Well again I hate to break the news to you, but we are part of Israel AND a part of the promises (see below).. AND we were there at the Exodus according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 10: 1-2,11. Our ancestors were there..jlay wrote: The term 'real hard laws' I quoted from you. God already did, btw. Read the Exodus. "Hear ye oh Isreal..."
Was the law given to Gentiles?? Uh, no. If the law wasn't given to the Gentiles, then how do you say that there is no difference?
Ephesians 2:11-13 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
And where is Israel today? China, America, Africa?
No.. I'm not arguing that.. There are differences between Jews and Gentiles, and still today. What I'm talking about is your belief that the commandments and the Jews are now ancient history. That is wrong.. I'm sorry. That is what replacement theology teaches.jlay wrote:Read the entire context. You are saying there is no difference, but clearly at that time there was. It even says so.
you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
Circumcision of the flesh was strictly a sign of being a physical Jew. Not a Gentile. Gentiles were now required to have the circumcision of the heart Romans 2:28-29.. According "to the customs" that could be anyone's guess which could include the "Oral Laws" which are non-biblical. However did God give up on the commandments? Did Paul give up circumcision? No, in Acts 16:3 he circumcised Timothy, he still made vows Acts 18:18, still attended the festivals Acts 20:16, paid the temple sacrifices for 4 men Acts 23-27, etc...
22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
This verse does not say that Gentiles should give up on G-d's commandments.. It says that he decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication... But where is the word "only" here? If you had the word "only" then you might have something here. But you don't... Also in verse 26, it clearly says that Paul went into the temple with these men and offered a sacrifice for each of them... Sacrifices after Christ?
Again there is nothing said here about throwing the law under the bus here either...jlay wrote:Some things are very obvious here. First, concerning the Gentiles. They were NOT to fall under the Law, and the distinction is given. 2nd, Paul was accused of teaching,.." all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs."
No.. This is where we disagree. There are not two different programs here.. Paul never spoke out flat against G-d's commandments.. He spoke about turning G-d's teachings into legalism, but never about throwing the law in the garbage either. What he did speak about is how to WALK THE LAW according to Christ.jlay wrote:The confusion is that there are two programs operating. The Jewish program, and the gentile program. If there weren't two programs, then there would have been no need to call Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles. Nor would there be any controversy, because Paul would be encouraging Gentiles to follow the whole law. Also, those speaking obviously saw a distinction as they believed they were to keep the law, as should Paul. In other words it was necessary, but for the gentiles they need only abstain from certain meat and fornication. Now how do you reconcile that? It is obvious these Jews speaking at this time, saw that there was one standard for Jews and another for gentiles regarding the OT law.
Ask Paul that... When he himself along with those men, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.jlay wrote:So, when is the last time you have offered a sacrifice? And if not, why not?
It depends on what you mean by following the law. Not everything in the commandments are even addressed to all people. Some of the laws are for women, some for men, some for priests, some for lepers, some for the Sanhedrin, some for the temple, etc.. Are you implying that we should morph into all of these? Then the answer is no...jlay wrote:And so, you have thrown out certain commands. I can bet you hard money that you, nor any messianic Jew is following the law. They are following am ammended version. According to who? The law has sacrificial requirements for not keeping certain commands. Are you following them?
