Answer this two part question

[timothyu]

I have always felt that myself. Not believed. Felt.

I would agree considering everything is not of God but God Himself. He is the all.

 

[LoricaLady]

Paul can be confusing and sound contradictory if we don't examine the whole context of what he said. Peter said he was hard to understand.

Paul never said the Sabbath was changed. He never even mentioned such a topic. When he was speaking about new moons and holy days he was talking to pagans, encouraging them to not give into pagan peer pressure but to keep the holy days of Israel. And hey, where would PAUL get the right to change anything ordained by the Father, much less the right to change the 4th Commandment? Where does the Bible say he was given any such rights at all? Where does he claim that he could? In fact, the Bible warns us very sternly not to add to or subtract from what it says. This is really the biggest problem with people saying the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. They quote Paul, always, always, never the Father or the Son. Paul becomes a Deity who supersedes what they taught. See anything wrong with that picture?

Further, to the terrified Israelites below Mt. Sinai, the Lord audibly spoke the 10 Commandments and these included a Fri. night fall to Sat. nightfall.

The Bible says YHWH, aka God, will not alter what goes out of His mouth. Either that's true or the Bible is not reliable. The Bible says the Sabbath, and all the high holy days are "for all generations." All means all.

See quotes below which make it clear that Paul actually kept the Law of Moses - as does much else in Scriptures. And, no, there is not one set of laws for Jews and one for gentiles. Nothing in the Bible even hints at that. In the Old Testament we are told there is one Law for the native born Israelite and for the "alien" or foreigner. The New Testament also says "There is neither Greek nor Jew."

The argument about what to eat or what not to eat dealt with vegetarianism. There Paul could give his opinions as the Bible does not command meat. But, again, Paul had no authority to change any laws. Notice in Acts 15 that the Mosaic food laws are still being upheld. For example non Jews are being told to refrain from the meat of strangled animals and blood. Strangled animals still had the forbidden blood inside them. We see also in Acts 15 that the new converts are expected - as was the custom at the time for converts - to be in the Synagogues on the Sabbaths, not Sundays, to learn the rest of the Law of Moses.

Some say that Messiah told us that we can eat anything now. No, when He spoke of food He did not mean things like pork and lobster as no one in Israel considered tose things to be food anymore than we consider road kill to be food. When Peter had his meat on the sheet dream he protested that he had never eaten anything unclean. That shows right there that Messiah did NOT change the food laws.

Also, Peter's dream had nothing to do with food, as the interpretation for it shows. After the dream was seen 3 times he didn't say "Oh boy! Bring on the bacon and shrimp." No, he puzzled as to what the dream could mean. Now Pharaoh's baker and butler, with Joseph in jail, also had dreams about food. The interpretations were given and they had nothing to do with food at all.

Ditto Peter's dream. The interpretation is given more than once, for example with the words "This means" and there is again no mention of food at all. Instead we are shown that the dream means that "unclean" gentiles are now to be accepted into the Kingdom.

1 John: 3-4 For sin is the breaking of the Law.

Romans 2:12 - For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law 13 (for not the hearers of the Law [are] just in the sight of YHWH, but the doers of the Law will be justified;

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

These quotes are mostly from Paul whom we are often taught said the law was no longer in effect. Here is another quote from him.
Acts 25:8 Paul denied the charges. “I am not guilty of any crime against the Jewish laws or the Temple or the Roman government,” he said.

If Paul had tried to change the Sabbath, or had eaten unclean foods, or refused to do things like celebrate Yom Kippur, he would certainly not be able to say that he was not guilty of any crime against the Jewish laws!

I recommend Psalm 119 Ministries videos, starting with The Pauline Paradox. I certainly don't have the time to explain Paul's apparent contradictions, and anyway they do a far better job than I could. Very scholarly, in terms of history, Greek, and of course the Bible.

That's really all I have to say on this string, due to lack of time. I won't even look back because that would tempt me to go further in response to others' comments. Sorry.

Blessings and bye.

 

[TraceMalin]

Paul can be confusing and sound contradictory if we don't examine the whole context of what he said. Peter said he was hard to understand.

If by hard to understand you mean expert Biblical scholars question whether or not Paul was contradictory, whether or not he was mistranslated, whether or not he was pro-Israel or anti-Israel, etc.

1. Contradictionists - believe Paul is inconsistent.
2. Editorialists - believe Paul was mistranslated.
3. Psychologists - believe Paul abandoned the Law, but was trapped by nostalgia.
4. Subordinationists - believe pro-Israel passages are subordinate to anti-Israel passages.
5. New Paulists - believe Paul never speaks of Israel's redemption in terms of Jesus. Just as he can no longer think of salvation for gentiles in terms of the Mosaic covenant, so he does not imagine salvation for Jews occurring through their acceptance of Jesus. Or to borrow a line from Lloyd Gaston, for Paul, Jesus was not the Messiah of Israel.

Paul's Contradictions - Can They Be Resolved?

Paul never said the Sabbath was changed. He never even mentioned such a topic. When he was speaking about new moons and holy days he was talking to pagans, encouraging them to not give into pagan peer pressure but to keep the holy days of Israel. And hey, where would PAUL get the right to change anything ordained by the Father, much less the right to change the 4th Commandment? Where does the Bible say he was given any such rights at all? Where does he claim that he could? In fact, the Bible warns us very sternly not to add to or subtract from what it says. This is really the biggest problem with people saying the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. They quote Paul, always, always, never the Father or the Son. Paul becomes a Deity who supersedes what they taught. See anything wrong with that picture?

Paul was a faithful Jew who kept the Sabbath. Judaism does not require Gentiles to keep the Sabbath. The command to keep the Sabbath was given by God to His people - the Israelites. Paul taught Gentiles on the Sabbath. His command to "lay something aside or store something up" in 1 Corinthians 16:2 was for the first day of the week, a work day, as was his meeting with the disciples in Acts.

Jewish Rabbis on the Sabbath and the Gentiles

Deuteronomy warns of adding to, or subtracting from, the Torah. Revelation specifically says "this scroll."

Further, to the terrified Israelites below Mt. Sinai, the Lord audibly spoke the 10 Commandments and these included a Fri. night fall to Sat. nightfall.

Gentiles do not have to keep the Sabbath.

The Bible says YHWH, aka God, will not alter what goes out of His mouth. Either that's true or the Bible is not reliable. The Bible says the Sabbath, and all the high holy days are "for all generations." All means all.

For all generations of Jews as God's chosen people.

See quotes below which make it clear that Paul actually kept the Law of Moses - as does much else in Scriptures. And, no, there is not one set of laws for Jews and one for gentiles. Nothing in the Bible even hints at that. In the Old Testament we are told there is one Law for the native born Israelite and for the "alien" or foreigner. The New Testament also says "There is neither Greek nor Jew."

Galatians 3 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Clearly metaphorical. God made them male and female, separated Jews from Gentiles, and as Paul was telling them in Galatians 3:8 "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" of a metaphorical seed.

The argument about what to eat or what not to eat dealt with vegetarianism. There Paul could give his opinions as the Bible does not command meat. But, again, Paul had no authority to change any laws. Notice in Acts 15 that the Mosaic food laws are still being upheld. For example non Jews are being told to refrain from the meat of strangled animals and blood. Strangled animals still had the forbidden blood inside them. We see also in Acts 15 that the new converts are expected - as was the custom at the time for converts - to be in the Synagogues on the Sabbaths, not Sundays, to learn the rest of the Law of Moses.

At a meeting in Jerusalem, the church comes to understand that the calling of Gentiles to belief without adherence to full scriptural law is the work of God. Gentiles did not have to obey all Jewish food laws: Acts 15 28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled* and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’

https://www.enterthebible.org/Contr...ourcebox.aspx?selected_rid=237&original_id=12

Some say that Messiah told us that we can eat anything now. No, when He spoke of food He did not mean things like pork and lobster as no one in Israel considered tose things to be food anymore than we consider road kill to be food. When Peter had his meat on the sheet dream he protested that he had never eaten anything unclean. That shows right there that Messiah did NOT change the food laws.

We just saw in Acts 15 the food laws only applied to the Jews.

Also, Peter's dream had nothing to do with food, as the interpretation for it shows. After the dream was seen 3 times he didn't say "Oh boy! Bring on the bacon and shrimp." No, he puzzled as to what the dream could mean. Now Pharaoh's baker and butler, with Joseph in jail, also had dreams about food. The interpretations were given and they had nothing to do with food at all.

Ditto Peter's dream. The interpretation is given more than once, for example with the words "This means" and there is again no mention of food at all. Instead we are shown that the dream means that "unclean" gentiles are now to be accepted into the Kingdom.

And, unclean Gentiles may live as Gentiles as the Jews live as Jews. We are all cleansed in Christ. The Jews are a special people.


1 John: 3-4 For sin is the breaking of the Law.

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 2:12 - For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law 13 (for not the hearers of the Law [are] just in the sight of YHWH, but the doers of the Law will be justified;

Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Romans 3:31 - Do we then make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

These quotes are mostly from Paul whom we are often taught said the law was no longer in effect. Here is another quote from him.
Acts 25:8 Paul denied the charges. “I am not guilty of any crime against the Jewish laws or the Temple or the Roman government,” he said.

Paul was a Jew. His churches were made up of Gentiles.

"For Paul, if the Gentiles are forced to keep the Jewish boundary markers, then they have converted to Judaism and they are not 'in Christ.' This view would have been radical in the first century, and it still is difficult for Christians two thousand years later. One does not 'act like a Christian' to be right with God, any more than one 'acted like a Jew' in the first century to be right with God." -- Phillip J. Long

If Paul had tried to change the Sabbath, or had eaten unclean foods, or refused to do things like celebrate Yom Kippur, he would certainly not be able to say that he was not guilty of any crime against the Jewish laws!

Paul was a devout Jew.

I recommend Psalm 119 Ministries videos, starting with The Pauline Paradox. I certainly don't have the time to explain Paul's apparent contradictions, and anyway they do a far better job than I could. Very scholarly, in terms of history, Greek, and of course the Bible.

That's really all I have to say on this string, due to lack of time. I won't even look back because that would tempt me to go further in response to others' comments. Sorry.

Blessings and bye.

My mentor in the Religious Studies Department at Marywood University was one of the Vatican's top experts on Paul. He hosted a TV show on EWTN from the Holy Land about Paul, but I cannot locate a link. Too bad. He was an excellent professor. Adios!

 

[LoricaLady]

I will bite one last time. There is nothing in the Bible about Jewish Law, except for the oral traditions which Messiah hated. There was ONE Law, and there still is. It was and is for Israelites - all 12 tribes of Israel - and for gentiles. That is what the Bible clearly says in the Old Testament.

"You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your Elohim" aka God.

The New Testament is also clear: "There is neither Greek nor Jew."

And Paul wasn't even a Jew. He was a Benjamite. There were not separate laws for Jews or Benjamites, or for anyone else. Once more, there was one Law for everyone. The Bible clearly states that.

Oh, you mention an expert from the Vatican at the end. The RCC, at the top - this does not necessarily include individuals outside of the official hierarchy at all - has always hated, and spoken to distort Scriptures. That is why they burned people at the stake for owning or printing the Bible, or for even choosing the Bible's truths over their dogma. The Protestant Reformation clipped the RCC's horrific wings, but if you study the official doctrines of the Vatican you can see that they still believe exactly as they did then. This is all documented in a book called Conversations With Catholics. And btw that book is why I fled Catholicism.

You quote the Jerusalem council telling non Jewish converts to abstain from blood, but don't seem to see the fact that abstaining from blood is part of the Mosaic Law. You do not mention that Acts 15 shows the converts are assumed to be going into Synagogues on the Sabbaths, not Sundays, to learn what? The rest of the Law of Moses.

Notice you keep quoting Paul, never the Father or the Son. But Paul said to follow the Savior, not him. If Paul was sticking to Jewish ways, as you say he was, hmmm....why did he, supposedly, change the Sabbath? Did the Father or the Son say it would be changed, or change it? No. In fact, speaking of the time after His resurrection and ascension, in relation to when the Temple would be destroyed, our Savior said "Pray that your flight not be in the winter or on the Sabbath." We're supposed to rest on the Sabbath.

Again, when people try to defend a Sunday Sabbath they always quote Paul. When did he take over the Commandments from the Father? You don't reference where the Bible says he had that kind of power and authority. Where did he, himself, claim to have those? No, he said to follow the Savior, not him.

Try to defend a Sunday Sabbath using only the words of the Father and the Son, without quoting Paul who never even said that the Sabbath is now on Sunday.

Yes, Messiah spoke of love in relation to the Law. But He said something hangs on love. What? The Law and the prophets. If you say something hangs on a hanger, where are you saying that there is an empty hanger?

Messiah also said that not one jot or tittle of the law and the prophets would pass away until Heaven and earth pass away and until all is fulfilled. That's Messiah talking, not Paul, or rather pseudo Paul. Heaven and earth are still here! And all has no way been fulfilled. For just two examples, He has not come back for His people, the millenium of peace is not here and so on.

Agan, there were no Jewish food laws. There were laws which, as I said, the Creator made for Israelites and non Israelites jointly. Nowhere does the Bible say they have been, or will be, changed.

The interpretation for Peter's dream was clearly given more than once but you don't seem to see that. The interpretation never mentions food, only "unclean" gentiles. Did you look at where the Bible says "This means...."? Does it mention food or does it mention gentiles? Why simply ignore the interpretation given for Peter's dream? Why not ignore the interpretations given for the food dreams of Pharaoh's butler and baker while we are at it?

Study where Stephen is falsely accused in Act 6. What was he falsely accused of, per the Bible?

Acts 6 11 Then [to attack Stephen another way] they secretly instructed men to say, “We have heard this man [Stephen] speak blasphemous (slanderous, sacrilegious, abusive) words against Moses and against God.” 12 And they provoked and incited the people, as well as the elders and the scribes, and they came up to Stephen and seized him and brought him before the Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court). 13 They presented false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and the Law [of Moses]; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus the Nazarene will tear down this place and will change the traditions and customs which Moses handed down to us.”

Traditions of men are joined at the hip to cognitive dissonance in much of what mainstream Christianity teaches. I can pray about it, and have, but I can't cure anyone of cognitive dissonance. Heck, I couldn't get over my own cognitive dissonance without prayer. Only the Holy Spirit can cause us to see the obvious, so why go farther?

Goodbye and may we all come into all truth.

 

[TraceMalin]

I will bite one last time. There is nothing in the Bible about Jewish Law, except for the oral traditions which Messiah hated. There was ONE Law, and there still is. It was and is for Israelites - all 12 tribes of Israel - and for gentiles. That is what the Bible clearly says in the Old Testament.

"You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your Elohim" aka God.

The entire Tanakh or Old Testament was written at the time of Jesus. Your quote doesn't apply to the entire law given to the Israelites. Only specific cases.

Leviticus 24
A Blasphemer Put to Death
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the Lord should be made clear to them.

13 Then the Lord said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.

17 “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”

23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the Lord commanded Moses.

Numbers 15
Unintentional Sins
28And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD on behalf of the person who erred by sinning unintentionally; and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven. 29You shall have the same law for the one who acts in error, whether he is an Israelite or a foreigner residing among you. 30But the person who sins defiantly, whether a native or foreigner, blasphemes the LORD. That person shall be cut off from his people.…

God directs that certain sins be punished the same for all. Not that the entirety of the law applied to all. If this was the case, there is no way rabbis could say Gentiles don't have to follow everything in the Torah and the disciples would have demanded Gentiles follow all of the food laws and the Sabbath.

The rabbis answers they gave to these inquiries are clear, simple, and unambiguous:

1. “Gentiles are not meant to keep Shabbat” “Shabbat is only given to the Jewish people”
2. “It is not a creation ordinance”
3. “Before the giving of the Torah there was no obligation to observe Shabbat”

This is the traditional Jewish view of the obligation of Sabbath keeping, and the basis for their belief that the Sabbath was intended for the Jew only, and not for other nations, is based on the Torah. As Rabbi Zalmanov states, “There is no reference in the Torah for it applying to other nations.”

Jewish Rabbis on the Sabbath and the Gentiles

The New Testament is also clear: "There is neither Greek nor Jew."

You left out the part about "no male or female." 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Clearly, there are males and females unless you subscribe to one of the other 72 Facebook gender pronouns. Genesis 5:1 Male and female created he them; and blessed them ... Paul was merely saying that no one is above another in Christ. That had nothing to do with Jewish law applying to Gentiles.

And Paul wasn't even a Jew. He was a Benjamite. There were not separate laws for Jews or Benjamites, or for anyone else. Once more, there was one Law for everyone. The Bible clearly states that.

"Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia" (Acts 21:39 KJV)
"I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (Romans 11:1 KJV)

Paul was, by ancestry, of the tribe of Benjamin. He was religiously a Jew (and a Pharisee - see
Pharisees), of Judah. Judah had two meanings. It meant ancestry, people descended from Judah, but it also meant those of the Kingdom of Judah, which was composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (and part of Levi). The religion of the Kingdom of Judah was "Jewish."
​

Daily Bible Study - Was Paul A Jew or a Benjamite?

Oh, you mention an expert from the Vatican at the end. The RCC, at the top - this does not necessarily include individuals outside of the official hierarchy at all - has always hated, and spoken to distort Scriptures. That is why they burned people at the stake for owning or printing the Bible, or for even choosing the Bible's truths over their dogma. The Protestant Reformation clipped the RCC's horrific wings, but if you study the official doctrines of the Vatican you can see that they still believe exactly as they did then. This is all documented in a book called Conversations With Catholics. And btw that book is why I fled Catholicism.

You have not had a conversation with Father Barone.

You quote the Jerusalem council telling non Jewish converts to abstain from blood, but don't seem to see the fact that abstaining from blood is part of the Mosaic Law. You do not mention that Acts 15 shows the converts are assumed to be going into Synagogues on the Sabbaths, not Sundays, to learn what? The rest of the Law of Moses.

The apostles only asked the Gentiles to keep some of the Mosaic dietary law. Paul was speaking to them in synagogues about Jesus. Many synagogues at the time were also used as community centers.

Notice you keep quoting Paul, never the Father or the Son. But Paul said to follow the Savior, not him. If Paul was sticking to Jewish ways, as you say he was, hmmm....why did he, supposedly, change the Sabbath? Did the Father or the Son say it would be changed, or change it? No. In fact, speaking of the time after His resurrection and ascension, in relation to when the Temple would be destroyed, our Savior said "Pray that your flight not be in the winter or on the Sabbath." We're supposed to rest on the Sabbath.

Paul did not change the Sabbath. Did Paul change the Sabbath in I Corinthians 16:1-2?

Again, when people try to defend a Sunday Sabbath they always quote Paul. When did he take over the Commandments from the Father? You don't reference where the Bible says he had that kind of power and authority. Where did he, himself, claim to have those? No, he said to follow the Savior, not him.

Try to defend a Sunday Sabbath using only the words of the Father and the Son, without quoting Paul who never even said that the Sabbath is now on Sunday.

Paul did not change the Sabbath. Did Paul change the Sabbath in I Corinthians 16:1-2?

Yes, Messiah spoke of love in relation to the Law. But He said something hung on love. What? The Law and the prophets. If you say something hangs on a hanger, where are you saying that there is an empty hanger?

The law was different for different people such as Levites and Gentiles. Proper application of the Torah based upon God's commandments is following the law.

Messiah also said that not one jot or tittle of the law and the prophets would pass away until Heaven and earth pass away and until all is fulfilled. That's Messiah talking, not Paul, or rather pseudo Paul. Heaven and earth are still here! And all has no way been fulfilled. For just two examples, He has not come back for His people, the millenium of peace is not here and so on.

See above.

Agan, there were no Jewish food laws. There were laws which, as I said, the Creator made for Israelites and non Israelites jointly. Nowhere does the Bible say they have been, or will be, changed. The interpretation for Peter's dream was clearly given more than once but you don't seem to see that. The interpretation never mentions food, only "unclean" gentiles. Did you look at where the Bible says "This means...."? Does it mention food or does it mention gentiles? Why simply ignore the interpretation given for Peter's dream? Why not ignore the interpretations given for the food dreams of Pharaoh's butler and baker while you are at it?

The Israelites had to follow laws that they still follow to day, while Gentiles have been exempt and are still exempt today from certain laws. Ask any rabbi.

Study where Stephen is falsely accused in Act 6. What was he falsely accused of, per the Bible?

Acts 6 11 Then [to attack Stephen another way] they secretly instructed men to say, “We have heard this man [Stephen] speak blasphemous (slanderous, sacrilegious, abusive) words against Moses and against God.” 12 And they provoked and incited the people, as well as the elders and the scribes, and they came up to Stephen and seized him and brought him before the Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court). 13 They presented false witnesses who said, “This man never stops speaking against this holy place and the Law [of Moses]; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus the Nazarene will tear down this place and will change the traditions and customs which Moses handed down to us.”

The apostles themselves decided only some of the Mosaic Law applied to Gentiles.

Bible Q | Does the law of Moses apply to Christians today?

Traditions of men are joined at the hip to cognitive dissonance in much of what mainstream Christianity teaches. I can pray about it, and have, but I can't cure anyone of cognitive dissonance. Heck, I couldn't get over my own cognitive dissonance without prayer. Only the Holy Spirit can cause us to see the obvious, so why go farther?

Goodbye and may we all come into all truth.

I don't have inconsistent thoughts. Nor am I based in tradition. The Holy Spirit is at work in my life as well. We just disagree.

 

[LoricaLady]

What matters is if we agree with Scriptures. If you haven't seen what I have already referenced, from the Bible, you currently won't see anything else I have to type. It's between you and the Lord.

 

[TraceMalin]

I'm dying. I doubt I'll have time to not believe in the Scriptures I quoted to you.

 

[timothyu]

And Paul wasn't even a Jew. He was a Benjamite.

Yes. Moses wasn't Jewish either. He was a Levite of the Levi House of Israel, not the tribe of Judah which eventually laid claim to the priest lineage.

Again, when people try to defend a Sunday Sabbath they always quote Paul.

A religion was built upon the epistles of Paul. Salvation was built upon the Kingdom of Jesus' Gospel.

Try to defend a Sunday Sabbath using only the words of the Father and the Son, without quoting Paul who never even said that the Sabbath is now on Sunday.

You might want to consider how some Christians complain certain 'holidays' replaced pagan ones. Do they in turn realize that Constantine who saw himself as Caesar, the Sun God and reincarnation of Jesus, was a sun worshipper and it was logical the Sabbath would be as recorded, moved by Constantine in 321 to Sunday as a day of rest to venerate the sun?

Messiah also said that not one jot or tittle of the law and the prophets would pass away until Heaven and earth pass away and until all is fulfilled. That's Messiah talking, not Paul, or rather pseudo Paul. Heaven and earth are still here! And all has no way been fulfilled.

The Law is the will of the Father and not of man. Man may still put ourselves ahead of the Father but His truth still holds over ours. That will never change even though man likes to think otherwise in order to justify their own actions. So as long as man carries on lying to ourselves that our will is somehow superior, then no, no way has the will of God here in earth as it is in Heaven yet been fulfilled.

 

[timothyu]

This is the traditional Jewish view of the obligation of Sabbath keeping, and the basis for their belief that the Sabbath was intended for the Jew only, and not for other nations, is based on the Torah. As Rabbi Zalmanov states, “There is no reference in the Torah for it applying to other nations.”

Are you referring to Sabbath as day of rest or of the required Sabbath holidays? The 10 tribes of Israel to the north of Judah which housed Jew and Levite were also seen as Gentile after a rift with the Benjamites who also laid claim to being the chosen people out of which would come the Messiah.

 

[timothyu]

The law was different for different people such as Levites and Gentiles. Proper application of the Torah based upon God's commandments is following the law.

Was not the Law originally for the House of Israel which contained 10 tribes which were to become Gentiles in the eyes of the Jews? (Gentile means Outsider)? So the Law was different for two different classes of Gentile.

 

[timothyu]

The Israelites had to follow laws that they still follow to day, while Gentiles have been exempt and are still exempt today from certain laws. Ask any rabbi.

The original disagreement was whether they need be proselyte (like Cornelius). Once it was determined they need not be proselytes, then the exemptions began. I wonder if perhaps Cornelius later regretted not holding off on his decision to be circumcised.

 

[timothyu]

I'm dying. I doubt I'll have time to not believe in the Scriptures I quoted to you.

Cliffhanger?

 

[LoricaLady]

Yes. Moses wasn't Jewish either. He was a Levite of the Levi House of Israel, not the tribe of Judah which eventually laid claim to the priest lineage.



A religion was built upon the epistles of Paul. Salvation was built upon the Kingdom of Jesus' Gospel.



You might want to consider how some Christians complain certain 'holidays' replaced pagan ones. Do they in turn realize that Constantine who saw himself as Caesar, the Sun God and reincarnation of Jesus, was a sun worshipper and it was logical the Sabbath would be as recorded, moved by Constantine in 321 to Sunday as a day of rest to venerate the sun?



The Law is the will of the Father and not of man. Man may still put ourselves ahead of the Father but His truth still holds over ours. That will never change even though man likes to think otherwise in order to justify their own actions. So as long as man carries on lying to ourselves that our will is somehow superior, then no, no way has the will of God here in earth as it is in Heaven yet been fulfilled.

Yes, what you say is true, except I would say that religion was built, in part, on a misunderstanding of the epistles of Paul with some mistranslations - but also on many pagan traditions of men like Christmas and Easter, etc.

You probably know Constantine had true Sabbath keepers executed.

 

[timothyu]

except I would say that religion was built, in part, on a misunderstanding of the epistles of Paul[/QUOTE

Or deliberate in order to build a kingdom of man rather than of God.

That is the only thing empire building Romans knew, so was it a stretch to think they would not make Christianity over in their own image?

If people deny this then do they not understand that the original Jewish Christian then Jewish/Gentile religion would fade away unless the very people trying to stamp it out did not make it their own for their own purposes. Who else would God use to forward scripture to this day but by those who would alter the religion but not the scriptures for their own purposes. Empire builders tend to not be lost in history. Even the Adversary need not change scripture but only twist it around. The Kingdom of God became ignored in favour of the new kingdom of man, the institutionalized Roman church (not to be confused with Roman Catholics of a much later era).

This church existed long before Constantine , and he used it to his advantage to win a civil war by having his soldiers paint crosses on their shields so Roman Christians of the opposing forces would not fight their own brethern. It worked. Like in DC or the Middle East today, religion is and was a tool of human government, even at one time becoming a world government itself, none of which have ever served the will of the Father or His Kingdom. The truth is only in the Gospel of the Kingdom in scripture.

 

[LoricaLady]

Or deliberate in order to build a kingdom of man rather than of God. That is the only thing empire building Romans knew, so was it a stretch to think they would not make Christianity over in their own image?

Yes, Romans wanted to mold and twist Christianity to fit their pagan system.

 

[timothyu]

Yes, Romans wanted to mold and twist Christianity to fit their pagan system.

Of course. Their blind lead the blind also. (I edited above btw)

 

[TraceMalin]

Cliffhanger?

No. I'm in the process of dying. I came here to find a Christian community, but instead found a community of Christians. I'll no longer be participating.

In One Law & the Messianic Gentile, Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster recant the First Fruits of Zion's position that there is just One Law. Paraphrasing:

One Law Theology = Jew & Gentile believers have identical obligations to Torah and liability for its transgression.

One Law believers have done something the apostles never did. They worked out a theology that applies to Gentile believers. If Gentile believers are under the same mandate as Jews, why didn't the apostles say so in clear terms? Are One Law believers comfortable with condemning nearly every Christian community in existence for not following every mandate of Torah? Are One Law believers comfortable with compromising the distinction between Jew and Gentile creating a complete loss of Jewish identity almost like a spiritual holocaust? The quoted "There is no Jew or Gentile" neglects to explain to me why men can't have sex with another man if there also is no male or female in the same verse? The Bible is clear on homosexuality and the fact that there are distinct roles for men and women even though they become "one flesh" in marriage. Abolishing this distinction is abolishing an aspect of Torah. Paul said there is no Jew or Gentile yet Paul and the Apostles made the distinction that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised. Paul was only referring to no Jew or Gentile as to eligibility for salvation not roles in the kingdom. The notion that the apostles made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles is not sustainable. Admitting Gentiles don't need to be circumcised is admitting a distinction between Jew and Gentile obligation to Torah. The One Law message brings disunity and fracture to Christian ranks. Gentiles keeping all 613 commandments is a view not shared by Jewish Rabbis or the vast majority of churches in the Christian community. Worse yet, it is common to observe One-Law Messianic Gentiles become bitter toward Christianity, referring to Christians as pagans, labeling Christian celebrations as pagan festivals, and mocking Christians for eating unclean meats. Torah-observant Gentiles can quickly become arrogant over their brothers and sisters in Messiah and display sharp contempt for other believers who do not keep the aspects of Torah that they do. Many One-Law proponents have an aversion to traditional Judaism, and are opposed to its incorporation or even the utilization of its sources. It is common for One-Law Messianics to eschew “rabbinics” and criticize the “traditions of men.” At the same time, they have burned all bridges with Christianity. They reject Judaism and Jewish tradition, and they reject Christianity and Christian tradition. As romantic as such a hyper-protestant, sola scriptura purity may sound, it breeds arrogance and is unsustainable. It's bad fruit.

They go on to explain why they believe Christian Gentiles are advised to follow Torah, but that it's unnecessary.

For those who want to understand the errors in "One Law" Messianic theology read:

http://kehilatyeshua.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mj-101-one_law_and_the_messianic_gentile.pdf

One Law for Jews and Gentiles? - Kehilat Yeshua Messianic Congregation

http://kehilatyeshua.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/One-Law-Two-Sticks.pdf

One Law is not supported by Scripture, unless your faith desires it to be true, based upon some Scripture and contradicted by other Scripture. Neither tradition nor culture supports it either. Possibly my last forum post.

 

[LoricaLady]

No. I'm in the process of dying. I came here to find a Christian community, but instead found a community of Christians. I'll no longer be participating.

In One Law & the Messianic Gentile, Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster recant the First Fruits of Zion's position that there is just One Law. Paraphrasing:



They go on to explain why they believe Christian Gentiles are advised to follow Torah, but that it's unnecessary.

For those who want to understand the errors in "One Law" Messianic theology read:

http://kehilatyeshua.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mj-101-one_law_and_the_messianic_gentile.pdf

One Law for Jews and Gentiles? - Kehilat Yeshua Messianic Congregation

http://kehilatyeshua.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/One-Law-Two-Sticks.pdf

One Law is not supported by Scripture, unless your faith desires it to be true, based upon some Scripture and contradicted by other Scripture. Neither tradition nor culture supports it either. Possibly my last forum post.

"Paul [supposedly] said....an expert from the Vatican says...some rabbis said....some authors selling their books said...the culture says....tradition supports...."

Messiah told the rabbis that they nullified the Word of the Lord through their traditions. That wasn't smart of them.

May those see who have eyes to see. If they don't have such eyes, may they get them.

If you leave, bye! Be blessed!

 

[timothyu]

I came here to find a Christian community, but instead found a community of Christians.

Absolutely. As there are two natures to man, there are two natures to how Christianity is lived. One serves man. One serves God and each other but not self, not in theology but in deed.

 

[timothyu]

One Law is not supported by Scripture, unless your faith desires it to be true, based upon some Scripture and contradicted by other Scripture. Neither tradition nor culture supports it either.

All the subordinate laws and theology aside, do you not agree that the original sin was man putting their will before God's, and that God's law simply says His will before ours? Does that not apply to all mankind?