Please provide proof Messianics teach Noachides not to believe Jesus is their Saviour.
Please provide proof UMJC teaches Noachides ar not to accept Jesus as their saviour.
Really haven't seen where the UMJC or Messianics teach at any point that those advocating the Noachides are to not believe in Yeshua as Savior. In fact, for anyone advocating what the Lord noted to Noah in Genesis 9 when it came to universals to all mankind, I've yet to see where it was the case that anyone noting how that applies to Gentiles automatically teaches that Yeshua is not Savior.
Before there was even a concept in Rabbinical Judaism of Noachides (of which MANY - not all - advocated Gentiles didn't need to trust in Yeshua), the concept of the Covenant of Noah was already in place. And logically, one cannot use those advocating the Noahide Laws from Judaism to somehow 'prove' that all Gentiles who are told the Covenant of Noah as laws they're under (counter to those who are Hebrew connected with Mosaic Covenant) must somehow be advocating Christ isn't the savior because of what other Rabbinical Jews noted.
Hiliel noted the issue in regards to the standards Noah was given and how that was what Gentiles were under. It was a well-known school of thought in the world of the Pharisees - and thus,
we have to be honest with the culture.
Acts 15 discusses the assertion by some believers that a man must be circumcised in order to be saved. The conclusion of the Apostles and Elders (Acts 15:20), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was to lay upon the Gentiles only four requirements:
• to avoid fornication
• to avoid idolatry
• to avoid eating blood
• to avoid eating that which is strangled.
As has been noted, these are very similar to the Noahide laws. This does not mean that Gentiles are free to murder, steal, and dishonor their parents. The passage assumes a universal morality, as do Paul, Peter, and James (who were present that day), and John in their writings. As Romans 2 notes, Gentiles can perceive the law of God, even without the revelation of Moses, and are responsible for many standards that are also expressed in the Bible. For example, classic Roman moral law taught the ideals of monogamous marriage, honoring parents, honesty and much
. . . that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell (Acts 15:29).
(1) The prohibition against eating blood is NOT from the Mosaic law. It is from Genesis 9:2-4, which obviously predates Mosaic law. This is a universal prohibition for the entire human race and for all time. (If you try to argue that it is not, you must also argue that the prohibition against murder is not.)
(2) According to Genesis 9:3-4,
blood is not food. It does not say that blood is a forbidden food; it says that blood is not food (for, just as God defined food in Genesis 1:29 as plant matter, here He defines food as plant matter and animal flesh, excluding blood).
(3) Whenever one bleeds an animal killed for meat, he has fulfilled the command of Genesis 9 not to eat meat with the blood. (By the way, eating a rare steak is not sin, as long as the meat was properly bled when it was slaughtered. A small amount of blood always remains in meat even after bleeding. Further, cooking meat so that it no longer appears red does not remove the tiny bit of blood that remains – it simply changes its color.) To put it more precisely, in Genesis 9 God forbids the INTENTIONAL eating of blood – either by extracting blood and drinking it, or by intentionally leaving it in meat slaughtered for consumption. This is because “the life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). There is something fundamentally wrong with eating what still has the life in it. This is related to the whole concept of sacrifice that is so central to Christ’s redeeming work, for in the spilling of blood there is the taking of life. It is also one of the reasons why many pagan religions advocate the eating of blood. There was actually an entire pagan theology of eating one’s enemies in order to absorb their life-force - and that occurred all over the world, especially in Latin American cultures like the Mayans or the Aztecs...
(4) Fornication is also something that God universally prohibits, though it is more difficult to find this in Scripture by chapter and verse. Genesis 2:24 essentially establishes the only context in which sexual relations are approved by God: marriage. This is not a merely Mosaic regulation; it is universally binding on all of mankind. It is clear that God forbids fornication (i.e. sexual immorality – any kind of sex outside of marriage) even among pagans. Again, the prohibition against fornication is not a Mosaic prohibition, but a universal one.
(5) Idolatry is obviously also something that God universally forbids. This hardly needs to be supported (and one can go to Romans 1:22-25 for just one example).
(6) The conclusion is clear.
The four things prohibited in the Acts 15 letter are all NON-MOSAIC, universal regulations. They are, and always have been, universally binding on all humans. They are, however, also strongly emphasized in Mosaic law. Pagan society in the first century was woefully unaware of these universal regulations – except through the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures (hence James’ comment in Acts 15:21). When the Jerusalem church agreed that Mosaic regulations should not be imposed on the Gentile believers, they recognized that with the rejection of Mosaic regulations as binding on Gentile Christians, it might be understood that the prohibitions against idolatry, eating blood, eating strangled meat, and fornication should also be thrown out, as they were only generally known through Mosaic law.
The church was careful to restate these regulations not because they wanted to avoid scandalizing Jewish believers, but because they were and are and always will be universally binding on all mankind. They did not want to appear to be condoning what God had universally condemned.
The only requirement placed on the Gentile believers was that they “abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is
strangled and from fornication” (verse 25). The problem seems to be in what the Jerusalem Council did not say about Jewish practice. The Jerusalem elders probably clarified the fact that Jewish Christians could continue to keep the law, not as a means to salvation, but as an expression of love and obedience.
They could delight in the law, not because it gave them any merit or standing before God, but because it had been fulfilled in Christ, and because they were now righteous in God’s sight. The standards of righteousness which the law upheld were now no longer a cause of fear, but the basis for rejoicing and worship. They once were frustrated by their own failure to fulfill the laws demands, but now they rejoiced because Christ had fulfilled the entire law and they were not under the curse. And the kingdom to which the Old Testament saint looked forward was a certainty, which Jewish and Gentile saints would receive together (see
Hebrews 11:39-40).
Paul’s very strong words in the Book of Galatians were addressed to those who would impose the law and law-keeping on Gentile believers, not toward those who were true believers and who wished, as Jewish Christians, to continue to live in accordance with the law and to observe Old Testament rituals. It was one (damnable) thing for Judaisers to insist that Gentile saints must keep the law in order to be saved, and quite another for Jewish Christians to keep the law because they were saved. Even Gentiles were not turned away from the law, but were enabled to fulfill its requirements:
Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit .
One cannot have it both ways when trying to say "Advocating Noahide laws is against Christ!!!!!" because of what other Rabbinical Jews have done....and yet still advocate trying to walk according to 1st century Judaism itself since many of the same things others against the Noahide laws approve of are also utilized by Jews who don't believe in Yeshua.....in fact, many of the customs advocated by those in Messianic Judaism (i.e. Rabbinical studies, Kosher, Talmud, Biblical Feasts celebrated, etc.) are done by others who advocate that Christ is NOT to be believed in.
If we don't go the entire way, then what's show is that one is being selective.
But even apart from that, there's still the larger issue that seems to not be addressed...and that's the fact that the use of the term "Dual Covenant" doesn't seem to be used in it's proper context. For the concept itself was originally used to apply to others advocating the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was sufficient for one to connect with God - and that Jews who denied Yeshua but claimed allegiance to the Law of Moses would be able to have salvation since the Mosaic Law is seen as the final revelation of the Lord.