Acts 10: The Good News is for Everyone

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
I've just started wondering what Jesus might have thought of all this? He was an observant Jew, who presumably kept kosher. What would he have said to Peter, who denied him three times, and was once scolded "get thee behind me, Satan", about his abandonment of Jewish food laws?
 
The folks contrary to the greater good are numerous under the pretense of autonomous action without reflection on reputation ... and then in great powers ... what do they care of reputation as long as they can walk over the folks previously put down without a consideration as consequence to lack of con science ... a transcendent loss? We couldn't get the info across to them due to hard shells ...

Esteemed rollers ...
 
unsafe said:
Waterfall ----you said ---Jesus himself said that we should not break any of the commandments nor teach others to do so. Mathew 5:18

I say
The laws came under the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Laws -----and in Matthew Jesus was alive ---the 4 Gospels Matthew --Mark --Luke and John are still under the Laws of Moses -----

The New Testament does not come into effect until Jesus was taken up to heaven ---Acts is the first Chapter under the New Covenant of Grace -----so in Matthew Jesus and all Jews were under the 613 laws that God did put in place -----Jesus came to fulfil what man couldn't and do away with the laws ---no man could keep the laws -----if you failed Keeping one law you failed them all ----

Waterfall -----you said ------
And for Jesus then to say that what goes into us cannot defile us, some Jews would say is a misinterpretation of his words to mean changing the dietary laws.

I say ------I think you are reading the scripture wrongly -----this scripture you talk about in Matthew 15:11is talking about your speech ---your words --------not food -----

New International Version
What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

This is the Greek word used for Mouth in this scripture -----
Strong's Concordance

stoma: the mouth
Definition: the mouth
Usage: the mouth, speech, eloquence in speech

I say ------So understanding what is meant by mouth here is needed I think ------
Click to expand...
So you're saying God changed his mind?
From what I've read about Jesus, he usually adds to the law, not do away with the laws.
 
Waterfall ---you said ---So you're saying God changed his mind?

No ---I am saying God brought in a New Covenant better that the Old Covenant so God changed Covenants not His Mind ---

Waterfall ---you said ----From what I've read about Jesus, he usually adds to the law, not do away with the laws.---

I say ---well I have no idea where you heard that from but I think if you actually read the Scriptures you will see it was the Pharisees who were always adding their own traditions to the laws ------not Jesus ---

But if you want to believe Jesus added to the laws that is your right -----
 
God made a covenant with the Jewish People. Does God break God's covenants? If God does, then why would we trust God not to break the covenant made through Jesus?
 
unsafe said:
I say ---well I have no idea where you heard that from but I think if you actually read the Scriptures you will see it was the Pharisees who were always adding their own traditions to the laws ------not Jesus ---
Click to expand...
Waterfall may be referring to passages like this in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt. 5-7 For instance, this passage, where Jesus quotes the law, then ups the ante:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h] of fire. 23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister[i] has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister,[j] and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court[k] with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.


27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:21-28, NRSV)​


But if you want to pretend that Jesus didn't say this, that is your right--
 
paradox3 said:
Doesn't God still have that covenant with the Jewish people?
Click to expand...

Of course God does, complete with 613 rules.

Of course, a normal observant Jew doesn't have to worry about a lot of these. Quite a few of them are precise instructions on "Temple behaviour", and there is no Temple now. Many are gender-specific, which gets rid of quite a few more. Most of the rest of them are not difficult to follow, relating to food laws, relationships between people, Sabbath rules, and festival/feast instructions.

And if one transgresses a rule, one has not broken the Covenant, just need to get right again.
 
In fact the Cornelius story extends for the first few verses of Acts 11, where Peter returns to Jerusalem and is called to account for what he has done. In the history of Christianity the realization that, as the hymn says, "the love of God is broader than the measures of the mind" is rarely (if ever) easily accepted by the 'in crowd'. Peter's witness then wins them over -- although in Acts 15 they are still arguing about circumcision.
 
Comment from above ----Does God break God's covenants?

No----- He brings in a better Covenant which brings to an end the Old Covenant -----

Hebrews 8 ESV​

Jesus, High Priest of a Better Covenant​

” 6 But as it is, Christ[b] has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:[c]

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mosaic Covenant ended and the the Good News ---came into being ----the New Covenant of Grace ---
 
Bi times God as gamma in an ode circle ... creates some mystery that is hard for the literalist to break out of as a closed cell ... when there is an infinite stretch of the eternal mystery ... out there ... presiding as an OBI?

To see such things an abstract journey may be required to see yourself as everything else does that is besides themselves over such estrangement from the dark pit without some Levite ... hooded virtue?

Song and dancers outside the fortifications as quanta? What's the chance ... in the eternal statistics it renders to a singularity (Hebrew word maheinaim) ... outlandish or just an outlier ... like David's monster across the veil (Doppelganger in Nordic twist).

The insecurity creates unsafe attributes in the long stretch ... neurotics? People that worry the smallest items ... and can't look up in the abstract! Frightening ...
 
Last edited:
I've been considering what to say here. My reaction is actually mixed because how positive this is depends on how it is actually taken.

It certainly can be read as encouraging inclusiveness on a social level.

But what about the spiritual/theological level? Is it more about getting the good news to all, and all to the good news (means conversion), than about true inclusiveness? Has Christianity historically seen this as an invitation to inclusion, which would mean acceptance and respect for differences, or as an invitation to bring all into the fold, to include those who accept Christian beliefs/faith (generally defined however the person doing the converting defines it)? Because that is certainly how much of Christianity has operated historically; being inclusive in targeting all for conversion, not in welcoming all on their own terms.

Was just watching a bio of Sir Isaac Newton last night and we have learned from his private papers that Newton was basically unitarian in theology but kept it under wraps. Faculty at Trinity were supposed to be ordained in the CoE (he eventually avoided that) and his rejection of the Trinity could have got him fired or worse. Was he truly included, even though he was physically and socially part of the church?

So does inclusiveness here mean a more spiritually and theologically diverse church or just ensuring all are able to subscribe to the same bunch of restrictive creeds and beliefs regardless of their social position, race, orientation, etc.?
 
For all its focus on inclusiveness, this passage does seem to have a bottom line, theologically speaking. We are told that all who believe in Jesus will receive forgiveness of sins through his name (v. 43).
 
From The Message: "Our witness that he is the means to forgiveness of sins is backed up by the witness of all the prophets.”

This would read quite differently if it said "he is A means to forgiveness of sins"...
 
BetteTheRed said:
From The Message: "Our witness that he is the means to forgiveness of sins is backed up by the witness of all the prophets.”

This would read quite differently if it said "he is A means to forgiveness of sins"...
Click to expand...
It would but the Chirstian message has always been based on the definite article. Only in latter years have we started to take seriously the "other folds" referred to in John 10. FOr followers of Christ the means of forgiveness is tied up with the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth -- even as there have been a multiplicity of understandings of how that forgiveness actually works.
 
Then the indefinite article as A has always been an initiation as in alef in Hebrew and Arabic and the alfa program in Greek with the end cut off an infinite icon ...

It may be a sign of how deep the folds are ... Einstein's dimples in space simulating the Arabic symbol for 7 in form of an upset Lambda as light hits the top of the mound ... interpretations abound on V-Noos in the rye ... invisible? That's Claire in the author's production of Hannibal Rising, etc.

Contrary to the man of power there is no end to it ... involving lengthy considerations about the way t' go there ...
 
GordW said:
It would but the Chirstian message has always been based on the definite article. Only in latter years have we started to take seriously the "other folds" referred to in John 10.
Click to expand...

Do you think of that as an error in the message, that with closer reading of texts such as Jesus' "other folds", we are correcting?
 
BetteTheRed said:
Do you think of that as an error in the message, that with closer reading of texts such as Jesus' "other folds", we are correcting?
Click to expand...
No. I see it as language of committment to this way of being. For followers of Christ, Christians Jesus is the way. Where we get it wrong is when we forget that it is commitment langauge and tryy to make it a universal statemnt. That is where the error lies
 
GordW said:
No. I see it as language of committment to this way of being. For followers of Christ, Christians Jesus is the way. Where we get it wrong is when we forget that it is commitment langauge and tryy to make it a universal statemnt. That is where the error lies
Click to expand...
So for Christians, Jesus is "the Way" but that does not exclude other "Ways" for those who are not Christian. Is that about right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top