IF YOU ONLY FOLLOW JESUS THEN YOU MUST KEEP THE LAW

[Soyeong]

No. In fact, Paul clearly distinguishes between following Judaism and following Christ, in his letters. But even the 1st century Judaism pre-70AD was a totally different thing than today's Judaism, and your "Judaism" is not even recognized as Judaism by today's Jews etc. So this term is also frequently misleading.

In Acts 24:14, Paul testified that according to The Way, which they call a sect, he continued to worship the God of their fathers, believing everything laid by by the Torah and written in the Prophets, and the religion that The Way is a sect of is Judaism, so he did not distinguish between Judaism and followers of Christ.

The way that Judaism is practiced with the Temple is not the same as the way that it is practiced without the Temple, but that does not mean that it is a different religion. There are Jews who do recognize my Judaism, so it is not misleading.

We can agree that the label "Christian" on your profile is misleading, at least. It is also misleading when used by people who do not believe that Jesus is God, who believe that there are three Gods and similar.

This creates the chaos in "Christians Only" Bible forums I already mentioned. I would guess about half of the participants here would not qualify as being orthodox Christians as defined by the ecumenical creeds, based on their posts.

I identify as Christian because I am a follower of Christ and it is more accurate than not identifying as a Christian. Everyone who is a follower of Christ should be permitted to post in the "Christians Only" forums. I believe that Jesus is God, not three Gods.

Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he spent his ministry teaching how to practice Judaism by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so when you reject his example and do not even consider Christians to be practicing the same religion that Christ practiced, then you do give some legitimacy to those followers of Christ who do practice the religion that he practiced who do not want to identify as Christians.

 

[shepherdsword]

The Gospel that Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed calls for obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Acts 15:5. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is in accordance with Acts 15:11 and 15:5.

Acts 15 proves that the gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses

The only two verses that use the word "saved" in Acts 15 are 15:1 and 15:11, so why do you think that it absurd to think that the ruling in 15:11 in regard to the way to be saved is addressing the position stated in 15:1 in regard to the way to be saved?

Sheesh...man your reasoning is faulty.
Acts 15:1 Says that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved.
Acts 15:11 Says they believed that they would be saved by grace, even as they.(Cornelius' house)
The "They" in 16:11 were the gentiles that were saved in Cornelius' house

Please study syntax and grammar. It's important to understand if you want to understand, much less teach, the scripture.

 

[Wick Stick]

The Torah did not become lost during the reign of David. Things were certainly passed down orally regardless of when they were written down and losing the scrolls did not mean that there was no one who was following the Torah.

You're probably right. The fact that David refers to "the Law" probably means that it was lost sometime after his reign. But it WAS lost. And later found... the Bible says so...

2Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD. 10 And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, 13 Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great [is] the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

It is likely that the "book of the Law" in David's day, was only the book of Deuteronomy, and didn't include Genesis - Numbers. I can expand on that reasoning if you like... but I don't assume that you want that.... most don't.

 

[Soyeong]

You're probably right. The fact that David refers to "the Law" probably means that it was lost sometime after his reign. But it WAS lost. And later found... the Bible says so...

2Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. 9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD. 10 And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, 13 Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great [is] the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

It is likely that the "book of the Law" in David's day, was only the book of Deuteronomy, and didn't include Genesis - Numbers. I can expand on that reasoning if you like... but I don't assume that you want that.... most don't.

The issue of what was available in written form is not the same as the issue of what was being transmitted orally.

 

[Soyeong]

Acts 15 proves that the gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses

Please interact with what I said rather than just insisting that you are right. The fact that Peter affirmed that Gentiles hard heard and believed a the Gospel that calls for obedience to the Law of Moses is the opposite of proving that Gentiles did not need to obey it.

Sheesh...man your reasoning is faulty.
Acts 15:1 Says that unless they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved.
Acts 15:11 Says they believed that they would be saved by grace, even as they.(Cornelius' house)
The "They" in 16:11 were the gentiles that were saved in Cornelius' house

Please study syntax and grammar. It's important to understand if you want to understand, much less teach, the scripture.

Indeed, Peter arguing in Acts 15:11 that the Gentiles of Cornelius' house were are saved by grace just as we are counters the position of the men from Judea in Acts 15:1 who wanted to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved.

 

[shepherdsword]

Please interact with what I said rather than just insisting that you are right. The fact that Peter affirmed that Gentiles hard heard and believed a the Gospel that calls for obedience to the Law of Moses is the opposite of proving that Gentiles did not need to obey it.

I have posted the reasons numerous times. The gentiles DID hear a false gospel message that claimed they had to keep the law of Moses. It was the same false gospel Paul rebuked the Galatians for receiving. Peter corrected that false message in Acts 15:5 with the true gospel in 15:11, just as Paul corrected the same heresy in Galatians

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Indeed, Peter arguing in Acts 15:11 that the Gentiles of Cornelius' house were are saved by grace just as we are counters the position of the men from Judea in Acts 15:1 who wanted to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved.

Acts 15:11 also refers to Acts 15:5. This is easy to determine by last mention.

Goodbye

 

[Soyeong]

I have posted the reasons numerous times. The gentiles DID hear a false gospel message that claimed they had to keep the law of Moses. It was the same false gospel Paul rebuked the Galatians for receiving. Peter corrected that false message in Acts 15:5 with the true gospel in 15:11, just as Paul corrected the same heresy in Galatians

You have quoted from ActIs 15 numerous times and you have insisted that you a right numbers times, but you have not interacted with what I've said about Acts 15 in order to explain why you think it is wrong.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Law of Moses (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23), so you should not interpreted Galatians in a way that turns is against the Gospel that Jesus and Paul taught. Everything that Peter said in Acts 15:6-11 was in accordance with Acts 15:5, so he was not correcting it, but rather he was correcting an incorrect means of salvation in Acts 15:1.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to the Mosaic Law all throughout the Bible, and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message, so it would be absurd to interpret that verses as Paul warning against obeying God and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so you think that Paul warned against obeying God, then you should obey God rather than Paul.

 

[Wick Stick]

The issue of what was available in written form is not the same as the issue of what was being transmitted orally.

The idea of oral transmission is mostly a fiction. Israel had scribes even during the Exodus.

 

[shepherdsword]

You have quoted from ActIs 15 numerous times and you have insisted that you a right numbers times, but you have not interacted with what I've said about Acts 15 in order to explain why you think it is wrong.

Why do you keep claiming this? I have explained it several times. It's pointless to post it again since you ignore it.

 

[Soyeong]

Why do you keep claiming this? I have explained it several times. It's pointless to post it again since you ignore it.

If it is true that the Gospel calls Gentiles to obey the Law of Moses as I've argued it does (Matthew 4:15-23), then Peter arguing in Acts 15:6-7 that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel is in accordance with Acts 15:5. If it is true that the Spirit has the role of circumcising our hearts and leading us to obey the Law of Moses as I've argued it does (Ezekiel 36:26-27), then Peter arguing in Acts 15:18-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed is accordance with Act 15:5. If it is true that salvation by grace through faith involves God graciously teaching us to obey the Law of Moses as I've argued it does (Psalms 119:29-30), the Peter arguing in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are is in accordance with Acts 15:5. You won't acknowledge the logic of my position and you won't interact with the three arguments that I gave to try to challenge them, but rather you'll just quote the verses from the passage and insist that mean that Peter was arguing against Acts 15:5. Moreover, you also won't even acknowledge the major flaws that I've raised with your interpretation, such as with it being in direct disagreement with God saying that His law is not too difficult for us to obey.

 

[JLB]

Did Paul teach circumcision? Yes.

False

 

[Soyeong]

False

Paul taught against circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he was a servant of God, so he did not speak against circumcision for the reasons that God commanded it.

 

[Button]

Paul taught against circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he was a servant of God, so he did not speak against circumcision for the reasons that God commanded it.

True. Paul had no problem with Jewish Christians being circumcised according to the covenant.