Why did Paul make vows in the book of Acts??

[Guest shiloh357]

I guess the point I was tring to make is that God has always done things differently in due times. In different generations,in stages.I can only imagine what it was like as God sent different messages through different prophets.One saying they should be ashamed,the other saying chin up,one pronouncing judgement,the other restoring them. All was Gods plan in just the right season but I'm sure there were men of old ,saying this couldn't be the word of God,it must mean something else,God never changes.

But for some reason some would like to believe that God could not tell His own poeple what to do and when to do it.

I hope that the church doesn't have to be in complete unity before He comes for us because that would be never. Personally I was hopeing it would be in the next few years.

Sounds like an emotional view, not one based upon any hermeneutic study. I still don't see what it is you are getting at. You are just assigning your values to what people in the days of the Bible must have, nor not have, thought. You are putting your thoughts in their heads, and that is an unreliable way to look at the Bible.

[EricH]

I guess the point I was tring to make is that God has always done things differently in due times. In different generations,in stages.I can only imagine what it was like as God sent different messages through different prophets.One saying they should be ashamed,the other saying chin up,one pronouncing judgement,the other restoring them. All was Gods plan in just the right season but I'm sure there were men of old ,saying this couldn't be the word of God,it must mean something else,God never changes.

But for some reason some would like to believe that God could not tell His own poeple what to do and when to do it.

I hope that the church doesn't have to be in complete unity before He comes for us because that would be never. Personally I was hopeing it would be in the next few years.

Sounds like an emotional view, not one based upon any hermeneutic study. I still don't see what it is you are getting at. You are just assigning your values to what people in the days of the Bible must have, nor not have, thought. You are putting your thoughts in their heads, and that is an unreliable way to look at the Bible.

Thats right. The goal of interpretation should be to understand the meaning the author wished to convey. The trick for all of us is not reading our own prejudices and assumptions into the text

[nanasimmons]

What are your interpitations, backed by "scriptures" for these passages??

I find it difficult to argue or disregaurd them.There are many more but these ones my faith can't disregaurd as misinterpitations

1:) Gen. 9:3-7 2:) Lev.20:23-26 3:)Mark 7:14-23 4:)Acts 10:11-15 5:)Acts 11:5-9

6:)Romans 7:6 7:)Romans 14 1-6,14,20,22,23 8:)1 Cor.8:8,9 9:)1 Cor 10:23-33

10:)2 Cor 3:7-8 11:)Gal.4:9-11 12:)Col.2:8-23(the original text omits 'days'

13:)1 Tim 4:1-5 14:)Titus 1:10-16

When I first got saved I thought we were suppose to keep the all the laws of Moses too,But of course I also thought I was suppose to leave my family,go into the wilderness(woods) and separate myself for fourty days without food,get to some place called the upperroom,and eventually go to Jurasalem preach a message from the mount of olives which would make the world burn with shame followed by silence for a half an hour..

[nanasimmons]

What I desire is the truth and nothing but the whole truth! I absolutly hate lies more than

any-thing..

I have become more educated on the moral laws then most christians I know,Not that I don't fall short.But for the most part my conscience is clean.

When I fall short I repent ,learn and move on.I try to make it a rule to examine myself

(be sure theres no logs)before I speak on issues.

But as for the laws that separate others:I see nothing but self-righteous Pride. Even Paul knew the closer he got to God the more wretched he was. We are to be humble and not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to.God resists the proud,but gives grace to the humble.

We are to rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance into all truth,not what we think the truth is by some preconcieved notions or relying more on traditions.Hebrew 5:11-14.

[nanasimmons]

Butero,

This thread is an offsring from other threads posted on dietary laws and sabbath keeping, and if they apply to jewish and/or gentile believers,and Christ being our High Preist after the order of Melchizedek not through Levis whom the law was given but through Judah.How Jesus is the mediator of the NEW TESTAMENT. But what I've been told is that I don't understand any thing and I pretty much interpet every scripture wrong.

In every defination of the word, sexual sin is second on my hate list,only second to lies.

Sorry for the confusion..

[Guest shiloh357]

What are your interpitations, backed by "scriptures" for these passages??

I find it difficult to argue or disregaurd them.There are many more but these ones my faith can't disregaurd as misinterpitations

Thank you for asking. I shall give you what you ask for.

1:) Gen. 9:3-7 You will note that God forbids the eating of blood, the same restriction present in the dietary commandments and also forbidden by the Holy Spirit and the apostles in Acts 15.

2:) Lev.20:23-26 God is reiterating the importance for the Children of Israel to distinguish between clean and unclean animals. This was especially necessary because of the sacrifices. God did not want them eating or sacrificing unclean animals.

3:)Mark 7:14-23 Well, in this passage, it is important that you follow the line of thought. What were they arguing about??? The Pharisees were arguing that eating food with unwashed hands made a person unclean. In Rabbinic tradition a piece of food eaten with unwashed hands became unclean and therefore not fit to eat. Jesus and the Pharisees were not arguing about the dietary Laws given in the Torah. They arguing about whether or not eating with unwashed hands defiled a person. So, to use this as a diatribe against those who follow the dietary laws, is simply a waste of time.

4:)Acts 10:11-15 Ah yes, Peter's vision... Peter recounted this TWICE in the book of Acts. Both times, Peter said that the vision meant that Gentiles were not to be considered unclean. Nowhere does the Bible use this vision as a mandate to rescind the dietary laws. That was not the point God was trying to make, and Peter did not take from the vision the notion that pork was now clean. He took from the vision the true and ONLY meaning being, that Gentiles were not to be considered unclean.

5:)Acts 11:5-9 See comment on Acts 10:11-15

6:)Romans 7:6 Here is a case of not paying attention to the context. Paul is not talking about being released from the Law, but he is using an analogy of a woman being released from the Law concerning her husband when her husband dies. Paul is talking about us being released from that aspect of the law that causes us to bring for fruit for death (as mentioned in v. 5) Paul is not saying we are released from the law entirely, since adultery, murder, theft, incest, lying coveting etc. are still sins. This is in keeping with the analogy of the woman who is released from the laws concerning her husband after his death, but certainly not released from her other duties under the law as regarding her behavior in other contexts.

7:)Romans 14 1-6,14,20,22,23 Romans 14 is always used as a diatribe against the Torah. Paul is not dealing with, in these passages, the commandments of the Torah. He is dealing with extra-biblical issues and practices that many engaged in. Some who had come out their pagan past, took strict precautions against even eating the same things they used to eat as pagans (such as meat sacrificed to idols). Some went to the point of becoming vegetarians. Others did not feel that such measures were necessary, and allowed themselves to eat meat whether it had been sacrificed to idols or not. Paul made it clear that this was an issue conscience, and neither group should being disparagements upon the other for their practices. This also true regarding extrabiblical fast days and so forth. Paul talks about days that "man esteems." That has nothing to do with the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a days that God esteems. Paul was himself a Torah observant, Sabbath keeping Jew, and would not have dreamed diminishing something like the Sabbath or the Festivals.

8:)1 Cor.8:8,9 This pertains to food sacrificed to idols, and provides no commentary on the dietary commandments.

9:)1 Cor 10:23-33 See my comments on the previous two passages. Again, issues of conscience, and absolutely no application toward the dietary laws is even being hinted at by Paul. To apply these passages to dietary laws requires one to disregard hermeneutic integrity.

10:)2 Cor 3:7-8 This also has nothing to do with the issue. It is more related to Hebrews 8. What Paul is talking about is the administration of the law. There are two administrations, one of death the other of the Spirit. Paul is not saying that the "ministry(administration) of the Spirit" = absence of the law. He is talking about the law now being handled under the administration of the Spirit. The administration of death is now obsolete. The sacrificial system under the administration of death has been replaced by a new sacrificial system under the Spirit with better blood, a better sacrifice and a better High Priest.

11:)Gal.4:9-11 Paul talks about the elementary principles of the world. What are the elementary principles of the world?? Not God's laws, you seem to imply. God laws are neither worldly, nor are the elementary. Paul is talking those rudiments to which the Judaizers were forcing the Galatians to adopt. What is in view are the extra-biblical Jewish institutions for which there are no commandments, but which circumcision of the flesh would bring obligation to. The same can be said about Paul's complaint that they were observing days, months and years. His complaint was not against the observance of days such as the Sabbath or Festivals, since Paul himself observed those things. For Paul to make such a complaint, would be the height of hypocrisy. Paul is complaining about the way they are being observed and the legalistic motives behind such observance.

12:)Col.2:8-23(the original text omits 'days') Paul is confronting Gnosticism. The passage that people always cite is where Paul says, "let no one judge you regarding food, drink new moon, festival or Sabbath." The knee-jerk interpretation almost always is. "Don't let those Jews judge you for not keeping the Sabbath, or not eating kosher or not keeping the festivals..." That is not what Paul is saying. Paul is telling the Colossians not to allow themselves to be judged by the Gnostics who were heavily into asceticism (self abuse) who were against anything physical.

The Festivals, the Sabbath, the dietary laws, etc. Sanctify matter, time and space in this physical universe. They take even the most mundane thing like eating and sanctify it into an act of worship. The reason the Jewish people pray before and after a meal is to elevate eating to spiritual thing done unto the Lord. That is also why they have a blessing for almost every activity. This flies in the face of Gnosticism, entirely. The Gnostics had already infiltrated the church at Colosse, and one can see in the repeated use of the word "body" that Paul is confronting Gnostic heresies in this book.

So, Paul is telling them at Colosse, not to fall to the judgements of these heretics who impose such harsh rules as "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle."

13:)1 Tim 4:1-5 We are not forbid anything that God created to be food. How does God define food??? What would Paul as a Torah observant Jew eat, and how would he understand what animals were food and what animals were not food? There is no such thing, to a Jew, as "clean and unclean foods." Jewish people distinguish between clean and unclean animals. All clean animals are food. Therefore all food is clean, and is not to be forbidden.

14:)Titus 1:10-16 I can see where you are going with this. You seem to be implying that if someone observes the Sabbath, the Festivals or observes the dietary laws, that they are somehow, observing "Jewish myths" and so forth. That is completely out of line with Paul's remarks here. Paul is talking about those ascetic prohibitions that while may have the appearance of being Jewish, they have no connection at all with normative Judaism. It would be better to understand this as relating to extra biblical Jewish prohibitions which have no basis in Scripture. It is not an anti-Torah remark that Paul is making.

As for the remark that to the pure all things are pure, this goes back to the issues of conscience addressed in 1 Cor. 10. Paul even addressing Torah observance at this point. This is clear when the entire passage is read from the beginning to the end of the chapter.

[nanasimmons]

Titus 1:15;TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE;goes back to 1 Tim 4:4,5 for EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD AND NOTHING IS TO BE REFUSED IF IT IS RECIEVED WITH THANKSGIVING FOR IT IS SANCTIFIED(to MAKE HOLY,OR to MAKE PURE) BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER. which goes back to what the Lord told Peter,WHAT GOD HAS CLEANSED(MADE CLEAN,PURGE,PURIFY)YOU MUST NOT CALL COMMON.

I am not yelling either,only emphesizing

I really do thank you for taking your time and effort to tell me your veiws on these issues.

Of couse I strongly dis agree But you knew I would. Much of it seems to worldly wisdom and not sound for doctrine.

Alot of jewish people are very smart, of course usually to refute christian beliefs. I watch lectures on television all the time. Half of their audiences are sleeping but I listen intently. They of course are non-believers and strunting around like peacocks, the last one I heard was talking about the importance of a future of teaching blood sacrifices to their children which I guess they cringed away from in the past/ present..

[Guest shiloh357]

Titus 1:15;TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE;goes back to 1 Tim 4:4,5 for EVERY CREATURE OF GOD IS GOOD AND NOTHING IS TO BE REFUSED IF IT IS RECIEVED WITH THANKSGIVING FOR IT IS SANCTIFIED(to MAKE HOLY,OR to MAKE PURE) BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER. which goes back to what the Lord told Peter,WHAT GOD HAS CLEANSED(MADE CLEAN,PURGE,PURIFY)YOU MUST NOT CALL COMMON.

No you are violating sound principles of interpretation. Titus 1:15 is talking about extrabiblical Jewish prohibitions. 1 Tim 4:4,5 deals with a totally different issues. Nothing that God created to be food is to refused. That is what Paul is saying. God did not create EVERY animal to be food. Paul's statements cannot be divorced from his life as a Torah observant Jewish Rabbi. Paul was just as Torah observant after he was saved, as before.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the ONLY interpretation that Peter got from the vision. You cannot deny that the Bible offers NO other intperpretation of Peter's vision as relating to any other issue than that of the Gentiles not being considered unclean. If you disagree, then provide a verse from the Bible that says, "Peter's vision sanctifies pork." If you cannot then you have no reason to apply Peter's vision to food. The animals were only symbolic of the Gentile nations and that is the only meaning the Bible offers.

Of couse I strongly dis agree But you knew I would. Much of it seems to worldly wisdom and not sound for doctrine.

Yet you cannnot demonstrate hermeneutically where I am wrong. As you demonstrate above, you apply Scripture subjectively and disregard context entirely, imposing your views and prejudices upon the text. Thus you read the Bible, not for what it says, but for what you have subjectively superimposed upon it.

Your disagreement with me is purely emotional, and not based upon sound interpretation of the text. I am not saying that Christians should stay kosher. The point I am making is that the Scriptures you are using do apply to the issue of dietary laws. You simply do not understand the issue you are trying (for some reason) to argue against. A little more quality time in study would do you some good.

[nanasimmons]

Mark 7:17 After He tells them to PUT THIER EARS ON,PAY ATTENTION!! When Jesus and the disciples were A--W--A--Y from the C--R--O--W--D

P--E--T--E--R asked (wondered) about this parable;He says are you slow of learning also??Don't you realize or see ,are you so blind!!

He only spoke the words His Father told Him to and what did He say? Aparently they couldn't have been too concerned about washing their hands in the first place or we wouldn't be talking about it today..

[Guest shiloh357]

Mark 7:17 After He tells them to PUT THIER EARS ON,PAY ATTENTION!! When Jesus and the disciples were A--W--A--Y from the C--R--O--W--D

P--E--T--E--R asked (wondered) about this parable;He says are you slow of learning also??Don't you realize or see ,are you so blind!!

He only spoke the words His Father told Him to and what did He say? Aparently they couldn't have been too concerned about washing their hands in the first place or we wouldn't be talking about it today..

You are missing the point. I was simply pointing out that the issue in Mark was not about the dietary laws, but they were arguing over a purely Rabbinic nonbiblical tradition of washing one's hands before eating. The Rabbis had decided that even clean food was rendered unclean if eaten with unwashed hands. Jesus refuting that Rabbinic edict. They were not arguing over whether or not pork was clean.

If you would get over your emotional rants and actually look at the text and follow the line of thought contained in the text, you would understand that you are misapplying the text to address a subject it simply does not address.