Acts 21-28 Paul is a Messianic Jew and declares his views under oath

[Meowzltov]

More text Froggie. Acts 15. Gentile Christians were still going to synagogues

 

[Frogster]

Text. Acts 21. James and the messianics are still in the synagogues, heck are still giving sacrifices in the temple.

as hebrews warned them it was ending as they hit their 40 year testing time, like the faulty wilderness people were warned! lol!

 

[Meowzltov]

Only in the early days, then Christians were not welcome in the gogues.

read my thread on Acts 15:21, then reply.

I don't care what your thread says. You are not an authority. They were IN the synagogues and the temple at the time of Acts 21.

 

[Frogster]

More text Froggie. Acts 15. Gentile Christians were still going to synagogues

read my thread on Acts 15:21

 

[Frogster]

I don't care what your thread says. You are not an authority. They were IN the synagogues and the temple at the time of Acts 21.

prove it

 

[Meowzltov]

Froggie: besides text, we also have other historical records. These other documents record that the Jews kicked them out in 85. Why would they kick them out if they were already gone?

 

[Meowzltov]

read my thread on Acts 15:21

If you have something important to say, say it. And please realize that while I'll weigh your arguments, you yourself are not an authority that you can appeal to.

 

[Meowzltov]

I want a salad. I hate the last day of the week before shopping, when the fridge is so empty.

 

[Frogster]

Froggie: besides text, we also have other historical records. These other documents record that the Jews kicked them out in 85. Why would they kick them out if they were already gone?

post ext...or get on my Acts 15:21 thread, take your pick.

 

[Meowzltov]

prove it

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

now don't you feel a bit silly.

 

[Meowzltov]

post ext...or get on my Acts 15:21 thread, take your pick.

Wow you just can't handle evidence. Denial denial denial.

 

[Meowzltov]

Where is your text that says the Jews kicked the Chrisitans out of the synagogues?

 

[Frogster]

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

now don't you feel a bit silly.

oh com eon, I have given sound expository on that issue over and over again..

 

[Frogster]

Where is your text that says the Jews kicked the Chrisitans out of the synagogues?

I used history and common sense. Why did they beat up Paul 5 times?

heheheh..go ahead, let's hear your reply...

 

[Meowzltov]

oh com eon, I have given sound expository on that issue over and over again..

it clearly says they entered into the temple, and it is equally clear from the context that the messianic community went to that temple on a regular basis, being involved with ordinary Jewish life. They were still a sect of Judaism at this point in time. I know you have an interest in pulling James out of Jewish life and trying to fit his square Jewish peg into the round Gentile hole, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Meowzltov]

I used history and common sense. Why did they beat up Paul 5 times?

Different Jewish sect, and Paul tended to cause trouble. They probably beat up Sadducees and Essenes too, and vice versa. Hot headed young men are like that. Glad to see you can think with your noggin and don't always need a Bible verse.

 

[BobRyan]

it clearly says they entered into the temple, and it is equally clear from the context that the messianic community went to that temple on a regular basis, being involved with ordinary Jewish life. They were still a sect of Judaism at this point in time. I know you have an interest in pulling James out of Jewish life and trying to fit his square Jewish peg into the round Gentile hole, but it ain't gonna happen.

In Acts 21 - James is squarely in favor of Messianic Jews to the point of instructing Paul to participate in a ceremonial vow.

In Gal 2
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

 

[BobRyan]

The commandments of God - and Christ - the first Messianic Jew -

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68311812, member: 235244"]So then what is the specific point -- Christ makes here "in his own words"??

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

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice that it is identified as "Moses said" and as "The Word of God"

AND as the "Commandment of God"??[/QUOTE]

 

[Meowzltov]

In Acts 21 - James is squarely in favor of Messianic Jews to the point of instructing Paul to participate in a ceremonial vow.

Yes, and earlier Paul himself took a nazarite vow.

As for Peter, his big problem was that not only was he living as a Gentile, he was encouraging Gentiles to take up Jewish ways, which was prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem. It was the reverse of what it should have been.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

 

[Lulav]

Yes, and earlier Paul himself took a nazarite vow.

As for Peter, his big problem was that not only was he living as a Gentile, he was encouraging Gentiles to take up Jewish ways, which was prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem. It was the reverse of what it should have been.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

We must always remember when reading the Pauline Epistles we are in essence reading the correspondence of one person. The people to whom he is replying to we do not have their side. Nor do we have the witness of the ones he speaks against, so no conclusion can be 100% drawn.

To take Pauls' word on all things is to go against Torah which says that upon two or more witnesses can a matter be decided.

Yeshua upheld this commandment: "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. Matthew 18:16

From Deut 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16"If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,…

Paul however seems to have a different understanding about this.

2 Corinthians 1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. 2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone,…

You cannot be the second or third witness yourself.

Anyway we must realize that there are two sides to every story.

Peter was in Antioch after the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Paul was sent to deliver the degree that the Gentiles who were turning to the L-RD were not to eat food sacrificed to idols, blood etc. Peter, believing that the Gentiles were abiding by this was having table fellowship with them. We must remember Peters adamance in Acts 10, to be told to eat anything not kosher was such an offense to him he even 'talked back' to the L-RD, before he was given the understanding it wasn't about food but other nations the animals represented. (Nations are represented in the prophetic books such as Daniel and such).

He basically told the L-RD 'No way Jose!'

Now imagine you are Peter and you are in Antioch with these newbies in the faith, but under the assumption that they are keeping Kosher and were following James' edict.

Now everything is going along swimmingly when suddenly visitors arrive from Jerusalem. James has sent men to warn Peter and the other Jews there that he has proof that Paul did not pass on the edict as he was instructed to, in fact he is teaching that idols are nothing and giving credence for the 'believers' to be in the idol Temples as well!

1 Cor 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple,

When Peter hears of this and the other Jews do as well there is an immediate uproar. Can you imagine how Peter would react to Paul if he was so adamant with the L-RD about eating treif? He would have totally flipped out! If you read carefully you will see it wasn't Peter acting hypocritically at all, if it were just Peter we could tend to believe that but when Paul says all the Jews, including Barnabas (who was a believer way before Paul and also a lot older and wiser) we have to surmise that it was something pretty devastating.

It was not Peter being hypocritical, nor pulling away from the Gentiles because he was "afraid of James" or other Jews; what or who he was afraid of was the L-RD himself because he had been unknowingly sinning by eating the food the Gentiles had. This could be the only reason for Peter and ALL the Jews there to stop eating with them, certainly not because they were afraid of James, but they stopped immediately from sinning by eating the food the Gentiles were serving.

So to accuse Peter of living as a Gentile on purpose and then teaching them Jewish ways totally doesn't make sense. If it were only Peter, maybe, but all the Jews drew away, that should tell you that the accusation against Peter was false and to continue that by accusing him of wrongdoing is upholding that false witness.

Here is the account, please take note of what I've highlighted:

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were of the circumcision.

If you only read to here it looks like Peter is being hypocritical, but we need to read on. But notice that Paul is telling the Galatians that Peter stopped eating with them because he was afraid of those who were Jews? Makes no sense and further that Paul calls the Jews 'the circumcision' instead of Jews.
http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-13.htm
13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”


Now we must ask ourselves, why did every Jew present, separate themselves from these Gentiles? Were they all hypocrites as Paul accuses? It sounds more to me that these are all Jews who are zealous for the law and had found out they were sinning. Notice in verse 12 Peter separates himself from the Gentiles, as we are told to do in Torah because if they are not keeping G-ds commandments we cannot be apart of them else it would lead to pulling away from G-d by adopting their heathen practices.

15 We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Now we must ask, why would Paul bring up works of the law if it were only about Peter being afraid of James? Think about the edict from acts 15, the only thing that these men from Jerusalem could have been sent to tell the Jews in Antioch was that the law was being disregarded in Antioch and the Jews there were unknowingly sinning by partaking of what the Gentiles served at table.

Paul is equating keeping the law as being justified. But the other Apostles knew that the law was not done away with and were still keeping it. This is the only reason they separated from the Gentiles because the Gentiles were still living sinful lives and not keeping away from idolatrous things, foods and more.

Apparently these teachings got to the Galatians because they must have been asking about this keeping of the law else why is this whole letter to the Galatians a defensive missal to Paul's gospel which seems to be different than the others. He even makes note of that to the Corinthians:

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

We must try to understand why the Corinthians were so fractured, if everyone was teaching the same gospel. Notice the order of names as well. There must have been different factions there for him to respond this way.

So it seems that Peter and Paul were not in agreement on how to be a believer in G-ds eyes.