If you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments

BobRyan said:

You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.

But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"

If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"

Was that some sort of trick question?

Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"




Notice that your own group says this --


II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Click to expand...

Lets really see what the SDAs have done with the ordinances Moses dictated from God and are in the book of the law along with the 10 commandments. You have taken upon yourselves to remove most of the book of the law and hang on to the remainder( A modified tithing requirement, and the clean and unclean laws) and you have done this without any authority from scripture. Either all the ordinances were scraped which would include the 10 or they are all still binding as is the Messianic claim. Jesus explained in Matthew that nothing could be removed from the Torah until all be fulfilled. You people also quote that statement and deny the fact that Paul in Gal 3 tells us that Torah was until Christ. You tell us that what Paul was referring to was the ceremonial law. Adventists proclaim: A law was added according to Gal. 3:19. This law was the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law was not part of God's original covenant with Israel. "It was added because of transgressions." Because of Israel's sins God added the ceremonial laws, "til the Seed should come to whom the promise was made." When Jesus came he nailed the ceremonial laws to his cross (Col. 2:14).

What you need to do is prove that Paul was referring only to the hand written ordinances dictated to Moses By God in lieu of the entire Torah. Gal 3:19 Why, then, was the law given at all...? See the "the" Bob? Paul didn't qualify ceremonial or any parts, he stated "the" law. Taking verses and changing the meaning of them to suit ones preconceived notions doesn't cut it Bob.

Travis93 said:

I'm confused by that list, what happened to:
Deuteronomy 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

God doesn't want people to make graven images of other gods or even of himself, which is why he didn't show them what he looks like:
Deuteronomy 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deuteronomy 4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
Deuteronomy 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:

Even bringing one into your house without bowing to it is a curse.
Deuteronomy 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

It's reiterated in Acts:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Click to expand...

I and other Catholics don't believe that inanimate objects are God. We do not worship inanimate objects. We worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

However, it can be difficult for Catholics and for other Christians to avoid making for ourselves strange gods/idols out of our own self-importance/pride, wealth, power, social status, family, and possessions, etc.

Any person or thing that is more important to us than our love and obedience to God is called an idol. Colossians 3:5

The early Israelites were commanded at first to not make any images of anything at all because they were a naive people and they were prone to believe that an inanimate thing or object, such as the golden calf which they made for themselves to worship in the desert, was actually God and unfortunately sometimes they did choose to worship a thing or object such as the golden calf instead of choosing to worship God only.

And later, God did command the Israelites to make many objects of art, but none of these objects were idols/graven images because the people did not believe that any of these objects were God and so they did not worship them. Exodus 25:17-19, Exodus 28:33, Exodus 25:31-33

Unfortunately, later on in their history, the Israelites actually turned a blessing from God, that which was the bronze serpent which He commanded Moses to make in the desert for the healing of the Israelites from snake bite, into an idol for them to worship. These disobedient Israelites stopped worshiping God and then began to worship the bronze serpent instead of God and they even gave the statue a name, Nehushtan. They changed this object of art and blessing from God into an idol/graven image, and so it had to be destroyed. Exodus 32:21-24, Numbers 21:5-9, 2 Kings 18:1-5

God did give us an image of Himself to worship. He sent His Son Jesus to earth for us to worship. Jesus is the image of His Father. Colossians 1:15

I do have a picture of Jesus in my home right now. I do not worship this picture. I don't believe this picture is God. This picture of Jesus reminds me to think of Jesus who is God the Son and to obey Him. I do have photos of my own family members in my home, but I certainly do not believe that any of these photos are gods!

BobRyan said:

You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.

But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"

If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"

Was that some sort of trick question?

Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"




Notice that your own group says this --


II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Click to expand...

Hello Bob.

This is a very important issue we are discussing Bob, the decrees given to Israel at Mt Sinai and the interpretation
provided by the SDA website. Is the proclamation of the SDA dogma listed on the SDA website, valid dogma?

You stated the following in your previous reply.

You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.
But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that
entered into the sacrificial system" If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct
- I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"
Was that some sort of trick question?

Click to expand...

This was not intended to be a trick question, Bob. The difficulty rests in the terms that different church groups
employ when referring to the decrees given at Mt Sinai.

In the decrees given at Mt Sinai, you have been conditioned to see one group of decrees as the decalogue, and the
other group of decrees as the ceremonial law. This is the distinction that the SDA website proclaims, see below.

The position maintained by Seventh-day Adventists regarding their relationship to the Decalogue, and their twofold
distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law, is fully sustained by the leading creeds, articles of faith, and
catechisms of historic Protestantism. (sdanet.org)

Well is the SDA 'sustained by the leading creeds', i.e., for example, the Westminster Confession?

The problem you now have Bob, is that the Westminster Confession declares three distinct groups of decrees and
not a twofold group within the Mt Sinai decrees. The Westminster Confession makes a threefold distinction of moral,
ceremonial and judicial (civil law). Please read the decree (iv); reproduced below.

Westminster Confession, Of the Law of God.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age,
ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings,
and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated,
under the New Testament. IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with
the State of that people.

The SDA website is incorrect in their assertion that their dogma is sustained by the leading creeds of historic Protestantism.

For one, the Westminster confession never stated a twofold distinction in the decrees given at Mt Sinai.

Once again Bob, I will ask you if you adhere to the dogma proclaimed on the SDA website?

Is there a twofold distinction or a threefold distinction, in the decrees given at Mt Sinai?

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Acts 28:7 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Travis93 said:

Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Acts 28:7 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Click to expand...

Hello Travis.

How do you read the following verse?

1 Corinthians 9
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law,
as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are
under the Law;

BobRyan said:

so in that case you give a quote of one of my own groups - a pro-Bible-Sabbath group. which I freely admit to.

And I give a quote from one of your own pro-Sunday groups. Which you continue to be at war with???

Click to expand...

Hello Bob.

Obviously you will have been taught an interpretation of the book of Acts, in order
to justify the idea, that the Gentiles are under the law. Just briefly Bob, how do you
interpret chapter fifteen of the book of Acts?

klutedavid said:

Hello Travis.

How do you read the following verse?

1 Corinthians 9
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law,
as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are
under the Law;

Click to expand...

He's talking about the oral law there (Mark 7 hand washing before eating for example). He submitted to the oral law around the Jews to avoid offending them but didn't bother around gentiles. If he meant the law of Moses, he'd be contradicting himself, because he said he never stopped following that. Like if he started eating pork around gentiles he'd be lying to say he didn't break the law.

If the apostles were truly against the law, they wouldn't need to set up false witnesses in Acts 6:13 to prove it.

klutedavid said:

Hello Bob.

Obviously you will have been taught an interpretation of the book of Acts, in order
to justify the idea, that the Gentiles are under the law. Just briefly Bob, how do you
interpret chapter fifteen of the book of Acts?

Click to expand...

These new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law. It's like expecting a new employee to know everything on the first day. James decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest over time at the synagogues.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

If you interpret it to mean those four laws were literally all that was expected, then the letters to the Roman, Corinthians, Galatians, etc were a waste of time, and guilty of heaping unnecessary burdens on the believers. Passages like Romans 1:18-32, Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5 add a number of additional sins to repent of for example. And 2 Timothy 2:16 tells us that all scripture is useful for our instruction.

Travis93 said:

He's talking about the oral law there (Mark 7 hand washing before eating for example). He submitted to the oral law around the Jews to avoid offending them but didn't bother around gentiles. If he meant the law of Moses, he'd be contradicting himself, because he said he never stopped following that. Like if he started eating pork around gentiles he'd be lying to say he didn't break the law.

If the apostles were truly against the law, they wouldn't need to set up false witnesses in Acts 6:13 to prove it.

Click to expand...

Hello Travis.

You will need to define what you mean when you say 'oral law'.

If we look at the verse I quoted, one could interpret the phrase 'the law',
any number of ways.

'though not being myself under the Law'

I would never apply a secondary interpretation over the text. Paul is saying
that he is simply not under the law. In the verse I quoted, Paul is definitely
saying that he is only under the law to win the Jews.

klutedavid said:

Hello Travis.

You will need to define what you mean when you say 'oral law'.

If we look at the verse I quoted, one could interpret the phrase 'the law',
any number of ways.

'though not being myself under the Law'

I would never apply a secondary interpretation over the text. Paul is saying
that he is simply not under the law. In the verse I quoted, Paul is definitely
saying that he is only under the law to win the Jews.

Click to expand...

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm#Talmud

This is the oral law I'm referring to. You can see it in action here:
Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mark 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Acts 10:28 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.

There is no such law, Peter was still hanging onto an oral law, that's why he needed the vision from God to show him gentiles could be interacted with. The law actually says to love and treat the strangers as one of your own (Leviticus 19:33-34). See this link for where the oral law was derived from.

BobRyan said:

Acts 15 is not a re-write of the entire Bible -- though some do "re-imagine" it that way. It does not include "Love your neighbor as yourself" - it does not include "Love God with all your heart" -- it does not include "Honor your father and mother" it does not include "Do not take God's name in vain".

And as Acts 15 points out - the "solution" to the problem is to avoid all the man-made-traditions that they are trying to invent on the spot (such as the fake rule that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved - a rule never found in OT or NT) -- and stick with the actual Bible where "Every Sabbath Moses is heard in the synagogues" even by Gentiles as we see in Acts 13 - Sabbath after Sabbath -- and as we see in Acts 17 Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath -- and as we see in Acts 18:4 "EVERY Sabbath" - and in those cases it is not merely Moses - but also full Gospel preaching.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the Gentiles already recognized the true sabbath. This would have been a good time for Paul to say "don't worry, sabbath is for Jews only" or "the gentile sabbath is the first day of the week".
Acts 12:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

The laws that don't apply today would be those dependent on the tabernacle/temple, just as thy didn't apply during the 70 year Babylonian captivity.
Deuteronomy 12:5 But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
Deuteronomy 12:6 And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Also anything related to priests, since no one has the record to prove their genealogy today.
Ezra 2:62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

BobRyan said:

You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.

But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"

If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"

Was that some sort of trick question?

Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"




Notice that your own group says this --


II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.


===========================

so in that case you give a quote of one of my own groups - a pro-Bible-Sabbath group. which I freely admit to.

And I give a quote from one of your own pro-Sunday groups. Which you continue to be at war with???



My quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith - is not an "SDA website"

Your own "Quote of you" saying ""all of the law other than the ten commandments" is also "not a quote of the SDA web site"

You use the link for some SDA - on his website - but then merely "quote you?" -- why do that?

==========================


Fine. Then why not quote the site you link to??

For example see the "Westminster Confession of Faith" site I link to - and quote.




Since you avoid the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" -- pro-sunday groups that correct your position -- I will quote them for you.

Or do you claim that the Baptists and the Westminster Confession of Faith, C.H. Spurgeon et. al. were "Conditioned by SDAs"???

They themselves argue for the distinction between moral law of God that defines what sin is and that includes the Ten Commandments -- vs -- the ceremonial law of animal sacrifices etc.

Are we just "not supposed to notice" ???

You keep responding as if you have missed this key point -- post after post.

Click to expand...

Hello Bob.

You seem to be very excited, so many posts. I will reply to Travis firstly though,
be patient Bob, this could take some time. The subject of 'the law' and Grace, is an
extremely complex subject, that is why there are so many different interpretations.

Travis93 said:

These new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law. It's like expecting a new employee to know everything on the first day. James decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest over time at the synagogues.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

If you interpret it to mean those four laws were literally all that was expected, then the letters to the Roman, Corinthians, Galatians, etc were a waste of time, and guilty of heaping unnecessary burdens on the believers. Passages like Romans 1:18-32, Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5 add a number of additional sins to repent of for example. And 2 Timothy 2:16 tells us that all scripture is useful for our instruction.

Click to expand...

Hello Travis.

Thanks for the reply, you said.

These new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the
jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law.

Click to expand...

Correct Travis, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew for starters, there probably was not even a New Testament
letter in existence during these early years of the Gentile church. The Gentiles had no knowledge of God, and the
history of Israel was utterly unknown to them. The entire narration of the mission of the Christ and everything
He did, was just one big mystery.

Then you made a huge leap and made the following unqualified statement.

James decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest
over time at the synagogues.

Click to expand...

This is entirely incorrect Travis, the text does not support what you have just said. You are proposing a false
interpretation of the text, you are reading things into the text that are just not there. Now please read the
rest of this post carefully.

The text (Acts 15) states, that men from Judea initiated this hot debate, the debate over the issue of circumcision
and the law. The law was mandatory for the Gentile believers, and that is what these men from Judea were
teaching the Gentile brethren.

Please read verses one and two of the text, Travis. Paul and Barnabus were the ones opposing this teaching
of mandatory circumcision and the law. Verses one and two Travis, do in fact, contradict your interpretation.

Paul and Barnabas had, 'great dissension and debate'. with these men from Judea, this debate was underway
a long time before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Paul was opposed to the law and circumcision for the Gentile believers,
and that is why this great debate was occurring.

Many folk wrongly start with the declaration from the council of Jerusalem, and for some reason
ignore this earlier context. That is the error, Travis.

Paul and Barnabus fought tooth and nail against these men from Judea. Paul knew that the Gentiles were
not under the law, Paul mentions this numerous times in his letters as we know. Paul then had to go down
to Jerusalem because the issue was unresolved.

Travis you will need to reply with your version of these verses, i.e., verses one and two from Acts 15,
before we can even attempt to deal with the latter verdict from the council of Jerusalem.[/Quote][/Quote]

klutedavid said:

Hello Travis.

Thanks for the reply, you said.

Correct Travis, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew for starters, there probably was not even a New Testament
letter in existence during these early years of the Gentile church. The Gentiles had no knowledge of God, and the
history of Israel was utterly unknown to them. The entire narration of the mission of the Christ and everything
He did, was just one big mystery.

Then you made a huge leap and made the following unqualified statement.

This is entirely incorrect Travis, the text does not support what you have just said. You are proposing a false
interpretation of the text, you are reading things into the text that are just not there. Now please read the
rest of this post carefully.

The text (Acts 15) states, that men from Judea initiated this hot debate, the debate over the issue of circumcision
and the law. The law was mandatory for the Gentile believers, and that is what these men from Judea were
teaching the Gentile brethren.

Please read verses one and two of the text, Travis. Paul and Barnabus were the ones opposing this teaching
of mandatory circumcision and the law. Verses one and two Travis, do in fact, contradict your interpretation.

Paul and Barnabas had, 'great dissension and debate'. with these men from Judea, this debate was underway
a long time before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Paul was opposed to the law and circumcision for the Gentile believers,
and that is why this great debate was occurring.

Many folk wrongly start with the declaration from the council of Jerusalem, and for some reason
ignore this earlier context. That is the error, Travis.

Paul and Barnabus fought tooth and nail against these men from Judea. Paul knew that the Gentiles were
not under the law, Paul mentions this numerous times in his letters as we know. Paul then had to go down
to Jerusalem because the issue was unresolved.

Travis you will need to reply with your version of these verses, i.e., verses one and two from Acts 15,
before we can even attempt to deal with the latter verdict from the council of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

[/Quote][/QUOTE]

If Paul really taught against the law I don't have any reservations about rejecting him as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). I couldn't care less what some mere man has to say if they speak against the law. The law is going to be enforced on all mankind in the future (Isaiah 2:2-3, Micah 4:1-2). We will all keep the feasts such as the feast of tabernacles (Zechariah 14:16) and sabbaths (Isaiah 66:23). Circumcision will be mandatory to enter God's sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:9) and dietary laws will be enforced (Isaiah 66:15-17). God wants the gentiles to keep sabbath as well (Isaiah 56:6). There is to be one law for Jew and Gentile (Leviticus 24:22). Jesus preached the law (Matthew 5:17-19) and said to teach everything he said to all nations (Matthew 28:20).

With that said, I interpret Acts 15:1 as them saying that circumcision being a prerequisite to getting saved in the first place. However, Abraham was saved (Genesis 15:6) years before being circumcised (Genesis 17:24), so from this I don't think it's necessary for a new believer to do it right away.

When Paul lists sin for the gentiles, he's affirming the law. Here's some examples.
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols (Leviticus 17:7), and from blood (Leviticus 17:10), and from things strangled (Genesis 9:4), and from fornication (Leviticus 18): from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (Leviticus 18), nor idolaters (Exodus 20:3-5), nor adulterers (Exodus 20:14), nor effeminate (Deuteronomy 22:5 men wearing women's clothes would qualify as "effeminate" I think), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (Leviticus 18:23 probably talking about homosexuals here like in Romans 1:27-28), Nor thieves (Exodus 20:15), nor covetous (Exodus 20:17), nor drunkards (Deuteronomy 21:20), nor revilers (Exodus 22:28), nor extortioners (Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 25:13-16), shall inherit the kingdom of God.