Two Aspects of Salvation (Believers Need to Be Concerned With):

Soyeong said:

He didn't. Please answer my questions.

The Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace that Jesus taught in Matthew 4:15-23 that calls for repentance and obedience to the Law of Moses was the same as the one that Paul taught based on the Law of Moses

Click to expand...

Really? Paul was there at the Jerusalem council when they debated which laws of Moses gentiles be asked to observe, four were mentioned. Did Paul, Peter, James and the rest of the council give gentiles a licence to sin?

Bible Highlighter said:

In Romans 7:14-24, Paul is recounting his experience as a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Paul (Saul) is describing his experience of what it is like to struggle in keeping the Old Covenant Law that did not include Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Rom7:7-11&14-23 concerns Paul's failure to obey one of the Ten Commandments, the commands he termed the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation. He stated that to born again christians in the present tense

Bible Highlighter said:

; However, believers must keep God's Moral Laws like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, do not lie, do commit adultery, etc.;

Click to expand...

So believers must not erect any graven image in their minds
They must not dwell on any impure thought
They must not covet/desire anything of their neighbours, whether material goods or a member of their household
They must not have sexual desire/lust for anyone apart from their spouse
They must not tell any even little fibs about another
Believers must obey the law relating to the inner man, the law no one but they and God need know they break/thoughts/desires
Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error

Its a high standard indeed, I wonder how many are attaining to it

under grace1 said:

So believers must not erect any graven image in their minds
They must not dwell on any impure thought
They must not covet/desire anything of their neighbours, whether material goods or a member of their household
They must not have sexual desire/lust for anyone apart from their spouse
They must not tell any even little fibs about another
Believers must obey the law relating to the inner man, the law no one but they and God need know they break/thoughts/desires
Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error

Its a high standard indeed, I wonder how many are attaining to it

Click to expand...

Indeed, it is a high standard. I am working on just one commandment - to love my neighbor as myself. When I have mastered that then I will move on to the next.

bbbbbbb said:

Indeed, it is a high standard. I am working on just one commandment - to love my neighbor as myself. When I have mastered that then I will move on to the next.

Click to expand...

You wouldnt have to move on to the rest, love fulfills the law(assuming you already love God)

under grace1 said:

You wouldnt have to move on to the rest, love fulfills the law(assuming you already love God)

Click to expand...

Where would we be apart from the grace of God?

bbbbbbb said:

Where would we be apart from the grace of God?

Click to expand...

Absolutely nowhere, we all stand guilty before the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation

under grace1 said:

Absolutely nowhere, we all stand guilty before the letter that kills, the ministry of death and condemnation

Click to expand...

Precisely! Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

under grace1 said:

Really? Paul was there at the Jerusalem council when they debated which laws of Moses gentiles be asked to observe, four were mentioned. Did Paul, Peter, James and the rest of the council give gentiles a licence to sin?

Click to expand...

That is not an accurate representation of Acts 15, according to what is actually written in scriptures. First, Peter said these Gentiles were given God's Holy Spirit, that Peter teaches God gives to men that obey Him. And the Pharisees were a religion that "said" they promoted the Law of Moses, but both Jesus and Paul exposed that they didn't. They "had a LAW", as it is written, and by their Law Jesus must die, but it wasn't Moses Law. So the Gentile converts would have already repented, and turned to God, and were already bringing forth "Works" worthy of repentance. The Disciples pointed out a few commandments they need to work on, and would learn the rest from the Word of God, (being read every Sabbath Day) as Jesus teaches all men to Live By.

That is why they directed the Gentile converts to the "the synagogues every sabbath day" where those who sat in Moses Seat, read the Law and Prophets to the people, no different than Jesus commanded the Multitudes and Disciples, including Peter, to do before HE was murdered.

Matt. 23: 1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore "whatsoever they bid you observe", that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: "for they say", (That they believe Moses) and do not.

4 For they (Not God or His Servant Moses) "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne", and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

This is the "Yoke" Peter said these religious men, who professed to know God, were trying to place on the Disciples, that Peter rebuked them for. "Now therefore why tempt ye God, "to put a yoke" upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear".

This Yoke would be the Commandments of men the Pharisees taught for doctrines. And remember, Jesus said they full well rejected the Commandments of God that they might live by and promote their own religious traditions.

For this reason, the Disciples kept them away from the religion of the Jews that Paul used to partake of, and turned them towards God's Laws as spoken by Moses, just as Jesus instructed them to do.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are (Already) turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (All God's Laws given to Moses)

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

This chapter has been twisted by this world's religious system, that Jesus Himself warned about, since my youth. I hope you might consider these things, and see that Soyeong was speaking Biblical Truth concerning God's Law, and Paul.

Studyman said:

. The Disciples pointed out a few commandments they need to work on, and would learn the rest from the Word of God, (being read every Sabbath Day) as Jesus teaches all men to Live By.

That is why they directed the Gentile converts to the "the synagogues every sabbath day" where those who sat in Moses Seat, read the Law and Prophets to the people,

Click to expand...

God's applicable laws are not arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you obey and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not.
The argument fails anyway. Years later, the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws(Acts21:25)

under grace1 said:

Really? Paul was there at the Jerusalem council when they debated which laws of Moses gentiles be asked to observe, four were mentioned. Did Paul, Peter, James and the rest of the council give gentiles a licence to sin?

Click to expand...

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the topic that the Jerusalem Council was debating was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1). In Psalm 119:29-30, he 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 faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandment. Moreover, the reason why the greatest two commandments are the greatest two is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandment is also the position that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Mosaic Law.

Soyeong said:

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the topic that the Jerusalem Council was debating was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1). In Psalm 119:29-30, he 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 faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandment. Moreover, the reason why the greatest two commandments are the greatest two is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandment is also the position that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

Well, then Paul was a complete and utter hypocrite, along with the other apostles at the Jerusalem Council when they specifically determined that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised.

bbbbbbb said:

Well, then Paul was a complete and utter hypocrite, along with the other apostles at the Jerusalem Council when they specifically determined that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised.

Click to expand...

No, they only ruled that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised in order to become saved. it is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against being required to obey what God has commanded for an incorrect reason without speaking against being required to obey what God has commanded. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Soyeong said:

No, they only ruled that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised in order to become saved. it is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against being required to obey what God has commanded for an incorrect reason without speaking against being required to obey what God has commanded. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Click to expand...

I see. So, do you know where they insisted that Gentile believers are required to be circumcised?

Soyeong said:

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the topic that the Jerusalem Council was debating was not whether followers of Christ should follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1). In Psalm 119:29-30, he 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 faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

Either Acts 15:19-21 contains exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow like the greatest two commandment. Moreover, the reason why the greatest two commandments are the greatest two is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so the position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandment is also the position that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. Acts15:5&6

Conclusion?

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. verse20

years later:

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” Acts21:25

Sin is the transgression of the law 1John3:4

It doesn't matter how you try and reason it, if you were correct, the leaders of the NT church including Peter, James and Paul gave gentile converts a licence to break God's applicable laws/a licence to sin. But, I understand, anything must be reasoned in order to justify beliefs

Soyeong said:

No, they only ruled that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised in order to become saved. it is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against being required to obey what God has commanded for an incorrect reason without speaking against being required to obey what God has commanded. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Click to expand...

Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh Phil3:2&3

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 1Cor7:19

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal5:6


Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh Gal6:13

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. verse15

under grace1 said:

Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh Phil3:2&3

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 1Cor7:19

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal5:6


Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh Gal6:13

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. verse15

Click to expand...

Are you arguing that Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason? Paul saying that what matters is obeying the commands of God sure does not sound like he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the commands of God, though there is room for him to speak against obeying then for incorrect reasons.

Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of God (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Law of Moses. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident by their obedience to the Law of Moses, so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.

bbbbbbb said:

I see. So, do you know where they insisted that Gentile believers are required to be circumcised?

Click to expand...

under grace1 said:

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. Acts15:5&6

Conclusion?

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. verse20

years later:

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” Acts21:25

Click to expand...

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 Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was agreeing who the Pharisees from among the believers in Acts 15:5. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers. In Psalm 119:29-30, he 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 faith by setting it before him, so has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is why Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again, he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses and word and by example and no one there was arguing that Gentile followers of Christ shouldn't follow Christ, but rather the topic that they were discussing was the means of salvation, where Peter argued in favor of Gentiles being saved by grace just as we are (Acts 15:11) against the men from Judea who are arguing that Gentiles are required to become circumcised in order to become saved (Acts 15:1).

under grace1 said:

Sin is the transgression of the law 1John3:4


It doesn't matter how you try and reason it, if you were correct, the leaders of the NT church including Peter, James and Paul gave gentile converts a licence to break God's applicable laws/a licence to sin. But, I understand, anything must be reasoned in order to justify beliefs

Click to expand...

Indeed, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so the people who are interpreted Acts 15 as ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow over 99% of what Christ taught are the ones who are arguing that the Jerusalem Council gave Gentiles a license to sin. The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded is fundamentally basic to Christianity whereas the positions that needs to be justified is interpreting servants of God in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so it is either incorrect to interpret the authors of the Jerusalem Council as doing that or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses. If you think that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God, then you should be opposed to interpreting them as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, and if you think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, then you should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for anyone to take the position that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God while also thinking that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what He has commanded.

Soyeong said:

Are you arguing that Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason? Paul saying that what matters is obeying the commands of God sure does not sound like he should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the commands of God, though there is room for him to speak against obeying then for incorrect reasons.

Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of God (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Law of Moses. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident by their obedience to the Law of Moses, so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.



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 Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed in Acts 15:6-7, so he was agreeing who the Pharisees from among the believers in Acts 15:5. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was agreeing with the Pharisees among the believers. In Psalm 119:29-30, he 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 faith by setting it before him, so has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is why Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again, he was agreeing with the Pharisees from among the believers. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses and word and by example and no one there was arguing that Gentile followers of Christ shouldn't follow Christ, but rather the topic that they were discussing was the means of salvation, where Peter argued in favor of Gentiles being saved by grace just as we are (Acts 15:11) against the men from Judea who are arguing that Gentiles are required to become circumcised in order to become saved (Acts 15:1).


Indeed, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so the people who are interpreted Acts 15 as ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow over 99% of what Christ taught are the ones who are arguing that the Jerusalem Council gave Gentiles a license to sin. The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded is fundamentally basic to Christianity whereas the positions that needs to be justified is interpreting servants of God in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so it is either incorrect to interpret the authors of the Jerusalem Council as doing that or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses. If you think that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God, then you should be opposed to interpreting them as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, and if you think that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of Moses, then you should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for anyone to take the position that the Jerusalem Council were servants of God while also thinking that they should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what He has commanded.

Click to expand...

Extraordinary.
Here we have a plain fact, the leaders of the first century church met to decide which of the laws of Moses Gentiles be asked to follow. Only four were mentioned. Years later, the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws.
All indisputable, however, on the internet, only one commandment matters:
''Thou shalt not admit to error''
And so, your long post trying to overturn the plain words of the bible quoted to you.
Im sure you'd prefer for the credentials of the leaders of the first century church to be questioned, rather than admit to error.
Sad

under grace1 said:

God's applicable laws are not arbitrary, you cannot pick and choose which ones you obey and which ones you ignore, you cannot pick and choose whether you commit sin or not.

Click to expand...

This is true, as the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches, along with the the entire Law and Prophets that HE Inspired as the Word of God, and as Paul teaches both Jew and Gentile. Men are to Live by "Every Word" of God, Because HE IS God, and He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. He inspired the Holy Scriptures to be written "For our sakes no doubt", and according to Paul they are trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, (As Christ Commanded) throughly furnished unto all good works"

So according to Scriptures you are right. Men are not instructed by God to Judge some of His instruction in Righteousness, as worthy of their honor and respect, while also judging some of His instruction in righteousness, as beneath them and unworthy of their honor and respect.

This was the philosophy of the mainstream religion of Paul's Time, it didn't work out so well with them. I'm not sure why someone, Jerw or Gentile, would think they could adopt the same philosophy today, and be accepted by God.

under grace1 said:

The argument fails anyway. Years later, the leaders of the church confirmed to Paul they were STILL(STILL) only asking gentiles to follow the same four laws(Acts21:25)

Click to expand...

While a religion that only commands that men don't drink blood, or eat meat from animals that have been dispatched through strangling, or don't engage in fornication or from idolatry, might be quite seductive to some, and a great marketing strategy to grow a religious business. But I'm quite sure that Jesus Words that I posted, doesn't advocate a religion where stealing is acceptable, along with hating your brother in your heart, or killing people, or holding a grudge against them for no reason. Or coveting, or refusing to love our neighbor as ourselves, or Loving God with all your heart and soul. And a religion that preaches or implies that Jesus' teaching and Words were only for men who were born with Jewish DNA is absurd, in my view.

And if a person reads all of Paul's words, that he taught to both Jew and Gentile, it becomes perfectly clear that he didn't teach Gentiles that repentance for them only means "Yielding themselves" servants to obey the 4 commandments you are promoting.

Perhaps if men might consider the actual Word of the Jesus "of the Bible", and accept that both He and Paul directed all men, Jew and Gentile, to "Repent, Turn to God, and "DO Works" Worthy of repentance". And that maybe, in many Pagan religions of this world God placed us in, men engage in unholy, unrighteous and unclean sexual practices, whose eating habits are judged by God as unholy and unclean. Religions where men worship images of God in the likeness of men, and create their own high days in worship of their image etc.

And the implication of this philosophy, that the Holy Scriptures are only trustworthy for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, for Jews and not ALSO for Gentiles is not only unbiblical but also absurd in my view.

Maybe these 4 things the Apostles pointed out, knowing they would find God's other instructions in righteousness through Moses as all men even you and and I have found, were more important to discern and repent of at first, for the New Gentiles converts, than to turn away from God, and adopt the religious traditions and philosophies of the mainstream religion of Paul's time, who taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, and not God. Who full well transgressed God's commandments that they might live by their own religious traditions.

I completely disagree with your "4 Law" philosophy, based on what is actually written in Scriptures. It would be a great topic of study for those seeking honor, glory and immortality.

I hope you might re-consider the message the Spirit of Christ was sending through Acts 15.