I agree the Gentiles would hear the Scriptures, and that often would be in synagogues since they were read there, until the point in a given region they were put out of the synagogue.
I don't think it mattered who they heard the Scriptures from. If they desired to hear God's voice, He was faithful throughout the entire Bible to show His Gospel to them. Isn't Rahab a perfect example of this undeniable truth? And wasn't the real issue with the Jews is that when they heard God's Voice, they hardened their heart?
27 Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) (NKJV)
The text doesn't say he brought them in.
This is true, Paul was accused of bringing a Gentile into the Temple, which was against the tradition of the Pharisees, but not against God's Law. According to the "text", the Gentiles were coming to the Temple to hear Moses of their own choice, because they were seeking to know God. And this aligns with the Gospel of Christ, as submitting to God is a voluntary humility. Paul didn't drag the Gentiles into the Temple, and force them to hear God's Word.
Acts 13:
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. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
I think you are making a common, but tragic mistake, by selecting certain verses, then separating them from all other Scripture, then creating doctrine founded in those words alone.
Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (NKJV)
In context Peter appears to be indicating the Pharisee contingent is speaking
of justification by law,
This is true, the Pharisees were a religion that despised God's Judgments, full well rejected God's Commandments by walking in their own religious traditions. They taught for doctrines the Commandments of men, not God. They created their own high days, polluted God's Sabbaths and were, according to Jesus , "children of the devil". And yet every week they would gather together and offer to God the Blood of an unblemished, innocent life,
as per the Law, to justify their disobedience. But as God teaches through Isaiah (
Is. 1:1-20) and through Paul, "No Flesh is Justified by works of the LAW".
and he notes that God already accepted the Gentiles, giving them the Spirit, and purified their hearts by faith. The Jewish believers too are saved by faith.
What is Faith, but belief in the Word of God. For me it's simple. If God says, "don't drink blood, because if you do, you will be cut off from My People", and I drink blood anyway, and teach others to drink blood too, this is proof that I don't really believe God. I might believe God exists, like the demons believe. But if I do something God teaches men not to do, that is proof of my unbelief. This is why men are judged by their "works", because their works show what is in their hearts. So then, we are saved by our belief in God which is shown by our deeds/works.
If God had already excepted these Gentiles, that means that they had already
"repented and turn to God, and were doing works meet for repentance", which means they had already "Yielded themselves to God, and their bodies as instrument's of righteousness unto God". Why would the Apostles direct them to adopt the traditions and Commandments of men, that the Pharisees taught for doctrines, that Jesus and the Prophets had openly condemned them for promoting since Caleb was almost stoned to death?
And yes, as Paul teaches;
Rom. 11:
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, "if thou continue in his goodness": otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, "shall be graffed in": for God is able to graff them in again.
So yes, if the Jews repented and turned to God, and brought forth works worthy of repentance, they too, could be grafted in.
He is not saying that the law could not be kept:
Of course not, it's this world's religions that preaches God placed Laws on the backs of men that are impossible to obey. Not Paul. I asked you about the Yoke Peter spoke to in Acts 15, but you ignored my question. Nor sure why you would do such a thing.
In context this is a Nazarite vow, and likely purification for the men who started a vow and then were defiled.
There is no Law of God requiring anyone to take a vow. Of course Paul didn't direct the Gentile Converts to observe the tradition. And it wasn't a Sin to make a Vow either.
Paul, like Moses, Jesus and the God and Father of all, teaches it is not a Sin if the Gentiles don't make a vow.
Well before he defended himself the Jerusalem church defended him on this point:
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (NKJV)
The Jewish believers in Jerusalem did not think these accusations against Paul were true, and believed he also kept the law.
Of course the Brethren, Apostles and Elders of God's Church knew Paul didn't teach against God's Law. Nevertheless, the leaders of the mainstream religion of that time, that ruled over the Temple, accused Paul of doing just that, and tried to kill him.
27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
30 "And all the city was moved", and the people ran together: and they took Paul, "and drew him out of the temple": and forthwith the doors were shut. 31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
I think you are falsely assuming that those who advocated for his death, were not of the "Thousands" of Jews who believed, and were zealous for the Law? And were they not the same Jews who were trying to turn the Gentile converts away from the Apostles teaching, and toward the Pharisees religion in Acts 15? A Yoke that they had attempted to place on the backs of the Disciples, and on their fathers before them?
These religious Jews, "who believed" persecuted Paul for promoting the Gospel of God/Christ, and turning men away from the commandments of men the "Jews" taught for doctrines.
But the Faithful Brethren and elders of "GOD's" Church, of course didn't join them in their Sins.
25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (NKJV)
James and the church in Jerusalem, who you said you have no issue with, are the ones who said this, referring back to the same decision of the council years earlier.
And I also said that if a man selected this one sentence spoken by the Apostles, separated it from the rest of the Bible and all of the Apostles and Jesus' and God's Word, and then created an entire religious philosophy based on these words alone, then you might be able to justify a religion in which there are only these 4 laws that a man is to place on his flesh, if he is born with non-Jewish DNA.. No repentance, no Loving God, no loving your neighbor, stealing is fine, hating is fine, worshipping images of God in the likeness of men is fine. You are promoting a religion in which the Word's of Christ are to be completely ignored by Gentiles, "because the Apostles didn't mention His Word in Acts 15".
I don't believe it was the Spirit of Christ's intent that I replace the entire Bible with this one sentence from this one event. But then I also believe Jesus Words defining the Pharisees religion, so I know they "said" their religion was founded on the Law of Moses, but it wasn't. No different than the "many" who called Jesus Lord, Lord in
Matt. 7.
You and I have competing beliefs. You believe the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Commandments. While I believe Jesus' Word which teach that the Pharisees created their own religion, their own high days, their own righteousness and rejected the Commandments of God by their own man-made religious traditions.
If we could risk humiliation, and seek God's Truth about the Pharisees even if, or rather, especially if it exposes deceptions and Leaven in our minds, wouldn't that be great? But if men are only interested in justifying their specific adopted religion, then there would be no unity. This is why, in my view, the Pharisees who believed didn't join with the Apostles and "Yield themselves to God", because their religion was more precious to them than God. It's a Common sin in the world that God placed me in.
Not just those, but the ones from the whole church, that seemed good to the Holy Spirit.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. (NKJV)
Ok, then I will go with what I read in the Scriptures, including what was of the Holy Spirit for the Gentiles.
No, that isn't what you are doing at all. You have carefully selected one sentence from one event in the Book of Acts, separated it from every other word in the Bible, and have created an entire religious philosophy based on this one sentence.
You are free to do so, and clearly my attempts to point out the danger of such a behavior has failed and at some point it becomes time for me to move on. Nevertheless, It is still my hope that you will consider Every Word of the Lord's Christ, and Paul and Peter, and take heed of the sermons and videos of the other voices which exist in this World God placed us in.
I don't believe it is beneficial to continue in this discourse until we come to an agreement on one issue. You keep promoting the philosophy that the Pharisees were promoting the Law of Moses. While Jesus, Paul and the entire Law and Prophets teach they were promoting the precepts of men. It is one or the other, we can't both be right in this issue.
Why I should completely reject EVERY Word Jesus spoke to define the Pharisees religion, EVERY Word of the Law and Prophets defining what the rebellious Jews taught for doctrines, when it comes to Acts 15?
