards. A primary preposition denoting origin, from, out.
us
ἡμῶν (hēmōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Plural
Strong's Greek 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.
without our authorization
διεστειλάμεθα (diesteilametha)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Middle - 1st Person Plural
Strong's Greek 1291: To give a commission (instructions), order; To admonish, prohibit.
[and] unsettled
ἀνασκευάζοντες (anaskeuazontes)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 384: From ana and a derivative of skeuos; properly, to pack up, i.e. to upset.
your
ὑμῶν (hymōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 2nd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 4771: You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou.
minds
ψυχὰς (psychas)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Plural
Strong's Greek 5590: From psucho; breath, i.e. spirit, abstractly or concretely.
by what [they] said.
λόγοις (logois)
Noun - Dative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 3056: From lego; something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, the Divine Expression.
so let me guess...you are KJV ONLY right? LOL
remember we are NOT TO ADD to the word right? king Jimmy forgot...but it is useful to you here...
circumcision WAS NEVER DEMANDED...and WAS NEVER SALVIFIC...and I guess you think they concluded that the rest of the 10 are "NOT FOR ME" LOL
encouraged? LOL..."Might we suggest you do as Yah suggests?”...causing another to stumble was weighted heavier than now...sadly...alas...modern age...
earlier you mentioned a LIST of contentions this Jerusalem council was dealing with ...well actually one thing...circumcision...
are you really saying that the gentiles DID NOT HAVE TO KEEP 8 of the other 10 laws?...adultery is listed and a Sabbath keeping continuance already concluded by James Acts 15:21
so gentiles COULD
worship another god
make idols just not eat food offered to them
blashpeme His name
dishonor parents
kill
steal
lie
covet?
WOW...just WOW
3 of the 4 required dealt with dietary laws ALREADY FOR THOSE NOT OF JACOB in the OT...
Now seriously you really think they concluded gentiles can eat swine as long as it was NOT offered to idols...
or you can eat dog meat as long as it is drained from its blood
or rat which was not strangled?
WOW...seriously...as if the gentiles could bring "clean" SWINE to fellowship potluck after hearing MOSES taught in every city EVERY SABBATH Acts 15:21