I Thes 5:22

[Guest Butero]

2 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (KJV).

abstain: to refrain or resist, especially in light of Mosaic law, and the last two recommendations are Jewish dietary laws.

See the Old Testament.

 

The Holy Spirit and the Apostles said we are to refrain from doing those things.  Why do you feel we can go contrary to the Holy Spirit and the Apostles and be right?  I don't care if some of the laws were dietary or not or where they originated.  Thou shalt not steal was also in the Old Testament in the law of Moses, but I hope you don't feel we are free to be a thief because of grace?  

[OldSchool2]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

...  The Jewish Christians wanted to have the gentile believers be circumcised and keep the law.  It was the Holy Ghost and the Apostles that settled on those "three," one of which had nothing to do with dietary laws.  

Kosher has everything to do with Jewish dietary laws.

[simplejeff]

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

veneration of a "saint" is idolatry.

If it can be done simply,   as I agree "veneration of a "saint" is idolatry" always, in catholicism doctrines and teachings and practices, 

would you show how it was different when the bones of the patriarchs were cared for and carried to particular places for burial  ?

Some who are persuaded by 'catholic' error don't understand that what the patriarchs did , and how they were treated,

is entirely  different (LIFE AND DEATH DIFFERENT !  LIGHT AND DARKNESS)

from anything ever taught by the rcc. 

I realize most all of those deceived will still corrupt the purpose and meanings and such of words as they are told to do,

but would like to see a simple illustration of the difference for the sake of all readers who are seeking the truth.

THANKS !

(I would myself,  but am not at all familiar with the history or even current definitions of "venerate" etc .....  it was never a need at the time to learn it ,  and I think from all your posts for years you have a much clearer understanding of it)

[simplejeff]

6 minutes ago, Davida said:

You said "since when" to my post that stated that those who are demon possessed can't cast out demons.

Correct.  Since they do every day,  for show and for deception,  (as you know many people who have been deceived also),

since when or why do you think that they can't ?

Multitudes are deceived every day by the work of the devil, which although Jesus came to destroy,

is still going on more and more upon the earth and multitudes are continuing to follow him.

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, OldSchool2 said:

Kosher has everything to do with Jewish dietary laws.

But we were told that the Holy Ghost and the early Apostles don't want us to eat blood or things strangled.  If you want to call that eating Kosher, then the Holy Ghost and the early Apostles want us to follow at least a diet that is to some extent kosher.  You are at odds with New Testament scripture, and kicking against the pricks.  You are literally placing yourself at odds with the Holy Spirit and the Apostles of God.  I don't understand how you can defend that.  Opposing me is one thing but opposing the Spirit, the Bible and the original Apostles makes no sense to me.  

[OldSchool2]

 

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

...  I don't care if some of the laws were dietary or not or where they originated.  Thou shalt not steal was also in the Old Testament in the law of Moses, but I hope you don't feel we are free to be a thief because of grace?  

This isn't The Ten Commandments.

"... If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience — 29the other one’s conscience, I mean, not your own. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?…" 1 Cor. 10:27-29

[OldSchool2]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

But we were told that the Holy Ghost and the early Apostles don't want us to eat blood or things strangled....

... For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

 

[OldSchool2]

18 minutes ago, Davida said:

Such a haughty spirit.  Here is from Dictionary.com

Word Origin and History for veneration

early 15century., from Middle French- veneration, from Latin venerationem (nominative veneratio) "reverence," from past participle stem of venerari "to worship, revere," from venus (genitive veneris) "beauty, love, desire" (see Venus ).

Venus?

The days of the week also came from Norse mythology, but using them today doesn't make me a Viking, does it?

[Guest Butero]

Just now, OldSchool2 said:

 

This isn't The Ten Commandments.

"... If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience — 29the other one’s conscience, I mean, not your own. For why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?…" 1 Cor. 10:27-29

I also won't eat it if there is blood or they tell me the meat was strangled.  Why?  Because the Holy Spirit and the early Apostles said not to.  

For once, you posted something we can discuss.  You posted a scripture that you believe gives you the ability to eat literally anything unless you are doing it in front of someone that will be offended.  At best, you have given what you think to be a competing scripture to the one in Acts.  It doesn't in any wise change what it says in Acts, but it says something that would on the surface seem to contradict it.  The Bible doesn't contradict itself, so that means we must rightly divide the Word of truth.  

I take the Bible as a whole, not in parts.  I don't just look at a single scripture and ignore others.  I can't ignore what is written in Acts because of Romans.  As such, if invited to a meal, I will not drink a glass of blood.  I know better.  I will eat whatever is in front of me, unless the host says it is sacrificed to idols or tells me it was strangled or I just don't think it looks good.  I can't make Acts null and void because of Romans, and I can't pick and choose one to believe.  

[Heleadethme]

44 minutes ago, Butero said:

I seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit all the time.  I have always promoted that the Holy Spirit is our divine teacher, and unless I am mistaken, said so in another post in this very thread.  There is nothing in scripture that I have seen that indicates the religious crowd really believed Jesus had a devil, though they accused him of having one.  

Well that's good Butero, we need Him.  bless you.