What is the preterist view of the Torah? (Law)

[Guest]

The reason why James made the statement from verse 19 to 20 is answered in verse 21.

The Gentiles turning to Yahweh GO TO THE synagogues on SABBATH where Moses (referring to the Law) has been preached also to them.

(Note this shows these Gentiles celebrated Sabbath just like Yahshua did)

You didn't read the other two articles I wrote concerning the Law, did you? If you had, you would have seen that I had already answered precisely this point.

The controversy among the Council in Jerusalem is about circumcision as a prerequisite for salvation. Not about the the whole Law. This is shown in the topic sentence:

Acts 15
1. And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.''

Derech, for someone who comes from a Messianic Jewish background, you're surprisingly ignorant of Jewish customs and idioms. Being circumcised, in the first century, was to be understood as obligating oneself to keep the whole of the Mosaic Law. Just look at Acts 15:5.

We know that this is Pharisee theology (human law) not in the Torah. Flesh circumcision does not save anyone. The circumsicion of Abraham was a TOKEN of what had already taken place in the Spirit: the circumcision of the heart.

Circumcision of the flesh certainly represented circumcision of the heart, but the original symbolism was something quite different. It meant that one's offspring would be holy.

In Hebrew thought, life was a series of sanctification ceremonies. The first was circumcision. The second was Bar-Mitzvah when one came of age to be responsible for keeping the whole of the Law. The third was marriage, when one underwent a mikveh - a baptism.

The point of these ceremonies is that one felt that one could not be fully acceptable and "holy" before God without being set apart through these physical ceremonies. Christianity came along and said that one could be acceptable before God by faith and not on account of a physical ceremony.

Yakov (James) really just re-quoted the Torah on what they expect from the Gentiles turning to Yahweh.
"but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Yes, they're traditionally understood by the Jews as the "Noahide Laws."

So if Gentiles who turned to Yahweh were doing the Torah, why have the Christians abandoned this lead? And also Paul if truly ceremonial laws are expired, why was he still doing them and teaching the Gentiles to do so too?

In first century Judaism, there were two types of converts. (I can't remember the names right now and I don't have the time to look them up; I'll post the names later.) The first type of convert was only required to keep the Noahide Laws, whereas the second was circumcised and kept the whole of the Mosaic Law. There was a question among the Jews as to whether the first type of convert was "good enough." So in nascent Christianity, this same question arose: should a convert to Christianity be circumcised and keep the whole Law? That's what the question of Acts 15 was about! The answer was no, they were only required to keep the Noahide Laws.

Damon

[_Steve]

Derech,

You asked why Paul kept the law if he taught that it was unnecessary to do so. The answer is given by Paul himself. In 1 Corinthians 9, he says that there are many things that he is not obligated to do (e.g., remain unmarried, minister without charge, abstain from certain foods), but which he does anyway for the sake of the Gospel (v.23). He was concerned that he not exercise his personal freedom in any way that would hinder people's reception of his message.

Specifically, he says that he has no obligation to keep Jewish law (and he says that, among Gentiles, he lives apart from such observances), but when he is among those who keep the law, he does the same, in order to win them to Christ (vv.19-21).

Thus, Paul's behavior and his teaching are harmonized by his own explanation. Every case you brought up of Paul's observing feasts, etc. is best explained by this policy. By the way, when Paul paid the fees for the four nazirites (not Nazarenes), this also involved the shedding of animal blood in the temple (Numbers 6:11). Would it be your position that Paul would have taught the churches to offer such animal sacrifices? If so, then we probably have very little basis for dialog.

If Paul kept Sabbath, we do not read of it, any more than we read of Jesus doing so (I hope you don't mind that I follow the apostles' example in rendering proper names in the forms consistent with the language I am speaking).

I read of Jesus and Paul preaching in synagogues on the Sabbath, but that is the only activity that is mentioned, and I read nothing in the Torah about anyone being commanded to preach in synagogues on the Sabbath. So this is hardly a proof of their "keeping the Sabbath." It is simply a case of "doing evangelism," which Jesus and Paul did seven days a week.

Paul and Jesus may very well have "kept the Sabbath" in order to fit in with those whom they were trying to reach, but we have no biblical data to support their keeping Sabbath as the Jews were obligated to do.

There is also, contrary to your suggestion, no evidence in the New Testament that the Gentile converts were expected to keep the Sabbaths or the festivals. The verses you cite have nothing to do with proving such a point, and Paul becamed alarmed when he learned that the Galatian Christians had begun to observe such festivals (Gal.4:9-11). He saw this as an abandonment of Christianity in favor of Judaism (Gal.1:6).

The statement of James (Acts 15:21) that "Moses has had, throughout many generations, those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath" mentions nothing about Christian behavior. He is referring to the Jews, whom he hopes the Gentile Christians will avoid offending by such practices as eating blood, things strangled and meat sacrificed to idols. The mention of this synagogue practice having been conducted "throughout many generations" makes it clear that he is talking about Jews, not Christians, since he and his audience were still living in the first generation of Christians.

[Guest]

Specifically, he says that he has no obligation to keep Jewish law (and he says that, among Gentiles, he lives apart from such observances), but when he is among those who keep the law, he does the same, in order to win them to Christ (vv.19-21).

Thus, Paul's behavior and his teaching are harmonized by his own explanation. Every case you brought up of Paul's observing feasts, etc. is best explained by this policy.

Steve, technically this isn't correct. Derech brought up a valid point when he pointed to 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 as evidence that the Holy Days were known outside of Jewish circles. As I mentioned before, it can certainly be instructive to keep the Feasts - minus the animal sacrifices - for the purpose of better understanding their symbolic meaning and how it points us to Christ. However, observance of the Feasts was not legislated to the Gentiles.

Make sense?

Damon

[_Steve]

Hi Damon,

You'll have to forgive me if I don't see any connection between "times and seasons" in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 and the concept of Jewish feasts and holidays. There is nothing on the latter topic implied in the context. Paul is talking about the period of time associated with the second coming of Christ, not annual festivals. Paul's use of the expression "times and seasons" in this place is almost certainly an echo of Jesus' own words in Acts 1:7, where the context is the culmination of the kingdom of God--not Jewish festivals.

As for the symbolic benefit that may be derived from keeping Jewish feasts (or Christian ones, or any other, for that matter) I am not prepared to deny that lessons can be learned and certain good vibes felt by those who choose to observe them. What Derech is suggesting, however, goes far beyond acknowledging this.

Also, advocacy of keeping the festivals (as you say) "minus the animal sacrifices" is committing the very error that Derech complained about at the beginning of this thread, namely, picking and choosing which laws we like to keep and which ones we don't. On what authority would we advocate the keeping of Jewish feasts without the associated sacrifices that were central to their observance? I would prefer to stand by my original thesis: Jesus is Lord. Doing what He commanded is the duty of the Christian. Nothing else is.

[Guest]

Steve,

Pardon me for saying so to you, but it seems to me that you are also somewhat ignorant of first century idioms, as Derech is. The mention of "times and seasons" is a very clear-cut reference to the Festivals, and would be immediately recognizable as such by any first century Jew or Christian.

The purpose of the Festivals is to outline the steps in God's Plan of Salvation, so that's why the two themes were connected in 1 Thess. 5:1-2. And in fact, even the understanding that Christ's coming was "as a thief in the night" ties in directly with observing the Festivals.

When the Israelites were about to depart from Egypt, the whole country had suffered from three days of darkness. Then Exodus 11:4-6 says that the Lord Himself would descend and kill all of the firstborn of Egypt. The Lord came down "as a thief in the night," as it were, and the ones who were in darkness didn't know it until it was too late. Only someone with a close familiarity with the Exodus/Passover story would use the very same verbal imagery to describe Christ's second coming!

And as far as what Derech is stating versus what I am stating, I'm already well aware of that. That's why I've always been careful to differentiate between my position versus his.

As far as keeping the Festivals minus the animal sacrifices, please read what I wrote concerning the understanding of the New Covenant in light of the original Mosaic Covenant in this post. As I said there, the New Covenant basically consists of the "expansive" or "unrestricted" laws of the Mosaic Covenant, which are summed up as "love one's neighbor as oneself." Animal sacrifices are part of the "restricted" laws of the Mosaic Covenant, and have been replaced by Christ's sacrifice.

Damon

[_Steve]

Hi Damon,

If you are right that, in the first century, the phrase "the times and the seasons" was a clear reference to Jewish festivals, then either Jesus (perhaps due to being culturally out-of-touch?) did not know these idioms, or else He said that it was not for the disciples to know about such things (Acts 1:7).

As for the "thief in the night" being a Jewish idiom associated with the exodus, I cannot say. It is amazing how many "ancient Jewish idioms" get invented by modern writers to prove some point or other (like the famous "eye of the needle" gate yarn)! Whatever idioms may have been available to Paul, I suspect that his reference to the thief was most likely governed by Jesus' own prior use to the same metaphor (the same metaphor, but not the same idiom) when speaking on the same subject (Matt.24:43).

In any case, in the very unlikely event that Paul had Jewish festivals in mind in 1 Thessalonians 5:1, it remains clear that he said nothing about them, except that it was unnecessary for him to write about them! He does not say that such "times and seasons" were something for Christians to observe. That they were not to observed could as easily have been the common supposition between himself and his readers, rendering it unnecessary for him to write forbidding their observance, as he had had to do with the Galatians.

In either case, Paul could not be advocating to the Thessalonians that they observe Jewish feasts. Why would he set himself against Jesus on this matter (by your interpretation of Acts 1:7)? And why would he consider that the observance of festivals was an evidence that the Galatians had switched religions (away from Christianity), but then advocate the same observances to the Thessalonians? Sorry, but I will stick to my original story, since it is apparently correct.

As for the expansive laws being those that are summed up in "you shall love your neighbor as yourself," I agree completely! What I would point out is that this category would not include the festival laws any more than it would include the animal sacrifices--both were rituals that had nothing to do with loving one's neighbor, which leaves no argument in favor of keeping the festivals today, any more than for the offering of animal sacrifices.

[Guest]

Hi Damon,

If you are right that, in the first century, the phrase "the times and the seasons" was a clear reference to Jewish festivals, then either Jesus (perhaps due to being culturally out-of-touch?) did not know these idioms, or else He said that it was not for the disciples to know about such things (Acts 1:7).

Steve, be very careful about making assumptions. First of all, Jesus' statement that "it is not for you [the disciples] to know the times or the seasons," etc., didn't mean that Jesus didn't know them. And even if it did, Jesus also said, "but of that day and hour no man knows, not even the angels in heaven, but only the Father." (Mat. 24:36-37)

Secondly, although I already know we disagree on this point, I see Acts 1:7 as stating that there would be a time when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel, specifically as outlined in "the times and the seasons" - that is, the Holy Day Festivals. The disciples understood their meaning, but not the time context of when they would come to pass.

As for the "thief in the night" being a Jewish idiom associated with the exodus, I cannot say.

No, not that. The whole idea of associating the Lord's coming with darkness and tribulation! That's what I meant.

It is amazing how many "ancient Jewish idioms" get invented by modern writers to prove some point or other (like the famous "eye of the needle" gate yarn)! Whatever idioms may have been available to Paul, I suspect that his reference to the thief was most likely governed by Jesus' own prior use to the same metaphor (the same metaphor, but not the same idiom) when speaking on the same subject (Matt.24:43).

Yes, Jesus' use of the metaphor indeed pointed to exactly the same thing! When the plague of the death of the firstborn came upon Egypt, it was analagous to the death of those who were "taken away" by the Flood. Jesus here says that, in the coming of the Son of Man, "one shall be taken and the other left." In other words, far from being a proof text of the Rapture, this is saying that one will die - as in the plague of death - and the other will be left alive!

In any case, in the very unlikely event that Paul had Jewish festivals in mind in 1 Thessalonians 5:1, it remains clear that he said nothing about them, except that it was unnecessary for him to write about them!

Steve, if Paul is alluding to something that only a person familiar with the Festivals would know, then obviously the Thessalonians knew of them. Now, I'm not saying that they were all keeping them. But they had to at least know about them to understand the allusion Paul was making.

In either case, Paul could not be advocating to the Thessalonians that they observe Jewish feasts. Why would he set himself against Jesus on this matter (by your interpretation of Acts 1:7)?

How so?

And why would he consider that the observance of festivals was an evidence that the Galatians had switched religions (away from Christianity), but then advocate the same observances to the Thessalonians? Sorry, but I will stick to my original story, since it is apparently correct.

As you're alluding to Galatians 4:10, let me point out that this isn't strictly a reference to Holy Day observance. It's a reference to fast days and other ritual observances designed to purify one who is "under the Law." Remember the Pharisee who fasted twice a week? (Luke 18:12) That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

In the same chapter, Paul went on to make the claim that he had a fleshly issue of temptation with which the Galatians did not concern themselves for purity's sake, so why should they now be concerned with ritual purity issues - by observing days, months, times and years? Galatians 5:13-26 therefore has that much more of an impact to them!

As for the expansive laws being those that are summed up in "you shall love your neighbor as yourself," I agree completely! What I would point out is that this category would not include the festival laws any more than it would include the animal sacrifices--both were rituals that had nothing to do with loving one's neighbor, which leave no argument in favor of keeping the festivals today, any more than for the offering of animal sacrifices.

Although there is validity to what you're saying - and as I said, I'm not advocating legalistically observing these Festivals - you're missing the point.

Steve, I get the impression that I'm not going to get anywhere with you, and that's actually fine with me. But I would sincerely encourage you to set aside your preconceptions for a moment, because it seems to me that your whole concern in this discussion has been setting aside the Law in favor of grace. I don't disagree! That shouldn't even be the issue! It would help if you would try to understand why I'm making a distinction between not keeping the Law while at the same time giving credence to the benefit of observing the Festivals. Try to put yourself in my shoes and see what I'm seeing.

Okay?

Damon

[Guest]

Well gentlemen and ladies (if any), those were great points and I would try to answer each one.

Damon: I apologize that I am not familiar with Judaism and its historical traditions ..yet. I will pick up as time goes on.

for Sean and Steve: if Jesus and Paul were doing Jewish stuff only to win people to the gospel, then it would have been OK for Jesus to tell his disciples to do Pagan stuff to win the pagans.

As Paul said, "19. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." (1 Corinthians 9)

Yet, Paul confesses He is still with Law. Sean, there is no diference between the Law of Messiah and the Law of Yahweh. They were both from the same God, Yahweh.

One commandement in which Sabbath is associated is the Name of Yahweh. Yahweh is the ONLY God we know who does Sabbath.
Did not Jesus command us to be like our Father in heaven?

This commandment of Yahweh's Name could be ignored for the sake of winning pagans to the gospel. Such as using another name for Yahweh. It would not have mattered what name Jesus or Paul uses as long as it is God right? Allah, Krishna, Buddha or a totally non-specific like God and Lord?

As long as love is preached. Love on whose definition?

The Law is very specific for a reason: there is only one Name, Yahweh.
One Torah, One Spirit...specifity is what makes the Bible the Bible.

Yahweh commanded the Sabbath. Sabbath belongs to the 10 Commandements and cannot be seperated from it as the 10 Commandments is a whole. We break one, we break them all. yet Yahweh, not Moses, commands and expects all of us to do all His Commandments. Why? Because with Him, Yahweh, all things are possible even the doing of all His Torah.

Deuteronomy 30:
6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 7. And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.
8. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

Even Yahshua declared wants us to do and teach ALL of the Torah:," 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt5)

The Law will pass only when heaven and earth pass. Does the preterist believe that heaven and earth have passed? Or is this another hyperbole?

Granted being found in the Temple teaching during Sabbath is not hard evidence that Yahshua was celebrating Sabbath, there is nothing in the Bible that shows Yahshua commanding the it is now OK not to do Sabbath and any of His Laws. (His Laws are both in the Old and New Testament. He is the one who wrote the 10 Commandemnts and all the Laws. This is the Law of Messiah)

If the earth and heaven have not not passed then you are called Least in the kingdom. And even if heaven and earth have not passed, I and many others are being called Great in the kingdom for teaching the Law and doing them by the power of the Ruach Ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit).

(Did not mean to personalize this point but just wanted to show the contrast of our views. I did not mean slander or offend any of you in any way )

Obviously, since the Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed, all laws done in the Temple cannot be done like animal sacrifices as this can only be done in the place where Yahweh placed His Name. This is what has passed as the Laws are slowly being fulfilled one by one. Till heaven and earth pass.

Yet the Feasts such as the Passover Seder can still be done and the other Feasts as well because the last 4 feasts does not need the Jerusalem Temple. (Lev 21)

Deuteronomy 12:
5. But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
6. And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Why have Christians abandoned the Passover and re-molded it into a pagan ceremony called communion or mass?

Yahshua said to do the Passover Seder OFTEN:25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.1 Corinthians 11

So have Yahshua come?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now regarding Galatians. The controversy is still about Circumcision being a pre-requisite to salvation.

Galatians 5:2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace...
...6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love

(One again, nothing in the Torah says to be saved is to be circumcised.
This "law" in verse 4, is human torah or law. Just like people accepting Jesus. Man accepting God? Should it not be the other way around?This is human law and not in the Bible for salvation)

We cannot do the whole Law WITHOUT Yahweh's Spirit empowering and transforming us made available by the Passover Sacrifice of Yahshua. For Yahweh's Spirit to work in us towards true rigtheousness which makes us DOERS of the Law takes Faith in Yahweh.

I am sure you know that "14. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal5) is from the OLD COVENANT . See Leviticus 19:18.

(By the way, how do you define the Gospel anyway? And the New Covenant?)

Gal 4: 9. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

The Galatians were never Jews and never did the Feasts prior to Paul's coming. They cannot go back to what they did not do before which most people say are the Feasts.

What Shaul (Paul) referred to was " 3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:"

the Bondage of their former lives as Pagans observing times what we know today as similar to astrology. This is a sin and was in the Torah as

Leviticus 19:26. Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

The Law is the measuring stick to say what is sin and what is not. Just on Sabbath alone, we all CAN do Sabbath the Lord's way yet 99% of Christians do not.

James 4:7. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Is any of the Law evil? On the contrary, everything in the Law is Good.
And we know them! But some of us do not do the good we know, then is it not sin?

Romans 7:12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

If we do Sabbath, will Yahweh condemn us to hell? On the contrary, He will love us. If He wanted us NOT to do Sabbath or any of His laws, will He not say so? Did He said so?

Even Paul said, "Romans 3:20. 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."

So we know if we do not do any of the Law, we are in sin. Now, does having Faith means we are exempt from the Law?

On the contrary, a man who has Faith, is a man who is a DOER of the Law not an evader of it.

Romans 2:13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 3:27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

A man of Faith is also a man of Law. Justified.

Derech

[Guest]

I find it amusing that people use scripture to justify their beliefs
to me its obvious that the law was a schoolmaster and JESUS
or whatever name you wish to call HIM, was the perfect sacrifice that pleased the FATHER. If one person wants to keep sabbath and do all
the feasts then if you are persuaded then keep them, just dont judge in meat and drink new moon or sabbath. We are complete in CHRIST and HIS shed blood. Should we continue sinning that grace may abound, NO!
GOD forbid. Pls read Galatians again.

Thank you

[Guest]

The Law is very specific for a reason: there is only one Name, Yahweh. One Torah, One Spirit...specifity is what makes the Bible the Bible.

Derech, I can see that you're still not grasping (or not answering) the point I made about the purpose of the Law. Please read the posts I linked to above about the "restrictive" Law versus the "expansive" or "unrestrictive" Law. Unless and until you can address what I wrote there, we're really not on the same page and we can't communicate with one another effectively.

[snip Deuteronomy 30:6-8]

Even Yahshua declared wants us to do and teach ALL of the Torah:,"

[snip Matthew 5:17-19]

Derech, according to a literal reading of Deuteronomy 30:6-8, when we become "circumcised in the heart," will we be required to observe the animal sacrifices as well?

If not, then why not?

As far as Matthew 5:17-19 goes, what did Jesus mean by "fulfilling" the Law? He said that it didn't mean to destroy it. Could it have meant to have it achieve the purpose for which it was designed in the first place? Again, see my posts on the "restrictive" versus the "expansive" Law for more on this.

[re not keeping the Law]

If the earth and heaven have not not passed then you are called Least in the kingdom. And even if heaven and earth have not passed, I and many others are being called Great in the kingdom for teaching the Law and doing them by the power of the Ruach Ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit).

Literally, this means "younger" versus "elder", Derech. It's not strictly about status, but about age.

If it were about status as a result of keeping and teaching the Law versus not keeping and teaching the Law, then would both Peter and Paul be considered the "least" in the Kingdom? After all, both of them taught certain people not to be circumcised.

So if it's not about status and rather about age, what does this passage in Matthew 5 mean?

"Therefore, whoever will break one of these newest commandments [the ones Jesus had just been expounding in Matthew 5!], the same will be called youngest in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever will do and teach them, the same will be called elder in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I say to you, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will not in any case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

Now does that make sense to you? Jesus was saying that unless the people practiced the new laws that HE was giving them, they would be considered as spiritual "babes" in the Kingdom. But whoever would do and teach them would be considered as spiritual elders. Only in this way would their righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees.

Get it?

Why have Christians abandoned the Passover and re-molded it into a pagan ceremony called communion or mass?

Derech, do you know how much has been lost since the first century? Yes, the apostles themselves kept the annual Passover and not a weekly communion ceremony, but how many people know that? There is evidence to support such a conclusion, but how easily do you think most Christian leaders would accept such a change?

Remember the parable of the two men and the cup of tea? The master says to his student to hold the cup while he pours it. He then begins to pour the tea into the cup...and continues to pour it while the tea overflows, spilling onto the table and onto the floor. The student says to the master, "Stop! Can't you see that the cup is full?" Whereupon the master replies to the student, "But you do the same with your preaching."

Stop trying to put a message into vessels which are not yet able to hold it. Give people only what they are ready to receive for the time being, and no more. Allow God to lead people according to His will, as they are able to hear Him.

Now regarding Galatians. The controversy is still about Circumcision being a pre-requisite to salvation.

[snip Gal. 5:2-6]

(One again, nothing in the Torah says to be saved is to be circumcised. This "law" in verse 4, is human torah or law. Just like people accepting Jesus. Man accepting God? Should it not be the other way around?This is human law and not in the Bible for salvation)

No, Derech, I'm telling you from much study that this is precisely referring to the Mosaic Law. I have the background in first century Judaism to make this claim. Since you don't, as you said, can you at least admit the possibility that you might be wrong?

[snip Gal. 4:9-10]

The Galatians were never Jews and never did the Feasts prior to Paul's coming. They cannot go back to what they did not do before which most people say are the Feasts.

You didn't read what I wrote in the post above, did you? This has to do with ritual purification, not about keeping the Feasts or even about astrology.

Damon