JUDAIZER TRICKS AND UNDERSTANDING THEIR LOGICAL ERRORS

[sparkman]

Having come from a Judaizer background, I am well familiar with the ploys that they attempt to use to convince others of their worldview.

This thread is going to be a list of such ploys, constructed over time, and separated by a meme that is related to each ploy. Look for the memes, and see if you recognize the approaches taken by Judaizers when watching YouTube videos or reading posts here.

Before I begin, note that what I mean by "Judaizer" are those who claim that observance of the Mosaic Covenant as a whole, or elements of it which are questionable or are clearly taught against in the apostolic writings, are still applicable to New Covenant Christians, and that non-observers are in sin because these elements are requirements, conditions, or necessary fruit of salvation. I have no issue with those who observe physical circumcision, Sabbath, festivals, and clean meat laws out of preference and not obligation. Mutilate your privates all you want, and worship on whatever day you want, and eat whatever meats you want..I don't care As long as you believe that justification is by grace through faith alone, unto good works, and don't accuse non-observers of being disobedient and in sin, I don't care.

How do I know if a person is a Judaizer? Ask them if they think you are in sin for non-observance. Ask yourself if their overall attitude reflects one of judging others for non-observance. Either of those approaches should render an answer. I find that most observers are, at some level, Judaizers. They will generally show their colors at one point or another.

I know Messianic Jews who observe these things who are not Judaizers, though, and generally they are hated and despised by other Judaizers because they don't claim non-observers are required to observe Torah.


The general approach I'll follow is to produce a meme and comment on it, so if you want to see my comments over time, look for the memes. The memes will begin a new section.

The first one is about the claim that if you don't follow Torah you don't love Jesus.

They base this primarily on John 14:15 and similar verses:

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.".

Real Christians DO obey Jesus and his commandments, but they follow the commandments that have given to THEM, not the ancient nation of Israel.

The Judaizer insinuation is that if you don't keep either the Ten Commandments or the Torah, depending on the group, you don't love Jesus.

I also find it ironic when Seventh Day Adventists attempt to make this claim, because they themselves consider non-life threatening abortions to be acceptable, and therefore are promoting abortion, which is murder. And, there is no question concerning murder being a sin. Internally, amongst their membership, they allow abortion for incidences of rape, incest and congenital birth defects (including Down's Syndrome). Externally, in their health care facilities, they perform abortions for any legal reason, including simply the desire to get rid of the fetus. This is a well documented fact, and some SDAs are against their church's policy on this, but it is the official church policy. Ben Carson stated his opposition to this SDA policy during his brief candidacy for president.

Additionally, the "Torah observers" don't really observe Torah themselves, as it is impossible to do so. God made certain of that by destroying the Temple and the records regarding the Levitical priesthood, which were stored in the Temple. There is no possible way ANYONE can observe Torah now. The best they can do is observe a patchwork quilt of Torah that they have fabricated in their own minds. There is no animal sacrifice system in place either. Torah was not a pick-and-choose system; it required observance of ALL of the commandments of Torah, and the system that Israel operated under is no longer in place. Anyone who claims to observe Torah is simply deceived or is a liar.

See the words of these verses, and the emphasis that Deuteronomy gives in regards to observing "all the law".

Deut 28:58-59 [SUP]58 [/SUP]“If you are not careful to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God, [SUP]59 [/SUP]then the Lord will bring on you and your offspring extraordinary afflictions, afflictions severe and lasting, and sicknesses grievous and lasting.

Deut 29:29 [SUP]29 [/SUP]“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Deut 31:12-13 [SUP]12 [/SUP]Assemble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law, [SUP]13 [/SUP]and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as you live in the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess.”

Deut 32:46 [SUP]46 [/SUP]he said to them, “Take to heart all the words by which I am warning you today, that you may command them to your children, that they may be careful to do all the words of this law.

2 Chron 33:8 [SUP]8 [/SUP]and I will no more remove the foot of Israel from the land that I appointed for your fathers, if only they will be careful to do all that I have commanded them, all the law, the statutes, and the rules given through Moses.”When questioned appropriately, almost every "Torah observer" I've talked to admits that they don't keep the whole law, if they are honest. As I've noted, they CAN'T because the Levitical priesthood and the Temple sacrificial system is not in place. Jesus replaced the Levitical priesthood, and the Temple has been destroyed since AD70. Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant or Law cannot be kept. God did this to remove ANY CLAIM that righteousness can be pursued through observance of the Law.

Those who claim to observe the Law likely do not go up to Jerusalem to keep the festivals during the commanded three pilgrimage festivals, unless they are rich or live in Jerusalem. They likely do not build a Sukkot to occupy during the Feast of Tabernacles. I doubt they observe the family purity law of avoiding contact with their wives or other women during the specified period around the menstrual cycle.

There are all kinds of creative work-around excuses that they employ to claim they still observe Torah such as teaching that the family purity law only applied to Levites but this explanation is bogus. They cannot prove that contextually. Their efforts to claim they are Torah compliant are futile and ridiculous.

Why am I bothering to say anything about this? The Judaizer doctrine develops a group of people who are very condemning toward fellow Christians, and is also very prideful and paranoid in nature. If the Judaizer is not prideful, he is likely self-condemning. The prideful ones think they are fulfilling the Law. The self-condemning ones know that they are not, and they are fearful of their salvation. I spent time, as an Armstrongite, in both groups. At different times I was very prideful, thinking I was fulfilling the conditions for my salvation through observing a stripped-down version of the Mosaic Covenant. Toward the end of my Judaizer career, I was very self-condemning. I realized I fell far short of God's righteous standards. I didn't realize what "grace" meant, not did I understand justification by faith alone and how my righteousness was in Jesus Christ and his meritorious obedience applied to my account. So, the Judaizer mindset is very damaging to the individual and to those around him. The Judaizer likely hasn't understood the essence of the gospel; that we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Savior (Romans 5:1).

Often Judaizers here will claim I'm nursing old wounds and speaking out of bitterness. That is how they attempt to negate my testimony that Judaizing is not a proper perspective. They try to be my armchair psychologist sometimes..it gets pretty hilarious and I laugh about their posts. Another group tries to warn me that I'm close to losing my salvation by speaking against "God's law" and that I need to return back to the fold. The reality is that I'm very happy as an evangelical Christian, and I'm hanging out with people in real life who show the fruit of their faith, unlike the dead, rotten fruit I often saw as a Judaizer in the groups I was involved with.

Those who hold or teach false doctrine also hate being exposed. So, they attempt to discredit those who expose their error. Herbert Armstrong, the leader of the cult I belonged to, claimed that Christians were wolves and he was the real deal. This is another Judaizer trick that I will cover, although it's not specific to Judaizers..cults use the same tactic.

Anyways this is the first Judaizer trick I will cover. I am posting two memes relating to this post. I will post a meme for each point I cover so you can see the break in the conversation.

 

[sparkman]

Here's a very common Judaizer trick...

In their worldview, they attempt to relate evangelical Christianity to Roman Catholicism, which is ironic because in reality, their worldview commonly is similar to Roman Catholicism in that many of them deny justification by faith alone and believe in non-biblical sources of inspiration. The fundamental reasons for the Protestant Reformation involved the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the Scriptures as the sole source of guidance for the Christian.

This worldview largely depends upon the writings of Alexander Hislop, particularly a book called "The Two Babylons". This book is a juvenile, propaganda-filled rhetoric which claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is a modern manifestation of the Babylonian Mystery Religion. It has been academically discredited due to his poor employment of logic and taking references out of context from his source documents.

Many Judaizers (not all) have taken Hislop's rhetoric and consider it to be indisputable truth. They claim that the whore of Revelation 17 is talking about the Roman Catholic church, and that the daughters of the harlot are Protestant, Sunday observing churches. So, in essence, the Judaizer views Protestants as being part of a Satanic system that worships a false Christ, and teachings a false gospel, whose ministers are guided by Satan. They claim that this is one of the methods by which Satan enslaves Christianity.

Of course, they exclude themselves from the system, and claim that they are the "true church". Several books have been written by Sabbathkeeping nuts that attempt to define a parallel organization of believers that were not part of the Roman Catholic system, that kept the Sabbath. One of them is used heavily amongst the cultic group I was involved with, the Armstrongites. It is called "A History of the True Church" by AN Dugger.

These sorts of books are commonly used by cultic and semi-cultic groups like Landmark Baptists to claim they are the true church. The Landmark Baptist equivalent was "Trail of Blood". Somehow, they must explain how the true church never died out, and where their movement came from, rather than being the imaginations of some wild-eyed kook (which is the reality of the situation). Ironically, many of these kooks also claim they restored the true faith, but how does that happen if there was a continual chain of believers throughout time?

A lot of these groups claim that the churches of Revelation 2 and 3 are successive church eras of the "true church", so this is a common assertion as well.

A pdf copy of "A History of the True Church" is available here if you want to see some of its nuttiness. Dugger claimed that Arius was a defender of the true faith. Anyone who knows church history would find that claim bizarre, as Arius was the source of a heresy which claimed that Jesus isn't fully God. His heresy is the source of Jehovah's Witness theology.

Keep this point in mind. If organizations making claims to be the true faith, such as the Armstrongites I followed as a young man, are quoting questionable sources like "A History of the True Church", can you trust them? No, obviously not. They are kooks relying on National Enquirer level reasoning to maintain their worldview.

 

[Issachar92]

I feel qualified to talk about this:

Most orthodox jews realize we cant keep the torah as it was and is, therefore they have chosen to REPLACE the written with the oral. Meaning switcheroo between the torah and the ORAL torah. (mishnah). So they can get away with not keeping the letter by saying "We do keep it, just in a different way" and they point to what the rabbis had to say about it.

I noticed this dishonesty very early on and it caused me to doubt why are we going through this nonsense, aint nobody living in no booths, some people I know actually lived in a fancy HOTEL! No lie

Good post, I gave you a like.

 

[sparkman]

It is a common ploy for Judaizers to convince their prey that they are not part of the "elect" and are spiritually blinded if they don't believe their doctrines.

It's not only common amongst Judaizers, but it's common amongst cults in general.

In the Armstrongite church I belonged to as a young person, there was a celebration based on the festivals called the Night to be Much Remembered. It was the evening after Passover, and corresponded to the evening portion of Nisan 15 which is the first day of Unleavened Bread.

Usually members met in the home of another member, and they ate together and talked about how they came into "the Truth". What they meant by "the Truth" is how they came to believe in Herbert Armstrong's false doctrines, which were Judaizing in nature, along with other perversions of Scripture including the claim that they would become God in the resurrection.

Anyways, the mindset of the Armstrongites is very much prevalent amongst other cultic groups, some of which are Judaizers. If someone doesn't agree with their teachings or doctrines, it is common to claim that they are "blinded" and not part of "the elect".

I muse often how those who claim to be sighted are in fact blinded. I think about this in light of John 9. John 9 is one of my favorite chapters of the Bible. If you remember the account, Jesus heals a young blind man. The young blind man is brought before the Pharisees, and boldly relates his account of healing. He doesn't back down one bit from the Pharisaical attack. In the end, the Pharisees basically call him blind and stupid, and throw him out of the synagogue. Jesus finds the young blind man and finishes the job and brings him to faith. The young blind man worships him. Jesus says that since the Pharisees claim to be sighted, they will be judged as such.

John 9:40 [SUP]40 [/SUP]Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” [SUP]41 [/SUP]Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt;[SUP][d][/SUP] but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

Do I believe in spiritual blindness and election? Yes. Do I think the Judaizers are those who are spiritually sighted and the elect? No. They won't even acknowledge the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect, and that the Sabbath and festivals are shadows, and that meats do not make a person spiritually defiled.

I have seen baby Judaizers telling their Judaizing teachers..I'm so glad I know "the truth" now..referring to the Sabbath, festivals and clean meat laws specifically. Well, I am glad I know "the Truth", which is a man who died on the Cross for my sins, demonstrating his great love for me. Judaizer "truths" don't mean anything to me. Jesus said he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and I believe that.

 

[Grace777x70]

I agree with your posts Sparkman.

What are your thoughts about how this deception takes place? I believe that some do have a heart for God and want to do what is good and the following of a carnal commandment is the way of the world's belief system, so I see how easy it would be to be deceived by things like Sabbath-keeping as in the law of Moses. It has the "appearance of doing good and following God" - I mean after all - it is written in scriptures.

 

[sparkman]

I feel qualified to talk about this:

Most orthodox jews realize we cant keep the torah as it was and is, therefore they have chosen to REPLACE the written with the oral. Meaning switcheroo between the torah and the ORAL torah. (mishnah). So they can get away with not keeping the letter by saying "We do keep it, just in a different way" and they point to what the rabbis had to say about it.

I noticed this dishonesty very early on and it caused me to doubt why are we going through this nonsense, aint nobody living in no booths, some people I know actually lived in a fancy HOTEL! No lie

Good post, I gave you a like.

Pretty cool remark

In the Armstrongite group I belonged to, they claimed that the "Apostle" had the right to modify the conditions of the Law, so he decided that it was acceptable to observe the festival in a hotel room too. However, here's the problem: the claim is that the Roman Catholic church changed the Law so that the day of observance was Sunday and not Saturday, incorrectly.

So, the "Apostle" was doing the very thing that he accused Roman Catholics of doing by changing "the Law".

The Mosaic Covenant was applicable to a specific group of people (ancient Israel) in a specific climate (Palestine) under a particular type of government (a theocracy or semi-autonomous rulership) in a particular land in a particular timeframe (Moses to Christ - see Galatians 3).

Why do I bring this up? These provisions of Torah made sense there..how can someone live in a booth made of specific materials (frondy branches from certain trees, etcetera) in a frigid climate like Alaska? Alaska can be cold in September-October. There were times when I was observing the Feast of Tabernacles in October in Wisconsin and it was in the 20's F.

The transition from the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant was a big change..from going to essentially a focus on Israel to a focus on all of mankind, in all lands.

A related issue..there are some parts of the globe where days last for a really long time..months..on the poles...and nights last a long time too. Since Sabbath was observed sunset to sunset, those in such areas who believe in the Sabbath must basically follow man-made rules to keep their system (mostly SDAs). These factors didn't exist when the Mosaic Covenant was in effect, in the land of Palestine. The universality of Christianity had enormous impacts that Judaizers don't think about.

 

[trofimus]

I prefer to have the most simple solutions possible.

Where does Bible say that the Mosaic Law was meant to be for whole the world and not for the Israel only? As we can see from the NT, it was meant for the "people of the covenant", i.e. for a specific group.

So not only it was till the Christ, it was never meant globally, IMHO. Yes, non-Israelite could come and become the part of the people of covenant, but thats exactly it - he had to become it, first.

 

[Issachar92]

I agree with your posts Sparkman.

What are your thoughts about how this deception takes place? I believe that some do have a heart for God and want to do what is good and the following of a carnal commandment is the way of the world's belief system, so I see how easy it would be to be deceived by things like Sabbath-keeping as in the law of Moses. It has the "appearance of doing good and following God" - I mean after all - it is written in scriptures.

The sabbath and torah observant thing seems to be VERY popular in today's age, I dont know if its because people are looking for something old and ancient and feel more spiritual doing it, i'd say thats where the deception takes place, in people's need to feel better than someone else, more spiritual, more authentic etc.

And as i've mentioned in different posts on here, to me looking at these GENTILES (i say gentiles because as my prediction was in the other thread, most hebrew roots people are not really Jews) roleplaying to be hebrews and jews is kind of embarrasing. I really feel embarrased, I dont wanna sound mean saying it but thats how I feel.
Ive confronted so many of these guys and they always end up admitting to me that nope we are not actually jews, and why it annoys me is because these are the same guys telling ME and other real jews that we should do this and keep that! And im like oh no, I already came OUT OF IT when I found Christ.

Why would I wanna be cut off from grace and go back to my old religion???

 

[sparkman]

I agree with your posts Sparkman.

What are your thoughts about how this deception takes place? I believe that some do have a heart for God and want to do what is good and the following of a carnal commandment is the way of the world's belief system, so I see how easy it would be to be deceived by things like Sabbath-keeping as in the law of Moses. It has the "appearance of doing good and following God" - I mean after all - it is written in scriptures.

A few things..some people have low tolerance for ambiguity and must have everything defined for them. They cannot think in terms of shades of grey.

I think the basic point of what you are bringing out is what Paul alluded to in Galatians 3 and that others mentioned in other epistles. The Mosaic Covenant was supposed to preparatory to the arrival of Jesus in a few ways. One, it should have convicted Israelites of their sinfulness through it's coarse revelation of God's character in some of the commandments. Two, it had a lot of shadows and types that pointed toward spiritual realities. It was almost like a pre-school for future Christ-followers...it didn't make them believers but it was a pre-school meant to prepare them for encountering Jesus and placing their faith in Him.

Galatians 3 uses the analogy of the guardian and the heir-child. The guardian should have prepared the heir-child for adulthood and inheriting the spiritual reality that Judaism pointed to, but most of the Jews did not step into the rest of faith in Jesus when the time came. Instead, they became Judaizers and fought against it. They are like adults who prefer to wear diapers and suck bottles, instead of entering adulthood.

The phrases "elementary principles" or "elementary doctrine" in the epistles of Hebrews, Colossians and Galatians point toward this...the Mosaic Covenant was almost like the ABC's that prepare children to write full sentences. Judaizers don't go beyond the ABC stage to learn how to write full sentences, though.

By the way, I don't think Hebrews 6:1-2 is talking about basics of Christianity, but is really talking about the Mosaic Covenant....and that the phrase "elementary principles" in both Colossians 2 and Galatians 4 are talking about the Mosaic Covenant too. I would view the Mosaic Covenant as being applicable to a carnal-minded people who needed something more rudimentary that is only preparatory to a full relationship with Jesus through faith. Deuteronomy 28-30 indicates that the Israelites, who received the Mosaic Covenant, were in fact in such a carnal state. The fact that the New Covenant involved regeneration, or having God's "laws" written on their hearts, is proof of this. They had hearts of stone and not of flesh. Some few of their leadership, and a remnant of them, were converted but not ancient Israel as a whole.

Anyways, some carnal men who have not been regenerated or born again will follow religious systems, and some Judaizers are probably still carnal. Others are doctrinally confused believers who have been deceived, and God will eventually lead them out of the shadows and types into the Reality, which is Jesus, like he did with me. Maybe some need to feel the condemnation of the Law before they will acknowledge their sinfulness and their need for God's grace.

As I have said before, though, I have no issue with those who observe the shadows and types without claiming others are in sin for non-observance, if they believe they are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice, and that these elements of the Mosaic Covenant are not requirements or conditions or necessary fruits of salvation. The shadows and types can be meaningful, although they were not needed to come to faith, as evidenced by Paul's refusal to allow Judaizers to give that impression.

 

[Grace777x70]

A few things..some people have low tolerance for ambiguity and must have everything defined for them. They cannot think in terms of shades of grey.

I think the basic point of what you are bringing out is what Paul alluded to in Galatians 3 and that others mentioned in other epistles. The Mosaic Covenant was supposed to preparatory to the arrival of Jesus in a few ways. One, it should have convicted Israelites of their sinfulness through it's coarse revelation of God's character in some of the commandments. Two, it had a lot of shadows and types that pointed toward spiritual realities. It was almost like a pre-school for future Christ-followers...it didn't make them believers but it was a pre-school meant to prepare them for encountering Jesus and placing their faith in Him.

Galatians 3 uses the analogy of the guardian and the heir-child. The guardian should have prepared the heir-child for adulthood and inheriting the spiritual reality that Judaism pointed to, but most of the Jews did not step into the rest of faith in Jesus when the time came. Instead, they became Judaizers and fought against it. They are like adults who prefer to wear diapers and suck bottles, instead of entering adulthood.

The phrases "elementary principles" or "elementary doctrine" in the epistles of Hebrews, Colossians and Galatians point toward this...the Mosaic Covenant was almost like the ABC's that prepare children to write full sentences. Judaizers don't go beyond the ABC stage to learn how to write full sentences, though.

By the way, I don't think Hebrews 6:1-2 is talking about basics of Christianity, but is really talking about the Mosaic Covenant....and that the phrase "elementary principles" in both Colossians 2 and Galatians 4 are talking about the Mosaic Covenant too. I would view the Mosaic Covenant as being applicable to a carnal-minded people who needed something more rudimentary that is only preparatory to a full relationship with Jesus through faith. Deuteronomy 28-30 indicates that the Israelites, who received the Mosaic Covenant, were in fact in such a carnal state. The fact that the New Covenant involved regeneration, or having God's "laws" written on their hearts, is proof of this. They had hearts of stone and not of flesh. Some few of their leadership, and a remnant of them, were converted but not ancient Israel as a whole.

Anyways, some carnal men who have not been regenerated or born again will follow religious systems, and some Judaizers are probably still carnal. Others are doctrinally confused believers who have been deceived, and God will eventually lead them out of the shadows and types into the Reality, which is Jesus, like he did with me. Maybe some need to feel the condemnation of the Law before they will acknowledge their sinfulness and their need for God's grace.

As I have said before, though, I have no issue with those who observe the shadows and types without claiming others are in sin for non-observance, if they believe they are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice, and that these elements of the Mosaic Covenant are not requirements or conditions or necessary fruits of salvation. The shadows and types can be meaningful, although they were not needed to come to faith, as evidenced by Paul's refusal to allow Judaizers to give that impression.

Thanks for your post. I too agree that there is nothing wrong with how they want to spend a day but when they start with this it is "sinning against God and not obeying the word of God" stuff - that's when they pervert the gospel of the grace of God and that needs to be stood against.

I too believe what you wrote in brown above. That the elementary principles about the Messiah or Christ in Heb. 6:1-2 is talking about through the eyes of the Jews belief system and the observance of Law of Moses.

This belief could get you strung up in some Christian circles as it "conflicts" with what they have been taught in their church teachings and traditions passed down.

Sometimes us "defenders of the faith and the rightly dividing the scriptures" can get upset when our favorite sacred cows have a knife to their throat.

 

[sparkman]

Here's another one related to clean meat laws.

Judaizers will often focus upon refuting Mark 7:19 in regards to this set of verses, particularly some textual variants which could cause the verses to indicate that Jesus didn't cleanse all meats, but instead the intestines cleanse the meats through the digestive process.

Notice, however, that Jesus said in Mark 7:14-15 that NOTHING which goes into a man defiles him.

Mark 7:14-15 [SUP]14 [/SUP]And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: [SUP]15 [/SUP]There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

What is it about "nothing" that Judaizers don't understand?

And, why don't they understand that the kingdom of God isn't about foods? Why is there such a fixation on foods and days?

Romans 7:14 - 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

The food laws were part of the "separation commandments" which hindered social interaction between Israelites and non-Israelites in order to keep them from idolatry. Keeping them socially distanced by attributing uncleanness to them, related to what they ate, was part of the intention of God in this regard.

Note in the account of Acts 10 that Peter considered the Gentiles to be unclean, in part, due to their food, and God used the foods as a symbol in the dream for uncleanness. Judaizers will argue about this and say that the basic meaning is that the Gentiles were not to be considered unclean, but the food itself was still unclean, and that God didn't cleanse the foods. Regardless if this is true or not, the fact that Israelites considered Gentiles unclean, in part, due to their food, and didn't socialize with them because of this, is indisputable. So, the effect of the clean meat laws is to distance observers from non-observers. It does the same thing today, by the way, amongst Jews and Gentiles, and Muslims and non-Muslims. It hinders social interaction.

I remember, as a young Armstrongite....I took my grandmother to another state for a funeral. On more than one occasion, I was served pork and wouldn't eat it due to the clean meat laws. This put me in my own little bubble of oddness amongst family members that I hadn't been around for decades. It was a shame actually, and I regret the way I behaved as a little ignorant Judaizer, distancing myself from them. It would have been different if they were immoral and I eschewed their immorality, but that wasn't the case. They were Bible-believing Christians and I made it evident that I was different than them by my devotion to Armstrongism and my patchwork quilt of Mosaic Covenant observances.
[SUP]

[/SUP]

 

[sparkman]

Here's another one.

Judaizers paint themselves as valiant defenders of "the Truth".

In reality, they are "tilting at windmills".

This meme is based on Don Quixote. Don Quixote was a delusional old man who fancied himself to be a knight rescuing fair damsels from "giants".

In reality, the "giants" were just windmills. While thinking he was a valiant knight rescuing these fair damsels, in reality he was just an old delusional fool.

This story reminds me of the mentality that many Judaizers have. They view the church as being, essentially, neo-pagans who have drifted far from Christianity. Often, their worldview involves a twisted church history which places way too much emphasis on the role of the Roman Catholic church, and Constantine, in regards to changing the day of observance from Saturday to Sunday.

History verifies that the vast majority of believers were not meeting on Saturday by AD140. Samuele Bacchiocchi, who is a SDA historian, after doing extensive research, verified this fact, and could no longer hold his church's teaching that the Pope changed the day of observance (by the way this view was based on a vision by Ellen G. White, therefore the vision proves she is a false prophetess).

The truth is that Jewish Christians, and some Gentiles, met with Jews in the synagogues on the Sabbath for many years after Christ's death. The Scriptures were not available to the normal person, and they were read in the synagogues on the Sabbath. The pattern seems to be that often, Christians would listen to the readings on Sabbath, and then participate in their own meetings on Sunday or some other day.

Prior to the siege of Jerusalem from AD67-70, Jewish Christians left Jerusalem as it was surrounded by the Roman 10th legion, and went to a wilderness area. They did this based on the warning of Matthew 24 (much of which premillennialists deny applied to AD70), and perhaps an angelic warning that was heard from the Temple (Eusebius recorded this).

After the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish Christians were viewed negatively by Jews. Eventually a benediction was added to the Eighteen Benedictions, which were required recitation in the synagogue. This benediction was in effect a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus, so conscientious Jewish Christians could not repeat it. Therefore, synagogue attendance became much rarer amongst Jewish Christians.

And, about AD135, Jewish rabbis began promoting a rebellion against Rome under Simon Bar-Kokhba, whom they claimed was the Messiah. Jewish Christians were again persecuted as they refused to unite under Bar-Kokhba and to affirm his Messiahship.

These forces led up to the decreased association between Christians and Jews. My best guess is that Jewish Christians simply stopped attending synagogue services uniformly and met on Sunday. Since Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, it was fitting since the focus of Christianity is on Jesus Christ and him crucified, as Paul taught (I Cor 15:1-4).

As for Gentile Christians, I don't believe as a general rule that they observed Sabbath. The Scriptures I provided show that the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. Some Jews continued to observe elements of the Mosaic Covenant as a matter of preference, even physical circumcision; see Acts 15. But, observance was not a requirement of Christianity.

Constantine did allow for a rest day on Sunday in AD324 for soldiers and agricultural workers, but this didn't stop anyone from observing the Sabbath.

In AD363, at the Council of Laodicea, the Church anathematized those who Judaize but my guess is that was due to a group of troublemakers who were claiming that Sabbath observance was a requirement of salvation. I doubt that the anathema was imposed upon individuals who were peaceful observers of the Sabbath. Seeing the attitude of Judaizers in the church today, I can understand why they would be anathematized and marked as troublemakers, especially in light of what the Bible says in Galatians.

It should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church was nothing but a bishopric at this point, and wasn't even present at some of these church councils. It was much later that the Roman Catholic church exerted strong control over the Western part of the church. There wasn't even a recognized pope until about AD590. So, the typical Judaizer slant that the Roman Catholic church caused the movement to Sunday observance is a laugh. I realize that some within the Roman Catholic church have made this claim, but they also claim that Peter was the first pope. Why should anyone believe them on either account?

Anyways, this meme represents the reality that Judaizers are charging at windmills, thinking they are the valiant defenders of the truth, and not realizing that they are deceived buffoons who have bought into a false, National-Enquirer level understanding of church history which seeks to portray Christians as being deceived pawns of Satan.

 

[PeterJens]

The term Judaizers is unfortunate, because I have seen it miss-applied too often.

Some hold that obeying the law of Christ is being a Judaizer and they add the idea
of works salvation.

My approach is simple, to bring things back to love and truth in our hearts.
Marking celebrations, and eating certain foods never changed ones heart.
Obedience to Gods ways and doing things out of honour and allegiance to the King
is a different thing.

The problem is always distinguishing between the old covenant and the new
covenant, which made the physical symbols and ceremonies into spiritual realities
of the heart rather than external practices.

I can see how for some if the internal spiritual realities are too hard to grasp it
is easier to create an external reality to express the hoped for internal reality.

You see this in churches that have a holy place, the celebration of the mass,
the use of incense. We do though retain some things, like baptism and the
breaking of bread, the laying on of hands.

Some want to take the spirit of condemnation of judiazers and extend it to
anyone who desires to walk righteously and see God working in their life.

 

[MadebyHim]

By Joe Crews

[h=2]The Authority of God’s Law[/h]
The devil, through sin, has just about wrecked this world of ours. We live in an age of rebellion against all restraint and law. Our nation stands aghast at the big-city gang defiance of social order and property rights, including the right to live. Murder, robbery, and personal assaults have become the trademark of both urban and suburban 20th-century life.

Each day as we read the newspaper it seems that the quality of life has edged downward a little bit further. At times we are tempted to believe that things can get no worse, and that conditions have hit rock bottom. Yet, the next day, even more violent, bizarre crimes are reported, and we simply shake our heads in disbelief. It is difficult to comprehend how a nation like America with its rich Christian heritage could ever depart so far from its founding principles. Even the non-Christian countries are not plagued with as much crime and overall violence as this so-called Christian nation. More crime is reported in Washington, D.C., in 24 hours than Moscow reports in a full year. No doubt the reporting methods are not the same, but it still presents an alarming picture.

The problem becomes more serious when we realize that lawlessness also reaches into the area of religion and affects millions who would never think of killing or raping. It is probable that the great majority of church members in America today carry few convictions against breaking at least one of the Ten Commandments. A very insidious doctrine has been developed in both Catholic and Protestant theology, which has tended to minimize the authority of God’s great moral law. It has led many to look lightly upon transgression and has made sin to appear unobjectionable. In fact, sin has lost its horror for multitudes and has become an acceptable mode of life for both youth and adults. Witness the current trends in lifestyle that support this view.

How many young men and women are living together without benefit of marriage! Yet they do not believe such living arrangements should be designated as sin. A large portion of shoplifters are professing Christians, and most of those who belong to churches believe that there is no sin whatsoever involved in violating the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

How can we explain this paradoxical situation among those who profess such high regard for the Bible, and such love for Christ? This question becomes more significant when we consider the historical position of Christianity toward the Ten-Commandment law. Almost all of the great denominations have officially placed themselves on record as supporting the authority of that law. Yet very subtle errors of interpretation have crept into the modern church, leading to the present state of confused loyalty toward the Ten Commandments. How earnestly we need to look at that law and study its relation to God’s grace and to salvation itself. Itis so easy to accept the popular clichés concerning law and grace without searching out the biblical facts by which we will finally be judged. We must find authoritative scriptural answers to questions like these: In what sense are Christians free from the law? What does it mean to be under the law? Does God’s grace nullify the Ten Commandments? Is a Christian justified in breaking any of the Ten Commandments because he is under grace? These are the questions we shall address ourselves to in this important study.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Condemned to Die[/h]
Let us push aside the rubbish of confusion that has obscured the truth about how men are saved. Multitudes have heard emotional discourses on sin and salvation, but they still do not understand the logic and reason that require a blood sacrifice.

Can you imagine the horror of standing before a judge and hearing the sentence of death pronounced against you? Probably not. But you have felt the driving guilt and fear when God’s Word stabs you with this sentence: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Why fear and guilt? Because “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The words are there and the meaning cannot be mistaken. The word “all” might just as well be spelled John Smith or Mary Jones or whatever your name happens to be. The shocking fact is that you are under the sentence of death! You have been found guilty before the law, and there is no court of appeal in the world that can reverse the sentence and find you not guilty. The fact is that you are guilty, just as guilty as sin. According to 1 John 3:4, “sin is the transgression of the law,” and you must plead guilty to breaking the law. Whose law did you break? Paul answers quickly, “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Ro-mans 7:7). There it is! The great Ten-Commandment law is the one that was broken, and it demands death for the transgressor.

In desperation the sinner searches for a way to be justified in the sight of that broken law. How can the sentence of death be turned aside? Can man atone for his sins by obeying the commandments of God for the rest of his life? Back comes the answer in language that no one can misinterpret: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20).

Listen; there is a reason why works will not justify a soul. If a man is found guilty of stealing and is sentenced to ten years in jail, he may indeed justify himself by works. By serving the time of his sentence, the man may satisfy the claims of the law. He is considered perfectly justified and innocent because he has worked out his deliverance by fulfilling the sentence. In the same manner, a murderer may be justified by works if he serves the fifty years of his sentence. But suppose the sentence is death instead of fifty years? Can the prisoner then justify himself by works? Never! Even if he should work for one hundred years at hard labor, the law would still demanddeath. The truth is that “without shedding of blood is no remission. … So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Hebrews 9:22–28).

This is why works can never save the sinner. The penalty for sin is not ten years in prison or fifty years at hard labor. The sentence is death, and the law cannot be satisfied except by the shedding of blood. That unchangeable law with its unrelenting death sentence could no more be removed than the throne of God could be toppled. The guilt of the past cannot be erased by resolutions of good behavior in the future. The sinner finally is forced to confess that he owes something that he cannot pay. The law demands death and he cannot satisfy it without forfeiting his own life for eternity

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]The Law Still Binding[/h]
Now we are brought to the question that has created confusion for multitudes of Christians: If the works of the law cannot save a person, is it therefore necessary to keep the law? Apparently this was a burning issue in the early church, because Paul asked the same question in Romans 6:1. “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” In other words, does grace give us a license to disobey the law of God? His answer is: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (verse 2).

How interesting it is that Christians in this age of relativism can invent their own definitions that condone lawbreaking. The Bible says sin is violating the Ten Commandments—the law which has been described as irrelevant and old-fashioned by many modern theologians. Don’t be deceived. Every one of those great moral precepts is just as timely and needful today as they were when God wrote them on the imperishable tables of stone. And nothing has ever happened to make them less binding than they were when God gave them. In fact, we are going to discover that Jesus came to magnify the law and to open up its spiritual application, making it more comprehensive than the legalistic Pharisees ever imagined. Under the distilling influence of Christ’s perfect life of obedience, we can see the spiritual details of law-keeping which are neither recognized nor made possible apart from Him.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]God’s Law—A Mirror[/h]
At this point we must be very careful to designate also what the law cannot do. Even though it points out sin, it has no power to save from sin. There is no justifying, cleansing grace in it. All the works of all the laws would not be sufficient to save a single soul. Why? For the simple reason that we are saved by grace through faith, as a free gift. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20).

Do not stumble over this crucial point. We cannot earn forgiveness by working hard to obey. No sinner can gain favor and acceptance with God because he keeps the law. The law was not made for the purpose of saving or justifying. It was made to show us our need of cleansing and to point us to the great source of cleansing, Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Bible speaks of the law as a mirror to show us what kind of persons we really are. “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 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” (James 1:23–25).

It is obvious to all that a mirror cannot remove a spot from the face. Looking into the mirror all day, and even rubbing it over the face, will not provide any cleansing. Its work is to reveal the spot and to point the dirty one to the sink for actual cleansing. The law, in like manner, can only condemn the sinner by giving him knowledge of his condition and then pointing him to the cross for true cleansing. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Paul further emphasizes this point in Galatians 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ … for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Right here we must consider one of the most fallacious propositions ever set forth relating to the law. Countless sincere Christians have accepted the idea that the Old Testament encompasses the dispensation of works and that the New Testament provides for a dispensation of grace. Under this garbled plan people were saved by works in the Old Testament and by grace in the New Testament. This is simply not true. The Bible holds forth only one beautiful, perfect plan for anybody to be saved, and that is by grace through faith. Heaven will not be divided between those who got there by works and those who got there by faith. Every single soul among the redeemed will be a sinner saved by grace.

Those who entered into salvation in the Old Testament were those who trusted the merits of the blood of Jesus Christ, and they demonstrated their faith by bringing a lamb and slaying it. They looked forward in faith to the atoning death of Jesus. We look back in faith to the same death and are saved in exactly the same way. Be very certain that the entire redeemed host throughout eternity will be singing the same song of deliverance, exalting the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]The “New” Law of Christ[/h]
Some try to dispose of the Ten Commandments on the basis of the “new” commandments of love that Christ introduced. It is certainly true that Jesus laid down two great laws of love as a summary of all the law, but did He give the idea that these were new in point of time? The fact is that He was quoting directly from the Old Testament when He gave those newcommandments. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Certainly, those penetrating spiritual principles had been forgotten by the legalists of Christ’s day, and they were new to them in relation to their life and practice. But they were not intended by Jesus to take the place of the Ten Commandments.

When the lawyer asked Jesus which was the greatest commandment in the law, he received the answer: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40).

Notice that these two love commandments simply summed up “all the law and the prophets.” They all hang upon these two principles of love. Christ was saying that love is the fulfilling of the law just as Paul repeated it later in Romans 13:10. If one loves Christ supremely with heart, soul, and mind, he will obey the first four commandments that have to do with our duty to God. He will not take God’s name in vain, worship other gods, etc. If one loves his neighbor as himself, he will obey the last six commandments that relate to our duty to our fellow men. He will not be able to steal from his neighbor, lie about him, etc. Love will lead to obeying or fulfilling all the law.

 

[gb9]

The “New” Law of Christ


Some try to dispose of the Ten Commandments on the basis of the “new” commandments of love that Christ introduced. It is certainly true that Jesus laid down two great laws of love as a summary of all the law, but did He give the idea that these were new in point of time? The fact is that He was quoting directly from the Old Testament when He gave those newcommandments. “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Certainly, those penetrating spiritual principles had been forgotten by the legalists of Christ’s day, and they were new to them in relation to their life and practice. But they were not intended by Jesus to take the place of the Ten Commandments.

When the lawyer asked Jesus which was the greatest commandment in the law, he received the answer: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40).

Notice that these two love commandments simply summed up “all the law and the prophets.” They all hang upon these two principles of love. Christ was saying that love is the fulfilling of the law just as Paul repeated it later in Romans 13:10. If one loves Christ supremely with heart, soul, and mind, he will obey the first four commandments that have to do with our duty to God. He will not take God’s name in vain, worship other gods, etc. If one loves his neighbor as himself, he will obey the last six commandments that relate to our duty to our fellow men. He will not be able to steal from his neighbor, lie about him, etc. Love will lead to obeying or fulfilling all the law.

very good post here.

 

[MadebyHim]

[h=2]Not Under the Law[/h]
Often we hear this argument in an effort to belittle the law of God: “Well, since we are not under the law but under grace, we do not need to keep the Ten Commandments any longer.” Is this a valid point? The Bible certainly does say that we are not under the law, but does that imply that we are free from the obligation to obey it? The text is found in Romans 6:14, 15. “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”

How easily we could prevent confusion if we accepted exactly what the Bible says. Paul gives his own explanation of his statement. After stating that we are not under the law but under grace, he asks, “What then?” This simply means, “How are we to understand this?” Then notice his answer. In anticipation that some will construe his words to mean that you can break the law because you are under grace, he says, “Shall we sin (break the law) because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” In the strongest possible language Paul states that being under grace does not give a license to break the law. Yet this is exactly what millions believe today, and they totally ignore Paul’s specific warning.

If being under grace does not exempt us from keeping the law, then what does Paul mean by saying that Christians are not under the law? He gives that answer in Romans 3:19. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Here Paul equates being under the law with “being guilty before God.” In other words, those who are under the law are guilty of breaking it and are under the condemnation of it. This is why Christians are not under it. They are not breaking it—not guilty and condemned by it. Therefore, they are not under it, but are under the power of grace instead. Later in his argument, Paul points out that the power of grace is greater than the power of sin. This is why he states so emphatically, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Grace overrules the authority of sin, giving power to obey God’s law. This is the effective reason that we are not under the law’s guilt and condemnation and also why Paul states that we will not continue to sin

Suppose a murderer has been sentenced to death in the electric chair. Waiting for the execution the man would truly be under the law in every sense of the word—under the guilt, under the condemnation, under the sentence of death, etc. Just before the execution date the governor reviews the condemned man’s case and decides to pardon him. In the light of extenuating circumstances the governor exercises his prerogative and sends a full pardon to the prisoner. Now he is no longer under the law but under grace. The law no longer condemns him. He is considered totally justified as far as the charges of the law are concerned. He is free to walk out of the prison and no policeman can lay hands upon him. But now that he is under grace and no longer under the law, can we say that he is free to break the law? Indeed not! In fact, that pardoned man will be doubly obligated to obey the law because he has found grace from the governor. In gratitude and love he will be very careful to honor the law of that state which granted him grace. Is that what the Bible says about pardoned sinners? “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31). Here is the most explicit answer to the entire problem. Paul asks if the law is nullified for us just because we have had faith in Christ’s saving grace. His answer is that the law is established and reinforced in the life of a grace-saved Christian.

The truth of this is so simple and obvious that it should require no repetition, but the devious reasoning of those who try to avoid obedience makes it necessary to press this point a bit further. Have you ever been stopped by a policeman for exceeding the speed limit? It is an embarrassing experience, especially if you know you are guilty. But suppose you really were hurrying to meet a valid emergency, and you pour out your convincing explanation to the police-man as he writes your ticket. Slowly he folds the ticket and tears it up. Then he says, “All right, I’m going to pardon you this time, but …” Now what do you think he means by that word “but”? Surely he means, “but I don’t want to ever catch you speeding again.” Does this pardon (grace) open the way for you to disobey the law? On the contrary, it adds compelling urgency to your decision not to disobey the law again. Why, then, should any true Christian try to rationalize his way out of obeying the law of God? “If ye love me,” Jesus said, “keep my commandments” (John 14:15).