Guess I'm not welcomed

[Mojo]

But some battles are worth being fought om.

Yes, but time, place, circumstance, audience…are all considerations on the time to engage. Discernment, discretion and maturity

 

[The Revolting Man]

I mostly agree, but you’ve still not addressed food.

It seems to me to be pretty important for this first Council. It’s not full dietary laws, but they did bring it up under inspiration, as you said.

Why do Christians no longer take foods seriously?

Beats me. They should be confirming to the words of this council in my opinion. The restriction on blood is definitively and clearly stated.

 

[Mojo]

I find the man made chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, and ultra refined (so called) foods far more dangerous to health and well being.

Which I always find interesting.

We have keto, caveman, carnivore, vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and multiple other ….diets and most folks will not recoil and look sideways.

There’s the MAHA movement that’s put whole food and clean nutrition and the mainstream diet map.

But, a well reasoned spiritual argument for exploring the possibility that God does care about our intake of food is somehow strange in mainstream Christianity. It’s very interesting.

I’m with you @Joleneakamama and Jesus. If we have our input perfected and regimented, but our output is corrupted and defiling, it’s the truer indication of our connection to the Father.

We are known by our fruit.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Mark is not "adding burdens." Mark is simply reading what our Messiah Wrote, and told us, "IF you love Me, keep My commands." Yahushua already said (Mark 7, Matthew 23, etc) that it was the "lawmakers" (Pharisees, etc) who were "adding burdens." Burdens that were, as He said, and prohibited, "additions to" what was already Written.

No one is trying I have not sought to "impose" anything on any 'believer,' and never have.

Was Paul doing so when he said, under that same inspiration, "study, to show yourself approved?" And pointed out that as "milk drinkers" - many, if not most - were not ready for meat? Did he not expect that, if they took that advice, they eventually would be?


This part is true, but obviously not complete, because it is demonstrably only a beginning, (Otherwise, you'd just stay put, and 'doing well' is an action verb.)

It STARTS with those four "minimum necessary conditions," to get in the door, and hear His Instruction read, as He inspired and they ALL agreed, 'in every synagogue, in every city, on every Sabbath.' Then, they will "do well." And learn.

You’ve conceded the point. This beginning is the only thing we can require of each other. We can not withhold fellowship from anyone who claims Christ and confirms with the council of Jerusalem. You can’t condemn someone because they’re not moving as fast as you think they should, or because they’ve come up with a different description of an unknowable mystery or because they’ve come up understand a passage differently than you do.

Of course there’s more than just Acts 15; it just has nothing to do with anyone else outside of each individual and the Holy Spirit. If they claim Christ and and conform to Acts 15 then you have to assume that they are your Christian brother and you have to treat them as such.

 

[Joleneakamama]

If they claim Christ and and conform to Acts 15 then you have to assume that they are your Christian brother and you have to treat them as such.

UNLESS.... the evil heretic has two wives! Lol

 

[Mojo]

Beats me. They should be confirming to the words of this council in my opinion. The restriction on blood is definitively and clearly stated.

And then there’s this interesting nugget. I’m not sure if this is authoritative of all the churches if the East, but it seems to be the position of this group that eating of blood is forbidden.

I also think some of it in the West was a way of proving that “we aren’t Them”. Giving, or even forcing pork and blood on someone to verify they were a Christian/Catholic was a purity test. Muslims and Sephardic Jews were weeded out that way.

 

[Mark C]

If they claim Christ and and conform to Acts 15 then you have to assume that they are your Christian brother and you have to treat them as such.

Not so. People lie, and fail to walk in obedience. They cheat, they break covenant and contract. Some even put their hand on a Bible and lie. We are not required to believe them.

Which is why He says judge their fruit.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not so. People lie, and fail to walk in obedience. They cheat, they break covenant and contract. Some even put their hand on a Bible and lie. We are not required to believe them.

Which is why He says judge their fruit.

Of course, but that applies to anyone. If they conform to Acts 15 then you have to assume that they’re to there and trust God to deal with them.

 

[Mojo]

Which is why He says judge their fruit.

But some folks display wax fruit. That would apply to all groups, even those who follow dietary guidelines, feasts and other laws/instructions. You know, the whited sepulchers that Jesus warned us about.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

But some folks display wax fruit.

 

[steve]

But some folks display wax fruit. That would apply to all groups, even those who follow dietary guidelines, feasts and other laws/instructions. You know, the whited sepulchers that Jesus warned us about.

Nice!
Is that original? I’ve never run across that one before.

 

[Mark C]

Of course, but that applies to anyone. If they conform to Acts 15 then you have to assume that they’re to there and trust God to deal with them.

Why do people who accuse others of requiring them to DO something then tell us we MUST ASSUME something about someone else?

 

[Mojo]

Nice!
Is that original? I’ve never run across that one before.

I’m sure somebody else came up with it at some point, but it just came to me last night.

I was imagining the bit in I Love Lucy where she’s so hungry that she bites into the wax fruit at someone’s house and can’t get her teeth loose.

 

[steve]

I’m sure somebody else came up with it at some point, but it just came to me last night.

I was imagining the bit in I Love Lucy where she’s so hungry that she bites into the wax fruit at someone’s house and can’t get her teeth loose.

I love it!
Gonna steal it for sure!

 

[Heavens Declare]

I’m sure somebody else came up with it at some point, but it just came to me last night.

I was imagining the bit in I Love Lucy where she’s so hungry that she bites into the wax fruit at someone’s house and can’t get her teeth loose.

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt wax fruit existed at the time of Christ.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt wax fruit existed at the time of Christ.

And folks were probably smart enough to NOT try and gather grapes from thistles too!

Less propaganda maybe?

 

[frederick]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt wax fruit existed at the time of Christ.

True. But I'm sure there were some fruit-cakes and fruit-loops, and a lot of rotten fruit and fruitless trees.

 

[steve]

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt wax fruit existed at the time of Christ.

And……?
Does that mean that fake fruit in the life of a professing Christian can’t exist?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why do people who accuse others of requiring them to DO something then tell us we MUST ASSUME something about someone else?

I didn’t. The apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit did.

 

[Mark C]

I didn’t. The apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit did.

Funny how you're the Only One permitted to make that ridiculous claim for them.