Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Exodus.
How can you say that? Do you not know that it was the Romans (Pilate and his soldiers) who killed Him?Right He does not but they DID...they in killing their husband to which they said “I DO” at Sinai...
Dispensationalism has its merits, but what Darby & Co. said about the future, I disagree on almost every point. And one point of critic against them is: God has not two brides. Surprised?He will not marry two women...Blood Israel AND a Body of Christ...Or are you MAD*? Happily Paul was not Acts 26:25
*Mid Acts Dispensationalist
No, Peter did not write such, on the contrary he wrote:1 Peter 2:21
Berean Study Bible
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His footsteps:
Jesus who is God kept the 7th day Sabbath ...
This is not about the Sabbath.John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Well, fact is there are differences between the noachide laws and the dogmae in Acts 15. Or are Noachides expected to refrain from eating blood?Yes they are. if you are correct, why then was there even any reason to finish the sentence with "torah taught every Shabbat"? I was not involved in your discussion in post 45.
Not being a Jew, I'm not sure whether I should draw there any conclusion for me.
This "future" is 67 AD. And it is said to Jews.
It follows from the OT that the commandments were given to Israel, not other people. It follows from Ats 15 that there is a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers on the question of the Law.This is a fascinating reply. So you have been convinced that Jesus was not talking to you but only Jews in the New Testament? I have not heard this one yet.
Do you really want to say that calling Jesus the Christ is deception? I hope you made some error in wording and do not mean it that way.
Well, fact is there are differences between the noachide laws and the dogmae in Acts 15. Or are Noachides expected to refrain from eating blood?
The last sentence is a way to soothe those who were eager to teach them to obey the whole law.
Where do you find a commandment with a promise before that verse?
Where do you find a commandment with a promise before that verse?
Where do you find a commandment with a promise before that verse?
It follows from the OT that the commandments were given to Israel, not other people. It follows from Ats 15 that there is a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers on the question of the Law.
This does by no means imply Jesus never said anything that matters for us Gentiles. You are using a straw man.
Do you really want to say that calling Jesus the Christ is deception? I hope you made some error in wording and do not mean it that way.
The deception prophesied is: Some says "I am the Christ", whether he declares himself as the returned Jesus or whether he claims to be a Messiah without reference to Jesus.
I can't see any link to the theme "are we Gentiles obliged to keep the whole law (including Sabbath and circumcision)?"
conclude what is done from Moses seat?Not being a Jew, I'm not sure whether I should draw there any conclusion for me.
many project the scope further down the future...to END TIMES of trouble...This "future" is 67 AD. And it is said to Jews.
what is the Faith of Yahushua...notice it is NOT "have faith IN” but "here are they that...have the faith OF"...so again what faith does He have?You lost me? What does polytheistic (or in some variants pantheistic) Hinduism or Buddhism have to do with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles?
well who knows for sure...I mean I ain't a Jew neither but I do know it is of Hebrew origin and NOT "Jesus"...Is "Yahushua" a misspelled Yehowshu` (or, omitting the Ayin at end and replacing it with an a, as in modern Ivrit, "Yeshua")?
Is what I am talking about...Otherwise I don't know at all what you are talking about
They are called "words" in the Hebrew, and if you have a better term than "saying" to make clear they are not 10 token you can take from a dictionary ("word" in the literal sense), name it.
The Jews say the first word is "I am YHWH who brought you out of Egypt ...", hence the first word in Jewish counting is no commandment. I already linked to evidence about that. A list of 10 words, of which the first is no commandment, is no list of ten commandments, but of one non-commandment and 9 commandments. And there is no hard evidence which tradition is closer to how the God wants the list be subdivided, hence both traditions (one introductory word and 9 commandments, or 10 commandments) are of equal value. Is this distinction important at all?
Your response here...LoveGodsWord said: ↑ What makes you think I do not have scripture? God's ISRAEL according to the new covenant scriptures are no longer those in the flesh but in the Spirit and a Jew is not one outwardly but inwardly of the heart in the Spirit. God's ISRAEL are today all those who believe and follow God's Word. There are no more Jewish and Gentile believers in the flesh as all are one on Christ. Gentile believers are now grafted in. If we are not a part of Gods ISRAEL in the new covenant we have no part in God's new covenant promise....
EPHESIANS 2:11-13 [11], Why remember, that you being in TIME PAST Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
[12], That AT THAT TIME [in the Past] YOU WERE WITHOUT CHRIST, BEING ALIENS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, STRANGERS FROM THE COVENANT OF PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE, AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD: [13], BUT NOW IN CHRIST JESUS, YOU WHO WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NEAR BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
GALATIANS 3:28-29 [28], THERE IS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: FOR YOU ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS AND IF YOU BE CHRISTS, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS [29], and IF YOU BE CHRISTS, THEN ARE YOU ABRAHAM'S SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.
God's true ISRAEL in the NEW COVENANT are not by name only but all those in Christ. Those of the FLESH (sinful human nature) are not Abrahams seed but those who BELIEVE and FOLLOW God in Christ are God's ISRAEL...
ROMANS 9:6-8 [6], FOR THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL,: [7], NEITHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called <Christ> [8], That is, THEY WHICH ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE <those who believe> ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED.
God's ISRAEL are all those in CHRIST that have been given a NEW HEART according to the NEW COVENANT promise...
ROMANS 2:28-29 [28], FOR HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY; NEITHER IS THAT CIRCUMCISION, WHICH IS OUTWARDS IN THE FLESH: [29], BUT HE IS A JEW WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY; and CIRCUMCISION IS OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE LETTER; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
In the NEW COVENANT all those in Christ are are God's ISRAEL...
COLOSSIANS 3:11 [11], WHERE THERE IS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: BUT CHRIST IS ALL IN ALL.
ROMANS 10:11-13 [11], For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. [12], FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW OR GREEK: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [13], FOR WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.
The New Covenant is for God's Israel...
EZEKIEL 36:26-27 [26], A NEW HEART WILL I GIVE YOU, AND A NEW SPIRIT WILL I PUT WITHIN YOU; AND I WILL TAKE AWAY THE STONY HEART OUT OF YOUR FLESH, AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH. [27], AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU, AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES AND YOU SHALL KEEP MY JUDGEMENTS AND DO THEM.
and again...
JEREMIAH 31:33-34 [33], BUT THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, says the LORD, I WILL PUT MY LAW IN THEIR INWARD PARTS,AND WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34], And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Paul proclaims it here...
HEBREWS 8:10-12 [10], BUT THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, says the LORD, I WILL PUT MY LAW IN THEIR INWARD PARTS, AND WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: [11], And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. [12], For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
The NEW COVENANT is for GOD'S ISRAEL which represent those who BELIEVE and FOLLOW God’s WORD.
If you are not part of GOD'S ISRAEL then you are not a part of the NEW COVENANT (Hebrews 8:10-12).
............
CONCLUSION: God's ISRAEL is the name given by God to all those who BELIEVE and FOLLOW his WORD. GENTILES are now grafted in. If you are not a part of the God's ISRAEL then you have no part in the NEW COVENANT.
I noticed you deleted all the scriptures from my previous post that show who God's ISRAEL is under the new covenant. Was there any reason for this? I did not overlook anything dear friend that I could see. You were simply provided a detailed scripture exegesis on the origins of the name ISRAEL from the old covenant and who Gods ISRAEL represents today in the new covenant. Romans 11:28 does not delete all the scripture provided to you in the previous post and neither does it say that physical ISRAEL is God's true ISRAEL in the new covenant as the scripture teach that unbelieving physical ISRAEL are God's enemies *Romans 11:28 and have been cast away *Romans 11:15. When we read Romans 11:28 is simply says that they are still beloved by God even though they have been cast away and are now His enemies, because of the patriarchs who God made his covenant with (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Those of physical ISRAEL who do not believe the Gospel in the new covenant according to Romans 11:28 are God's enemies and cast away, while Romans 11:13-27 says that those Jews and Gentile believers in the gospel are grafted in, while much of the other scriptures provided show there is now no more Jew or Gentile believer but all are one in Christ and a part God's true ISRAEL *Romans 9:6-8 of the new covenant and are descibed as all those who believe and follow God's Word *Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 3:28-29; Romans 9:6-8; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:11-13. Reading all the scripture contexts in Romans 11:13-28 we read that unbelievers are cast out and enemies enemies of God, while believers are grafted in and God is able to graft back in those who have been cast out (Unbelieving physical ISRAEL who are still beloved for the patriarchs sake).You overlooked the following:
Ro 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. The enemies of the Church (or God???), as far as the Gospel is concerned, are beloved one because will never revoke His covenant with Israel. Yes, The Church can be told "spiritual Israel", but this does not mean that the Israel according to the flesh has no future. The verse I cited above is in the context of the promise that Israel as a whole will be saved.
Why do you say it is a trick to post scripture for everything I have shared with you here when you were the one asking for the scriptures you thought did not exist? Now when your provided scripture you do not believe them and claim it is a trick? They are Gods' Words not mine, so your argument is with God not me. Does this not worry you? It should because according to the scriptures, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow them over the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29; Matthew 15:3-9. You ask for scripture but when it is provided you say it is a trick because it disagrees with you.I've seen the trick o0f heaping many verses for the own case, but omitting the Scriptural evidence against it. I don't need more evidence that there is some truth in what you said (I hinted at that above), I showed you the key verse that proves your interpretation is wrong. Israel according to the flesh has the promise of being saved as a whole, what the precise meaning of "whole" is I am not sure (all Jews living when Christ returns?). But I am sure Scripture cannot be broken, as .God does not revoke the covenant with those who are "enemies for our sake".
I have added my previous post below because when you quote me you leave out the supporting scriptures, and Hebrew word meanings that were provided."Word" can also refer to a clause. Maybe this is more common in my mother tongue. The question is whether there are ten "sayings" or ten commandments.
Your response here...LoveGodsWord said: ↑ The Hebrew words used for ten commandments is עשׂרת הדברים׃ and translates as ten words in the English. This translation alone does not make any sense in the English as it is more than ten words for each law and more like ten sentences. The Hebrew translation of dabar to the ten words is because they are God's ten words. He spoke them and wrote them with his own finger *Exodus 20:1-17; Exodus 32:16. Fact of the matter is that these ten words (sentences) of God are all commandments ("Thou shalt not"; "You shall not") right? Hence the English translation to Ten commandments solves the problem of words and sentences and application.
The correct English translation therefore is ten commandments and this is why the majority of bible translation translate it that way. That does not mean the Ten words translation is not correct. It is correct but it is better understood in the English as to their implication of context as the "ten commandments" because the ten words (sentences) of God are ten commandments.
A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible
1697. דָבָר dâbâr, daw-bawr´; from 1696; a word; by impl. a matter (as spoken of) or thing; adv. a cause:—act, advice, affair, answer, × any such (thing), + because of, book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, + chronicles, commandment, × commune (-ication), + concern [-ing], + confer, counsel, + dearth, decree, deed, × disease, due, duty, effect, + eloquent, errand, [evil favoured-] ness, + glory, + harm, hurt, + iniquity, + judgment, language, + lying, manner, matter, message, [no] thing, oracle, × ought, × parts, + pertaining, + please, portion, + power, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report, request, × (as hast) said, sake, saying, sentence, + sign, + so, some [uncleanness], somewhat to say, + song, speech, × spoken, talk, task, + that, × there done, thing (concerning), thought, + thus, tidings, what [-soever], + wherewith, which, word, work.
The Lexham Bible Dictionary
TEN COMMANDMENTS (עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, asereth haddevarim). The commandments inscribed upon the two tablets of stone that God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai (Exod 20:1–17; Deut 5:6–21).
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote on the tables the words of the covenant, the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even TEN COMMANDMENTS; and he wrote them on two tables of stone.
Deuteronomy 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, which the LORD spoke to you in the mount out of the middle of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them to me.
Ok so the starting off God's spoken and written LAW in Exodus 20:1-17 does not say "thou shalt not" or "do not" in the first set of words. Yep I agree. How does that means that there are not 10 commandments in God's LAW? How exactly is this relevant to our conversation exactly? Are you claiming there is not 10 commandments in God's 10 commandments in Exodus 20:1-17? Sorry for all the questions here but this section of your post does not make much sense to me.OK.letsb look at the 10 words: Ten Commandments - Wikipedia As you can see. the first one starts with "I am, not "You shall", only the second one (according to the Jewish counting I referred to starts with "You shall have no other ...". Unlike the case at the end, where the division of "You shall not covet" into two cannot be maintained consistently in both version (Ex 20 and Deut 5), this difference is almost a matter of taste, with no evidence (pro/contra) from the texts itself.
Well you have provided an opinion here unsupported by any evidence. You are free to believe as you wish. Your were provided in return scripture evidence and support as to why the English translation was made to ten commandments above which is related to the Hebrew making sense in English and commandments being related to subject matter and context. You are however free to believe as you wish but whatever way you wish to look at it the ten words or "sayings" in Exodus 20:1-17 are God's ten sayings that are "ten commandments" and one of those ten commandments is the 4th commandment Sabbath which in the new covenant we are told give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7. According to God's Word in the new covenant if we knowingly break any one of God's 10 commandments we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11; James 4:17. In times of ignorance when we do not know any better God does not hold us accountable to sin until he gives us a knowledge of the truth of His Word. At this point he calls us to believe and follow it *Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31. If we reject God's Word when he gives us a knowledge of the truth in order to continue in sin (breaking any one of God's 10 commandments) then we are held accountable for our sins because we count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing doing despite to the Spirit of God's grace *Hebrews 10:26-31.This is not "correct", but a translation which settles the question how the 10 words should be demarcated by a discretionary decision.
asked to do so by the Jews...certainly the ruling class ones...How can you say that? Do you not know that it was the Romans (Pilate and his soldiers) who killed Him?
by the disciples and poor Stephen...In Acts 2 and the following chapters, the Jews in Jerusalem are accused to be responsible for the death of Jesus.
because those Jews did NOT...But this accusation is not brought against the Jews in Antioch by the Pisidia (Acts 13),
well the issue there was that He rose...NOT how He was killed...they about tore the place up just on that issue...nor against the Jews in Jerusalem about 20 or so years later (Acts 22).
oh He was present...just as when He was when they said "I DO" but well didn't and adulterated and were put away...So before you bring the accusation of killing Jesus against a Jew, make sure he was personally present at Jerusalem in AD 30 (or whatever year the crucifixion happened).
They took it upon themselves...And moreover - Jesus Himself has said that the Jews are not to blame:
John 10:17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
No one took the life from Jesus - he gave it away out of His free will, obeying the father. And He prayed for forgiveness for those who crucified Him.
yes yes...absolving you of keeping a day off...lol...Dispensationalism has its merits,
phew...but what Darby & Co. said about the future, I disagree on almost every point.
well...if you claim His bride is NOT keeping ALL He commanded us to do...then you have Him married to another...from another gospel another christ?And one point of critic against them is: God has not two brides. Surprised?
You didn't ponder whether this is of relevance in the New Covenant, and if yes, how this relevance looks like.
This seems to be an ad hoc argument without any scriptural base.
"For man" means that the Sabbath is no value in itself, but something given to man as a help. Therefore we should not follow blind rules, and according to Rom 14:5 this include we should not folllow rules that automatically make some days important for every believer.
This is not said in the verses you linked to. This argument is a blatant fake.
The Sabbath rest was made in the creation, but the command to keep the Sabbath was made known to the people of Israel (Neh 9:14) just prior to the 10 commandments (Ex 16:22-30). It is deception to use this revelation as an argument (your point 12) that the Sabbath was known before the Exodus.
This argument is a crafty diversion from the fast that the Sabbath is a sign between Israel and God (Ex 31:13).
Gen 2:1-3 does not mention a command, Gen 8:10 shows Noah not to rest, but to do several things every 7 days, Gen 29:27f is about a feast that lasted 7 days ...
A month is about 29.53059 days (or about 1447/49 days) in average, 29 or 30 days in a quite irregular sequence. If you celebrate the 29th and 30th (it there is a 30th day) as a "new moon feast", 7 days are just a quarter of the remaining 28 days, a quarter of a "net month", so to speak. So a 7-day period is a convenient period for reckoning time. That has nothing to do with a regularly 7-dayx period, since the first of seven days was always the 1st. 8th, 15th 23th (and 29th day as the start of the "rest of month", or new moon festival).
"Heart" implies importance, but the most imoportant commands (the true heart of the moral law) is defined by Jesus in a quite different manner, Mt 22:34-40). Calling the 10 commandments the heart of moral law is deviation from the teaching of Jesus.
The law was there as a witness against Israel (Deut 31:25-29). Does not look like an argument we should keep what the jews couldn't keep (Acts 15:10).
The "we" in this verse is the people of Israel. Am I a Jew? No, I am "Gentile believer" (Acts 15:23).
This was in the times of the Old Covenant. The first verse of the chapter speaks of the justice of God who will call all enemies to Jerusalem to eat the dead bodies there (V.9ff), but promises that the non-Jews (including castrates that could not be circumcised) could be saved from that.
The term you warn against s from Peter, who applied it to the law, which is not only "honorable", but even holy. And remember, it is Peter who was given the promise that his decisions will be in accordance to what has been bound or loosened in heaven. No one, no pope, no prophetess or whatsoever has the right to set himself into the seat of Peter and overturn what he said. And then ponder why the Sabbath is not mentioned in Acts 15 ...
... by doing works on Sabbaths, e.g. the work he mentioned in Jn 7:21 (namely the healing of the lame man in Jn 5.
Can we say we follow Jesus if we deny the right to do works on a Sabbath?
You mix two different terms, the term in Rev 1:10 is the traditional name for the Sunday, the day when (after the Sabbath had gone) the Christians assembled (which sometimes implied they trangressed the rules how far one was allowed to go on a Sabbath).
Interesting, how you twist that verse. "Lord of the Sabbath" was used as an explanation of a work Jesus did on a Sabbath. Unless you understand "love and protect" in the sense "allow to work for God" you argue contrary to what Jesus meant.
So if we can do good, we have no right to rest on a Sabbath.
No, it is not the day of Jesus' resurrection that is called Sabbath there,. It is the day when there is a Jewish service. You seem to be advocating about people who call the Sunday "Sabbath", this is not my position, so why you post such things to me?
The prayer meetings you mention are the substitute for a synagogue service. There was no such service in Philippi, for there was no synagogue in that pagan colony, there were not even 10 Jewish men who could conduct such a service, hence the substitute prayer meeting was the only place where Paul could practice his "Gospel is for Jews first" principle.
There certainly have been some dispute, for Paul warns about keeping the Sabbaths.
Because Paul observed the Torah to win the ones under the Torah, and lived without Thorah to win the ones without Torah (1.Co 9,19-23). The accusation that he taught apostasy from the Law of Mose (Acts 21:21) certainly included o teach not to keep the Sabbath.
No, the Sabbath is also mentioned without such article, as in Col 2:16-17. And can you show me the respect you discovered in that verse?
But what about the statement that no day can be made a rule to be observed by every believer? If you hold that day separate, it is ok, if you don't regard it special, it is ok. Everyone should do according his own conviction (Rom 14:5).
Well, Jesus cited a permission just to do that: My father is working, so do I. Is a permission by Jesus Himself nothing in your eyes?
Hm, there is no evidence the Sabbath was kept before the Exodus, hence you cannot just state it was kept before the fall.
And did you not notice that the verse you quoted also mentioned the New Moon feast. Do you keep it? If not, why is Is 66:23 no argument that one should keep New Moon feast (or Sabbath)?
If ther Sabbath was of the same rank than the command to not kill, why did Jesus never cite it as an command? There are several instance of Jesus citing commandments, sometimes from the decalogue, sometimes (especially when he showed the heart of the law) from other parts of the Law. Why did he never cite the 4th commandment?
An antichrist is one who denies Jesus is the son of God, or one who denies God became man in Jesus (denying euther the divine or the human nature of Christ), as we can reed in the verses where we find the term "antichrist". It is teaching of men to call another figure (the first beast in Rev 13) "antichrist", or even the antichrist.
God appointed many feasts, not just the Sabbath. And Daniel was an OT prophet who did not know about the time of the church (Eph 3:5). If you read that book carefully, you will see that he "jumps" from the second coming of Christ (in the time of the Roman empire) directly o Jesus ruling and judging the world.
So whatever this verse is about, it is immediately about a time before the first coming of Jesus (and only by parrallel about later times). Unless you have NT corroboration for this, do not apply Daniel to the end of times as revealed in the NT.
My question was on the rabbinic list of "Noachide laws", I know what is written in Genesis.They are so similar that they are all but the same and were also Adamic laws. Blood? "But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat" (Genesis 9:4).
Paul, who was on that conference and even brought the letter to the churches in Galatia (Acts 16:4) does not show signs that this was the interpretation was the one adopted by the church.No, the last sentence was not to soothe. It was what Ger Toshav (resident alien) were asked to do initially. As they progressed they would accept more and more Torah and become Ger Tzedek, a full convert.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?