Paul confessing that he keeps the Law.

[yedida]

You didn't answer the question. The Jews considered the Christian a heretic a violator of the law. I don't buy that the Jewish Christian had that position. I do understand that there was friction between Jewish and Gentile (no longer pagan) Christians.

Don't trifle over semantics when you know what is meant. There were Jewish born believers, there were God-fearing Gentile believers who were well aware of Jewish Law and customs, there were pagan Gentile BELIEVERS who knew nothing of God except that He had saved them. This last group was the concern of the Jerusalem Council, they needed to find a way to make all be able to fellowship together with trust. It was not an end-all decision, just a beginning commonality decision.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't trifle over semantics when you know what is meant. There were Jewish born believers, there were God-fearing Gentile believers who were well aware of Jewish Law and customs, there were pagan Gentile BELIEVERS who knew nothing of God except that He had saved them.
This last group was the concern of the Jerusalem Council, they needed to find a way to make all be able to fellowship together with trust. It was not an end-all decision, just a beginning commonality decision.

Who were considered the Jews back in the days of Jesus

Young) Acts 25:8 he making defence--`Neither in regard to the law of the Jews/ioudaiwn <2453>, nor in regard to the temple, nor in regard to Caesar--did I commit any sin.'

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G2453 matches the Greek &#7992;&#959;&#965;&#948;&#945;&#8150;&#959;&#962; (Ioudaios), which occurs 196 times in 187 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Last time "jews" used in NT:

Young) Revelation 3:9 lo, I make of the synagogue of the Adversary those saying themselves to be Jews/ioudaiouV <2453>, and are not, but do lie; lo, I will make them that they may come and bow before thy feet, and may know that I loved thee.

 

[from scratch]

Don't trifle over semantics when you know what is meant. There were Jewish born believers, there were God-fearing Gentile believers who were well aware of Jewish Law and customs, there were pagan Gentile BELIEVERS who knew nothing of God except that He had saved them. This last group was the concern of the Jerusalem Council, they needed to find a way to make all be able to fellowship together with trust. It was not an end-all decision, just a beginning commonality decision.

So what is the purpose of arguing over the law? None really. No you don't got me. If it is trifle why are so many trying to cause me to follow the law? There must be a reason. I'm not the slightest bit Jewish in heritage that I can find in my family tree, even thru non blood related in laws. So why is the effort to convert Gentiles to Judaism or some aspect thereof? Is it really that one can't be saved without the law as the pharisees claimed? Dosen't it say plainly that they were subverting souls? Subvert means to tear down and destroy. Look it up.

Who was delivered from the law in the first place? The Jews or the Gentiles or both? How could it be the Gentiles? There is no Scripture to back up the idea that the law was ever given to the Gentiles. If the Jews were delivered from their law why would somebody else want to take it up? Doesn't make sense to me.

I also don't buy the idea behind the MJ movement that you stated. I read and talk to people of all types.

I find it very interesting that God hasn't layed it on my heart to observe the sabbath in over 48 years. Doesn't God love me. My neighbor basicly subscribed to 3 different theological stances before coming into contact with the SDA who preach the sabbath and then states that God told and convicted him about the sabbath. Interesting thing is that he never considered it even though being exposed to the 4th through the other denominations. How did this happen? I think it was through intelectual argument and a lack of knowledge on his part. The average Christian or christian has never read the Bible cover to cover and are basicly ignorant of its contents. Most can only say so and so said while they can't say the Bible said and locate a verse. There is no discipleship going on in most all evangelical churches. The organized Church has degraded to a social club. Just consider what is talked about around the meetings.

So is this really a fellowship we have here or an attempt by some to convert? Wouldn't a fellowship be a lot more friendly? I think a fellowship would change the over all atmophere here.

 

[yedida]

So what is the purpose of arguing over the law? None really. No you don't got me. If it is trifle why are so many trying to cause me to follow the law? There must be a reason. I'm not the slightest bit Jewish in heritage that I can find in my family tree, even thru non blood related in laws. So why is the effort to convert Gentiles to Judaism or some aspect thereof? Is it really that one can't be saved without the law as the pharisees claimed? Dosen't it say plainly that they were subverting souls? Subvert means to tear down and destroy. Look it up.

Who was delivered from the law in the first place? The Jews or the Gentiles or both? How could it be the Gentiles? There is no Scripture to back up the idea that the law was ever given to the Gentiles. If the Jews were delivered from their law why would somebody else want to take it up? Doesn't make sense to me.

I also don't buy the idea behind the MJ movement that you stated. I read and talk to people of all types.

I find it very interesting that God hasn't layed it on my heart to observe the sabbath in over 48 years. Doesn't God love me. My neighbor basicly subscribed to 3 different theological stances before coming into contact with the SDA who preach the sabbath and then states that God told and convicted him about the sabbath. Interesting thing is that he never considered it even though being exposed to the 4th through the other denominations. How did this happen? I think it was through intelectual argument and a lack of knowledge on his part. The average Christian or christian has never read the Bible cover to cover and are basicly ignorant of its contents. Most can only say so and so said while they can't say the Bible said and locate a verse. There is no discipleship going on in most all evangelical churches. The organized Church has degraded to a social club. Just consider what is talked about around the meetings.

So is this really a fellowship we have here or an attempt by some to convert? Wouldn't a fellowship be a lot more friendly? I think a fellowship would change the over all atmophere here.

Dear, you're the one who is always bringing in the law. All I have to do is offer something from the OT or Law and off you go. You were even asked not to do this in one of the threads.
Seems that fellowship with you is only open if I agree with your theology. I have held that theology, I no longer do.
It is my contention that the Torah is still valid, but I don't press the issue if I'm not coerced into it. I am forever having to defend my pov to you. From here on out, I will not.
Have a good day.

 

[tall73]

The view of many concerning that passage is that it was not written for every new-comer to the faith. There were basically 3 groups of people: Jewish, God-fearers, and pagans. The first two groups were already well aware of God's standard of holy living, the pagans were not. These were four judgements that were made to insure a common fellowship among all the groups, stating that these paganistic believers would learn more weekly as they attended synagogue. It was an attempt to get across to all that there was NO NEED for formal conversion to Judaism to become a part of this particular sect of Judaism. It was not an abolishment of anything, except formal conversion.
I'm fully convinced that God does not have 2 sets of People with 2 sets of expected behaviors.

Also, that passage in John is not unambiguous, it does not state in no uncertain terms that anything will be abolished. And Acts actually gives the impression that the rest of the Law will be taught and learned by these pagans in time.

A. Please verify what portions of Acts 15 and Acts 21 you find valid so I may respond.

B. Indeed I did not post the passage in John to say that it was abolishing anything. I quoted it to show that the disciples of Jesus DID have authority, and that He still had things to tell them. It is HIM telling them by His Spirit.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A. Please verify what portions of Acts 15 and Acts 21 you find valid so I may respond.

B. Indeed I did not post the passage in John to say that it was abolishing anything. I quoted it to show that the disciples of Jesus DID have authority, and that He still had things to tell them. It is HIM telling them by His Spirit.

Good points

 

[yedida]

A. Please verify what portions of Acts 15 and Acts 21 you find valid so I may respond.

B. Indeed I did not post the passage in John to say that it was abolishing anything. I quoted it to show that the disciples of Jesus DID have authority, and that He still had things to tell them. It is HIM telling them by His Spirit.

I don't disagree that the apostles had a form of authority - but not to create new laws or to abolish anything. To make things workable within what was already standing, yes. And those apostles were the ones spoken of in Acts chapter 1 only, no others.
I shy away from these types of conversations because I'm nowhere near convinced that this authority was passed on successively through the centuries.

 

[Frogster]

I don't disagree that the apostles had a form of authority - but not to create new laws or to abolish anything. To make things workable within what was already standing, yes. And those apostles were the ones spoken of in Acts chapter 1 only, no others.
I shy away from these types of conversations because I'm nowhere near convinced that this authority was passed on successively through the centuries.

I understand Paul is not popular in your circles, but what about Pete?

10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

And James?


19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

 

[yedida]

I understand Paul is not popular in your circles, but what about Pete?

10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

And James?


19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

I'm not going there with you, dear.

 

[help_the_lord]

GUYS GUY GUYS!! NOT TO INTERRUPT BY MY THREAD PRETTY MUCH CLEARS ALL OF THIS STUFF UP

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554253/

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree that the apostles had a form of authority - but not to create new laws or to abolish anything. To make things workable within what was already standing, yes. And those apostles were the ones spoken of in Acts chapter 1 only, no others.
I shy away from these types of conversations because I'm nowhere near convinced that this authority was passed on successively through the centuries.

We are not talking about through the centuries in this case, but in the first century, in the council of Acts 15, also discussed in Acts 21.

Participation in the conversation is always voluntary. But you seem to want to post here. And if you want to continue this one please tell me what portions of Acts 15 and 21 you think are valid.

Since you do not accept all of the Scriptures in the traditional protestant, Catholic or EO cannons, I need to understand what you do accept or we are talking past each other.

For instance, what about this quote:

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

 

[tall73]

I'm not going there with you, dear.

You don't have to go there. But then you are not convincing us either.

If that is not a goal, that is fine.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

He kept the law by serving Christ who was the Person the law pointed and alluded too. Christ went beyond the requirements of that Mosaic law and introduced the perfect law of Love. The Mosaic law was the type and Christ is the antitype. The Mosaic law was the shadow. Paul didn't keep the law by following all the OT prohibitions on food, clothing, etc.

 

[yedida]

You don't have to go there. But then you are not convincing us either.

If that is not a goal, that is fine.

Nope not trying to convince you. If you're sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit, He'll convince you.

 

[yedida]

We are not talking about through the centuries in this case, but in the first century, in the council of Acts 15, also discussed in Acts 21.

Participation in the conversation is always voluntary. But you seem to want to post here. And if you want to continue this one please tell me what portions of Acts 15 and 21 you think are valid.

Since you do not accept all of the Scriptures in the traditional protestant, Catholic or EO cannons, I need to understand what you do accept or we are talking past each other.

For instance, what about this quote:

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

I will just bring out the fact that there was more than just the Written Torah these had to deal with. The apostles were simply ttryiing to get all the different groups of people to a place where they could all fellowship together. It wasn't an end-all solution. It is stated further on during the first council of Jerusalem that the rest of Torah is taught weekly in the synagogues where they all would weekly gather and learn the rest.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

GUYS GUY GUYS!! NOT TO INTERRUPT BY MY THREAD PRETTY MUCH CLEARS ALL OF THIS STUFF UP

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554253/

Ya think?

 

[Blind As A Bat]

GUYS GUY GUYS!! NOT TO INTERRUPT BY MY THREAD PRETTY MUCH CLEARS ALL OF THIS STUFF UP

http://www.christianforums.com/t7554253/

Talk about grammatical errors.

 

[tall73]

I will just bring out the fact that there was more than just the Written Torah these had to deal with. The apostles were simply ttryiing to get all the different groups of people to a place where they could all fellowship together. It wasn't an end-all solution. It is stated further on during the first council of Jerusalem that the rest of Torah is taught weekly in the synagogues where they all would weekly gather and learn the rest.

A. No reference was made to going on to learn to keep more of the torah later in the reference to Moses and the synagogue.

B. Nothing is said at all about the synagogue in the letter. The only thing the letter to the gentile churches said was that the ones who went out trying to get you to be saved by keeping the law and circumcision were not sent by the church, and they were not to be unsettled by them.

C. In Acts 21, some time later, James is still citing the same limited requirements.

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree that the apostles had a form of authority - but not to create new laws or to abolish anything. To make things workable within what was already standing, yes. And those apostles were the ones spoken of in Acts chapter 1 only, no others.
I shy away from these types of conversations because I'm nowhere near convinced that this authority was passed on successively through the centuries.

Since you already said you do not want to convince me you need not address each of these points. But I did want to mention another element here.

Note when I mentioned the apostles had authority what else was mentioned. John makes it clear in that passage that it is Jesus who is talking to them, and still teaching them things they were not yet ready for.

So there is no less authority then than when Jesus was on earth. He says it is still Him speaking to them through the Spirit.

 

[IreneAdler]

People forget humanity when they talk about the apostles (like they turned into men of steel, incapable of being people - lol).

Paul was raised a Jew, was a powerful Jew, lived most of his life as a Jew. Practicing Law would totally have been his cultural identity, his being. Even if he didn't feel it "essential" to salvation, this was who he was. Practicing and keeping law doesn't mean you're a fundy who thinks you HAVE to, especially when it comes to someone who lived it for most of his life. It may have even been uncomfortable NOT to do some things. That wouldn't be bad or in error. I'm not comfortable (and won't frankly)eating tripe, it's not in my cultural identity, but that doesn't make it outright wrong.

I do not believe he felt obligated to be Torah observant in order to be faithful.