Saturday or Sunday Church?

[BobRyan]

As I stated earlier, the only portion of Acts 15 that is material to the Gentile believers concerning keeping the Mosaic Law (and to todays church) is what is written in Acts 15:23-29. .

Which is not correct since we already know that even gentiles are not supposed to "take God's name in vain" which is yet "another command" not in Acts 15.

Rather the Acts 15 text was very specific to the problem they were dealing with - and not some sort of 'new downsized Bible for gentiles in 5 sentences"

 

[Servus]

But you cannot apply the pig lipstick on the Sabbath - as that is a work.

It's just unorthodox doctrine that needs dressing up.

 

[BobRyan]

It's just unorthodox doctrine that needs dressing up.

Mark 7:6-13

7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Which is when orthodox jewish traditionalists of Christ's day would call for "clean up on isle 7"​

 

[Servus]

In that case - an actual text of scripture should not be hard for you to find.

Have I posted scripture text in this thread, yes or no? The answer is yes, so give it a rest. It is a default autobot false accusation and false presentation that only SDAs post scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Have I posted scripture text in this thread, yes or no? The answer is yes

I think there is a post here some place where you did do that. I agree.

 

[BobRyan]

It is a default autobot false accusation and false presentation that only SDAs post scripture.

Are you "quoting you" again -- or is there a quote you have where someone other than "you" says that?

Or do you simply want to attribute whatever you post -- "to someone else"???

 

[Servus]

I think there is a post here some place where you did do that. I agree.

No I have posted scripture throughout the thread when I've felt it's necessary to do so. Now if I was posting unorthodox doctrine spins, then I'd use the tactic of padding most of my posts with proof text links to try making unorthodox doctrine look legitimate.

 

[Servus]

Are you "quoting you" again -- or is there a quote you have where someone other than "you" says that?

Or do you simply want to attribute whatever you post -- "to someone else"???

It's simply pointing out what you and other SDAs do on a constant basis. You can't say it's not true, because you are doing it.

 

[Soyeong]

As I stated earlier, the only portion of Acts 15 that is material to the Gentile believers concerning keeping the Mosaic Law (and to todays church) is what is written in Acts 15:23-29. Don't let the modern day Judaizers fool you, this letter frees Gentile believers from having to keep the 10 commandments! Jesus commanded us to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves.

Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:23-29 are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believe or they are not, and the moment that you try to include other laws like the greatest two commandments is the moment that it can no longer be used as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. If we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth, so all of the other commandments are connected to the greatest two commandments, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that they all hang on the greatest two, so if you open the door for the greatest two commandments, then all of the other commandments come with them. Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles to obey what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow as if that were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. The Jerusalem Council were servants of God, so they shouldn't be interpreted as speaking against obeying Him, and they didn't have the authority to countermand God even if they had wanted to do that.

 

[Soyeong]

SDA doctrine is unorthodox doctrine, that is primarily a man-made 19th century invention. That's just a fact. It has a date of inception: May 21, 1863. It has a place of inception: Battle Creek, Michigan, USA. And it has human creators such as: Hiram Edson, Ellen G. White, her husband James Springer White, Joseph Bates, and J. N. Andrews.

Mark 7:6-13 does not validate it.

I'm not SDA. EGW did not invent the command to keep the Sabbath holy and someone does not need to follow any of her teachings in order to agree with her in regard to the Sabbath that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow.

 

[Servus]

I'm not SDA. EGW did not invent the command to keep the Sabbath holy and someone does not need to follow any of her teachings in order to agree with her in regard to the Sabbath that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow.

No you're Messianic. That too has an inception date of around 1960. And it has 20th century founders such as Daniel Juster, Manny Brotman, Martin Chernoff, Yohanna Chernoff and Raymond Gannon. Like SDA it is a latter day man-made invention. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not pretend those facts don't accurately describe it.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus was preparing his disciples to shift from the Mosaic law. Jesus only spoke about the Mosaic law with outsiders (i.e. not his disciples). Privately, with His disciples He gave new commandments (John 14:15). The letter to Gentile believers in Acts 15:23-29 state that only a few Mosaic laws apply to Gentile believers. The commandments from Jesus continue to apply to all.

Acts and the Epistles were written to New Covenant believers (that's us). The OT was written to Old Covenant Jews. And the Gospels are a mix.

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to obey it, which included not breaking Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to or subtracting from the law. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus had done as you suggest, then those who reject him as being a false prophet for that reason would be acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do. Jesus was one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with Him about which laws we should follow, so he was transitioning his disciples away from obeying the Father. In John 14:15, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father, and the alternative is to think that was hypocritically preaching something other than what he practiced. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, which again leaves no room for him to be transitioning away from what the Father has taught.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, so they certainly still considered it to be authoritative. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction. In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul encouraged him to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, which is referring to OT Scripture. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul referred to holy writings that Timothy had available to him since childhood, which could only be referring to OT Scripture because none of the books of the NT had yet been written at that point, and he said that it as profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped to do every good work. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so Paul should not be interpreted as saying things that they would have outright rejected as being the word of a false prophet. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, which is also known as the Mosaic Law.

 

[Soyeong]

No you're Messianic. That too has an inception date of around 1960. And it has 20th century founders such as Daniel Juster, Manny Brotman, Martin Chernoff, Yohanna Chernoff and Raymond Gannon. Like SDA it is a latter day man-made invention. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not pretend those facts don't accurately describe it.

Messianic Judaism has grow in popularity since the 1960's, but there have always been Torah observant believes in Jesus. The roots of Messianic Judaism go back to how Christianity was during roughly the first 7-15 years after the resurrection of Jesus, so regardless of when there are people who started to popularize it, it was not invented by them. Furthermore, during the Messianic Age, the religion being practiced is a form of Judaism that believes in the Messiah, which Messianic Judaism.

Again, someone does not need to follow any particular teacher or be part of any particular denomination in order to recognize that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us. In addition, the important issue is not when something was first being taught, but whether or not it is true. There is much knowledge that has been gained in the past century that was not known since the dawn of man, but that doesn't call into question whether it is true.

 

[Soyeong]

No you're Messianic. That too has an inception date of around 1960. And it has 20th century founders such as Daniel Juster, Manny Brotman, Martin Chernoff, Yohanna Chernoff and Raymond Gannon. Like SDA it is a latter day man-made invention. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not pretend those facts don't accurately describe it.

For example, the Nazarites were believers in Jesus who continued to live in obedience to the Torah, so if people today wanted to adopt Nazarite theology and practices, then they would be returning to something that was ancient, not inventing something new.

 

[Servus]

For example, the Nazarites were believers in Jesus who continued to live in obedience to the Torah, so if people today wanted to adopt Nazarite theology and practices, then they would be returning to something that was ancient, not inventing something new.

No, but trying to amalgamate Nazarite theology and practices with Christianity would be new and would be unorthodox. It's in no way the same thing as practicing historically established early Christianity. It's not like the early Christian church was SDA or Messianic in doctrine and practice, and then became something else. There's no historical record of such a shift or of the schism that would have taken place, if such a shift had occurred. And there definitely would be a historical record of such an event if it had taken place.

What the Messianic movement is, is a group of men got together in the 1960s and decided to take a new approach to Christianity and created new unorthodox doctrine for it. Which I was told by a Messianic is diverse, which likely means it's all over the place and has personal home-made versions. In other words your version of Messianic practice, doctrine and theology could be yours alone.

 

[John Mullally]

Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:23-29 are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of a mature Gentile believe or they are not, and the moment that you try to include other laws like the greatest two commandments is the moment that it can no longer be used as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow.

The context of the letter per Acts 15:24 is whether the Gentiles need to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. Per Acts 15:28-29, circumcision is not required and only four items from the Mosaic law remain forbidden. Commandments Jesus gave the disciples are outside the Mosaic law and therefore are still in tact.

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.​

The New Covenant was a huge shift that was only made possible by Christ's victorious resurrection. Jesus kept instruction regarding the New Covenant away from the disciples until just before He ascended - I think this was done in order to hide God's plan from the devil. Acts 15 reflects that keeping almost all of the Mosaic law was no longer required. Again, commandments Jesus gave the disciples still apply.

 

[John Mullally]

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to obey it, which included not breaking Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to or subtracting from the law. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus had done as you suggest, then those who reject him as being a false prophet for that reason would be acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do. Jesus was one with the Father, so he was not in disagreement with Him about which laws we should follow, so he was transitioning his disciples away from obeying the Father. In John 14:15, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commands with those of the Father, and the alternative is to think that was hypocritically preaching something other than what he practiced. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, which again leaves no room for him to be transitioning away from what the Father has taught.

About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT, so they certainly still considered it to be authoritative. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction. In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul encouraged him to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture, which is referring to OT Scripture. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul referred to holy writings that Timothy had available to him since childhood, which could only be referring to OT Scripture because none of the books of the NT had yet been written at that point, and he said that it as profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped to do every good work. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so Paul should not be interpreted as saying things that they would have outright rejected as being the word of a false prophet. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, which is also known as the Mosaic Law.

Acts and the Epistles are unique in that they were written to New Covenant believers (i.e. us). If Acts and the Epistles are not clear on a subject, then look to the instruction Jesus gave to His disciples. After that you can look to the rest of the Gospels and the OT for guidance - just keep in mind they were written to a different set of people and do not override Acts and the Epistles.

There are stories and object lessons in the OT that don't have a NT equivalent. As you said, some of the NT cannot be understood without understanding the OT.

 

[Servus]

Messianic Judaism has grow in popularity since the 1960's, but there have always been Torah observant believes in Jesus. The roots of Messianic Judaism go back to how Christianity was during roughly the first 7-15 years after the resurrection of Jesus, so regardless of when there are people who started to popularize it, it was not invented by them. Furthermore, during the Messianic Age, the religion being practiced is a form of Judaism that believes in the Messiah, which Messianic Judaism.

That amounts to a claim that the true Christianity that Jesus intended, was a 7-15 year flash in the pan that fizzled out.

Again, someone does not need to follow any particular teacher or be part of any particular denomination in order to recognize that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us. In addition, the important issue is not when something was first being taught, but whether or not it is true. There is much knowledge that has been gained in the past century that was not known since the dawn of man, but that doesn't call into question whether it is true.

There does need to be unity and established orthodoxy or else people are running around with their own mixed bag of theology. You have to agree with and adhere to the Nicene Creed for example to post in this section. I myself don't follow any specific denomination or have a single earthly teacher from some specific denomination. I listen to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and Baptists etc, when what I'm listening to is within the bounds of orthodox Christianity. Likewise I get likes and agrees from RCs, EOs, Lutherans and Baptists etc, because of the orthodoxy that unites us.

 

[Servus]

Another thing I take into consideration when it comes to Israel the Torah and Judaism, is it more often than not went off the rails and there was no obeying of comments and following God. All the way through right up to when the Messiah arrived. And they were so removed from God, they killed him too after killing the prophets. As Jesus said they didn't listen to either Moses or the Prophets. The Torah Law was a system that man consistently failed to be able to keep.

 

[Leaf473]

Agreed - the one who eats all the food regardless if it includes meat offered to idols is the one in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 that was listed as "strong". And they were the Christian Jews. The "weak" were the "Christian gentiles" newly turned from paganism..

I think that's an unnecessary leap, that Jews were the only ones being told that it was okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Gentile Christians could be strong, too. They too could understand that an idol was just a statue, and that a hamburger was just a hamburger.
_____________

On a related note, in the law of Moses, it says not to mention the name of a false god. But by the time of the church at Corinth, apparently it was okay in some cases to buy meat from those temples, thus contributing in a small way to their support.

If a change of that type is allowed and approved of by God, it seems reasonable that there could also be a change to the commandment about a holy assembly on the Sabbath.