Common Questions and Objections Regarding the Sabbath Refuted

[ananda]

Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Paul was taught this by Gamaliel and had to have had it in the uppermost of his mind during the debates at the council of Jerusalem. Both Paul and Gamaliel were Pharisees who indeed were bound by the Mishnah Torah. There is no way around it. There is simply no way in light of this that Paul or any of the other Early Church Leaders would have EVER institute a Sabbath requirement on Gentile Christians. That would have simply been impossible. The Decree of the Council of Jerusalem flatly refused to institute Sabbath Keeping or any other Mosaic Law ordinance on the Gentile Christian converts. In light of these excerpts from the Mishnah Torah, any argument contrariwise is just not rational. Paul and the other Apostles, the Gentile Christians and the Early Church Fathers did not have the luxury of declaring themselves to be Messianic Jews and ignoring the Mishnah Torah.

I agree: Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, and they bound themselves under their Oral Torah.

However, with that said, you cannot extend Paul's obligations to bind the hands of the Apostles, the latter not being Pharisees.

 

[LarryP2]

I agree: Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, and they bound themselves under their Oral Torah.

However, with that said, you cannot extend Paul's obligations to bind the hands of the Apostles, the latter not being Pharisees.

Paul was the most learned Apostle when it came to the Jewish Law. He was a member of the Sanhedrin and was taught by the foremost legal Mishnah Torah expert of the time, Gamaliel. He obviously argued for and convinced the Council of Jerusalem NOT to inflict the Mosaic Law on the Gentile Christian converts. In my studies of the First and Second century Church Fathers and the Apostles, I can find not one single piece of evidence suggesting that ANYONE ever suggested adding onto the Decree that was issued in AD 50. The wording of the Torah Mishnah shows why.

There is a 100 percent chance that the Gentile Christians NEVER kept the Sabbath and NEVER kept any other part of the Mosaic Law. That is precisely what the Eastern Orthodox Church has been arguing for 2,000 years: That Gentile Christians from year one after the Resurrection commemorated the Resurrection on Sundays and at the one year anniversary at Easter. They never kept the Sabbath or the Jewish food laws.

Eastern Orthodoxy's unrebutted claims has powerful extrinsic support in the deceitful history of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and Ellen White. No Seventh Day Adventist literature has EVER mentioned the EO's claims, let alone addressed them, let alone refuted them. EO's claims are 100 percent consistent with the Mishnah Torah, Acts 15 in light of the written Torah that I have already demonstrated, the Didache and the Epistles of Paul. And I have demonstrated on another thread that Ellen White, while plagiarizing from Wylie's "History of the Protestant Reformation," could not have missed Easter Orthodoxy's claims, nor could she have missed Wylie's description of the growing feud between the Roman Pope and the Eastern Churches. The Great Controversy is a colossal fraud without one ounce of historical support for any of its claims. But its deliberate acts of omission demonstrate that the SDA pioneers and Ellen White knew EXACTLY how potent and proven those claims actually were. They made great and obvious effort to conceal this information from the Church membership. They literally had Wylie's book open right in front of them, and chose to deceive the Church membership by never mentioning what they knew about the Eastern Orthodox claims in any of their literature.

 

[Frogster]

I agree: Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, and they bound themselves under their Oral Torah.

However, with that said, you cannot extend Paul's obligations to bind the hands of the Apostles, the latter not being Pharisees.

Perspective on "pharisee" paul.



Phil 3, he called it all poop, and he spoke of his being a pharisee there, and his law life, Phil 3 was written late in his career, possibly near death, he spoke of his death, from prison, well after the Acts 23 account..

Don't get confused about Acts 23, being of a pharisee there, he just meant of that belief system about the resurrection, which we see became the argument there big time, Paul was just saying, "hey, I agree with you pharisees, not you saducees on the resurrection belief". That was the context. Yes, I too believe in the resurrection, just like the pharisees. Most here on the forum do.

Paul also spoke of his former life in Judaism, in Gal 1. Paul could not be an apostle to the gentiles, and live as a pharisee, it would not work.

 

[Frogster]

I agree: Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, and they bound themselves under their Oral Torah.

However, with that said, you cannot extend Paul's obligations to bind the hands of the Apostles, the latter not being Pharisees.

Not only that, just like how a retired doctor, will always have his things he learned, well, same with Paul, he could not erase the fact that he knew the doctrine, just like how the retired doctor will say, "I am a doctor", even though not practicing, he still knows about medical things, he can't erase his memory, he knows what he knows... still, years later. Paul, years later knew about the resurrection and believed in it.

He later stressed that this whole legal battle he was in in upper Acts, was about the resurrection, he said that in Acts, he knew the resurrected Christ, proved Him to be the messaiah!

So Acts 23, and the resurrection, and 24, 25, and chapter 26, and his belief in the resurrection, were integral to his defense. And the resurrection he preached was the real reason he was on trial, Paul said so, the Jews just used the greek in the temple issue to try to kill Paul.

All this confirms his point in Acts 23, he was of the same belief system, on the resurrection, the same as the pharisees, that is all he was saying. But he was not a practicing pharisee then.

 

[Frogster]

Exactly.

What is your "everyday Sabbath" a rest from?

I disagree. YHVH's Law has always welcomed faithful Gentiles: "One Torah-law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." - Ex 12:49 cf Lev 24:22, Num 15:15,16, Num 15:29. Gentiles left Egypt with Israel, Gentiles sojourned with Israel by Mount Sinai when the commandments were received, and Gentiles entered into the land with Israel. We believe that Messiah (in Mt 28:18-20) was simply repeating this open invitation to Gentiles that has always existed.

It would be subjugation though, they had to be snipped, become jewish, to keep the passover. Eo your "welcomed" word, needs a little definition.

Jesus also said, of the Jews, the kingdom will be taken from the law people, and given to non law gentiles in Matt 21, quoting the stumbling bloch rejected stone text.


Jesus is the law stumbling block, when the Jews tried to come to him by law, Jesus said it, Paul and Peter too. So there is a juxtaposition with coming to the Lord, and law.

So there goes fusing law with Christ, if one tries to come to Him by law, he stumbles.

 

[Frogster]

This "process" you describe is part of Orthodox-Conservative Judaism, and not generally part of Messianic Judaism.

I disagree, on the basis of Acts 15:21. No initial burden was to be given to Gentile converts except for abstaining from foods offered to idols, from fornication, from strangled meat-foods, and from ingesting blood. After that, the Gentile converts were expected to learn what else the Law required when they attended synagogue (Ac 15:21).

If, on the other hand, this list of four requirements were to be the only requirements for Gentile converts, then we should celebrate that we can worship other gods, be false witnesses, dishonor our parents, etc.?

(I wonder how many Gentile converts today follow Acts 15:20?)

What a strestch to think they went intot the gogues after the council meeting.

Where does it say they attended the gogues, that would have the influence of judaizing the disciples, the very reasom Paul wnet to Jerusalem to end? why have them go to the synagogues, to get rejudaized after the meeting?

They were glad they did not have to get snipped.

Verse 1 and 5, say snipped, keep the law of Moses, that is a fact, the council said not to do that, and Peter and james said not to trouble the church or burden it with that yoke, so to try and say they went to the gogues is totally against the thoughts and lessons learned in Acts 15, by Paul's victory recorded in Acts 15.

Context!

 

[Frogster]

This "process" you describe is part of Orthodox-Conservative Judaism, and not generally part of Messianic Judaism.

I disagree, on the basis of Acts 15:21. No initial burden was to be given to Gentile converts except for abstaining from foods offered to idols, from fornication, from strangled meat-foods, and from ingesting blood. After that, the Gentile converts were expected to learn what else the Law required when they attended synagogue (Ac 15:21).

If, on the other hand, this list of four requirements were to be the only requirements for Gentile converts, then we should celebrate that we can worship other gods, be false witnesses, dishonor our parents, etc.?

(I wonder how many Gentile converts today follow Acts 15:20?)

James was just saying don't freak out the Jews, it's just that simple, later paul said eat all of that stuff in corinth anyway.

The Jewish Christians in Antioch were living as gentiles.

The letter was regional, just to certain churches, not universal law, read JB Lightfoot on that issue.

 

[Frogster]

Exactly.

What is your "everyday Sabbath" a rest from?

I disagree. YHVH's Law has always welcomed faithful Gentiles: "One Torah-law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." - Ex 12:49 cf Lev 24:22, Num 15:15,16, Num 15:29. Gentiles left Egypt with Israel, Gentiles sojourned with Israel by Mount Sinai when the commandments were received, and Gentiles entered into the land with Israel. We believe that Messiah (in Mt 28:18-20) was simply repeating this open invitation to Gentiles that has always existed.

Red above, Then why this? What is all of this "welcomed" stuff?

Psalm 147
19 He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules[c] to Israel.
20 He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules.[d]
Praise the Lord!

 

[ananda]

... Torah Mishnah ... There is a 100 percent chance that the Gentile Christians NEVER kept the Sabbath and NEVER kept any other part of the Mosaic Law. That is precisely what the Eastern Orthodox Church has been arguing for 2,000 years...

I won't disagree with you on this. "Torah Mishnah" and Paul's Sanhedrin belongs to a religion different than the one I practice. Though perhaps Gentile Christians (pro-Paulines) may not have kept Sabbath or the Law, Gentile Messianics (non-Paulines) kept both.

 

[LarryP2]

I won't disagree with you on this. "Torah Mishnah" and Paul's Sanhedrin belongs to a religion different than the one I practice. Though perhaps Gentile Christians (pro-Paulines) may not have kept Sabbath or the Law, Gentile Messianics (non-Paulines) kept both.

I have no doubt that a few "Gentile Messianics" may have undergone the full conversion process to Judaism and kept the Sabbath and the Law. Throughout the history of the Mosaic Law, it is very clear that Gentiles were allowed to convert and be subject to, and receive the blessing of the Mosaic Law. But the Mosaic law emphatically emphasizes that non-converts are prohibited from any part of the Mosaic Law and were specifically under the 7 Commandments of the Noahide laws.

Which prohibit nearly ALL of the same things prohibited by the Ten Commandments. I have included a link to the interpretations that Mosaic Law experts made of the Noahide Law and it is clear they were enforced very strictly against Gentiles living in Israelite lands.

http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Maimonides'_Law_of_Noahides
http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Noahide_Law_as_International_Law
http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Noahide_Law

 

[ananda]

... Mosaic law emphatically emphasizes that non-converts are prohibited from any part of the Mosaic Law and were specifically under the 7 Commandments of the Noahide laws ... I have included a link to the interpretations that Mosaic Law experts made of the Noahide Law and it is clear they were enforced very strictly against Gentiles living in Israelite lands.

This is irrelevant to my faith, as these "Mosaic law experts" and "Noahide Law" you are quoting and referring to are part of and interpretations of another religion (Orthodox-Rabbinical Judaism) which I disagree with and have no part with. We have no dispute here.

 

[LarryP2]

This is irrelevant to my faith, as these "Mosaic law experts" and "Noahide Law" you are quoting and referring to are part of and interpretations of another religion (Orthodox-Rabbinical Judaism) which I disagree with and have no part with. We have no dispute here.

And again, you certainly have that luxury. The Apostles and Gentile Christians living in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin had no such option. The Mosaic and Noahide laws were enforced by the Sanhedrin with much exuberance and savage brutality. All with the tacit approval of the Romans, who could be depended upon to assist the Sanhedrin with utmost dispach: Re: Trial and Execution of Jesus Christ.

This is all outlined in some detail in Flavius Josephus's "Antiquities of the Jews."

 

[ananda]

And again, you certainly have that luxury. The Apostles and Gentile Christians living in the areas under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin had no such option. The Mosaic and Noahide laws were enforced by the Sanhedrin with much exuberance and savage brutality. All with the tacit approval of the Romans, who could be depended upon to assist the Sanhedrin with utmost dispach: Re: Trial and Execution of Jesus Christ.

Although the Apostles and Gentile Messianics lived in the area which the extant sanhedrin claimed jurisdiction over (and, indeed, exerted this control through force of arms and the support of the Romans), the Apostles and Messianics were in reality outside their claimed jurisdiction. I claim that the latter left this false jurisdiction to return to the renewed (and true) jurisdiction, under the Master, Messiah Himself, and none other. Thus they were persecuted, because they refused to submit to their claimed (and invalid) jurisdiction.

For example, I might live in an area (diocese) that the local Roman Catholic bishop claims jurisdiction over, but I am not under his jurisdiction.

 

[Frogster]

I won't disagree with you on this. "Torah Mishnah" and Paul's Sanhedrin belongs to a religion different than the one I practice. Though perhaps Gentile Christians (pro-Paulines) may not have kept Sabbath or the Law, Gentile Messianics (non-Paulines) kept both.[/QUOTE]

Red above, the Jewish christians in Antioch were living as gentiles, easily proved in Gal 2.

Besides, though Acts 15 was for the most part about gentiles, Peter said not to burden the "disciples" with the torah yoke, there were both parties in said churches, and the disciple word in Acts, by the time it is used in chapter 15, was inclusive to both parties, as a word. Walvoort's coomentary or one of those guys pointed that out in a commentary, and it fits, Peter said faith and grace, no distinction for both parties.

So what is applied to greeks, would now apply to jews, that is a fact.

 

[Frogster]

Although the Apostles and Gentile Messianics lived in the area which the extant sanhedrin claimed jurisdiction over (and, indeed, exerted this control through force of arms and the support of the Romans), the Apostles and Messianics were in reality outside their claimed jurisdiction. I claim that the latter left this false jurisdiction to return to the renewed (and true) jurisdiction, under the Master, Messiah Himself, and none other. Thus they were persecuted, because they refused to submit to their claimed (and invalid) jurisdiction.

For example, I might live in an area (diocese) that the local Roman Catholic bishop claims jurisdiction over, but I am not under his jurisdiction.

But they all forced, and wanted circumcison, so really it would not matter, those who COMPEL you to be circumcised Gal 6. Or the ones from James gal 2, or the ones from his church, he said they came from his church in Acts 15, they came from judea, his church, compelled judaism via circumcsion, so in the end, not that big of an issue really.

 

[LarryP2]

Although the Apostles and Gentile Messianics lived in the area which the extant sanhedrin claimed jurisdiction over (and, indeed, exerted this control through force of arms and the support of the Romans), the Apostles and Messianics were in reality outside their claimed jurisdiction. I claim that the latter left this false jurisdiction to return to the renewed (and true) jurisdiction, under the Master, Messiah Himself, and none other. Thus they were persecuted, because they refused to submit to their claimed (and invalid) jurisdiction.

For example, I might live in an area (diocese) that the local Roman Catholic bishop claims jurisdiction over, but I am not under his jurisdiction.

There is no comparison with jurisdiction of a Catholic Bishop over you (which as you say is nonexistent unless you are a Catholic), versus what the Sanhedrin had over the Apostles. The Sanhedrin had total legal jurisdiction over ALL Jews and Gentiles living in their geographical area. It was a jurisdiction granted to it by their Roman occupiers, who greatly assisted them in enforcing it. As one trained in the Law, I am compelled to stick with how things actually are, versus the way they should be. And so did the Apostles, according ot everything I have read. The Acts of the Apostles are FULL of stories about the Apostles being persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Never ONCE did the Apostles argue that the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction over them. The Apostles clearly submitted themselves to the Sanhedrin and the Romans and acted accordingly when they were brought up on charges.

I can see no evidence whatsoever at any time that the Apostles thought or acted as if the Sanhedrin lacked jurisdiction over them while they were in the geographical area that was controlled by it.

 

[ananda]

There is no comparison with jurisdiction of a Catholic Bishop over you (which as you say is nonexistent unless you are a Catholic), versus what the Sanhedrin had over the Apostles. The Sanhedrin had total legal jurisdiction over ALL Jews and Gentiles living in their geographical area. It was a jurisdiction granted to it by their Roman occupiers, who greatly assisted them in enforcing it. As one trained in the Law, I am compelled to stick with how things actually are, versus the way they should be. And so did the Apostles, according ot everything I have read. The Acts of the Apostles are FULL of stories about the Apostles being persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Never ONCE did the Apostles argue that the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction over them. The Apostles clearly submitted themselves to the Sanhedrin and the Romans and acted accordingly when they were brought up on charges.

I can see no evidence whatsoever at any time that the Apostles thought or acted as if the Sanhedrin lacked jurisdiction over them while they were in the geographical area that was controlled by it.

I see no valid evidence that the Apostles acted as if the sanhedrin had jurisdiction over them.

 

[Frogster]

paul cast his vote, and had letters from priests to kill christians.

Listen to LarryP2

There are verses in early Acts, where peter addresses the leadership.

 

[LarryP2]

I see no valid evidence that the Apostles acted as if the sanhedrin had jurisdiction over them.

In NONE of their arguments before the Sanhedrin did they question its jurisdiction. NEVER. Everything I have read about the Sanhedrin and its exercise of jurisdiction indicates that they did so very cautiously and carefully. They were very cognizant of the danger of overstepping their jurisdiction and displeasing their Roman overlords. It is clear from the Apostle's behavior that they respected and esteemed the Sanhedrin:

http://halakhah.com/rst/nezikin/34a - Sanhedrin - 2a-25a.pdf
http://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf

The Sanhedrin had earned the Respect of the Apostles.

 

[ananda]

In NONE of their arguments before the Sanhedrin did they question its jurisdiction. NEVER. Everything I have read about the Sanhedrin and its exercise of jurisdiction indicates that they did so very cautiously and carefully. They were very cognizant of the danger of overstepping their jurisdiction and displeasing their Roman overlords. It is clear from the Apostle's behavior that they respected and esteemed the Sanhedrin:

http://halakhah.com/rst/nezikin/34a - Sanhedrin - 2a-25a.pdf
http://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf

The Sanhedrin had earned the Respect of the Apostles.

Where do you find the "Sanhedrin had earned the Respect of the Apostles"?