Confused about the commandment that was "abolished." (2)

[Leuko Petra]

Lol, had they truly said all that then we wouldn't be having this conversation! Yet they did not say "and rested on the 7th", etc. as you just added to that text.

They simply pointed them to the Creator rather than their flawed gods.

Again, which Creator was pointed to?

 

[MoreCoffee]

1,322 posts and have we reached a consensus yet? Even a tenuous one?

My bible has 1,422 pages and it includes many notes but it is not nearly as convoluted and contradictory as this thread's posts.

If you want to do Saturday keeping go ahead. If not then do not.

The point in scripture is that the sabbath was made for man; it's supposed to benefit mankind not to enslave folk to minute rules and regulations about what is okay and what is not okay to do on the day. It is not even about a day, as such, because it is about benefiting mankind. The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.

So give it a rest

 

[tall73]

That is misuse of the word "law" as found in Acts 15, and abuse of the council's reason for meeting, discussion and decision. For you just negated the gentiles having to cease from murder, theft and covetousness, taking the name of the Lord in vain, dishonouring their father and mother, Sabbath breaking, and all manner of vice etc by the same argumentation, unless you agree that Acts 15 is not the end all be all of the believing gentiles behaviour in morality?

I in fact never once said that they were not to abstain from murder etc. I did say they are not under the law.

They were not. That does not mean they are not under moral requirements.

The moral requirements that undergird the law are laid out to the gentiles in a number of texts. We have quite a few texts stating not to murder, commit adultery, etc.

However, if you had an actual text telling Gentiles to keep the Sabbath you would not need to put words in Paul's mouth when quoting his speech to a mob trying to worship Zeus and Hermes.

Instead we have

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

 

[Leuko Petra]

Do you also worship the God of offerings for vows at the temple? We see that in the NT as well.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Surely you understand the context of this verse?

 

[Leuko Petra]

I in fact never once said that they were not to abstain from murder etc. I did say they are not under the law. ...

Yes you did, it was implied here:

"The council did not find that gentiles were required to keep all these things."

Define then, "all these things".

 

[tall73]

If so, where would the genitles learn more about the will of God in moral behaviour? Consider again, Acts 15:21, where those genitles seeking God knew to come for the "oracles of God", and the marvelous truth therein contained, even as they had been Acts 13:44, etc.

I have indeed considered Acts 15:21. It has been interpreted a number of ways. However, if it was intended for the gentiles, they didn't get it. The letter makes no reference to it at all. It simply says to ignore those Judaizers.

Now, as to meeting in the syagogues, yes, I think they did that regularly. That is why Saul went there to persecute Christians.

This continued until they were put out. We see in John a reference to them "already" being put out of the synagogue, indicating this picked up steam later.

We see in James that if someone comes into your synagogue (literally),....

Now, the question is, when they heard the Scriptures at the synagogue were they hearing the oracles of God? Of course. Yet the law was not placed on the gentiles.

Paul never downplayed the Scriptures. However he did downplay the circumcision and law requirement some wanted.

 

[Leuko Petra]

...We have quite a few texts stating not to murder, commit adultery, etc.

Which ones? The ones in the New Testament? They are citing the Ten Commandments, which you state clearly were only a covenant for Israel [Jews].

 

[tall73]

Yes you did, it was implied here:

"The council did not find that gentiles were required to keep all these things."

Define then, "all these things".

The these things were the Jewish law and circumcision.

That does not remove moral requirements from them.

Hence when Paul talks about morality he speaks of living the life in the Spirit, and mentions a great number of particulars, outlined in contrast to the works of the flesh.

However, he doesn't require gentiles to keep Sabbath. And if you had the text you would post it.

 

[tall73]

Surely you understand the context of this verse?

Surely I do. Do you?

Do you also realize that the Jewish believers were zealous for the WHOLE law?

 

[Leuko Petra]

...Yet the law was not placed on the gentiles. ...

You continue to use the word "law" in the vaguest way, shifting definitions. Define it please.

 

[tall73]

Yes you did, it was implied here:

I said I didn't say it. And you say I implied it. The implication was yours.

 

[Leuko Petra]

Surely I do. Do you?

Surely I do. Do you?

 

[Leuko Petra]

The these things were the Jewish law...

Again, vaguest definition. Define Jewish Law.

 

[tall73]

Again, which Creator was pointed to?

I think it has been well established the one who created the heavens, the earth and the seas, etc. That is in fact what they said.

What they did not say, and which you tried to add, is that the gentiles should go on to keep the Sabbath sign which was a sign with the Israelites.

 

[Leuko Petra]

...Do you also realize that the Jewish believers were zealous for the WHOLE law?

As they [and we] should be. It is just that, "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." [Romans 10:2]

 

[Leuko Petra]

I think it has been well established the one who created the heavens, the earth and the seas, etc...

But which one, for there are many which claim that. Many have come in the name of the great I AM.

 

[Leuko Petra]

... circumcision. ...

Yet circumcision is required, even that which was from the beginning, that of the heart - Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4, etc

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Deuteronomy 10:16

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings. Jeremiah 4:4

 

[tall73]

Which ones? The ones in the New Testament? They are citing the Ten Commandments, which you state clearly were only a covenant for Israel [Jews].

They are not in fact all quoting from the ten commandments. And then, some ARE quoting from it. And why not? There are moral principles in the ten. And there were moral principles in the law BESIDES the ten, and Paul touches on them too.

And even in a case where Paul did quote the commandment to a predominantly gentile church he makes a slight modification.


Eph 6:3 ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
promise),
Eph 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.


Exo 20:12 ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, καὶ ἵνα μακροχρόνιος γένῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς ἀγαθῆς, ἧς κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the good land, which the Lord thy God gives to thee (Brenton LXX translation)

The original commandment indeed is an application of the moral principle to honor father and mother. However, the specific rendering to the Israelites includes the covenant blessing that they would love long in the land given to them, the promised land.

This did not apply to a primarily gentile church in Ephesus. So Paul indicates they will live long in the land or earth.

He omits the specific reference to the good land provided to the covenant people.

The principle still holds.

 

[tall73]

You continue to use the word "law" in the vaguest way, shifting definitions. Define it please.

Well the word is used different ways in different contexts. Yet usually it is referring to the whole law given to Israel. This included not on the ten but the rest of the law.

 

[tall73]

Surely I do. Do you?

Asked and answered! Now we are all up to speed on whether each of us thinks we surely do!