There is a Fourth Ancient view my friends.
"Sabbath Observance still remains for God's people." Literal from Hebrews Greek Text.
In the Ancient Church and still today, Orthodoxy continues to recognize the full effect of the Decalogue in the New Covenant. Friday sunset until Saturday sunset is still recognized by us a Holy Sabbath....which we do not observe as Rabbinic Jewry (heirs of the Parush'im) did from the second Temple era until this very hour.
We observe Sabbath as a day of rest, relaxation, recreation, spiritual contemplation and scriptural study in private and corporately. We do as Christ and the Apostles did. We observed the Sabbath as the Lord of the Sabbath originally intended......not a Pharasaic Judaism does with oral laws of men destroying it's meaning (Liberation from Sin & Death) and resting from profit making. We do Friday's books on Sunday...which is not the Sabbath. As Paul taught us to do. Sabbath also represents the future Resurrection of all Saints, Christ's Kingdom and the world to come...a rest from old things.
We celebrate Christ's Sacrifice, Resurrection and His Ascension until He comes again each First day of the week (i.e. Saturday sunset until Sunday sunset). We hold meetings Saturday night, Sunday morning and Sunday before sunset. It is a day of Community Assembly, like Sabbath, but a temporal weekly festival which will end at Christ's Second Coming. It is not a day specified in the Decalogue, but a day in which the risen Sun of Righteousness is heralded and celebrated.
It was Alexandria and Rome which forbade assembly on Sabbath, and declared Sunday the new Christian Sabbath. To enforce this, they demanded fasting on Sabbath! This too is a vain tradition of men. In the East, and most notably in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, Assyria, Armenia, Persia, Sri Lanka and South India this ancient doctrine and custom of the Apostolic Era is observed. It is in my ministry also.
It has never been either Sabbath or Sunday, but both for variant reasons. One by Community obedience of Faith to God and Christ, and the other because of Community Gratitude to God and Christ.
In the west.....it is confused into three camps and viscously divisive to boot. And All camps have a common historical setting, origin and reactionary belief system: The Roman Catholic Church. The Reformation was meant to reform and return the Western Church of Rome to Ancient Orthodoxy......but it devolved into divisions, persecutions, heresies, cults and bitter hatred.
I once took part of this reactionary war against Rome who I to left in my early youth.
Peace
Sabbath Observance: 3 Views
Dmatic,
Is this your response to my challenges? Is it really too much to ask that your responses bear some modicum of relevance to my questions? Since you may not have read them, I will present again each of my points, followed by your answers—followed by my observations about your answers:
My point #1. The Jews had heard a false rumor that Paul was teaching Jewish people to abandon circumcision and law-keeping (Acts 21:21).
Your answer?:
My point #2. Paul, in fact, did not teach such things to the Jews, since his teaching ministry was to Christians (and especially Gentile Christians), not Jews (Gal.2:9).
Your answer?:
You need to read your proof texts more carefully. There are no passages (including the one you cited) that tell us anything about Paul going to any group of Jews (other than Christians) and teaching them how to live (i.e., whether or not to live according to the Mosaic regulations). Paul taught Christians how to live, because this is Christ’s appointed method of making disciples out of converts (Matt.28:18-20). He did not disciple anyone other than Christian believers—who, by definition, are neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal.3:28/Col.3:11)—because no one but Christians can be discipled. The Jews that Paul interacted with (in Acts 19 and elsewhere) were people that he was seeking to evangelize. When you evangelize, you are not teaching people about how to live, you are proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of God, and urging people to embrace the King. After people submit to Christ, you begin to teach them as disciples. This was Paul’s policy as well as that of all the apostles. There is no record of Paul ever “teaching” Jews in any sense in which the question of their observance of the law would have been necessarily raised.
My point #3. Paul had earlier, in fact, adopted as a personal ministry policy, that he would observe the law when he was among observant Jews (in order to reach them, not to teach them). However, he did not observe the law when he was among Gentiles. He clearly declares these things to be so, in 1 Cor.9:20-21. For you to call this "deceptive" is to set yourself directly against apostolic authority, since both Paul and James approved of this policy.
Your answers?:
My point #4. Though Paul was not, as the false rumor had reported, teaching Jews to give up the law (nor was he teaching them to observe it—he simply had no teaching ministry among Jews), both Paul and James agreed that such observance of the law was not to be imposed upon Gentiles (Acts 21:25)—thus they both disagreed with you.
Your answer?:
My point #5. For Paul to observe the law, at James' request, while in Jerusalem, was not deceptive, but diplomatic. It was in keeping with his regular policy, and it was dispelling the false rumor (thus serving the interest of truth, not deception).
Your answer?:
My point #6. The four restrictions that James placed upon the Gentiles were not an imposition of the law of Moses. Can you find the place for me, in the law of Moses, which forbids eating meat sacrificed to idols or animals that have been strangled? James' request was clearly a concession to the traditional sensitivities of the Jews—most of which were based upon their understanding of the law. James, and Paul, were both concerned to avoid offending, and unnecessarily alienating the unbelieving Jewish population, whom James was trying to influence toward Christ.
Your answer?:
Since the three Leviticus passages that you listed do not say anything about meat sacrificed to idols, nor about things strangled, I have to assume you did not read them, but simply found them in a concordance search of the words “shall not be eaten” and “you shall not eat.”
Every one of these references is talking about the portions of the legitimate sacrifices to Yahweh which must not be eaten, or the time after which they are too old to be eaten (didn't you read them?). Nothing can be found here about meat sacrificed to idols, strangled animals, or any subject concerning which I inquired. Since I must assume that you did the best you could to locate relevant texts, this seems to confirm my point that the scripture provides no support for your position.
-------------------------
Orthodox1 (formerly Priestly1)— Welcome back. I am glad you received your kidney transplant!
Is this your response to my challenges? Is it really too much to ask that your responses bear some modicum of relevance to my questions? Since you may not have read them, I will present again each of my points, followed by your answers—followed by my observations about your answers:
My point #1. The Jews had heard a false rumor that Paul was teaching Jewish people to abandon circumcision and law-keeping (Acts 21:21).
Your answer?:
What in the world has Acts 21:28 to do with this matter? We were discussing whether the rumor that James brought up about Paul was true or false. Instead of dealing with this (since you cannot do so without sacrificing your entire argument here), you digress to deal with an entirely different rumor raised by a different set of people, which has nothing to do with that which was raised by James. Remember your earlier argument? You had said that Paul’s compliance with James’ request proved that the rumor James mentions was false, and that Paul wished to prove it false. I pointed out that the rumor that Paul wished to prove false was that he was teaching Jews to give up circumcision and the law. Of course that rumor was patently false, and Paul had every reason to refute it by his compliance—none of which does anything toward helping your position. Then, instead of dealing with this argument, you bring up an entirely different accusation against him, made later by new enemies—a rumor which Paul does not confirm nor dispel—and which, therefore has no bearing on his being "deceptive" by compliance with James' request. You seem to think that, by bringing up this later point, you have said something relevant to this discussion. Can’t you deal with my point?I agree with Acts 21:21, though the false accusation from the Asian "Jews" was that Paul was "teaching all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place, and further brought Greeks into the temple and hath polluted this holy place." Acts 21:28. The rumor was false. he was not teaching men against the people or the law....
My point #2. Paul, in fact, did not teach such things to the Jews, since his teaching ministry was to Christians (and especially Gentile Christians), not Jews (Gal.2:9).
Your answer?:
Okay, I admit it. You are defeated.Paul did not teach such things to the "Jews" nor to the Gentiles. To suggest that Paul only taught "Christians" and especially "Gentile Christians" is to ignore the many passages that refer to Paul's interactions with "Jews"...i.e. Acts 19:1-10, particularly verse 10 which says: "And this (Paul's daily disputations in the synagogue at Ephesus concerning the kingdom of God for three months and in the school of Tyrannus for two years...so that all which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks! (Maybe you should honestly admit defeat here Steve).
You need to read your proof texts more carefully. There are no passages (including the one you cited) that tell us anything about Paul going to any group of Jews (other than Christians) and teaching them how to live (i.e., whether or not to live according to the Mosaic regulations). Paul taught Christians how to live, because this is Christ’s appointed method of making disciples out of converts (Matt.28:18-20). He did not disciple anyone other than Christian believers—who, by definition, are neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal.3:28/Col.3:11)—because no one but Christians can be discipled. The Jews that Paul interacted with (in Acts 19 and elsewhere) were people that he was seeking to evangelize. When you evangelize, you are not teaching people about how to live, you are proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of God, and urging people to embrace the King. After people submit to Christ, you begin to teach them as disciples. This was Paul’s policy as well as that of all the apostles. There is no record of Paul ever “teaching” Jews in any sense in which the question of their observance of the law would have been necessarily raised.
My point #3. Paul had earlier, in fact, adopted as a personal ministry policy, that he would observe the law when he was among observant Jews (in order to reach them, not to teach them). However, he did not observe the law when he was among Gentiles. He clearly declares these things to be so, in 1 Cor.9:20-21. For you to call this "deceptive" is to set yourself directly against apostolic authority, since both Paul and James approved of this policy.
Your answers?:
How about in the passage I gave (1 Cor.9:20-21)? Did you even consider reading it before responding?I don't recall calling Paul deceptive, though he would have been if he was doing as you suggest he was. Once again, your understanding is at odds with scripture's teaching. Where do you get the idea that Paul was not observing the law when he was among Gentiles?
Did you notice the word “witnessing”? Paul was preaching the gospel to (evangelizing) both small and great sinners, and everything he said to them (that is, the gospel he preached) could be found throughout the Old Testament. This is exactly the same thing he said about the gospel in Romans 1:1-2, that the gospel had been “promised before through His prophets in the holy scriptures,” and in Romans 3:21, that it (the righteousness that comes apart from the Law) was “witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.” If you are seeing in this a claim that Paul was commanding his audiences to come under the levitical legislation, you are showing how much wishful thinking is leading your exegesis by the nose.before King Agripp, Paul confessed that he was witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come....(Acts 26:22)
Of course! What better way to evangelize Jews, than by appeal to their scriptures?in Rome, paul taught from the Law of Moses and the Prophets Acts 28:23
Quite right! The Jew deemed his way of worship to be “heresy” because it did not require submission to the mosaic ordinances, as their “orthodoxy” did. But, unlike them, he also accepted the veracity of the entire Old Testament—as we all do! Do you really think there is anything in any of these passages that are useful for making your point? Is this the best evidence the scriptures provide for your position?Before Ananias, paul states in Acts 24:14 that he worships God according to the way which they deem a heresy, but is believing all things which are writtne in the law and prophets!
My point #4. Though Paul was not, as the false rumor had reported, teaching Jews to give up the law (nor was he teaching them to observe it—he simply had no teaching ministry among Jews), both Paul and James agreed that such observance of the law was not to be imposed upon Gentiles (Acts 21:25)—thus they both disagreed with you.
Your answer?:
No matter how many times I re-read this sentence, I cannot understand what it means. My best guess is that it means you can’t give an answer relevant to my challenge.What James was saying to Paul in Acts 21:25 concerning the gentiles and vows of purification rites was not according to the customs of the "Jews" concerning the shaving of heads, etc.
My point #5. For Paul to observe the law, at James' request, while in Jerusalem, was not deceptive, but diplomatic. It was in keeping with his regular policy, and it was dispelling the false rumor (thus serving the interest of truth, not deception).
Your answer?:
…as best you are able, at least.Already answered.
My point #6. The four restrictions that James placed upon the Gentiles were not an imposition of the law of Moses. Can you find the place for me, in the law of Moses, which forbids eating meat sacrificed to idols or animals that have been strangled? James' request was clearly a concession to the traditional sensitivities of the Jews—most of which were based upon their understanding of the law. James, and Paul, were both concerned to avoid offending, and unnecessarily alienating the unbelieving Jewish population, whom James was trying to influence toward Christ.
Your answer?:
Of the scriptures you listed, only Exodus 34 addresses the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols. However, it is talking about going to an idolatrous sacrifice and participating in the ritual meal. Paul also forbade Christians to go and eat these meals in the idol temples (1 Cor.8:10-13; 10:14). But, on the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, elsewhere than in idol temples—that is, at a regular meal or when purchasing meat in the marketplace—Paul made it clear that meat sacrificed to idols in such cases is not forbidden (1 Cor.10:25-33).Lev. 19:4-8 Lev. 7:22-27 Lev. 6:30
Exodus 34 :12-17 specifically verse 15 says: "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice." This verse alone, should clearly show that eating "meats" sacrificed to idols was prohibited by "Moses". Your implication that neither this prohibition nor the eating of things strangled is contained in the Law of Moses is wrong. The way I understand the word "strangled" and the issue, is that eating of animals that were not bled out is the meaning of the prohibition. Of course, I don't either think that many of the animals were choked to death before being eaten by too many people groups anyway....Most probably used knives and/or spears or arrows.
Since the three Leviticus passages that you listed do not say anything about meat sacrificed to idols, nor about things strangled, I have to assume you did not read them, but simply found them in a concordance search of the words “shall not be eaten” and “you shall not eat.”
Every one of these references is talking about the portions of the legitimate sacrifices to Yahweh which must not be eaten, or the time after which they are too old to be eaten (didn't you read them?). Nothing can be found here about meat sacrificed to idols, strangled animals, or any subject concerning which I inquired. Since I must assume that you did the best you could to locate relevant texts, this seems to confirm my point that the scripture provides no support for your position.
-------------------------
Orthodox1 (formerly Priestly1)— Welcome back. I am glad you received your kidney transplant!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Mon May 12, 2008 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I was not trying to refute your position as it is a somewhat classic Protestant position Steve. I was simply giving a 4th Historical option which has not been discussed. There are not just the 3 western views....there is a previous and well attested position which does not support Judaized Sabbatarianism nor Sunday Sabbatarianism, nor "Spiritualized" kicking it with Christ Sabbath Observance.
I actually agree in many points with the prior three views, but realize they are not either this, that or the other.....but all. It is a historic Fact that both Sabbath and the Lord's Day were observed together from Apostolic Times in all of Christianity, and only later was Sabbth Observance rejected in the West as a Judaizing Jewish Superstition held by Nazaraean Heretics of the East. Well I am one.
Paul preached to Jews every Sabbath and also to Gentile God Fearers...remeber that text Calvinists love to cite? THE only First day celebrations cited are the once Saturday night/Sunday morning when Paul was heading to Jerusalem and the poor kid fell out of the window. As well as Paul stating that the First Day of the week was to settle the business ended Friday before Sunset (Sabbath) sa as to figure out what moneys could be gathered to send to the poor Nazaraeans of Jerusalem.
"Sabbath Observance still remains for God's People" Steve.........your arguments, assumptions (beliefs) and resulting handling of Biblical Texts are well known. I once held the same. Rome and Alexandria still hold the same.....but I am not a Romanist, Copt or subscriber to their defense of Sunday Observance and re-interpretation of one of the Decalogue. All Christendom (Protestant, Romanist, Orthodox and Oriental) has held that the Decalogue remains in effect for the Church, as it is the Heart of the New Covenant. All Reformers held thus. Yet most transfered the 7th Day to the 1st Day and used your arguments (Alexandrian) and others kept from Rome to support their continued Sabbatarian observance of Sunday.
Now many moderns just cast off the Decalogue (Though all of it is cited or upheld in the NT) as Jewish gobble de gook and have "a go with the flow" spirituality. Many even dismiss Baptism, Communion and Ordination based on the same assumptions and handle the Scriptures accordingly.
It is not my mission as a minister of the Gospel to beat you or wrestle you into submission when it comes to exegetics. I can debate you if you wish to prepare your "consistent" exegetics of the Greek Bible. Accept Historical writings for context and modern examples of continuing observances among ancient churches of God.
Steve, we are friends, but in fact you not only a self instructed Bible Teacher; you are a Personal Belief teacher. As in yesterday's dismissal of Apostolic Ordination, Apostles (bishops), Prebyters (Elders) and Deacons (Ministers). You flatly state as fact your beliefs (assumptions) to dismiss well attested historic facts. You believe therefore you interpret. Ok. Fine.
I have been trained to exegete based on Grammatic rules, Lexiconographic Facts, Historical contexts and any archeological or ancient written data that sheds insight to the subject. As you tried to do to refute mr. Calvinist in your last debate. It is then that my belief is arrived at. I try to let the facts wag the tail of my theological dog, not personal assumptions that exclude vast amounts of datum because it don't fit my presuppositions. No tail wagging the dog.
Now do I hold that Sabbath Observance or any Sacred Institution of God is essential to our being resurrected to Life Eternal? No. Salvation is in Christ alone through the Obedience of Faith. You assume that if anything does not seem necessary it to Salvation it is either optional or not of any use. That is reasoning, not exegetics.
We do as God, who is Christ, has commanded us to. Because God's commandments are those of His Son and Spirit also...One God. Love equals obedience of Faith in all matters commanded. We obey from loving faith. How do we know we are His Children? Through Love.
And Love is Keeping His Commandments. Facts. Why is doing as Christ and his Apostles did so tough? Baptism in Water and Spirit, Communion, Reconciliation, Marriage, Ordination, Laying hands on the ill, The Decalogue, The Decree of Jerusalem...they are all the source of the Didache (98 CE).
Those who are forgiven much love much...and Love is Obedient Faith. For because of our Faithfulness we shall be Saved, not through our own efforts but in His power alone. Not subjective spirituality guided by subjective interpretations of scripture which justify one's subjective spirituality.
I do not hold to a modernist Anti-establishmentarianism and Hippie created "counter-culture" or "lone ranger" christianity which is imposed upon Scripture and History and based upon interpretation of english bible texts through such coloured glasses. I am a Jesus Freak still, but a Trained Freak now, who has rediscovered the Baby much of Protestantism has cast out with the bath water of Romanism.
Love you Steve.....and if your post wasn't for me...well you got my response anyway....in Love.
Rev. Ken
I actually agree in many points with the prior three views, but realize they are not either this, that or the other.....but all. It is a historic Fact that both Sabbath and the Lord's Day were observed together from Apostolic Times in all of Christianity, and only later was Sabbth Observance rejected in the West as a Judaizing Jewish Superstition held by Nazaraean Heretics of the East. Well I am one.
Paul preached to Jews every Sabbath and also to Gentile God Fearers...remeber that text Calvinists love to cite? THE only First day celebrations cited are the once Saturday night/Sunday morning when Paul was heading to Jerusalem and the poor kid fell out of the window. As well as Paul stating that the First Day of the week was to settle the business ended Friday before Sunset (Sabbath) sa as to figure out what moneys could be gathered to send to the poor Nazaraeans of Jerusalem.
"Sabbath Observance still remains for God's People" Steve.........your arguments, assumptions (beliefs) and resulting handling of Biblical Texts are well known. I once held the same. Rome and Alexandria still hold the same.....but I am not a Romanist, Copt or subscriber to their defense of Sunday Observance and re-interpretation of one of the Decalogue. All Christendom (Protestant, Romanist, Orthodox and Oriental) has held that the Decalogue remains in effect for the Church, as it is the Heart of the New Covenant. All Reformers held thus. Yet most transfered the 7th Day to the 1st Day and used your arguments (Alexandrian) and others kept from Rome to support their continued Sabbatarian observance of Sunday.
Now many moderns just cast off the Decalogue (Though all of it is cited or upheld in the NT) as Jewish gobble de gook and have "a go with the flow" spirituality. Many even dismiss Baptism, Communion and Ordination based on the same assumptions and handle the Scriptures accordingly.
It is not my mission as a minister of the Gospel to beat you or wrestle you into submission when it comes to exegetics. I can debate you if you wish to prepare your "consistent" exegetics of the Greek Bible. Accept Historical writings for context and modern examples of continuing observances among ancient churches of God.
Steve, we are friends, but in fact you not only a self instructed Bible Teacher; you are a Personal Belief teacher. As in yesterday's dismissal of Apostolic Ordination, Apostles (bishops), Prebyters (Elders) and Deacons (Ministers). You flatly state as fact your beliefs (assumptions) to dismiss well attested historic facts. You believe therefore you interpret. Ok. Fine.
I have been trained to exegete based on Grammatic rules, Lexiconographic Facts, Historical contexts and any archeological or ancient written data that sheds insight to the subject. As you tried to do to refute mr. Calvinist in your last debate. It is then that my belief is arrived at. I try to let the facts wag the tail of my theological dog, not personal assumptions that exclude vast amounts of datum because it don't fit my presuppositions. No tail wagging the dog.
Now do I hold that Sabbath Observance or any Sacred Institution of God is essential to our being resurrected to Life Eternal? No. Salvation is in Christ alone through the Obedience of Faith. You assume that if anything does not seem necessary it to Salvation it is either optional or not of any use. That is reasoning, not exegetics.
We do as God, who is Christ, has commanded us to. Because God's commandments are those of His Son and Spirit also...One God. Love equals obedience of Faith in all matters commanded. We obey from loving faith. How do we know we are His Children? Through Love.
And Love is Keeping His Commandments. Facts. Why is doing as Christ and his Apostles did so tough? Baptism in Water and Spirit, Communion, Reconciliation, Marriage, Ordination, Laying hands on the ill, The Decalogue, The Decree of Jerusalem...they are all the source of the Didache (98 CE).
Those who are forgiven much love much...and Love is Obedient Faith. For because of our Faithfulness we shall be Saved, not through our own efforts but in His power alone. Not subjective spirituality guided by subjective interpretations of scripture which justify one's subjective spirituality.
I do not hold to a modernist Anti-establishmentarianism and Hippie created "counter-culture" or "lone ranger" christianity which is imposed upon Scripture and History and based upon interpretation of english bible texts through such coloured glasses. I am a Jesus Freak still, but a Trained Freak now, who has rediscovered the Baby much of Protestantism has cast out with the bath water of Romanism.
Love you Steve.....and if your post wasn't for me...well you got my response anyway....in Love.
Rev. Ken
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve, you wrote:
dmatic
I have always agreed with the point that the rumor was false.We were discussing whether the rumor that James brought up about Paul was true or false. .... Can’t you deal with my point?
dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Then you wrote:
May i ask you how you define your term "Jew"? I have a different view of "teaching" than you do. For example, I believe that even when Jesus was intereacting with the "Jews" that He was teaching them, and others who were observing, and us, too .
Peace, dmatic
You're funny!Okay, I admit it. You are defeated.
May i ask you how you define your term "Jew"? I have a different view of "teaching" than you do. For example, I believe that even when Jesus was intereacting with the "Jews" that He was teaching them, and others who were observing, and us, too .
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve, your words in response to mine continued with:
Then:
What I believe is that Paul taught obedience to the Law of God, which the "orthodoxy" of the "Jew" had abandoned.
Yes I did.How about in the passage I gave (1 Cor.9:20-21)? Did you even consider reading it before responding?
Yes, I did notice the word "witnessing". And I have no idea what you mean by "levitical legislation". Where have I ever made such a claim?)
Did you notice the word “witnessing”? Paul was preaching the gospel to (evangelizing) both small and great sinners, and everything he said to them (that is, the gospel he preached) could be found throughout the Old Testament. This is exactly the same thing he said about the gospel in Romans 1:1-2, that the gospel had been “promised before through His prophets in the holy scriptures,” and in Romans 3:21, that it (the righteousness that comes apart from the Law) was “witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.” If you are seeing in this a claim that Paul was commanding his audiences to come under the levitical legislation, you are showing how much wishful thinking is leading your exegesis by the nose.
Then:
Apparently I did. Probably not.
Quote:
in Rome, paul taught from the Law of Moses and the Prophets Acts 28:23
Of course! What better way to evangelize Jews, than by appeal to their scriptures?
Quote:
Before Ananias, paul states in Acts 24:14 that he worships God according to the way which they deem a heresy, but is believing all things which are written in the law and prophets!
Quite right! The Jew deemed his way of worship to be “heresy” because it did not require submission to the mosaic ordinances, as their “orthodoxy” did. But, unlike them, he also accepted the veracity of the entire Old Testament—as we all do! Do you really think there is anything in any of these passages that are useful for making your point? Is this the best evidence the scriptures provide for your position?
What I believe is that Paul taught obedience to the Law of God, which the "orthodoxy" of the "Jew" had abandoned.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve, you wrote:
I disagree with you that Paul never taught Jews. You say the rumor was false because, in your view, Paul never taught them anything...to keep the Law or to not keep it! I say it was false because Paul was not teaching them not to keep it. Does that make sense to you?
Good try! I'm sorry it was not more clear! My point was, admittedly lost....but it is that the customs of the Jews was not the same as the teaching of God.My point #4. Though Paul was not, as the false rumor had reported, teaching Jews to give up the law (nor was he teaching them to observe it—he simply had no teaching ministry among Jews), both Paul and James agreed that such observance of the law was not to be imposed upon Gentiles (Acts 21:25)—thus they both disagreed with you.
Your answer?:
Quote:
What James was saying to Paul in Acts 21:25 concerning the gentiles and vows of purification rites was not according to the customs of the "Jews" concerning the shaving of heads, etc.
No matter how many times I re-read this sentence, I cannot understand what it means. My best guess is that it means you can’t give an answer relevant to my challenge.
I disagree with you that Paul never taught Jews. You say the rumor was false because, in your view, Paul never taught them anything...to keep the Law or to not keep it! I say it was false because Paul was not teaching them not to keep it. Does that make sense to you?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
your point number five:
If the rumor was false because Paul was not teaching Jews anything....then why would him showing that he, too, kept the law, dispel anything?My point #5. For Paul to observe the law, at James' request, while in Jerusalem, was not deceptive, but diplomatic. It was in keeping with his regular policy, and it was dispelling the false rumor (thus serving the interest of truth, not deception).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Once again Steve, I must offer my apology for giving you a non-exhaustive answer. You wrote:
I quoted the Exodus passage because it was one I found in the short time I had to give your question. I suggest that it is in the context of a warning not to follow the heathen as they follow their gods. I'm not sure you're correct about the invitation merely being to go to the sacrifice with them. It says lest they call and you eat of his sacrifice. this could have been sacrificed earlier and then eaten later.....Of course, they should not go to the sacrifice either.... but I think you missed God's point.
Peace, dmatic
I read them, but not to the extent I should have, nor did I take the time to find others, which there are.My point #6. The four restrictions that James placed upon the Gentiles were not an imposition of the law of Moses. Can you find the place for me, in the law of Moses, which forbids eating meat sacrificed to idols or animals that have been strangled? James' request was clearly a concession to the traditional sensitivities of the Jews—most of which were based upon their understanding of the law. James, and Paul, were both concerned to avoid offending, and unnecessarily alienating the unbelieving Jewish population, whom James was trying to influence toward Christ.
Your answer?:
Quote:
Lev. 19:4-8 Lev. 7:22-27 Lev. 6:30
Exodus 34 :12-17 specifically verse 15 says: "Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice." This verse alone, should clearly show that eating "meats" sacrificed to idols was prohibited by "Moses". Your implication that neither this prohibition nor the eating of things strangled is contained in the Law of Moses is wrong. The way I understand the word "strangled" and the issue, is that eating of animals that were not bled out is the meaning of the prohibition. Of course, I don't either think that many of the animals were choked to death before being eaten by too many people groups anyway....Most probably used knives and/or spears or arrows.
Of the scriptures you listed, only Exodus 34 addresses the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols. However, it is talking about going to an idolatrous sacrifice and participating in the ritual meal. Paul also forbade Christians to go and eat these meals in the idol temples (1 Cor.8:10-13; 10:14). But, on the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, elsewhere than in idol temples—that is, at a regular meal or when purchasing meat in the marketplace—Paul made it clear that meat sacrificed to idols in such cases is not forbidden (1 Cor.10:25-33).
Since the three Leviticus passages that you listed do not say anything about meat sacrificed to idols, nor about things strangled, I have to assume you did not read them, but simply found them in a concordance search of the words “shall not be eaten” and “you shall not eat.”
Every one of these references is talking about the portions of the legitimate sacrifices to Yahweh which must not be eaten, or the time after which they are too old to be eaten (didn't you read them?). Nothing can be found here about meat sacrificed to idols, strangled animals, or any subject concerning which I inquired. Since I must assume that you did the best you could to locate relevant texts, this seems to confirm my point that the scripture provides no support for your position.
I quoted the Exodus passage because it was one I found in the short time I had to give your question. I suggest that it is in the context of a warning not to follow the heathen as they follow their gods. I'm not sure you're correct about the invitation merely being to go to the sacrifice with them. It says lest they call and you eat of his sacrifice. this could have been sacrificed earlier and then eaten later.....Of course, they should not go to the sacrifice either.... but I think you missed God's point.
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: