Acts 15/Galatians 2 To C or not to C

[Nikud]

Dude, you have a lot of pent up hostility. Let it go. My avatar change from many many years ago was approved by the powers that be. However, if you want to bring it up it's the same thing going on now, the larger voice here is attempting to force their belief on those who just want to be at peace with how they worship God, in my mind. With the non stop Torah evangelism going on lately someone has to say something. If you want to follow Torah follow it. I never said it was wrong. I don't becuase I don't feel lead and I do follow the commandments given to me daily. Your walk and my walk are different but we are headed to the same place.

Peace out, bro.

All I'm trying to do is try and keep us in the middle of the road and not go into the grace ditch or the Torah ditch. It's pretty obvious to me that if those who hold to a more charismatic view don't start voicing their belief in Grace this will become a Torah site.

If you have a complaint, the Christian thing do would bring it privately, or report me to those in charge.

It's been brought up privately, you and me, it's been taken to those in charge, when people reported your post and publicly like scripture says. It's been the same thing since you returned to the forum that has been adressed. The same thing you originally did in your previous incarnation. Not digging up the trash here because for it the trash heap it would be thrown away. You never stopped. Your doing the same now that you did then. Pent up hostility, no I don't hold emotions in its bad for your health. I don't hide my feelings. I dont try to get others to feel sorry me, and complain about being oppressed. The rest of us are discussion our beleifs. Your the one trying to stop other from expressing any veiws different than yours and then try to twist a I'm being misunderstood cover story that no one is buying.

 

[Nikud]

I'm going to Follow @ZecAustin example here.

 

[Cap]

It's been brought up privately, you and me, it's been taken to those in charge, when people reported your post and publicly like scripture says. It's been the same thing since you returned to the forum that has been adressed. The same thing you originally did in your previous incarnation. Not digging up the trash here because for it the trash heap it would be thrown away. You never stopped. Your doing the same now that you did then. Pent up hostility, no I don't hold emotions in its bad for your health. I don't hide my feelings. I dont try to get others to feel sorry me, and complain about being oppressed. The rest of us are discussion our beleifs. Your the one trying to stop other from expressing any veiws different than yours and then try to twist a I'm being misunderstood cover story that no one is buying.

Sorry don't recall any private discussion with you. But I'm good with your decision. There is only one person I know recently that has been forced to change that you seem to want to follow.. You bring up issues from way over 5 years ago. I have been forgiven, why can't you do the same? Are you intentionally trying to cause harm? I speak what I am lead to speak, just like you. Just as before, all that I do is to try and find a way to limit the suppression of ideas. How can we know the truth if we don't look all sides. Until this becomes a Torah site I will continue to include the idea of Grace. I am asking you to please stop so we can go on.

To the lurker who told the Rabbi I was going to call out the Rabbinical practices at Shabbaat service which I know is the reason he called me and told me to take the night off and rest man up and call me so we can discuss things.

I am not your enemy, but it appears you do have some. (Could be within the group you call friends.)

 

[FollowingHim]

Stop arguing both of you @Kevin and @Cap.
In my opinion @Kevin is correct that this dispute was prompted by @Cap's comments, however it was continued by his responding to them. This thread is a discussion on a particular issue. Keep to the topic and stop the personal comments from both sides.

@Cap, there is no suppression of ideas. Many people here are Torah followers, but many are not, and many more are somewhere on the fence. This is a discussion specifically about whether it is appropriate to follow Torah or not on a particular issue, therefore it is entirely reasonable to make scripture-based posts saying "no, we don't have to follow Torah". In fact, such posts would be very valuable in this discussion to provide balance, and I'd be pleased to see them. Just stick to scripture and the topic, don't make it personal - which means don't direct your statements at individuals, or the ministry as a whole, or "Torah-followers" as a group, but rather direct your statements at scripture and the correct interpretation of it.

@Kevin, if you do wish to discuss the other historical and personal matters you are raising, please do that in private rather than here.

 

[The Revolting Man]

In modern context, that might seem the way it worked, but I didn't think it makes sense when put in the culture and context of the time.

There were NO churches or places of fellowship for the new believer to learn and grow in. None. The only option was walking in the door of the local synagogue to the recoiluing stares at 'O.M.G. that unclean GOY.'. Acts 15 is a ruling saying, 'here are the basic things to get fixed first to enter fellowship, then learn Moses on Shabbat.'

We have trouble wrapping our Western mind around the magnitude of what was happening. The 'party of the circumcision' wanted FULL proselyte conversion to the rabbinic Judaism of the day, while Paul was battling against the tradition of the Pharisees and for keeping the written Torah of Moses.. it was a very fine line that makes him so hard to understand. The Acts 15 ruling perfectly filled that: New, non-Jewish, believers in Yeshua were to do a few basic things to be clean enough to come in the synagogue and learn Torah (and not oral traditions...).

We do similar today. Lead a hooker or addict to Yeshua, then lay a couple ground rules... likely a more modest appearance so she's not 'hanging out' in fellowship, leave profanity and harlotry behind, and no drugs. (General example.)

This entire comment makes perfect sense to me and I almost wholeheartedly agree with it except that the practical application ends up being that we start jerking salvation away from people who don't get Torah observant quick enough. I think people can stay right there in that Acts 15 zone and still make it to heaven. Should everyone move in to Torah? Yes, I think they should. But we can't drive them to it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm going to Follow @ZecAustin example here.

You won't regret it.

 

[Cap]

Stop arguing both of you @Kevin and @Cap.
In my opinion @Kevin is correct that this dispute was prompted by @Cap's comments, however it was continued by his responding to them. This thread is a discussion on a particular issue. Keep to the topic and stop the personal comments from both sides.

@Cap, there is no suppression of ideas. Many people here are Torah followers, but many are not, and many more are somewhere on the fence. This is a discussion specifically about whether it is appropriate to follow Torah or not on a particular issue, therefore it is entirely reasonable to make scripture-based posts saying "no, we don't have to follow Torah". In fact, such posts would be very valuable in this discussion to provide balance, and I'd be pleased to see them. Just stick to scripture and the topic, don't make it personal - which means don't direct your statements at individuals, or the ministry as a whole, or "Torah-followers" as a group, but rather direct your statements at scripture and the correct interpretation of it.

@Kevin, if you do wish to discuss the other historical and personal matters you are raising, please do that in private rather than here.

This is where all started.

Frank S said: ↑

I'm curious, just a question... maybe someone can make this clearer than what I can see... how seriously should we take Titus 3 verse 9? ... especially the latter half of it? Just been watching this thread and wondering how this verse fits in.

Cap said:

You haven't been around BF long enough, this is how it works. Foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless is just the way it is.

Or we could post more memes about polygamy.


The problem here is I was joking, no different than others do in the middle of a thread, responding to what someone else said. I should have put a smily face but I guess that wouldn't matter either.

No different than this post, which a good group liked, 13 including Kevin.

Kevin
Ascended Member
Male

Cap said: ↑

One side believes one thing and another side believes another and no one is likely to change.

But hey we all believe that we should have more than one wife, at least that's something.

Kevin
Ascended Member
Male

So its just another day on the Forum?


It was a joke.

 

[FollowingHim]

I don't care where it started (I offered an opinion on my impression on that, but should not have because it doesn't really matter). This is where it stops.

 

[Cap]

Rabbi Hillel replied, "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it." (Talmud Shabbat 31a)

 

[PeteR]

This entire comment makes perfect sense to me and I almost wholeheartedly agree with it except that the practical application ends up being that we start jerking salvation away from people who don't get Torah observant quick enough. I think people can stay right there in that Acts 15 zone and still make it to heaven. Should everyone move in to Torah? Yes, I think they should. But we can't drive them to it.

Agreed.. Most of Christendom already keeps 65-75% of Torah... they just regard the things they do as coming from Yeshua or Paul. I agree they are saved, have said so many times before.. the challenge is that when the Father begins to expose more, then it is incumbent upon us to study and be obedient. My experience, speaking strictly from myself and personal observation, when He shows us something clearly and we reject it without honestly seeking Him in prayer and trying to be obedient, then He ceases to move us forward or hear us until we do obey...

The prayers of one who closes his ears to the Torah are not heard...

I don't push anyone in the real world, but I ask probing questions and give personal testimony. This board is a bit different in that its purpose is discussion and debate... by coming on here we tacitly approve of being challenged... it is like climbing into a wrestling ring. You don't get in unless you plan to wrestle. Getting in and then crying because of rough play or because you want a different game is very poor form. In my neighborhood you got marked a 'sissy.'

 

[aineo]

There is a lot of tension showing up on this thread. @FollowingHim has already said to cut it out, and I’m enforcing it. Keep the posts on topic and cut out the personal attacks, or the posts will be deleted.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

In modern context, that might seem the way it worked, but I didn't think it makes sense when put in the culture and context of the time.

There were NO churches or places of fellowship for the new believer to learn and grow in. None. The only option was walking in the door of the local synagogue to the recoiluing stares at 'O.M.G. that unclean GOY.'. Acts 15 is a ruling saying, 'here are the basic things to get fixed first to enter fellowship, then learn Moses on Shabbat.'

We have trouble wrapping our Western mind around the magnitude of what was happening. The 'party of the circumcision' wanted FULL proselyte conversion to the rabbinic Judaism of the day, while Paul was battling against the tradition of the Pharisees and for keeping the written Torah of Moses.. it was a very fine line that makes him so hard to understand. The Acts 15 ruling perfectly filled that: New, non-Jewish, believers in Yeshua were to do a few basic things to be clean enough to come in the synagogue and learn Torah (and not oral traditions...).

We do similar today. Lead a hooker or addict to Yeshua, then lay a couple ground rules... likely a more modest appearance so she's not 'hanging out' in fellowship, leave profanity and harlotry behind, and no drugs. (General example.)

Just stopping in for a moment to do another flyby.
I get what you’re saying but have problems with the logic and reasoning behind it.

1) The idea that there were no churches (buildings) so there was no place to go to learn except the synagogue is a misleading and wrong statement to start with. The early church did not require churches to learn in because they met house to house for many decades after the day of Pentecost. They also met and taught other places like Solomons porch.
By the time Acts 15 rolls around, there are already plenty of “churches” to learn at like at Damascus, Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch and a whole host of others in different cities that were already established throughout Asia Minor. Acts 14:23 All it takes is a brief look at chapters 10-14 and you will see churches everywhere where the scripture is being taught.

2) According to Acts 13:42 there doesn’t appear to be a standard of “cleanness” required to enter the Synagogue as Gentiles were apparently welcome anyway. Thus it makes no sense for the Christians to create more rules than the Synagogues so that Gentiles believers could go learn Torah in the Synagogues that openly accepted Gentiles anyway.

3) I agree with you that there was a definite rejection of the tradition of the Pharisees, which was primarily taught in the Synagogues. So according to your logic, the Apostles are adamantly rejecting these traditions but are gonna send new converts to the Pharisees in the Synagogues to learn Torah? I don’t think you thought that one out very well.

4)In Acts 21:21&25 there is a conversation that is referring to the Acts 15 decree for Gentiles. It begins by telling Paul that they’ve been informed about him that he has been teaching Jews among Gentiles to forsake Moses etc. Apparently this (to them in Jerusalem) is a no no. But as you can see in verse 25 the same prohibition does not apply to the Gentile believers by reference of the Acts 15 decree. So (to them) Jewish believers must follow Torah but Gentiles have “no such observation” commanded or even suggested. Rather their prohibitions are from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication.

Acts 21:21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

So not only is your hypothesis not born out from the text from chapter 15, but it is directly refuted by chapter 21. (Also in 15 but who’s counting?)

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Bro I’m still studying through exact application and as I go I am implementing things that I learn. If what you say about sacrifices and Levite’s inheritance is correct and applicable then so be it and I will do those things as well to the best of my ability once I have studied and understood them... I will however not use Grace as an excuse for lawlessness. Romans 6:1-2



If something I said came across this way I apologize it isn’t my intention.

Just getting a chance to reply. Sorry for it taking so long to get back to this. My apologies also as it seems that my post was lacking in the same grace I’m trying to cultivate.

That said, I wasn’t trying to beat you about the head and shoulders, rather, trying to point out inconsistencies in Torah observance that are justified (or more accurately overlooked or not recognized) by a Christianity bias.

To my knowledge, IF God and Christ are requiring and expecting full Torah observance to please them, I see several issues. One of which is the sacrifices that are required “ha olam” in Torah, and the method that Torah dictates they must be offered (through a Levitical priesthood). Logistical issues aside, (who, where and when), after Christ’s crucifixion and sacrifice for sin, I would be more worried about offering a legitimate animal sacrifice that God and Christ considers an abomination per Isaiah 66:1-3.

So IF, as a believer in Christ, you accept that his death and sacrifice for your sins, makes the Torah sacrifices no longer needed for sin, you have a very big problem. This is arguably the most critical and crucial aspect of Torah in real time, and its been changed on a foundational level. Without sins being forgiven, what good does observing the rest of it do anyway?

 

[PeteR]

1) The idea that there were no churches (buildings) so there was no place to go to learn except the synagogue is a misleading and wrong statement to start with. The early church did not require churches to learn in because they met house to house for many decades after the day of Pentecost. They also met and taught other places like Solomons porch.
By the time Acts 15 rolls around, there are already plenty of “churches” to learn at like at Damascus, Jerusalem, Samaria, Antioch and a whole host of others in different cities that were already established throughout Asia Minor. Acts 14:23 All it takes is a brief look at chapters 10-14 and you will see churches everywhere where the scripture is being taught.

Multiple problems here. The most obvious is that Solomon's Porch is in the Temple complex. So, they aren't in the synagogue but ARE in the Temple? Another is that if all these 'churches' existed, then why in Acts 15 do they tell them to go to the synagogue? Still another is that 'church' as used in the new testament means qahal, or congregation, not a building (as is generally inferred today) or group that has separated from the synagogue. They may have had a there own gathering at other times, but they were definitely still meeting in the synagogues. That's where Paul went in every city until he was kicked out. Further, as is clearly conveyed in Acts 13:42-44, even Paul was telling Gentiles to go to the synagogue.

2) According to Acts 13:42 there doesn’t appear to be a standard of “cleanness” required to enter the Synagogue as Gentiles were apparently welcome anyway. Thus it makes no sense for the Christians to create more rules than the Synagogues so that Gentiles believers could go learn Torah in the Synagogues that openly accepted Gentiles anyway.

You are reading that into the situation. It is clearly a somewhat special circumstance that did not end well. V. 45 indicates the Jews were NOT used to seeing Gentiles in the synagogue and the large draw Paul's message had made them jealous. It ended in persecution.

3) I agree with you that there was a definite rejection of the tradition of the Pharisees, which was primarily taught in the Synagogues. So according to your logic, the Apostles are adamantly rejecting these traditions but are gonna send new converts to the Pharisees in the Synagogues to learn Torah? I don’t think you thought that one out very well.

Yeshua, in Mathew 23:1-2, doesn't tell the crowds to avoid the synagogue due to the traditions being taught. Rather, He says, 'Do what they tell you to do when seated in the seat of Moses, but don't do what they do.' They didn't have Bibles or Torah scrolls at home. The only place to learn what righteousness looked like was to hear the reading of the Torah from the seat of Moses... Yeshua said, 'listen to the Pharisees when they read the Torah!!' No different for the Acts 15 decision.

4)In Acts 21:21&25 there is a conversation that is referring to the Acts 15 decree for Gentiles. It begins by telling Paul that they’ve been informed about him that he has been teaching Jews among Gentiles to forsake Moses etc. Apparently this (to them in Jerusalem) is a no no. But as you can see in verse 25 the same prohibition does not apply to the Gentile believers by reference of the Acts 15 decree. So (to them) Jewish believers must follow Torah but Gentiles have “no such observation” commanded or even suggested. Rather their prohibitions are from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from fornication.

You are cherry picking... Acts 21:24 the advice they give Paul is to fulfill a Nazarite vow (and pay for four others to do the same) so that he can prove that... wait for it... 'you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah!!' Then, they continue with the rebuttal to those claiming Paul is teaching Gentiles to forsake Moses (Torah) v.21, by reiterating that the Gentiles are indeed being taught the basics of Torah as a starting point: 'abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, from blood.... etc.' Those verses say precisely the opposite of what you say they are saying!

 

[PeteR]

To my knowledge, IF God and Christ are requiring and expecting full Torah observance to please them, I see several issues. One of which is the sacrifices that are required “ha olam” in Torah, and the method that Torah dictates they must be offered (through a Levitical priesthood). Logistical issues aside, (who, where and when), after Christ’s crucifixion and sacrifice for sin, I would be more worried about offering a legitimate animal sacrifice that God and Christ considers an abomination per Isaiah 66:1-3.

So IF, as a believer in Christ, you accept that his death and sacrifice for your sins, makes the Torah sacrifices no longer needed for sin, you have a very big problem. This is arguably the most critical and crucial aspect of Torah in real time, and its been changed on a foundational level. Without sins being forgiven, what good does observing the rest of it do anyway?

I've written multiple articles concerning this topic that I will link below. Here, for those who prefer, is a video from 119Ministries addressing the topic. (I love their willingness to tackle, very Biblically, the hard topics.)

Other sources for this issue:

Yep. Sacrifice is an Ordinance.

Has the Application of the Law Changed?

Sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Multiple problems here. The most obvious is that Solomon's Porch is in the Temple complex. So, they aren't in the synagogue but ARE in the Temple? Another is that if all these 'churches' existed, then why in Acts 15 do they tell them to go to the synagogue? Still another is that 'church' as used in the new testament means qahal, or congregation, not a building (as is generally inferred today) or group that has separated from the synagogue. They may have had a there own gathering at other times, but they were definitely still meeting in the synagogues. That's where Paul went in every city until he was kicked out. Further, as is clearly conveyed in Acts 13:42-44, even Paul was telling Gentiles to go to the synagogue.

1. They were only in the Temple assembling until the martyrdom of Stephen. This in no way supports your assertion of assembling in the Synagogues. Solomon’s porch was a place for Rabbi’s to teach and debate with others about the Scriptures.

2. You’ll have to show me in Acts 15 where it tells them to go to the Synagogues. Verse 21 is simply a statement of fact, and cannot, without torture or other extreme acrobatics be construed as instruction to go to the synagogue.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

3. It is also states in verse 24 that the ones teaching that believers must be circumcised and keep the law were subverting their souls and that they had given no command to do either. Circumcision or keeping the law. Thats a before and after salvation instruction as you don’t just keep the law to gain salvation. Keeping the law is an after salvation instruction that was given by those attempting to subvert their souls.

4. You’ll have to show from scripture where the churches were still “definitely meeting in the synagogues”. The fact that Paul went to the Synagogues to proselytize Jews to Christianity is a huge stretch to the church “definitely were still meeting in the synagogues.”

5. You have a funny way of reading Acts 13:42-44. Paul nowhere told the Gentiles to go to the Synagogue. The Gentiles asked him to come back to the Synagogue the next sabbath and tell them more. The Jews were mad and jealous because the whole town showed up to hear Paul and apparently they had never had that kind of response for their interpretation of it.

Your whole approach to this is reeeeaaly long on theory and abysmally short on scripture. The scripture that you do quote is virtually unrecognizable to what’s actually written.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The only place to learn what righteousness looked like was to hear the reading of the Torah from the seat of Moses...

As if the only place that had a copy was in the synagogue. Do you really believe that?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

You are cherry picking... Acts 21:24 the advice they give Paul is to fulfill a Nazarite vow (and pay for four others to do the same) so that he can prove that... wait for it... 'you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Torah!!' Then, they continue with the rebuttal to those claiming Paul is teaching Gentiles to forsake Moses (Torah) v.21, by reiterating that the Gentiles are indeed being taught the basics of Torah as a starting point: 'abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, from blood.... etc.' Those verses say precisely the opposite of what you say they are saying!

The coercion to fulfill a Nazarite vow, (that he had not vowed) was the admission price to get to speak publicly to the assembly at Jerusalem. Did he ever get to do that? Hmm. Makes me wonder if that wasn’t the plan all along.

Does the fulfilling of a vow that he didnt vow actually prove anything other than that he was willing to do anything to spread the Gospel?

As to the starting point that you love to use, the phrase, “we concluded that they observe no such thing” must be missing from your copy. The verse reads that the Gentiles don’t have to observe anything but a prohibition against things offered to idols, blood, things strangled and fornication. Thats not a starting point, thats an ending point.

I’ve lately been reading about people that did that to the Scriptures. They removed (or ignored) anything that didnt match their theology.

 

[The Revolting Man]

As if the only place that had a copy was in the synagogue. Do you really believe that?

Almost certainly. Hand copied books were spectacularly expensive and very few people would of had access to them.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Almost certainly. Hand copied books were spectacularly expensive and very few people would of had access to them.

This presumes that the people of Israel were all poor.

It is a mitzvah of Torah that all Jews either write or have written a copy of the Torah for their home.

It was the norm to train young boys especially in the memorization of Torah. This can be seen in the example of Timothy below as well as the testimony of Flavius Josephus who stated . . . I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law;

2 Tim 3:15 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.

Timothy was the product of a Greek father and a Jewish mother and grandma and raised in a Greek culture far from Jerusalem. But somehow, a boy that would be the poster child for scriptural ignorance knew the holy scriptures since he was a child.

If you are correct that no one but the synagogues had the written word, and this was done in the absence of the written word, through rote memorization or some other means as we know the Jews did, does this not enhance my point that the Synagogues weren’t the only place to go to study the scriptures. Just find a Jewish boy and listen to him recite.

Paul as well had his own copies. 2 Tim 4:13 The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books (Biblion) , but especially the parchments (membrana, probably a torah or Tanak scroll)

In Alexandria, Ptolemy was famous for having the Septuagint in his library. Even if one was too poor to have their own copy, a synagogue was not needed as it was written in the common language, Greek.

There is also the little detail about the majority of Scriptural quotes in the New Testament coming from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. This indicates that the primary source of Torah to the common man (especially outside Judea), was not the Hebrew of the Synagogue scrolls, but the Greek Septuagint. Probably what Paul referred to as the biblion, as opposed to the membrana, Hebrew Tanach. Apparently, he had both and utilized both.