Who is the church?

DrBubbaLove · Oct 6, 2015

Soyeong said:
It was a common question to ask a rabbi what they thought was the most important law because it was a quick way to understand their yoke and to get at understanding what the essence of the law is. A rabbi's yoke was the way that they taught how to follow the law. By saying that the law was about loving God and your neighbor and that the rest of the laws hang on those two, Jesus was not diminishing the importance of the other laws and saying that you only need to focus on those two, but rather he was saying that the other laws are about loving God and you neighbor and are examples that paint us a picture of what that looks like. The command to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind is a lot easier said than done, so Jesus came to teach us how to correctly follow the law both by word and by living a perfect example for us to follow. A similar instance of this is found in Jewish literature:

One of famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this--go and study it!"

The goal of a disciple was to learn how think and act like their rabbi or to essentially become an imitation of them, so Jesus' disciples learned how to keep the law from him just by doing what he did, and we are also to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6) and to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21) as we become more like Christ through the leading of the Spirit.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for not keeping the law by setting it aside to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-13), so the contrast between Jesus' yoke and the yoke of the Pharisees was not about whether God should be obeyed, but about the way in which His law should be obeyed. The law was always meant to be kept faith (Habakkuk 2:4), to be a delight (Psalms 1:2, Psalms 119, Romans 7:12), and to bring rest for our souls (Jeremiah 6:16-19), but the Pharisees had perverted it into legalism and made it into a heavy burden with all of their traditions (Matthew 23:4). The Apostles were all Torah observant, as was every Christian for at least around the first ten years after Christ's ascension up until Peter's vision, so they drew criticism from Jewish leadership not for disobeying God's law, but for not following their traditions.

We should note the difference between the treatment of people CLAIMING to be "good" Jews and the response, as compared to His defense of what I could presume we would call Christians since they were Jews but Jews that followed God in Person. There is no indication in such responses that those following Him are held to Jesus Law, and the Apostles made that pretty clear in their letters.

But hey, if someone feels following Jesus law brings them closer (though as someone already pointed out following all of it is near impossible) to God then go for it. I just do not see it as being a part of what God told His Apostles to go and teach. And not long after He left, if it were true He expected His Follower to obey every Jewish Law we would have seen a different outcome in what some call the first Church Council regarding the kosher weeny debate. And that view is supported as well by discussions regarding whether Gentile converts had to become Jews converts in order to be consider Christians which did not go the way is being suggested here.

Soyeong · Oct 6, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
We should note the difference between the treatment of people CLAIMING to be "good" Jews and the response, as compared to His defense of what I could presume we would call Christians since they were Jews but Jews that followed God in Person. There is no indication in such responses that those following Him are held to Jesus Law, and the Apostles made that pretty clear in their letters.

But hey, if someone feels following Jesus law brings them closer (though as someone already pointed out following all of it is near impossible) to God then go for it. I just do not see it as being a part of what God told His Apostles to go and teach. And not long after He left, if it were true He expected His Follower to obey every Jewish Law we would have seen a different outcome in what some call the first Church Council regarding the kosher weeny debate. And that view is supported as well by discussions regarding whether Gentile converts had to become Jews converts in order to be consider Christians which did not go the way is being suggested here.

Up until Peter's vision in Acts 10 all Christians were Jews. Paul said that he hadn't been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and James had him take steps to prove the rumor that he had been, so if they weren't teaching against the law, then who was? As I pointed said before, where many Christians go wrong is misunderstanding a discussion about the way that the law should be kept as being a discussion about whether it should be kept, and Acts 15 is a prime example. Whether to obey God was never the issue, the issue was whether to obey man-made traditions. Very consistently throughout the Bible man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld. We must obey God rather than men. At no point did any of the Apostles say anything against keeping God's law. Gentiles certainly don't have to become Jews in order to become Christians, but having a holy and righteous conduct is equally important for Jews and Gentiles and the law is God's instructions for how to do that (1 John 3:10, 1 Peter 1:14-16).

DrBubbaLove · Oct 7, 2015

Soyeong said:
Up until Peter's vision in Acts 10 all Christians were Jews. Paul said that he hadn't been teaching Jews to forsake Moses and James had him take steps to prove the rumor that he had been, so if they weren't teaching against the law, then who was? As I pointed said before, where many Christians go wrong is misunderstanding a discussion about the way that the law should be kept as being a discussion about whether it should be kept, and Acts 15 is a prime example. Whether to obey God was never the issue, the issue was whether to obey man-made traditions. Very consistently throughout the Bible man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld. We must obey God rather than men. At no point did any of the Apostles say anything against keeping God's law. Gentiles certainly don't have to become Jews in order to become Christians, but having a holy and righteous conduct is equally important for Jews and Gentiles and the law is God's instructions for how to do that (1 John 3:10, 1 Peter 1:14-16).

Not sure how to pick and choose which Jewish laws that allegedly we should believe God told the Apostles to keep and teach. Obviously not the Sabbath rules since He did not Himself make them strictly follow those. Obviously nothing regarding circumcision since that is out and we have both the NT record and tradition that they actually almost came to a brawl as to whether that part of the Law should be enforced. And since we left Saint Paul speaking of what to eat or not eat out of the discussion I guess we have to imagine he had it all wrong about what Christian should or should do and magically none of the allegedly strict Law following Apostles objected to what Saint Paul was teaching. Just as remarkable is the total absence in Christian writings of the 1st and 2nd century of this alleged teaching that Christians should follow the Jewish Laws - except perhaps if we include occasional mention in not very flattering terms of Judaizers among the Christians. Nor does this reply explain God allowing His followers to ignore the Laws one is claiming they should be following.

Soyeong · Oct 7, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
Not sure how to pick and choose which Jewish laws that allegedly we should believe God told the Apostles to keep and teach.

More accurately, God never told the Apostles not to keep any of His laws and Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 that not the least part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth disappear and all is accomplished. Anyone who tried to teach against keeping God's law would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and would have been dismissed as a false teacher. If Jesus had taught against keeping his commands, then he would have disqualified himself as the Messiah and for once given his critics a legitimate reason to stone him - they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial.

Obviously not the Sabbath rules since He did not Himself make them strictly follow those.

God's Sabbath is one of the most of the most important laws in the Bible and the one that it talks about the most. It was so important to God that it carried the death penalty for breaking it. The Apostles continued keeping the Sabbath and God's Feasts all throughout Acts, we will be keeping them during the Millennium, and we should be keeping them now. Again, Jesus was against follow all of the man-made Pharisaic traditions for how to keep the Sabbath, but he was not against keeping the Sabbath itself. He criticized them for setting aside God's law to follow their own traditions, and very consistently throughout the Bible man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld.

Obviously nothing regarding circumcision since that is out and we have both the NT record and tradition that they actually almost came to a brawl as to whether that part of the Law should be enforced.

The law never commanded all Gentiles to become circumcised, nor does it give the process for how a Gentile is to become a Jewish proselyte, so right off the bat Acts 15:1 is about whether Gentiles should be required to follow Jewish traditions. By rejecting that Gentiles had to become circumcised, they were again rejecting man-made laws to uphold God's law. If the law had required Gentiles to become circumcised, then they could not have ruled against that because the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, they had no authority to add to or subtract from God's law and they would not violate Deuteronomy 13 either. So Acts 15 was not even about whether God should be obeyed.

And since we left Saint Paul speaking of what to eat or not eat out of the discussion I guess we have to imagine he had it all wrong about what Christian should or should do and magically none of the allegedly strict Law following Apostles objected to what Saint Paul was teaching.

Paul continued to keep kosher and only spoke in favor of keeping God's dietary laws by encouraging the Colossians not to let anyone judge them in that regard and keep them from obeying God. The main problem is both dietary laws and ritual purity both talk about "clean" and "unclean" and many Christians take a discussion about not keeping man-made ritual purity laws out of context by making them about God's dietary laws. Again, man-made laws are consistently rejected while God's laws are upheld.

Just as remarkable is the total absence in Christian writings of the 1st and 2nd century of this alleged teaching that Christians should follow the Jewish Laws - except perhaps if we include occasional mention in not very flattering terms of Judaizers among the Christians.

"Judaizers" was a term first coined and used by the heretic Marcion. It did not refer to those who were trying to get Gentiles to obey God's law, nor did Paul mean that when he used the word, but rather means "to adopt Jewish customs and rights, one who observes the ritual law of the Jews". It has to with someone who was trying to make Gentiles live as a Jew and become a Jew, and having him keep all of the customs of the Jewish people. They want the perspective person to live exactly as they do, keeping God's law in the same manner as they do in order to be saved. It has nothing to do with God's law except for the fact that Jewish customs were bound up in decisions made about God's law, also known as their yoke of the Torah.

There were groups of Christians who did continue to be Torah observant, but non-observant Gentiles quickly came to dominate and to mistakenly distance themselves from the Jewish roots of their faith, starting with Emperor Claudius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome and with Gentiles not wanting to fall back under Jewish leadership upon their return. They either did not understand Paul's letter to them or did not heed it. Jesus was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and is the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He did not come to start new different religion and Christianity was never meant to become separated from it's Jewish roots. Tragically, Christians have lost the correct Jewish cultural context through which to properly interpret the Bible and Jews have lost their Messiah.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 7, 2015

Soyeong said:
More accurately, God never told the Apostles not to keep any of His laws and Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 that not the least part of the law would disappear until heaven and earth disappear and all is accomplished. Anyone who tried to teach against keeping God's law would have been in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and would have been dismissed as a false teacher. If Jesus had taught against keeping his commands, then he would have disqualified himself as the Messiah and for once given his critics a legitimate reason to stone him - they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial.

God's Sabbath is one of the most of the most important laws in the Bible and the one that it talks about the most. It was so important to God that it carried the death penalty for breaking it. The Apostles continued keeping the Sabbath and God's Feasts all throughout Acts, we will be keeping them during the Millennium, and we should be keeping them now. Again, Jesus was against follow all of the man-made Pharisaic traditions for how to keep the Sabbath, but he was not against keeping the Sabbath itself. He criticized them for setting aside God's law to follow their own traditions, and very consistently throughout the Bible man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld.

The law never commanded all Gentiles to become circumcised, nor does it give the process for how a Gentile is to become a Jewish proselyte, so right off the bat Acts 15:1 is about whether Gentiles should be required to follow Jewish traditions. By rejecting that Gentiles had to become circumcised, they were again rejecting man-made laws to uphold God's law. If the law had required Gentiles to become circumcised, then they could not have ruled against that because the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, they had no authority to add to or subtract from God's law and they would not violate Deuteronomy 13 either. So Acts 15 was not even about whether God should be obeyed.

Paul continued to keep kosher and only spoke in favor of keeping God's dietary laws by encouraging the Colossians not to let anyone judge them in that regard and keep them from obeying God. The main problem is both dietary laws and ritual purity both talk about "clean" and "unclean" and many Christians take a discussion about not keeping man-made ritual purity laws out of context by making them about God's dietary laws. Again, man-made laws are consistently rejected while God's laws are upheld.

"Judaizers" was a term first coined and used by the heretic Marcion. It did not refer to those who were trying to get Gentiles to obey God's law, nor did Paul mean that when he used the word, but rather means "to adopt Jewish customs and rights, one who observes the ritual law of the Jews". It has to with someone who was trying to make Gentiles live as a Jew and become a Jew, and having him keep all of the customs of the Jewish people. They want the perspective person to live exactly as they do, keeping God's law in the same manner as they do in order to be saved. It has nothing to do with God's law except for the fact that Jewish customs were bound up in decisions made about God's law, also known as their yoke of the Torah.

There were groups of Christians who did continue to be Torah observant, but non-observant Gentiles quickly came to dominate and to mistakenly distance themselves from the Jewish roots of their faith, starting with Emperor Claudius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome and with Gentiles not wanting to fall back under Jewish leadership upon their return. They either did not understand Paul's letter to them or did not heed it. Jesus was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, and is the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He did not come to start new different religion and Christianity was never meant to become separated from it's Jewish roots. Tragically, Christians have lost the correct Jewish cultural context through which to properly interpret the Bible and Jews have lost their Messiah.

What I get I guess trying to discourse with people that like to make unsupported and outrageous claims like this.

If anyone wants a fairer, honest and open discussion of what went down in the early Church between Jewish/Gentile converts along with the back story behind the verses being tossed about here- essentially that the Apostles and initial converts to Christianity were all Jews or Jewish converts who remained Jews and kept the ceremonial laws but eventually had to address whether or not any of that applied to non-Jewish Christians (IOW did they have to "live as Jews" - which is what Judaizer means) and also later whether Jewish Christians themselves really had to obey the ceremonial laws for salvation, then please read this explanation which rebuts most of what was said in this reply.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

Hillsage · Oct 8, 2015

Two gospels were being preached in the NT.

GAL 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Paul had the greater vision and weightier truth, and the apostles at Jerusalem had to fight the religious spirit of Judaism. A spirit to which they caved in to.

ACT 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded
that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

The "such things" spoken of above, which they said Gentile believers were not to
observe, were "the customs" (21:21) and "the law" (21:24). The
only reason the elders still agreed to hold the Jewish believers under that Yoke of bondage (the Law), was
because they feared the "thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law:" (21:20).

The NT church was a church of transition especially in Israel and especially in Jerusalem.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 8, 2015

Hillsage said:
Two gospels were being preached in the NT.

GAL 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Paul had the greater vision and weightier truth, and the apostles at Jerusalem had to fight the religious spirit of Judaism. A spirit to which they caved in to.

ACT 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded
that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

The "such things" spoken of above, which they said Gentile believers were not to
observe, were "the customs" (21:21) and "the law" (21:24). The
only reason the elders still agreed to hold the Jewish believers under that Yoke of bondage (the Law), was
because they feared the "thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law:" (21:20).

The NT church was a church of transition especially in Israel and especially in Jerusalem.

Why I am shocked that this poster would agree on the Church's account of what happened - scary times, but suspect a denial is coming.

Soyeong · Oct 8, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
What I get I guess trying to discourse with people that like to make unsupported and outrageous claims like this.

You brought up another topics that we could discuss, so I didn't go as in-depth as I could have, but feel free to point out anything you think I didn't support.

If anyone wants a fairer, honest and open discussion of what went down in the early Church between Jewish/Gentile converts along with the back story behind the verses being tossed about here- essentially that the Apostles and initial converts to Christianity were all Jews or Jewish converts who remained Jews and kept the ceremonial laws but eventually had to address whether or not any of that applied to non-Jewish Christians (IOW did they have to "live as Jews" - which is what Judaizer means) and also later whether Jewish Christians themselves really had to obey the ceremonial laws for salvation, then please read this explanation which rebuts most of what was said in this reply.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

"The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. "

The article said a number of things that were true, but it is fundamentally flawed for the reason that I've already brought up, namely that it fails to distinguish between the customs of man and the customs of God. In the above quote, the custom not to eat unclean animals is a command of God, while the law against Jews eating with or associating with Gentiles is a man-made custom, which actually is contrary to the commands of God. In Leviticus 19:34, God commanded them to love Gentiles as themselves, which is a little difficult to do while refusing to associate with them. As I said before, another man-made custom was requiring all Gentiles to become circumcised because that command is not found anywhere in the Bible. So it is a mistake to confuse a discussion about whether to obey man-made customs with being a discussion about whether to obey God. God commands obedience of His people all throughout the Bible, so that was never in question and was never the topic of Acts 15.

The Pharisees had many oral laws or traditions for how to obey God's written law, which they traced the command for back to Moses. For instance, there are 24 chapters in the Mishna about traditions just for how to keep the Sabbath. They reasoned that someone couldn't keep God's command not to work on the Sabbath without knowing their traditions for what exactly what it meant to work, so they a higher priority to their own traditions, which is precisely what Jesus criticized them for doing in Mark 7:6-13. In Matthew 23:4, he referred to their traditions as a heavy burden and it is precisely the same thing that Peter was referring to in Acts 15. In contrast Jesus's yoke of the law was easy and his burden was light and God said that His law was not too difficult for us (Deuteronomy 30:11). God did not give His law because He thought they could use a heavy legalistic burden, but rather it was a gift that was meant to be received with delight (Psalms 119, Romans 7:22) and meant to give rest for our souls (Jeremiah 6:16-19). Jews had high praise for God's holy, righteous, and good law (Romans 7:12), so the idea that they thought it was a heavy burden that no one could bear is absurd.

"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath."

This was said with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to keep God's law every Sabbath, which implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

"For, if the legal observances were not necessary for salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile."

At no point in time was legal observance required for salvation and Moses and the Israelites could not have excused themselves from obeying God because it didn't save them any more than we can. God didn't demand that the Israelites obey His law before He brought them out of Egypt, but rather He saved them first, then gave them the law. We are not to obey God in order to become saved, but because we have been saved by grace through faith.

"Foreseeing the consequences of such conduct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel". "If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?""

Peter withdrew and separated himself because he was still influenced by Pharisaic traditions, not because he was obeying God, and by doing so his actions were saying to Gentiles that they weren't actually saved unless they kept their traditions, hence why Paul rebuked him. Again, man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 8, 2015

Soyeong said:
You brought up another topics that we could discuss, so I didn't go as in-depth as I could have, but feel free to point out anything you think I didn't support.

"The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. "

The article said a number of things that were true, but it is fundamentally flawed for the reason that I've already brought up, namely that it fails to distinguish between the customs of man and the customs of God. In the above quote, the custom not to eat unclean animals is a command of God, while the law against Jews eating with or associating with Gentiles is a man-made custom, which actually is contrary to the commands of God. In Leviticus 19:34, God commanded them to love Gentiles as themselves, which is a little difficult to do while refusing to associate with them. As I said before, another man-made custom was requiring all Gentiles to become circumcised because that command is not found anywhere in the Bible. So it is a mistake to confuse a discussion about whether to obey man-made customs with being a discussion about whether to obey God. God commands obedience of His people all throughout the Bible, so that was never in question and was never the topic of Acts 15.

The Pharisees had many oral laws or traditions for how to obey God's written law, which they traced the command for back to Moses. For instance, there are 24 chapters in the Mishna about traditions just for how to keep the Sabbath. They reasoned that someone couldn't keep God's command not to work on the Sabbath without knowing their traditions for what exactly what it meant to work, so they a higher priority to their own traditions, which is precisely what Jesus criticized them for doing in Mark 7:6-13. In Matthew 23:4, he referred to their traditions as a heavy burden and it is precisely the same thing that Peter was referring to in Acts 15. In contrast Jesus's yoke of the law was easy and his burden was light and God said that His law was not too difficult for us (Deuteronomy 30:11). God did not give His law because He thought they could use a heavy legalistic burden, but rather it was a gift that was meant to be received with delight (Psalms 119, Romans 7:22) and meant to give rest for our souls (Jeremiah 6:16-19). Jews had high praise for God's holy, righteous, and good law (Romans 7:12), so the idea that they thought it was a heavy burden that no one could bear is absurd.

"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath."

This was said with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to keep God's law every Sabbath, which implies that they were already keeping the Sabbath.

"For, if the legal observances were not necessary for salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile."

At no point in time was legal observance required for salvation and Moses and the Israelites could not have excused themselves from obeying God because it didn't save them any more than we can. God didn't demand that the Israelites obey His law before He brought them out of Egypt, but rather He saved them first, then gave them the law. We are not to obey God in order to become saved, but because we have been saved by grace through faith.

"Foreseeing the consequences of such conduct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel". "If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?""

Peter withdrew and separated himself because he was still influenced by Pharisaic traditions, not because he was obeying God, and by doing so his actions were saying to Gentiles that they weren't actually saved unless they kept their traditions, hence why Paul rebuked him. Again, man's laws are rejected while God's law is upheld.

The unsupported claims here in this thread would be not giving any support that the distinction claimed was held by the men one is quoting. On the other hand, the view of the article just said to be true is fully supported by the writings of every ECF regarding what occured. So while it is easy to suggest that they were not talking about "customs of men" there is no support given for that claim. On the other hand the article said to be true explains why things happened as they did and clearly indicates the men pushing for ALL Christians to "live as Jews" DID NOT make the distinction being claimed here.

As God directed circumcision from the beginning, Abraham forward, and no self respecting Jew today would argue that command as being a "custom" I fail to see how anyone could suggest otherwise and lump that "living like a Jew" on the same level as "eating with Gentiles". This unsupported view fails (as the article said to be true also lays it out) because that was the first battle these "Judaizers" fought and lost. Which is why the whole topic appeared settled by the Apostles at that first record of this dispute. And it is then the same group that wanted everyone to "live as Jews' demonstrate what they meant by that for calling Saint Peter out for his dinner guest habits. I don't see how to explain the sequence of events and topics as they are presented to us in the NT Scriptures if we assume this division was ONLY about what is being called "God's Law". The story does not support that these people were making any such distinction.

Douglas Hendrickson · Oct 8, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
In grafting something has to exist to graft to, and chronologically Israel also came first. As far as the ultimate fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that comes through the graft. Does that help?

Gotta add that I doubt that is where this is going

From my view the Church is what He established and remains as establishing His Kingdom on earth and to which all Christians are a part.

Since it is the Church of Christ and Christ came first (from eternity - eternal with the Father Creator). . .

Christians are grafted onto the church of Christ the true Israel ...

Soyeong · Oct 8, 2015

DrBubbaLove said:
The unsupported claims here in this thread would be not giving any support that the distinction claimed was held by the men one is quoting. On the other hand, the view of the article just said to be true is fully supported by the writings of every ECF regarding what occured. So while it is easy to suggest that they were not talking about "customs of men" there is no support given for that claim. On the other hand the article said to be true explains why things happened as they did and clearly indicates the men pushing for ALL Christians to "live as Jews" DID NOT make the distinction being claimed here.

Pirkei Avos:
"Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah."

They traced the oral law back to Moses and would never have considered teaching someone not to work on the Sabbath without also teaching them what it meant to work, so all of that was wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to obey the law of Moses and what they were wanting to require Gentiles to do. This also expresses the same concept saying that if you follow our works of the law, then you will be saved:

4QMMT
Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (p. 364, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation)

So when Paul uses the phrase "works of law", he is not speaking against God's law, but against man-made law. Much of the discussion about the law in the NT is about the way that it should be kept rather than whether it should be kept. For instance, the law was never given for the purpose of becoming justified by keeping it through our own efforts, so Paul was saying that those who were trying legalistically to do that were keeping the law in the wrong way, not that they shouldn't be obeying God's commands. The law was always meant to be kept by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and His people and God always disdained when it was kept legalistically while the hearts of His people were far from Him (Habakkuk 2:4, Isaiah 1:13-17, Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:6-9)

Many of the ECF said some shockingly anti-Semitic things, so it's only no wonder that the theology that we've inherited from is against keeping God's law. As I said, I think the schism began with the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, so the misunderstanding of the role of the Jews and of the law began early. What we have is many people who misunderstood Paul, did not heed this warning, fell into the error of lawlessness, and then propagated that error through the centuries:

2 Peter 3:14-17 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

As God directed circumcision from the beginning, Abraham forward, and no self respecting Jew today would argue that command as being a "custom" I fail to see how anyone could suggest otherwise and lump that "living like a Jew" on the same level as "eating with Gentiles". This unsupported view fails (as the article said to be true also lays it out) because that was the first battle these "Judaizers" fought and lost. Which is why the whole topic appeared settled by the Apostles at that first record of this dispute. And it is then the same group that wanted everyone to "live as Jews' demonstrate what they meant by that for calling Saint Peter out for his dinner guest habits. I don't see how to explain the sequence of events and topics as they are presented to us in the NT Scriptures if we assume this division was ONLY about what is being called "God's Law". The story does not support that these people were making any such distinction.

Indeed, God commanded circumcision, but the only Gentiles who were required to become circumcised were those who were in Abraham's household and those who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb. However, the requirement for all Gentile believers everywhere to become circumcised in order to be saved is not found anywhere in the law, so that is man-made tradition. It was the man-made tradition that Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28 that he violated in Galatians 2:11-14, so the context of living like a Jew is in accordance with their traditions. Peter had been telling Gentiles that they were saved by faith, but by following a man-made tradition his actions were saying that they weren't actually saved, which is why right after that in verse 15 Paul argues again against being justified by keeping their traditions, but by faith.

Note that I said that a number of things in the article were true, not that the article was true, I also think a number of things in the article were false. I agree that Judaizers were a problem and that they fought and lost, but I disagree about what they fought and lost. Paul continued to keep the law (Acts 21:24) and I've found that the NT makes a lot more sense when we interpret him as being in agreement with Psalms 119 and take him at his word that our faith upholds the law (Romans 3:31) and that the OT is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). The bottom line is that the law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, it is equally important for both Jews and Gentiles to have such a conduct (1 John 3:4-10, 1 Peter 1:14-16), and there never was any disagreement in the Bible about whether Gentiles should also have such a conduct.

Soyeong · Oct 8, 2015

Hillsage said:
Two gospels were being preached in the NT.

GAL 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

There is only one way of salvation through the cross, so it was not the message that was different, but the audience.

Paul had the greater vision and weightier truth, and the apostles at Jerusalem had to fight the religious spirit of Judaism. A spirit to which they caved in to.

Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and is the fulfillment of Judaism. It was not the spirit of Judaism that they were fighting, but rather it was the spirit of legalism.

ACT 21:25

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded
that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

That's more of an interpretation than what is included in the text:

http://biblehub.com/text/acts/21-25.htm

In Acts 21:17-26 the point is that Paul was not teaching Jews to forsake Moses, he himself lived in observance of the law, and that he wasn't even teaching Gentiles to forsake Moses.

The "such things" spoken of above, which they said Gentile believers were not to
observe, were "the customs" (21:21) and "the law" (21:24). The
only reason the elders still agreed to hold the Jewish believers under that Yoke of bondage (the Law), was
because they feared the "thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all
zealous of the law:" (21:20).

Sin, which is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), is what puts us in bondage, so how can it be that the law that tells us what sin is (Romans 7:7) also puts us in bondage? We were set free from sin so that we would be free to not sin (aka free to obey the law), not so that we could be free to sin. They were giving glory to God because so many Jews were believing and were zealous for the law. They were zealous for the law because they realized that it was all about the Messiah.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 9, 2015

Soyeong said:
Pirkei Avos:
"Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah."

They traced the oral law back to Moses and would never have considered teaching someone not to work on the Sabbath without also teaching them what it meant to work, so all of that was wrapped up in their concept of what it meant to obey the law of Moses and what they were wanting to require Gentiles to do. This also expresses the same concept saying that if you follow our works of the law, then you will be saved:

4QMMT
Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen [that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel. (p. 364, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation)

So when Paul uses the phrase "works of law", he is not speaking against God's law, but against man-made law. Much of the discussion about the law in the NT is about the way that it should be kept rather than whether it should be kept. For instance, the law was never given for the purpose of becoming justified by keeping it through our own efforts, so Paul was saying that those who were trying legalistically to do that were keeping the law in the wrong way, not that they shouldn't be obeying God's commands. The law was always meant to be kept by faith in a way that built a relationship between God and His people and God always disdained when it was kept legalistically while the hearts of His people were far from Him (Habakkuk 2:4, Isaiah 1:13-17, Isaiah 29:13, Mark 7:6-9)

Many of the ECF said some shockingly anti-Semitic things, so it's only no wonder that the theology that we've inherited from is against keeping God's law. As I said, I think the schism began with the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, so the misunderstanding of the role of the Jews and of the law began early. What we have is many people who misunderstood Paul, did not heed this warning, fell into the error of lawlessness, and then propagated that error through the centuries:

2 Peter 3:14-17 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

Indeed, God commanded circumcision, but the only Gentiles who were required to become circumcised were those who were in Abraham's household and those who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb. However, the requirement for all Gentile believers everywhere to become circumcised in order to be saved is not found anywhere in the law, so that is man-made tradition. It was the man-made tradition that Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28 that he violated in Galatians 2:11-14, so the context of living like a Jew is in accordance with their traditions. Peter had been telling Gentiles that they were saved by faith, but by following a man-made tradition his actions were saying that they weren't actually saved, which is why right after that in verse 15 Paul argues again against being justified by keeping their traditions, but by faith.

Note that I said that a number of things in the article were true, not that the article was true, I also think a number of things in the article were false. I agree that Judaizers were a problem and that they fought and lost, but I disagree about what they fought and lost. Paul continued to keep the law (Acts 21:24) and I've found that the NT makes a lot more sense when we interpret him as being in agreement with Psalms 119 and take him at his word that our faith upholds the law (Romans 3:31) and that the OT is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). The bottom line is that the law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, it is equally important for both Jews and Gentiles to have such a conduct (1 John 3:4-10, 1 Peter 1:14-16), and there never was any disagreement in the Bible about whether Gentiles should also have such a conduct.

I don't see more unsupported claims, opinions, and slander as supporting the ones made earlier. Give us a single 1st or 2nd century Christian writer supporting any of these notions about what occurred. Can't be done, which is sort of why these remain claims and opinions.
No one is arguing people should not be good, which is the essence of God's "natural law, so please do not suggest anyone opposed to these claims and opinions is arguing that we do not have to be good.

Hillsage · Oct 9, 2015

Soyeong said:
There is only one way of salvation through the cross, so it was not the message that was different, but the audience.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm backing my point with scripture. Peter preached a different gospel than Paul. And it was based upon fear of the 'Jewish/circumcision' law loving Christians I pointed out in Acts.

GAL 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel,

Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but rather he was born a Jew, became a Jewish rabbi, had Jewish disciples, is the Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, and is the fulfillment of Judaism. It was not the spirit of Judaism that they were fighting, but rather it was the spirit of legalism.

Maybe my terminology was off but it was still a religious spirit working through Judaism. And as you say part of that was certainly legalism.

But, concerning the OT LAW Jesus broke it by not stoning the adulterous woman and by allowing a woman with an issue of blood to touch him. Both of these were offenses of the law for which Jesus shattered offering grace and truth...and forgiveness and healing.

That's more of an interpretation than what is included in the text:

OK, whatever. But looks like your opinion versus plainly stated scripture still to me.

In Acts 21:17-26 the point is that Paul was not teaching Jews to forsake Moses, he himself lived in observance of the law, and that he wasn't even teaching Gentiles to forsake Moses.

I agree he didn't there in Jerusalem. He caved in to the pressure of Peter and the "zealous for the law" Jewish Christians. An act that I personally think he shouldn't have done. He should have stuck to the guns he pulled in Galatians 2:11 above, but he didn't. I don't fault him, since he wasn't perfect...and 'that' by his own admission.

Sin, which is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), is what puts us in bondage, so how can it be that the law that tells us what sin is (Romans 7:7) also puts us in bondage? We were set free from sin so that we would be free to not sin (aka free to obey the law), not so that we could be free to sin. They were giving glory to God because so many Jews were believing and were zealous for the law.

ROM 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

So if sin is bondage then do the math. The law increased trespasses and sins and therefore BONDAGE.

GAL 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Like I said earlier, when Peter came to where Paul was preaching the 'right' gospel he rebuke Peter because he and his gospel of a mixture of law and grace was not the "grace and truth" gospel Jesus preached. And we have a whole denomination built on Peter proving to all Protestantism the error of 'that' way.

I expect to hear from a "shocked" poster earlier on this thread....now that he really understands what was even said earlier.

They were zealous for the law because they realized that it was all about the Messiah.

No scripture to back that IMO.

DrBubbaLove · Oct 9, 2015

I don't agree a proper understanding of Scripture should result in anyone claiming we can find contradiction or be able to falsely claim it shows us Apostles allegedly preaching

Hillsage said:
"different gospel"

there. The article linked earlier does a very good job at linking the Acts and Galatians stories without having us to imagine Scriptures being in contradiction/conflict or supposing that even though Jesus allowed His Disciples to violate "living as a Jew" He intended all Christians to "live as Jews" in any sense of that phrase or definition of Judaizers.

Soyeong said:
....

Here it is again.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

Who is the church?

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Similar threads