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.
Lets really see what the SDAs have done with the ordinances Moses dictated from God and are in the book of the law along with the 10 commandments. You have taken upon yourselves to remove most of the book of the law and hang on to the remainder( A modified tithing requirement, and the clean and unclean laws) and you have done this without any authority from scripture. Either all the ordinances were scraped which would include the 10 or they are all still binding as is the Messianic claim. Jesus explained in Matthew that nothing could be removed from the Torah until all be fulfilled. You people also quote that statement and deny the fact that Paul in Gal 3 tells us that Torah was until Christ. You tell us that what Paul was referring to was the ceremonial law. Adventists proclaim: A law was added according to Gal. 3:19. This law was the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law was not part of God's original covenant with Israel. "It was added because of transgressions." Because of Israel's sins God added the ceremonial laws, "til the Seed should come to whom the promise was made." When Jesus came he nailed the ceremonial laws to his cross (Col. 2:14).You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.
But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"
If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"
Was that some sort of trick question?
Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
Notice that your own group says this --
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
I'm confused by that list, what happened to:
Deuteronomy 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
God doesn't want people to make graven images of other gods or even of himself, which is why he didn't show them what he looks like:
Deuteronomy 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
Deuteronomy 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Deuteronomy 4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
Deuteronomy 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Even bringing one into your house without bowing to it is a curse.
Deuteronomy 7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
It's reiterated in Acts:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Hello Bob.You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.
But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"
If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"
Was that some sort of trick question?
Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
Notice that your own group says this --
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
This was not intended to be a trick question, Bob. The difficulty rests in the terms that different church groupsYou use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.
But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that
entered into the sacrificial system" If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct
- I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"
Was that some sort of trick question?
Hello Travis.Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Acts 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Acts 28:7 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Hello Bob.so in that case you give a quote of one of my own groups - a pro-Bible-Sabbath group. which I freely admit to.
And I give a quote from one of your own pro-Sunday groups. Which you continue to be at war with???
He's talking about the oral law there (Mark 7 hand washing before eating for example). He submitted to the oral law around the Jews to avoid offending them but didn't bother around gentiles. If he meant the law of Moses, he'd be contradicting himself, because he said he never stopped following that. Like if he started eating pork around gentiles he'd be lying to say he didn't break the law.Hello Travis.
How do you read the following verse?
1 Corinthians 9
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law,
as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are
under the Law;
These new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law. It's like expecting a new employee to know everything on the first day. James decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest over time at the synagogues.Hello Bob.
Obviously you will have been taught an interpretation of the book of Acts, in order
to justify the idea, that the Gentiles are under the law. Just briefly Bob, how do you
interpret chapter fifteen of the book of Acts?
Hello Travis.He's talking about the oral law there (Mark 7 hand washing before eating for example). He submitted to the oral law around the Jews to avoid offending them but didn't bother around gentiles. If he meant the law of Moses, he'd be contradicting himself, because he said he never stopped following that. Like if he started eating pork around gentiles he'd be lying to say he didn't break the law.
If the apostles were truly against the law, they wouldn't need to set up false witnesses in Acts 6:13 to prove it.
Hello Travis.
You will need to define what you mean when you say 'oral law'.
If we look at the verse I quoted, one could interpret the phrase 'the law',
any number of ways.
'though not being myself under the Law'
I would never apply a secondary interpretation over the text. Paul is saying
that he is simply not under the law. In the verse I quoted, Paul is definitely
saying that he is only under the law to win the Jews.
Hello Bob.
I was reading the SDA website (sdanet.org) Bob, in order to understand the SDA usage of the term
'ceremonial law'. I became aware that the SDA refers to all of the law other than the ten commandments,
proclaimed at Mt Sinai, as 'ceremonial law'. Here is what the SDA website stated, this is how the SDA uses
the term 'ceremonial law', Bob.
This ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system of Israel.
All the sacrificial offerings, the feast days, and even the priesthood—all that was typical of the sacrifice
and ministry of Christ our Lord, met its end on Calvary's cross. This we believe is what is meant by the
apostle Paul when he wrote that Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances", [Eph. 2:15]. (sdanet.org)
Do you accept what the SDA wrote above, does 'ceremonial law' accurately describe the other laws given at Mt Sinai?
So then what would be an example of such pro-Sunday scholarship that pertains to the 7 point summary list just posted?
Here we have section 19 of the Westminster - and of course you already have a few posts of mine quoting the "Baptist Confession of Faith"
Westminster Confession of Faith Section 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith"Section 21 of the Westminster and Section 22 of the Baptist both address point 7 "the change" the edit of the Sabbath commandment from the 7th day starting from creation and all through the OT and NT Gospel until the cross where it is "changed" in their mind -- to point to week-day-1.
Chapter XIXI. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Of the Law of God
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
Hello Bob.
This is a very important issue we are discussing Bob, the decrees given to Israel at Mt Sinai and the interpretation
provided by the SDA website. Is the proclamation of the SDA dogma listed on the SDA website, valid dogma?
You stated the following in your previous reply.
This was not intended to be a trick question, Bob.
The difficulty rests in the terms that different church groups
employ when referring to the decrees given at Mt Sinai.
In the decrees given at Mt Sinai, you have been conditioned to see one group of decrees as the decalogue, and the
other group of decrees as the ceremonial law.
This is the distinction that the SDA website proclaims, see below.
Hello Bob.
Obviously you will have been taught an interpretation of the book of Acts, in order
to justify the idea, that the Gentiles are under the law. Just briefly Bob, how do you
interpret chapter fifteen of the book of Acts?
Acts 15 is not a re-write of the entire Bible -- though some do "re-imagine" it that way. It does not include "Love your neighbor as yourself" - it does not include "Love God with all your heart" -- it does not include "Honor your father and mother" it does not include "Do not take God's name in vain".
And as Acts 15 points out - the "solution" to the problem is to avoid all the man-made-traditions that they are trying to invent on the spot (such as the fake rule that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved - a rule never found in OT or NT) -- and stick with the actual Bible where "Every Sabbath Moses is heard in the synagogues" even by Gentiles as we see in Acts 13 - Sabbath after Sabbath -- and as we see in Acts 17 Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath -- and as we see in Acts 18:4 "EVERY Sabbath" - and in those cases it is not merely Moses - but also full Gospel preaching.
Well is the SDA 'sustained by the leading creeds', i.e., for example, the Westminster Confession?
The problem you now have Bob, is that the Westminster Confession declares three distinct groups of decrees and
not a twofold group within the Mt Sinai decrees. The Westminster Confession makes a threefold distinction of moral,
ceremonial and judicial (civil law).
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-18.htm
A Unique Law. The Ten Commandments have the unique distinction of being the only words God spoke audibly to an entire nation (Deut. 5:22). Not trusting this law to the forgetful minds of humans, God then engraved the commandments with His finger on two tablets of stone that were to be preserved inside the ark of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 10:2).
To help Israel apply the commandments, God gave them additional laws detailing their relationship to Him and to each other. Some of these additional laws focused on the civil affairs of Israel (civil laws), others regulated the ceremonies of the sanctuary services (ceremonial laws). God communicated these additional laws to the people through an intermediary, Moses, who wrote them down in the "book of the law," and placed them "beside the ark of the covenant" (Deut. 31:25, 26)—not in the ark as he had done with God's supreme revelation, the Decalogue. These additional laws were known as "the Book of the Law of Moses" (Joshua 8:31; Neh. 8:1; 2 Chron. 25:4), or simply the "Law of Moses" (2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chron. 23:18).7
Please read the decree (iv); reproduced below.
Westminster Confession, Of the Law of God.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age,
ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings,
and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated,
under the New Testament. IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with
the State of that people.
The SDA website is incorrect in their assertion that their dogma is sustained by the leading creeds of historic Protestantism.
For one, the Westminster confession never stated a twofold distinction in the decrees given at Mt Sinai.
Hello Bob.
I was reading the SDA website (sdanet.org) Bob, in order to understand the SDA usage of the term
'ceremonial law'. I became aware that the SDA refers to all of the law other than the ten commandments,
proclaimed at Mt Sinai, as 'ceremonial law'. Here is what the SDA website stated, this is how the SDA uses
the term 'ceremonial law', Bob.
This ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system of Israel.
All the sacrificial offerings, the feast days, and even the priesthood—all that was typical of the sacrifice
and ministry of Christ our Lord, met its end on Calvary's cross. This we believe is what is meant by the
apostle Paul when he wrote that Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
contained in ordinances", [Eph. 2:15]. (sdanet.org)
Do you accept what the SDA wrote above, does 'ceremonial law' accurately describe the other laws given at Mt Sinai?
So then what would be an example of such pro-Sunday scholarship that pertains to the 7 point summary list just posted?
Here we have section 19 of the Westminster - and of course you already have a few posts of mine quoting the "Baptist Confession of Faith"
Westminster Confession of Faith Section 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith"Section 21 of the Westminster and Section 22 of the Baptist both address point 7 "the change" the edit of the Sabbath commandment from the 7th day starting from creation and all through the OT and NT Gospel until the cross where it is "changed" in their mind -- to point to week-day-1.
Chapter XIXI. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Of the Law of God
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
Lets really see what the SDAs have done with the ordinances Moses dictated from God and are in the book of the law along with the 10 commandments.
Adventists proclaim: A law was added according to Gal. 3:19. This law was the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law was not part of God's original covenant with Israel. "It was added because of transgressions." Because of Israel's sins God added the ceremonial laws, "til the Seed should come to whom the promise was made." When Jesus came he nailed the ceremonial laws to his cross (Col. 2:14).
What you need to do is prove that Paul was referring only to the hand written ordinances dictated to Moses
Hello Bob.You use the your own phrase "all of the law other than the ten commandments" in your quote of 'you'.
But then in the actual SDAnet.org quote you only have " ceremonial law embraced the types and shadows that entered into the sacrificial system"
If you are asking whether I affirm the sdanet.org statement as being correct - I much prefer it to your own "all the law other than the Ten Commandments"
Was that some sort of trick question?
Notice this - from one of your own pro-sunday groups. The "Westminster Confession of Faith"
Notice that your own group says this --
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;l and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
===========================
so in that case you give a quote of one of my own groups - a pro-Bible-Sabbath group. which I freely admit to.
And I give a quote from one of your own pro-Sunday groups. Which you continue to be at war with???
My quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith - is not an "SDA website"
Your own "Quote of you" saying ""all of the law other than the ten commandments" is also "not a quote of the SDA web site"
You use the link for some SDA - on his website - but then merely "quote you?" -- why do that?
==========================
Fine. Then why not quote the site you link to??
For example see the "Westminster Confession of Faith" site I link to - and quote.
Since you avoid the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" -- pro-sunday groups that correct your position -- I will quote them for you.
Or do you claim that the Baptists and the Westminster Confession of Faith, C.H. Spurgeon et. al. were "Conditioned by SDAs"???
They themselves argue for the distinction between moral law of God that defines what sin is and that includes the Ten Commandments -- vs -- the ceremonial law of animal sacrifices etc.
Are we just "not supposed to notice" ???
You keep responding as if you have missed this key point -- post after post.
Hello Travis.These new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law. It's like expecting a new employee to know everything on the first day. James decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest over time at the synagogues.
Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
If you interpret it to mean those four laws were literally all that was expected, then the letters to the Roman, Corinthians, Galatians, etc were a waste of time, and guilty of heaping unnecessary burdens on the believers. Passages like Romans 1:18-32, Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5 add a number of additional sins to repent of for example. And 2 Timothy 2:16 tells us that all scripture is useful for our instruction.
Correct Travis, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew for starters, there probably was not even a New TestamentThese new coverts of gentiles were former pagans who knew nothing of the scriptures unlike the
jewish converts, and people were saying they couldn't be saved till they were fully observant of the law.
This is entirely incorrect Travis, the text does not support what you have just said. You are proposing a falseJames decided they'd start them off with just four basic laws (Acts 15:20) and they'd learn the rest
over time at the synagogues.
[/Quote][/QUOTE]Hello Travis.
Thanks for the reply, you said.
Correct Travis, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew for starters, there probably was not even a New Testament
letter in existence during these early years of the Gentile church. The Gentiles had no knowledge of God, and the
history of Israel was utterly unknown to them. The entire narration of the mission of the Christ and everything
He did, was just one big mystery.
Then you made a huge leap and made the following unqualified statement.
This is entirely incorrect Travis, the text does not support what you have just said. You are proposing a false
interpretation of the text, you are reading things into the text that are just not there. Now please read the
rest of this post carefully.
The text (Acts 15) states, that men from Judea initiated this hot debate, the debate over the issue of circumcision
and the law. The law was mandatory for the Gentile believers, and that is what these men from Judea were
teaching the Gentile brethren.
Please read verses one and two of the text, Travis. Paul and Barnabus were the ones opposing this teaching
of mandatory circumcision and the law. Verses one and two Travis, do in fact, contradict your interpretation.
Paul and Barnabas had, 'great dissension and debate'. with these men from Judea, this debate was underway
a long time before Paul arrived in Jerusalem. Paul was opposed to the law and circumcision for the Gentile believers,
and that is why this great debate was occurring.
Many folk wrongly start with the declaration from the council of Jerusalem, and for some reason
ignore this earlier context. That is the error, Travis.
Paul and Barnabus fought tooth and nail against these men from Judea. Paul knew that the Gentiles were
not under the law, Paul mentions this numerous times in his letters as we know. Paul then had to go down
to Jerusalem because the issue was unresolved.
Travis you will need to reply with your version of these verses, i.e., verses one and two from Acts 15,
before we can even attempt to deal with the latter verdict from the council of Jerusalem.
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?