House of Cornelius and the law

[Dan_473]

Hi Dan,

Remember that the phrase "that they should observe no such thing except" is a disputed textual variant, which does NOT even appear in the Critical Text.

AND, it does not appear in any text in Ac. 15 (which is where the ruling came from).

AND, we should not construct theology from a disputed textual variant passage like that.

AND, we have abundant evidence (from elsewhere in Scripture) disconfirming that phrase (IF you interpret the phrase to mean that Gentile Christians should never grow in faithful obedience to Scripture).

AND, even if that phrase were the correct translation of the original Ac. 21 autograph, then (as I've already shown) it merely confirms that proper recognition of Gentiles as "saved" requires that Gentiles observe no such thing except the 4 rules. So, even in this case, we find no disconfirmation of the claim that Gentiles (AFTER being saved) should grow in faithful Torah-obedience.

best...
BibleGuy

'(IF you interpret the phrase to mean that Gentile Christians should never grow in faithful obedience to Scripture).'

I agree that Gentile Christians should grow in faithful obedience to Scripture.

GALATIANS 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[BibleGuy]

' Sure, when you are in diaspora, you can't obey all Torah...but that's no excuse to disobey observable portions.'
if Torah can be divided into parts, some kept and some not, then it's not a single commandment, it sounds to me



'So "yes"...Gentiles in Israel are saved...'

is that salvation the same as what's offered in the nt?

Hey...

You wrote: Sounds like you're concerned that the use of "commandment" means that it can not be divided into observable portions and unobservable portions.

But why assume this is entailed by usage of the term "commandment" (in the singular)?

Unless you justify that entailment assumption, then your concern remains unjustified.

Furthermore, Moses prophesied that Torah CAN and WILL be obeyed in part (prior to end of diaspora), and then Torah will subsequently be obeyed 100% (after end of diaspora). Remember Dt. 30:1-8?

So, in Dt. 30, we find disconfirmation of the claim that usage of "commandment" (singular) in reference to Torah entails that Torah portions can not be subdivided into observable and unobservable categories during times of diaspora.

best...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

' Sure, when you are in diaspora, you can't obey all Torah...but that's no excuse to disobey observable portions.'
if Torah can be divided into parts, some kept and some not, then it's not a single commandment, it sounds to me



'So "yes"...Gentiles in Israel are saved...'

is that salvation the same as what's offered in the nt?

Hey...

You wrote: Sounds like you're concerned that the use of "commandment" means that it can not be divided into observable portions and unobservable portions.

But why assume this is entailed by usage of the term "commandment" (in the singular)?

Unless you justify that entailment assumption, then your concern remains unjustified.

Furthermore, Moses prophesied that Torah CAN and WILL be obeyed in part (prior to end of diaspora), and then Torah will subsequently be obeyed 100% (after end of diaspora). Remember Dt. 30:1-8?

So, in Dt. 30, we find disconfirmation of the claim that usage of "commandment" (singular) in reference to Torah entails that Torah portions can not be subdivided into observable and unobservable categories during times of diaspora.

You wrote: "is that salvation the same as what's offered in the nt?"

My response: Well...NT, of course, brings greater revelation and insight...but why assume OT salvation is different from NT salvation?

best...
BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

'FIRST, you evidently AGREE that Ac. 21 confirms that Paul taught believing (i.e., "Christian") Jews to NOT forsake Moses (or Torah, in general). Right?'

no, Paul not teaching them to forsake the law is not the same as teaching them to keep the law.

are you able to see that difference?

Alas, my friend!

Either you obey Torah or you don't!

And we know Paul taught Torah-obedience.

Remember?

1. Paul taught us to not sin (Rom. 6:15)
2. Paul taught that sin is Torah-disobedience (Rom. 3:20; 7:7)
3. Paul taught us to not disobey Torah (from 1 and 2)
4. Paul taught us to obey Torah (from 3).

I think you've already agree to accepting these four premises, right?

Well then, you already have Scriptural reason to believe Paul taught Torah-obedience (even to the Gentile-inclusive Roman congregation).

Seriously...either your murdered Bob or you didn't!

best...
BibleGuy

 

[Dan_473]

Hi!

A "mantra" may be defined as: An often-repeated phrase.

And, "love your neighbor" is an often-repeated phrase than is often (and repeatedly!) used (inappropriately!) by many of us Christians to downplay (and neglect) our moral obligation to grow in faithful Torah-obedience.

That said...my use of "mantra" is consistent with the definition of "mantra".

But ok...if you don't like that term, then let's replace it with "expression" or "phrase"....and my point remains....

BibleGuy

'A "mantra" may be defined as: An often-repeated phrase.'

did you mean to say in some way that it was being overused?




'And, "love your neighbor" is an often-repeated phrase than is often (and repeatedly!) used (inappropriately!) by many of us Christians to downplay (and neglect) our moral obligation to grow in faithful Torah-obedience.'

I think the appropriate use is that it fulfills the law... like this

MARK 1:15 and saying, ''The time is fulfilled.''

Strong's Greek: 4137. πληρόω (pléroó) -- to make full, to complete

 

[BibleGuy]

' SECOND, Ac. 21:25 is just a recap of the Ac. 15 ruling, where I already showed that the list of 4 commands (i.e., no idols, no blood, no strangled things, no sexual immorality) were designed as conditions required for recognition of SAVED Gentiles (see "sodzo" in Ac. 15).'

well, we see that differently...

James compares what Paul does (walk keeping the law, but not to be saved)
with what the gentiles do, which is observe no such thing... no such thing as walk keeping the law (but not to be saved).

Hi!

I think you missed my observation that "observe no such thing" is a textual variant!

Let's not use a debated variant to construct a theological position.

Let's not use a debated variant to construct a theological position that contradicts a large bulk of additional Scriptural considerations.

Let's not favor a variant which does not even occur in the place from which it came (Ac. 15).

And, even if "observe no such thing" is the correct variant, it merely confirms that Gentile believers need to observe no such thing other than the 4 rules FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING RECOGNIZED AS SAVED (Gr. "sodzo", Ac. 15:1,11). THAT is the context of the dispute in Acts 15.

The dispute in Ac. 15 is not to determine whether Gentiles should grow in faithful Torah-obedience.

The dispute is whether Torah-obedience and circumcision are necessary for being recognized as SAVED.

Agreed?

BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

' THIRD, let's be careful to NOT base our theology on a questionable textual variant. You see, the phrase "that they should observe no such thing, except..." is not even in the Critical Text of Ac. 21:25. (Just compare the NASB and KJV, and you'll see!) AND, that phrase appears in none of the texts of Ac. 15:20.'

interesting, it's not in the software I'm using... but sure, so

James compares what Paul does (walk keeping the law, but not to be saved)
with what the gentiles do, which is follow the four directives.

Hi!

Just read this...

Ok...

But what Scriptural passage(s) are you referencing to support your position?

BibleGuy

 

[BibleGuy]

If Paul and the Jews were on the same page can you please explain why Paul was beaten and arrested by the Jews? Again I will state that grace is not license to sin, never have I taught that please read my previous posts stating my beliefs before throwing around accusations

Hi redeemed2014,

Sorry if I appeared to accuse you of something you do not believe...

Just trying to sort things out here...hopefully you can forgive my imperfections!

You wrote: "If Paul and the Jews were on the same page can you please explain why Paul was beaten and arrested by the Jews?"

My response: When did I claim that Paul and the Jews were all on the same page?

Some Jews supported Paul...others were opposed to Paul.

Paul supported some Jews...others Paul opposed.

Now, why was Paul beaten? Well, Ac. 21:28 clearly says that Paul was accused of preaching against Torah (among other accusations).

BUT, was this accusation true or false?

Clearly false! Why? Because Paul had just previously taken a vow for the very purpose of proving that he "walked orderly, keeping the law" (Ac. 21:24).

It follows that the accusations against Paul in Ac. 21:28 were FALSE accusations.

So, Paul was beaten for allegedly being anti-Torah, when in fact, Paul was NOT anti-Torah at all. A very sad moment...

Remember, Paul repeatedly affirms (in his own defense) his PRO-TORAH position (Ac. 24:14; 25:8).

blessings...
BibleGuy

 

[Dino246]

Hello Dino246...

Regarding Gal. 3:2-3, Paul equates "flesh" with "works of the law". BUT, Paul's use of "flesh" there refers to FAITHLESS works of the law, not FAITHFUL works of the law. So sure, Paul (and I) reject FAITHLESS works of the law. But Paul (and I) teach FAITHFUL works of the law.

This is eisegesis. The discussion in Galatians is not about faithless obedience to the Law (whatever that is; Paul didn't use the term or the concept) and faithful obedience. It is about justification and, more specifically, sanctification (ongoing growth in Christ-likeness), either by the works of the Law or by faith. The dichotomy is between faith and law-following, not faith and non-faith. If Paul meant faith-filled obedience to Law versus faithless obedience, he would have said so.

Again, Gal. 3:5 confirms that Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a reference to FAITHLESS works of the law. But, that doesn't prove that Paul opposed FAITHFUL works of the law. See the difference? So, since Paul is talking about FAITHLESS works of the law...well...he tells the Galatians that if you seriously want to play the "let's try to be justified by Torah without faith" game, then you MUST obey 100% of Torah at all times (without a single sin). Paul is showing the logical consequence of this game. Paul shows that no one could ever play this game successfully.

Again, you're reading 'faithless' into the text. Because you are doing this, the rest of your argument is groundless.

NOW, Gal. 5:18 merely confirms that we should not be "under the law" in the sense which Paul says is bad. That is, we should not be "under the law" so as to be seeking to be justified by law (Gal. 5:4) rather than by faith (Gal. 5:5). But, this is NO evidence that we should not be obeying Torah faithfully!

Interesting idea, which might have some validity if Paul had not already made it clear in 3:3 and 3:5 that sanctification is by faith, not by Law. His point was that obedience to the Law benefited them nothing! In thinking it did, they fell from grace! That's the point of the letter. To reframe it and claim that Paul was trying to tell them to obey the Law "with faith" is to misapprehend the main message. Your last sentence quoted above is an argument from silence, and is therefore invalid.

Finally, you wrote: "Also, James 2:10 states, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." The Law (Torah) is a unit; you either keep the whole unit or you don't. There is no middle ground."

My response: So when Judah was in Babylonian captivity, they were unable to obey Torah 100%, right? So that means they could freely disobey Lev. 18:23? Lev. 19:18? Ex. 20:13? Ok...of course not! Right?

While they were in captivity, they were actively prevented from complete obedience, but they weren't following it completely anyway, which is why they were in captivity in the first place. While I agree that the inability to comply with one part does not absolve them of the rest, it remains that the Law is a unit, and that breaking one 'part' is breaking the whole. We in Christ do not have a relationship with God which is based on Law, as Israel did. Ours is based solely on Christ, in the context of, but not on the basis of, Israel's history and the Law.

 

[Dan_473]

Howdy...

Moses prophesied of the Messiah (Dt. 18), and we know the Messiah is Jesus (Yehoshua, Ac. 3:22; 7:37).

So, proper functioning of the seat of Moses must not contradict Mosaic prophecy, and (thus) it must not contradict the Messiah about whom Moses has prophesied.

To the extent that Maimonides opposed the claim that Yehoshua (Jesus) was the Messiah, we may reject that anti-Christ theology (and we may reject the improper functioning of any alleged "seat of Moses").

You wrote: "passed on by who?"

My response: Passed on by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy (the authors of 2 Th.).

BibleGuy

' So, proper functioning of the seat of Moses must not contradict Mosaic prophecy, and (thus) it must not contradict the Messiah about whom Moses has prophesied.'

well... then the scribes of Jesus day weren't sitting in the seat of Moses.




'My response: Passed on by Paul, Silvanus and Timothy (the authors of 2 Th.).'

so, God's word... what are the man-made judgments you talked about in post 459?


it sounds like the non-fire starter, based on their understanding of God's word, could say that the fire-starter is breaking the Sabbath.

am I understanding?

 

[BibleGuy]

'A "mantra" may be defined as: An often-repeated phrase.'

did you mean to say in some way that it was being overused?




'And, "love your neighbor" is an often-repeated phrase than is often (and repeatedly!) used (inappropriately!) by many of us Christians to downplay (and neglect) our moral obligation to grow in faithful Torah-obedience.'

I think the appropriate use is that it fulfills the law... like this

MARK 1:15 and saying, ''The time is fulfilled.''

Strong's Greek: 4137. πληρόω (pléroó) -- to make full, to complete

Hi,

Yes...we Christians have over-used (or misused) various Biblical (or allegedly Biblical) slogans for FAR too long!

Seriously....look at how our Torah-obedient 1st century faith has evolved into a generally Torah-ignorant (and sometimes explicitly anti-Torah) expression over the past 2000 years.

Sorry if I get a bit exasperated by the extent to which we've drifted...maybe I can actually help (in some small way) to hasten our prophesied return to YHVH in repentant obedience to Torah.

best...
bibleGuy

 

[royalscot]

the point ,with free will, then was it a mistake, or murder . by human court. etc.


may be, you missed, these points of law. the jewish law was also the law of the land.
yet when will the liar be questioned for etc

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and disputed with Stephen.10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.11 Then they secretly instigated men who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council,13 and they set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law,14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us."15 And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel. acts 6


The Stoning of Stephen
54 Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.56 And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him.58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.acts 7

when jesus said

7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.John 8:

if the the law, has loop holes in it, what value has it, to you.(the jewish law)

21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose Galatians 2

2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.Romans 8

etc etc etc

 

[Dan_473]

Just a reminder: "observe no such thing" is a disputed textual variant. Let's not derive significant theological conclusions from it.

thanks!

BibleGuy

I go through the posts one at a time, I think you said that, too... so you may feel that you've answered something, but the post you're reading was written before... I'm sure you get the picture...

 

[Dan_473]

Hi again Dan!

Not sure...but Moses may have spoken Dt. 1 through Dt. 28...maybe even all the way through Dt. 33....all in one day.

You wrote: "well, no... the Jews made the best of their situation, but they were not keeping 'the commandment'."

My response: Sure...the Jews in Babylonian captivity did not keep "the commandment" 100% (because that would have been impossible).

BUT, that's not the point towards which I'm driving!

SHOULD the Jews have "made the best of their situation" by keeping the observable Torah portions while in captivity?

If YES, then we can not claim that our present diaspora is an excuse to neglect observable Torah portions. Why? Because we (in this present diaspora) should ALSO make the best of our situation by maximizing observation of presently observable Torah portions.

If NO, then we have just given the Diaspora Jews in Babylon (as well as ourselves, in our present diaspora) license to commit terrible acts. Why? Because the "Torah" is all one unit...you obey it all...or not at all....you can't break it up into parts (according to this reasoning).

Clearly we can't choose "NO".

But then we are forced to choose "YES", meaning we should likewise make the best of our situation by obeying as much Torah as possible in our present diaspora.

See the point now?

blessings...
BibleGuy

'Not sure...but Moses may have spoken Dt. 1 through Dt. 28...maybe even all the way through Dt. 33....all in one day.'

"For this commandment which I command you today is not too hard for you or too distant."

so we really don't know what is "not too hard"... sounds like...

 

[Dan_473]

Hi again Dan!

Not sure...but Moses may have spoken Dt. 1 through Dt. 28...maybe even all the way through Dt. 33....all in one day.

You wrote: "well, no... the Jews made the best of their situation, but they were not keeping 'the commandment'."

My response: Sure...the Jews in Babylonian captivity did not keep "the commandment" 100% (because that would have been impossible).

BUT, that's not the point towards which I'm driving!

SHOULD the Jews have "made the best of their situation" by keeping the observable Torah portions while in captivity?

If YES, then we can not claim that our present diaspora is an excuse to neglect observable Torah portions. Why? Because we (in this present diaspora) should ALSO make the best of our situation by maximizing observation of presently observable Torah portions.

If NO, then we have just given the Diaspora Jews in Babylon (as well as ourselves, in our present diaspora) license to commit terrible acts. Why? Because the "Torah" is all one unit...you obey it all...or not at all....you can't break it up into parts (according to this reasoning).

Clearly we can't choose "NO".

But then we are forced to choose "YES", meaning we should likewise make the best of our situation by obeying as much Torah as possible in our present diaspora.

See the point now?

blessings...
BibleGuy

'SHOULD the Jews have "made the best of their situation" by keeping the observable Torah portions while in captivity?'

yes, at the same time realizing that they are guilty of breaking all points of the law.

are christians today guilty?




'If YES, then we can not claim that our present diaspora is an excuse to neglect observable Torah portions.'

all of torah is observable

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[Dan_473]

Hey...

You wrote: Sounds like you're concerned that the use of "commandment" means that it can not be divided into observable portions and unobservable portions.

But why assume this is entailed by usage of the term "commandment" (in the singular)?

Unless you justify that entailment assumption, then your concern remains unjustified.

Furthermore, Moses prophesied that Torah CAN and WILL be obeyed in part (prior to end of diaspora), and then Torah will subsequently be obeyed 100% (after end of diaspora). Remember Dt. 30:1-8?

So, in Dt. 30, we find disconfirmation of the claim that usage of "commandment" (singular) in reference to Torah entails that Torah portions can not be subdivided into observable and unobservable categories during times of diaspora.

best...
BibleGuy

right! so the commandment that Moses talks about "this day"... we don't know which one or which part of Torah... sounds like

 

[Dan_473]

Hey...

You wrote: Sounds like you're concerned that the use of "commandment" means that it can not be divided into observable portions and unobservable portions.

But why assume this is entailed by usage of the term "commandment" (in the singular)?

Unless you justify that entailment assumption, then your concern remains unjustified.

Furthermore, Moses prophesied that Torah CAN and WILL be obeyed in part (prior to end of diaspora), and then Torah will subsequently be obeyed 100% (after end of diaspora). Remember Dt. 30:1-8?

So, in Dt. 30, we find disconfirmation of the claim that usage of "commandment" (singular) in reference to Torah entails that Torah portions can not be subdivided into observable and unobservable categories during times of diaspora.

You wrote: "is that salvation the same as what's offered in the nt?"

My response: Well...NT, of course, brings greater revelation and insight...but why assume OT salvation is different from NT salvation?

best...
BibleGuy

Yo BibleGuy!

I think you accidentially mixed up the "you wrote" part at the beginning.




in your view, is OT salvation the same as NT salvation?

 

[Dan_473]

Alas, my friend!

Either you obey Torah or you don't!

And we know Paul taught Torah-obedience.

Remember?

1. Paul taught us to not sin (Rom. 6:15)
2. Paul taught that sin is Torah-disobedience (Rom. 3:20; 7:7)
3. Paul taught us to not disobey Torah (from 1 and 2)
4. Paul taught us to obey Torah (from 3).

I think you've already agree to accepting these four premises, right?

Well then, you already have Scriptural reason to believe Paul taught Torah-obedience (even to the Gentile-inclusive Roman congregation).

Seriously...either your murdered Bob or you didn't!

best...
BibleGuy

I don't believe you answered this question.

"are you able to see that difference?"




Paul not teaching them to forsake the law is not the same as teaching them to keep the law.








I didn't tell you not to go to the store.

is not the same as

I told you to go to the store.


can you see the difference between them?

 

[Dan_473]

Hi!

I think you missed my observation that "observe no such thing" is a textual variant!

Let's not use a debated variant to construct a theological position.

Let's not use a debated variant to construct a theological position that contradicts a large bulk of additional Scriptural considerations.

Let's not favor a variant which does not even occur in the place from which it came (Ac. 15).

And, even if "observe no such thing" is the correct variant, it merely confirms that Gentile believers need to observe no such thing other than the 4 rules FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING RECOGNIZED AS SAVED (Gr. "sodzo", Ac. 15:1,11). THAT is the context of the dispute in Acts 15.

The dispute in Ac. 15 is not to determine whether Gentiles should grow in faithful Torah-obedience.

The dispute is whether Torah-obedience and circumcision are necessary for being recognized as SAVED.

Agreed?

BibleGuy

(I go through the posts one at a time... so "syncing" issues can arise... but I don't know of a better way to do it...)

 

[Dan_473]

Hi!

Just read this...

Ok...

But what Scriptural passage(s) are you referencing to support your position?

BibleGuy

which position?