Dietary Laws

[Jerome]

on this forum, I have never come across 'sinfully' being used to mean 'very' or 'somewhat' or whatever meaning you were trying to convey

Oh brother.

Here's just a sample:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/bad-grammar-in-the-esv.37187/post-978411
Rippon: "The ESV was just a dusted-off RSV . The 'revisers' didn't do much work . The syntax is sinfully poor."

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/chior-robes.51875/post-1289909
Joshua Rhodes: choir robes are "too hot" and "ugly as sin".

 

[kyredneck]

Ah! Now I understand the situation!

Yea, me too. Anglos lack our sense of humor on this side of the pond.

 

[JonC]

This is proof positive that you do not read my (anyones?) posts before replying. Or if you do, your low reading age means that you do not understand them properly. Or did you think that @GentleGospeller is my alter ego?
I firmly believe with Paul that Christians are not under any dietary restrictions and have never suggested that they are.
What I do believe with Paul (Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10) is that Christians should exercise restraint when dining with those of tender consciences, so when you are buying me this slap-up meal, if there's anything that would upset you if I chose it, just let me know.

I just went with it because that is the topic of the thread.

Obviously we are free to eat meat sacrificed to idols - unless we are "of a weaker faith". Those of a "stronger faith" know that it is just meat ( there are no other gods). BUT if it causes the weaker brother to stumble we should refrain.

We know this because Paul wrote it in 1 Cor 8. Regarding eating and drinking (the context is food and drink sacrificed to idols as this was a common Roman practice) one must obey their conscious and look after the weaker brother.

 

[JonC]

Yea, me too. Anglos lack our sense of humor on this side of the pond.

If I lived on that side of the pond I probably wouldn't have a sense of humor at all.

 

[JonC]

Dietary law begins in Genesis 1, not Leviticus. However, in answer to your question, 'Yes.'

Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

EXACTLY!!!!!

And the Law HAS been fulfilled. It is fulfilled in Christ.

This is the reason for Paul's condemnation of the Jewdizers and Christians who turn to the Law. This is those the writer of Hebrews speaks of who "fall away". They return to an empty Law, a Law that was to bear witness (testify) to the New Covenant which was to come.

 

[JonC]

Yea, me too. Anglos lack our sense of humor on this side of the pond.

BTW... you got me hooked on dry brine (butts, steak, chicken, ribs). So I am indebted to you on that.

 

[kyredneck]

BTW... you got me hooked on dry brine (butts, steak, chicken, ribs). So I am indebted to you on that.

Hmm, hmm, salt-crusted roasts are hard to beat for savory flavor and juiceyness.

You have an Instant Pot? Those things are great if you cook a lot, love mine.

 

[Mike B]

Yes, they are still in force. Acts 15 even quotes from the OT, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Would you like to look more closely at those details?

Yes, I would like you to explain those details. See post #56.

I'm still waiting for your reply.

 

[JonC]

Hmm, hmm, salt-crusted roasts are hard to beat for savory flavor and juiceyness.

You have an Instant Pot? Those things are great if you cook a lot, love mine.

I have an instant pot, but don't use it much.

 

[JonC]

Ah! Now I understand the situation! You think you are moderating a cake-making forum and not a theology forum. Or perhaps you are also moderator of a cake-making forum as well as this one, and you temporarily forgot with one you were on. I certainly hope you run the cake forum better than you run this one.
The thing you may not realise is that, in theology, the words 'sin,' 'sinful' and sinfully' have a certain meaning that they may not have in the world of cakes. That may be the reason why, in the 20-odd years I have been on this forum, I have never come across 'sinfully' being used to mean 'very' or 'somewhat' or whatever meaning you were trying to convey.

That is also the reason why I have never seen anyone write on this forum, "@JonC is wicked." Had they done so, no doubt they would have meant that you were super-cool, groovy and a little bit fab. But because this is a theology forum they would have understood that they were not on a teenage fanzine forum, and that the term might be misunderstood.

You are (as usual) quite wrong. It would be very beneficial for us to dine together, especially if you are paying. We have never met, and if we did we might understand each other better.

I will always defend you where appropriate. Someone might write on the forum that you are not fit to live in a pigsty, but I would disagree.
"Oh yes he is!" I would say.

No. I believe that I am (obviously) more adequate dealing with the English language than you.

In fact, your ignorance of the use of idioms - particularly idioms unfamiliar to you - is a strong indication you are unable to deal with Scripture (a lot of idioms foreign to our culture).

Rather than replying with a normal post ("I was unaware of that phrase. Thank you for the information") you go on breaking down the words to the idioms to state some "real meaning".

I would be interested in how you understand "raining cats and dogs". That one must baffle you.

You would not defend me where appropriate. Take our posts here. You have never encountered "sinfully wrong". But you live in another country (we have different sayings not only state to state but within each state).

I learned a lot of new sayings when I moved to Tennessee. I never challenged the person, telling them they meant something different from what they said. I accepted that these were idioms I simply did not know.

Then I moved to South Carolina, but not to the area where I am originally from. Again, a few more phrases (we also pronounce crappie and pecan differently).

When a person uses a phrase the meaning is dictated by that person. Words and phrases are symbols to communicate thoughts. You are trying to hijack the thoughts of other people and bend them to your will (you seem to want conflict so you create it).

 

[JonC]

Oh brother.

Here's just a sample:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/bad-grammar-in-the-esv.37187/post-978411
Rippon: "The ESV was just a dusted-off RSV . The 'revisers' didn't do much work . The syntax is sinfully poor."

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/chior-robes.51875/post-1289909
Joshua Rhodes: choir robes are "too hot" and "ugly as sin".

@Martin Marprelate is Brittish. Apparently they do not use phrases like "sinfully wrong", "sinful smile", "wicked grin", and the like.

I can't imagine what Brittish Christians think of the "land of milk and honey"... or "wolves in sheep's clothing", that must really be a real obstacle for them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. I believe that I am (obviously) more adequate dealing with the English language than you.

In fact, your ignorance of the use of idioms - particularly idioms unfamiliar to you - is a strong indication you are unable to deal with Scripture (a lot of idioms foreign to our culture).

Rather than replying with a normal post ("I was unaware of that phrase. Thank you for the information") you go on breaking down the words to the idioms to state some "real meaning".

I would be interested in how you understand "raining cats and dogs". That one must baffle you.

You would not defend me where appropriate. Take our posts here. You have never encountered "sinfully wrong". But you live in another country (we have different sayings not only state to state but within each state).

I learned a lot of new sayings when I moved to Tennessee. I never challenged the person, telling them they meant something different from what they said. I accepted that these were idioms I simply did not know.

Then I moved to South Carolina, but not to the area where I am originally from. Again, a few more phrases (we also pronounce crappie and pecan differently).

When a person uses a phrase the meaning is dictated by that person. Words and phrases are symbols to communicate thoughts. You are trying to hijack the thoughts of other people and bend them to your will (you seem to want conflict so you create it).

The (real) English language is richer than you can possibly imagine. My father was a Londoner and used to come out with Cockney rhyming slang that you would not begin to understand. With regard to "raining cats and dogs," when Japanese cars first appeared on British roads, we used to say that "It's raining spare parts for Nissan cars" Work that one out. You can't even spell 'British' much less understand our humour.
If, in the course of general conversation you were to use the word 'sinfully' meaning 'very' or 'rather' or whatever you want it to mean, I would not be bothered, but in case you haven't realised, we are on a theology forum, and therefore, as I have explained, 'sin,' sinful' and 'sinfully' take on a certain meaning. Even @Jerome has had to search back 19 years to where someone else used 'sinfully' in that way - or did he? I don't recall reading @Rippon's comment, but it strikes me that he was maybe saying that the ESV translators did their work in a way that was actually sinfully bad. But for 19 years no one has been daft enough to use 'sinfully' to mean 'very,' but then, of course you come along. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mike B]

With regard to "raining cats and dogs," when Japanese cars first appeared on British roads, we used to say that "It's raining spare parts for Nissan cars"

American slang is often difficult for non-Americans to grasp, as sometimes the phrase can mean
something good, and sometimes not so good...often depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon
you are on. As Jon mentioned, it not only changes from region to region, but even within individual
states, and counties within states, as there are variances based on local history.

Down in Southern Georgia, if a youngster gives a grandmotherly type lady some flowers, she
would probably give them a hug and say.."Well Bless your little heart..Thank you!" Now, if that
youngster tracked dirt into her house, she would probably say the exact same thing, complete
with a hug...but she would mean it differently, as in "You little brat you just tracked dirt in my house!"

Instead of raining cats and dogs, I've always said "it's raining pigs and chickens". I like cats...pigs
and chickens, not so much.

 

[GentleGospeller]

You are ignoring Scripture.

Nope. That is just 'you' again.

No passage in the Bible says it is wrong to eat shrimp except the Old Covenant.

Incorrect. As I keep reminding you, the dietary / health laws of God existed long before the 'old covenant', long before there was a 'Jew', 'Israelite', or 'Hebrew'.

God did not say we cannot eat bacon.

Yes, God did, by the Holy Ghost, by messengers, in scripture.

Lev_11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Deu_14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Isa_65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Isa_66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

"swine" in the NT are still unclean, and seen in connection with devil worship therein.

You say it

I have been referring to scripture. I can only 'amen' (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11) what the scripture (Bible) says.

, but who are you compared to God??

Only you are making such an incorrect comparison. I never have.

Here is one dish Paul would have spoken about (saying it is fine for Christians with a "strong faith" to eat but to watch out lest the believers with a "strong faith" and "knowledge" of Christian freedom become a stumbling block for those of a "weak faith"):

You have misapplied Rom. 14. Be glad to show you by their very words.

Pork collar, red wine, raisin wine, olive oil, and spices.

Nowhere in Romans 14. Alcohol is also forbidden.

This was a dish served at Saturnalia (a time in December dedicated to the worship of Saturn). The dish was dedicated to Saturn, a portion offered to the "god".

Non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with Romans 14. Simply putting such 'in there', does not actually make it 'in there' as any may read for themselves - Romans chapter 14 KJV (King James Version)

Paul was specifically addressing it

Nope. That is just 'you' in the place of Paul. How do I know? I have Paul's words (see previous link). Nothing about what 'you' say, however, in regards 'your dish'. Be glad to show you from the context what it is referring to. It is simple really.

was fine for Christians to eat

Nope. "You," again.

unless they were of the "weaker faith"

Nope. "You," again.

(they would not view the dish as mere food but see it as participating in worshipping a different god).

"Food" is defined by scripture, and just as at the trees in Genesis, some things are not for "food".

Paul did not address eating the dish

... at all in any place in Romans 14. "You" made it up.

(apart from it being sacrificed to idols) in 1 Corinthians 8-10

Also having nothing to do with the "you-ism".

because Christians not being held to the dietary laws had already been addressed.

Incorrect. I have referred to several places now.

I know there may be Christian cults

Again, non-sequitur to the OP.

who hold some SDA views

Again, non-sequitur to the OP. Go back, and read the OP. Anything about "SDA" (sic) there? Nope. That you have a bias, or bigotry, toward a group is really for 'you' to deal with, and not in this thread. It is a mere distraction (Red-Herring , Poisoning the Well, &c. fallacies).

but are actually Christian.

Again, not the topic.

It is the influence

It is the bias.

I am speaking of

I am aware of your personal feelings, since 'you' have made them known, when no one asked 'you' about 'them'.

(they make the same error as SDA

My point is founded in scripture, not "SDA" (sic), or others as "they".

, but not necessarily by becoming a non-Christian cult).

'Your' opinion on the matter is really unimportant to me, or to the OP subject. The heavy mental space that this group takes up in your mind is something to behold however. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. I am not, at this time, or in this thread, desiring to get into that which is not relevant to the OP. Diet, not denomination.

 

[GentleGospeller]

The Old Covenant

Is specifically found in Exo. 19.

is the covenant given by God through Moses

Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
Exo 19:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD.

(also called "the Law"

"the law" (Gal. 3:2,5,10,11,12,13,17,19,21,23,24), in context refers to "the book of the law" (Gal. 3:10), which is specific.

- "the law of Moses" (Jos. 8:31,32, 23:6; Jdg. 4:11; 1 Kin. 2:3; 2 Kin. 14:6, 23:25; 2 Chr. 23:18, 30:16; Ezr. 3:2, 7:6; Neh. 8:1; Dan. 9:11,13; Mal. 4:4; Luk. 2:22, 24:44; Jhn. 7:23; Act. 13:39, 15:5, 28:23; 1 Cor. 9:9)

- "Book of Moses" (2 Chr. 25:4, 35:12; Ezr. 6:18; Neh. 13:1; Mark 12:6)

or "the Law of Moses"

Indeed, differing from God's Law, and more can be said about that as needful.

although it was given through Moses by God).

No question, at least not from me, about that which was given by God to (through) Moses. However, none of this is directly addressing the facts that the laws of diet on clean and unclean existed long before Moses, long before any 'old covenant' existed, before any 'Jew', 'Israelite', or 'Hebrew existed', as I have stated, and as you well know. It is not to difficult to see such things either:

Gen_7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen_7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen_8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

This is the covenant that contained dietary laws.

The covenant is in Exo. 19. Perhaps read it more carefully.

By the New Covenant

Found in the TaNaKh (aka 'old testament' texts, Gen. - Mal. (as Christians know their order)), as for instance:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

which then comes down through the faithful Patriarchs, into Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. and is even mentioned in Exo. 19, for not just the 'old covenant' is therein mentioned.

I mean the new and better covensnt

You mean this "coven[a]nt"?

Isa 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Isa 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Isa 56:8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

established through Christ's blood

Do you mean ratified by Christ's shed blood? It was the promises of God which established the covenant.

Heb_8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb_10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb_12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb_13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

which included fulfilling

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the 'old covenant'. Not in question. I so wanted to talk about diet & health instead of this sidetrack.

and "canceling" the Old Covenant.

Heb_8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is also the "Covenant of the Promise" (using Paul's language) which was between God, Abraham and Christ - Christ being the Seed (singular).

The New / Everlasting Covenant is simply renewed with various persons in scripture, and it is first told to Adam (Gen. 3:15,21), and is seen with others throughout, including Abraham, who was also aware of the dietary laws of God, and would teach his children after that way.

 

[GentleGospeller]

I think the NKJV is the best translation to be found today

Again, sorry to hear you think that.

, but if you prefer the ESV:

I would never "prefer" such a thing as that.

Mark 7:18-19 (ESV, 2011). 'And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot harm him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean). And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him."'

Even worse than that of the NKJV's abomination of a translation. It is simply a false translation, and even worse, it adds words not found present in the koine Greek text.

Mar 7:18 και λεγει αυτοις ουτως και υμεις ασυνετοι εστε ου νοειτε οτι παν το εξωθεν εισπορευομενον εις τον ανθρωπον ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι
Mar 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

Please show me, from these two koine Greek texts where the words (translated to) "Thus he declared all foods clean" exist? I will be more than willing to show you that such phrasing does not exist there.

That is entirely up to you.

It is rather simple:

Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Plain English, no?

 

[GentleGospeller]

EXACTLY!!!!!

Over excitement I see.

And the Law HAS been fulfilled.

Misreading the text and misunderstanding the context.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Everything is not "fulfilled", and definitely not so even in AD 31, Abib 14th (Calvary). Pentecost was fulfilled months later. The feast of Trumpets was not fulfilled then, nor Day of Atonement, nor Tabernacles.

That "heaven and earth" are still here, even as Peter says:

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

"word"? What "word"? Ah, the OT word, where God promised such.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

"promise" What "promise"? Ah, the OT promise, where God said such. Did it already occur in AD 31? Nope. It is still future, and coming:

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

It is fulfilled in Christ.

Again, simply 'you-ism'. Jesus has not fulfilled all things that the Messiah / Christ is to do. Some is even in fulfillment now, and a few things left to fulfil still in future.

This is the reason

Nope. I am not interested in the way 'you' "reason". Scripture is what matters here.

for Paul's condemnation of the Jewdizers

Nope. Also, do you think by misspelling Judaizer it carries 'your' opinion further?

and Christians who turn to the Law.

Rom_8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

How did Jesus walk?

This is those

Nope.

the writer of Hebrews

Paul.

speaks of who "fall away".

Hebrews 6.

Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

No Once Saved, Always Saved in scripture (another sidetrack), but scripture does teach Once Sealed, Always Saved.

They return to an empty Law

That is not what Hebrews 6 says at all. That is 'you' again.

, a Law that was to bear witness (testify) to the New Covenant which was to come.

Are you referring to Gal. 3 here? If so, there are some things that need to be addressed here. Again, another entire response, having nothing to do with dietary regulations of God, but rather about 'covenants', which from your responses, you seem to have great misunderstanding about, which may be discussed elsewhere. I am tired of the sidetrack in this thread, and desire to get back to the main OP topic.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Here, Judas and Silas are reading the letter to the Church at Antioch.

I do not see that. I instead read:

Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Act 15:32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

I do not see where Judas & Silas "are reading the letter to the Church at Antioch". I see where "the apostles and elders, with the whole church", or "The apostles and elders and brethren" "send greeting" by "the epistle" (letter) by the messengers "Barnabas and Paul" (Apostles), along "with" "chosen men", "Judas and Silas", "being prophets also", were to repeat what was said by the council and to confirm what was in "the epistle", "delivered" to and read by those at "Antioch". So, those at Antioch read the letter.

Acts 15:29-31

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

Confirming the words of the Jerusalem council, and the epistle is not the same thing as reading the letter to those at Antioch. The epistle was merely delivered to those at Antioch, and when they had read it, the words therein, were confirmed by the prophets Judas and Silas, who had been present at the Jerusalem council.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Prove me wrong, in clear, understandable Scripture.

You just proved 'you' wrong, by the very words you just cited. Not only did you have a misunderstanding of the role of Judas and Silas, but of the content of the letter itself, which, is quoting the OT regulations in specificity, for the "necessary things" which were needful for the issues that were arising in that area among the Gentile believers; which specific things, were 4:

Act 15:29

1. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
2. and from blood,
3. and from things strangled,
4. and from fornication:

from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Notice, that Acts 15 is speaking of "necessary things" (Act. 15:28), and not everything. Why? Because, as the previous context states:

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men [ie. remnant of 'Israel' believers] might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

OT text was quoted from, and a prophecy about how God was calling the Gentiles to repent ("turned unto God"), and many were! They, early on, had some immediate things to address, in that repentance (4 immediate necessary things), and would continue to learn about God's will for their lives, in Christ Jesus, as they gathered to be educated in the way, "every sabbath day". Acts 15 is not the end-all, be-all for all Gentile believers, as if only 4 things mattered. It primarily addressed two things ((physical) circumcision (Act. 15:1,5) and whether they had to "keep the law of Moses" (Act. 15:5) to partake in the New Covenant promises. Under that, second portion, 4 specific things were immediately necessary to clarify. The Gentile believers that were repenting were already accepting the dietary / health laws of God, but some needed to have clarification in some things related to that! Please, go read Acts 15 again, on your own, and prayerfully ask God about each word therein.

God is not the author of confusion,

Agreed.

1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

and it doesn't get much plainer than this.

You are right. The words in Acts 15 are plain. Just ask yourself, why do you and others, keeping making it say something it does not ever say, and yet agrees with what I have just said, and could be further demonstrated by looking at all of the context and OT texts being referred to therein, along with the previous context of how Gentiles were repenting (turning unto) God, and How God was building up again, not tearing down.

Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

If you would like, I can begin with you from Genesis, and show you all the way through unto the end. This thread is not really conducive to that, as there is far too much distraction in this thread already, and with subjects not really germane to the topic. If you would like, message me for a more considerate look. Up to you though.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Yes, I would like you to explain those details. See post #56.

I'm still waiting for your reply.

Apologies. These things take time, along with everything else that goes on here.

 

[Mike B]

Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

If I "deliver a speech", it means I read a speech to a group of people, so what I see is that Paul and
Silas read the epistle to them, and after they read it the people rejoiced for the consolation.

That said, the context given in Acts 15:31 does make me consider that your understanding may be
more accurate. In either case, however, they brought that epistle to the church at Antioch.

Let me ask for the information in a different way...

If a new Christian came to your church, and was wanting to become a member, how would you Scripturally
explain to them that they needed to go home and toss out half of the food in their fridge, and completely change
their diet (as in no more Jimmy Dean sausage) in order to conform to the Old Testament dietary laws?

A new Christian reading their Bible will see that: Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

A fair question they might ask: "I am justified by faith, not the law, so why must I keep these dietary laws, as they
have no effect whatsoever on my salvation?"

For a new Christian, taking them on the tour through Isaiah, Hebrews etc. in an effort to explain would likely
make their eyes glaze over...it's too much "meat" for a new Christian to understand, especially when the contrary
seems quite apparent in NT Scripture.

So, please explain it to me as you would to that new Christian.

I'm honestly not trying to be contrary, and appreciate your input on this.