Paul fought the circumcision, Messianic Judaism.

[Soyeong]

Acts 11, in Antioch was not the same event as with Peter in Acts 11, if you read the flow you will see what I mean.

Paul was about the law in gal 2 in his correction of of Peter, he went into the law in Gal 2, not oral law in Gal 2, it is the Antioch event recorded in Gal 2, not the Cornelius event!

I didn't say it was the same even, I was referencing it because it mentions the laws that forbade Jews from associating with Gentiles.

 

[Soyeong]

no, you were just about oral law, then you started to say written law, because I was right.

I quoted the first post I made about the oral and written law to prove that I was talking about both since the beginning when you started making these baseless accusations the last time, so you truly have your head in the sand. If you have no interest in understand me, why do you continue to make posts directed at me?

 

[Frogster]

I didn't say it proved everything, I was just being thankful for it.

And yay for ripping verses out of context.

well, in all fairness, groups have come and gone. Grace is the new cov, not law, grace is the gospel, not law text ready, if you so desire.

 

[Soyeong]

yes you did.

Peter and Paul agreed, and the law was the yoke, and the fathers could not bear it, those are facts.

Acts 15 could not be oral law, Paul and crew, and the Jerusalem council would laugh if Paul came there to argue against oral law for gentiles!

I said they traced the oral law back to Moses, not that there were Pharisees during his time.

There's no way someone can misunderstand me so badly without trying, so at this point you're just trolling me, goodbye.

 

[Frogster]

I quoted the first post I made about the oral and written law to prove that I was talking about both since the beginning when you started making these baseless accusations the last time, so you truly have your head in the sand. If you have no interest in understand me, why do you continue to make posts directed at me?

please, why did I post the Gal 3 verse about law? because you were saying it was oral law.

 

[Frogster]

I said they traced the oral law back to Moses, not that there were Pharisees during his time.

There's no way someone can misunderstand me so badly without trying, so at this point you're just trolling me, goodbye.

naaaa. no trolling but the oral aw came by the pharisees, who were not in the time of moses.


I post facts and text.

 

[bugkiller]

On judgement day, you are judged by your works according to scriptures, NOT the Nicene Creed.

What do you do with John 5:24? It says I've already passed the judgment and attained life.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

What do you do wit John 5:24? It says I've already passed the judgment and attained life.

bugkiller

awesome!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why is it that two short verses from the book of The Acts of the Apostles can be so troublesome from MJ teaching? Could it be because those two verses expose the nudity of the emperor parading down the street in his "new clothes"?

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

• That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
• and from blood,
• and from things strangled,
• and from fornication:

from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:28-29​

These are the "necessary things" and even so they are necessary because "Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath".

Those four necessary things fall far short of the 613 commandments that Messianic Judaism concerns itself with.

 

[Frogster]

Why is it that two short verses from the book of The Acts of the Apostles can be so troublesome from MJ teaching? Could it be because those two verses expose the nudity of the emperor parading down the street in his "new clothes"?

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

• That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,
• and from blood,
• and from things strangled,
• and from fornication:

from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:28-29​

These are the "necessary things" and even so they are necessary because "Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath".

Those four necessary things fall far short of the 613 commandments that Messianic Judaism concerns itself with.

really James was just saying don't freak out the Jews who were integrating with the gentiles, as you know.

 

[bugkiller]

lol, Paul is understood by the vast majority of not feast, non food law, non Sabbath people who know the Lord!

That does seem to be a very interesting fact here at CF.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

really James was just saying don't freak out the Jews who were integrating with the gentiles, as you know.

Yes, that's seems to be the motive for the message. But it seems to be very troublesome for the 613 commandments lobby.

 

[Frogster]

Yes, that's seems to be the motive for the message. But it seems to be very troublesome for the 613 commandments lobby.

Politics have not changed!

 

[bugkiller]

Forgive me for holding a minority viewpoint. Thankfully MJ is rapidly growing as more Christians are starting to gain a better understanding of the Bible's cultural context.

That is partly why I no longer attend.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

Politics have not changed!

The politics of power over others never changes, does it?

That is partly why I no longer attend.

bugkiller

Did you once attend a MJ assembly?

 

[bugkiller]

do you want me to believe that your perspective is right?

Then prove it!

See what I mean? So do for me as you want me to do for you. Ask around, it is a fact that some reject Paul, big time! Go ask around the MJ section, I would, but if the frog goes there he is reported!

Same for me. If you do go there don't mention Paul. There are a few of them who no longer post in this section because of Paul.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

As a side light, so to speak, I noticed this comment in a scholarly commentary from Cambridge:

Acts 15:28

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us] A third time in this clause of the narrative from 22–29 does this official word occur (εδοξεν; "seemed good to"), from which is derived the noun dogma. It had been promised that to the Apostles there should be given the Spirit of truth, who should guide them into all truth (Joh 16:13) and the historian of the Acts often speaks of them as “filled with the Spirit.” They put forward therefore this unerring guide as the warrant for their decree. And as they at the suggestion of the Spirit were laying aside their longstanding prejudices against intercourse with Gentiles, they claim that the Gentiles in their turn should deal tenderly with the scruples of Jews.

no greater burden] The Jews themselves could speak thus of the load of legal observances (cp. supra Act 15:11). They had chosen out but a small part thereof, which the circumstances of the time made necessary to be observed.​

It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us ... looks like the letter's decision was not merely a decision of the elders in Jerusalem but also of the Holy Spirit. So I guess the passage will always be a source of difficulty for those wanting 613 commandments to govern the faithful.

 

[bugkiller]

You haven't shown that you are willing to try to understand what I'm talking about, let alone that you understand what you're talking about. So you'll forgive me if I don't take you're word about something which you've put no effort into studying.

You only want us to agree with you about oral and written law. You do not really care if we understand it or not.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I'm sorry, you do not have free reign to make up whatever you want about MJ and then expect others to believe you. If you make a claim then the burden is on you to support it. I do my best to support my claims. As I've said before, I have no doubt that there are some MJ's who reject Paul, but that's also true of some non-MJ Christians.

By the mouths of at least two witnesses a thing can be established. What I said is my actual experience and not just a collaboration with my friend frogster.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

And I pointed that requiring Gentiles to become circumcised to eat of the Passover lamb is hardly a requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised. Nor does the passage say anything about converting to Judaism.

Neither are we talking about the whole world. We're talking about Christians. You claim Christians are obligated to the law. You are also claiming all Gentiles are obligated to the law. The Bible doesn't support you.

bugkiller