For the Christians (Abrahamic only)

[dantech]

Yeah, what he just said. What do apply to gentiles are the seven laws of Noah.

“In Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבעמצוותבנינח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

We all know and agree with this. It wasn't the purpose of our debate.

The purpose was to figure out how Christians go about not following a law that if of Jewish descendance, is binding for eternity according to our scriptures and yours.

I agree that today no Christian needs to follow the law. My question though is: Did the first Christians, the ones who were actually Jewish but decided to follow the gospels, wrong in giving up their law, or did they actually keep following the law? Or if you believe they didn't follow it, but were not wrong to not do so, then explain.

 

[roger1440]

We all know and agree with this. It wasn't the purpose of our debate.

The purpose was to figure out how Christians go about not following a law that if of Jewish descendance, is binding for eternity according to our scriptures and yours.

I agree that today no Christian needs to follow the law. My question though is: Did the first Christians, the ones who were actually Jewish but decided to follow the gospels, wrong in giving up their law, or did they actually keep following the law? Or if you believe they didn't follow it, but were not wrong to not do so, then explain.

Are you asking for my own personal view?

 

[Shermana]

We all know and agree with this. It wasn't the purpose of our debate.

The purpose was to figure out how Christians go about not following a law that if of Jewish descendance, is binding for eternity according to our scriptures and yours.

I agree that today no Christian needs to follow the law. My question though is: Did the first Christians, the ones who were actually Jewish but decided to follow the gospels, wrong in giving up their law, or did they actually keep following the law? Or if you believe they didn't follow it, but were not wrong to not do so, then explain.

The FIRST Christians most assuredly kept all the Law, Acts 21 is quite clear about this, according to their own scriptures. So it was not the EARLIEST Church that went all Pauline and dejudaized the Religion until they gutted it of any of its early origin. Keep in mind that "Christians" were originally just an Apocalyptic Messianic Sect of Judaism, essentially Essenes that believed the Messiah had come.

Now if Christians want to claim that Paul was a prophet and said they don't want to follow the Law, that's fine I can respectfully disagree with them. But when they try saying that Jesus himself did away with the Law altogether and the early Nazarenes were in the wrong, I will fight them tooth and nail until they squirm.

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, what he just said. What do apply to gentiles are the seven laws of Noah.

“In Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבעמצוותבנינח‎ Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), or the Noahide Laws, are a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[1] as a binding set of laws for the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

Here's a million dollar question:

Were gentile converts to Christianity ORIGINALLY meant to convert altogether to Torah as well, just as any convert to any modern Jewish branch would be expected to?

What did Jesus mean by "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"?

Don't "Christians" believe that they are now part of the House of Israel?

 

[roger1440]

We all know and agree with this. It wasn't the purpose of our debate.

The purpose was to figure out how Christians go about not following a law that if of Jewish descendance, is binding for eternity according to our scriptures and yours.

I agree that today no Christian needs to follow the law. My question though is: Did the first Christians, the ones who were actually Jewish but decided to follow the gospels, wrong in giving up their law, or did they actually keep following the law? Or if you believe they didn't follow it, but were not wrong to not do so, then explain.

I don’t think it’s as easy as a right or wrong. What I do think is if a Jew decides to give up the Law he/she should do so without looking back.

 

[Shermana]

What I do think is if a Jew decides to give up the Law he/she should do so without looking back.

I say the opposite, I think any Jew who decides to give up the Law should walk backwards in deep regret.

 

[captainbryce]

1. James and the Jerusalem Church clearly obeyed the Law, so that means at the VERY LEAST, regardless of the controversy about whether the Council of Jerusalem (Which clashes with Galatians 2) and Acts 21:25 were interpolations as early 20th (and late 19th) century scholars believed, that the Law was still in complete binding force for JEWISH Christians. The implications of this are good fuel for debate on whether there was in fact an interpolation by the writers of Acts. One way or another however, James and the Jerusalem Church, the ORIGINAL Church, believed in full obedience to the Law of Moses, regarding Jewish Christians. We also see in 1 John that "Sin is lawlessness" and that "lawlessness" doesn't magically change definition by that time. "Love of GOd is obedience to the commandments".

It cannot just be brushed off as "irrelevant". Hand waving this fact does not help your position.

This argument is a red herring. And it can be brushed off as irrelevant WHEN YOU ACTUALLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS ABOUT GENTILES (e.g., the vast majority of Christians today)

2. What do you think Jesus meant by "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"? What part about "Only" do you think changed after his ascent?

The reason why he "came", and the reason why he "died" are two different things. In any case, there is a much better way of framing that question, which easily puts it into perspective for anyone who may be questioning Jesus' intent.

Did Christ die to atone for the sins of all-mankind, or ONLY the Jews.

 

[captainbryce]

Not at all.

G-D said in Dvarim 13 not to add nor subtract from the Torah.

I would like for you to give us the exact chapter and verse where God says this. Then I will comment. Because apparently you are reading from a different text than I am.

Therefore by "changing" the Torah and deciding what laws are important or not you are violating Dvarim chapter 13 verse 1.

It's very simple.

So you say (although I see no evidence of this). You want to talk to me about violating God's commandments, but Jews violate the laws of the OT ALL THE TIME. Rocket attacks against Palestinians notwithstanding, when's the last time the nation of Israel actually stoned a citizen for practicing another religion, or rebellious children who disobey their parents, or homosexuals, or people who work on the Sabbath? When's the last time you stoned one of these hethens to death as GOD in the OT commands you to do?

 

[captainbryce]

Now if Christians want to claim that Paul was a prophet and said they don't want to follow the Law, that's fine I can respectfully disagree with them. But when they try saying that Jesus himself did away with the Law altogether and the early Nazarenes were in the wrong, I will fight them tooth and nail until they squirm.

And you will always lose that fight as long as you put aside the very important issue of whether or not Paul was an apostle of Christ. That's the fundamental difference between you and Christians. You are only at liberty to make this argument if you completely reject Paul (which means disregarding much of the NT). So if you're willing to throw out the parts of the bible that you don't agree with, then sure, you can argue that Jesus didn't really do what most Christians think he did (provide himself as a ransom sacrifice to atone for the sins all mankind - Jews and Gentiles).

I don't see how you can believe that Jesus saves Gentiles as well as Jews and simultaneously believe that the old covenant is still binding. The two positions are mutually exclusive. If Christ died for all mankind, then the New Covenant replaces the old one. If the Old Covenant is still valid, then Christ didn't die to save humanity, he only died to save Jews.

 

[captainbryce]

Here's a million dollar question:

Were gentile converts to Christianity ORIGINALLY meant to convert altogether to Torah as well, just as any convert to any modern Jewish branch would be expected to?

They were expected to conform to the specific teaches of Jesus Christ, specifically those referring to believe and "salvation". Christians were never expected to become Jews.

What did Jesus mean by "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"?

It means exactly what it says. He came as a Jew, lived and preached to the Jewish people, and spread his message of salvation to Jews. Then he died! He never lived among Gentiles or preached his message specifically to them. But here is the part you obviously don't understand -- his death atone for the sins of EVERYONE who believes in him. That includes Jews and Gentiles.

Don't "Christians" believe that they are now part of the House of Israel?

Absolutely not. Nor does Jesus or any of the apostles make allusions to this. There is no biblical basis for this line of reasoning.

 

[Shermana]

Christians were never expected to become Jews.

The original Christians were simply a sect of Jews.

But here is the part you obviously don't understand -- his death atone for the sins of EVERYONE who believes in him

There's a difference between "Don't understand" and "Don't agree". That may be something you don't quite understand.

Now what do you suppose "believes in him" means? Did the Greeks have a word for "blindly accept" or was the word "Believe" based on "who obeys and follows the teachings of".

There is no biblical basis for this line of reasoning.

And there's absolutely no biblical basis that Jesus came for anyone except the "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" in any respect. The only way to possibly reconcile Paul's conversion of the gentiles is that they were to be "grafts" to the Tree.

But it appears you don't understand the very essence of the "Wild grafts" concepts.

 

[Shermana]

And you will always lose that fight as long as you put aside the very important issue of whether or not Paul was an apostle of Christ. That's the fundamental difference between you and Christians. You are only at liberty to make this argument if you completely reject Paul (which means disregarding much of the NT). So if you're willing to throw out the parts of the bible that you don't agree with, then sure, you can argue that Jesus didn't really do what most Christians think he did (provide himself as a ransom sacrifice to atone for the sins all mankind - Jews and Gentiles).

I don't see how you can believe that Jesus saves Gentiles as well as Jews and simultaneously believe that the old covenant is still binding. The two positions are mutually exclusive. If Christ died for all mankind, then the New Covenant replaces the old one. If the Old Covenant is still valid, then Christ didn't die to save humanity, he only died to save Jews.

There's nothing to lose, the one who loses is the one who thinks that the 'Bible" is for some reason a single cohesive text and that Paul's apostlehood and epistles must necessarily be accepted as binding. Good luck proving that one.

And yes, I do in fact reject Paul, whether that involves "Rejecting most of the NT". However, there are also those who have interpretations that attempt to reconcile Paul as a completely Jewish disciple with a pro-Law message. Talk to Fallingblood on this forum for example.

If your concern is that one is not allowed to reject the traditional Roman canon, you'll have to make a case on why the Ebionites and Nazarenes were automatically wrong. You must understand there's a difference between "The Bible" and "The earliest church". The proto-orthodox didn't even agree on a standard Bible. They didn't even all agree on the epistles of Paul. Even the Catholic Church doesn't fully officially accept that Paul wrote several epistles like the Psatorals, and most Scholars reject Ephesians.

There's also some excellent arguments against the authenticity of Galatians as I've posted links to on other forums, which I'll be glad to relink.

It appears your argument now is heading towards that one must accept Biblical Infallibility for some reason, and put aside critical thought and scholarly studies and historicity of the early schism between the Jerusalem and Gentile Anti-judaizers. If you want to reject critical thought and historical objectivity and blindly believe that the Schism was in favor of the anti-Judaizers, that's your belief, but it's hardly anywhere close to objective.

 

[Shermana]

This argument is a red herring. And it can be brushed off as irrelevant WHEN YOU ACTUALLY CONSIDER MY COMMENTS ABOUT GENTILES (e.g., the vast majority of Christians today)

The reason why he "came", and the reason why he "died" are two different things. In any case, there is a much better way of framing that question, which easily puts it into perspective for anyone who may be questioning Jesus' intent.

Did Christ die to atone for the sins of all-mankind, or ONLY the Jews.

Basically all you are capable of doing is brushing it off and calling it a red herring and redirecting your argument to your red herrings, without bothering to actually explain why it's a Red Herring.

I think we can easily see why you think it can be simply brushed off and called a red herring.

May my Hebrew brothers reading this here take due note that the issue of Acts 21 is something that numerous, if not most, if not nearly all Christians have an extremely difficult (impossible?) time reconciling. How convenient to simply toss it out as a Red Herring, especially without much explanation except redirecting to a circular Pauline argument which may or may not be close to correct context. And may me Hebrew brothers worldwide also notice this concept as well in their debates with Christians.

Thank you for proving my case for me.

I don't really see why there has to be a separation between why he arrived and why he died.

 

[roger1440]

Here's a million dollar question:

Were gentile converts to Christianity ORIGINALLY meant to convert altogether to Torah as well, just as any convert to any modern Jewish branch would be expected to?

What did Jesus mean by "I have only come for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"?

Don't "Christians" believe that they are now part of the House of Israel?

“I” is the Israel that never went astray. “Lost Sheep” is the Israel that did go astray. Jesus is the Israel that never went astray. Jesus came “only” for the lost sheep because it’s only the lost that need to be found. Much like a doctor only goes to the sick. The healthy do not need a doctor. The Gospel of Mathew uses Jewish scripture as a point of reference. To understand this Gospel we must also use Jewish scripture as a point of reference. Those Jews who are observant to the Torah are a guiding light for the Gentiles. This light is the light of righteous. Jewish Law is what separates Jews from Gentiles. The Law gives the Jews identity. Righteous is what unites Jews to Gentiles.

“he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."” (Isa 49:6)


​

The twelve apostles represent the twelve restored tribes of Israel. These apostles are the “light” Isaiah wrote of.

 

[Shermana]

Indeed.

Now I wonder how Christians regard what "Salvation" meant in Isaiah 49 and if it differs from that of the Gospels.

 

[roger1440]

Indeed.

Now I wonder how Christians regard what "Salvation" meant in Isaiah 49 and if it differs from that of the Gospels.

I would say by trusting the power and authority of God which is even mightier then Pharaoh's.

[youtube]ahkwQhQZWG8[/youtube]
Let My People Go - The Ten Commandments (1/10) Movie CLIP (1956) HD - YouTube

 

[Pegg]

Here's a million dollar question:

Were gentile converts to Christianity ORIGINALLY meant to convert altogether to Torah as well, just as any convert to any modern Jewish branch would be expected to?

to convert to the Torah would mean to become a follower of Moses.

Did Jesus intend for his 'followers' to put their faith in Moses or in himself?

 

[Shermana]

to convert to the Torah would mean to become a follower of Moses.

Did Jesus intend for his 'followers' to put their faith in Moses or in himself?

That's a false dichotomy. He intended them to be both. You are under some strange assumption that following the "Law of Moses" means to be a follower of Moses. I'm not sure if this is what you really believe or if you are digging for absolute absurdities to justify your untenable position. One does not "convert to the Torah" and even then, doing so does not make one a "Follower of Moses". Such wording implies Moses invented this and was not a prophet. It would be to become a "Follower of God", just as gentiles living in Israelite territory had to also obey the same Law. The term "Law of Moses" is purely a means of reference, it is not a scriptural concept, except as "The Law given to Moses" in terms of who was the one recording it.

Jesus was quite clear that anyone who teaches to break the least of the commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom. Even those who do miracles in his name will be rejected if they are "Doers of lawlessness". And "lawlessness", as Jesus and John used the term, has no reason to mean anything but the general use of the term at the time which was "To break or disobey the Law given by Moses".

Jesus was quite clear that not one iota of the Law would become void, heaven and earth would have to collapse first.

As sure as God lives, it is absolute blasphemy in a most offensive way to say that Jesus did not teach to follow the Law.

I'm getting the impression you think God did not instruct Moses to preach the Law altogether, would that be a wrong impression?

I'm also getting the impression you think James and the Jerusalem Church were all obstinately refusing to obey Jesus's teachings according to your interpretation.

Do you think God was just kidding when he said it was to be in place "even until the "Thousandth generation"?

 

[Pegg]

Do you think God was just kidding when he said it was to be in place "even until the "Thousandth generation"?

whats happens when we reach the 'thousandth and first' generation ?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

“I” is the Israel that never went astray. “Lost Sheep” is the Israel that did go astray. Jesus is the Israel that never went astray. Jesus came “only” for the lost sheep because it’s only the lost that need to be found. Much like a doctor only goes to the sick. The healthy do not need a doctor. The Gospel of Mathew uses Jewish scripture as a point of reference. To understand this Gospel we must also use Jewish scripture as a point of reference. Those Jews who are observant to the Torah are a guiding light for the Gentiles. This light is the light of righteous. Jewish Law is what separates Jews from Gentiles. The Law gives the Jews identity. Righteous is what unites Jews to Gentiles.

“he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."” (Isa 49:6)


​

The twelve apostles represent the twelve restored tribes of Israel. These apostles are the “light” Isaiah wrote of.

Wasn't Isaiah in Judah at the time? While his contemporary Hosea was in Israel? Could it be that he was referring to...well the rest of Israel?