A Study of Acts 15 (by 119 Ministries)
- Thread starter Yahshua
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?
In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
(Galatians 5:11)
what is it about the message of the cross that is an offense to people who preach circumcision?
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
(Galatians 5:1-2)
how do i be obedient to this?
-
1
- Show all
TY for sticking to topic Nehemiah.
----
So I ask, we're only to obey just four laws that were given at that council? What about murder or lying? These weren't specifically commanded at that council. And how would the gentiles understand what else was implied by Noah during the time of the flood if this was their first exposure to anything in scripture? Would they even know about the story of Noah?
----
So I ask, we're only to obey just four laws that were given at that council? What about murder or lying? These weren't specifically commanded at that council. And how would the gentiles understand what else was implied by Noah during the time of the flood if this was their first exposure to anything in scripture? Would they even know about the story of Noah?
-
1
- Show all
Just after the council in chapter 15, Paul himself circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). Did he just purposely make Christ of no value to Tim? There has to be something else we're misunderstanding from the council. And the key - I believe - is found in the words of Acts 15:1:
"circumcision for salvation" was the view of the certain men.
"circumcision for salvation" was the view of the certain men.
-
2
- Show all
yes, watching the video, i come to the same conclusion. this is subtly deceptive teaching, but it's blown up by the rest of the chapter, and by the rest of the Bible.
about the 9 minute mark, the man frames the council meeting as whether circumcision & the law should be kept for salvation or whether it should be kept out of obedience. what you point Ben, wrecks that argument - because if it was to be assumed that the gospel was teaching everyone to carefully keep all of the law, they wouldn't have sent a letter giving just a few brief instructions which all come from the law - these would already be things they were doing if they were all assumed to already be keeping the law. furthermore, they would all already be becoming physically circumcised, but any cursory scan of Galatians completely destroys that idea. if the context of the meeting was as this man from 119 says, whether the law must be kept *in order to be saved* or whether it must be kept *in obedience to the terms of your salvation* then letter the council sent to the gentile believers would have been telling them to be careful about their motivation for doing things. it would have been a letter instructing about the things they should think, not about the things they should do. we can see from reading the whole chapter though, the conclusion of the meeting was about what burden is placed on the gentiles having come to faith, not about a specific way they should view and consider being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses.
the fact that what the council decided and wrote had nothing to do with having the right intellectual motivation and everything to do with specifying what physical rules they should stick to shipwrecks this man's whole framework of interpretation.
119 has a very clear position on physical circumcision; they say it should be done. they are careful to say 'not to become saved' and insist that it must be done 'out of obedience.' but ultimately what they mean by that is that it must be done 'to remain saved' -- and that's no pragmatic difference at all, because they also say the disobedient do not have salvation: so what they say is required to be obedient to, they are equivalently saying is required to receive salvation. whether you buy something with cash or you buy it on payment plan, it's you buying it, not receiving it as a gift. again, even without this argument, their position about circumcision is contrary to clear teaching in Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. just as Acts 15 suggests, physical circumcision, on the basis of obedience to the law, as though having become or remaining under it by the gospel, was a problem he often encountered.
about the 9 minute mark, the man frames the council meeting as whether circumcision & the law should be kept for salvation or whether it should be kept out of obedience. what you point Ben, wrecks that argument - because if it was to be assumed that the gospel was teaching everyone to carefully keep all of the law, they wouldn't have sent a letter giving just a few brief instructions which all come from the law - these would already be things they were doing if they were all assumed to already be keeping the law. furthermore, they would all already be becoming physically circumcised, but any cursory scan of Galatians completely destroys that idea. if the context of the meeting was as this man from 119 says, whether the law must be kept *in order to be saved* or whether it must be kept *in obedience to the terms of your salvation* then letter the council sent to the gentile believers would have been telling them to be careful about their motivation for doing things. it would have been a letter instructing about the things they should think, not about the things they should do. we can see from reading the whole chapter though, the conclusion of the meeting was about what burden is placed on the gentiles having come to faith, not about a specific way they should view and consider being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses.
the fact that what the council decided and wrote had nothing to do with having the right intellectual motivation and everything to do with specifying what physical rules they should stick to shipwrecks this man's whole framework of interpretation.
119 has a very clear position on physical circumcision; they say it should be done. they are careful to say 'not to become saved' and insist that it must be done 'out of obedience.' but ultimately what they mean by that is that it must be done 'to remain saved' -- and that's no pragmatic difference at all, because they also say the disobedient do not have salvation: so what they say is required to be obedient to, they are equivalently saying is required to receive salvation. whether you buy something with cash or you buy it on payment plan, it's you buying it, not receiving it as a gift. again, even without this argument, their position about circumcision is contrary to clear teaching in Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. just as Acts 15 suggests, physical circumcision, on the basis of obedience to the law, as though having become or remaining under it by the gospel, was a problem he often encountered.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
read the whole verse, it tells why he did it. "because of the Jews who lived in that area"
why didn't anyone apparently care that Timothy was uncircumcised previously? verse 2, the believers in two different cities spoke well of him. while he was uncircumcised. this guy wasn't converted early that morning and recommended to Paul 2 hours later that afternoon, before there was time to circumcise him. Paul wanted to take him with him - to do what? what was Paul doing? going to synagogues and bringing the gospel to Jews first, then the gentiles. so what is it about this situation makes circumcision a good idea while it wasn't previously, when everyone spoke well of this uncircumcised half-Jew believer? "because of the Jews"
the text doesn't say Timothy was physically circumcised because he had been disobedient previously and Paul was enforcing the law.
it indicates that his physical uncircumcision was an offense to the people he was intending to evangelize. it's "because of the Jews who lived in that area" not "because the law requires it"
why didn't anyone apparently care that Timothy was uncircumcised previously? verse 2, the believers in two different cities spoke well of him. while he was uncircumcised. this guy wasn't converted early that morning and recommended to Paul 2 hours later that afternoon, before there was time to circumcise him. Paul wanted to take him with him - to do what? what was Paul doing? going to synagogues and bringing the gospel to Jews first, then the gentiles. so what is it about this situation makes circumcision a good idea while it wasn't previously, when everyone spoke well of this uncircumcised half-Jew believer? "because of the Jews"
the text doesn't say Timothy was physically circumcised because he had been disobedient previously and Paul was enforcing the law.
it indicates that his physical uncircumcision was an offense to the people he was intending to evangelize. it's "because of the Jews who lived in that area" not "because the law requires it"
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Reasonable. But we're not addressing the elephant in the room and that is "do we do things for praise of men or for Yah?" We all know the answer to this question, so why would Paul and Barnabas dispute the "certain men" earlier in chapter 15 (leading to the council meeting) only to literally do what was pleasing to Jews?
If the very act of circumcision denies salvation then Paul shouldn't have circumcised Timothy to please any party living in any area over the truth of Yah. The point of the council is thus maintained: circumcision for salvation is wrong, but circumcision in obedience is proper.
If the very act of circumcision denies salvation then Paul shouldn't have circumcised Timothy to please any party living in any area over the truth of Yah. The point of the council is thus maintained: circumcision for salvation is wrong, but circumcision in obedience is proper.
-
1
- Show all
The Ten Commandments transcend the Law of Moses.
They were written on tablets of stone on Mount Sinai under the Old Covenant, but they are written on hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit, when He regenerates sinners. So they are still within the New Covenant and the Law of Christ.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people... (Heb 8:10).
TITUS 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
ROMANS 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: there fore love is the fulfilling of the law.
They were written on tablets of stone on Mount Sinai under the Old Covenant, but they are written on hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit, when He regenerates sinners. So they are still within the New Covenant and the Law of Christ.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people... (Heb 8:10).
TITUS 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
ROMANS 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: there fore love is the fulfilling of the law.
-
1
- Show all
I will and have, and I provided verses, reason you wont is because those other verses like 1 cor 7:18 destroy your entire OP video.
I did speak about Acts 15, you just REJECT my view of it. Here it is again: Acts 15 concludes that we are saved BY FAITH and not by works of the law, and that they shouldn't put a yoke that nobody else could bear either, since ALL have sinned, and the letter to the gentiles was sent to tell them this message, AND to include a few things like eating food sacrificed to false gods etc. (Since many were living in pagan areas and came from pagan backgrounds).
I just spoke about Acts 15 there above ^. Is that good enough? But really, you shouldn't limit your focus on a subject to just one book or chapter, that way you can come up with erroneous conclusions.
Seriously? threats?....... lol.. i adressed acts 15 above. That will be my last post on this particular topic. Have fun with your heresy
I did speak about Acts 15, you just REJECT my view of it. Here it is again: Acts 15 concludes that we are saved BY FAITH and not by works of the law, and that they shouldn't put a yoke that nobody else could bear either, since ALL have sinned, and the letter to the gentiles was sent to tell them this message, AND to include a few things like eating food sacrificed to false gods etc. (Since many were living in pagan areas and came from pagan backgrounds).
I just spoke about Acts 15 there above ^. Is that good enough? But really, you shouldn't limit your focus on a subject to just one book or chapter, that way you can come up with erroneous conclusions.
Seriously? threats?....... lol.. i adressed acts 15 above. That will be my last post on this particular topic. Have fun with your heresy
-
1
- Show all
For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision,
but keeping the commandments of God.
(1 Corinthians 7:19)
(1 Corinthians 7:19)
i think that this makes it obvious the apostle doesn't consider physical circumcision one of the 'commandments of God' that must be obeyed.
but it's in the law.
it's in the law, and it's not a sacrifice or ceremony for atonement of sin or cleanness.
it's in the law, and it has nothing to do with Levitical priesthood.
it predates the law: it's the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
the "obedience" of a Christian, according to scripture, doesn't include physical circumcision.
therefore it doesn't include keeping the law of Moses.
therefore this 119 guy is wrong.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
K
I don't have a Bible verse for this, it's my opinion thus far based on what I believe about scripture.
Imagine that time of transition. The deciples trying to usher in the changes to The Law, such as blood sacrifice, the priesthood, and circumcision for new converts. In the background the temple still standing, and the priests going about their priestly duties just as before the death and resurrection. (I believe the gospels were written prior to the destruction of the temple)
I think it had to do with Timothy's mother being Jewish, his father was Greek I believe. (or visa versa) How would it look to certain Jews if Timothy was included without circumcision? He was part Jew. It was a tumultuous time, such as we cannot imagine.
For the record, I believe the gentiles were given just a few commandments to start. Then expected to learn more about how they should live, (in the synagogues where Moses was read every Sabbath).
Imagine that time of transition. The deciples trying to usher in the changes to The Law, such as blood sacrifice, the priesthood, and circumcision for new converts. In the background the temple still standing, and the priests going about their priestly duties just as before the death and resurrection. (I believe the gospels were written prior to the destruction of the temple)
I think it had to do with Timothy's mother being Jewish, his father was Greek I believe. (or visa versa) How would it look to certain Jews if Timothy was included without circumcision? He was part Jew. It was a tumultuous time, such as we cannot imagine.
For the record, I believe the gentiles were given just a few commandments to start. Then expected to learn more about how they should live, (in the synagogues where Moses was read every Sabbath).
-
3
- Show all
Acts 16:2, Timothy was spoken well of by believers in two cities.
he wasn't circumcised.
Acts 16:3, Paul wants to take Timothy with him to evangelize certain Jews. certain Jews who knew he wasn't circumcised. certain Jews to whom physical circumcision was a very big deal. certain Jews who would immediately reject anything Timothy said on the basis of it.
Timothy was circumcised "because of certain Jews"
Timothy was not circumcised "because he had been formerly disobedient"
Timothy was going with Paul to the synagogues where Moses was read in order to teach the people reading Moses. not in order to learn from them.
he wasn't circumcised.
Acts 16:3, Paul wants to take Timothy with him to evangelize certain Jews. certain Jews who knew he wasn't circumcised. certain Jews to whom physical circumcision was a very big deal. certain Jews who would immediately reject anything Timothy said on the basis of it.
Timothy was circumcised "because of certain Jews"
Timothy was not circumcised "because he had been formerly disobedient"
Timothy was going with Paul to the synagogues where Moses was read in order to teach the people reading Moses. not in order to learn from them.
Your responses to others have been somewhat blunt, in that they aren't responding to the video but only to the group. Here's my perspective: you haven't even adequately vetted this video.
At 11:26, the speaker mentions Deuteronomy 30:11-16 and 1 John 4:23 as stating that obedience to the Law is not too heavy.
Unfortunately, 1 John 4:23 does not exist. There is no such verse!
You have no credibility criticizing others for not watching the video when you haven't done your own homework on it. A study that bases a key part of its argument on a non-existent verse is not a "good study".
As for the rest of the video, it is largely based on eisegetical interpretations of verses 1, 5, and 19-21. I don't see that the text supports the assertion that the groups in 1 and 5 were arguing different positions. The brethren in verse 1 would have no reason to listen to unbelievers about anything. However, believers from Jerusalem (Pharisees) would be given a hearing. If the group in verse 1 is the same as in verse 5, the entire argument collapses.
As for 19-21, the video argues that the four abstentions were only the first step for gentiles unfamiliar with the Law, and that the rest would be taught later. Again, I see absolutely no support for this view in the text.
I found no reason to watch past 20 minutes.
Galatians, Romans and Hebrews all teach with abundant clarity: Christians are not under the Law... for salvation or anything else.
Galatians 3:5 "So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
At 11:26, the speaker mentions Deuteronomy 30:11-16 and 1 John 4:23 as stating that obedience to the Law is not too heavy.
Unfortunately, 1 John 4:23 does not exist. There is no such verse!
You have no credibility criticizing others for not watching the video when you haven't done your own homework on it. A study that bases a key part of its argument on a non-existent verse is not a "good study".
As for the rest of the video, it is largely based on eisegetical interpretations of verses 1, 5, and 19-21. I don't see that the text supports the assertion that the groups in 1 and 5 were arguing different positions. The brethren in verse 1 would have no reason to listen to unbelievers about anything. However, believers from Jerusalem (Pharisees) would be given a hearing. If the group in verse 1 is the same as in verse 5, the entire argument collapses.
As for 19-21, the video argues that the four abstentions were only the first step for gentiles unfamiliar with the Law, and that the rest would be taught later. Again, I see absolutely no support for this view in the text.
I found no reason to watch past 20 minutes.
Galatians, Romans and Hebrews all teach with abundant clarity: Christians are not under the Law... for salvation or anything else.
Galatians 3:5 "So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?"
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Please don't presume to lecture me Dino or know what vetting I've done. Why don't you ask me first and I'll tell you. I personally noted the error of 1 John 4:23 but that didn't detract from the point being made because of the first supporting passage of Deuteronomy 30:11-16, provided. Did it negate his point or the supporting passage of Deuteronomy? Does a secondary reference error negate an entire study? I can count in a single thread on this site multiple citation errors. But if we negated every post or reply based on human error there would be maybe 5 posts on this entire website.
And to the blunt response; surely you've been here long enough to know so I don't have to tell you the basic rules of a thread. I can care less who disagrees with the video or the study or a group who makes the study, but I will be respected here as equally as you or anyone here who doesn't agree with me, and I have full authority to call you or anyone out on it, full, not just as a christian, or as a contributing member here of 4 years, but with it being *my* thread. And it's no less of a right to criticize than you think you have to post this reply to me.
Truth slices both ways, so let's stop defending the unrighteous here.
I appreciate you taking the time to watch what of the study you have.
And to the blunt response; surely you've been here long enough to know so I don't have to tell you the basic rules of a thread. I can care less who disagrees with the video or the study or a group who makes the study, but I will be respected here as equally as you or anyone here who doesn't agree with me, and I have full authority to call you or anyone out on it, full, not just as a christian, or as a contributing member here of 4 years, but with it being *my* thread. And it's no less of a right to criticize than you think you have to post this reply to me.
Truth slices both ways, so let's stop defending the unrighteous here.
I appreciate you taking the time to watch what of the study you have.
-
1
- Show all