Why God forbid the Jews to eat Pork.

What do you mean by 'binding'????

 

Rabbinnic Jews don't seem to have a problem with it at all. It should not be difficult for you.

If you have a son, will you circumcise him 8 days after he is born?

Eating of a sacrificed passover lamb has nothing to do with the temple at Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews eat sacrificed lambs for passover today. Your answer clearly says that you do not.

There are three man types of OT law:

Moral Codes (such as the Ten Commandments) are right and wrong principles considered to be universally applicable to everyone. They are still in effect today, though the methodology may change from time to time.

Civil Codes were laws given by God to the early Israelites for the purpose of civil governance and order. They were specific to the Iseaelite nation after they left Egypt. They no longer apply today.

Priestly Codes were laws given to the Israelites to set them apart after they fled Egypt, to make them different, aimed to prevent the Israelites from adopting practices common among the Canaanites in whose land they were settling, thus making it impossible for the Israelites to live comfortably among the Canaanites. They included laws like not wearing clothing made with two types of fabric, not eating pork or shellfish, not trimming the hair around your temples, not mixing meat and dairy, etc. They are no longer in effect today. Paul even addressed these laws in his dissertation of letting each person remain "convinced in his own mind" (in other words, do not let yourself be judged by whether or not, or how, you adopt these rules). Paul was, btw, an uncircumcised Gentile who did not adhere to Rabbinnic laws. So unless Paul was wrong, I'm allowing my son to keep himself intact, and eat bacon as well.

 

Are Gentile Christians, in your view, required to adhere to the Mosaic Law?

 

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Phl 3:4-6

Paul was describing himself there.

Paul didn't have the authority to eliminate God's Law, anyway why would you want to eliminate the Law. Also,

Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24

Paul kept the law in this passage, so it proves he didn't eliminate the law.

 

You're completely correct. Paul was Jewish. I sit corrected.

However, Paul preached that circumcision was not necessary, and Peter agreed with Paul that circumcision was indeed not necessary (Acts 15:6-21).

So, either the rabbinnic laws are no longer in effect, or Peter and Paul are liars.

 

Paul was speaking of obeying laws to obtain salvation. I have never advocating that, FAith produces Salvation... Obedience produces Blessings.... If you prefer curses then continue to disobey God's commandments. If you prefer the blessings, be obedient.

 

What of Gentiles, though?

 

I dont understand the question?

 

Are Gentiles required to obey the Mosaic Law, which, by the way, was never given to them?

 

Funny you didn't quote the next verse: "As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

Returning to sacrifices for sin, why would we continue with sacrifices when the last sacrifice has been made?

How do you respond to what I quoted earlier out of Hebrews? The entire book of Hebrews argues for Jesus as the fulfillment of the old covenant. If you believe that Jesus died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins and that his blood is sufficient to cover them forever, then what reason is there for continued sacrifice? Even if you could find a priest to sanctify an altar, it would be meaningless!

As for Paul's belief regarding the law (Galatians 3:19-25):

Paul clearly believed that it was impossible to become righteous by following the Law and that the Law was placed in effect until Jesus came and died for us. Now the Law is fulfilled, and all of the ceremonial rules and sacrifices for sin are set aside.

Paul went to worship at the Temple. It was an appropriate place to worship. They apparently were offering gifts of thanksgiving, not sacrifices for sin. Moreover, he went so that the unsaved Jews who were following the Law would not be offended, so that his witness would not be impaired. None of this indicates that we are still under the Law today.

 

If you understood what the vow they were takin was you would understand that Paul did sacrifice. CHeck out Numbers chapter 6, it explains it very well.

I never said obedience to the law provides salvation.

God said to be obedient to His commandments forever, its not a difficult concept.

 

I'm having trouble getting you to respond, so I'll pick one point:

If the Law is still in effect as it was then, why was Paul opposed to circumcision?

 

Paul preached that circumcision was not necessary, and Peter agreed with Paul that circumcision was indeed not necessary (Acts 15:6-21). They did not say that it was not neecessary for salvation, they said that it was not necesary, at all.

So, either the rabbinnic laws are no longer in effect, or Peter and Paul are liars. Which is it?

Then Peter and Paul are liars, because they said keeping the law of circumcision was not necessary. Here is where your arguement falls apart.

 

Paul was not opposed to circumcision, Paul was opposed to the teaching that salvation provides salvation through obedience. Seems to me that you guys are eager to eliminate the Commandments of God, wonder why that is??

 

You're sompletely wrong. Peter and Paul said that circumcision was not necessary. Period. They did not say that circumcision was unnecessary for salvation, they said circumcision was unnecessary. Period.

Your only defense is to admit that Rabinnic law no longer in affect, or that Peter and Paul lied. Which is it?

 

You are the one who is incorrect. They were speaking of the teaching not the act. You can eliminate God's Laws if you choose, just have a good answer to Him.

Rabinnic Law is not God's Law, you should really study more, it would help you immensley.

 

Galatians 2:1-5

Paul describes those who would demand others be circumcised as false brothers seeking to lead us into slavery by perverting the Gospel!

 

Thank you for proving my point, they were speaking of the false teaching.

 

That's exactly the point. Requiring adherence to the Rabinnic laws is false teaching. That's you.

 

Umm, the false teaching was circumcision.

Titus 1:10-16