Saturday or Sunday Church?

MMXX said:

I knew you'd claim it was only about circumcision. Which no matter how wordy and drawn out the explanation with verse links added, it doesn't make sense and doesn't follow the course of what all is said and decided in Acts 15.

Click to expand...

If you can quote me as claiming that it was only about circumcision, then please do that. If I said something that doesn't make sense, then please ask me to clarify. If you disagree with something that I've said, then please explain why.

Carl Emerson said:

Gal 3
before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Click to expand...

I've made the case that Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret Galatians 3:23-29 as saying that the Mosaic Law leads us to Christ so that we can then reject what he taught and go back to living in sin. Furthermore, someone who disregarded everything their tutor taught after they came to Christ would be missing the whole point of a tutor. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him, so the Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it testifies about how to know him, which is eternal life (John 17:3), which is also why he said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Matthew 19:17). Now that Christ has come we are under a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with what Christ spent his ministry teaching.

Furthermore, Galatians 3:26-29 connects the concept of being children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise with being children of God in Christ through faith, and every aspects of this is in regard to walking in God's way in obedience to the Law of Moses. The Kingdom of God is where people are a blessing to others by multiplying the nature of God through teaching how to walk in God's way in obedience to His law, which is why Jesus began his ministry calling for people to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and this was the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham (Galatian 3:8). God's way is the way in which he expresses aspects of His nature (2 Samuel 22:21-27) and there are many verses that refer to the Law of Moses as being instructions for how to walk in God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised, namely in Genesis 26:4-5 that God would multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He would give all of these lands, and through His children all of the nations of the earth would be blessed, which again is the Gospel of the Kingdom that was made known in advance to him. All of of the promises were made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law and taught his children and those who his household to do that, and that his how his descendants were multiplied and became citizens of the Kingdom of God, which is again spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did, so again it is connected with following His example of spreading the Kingdom, and that is how we are children of Abraham and heirs to the promise through faith. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Law of Moses are not children of God, un 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and in Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Law of Moses, so again every aspect of being children of God in Christ through faith is connected with living in obedience to the Law of Moses.

Soyeong said:

If you point is simply that there are people on the internet who disagree with me, then I'm well aware of that. Otherwise, by all means please explain why you think my interpretation is wrong. God's word should not be misinterpreted as speaking against obeying God's word.

Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with the opinion of others or, for that matter, my opinion. The book of Galatians was written to Christians who had fallen from grace by putting themselves back under the Mosaic law. I've said my bit already. Feel free to live in the shadow of the Law. I live in the light of the glorious gospel of liberty.

Jesus reveals His will in my Spirit then enables me to carry it out. He's been doing this for 50 years, not that I was aware of it for all that time. Not once has He said to me I must observe the Sabbath. Many times that would have been impossible. I sin and fail still, but I confess my sin and get on with life. Under the Law, there is no mercy. I am saved by grace, not by outward observation of rules and regulations.

Soyeong said:

If you disagree with my position in lieu of explaining why you disagree, then you are also disagreeing with the verses that I used to support my position, but if you think that I've misunderstood those verses, then by all means please explain why.

Click to expand...

Then be more concise please, because I'm not going to dissect lengthy posts.

Or at least in a paragraph sum up what you're getting at as a footnote.

When someone is producing orthodox Christian doctrine and theology I can easily tell because of the familiarity of it. Likewise when someone is posting unorthodox doctrine and theology I can tell because of the unfamiliarity of it. But since it's unfamiliar and lengthy, it's too much of a chore on a forum to try unpacking all of it.

Aussie Pete said:

Not once has He said to me I must observe the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Brother, Jesus said it in the guarantied word of God but it was mistranslated! Some translations, like the King James Version (KJV), affected many other translations after it. Many translations continue the error started by the KJV's misidentification of Joshua as Jesus in Hebrews, chapter 4, when Jesus was not before David to make the "good news" of entering the Sabbath the "Gospel" of Jesus. The wrong translation of "Gospel" for the phrase the "good news" of entering the Sabbath has influenced wrongly many other Bible translations after the KJV. The newer NKJV fixes the misidentification of Joshua as Jesus but not its effect on the rest of the passage, like the "Gospel" (not possible before David), for the phrase, the "good news" of entering the Sabbath, first heard by those that died in the desert. Those, like Joshua, who were not allowed to enter the Sabbath by "oath" near the Promised Land with Manna, that Joshua later entered before the seventh day of the week from evening to evening, having been prevented from entering the Sabbath with Manna for 40 years from morning to morning near the Promised Land. In the Hebrews passage, "another day" refers to a different day than the one thought for the Sabbath since Joshua: not the seventh day of the week everywhere, but the seventh day of the week of creation remembered in the time zone of creation.


United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge

Aussie Pete said:

It's nothing to do with the opinion of others or, for that matter, my opinion. The book of Galatians was written to Christians who had fallen from grace by putting themselves back under the Mosaic law. I've said my bit already. Feel free to live in the shadow of the Law. I live in the light of the glorious gospel of liberty.

Jesus reveals His will in my Spirit then enables me to carry it out. He's been doing this for 50 years, not that I was aware of it for all that time. Not once has He said to me I must observe the Sabbath. Many times that would have been impossible. I sin and fail still, but I confess my sin and get on with life. Under the Law, there is no mercy. I am saved by grace, not by outward observation of rules and regulations.

Click to expand...

We both have opinions about how to book of Galatians should be interpreted. All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people and to return to obedience to His law and even Christ spent his ministry teaching that Gospel message by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example, so you should be quicker to think that your interpretation of Galatians makes no sense, that it must be wrong, and that you must have misunderstood it than to think that it makes perfect sense to interpret it as Paul warning them against obeying what God has commanded in accordance with what Christ taught, as though Paul were not a servant of God.

In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, and it would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from race. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law, and in John 17:3, knowing God and Jesus is eternal life, which again is the only way of salvation by grace through faith. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace to bring about the obedience of faith, and in Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law for how to do these works is itself part of the content of His gift of salvation. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to it is inherently part of the concept of Jesus saving us from living in transgression of it, and if you want nothing to do with living in obedience to it, then you also want nothing to do with salvation from living in transgression of it.

Soyeong said:

We both have opinions about how to book of Galatians should be interpreted.

Click to expand...

But which interpretation aligns more with the historical and orthodox view of Christianity? Yours or his?

Aussie Pete said:

It's nothing to do with the opinion of others or, for that matter, my opinion. The book of Galatians was written to Christians who had fallen from grace by putting themselves back under the Mosaic law. I've said my bit already. Feel free to live in the shadow of the Law. I live in the light of the glorious gospel of liberty.

Jesus reveals His will in my Spirit then enables me to carry it out. He's been doing this for 50 years, not that I was aware of it for all that time. Not once has He said to me I must observe the Sabbath. Many times that would have been impossible. I sin and fail still, but I confess my sin and get on with life. Under the Law, there is no mercy. I am saved by grace, not by outward observation of rules and regulations.

Click to expand...

I agree the entire Mosaic law can be done away with because the moral commandments are still upheld in the New Testament and the New Covenant. We see Jesus and the apostles teaching to observe the moral commandments what we don’t see is them teaching to keep the Mosaic Law. Nothing about keeping the Sabbaths, nothing about the animal sacrifices, nothing about building alters or tabernacles, nothing about the observing the Passover.

MMXX said:

Then be more concise please, because I'm not going to dissect lengthy posts.

Or at least in a paragraph sum up what you're getting at as a footnote.

When someone is producing orthodox Christian doctrine and theology I can easily tell because of the familiarity of it. Likewise when someone is posting unorthodox doctrine and theology I can tell because of the unfamiliarity of it. But since it's unfamiliar and lengthy, it's too much of a chore on a forum to try unpacking all of it.

Click to expand...

I do not hold a mainstream interpretation of Acts 15, which is precisely why I am writing a longer post that is making the strongest case for my interpretation that I can. You should have a major problem with you interpreting Acts 15:10-11 as being direct disagreement with God in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and as expressing a view of God's law that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture, so you are the one who should be saying that your interpretation doesn't make sense.

If my post was too much of a chore to read, then don't make assumptions about what it says. I'll summarize:

In Acts 15:11, the ruling was in regard to the means of salvation, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with what Christ taught. The group from Judea in Acts 15:1 who wanted all Gentiles to become circumcised were opposed by the group of believers from among the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 in regard to the means of salvation, the Jerusalem Council arbitrated between them and ruled in favor of the group in Acts 15:5, while neither of the groups there were in disagreement about whether Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. Everything Peter said in Acts 15:6-9 about Gentiles believing the Gospel and receiving the Spirit was as well as the ruling in Acts 15:10-11 was all in support of the group in Acts 15:5 and against the group in Acts 15:1, which I spent a few paragraphs demonstrating.

BNR32FAN said:

I agree the entire Mosaic law can be done away with because the moral commandments are still upheld in the New Testament and the New Covenant. We see Jesus and the apostles teaching to observe the moral commandments what we don’t see is them teaching to keep the Mosaic Law. Nothing about keeping the Sabbaths, nothing about the animal sacrifices, nothing about building alters or tabernacles, nothing about the observing the Passover.

Click to expand...

Jesus and the apostles all kept the Sabbath and Paul made it pretty clear there is the keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9-10.

The Ten Commandments points out sin Romans 7:7 and no scripture says we are free to sin.

The moral law of God is the Ten Commandments that Jesus and the disciples taught and kept . John 14:15, 1 John 5:3, Matthew 5:19-30, Matthew 15:3-9, Matthew 19:17-19, John 15:10, 1 John 2:3-5, James 2:10-12, Revelation 12:14, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 22:14-15, Mark 10:19, Luke 1:6, Luke 18:20, Hebrews 8:10, 1 Corinthians 7:19 and etc. etc. etc. The Sabbath is a commandment of God, which means its not a suggestion and God said the Sabbath is a sign between Him and His people and will continue to be His chosen day of worship thus saith the Lord for eternity Isaiah 66:23

I'm just curious if anyone ever consider they are on the wrong side of this. That God really meant what He said when he personally spoke these words- Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8

We are told that the devil deceives the whole world - that's the majority of people. How are people deceived? By not following the law and prophets, which means the word of God. Isaiah 8:20. The devil has sinned (breaking God's law) from the beginning. 1 John 3:8-10

The Sabbath is not the holy day of the Jews, God said it is His holy day, that Jesus is Lord of in very easy to understand scripture. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13, Mark 2:28

The Lord tells us to not worship in vain keeping traditions over the commandments of God and quotes directly from the Ten Commandment. Matthew 15:3-9

There is no Sunday-keeping commandment of God in the whole bible, but there is for Sabbath-keeping and according to scripture God's saints keep His commandments. Revelation 14:12

We are called to worship Him in Truth and Spirit John 4:23-24.

MMXX said:

But which interpretation aligns more with the historical and orthodox view of Christianity? Yours or his?

Click to expand...

I used to hold a similar interpretation of Acts 15 as him that was in line with mainstream Christianity, but I've since run across some major issues that have called that interpretation into question. For example, David repeatedly said in the Psalms that he love the Law of God and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying it is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't uphold the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of God's law, and we should not interpret the NT authors as expressing a view that is in direct disagreement with God and at odds with the view that the Psalms are Scripture, and we should prefer interpretations of Acts 15 that don't run into this problem, such as the one that I have made the case for.

Practicing Jews have historically had an extremely positive view of the Torah in accordance with the Psalms, such as having daily prayers where they thank God multiple times a day for giving them the Torah, and having day called Simchat Torah, which is dedicated to rejoicing over the Torah, so your interpretation of Acts 15 is also at odds with historical reality.

BNR32FAN said:

I agree the entire Mosaic law can be done away with because the moral commandments are still upheld in the New Testament and the New Covenant. We see Jesus and the apostles teaching to observe the moral commandments what we don’t see is them teaching to keep the Mosaic Law. Nothing about keeping the Sabbaths, nothing about the animal sacrifices, nothing about building alters or tabernacles, nothing about the observing the Passover.

Click to expand...

Saying that a subset of God's commandments are moral commandments implies that the other commandments are moral to disobey, however, there is not a single example in the Bible where disobedience to any of God's commandments is considered to be moral to disobey. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's commandments are inherently moral commandments. Likewise, what we ought to do is based on God's nature and all of God's commandments teach us how to act in accordance with aspects of His nature, so again they are all moral commandments.

At no point does the Bible make any sort of attempt to distinguish between which commandments are moral or not or give any sort of standard that we can apply to determine whether any particular commandments is moral or not. Likewise, there is nothing in the NT that says that the moral commandments are just the ones that they chose to repeat and it is moral to disobey everything else, and there is nothing that they were editing the law down to just what would eventually be recorded that they repeated. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had repeated nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6).

When we express an aspects of God's nature through our obedience to the Law of Moses, we are expressing our love for that aspect of who God is, which is why there are many verses in both the OT and the NT that connect our love for God with our obedience to His commandments. So all of the different laws that God chose to give were specifically given for the purpose of teaching us how to love a different aspect of God's eternal nature, and the only way that we should no longer follow a law is if what it teaches us about God's eternal nature is no longer true of God, which is why all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). This is also why Jesus said in John 14:23-24 that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not depart from the commandments that the Father has taught.

BNR32FAN said:

Can you please quote this scripture where Paul offered sacrifices?

Click to expand...

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head. The only vow described in Scripture that involves someone shaving their head is a Nazarite vow in Numbers 6, which involves making offerings, including sin offerings. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah in accordance with believing in what Jesus gave himself to accomplish on the cross (Titus 2:14) and Paul planned to pay for the offerings of others who had undertaken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying it and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it.

I think his next statement could reveal why he still practiced Judaism.

“In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭24:16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Do you suppose Paul still observed sin offerings? I’m not aware of any scriptures saying that he did although I’m not aware of any that say he didn’t either but I am more inclined to believe that Paul knowing that Christ’s atonement was the perfect sacrifice and that no further sacrifices were needed that he would not bother with them. I would also expect that for him to participate in them could send a misleading message to other Jewish Christians.

Click to expand...

Is it possible that Christ practiced Judaism by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and that Paul continued to practice Judaism because he became a follower of Christ? Yes, Paul still observed sin offerings. Christ is one with the Father, so it should not make sense to you to think that what Christ accomplished leads us away from obeying what the Father has commanded, especially when Christ living in sinless obedience to what the Father has commanded.

Soyeong said:

I used to hold a similar interpretation of Acts 15 as him that was in line with mainstream Christianity, but I've since run across some major issues that have called that interpretation into question. For example, David repeatedly said in the Psalms that he love the Law of God and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying it is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't uphold the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of God's law, and we should not interpret the NT authors as expressing a view that is in direct disagreement with God and at odds with the view that the Psalms are Scripture, and we should prefer interpretations of Acts 15 that don't run into this problem, such as the one that I have made the case for.

Practicing Jews have historically had an extremely positive view of the Torah in accordance with the Psalms, such as having daily prayers where they thank God multiple times a day for giving them the Torah, and having day called Simchat Torah, which is dedicated to rejoicing over the Torah, so your interpretation of Acts 15 is also at odds with historical reality.

Click to expand...

Okay so you're off on a tangent that veers away from historic orthodox Christianity. It seems like you're going for an Old/New Covenant Judaism/Christianity hybrid. Which what the SDAs are doing too, but it seems like you're laying more heavily into Judaism than they do. Is that standard among Messianics, are are you going more with your personal version of it?

Soyeong said:

I do not hold a mainstream interpretation of Acts 15, which is precisely why I am writing a longer post that is making the strongest case for my interpretation that I can. You should have a major problem with you interpreting Acts 15:10-11 as being direct disagreement with God in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and as expressing a view of God's law that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture, so you are the one who should be saying that your interpretation doesn't make sense.

If my post was too much of a chore to read, then don't make assumptions about what it says. I'll summarize:

In Acts 15:11, the ruling was in regard to the means of salvation, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with what Christ taught. The group from Judea in Acts 15:1 who wanted all Gentiles to become circumcised were opposed by the group of believers from among the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 in regard to the means of salvation, the Jerusalem Council arbitrated between them and ruled in favor of the group in Acts 15:5, while neither of the groups there were in disagreement about whether Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. Everything Peter said in Acts 15:6-9 about Gentiles believing the Gospel and receiving the Spirit was as well as the ruling in Acts 15:10-11 was all in support of the group in Acts 15:5 and against the group in Acts 15:1, which I spent a few paragraphs demonstrating.

Click to expand...

Well even in this concise version you're not demonstrating it in a way that's easy to comprehend. I think that's usually the case when someone tries to explain their unique view of interpretation. It doesn't make as much or perhaps any since to the reader, even though it makes perfect sense to you.

MMXX said:

Okay so you're off on a tangent that veers away from historic orthodox Christianity. It seems like you're going for an Old/New Covenant Judaism/Christianity hybrid. Which what the SDAs are doing too, but it seems like you're laying more heavily into Judaism than they do. Is that standard among Messianics, are are you going more with your personal version of it?

Click to expand...

I have previously there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, so Christianity was historically at its origin the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah, and this is the religion that I seek by faith to follow as part of a community of like-minded believers, which orthodox Christianity has veered away from. This religion is called Messianic Judaism in recognition of the fact that it is a form of Judaism that follows the Messiah. It wouldn't make sense to think that the prophesies in regard to the Messianic Age are following a different religion, but rather the only religion described as being followed in the Messianic Age is a form of Judaism that follows the Messiah.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same Torah for how to act in accordance with His nature (Jeremiah 31:33).

SabbathBlessings said:

Jesus and the apostles all kept the Sabbath and Paul made it pretty clear there is the keeping of the Sabbath for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9-10.

The Ten Commandments points out sin Romans 7:7 and no scripture says we are free to sin.

The moral law of God is the Ten Commandments that Jesus and the disciples taught and kept . John 14:15, 1 John 5:3, Matthew 5:19-30, Matthew 15:3-9, Matthew 19:17-19, John 15:10, 1 John 2:3-5, James 2:10-12, Revelation 12:14, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 22:14-15, Mark 10:19, Luke 1:6, Luke 18:20, Hebrews 8:10, 1 Corinthians 7:19 and etc. etc. etc. The Sabbath is a commandment of God, which means its not a suggestion and God said the Sabbath is a sign between Him and His people and will continue to be His chosen day of worship thus saith the Lord for eternity Isaiah 66:23

I'm just curious if anyone ever consider they are on the wrong side of this. That God really meant what He said when he personally spoke these words- Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Exodus 20:8

We are told that the devil deceives the whole world - that's the majority of people. How are people deceived? By not following the law and prophets, which means the word of God. Isaiah 8:20. The devil has sinned (breaking God's law) from the beginning. 1 John 3:8-10

The Sabbath is not the holy day of the Jews, God said it is His holy day, that Jesus is Lord of in very easy to understand scripture. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13, Mark 2:28

The Lord tells us to not worship in vain keeping traditions over the commandments of God and quotes directly from the Ten Commandment. Matthew 15:3-9

There is no Sunday-keeping commandment of God in the whole bible, but there is for Sabbath-keeping and according to scripture God's saints keep His commandments. Revelation 14:12

We are called to worship Him in Truth and Spirit John 4:23-24.

Click to expand...

Do you observe the Passover requirements?

Soyeong said:

At no point does the Bible make any sort of attempt to distinguish between which commandments are moral or not or give any sort of standard that we can apply to determine whether any particular commandments is moral or not. Likewise, there is nothing in the NT that says that the moral commandments are just the ones that they chose to repeat and it is moral to disobey everything else, and there is nothing that they were editing the law down to just what would eventually be recorded that they repeated. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had repeated nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6).

Click to expand...

I disagree Gentiles are not under the law of Judaism. If we were obligated to walk exactly as Christ did then we would be obligated to make sin offerings, keep all the Sabbath days, observe the Passover, and the dietary laws, and be circumcised just as he did. None of these were ever commanded in the New Testament and if the requirements for God’s covenant haven’t changed then there is no New Covenant.

BNR32FAN said:

Do you observe the Passover requirements?

Click to expand...

The scripture says the sabbath(s) in regards to ordinances Col 2:14-17, Hebrews 10 that is referring to food and drink offerings are fufilled with Christ blood on the cross. I think we should keep the Passover, but not slay lambs becuase the Lamb of Christ is sufficient at the cross and killing animals takes away from what Christ did for us.

1 Cor 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

We keep the Passover by celebration of communion or the Lord’s Supper. Jesus was the fulfillment, so it seems like it would be a lack of faith to kill lambs .

The feasts sabbaths (holy days) are not the same as the holy day, the seventh day-Sabbath which is a commandment of God and started right in Creation before sin Genesis 2:1-3, The feasts sabbath all started after sin and is not one of the Ten Commandments, so these sabbath(s) are not the same.

Soyeong said:

I have previously there was a period of time between the resurrection of Jesus and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 years during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, so Christianity was historically at its origin the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah, and this is the religion that I seek by faith to follow as part of a community of like-minded believers, which orthodox Christianity has veered away from. This religion is called Messianic Judaism in recognition of the fact that it is a form of Judaism that follows the Messiah. It wouldn't make sense to think that the prophesies in regard to the Messianic Age are following a different religion, but rather the only religion described as being followed in the Messianic Age is a form of Judaism that follows the Messiah.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same Torah for how to act in accordance with His nature (Jeremiah 31:33).

Click to expand...

So a new religion called Messianic Judaism which was formed in the 1960s, is predicated on what might have transpired 7-15 year period between the resurrection and Acts 10. What about the Gentiles Jesus included before that, like the Samaritan woman who then passed it on to other Samaritans and the Roman Centurion and all the other Gentiles in the region who followed Jesus?

MMXX said:

Well even in this concise version you're not demonstrating it in a way that's easy to comprehend. I think that's usually the case when someone tries to explain their unique view of interpretation. It doesn't make as much or perhaps any since to the reader, even though it makes perfect sense to you.

Click to expand...

Please tell me which parts that you didn't find easy to comprehend so that I can clarify them. It is not clear to me why you are expecting a summary of the main points to be clearer than a full post that fleshes those points out.

BNR32FAN said:

I disagree Gentiles are not under the law of Judaism. If we were obligated to walk exactly as Christ did then we would be obligated to make sin offerings, keep all the Sabbath days, observe the Passover, and the dietary laws, and be circumcised just as he did. None of these were ever commanded in the New Testament and if the requirements for God’s covenant haven’t changed then there is no New Covenant.

Click to expand...

In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God wanted His people to obey His commandments and circumcise their hearts. In Deuteronomy 30:1-8, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would turn to obedience to the Torah. In Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, the content is in regard to the New Covenant and the Israelites returning from exile, where God would take away their hearts of stone, given them hearts of flesh, and send his Spirit to lead us to obey the Torah, and where he would put the Torah in our minds and write it on our hearts, so they are describing God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew, and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah. So the New Covenant is all about returning to obedience to the Torah.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the nations, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). Likewise, in Acts 2:38, when Peter told his audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin, the Torah was how they knew what sin is. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sin. So yes, the NT does call for us to repent from our sin, which is the transgression of the Torah (1 John 3:4), which included repenting from things like breaking the Sabbath or other holy days and from eating unclean animals. Gentiles can look at the Torah that Jesus taught by word and by example and decided whether or not to follow him, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught.

God's nature is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with His nature is therefore also eternal, and if that were to change under the New Covenant, then God's nature would not be eternal, and the only way that we should no longer follow these laws is if what they teach us about God's eternal nature if no longer true of God. For example, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was given instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). The only way that we should no longer have a holy conduct as God is holy is if God is no longer eternally holy, and when Gentiles refuse to have a holy conduct as God holy, they are bearing false witness against God's holiness. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles. It would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation.