The first heresy

[John Mullally]

So God is stressing each sabbath day in the new heavens and earth, but he's not stressing each new moon.

New moons too.

Keeping OT traditions concerning the Sabbath and the New Moon have passed away as much as the the OT traditions that were only commanded to the OT Jews. For example, as great and rich as the passover was (feel free to study it), no NT believers are commanded to keep it, Tiger, maybe you agree.

2 Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.​

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Keeping OT traditions concerning the Sabbath and the New Moon have passed away as much as the the OT traditions that were only commanded to the OT Jews.

Yes, they were originally commanded to the Jews and even the strangers (Gentiles) that within their country when the Sabbath day began. The Jews also accepted proselytes from the Gentile nations around them.

For example, as great and rich as the passover was (feel free to study it), no NT believers is commanded to keep it - comprende?

There is no command that the Gentiles had to keep the Passover. But the Gentiles in Israel were required to observe the Sabbath when it came. After Christ's second return, Gentiles will come to Jerusalem to appear before God on the Sabbath and the New Moons.

2 Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.​

That is so true. Paul admonishes you to not judge anyone for keeping the Sabbath. Do you judge anyone for keeping the Sabbath? If so, then you are in error. Not only should a Christain judge another for keeping the Sabbath but a Christian who keeps the Sabbath should not judge a Christian who esteems every day the same. Paul basically wrote that you are not to judge someone for whatever day they choose to keep, and writes: "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind". He commands the Colossians to not judge anyone for:

1) their eating or drinking
2) with regards to a religious festival (like the seven annual holy convocations in Leviticus 23)
3) a New Moon celebration
4) the keeping of the Sabbath

So, if you judge me for keeping the Sabbath then you are at odds with the scripture. Yes, I am not required to keep the Sabbath, but I choose to and as long as I do not condemn those who do not keep the Sabbath, I am alright with scripture. Keeping the Sabbath has brought me many spiritual blessings.

Paul does not say they were a shadow of things to come but claims they ARE a shadow of things that were to come. In any case, the Sabbath observance does not save you, only the blood of Christ can do that. After Christ's second coming the Law to observe the Sabbath will be established and the new moons as well. A careful reading of Isaiah 66 will reveal this will happen when Yahweh is ruling from Jerusalem. For now, the age of grace, we are not saved by our works. Only the blood of Christ and his subsequent resurrection guarantee all true believers eternal life. But I am willing to admit, for whatever reason Yahweh may have, that observing the Sabbath will once again be observed, and eating pork will again be an abomination.

 

[John Mullally]

It could not be heresy because they did it while they were still among the Jews in the synagogues, once the Jews expelled them from the synagogues they no longer did "the very thing" that you say some call "heresy".

Excellent point. Although James taught the Law of Moses to his Jerusalem comigration per Acts 15, doesn't mean that most Gentile believers were familiar with it due to persecution. Examine the Gospels, Christ emphasized that his disciples keep his commandments - nothing about the 10 commanments.

 

[grafted branch]

The Sabbath in Hebrews 4 is not one day out of the week rest, it is our rest in Jesus. With this in mind Isaiah 66:22-23 refers to a specific Sabbath that mankind COMES to Yahweh to worship before him. Coincidentally, that was what happened with the weekly Sabbath. Every Sabbath the Jews would worship on that day. When Paul preached in the book of Acts, he would observe the sabbath from one Sabbath to the next. True, he worshiped God every day of the week but he did his labors six days a week and the following Sabbath he would again go to the Jews to preach to them. He already had found the eternal rest that all true Christians have in Christ, but he met with Gentiles from one Sabbath to the next Sabbath and that did not mean he worshiped God in the synagogues every day of the week. When Sabbath keeping Gentiles in a Synagogue asked Paul to preach to them more, he did not tell them to meet him the next day somewhere in the town, rather, he told them to meet him the next Sabbath.

Right, which is why Hebrews 4 is a different type of sabbath. Isaiah 66:22 is referring to New Heaven New Earth which is a different heaven and earth.

Isaiah 66:23 from one moon to another and from one sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. My interpretation, when one new moon/sabbath ends and another begins, at that time all flesh will worship the Lord, because during the first new moon/sabbath only Israel worships the Lord. A person had to become an Israelite to obey the Old Covenant, all people regardless of nationality can obey the New Covenant.

I see the Old Covenant = Old Heaven Old Earth and New Covenant = New Heaven New Earth. There was a transition period where both were occurring at the same time. According to Hebrews 8:13 the Old Covenant was decaying and ready to vanish and Hebrews 12:22 says we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. Both these verses were true at the same time.

Paul preached during this transition period. In Acts 21:26 Paul took a vow, which according to some commentaries included a sacrifice. Wouldn’t this be considered heresy today? Paul states in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 that unto the Jews he became as a Jew, to them that are under the law. Paul preaching in a synagogue on Saturday could be part of that which was decaying and ready to vanish, just as the sacrifices were ready to vanish.

 

[John Mullally]

Yes, they were originally commanded to the Jews and even the strangers (Gentiles) that within their country when the Sabbath day began. The Jews also accepted proselytes from the Gentile nations around them.

There is no command that the Gentiles had to keep the Passover. But the Gentiles in Israel were required to observe the Sabbath when it came. After Christ's second return, Gentiles will come to Jerusalem to appear before God on the Sabbath and the New Moons.

That is so true. Paul admonishes you to not judge anyone for keeping the Sabbath. Do you judge anyone for keeping the Sabbath? If so, then you are in error. Not only should a Christian judge another for keeping the Sabbath but a Christian who keeps the Sabbath should not judge a Christian who esteems every day the same. Paul basically wrote

We are in agreement. There are many legalists (i.e. SDA) who intently divide over keeping the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath holy was written to OT Jews, If that was important to believers, I would expect the Epistles (which are written to the Church) to explicitly address it - but it does not. If anyone is intent on keeping the Sabbath, they need to keep the rest of the Mosaic Law - which is impossible because there is no Jerusalem Temple or the ashes of the red heifer.

 

[BobRyan]

It could not be heresy because they did it while they were still among the Jews in the synagogues, once the Jews expelled them from the synagogues they no longer did "the very thing" that you say some call "heresy".

Why do you suppose such a thing?

Paul is the one complying with the gentile request for "more gospel preaching" in Acts 13 - that was made to him "after the jews left the Synagogue" -- so why did he not provide more Gospel on "the next day" -- week-day-1 ... in your view? Was Paul trying to "trick" them into doing what you now call heresy?

And do you have some Bible text that says gentiles cannot observe the Sabbath commandment unless a Jew is present??

Even your own Dies Domini document argues that all TEN of the TEN are in fact part of the moral law of God and NOT just-for-Jews. And it notes that this is particularly true of the SABBATH commandment.

Dies Domini pt 13 -

​

"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.​

Catholic Catechism

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.​

​

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.​

​

=========================================​

​

All TEN are still included in the moral law of God EVEN though animal sacrifices end at the cross as Heb 10 notes - and this is such an obvious Bible detail that even these Sunday sources admit it​

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

 

[BobRyan]

We are in agreement. There are many legalists (i.e. SDA) who intently divide over keeping the Sabbath.

Nothing in the Bible or on this Board requires us to accept such a false accusation about the SDA denomination.
(In the ideal case - one does not go out of their way to violate the CF board rules when posting)

Wouldn't it be better to stick with actual facts rather than relying on name-calling as the centerpiece of your argument?

Keeping the Sabbath holy was written to OT Jews

Until you read the words of Christ in Mark 2:27 "Sabbath made for mankind"
until you read the making of the Sabbath in Gen 2:2-3 and Ex 20:11
until you notice gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping in Is 56:6-8
until you notice "all mankind" set as the scope for the Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth in Is 66:23
until you notice that in every case in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 it is BOTH gentiles AND Jews worshipping on Sabbath and hearing Gospel preaching "every Sabbath".

, If that was important to believers, I would expect the Epistles (which are written to the Church) to explicitly address it

That is conjecture not scripture.

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain" but that is not a sign that Christians are to take God's name in vain. Ad hoc rules don't work.

If anyone is intent on keeping the Sabbath, they need to keep the rest of the Mosaic Law - which is impossible because there is no Jerusalem Temple or the ashes of the red heifer.

Sabbath is in Gen 2:2-3 according to Ex 20:11 and Mark 2:27 - when there was NO animal sacrifice at all
The Sabbath commandment in Ex 20:8-11 has NO animal sacrifice just as Ex 20:7 "Do not take God's name in vain" has no animal sacrifice to keep it.

The Sabbath in Ex 16 "tomorrow is the Sabbath" has no animal sacrifice.

The Is 66:23 Sabbath for all mankind kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth - has no animal sacrifice.

It is better to just stick with facts from scripture.

 

[ozso]

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain"

That's incorrect.

"But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." Colossians 3:8

Taking God's name in vain is pretty much always in the form of blasphemous profanity. So the third commandment is indeed reiterated in the Epistles. So you're going to have to drop that claim. But I highly doubt that you will.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain"

That's incorrect.

"But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." Colossians 3:8

That's a good example of a text that does not say "do not take God's name in vain".

In the Gospels Jesus was accused of blasphemy but not because He had taken God's name in vain as in cursing etc.

Taking God's name in vain is pretty much always in the form of blasphemous profanity.

A good example of what Jesus was not doing when accused of blasphemy.

So you're going to have to drop that claim.

You need better facts if you want to get to that point.

You're stuck with the fact that no text says "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" when it comes to the TEN - so making up such rules is not a funny kind of replacement for the scripture that is lacking for such an ad hoc rule.

In Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN.

Deut 5:22 informs us that God spoke the TEN Commandments "and added no more" when speaking directly to the people. So then when Jeremiah says that the LAW of God "is written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant - his readers were certain that the TEN were most certainly INCLUDED in that Law written on the heart under the New Covenant.

 

[ozso]

BobRyan said:

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain"

That's a good example of a text that does not say "do not take God's name in vain".

In the Gospels Jesus was accused of blasphemy but not because He had taken God's name in vain as in cursing etc.

A good example of what Jesus was not doing when accused of blasphemy.



You need better facts if you want to get to that point.

You're stuck with the fact that no text says "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" when it comes to the TEN - so making up such rules is not a funny kind of replacement for the scripture that is lacking for such an ad hoc rule.

In Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN.

Deut 5:22 informs us that God spoke the TEN Commandments "and added no more" when speaking directly to the people. So then when Jeremiah says that the LAW of God "is written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant - his readers were certain that the TEN were most certainly INCLUDED in that Law written on the heart under the New Covenant.

You put a lot of effort into trying to get around it. But taking God's name in vain is blasphemy.

 

[trophy33]

This does not refer to the birth of Christ.

Context:

7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
12 For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.
13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
14 And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the Lord shall be known toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies.

Yea? Prove it.
In Context"

15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

This did not happen yet. If you think it has, it's your burden to prove it.


18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

When has God gathered all nations and tongues? Once they are gathered, they shall come, and see His glory. When did this happen?

19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

When have those that escaped to Tarshish, Pul, and Luci and those that draw the bow to Tubal, and Javan, and to the isles afar off, have proclaimed His glory among the Gentiles? No assertions please, just the facts.

20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.


Here is what the verses 21-24 state:

21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.
22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

This has already been discussed in detail.

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

It seems to me you are the one stumbling on details.

You are trying to read it as a literal, technical description. But its a prophecy, not a systematic theology or a newspaper.

Prophecies are interpreted figuratively. Swine is not a literal swine, all nations cannot literally walk to Jerusalem, Levite is not a literal Levite, Jerusalem is not a literal Jerusalem etc.

That its about Christ/church is interpreted in this way even by Jerome. Your interpretation is like 150 years old, in Christianity. Its basically just a return to old Jewish reading of Scriptures, because of the influence of dispensationalism (which claims that church is just a parenthesis, not the real fulfillment).

Prove that this is about the beginnings of Christ's service:

Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned

Its not possible to "prove", its about Christo-centric reading of Scriptures, as the New Testament does.

 

[trophy33]

It's like defining inappropriate contentography. You'll know it when you see it. You provide the proof and I will know it when I see it.

sorry, I cannot prove to you that prophecies are not literal. If you do not accept how prophecies are used throughout the New Testament (interpreted to be about Christ and church) and since the early church, I do not know what else to invent for you.

Can you read even the first verse to be literal?

This is what the LORD says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

It makes a lot of sense when you don't operate from the presupposition that all the Old Testament Laws were done away with, forever. Shrow me where exactly it contradicts apostolic teaching. Prove to me it is not physically possible. I think you are referring to all mankind in Isaiah 66:22-23 coming to Jerusalem at the same time. Yes, that is highly improbable but I don't see it as a problem. Not every single soul on the planet will travel to Jerusalem at the same time. The logistics of such a move would be impossible. But if members of all mankind came to worship BEFORE Yahweh every new moon and Sabbath that doesn't stretch my credulity.

You say it is not literal. Please provide your evidence. Prove that the events in Isaiah 66 is figurative and about the Kingdom of God we are now living in. I am not a dispensationalist.

In Context, Isaiah 66:15-24

15 For, behold, the LORD WILL COME WITH FIRE, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

This hasn't happened yet. When do you think it happened?

16 For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.

When has this happened? Where is your proof this happened.

17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

Please, pray tell, when has this happened?

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

This happened when? When have all nations and tongues been gathered?

19 And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.

When has this happened?

20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

And this?

21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.

Since the destruction of the Temple, when has this happened?

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.

When have the new heavens and the new earth been made new? Has this happened yet? If so, when?

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

And, when has this ever happened? Pre-Christain?

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

I posted a general interpretation in the post #137. I do not know what exactly every word or sentence means, but it generally fits so well that its really difficult to read it in a different way (if you do not want to still wait for shadowy, literal fulfillment, of course).

Your reading contradicts the apostolic teaching that both new moons and sabbaths were just shadows of Christ. Not something nations will be required to return to in future. When the reality/fulfillment came, we do not return to shadows.

Remember that the Old Testament scriptures are opened only through Christ, without it they are like behind a veil and readers cannot understand what they are reading. Christ needed to explain prophecies to His disciples, which means literal reading is not the right one:

And having begun from Moses and from all the Prophets, He interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Lk 24:27

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain"
Your quote of Col 3:8 is a good example of a text that does not say "do not take God's name in vain".

In the Gospels Jesus was accused of blasphemy but not because He had taken God's name in vain as in cursing etc.

Taking God's name in vain is pretty much always in the form of blasphemous profanity.

A good example of what Jesus was not doing when accused of blasphemy.

So you're going to have to drop that claim.

You need better facts if you want to get to that point.

You're stuck with the fact that no text says "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" when it comes to the TEN - so making up such rules is not a funny kind of replacement for the scripture that is lacking for such an ad hoc rule.

In Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN.

Deut 5:22 informs us that God spoke the TEN Commandments "and added no more" when speaking directly to the people.

So then when Jeremiah says that the LAW of God "is written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant - his readers were certain that the TEN were most certainly INCLUDED in that Law written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Mark 7:6-13 Christ quotes "from the TEN" and condemns all efforts to edit even one.
Matt 19 Christ quotes "from the TEN" but does not include "do not take God's name in vain" -- yet the commandment is still valid.
James 2 - James quotes "from the Law of Moses including from the TEN" -
Rom 13 - Paul quotes "From the Law of Moses , including from the TEN", but does not include "do not take God's name in vain" -- yet the commandment is still valid.
Rev 14:7 the Sabbath commandment is quoted from (see Ex 20:11)
unlike Ex 20:7 that is never quoted from the NT -- yet it still remains.

Is 66:23 ALL MANKIND to observe the Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.
IS 56:6-8 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Gen 2:2-3, Ex 20:11 the Sabbath made for mankind Mark 2:27

Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-5 gentiles in Sabbath after Sabbath services for worship and gospel preaching

You put a lot of effort into trying to get around it. But taking God's name in vain is blasphemy.

You put a lot of effort into ignoring every Bible detail in the post.

You have free will and can ignore all the Bible quotes you wish to ignore. I am not trying to force you to read the Bible. But for my part - I am going to continue to notice 'Bible details' even when others find those details to be "inconvenient". To each his own.

 

[Studyman]

I’m reading along, I almost always just look at eschatology but this thread caught my eye.


At the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15:20 James gives the rules for Gentiles which doesn’t include the rules for the Sabbath.

It didn't include "Love God with all your heart" either. Nor did it include "Love your neighbor as thyself". Are you therefore teaching others that the New Man Gentiles were to "put on", didn't include obedience to these "Instructions in Righteousness" that God gave Moses? Are you teaching that Gentiles who turn to God, only have to stop drinking blood and eating animals that have been strangled, and don't partake of idols, and fornication?

I don't believe the Holy Scriptures support this teaching or implication.

Acts 15:21 declares that Moses is being read in the synagogue every sabbath.

Yes, they were already partaking of the Sabbath of God. They would learn the rest of God's instruction in Righteousness, from hearing Moses just as the Christ's Disciples did when Jesus told them to hear Moses and observe all that he tells them to observe. This is what Paul taught both Jew and Gentile.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So the "Good Works" that God before ordained that HIS People should walk in, are found in the Law and Prophets, the only "Holy scriptures" available to Paul at that time. So of course, Peter would direct the Gentiles to Moses, and in the meantime, tell them they should abstain from some of the "evil works" their past lifestyle engaged in when they "were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:"


Shouldn't a person believe "ALL" that is written in Scriptures?

It’s my understanding that the possibility exists that services were held on both Saturday and Sunday in the synagogue.

God's Sabbath is Saturday. I'm sure the Pharisees religious traditions called for activities on the other 6 days as well. But Jesus said specifically that God's Sabbath was made for man.

Also in Galatians 2:9 there is an agreement that James, Peter, and John go to the circumcision while Paul goes to the Gentiles.

And here is what Paul tells us he taught both Jew and Gentile, by a vision of the Lord's Christ.

Acts 26: 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they (Both) should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

And again;

Rom. 2: 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

I don’t see where this agreement ever ended, should we read the books written by James, Peter, and John with the understanding that the audience they are addressing are Jews not Gentiles?

I don't believe this agreement ended either. But you are implying, and that because of modern religious philosophy, that Acts 15 made void all of the Christ's Words regarding the sect of the Pharisees, all of Paul's words regarding what he taught, and all of Peter's words regarding who he taught men, both Jew and Gentile, to obey.

Acts 5: 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 15: 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, "giving them the Holy Ghost", even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

It seems prudent to point out what we know, given us by Scripture, regarding the religious sect of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And the teaching of Paul and Peter. There is a deception commonly promoted by this world's religions, that this religious sect of the Pharisees were trying to get people to "Obey God's Laws". This is not true at any point in the Holy Scriptures.

The entire foundation of modern religious philosophy surrounding Acts 15, it the false doctrine that God placed the yoke on the father's necks they couldn't bear. Neither Peter, John, James or Paul, nor is there anywhere in the Law and Prophets that promote this popular religious philosophy. And the only way for Acts 15 to support it, is to separate Acts 15 from the rest of the Bible and ignore what we were already told in Acts and other Scriptures, prior to this incident.

I know we are taught by this world's religions since our youth, that the Disciples were turning Gentile Converts away from God and his instruction in righteousness, because that was the Yoke God placed on the father's necks that they couldn't bear.

My hope is that men might actually study the Scriptures apart for this world's religious influence, as Paul instructs. If you do, you will find, as I did, that there are "many" who come in Christ's Name, that are promoting deceptions.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they (Not GOD) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Yoke the fathers couldn't bear, was not from God, at least according to the Jesus "of the bible".

 

[grafted branch]

It didn't include "Love God with all your heart" either. Nor did it include "Love your neighbor as thyself". Are you therefore teaching others that the New Man Gentiles were to "put on", didn't include obedience to these "Instructions in Righteousness" that God gave Moses? Are you teaching that Gentiles who turn to God, only have to stop drinking blood and eating animals that have been strangled, and don't partake of idols, and fornication?

I don't believe the Holy Scriptures support this teaching or implication.

Right, so I can ask you the same question, are you teaching that Gentiles should follow the law?
I don’t believe the scriptures support this teaching or implication either.

So what can we say? I say there was a time period where both the old covenant and new covenant were being observed.

Shouldn't a person believe "ALL" that is written in Scriptures?

I absolutely agree with you here.

God's Sabbath is Saturday. I'm sure the Pharisees religious traditions called for activities on the other 6 days as well. But Jesus said specifically that God's Sabbath was made for man.

Again I agree with you.

It seems prudent to point out what we know, given us by Scripture, regarding the religious sect of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And the teaching of Paul and Peter. There is a deception commonly promoted by this world's religions, that this religious sect of the Pharisees were trying to get people to "Obey God's Laws". This is not true at any point in the Holy Scriptures.

The entire foundation of modern religious philosophy surrounding Acts 15, it the false doctrine that God placed the yoke on the father's necks they couldn't bear. Neither Peter, John, James or Paul, nor is there anywhere in the Law and Prophets that promote this popular religious philosophy. And the only way for Acts 15 to support it, is to separate Acts 15 from the rest of the Bible and ignore what we were already told in Acts and other Scriptures, prior to this incident.

I know we are taught by this world's religions since our youth, that the Disciples were turning Gentile Converts away from God and his instruction in righteousness, because that was the Yoke God placed on the father's necks that they couldn't bear.

My hope is that men might actually study the Scriptures apart for this world's religious influence, as Paul instructs. If you do, you will find, as I did, that there are "many" who come in Christ's Name, that are promoting deceptions.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they (Not GOD) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Yoke the fathers couldn't bear, was not from God, at least according to the Jesus "of the bible".

I see the old covenant remaining until 70AD. Hebrews 8:13 states the first covenant was made old when the new covenant came. The old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish when the book of Hebrews was written.

Galatians 5:14 says all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. This statement wasn’t valid for those who were told to observe and do what those in Moses seat told them to do (Matthew 23:1-4).

Galatians 5:14 is new covenant, how are you determining the difference between requirements of the old covenant and new covenant? Examining what took place in the synagogues in Acts can arguably be shown as old covenant that was in the process of decaying. For example, the decaying showed up in the less stringent stipulations put on the Gentiles. In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles but in the old covenant there is.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

You are trying to read it as a literal, technical description. But its a prophecy, not a systematic theology or a newspaper.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 1
What is wrong with reading it as a literal? What evidence do you have that is figurative?

Prophecies are interpreted figuratively. Swine is not a literal swine, all nations cannot literally walk to Jerusalem, Le66vite is not a literal Levite, Jerusalem is not a literal Jerusalem etc.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 2
Where do you get this rule of hermeneutics that prophecies are interpreted figuratively? ALL of them? Are just certain ones? I too, believe some prophecy is figurative. But I also believe some prophecies are literal. Sow me in context why you believe swine doesn't literally mean swine. Yes, ALL nations cannot literally walk to Jerusalem but the scriptures do indicate mankind will COME to observe the Sabbath and new moons, from one Sabbath to the other, from one new moon to the other. Literally, the Hebrew is ALL FLESH will come to Yahweh. This, I believe is figurative because there is no way that every single human being on this planet can go to Jerusalem.

The first chapter of Mark also gives us proof that ALL is sometimes figurative. Read this:

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him ALL the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Here ALL obviously doesn't mean every last individual soul, but a sizable portion of Judea and they of Jerusalem.

Here is some evidence from theScriptures:

2 Kings 24:14
And he carried away ALL Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.

Matthew 2:3
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and ALL Jerusalem with him.

Acts 21:31
And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that ALL Jerusalem was in an uproar.

ALL doesn't always mean every last single soul on the planet. When you interpret scripture common sense should guide you. However, you can't prove that swine is figurative and from Sabbath to Sabbath is figurative and new moon to new moon is figurative. I believe you just don't want to have to deal with the fact that Sabbath observance will be a thing once again in the Millenium.

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

In Quora Digest Paul Coomber has this to say:

The prophet is here describing a time when the ‘new heavens’, a heavenly government under Christ Jesus, is ruling over the earth. The ‘new earth’, describing the righteous people happily accepting Gods established government, will be happily organized along divine lines and under divine law for the rest of eternity.

As verse 23 states, ‘from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath’ worship of Jehovah God will take place in an organized manner, just as the nation of Israel had been taught under the Mosaic Law. The new moon and the sabbath had become methods of timekeeping used by that nation, and the prophet is here telling them that days or periods of time set aside for worship of the God of peace would continue on into the eternal future, but always in a divinely organized, a divinely instituted, manner.

That its about Christ/church is interpreted in this way even by Jerome.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 3
Jerome is not the final authority in determining what I should believe or shouldn't believe. I don't believe he is correct in his view.

Your interpretation is like 150 years old, in Christianity.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 4
And who has told you that my interpretation is 150 years old? And how does that make my interpretation false? What is your source for that?

Its basically just a return to old Jewish reading of Scriptures, because of the influence of dispensationalism (which claims that church is just a parenthesis, not the real fulfillment).

SABER TRUTH TIGER 5
I just read the text for what is says. Many Christians that observe Sunday worship want to believe this is NOT the Sabbath or New Moons that are mentioned prominently in the Hebrew Scriptures. They want it to read something else. Anything but the Sabbath.

Prove that this is about the beginnings of Christ's service:

Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned

Its not possible to "prove", its about Christo-centric reading of Scriptures, as the New Testament does.

SABER TRUTH TIGER 6
Just keep in mind when you are interpreting scripture, not every scripture you read in the Bible and not every prophecy you read in the Bible is about Jesus. I can't remember for sure, but I think the New Testament accepts this passage as referring to Jesus Christ.. But I am not for sure. For those reading this post I will give the Isaiah 9:1-3 KJV version with the scripture Myst33 uses above.

Isaiah 9
1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

I hope this helps.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

sorry, I cannot prove to you that prophecies are not literal. If you do not accept how prophecies are used throughout the New Testament (interpreted to be about Christ and church) and since the early church, I do not know what else to invent for you.

Can you read even the first verse to be literal?

This is what the LORD says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

I readily admit that heaven is figurative here. I also believe that earth is not literally a footstool. That doesn't mean all comments or prophets are automatically figurative. I need you to prove to me Isaiah 66:22-23 is figurative. When Jesus referred to Herod as a fox he didn't mean Herod was literally a fox.

Luke 13:
31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

I posted a general interpretation in the post #137. I do not know what exactly every word or sentence means, but it generally fits so well that its really difficult to read it in a different way (if you do not want to still wait for shadowy, literal fulfillment, of course).

It may "fit" a figurative interpretation but I know it also fits a literal interpretation. If you are interpreting a verse in the Bible and the literal interpretation makes more sense, then go with the literal interpretation. That is one of the basic rules of hermeneutics.

Your reading contradicts the apostolic teaching that both new moons and sabbaths were just shadows of Christ. Not something nations will be required to return to in future. When the reality/fulfillment came, we do not return to shadows.

My reading does NOT contradict the apostolic teaching that both new moons and sabbaths were just shadows for Christ. They are no longer relevant to today's Christians. But, prophecy indicates in the Millennium they will once again be relevant. You say we do not return to shadows yet Isaiah 66:22-23 contradicts that. Your Christian suppositions rule out a literal interpretation of Isaiah 66:22-23. Yet, Isaiah 66:22-23 reveal that yes, we will return to shadows. That's what the Bible says. Only then they will no longer be shadows but actual days of observance.

Remember that the Old Testament scriptures are opened only through Christ, without it they are like behind a veil and readers cannot understand what they are reading. Christ needed to explain prophecies to His disciples, which means literal reading is not the right one:

In the Millennium everyone will hear the accurate translation of the Scriptures and they will know the true doctrines of the Bible. There will not be denominations in the Millennium but we all (those of us who make it in) will be united as one in doctrine. Context indicates what prophecies or literal or figurative. If Jesus, being God, had to explain the meanings of prophecies to his disciples, then we know (by context) that the prophecy was figurative because Jesus needed to explain it his disciples (who were usually a little slow on the uptake).

MYST33 wrote:
Remember that the Old Testament scriptures are opened only through Christ, without it they are like behind a veil and readers cannot understand what they are reading. Christ needed to explain prophecies to His disciples, which means literal reading is not the right one:

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Christ has opened my heart to the interpretation of Isaiah 66:22-23. So I will stick with that interpretation until someone can prove to me differently.

MYST33
And having begun from Moses and from all the Prophets, He interpreted to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Lk 24:27

SABER TRUTH TIGER
Christ has interpreted to me the beliefs I hold to. Thing is, if someone can prove to me my beliefs are in error, then I will have no choice but to change my views.

 

[ozso]

You put a lot of effort into ignoring every Bible detail in the post.

You have free will and can ignore all the Bible quotes you wish to ignore. I am not trying to force you to read the Bible. But for my part - I am going to continue to notice 'Bible details' even when others find those details to be "inconvenient". To each his own.

Where you see details, I see you post Bible quotes that often don't back up or even match what you're presenting. You know perfectly well that taking God's name in vain is blasphemy, and that Paul tells us to put off all blasphemy. That's about as basic as it gets with no hidden details.

 

[BobRyan]

Where you see details, I see you post Bible quotes

Well I am not all that certain we are seeing that part differently.

that often don't back up or even match what you're presenting.

It looks like a perfect fit to me. For your suggestion above to gain acceptance you need some detail, some explanation for your suggestion.

You know perfectly well that taking God's name in vain is blasphemy

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

1. Taking God's name in vain is just one of many forms of blasphemy as I already pointed out in the case of Christ's own accusers who never argue that Christ "Took God's name in vain" but did argue that He blasphemed. Jesus also accused his enemies of blasphemy in Matt 12 but did not say that they "took God's name in vain" as the way they did it.

that has not changed.

2. In addition we can see that "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted at all in the NT -- by contrast we see quotes from the Sabbath commandment Ex 20:8-11 in a number of different places in the NT and it can be proven in Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews..

That has not changed.


3. And then there is this mountain of Bible affirmation for the TEN as being included in the moral law of God including the Sabbath commandment

BobRyan said:

Not one of the Epistles has the command "do not take God's name in vain"
Your quote of Col 3:8 is a good example of a text that does not say "do not take God's name in vain".

In the Gospels Jesus was accused of blasphemy but not because He had taken God's name in vain as in cursing etc.

A good example of what Jesus was not doing when accused of blasphemy.


You need better facts if you want to get to that point.

You're stuck with the fact that no text says "whatever is not repeated should be deleted" when it comes to the TEN - so making up such rules is not a funny kind of replacement for the scripture that is lacking for such an ad hoc rule.

In Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN.

Deut 5:22 informs us that God spoke the TEN Commandments "and added no more" when speaking directly to the people.

So then when Jeremiah says that the LAW of God "is written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant - his readers were certain that the TEN were most certainly INCLUDED in that Law written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Mark 7:6-13 Christ quotes "from the TEN" and condemns all efforts to edit even one.
Matt 19 Christ quotes "from the TEN" but does not include "do not take God's name in vain" -- yet the commandment is still valid.
James 2 - James quotes "from the Law of Moses including from the TEN" -
Rom 13 - Paul quotes "From the Law of Moses , including from the TEN", but does not include "do not take God's name in vain" -- yet the commandment is still valid.
Rev 14:7 the Sabbath commandment is quoted from (see Ex 20:11)
unlike Ex 20:7 that is never quoted from the NT -- yet it still remains.

Is 66:23 ALL MANKIND to observe the Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.
IS 56:6-8 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Gen 2:2-3, Ex 20:11 the Sabbath made for mankind Mark 2:27

Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-5 gentiles in Sabbath after Sabbath services for worship and gospel preaching

That has not changed.

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" as included in the moral law of God applicable to Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

 

[Studyman]

Right, so I can ask you the same question, are you teaching that Gentiles should follow the law?
I don’t believe the scriptures support this teaching or implication either.

Yes, if you don't want to answer questions posed to you, regarding your religious philosophy, you can deflect from answering, by asking questions. In this way you distract from the problems pointed out to you in your own religious philosophy.

However, since I don't like it when people do this to me, I will answer your question.

The Apostles told the Gentiles in Acts 15, to Follow God's LAW given to Moses, where Blood was concerned, clean meats were concerned, Idols were concerned, and also where adultery/fornication was concerned. They also understood what we were already told, that the Gentiles would learn the rest about God, the Christ and His Gospel, through Moses who is read on the Sabbath Days.

Acts 13: 42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Paul teaches the Body of Christ the same thing.

2 Tim. 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So certainly the Apostles were promoting the same obedience that Isaiah, who was Inspired by the Spirit of Christ, also promoted to Non-Jews.

Is. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

You do understand that this Lord, if the Christ, the Rock of Israel, Yes?

So according to Scriptures, the Apostles promoted obedience to God's Laws for the Gentile, just as the Prophets promoted, and by the Same Spirit of the Same Christ. So it isn't "ME" teaching that men should obey God, but the Holy Scriptures. I simply believe them.

So what can we say? I say there was a time period where both the old covenant and new covenant were being observed.

I know that in this world's religions, the "Covenants" God defines, and the covenant's they teach are two different things. A covenant is an agreement between parties. God's Law is not a Covenant.

There are "signs" of the Agreement between God and men. But the Agreement itself is not God's Law. There is God's Law, and there is God's Covenant.

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

What Covenant was God speaking to?

Ex, 2: 23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.

God didn't "Remember His Law". He remembered His Covenant. Two different things.

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Remember that Israel told God, "Yes we will honor you with obedience", God brought them into His Covenant with Abraham, but they broke this agreement. Moses had to go back a 2nd time, in hopes of coming up with another agreement because God was ready to destroy Israel and start all over again with Moses, as the Covenant/Agreement they had, was broken and gone. It's in Ex. 32, and I would highly recommend that you study this, apart from this world's religious sects or businesses. This agreement was the first stand alone covenant God made with Israel. It was a Priesthood Covenant. As Hebrews tells us.

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

This is the Agreement that was Prophesied to change. Not God's Law.

I see the old covenant remaining until 70AD.

In my understand, the Old Priesthood Covenant passed when Jesus came up out of the water. He had lived and trained for the Priesthood since HE was at least 12 and was ready to become God's Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek". By necessity the Priesthood Law had to change, because Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi to whom the Priesthood Covenant, after the Golden Calf, was made with. (Mal. 2)

Hebrews 8:13 states the first covenant was made old when the new covenant came. The old covenant was decaying and ready to vanish when the book of Hebrews was written.

Yes, Jesus healed Lepers and forgave sins without sprinkling animal blood, as per the Priesthood Agreement made with Israel after the golden calf. So yes, the Old Covenant God made with Israel, because they broke the Covenant of Abraham God brought them into, was growing old and ready to disappear. But the Pharisees had created a religious business founded on this Priesthood Covenant. All their power, their fame, their relationship with Rome, their wealth, all came from promoting these sacrificial "works of the Law" of the Priesthood Covenant with Levi. If Jesus became their King, all their power and wealth was gone.

John 11: 47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

So they killed him to preserve their Priesthood.

Galatians 5:14 says all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. This statement wasn’t valid for those who were told to observe and do what those in Moses seat told them to do (Matthew 23:1-4).

So you are saying that Jesus lied to them when HE told them to hear Moses and obey Him as God, His Father, had instructed? Moses taught this you know.

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Can you explain how this Law was not valid when Jesus created it?

Galatians 5:14 is new covenant, how are you determining the difference between requirements of the old covenant and new covenant?

Loving thy neighbor as thyself, is God's Law, not God's covenant.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

How is it you are preaching that this Law is New?

Examining what took place in the synagogues in Acts can arguably be shown as old covenant that was in the process of decaying. For example, the decaying showed up in the less stringent stipulations put on the Gentiles. In the new covenant there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles but in the old covenant there is.

You may have adopted a religious philosophy of this world who teaches such things, but where is it written that God placed a difference between a Jew who repented and turned to him, and a Gentile who repented and turned to Him?

Please show me the Scriptures which teach that God is a respecter of persons.