Evidence for God from Science

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:Bav, you keep the sabbath, as one day holier than others.

Exodus 20:11 wrote: [...] Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I'll simply do as God has written. You do as you please...as your tradition dictates.

RickD wrote:I'll see every day as being equal. My conscience is clear on this issue. As I'm sure your's is as well.

Clearly God doesn't see every day as equal if He blessed ONE and MADE IT holy. Simple logic.

RickD wrote:Anything other than that, and we're going around in circles.

It is you going in circles. On one hand affirming God's Law and on the other saying God Law is relative.
.
.

BW.
Matt. 24 was spoken to all Jews. And Jesus said his earthly ministry was not for the Gentiles.

Regrading Romans 2:13. If you want to prooftext this verse this way, and apply it this way, then you are saying we should interpret that Paul is saying salvation (imputed righteousness) is by following the 10 commands, therefore not by faith alone. It's a dangerous handling of the scripture.

I'll simply do as God has written. You do as you please...as your tradition dictates.

Wheels, there is gobs of other stuff written in Exodus, and the 1st five books of the law that you aren't doing.

Mark 2:27 is not a statement about Gentiles. There is nothing to defend that contextually.

Romans 10:12,13 wrote:For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.


You do believe this don't you?

What is Romans 10 speaking of, contextually, regarding no difference? It aint the Sabbath, BTW. You my friend, aren't keeping the Sabbath the way a Jew would. You are keeping a distorted version.

Do you believe this? We are Abraham's seed.

Again, a prooftexting nightmare. Abraham preceeded the Sabbath law. Hiers of what? Keeping the Sabbath? Please.

We are all grafted into the Root. Jesus is the Root. The "natural" branches is Israel and we are grafted INTO THAT SAME TREE. Therefore there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

Sadly, you have completey flip flopped the meaning of this. Next, you'll be lobbying for circumcision.

RickD wrote:

.
.

jlay wrote:BW.
Matt. 24 was spoken to all Jews. And Jesus said his earthly ministry was not for the Gentiles.

Regrading Romans 2:13. If you want to prooftext this verse this way, and apply it this way, then you are saying we should interpret that Paul is saying salvation (imputed righteousness) is by following the 10 commands, therefore not by faith alone. It's a dangerous handling of the scripture.

Not at all. Paul affirms that it is by faith alone...and I agree.

jlay wrote:Wheels, there is gobs of other stuff written in Exodus, and the 1st five books of the law that you aren't doing.

Not talking about the first 5 books of the law. Talking about the Law as written by God's own hand. What's the part you don't understand?

jlay wrote:Mark 2:27 is not a statement about Gentiles. There is nothing to defend that contextually.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile...

jlay wrote:What is Romans 10 speaking of, contextually, regarding no difference? It aint the Sabbath, BTW. You my friend, aren't keeping the Sabbath the way a Jew would. You are keeping a distorted version.

Distorted maybe...as one cannot keep the Law perfectly anyway doesn't mean one throws the Law out as Christ didn't do this. In fact He lived the Sabbath as an example. If anything Christ clarifies the keeping of the Sabbath as it was distorted by man's traditions.

jlay wrote:Again, a prooftexting nightmare. Abraham preceeded the Sabbath law. Hiers of what? Keeping the Sabbath? Please.

Abraham was not present at creation... heirs of the promise...the Gospel...your ad hom "please" back at-cha.

jlay wrote:Sadly, you have completey flip flopped the meaning of this. Next, you'll be lobbying for circumcision.

Wrong again, jlay. Circumcision is part of the ceremonial law no longer binding...while we should still be "circumcised" but of the heart...just where the Law of God should be.
.
.

Bav, + means I'm sick + tired of debating this.

I have my interpretation, and you have yours. I'm fine at this point, to let it go at that, because we can't agree. Just as long as you realize, that just because you think you are correct, and scripture is clear, that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE I DISAGREE WITH!

PaulSacramento wrote:yes, that was the Talmud, but the majority consensus by Hebrew scholars is also the Gentiles were not under the Sabbath (though they would get the day of rest if living/working under a Hebrew).

I'm not so sure about that. If you mean Gentiles who weren't believers, then I would completely (and obviously) agree with you. But proselytes were most definitely considered under Shabbat, as they were the rest of Torah.

The Sabbath was a covenant between God and Israel proper and while a christian could indeed keep the sabbath if he choose to, he was not under the Peneateuchal Law to do so.
Lets also be clear that for a 1st century Jew, to speak of the Law was to speak of the Moasaic Law, not just the 10 commandments.

Yes, Shabbat was most definitely a covenant between G-d and Israel, but, we could rightly say so was the prohibition of murder, idolatry, and the command to love one's neighbor as oneself, so I don't know if that's the best argument to use. But, there was never a day commanded to the Messianic beleivers in Jesus' and Paul's times for worship. The believers in Jerusalem used to meet every day (Acts 2:46)!
Also, I agree, the Law to a 1st century Jew meant the Mosiac Law/Torah, not just the Big 10. I'm glad you made the distinction, I didn't even think of pointing that out for this discussion.

We notice that in the NT, when the commandments are spoken off, the Sabbath is not mentioned.
We notice that the Jerusalem council did NOT make a statement about gentiles keeping the sabbath.
We notice that Paul stated on two differen occasions that the keeping of special days was up to the indivudual.

I don't know if I adhere to the view that "if a commandment isn't reiterated in the New Testament, then it's done away with."
Also, I don't believe it's accurate to use the Jerusalem council for debates surrounding anything to do with Law observance for believers/Gentiles. It's irrelevant, as the council wasn't about what rules of the Torah the Gentiles had to follow, but about how to distinguish them from their unnavoidable Gentile culture, that included a town temple where idolatry and prostitution were practiced daily, and food sacrificed to idols was sold. This was also where the town bank would be, and was not avoidable for any Gentile living in that community. The council was about making sure the Gentiles were separate from this pagan culture so as to keep them from sin and make their Jewish brothers in the faith comfortable with accepting them, as no spirit of community could exist including both groups with that kind of unease, while not putting Gentiles under the yoke of the Law of Moses according to the Judaizers (ie, Torah interpreted by the non-Messianic Rabbis; the Oral Torah. Both were considered from G-d, and Moses). I mean, after all, if it was about what rules they had to follow, then they really picked four strange ones to be the only ones from the whole Law, as they're mostly about food!
That last point I mostly agree with.

My view?
If one choose to keep the sabbath, then they should.
If one chooses not to, they shouldn't ( God wouldn't want a person to keep the Sabbath is they didn't want to since that goes against the spirit of the Sabbath).
Neither should judge the other.

I would agree with you here. Doing anything without being led by the Spirit, even if it's "religious," is a work of the flesh, and the same goes for observing Shabbat if one's not convicted to by the Scriptures and the Spirit of G-d within them. And I especially agree with the last sentence, judgement isn't fitting among the family that we are, even with strong disagreements. As long as we're all being honest to ourselves, each other, and G-d, then all we can do is our best to make the most of what we have in common, our Lord Yeshua, and glorify Him.

I believe Shabbat observance and worship is a practice that goes back to New Testament times, and not Sunday worship. I also see in the Scriptures that Shabbat isn't done away with by the coming of the Mashiach (Isaiah 66:22-24). But, I also don't see any particular day of worship commanded in the Scriptures either (including the Torah/OT, as I consider Shabbat observance different from a day of worship, although they usually go hand in hand). The fact is, that there are brothers among us (indeed, the majority) who are Temples of the Holy Spirit just as much as those of us who believe in observance of Shabbat, who are simply not convicted from the outside (the Word) or the inside (the Spirit/their conscience). Although we may disagree, this can NOT be an issue of contention and strife, as G-d hasn't made it one.

Several arguments in this thread mention that the Ten Commandments was a "covenant between God and the Children of Israel," and it seems that the people making the argument are equating this description with a "covenant between God and the Jews." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that "Jews" are members or descendents of the Tribe of Judah, while Children of Israel" are members or descendents of any of tribes of Israel--which clearly includes many many more people than just those who are Jewish. Gentiles were those not among any of the tribes of Israel. Is there somewhere in the scripture that indicates that the Commandments were a covenant between God and the tribe of Judah, rather than a covenant between God and the Children of Israel? I have read that the tribe of Ephraim occupied a large portion of what is now Great Britain as the tribes were scattered; shouldn't these people, while not primarily Jewish, be held to the same perpetual covenant with God that was made with the delivery of the Ten Commandments?

My history is rusty and it is well past my bedtime, so I will gladly try to clarify what I've written if it is confusing. Either way, whether my branch grew directly from the roots of the tree or I've been enjoying this sap by adoption, I think the Law is meant to apply to everyone.

Nonetheless, Christ's statement that "Sabbath was made for the man, not man for the Sabbath" (and it's context, especially) offers a pretty compelling argument in favor of practicing the Sabbath as one wishes, even if one desires to work on the Sabbath.

It is unusual AND REFRESHING to follow this thread since I did not begin reading it with any strict opinion either way. Thank you all for continuing to "talk in circles," because I am continuing to learn with each new post, even if nobody is going to change his mind.

A quick side note: I didn't realize that certain dietary restrictions were still in place. While "avoiding the strangled" might not be particularly difficult or relevant for me, the instruction seems strangely out of place in the letter to the gentiles. Can anyone point me to scripture where Christ taught this message? Sorry for the tangent...I just don't think the quick question is worthy of its own thread.

I've written from my phone again, so please forgive the frequent capitalization (and probably spelling and grammar) errors that clutter up my post.



And a side note--if the

Cheez , I agree with you on all accounts. My only objection is that Bav, seems to not only saying that He is fine by keeping the Sabbath and we aren't, he is saying that it is sloppy and wrong of us to not follow God's law as it is. Therefore those who are not keeping the Sabbath are actually in disobedience as they have omitted one law and kept the rest.

Bav
You evaded direct answer on the posts rather asserted your opinion in the best way possible, fine. However you are very much mistaken on a couple of things:

1. Jesus is the true vine in which we all are grafted, not the Jews (in your own words, who you are going to believe, Paul or Jesus?), we are not part of the Jews but the Jews are the ones through whom Christ came, yet as far as branching in Christ is regarded, they are of no more importance than a Hindu, Sikh, or a someone who isn't a born again believer.

2. We do not worship a Jew, we worship the son of God.

neo-x wrote:
the manner in which MAN had decided to keep the Sabbath which was the yoke of burden..."the traditions of men".


Aren't you doing the same?


Where have I told you HOW to keep the Sabbath? If anything, follow Christ's example(s).

The question is not the how but Why? There is sufficient enough of a case that you are needlessly dragging something which isn't required as part of the law that we must keep. I even showed you that the big ten are done away with, that is not the covenant God made with us. You seem to be making a false equivocation here by saying that there is no difference between Jew and gentile, sure there isn't when it comes to salvation, but that is where it ends. The law was not given on us, the Big ten weren't given to us either. You are accusing others of cherry picking yet you haven't done anything different.

I am not against you holding your Sabbath, I think if you find one day holy go with it by all means and there is nothing wrong with, but you have hardly given any proof for the case you are trying to defend of one Sabbath, needed to be kept by all, the big ten, still on us and we are grafted in the Jews. I seriously and sincerely do not find your case satisfactory at all and I am not saying this with turning a blind eye to what you have said so far, no. I have considered what you said and it is stretched in my opinion.

How do you keep Sabbath and if so, how do you know or differentiate that it is kept absolutely pure form the "traditions of men"

You said, I asked you and you replied;

the manner in which MAN had decided to keep the Sabbath which was the yoke of burden..."the traditions of men".

Aren't you doing the same?

Where have I told you HOW to keep the Sabbath? If anything, follow Christ's example(s).

You avoided it point blank and then derailed the whole point, which was, If you decide to keep the sabbath, would you not do so as a man and therefore would you not be doubtful that you are guilty of the same "the manner in which MAN had decided to keep the Sabbath" Its unavoidable Bav. You keep the Sabbath according to some manner, right? and unless heavens opened and God told you HOW to keep the Sabbath, I would assume that all other options are somewhat tainted with the "manner of man" problem. tell me how do you get past it?

You would probably answer with what you already did (if else please feel free to do so) follow Christ's example. But how do you know that the gospel writer mentioned all the details to what Jesus did on the Sabbath, he may have left out somethings in other cases he may have not bothered to write down about other incidents where Jesus broke the Sabbath according to man made traditions? So how do you conclude the "HOW" part, to keep the Sabbath, (if you are going to keep the Sabbath at all costs).

Let me know, if you will.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile...

My friend, there was a difference when Christ was performing his earthly ministry, and Jesus said this plainly. I have come for the lost sheep of Israel. He even commanded his disciples not to go the way of the Gentiles. That's pretty clear. Under Paul, we have a new revelation and program. You are flip flopping the meaning of no difference, and conflating what Paul is referring to regarding no difference. That much is in the context.

Your position relies on prooftext, and then relies on ignoring the obvious implications if you follow those prooftext in the way you are using them. You can dismiss Romans 2:13, but the fact is that if you use this verse to support Sabbath keeping the way you do, then the logical conclusions is that one is JUSTIFIED by keeping the Sabbath. And if one doesn't, then one is not justified, and therefore condemned. You would just have to willfully ignore that reality.

In fact He lived the Sabbath as an example. If anything Christ clarifies the keeping of the Sabbath as it was distorted by man's traditions.

Of course. He also told people to keep the sacrifices. He did all kinds of purely Jewish things. Would you consider the stoning of the man who picked up sticks as recorded in Numbers as a distortion? Who commanded the stoning?

RickD wrote:Bav, + means I'm sick + tired of debating this.

I have my interpretation, and you have yours. I'm fine at this point, to let it go at that, because we can't agree. Just as long as you realize, that just because you think you are correct, and scripture is clear, that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE I DISAGREE WITH!

I'm fine also...a bit overwhelmed in that everyone wants their questions answered. There are three or four posts to go through and to make a comment on each right now seems daunting. I just woke up and didn't sleep well. I'll try a few. If I miss something someone needs an answer to or rather "my interpretation", please ask.

neo-x wrote:1. Jesus is the true vine in which we all are grafted, not the Jews (in your own words, who you are going to believe, Paul or Jesus?), we are not part of the Jews but the Jews are the ones through whom Christ came, yet as far as branching in Christ is regarded, they are of no more importance than a Hindu, Sikh, or a someone who isn't a born again believer.

Jesus is the true vine. I think I capitalized "Root" to signify where every person, Jew or Gentile, is grafted into. There are not two vines or two different Roots. Only one. Jesus. If that wasn't clear, I apologize. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile...pure and simple.

jlay wrote:My friend, there was a difference when Christ was performing his earthly ministry, and Jesus said this plainly. I have come for the lost sheep of Israel. He even commanded his disciples not to go the way of the Gentiles. That's pretty clear. Under Paul, we have a new revelation and program. You are flip flopping the meaning of no difference, and conflating what Paul is referring to regarding no difference. That much is in the context.

Christ did come for the lost sheep of "Israel" but is that a literal thought? Only blood relatives? I say no. BUT EVEN IF this is true, then we are all of the same blood anyway if we trace our bloodline back to Noah...and then back to Adam. All are "Israel" and there is no difference. The Gospel was first taught to Adam ( Genesis 3:21 )...so "Israel" are those that are the lost sheep which is every person after Adam.

neo-x wrote:2. We do not worship a Jew, we worship the son of God.

Agreed. Just so happens, however, that Jesus' human ethnicity is Jewish. The whole point is that to say something is only for the "Jews" is to say it is only for Jesus too. But we are Christians...not Jews. Christ is the originator of the "Jewish" religion...inspired the "Jewish" books...99% of Christians are following a Jewish book...God, become flesh...and Jewish flesh. We don't worship a Jew ( which sounds racist in and of itself btw ), but we worship God.

neo-x wrote:The question is not the how but Why? There is sufficient enough of a case that you are needlessly dragging something which isn't required as part of the law that we must keep. I even showed you that the big ten are done away with, that is not the covenant God made with us. You seem to be making a false equivocation here by saying that there is no difference between Jew and gentile, sure there isn't when it comes to salvation, but that is where it ends. The law was not given on us, the Big ten weren't given to us either. You are accusing others of cherry picking yet you haven't done anything different.

So what you're saying in essence here is; Christ/God wrote a Law ( speaking of the 10 ONLY as these are the only law written by God's own hand ), commanded these be kept by His lost sheep ( you all say the only lost sheep are the Jews...heh, ok ), came as promised as Messiah only to toss out the 10 completely in order to build up again 9 of the 10 and leave ONE out? ( but live that ONE being done away with ) THEN... ( we're not finished yet ) sends His Holy Spirit to inspire the NT writers to "uphold the law" and to also say that the Law "points at sin"...EXCEPT for ONE? Ever wonder why God/Jesus didn't just say what He meant in plain words? Why live "under the Law" ( keeping the Sabbath as He meant it be kept ... as was His custom ) then expect something different from us? It's just not logical. What IS logical is all those laws, ceremonies, sabbaths, sacrifices,...all those things that Christ didn't practice WERE the shadows...of redemtion/Messiah. The Sabbath of the Law is not a shadow, but a memorial to creation. Ponder the words of the 4th commandment. It has nothing to do with a coming Messiah, but everything to do with an all-powerful God that brought everything into existence. It was established before any "Jew" had set foot on earth. It was made for man...not Jew.

neo-x wrote:How do you keep Sabbath and if so, how do you know or differentiate that it is kept absolutely pure form the "traditions of men"

Flawed. It is kept as best a sinner can. The Law was written and given to sinners...to point at sin. It was never intended to be kept perfectly as that is impossible for a sinner to do. How do you keep from committing murder? Jesus elaborated on this and said that anger towards your brother is equally sinful ( Matthew 5:21,22 ) So do you get angry with your brother? Yet this command is one you uphold. How do you keep from committing adultery? You've NEVER looked at a woman lustfully? ( Matthew 5:27,28 )

So in the same manner that you "keep" these commands as you find "they are reestablished in the NT"...in this same manner, I keep the Sabbath and find it YET binding on a follower of Christ...a flawed and sinful follower, but a follower nonetheless. ( not for salvation, but because of... )

neo-x wrote:You avoided it point blank and then derailed the whole point, which was, If you decide to keep the sabbath, would you not do so as a man and therefore would you not be doubtful that you are guilty of the same "the manner in which MAN had decided to keep the Sabbath" Its unavoidable Bav. You keep the Sabbath according to some manner, right? and unless heavens opened and God told you HOW to keep the Sabbath, I would assume that all other options are somewhat tainted with the "manner of man" problem. tell me how do you get past it?

I keep it as best I can from Christ's example. "...as was His custom." "Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Did I miss anything? I don't want to be accused of "avoiding" anything.

Let me say one "last" thing. My words get heated...as well they may get heated from you back at me. However, I coexist with many of my friends that are not of the same thinking and yet we get along splendidly. In fact we jab each other in love all the time. If I've said something that seemed harsh or unloving ( I'm sure even in this post ), I sincerely apologize. I try to check those, but sometimes the emotions win.

I'm certain if we were to chat and discuss face to face, we'd get along just fine. It's the nature of forums and discussions that we get frustrated. At least I do, and it shows in our words at times.

Apologies to all and a big warm Sabbath-type hug.
.
.

Christ did come for the lost sheep of "Israel" but is that a literal thought? Only blood relatives? I say no. BUT EVEN IF this is true, then we are all of the same blood anyway if we trace our bloodline back to Noah...and then back to Adam. All are "Israel" and there is no difference. The Gospel was first taught to Adam ( Genesis 3:21 )...so "Israel" are those that are the lost sheep which is every person after Adam.

Yes, it's a literal thought. Jesus' earthly ministry is about the promises to Israel. Are you saying that there was no difference between Jew and Gentile? Circumcision and uncircumcision? No difference between prophecy and mystery? There was a difference, and saying otherwise is ignoring the plainest reading.
Ephesians is specifically written to instruct gentile believers.
"remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world." Eph. 2:12
Does that sound like a difference? Yes. Did Christ, in His earthly ministry say there was now no difference? No. He was fulfilling the prophetic promises to Israel. Paul would be chosen to reveal a mystery, hidden since the world began, and only now to be revealed. Since Israel rejected the Messiah and the program God had designed, God had a hidden program for the time this would happen. It was unknown and a mystery. The Gospel of grace. In this there would be no difference. All could come to God the same way. Through faith in Christ. Therefore, there is NOW no difference. Being a Jew, keeping the law, sabbaths, and ceremonies has no value. That was Israel's program in which there was a difference and distinction. In this economy, all are equal In Christ.

Romans 9:4 "Theirs (Israel) is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises."

The Gospel was first taught to Adam ( Genesis 3:21 )...so "Israel" are those that are the lost sheep which is every person after Adam.

The word Gospel simply means good news or glad tidings. The verse you quote says nothing about this. Further, to say that Israel is every person after Adam has to be one of the most egregious disregards for what the Bible clearly teaches.

Of course there is also the issue that God is STILL WORKING, as is Christ.

BUT in all honesty, we have to realize that no one is gonna convince the other in this matter and because of that, we truly should just take Paul's advice and leave it as such.

jlay wrote:

The Gospel was first taught to Adam ( Genesis 3:21 )...so "Israel" are those that are the lost sheep which is every person after Adam.

The word Gospel simply means good news or glad tidings. The verse you quote says nothing about this. Further, to say that Israel is every person after Adam has to be one of the most egregious disregards for what the Bible clearly teaches.

The word Gospel certainly means good news or glad tidings. It's what God has already accomplished for us ( post-cross ) but was still good news to Adam knowing he was saved according to a promise. God made garments of skin ( a sacrifice was made ) to clothe/cover Adam's nakedness ( sin ) and Adam was assured. It's the Gospel.
.
.

Eureka wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that "Jews" are members or descendents of the Tribe of Judah, while Children of Israel" are members or descendents of any of tribes of Israel--which clearly includes many many more people than just those who are Jewish.

Hi Eureka. That is my understanding of it as well. In order to be a descendant of the tribes of Israel, you would have to be a literal descendant of Jacob because God changed his name to Israel and Jacob had twelve boys, the fourth born being Judah.

Eureka wrote:I have read that the tribe of Ephraim occupied a large portion of what is now Great Britain as the tribes were scattered;

Ephraim was the largest tribe by sheer numbers and sometimes in scripture, the ten tribes of Israel are simply referred to as Ephraim.

The ten tribes were taken captive and exiled by the Assyrian empire circa 7th century BC, see 2Kings 17. Some members of the tribe of Levi were left in the southern kingdom of Judah however. The tribe of Judah was taken captive and exiled some 200 years later by the Babylonian empire. When Cyrus the Persian became king of the Medeo/Persian empire, he issued a decree to return only those of Judah. Only a trickle of the remaining tribes returned, which can account for Anna of the tribe of Asher being mentioned in Luke's gospel.

One of the modern notions is to sandwich all tribes of Israel into Judah and refer to them as solely Israel. But if you read the opening statement of James' epistle:

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (KJV)

James knew, even in his time, that the twelve tribes were scattered abroad, 700 years later. As for the notion that some members of British society are descendants of those tribes, from what I understand about history, after the Assyrian empire fell, many members of those tribes crossed west over the Caucasus mountains into Europe and became Europeans. The modern notion is that Europeans were Gentiles but to be a Gentile, all that means from my understanding is to be a non-Israelite. I believe that's why they are called the lost tribes; not because God lost them but that they lost themselves as He prophesied through Moses in the book of Deuteronomy and many today who think they are Gentiles are in reality the descendants of the children of Israel. There are many articles and numerous websites to go on to regarding this theory of migration however, the most convincing for me was after reading quite a number of books on the Celtic peoples. One of the reasons listed in 2Kings 17 as to the reason God exiled Israel in the first place was because of false religion and it is very specific in that it lists nature worship and star worship as part of the rituals that God found abominable which were part of regular Celtic worship ceremonies. In other words, the exiled Israelites, took their forbidden religious practices with them which became a regular part of Celtic culture.

I should probably also mention that there is a difference between children of progeny and children of adoption. While both are considered members of a family, the children of progeny are directly by blood relative, in this case being a descendant of Jacob. Anyone who becomes a Christian in truth, is grafted into the Israelite family tree as a child of adoption. They are still equal members of the family, just not directly by blood.

Eureka wrote:A quick side note: I didn't realize that certain dietary restrictions were still in place. While "avoiding the strangled" might not be particularly difficult or relevant for me, the instruction seems strangely out of place in the letter to the gentiles. Can anyone point me to scripture where Christ taught this message? Sorry for the tangent...I just don't think the quick question is worthy of its own thread.

I have written extensively about the food laws in the past on the forum, if you want to check out my earlier posts. I do believe they are still valid simply for health reasons. I do not believe they are necessary for salvation however.

Hope that helps you.

PaulSacramento wrote:Of course there is also the issue that God is STILL WORKING, as is Christ.

BUT in all honesty, we have to realize that no one is gonna convince the other in this matter and because of that, we truly should just take Paul's advice and leave it as such.

That has been my contention all along.