Self appointed Apostle Paul Vs Yashu'a teaching

[Shermana]

Have you read Ezra's account?

Im guessing you havn't... but here it is:

Ezra 8:20 And from the Neth′i·nim, whom David and the princes gave to the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty Neth′i·nim, all of whom had been designated by [their] names.

The army fought, the army took the captives, then the army gave those captives to the Levitical priesthood. Thus God both received them and gave them. He recieved them from David, then gave them to the Levites to be used in service.

Paul is not saying anything incorrectly here. I think you are simply playing with semantics because you dont like Paul.

Are you being serious here Pegg?

I'm not gonna play this game with you, I've proven quite clearly that Paul (or the author of Ephesians) totally changed what Psalm 68:18 says, and nothing that you're saying in defense is remotely on the rails. And you didn't answer my question of what it meant for Jesus to "take captives". And Paul (or the author of Ephesians) is using in the context of comparing to the giving of Spiritual gifts, when he says he "Gave gifts" when the text of Psalm 68:18 says God RECEIVED gifts from the gentiles he conquered in tribute. It does not say he gave them as gifts. It says he received gifts from them. As in tribute. Feel free to show any comparison that the event in Psalm 68:18 is connected to Ezra 8:20 specifically. I have read Ezra, thank you. Many times. Along with 1 Esdras which was apparently Josephus's version of "Ezra". I get in debates involving Ezra 10 quite often.

Now answer my question with a yes or no, otherwise, do not respond to me here on this thread, and I will start a new thread on this subject specifically devoted to this.

Does Ephesians 4:8 quote Psalm 68:18 correctly in the exact same context as it implies it does?

Yes or no. I don't want any other answer than "yes" or "No", thank you.

Otherwise, you are proving quite clearly that when evidence is in fact presented that disproves your case, you will simply stick your head in the sand and try to find one way of twisting it and playing mental gymnastics to the point that you aren't even looking at the basic situation being examined. I will be back later.

Accusing me of playing Semantics in this case, is just plain out dishonesty. Sorry, but that's just how it is. It's worse than dishonesty. I'm not playing Semantics. I'm showing a basic situation, where Ephesians 4:8 says that Psalm 68:18 says something that it does not say. It's really that simple. I'd think anyone with a shred of honesty would recognize this. So please, answer the question, don't accuse me of this or that. I don't like Paul, but that's got NOTHING to do with the basic facts on the table here. If anyone's playing Semantic games, it's plainly you!

 

[Shermana]

For the record, John Calvin's attempt to solve this discrepancy was to say that Paul was reading from the Greek Septuagint and not the Masoretic.

However, there is no known copy of the Septuagint that renders it as "give" instead of 'receive".

Did Calvin know something the Scholarly world didn't know that was covered up since then, or was he taking a wild guess?

Now despite attempts to act as if I'm playing "Semantics" as if this is my own issue, this is a very famous issue as I've brought up, and every single attempt to apologize or defend it has been a series of extreme Mental Gymnastics or outright acceptance of distortion.

An example of the entire essays that have been produced trying to philosophize their way into harmonizing what is otherwise a blatant error according to both the known Masoretic and Septuagint.

Now somewhere some article says there's a Targum on Psalm 68:18 that says it's about the Law being given to Man, but I have yet to find this, and I wonder if that claim is like Calvin's claim of Paul using the Greek.

Paul's Creative and Contextual Use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8 | John Anthony Dunne - Academia.edu

It is well known that many have attempted to explain the unexpected wording of Eph 4:8 by appealing to the influence of pre-existing traditions.

And here is an example of an apologist who apparently thinks that Laqech can in fact mean "give" as well as "receive", which I'd like to see some examples of, which is basically an example of resorting to twisting the language itself to support ol' Paul. He calls it a "brilliant" technique, which I don't see why it would be "brilliant" if it was a basic interpretation of the language.

http://www.pastorpauley.com/tzedekah/articles/Psalm68_18.pdf

S

 

[Pegg]

Are you being serious here Pegg?

I'm not gonna play this game with you, I've proven quite clearly that Paul (or the author of Ephesians) totally changed what Psalm 68:18 says, and nothing that you're saying in defense is remotely on the rails.

nothing Paul says is designed to change the meaning of the Pslam though. He is not quoting it in an attempt to explain its meaning. He is paraphrasing it and using it as a 'simile' for what is happening to christians. You are simply misunderstanding his use of the psalm.

Jesus did the same thing when he said paraphrased from the mosaic law... he called himself the 'son of man', a term which applies to the prophet Ezekiel. Do you critisize Jesus for applying that term to himself even though it applies to Ezekiel in the Hebrew scriptures??

Or what about Jesus using the situation of Moses serpent to apply to himself?
John 3:14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life

And you didn't answer my question of what it meant for Jesus to "take captives". And Paul (or the author of Ephesians) is using in the context of comparing to the giving of Spiritual gifts, when he says he "Gave gifts" when the text of Psalm 68:18 says God RECEIVED gifts from the gentiles he conquered in tribute.

who benefited from the tributes? God? What did he do, did he come down from heaven and take the posessions with him back to heaven??? What did God then do with the possession collected as spoils of war? Did God take everything and keep them for himself??

Im sure you will find the answers to these questions.



In regards to how Jesus took captives, Jesus himself said he 'conquered' the world. And when he did, many people chose to leave their prior lives and join him...the scriptures say that we have become slaves of Christ. So Jesus conquerors and the result is that he carries away captives in the form of people. These are the people who join themselves to Christ and become obedient to Christ...they effectively become slaves of Christ doing whatever he asks of them even to the point of death.

And Paul explains what he means when he says "he gave gives in men"
11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; 14 in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love

It does not say he gave them as gifts. It says he received gifts from them. As in tribute.

what did he do with the tributes he received??? What were the tributes? Flowers/Gold/Money???? What can God do with such things?

The verse actually says that the gifts God took were 'men' ... People!
Ps 68:18 You have ascended on high;
You have carried away captives;
You have taken gifts in the form of men,..."

What did he do with the people he took as tribute? Did he sacrifice them on the alter??? No.

the last verse says what he did with those 'tributes'
"...Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside [among them], O Jah God"

He gave them to the Levites to use in the service of the levites. They are the Nephinim. Ezra mentions them as among those who were set free from Babylon and returned to Jerusalem with the Jews. They resided among the Israelites and were put to work at Gods temple. Look them up. God gave the nephinim to the levites as servants. So there is nothing inaccurate about Paul wording the verse the way he did. God didnt simply 'take' those captive people and store them somewhere.... he actually gave them to the Levites. What Paul says is correct if Paul was referring to this act of making those 'gifts in men' workers for the levites....and that is what the context shows. He says about some christians that they were given as 'apostles, prophets, ministers' ... Christ has taken those men and put them to work for the interests of his kingdom.

Now answer my question with a yes or no, otherwise, do not respond to me here on this thread, and I will start a new thread on this subject specifically devoted to this.

Does Ephesians 4:8 quote Psalm 68:18 correctly in the exact same context as it implies it does?

no, its not a direct quote.

Its being used as a simile.

 

[Pegg]

btw Shermana, im still interested in your answer to the question i posed earlier about Halal meat

knowing that Halal is sacrificially slaughtered meat, do/would you eat it?

 

[Shermana]

btw Shermana, im still interested in your answer to the question i posed earlier about Halal meat

knowing that Halal is sacrificially slaughtered meat, do/would you eat it?

I've eaten Halal meat, Allah is not a foreign Pagan god, (Though Muhammad may or may not be a false prophet which is a good debate topic, since I believe the Quran was edited yet contains a lot of interesting parallels to pre-Rabbinic traditions) and it's not really "sacrifically slaughtered" or "offered" anymore so than Kosher meat is. Is Kosher meat "sacrificed" or "offered"? I would gladly eat Organic Halal meat provided it was drained of blood and didn't contain any forbidden fats or Sinew and was of a Kosher animal. When I see Christians who think Allah is an "idol" and that the meat is "Sacrificed" to Him, it gives me a good first impression of their general reasoning skills, they probably think he's a "moon god" or some other misconception. They're often the same people who don't think they even have to listen to the prohibition on eating blood.

I would not however, eat Jhatka-slaughtered meat from a Sikh since their slaughter method is grossly different.

An example of eating meat that is specifically sacrificed would be giving the Levites their share of an offered lamb. Halal is nothing close to that. Pagan sacrificed meat was close to that, in that the meat itself was specifically offered to the god, not just blessed in his name. Allah is not an idol, the name is simply 'The God" and the Theology is made entirely around the Jewish concept of God, I see no reason why "Allah" is somehow a foreign and pagan Deity as opposed to Thor or Astarte. Now if you want to debate whether Allah is truly a different god from Ha-Elohim, that's a separate debate topic.

 

[Pegg]

I've eaten Halal meat, Allah is not a foreign Pagan god, (Though Muhammad may or may not be a false prophet which is a good debate topic, since I believe the Quran was edited yet contains a lot of interesting parallels to pre-Rabbinic traditions) and it's not really "sacrifically slaughtered" or "offered" anymore so than Kosher meat is. Is Kosher meat "sacrificed" or "offered"? I would gladly eat Organic Halal meat provided it was drained of blood and didn't contain any forbidden fats or Sinew and was of a Kosher animal. When I see Christians who think Allah is an "idol" and that the meat is "Sacrificed" to Him, it gives me a good first impression of their general reasoning skills, they probably think he's a "moon god" or some other misconception. They're often the same people who don't think they even have to listen to the prohibition on eating blood.

I would not however, eat Jhatka-slaughtered meat from a Sikh since their slaughter method is grossly different.

An example of eating meat that is specifically sacrificed would be giving the Levites their share of an offered lamb. Halal is nothing close to that. Pagan sacrificed meat was close to that, in that the meat itself was specifically offered to the god, not just blessed in his name. Allah is not an idol, the name is simply 'The God" and the Theology is made entirely around the Jewish concept of God, I see no reason why "Allah" is somehow a foreign and pagan Deity as opposed to Thor or Astarte. Now if you want to debate whether Allah is truly a different god from Ha-Elohim, that's a separate debate topic.

So you would not eat Jhatka-slaughtered meat due to the way it is sacrificed, but you would eat Halal based on how you view Allah?

It seems that in both cases, your decision to eat or not to eat is a religious one...would that be correct?

 

[Shermana]

So you would not eat Jhatka-slaughtered meat due to the way it is sacrificed, but you would eat Halal based on how you view Allah?

It seems that in both cases, your decision to eat or not to eat is a religious one...would that be correct?

I don't think Jhatka meat is "sacrificed", like how Halal meat is not "sacrificed". But yes, it's about the method, Jhatka for one thing does not necessarily draw all the blood out. I believe Sikhs also believe in the same God as we do, they just have a different understanding about him. A Hindu-Jhatka however may in fact be involved with sacrificing to a particular deity. Kutha (Islamic slaughter) is considered a "Sacrificial" slaughter by Sikhs but I disagree with this characterization. There is a difference between "Ritual slaughter" and "Sacrificial slaughter". Kosher meat is a "ritual slaughter" but not a sacrificial one.

And yes, my decision to eat is mostly religiously based, although I only eat ORGANIC kosher for health and flavor related reasons.

 

[Pegg]

I don't think Jhatka meat is "sacrificed", like how Halal meat is not "sacrificed". But yes, it's about the method, Jhatka for one thing does not necessarily draw all the blood out. I believe Sikhs also believe in the same God as we do, they just have a different understanding about him. A Hindu-Jhatka however may in fact be involved with sacrificing to a particular deity. Kutha (Islamic slaughter) is considered a "Sacrificial" slaughter by Sikhs but I disagree with this characterization. There is a difference between "Ritual slaughter" and "Sacrificial slaughter". Kosher meat is a "ritual slaughter" but not a sacrificial one.

And yes, my decision to eat is mostly religiously based, although I only eat ORGANIC kosher for health and flavor related reasons.

Do these words mean anything to you?

Matthew 15:10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man..."

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him;

 

[Shermana]

Do these words mean anything to you?

Matthew 15:10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man..."

Mark 7:15 There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him;

I have discussed these verses numerous times on this forum.

Does it mean you can eat dead flies? Rotting rats? Slimy toads? What does "defile" mean anyway?

What's the context again? Oh yea, it's about hand washing.

If Jesus was saying something contrary to Torah, that would make him a....

False....

Prophet....

So unless you want to say that Jesus contradicted Moses, you MAY want to consider the context.

So which one is it, did Jesus defy Moses or not?

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Shermana,
Ok, but does this mean a Jew can eat pork or shellfish that is not rotten?
Jon

 

[Shermana]

Shermana,
Ok, but does this mean a Jew can eat pork or shellfish that is not rotten?
Jon

Absolutely not, I used the word "rotten rats" just for effect. The slimy toads are slimy whether they're rotting or not. I still don't understand what they think "defile" means in the first place and if they think Jesus meant that Moses was wrong about being "defiled" by those particular foods, since the context was clearly about handwashing.

Let those who say otherwise admit that they believe Jesus contradicts Moses and would thus be a false prophet according to the same Law that Moses taught, regardless of their beliefs of his "fulfilling the Law" when "The Law was hung on the cross", and thus contradicted himself and was a fraud and a liar, violating Deuteronomy 4:2, which is not "The covenant" but "The Law itself".

If Jesus taught to violate the Law or opposed what Moses said, that makes him a false prophet according to the same people he was preaching to, end of story, no and's, if's or but's.

If they want to try to use Paul to get around the Law, that's fine, we can discuss whether Paul was in line with what Jesus taught, but using Jesus to get around the Law grinds down their case at square one.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Well said!
Eloquent as usual.

 

[Pegg]

I have discussed these verses numerous times on this forum.

Does it mean you can eat dead flies? Rotting rats? Slimy toads? What does "defile" mean anyway?

What's the context again? Oh yea, it's about hand washing.

If Jesus was saying something contrary to Torah, that would make him a....

False....

Prophet....

So unless you want to say that Jesus contradicted Moses, you MAY want to consider the context.

So which one is it, did Jesus defy Moses or not?

Jesus pointed the jews in the right direction when it came to the Torah. They were so focused on what they could and could not eat, they forgot the reason WHY. The reason for refraining from eating certain things was NOT because it could make them righteous....but thats how they viewed it.

Jesus words mean that you cannot be made righteous by what you do or dont eat because what 'defiles' a man comes from 'within' him. Nothing you put into him can defile his heart or his righteous standing before God.

So if you think eating certain things makes God more pleased with you, then you are mistaken. That is what Jesus is getting at. And it is exactly what Paul was teaching too.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Jesus pointed the jews in the right direction when it came to the Torah. They were so focused on what they could and could not eat, they forgot the reason WHY. The reason for refraining from eating certain things was NOT because it could make them righteous....but thats how they viewed it.

Jesus words mean that you cannot be made righteous by what you do or dont eat because what 'defiles' a man comes from 'within' him. Nothing you put into him can defile his heart or his righteous standing before God.

So if you think eating certain things makes God more pleased with you, then you are mistaken. That is what Jesus is getting at. And it is exactly what Paul was teaching too.

You cannot be made righteous by what you do or don't?

A person's behavior is what makes him or her righteous. People are convicted of crimes because of their illegal behavior and not merely for their beliefs. If you get a speeding ticket, would you tell the judge you believe in the law, but you should not have to obey it? In the real world, righteousness comes from actions, not beliefs. Get real!!!

As to Jesus, he said to obey his commandments if you love him.

God loves the righteous, not the wicked.

God does not love sinners; he loves sinners who repent of their sins.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus pointed the jews in the right direction when it came to the Torah. They were so focused on what they could and could not eat, they forgot the reason WHY. The reason for refraining from eating certain things was NOT because it could make them righteous....but thats how they viewed it.

Jesus words mean that you cannot be made righteous by what you do or dont eat because what 'defiles' a man comes from 'within' him. Nothing you put into him can defile his heart or his righteous standing before God.

So if you think eating certain things makes God more pleased with you, then you are mistaken. That is what Jesus is getting at. And it is exactly what Paul was teaching too.

Thank you for totally avoiding my questions.

 

[Ken Brown]

Jesus pointed the jews in the right direction when it came to the Torah. They were so focused on what they could and could not eat, they forgot the reason WHY. The reason for refraining from eating certain things was NOT because it could make them righteous....but thats how they viewed it.

Jesus words mean that you cannot be made righteous by what you do or dont eat because what 'defiles' a man comes from 'within' him. Nothing you put into him can defile his heart or his righteous standing before God.

So if you think eating certain things makes God more pleased with you, then you are mistaken. That is what Jesus is getting at. And it is exactly what Paul was teaching too.

Hi Pegg, I don't think you have considered the whole picture. What defiles is sin, and sin is the transgression of the Law. Shermana is correct in that the whole issue He was addressing was a "tradition" of the Jews (washing of hands), NOT the commandment of Elohim.

Look at Peter. He was there, and he heard Yeshua tell the Jews what you think is a doing away of the commandment of Elohim concerning clean and unclean, yet, years later, when in a vision, Peter is told to eat from a sheet containing clean and unclean animals. Peter's respond is NO, I have never eaten anything "common" or "unclean." First, do you know the difference between "common" and "unclean?" An unclean animal would be listed as forbidden to eat, but something common would be anything that would ordinarily be clean, but because it came into contact with the unclean, it becomes common (pork and beams is a perfect example-beans are clean, but become common when placed in contact with pork). Thus the clean animals on the sheet became "common" by coming into contact with those "unclean" animals on the sheet.

So, wouldn't you think that if Yeshua is telling everyone that they can set aside the command of Moses concerning "clean" and "unclean," that Peter would have understood? Why would Peter years later still be doubting the directive of Yeshua, IF, Yeshua was teaching everyone they can break one of the "least" commands within the Law of Moses? And if that is the case, would Yeshua by His own words be called "least" in the Kingdom of Heaven:

(Mt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Finally, you need to ask yourself, "Why would Elohim command food laws?" Was it just so that He could trick some into being deceived by following what He commands? KB

 

[Pegg]

So, wouldn't you think that if Yeshua is telling everyone that they can set aside the command of Moses concerning "clean" and "unclean," that Peter would have understood? Why would Peter years later still be doubting the directive of Yeshua, IF, Yeshua was teaching everyone they can break one of the "least" commands within the Law of Moses? And if that is the case, would Yeshua by His own words be called "least" in the Kingdom of Heaven:

(Mt 5:19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Finally, you need to ask yourself, "Why would Elohim command food laws?" Was it just so that He could trick some into being deceived by following what He commands? KB

Im glad you brought up the account about Peter's vision and his reaction to it. His reaction was perfectly normal because he was a jew who had been living under the mosaic law his entire life. Those foods were unclean and, as he said, he had never eaten them. But why was he being pressed by God to eat them?

Dont you think its possible that God was trying to help him see that the dietary requirements of the mosaic law were no longer required of people seeking to worship God? God said to him:
“Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!...Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.” (Acts 10:9-16)
What happened the very next day? Peter witnessed the holy spirit descend on an uncircumcised gentile. That greek man was not only uncircumcised, but he would have eaten the foods forbidden by the mosaic law.

Peter saw the significance of his vision when he witnessed this incredible turn of events. Why do i say 'incredible'? Because God did not require that this gentile man submit to the mosiac law BEFORE becoming accepted by God. The mosaic law itself states that a person from the nations must submit to circumcision BEFORE he could be accepted as an Israelite...yet here is this uncircumcised gentile receiving holy spirit!

Peter realised what this meant.... he knew that God had put the mosaic law aside. It was no longer the yardstick by which people would be measured and accepted as worshipers.

 

[Ken Brown]

Im glad you brought up the account about Peter's vision and his reaction to it. His reaction was perfectly normal because he was a jew who had been living under the mosaic law his entire life. Those foods were unclean and, as he said, he had never eaten them. But why was he being pressed by God to eat them?

Dont you think its possible that God was trying to help him see that the dietary requirements of the mosaic law were no longer required of people seeking to worship God? God said to him:
“Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat!...Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.” (Acts 10:9-16)
What happened the very next day? Peter witnessed the holy spirit descend on an uncircumcised gentile. That greek man was not only uncircumcised, but he would have eaten the foods forbidden by the mosaic law.

Peter saw the significance of his vision when he witnessed this incredible turn of events. Why do i say 'incredible'? Because God did not require that this gentile man submit to the mosiac law BEFORE becoming accepted by God. The mosaic law itself states that a person from the nations must submit to circumcision BEFORE he could be accepted as an Israelite...yet here is this uncircumcised gentile receiving holy spirit!

Peter realised what this meant.... he knew that God had put the mosaic law aside. It was no longer the yardstick by which people would be measured and accepted as worshipers.

Hi Pegg, do you think there is any distinction between what the Jewish Believers followed and what the Gentiles Believers followed in joining themselves to Messiah? KB

 

[Shermana]

Wildbranch Teaching of the Week: The Dietary Laws 2 — The WildBranch Ministry
Peter's Vision of the Great Sheet
http://www.satsonline.org/userfiles/Woods, Interpreting Peter’s Vision in Acts 10 9–16.pdf
Have the Dietary Laws of God Been Abrogated
Acts 10:1-11:18: The True Meaning of the Vision of the Animals in the Sheet: Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers
http://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/tag/dietary-laws/

And here's a little kicker regarding attempts to use Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees with their ritual handwashing: Apparently Peter had his ears plugged at that time? That stubborn Peter.

Now consider this. If Yeshua had meant to say in Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18–19 that it was now permissible to eat all foods including those meats that the Torah prohibits to be eaten (e.g., pork, shellfish, etc.), presumably Peter would have known this,

Peter's vision was only a metaphor that Gentiles were allowed into the Church. It specifically explains this.

The eating of flesh has always been a concession (Genesis 9:1-4). It never was God's intent (Genesis 1:29-30). But salvation is always greater than food or tradition, and thus through the vision of unclean animals, God showed Peter how He was about to cleanse unclean Gentiles and make them into His chosen people, just as He had done with the Jews.

If Peter was violating anything, it was Rabbinical custom to not eat with Gentiles. To say that he was necessarily eating their unclean food with them is a great example of reading something into the text that's not there to suit one's Theology.

If it was about violating the Dietary Laws, not only would that make Jesus a liar, who said not one iota of the law shall be broken and that anyone who teaches to break the least of them shall be called the least in the Kingdom, it would make Peter a false prophet.

Otherwise, flies, rats, roaches, sea worms, and spiders are apparently on the menu.

All those pushing this Theology should be required to down a plate of them critters.

Perhaps I should ask a question that went unanswered last time: What does "unclean" mean in this case?

 

[Pegg]

Hi Pegg, do you think there is any distinction between what the Jewish Believers followed and what the Gentiles Believers followed in joining themselves to Messiah? KB

no i dont believe so....they were all on the same page by virtue of their faith in Christ as the Messiah and their willingness to live by his teachings.

however, the jewish christians took a while to catch onto the idea that the mosaic law was not a requirement of worship. Thats understandable considering they were raised under the mosaic law and living by its requirements was a daily affair.

But the apostles used reasoning from the scriptures and they all came to the unanimous conclusion that the mosaic law was no longer the avenue to approach to God.