Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:I think instead of believing I must obey God in order to be saved (legalism), it should probably be I must obey because I am saved. And without love we are nothing..

Allow me to make Byblos' prediction come true of things becoming a bit more dicey. Note, not to cause division as I respect Gman and Byblos, but rather because I see this issue is an important one for Christians to discuss.

In one breath you guys say that we are saved by faith in Christ, but then why attempt to return and place yourself under the Old Covenenat rather than accepting Christ's two commandments, which as I see them are more of the heart rather than letter of the Law?

The question I put to you and Byblos and anyone else fond of keeping the Mosaic Law is this: What is it we must obey as Christians if we truly love God?

With all due respect, from the sounds of our recent discussions, it seems Gman conflates the Law of the Old Covenanent specifically given to Israel, with the moral law God writes on our hearts. To the extent one should not shave their facial hair? Byblos, do you too agree shaving is a sin? Am I the only one seeing that this is kind of pharisaical, if not leading to the same error of the pharisees with placing their burden of laws upon others?

Gman, how can you not being a Jew, even claim your right to be under the Law? You might desire it all you want, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're not descended from Israel. That is, you're not a Jew by nature nor descended from one of the 12 tribes. Even the records of geneologies were all burnt so it is difficult for modern Jews do not know if they're truly authentic.

That aside, given you're a Gentile, and I'm a Gentile, then how is it a Gentile can decide to join a club that is specifically "no gentiles allowed" and set aside for God's chosen people Israel. Like it or not, we are not God's chosen people according to the Tanakh. So how is it we can participate? Why should we burden ourselves with the Law given to Israel?

Instead, I'll place my hope in Christ and desire to follow the two commandments he gave which are ultimately really written on all our hearts - Jew and Gentile alike.

From my (Catholic) perspective, I certainly would not say I am under the (old) law. I would also say that the old law was never done away with, but was fulfilled. Sometimes (most often actually) those two ideas are conflated or simply glossed over. What does it mean (to me) that the law was fulfilled. Well, that's a rather lengthy discussion that will take us back to the beginning of the OT so I will try to summarize it. I believe the OT in ITS ENTIRETY including the law, was a foreshadowing. Not of the abolishing of the law in Christ but in its fulfillment in Him. A foreshadowing of the real and everlasting law and covenant that is Christ. Let me list a few items of what I think this foreshadowing entails:

1. Adam, Christ (the new Adam)
2. The old covenant (corporate redemption with Israel), the new and everlasting covenant in the blood of Christ (corporate redemption to all)
3. The Passover lamb, Christ as once and for all Paschal lamb
4. Melchizedek the high priest, Christ as once and for all High Priest that continually presents his sacrifice to God on our behalf (again, making corporate redemption possible for all)
5. Circumcision, baptism
6. Manna in the desert to feed the many (Jews), the Eucharist to feed all
7. Eve, Mary (the new Eve)
8. The old ark of the covenant (carried the old covenant), the new ark of the covenant (Mary, carried the new covenant)

Those are but a few, of course there are many others. As you can see, the old law was not abolished, it merely foreshadowed what was to come, a better, everlasting covenant available to all, not just the Jews.

Basically we believe that trusting in Christ entails much more than just mental ascent of stating as such: I trust in Christ. It entails keeping his commandments, personified in the two he summarized the law into, i.e. love God and your neighbor. One starts with love because it is the root where evil cannot fester and grow. But it doesn't end or stop there. We must still have to deal with sin (on an individual basis, not corporately). And that is done through the new covenant. The nature of covenants are such that each party has certain responsibilities. God promises to save us through Christ, and we promise to abide by his Word. Through corporate redemption we become heirs to the promise, adopted children of God through Christ. Much like the prodigal son, however, we can alienate ourselves and become dead to our Father. Yet He will welcome us back with open arms when we repent and see the error of our ways. Note that I am being very careful here not get too technical here with the sacraments and such because really this is not about Catholicism per se but about how the old covenant is viewed in relation to the new one as far as I'm concerned.

There is no question as to whom the law was given. Israel.

This is bound to devolve into a familiar discussion, but I think it is important to point out the error in Judiazing. I would suspect that Gman is not Jewish, and he is welcome to correct if this isn't the case. This is covered specifically in Acts, and was made clear that Gentiles would NOT be burdened with all the ordnances of the Law. This also could get into a theological discussion. The Law given to Israel is an example of a dispensation. That is, how God deals with man at different times. God is unchanging, but how God has dealt with man has over time has changed. There was a time before the ordinances of the Law. There was a time (time past) that God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

Judiazers, IMO, ignore rightly dividing the word of truth, and claim for themselves something that does not belong to them. In this current dispensation there is no difference between Jew and gentile. Early on in Acts there was a difference. And the difference led to a controversy.
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:" (Acts 15:28) (also: Acts 21:25)
At that time, there was a difference and the Bible makes it CLEAR that Gentiles are NOT to be under the Law. If this were the case, then there would be no need for Paul. The 12 had their commission, and were quite capable (thanks to the HS) of carrying it out. But that is not what happened. It even says that they agreed that Peter would take his message to Israel and Paul would go to the Gentiles. Seperate and distinct plans. This Paul guy gets a revelation. A new revelation. One planned before the foundations of the world, but that has been kept hidden.
Corporately, Israel rejects the Kingdom Gospel, and as we see, the results are the destruction of Israel and the complete demolition of the temple system and the temple itself. Upon Israel's rejection of the Messiah, (which happened before the destruction of the temple, BTW) a new dispensation is enacted. For how long? Until the number of the gentiles is complete. Under this plan there is no distinction. All are saved by faith in Christ and faith alone. (Rom. 10:12, Col. 3:11, Romans 3:21,22,23,24,25,26)

We can talk all day about what Christians 'should' do. But the question is what MUST one do to be saved.
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” Acts 16:31 That is a great question. The Greek word dei implies, what is absolute necessary. Not believe, and then become a Jew. Not believe and then do this, this and this. Not, believe and then trust in your own abilities to live up to a standard. But to believe, that is TRUST Christ for one's salvation.

Kurieuo wrote:Allow me to make Byblos' prediction come true of things becoming a bit more dicey. Note, not to cause division as I respect Gman and Byblos, but rather because I see this issue is an important one for Christians to discuss.

In one breath you guys say that we are saved by faith in Christ, but then why attempt to return and place yourself under the Old Covenenat rather than accepting Christ's two commandments, which as I see them are more of the heart rather than letter of the Law?

Great question Scott. Thanks. I think to best answer your question in regards to the OT is that these questions have really nothing to do with salvation but more with sanctification or becoming more holy. How so? Becuase many of the early believers (like Noah or Abraham types) didn't even have the law and were still saved.

Kurieuo wrote:The question I put to you and Byblos and anyone else fond of keeping the Mosaic Law is this: What is it we must obey as Christians if we truly love God?

That is a question you will need to answer for yourself. My personal belief is that we still need to follow the commandments if we truly love him. But keep in mind we still need to define what the commandments are and how to follow them spiritually. Many of the commandments are not even for us, like the Levitical ones for priests, or for lepers. Also many of the commandments have changed such as circumcision.

Kurieuo wrote:With all due respect, from the sounds of our recent discussions, it seems Gman conflates the Law of the Old Covenanent specifically given to Israel, with the moral law God writes on our hearts. To the extent one should not shave their facial hair? Byblos, do you too agree shaving is a sin? Am I the only one seeing that this is kind of pharisaical, if not leading to the same error of the pharisees with placing their burden of laws upon others?

Gman, how can you not being a Jew, even claim your right to be under the Law? You might desire it all you want, and correct me if I'm wrong but you're not descended from Israel. That is, you're not a Jew by nature nor descended from one of the 12 tribes. Even the records of geneologies were all burnt so it is difficult for modern Jews do not know if they're truly authentic.

I don't believe I'm conflating the two. No.. I'm not a Jew. True.. But according to scripture we ARE Israeli and fellow citizens WITH Judah in the state of Israel, Ephesians 2:11-13, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:26, Galatians 3:29, Romans 9:24-26, Galatians 4:26, 28. If true, we need to find out how to act like one. So welcome to the plot... We are married to the same plot as the Jews.

Genetics can't tell who are Abraham's seed, nor can they prove who aren't. It is a matter of faith. G-d ultimately knows.

So what does this mean? That many of these covenants are still in play today... If true, then we don't break from the covenants but instead hold our ground and protect Judah (Jews). We don't ever replace Judah by any means, we were meant to work WITH Judah together in the restoration of Israel.

Kurieuo wrote:That aside, given you're a Gentile, and I'm a Gentile, then how is it a Gentile can decide to join a club that is specifically "no gentiles allowed" and set aside for God's chosen people Israel. Like it or not, we are not God's chosen people according to the Tanakh. So how is it we can participate? Why should we burden ourselves with the Law given to Israel?

Instead, I'll place my hope in Christ and desire to follow the two commandments he gave which are ultimately really written on all our hearts - Jew and Gentile alike.

Yes but we must also know that while Judah is partly blind right now, G-d is still pursuing them. Why? Because G-d never breaks His commandments Romans 11:28-32. And I would argue that we gentiles are also partly blind right now too. Why? Because we have forgotten the meatier weights of the Torah. We have added many of our own conditions to G-d's teachings that we too in turn have blinded ourselves.

jlay wrote:There is no question as to whom the law was given. Israel.

And who is Israel? Both Jews AND gentiles now coming together to form one family. The family of Israelis. Romans 11:1-24, Ezekiel 37:15-28.

jlay wrote:This is bound to devolve into a familiar discussion, but I think it is important to point out the error in Judiazing.

Judiazing? Jlay, are we forgetting that we worship a Jew?? The Jew of all Jews who kept Torah. Participated in the festivals? Wore a tallit? ... In fact all the writers of the Bible were Jews. Possibly even now Luke. And now they are starting to dig up the Gospels written in Hebrew. You can't divorce the Jew out of the Gospel. I'm sorry.

jlay wrote:I would suspect that Gman is not Jewish, and he is welcome to correct if this isn't the case. This is covered specifically in Acts, and was made clear that Gentiles would NOT be burdened with all the ordnances of the Law. This also could get into a theological discussion.

The Law given to Israel is an example of a dispensation. That is, how God deals with man at different times. God is unchanging, but how God has dealt with man has over time has changed. There was a time before the ordinances of the Law. There was a time (time past) that God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)

So in your mind G-d is going to give some real hard laws to one group (the Jews) then in another group just tell them to love, love, love? That seems a little demented to me.. Or could it be the way they should have been following the commandments? Well if we are going to go that direction with two different dealings, the logic doesn't even follow the pattern. Why? Let's take adultery as an example, in the Tanach it clearly states that we shouldn't commit adultery Exodus 20:14. However, in the NT Christ says that if you even look lustfully on a woman you have already commit adultery with her Matthew 5:28. Which commandment is more severe?

jlay wrote:Judiazers, IMO, ignore rightly dividing the word of truth, and claim for themselves something that does not belong to them. In this current dispensation there is no difference between Jew and gentile. Early on in Acts there was a difference. And the difference led to a controversy.

There may be neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ, true Galatians 3:28. But they are still either a Jew or Gentile just like we still have either a male or female today. The roles maybe different, but that is a different debate.

jlay wrote:"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:" (Acts 15:28) (also: Acts 21:25)

Gentiles should not be required to become Jewish or even Torah observant as a prerequisite for salvation. That is what is going here and why there was such a discrepancy with the early followers coming into the fold. These are not requirements for salvation..

jlay wrote:At that time, there was a difference and the Bible makes it CLEAR that Gentiles are NOT to be under the Law. If this were the case, then there would be no need for Paul. The 12 had their commission, and were quite capable (thanks to the HS) of carrying it out. But that is not what happened. It even says that they agreed that Peter would take his message to Israel and Paul would go to the Gentiles. Seperate and distinct plans. This Paul guy gets a revelation. A new revelation. One planned before the foundations of the world, but that has been kept hidden.

Again.. For salvation it is not required to follow the law.. We follow the commandments if we choose to obey and love Him. There is nothing new under the sun here.. It's just re-newed covenant... And many of the OT folks were still saved because of their faith. Not of works.. Please read Hebrews 11.

jlay wrote:Corporately, Israel rejects the Kingdom Gospel, and as we see, the results are the destruction of Israel and the complete demolition of the temple system and the temple itself.

Again we have been over this before. The Jews (and other Israelis) are only partly blind Romans 11:25... AND the temple system is still coming back for a thousand years with the temple sacrificial system as explained in Ezekiel 42. And where will this temple be? Jerusalem in Israel.. How long? Forever. Read 2 Chron 33:4, Isaiah 2:1-5, Micah 4:2, Zechariah 12:3, Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22, Luke 21:20, Revelation 3:12, Revelation 21:2, and Revelation 21:10.

jlay wrote:Upon Israel's rejection of the Messiah, (which happened before the destruction of the temple, BTW) a new dispensation is enacted. For how long? Until the number of the gentiles is complete. Under this plan there is no distinction. All are saved by faith in Christ and faith alone. (Rom. 10:12, Col. 3:11, Romans 3:21,22,23,24,25,26).

Here is one part where we do agree, that is no one can be saved without Christ.. But that doesn't mean that the commandments have been abrogated either Galatians 3:15-17.

jlay wrote:We can talk all day about what Christians 'should' do. But the question is what MUST one do to be saved.
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” Acts 16:31 That is a great question. The Greek word dei implies, what is absolute necessary. Not believe, and then become a Jew. Not believe and then do this, this and this. Not, believe and then trust in your own abilities to live up to a standard. But to believe, that is TRUST Christ for one's salvation.

No one is questioning that here but whether we have a sanctification process now.. Or do we just wing it.

what i think many of you are misunderstanding is that Gman isn't saying that following the law is a requirement for salvation but rather out of our love of Christ we would follow His commandments the best we can. i understand what Gman is saying cuz i have been to messianic congregations myself and they dont just teach you to follow the law as a requirement for salvation but rather our salvation comes from God alone through Christ and out of that love we would naturally want to follow what God would want us to do. Gman knows just like all of us that it is by the grace of God through our faith in Christ that saves us he has stated that before. i would also say that a lot of christians ignore rightly dividing the word of truth. a lot of them scream jesus jesus jesus on sunday but run with the devil monday through saturday, use grace as an excuse not to live as godly as they should be and also only stick to the NT when we all know that all scripture is profitable for learning.

Zionist wrote:what i think many of you are misunderstanding is that Gman isn't saying that following the law is a requirement for salvation but rather out of our love of Christ we would follow His commandments the best we can.

Yes.. Exactly. We know that we can't be justified under the law. We know it is on faith alone.. But now the next question. Do we truly love Him? Do we obey His commandments? If so, we have a lot do.. AND we need to know WHAT to do too.. Or we could sit on our couches and wait for this "so called" rapture to come and magically beam us away. What will be our choice?

Matthew 6:9-13 “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your WILL be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation,[a] but deliver us from the evil one.’

Judiazing? Jlay, are we forgetting that we worship a Jew?? The Jew of all Jews who kept Torah. Participated in the festivals? Wore a tallit? ... In fact all the writers of the Bible were Jews. Possibly even now Luke. And now they are starting to dig up the Gospels written in Hebrew. You can't divorce the Jew out of the Gospel. I'm sorry

Sorry bro, but the Paul himself (a jew) is criticial of the judiazers. You've twisted my objection into something completely different.

Do we truly love Him? Do we obey His commandments?

This is nonsense. This is a way of saying "IF" we truly love Christ we will adopt all the Hebrew customs and entire Law. And thus, if we don't, then we don't truly love Him.

Just what are you implying with the quote of Ezekial? This is about the uniting of the divided Kingdom and has NOTHING to do with the Gentiles. The dispensationalist sees this as a promise to a future time, where the Kingdom will be truly manifest on the Earth. And Israel will be restored. When? when the number of the gentiles is complete.

So in your mind G-d is going to give some real hard laws to one group (the Jews) then in another group just tell them to love, love, love?

I suggest you study dispensationalism and the eschatology from it. listen to what you are saying. We already KNOW that God have one group (the Jews) some real hard laws. And the other (Gentiles) had none, and were essentially without hope. Until the apostle Paul was chosen by Christ for his ministry. That is the essence of dispensationalism. That God is dealing with people differently at different times according to His ulitmate will and purpose.

AND the temple system is still coming back for a thousand years with the temple sacrificial system as explained in Ezekiel 42. And where will this temple be? Jerusalem in Israel.. How long? Forever.

And?
Future. Not now.

jlay wrote: Sorry bro, but the Paul himself (a jew) is criticial of the judiazers. You've twisted my objection into something completely different.

I'm sorry Jlay, but I haven't. Paul was never critical against his Jewish brothers or the law OR the temple even after Christ ascended. Please read in his own words..

Acts 25:8 Then Paul made his defense: “I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.”

What Paul seems to be critical of however was turning G-d's commandments into legalism or the Rabbinic laws namely the "Oral Law' such as the Talmud and Midrash, but never against the Biblical laws.. Never.

jlay wrote:This is nonsense. This is a way of saying "IF" we truly love Christ we will adopt all the Hebrew customs and entire Law. And thus, if we don't, then we don't truly love Him.

It depends on what you mean by hebrew customs. If you mean Rabbinical laws then yes, but not the Biblical ones. The commandments of G-d were never considered to be a sin. In fact we don't even know what sin even is outside of the laws.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

jlay wrote:Just what are you implying with the quote of Ezekial? This is about the uniting of the divided Kingdom and has NOTHING to do with the Gentiles. The dispensationalist sees this as a promise to a future time, where the Kingdom will be truly manifest on the Earth. And Israel will be restored. When? when the number of the gentiles is complete.

I'm sorry but that is incorrect too... Gentiles have always been a part of the restoration of the house of Israel. Ezekeil is claiming that the kingdom is coming back.. Where? Not America, not Europe, not China... Israel where the Lord will reign forever 2 Chron 33:4.

jlay wrote:I suggest you study dispensationalism and the eschatology from it. listen to what you are saying. We already KNOW that God have one group (the Jews) some real hard laws. And the other (Gentiles) had none, and were essentially without hope. Until the apostle Paul was chosen by Christ for his ministry. That is the essence of dispensationalism. That God is dealing with people differently at different times according to His ulitmate will and purpose.

I'm sorry that is incorrect. G-d isn't going to give in your words "real hard laws" to the Jews, then give the Gentiles lesser ones. That is just bizarre thinking. So in your mind G-d is going to trip up the Jews with something they couldn't follow? Why? For laughs?

And?
Future. Not now.

So we never prepare for the future? Just wing it and hope it comes together on our television sets?

Hmmm. I think Paul might have had a little bit of angst toward those Judiasers of whom he spoke:

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

This was most certainly spoken of a group of Judiazers who followed Paul's ministry in Galatia bringing a "follow-up" gospel that told them that Paul's was incomplete and they needed to be circumcised and embrace Jewish Law. With Circumcision the issue, I don't have to tell you what Paul was suggesting they go ahead and mutilate.

I mean, as a guy and everything .... OUCH!!!!!

Paul even had to rebuke Peter himself for being caught up into it and it also puts the book of James into context as this was very much the direction James was influencing the church in Jerusalem to go until the Spirit began to break out among the Gentiles. The role of Israel as a chosen nation was to bring forth the Messiah who would save all nations. The role was not to convert the gentiles to become Jews.

That's how I see it anyway. I have a great deal of respect for Israel and the Jewish people for their role in God's Plan, but there are elements of that plan that are in the past and which have served their original purpose.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This was most certainly spoken of a group of Judiazers who followed Paul's ministry in Galatia bringing a "follow-up" gospel that told them that Paul's was incomplete and they needed to be circumcised and embrace Jewish Law. With Circumcision the issue, I don't have to tell you what Paul was suggesting they go ahead and mutilate.

I mean, as a guy and everything .... OUCH!!!!!

Yes I know Bart... Ouch I believe however that this verse in Galations was addressing if a believer in Christ needs to take the marker, or in this case circumcision, to become a Jew. This was the case also in Acts 2.

Acts 15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

In this case the answer would be no. Paul argued that gentiles did not need to become Jewish in order to be saved. They are saved by grace as found in Acts 15:7-11. However in Acts 15:16-17 it clearly talks about Jews and Gentiles (two separate groups) being present in the days of Messiah. This is also clarified in Amos 9.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Paul even had to rebuke Peter himself for being caught up into it and it also puts the book of James into context as this was very much the direction James was influencing the church in Jerusalem to go until the Spirit began to break out among the Gentiles. The role of Israel as a chosen nation was to bring forth the Messiah who would save all nations. The role was not to convert the gentiles to become Jews.

Yes agreed... But does that mean we just throw out the rest of the commandments to the wind? I guess the confusion comes to what we deem as becoming Jewish and what we consider being Gentile. In acts however, Paul seems to uphold the Nazirite Law according to Numbers 6:13-21.. it would seem that he didn't renounce "the law" here..

Acts 21: 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's how I see it anyway. I have a great deal of respect for Israel and the Jewish people for their role in God's Plan, but there are elements of that plan that are in the past and which have served their original purpose.

Yes but does love cancel the Torah? I know what you are saying, I was trained the same way... But now I'm starting to rethink what I've been taught. It would seem that possibly we did blow it.

Paul was.a Jew and he was conditioned to the life and while he was.primarily called to the Gentiles he remained a faithful Jew in many ways to be all things to all men but he was adamant that his personal chioices aside in thst area that the Gentiles were free from Jewish law.

If someone wants to follow Jewish law as an act if worship to God then knock yourself out. Don't suggest it's a requirement of God or scores brownie points so to speak with God. It doesn't to my knowledge. I believe Christ fulfilled all the law and we're free in Christ and constrained in love alone.

No doubt there's still wisdom and benefit in elements of the law but that's a far sight less than it's original context and purpose.

What does the bible say about this...

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."

Acts 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

Acts 15:3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.

Acts 15:4, 5, 6 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:8, 9, 10 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Acts15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

Acts 15:13, 14, 15 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

Acts 15:16-18 'AFTER THIS I WILL RETURN AND WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, WHICH HAS FALLEN DOWN; I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL SET IT UP; 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, EVEN ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, SAYS THE LORD WHO DOES ALL THESE THINGS.' 18 "Known to God from eternity are all His works.

Acts 15:19, 20, 21 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment— NKJV

I'm sorry that is incorrect. G-d isn't going to give in your words "real hard laws" to the Jews, then give the Gentiles lesser ones. That is just bizarre thinking.

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?

Yes agreed... But does that mean we just throw out the rest of the commandments to the wind? I guess the confusion comes to what we deem as becoming Jewish and what we consider being Gentile. In acts however, Paul seems to uphold the Nazirite Law according to Numbers 6:13-21.. it would seem that he didn't renounce "the law" here..

Read the entire context. You are saying there is no difference, but clearly at that time there was. It even says so.

17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to [c]James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that 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. 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.

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."

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.

So, when is the last time you have offered a sacrifice? And if not, why not?
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?