Acts 15:21 is often misused and misunderstood. A no spin zone thread!

[BobRyan]

====
James points out that the Christians are in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture - Paul is not making that point in Acts 15 -- James is.

Acts 15
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
...13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are 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.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

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

The book of Acts shows both Jews AND Gentiles in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture --

in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

This fact does not escape James' notice by way of helping with the "solution" in Acts 15.

Show me how those are Christians in Acts 13, 17, and 18, prior to the coming of Paul.

1. James sends Christians into the Temple - in Acts 21 to "prove Christian doctrine and practice" to all.

2. the Acts 13, 17, 18 examples are that of "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" services for Gospel preaching where the text affirms that both Jews and Gentiles are accepting that Gospel and coming back Sabbath after Sabbath because they want to hear more! That is how you get Christians in Acts 13, 17 and 18 hearing the Gospel in the synagogues and coming back again "next Sabbath" for more. interesting there is no "hey I see we have more and more Christians each Sabbath - come back tomorrow for our week-day-1 gospel preaching" not once does that come up.

3. James never said "don't bother going to the synagogues". The "trouble" in Acts 15:1 is not of the form "gentiles going to the synagogues as Christians just as they were doing as god-fearing gentiles prior to becoming Christians" - that is never argued at all. It is - a given.

I have covered over and over, how the synagogues by 49 AD were in no way where Paul would want his disciples, james even said don't trouble them (green above), it is in your post. Well, what do you think would happen if Christians started going into hostile territory, where Judaizers were, the very thing Paul went to Jerusalem to fight off? lol! trouble, as James said!

Acts never presents the synagogue as hostile territory - rather in the book of Acts it is always the FIRST place Paul goes even in Acts 18. And in Acts 21 the - TEMPLE (which IS hostile territory) is where James sends Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2;14, is clear, they were against us, and he is talking abou

The enmity, is the law, Eph 2:15 is clear.

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Those are two out-of-context snips joined - but in Col 2:14 the thing that is against us is the "certificate of debt" NASB the debt owed by BOTH Jews AND gentiles - "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles- and sin is "transgression of the law" 1John 3:4 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles - even in the NT. Gal 3 Christ became a curse "for us" -- our debt is being paid on the cross in the case of BOTH Jews AND Gentiles. Our debt is against us.

But in Eph 2 the dividing law was in favor of Jews and against Gentiles - and it was removed - the ceremonial law of regulations and ceremony.

Well then what about the law?

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31
"What then - shall we SIN because we are not under Law but under grace? God forbid!!" Romans 6.
"Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
"These things I write to you that you SIN not!" 1John 2:1

Col 2 - is about not "making stuff up" as we saw in the Col 2 thread. It is not about Christians not being allowed to "eat, or drink, or worship on Sabbath"

 

[Frogster]

====
James points out that the Christians are in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture - Paul is not making that point in Acts 15 -- James is.

Acts 15
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
...13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are 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.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

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

The book of Acts shows both Jews AND Gentiles in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture --

in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

This fact does not escape James' notice by way of helping with the "solution" in Acts 15.



1. James sends Christians into the Temple - in Acts 21 to "prove Christian doctrine and practice" to all.

2. the Acts 13, 17, 18 examples are that of "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" services for Gospel preaching where the text affirms that both Jews and Gentiles are accepting that Gospel and coming back Sabbath after Sabbath because they want to hear more! That is how you get Christians in Acts 13, 17 and 18 hearing the Gospel in the synagogues and coming back again "next Sabbath" for more. interesting there is no "hey I see we have more and more Christians each Sabbath - come back tomorrow for our week-day-1 gospel preaching" not once does that come up.

3. James never said "don't bother going to the synagogues". The "trouble" in Acts 15:1 is not of the form "gentiles going to the synagogues as Christians just as they were doing as god-fearing gentiles prior to becoming Christians" - that is never argued at all. It is - a given.



Acts never presents the synagogue as hostile territory - rather in the book of Acts it is always the FIRST place Paul goes even in Acts 18. And in Acts 21 the - TEMPLE (which IS hostile territory) is where James sends Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

No, i said show me CHRISTIAN gentiles in the Synagogues prior to Paul's coming. You did not do that.

You're wrong on 17, they wanted to hear more next week, but after conversion, they would leave the synagogues, you act like the unbelieving Jews who were still in the synagogues, would welcome the pauline Christians! lol

Where does it say gentile "Christians" did the ritual with Paul?

I proved what happened in 21 over and over again. Besides, we know that the Jerusalem church were under law, but 70 AD, ended that.

 

[Frogster]

====
James points out that the Christians are in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture - Paul is not making that point in Acts 15 -- James is.

Acts 15
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
...13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are 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.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

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

The book of Acts shows both Jews AND Gentiles in the synagogues every Sabbath hearing scripture --

in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

This fact does not escape James' notice by way of helping with the "solution" in Acts 15.



1. James sends Christians into the Temple - in Acts 21 to "prove Christian doctrine and practice" to all.

2. the Acts 13, 17, 18 examples are that of "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" services for Gospel preaching where the text affirms that both Jews and Gentiles are accepting that Gospel and coming back Sabbath after Sabbath because they want to hear more! That is how you get Christians in Acts 13, 17 and 18 hearing the Gospel in the synagogues and coming back again "next Sabbath" for more. interesting there is no "hey I see we have more and more Christians each Sabbath - come back tomorrow for our week-day-1 gospel preaching" not once does that come up.

3. James never said "don't bother going to the synagogues". The "trouble" in Acts 15:1 is not of the form "gentiles going to the synagogues as Christians just as they were doing as god-fearing gentiles prior to becoming Christians" - that is never argued at all. It is - a given.



Acts never presents the synagogue as hostile territory - rather in the book of Acts it is always the FIRST place Paul goes even in Acts 18. And in Acts 21 the - TEMPLE (which IS hostile territory) is where James sends Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

Green above, Ats does present them as hostile, because the Jews that were in them, fought Paul, and chased him, it is in several passages in Acts. Wanna see em?

So since they, the synagogue Jews beat up Paul, and dogged Paul, how would they then treat his disciples? With a big hug, or hostility? please!

 

[Frogster]

Those are two out-of-context snips joined - but in Col 2:14 the thing that is against us is the "certificate of debt" NASB the debt owed by BOTH Jews AND gentiles - "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles- and sin is "transgression of the law" 1John 3:4 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles - even in the NT. Gal 3 Christ became a curse "for us" -- our debt is being paid on the cross in the case of BOTH Jews AND Gentiles. Our debt is against us.

But in Eph 2 the dividing law was in favor of Jews and against Gentiles - and it was removed - the ceremonial law of regulations and ceremony.

Well then what about the law?

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31
"What then - shall we SIN because we are not under Law but under grace? God forbid!!" Romans 6.
"Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
"These things I write to you that you SIN not!" 1John 2:1

Col 2 - is about not "making stuff up" as we saw in the Col 2 thread. It is not about Christians not being allowed to "eat, or drink, or worship on Sabbath"

lol..taken out of context? The thrust of Eph 2 was about the law. And Col 2:14 was about the law too. What other trespasses were we dead in right in the verse before?

Why does 2:16 say, reconciled TO GOD after the abolishment? Were we reconciled because only ordinances were abolished? no way, it was the whole law, the law was one, you are wrong.

It says the certificate, with...with.. the LEGAL DEMANDS went with it, to the cross, the debt, and the demands, the laws, that is a fact.

 

[Frogster]

Those are two out-of-context snips joined - but in Col 2:14 the thing that is against us is the "certificate of debt" NASB the debt owed by BOTH Jews AND gentiles - "the wages of sin is death" Romans 6 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles- and sin is "transgression of the law" 1John 3:4 for BOTH Jews AND Gentiles - even in the NT. Gal 3 Christ became a curse "for us" -- our debt is being paid on the cross in the case of BOTH Jews AND Gentiles. Our debt is against us.

But in Eph 2 the dividing law was in favor of Jews and against Gentiles - and it was removed - the ceremonial law of regulations and ceremony.

Well then what about the law?

"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! IN fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31
"What then - shall we SIN because we are not under Law but under grace? God forbid!!" Romans 6.
"Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
"These things I write to you that you SIN not!" 1John 2:1

Col 2 - is about not "making stuff up" as we saw in the Col 2 thread. It is not about Christians not being allowed to "eat, or drink, or worship on Sabbath"

green above, then you are saying paul wanted them to practice harsh bodily treatments, and angel worship.

No way, paul was warding off all of that stuff.

Why does he say they died to it all in Coll 2:20, WITH CHRIST? Answer that one, please.

There are other verses about dying to law with Christ too. Were there some trying to add stuff from other sources, sure, but it was about Sabbath, food stuff, and feasts for sure, and paul called it shadows, derogatory language.

case closed!

 

[Frogster]

green above, then you are saying paul wanted them to practice harsh bodily treatments, and angel worship.

No way, paul was warding off all of that stuff.

Why does he say they died to it all in Coll 2:20, WITH CHRIST? Answer that one, please. 2:20 proves it was the law!

There are other verses about dying to law with Christ too. Were there some trying to add stuff from other sources, sure, but it was about Sabbath, food stuff, and feasts for sure, and paul called it shadows, derogatory language.

case closed!

 

[BobRyan]

In this following post it is pointed out that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.



Paul is focused on the problem of refuting the practice of 'making stuff up' --

green above, then you are saying paul wanted them to practice harsh bodily treatments, and angel worship.

No way, paul was warding off all of that stuff.

Why does he say they died to it all in Coll 2:20, WITH CHRIST? Answer that one, please.

There are other verses about dying to law with Christ too. Were there some trying to add stuff from other sources, sure, but it was about Sabbath, food stuff, and feasts for sure, and paul called it shadows, derogatory language.

case closed!

"In the Text" Paul says it is dealing "with the commandments and teachings of men" as contrasted with true Christianity which deals with "all scripture given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16 - not a "commandment and teaching of men'.

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup for flaming so if you post is gone that is the reason. I will remind everyone to treat each other with respect and not attack each other. If you disagree with someone address their post not them specifically.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Frogster]

"In the Text" Paul says it is dealing "with the commandments and teachings of men" as contrasted with true Christianity which deals with "all scripture given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16 - not a "commandment and teaching of men'.

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

excuse me, we know there were several things going on there, but the law was paramount.

I will prove it.

Did Jesus die on the cross for the Law, Rom 7;4, similar verse, or for mean's teachings, what we call oral law, yes or no?


Col 2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—

Why would Paul insult the Lord, and say he died on the cross form men's teachings? No way, Gal 2:19-20, died to law, crucified with Christ, like Rom 7:4. It was THE LAW, not oral law in Col 2:20.

 

[Frogster]

"In the Text" Paul says it is dealing "with the commandments and teachings of men" as contrasted with true Christianity which deals with "all scripture given by inspiration from God" 2Tim 3:16 - not a "commandment and teaching of men'.

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

Another point also, as far as the topic verse. Bob, you can repeat it all you want, saying James wanted them in synagogues, sorry, but that does not make it true, you offer no proof, at best you hope and speculate. I on the other hand offer history, what Paul would not want, I prove the obvious hostility the Christians would endure in synagogues, and the psyche of their time, and how this environment would not be at all what Paul wanted, that of Judaism the thing he want to Jerusalem to fight off where you do not. Those hostile to Paul, as the text shows, still were in the synagogues, the unconverted Jews who chased Paul. "The plots of the Jews" Acts 20:19. So how would they treat his disciples in the synagogues? James even said, no further burden in 15:28, that would mean they would not be keeping the law in the synagogues. Not that they were told to go there, but if they were, what would the Jews think of that? Jesus praising Gentiles, that would say to the synagogue leaders, "we don't have to keep feasts, food laws, or Sabbath, James said!"

There ya go, hard to argue with all that truth, you can repeat something, but it does not disprove my common sense logical posts. Thanks! frog.

 

[Lulav]

red above, the wall was the law.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility

What is the middle wall of partition/separation?
Even though most Christians believe that the “middle wall” mentioned in this verse is a metaphorical expression used to speak of God’s Law, this is far from the truth. The context of this verse, lets us know that Paul was speaking of the division of Gentiles and Jews(uncircumcised & circumcised), and how gentiles had no part in Israel before Messiah.

The interesting fact that many Christians are unaware of, is that there was a physical barrier(a middle wall) that separated gentiles and Jews in the days of Paul, at the Temple in Jerusalem. Known as the “soreg”, this partition prohibited gentiles from entering into the temple courts.

 

[Frogster]

What is the middle wall of partition/separation?
Even though most Christians believe that the “middle wall” mentioned in this verse is a metaphorical expression used to speak of God’s Law, this is far from the truth. The context of this verse, lets us know that Paul was speaking of the division of Gentiles and Jews(uncircumcised & circumcised), and how gentiles had no part in Israel before Messiah.

The interesting fact that many Christians are unaware of, is that there was a physical barrier(a middle wall) that separated gentiles and Jews in the days of Paul, at the Temple in Jerusalem. Known as the “soreg”, this partition prohibited gentiles from entering into the temple courts.

it was not just about jews and gentiles, it says reconciled TO GOD, in 2:16, and 2:18 access to The Father.

the temple was still up, so the abolishment could not have been about a temple wall, the walls were still up, unabolished..

It says the enmity was the law, why does it talk about the law in that verse?

 

[Frogster]

What is the middle wall of partition/separation?
Even though most Christians believe that the “middle wall” mentioned in this verse is a metaphorical expression used to speak of God’s Law, this is far from the truth. The context of this verse, lets us know that Paul was speaking of the division of Gentiles and Jews(uncircumcised & circumcised), and how gentiles had no part in Israel before Messiah.

The interesting fact that many Christians are unaware of, is that there was a physical barrier(a middle wall) that separated gentiles and Jews in the days of Paul, at the Temple in Jerusalem. Known as the “soreg”, this partition prohibited gentiles from entering into the temple courts.

by the way, it also says abolished in His flesh in 2:15, and other verses confirm that it was the law, not the temple wall.

Body, the cross, His flesh, etc, and the conjunction with the law in these verses, prove 2:15.


Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,


Gal 2:19-20 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me

Rom 7:44 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.


Colossians 2:14
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

 

[Frogster]

time to put some electricity here...lol

 

[bbbbbbb]

time to put some electricity here...lol

I agree. It seems to me that the opposition has finally run out of steam.

 

[Frogster]

I agree. It seems to me that the opposition has finally run out of steam. View attachment 161121

Hehehhe,,good post, love the picture too! yes, no steam...actually did they ever have any steam?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hehehhe,,good post, love the picture too! yes, no steam...actually did they ever have any steam?

I think it was mostly smoke and mirrors.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree. It seems to me that the opposition has finally run out of steam. View attachment 161121

It seems to me that the Bible texts remain --on the Acts 21 thread below

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 67434053, member: 235244"]notice then the "details" in Paul's clarification to his fellow Messianic Jews in Acts 21.

Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

(Many on this board would be tempted to argue - "yeah... that is EXACTLY what Paul was doing!" - Paul goes out of his way to disprove it.



22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law..

And those who want to just focus on one tiny verse in Acts 21 -- Acts 21:25 to the exclusion of the entire episode - find that there in that one tiny verse gentiles are not commandment to "Love God with all their heart" or to "love your neighbor as yourself" nor even "thou shalt not murder" ... none of that is in Acts 21:25. Since obviously Acts 21:25 is NOT the "tiny 1 verse Bible left for gentiles" - but rather shows the restrictions from OT food laws that need to be held up as reminders for Gentiles as new practice they might not be familiar with.

What we have quoted there is this restriction from Lev 17 and eating meat with blood in it.

Acts 21:25
25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”
​

In the case of the two above - they are from Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 -- quoted by Christ, and Paul and james 2 in Lev 19 form -- but not in Acts 21:25 or in Acts 15... because those two are not trying to downsize/resize scripture at all - they allow for all of it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lulav]

by the way, it also says abolished in His flesh in 2:15, and other verses confirm that it was the law, not the temple wall.

Body, the cross, His flesh, etc, and the conjunction with the law in these verses, prove 2:15.


Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,


Gal 2:19-20 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me

Rom 7:44 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.


Colossians 2:14
having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross

What translation are you using?