A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:

[RichardBurger]

A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews?

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Galatians 5:3-6
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.

But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.

The Plot to Appease the believing Jews:

We also see that the plot to have Paul participate in Jewish rituals was not allowed to be completed by God since it all came to naught. God was not going to let Paul go back under the Law and be a hypocrite.

Acts 21:26-27
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
27 And when the seven days were “””almost ended,”” the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,
(NKJ) --------------- almost ended is not is not the same as ended.

Since the Jews rejected the gospel of the Kingdom in which Jesus was to sit on the throne of David, why would anyone want to say we are to be saved under that same gospel? None of the Jewish covenants were made to the Gentiles.

Peter and Paul both preached Jesus. However, Peter preached Jesus after His prophetic revelation, and Paul preached Jesus according to His mystery revelation. Both preached Jesus crucified.

----- However, Peter preached it as a curse, and something to be repented of (Acts 3:13-19)
----- But Paul gloried in the cross (Gal.6:14).

Both Peter and Paul preached Christ resurrected. Both preached salvation by faith, but Peter preached faith plus (+) works ("and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him") (Acts 10:34); James 2:21,22. ------ But Paul preached FAITH ALONE. --- Peter preached "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38), where as Paul preached, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved..." (Acts 16:29).

Peter in the Gospels preached "the kingdom at hand," whereas Paul preached "the gospel of the grace of God," according to the revelation of the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began. Peter's preaching was circumcision - Law, Paul's preaching was un-circumcision - grace (no law); two opposing doctrines, and both commissioned by Jesus. Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they (the disciples) saw that the gospel of the un-circumcision (grace) was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision (law) was unto Peter."

The twelve were commissioned "...to go to all the world..." (Mark 16:15), however in Galatians 2:9 they agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision. Why, when their commission was "to all the world"?

To those that study the scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint, there is a difference in the gospel of the Kingdom, as taught by Jesus and the 12, and what Paul taught. ----
The gospel of the kingdom did not rescind the Law of Moses. It fulfilled it. However the Jews, to whom the covenant was made, rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. They rejected Him as their king along with His Jewish church.

Some call this the "two gospel" idea. But it is a fact that in Acts 21:20-21 we see James (the brother of Jesus) and the elders, in Jerusalem, are still teaching the gospel of the kingdom, which included the Law of Moses. They are not teaching the gospel of God's grace as Paul taught it. As a matter of fact in James 2:24, James is still saying that we are JUSTIFIED by our works as well as our faith. He is not saying the same thing Paul said; that we are justified (saved) by faith without works.

 

[thisistheendtimes]

Richard Burger,

Acts 28 mentions a sect called the "Nazarenes" and Acts 24 mentions a "sect".

The Lord mentions a "shaking" of His church ("the heaven", Hebrews 12:27)......I think that is happening now that we are opening our eyes to many things more than ever before.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

Bookstore dictionaries need to be VERY USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE in order to move off the bookshelves and encourage repeat business, so they will ALWAYS have some kind of answer as to how a word can be used in conversation (they will always provide MEANINGS of words even when they can't find a DEFINITION). Wikipedia doesn't really need to worry about repeat business, so even though wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it shows flat out that there is no "DEFINITION" of the word "PERDITION" (offhand, in NO MODERN well known standard language) EVER in history.

....BUT, go back 19 centuries and you'll find that Paul spoke against it. It would seem that the god of confusion and secret societies (Jesuits, Masons, etc.) have managed to bury this word in obscurity for 19 centuries because the concept is so contrary to their goals (lest the people start to discover TRUTH).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition

http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/06/heresy-schmeresy-how-choice-of-sect.html

................knjdv has the most info I could find out so far (I don't know what "knjdv" stands for).

 

[RichardBurger]

Richard Burger,

Acts 28 mentions a sect called the "Nazarenes" and Acts 24 mentions a "sect".

The Lord mentions a "shaking" of His church ("the heaven", Hebrews 12:27)......I think that is happening now that we are opening our eyes to many things more than ever before.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch

Bookstore dictionaries need to be VERY USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE in order to move off the bookshelves and encourage repeat business, so they will ALWAYS have some kind of answer as to how a word can be used in conversation (they will always provide MEANINGS of words even when they can't find a DEFINITION). Wikipedia doesn't really need to worry about repeat business, so even though wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it shows flat out that there is no "DEFINITION" of the word "PERDITION" (offhand, in NO MODERN well known standard language) EVER in history.

....BUT, go back 19 centuries and you'll find that Paul spoke against it. It would seem that the god of confusion and secret societies (Jesuits, Masons, etc.) have managed to bury this word in obscurity for 19 centuries because the concept is so contrary to their goals (lest the people start to discover TRUTH).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition

http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2011/06/heresy-schmeresy-how-choice-of-sect.html

................knjdv has the most info I could find out so far (I don't know what "knjdv" stands for).

Do you agree that if James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul taught, the Jews would have been angry at them too???

 

[veteran]

A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews?

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Actually, Paul did not forsake what Moses taught...

Acts 24:13-15
13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
(KJV)


Acts 26:21-23
21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
(KJV)

Acts 28:23
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
(KJV)

The main difference was that Paul knew the OT Scripture and prophecy that Christ Jesus would come, and that being written of through Moses and the OT prophets. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes instead rejected the Scripture evidence in favor of using God's Word as a spring-board for their man-made religious traditions, what Paul called "the Jew's religion".


Apostle Paul had Timotheus circumcised...

Acts 16:1-3
1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
(KJV)

That was done NOT as a requirement of Salvation, but as an appeasement for better acceptance among the Jewish brethren. It was by no means a justification for Salvation.

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

IF one keeps reading in Acts 21, they'll discover more than what you posted...

Acts 21:23-26
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
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.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
(KJV)

The matter of what the Gentiles were to follow was settled back at Acts 15 when Paul visited his Jewish brethren at Jerusalem. Does that REVEAL a separation in The Gospel of Jesus Christ of believing Jews from believing Gentiles? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What KIND of separation is it then, if it be one? A separation concerning PEOPLES' CUSTOMS that are neither for, nor against Christ's Salvation. How do I mean that exactly?

Someone in India that believes on Christ Jesus unto Salvation will STILL have CUSTOMS among their people WHICH ARE NOT AGAINST CHRIST. Those customs might involve how they dress, type homes they build, many things. Even we Americans have customs that many other nations do not follow, which do not go against Christ Jesus. Likewise do the Jews.

HOWEVER, IF... a custom is used to supplant Christ's Salvation, like idol worship, drinking of blood, fornication, etc., then THAT is a completely different matter, and is strongly against Christ Jesus and His Salvation, regardless of what people and country.

Was Paul's taking the vow of a Nazarite a custom against Christ Jesus? Can't find anywhere in God's Word that says it is.

Is eating or not eating foods outside God's law against Christ's Salvation? No, but our body won't be as healthy if we do eat outside God's list of foods He created to be received.

Is incest against Christ Jesus? YES; it involves fornication, and Paul preached against it strongly.

Is homosexuality against Christ Jesus? Yes again; Paul preached against that also.

Actually, Paul preached per New Testament Doctrine MANY THINGS that were first written in God's laws. And he preached those things to Gentile believers...

Rom 1:22-32
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(KJV)


Gal 5:16-25
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
(KJV)

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Anyone that can read the Romans and Galatians Scriptures above ought to easily be able to know that Apostle Paul taught a lot of 'don't do's' from God's laws. And THAT he did when preaching to GENTILES in Romans and Galatians. The Books of Romans and Galatians are Christian foundational doctrinal Books.

So the REAL question is, why did Apostle Paul preach that from God's laws to GENTILES, if what you say is true?

NOWHERE did James preach Christ's Salvation was dependent upon following the law.


Who said this?...

1 ."But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

And this?

2. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

And this?

3. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

And this?

4. "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."



ANS: (1. James; 2. Paul; 3. Paul; 4. Peter)

 

[RichardBurger]

The conversation in Acts 21 plainly shows that James and the Elders were not teaching the same thing that Paul was reaching. IF THEY WERE THE JEWS WOULD HAVE BEEN MAD AT THEM TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[thisistheendtimes]

Whenever people have a disagreement, it is about subjective/biased "truth" being preferred over OBJECTIVE truth (there really can be no disagreement/debate about OBJECTIVE truth). Subjective truth is all about "partisanship" (wanting to follow procedures and protocol). So, of course tempers flared and people were mad at each other for many reasons, but The Lord says that we should not be factiuos (creating factions, divisions), so I imagine that is why Paul 'bowed out' without making a big deal of this.

In general, humanity's intention is to glorify MAN, not GOD ONLY, this is the wall of darkness....PARTISANSHIP.....

Phillipians 1:17
"the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely".

Fortunately, we now have forums like this so we can BECOME "AWARE" and break through this "wall of darkness" that we were "fed"/taught. God designed scripture so that it would always be available for us to LEARN from without being TAUGHT/fed/led by unscrupulous man (you cannot serve God AND mammon).

God had Pilate say "What is TRUTH?". The OBJECTIVE truth was that Jesus was innocent, but SUBJECTIVE truth became the order of the day. Jesus came in the "fulness of time" (the completion/end of time). This is the age of ETERNITY and "the life" is found only IN JESUS (no more mere "existence" IN JESUS).

Ephesians 1:10
"as a plan for the fulness of time".

"I am THE WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE...".

...but also neither is there any such thing in eternity as "FUTURE" (such as the "strong delusion"). The strong delusion has always been around (Ezekliel 14:3) and God said that HE would answer HIMSELF those who keep idols in their HEARTS (were James and the elders part of God's answer that was sent with "ALL WICKED DECEPTION"?, 2 Thessalonians 2:6).

Anyway,....

Acts 9:15
"he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings AND THE SONS OF ISRAEL".

This is what Jesus said about Paul's SPECIFIC mission. At a quick glance, you can see that at the very least James and the elders violated the leadership and decisions of Paul.

 

[veteran]

The conversation in Acts 21 plainly shows that James and the Elders were not teaching the same thing that Paul was reaching. IF THEY WERE THE JEWS WOULD HAVE BEEN MAD AT THEM TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't personally know any Messianic Jew that depends upon their Salvation by following the law. Instead, that's what orthodox Judaism does which still refuses God's Promised Saviour Jesus Christ.

So is it OK for Messianic Jews to still hold to many of their customs which just so happen to align with God's laws? Yes.

What about us Gentiles? Yes, we can abide by God's laws too if we want, as long as we don't put it in place of Christ's Salvation, being that none can be justified or sanctified by following the law.

The sect you're listening to simply show a hatred of God's laws period, when the history of True Christianity very much has been active in following many of God's laws; that's what the old 'Blue laws' in the Christian west were about, and it's still what The Ten Commandments is about today. The justice system of the United States of America was founded upon many of God's laws from The Bible.


Apostle Paul didn't hate God's laws. He well knew how God's laws fit into perspective to point out sin...

Rom 7:7-14
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, 'Thou shalt not covet.'
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
(KJV)


Apostle Paul speaking to Timothy...

1 Tim 1:9-11
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

Does that sound like Apostle Paul saying God's law no longer exists? Of course not, for he is actually teaching Timothy for what purpose God's law is for, to point out sin, and as an equalizer against the unrighteous and rebellious. This is why Paul taught in Galatians 5 that IF we walk by The Spirit, then we are not under the law.


Even the Apostle John well understood this matter, and he aligned exactly with what Apostle Paul taught about God's law...

I Jn 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
(KJV)


The trap you've fallen into is with false prophets that want to remove God's laws from among His people so they can wear out the saints, which is an endtime prophecy about the working of the antichrist...

Dan 7:24-26
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
(KJV)

How can I say all this about Christianity in relation to God's laws, me being a Gentile Protestant Christian, even with French ancestors that were French Huguenots in 16th century Europe? It's because of those who want to remove the protection God's laws provide in Christian society, and instead promote the walk of the unrighteous, the profane, the unholy, murderers, adulterers, fornicators, i.e., that list which Apostle Paul said to Timothy.

I even remember reading an article on Worldnetdaily of how guides at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. are being trained to tell people when they see images of Moses holding a tablet of The Ten Commandments at places like the Supreme Court building, to say that is not Moses, but some other man, and those are not The Ten Commandment tablets he's holding.

 

[thisistheendtimes]

In the RSV, Daniel 7:25 is worded slightly different, but enough to mention....

Daniel 7:25......in the RSV...
"He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time".

The KJV verse below is a direct copy and paste from the blueletterbible website. Bible translators have always taken many liberties in translating from the manuscripts by using the words that THEY feel are best (example......you'll notice that the fifth word (in brackets) was CHOSEN by the translators).

So, understanding that the translators have chosen to use their own wording, it is likely that the KJV word "UNTIL" is wrong and all the reference "dividing of time".

Daniel 7:25....in the KJV....
"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the DIVIDING OF TIME".

The King James Version of scripture was written for the CHURCH OF ENGLAND (lutheran, to my understanding it today includes Episcopal).

To my knowledge, the Jews NEVER celebrated "EASTER", but the KJV in Acts 12:42 has the Jews celebrating EASTER instead of PASSOVER (am I wrong about the Jews not celebrating EASTER?)....any great KJV scholar is welcome to prove to me that the Jews really did celebrate EASTER....ANY TAKERS?......or..will you very conveniently avoid this verse and the whole topic of KJV inerrancy (let's see how it turns out).

Most people do not agree on the "LAWS" (plural) that need to observed. Some say there TEN, some say 613 or so (either which way, the understanding is that there are MULTIPLE "laws" to be observed). So then, I guess this verse means NOTHING...

Romans 13:9
"and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

...and this one about the old devotional law concerning rules/ordinances and commandments....

Ephesians 2:15
"by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances".

.....and I suppose the PERFECT LAW (the law of liberty) should also be ignored (it doesn't sound to me like an OPTION)...

James 1:25
"But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty...".

James 2:12
"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty"........(it seems very clear to me).

Of course it's always been FUN to be known as a GREAT LAWKEEPER, and a GREAT SCHOLAR/BOOKMASTER, and a GREAT "FOLLOWER" of "MAN". For centuries, believers have ENJOYED learning about the three manifestations of God AS THOUGH THE SIXTH DAY CREATION should be glorified instead of GOD ONLY (where do I get such crazy ideas about what 666 means??...perhaps COMMON SENSE!).

....as you can see, even an ANGEL told John.....

Revelation 22:9
"YOU MUST NOT DO THAT".

Well, apparently, God should have done a little more research and consulting with all the great intellectuals and 'WISDOM keepers' of this world (Proverbs "Get UNDERSTANDING") before publishing His book, but before you chew God out, maybe you can find it in your heart to FORGIVE Him, you see, God is not a scholar, God is LOVE.

Of course, that SINGULAR command that is "summed up" is also shown as TWO commands in Mark 12:30 and 31 because we are told THE METHOD of loving God....LEAVING NO ROOM FOR "FEAR".....and.....

.....that we should also care about other people ONLY as much as we care about OURSELF (in other words, we should not "glorify"/revere MAN, but GOD ONLY).

 

[veteran]

In the RSV, Daniel 7:25 is worded slightly different, but enough to mention....

Daniel 7:25......in the RSV...
"He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time".

The KJV verse below is a direct copy and paste from the blueletterbible website. Bible translators have always taken many liberties in translating from the manuscripts by using the words that THEY feel are best (example......you'll notice that the fifth word (in brackets) was CHOSEN by the translators).

So, understanding that the translators have chosen to use their own wording, it is likely that the KJV word "UNTIL" is wrong and all the reference "dividing of time".

Daniel 7:25....in the KJV....
"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the DIVIDING OF TIME".

The KJV phrase "and the dividing of" is one Hebrew word, 'pelag' (Strong's no. 6387), and means 'half'. The KJV word "great" in that verse is not in the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the KJV translators did not change the verse meaning by any of that. In ALL translations, you'll find differences like those, more in some versions that with others. And some versions leave whole sections out that are contained in the manuscripts.

The King James Version of scripture was written for the CHURCH OF ENGLAND (lutheran, to my understanding it today includes Episcopal).

Wrong. It was written FOR the English speaking peoples. If the Church Of England had had their way back then, there wouldn't have been a translation done at all, especially not one for the common man to get their hands on. King James, Defender Of The Faith, made it happen, and the Roman Church didn't like the idea of the people having reading access to God's Word. So really in essence, it was a Work of God through... King James and the translators. There were miraculous events that took place through the translators during the process, showing God's Hand directly in it.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DEBATES ON BIBLE VERSIONS ANYWAY.

To my knowledge, the Jews NEVER celebrated "EASTER", but the KJV in Acts 12:42 has the Jews celebrating EASTER instead of PASSOVER (am I wrong about the Jews not celebrating EASTER?)....any great KJV scholar is welcome to prove to me that the Jews really did celebrate EASTER....ANY TAKERS?......or..will you very conveniently avoid this verse and the whole topic of KJV inerrancy (let's see how it turns out).

It's true the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 was added in the KJV, for it is Greek 'pascha' in the manuscripts meaning 'passover'. It was added because of the inherited Roman Church tradition that supplanted pagan Easter for the time of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. It shouldn't be associated with Christ in my opinion, and it shows how some of God's people create their own traditions. But show me any other English Bible translation, and if I can show just one error in them, then we're back to square one with your argument. I don't think you would want to take that challenge, simply because there's even disagreement between scholars within various Bible manuscripts in the original languages. One could debate that matter forever and not get anywhere.

Most people do not agree on the "LAWS" (plural) that need to observed. Some say there TEN, some say 613 or so (either which way, the understanding is that there are MULTIPLE "laws" to be observed). So then, I guess this verse means NOTHING...

Romans 13:9
"and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

...and this one about the old devotional law concerning rules/ordinances and commandments....

Ephesians 2:15
"by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances".

My KJV Bible reads a bit differently...

Eph 2:15
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
(KJV)

We can leave out the word "contained" for it's not in the Greek, but 'en' ("in") is in the Greek. The actual Greek phrase is 'entole en dogma' (commandments in ordinances). It does not mean 'commandments' as a whole. It means 'commandments within ordinances', which is why the KJV translators added the word "contained" to make that more clear just WHICH commandments are meant.

What's the difference? To love thy neighbor as thyself is a commandment. Thou shalt not murder is a commandment.

But that you must sacrifice a lamb, or a dove, or follow the Old Covenant ritual of the Levitical priesthood involving blood ordinances and ceremonial practices, those are commandments within ordinances that Jesus nailed to His cross.

This is why Apostle Paul taught it is still wrong to do adultery, murder, fornication, thefts, man laying with man, or woman with woman, incest, coveting, envying, etc. (Romans 1; Galatians 5). All those things were given as don'ts from God's laws. The Holy Spirit is given to the Christian believer to help in that, for that's what the writing of God's laws in our hearts and minds per His New Covenant through Christ Jesus is about (Heb.8 & 10).

The rest of your post is nothing but confusion, has no edification in it at all for believing Christians. I am not preaching justification by following the law. We are saved only by Christ's Blood shed on the cross.

But will I sit back and allow the children of the devil to have their way in preaching their lies that God's laws no longer exist, just so they can try and change the law which has protected Christian society since Christ died on the cross? No, I won't sit back and allow them to destroy God's people with their hippie dope-smoking nonsense of liberalism put for the liberty in Christ Jesus which only comes by following His commandments.

 

[thisistheendtimes]

This is the standard excuse for a lot of things 'religionized' believers aren't willing to accept.

"The rest of your post is nothing but confusion...." (this excuse seems to come in handy VERY OFTEN).

Yeah, most traditional "Christians" like to avoid that "perfect law" stuff, but you muffed the opportunity to play intellectual on that one. Most believers just claim that "perfect law" means something else,....you know, all the 'yada yada' rationalization referring to another verse that is similar to another one, and, "then therefore, it is kinda like almost", etc.,).

Their fear of the truth validates truth's power, so, actually, I should thank you for validating what I wrote.

The worst issue for them would be to take seriously the "Incident at Antioch" and fully address that (wait, I spoke too soon)....THE WORST for them would be to have to face the fact that Paul was "OF THE WAY" (even in a thread about it).