Do you wear a tallit in church?

[Frogster]

'Latter rain' in Hebrew is 'moreh tzedek.' It can be translated as 'teacher of righteousness.'

did u notice he did not refute the text that says it was for the jews?

 

[Yitzchak]

you are really misiusing Abraham..ok, go ahead, rom 4, rom 9, gal 3, gal 4 show me in any of Paul where he is not using Abraham to ward off law.

lol..you quote james, yet he said no law for the churches in Acts 15, and said not to burden the church.

now lets have a thought for thought coherent conversation, post text where Paul is not using Abraham to ward off law, circumcision, judaism, nationalism, race etc..

give me 1..1..1 verse where he is not warding off one or more of those things, just 1... please.

I am heading out the door so one verse for now.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

In case you missed it , that command is from the law. Paul says it comes with a promised blessing and applies it to the New testament Church at Ephesus.

 

[Frogster]

I am heading out the door so one verse for now.




In case you missed it , that command is from the law. Paul says it comes with a promised blessing and applies it to the New testament Church at Ephesus.

are you going to show me how i was wrong about who the feasts were for, or are u going to act like a verse where paul was talking to former decadant pagans, who were doing awful things, in 4-5 means that he is binding them to the mosaic code?

So what? he quoted the law? you are prooftexting all paul taught, just because he told those pagans, who were reverting backwards, not to hit their parents, something they did in those days, like somehow he means he is binding them to law. And what would that have to do with feasts, or food stuff or tallits, or trying to get the spirit by those things, as per the OP?

yes, fine, we don't want to beat up our parents.

please give me more than this please.

 

[Frogster]

I am heading out the door so one verse for now.




In case you missed it , that command is from the law. Paul says it comes with a promised blessing and applies it to the New testament Church at Ephesus.

And as far as the church at ephesus and u quoting law, he also told pastor timothy not to let those law teachers come around in 1 Tim 1, he said the law is not for the justified in that chapter, so lets go by the whole of the teaching, and he also told tim it is a doctrine of demons to force this stuff on the church, in chapter 4.


1 tim 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,


EPHESUS...you have to understand he is talking to an elder, a mature person, but in the mean time yeah, he told the babes not to hit their parents in Eph 6, you have to know each scriptural application, and to whom he was talking.

1 Tim 4:4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

 

[Yitzchak]

'Latter rain' in Hebrew is 'moreh tzedek.' It can be translated as 'teacher of righteousness.'

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Hebrew for this passage uses Lo Geshem.

Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

I think you are referring to Joel and I think that you mean the phrase "former rain moderately". Later rain is Malkosh.

Joe 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Hebrew for this passage uses Lo Geshem.







I think you are referring to Joel and I think that you mean the phrase "former rain moderately". Later rain is Malkosh.

My mistake. 'Former rain' not 'latter rain.'

Joel 2:23 'moreh l'tzedekah' can be translated 'teacher of righteousness.'

 

[Yitzchak]

So what? he quoted the law? you are prooftexting all paul taught, just because he told those pagans, who were reverting backwards, not to hit their parents, something they did in those days, like somehow he means he is binding them to law. And what would that have to do with feasts, or food stuff or tallits, or trying to get the spirit by those things, as per the OP?

yes, fine, we don't want to beat up our parents.

please give me more than this please.

The text in Ephesians does not say... " children do not beat up your parents because it is common sense to refrain from beating them. "

The text in Ephesians refers to one of the Ten Commandments which Moses received. It is very specifically one of the commandments from the law. Not only that , Paul refers to a blessing which God promised to Israel which comes from keeping that particular commandment.In this verse Paul instructs that a blessing will come to children in the Christian church who keep this commandment from the law.

From the law...

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Paul writing to the Church at Ephesus.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

You asked for one verse showing where Paul does not speak about the law negatively. In the verse I provided , Paul not only quotes the law , he recommends following it to obtain a blessing and not only that he recommends it to Christians at the Church in Ephesus.

As for what that has to do with the opening post , that was not the question I was answering in my post. I was answering your question which asked for a single verse where Paul does not attack the law.





Regarding the opening post , I think your reasoning is flawed. As I stated earlier , concerning people wearing a tallit and those people ascribing an anointing to a tallit. That does not fall under the category of Legalism which the bible speaks about. It really has very little to do with it. Keeping kosher or keeping the feasts. Again that has nothing to do with being legalistic. The irony is that true legalism has to do with an attitude and not with the outward action. The focus upon judging based upon the outward in the opening post is somewhat ironic since it is coming from a legalistic perspective.

Also , one disturbing flaw in the reasoning of your post is that you seem to begin with the false premise that all things Jewish and all things which were in the law are automatically legalistic and wrong. You classify keeping God's commands as fleshly works and legalism. Paul never taught us to be anti Jewish or to be anti law. Antinominism is identified by the Historic church as a heresy.

Question: "What is antinomianism?"

Answer: The word antinomianism comes from two Greek words, anti, meaning "against"; and nomos, meaning "law." Antinomianism means “against the law.” Theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey. Antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion. The biblical teaching is that Christians are not required to observe the Old Testament Law as a means of salvation. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament Law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). The unbiblical conclusion is that there is no moral law God expects Christians to obey.

What is antinomianism?


From the dictionary , antinomianism...

1. Theology The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace.
2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal.

The passage cited in Ephesians provides the accurate blessing which results form keeping that particular commandment. Long life. It does not promise children salvation on the basis of keeping that commandment. Nor does it promise to sanctify or make one holy. It simply promises long life.

 

[Yitzchak]

My mistake. 'Former rain' not 'latter rain.'

Joel 2:23 'moreh l'tzedekah' can be translated 'teacher of righteousness.'

It is certainly a mystery verse in the Hebrew. Moreh is the word for teacher , no doubt there.


The word yoreh means early rain as it does in Deuteronomy.

Deu 11:14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

Hos 6:3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

 

[Yitzchak]

who do the verses say it was for, jews or gentiles?

i await.

I am not sure I understand your question. But if what you are asking is who keeps the feast of Sukkot in Zechariah 14 , it is the gentiles and the Jews.

The Hebrew word for heathen in this verse is Goyim which means non Jews. better known in English as Gentiles.

Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The next verse mentions Egypt but also uses the same Hebrew word again goyim. This time it is translated as nations. The word nations in this verse is actually the word gentiles. The phrase is "kol Goyim" which means literally " all gentiles ".

Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

The prophecy in this passage states that all gentiles will be commanded to keep the feast.

 

[Yitzchak]

you are really misusing Abraham..ok, go ahead, rom 4, rom 9, gal 3, gal 4 show me in any of Paul where he is not using Abraham to ward off law.

lol..you quote james, yet he said no law for the churches in Acts 15, and said not to burden the church.

now lets have a thought for thought, with all due respect, coherent conversation please, post text where Paul is not using Abraham to ward off law, circumcision, judaism, nationalism, race etc..

give me 1..1..1 verse where he is not warding off one or more of those things, just 1... please.

Are you laughing at the book of James or at me or just randomly laughing ? Do you teach some strange heresy that James is not scripture ? I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say here ?

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

By the way , in regards to Acts 15. I do not see murder or rape or stealing on this list. Is your position that Gentiles may commit all sins except for the ones specifically on this list ?

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Also , if you do believe that Gentiles have to follow some moral laws then what is the source of the moral law that you think Gentiles should follow ? What makes the list and what does not and on what basis ? Unless you are really teaching that the law for Gentiles is limited to just these , then there must be some code or law or something.

One more question. And this one is a biggie. If placing any law upon a Christian is so wrong and so dangerous , then how are the apostles justified in placing upon the Gentiles these laws listed in Acts 15?

If your position is that trying to keep or force anyone to keep any law or commandment places a person under a curse and endangers the Gospel , then how is it consistent for the Apostles to place upon the gentiles , these four which are from the law? By your teaching this should not happen. This passage should read , " we cannot place any of the law upon the Gentiles and so we will not place upon them even these four. "... Apparently the apostles did not have the same interpretation of Paul's Theology that you do. Because in Acts 15 they found it consistent to place upon the Gentiles these four from the law of Moses.

 

[Frogster]

The text in Ephesians does not say... " children do not beat up your parents because it is common sense to refrain from beating them. "

The text in Ephesians refers to one of the Ten Commandments which Moses received. It is very specifically one of the commandments from the law. Not only that , Paul refers to a blessing which God promised to Israel which comes from keeping that particular commandment.In this verse Paul instructs that a blessing will come to children in the Christian church who keep this commandment from the law.

From the law...



Paul writing to the Church at Ephesus.






You asked for one verse showing where Paul does not speak about the law negatively. In the verse I provided , Paul not only quotes the law , he recommends following it to obtain a blessing and not only that he recommends it to Christians at the Church in Ephesus.

As for what that has to do with the opening post , that was not the question I was answering in my post. I was answering your question which asked for a single verse where Paul does not attack the law.





Regarding the opening post , I think your reasoning is flawed. As I stated earlier , concerning people wearing a tallit and those people ascribing an anointing to a tallit. That does not fall under the category of Legalism which the bible speaks about. It really has very little to do with it. Keeping kosher or keeping the feasts. Again that has nothing to do with being legalistic. The irony is that true legalism has to do with an attitude and not with the outward action. The focus upon judging based upon the outward in the opening post is somewhat ironic since it is coming from a legalistic perspective.

Also , one disturbing flaw in the reasoning of your post is that you seem to begin with the false premise that all things Jewish and all things which were in the law are automatically legalistic and wrong. You classify keeping God's commands as fleshly works and legalism. Paul never taught us to be anti Jewish or to be anti law. Antinominism is identified by the Historic church as a heresy.





What is antinomianism?


From the dictionary , antinomianism...




The passage cited in Ephesians provides the accurate blessing which results form keeping that particular commandment. Long life. It does not promise children salvation on the basis of keeping that commandment. Nor does it promise to sanctify or make one holy. It simply promises long life.

Excuse me, but u misquote me, and did not answer. I asked for 1...1..verse from paul using Abraham...where he was not warding off law, judaism, race, circumcision, etc, and you can't or wont.


now lets not play the antinominan card, because the answer to sin is grace, in fact Rom 6:14 says sin will have dominon under law, 1 cor 15:56 the power of sin is the law, Rom 7:5 sinful passions were by law etc, so really law pushing is sin pushing,. Was the law added to take away sin, or increase it?

Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

so we need to be careful when we start dragging out that tired old word, that they used against Paul, Pom 3:8

 

[Frogster]

Are you laughing at the book of James or at me or just randomly laughing ? Do you teach some strange heresy that James is not scripture ? I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say here ?




By the way , in regards to Acts 15. I do not see murder or rape or stealing on this list. Is your position that Gentiles may commit all sins except for the ones specifically on this list ?






Also , if you do believe that Gentiles have to follow some moral laws then what is the source of the moral law that you think Gentiles should follow ? What makes the list and what does not and on what basis ? Unless you are really teaching that the law for Gentiles is limited to just these , then there must be some code or law or something.

One more question. And this one is a biggie. If placing any law upon a Christian is so wrong and so dangerous , then how are the apostles justified in placing upon the Gentiles these laws listed in Acts 15?

If your position is that trying to keep or force anyone to keep any law or commandment places a person under a curse and endangers the Gospel , then how is it consistent for the Apostles to place upon the gentiles , these four which are from the law? By your teaching this should not happen. This passage should read , " we cannot place any of the law upon the Gentiles and so we will not place upon them even these four. "... Apparently the apostles did not have the same interpretation of Paul's Theology that you do. Because in Acts 15 they found it consistent to place upon the Gentiles these four from the law of Moses.

Well lets face it, Acts 15 clearly meant no circumcision, no judaism, no sabbath or festivals for the churches. How am i wrong? And please stop acting like I was laughing at James. i was laughing at how there was such an obvious rebuttal there, to your premise.

And anyway, as far as the letter, it was regional, just to some churches that were mixing and there were confrontations of jew and gentiles, paul later told em in Corinth eat everything in the decadent corinth meat markets, that stuff was unclean idol meat, had blood, strangled, they sold pork too. They were just glad it was not conversion to Judaism, the meeting was major, and very important in church history, so yeah, don't freak out the jews with the food stuff for a while. Acts 15 was about the weak conscience of the jews there, but it was not universal law for the church. You have to really understand the history, and what was going on, and to whom was what was written and why.

So in the same way you missed it about Ephesus, and how Paul told Timothy keep out the law boys, and no doctrine of demons, you need to know Acts 15 also.

Thanks.

I covered the moral issue in the previous post, and it was not moral by law, or the cross was not needed, grace is the power over sin, rom 5, not law.

 

[Frogster]

I am not sure I understand your question. But if what you are asking is who keeps the feast of Sukkot in Zechariah 14 , it is the gentiles and the Jews.

The Hebrew word for heathen in this verse is Goyim which means non Jews. better known in English as Gentiles.






The next verse mentions Egypt but also uses the same Hebrew word again goyim. This time it is translated as nations. The word nations in this verse is actually the word gentiles. The phrase is "kol Goyim" which means literally " all gentiles ".




The prophecy in this passage states that all gentiles will be commanded to keep the feast.

Again, Zech 14 is up to ones eschatalogical interp, but it is about subjugation to feasts, totally going against NT theology to force that stuff on the church..

Besides, why did scripture say this, when they started getting under the Jewish calendar? Waste od time.


Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

 

[Frogster]

Are you laughing at the book of James or at me or just randomly laughing ? Do you teach some strange heresy that James is not scripture ? I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say here ?




By the way , in regards to Acts 15. I do not see murder or rape or stealing on this list. Is your position that Gentiles may commit all sins except for the ones specifically on this list ?






Also , if you do believe that Gentiles have to follow some moral laws then what is the source of the moral law that you think Gentiles should follow ? What makes the list and what does not and on what basis ? Unless you are really teaching that the law for Gentiles is limited to just these , then there must be some code or law or something.

One more question. And this one is a biggie. If placing any law upon a Christian is so wrong and so dangerous , then how are the apostles justified in placing upon the Gentiles these laws listed in Acts 15?

If your position is that trying to keep or force anyone to keep any law or commandment places a person under a curse and endangers the Gospel , then how is it consistent for the Apostles to place upon the gentiles , these four which are from the law? By your teaching this should not happen. This passage should read , " we cannot place any of the law upon the Gentiles and so we will not place upon them even these four. "... Apparently the apostles did not have the same interpretation of Paul's Theology that you do. Because in Acts 15 they found it consistent to place upon the Gentiles these four from the law of Moses.

Ok, i got a biggie for u now.

Why were all the Jewish Christians in Antioch living as Gentiles?

 

[lismore]

so we need to be careful when we start dragging out that tired old word, that they used against Paul, Pom 3:8

But frog you didn't answer Yitzak's point about the reference in Ephesians.

 

[Steve Petersen]

But frog you didn't answer Yitzak's point about the reference in Ephesians.

<Froggy hops to another lillypad>

 

[Yitzchak]

But frog you didn't answer Yitzak's point about the reference in Ephesians.

I did not misquote Frog or misunderstand his question, by the way. I simply and intentionally rephrased his question to get to the main point based upon his other posts. His question about Paul and how Paul sees Abraham rests within the greater context of Frog's teaching that Paul is anti law and anti Jewish. Within that Context , Frog is saying that Paul uses the example of Abraham to teach against the law. Which of course is false.

Not only is it not true that the example of Abraham teaches against the law , it is also not true that Paul is anti law in a more general sense.

Take Proverbs 28:9 as an example. Does God hate prayer ? Of course not. What God hates is prayer done in the wrong attitude. As we can see in this passage God speaks highly of the law. But to get out of this passage that God is putting down prayer would be wrong. It is only prayer within this context that God is against.

God detests the prayers of a person who ignores the law.

There are many such examples in scripture where God speaks in a negative sense about something which is normally seen as a blessing and even something which God has commended us to do.

Take Matthew 6:15 as another example. Is this passage saying that God is unwilling to forgive ? Of course not. It is a conditional statement. God desires to forgive us. God is always willing to forgive.

But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Since there is no basic agreement upon the overall concept , there is not point to skip right to arguments about the passage in Romans chapter four.
But with the context properly laid that God speaks highly of the law as something good , these passages such as Romans 4 are given to instruct concerning the misuse of the law with a wrong attitude which turns something good into something despised by God. Just like the passage about prayer in proverbs.

It is as though some think that the Devil somehow slipped in and gave the law to Israel. But the Scripture teaches that God gave the law to Israel. God does not tempt with evil. The law is good. This is the clear teaching of scripture.


The law of circumcision is given within the context of Covenant. It is a covenant entered into by faith and the circumcision is a command of God. Something good.

Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

In Romans 4 , God corrects some errors which Israel has entered into regarding the covenant and the law. This is the context of Romans 4. Not an anti law God who is somehow double minded and now suddenly regrets giving the law and the circumcision as though it was some sort of mistake that God made. Of course not.

Notice that in Romans four , it begins with the premise that the Jews can and already have have been blessed with the blessing of Abraham. It then makes the point that the Gentiles can also be blessed the same way. Notice the word also in this verse. Attention to detail here will notice that the word also is a connecting word which connects the blessing of Abraham given already to the Jews as also applying equally to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace was first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles as Jesus says.

Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

Then the passage continues. Notice the phrase righteousness counted to them as well. Counted to them as well assumes the premise that it was already counted to those who entered into the sign of circumcision because they were in faith.

Rom 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

The error that many in Israel made was they focused upon the sign and not upon the faith that the sign was meant to show. They actually violated what the circumcision stood for but kept the outward sign. There was nothing wrong with the sign of circumcision. The sign became detestable in the context of those who were unfaithful.

In the same way that a wedding ring is a sign of love and faithfulness and the covenant promise between a man and his wife. If a spouse unfaithful and does not love their spouse , even their wedding ring which is a good sign of the covenant becomes detestable to the other spouse. It becomes a mockery. I can remember how glad I was when my ex wife changed her last name because she remarried. I did not look upon her having my name as a good thing any more after her being unfaithful.

God himself does not want us to carry his name in vain. Nor does he want us to bear a sign of the Covenant when we have not kept the basis that the covenant stands upon. Which is faith.

Exo 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

To make an analogy and put it in terms which we can understand, God would rather have a faithful bride without a wedding ring and wearing blue jeans rather than to have an unfaithful bride who is all proper outwardly.

God is still interested in the circumcision. But He is after the circumcision of the heart. When the outward reflects an inner reality , it is a beautiful thing. But when the outward is a mockery of something which is not true , it becomes something detested. This passion of God's heart is what is behind the passage which speak of the law and circumcision as something negative.


Continuing with the Romans four passage. Here Paul brings the point home and makes it so blunt , that it cannot be misunderstood. Don't think that you can trust in the law to entice God to grant you righteousness. God is after your heart and his promise of righteousness is received by faith.

Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

It is amazing to me that someone would see the focus of this passage as being anti law. The focus is upon God's promise and upon faith.

 

[someguy14]

as far as all things pure, you might want to understand the context a bit..


titus 1:12 One of the Cretans,[h] a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons".13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.

Romasn 8:38-39
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[someguy14]

Of course not. Nor do I slaughter animals as part of my worship. I am grateful to be a Gentile and do not want to be a Hebrew. Christ has freed me from such religious rites and broken down the middle wall of partition (the Law) that separated me from Jewish people.

Rejecting murder is ok though.
God is all good. Who disagrees...

 

[someguy14]

Pastor Paul would be proud of pastor Jim.

A gentile...A hebrew...Paul has declared all as one.
Carnality will disagree, but fighting against whether one is hebrew or greek is against even Pauls writtings.