Hello, Pavel Mosko. How are you all? We are well. This OP caught my attention. In
Jude 3 KJV, thank you for sharing. Love always, Walter and Debbie
Jude 3 KJV at DuckDuckGo.
Love, Walter and Debbie
Hi! Interesting things took off a long time after posting the thread. My rabbi friend gave up trying to defend his position. In honesty I don't think it is very defensible for several Biblical, Logical and Historical reasons. I think on his end, he believes the position is valid from the text itself. Basically "that the Hebrew" implies it, if you read the New Testament Greek through the Old Hebrew. But this kind of notion does not hold up well to scrutiny. Not if you do word studies of the Bible, and there are other problems with it to. Like one of the major proponents is a Messianic Jew named Andrew Gabriel Roth who has been behind the Aramaic Primacy movement of the New Testament. That movement got started by Assyrian Bible Scholar George Lamsa based on the Assyrian Peshitta New Testament and the folk wisdom behind it as well as more modern ideas of literary criticism that might work well studying the sacred texts of other world religions but do not hold up to the unique details of Christianity and how the received New Testament writings were composed and circulated in the Greco-Roman World. I did come up with a summary argument against the basic position, which is as follows.
The claim that Acts 15 gives Gentiles a "Torah starter pack" (with full Law of Moses observance expected later via synagogue teaching in v. 21) is weak on multiple fronts. Here's a structured deep dive drawing from plain scriptural reading, epistolary context, historical witness, and the Judaizer controversies.
1. Plain Reading of Acts 15 and the Epistles
Context: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29) addressed whether Gentile believers must be circumcised “according to the custom of Moses” and keep the full Law of Moses to be saved (vv. 1, 5). This was fundamentally a salvation and fellowship issue.
The Decision:
Peter: God gave Gentiles the Holy Spirit without distinction. Imposing the “yoke” of Torah would test God, since even Jews had not been able to bear it fully (vv. 8-11).
James: Quotes Amos 9 about Gentiles called by God’s name; therefore, “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” beyond four prohibitions (idols, sexual immorality, strangled things, and blood — vv. 19-20).
The Letter (vv. 23-29): “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements.” “If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”
Key Observations:
No mention of Sabbath, feasts, kosher diet (beyond the four), circumcision, or any progressive Torah learning as mandatory.
Acts 15:21 (“Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath”) is explanatory, not prescriptive. It explains why these four suffice: Gentiles already in or near synagogues would regularly hear the moral basics. It does not command eventual full Torah adoption.
The “starter pack” view imports an idea absent from the text. A plain reading shows genuine relief from the full Mosaic burden for Gentiles.
Broader Epistles reinforce this:
Galatians: Paul calls adding circumcision/Law a “different gospel” (1:6-9). “If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you… you who would be justified by the law are severed from Christ” (5:2-4). The Law was a guardian until Christ (3:23-25); now we live by faith.
Romans: “You are not under law but under grace” (6:14); “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (10:4).
Colossians 2:16-17: “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
Paul addresses Jewish calendar and dietary observances directly. When he wrote (mid-50s to early 60s AD), there were no distinctly “Christian” holidays — Christmas, Easter, and other Church feasts developed two to three centuries later. The language mirrors Torah appointed times (Leviticus 23). He tells Gentile believers not to let anyone judge them for not keeping these observances.
Hebrews: The old covenant is obsolete (8:13); the new is superior.
If full Torah observance was the expected endgame for Gentiles, the apostles missed every clear opportunity to say so.
2. Epistles’ Coverage of Sin, Flesh, and Omitted Torah Requirements
Galatians 5:19-23 lists works of the flesh versus fruit of the Spirit — covering sexual immorality, idolatry, and many other moral issues — but frames the solution under the Spirit, not “keep Moses.” Paul explicitly says, “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (5:18).
If Torah-keeping were required for Gentiles long-term:
Why the complete absence of exhortations to keep the Sabbath, dietary laws, feasts, or circumcision (except warnings against it for justification)?
Paul tackles real controversies (meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8–10; calendar days in Rom 14) but treats them as matters of conscience and liberty, not binding commands.
The epistles emphasize love, Spirit-led living, and New Covenant ethics — not Sinai covenant specifics for all believers.
3. Historical Witness of the Church
Early church history overwhelmingly rejects mandatory Torah observance for Gentiles after Acts 15.
Early Fathers (Ignatius ~110 AD, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) consistently viewed Sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws as shadows fulfilled in Christ or specific to Israel.
No widespread Gentile Torah observance in the 2nd–4th centuries. The dominant trajectory was freedom from Mosaic ceremonial and civil aspects.
If the apostles intended progressive full Torah adoption, the early church — much closer to the events — universally missed it. This carries significant weight against the “starter pack” interpretation.
4. The Judaizers and the Shoe on the Other Foot
The Judaizers were largely converted Pharisees (Acts 15:5) who insisted Gentiles must become fully Jewish (circumcision + Law observance) for complete acceptance and salvation — exactly what the Council rejected.
Paul’s strongest response is in Galatians, calling it “another gospel.” He also warns in Philippians 3:2-3 against “the dogs… evil workers… those who mutilate the flesh.”
The shoe on the other foot: The core position of modern Torah-keeping advocates for Gentiles — that full Law of Moses observance (or substantial portions of it) is expected for mature obedience and fellowship — is functionally the same as the ancient Judaizers, even if today’s versions often differ on Oral Torah or specific rabbinic traditions.
The apostles did not respond with “start with these four things and gradually grow into full Sinai covenant living.” They declared freedom from the yoke for Gentile believers while allowing Jewish believers to maintain their customs voluntarily (e.g., Paul circumcising Timothy for mission, or taking a vow himself). The New Covenant creates “one new man” (Eph 2) without requiring Gentiles to adopt Jewish boundary markers.
Summary
The “Torah starter pack + learn the rest later through synagogue teaching” view requires reading into Acts 15:21 while ignoring the Council’s explicit “no greater burden” language, Peter’s strong warning about the yoke, and the apostles’ unified letter. It clashes with Paul’s clear teaching, the early church’s consistent witness, and the very controversies the apostles confronted.
Torah remains God-breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16), revealing God’s character and redemptive plan — fulfilled in Christ. But requiring it as a covenant obligation for Gentile believers today revives the burden the apostles and the Holy Spirit lifted. Faith working through love (Gal 5:6) is the New Covenant standard.
This approach preserves unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ without erasing distinctions or imposing shadows as requirements.
This presentation largely ended the discussion except it did pick up again for a few days from him not liking me share this video from the "Biblical Roots Channel" on YouTube along with some snarky commentary.
