Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[sparow]

Ok, so there will be a volcano that melts the heavens (the moon, sun and stars)?

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”
I don’t believe it is too literal to say that this indicates the complete destruction of all of creation, because following the thousand year wedding celebration in Heaven, Rev 21:1 says, “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.”
When did they pass away? At the second coming as described in 2 Peter.


I know this has been debated for centuries, but I believe that Dan 2 says directly that it was fulfilled at Jesus’ first coming when He established His kingdom on Earth (Dan 2:44-45)). Jesus, the rock cut from the mountain without hands, fell on earth during the time of the kings of the fourth kingdom in the king's dream. That is the kings of Rome (fourth kingdom) which followed the Greek Empire (third kingdom), which followed the Medo/Persian (second kingdom), which followed the Babylonian Empire of which Nebuchadnezzar was king (the first kingdom). Thus the Kingdom of God was established by Jesus during the first century.

And I believe that Dan 7 was also fulfilled when Jesus was on Earth the first time 2000 years ago. The four beasts are, I believe, the same four kingdoms of Dan 2.

Why do you mention the moon, sun and stars; if you check out the Greek and Hebrew words that have been translated “heavens”, they refer only to the atmosphere, sky. The thing about symbolic language is that it is used to express meaning when straight talk vocabulary is insufficient, or too specific. Even the word “sea” is symbolic, probably refers to people of some kind. In Rev. the first beast came out of the sea; the two horned beast came up out of the land; land could mean a specific nation or group, like Israel or Christendom.


Quote “”The Sea is a Biblical metaphor for all the nations of the world.


Waters in general represent people. In Revelation 17:15, we can read that “waters … are peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues.” In a similar vein, rivers also represent peoples and nations. Habakkuk 3:8 asks the question: “O Lord, were You angry with the rivers … was your wrath against the sea?” Since it makes no sense for God to be angry with literal bodies of water, clearly ‘rivers’ denotes nations in this verse and ‘the sea’ represents all the nations of the world.”” Unquote


Those four beasts in Daniel 7 (Daniel's dream) refer to the same beast described as gold head, silver chest bronze middle and iron legs (Nebuchadnezzar', dream), but with extra information such as the little horn with eyes and mouth, most likely the Papacy; the description of the first beast I have never noticed before, even though in my own mind I have linked Nebuchadnezzar to Judah; what I noticed is the lion, eagle's wings, and the man are three of the four symbols that represent Israel, all that is missing is the Ox. Daniel 7 is a preview that includes Revelation, with a climax still to come.


Daniel refers to Jesus coming as singular. His works are cut off half way through the week, and therefore incomplete, yet to be completed in the future, at the time of the end; which could happen soon.


Jesus gave his disciples a number of signs that would precede his return at the end of the age, and then he told them to learn the parable of the fig tree. Jesus added that when the fig tree comes back to life (the nation of Israel re-established in its own land) then people will know that “summer is near” (Matthew 24:32).

 

[Doug Brents]

Transferred not removed.

Removed, canceled, made obsolete, no longer applicable. The Old Covenant does not have any power in the New Testament Christian’s life.

For God has said in the beginning, say not in your heart who shall bring His Word, His commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law down from above or up from the deep. For it is not far from thee. It is in your hearts and mouths that you may do it through Christ.

No, Christ was not mentioned “in the beginning” when the Law was first given. Christ is who we have the New Covenant through. Christ was involved in the Old Covenant, for sure. But He was not yet known as the Christ.

God never mention cleansing the unclean only the common in Acts 10:15.

Peter says “common or unclean”. God says not to call common what He has cleansed. The point is, God cleansed it. Period. God cleansed the foods, and used that fact as a way of pointing to the Gentiles being cleansed as well.

And for your information and any other who may read this. The same Greek word koinos translated common here in Acts 10 is the same word in Romans 14 translated by a lot of translations as unclean. This error has caused a lot of confusion through the years and still does. The word should be translated common as it is in Acts 10. When one considers that and the fact that verse 1 in chapter 14 shows the context of the passage is about our opinions not the Word of God. One can see clearly and realize the text is dealing with traditions and treads and not that which God has said.

Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Rom 14:1 And receive him who is weak in the belief, not criticising his thoughts.
Rom 14:2 One indeed believes to eat all food, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 He that eats, let him not despise him who does not eat, and he that does not eat, let him not judge him who eats, for Elohim received him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you that judges another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. But he shall be made to stand, for Elohim is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One indeed judges one day above another, another judges every day alike. Let each one be completely persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who minds the day, minds it to יהוה. And he who does not mind the day, to יהוה he does not mind it. He who eats, eats to יהוה, for he gives Elohim thanks. And he who does not eat, to יהוה he does not eat, and gives Elohim thanks.
Rom 14:7 For not one of us lives to himself, and not one dies to himself.
Rom 14:8 For both, if we live, we live unto the Master, and if we die, we die unto the Master. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Master’s.
Rom 14:9 For unto this Messiah died and rose and lived again, to rule over both the dead and the living.
Rom 14:10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Messiah.
Rom 14:11 For it has been written, “As I live, says יהוה, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to Elohim.” Isa 45:23.
Rom 14:12 Each one of us, therefore, shall give account of himself to Elohim.
Rom 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another any longer, but rather judge this, not to put an obstacle or a stumbling-block in our brother’s way.
Rom 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Master יהושע that none at all is common of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common.

No issue with the word common. My issue is with your failure to see that God made these foods not common; cleansed.

Have you not read,
Exod 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

I have read, but quite forgot, that verse. And indeed it does say that God was “refreshed”. I don’t for a second believe that creation tired God, or caused Him exertion. But I believe that to be an example for us to be refreshed from our work.

Two separate things. Verse 9 says a Sabbath Keeping remains for the people of God. This goes back to verses 4 where it says that God spake of the seventh day on this wise, and God did rest from all His works. But verse 5 says something many miss. It says, "in this again" So with that one must ask what is this that is again? It is as verse 4 stated in that certain place which was Sinai in the giving of the Ten, there God spake of the seventh day on this wise, and God did rest from all His works. So verse 9 is being said in context to verse4 and 5. in respect to God again speaking of the Seventh Day.

Heb 4:1-11. - “Therefore, we must fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith.3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My anger,
They certainly shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience.”
Let’s look at the whole passage in context here. In verse 5, “and again” is simply a reference to another quote of God’s words from Scripture.

The whole context of this passage is the entering into God’s rest. His rest is not from physical efforts and struggles, but from spiritual struggles and efforts towards salvation. That rest is found ONLY in Christ.

Verse ten starts with the word "for" which means as you know what is about to be said is the reason for what was said. It says he that has entered into his rest. This rest connects back to verse 3 where it states that we who have believe do enter into this rest which according to context is of verse 2. So is said to be of the Gospel. The Gospel rest which we experience in Christ Jesus. Verse 10 states that we who have entered into this rest which is the Gospel rest of Christ Jesus ALSO cease from our own works AS God did from His. The word ALSO as you know means in addition too. So that in and of itself shows us that two things are being spoken of here. The Rest which is of the Gospel and the ceasing of work AS God did from His. The word "as" dictates a direct comparison. So the ceasing from work is as God did. God did not enter a spiritual rest in Christ He is our Spiritual Rest in and through Christ. God ceased working and was refreshed on the Seventh Day. So we who have entered into the Gospel Rest which is of and in Christ Jesus ALSO cease from our own work AS God did from His on the Seventh Day.

The seventh day is immaterial in a spiritual rest. Jesus is the sabbath rest, not the seventh day. You have everything correct here until you try to force it to reflect the seventh day.

 

[Lulav]

Indeed, all things (that are not explicitly stated as sin for everyone) are lawful to all Christians (Jewish and Gentiles alike, there is no distinction in the NT). Yet not all things are profitable.

Yes there is, read it, right there in Acts.

Paul purified himself according to the Law to pacify the Jews so that they would listen to the Gospel of Christ. Not because it was still a binding law to him.

That is so not true, did you not read what James said? I'll post it again for you:

And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ​

All those thousands upon thousands (that's what Myriads means ) of Jews had already heard the Gospel and BELIEVED.


But Is that all you got out of that? Paul was being rebuked for teaching against Moses:

“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ​

That is thousands of thousands of Jews who believed in Messiah Yeshua and all were zealous to keep the law of Moses. James was not teaching that the law had been done away with, not at all.

James warns Paul that those Jews in Jerusalem will find out that he is in town and that he should somehow make a show of walking in the ways of the Law.

24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. ​

Paul does as James instructed but then they spied him in the Temple.....

26- 28 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. ​

Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! ​

This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”​

It's no wonder there was an uproar, BLM riots had nothing on what happened here.
The accusation is the same as what James told Paul, that he was teaching All men EVERYWHERE against the Jews, the law and the temple Holy place.

That is a cause for stoning.

A navi sheker, or false prophet. He’s the guy who shows up claiming to have spoken to God and received instructions to do that which is contrary to Torah law. He might even SUCCESSFULLY perform a miracle to validate his assumed authority.
Hence, whoso professes to have received revelations changing the Law is a false prophet.
The Torah says to kill him.

But what happened?

30 And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut.​

You can read the rest of the story but know this, the reason there was an uproar in the first place, that he was teaching against Torah. But when questioned by the Sanhedrin this is what he proclaimed he was there for

6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” ​

That was political and not at all what he was accused of.

You keep my head spinning with your lack of logic and deliberate misconstruing of my statements. Yes, the Psalms are relevant as a teaching tool, as an example of glorifying God, of how our pain has been lived through by some of the greatest in the Faith. But not as something we must obey as law today.

Why would you glorify God's Torah when you believe it is obsolete? Torah is what guides a person in the right way to walk that the LORD approves.
Please explain how the psalm below is a law you must obey today because that makes no sense.

Thy WORD (Torah) is a lamp to my feet and a light unto my path......

Doug Brents said: Before the end of the first century, that sentence would have been correct.

That is true still today. " In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the LIGHT of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.​

Doug Brents said: But since then, all of the letters and books of the New Covenant had been written and widely circulated. And while the Old Testament is still a light to illuminate God, it is not the standard of obedience required of us today.

No! That is not true at all! Each individual is guilty on his (or her) own for their own choices. Only those responsible have the ability to change anything, so the unbelieving Jews must choose for themselves to believe. The evidence that Jesus is the Christ is all there in Torah (as Matthew points out very clearly), so the idea that the Gentiles are responsible for the hardness of the hearts of the Jews is an insult to God. They are His people, and still they cannot see Him.

It's all there in Torah, the same Torah you say and many others say is obsolete, done away with, nothing?
And you don't see how that belief and attitude will keep Jews from believing in a Messiah that abolishes Torah?

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes there is, read it, right there in Acts.

What part of my statement are you addressing? This statement does not appear to address any part of my statement.

That is so not true, did you not read what James said? I'll post it again for you:

And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ​

All those thousands upon thousands (that's what Myriads means ) of Jews had already heard the Gospel and BELIEVED.

Indeed, they had believed in Jesus BUT were still zealous for the Law. Paul had it right that they did not need to obey the Law anymore, but they believed the traditions were still law.

But Is that all you got out of that? Paul was being rebuked for teaching against Moses:

“You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. ​

That is thousands of thousands of Jews who believed in Messiah Yeshua and all were zealous to keep the law of Moses. James was not teaching that the law had been done away with, not at all.

James was wrong then.

James warns Paul that those Jews in Jerusalem will find out that he is in town and that he should somehow make a show of walking in the ways of the Law.

24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. ​

Paul does as James instructed but then they spied him in the Temple.....

26- 28 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. ​

Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! ​

This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”​

It's no wonder there was an uproar, BLM riots had nothing on what happened here.
The accusation is the same as what James told Paul, that he was teaching All men EVERYWHERE against the Jews, the law and the temple Holy place.

That is a cause for stoning.

Indeed, under the Old Law, that would have been a stoning offense. But Paul knew he was not under the Law anymore.

A navi sheker, or false prophet. He’s the guy who shows up claiming to have spoken to God and received instructions to do that which is contrary to Torah law. He might even SUCCESSFULLY perform a miracle to validate his assumed authority.
Hence, whoso professes to have received revelations changing the Law is a false prophet.
The Torah says to kill him.

True, and they did kill Him (Jesus) but He was resurrected and still lives today. Paul was following His example.

But what happened?

30 And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut.​

You can read the rest of the story but know this, the reason there was an uproar in the first place, that he was teaching against Torah. But when questioned by the Sanhedrin this is what he proclaimed he was there for

6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” ​

That was political and not at all what he was accused of.

That is true. He used their dividedness to save himself.

Why would you glorify God's Torah when you believe it is obsolete? Torah is what guides a person in the right way to walk that the LORD approves.

Torah shows the history of God’s interaction with man, and gives a list of laws that demonstrate God’s moral standard. The New Covenant lists many of those same laws, but it does not include some of them. And it is the New Covenant to which we are bound today.

It's all there in Torah, the same Torah you say and many others say is obsolete, done away with, nothing?
And you don't see how that belief and attitude will keep Jews from believing in a Messiah that abolishes Torah?

I am not the one who said Torah was obsolete. God did! And since God did, I will also.

And it is the Jew’s hard hearts that prevent them from seeing the truth of the Gospel, not the fact that God has made the Torah obsolete.

 

[Lulav]

And the Old Covenant WAS canceled, that is why Gentiles have the opportunity to be saved in Christ where they did not under the Old Covenant.

Gentiles have been able to join Israel since it became a nation. Don't promote false aspersions. If a stranger wanted to join Israel they could, there was one law for those born in the nation and the same for the stranger that chose to join them. It should still be the same today

No, Christ was not mentioned “in the beginning” when the Law was first given. Christ is who we have the New Covenant through. Christ was involved in the Old Covenant, for sure. But He was not yet known as the Christ.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air.......

He was called the WORD

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

​

2 The same was in the beginning with God.​

​

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

That includes all the commandments and laws and precepts......

Peter says “common or unclean”. God says not to call common what He has cleansed. The point is, God cleansed it. Period. God cleansed the foods, and used that fact as a way of pointing to the Gentiles being cleansed as well.

Gentiles have been delineated as animals and birds in many places in the bible.
For instance the lion, bear, and leopard of Daniel 7 are Babylon, Media/Persia, and Greece. This vision was probably so startleing and because he was hungry he assumed the LORD was speaking of actually injesting them. That is why he protested and said he has never eaten anything unclean. The Lord certainly didn't want him to 'eat' them but to show him the nations and this was witnessed to by the three men who appeared at the house where he was staying.

No issue with the word common. My issue is with your failure to see that God made these foods not common; cleansed.

That would involve a whole genetic alteration which was not what GOD intended. For instance the crustaceans of the sea were created to keep the waters healthy, cleaning out impurities but also retaining them within their bodies. We still need them for what they were created for so they haven't been made clean.

The seventh day is immaterial in a spiritual rest. Jesus is the sabbath rest, not the seventh day. You have everything correct here until you try to force it to reflect the seventh day.

It's not just about rest, it is about outwardly showing who you believe is the creator of the universe and all that is in it, including mankind. That is even more important today than ever before, with AI, panspermia, alien 'creators'.

 

[Doug Brents]

Gentiles have been able to join Israel since it became a nation. Don't promote false aspersions. If a stranger wanted to join Israel they could, there was one law for those born in the nation and the same for the stranger that chose to join them. It should still be the same today

Gentiles don’t have to join the nation of Israel to be saved. Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be saved. There is still one law for both Jews and Gentiles alike, and it is the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.

Gentiles have been delineated as animals and birds in many places in the bible.
For instance the lion, bear, and leopard of Daniel 7 are Babylon, Media/Persia, and Greece. This vision was probably so startleing and because he was hungry he assumed the LORD was speaking of actually injesting them. That is why he protested and said he has never eaten anything unclean. The Lord certainly didn't want him to 'eat' them but to show him the nations and this was witnessed to by the three men who appeared at the house where he was staying.

You are trying to read your preconceptions into the verse. Peter was hungry, so God showed him all kinds of animals (that Peter perceived as unclean) and told him to eat. But God told him not to consider unclean what God had already made clean. Yes, it was directed at showing the Gentiles to be equal with the Jews, but it also showed the foods to be clean as well.

That would involve a whole genetic alteration which was not what GOD intended. For instance the crustaceans of the sea were created to keep the waters healthy, cleaning out impurities but also retaining them within their bodies. We still need them for what they were created for so they haven't been made clean.

Those animals were created clean. It was not until Moses that God set them apart and called them unclean. Read Gen 9:3: every moving thing was given to Noah as food, not just the “clean” things.

It's not just about rest, it is about outwardly showing who you believe is the creator of the universe and all that is in it, including mankind. That is even more important today than ever before.

Resting on the sabbath was an Old Covenant sign. The New Covenant sign is love (John 13:35).

 

[Lulav]

What part of my statement are you addressing? This statement does not appear to address any part of my statement.

Acts 15, I'm sure you are aware of the Laws for the newbie believers (Gentiles)

Indeed, they had believed in Jesus BUT were still zealous for the Law. Paul had it right that they did not need to obey the Law anymore, but they believed the traditions were still law.

There's not 'But' in there why another strawman? No I'm sorry but Paul did not have it right. To not obey the Law is lawlessness. And don't go mixing the law and traditions.
James was pointing out that there were thousands upon thousands that believed and were zealous to keep GOD's HOLY commandments, which is what Yeshua taught. James didn't correct them, not at all.
Yes those early Jewish believers in Yeshua as the promised Messiah were zealous to do God's law and did not consider it a burden.

James was wrong then.

No he wasn't, James was the head of the Messianic movement which you can easily see by Luke's word as well as Paul's.

Indeed, under the Old Law, that would have been a stoning offense. But Paul knew he was not under the Law anymore.

It doesn't matter what Paul believed, it was the thousands of Jews there, who some had heard and some from Asia had seen, that Paul was preaching against the Torah of GOD, including the covenant of circumcision. And the Holy Temple where Yeshua taught many times ---the LAW.

True, and they did kill Him (Jesus) but He was resurrected and still lives today. Paul was following His example.

How in the world, now it's time for me to SMH. How in the world do you get that from this?

LULAV SAID:​

A navi sheker, or false prophet. He’s the guy who shows up claiming to have spoken to God and received instructions to do that which is contrary to Torah law. He might even SUCCESSFULLY perform a miracle to validate his assumed authority.​

Hence, whoso professes to have received revelations changing the Law is a false prophet.​

The Torah says to kill him.​

That has nothing to do with Yeshua, how could you say such a thing? He was constantly teaching how to keep torah rightfully, how to LOVE the LORD your GOD with all your heart and love your neighbor. He never taught against the law or Keeping it, if he did he would be a sinner and no Savior.
He did not have 'assumed authority, far from it. He did not receive revelations, he and the Father were one.
If he were to speak about changing the law he would have been considered a false prophet and stoned.

But he never did any such thing.
And they didn't stone him, they got the Gentiles to kill him because him being the King the Messiah and that wasn't good for the bought and placed by Rome the High Priest and chief priests.

Yeshua taught how to walk in the ways of the LORD GOD and Paul taught how to walk away from them, not exactly emanating him.

That is true. He used their dividedness to save himself.

I'm glad you can see that. But do you also see that this was one of Paul's strawmen? That had NOTHING to do with the rioting Jews, it wasn't about him being a Pharisee believing in the resurrection, but of him teachings not to keep the Laws of GOD.

Torah shows the history of God’s interaction with man, and gives a list of laws that demonstrate God’s moral standard. The New Covenant lists many of those same laws, but it does not include some of them. And it is the New Covenant to which we are bound today.

So you believe God's moral standard has changed?

I am not the one who said Torah was obsolete. God did! And since God did, I will also.

Where did GOD say his perfect word was Obsolete, and no quoting from Pauls' writings, I need a witness.

And it is the Jew’s hard hearts that prevent them from seeing the truth of the Gospel, not the fact that God has made the Torah obsolete.

If you like to think so, but tell that to the Jews who have family that's experienced the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, etc.

 

[Lulav]

Gentiles don’t have to join the nation of Israel to be saved. Gentiles don’t have to become Jews to be saved. There is still one law for both Jews and Gentiles alike, and it is the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.

The Jewish Messiah only has one bride, he is not a bigamist.

You are trying to read your preconceptions into the verse. Peter was hungry, so God showed him all kinds of animals (that Peter perceived as unclean) and told him to eat. But God told him not to consider unclean what God had already made clean. Yes, it was directed at showing the Gentiles to be equal with the Jews, but it also showed the foods to be clean as well.

You have so little understanding of this,

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, ​

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.​

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.​

Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. ​

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:​

He heard his prayers, this is a righteous gentile, a God fearer, not just some heathen.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;​

That's 3 men

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, ​

Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:​

The next day they came close to where Peter was staying and at that same time Peter went up to pray at the ritual prayer time.

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,​

He's hungry, it's breakfast time, so food and eating is on his mind. 'While they made ready' means while they were getting breakfast ready.

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:​

Anyone that knows Torah knows of Tzitzit or fringes, tassels that were to be placed on the four corners of the outer garment. 'Knit' at the four corners is speaking of the Tzitzitot. So this 'great sheet' is a tallit. The tzitziot or tassels represent all the commandments of GOD.

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.​

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.​

Basically all kinds of critters. Peter was appalled because the LORD is telling him to sacrifice these unclean things.
The LORD was showing him that in the sheet descending from heaven in a tallit with tzitziot that certain those of the nations he had cleansed and he was not allowed to eat, with them.
Then what happens?

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ​

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. ​

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.​

Done 3X, that is specific because there are 3 men from Cornelius who are also considered righteous, God fearers at the door. Peter would not have gone with them if he didn't then come to understand what it meant.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, ​

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. ​

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. ​

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. ​

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? ​

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. ​

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.​

Peter was still wondering about the vision but the LORD pointed out to him so he understood the 3X with the sheet, it was about these 3 men, and to not doubt because the LORD sent them there.
If he had not understood what the vision truly meant then he would not have 'lodged them', allowed them to stay in a frum home.
He goes on with them the next day and when he meets Cornelius he tells him:

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.​

Here he is meaning that they should not share space basically but Peter understood this in a certain way. He let them overnight with him under the same roof. But he explains to Cornelius that it was because:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him,
and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


This is very important for the Gentiles to understand, it wasn't about 'food' as anyone who knows the kashrut laws understands that not only are certain things not to be eaten but also not touched as well.

But those Gentiles that feared God (God Fearers) meaning respected him and His commandments and 'worked righteousness by keeping them which they could keep were accepted to HIM.

Notice it does not say that they only have to 'Believe in God' or Yeshua.

I hope that you read that with an open mind for understanding and learning what it truly means.

Those animals were created clean. It was not until Moses that God set them apart and called them unclean. Read Gen 9:3: every moving thing was given to Noah as food, not just the “clean” things.

Sorry but that is not true.
Read Genesis 7

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Resting on the sabbath was an Old Covenant sign. The New Covenant sign is love (John 13:35).

And you show your Love for your GOD by keeping HIS Sabbath HOLY. It's a twofer!

 

[Doug Brents]

Acts 15, I'm sure you are aware of the Laws for the newbie believers (Gentiles)

Of course I am familiar with that chapter. However, it does not even begin to address my statement. I said:
Indeed, all things (that are not explicitly stated as sin for everyone) are lawful to all Christians (Jewish and Gentiles alike, there is no distinction in the NT). Yet not all things are profitable.
The suggestions in Acts 15 are to, as you said, new Gentile Christians whose faith is not yet developed strong roots. But my comment came from Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 6:12-20, & 10:23-29. For a mature Christian with a solid faith, all things, other than what is explicitly sin for everyone (fornication, lying, stealing, etc.), is permissible, but may not be the best thing to do. It isn’t sin, but it isn’t always the right thing to do.

There's not 'But' in there why another strawman? No I'm sorry but Paul did not have it right. To not obey the Law is lawlessness.

It is not lawlessness to jot obey one law but to obey another. Just because we are not under the Law of Moses does not mean we are not under a law. We are: we are under the law of grace, the New Covenant.

No he wasn't, James was the head of the Messianic movement which you can easily see by Luke's word as well as Paul's.

That is a “traditional” viewpoint, but James was just one of many elders, and if this is James the brother of Jesus, he was not one of the Apostles. He was not THE Head of anything. He was one of a counsel of many.

It doesn't matter what Paul believed, it was the thousands of Jews there, who some had heard and some from Asia had seen, that Paul was preaching against the Torah of GOD, including the covenant of circumcision. And the Holy Temple where Yeshua taught many times ---the LAW.

Yes, it does matter what Paul believed. He had his teaching directly from Jesus in the desert for three years after his conversion in Damascus. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to say and write what he said and wrote. Unless of course you doesn’t believe the Bible to be God’s inspired Word.

How in the world, now it's time for me to SMH. How in the world do you get that from this?

LULAV SAID:​

A navi sheker, or false prophet. He’s the guy who shows up claiming to have spoken to God and received instructions to do that which is contrary to Torah law. He might even SUCCESSFULLY perform a miracle to validate his assumed authority.​

Hence, whoso professes to have received revelations changing the Law is a false prophet.​

The Torah says to kill him.​

That has nothing to do with Yeshua, how could you say such a thing?

The Jewish leaders of the day believed (wrongly) that he was as you described above. So they were right to kill Him (if He hadn’t been the real deal).

He was constantly teaching how to keep torah rightfully, how to LOVE the LORD your GOD with all your heart and love your neighbor. He never taught against the law or Keeping it, if he did he would be a sinner and no Savior.
He did not have 'assumed authority, far from it. He did not receive revelations, he and the Father were one.
If he were to speak about changing the law he would have been considered a false prophet and stoned.

But He did speak of destroying the traditions. He predicted the destruction of the Temple and the complete elimination of all the records of the genealogies for all of Israel. He predicted the cancellation of the Levitical priesthood.

But he never did any such thing.
And they didn't stone him, they got the Gentiles to kill him because him being the King the Messiah and that wasn't good for the bought and placed by Rome the High Priest and chief priests.

Yeshua taught how to walk in the ways of the LORD GOD and Paul taught how to walk away from them, not exactly emanating him.

So you ARE saying that Paul was not inspired by Gor to write what he wrote. Ok. That’s all I needed to know.

I'm glad you can see that. But do you also see that this was one of Paul's strawmen?

No. He was teaching about Jesus who did rise from the dead, and so that was one of the reasons he was being attached. Just not the primary reason on this occasion.

So you believe God's moral standard has changed?

No, I know that the laws surrounding His moral standard have changed.

Where did GOD say his perfect word was Obsolete, and no quoting from Pauls' writings, I need a witness.

If you don’t believe Paul is inspired by God to write what you wrote, then I can’t help you. Every word the Paul wrote in the Bible is the same as God saying it directly in my ear. It is not Paul that I hear. It is God’s voice.

If you like to think so, but tell that to the Jews who have family that's experienced the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, etc.

I have many friends who have such family members. Those acts were godless acts of evil men doing evil things in God’s name. I hate and revile those actions as much as the violence against any other group. But that is not the reason the Jews don’t believe. Those are just excuses.

 

[Doug Brents]

The Jewish Messiah only has one bride, he is not a bigamist.

The Messiah (period), not the Jewish Messiah. Jesus came to save the whole world, and everyone who has faith in Him will be saved, not just the Jews. And yes, Jesus has one bride: all those who believe in Him. Those Jews who believed in Him in the beginning were the first, but every Jew who did not believe in Him was it off from being His bride. And then the Gentiles who believed were grafted in. But those Gentiles who did not believe were not grafted in. So we have one bride, made up of only those who believe, not Gentiles and Jew.

You have so little understanding of this,

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, ​

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.​

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.​

Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. ​

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:​

He heard his prayers, this is a righteous gentile, a God fearer, not just some heathen.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;​

That's 3 men

On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, ​

Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:​

The next day they came close to where Peter was staying and at that same time Peter went up to pray at the ritual prayer time.

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,​

He's hungry, it's breakfast time, so food and eating is on his mind. 'While they made ready' means while they were getting breakfast ready.

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:​

Anyone that knows Torah knows of Tzitzit or fringes, tassels that were to be placed on the four corners of the outer garment. 'Knit' at the four corners is speaking of the Tzitzitot. So this 'great sheet' is a tallit. The tzitziot or tassels represent all the commandments of GOD.

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.​

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.​

Basically all kinds of critters. Peter was appalled because the LORD is telling him to sacrifice these unclean things.
The LORD was showing him that in the sheet descending from heaven in a tallit with tzitziot that certain those of the nations he had cleansed and he was not allowed to eat, with them.
Then what happens?

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. ​

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. ​

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.​

Done 3X, that is specific because there are 3 men from Cornelius who are also considered righteous, God fearers at the door. Peter would not have gone with them if he didn't then come to understand what it meant.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, ​

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. ​

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. ​

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. ​

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? ​

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. ​

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.​

Peter was still wondering about the vision but the LORD pointed out to him so he understood the 3X with the sheet, it was about these 3 men, and to not doubt because the LORD sent them there.
If he had not understood what the vision truly meant then he would not have 'lodged them', allowed them to stay in a frum home.
He goes on with them the next day and when he meets Cornelius he tells him:

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.​

Here he is meaning that they should not share space basically but Peter understood this in a certain way. He let them overnight with him under the same roof. But he explains to Cornelius that it was because:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him,
and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


This is very important for the Gentiles to understand, it wasn't about 'food' as anyone who knows the kashrut laws understands that not only are certain things not to be eaten but also not touched as well.

But those Gentiles that feared God (God Fearers) meaning respected him and His commandments and 'worked righteousness by keeping them which they could keep were accepted to HIM.

Notice it does not say that they only have to 'Believe in God' or Yeshua.

I hope that you read that with an open mind for understanding and learning what it truly means.

What you say here is absolutely accurate when looking only at the human perspective of the vision. Yes, it applied to the men coming to Peter, and to God’s acceptance of the Gentiles. But is also applies to the foods that were in the sheet (tallit). God does not use false metaphors. If He uses one thing to describe another, then both of them have the same quality that is being expressed; in this case cleanness.

Sorry but that is not true.
Read Genesis 7

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So you are saying God got it wrong in chapter 9 when He told Noah that he could eat anything that moves?

God sent the beasts to Noah, Noah did not gather them. And Moses was the one writing the story, so he knew (as God inspired him) what animals were clean and what weren’t. But Noah did not know what animals were clean or not.

And you show your Love for your GOD by keeping HIS Sabbath HOLY. It's a twofer!

YOU show your love of God in honoring one day above the others, and that is fine. I show my love for God by honoring all days equally, and that is also fine (Rom 14:5). God is equally glorified by both choices.

 

[Lulav]

The Messiah (period), not the Jewish Messiah.

Sorry but the pagans had no promise of a Jewish Messiah, and he is the Jewish Messiah, from the tribe of Judah, even after he arose he is still called that.

Many years after this when John was given a vision this is what was said:

Revelation 5:5​

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. 6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.​

The Jewish Lion. The Lamb of GOD.

Jesus came to save the whole world, and everyone who has faith in Him will be saved, not just the Jews.

Not everyone.

And yes, Jesus has one bride: all those who believe in Him. Those Jews who believed in Him in the beginning were the first, but every Jew who did not believe in Him was it off from being His bride. And then the Gentiles who believed were grafted in. But those Gentiles who did not believe were not grafted in. So we have one bride, made up of only those who believe, not Gentiles and Jew.

I think Paul differentiates them as natural branches and wild branches.

What you say here is absolutely accurate when looking only at the human perspective of the vision. Yes, it applied to the men coming to Peter, and to God’s acceptance of the Gentiles.

Actually I learned that from a Rabbi who had been studying Acts. And it makes total sense. But No, it did not mean HE accepted all Gentiles, only as Peter proclaimed to Cornelius,

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

Those among the nations, the Gentiles that feared him, and worked righteousness by keeping his commandments, those are the Gentiles that are accepted by GOD.

But is also applies to the foods that were in the sheet (tallit). God does not use false metaphors. If He uses one thing to describe another, then both of them have the same quality that is being expressed; in this case cleanness.

Nope, Peter never ate anything did he? And the sheet was taken back to heaven.

And the LORD did not call them food.

So you are saying God got it wrong in chapter 9 when He told Noah that he could eat anything that moves?

I was replying to your statement of:

"Those animals were created clean. It was not until Moses that God set them apart and called them unclean."

God sent the beasts to Noah, Noah did not gather them. And Moses was the one writing the story, so he knew (as God inspired him) what animals were clean and what weren’t. But Noah did not know what animals were clean or not.

That's not how I read that.

​

1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.​

2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.​

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.​

​

​

YOU show your love of God in honoring one day above the others, and that is fine. I show my love for God by honoring all days equally, and that is also fine (Rom 14:5). God is equally glorified by both choices.

No, he's not. I show the Love to my LORD by honoring the Day he chose and the Day HE Called HOLY, separating them from all the other days.

I take HIS WORD over any mans. Period.

 

[Doug Brents]

Sorry but the pagans had no promise of a Messiah, and he is the Jewish Messiah, from the tribe of Judah, even after he arose he is still called that.

That is false. The promise, all the way back to Adam, was that all nations would be blessed through the Messiah, not just the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, from the tribe of Judah, from the lineage of David, but that does not mean that He is not also the savior of EVERYONE who has faith in Him.

Not everyone.

I said EVERYONE who has faith in Him. No, not everyone will be saved. But everyone, both Jew and Gentile, who has faith in Him will be.

I think Paul differentiates them as natural branches and wild branches.

Indeed, but they are equally partakes in the goodness of the root, and equally coheirs with Christ: no difference.

Actually I learned that from a Rabbi who had been studying Acts. And it makes total sense. But No, it did not mean HE accepted all Gentiles, only as Peter proclaimed to Cornelius,

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

Those among the nations, the Gentiles that feared him, and worked righteousness by keeping his commandments, those are the Gentiles that are accepted by GOD.

Very true, and it is so today. Those who keep His commandments in the New Covenant, both Jew and Gentile, are made righteous in Christ. Those who do not, both Jew and Gentile, are not made righteous. It is not the commandments of the Old Covenant that make us righteous today.

Nope, Peter never ate anything did he? And the sheet was taken back to heaven.

I didn’t say he ate anything. He did not eat anything during his dream, no. But he did eat with Gentiles frequently after that. And he pulled away from them for fear of the Jews from James when they came. Why would he fear the Jews if he had not been eating what the Gentiles served, whatever it was? He wouldn’t. Peter are “unclean” foods, as did Paul, because they knew that God had made all things clean.

I was replying to your statement of:

"Those animals were created clean. It was not until Moses that God set them apart and called them unclean."

That's not how I read that.

​

1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.​

2. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.​

5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.​

​

I know what you were replying to. God had called the animals to the Ark, just as He was calling Noah into the Ark. No man had eaten any animal up to the time of the Ark. All men were vegetarian. So there were no food animals of any kind. And when Noah came out of the Ark, what did God tell him in chapter 9? You can eat ANYTHING the moves. No clean vs unclean. Everything was food for man.

No, he's not. I show the Love to my LORD by honoring the Day he chose and the Day HE Called HOLY, separating them from all the other days.

I take HIS WORD over any mans. Period.

Then take God’s word for it. It is right there in Scripture for you to read. These are not my words or thoughts. I don’t make any of this up for my amusement. I speak God’s words.
“The Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats onlyvegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”
Rom 14:1-9
Remember, this is not Paul speaking out of his own knowledge. It is not even Paul speaking in the first place. It is God speaking through Paul. Paul is as instrumental in writing these words as your keyboard is when you write your reply: that is to say, not at all.

 

[Guojing]

James warns Paul that those Jews in Jerusalem will find out that he is in town and that he should somehow make a show of walking in the ways of the Law.

24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. ​

Paul does as James instructed but then they spied him in the Temple.....

26- 28 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. ​

Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! ​

This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”​

It's no wonder there was an uproar, BLM riots had nothing on what happened here.
The accusation is the same as what James told Paul, that he was teaching All men EVERYWHERE against the Jews, the law and the temple Holy place.

That is a cause for stoning.

The most interesting aspect of the Acts 21-23 account was that, throughout the whole ordeal Paul went thru when he was being questioned by the Jews about breaking the Law, not ONE TIME did James and any of the elders at Acts 21:18-25, even bothered to come and defend him.

You would think, if they agree with everything Paul has been preaching, would have come in and said "Paul is correct, the Law of Moses is nailed to the cross and is no longer necessary for anything".

But they did not. So much for the common doctrine that Paul and James was in agreement regarding the Law of Moses throughout.

 

[Lulav]

The Messiah (period), not the Jewish Messiah.

I did not Say the Jews Messiah, I said Jewish Messiah, there are other nations that have their own 'Messiahs' or weren't you aware?

Sorry but the pagans had no promise of a Messiah, and he is the Jewish Messiah, from the tribe of Judah, even after he arose he is still called that.

Many years after this when John was given a vision this is what was said:

Revelation 5:5And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. 6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

That is false.

Are you saying that Revelation 5:5 is false? Even though you want to try, he is still Jewish and still called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, that is one of his many titles and no wishing away will make it so.

Jesus was a Jew, from the tribe of Judah, from the lineage of David, but that does not mean that He is not also the savior of EVERYONE who has faith in Him.

NO, he IS still Jewish, he has to be to be the promised Savior, don't you get that? He even said himself that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. Is that a lie too?

After he accomplished what was written in GODS salvation plan then it was opened, (Not of Shavuot - Pentecost) but after when Peter received his visitation, to Gentiles who followed a certain criteria.

“In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

You have to honor him (keeping his commandments) which is working righteousness, THEN you will be accepted by Him.

 

[Lulav]

The most interesting aspect of the Acts 21-23 account was that, throughout the whole ordeal Paul went thru when he was being questioned by the Jews about breaking the Law, not ONE TIME did James and any of the elders at Acts 21:18-25, even bothered to come and defend him.

You would think, if they agree with everything Paul has been preaching, would have come in and said "Paul is correct, the Law of Moses is nailed to the cross and is no longer necessary for anything".

But they did not. So much for the common doctrine that Paul and James was in agreement regarding the Law of Moses throughout.

Exactly, The absence of James or any of the Elders coming to his defense speaks volumes.
Of course if James had indeed said the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross even those who believed in Yeshua might gather together to stone him.

But the thing is, the uproar was caused because thousands of them believed what they heard about Paul as well as those from Asia who had witnessed what he had been preaching to not keep the law of Moses. That's a lot of witnesses. But Paul being clever, came up with a strawman to draw the attention of the real matter and turn it 'political' turning the two sects (Pharisees and Sadducees) against each other, forgetting the real subject on the docket.

Paul lied, period. He was not being accused of believing in the resurrection as he stated, but being accused of teaching to not keep the Torah of Moses.

 

[Doug Brents]

I did not Say the Jews Messiah, I said Jewish Messiah, there are other nations that have their own 'Messiahs' or weren't you aware?

There is only one Messiah that matters. There is only one name under Heaven by which we (everyone) must be saved: Jesus.

Are you saying that Revelation 5:5 is false? Even though you want to try, he is still Jewish and still called the Lion of the tribe of Judah, that is one of his many titles and no wishing away will make it so.

Just wow! Talk about butchering what I said to make me out to be a liar. Your preconceptions are going to get you into trouble some day, sweetheart.

As I said, yes, Jesus was an Israelite, from the tribe of Judah. He is the Lion and the Lamb. But, He is the Savior of the entire world, not just the Jews (John 3:16 among many, many passages).

NO, he IS still Jewish, he has to be to be the promised Savior, don't you get that? He even said himself that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. Is that a lie too?

Of course He was Jewish. He had to come through the lineage of Davis as predicted.

After he accomplished what was written in GODS salvation plan then it was opened, (Not of Shavuot - Pentecost) but after when Peter received his visitation, to Gentiles who followed a certain criteria.

“In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

You have to honor him (keeping his commandments) which is working righteousness, THEN you will be accepted by Him.

Obviously, but the commandments that we have to keep today are different from the ones the Jews had to keep before Christ. But then, it is obvious that YOU don’t get that.

 

[Lulav]

Very true, and it is so today. Those who keep His commandments in the New Covenant, both Jew and Gentile, are made righteous in Christ. Those who do not, both Jew and Gentile, are not made righteous.

Are you implying that Cornelius as a God- fearer who went to Synagogue and kept the Sabbath was following New Covenant laws? Where did he learn them? Why need Peter? What laws did Peter preach? How come Peter didn't tell him that there were new laws to keep?

It is not the commandments of the Old Covenant that make us righteous today.

So we throw out all Yeshua said and taught? Or wasn't that for Gentiles?

I didn’t say he ate anything. He did not eat anything during his dream, no. But he did eat with Gentiles

But you believe that the LORD was setting before him a buffet of food, but you see as Peter said he never in his life, including for the past 10 years ate anything called by God Unclean.
Once finding out that Cornelius and his household were God fearers and the LORD accepted him, he then went to them and stayed and surely ate with them. But since Cornelius was a God-fearer he knew the kosher laws and I'm positive he didn't serve him pork chops and shrimp wrapped in bacon.

frequently after that.

You don't know how often he did that.

And he pulled away from them for fear of the Jews from James when they came.

The believing Messianic Jews you mean? The ones that James sent? Did you ever wonder why James sent them?
Perhaps it was to inform Peter and the other Messianic Jews there that Paul had not taught them to abstain from blood, idols, improperly slaughtered meats... That wasn't just Peter being a 'hypocrite' as Paul slandered him with, that was one who had judiciously kept the commandments of God and just found out he had been eating foods sacrificed to idols and more. No wonder all the other Messianic Jews got into an uproar, including Barnabas. I would have too.
Peter didn't fear his fellow Messianic brethern, he feared GOD because he found he had duplicitly fallen into Balaams trap.

It was a different thing back then speaking of any Gentile and a Gentile God-Fearer.

Why would he fear the Jews if he had not been eating what the Gentiles served, whatever it was? He wouldn’t.

See above, he didn't fear the Jewish brethren, but GOD.

Peter are “unclean” foods, as did Paul, because they knew that God had made all things clean.

I think you mean Peter ate Unclean foods but how could they be unclean when you said they were made clean?

If Peter knew that from the vision you say, then why did he pull away as well as all the other Messianic Jews? Apparently they hadn't been told everything was good to eat now.

I know what you were replying to.

Do you, then why ignore it? I do believe (even though it doesn't say) that the LORD brought them to Noah, he hand picked them just like he hand picked Noah based on his genetics. But surely the LORD saying that he should take those clean animals by 7 pairs needed explanation? Even Abel knew what a clean animal was for an offering, he took from his flock, not from the local pig pen.

God had called the animals to the Ark, just as He was calling Noah into the Ark. No man had eaten any animal up to the time of the Ark. All men were vegetarian.

If you understood the real reason for the flood you wouldn't say that. Not all were Vegetarians nor even Vegans.
There is a reason God proclaimed this to Noach after the flood:

4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ​

So there were no food animals of any kind. And when Noah came out of the Ark, what did God tell him in chapter 9? You can eat ANYTHING the moves. No clean vs unclean. Everything was food for man.

Yes, at that time it was. So ask yourself why did it change?

Then take God’s word for it. It is right there in Scripture for you to read. These are not my words or thoughts. I don’t make any of this up for my amusement. I speak God’s words.

I'm sorry you believe that way, for one God doesn't send anyone to Satan.

“The Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats onlyvegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

This was talking about vegetarians.

5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

Really? Each must be convinced in his own mind? God says there are special days, HIS Days and if we love him we will keep these moedim, his appointed times with HIM.

6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

That doesn't make sense but then Peter said: "in which are some things hard to understand"

Ask yourself why would God give a word to speak to his children that are hard to undertand?

He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”

My LORD is not the LORD of the dead.

Rom 14:1-9
Remember, this is not Paul speaking out of his own knowledge. It is not even Paul speaking in the first place. It is God speaking through Paul.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not confusing like that.

Paul is as instrumental in writing these words as your keyboard is when you write your reply: that is to say, not at all.

That doesn't make sense either.

 

[Studyman]

The most interesting aspect of the Acts 21-23 account was that, throughout the whole ordeal Paul went thru when he was being questioned by the Jews about breaking the Law, not ONE TIME did James and any of the elders at Acts 21:18-25, even bothered to come and defend him.

You would think, if they agree with everything Paul has been preaching, would have come in and said "Paul is correct, the Law of Moses is nailed to the cross and is no longer necessary for anything".

But they did not. So much for the common doctrine that Paul and James was in agreement regarding the Law of Moses throughout.

Where did Paul ever teach that God's Law was nailed to the Cross?

Col. 2: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

I have heard "many" who come in Christ's Name, teach that this is where Paul teaches that God's Laws HE gave to Moses was nailed to the Cross.

They imply in their religious philosophy that the "principalities and powers" that Jesus spoiled, was God. That Jesus made a show of God openly, that Jesus triumphed over God, on the Cross.

According to what is actually written, it seems they have been deceived. Jesus said the Pharisees, who had taken over the temple of God and turned it into a religious business, were "teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men", not God.

Paul said of the Jews religion that the Pharisees promoted;

Gal. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

When Paul became a believer, and a member of the true Church of God, the Pharisees, who were Zealous for their law, persecuted him, as he and the Pharisees persecuted Stephen, Yes?

Surely the "handwriting or ordinances" that "Were Against the Church of God", and "Contrary to them", were not God's Laws. And Paul never said they were God's Laws. Not here, or Ephesians 2 either.

Wasn't it the Pharisees who declared "We have a LAW, and by OUR LAW, HE should die"? Certainly God's LAW never condemned Jesus to death, even though the Pharisees Law did. Just as it did the Prophets before HIM.

I don't believe Paul was speaking to God's LAW here in Col. 2. Because God's LAW never advocated for the persecution of God's Church. But the Pharisees did have a LAW which did.

Phil. 3: 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, ( Of the Pharisees Law) persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, (Of the Pharisees) blameless.

It was the Pharisees Law, or as Jesus called them, "Commandments of men" taught to the masses for centuries, that Jesus first exposed, and then nailed to His Cross. (Woe unto the Pharisees, Hypocrites)

Those thousands of Jews who were "Zealous for the Law" in Acts, were Zealous for this Law they believed was the Law of Moses. They were the ones yelling "crucify him". They were falsely accusing Paul of teaching against the Law of Moses.

Acts 24: 13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. 16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

Like the Jews who were influenced by the Pharisees religion, we too are influenced by the religions of this world God placed us in.

And like the Pharisees, the religions of this world promote falsehoods about God and His Word. One such deception, is that Paul promoted the religious philosophy that God's Law was nailed to the Cross. My hope is that others might also consider what is actually written and come to the knowledge of this truth.

1 Cor. 19: 19 Circumcision (Jew) is nothing, and uncircumcision (Gentile) is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rom. 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

 

[HIM]

Removed, canceled, made obsolete, no longer applicable. The Old Covenant does not have any power in the New Testament Christian’s life.

The Laws were transferred. From parchment and Tables of stone to the fleshly tables of our heart. The Old Covenant was thus saith the Lord and the People saying okay we will do it. The New Covenant is The Lord putting the thus saith in our hearts, minds, and mouths that we can do it.

In respect to the Old Covenant it is only Old and ready to vanish away.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

No, Christ was not mentioned “in the beginning” when the Law was first given. Christ is who we have the New Covenant through. Christ was involved in the Old Covenant, for sure. But He was not yet known as the Christ.

It is the Lord whom sanctifies. This is as it has always been. What has been deemed new was done so because of the hardness of our hearts. But it was always available through Christ since the fall.

For God has said in the beginning, say not in your heart who shall bring His Word, His commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law down from above or up from the deep. For it is not far from thee. It is in your hearts and mouths that you may do it through Christ. Please note the judgements, that which dealt with when we sinned are not mentioned.


Exod 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

Peter says “common or unclean”. God says not to call common what He has cleansed. The point is, God cleansed it. Period. God cleansed the foods, and used that fact as a way of pointing to the Gentiles being cleansed as well.

Yes Peter made a distinction between the two different animals that he seen, He seen common animals and unclean ones.

God only addressed what he cleansed, And that was the common. If he had cleansed the uncleaned He would have mentioned it. Don't add to the Word of Go

I have read, but quite forgot, that verse. And indeed it does say that God was “refreshed”. I don’t for a second believe that creation tired God, or caused Him exertion. But I believe that to be an example for us to be refreshed from our work.

The Word says he rested and refreshed. I don't really care what I think or anyone outside of that.

Heb 4:1-11. - “Therefore, we must fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith.3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My anger,
They certainly shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience.”
Let’s look at the whole passage in context here. In verse 5, “and again” is simply a reference to another quote of God’s words from Scripture.

The whole context of this passage is the entering into God’s rest. His rest is not from physical efforts and struggles, but from spiritual struggles and efforts towards salvation. That rest is found ONLY in Christ.


The seventh day is immaterial in a spiritual rest. Jesus is the sabbath rest, not the seventh day. You have everything correct here until you try to force it to reflect the seventh day.

No two things being spoken of in Hebrews 4:10. A rest one enters and a ceasing from from a works like God did. The word ALSO denotes this. Just as the ceasing from our own works is a direct comparison to that which God did. This is shown to be by the word AS.


Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Yes Peter made a distinction between the two different animals that he seen, He seen common animals and unclean ones.

God only addressed what he cleansed, And that was the common. If he had cleansed the uncleaned He would have mentioned it. Don't add to the Word of Go

I find it hard to accept this perspective because this narrative must portray (i) Peter as a foolish married adult Jew who, despite giving up everything to follow Jesus, does not even know how to differentiate between what is common and unclean when God asked him to kill and eat, assuming God was referring only to the clean animal, yet Jesus gave him the key to the kingdom of heaven. (ii) And after three times, Peter still doesn't realise that God was just pointing to the clean animals? (iii) What was clean does not need to be cleansed because Jesus will not clean what has already been cleaned, as seen in John 13:9-10 when Peter asked Jesus to wash his hands and head, nor do the healthy require a doctor.