Craigart14

As I understand it, Peter and Paul split on this issue until a council in Jerusalem in about 50 CE, when it was decided that Paul would continue his evangelical mission among the Gentiles. The issue was huge; after all, Jesus not only said on several occasions that he had come to enforce the law, but he also told his disciples in the book of Matthew to avoid Gentile lands and the towns of the Samaritans in their preaching. And Matthew's account credits Jesus with alluding to Gentiles as dogs and stating that he has come to save the lost sheep of Israel, not anyone else. Among Paul's listeners were many Gentiles who wanted to convert to the early forms of the Jesus movement, but didn't want to give up pork, shellfish, etc. And the men, of course, didn't want to be circumcised, which I'm told hurts like hell in adulthood. Paul--or followers of Paul--relaxed the rules to allow new converts.

Craig

Doctor X

Craigart14:

This is the author of Lk-Acts trying to "Petrify" Paul and "Paulinate" Peter. It is different from Paul's Galatians. Certainly, non-Jewish converts and . . . maybe . . . Hellenized Jews would not follow the dietary practices. I add the "maybe" because one of the "things" of the Pharisees was to promote the various religious codes.

Having written that, that does not mean that following Jewish practices . . . like--Ouch!--circumcision . . . were not an issue between the various groups. I am just exercising [Pedantry.--Ed.] caution about making historical conclusions based on texts that are trying to make a founding "story."

Similarly:

4God:

This is a nice confession of faith, but it may not reflect what actually happened.

Nermal:

Ah . . . but in a JBL paper about two years ago, a scholar noted that the language in Leviticus does not ban homosexuality, only a position--in the Holiday Season, remember it is better to give than receive. . . .

Now will someone please explain if we can wear cotton/polyester blends?

--J.D.

nermal

I'm with ya. I wasn't criticizing your post, but rather the ludicrous attitude taken by modern Christians with regard to the laws of the OT.

Some of them are hanging offenses. Some we just ignore. But there's absolutely no NT gage of which is which.

Ed

tracer

... said occasions being reported in the Gospels.
... which weren't written until at least 70 CE.

4God

Amaleq:
hmm...how to put this?

Obsolete is the correct term, but you used it incorrectly. Obsolete generally applies to something that was performing a job that has now been replaced by something either more efficient, cost effective, or whatever.

Jesus retort is True as is what I stated. The law is the explainer of good and evil. Jesus, and His Testimony were of a greater law. In this same way, God was instructing Peter on this same issue. So, the law does not pass away, but is made obsolete by the new law.

Steven Carr

Sounds like passed away to me.....

Jackalope

Or lindsey-wooley, which was one of the most common textiles used in Europe during medieval times. Linen-wool blends were awfully common, even during the roman-ruled period.

mark9950

I dont care about any gods words I LOVE BACON.

beanpie

Yes but, do you profess, to be a "Christian"?

Lanakila

In the Book of Galatians, and the passage in Acts its explained why Christians eat pork, and the other things that the devout Orthodox Jews do not eat. When the Bible was written the condemnation against eating pork made since sanitationwise. Pigs aren't clean, ovens were outside, being sure it was cooked properly so as to prevent illness was tough, so it made sense to prohibit its consumption. Now with modern sanitation, and cooking facilities there really is no reason to not eat pork unless you are a vegetarian, or someone watching your fat/salt intake. The Hebrew dietary laws made sense at the time, now they don't. That just reasonable beanpie.