Gentile Christians in Synagogues? Where? When?

[Musicmaster]

All I intended to make known was this...

I grew up in a Jewish home.
We referred to it as services at the synagogue.

Where you are going with it I do not follow.

It's more a matter of a choice of words. When we, today, use the word "service," that implies in the thinking of most who attend churchianity what's done within modern churchianity where there may be a difference between that and what actually happens in the Synagogue where your family attended. Is that a fair statement?

MM

 

[ScooterJackson]

It's more a matter of a choice of words. When we, today, use the word "service," that implies in the thinking of most who attend churchianity what's done within modern churchianity where there may be a difference between that and what actually happens in the Synagogue where your family attended. Is that a fair statement?

Those meeting in the synagogue did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior so there service certainly was not unto the Lord.

 

[Churchgoer]

Those meeting in the synagogue did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior so there service certainly was not unto the Lord.

Agree.
We should focus on Jesus, the Lord and savior.
Not different type of religious services, hindu, Buddhists, Judaism, Islam...

 

[ScooterJackson]

Agree.
We should focus on Jesus, the Lord and savior.
Not different type of religious services, hindu, Buddhists, Judaism, Islam...

Yes and we need to also understand that the Jews are beloved of the Father and as such we are supposed to be trying to win them to the Lord and as such we don't coddle them in their false doctrine of not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior as some Christians are doing when they never tell their Jewish friends that they need to accept Jesus.

I've tried doing that with a few Jewish folks and sometimes it immediately blows up in to an argument where they accuse you of being racist and hating Jews. All you can do is state the Truth and move on.

Now the "christianity" most Jews have seen is actually antisemitism coming our of reformed theology like how Martin Luther wrote much hatred about the Jews. Adolf Hitler learned hatred for the Jews by reading Martin Luther's writing. Hitler was a big fan of Luther and thought that drunk German was a great man of God - but in reality he was a follower of the god of this world and Hitler was as well.

One of the reasons many Jews reject Christianity is due to all the "christians" they've seen who were living for the devil who were actually the tares Jesus warned about.

 

[Soyeong]

Not at all do I believe those four things were an exhaustive comparison.

Then there is room for the position that those four things were a starting point for new believers and that they would be expected to continue to learn more over time.

However, my question to you is where are we today, as the body of Christ, commanded to try living Torah?

Christ is God's Word made flesh and he spent his ministry teaching his followers how to embody God's Word, so why is it even in question whether those who are part of the body of God's Word made flesh should embody God's Word?

Do you not believe what Paul said, in that we're dead to the Law?

While I agree that we are dead to the law, we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not die to the Law of God in order to be free to embody the law of sin. Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). Yes, I we can all live in obedience to the Law of God.

Why are we filled with Holy Spirit at the point of our salvation if not to be led by the Spirit, who is the Author of that Law?

An arrow flies true when it hits its mark, our mark is to embody God's character traits, so God's character traits are truth. The purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to embody God's character traits, which is why the Torah is truth (Psalm 119:142), and God's character traits are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:13) and of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27). The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in the Spirit/how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he is truth (John 14:6-11).

In John 16:8, the Spirit has the role of convicting us of sin, and in Romans 3:20, it is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is. In Romans 8:2-7, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit of Life has freed us from the law of sin and death and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah. In Galatians 5:16-23, Paul contrasted the desires of the flesh with the desires of the Spirit and everything that he listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Torah while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's character traits that the Torah was given in order to teach us how to embody. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah.

Indeed, I am filled with the Spirit and the Spirit does direct us to obey the Torah.

That Peter made the point that Moses is preached in every city

Again, why do you think that Peter said what he did in Acts 15:21 and how is that revenant to what he said in Acts 15:19-20? You are acting as if Peter was making a completely random point that is unrelated to anything else that he said in spite of him connecting that verse with the word "for". If Peter was giving a starting point for Gentiles in verses 19-20, then it would have been natural for him to justify this by pointing out that Gentiles would continue to learn over time in verse 21, so I'm not trying to force anything. I don't see what other point Peter could have been making by saying what he did in verse 21 in connection with verses 19-20. Clearly, Peter said what he did in verse 21 because he had good reason to think that there were synagogues where Gentiles would be welcome. Paul made it clear that those in the body of Christ are not permitted to sin and that it is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20). I'm not creating a dichotomy or assuming anything about those verses that they are not saying, or superimposing anything, but rather I am reading it with a natural flow of thought while you are unjustifiably trying to isolate verse 21 in order to ignore the relevance of the point that Peter was making in context of verses 19-20.

Again, why eisegetically force something into the scriptures what isn't there?

I'll grant that the text does not say that they formed their own synagogues, but I don't think that it is a stretch to think that believers in Jesus who were being kicked out of synagogues would have formed their own, but rather that would have been the natural response. I also don't think that it is safe to assume that there were no synagogues with leaders who were believers in Jesus or who were sympathetic towards Gentiles.

In Acts 21:20-24, Peter spoke about Jews hearing rumors that Paul had had been teaching to forsake Moses, they they planned to take steps to disprove those rumors and to show that he continue to live in obedience to the Law of Moses. There is nothing in the text that suggests that the rumors were true or that planned to deceive people in thinking that Paul continued to liven obedience to the Law of Moses while he was super secretly actually teaching to forsake Moses.

Do you believe Paul was a rogue apostle, and therefore a false one?

I believe that Paul was and true Apostle and servant of God, which is why I am opposed to interpreting him as teaching to forsake the Torah. It is contradictory for anyone to consider Paul to be a true Apostle and servant of God while also thinking that he should be interpret as teaching to forsake the Torah.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which Paul also taught based on the Torah (Acts 14:21-22, 20:24-25, 28:23).

Can you show me anywhere in that text that Paul or anyone else ever denied Paul teaching the Jews under his ministry to forsake the Law?

In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, and to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawless men, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he never spoke against anyone obeying the Torah.

Romans 7:4, 6

Galatians 2:19

I do not reject what Paul was clearly teaching in those verses, but rather I reject the absurdity of interpreting those verses as referring to the Law of God. It is absurd to think that the way to become joined with God's Word made flesh is by dying to God's Word, or to think that the way to become joined with Jesus is by dying to what he taught, or to think that the way to bear fruit for God is by dying to His instructions for how to bear fruit for Him. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in contrast with the law of sin that held him captive to sin and Romans 7:6 says that we have been freed from a law that held us captive to sin, so it would be absurd to interpret that as us being freed from what Paul delighted in doing instead of being freed from the law of sin. In Romans 8:2-7, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the law of sin and death and he contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse submit to the Law of God, so it is clearly the law of sin that we have been set free from, not the Law of God.

Paul described the Law of God as being something that is the good that he wanted to do in contrast with describing the law of sin as being something that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do and he was contrasting these two directions throughout Romans 5-8. We are slaves to the one that we obey, either the law of sin, which leads to death, or the Law of God, which leads to righteousness. We are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so getting to experience be a doer of the Law of God is His gift of eternal life and you are essentially interpreting Romans 7:4-6 as saying that we need to die to God's gift of eternal life instead of dying to the law of sin.

In regard to Galatians 2:19, we do not need to die to God's instructions for how to live unto Him in order to be free to live unto Him, but rather we need to die to a law that was hindering us from obeying His instructions for how to live unto Him in order to be free to live unto Him, which means that we need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not die to the Law of God in order to be free to obey the law of sin.

 

[Musicmaster]

Well, the fact that Paul goes along with the plan, to me, demonstates that he agreed the accusations against him were false.

That's interesting given that Paul always defended himself against false accusations in all other places, such as the legitimacy of his apostleship in the face of accusations of his not being a legitimate apostle throughout Galatians 1-2 and 2 Cor. 10-13.

The lack of any mention of Paul denying he had taught the Jews under his ministry to forsake the Moses, which is indeed reasonable to believe given the nature of the accusation in relation to what he taught. The context makes it clear to us that Paul, in the spirit of keeping the peace, showed to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem his reverence of the Law. However, what I would ask is that you show to us where Paul ever instructed the continuance in the observance of the Law to the Jews under his ministry? If anyone is going to say Paul was not guilty of what James stated, then his epistles should reflect that, and they do not. I will explain further down below.

Paul taught people relying on the law for relationship with God were wrong; but he didnt forbid the observance of the law and customs, let alone command people to forsake them. They were making him out to be trying to destroy the culture.

Paul said believers are not under the Law as the basis of justification or as the authority that governs them and us today who are under his ministry. He also said the Law remains meaningful in other ways.

• Galatians 2:16, 19–21: A person is not justified by works of the Law; Paul stated that he died to the Law.
• Galatians 3:10–14, 23–25: The Law cannot bring the promised inheritance; it served a temporary role “until Christ came,” and believers are no longer under that guardianship.
• Galatians 5:1–4, 18: Seeking justification through the Law is incompatible with relying on Christ; those led by the Spirit are “not under the law.”
• Romans 6:14–15: Believers are “not under law but under grace”—which Paul immediately clarified doesn't mean freedom to sin.
• Romans 7:1–6: Paul described believers as having died to the Law and being released from it to serve in the new way of the Spirit.
• Romans 10:4: Christ is the telos—often translated “end” or “goal”—of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Other relevant passages are 2 Corinthians 3:6–14 (the old covenant and the new), Ephesians 2:14–16 (Christ abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances), and Colossians 2:14–17 (the record of debt and food, festival, new-moon, and Sabbath observances). Those passages are interpreted differently by Christian traditions, especially regarding whether Paul means the entire Mosaic covenant or particular aspects of it.

So the most precise summary is: Paul declared that people in Christ are no longer under the Mosaic Law for justification or as their covenantal regime. He didn't simply say that God’s moral absolutes are irrelevant. In fact, he said faith does not “overthrow” the Law (Romans 3:31), and describes himself as not outside God’s law but “under the law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

So, from the viewpoint of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, all of this is indeed a denial of Moses and the Law he penned. Even Peter stated, when speaking to Israel:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, the more holistic viewpoint of the things concerning Paul, we see that difficulty in understanding what he taught was, to the Jews in Jerusalem who, to them, thought it radical that not only had salvation by then come unto the Gentiles independent of Israel, but also the Gentiles not being under the Law, and thus forsaking it along with their Jewish brethren.

Some talk endlessly about what those people may have done or could have done, but the record speaks for itself. Do you agree?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Then there is room for the position that those four things were a starting point for new believers and that they would be expected to continue to learn more over time.

No. That's not true because:

Paul said believers are not under the Law as the basis of justification or as the authority that governs them and us today who are under his ministry. He also said:

• Galatians 2:16, 19–21: A person is not justified by works of the Law; Paul stated that he died to the Law.
• Galatians 3:10–14, 23–25: The Law cannot bring the promised inheritance; it served a temporary role “until Christ came,” and believers are no longer under that guardianship.
• Galatians 5:1–4, 18: Seeking justification through the Law is incompatible with relying on Christ; those led by the Spirit are “not under the law.”
• Romans 6:14–15: Believers are “not under law but under grace”—which Paul immediately clarified doesn't mean freedom to sin.
• Romans 7:1–6: Paul described believers as having died to the Law and being released from it to serve in the new way of the Spirit.
• Romans 10:4: Christ is the telos—often translated “end” or “goal”—of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Other relevant passages are 2 Corinthians 3:6–14 (the old covenant and the new), Ephesians 2:14–16 (Christ abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances), and Colossians 2:14–17 (the record of debt and food, festival, new-moon, and Sabbath observances). Those passages are interpreted differently by Christian traditions, especially regarding whether Paul means the entire Mosaic covenant or particular aspects of it.

So, please explain to us all why Paul would have instructed the Gentile believers under his ministry to attend some Synagogue to learn the Law when it had/has no relevance to them or to us, given that we are ALL dead to the Law just as they were at that time. This is the foundational thesis of your claim, and I disagree on grounds that I think this post, among others, clearly shows your case is indefensible.

MM

 

[Genez]

It's more a matter of a choice of words. When we, today, use the word "service," that implies in the thinking of most who attend churchianity what's done within modern churchianity where there may be a difference between that and what actually happens in the Synagogue where your family attended. Is that a fair statement?

MM

Don't we also use the term today... "Church service?"

For example:

Hey, Bob.

Going to today's early morning service?