Acts 15/Galatians 2 To C or not to C

[PeteR]

I sometimes find myself a little at odds with my Hebrew Roots brethren here. Yes God is the same for ever and ever and His Words endure forever but I don't see how we can deny that He rolled out His Revelation in stages. Abraham and Sarah's union would have brought a death penalty after Sinai. Moses gave a substantially different Law right before the Hebrew children entered the Promised Land thab he had at Sinai. And Christ exploded everything and stitched it back together again. Paul and the other Apostles delivered some substantially enlarged doctrines.

All of these things were consistent with God's nature and what came previously, nothing contradicted or clashed but He did not give us everything at once.

Honestly, I don't disagree with what appears to be progressive revelation. Here's what I think is a better explanation:

It all existed from the beginning, but, we are sinners... we ignore, forget, misapply, etc... so, at different points in history the Father has pointedly reminded us and sometimes adjusted our focus in application. For example: Remember the Sabbath day... they already had it. Ex. 16 tells us that Moses first uses the term and understands the concept... before Sinai...but God had to remind them of it all.. Another example: Yeshua clearly says He didn't come to abolish or anull the Law, but He points to the heart application. Paul's focus has to do with applying these pieces to the awakening scattered and grafted in new members of the house of Israel. He is producing a framework for families, clans and tribes... he just had no idea that Abba's plan was 2000 years long...

The Torah is multilayered and faceted... we got so wrapped in the spiritual aspect that Christendom forgot that there is a solid underlying physical set of commands.. part of today's course correction. Awakening to the physical commands...

None of these things are separate works or 'new Torahs' but a Divine shifting of lost focus to bring us closer to His heart and central plan.

my 2 shekels...

 

[PeteR]

He will be teaching Torah but it will be a completed Torah. A point where it appears you are still looking thru a glass darkly.
And Scripture clearly says at the second coming Of Christ the earth will be melted with a fervent heat. So how can a temple of God be built on something he said wouldn't be there.

Very likely satan will have a third temple built to confuse people. But I can't find an explicit reference stating God will have another temple built on this earth. The new temples referenced in the new testament are all pointing to our bodies being the temple and the old brick and mortar temple having been a shadow of that.
How do you explain all the references of the shadow of the things to come? That means when the complete thing comes the original is no longer of practical value of itself. It is now a shadow and the new thing is now the focus.
Not one jot or tittle shall pass away till heaven and Earth pass away. Yet with Jesus as the complete sacrifice the need for the blood of bulls was put away. That's why I question the validity of the "following the original Torah understanding emphasis".

Blessings, brother.

Couple thoughts... first, I believe we still have a 1000 year millennial reign before the earth is destroyed by fire. Next event is great Tribulation followed by the fulfillment of a ton of prophecy regarding the Messiah, Temple, reinstituted sacrifice and and Israel (both people and place) being the joy/glory of the whole earth.

I understand that it is hard for our western 'civilized' minds to wrap around restored sacrifice, even if only for peace and thank offerings, but we have no problem throwing a steak on the grill and then marveling over the 'pleasing aroma.'

God enjoys a good BBQ and says, 'I invite you on these days to come celebrate before me. These are acceptable offerings and you are to eat them before My faces.'

I have written multiple pieces explaining why sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom.... I can provide those, or, I'm happy to grill something and we can sit and discuss...

 

[yoderfamily]

T

Blessings, brother.

Couple thoughts... first, I believe we still have a 1000 year millennial reign before the earth is destroyed by fire. Next event is great Tribulation followed by the fulfillment of a ton of prophecy regarding the Messiah, Temple, reinstituted sacrifice and and Israel (both people and place) being the joy/glory of the whole earth.

I understand that it is hard for our western 'civilized' minds to wrap around restored sacrifice, even if only for peace and thank offerings, but we have no problem throwing a steak on the grill and then marveling over the 'pleasing aroma.'

God enjoys a good BBQ and says, 'I invite you on these days to come celebrate before me. These are acceptable offerings and you are to eat them before My faces.'

I have written multiple pieces explaining why sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom.... I can provide those, or, I'm happy to grill something and we can sit and discuss...

Blessings to you too.
Would love to meet you sometime.

Somehow I have never been involved in studying the millennium. If you could send me references I'd appreciate it.
Or start a thread on the forum here. I enjoy reading way more than posting.

I never before heard of the millennium before the tribulation.

 

[Nikud]

Now I prayed today during while we were reading Ruth a tradition of Shavuot which is was questioning keeping. I'm glad I did it helped me realize something. I've been a bit arrogant and prideful. I want to apologize to @Verifyveritas76 if I stepped over the line form playful banter to being insulting. It was not my attempt. I was trying to keep things light and believe my flesh may have gotten the better of me. I don't mean to be dismissive and maybe I oversimplified and over stated some things in regards to the Early Church fathers about their statements about Jews. That doesn't change the glaring issues I see with their beliefs on the nature of Yeshua and other Heresies. Check out what I showed or don't. I don't see them as the example to follow or trust their teachings if you do than that's your business. As longer as they aren't brought up to me I wont bring them up to you.

I'm actually back to place I was when I first posted on the forum in a conversation with @Mojo and @ZecAustin, I don't want the traditions of man regardless off what Religion they profess. Any ones traditions. If that makes folk think I have a bias against Christianity so be it. History is important to know, so we don't keep making the same mistakes over and over.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Question... Exodus 16. Who uses the term Shabbat first? The Lord, or... Moses?

In Scripture, Moses. He attributes it as instruction from the Lord, but apparently that part of the conversation wasn’t included in Scripture.

And this means what to you?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Nope. If Avinu Malkenu says they are righteous, who am I to question him? Just because I don't understand the details or parameters or know their hearts, etc... does not mean He is wrong or unjust.

His Word says,

Ex. 12:49 'One Torah shall be to him who is native born and unto the stranger who sojourns among you.'
Lev. 24:22 'Ye shall have one law (mishpat) as well for the stranger as for one of your own country: I am The Lord your God.'
Num. 15:16-17 'As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien that sojourns, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are , so shall the alien be before the Lord. There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.'

My first point is that the Sinai Torah has to be an expanded version of the Torah available to men like Adam and Abraham and Noah and Seth and Jacob. Yes they were righteous because they weren’t breaking the Torah that was available to them at the time.

Second, the One Torah that you quote was specifically for the offspring of Jacob specifically and those with them that made up the new nation of Israel. Not for everyone. Anyone not part of this group was under the Noahide commands/Torah.

Thats One Torah for Israel or anyone who joins them, and a different, more limited list of commands for those who aren’t. Even in Acts 15 (1500 years later) the Apostolic council at Jerusalem confirms and establishes this at least 3 times.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ezekiel 40-48? As well as the fact that the Messiah will rule with Torah and Torah demands certain things including many non-sin offerings.

Now, to be clear: I believe that it is possible a false temple will be built on the temple mount prior to the real deal being built on the original site in the City of David about 600' south of the current temple mount. What is currently regarded as the temple mount is, imho, the Fort of Antonia that housed 8000 Roman soldiers, etc... Still researching that, but what exists there today does not fit the prophetic picture....

This would be something we both agree on. Probably fodder for a different thread, but Robert Cornukes book Temple explained a lot of this in an easy to understand format. Once I’d read that, Josephus’ Antiquities took on a whole new light and I found multiple additional references to substantiate his claims including a couple more from Scripture that were eye popping.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

He will be teaching Torah but it will be a completed Torah. A point where it appears you are still looking thru a glass darkly.
And Scripture clearly says at the second coming Of Christ the earth will be melted with a fervent heat. So how can a temple of God be built on something he said wouldn't be there.

Very likely satan will have a third temple built to confuse people. But I can't find an explicit reference stating God will have another temple built on this earth. The new temples referenced in the new testament are all pointing to our bodies being the temple and the old brick and mortar temple having been a shadow of that.
How do you explain all the references of the shadow of the things to come? That means when the complete thing comes the original is no longer of practical value of itself. It is now a shadow and the new thing is now the focus.
Not one jot or tittle shall pass away till heaven and Earth pass away. Yet with Jesus as the complete sacrifice the need for the blood of bulls was put away. That's why I question the validity of the "following the original Torah understanding emphasis".

Something that helped me with this idea of a “new” heaven and earth was when I found that Adam prophecied and built two cairns (one rock and one brick) that said that the earth would be destroyed once by water and once by fire. He didnt know which one would occur first so he made two enscribed pillars so that at least one would survive whichever cataclysm came first. Josephus states that in 120 AD ish that they were still in existence in Syria. My understanding now is not that there will literally be a brand new planet created, but that the existing planet will be purified once by water and once by fire and the earth and firmament will be renewed much as it was in Noah’s day.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I sometimes find myself a little at odds with my Hebrew Roots brethren here. Yes God is the same for ever and ever and His Words endure forever but I don't see how we can deny that He rolled out His Revelation in stages. Abraham and Sarah's union would have brought a death penalty after Sinai. Moses gave a substantially different Law right before the Hebrew children entered the Promised Land thab he had at Sinai. And Christ exploded everything and stitched it back together again. Paul and the other Apostles delivered some substantially enlarged doctrines.

All of these things were consistent with God's nature and what came previously, nothing contradicted or clashed but He did not give us everything at once.

Nice

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Couple thoughts... first, I believe we still have a 1000 year millennial reign before the earth is destroyed by fire. Next event is great Tribulation followed by the fulfillment of a ton of prophecy regarding the Messiah, Temple, reinstituted sacrifice and and Israel (both people and place) being the joy/glory of the whole earth.

Just checking if this is a typo. You place the 1000 years before great Tribulation? Thats a new one to me. I was under the impression that the Millenium was after the great Tribulation. Hmm. Skeptical but Open to those thoughts.

I also see a restored sacrifice of some sort, but think it will be a drastically modified version that we see OT.

Somehow I have never been involved in studying the millennium. If you could send me references I'd appreciate it.
Or start a thread on the forum here. I enjoy reading way more than posting.

I never before heard of the millennium before the tribulation.

The primary one I’m familiar with is in Revelation 20 but it seems like it would have to be after the great Tribulation because of the locations of the prisons for the beast, false prophet and Satan are different. Satan is placed in the bottomless pit at the time the false prophet and beast are cast into the lake of fire. 1000 years later Satan is loosed, creates insurrection, is defeated and then is cast into the lake of fire to join the beast and false prophet.

I could be wrong, but it seems like the beast and false prophet would have to be around for the great Tribulation part.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Now I prayed today during while we were reading Ruth a tradition of Shavuot which is was questioning keeping. I'm glad I did it helped me realize something. I've been a bit arrogant and prideful. I want to apologize to @Verifyveritas76 if I stepped over the line form playful banter to being insulting. It was not my attempt. I was trying to keep things light and believe my flesh may have gotten the better of me. I don't mean to be dismissive and maybe I oversimplified and over stated some things in regards to the Early Church fathers about their statements about Jews. That doesn't change the glaring issues I see with their beliefs on the nature of Yeshua and other Heresies. Check out what I showed or don't. I don't see them as the example to follow or trust their teachings if you do than that's your business. As longer as they aren't brought up to me I wont bring them up to you.

I'm actually back to place I was when I first posted on the forum in a conversation with @Mojo and @ZecAustin, I don't want the traditions of man regardless off what Religion they profess. Any ones traditions. If that makes folk think I have a bias against Christianity so be it. History is important to know, so we don't keep making the same mistakes over and over.

Hey bro! No worries on my part. Love you lots. Thats kind of interesting because I woke early this morning and felt like I needed to pray specifically for you. Had no idea why and it was definitely not a normal prayer session.

Anywho, I’ll be the first to say that there are things I’ve found that are a little bit off. I’ve not found anything yet as bad as you’ve mentioned, but I havent gotten to some of those writings yet. The two that I know ended up going off the rails was Tertullian in his later life and Tatian after Justin Martyr (his mentor in the faith) passed.

Some of their writings, especially their apologies focused on paganism, have blurbs that could be easily misconstrued by someone with an ax to grind, but in light of the whole treaty was more likely a tactic to debate a pagan. Not agreeing with it but I understand it, sort of.

My primary focus on them is history, early canons/accepted/quoted scripture, and Christianity norms (at least to them) primarily in perspective and structure. Not whether or not they believe exactly as I do today, as we exhibit the same levels of variance even today as they did then.

I also find it illuminating to see how they present Christ from the Old Testament to unbelieving Jews and Pagans alike.

 

[Nikud]

3 times in Acts 15?

1)Therefore, I judge not to trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God— 20 but to write to them to abstain from the contamination of idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what is strangled, and from blood.

2)that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. By keeping away from these things, you will do well.

I don't see the third time. I'm tired and may be overlooking it.

According to Acts 15 abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality would be all they are accountable for, but we know that's not true. So we know there is a fallacy in saying that this is the example, the standard for gentile beleivers.

What is then the meaning and purpose of this verse? (It's interesting in the greek, I'll post a literal translation, it would also be illuminating to read Acts it in the Hebrew because you find word puns that are usally only found in writings that are originally written in Hebrew like Mathew) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day, except pointing out that the Apostle Peter recognized the Sabbath as the day celebrated in synagogues, which was on the 7th.

Μωϋσῆς γὰρ ἐκ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων κατὰ πόλιν τοὺς κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον
ἀναγινωσκόμενος

1. 
   because Moses that has been out of the beginning men of the same stock for/on/according to in cities for those who proclaim him and has within to the synagogues for/on/according to all sabbaths being read (in the sense of being taught)
   
   Translators then filter theses words to get the message out. Bias can play a part, but I like to point out this translation came from a person (no Law) was trying to show me I was wrong but was a man of integrity and sent as is. I like. We went step by step with the greek. I just asked if the him could be Him referring to God.
   1. 1. 
         
      because Moses from the the anceint generations has in cities those who proclaim him and has within the synagogues on the Sabbath (he) is being read (in the sense that Torah is being taught)

That sounds like a reason to just tell them to focus on a few things now they can learn the rest later. Much like we do now with new beleivers. We don't saddle (yoke) them with to much at first so they don't turn away.

Thats One Torah for Israel or anyone who joins them, and a different, more limited list of commands for those who aren’t. Even in Acts 15 (1500 years later) the Apostolic council at Jerusalem confirms and establishes this at least 3 times.

I agree, you are 100% correct that there is only one Torah for Israel and those who join them. Romans 11:11-24 and Isaiah 56 I'm glad you finally came around

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I don't see the third time. I'm tired and may be overlooking it.

Sorry. I misspoke. The third time is in Acts 20:25

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I agree, you are 100% correct that there is only one Torah for Israel and those who join them. Romans 11:11-24 and Isaiah 56 I'm glad you finally came around

He! He! Funny guy! It would be more accurate to say there is now one torah for Israel and everyone who joins Him!

Round? I resemble that remark!

 

[PeteR]

And this means what to you?

It mean there was a lot more Torah from the beginning! And, it hadn't changed. They just needed a reminder!

 

[PeteR]

@Verifyveritas76 and @yoderfamily sorry for the misunderstanding on the millennium. It does come after the Tribulation. My shorthand meant to express that the next thing we should expect in the eschatological sequence is Tribulation, then a host of prophecies dealing with the Kingdom.

I think we all agree here.

In fact, besides the disagreement over Acts 15 and how much Torah we should be keeping now, we are pretty much on the same page... I just see that if we expect other prophecies to be literally fulfilled, why don't we understand our being part of Israel literally? And, if so, why do we have so much trouble understanding that Yah's Torah is His desire of us?

Thanks, @Kevin for pointing out.. again, that Acts 15 just gets us cleaned up enough to leave our shoes outside the door so we don't track dog poop into the house. After we're in the house we can be told where the bathroom is, the linens, how to behave at the table, etc...

Shalom.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It mean there was a lot more Torah from the beginning! And, it hadn't changed. They just needed a reminder!

How do you prove that Scripturally. That’s a really big leap without scriptural proof. Especially when there is Torah pre Sinai that is contrary to Torah post Sinai. And no mention of a sabbath observance previous to Exodus 16 except for the original prototype that I’m aware of.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

That sounds like a reason to just tell them to focus on a few things now they can learn the rest later. Much like we do now with new beleivers. We don't saddle (yoke) them with to much at first so they don't turn away

Thanks, @Kevin for pointing out.. again, that Acts 15 just gets us cleaned up enough to leave our shoes outside the door so we don't track dog poop into the house. After we're in the house we can be told where the bathroom is, the linens, how to behave at the table, etc...

This perspective has to be read into the passage as that caveat is not listed at the point of origination and years later (at least 14+) the exact same wording is still being used as the standard for non Jewish believers by those who are highly zealous of the Mosaic law. Without caveat and without any expectation for their adherence.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

If the Holy Spirit thought it good not to add anything to this list, why do you think you can add to what the Spirit has restricted?

 

[Nikud]

This perspective has to be read into the passage as that caveat is not listed at the point of origination and years later (at least 14+) the exact same wording is still being used as the standard for non Jewish believers by those who are highly zealous of the Mosaic law. Without caveat and without any expectation for their adherence.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

If the Holy Spirit thought it good not to add anything to this list, why do you think you can add to what the Spirit has restricted?

Read the letters to Corithians, Ephesians all the letters, things were added to that list so your argument here is based on a fallacy. Don't say I'm adding when your subtracting,

Plus
1 John 5:6-10

6 Messiah Yeshua is the One who came by water and blood—not by water only, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify— 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are one. 9 If we accept men’s testimony, God’s testimony is greater—for this it is the testimony that God has given about His Son. 10 The one who trusts in Ben-Elohim has the testimony in himself; the one who does not trust in God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son.

Shows that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, they are in agreement. They testify to each other. There's alot more scripture on this you should read If your walk is becoming more charasmatic so you dont fall into the hypergrace charasmatic I commanded my soup to be cooked and the holy spirit said the color blue is a demonic color and now I know anyone who where's blue is a servant of satan. Laugh but it's more common than you may think. God made sure we could tell If it's His Spirit or a spirit of confusion and decit. If your interpretation conflicts with one of the 3 your in conflict with all. Read more, pray and look for an interpretation that doesn't conflict. If the Holy Spirit is revealing something that conflicts with the word of God or Yeshua, it is testifying against itself. It's not the Holy Spirit, it's usally man resting on his own understanding.

 

[Nikud]

This perspective has to be read into the passage as that caveat is not listed at the point of origination and years later (at least 14+) the exact same wording is still being used as the standard for non Jewish believers by those who are highly zealous of the Mosaic law.

Are you saying that 14 years later they were talking to the same beleivers or were once again speaking to new beleivers.

Question how many times did the "new" testament call out beleivers for there Lawlessness?