Acts 15/Galatians 2 To C or not to C

[Cap]

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were ahardened; for until this very day at the breading of cthe old covenant the same veil 1remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

I pray that God will remove the veil that covers our hearts in whatever way that keeps is from seeing the truth.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The Law of sin and Death Paul mentions 8 different laws in the new testament. Context shows what he meant with each one. By saying it was Torah, the law of God, then in other parts you make him contradict himself.

Your interpretation.

Torah is bondage.


But

Sin is bondage.

We know that Torah is not sin.

We know sin is against the Torah.

The math doesn't add up. For Torah to be Bondage when in scripture it says may I always keep your Torah and walk in freedom.

Psalm 119:44-46

44 So I may always keep Your Torah,
forever and ever,
45 and walk about in freedom.
For I have sought Your precepts.
46 I will speak of Your testimonies
before kings, and never be ashamed.


If the law is bondage. And sin is bondage, And sin is against the law. How do you repent? Not the Greek mind set beleif, if I say the words, scripture shows just saying the words don't mean squat. When the heart changes and so does the people, this is the fruit. If theres no fruit, no change. Faith without Deeds is dead. If it's just being a good person according to what we personaly believe is good, then that's man resting on his own understanding.

Take The Brean approach. Take what Paul says and compare it to what the old testament says. They didn't have the New testament they werent comparing his words against his words. They were comparing it to what the first half of scripture says. But who actually does that, it's easier just to find something that justifies our opinions in one verse even though the next verse or a couple verses down contradict personal beleifs or something in this book or that one does.

Now this is a well reasoned and presented approach. Perhaps I’ll have more time to address later.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

First, it appears that he was denying that Yeshua gives salvation. He still didn't clarify if he was saying Yeshua only made it possible and the Holy Spirit imparts Salvation, and if he beleives eternal life is salvation. He just liked the post where I apologized if I miss understood him.

Second, your addressing something already handled in your absence why? Either an attempt to shame me or stir things up again.

Definition of derogatory

1: expressive of a low opinion :
disparaging, derogatory remarks, a derogatory term

2: detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of

Nothing you haven't done the forum, like what you are actually doing in the post I'm responding to.

Finally your disappointed - sad or displeased because someone or something has failed to fulfill one's hopes or expectations. Though we are friends, I'm not here to please you.

Where's the address of derogatory remarks that are directed at those who beleive that repentance ,the turning away from sin, means to Keep Torah? Ahh the stench of bias.

I’m addressing it because thats my job, and the personal disparaging remarks are unacceptable. Disagree and debate the ideas and theology all you like, but leave the personal out.

Am I guilty of doing the same thing? Certainly, but after being called out on it, I am doing my best to avoid it as much as lieth within me.

I hope that you aren’t here to please me. That should be a given. However, I know that you are better than petty jabs. My disappointment is geared more towards you not exercising grace to accompany the knowledge that I know you have, rather than expecting you to please me.

As to the bias that you perceive, I’m not sure how to answer that. To the best of my limited ability, I try to be fair and impartial to either side. I may not succeed, but I try.

 

[cnystrom]

Incorrect. He puts circumcision and uncircumcision in the same boat, describing both as profiting nothing.

Galatians 5:2 says to me in the strongest terms not to do it.

However, if you truly believe what you say, that circumcision (and thus torah keeping) profits you nothing, then why are you an advocate? Why not advocate what is profitable?

 

[cnystrom]

Ouch. I have to admit sir that I would have never believed you would ascribe to such beliefs. Am I correct in saying that you believe we do not have to obey any rules of scripture as long as we "know" God and have a circumcised heart?

I struggle to accept that you live your life that way or encourage your children to either. I suspect that you believe quite a few rules laid down by God in the Bible are still applicable and must be obeyed. The argument you just articulated though could be used (and indeed is) by all manner of sinners to justify their lifestyles.

It certainly could. But if that is your takeaway from what I am saying than you are misunderstanding me.

The law is only an approximation of God's will. It is not an exact representation.

Have you not read in Matthew 12 where Jesus tells the story of David and how he ate the consecrated bread? Why did Jesus bring up this story and what did Jesus say about this? He said it was not lawful. God himself is praising David for breaking the law. Somehow David knew that it was OK for him to eat the bread even though it was not lawful. How did David know this? Could it be because David was a man after God's own heart? Could it be that David had a circumcised heart? Could it be that David had a personal relationship with God? I think yes.

What Paul is saying is that we all need to be like David now.

Matthew 12:5-8 "5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Teaching Gentiles to keep the torah is like teaching sacrifice instead of mercy. God desires mercy.

The biggest problem I see with your stance that keeping Torab is a sin is simply that it is never clearly identified as such. We're never told not to do it, dezpite some surprisingly adept logical gymnastics.

I do not think Paul can be any more clear not to do it.

 

[cnystrom]

We can stay in Acts 15 and solve this whole debate. The entire premise of the Council of Jerusalem was that Torah observance was the accepted norm. What was being decided was whether or not there was an alternative that would mot be a roadblock for gentiles. There was never even a question of whether Peter or James or any of the rest of them would continue to follow Torah. It was explicit that they would and even that the Gentiles would have a path to observe it too. The statement explicitly references the continued access of gentile believers to Moses and the prophets. Paul happily agreed with this statement. I am flummoxed at any claim to the contrary.

Acts 15. The issue is clear:

"5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

Peter:

"10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

James:

“19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

The action item turned into a letter which I quote in full:

"The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell."

So I get that the answer to the question "Should the Gentiles be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” is a resounding no. Some friendly advice, yes. But no circumcision and no requirement to keep the law of Moses. And it is not just a Paul thing. Peter and James are onboard, too. Indeed it is the official position of the Apostles as a whole.

I am flumoxed that you see the answer as a reply for Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses. It is nowhere in the letter and seems 180 degrees wrong. That would be going directly against verses 10 and 19.

I should also note that according to the letter the people who were preaching verse 5 "went out from us without our [the apostles] authorization" and "disturbed you" and were "troubling your minds". This letter is clearly not an endorsement of the position in verse 5. Clearly it IS an endorsement of Paul who is referred to as a "dear friend" in verse 25 and we all know his position on the issue. He is the guy who is strongly opposed to the position in verse 5.

 

[cnystrom]

I struggle to accept that you live your life that way or encourage your children to either.

That is actually another excellent example. When your children are young you give them lots of rules and regulations. This protects them and gives them time to learn why you have the rules and regulations. Eventually what you want to teach them is not your rules and regulations. You want to teach them your heart and win their hearts to you.

If you have just taught them your rules and regulations and have not won their heart than you have accomplished nothing.

God is the same.

 

[cnystrom]

I have to admit that all of this seems like very weak sauce. Paul circumcised Timothy to be more acceptable to the sinful dogs? It hardly seems credible that the fearless Paul would cause Timothy so much pain and inject him into so much pain to mollify Godless sinners like that. Be that as it may, I had not seen your Galatians 5 challenge. I will start a new thread and we will hash it out.

Paul never refers to the Jews as "sinful dogs" or "godless sinners". Are you trying to twist my position, or are you ignorant of what Paul said and taught?

You may think it is weak sauce, but the motivation is listed right there in the verse.

I realize that looked at in isolation it seems like a slam dunk for your side but in context it is simply a word of warning to Torah types.

It is not personal. It is not my position against your position. We are all here to learn more about how we can please God. It is important that we keep this in mind.

 

[cnystrom]

Is the law that he is comparing to slavery the Torah, or the laws of the Pharisees?

Which one includes circumcision?

 

[cnystrom]

I'm waiting for my good friends of the opposition party to answer. If they can't, then I'll be happy to address.

Try to remember that we are all on the same team.

Feel free to address whenever you are ready.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Galatians 5:2 says to me in the strongest terms not to do it.

However, if you truly believe what you say, that circumcision (and thus torah keeping) profits you nothing, then why are you an advocate? Why not advocate what is profitable?

Because it puts not doing it, uncircumcision, in the same boat. Which one should I do? Neither are profitable according to Paul. How can you possibly take this verse to mean one is better than the other? They are described the exact same way in tye same sentence.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It certainly could. But if that is your takeaway from what I am saying than you are misunderstanding me.

The law is only an approximation of God's will. It is not an exact representation.

Have you not read in Matthew 12 where Jesus tells the story of David and how he ate the consecrated bread? Why did Jesus bring up this story and what did Jesus say about this? He said it was not lawful. God himself is praising David for breaking the law. Somehow David knew that it was OK for him to eat the bread even though it was not lawful. How did David know this? Could it be because David was a man after God's own heart? Could it be that David had a circumcised heart? Could it be that David had a personal relationship with God? I think yes.

What Paul is saying is that we all need to be like David now.

Matthew 12:5-8 "5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Teaching Gentiles to keep the torah is like teaching sacrifice instead of mercy. God desires mercy.



I do not think Paul can be any more clear not to do it.

The shew bread is an interesting case. We have gone over it extensively in another thread. Basically you can make a great argument that it was Lawful for David and his men to eat the bread because the priest could do whatever he wanted with it AFTER it had been taken off the table. Obviously Jesus said it was unlawful and I don't remember the deep dive on that but this difficult verse is not one to build a theology around.

And telling us to be like David is a bit daft because David kept Torah.

And the priests weren't breaking the Torah when they worked in the Temple on Sabbath. It was Torah for them to do so. They are described as desecrating the Temple not breaking Torah. This speaks deep truths about God and His Word. There is nothing sacred on earth that can trump His Commands.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Acts 15. The issue is clear:

"5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

Peter:

"10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

James:

“19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

The action item turned into a letter which I quote in full:

"The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell."

So I get that the answer to the question "Should the Gentiles be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” is a resounding no. Some friendly advice, yes. But no circumcision and no requirement to keep the law of Moses. And it is not just a Paul thing. Peter and James are onboard, too. Indeed it is the official position of the Apostles as a whole.

I am flumoxed that you see the answer as a reply for Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep the law of Moses. It is nowhere in the letter and seems 180 degrees wrong. That would be going directly against verses 10 and 19.

I should also note that according to the letter the people who were preaching verse 5 "went out from us without our [the apostles] authorization" and "disturbed you" and were "troubling your minds". This letter is clearly not an endorsement of the position in verse 5. Clearly it IS an endorsement of Paul who is referred to as a "dear friend" in verse 25 and we all know his position on the issue. He is the guy who is strongly opposed to the position in verse 5.

Okay, you seem to be completely misunderstanding my stance. I have been quite explicit that I don't believe Torah is a requirement for gentiles. It is not. They can stay right there in that Acts 15 zone and be completely okay. The Apostles were clear, it would be a burden and they didn't want to put that obstacle in front of them. But that clearly leaves open the option of Torah. That's my point.

 

[The Revolting Man]

That is actually another excellent example. When your children are young you give them lots of rules and regulations. This protects them and gives them time to learn why you have the rules and regulations. Eventually what you want to teach them is not your rules and regulations. You want to teach them your heart and win their hearts to you.

If you have just taught them your rules and regulations and have not won their heart than you have accomplished nothing.

God is the same.

Not. I want to teach them the correct way to live. If they "know my heart" then fine but it's not necessary.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Paul never refers to the Jews as "sinful dogs" or "godless sinners". Are you trying to twist my position, or are you ignorant of what Paul said and taught?

You may think it is weak sauce, but the motivation is listed right there in the verse.



It is not personal. It is not my position against your position. We are all here to learn more about how we can please God. It is important that we keep this in mind.

Those insults were in a previous post ajd were directed at all Torah keepers not just Jews. I.believe you may have liked the post if not then I apologize.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Which one includes circumcision?

Both.

 

[windblown]

That is actually another excellent example. When your children are young you give them lots of rules and regulations. This protects them and gives them time to learn why you have the rules and regulations. Eventually what you want to teach them is not your rules and regulations. You want to teach them your heart and win their hearts to you.

If you have just taught them your rules and regulations and have not won their heart than you have accomplished nothing.

God is the same.

So how old are we?

 

[Cap]

So how old are we?

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

 

[Nikud]

Im cross threading here, but the players are the same. Rhetorical Question, If y'all believe that keeping Torah is a false doctrine then why would you want us who keep Torah to come to retreats and fellowship with you?

The only answer I come up with is that you want to teach my family your ways and undercut my authority to lead my family as God shows me. It's not to fellowship with other beleivers who understand that Polygyny is not a sin, because if we're living by ,what you consider a false doctrine, then we're not beleivers.

Read the Son of Man, messianic, prophecies in Eziekiel. Eziekiel 44 he speaks of the what the preisthood under Yeshua is suppose to be like, pay close attention to the part about uncircumcised foreigners that Israel let in and the role they play in service to Him.

Be a Berean. Take what Yeshua and the Apostles taught, what Paul says in his letters specifically and test it against the The old Testament. Time consuming I know, but if you have time to watch tv, read a book, chat with friends, compose a half cocked arguement on a forum or what ever you for entertainment then you have time to actually take a hard look at His word.

If people actually took the time to read and understand the prophets and Torah, each of the 4 parts that comprise the Torah, what applies to whom, there would be no arguement. Most of the anti-Torah crowd beleived there are 613 laws given in Torah. They don't know the difference between Rabinical teachings and what God gave.

But it's easier to obey the Roman overlords who passed down the teachings such as Polygyny is a sin, the Hellenistic Jesus, who abhored all things Jewish, was born on Jupiter birth day and was resurrected on the day Ishtar was resurected, mans authority is what's matters not the anointing of God when it comes to obedience, the law is simply gone do as you see right in your eyes as long as you obey our doctrines.

 

[Cap]

Im cross threading here, but the players are the same. Rhetorical Question, If y'all believe that keeping Torah is a false doctrine then why would you want us who keep Torah to come to retreats and fellowship with you?

The only answer I come up with is that you want to teach my family your ways and undercut my authority to lead my family as God shows me. It's not to fellowship with other beleivers who understand that Polygyny is not a sin, because if we're living by ,what you consider a false doctrine, then we're not beleivers.

Also I have a hard time taking serious any argument from certain men who have proven that they themselves don't practice what they preach. This is not a comment directed at everyone who opposes Torah but a couple.

Example:

If you have ever said on the forum that a divorced woman is forbiden to marry yet then asked a divorced woman with kids to marry you, afterwards then at best your being hypocritical, at worst your teaching things you dont beleive. Either way a man who's statements should not be given weight.

Read the Son of Man, messianic, prophecies in Eziekiel. Eziekiel 44 he speaks of the what the preisthood under Yeshua is suppose to be like, pay close attention to the part about uncircumcised foreigners that Israel let in and the role they play in service to Him.

Be a Berean. Take what Yeshua and the Apostles taught, what Paul says in his letters specifically and test it against the The old Testament. Time consuming I know, but if you have time to watch tv, read a book, chat with friends, compose a half cocked arguement on a forum or what ever you for entertainment then you have time to actually take a hard look at His word.

If people actually took the time to read and understand the prophets and Torah, each of the 4 parts that comprise the Torah, what applies to whom, there would be no arguement. Most of the anti-Torah crowd beleived there are 613 laws given in Torah. They don't know the difference between Rabinical teachings and what God gave.

But it's easier to obey the Roman overlords who passed down the teachings such as Polygyny is a sin, the Hellenistic Jesus, who abhored all things Jewish, was born on Jupiter birth day and was resurrected on the day Ishtar was resurected, mans authority is what's matters not the anointing of God when it comes to obedience, the law is simply gone do as you see right in your eyes as long as you obey our doctrines.

I don't think anyone has said keeping Torah is a false doctrine. Only thing I know that has been said, including myself, is that observing Torah physically may not be for everyone, there is another group of believers who believe loving God can be done another way. But that in no way says one or the other is wrong. I think the idea is the two groups trying to find a way to coexist, especially when we come together on something we do agree on, plural marriage.

It just means we have to accept and respect each other without trying to force anyone into 'thier' belief and leave that up to God.

I have met you Kevin at one of these retreats. My wife and I had some of your home made hummus which was pretty good. I hope if I was eating a serving of pork chops you would have still offered me some. But, out of respect for you I hope you don't mind me not offering you something of what I am eating. And we could still pray for each other's families and know that God heard us, and probably smiled seeing His children of different personalities got along.