For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[Shermana]

Cornelius didnt convert to Judaism... when the apostle Peter was told to enter cornelius's house, he did not want to enter the house of a gentile because they were viewed as unclean

yet when he got there, holy spirit was given to Cornelius...a gentile! How could that be?

Someone who did not follow the customs of Moses or the jewish faith received holy spirit from God.


This proved that God did not require a person to be an adherent of the mosaic law. The person had to live a righteous life and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

It's now clear that your argument is to conflate "Judaism" with "Keeping the Law".

We don't know whether or not Cornelius followed the Law. He was declared righteous by the Jews. The concept of the Noahide laws is a much later idea, not even the same concept is found in the earlier book of Jubilees. Most likely, Cornelius was a convert to total Torah obedience.

 

[Shermana]

Christianity teaches the righteous requirements of the mosaic law... it doesnt teach adherence to the 613 laws as a matter of requirement to be a christian... it teaches the principles of morality, righteousness, justice, kindness, goodness and faith

Do you really think that people cannot live such a life without the mosaic law?

How can that be when Abraham and Noah and Able lived such lives without knowledge of the mosaic law????

Then you are breaking and teaching to break even the least of the commandments and thus a doer of Lawlessness.

Why do you keep up bringing up Abraham and Noah and Able? They lived before the Law was implemented, the law that was PERPETUAL and for ALL GENERATIONS. We don't know what Statutes, Judgments, and ORdinances Abraham obeyed, and apparently he knew how to make sacrifices and with what.

To use the term that Captain Bryce loves to use when I poke a hole in his argument that he can't answer, you are resorting to a nonstop barrage of red herrings, and they all stink of dead fish. Rotting, decaying dead fish left in the sun for weeks.

And yes, life without living the full Mosaic Law is not a fully righteous life. Being righteous is more than just being a good neighbor.

 

[Pegg]

It's now clear that your argument is to conflate "Judaism" with "Keeping the Law".

We don't know whether or not Cornelius followed the Law. He was declared righteous by the Jews. The concept of the Noahide laws is a much later idea, not even the same concept is found in the earlier book of Jubilees. Most likely, Cornelius was a convert to total Torah obedience.

thats a mighty big assumption to make.


According to Peter, Cornelius and his household were 'people of the nations'

Cornelius was a Roman Officer! Do you really think that the jews of the first century declared Cornelius 'righteous'?

The christians declared him righteous.... the jews wanted to break the roman yoke!

 

[roger1440]

I think the point the point Acts is making is that ALL is welcome to God's banquet, even Gentiles.

 

[CMike]

yes, but they would do so through the words/teachings of Moses.

The directions given by moses were the way Isreal could enter into a relationship with God.

And likewise, the directions given by Jesus were the way the rest of mankind could enter into a relationship with God.

The directions were from G-D.

 

[dantech]

I think the point the point Acts is making is that ALL is welcome to God's banquet, even Gentiles.

This point that you suggest Acts is making has existed since the time of the Temple. There was a court in the Holy Temple for people of all nations who wished to worship God. He has always been accepting of anyone who accepted Him.

 

[Sleeppy]

This point that you suggest Acts is making has existed since the time of the Temple. There was a court in the Holy Temple for people of all nations who wished to worship God. He has always been accepting of anyone who accepted Him.

Do you believe that God allowed His house to be destroyed?

 

[dantech]

Do you believe that God allowed His house to be destroyed?

What does that have to do with anything??

 

[Sleeppy]

What does that have to do with anything??

If you'll answer it, I can answer this.

 

[dantech]

If you'll answer it, I can answer this.

Yes, I believe he allowed for the Temple to be destroyed.

 

[captainbryce]

To use the term that Captain Bryce loves to use when I poke a hole in his argument that he can't answer,

Unless you plan on actually responding to my questions, or speaking to me, please don't evoke my name again. There are no holes in my argument because my argument is consistent with scripture while YOURS IS NOT. You have to choose which passages to accept and which ones to reject in order to craft scripture that fits your argument. That's what your entire reasoning absolutely depend on and that's why your argument is ultimately a failure. I have poked MANY holes in your argument (so has Pegg), but you have a problem answering such questions. Your tactic has been to answer a question with another irrelevant question, but not actually to provide a true answer. I've already defeated your nonsensical argument by pointing out your hypocrisies (quoting Jesus when it's convenient, and ignoring him when it's not), and by citing scriptures that invalidate your entire line of reasoning.

Again, unless you can provide an answer for why a Gentile must follow a law that was never given to him (something you've gone out of your way to avoid answering), or why Christ said that anyone who believed would be saved (something that you outright reject), or why he told his disciples to make disciples of all nations (something that destroys your argument with regard to Mosaic laws being a requirement for salvation), or the point that Pegg brings up which is the contradiction of how people could have been considered "righteous" before without the law, but now they can only be considered righteous with the law, you'll NEVER "win" the debate you are trying to win at all costs. Acts 10 alone invalidates your entire argument. Of course, you ignore Acts 10 because it's inconsistent with your worldview, and that's fine. But that's the only argument you can use (disbelief) because scripture itself proves you wrong.

You said: "Jesus only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. His death included." But I've already demonstrated why this is false. Matthew 10:1 TELLS US in what manner Jesus came only for the Jews.

Matthew 10:1
Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

Matthew 10: 5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Jesus came to administer only to the Jews. That is provide God's word, and heal the sick. But I've shown you that Jesus will still accept Gentiles who prove themselves faithful even thought that's not why he came (Matthew 15:22-27). But you only accept HALF of what Jesus says because your argument is hypocritical.

These passages make it clear that the reason he came had nothing to do with the reasons he died (salvation). So you've conflated two entirely different issues. The reason he died was for ALL MANKIND (minus those who don't accept him - JEWS), thus invalidating your nonsense about him only dying for the Jews.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

John 1:11-13
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

So much for him dying ONLY for the Jews. Looks like he actually died for anyone who received him (of which most Jews did not).

And then there is Acts 10 -

Acts 10: 11-15
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Acts 10:28
He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Acts 10:34-36
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

So what do we have here? We have the Holy Spirit being poured out on uncircumcised Gentiles, who did not follow the dietary laws of Moses! Ergo, they were accepted by God as righteous without being bound by OT laws (just like Abel and Noah). This testimony of Peter completely validating the testimony of Paul:

Galatians 3:2-3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

Galatians 3:13-14
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Galatians 5:2-6
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

You want to talk about what being "grafted in" means? Then you should try to comprehend the full context of the scripture you are bastardizing the concept from (and don't really accept anyway). Observe:

Romans 11:13-14
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Romans 11:17-20
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.

So the grafting in of Gentiles is twofold. First, to allow Gentiles to become one of God's children (John 1:12), and secondly to arouse JEWS who have been cut off from God to have faith in Christ. It wasn't to include Gentiles into the old covenant. And actually that would completely defeat the purpose because they were accepted by God WITHOUT the law, while the Jews were rejected by God in spite of it! Being grafted in doesn't mean observing the law, it means being part of the "righteous people" in God's eyes. The law doesn't make us righteous. And Paul himself (you know, the guy who brought up the concept of grafting in) is the one who most outspoken AGAINST the old covenant. So your argument about grafting in is self defeating! Paul's point is that CHRIST is the one who grafts Gentiles to the Jews, and only through Christ can EITHER be saved. But you twisted his meaning of "grafting" to suggest that Gentiles must observe the old covenant laws that didn't apply to them (the OPPOSITE of what Paul is actually saying).

 

[dantech]

Bryce, can you answer this question for me please.

You say that Christians have never been bounded by the law. That's fine.

However, do you believe that the Jews who followed the Apostles who taught about Jesus, and therefore ended up being the first Christians, were living in sin since they were indeed bounded by the law?

Please don't answer with lengthy post. Give me a Yes or No answer followed with your reasoning if you will.

Looking forward to reading your answer.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, I believe he allowed for the Temple to be destroyed.

Why? What reason did God have, to allow His house of prayer, and His throne, to be destroyed? And why has he not allowed it to be rebuilt?

Also.. Why has He allowed the Ark to be lost? And the promised land to be circumcised?

Why is it that many of the Scriptures- even the very words of God according to the prophets- have been made void? Or incomplete? Or impossible?

In what house should the nations be praying? Are they accepted irrespective of the Temple, and the Laws governing in it? Or does God's presence extend beyond it?

 

[dantech]

Why? What reason did God have, to allow His house of prayer, and His throne, to be destroyed? And why has he not allowed it to be rebuilt?

Well this varies with opinions. But basically, we're in Galut because of Tikkunim that need to take place all around the world.

Also.. Why has He allowed the Ark to be lost? And the promised land to be circumcised?

Same reason

Why is it that many of the Scriptures- even the very words of God according to the prophets- have been made void? Or incomplete? Or impossible?

Please give me a few examples. Many of the laws that we don't apply today either depend on a Sanhedrin, or a Temple which we don't have.

In what house should the nations be praying? Are they accepted irrespective of the Temple, and the Laws governing in it? Or does God's presence extend beyond it?

Actually our prayers really started only once the Temple was destroyed. Before that, sacrifices took place.
Hosea prophecized that we will replace our sacrifices with our prayers.

 

[InChrist]

Bryce, can you answer this question for me please.

You say that Christians have never been bounded by the law. That's fine.

However, do you believe that the Jews who followed the Apostles who taught about Jesus, and therefore ended up being the first Christians, were living in sin since they were indeed bounded by the law?

Please don't answer with lengthy post. Give me a Yes or No answer followed with your reasoning if you will.

Looking forward to reading your answer.

Although not addressed to me, may I respond to this question?

 

[captainbryce]

Bryce, can you answer this question for me please.

You say that Christians have never been bounded by the law. That's fine.

However, do you believe that the Jews who followed the Apostles who taught about Jesus, and therefore ended up being the first Christians, were living in sin since they were indeed bounded by the law?

Please don't answer with lengthy post. Give me a Yes or No answer followed with your reasoning if you will.

Looking forward to reading your answer.

Answer: No!

Reasoning: The original Jewish Christians WERE part of the Old Covenant. Consequently, they followed the laws (as they understood them) throughout their ministries. It is reasonable to assume that their interpretation of the old laws changed during their time with Christ (since he reinterpreted many of the laws for them). So while they were all likely circumcised in accordance with the Old Covenant, and they all kept kosher and kept the Sabbath holy, Jesus began to fulfill some of the laws throughout his ministries, and eventually replaced them all with the New Covenant (upon his death, when prophecy was fulfilled). However, In Matthew 5, Jesus makes a point of bringing up just how much the law had been corrupted by men. In attempting to follow God's law, they actually substituted much of the law in place of their own traditions. As such, they completely disregarded the intent of the law. The disciples likely began to follow the intent of the laws, rather than just going through the motions as they previously did.

Matthew 5:38-39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Matthew 5:43-44
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Matthew 15:11
What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

Many of Jesus' teachings were "radical" and considered to be a violation of Mosaic laws. However, that was due to the manner in which many of the Jews ignorantly followed the law (blindly) without any regard for intent or purpose. It was they who had destroyed the law, not Jesus. It is not a sin to follow the law, so long as those under the law obeyed the whole law. Paul makes that point in Galatians 5! The problem for many Jews is that they couldn't keep the whole law, yet they relied on it for salvation (which it couldn't provide). Do I think that his disciples and followers CONTINUED to eat only Kosher foods after Jesus declared all foods clean? I have no idea. Does it really matter if they did or not? Absolutely not. So long as they accepted Christ as their savior for the remission of sin, and understood that it was by faith that they were saved, not by works of the law.

I believe that a Jew who believes that Jesus is the messiah, is baptized as such, and exercises faith in him alone for salvation (ie; Jews for Jesus), may continue to follow Mosaic laws (that are not contradictory to secular laws) or any other Jewish traditions, IF they are fully convinced in their own mind that this is how God has called them. It is not a sin to remain part of the Old Covenant, so long as one is adopted into the New Covenant.

Romans 14:5-6
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

1 Corinthians 7:17-20
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and never suggested a change to Sunday. He did, however, reject a strict legalistic interpretation of the Old Testament commandment. He said Sabbath observance was not a duty that mankind owed to God. Rather, God made the Sabbath as a day of rest for mankind's benefit (Mark 2:27). Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).

What Does the Bible Say About the Sabbath?

 

[Shermana]

Unless you plan on actually responding to my questions, or speaking to me, please don't evoke my name again. There are no holes in my argument because my argument is consistent with scripture while YOURS IS NOT

.


Delusional at best.

You have to choose which passages to accept and which ones to reject in order to craft scripture that fits your argument.

I accept all the passages of the gospels (except the obviously interpolated like John 8:1-11). Yours relies on some wacky interpretations like saying Matthew 10:1 defines how Jesus came for the Jews alone. Basically you say "2 + 2 = 5 so HA!".

That's what your entire reasoning absolutely depend on and that's why your argument is ultimately a failure.

May God show you which of our reasoning is a failure.

I have poked MANY holes in your argument (so has Pegg),

May God show you whether you've poked any holes.

but you have a problem answering such questions.

I have answered them, you just refuse to accept my answers and brush them off.

Your tactic has been to answer a question with another irrelevant question, but not actually to provide a true answer.

May God show you whether my answer is "True" and "irrelevant".

I've already defeated your nonsensical argument by pointing out your hypocrisies (quoting Jesus when it's convenient, and ignoring him when it's not), and by citing scriptures that invalidate your entire line of reasoning.

May God show you whether you've defeated my argument and whether it's "nonsensical".

Again, unless you can provide an answer for why a Gentile must follow a law that was never given to him (something you've gone out of your way to avoid answering),

Because they choose to be a graft to the Tree of Israel.

or why Christ said that anyone who believed would be saved (something that you outright reject),

Because Believe means to obey and follow.

or why he told his disciples to make disciples of all nations (something that destroys your argument with regard to Mosaic laws being a requirement for salvation),

Because becoming a disciple means obeying the same thing.

or the point that Pegg brings up which is the contradiction of how people could have been considered "righteous" before without the law

,

Righteousness as a definition obviously changed afterward to become the full version.

but now they can only be considered righteous with the law, you'll NEVER "win" the debate you are trying to win at all costs.

May God show you directly which one of us has won the debate.

Acts 10 alone invalidates your entire argument. Of course, you ignore Acts 10 because it's inconsistent with your worldview, and that's fine. But that's the only argument you can use (disbelief) because scripture itself proves you wrong.

I've been over Acts 10 over and over again, it's merely an invitation to allow gentiles into the church, it specifically says its a metaphor. Numerous groups, even many anti-nomian churches agree with this.

You said: "Jesus only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. His death included." But I've already demonstrated why this is false. Matthew 10:1 TELLS US in what manner Jesus came only for the Jews.

Matthew 10:1 says no such thing. Your tactic is to pull up any verse, interpret it in any way you want, with or without precedent, and then claim victory and brush off any actually contextually consistent arguments.

Matthew 10: 5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

I can't tell what's worse, your interpretation skills or your ability to irritate with refusal to debate.

Jesus came to administer only to the Jews. That is provide God's word, and heal the sick. But I've shown you that Jesus will still accept Gentiles who prove themselves faithful even thought that's not why he came (Matthew 15:22-27). But you only accept HALF of what Jesus says because your argument is hypocritical.

You have shown nothing but your propensity to jump into a rabbit hole of fringe interpretation and to pronounce victory.

These passages make it clear that the reason he came had nothing to do with the reasons he died (salvation). So you've conflated two entirely different issues. The reason he died was for ALL MANKIND (minus those who don't accept him - JEWS), thus invalidating your nonsense about him only dying for the Jews.

Your verses don't indicate that all mankind doesn't have to "believe" in what he taught.

Matthew 28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

And again, all disciples have to follow the same thing the original disciples followed.

John 1:11-13
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Again, believing in his name equates to believing in what he taught. What do you think "believe in one's name" means?

So much for him dying ONLY for the Jews. Looks like he actually died for anyone who received him (of which most Jews did not).

Your verses indicate no exception to what I said. To receive him, one must actually LISTEN TO HIS TEACHINGS.

Why do you keep refusing my offer to ask God to arbitrate for us? I have absolutely no fear of invoking Him to settle this unresolvable issue of you repeating your assertions and refusing to accept plain-reading interpretations and assertions that do in fact poke holes in your argument, apparently you do.

Are you too scared? I think so. That speaks volumes about how confident you are in your position, yet you have no problem telling me in gloves-off terms what you think of it.

 

[Shermana]

And then there is Acts 10 -

Acts 10: 11-15
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Keep reading, it says its purely a metaphor. If God made all animals clean in real life, apparently the Jerusalem Church under James was viciously going against God's new edict, but still understood the metaphor to allow gentiles. How odd.

Acts 10:28
He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

It's actually nowhere against the law to associate with or visit a gentile, that's a Rabbinical decree, the things Jesus stood against. Even today, the only thing a Jew may have Halakhically against a gentile is eating from his plate.

Acts 10:34-36
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

As you can see, purely a metaphor to allow Torah obedient gentiles into the church.

Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Who is to say the gentiles weren't Torah obedient converts at the time?

So what do we have here? We have the Holy Spirit being poured out on uncircumcised Gentiles, who did not follow the dietary laws of Moses! Ergo, they were accepted by God as righteous without being bound by OT laws (just like Abel and Noah). This testimony of Peter completely validating the testimony of Paul:

Being circumcised yourself is not part of the Law. Circumcising your children is.

Galatians 3:2-3
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

Paul can suck an egg, and that's assuming Paul wrote Galatians as I've shown in other threads, there is good reason against the authenticity of it.

You want to talk about what being "grafted in" means? Then you should try to comprehend the full context of the scripture you are bastardizing the concept from (and don't really accept anyway). Observe:

You simply have a different interpretation of what it means to graft.

Romans 11:13-14
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Arouse to envy indeed, but still involves obeying the Law.

So the grafting in of Gentiles is twofold. First, to allow Gentiles to become one of God's children (John 1:12), and secondly to arouse JEWS who have been cut off from God to have faith in Christ.

To become a branch of the House of Israel is what it means.

It wasn't to include Gentiles into the old covenant.

Sure it was.

And actually that would completely defeat the purpose because they were accepted by God WITHOUT the law,

Accepted does not equate to being a member of the House of Israel.

while the Jews were rejected by God in spite of it! Being grafted in doesn't mean observing the law,

Yes it does.

it means being part of the "righteous people" in God's eyes. The law doesn't make us righteous.

Obey it surely is what makes you righteous. The Law is the COMPLETE righteousness, one can be only partially righteous without the complete law.

And Paul himself (you know, the guy who brought up the concept of grafting in) is the one who most outspoken AGAINST the old covenant.

I hope you understand what I bring Paul up for now.

So your argument about grafting in is self defeating!

Your interpretation is.

Paul's point is that CHRIST is the one who grafts Gentiles to the Jews, and only through Christ can EITHER be saved. But you twisted his meaning of "grafting" to suggest that Gentiles must observe the old covenant laws that didn't apply to them (the OPPOSITE of what Paul is actually saying).

No Bryce, you simply are reading into it what it doesn't actually say.

Let's make a prayer, may the one of us who is preaching lies and misinterpretations be brought to shame and silence so that they can only learn and think, and not speak about it. Amen? Sorry it has to come down to this Bryce, but one of my flaws is patience in dealing with obstinate people who simply double down on their initial claims and refuse to actually discuss my points. You have your points and I've addressed them, you made your claims, but you still have not addressed some of my key issues, and your attitude is rather unbearable. So put your money where your mouth is, and let's ask God to show which of us is speaking lies and refusing to accept the truth, since that's obviously the only way you'd accept anything that goes against your position.

 

[Shermana]

I think the point the point Acts is making is that ALL is welcome to God's banquet, even Gentiles.

That's correct, but as the parable of the Wedding Feast goes, they must be properly dressed or its off to the outer darkness with gnashing of teeth they go.

 

[Shermana]

Now as for Cornelius, it says he was "Devout". Does that only mean praying to the Jewish God (something that would be strange for most Romans to do at the time) and giving to the poor as the text gives as an example? What does "God-fearing" mean?

What would "devout" mean in the context of the text at the time? Wouldn't it mean the same thing as it meant for the Jews at the time? They didn't necessarily have the "Noahide" concept back then, and there was in fact a phenomenon of conversion to Judaism among Romans at the time.