Paul fought the circumcision, Messianic Judaism.

[Frogster]

It's a shame that that happens.

Agreed.

The bigger shame is also how the feasts and food laws become center in some MJ circles.

Paul feared that dynamic, he knew it would be a distraction, Col 2:19, lost contact with the Head, same as 2 Cor 11, led away from a simple devotion to Christ.

All this proves that there is a spiritual dynamic at work, not from God.

 

[listed]

But he hates self righteousness, one is cut off if they are.



4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace.



Law breeds pride, i got text to prove it, if you want.

QFT! Just read the Gospels about the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[Soyeong]

QFT! Just read the Gospels about the scribes and Pharisees.

Christ did nothing outside the Father and Paul was an apostle of both Jesus and the Father, so if you pit them against each other, then you are misunderstanding them. The fact that you've understood obedience to God to bad should be a wake up call.

The law was never meant to be kept legalistically as a show of outward obedience while our hearts were far far Him. Rather, obedience to God should be done as a demonstration of our love and our faith in God. Love should be given freely and joyfully, but love that's given in exchange in order to earn something is a perversion of love and not really love in the first place, so legalistically keeping the law is devoid of love. The reason why the Galatians were become severed from Christ was that they were returning to legalism, not because they were being obedient to God.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul's on-the-record statement to Messianic Jews --


Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.



22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
.

I am not sure but it looks like your posts advocates circumcision, is that right?

My quote is just a quote of Acts 21 - it looks like your post is claiming that Acts 21 is advocating circumcision -- is that right?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I quote Acts 21 and find this response to Acts 21. Is it affirmation or rebuttal?

read this on Acts 21, then offer a sound rebuttal.

Pro law people love to shout out happily…

Paul went to the Temple and took the ritual!

Interesting response.

Lol…they forget that he did not go to Jerusalem for 14 years as per Gal 2:1, which says “again”, presumably after the Peter visit of Gal 1:18, 3 years after Paul’s conversion, and it was for just 15 days

In Acts 21 the whole point is to PROVE that what Paul has been doing and teaching on his missionary journey is consistent - -not hypocrisy

the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach it was ok to commit adultery or steal? No.

Is that even the question asked in the Acts 21 text at all???

No.

How then does it address Acts 21??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Christian church leaders like James were addressing what they consider a false accusation being made against the Apostle Paul.

21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

They suggest some solution to the problem with this conclusion

vs 24...so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Steeno7

Note how most all of the Law-centered groups draw their beliefs from what is not even doctrinal, but what is historical and transitional, the book of Acts. A book that merely bridges the gap between the Old and the New.
​

When we point to Acts 17:11 and the sola-scriptura model of scripture seen in action - "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE if those things spoken by the Apostle Paul -- were So" we often hear that sort of "complaint" from members of denominations that would prefer not to follow the sola-scriptura method of testing doctrine.

I think the GT section will show that point in triplicate.

Interesting how the anti-law groups would like to toss out Acts --- except when trying to get Acts 10 to be about rat sandwiches.

in Christ,

Bob

You prove my point well.

I live to serve.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Specifically: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.' Acts 15:28-29

If you hold strictly that Gentiles were only required to follow these four laws, then that would exclude that commands of Jesus. However, if you hold that this was obviously not an exhaustive list, then I'd agree with you. It appears to me to be a specific list for a particular purpose, namely to give a minimum standard that Gentiles would need to keep in order to make a clean break from paganism and to have fellowship with Jews and community meals.

Acts 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

In Jewish literature, the Jews realized that they had a lot of laws and that they shouldn't be meticulous with new converts. If an employer were to hire a new employee, they wouldn't start by making sure they learned everything they would ever need to know about the job upfront, but rather they would teach them the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn the rest on the job. Similarly, they didn't want to make it too difficult for new Gentile converts, so they started them off with just the basics with the understanding that they would continue to learn how to behave by hearing Moses taught about every Sabbath in the synagogues.

The text does not tell Gentiles to Love their neighbor as themselves , or not to take God's name in vain. Nor does Acts 15 tell gentile Christians to Love God with all their heart, nor to honor their parents.

Yet in later NT writings they are told that "of course" all of these commandments apply to Christian gentiles as they do to Jews.

In Acts 15:1 the subject - the debate - is very specifically over the supposed need of Gentiles to be circumcised as full converts to Judaism as Eph 2 points out - in that case.

It is not at all about downsizing the Law of God so that Love for God and Love for your neighbor are no longer required.

Note also that Acts 15 includes the Lev 17 Law against eating meat with blood in it.

And in Acts 15 - James argues the point of Acts 13, and Acts 17, and Acts 18 that these gentiles hear the Bible in the synagogues every Sabbath so that not becoming full converts to Judaism will not deprive them of that Bible instruction.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

I quote Acts 21 and find this response to Acts 21. Is it affirmation or rebuttal?



Interesting response.





In Acts 21 the whole point is to PROVE that what Paul has been doing and teaching on his missionary journey is consistent - -not hypocrisy




Is that even the question asked in the Acts 21 text at all???

No.

How then does it address Acts 21??

in Christ,

Bob

No the whole affair is to placate Jewish believers. It isn't to prove Paul has been teaching new converts to keep the law.

Haven't you posted part of exegesis is context?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I live to serve.


in Christ,

Bob

You serve your church better than most.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Specifically: 'It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.' Acts 15:28-29



The text does not tell Gentiles to Love their neighbor as themselves , or not to take God's name in vain. Nor does Acts 15 tell gentile Christians to Love God with all their heart, nor to honor their parents.

Yet in later NT writings they are told that "of course" all of these commandments apply to Christian gentiles as they do to Jews.

In Acts 15:1 the subject - the debate - is very specifically over the supposed need of Gentiles to be circumcised as full converts to Judaism as Eph 2 points out - in that case.

It is not at all about downsizing the Law of God so that Love for God and Love for your neighbor are no longer required.

Note also that Acts 15 includes the Lev 17 Law against eating meat with blood in it.

And in Acts 15 - James argues the point of Acts 13, and Acts 17, and Acts 18 that these gentiles hear the Bible in the synagogues every Sabbath so that not becoming full converts to Judaism will not deprive them of that Bible instruction.

in Christ,

Bob

So what law do you claim is written on the heart? Why is it necessary to tell them anything?

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

Those who walk by the Spirit - in Romans 8 fulfill the Law in real life - those at war with God in Romans 8 - do not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN they submit to it according to Paul.

In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus describes the Commandments of God being set aside by the traditions of man - and say it is "not a good thing" to do.

In Jer 31:31-33 it is the Law of God that Jeremiah knows as the moral law of God - the Law that defines what sin is - that is written on the heart and mind under the NEW Covenant- also quoted in Heb 8 and 10.


As Paul states in 1Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

And Christ said - before the cross - "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"

Paul says that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST Commandment with a promise"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

Those who walk by the Spirit - in Romans 8 fulfill the Law in real life - those at war with God in Romans 8 - do not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN they submit to it according to Paul.

In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus describes the Commandments of God being set aside by the traditions of man - and say it is "not a good thing" to do.

In Jer 31:31-33 it is the Law of God that Jeremiah knows as the moral law of God - the Law that defines what sin is - that is written on the heart and mind under the NEW Covenant- also quoted in Heb 8 and 10.


As Paul states in 1Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

And Christ said - before the cross - "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"

Paul says that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST Commandment with a promise"

in Christ,

Bob

Surely you must be in Seattle.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

That was Eph 6:1-2 not written in Seattle as it turns out.

 

[Soyeong]

No the whole affair is to placate Jewish believers. It isn't to prove Paul has been teaching new converts to keep the law.

Haven't you posted part of exegesis is context?

bugkiller

I won't malign Paul in order to make him fit into my theology. Paul took steps to disprove the rumor because it was false. He said he believed everything in accordance with the Law and the Prophets because it was true. He says he had committed no offence against the law because it was true. You would have Paul be doing the same sort of thing that he called Peter out for doing in Galatians 2.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul is "a Jewish believer"

James in Acts 21 is "a Jewish believer"

All the Apostles were "Jewish believers"

 

[BobRyan]

It is clear that James is "solving a problem" and shows Paul how this step taken will prove that the false accusations made against Paul - are in fact - not true at all... and all will know this for certain, by the fact that Paul does this act in front of all.

Christian church leaders like James were addressing what they consider a false accusation being made against the Apostle Paul.

21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

They suggest some solution to the problem with this conclusion

vs 24...so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul's on-the-record statement to Messianic Jews --

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.)​

22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

I am not sure but it looks like your posts advocates circumcision, is that right?

Your post isn't advocating circumcision? Why does it say the words shown in bold sienna? Why does your post say "(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.)" right after saint Luke wrote "you [Paul] are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children"? And why does it leave out the following verse which says Acts 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."

It sure does look like your post advocates circumcision. And why do you assert that saint Paul goes out of his way to disprove it? Didn't saint Paul write:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:28-29)​

Thus saint Paul dismisses circumcision as having any value under the new covenant in Christ.

And saint Paul also wrote:

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1 Corinthians 7:18-20)​

It is beyond doubt that it is God who commanded circumcision of Abraham and the Jews; yet saint Paul argues that circumcision is irrelevant. So when we read "but the keeping of the commandments of God" he surely does not mean "go get circumcised to show your obedience to God's commandments" because he just said circumcision was irrelevant.

Thus we know that saint Paul did not go "out of his way to disprove it".

 

[BobRyan]

belongs to another thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul's on-the-record statement to Messianic Jews --


Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.



22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
.

My quote is just a quote of Acts 21 - it looks like your post is claiming that Acts 21 is advocating circumcision -- is that right?

Your post isn't advocating circumcision? Why does it say the words shown in bold sienna?

I simply point out the debate that Paul was dealing with - and showing what it is that he is being falsely accused of -- and how he goes to such lengths to disprove the false accusation.

I thought everyone would be fine with that.

Is this a problem for your POV?

Do you think his accusers were right and that his proof against those accusations was insufficient?

Why does your post say "(Many here would argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.)"

Because I think it is possible that one or two readers today might be looking at Acts 21 and saying of that accusation "yep that is what Paul was doing all right".

right after saint Luke wrote "you [Paul] are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children"?

Because I love quoting the Bible. It is my way.

And why does it leave out the following verse which says Acts 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."

Because the debate in Acts 21 is not about gentile Christians.

And why do you assert that saint Paul goes out of his way to disprove it?

I assert Paul goes out of his way to disprove the false accusation against him because ... Paul and James both consider it a false accusation.

Didn't saint Paul write:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:28-29)​

He did right that. He also wote Romans 2:13-16 .. not just the last 2 verses.

And I think that is helpful in giving the full picture - as is the rest of Romans 2.

Recall how Romans 3 ends - in Rom 3:31??

"Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God"

Thus saint Paul dismisses circumcision as having any value under the new covenant in Christ.

And saint Paul also wrote:

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1 Corinthians 7:18-20)​

It is beyond doubt that it is God who commanded circumcision of Abraham and the Jews;

Indeed. But not of the gentiles in either OT or NT. They were never required to observe that ceremonial law.

And so in 1Cor 7:19 Paul contrasts the moral law of God ... the 'Commandments of God" with the ceremonial law as in the case of circumcision.

in Christ,

Bob