Now I finally have some time to respond properly. I apologize for misunderstanding where you were coming from. We definitely have disagreements over the importance of the doctrine of God and the Trinity. Just because the first 300 years of dealing with heresy in church history are important to accept. Otherwise, you Messianic Jews are doomed to repeat the same heresies. And that goes for every believer.

I really wasn't sure that you were a Messianic Jew for awhile. Wasn't sure what angle you were coming from.
I have an aunt and uncle who are Messianic Jews. I love them very much.

Colossians 2:13-14

The words are cheirographon dogmasin. It literally means a written document of law violations, written as well as dogmatic, also meaning "man's laws"?

"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

If you participate in these festivals and Saturday only worship and such, I don't think you're weird for doing so at all.

I just see other issues more important that I cannot stand about the Messianic Jewish faith.

1. Off on the Trinity

2. Some far off on the deity of Christ as a result of #1.

3. Obsessed with claiming Jewish roots (cool research but)

4. Think because other Christians redeemed pagan holidays with Christ centeredness makes us unreadable in other theological issues or doctrine.

5. You are arguing with someone who takes seriously the Law of God and what we Reformed refer to as the 3 uses of the Law as we summarize Scripture.

6. I'm sorry for my polemics. It is frustrating that Messianic Jews will call covenantal theology namely replacement theology. It is not. You will see a thin red line all the way through the Hebrew Bible into the New Testament if you will just read and think through what I have posted on the "What is a Jew? And what is Israel in the New Covenant?" Thread.
Please engage with me there because I believe we Reformed are actually more of a Messianic Jew than Messianic Jews.

7. Zionism and Dispensational theology/eschatology in Messianic Judaism is actually a splicing up and divining of covenants. It divides things up like, for instance, the church age, refuses to see that Israel is the Church…for there is only one household of God. Dispensationalism also places the Sermon on the mount being fulfilled in the literal 2000 year reign of Christ in a new millennium. Maybe you all don't believe the same on the issue with the Sermon on the Mount as mainline Dispensationalists do?

But I see that y'all do differ with Dispensationalist in regards to Matthew 25, and that is interesting because Dispensationalist tend to splice that up as no longer being relevant. That's terrible because it is marvelous to see how the law is apart of obeying the Gospel.

8. I'm tired and my flesh was weak today after working and writing two long posts today.

9. Please consider keeping me in your prayers.

10. I really enjoy this discussion. Hope you do as well.

11. Hanging evergreens isn't so bad. For us it represents the everlasting life. We are not gnostics who taught that the physical is bad and only the spiritual is good. Maybe? And I think that is part of my concern with being dogmatic about honoring as much of the Ceremonial Law as one can.

12. I don't agree with C.S. Lewis on everything either. But he does put forth the concept from Psalm 19 that the truth of God was revealed in bits and pieces throughout pagan cultures. I think it is interesting that Lewis, a literature scholar, essentially advocates that Christianity is the fulfillment in a sense of all major myths. And he uses the word myth in a unique way. Maybe there is something to that?
Christianity may look differently and I think Messianic Jews have developed a type of regulative principle in worship.
I'm definitely not too high on the regulative principle.
I agree with some of it, but I think it can go too far. See the traditional Church of Christ with no instruments, which spun off from independent Presbyterians in Virginia. And the Wallace's were part of the Christian church until my grandparents changed from all of that. The Christian Church and the Church of Christ came from the Cambellites after the civil war and after the second not so great awakening, which led more liberalism…ironically. Kind of rambled for a bit.

13. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/regulative-principle-worship

I'm fine with the basis for it, but I believe some have taken it too far. The Congregationalist Puritans and especially the extreme Separatists would leave the walls of the church unpainted with no windows. Stuff like that and I just roll my eyes. There are certain things that are liberty of conscience issues.

14. If you want to provoke the Jew to jealousy, then become covenantal. Read my post referred to earlier and add to the discussion, por favor?

15. We are talking about two percent of the US being made up of physical Jews. I doubt most of them can see Messianic Judaism as provoking them into jealousy in any way.

16. That is not to say that Messianic Judaism isn't more inviting of physical-Jews in their own regulative principles definitions. You may be onto something. But…But…You all are throwing the baby out with the bath water on doctrine of utmost importance for better growth and more overflow fork the eternal foundation spilling over into his new creations in Christ Jesus. I think the water pressure is too low for your movement to succeed in the long term.

17. Thus reform it.

Win At Life said:

---

More labels. I use a Ryrie NASB study bible since about 1991. I've stated several times I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and you ask me if I believe the Bible when the Bible says all scripture is inspired? Is this bizzarro land? And THOU ART THE MAN who does not believe the Bible is the sole authority, because your belief that Saturday has been replaced by Sunday comes solely from the men of the Catholic Church who claim authority to change God's Word.

https://www.hullquist.com/Bible/bib-ld5.htm

Archbishop Reggio of Calabra spoke on 18 January, 1562. He suggested that Protestantism could be totally discredited by using the very scriptures they embrace and defend as evidence against them. John Eck, the Catholic priest who debated with Martin Luther in 1533, used the same argument: If you Protestants really believe the Bible, and the Bible only, then why don't you keep the Bible Sabbath instead of honoring Sunday, the day Rome chose to replace it?

His speech is recorded in Heinrich Julius Holzmann's Kanon und Tradition , published in Ludwigsburg, Germany, in 1859, p. 263. In the excerpt cited here he observed that...
"The written Word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it! If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the scripture throughout! Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church... The doctrine of "scripture and tradition" as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being the judges."
"The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord's day.... These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ's teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church."
(Archbishop Gaspare de Fosso, quotes from the Council of Trent preceedings in Sacrorum Conciliorum nova amplissima Collectio, 1902, vol. 33, pp. 529,530.)

"It is curious to recall that this observance of Sunday, which is the only principle of Protestantism, not only does not rest upon the Bible, but is in flagrant contradiction with the letter of the Bible requiring the rest of the Sabbath, or Saturday. It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to Sunday."
(Monsignor Louis Segur, Plain Talk About the Protestantism of Today, 1868 ed., p. 207.)

"The Catholic Church, ... by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday... Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."
(Catholic Cardinal James Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, Dec. 23, 1893.)

"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."
(Catholic Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 1917 ed., pp. 72, 73.)

"If protestants were following the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."
(Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, letter of Feb. 10, 1920.)

"Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from Saturday to Sunday.... Now the Church instituted, by God's authority, Sunday as the day of worship."
(Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About, 1927 ed., p. 136.)

"If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday."
(John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 ed., vol. 1, p. 51.)

"The Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh Day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant."
(The Catholic Universe Bulletin, Aug. 14, 1942, p. 4.)

"Since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent. The custom of Sunday observance rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." (Roman Catholic scholar John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions, 1974, p.400,401.)

"We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."
(Peter Geiermann, The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, 1977, p.50.)

If you follow what your bible says, you will keep the God's Sabbath.

---

You are my kind of man. I like the response and education. I don't mind the more aggressive polemics either.

"At first, early Jewish Christians continued to observe Sabbath regulations and to worship on the Sabbath (Acts 13:13-15, 42-44; 18:1-4). But they also met for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1Co 16:1-2), called "the Lord's Day" (Rev 1:10), since Jesus rose on a Sunday. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in about AD 107, confirms that Sunday was the main day of worship for the early Church: "They have given up keeping the Sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead the Day when life first dawned for us, thanks to Him and His death."

St. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, honored the Church's practice of celebrating the Lord's Resurrection every Sunday by decreeing, in AD 321, that every Sunday would be a holy day. For Orthodox Christians, Saturday is still the Sabbath, the day on which the Church especially remembers the departed, since Christ rested in the tomb on Great and Holy Saturday."

https://www.saintsophias.org/the-sabbath-day.html#:~:text=SUNDAY%2C%20THE%20DAY%20OF%20WORSHIP&text=Ignatius%20of%20Antioch%2C%20in%20about,to%20Him%20and%20His%20death."

So..I have no argument against either viewpoint.

Plenty of Grace there…

I don't blame you for quoting other writers, because you are not alone in your beliefs, as what you profess are the same lies that have been pervasive in Christianity since the very beginning, starting with the lie that Paul taught against the Law in Acts 21:24. And that lie is still present today right up to the posting you are making. The lie that Acts 20:7; 1Co 16:1-2 is also born out of a predetermined desire to find a reason to NOT follow God's commandments and running with it in that direction you've already decided you want to go.

God counts new days as beginning in the evening. This is one of the first things God tries to teach in just the 5th verse of the entire bible (see also Leviticus 23:23). Sunset is the start of a new day and sunset on Saturday is the beginning of the first day of the new week. That's what you are seeing in Acts 20:7 and 1Co 16:1-2. Jews developed events to celebrate the ending of the Sabbath called Havdalah, which they still do to this day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havdalah
So, what you are seeing in scripture is a Havdalah on Saturday evening and not a Sunday morning go-to-church service that abolishes the Sabbath; quite the opposite Havdalah establishes the Sabbath.

Furthermore Yeshua's resurrection was a fulfilment of the Feast of First Fruits (Lev 23:10-17, 1 Cor 15:20); the symbolism of which has nothing to do with abolishing any Sabbath. The feast of Shavuot also occurs on the first day of the week, but also has no symbolism of abolishing the sabbath. Calling the feast for first fruits an abolishment of the Sabbath is a man-made decree by men who desire to abolish God's Sabbath.

The Lord's Day belongs to no day of the week except for those men who desire to abolish the Sabbath and declare it so. That is not found in scripture. And traditionally, the Day of the Lord has been Yom Kippur; which again has nothing to do with the Sabbath and typically falls neither on a Sabbath or a first day of the week.

God declared HIS Sabbath day in Lev 23:2-3, Yeshua kept the Father's Sabbath day and all the Apostles kept Elohim's Sabbath day. The day of Elohim's Sabbath are not in question. HE has declared it to be His appointed time to meet with His people. That is not the question. The only question is "Will you keep the appointment the God has made to meet with you?" And God is dead serious that we keep His appointment and even executed the first man who failed to keep it (Num 15:35). How many men must die before you believe God is serious when He speaks? Isn't one too many? If God says it, that should be enough. But, you are correct that Dod is gracious to those who break His Sabbath; and longsuffering; and patient. But do not confuse God's patience with acceptance.

The early churches understood this. They did not abandon the Sabbath as men like to believe, even up through the 5th century AD, all known churches were keeping the Sabbath. All churches except the one in Alexandria and Rome. Like they say; the victor is the one who gets to write the history. And Rome was the victor by murder and oppression, so they wrote the history that most Christians believe.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26015.htm
For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.
Socrates of Constantinople (380-439AD): 5th Century Church History (Book V) Chapter 22

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26027.htm
Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.
Sozomen (400-450AD): 5th Century Ecclesiastical History (Book VVI) Chapter 19

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm
Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath.
Achelaus (Bishop of Carrae) 278AD: Acts of Disputation with Manes (Archelaus) Chapter 42

Well…okay. It's kind of out of my control.
And I believe Yeshua, that's even closer to my name as well, meets the church just fine on Sunday morning. I feel kind of awkward in using the name Yeshua for that reason.
Of course…the other Yeshua took on the mantle from Moses. And so that does make it somewhat more acceptable. Nothing to be dogmatic about either way in regards to the name of Jesus Christ.

Something else to consider, St. Paul became all things to all people when he could. Many immigrants from other countries take on English names even today.

No where in Scripture does it say that Saul of Tarsus changed his name to Paul upon conversion. I believe that he went by both. Saul was his Hebrew name and Paul was his Greek namely Paulos. Saulos would most likely appear less inviting to Greek and Gentile culture. St. Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22(ESV)

{To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.}

And I don't think the Apostle there is communicating that Saturday Sabbath is done away with either. But it possibly does not establish Saturday only because how would the Messianic Jew be observing the Sabbath without witnessing to ethnic Jews in the Synagogue in order to minister to the weak? And how are you to edify the weak, namely the rest of the body of Christ who meets on Sunday if you aren't attending a good Confessionally Reformed Church on Sunday?

The Sabbath day theory may be up in the air? I don't know. Saul also going by the name of Paulos also gives liberty to other names in other cultures and redeem them with new meaning. For Christ is redeeming all things (Colossians 1). Which is a key in interpreting with any dogmatism Colossians 2:13-14. Food for thought, anyway.

And I do begin each night..i mean day in prayer. And sometimes I use prewritten payers for the evening.

For we are commanded to pray without ceasing.

All of these commands are from the generals of the Lord's army, amen?

Press on, please?. Maybe when we take over this whole culture we can change the main worship day back to Saturday. But that would mess with 11am kickoffs…

However, the time is ripe for us to start entering Synagogues on Saturday and Church on Sunday for now like many true Jews did early on…

Just basically use the "What is a Jew? And what is Israel? Thread when discussing this with physical-Jewish Rabbis.
Then you can later get into Isaiah 53 and all of the rest..

And you do not want the Sacrificial System to be reincorporated, correct?
Isn't the Sacrificial system apart of the Ceremonial Law?

Here are the three uses of the law summarized.

"The first purpose of the law is to be a mirror. On the one hand, the law of God reflects and mirrors the perfect righteousness of God. The law tells us much about who God is. Perhaps more important, the law illumines human sinfulness. Augustine wrote, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace" (Institutes 2.7.9). The law highlights our weakness so that we might seek the strength found in Christ. Here the law acts as a severe schoolmaster who drives us to Christ.

By studying or meditating on the law of God, we attend the school of righteousness.
A second purpose for the law is the restraint of evil. The law, in and of itself, cannot change human hearts. It can, however, serve to protect the righteous from the unjust. Calvin says this purpose is "by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice" (Institutes 2.7.10). The law allows for a limited measure of justice on this earth, until the last judgment is realized.

The third purpose of the law is to reveal what is pleasing to God. As born again children of God, the law enlightens us as to what is pleasing to our Father, whom we seek to serve. The Christian delights in the law as God Himself delights in it. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). This is the highest function of the law, to serve as an instrument for the people of God to give Him honor and glory.

By studying or meditating on the law of God, we attend the school of righteousness. We learn what pleases God and what offends Him. The moral law that God reveals in Scripture is always binding upon us. Our redemption is from the curse of God's law, not from our duty to obey it. We are justified, not because of our obedience to the law, but in order that we may become obedient to God's law. To love Christ is to keep His commandments. To love God is to obey His law."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/threefold-use-law

Well, I was away from my computer a lot today (Sabbath and all :^). We also are arranging a funeral service for one of our own tomorrow. So, I'm sorry for not responding to your 17 points of Reformed'ness line by line (another winky face). The Reformed have always keen to preach a need for behaving rightly, which at least stresses keeping the Moral Law. I'll at least give them that.

As for your objections to common Messianic Jewish beliefs, I agree with you on some of those. I've already criticized the majority of them who take the title of Rabbi, because Yeshua is so clear and specific about not doing that. So, that's why I've asked you to not label me as Messianic Jewish and rather asked for the term Messianic Torah Keeper to make that distinction. But in the end, labels only mean what people define them to mean and all those definitions can be checked against scripture.

For me, I struggle to address comments that are not strictly based on scripture, because that is the vast majority of what my doctrine is based on. Most of the non-scriptural support I use is more just about history, historical facts, practices, etc than ancient theological debates. Going back to scripture and one you used in your original post, I'll address Acts 10. You quoted:

Quote:

---

Acts 10:11-16 (ESV) St. Peter's vision.

11 and saw ithe heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

---

I believe the reason you quoted this is to say the food laws of Leviticus 11 are now null and void. But before getting into the specifics of Acts 10, I remind you again, that your preferred interpretation of Acts 10 is one that makes Yeshua a liar, hypocrite and sinner in Matthew 5:17-9 and Matthew 23:23.

The context of Acts 10:11-16 is taken from the complete story that starts in Acts 10:1 (obvious reason for a chapter break there) and ends in Acts 11:18. Turns out, Peter's vision is not even the first vison of the story. The Gentile who had come to fear this Jewish God had the first vision to send for Peter. The clean and unclean animals in Peter's vision represents the Jews and Gentiles; but more specifically the separation the Jews had created between themselves and the Gentiles that was not actually called for in God's Law. This is how Peter interprets his own dream three times for us in Acts 10:28 and 10:34. And when Peter related these events to those in Jerusalem, they knew it had nothing to do with eating or drinking, but that Elohim had ordained the Gospel to go out to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18).

Initially, the Gospel of Yeshua was preached almost entirely among the Jewish people. It was to the Jew first and then to the Greeks (Rom 1:16). But there was a moment in the history of mankind where the Gospel stopped being only a Jewish endeavor, and exploded into the rest of the world. That moment is what is recorded in a chapter and a half of Acts that we just covered, and it was a moment ordained by Elohim in His giving of the visions and the Holy Spirit to Cornelius. This is a monumental moment for mankind.

But you will notice nothing about this moment has anything to do with eating or drinking anything. Even Charles Ryre in his footnote to Acts 10:14 writes: "God was teaching Peter a lesson about people (see v. 28)" Of course Charles Ryre was no Messianic Jew and had no desire to prove anything about Messianic Jewish doctrine. He was just being honest with the text. And no other honest reader of the text can come away with any other translation either.

I'm still addressing the verses you had in your original post. To that end, let's look at Romans 10:4:

Quote:

---

For Christ is the end (G5056 Telos) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

---

This word in both the Greek "Telos" and the English "End" can certainly mean the cessation of something, but they both can often mean a goal, just as I have used it in the first sentence of this post "…to that end." And you were not in the least confused by what I meant by that.

"Root Word (Etymology) From a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal)"

Paul also uses Telos in the same letter to the Romans in 6:22.

"But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the (Telos G5056) everlasting life."

Certainly here it does NOT mean a cessation, because we would not expect being made free from sin would cause our everlasting life to cease to exist. Quite the opposite! Here, Telos must certainly mean the more like a goal, even though the English word "end" is frequently used here. But as we've seen, the English word "end" works quite well here as long as we understand its proper translation from the Greek and don't run with it in a wrong direction we've already decided we want to go.

And even a more obscure use of Telos that Paul also uses in the same letter to the Romans; that is verse 13:7

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom (G5056) to whom custom; (G5056) fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

Here we see the Greek word "Telos" is actually more malleable than our English word "end", because we can't satisfactorily make "end" work in Romans 13:7, and the KJ uses "custom" instead.

So, it seems a logical and proper understand of the Greek word "Telos" as used by Paul in Romans 10:4 is that the "goal" of the Law is to have us arrive at a belief in Christ, which makes perfect sense, does not contradict Christ's own perfect Law keeping, and does not force us into the contradiction of interpreting it as having abolished the Law. May it never be!

I probably will respond to more of your last two posts later.

Peter's vision could be viewed as a double entendre. That is, the vision both grants access to the Gentile and never is qualified by any of the New Testament authors as prohibiting eating pork. In fact, the Lord tells Peter to not call what is now clean as common.

You stated that I could copy and paste. Please respond
to this poster on the Puritan Board.

"1. They seem to lay hold of Jewish customs and roots more tenaciously than anything else (whether they be Hebrew descended or not.) They (almost to the person) practiced Passover (one of which claimed that this was the Lord's Table as commanded by Jesus and restated in 1 Cor 11 is merely Passover; while this is nothing new due to Armstongites and other cults, it is a shameful suggestion.) Many ardently celebrate the "three biblical feasts" (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), as well as Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah (and a few throw in Hanukkah.)

2. The bit that I've gotten to know seem to show that they make a custom (if not a mark of obedience, or even part of the ordo salutis) the observance of the various dietary laws: Most avoid pork and shellfish and insist on keeping of Passover requirements to not eat yeast during this time. I think some use these as an "evangelistic" tool to Jews (nothing wrong with that as such) whereas others seem to hold it in an idolatrous sense as noted above.

3. Silly reliance on "Jewish" pronunciations of Biblical terms (the silliness comes in the fact that it is typically Yiddish, not even original pronunciation of the Hebrew terms.) Even when it is legitimate, it is almost dogmatic. Jesus must always be "Yeshua." Again, it isn't that such is wrong, it is the idolatrous nature of it. They virtually repudiate the fact that the living God was pleased to have the New Testament penned in Koine.

4. Required "Shabbat" or Saturday worship. I can safely say on this board, we all understand why this is sinful.

5. The keeping of the Jew - "goyim" distinction. Some sinfully suggest that this is not only Biblical, but in perfect keeping with the Scripture. They note Paul's circumcision of Timothy as well as the Jewish ritual haircut of Acts 18 that shows that Torah teachings are still fully in force at LEAST for those of "Jewish" heritage (and that takes on different forms in these communities.) This is almost certainly directly fed from the Plymouth Brethren theology. So they repudiate "replacement" theology, known to us as covenant theology. They are fueled by the notion that the church and "the People" are separate bodies that will only enjoy this "parenthesis" together, and even it in we will suffer significant divisions.

Here are the issues that emerge that puts this movement in conflict with orthodox Christianity:


1. "Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love...11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased." Further, the Gospel accounts of the Lord's Supper and 1 Cor. 11 show that this is manifestly not either a subset of the Passover (despite the fact that the date of the first taking of the Supper and the elements were taken from the Passover table. In fact, if it were only a subset of the the Passover: a) it is NEVER referred to as such b) only the elements of the Lord's Supper are mentioned (never Lamb, bitter herbs, etc) c) the warnings Paul offers would be irrelevant (don't come and glut yourselves as others are hungry- he exhorts them to eat at home before coming to this worship - if it were the Passover, there would be a feast spread at this time!) Further, Act 2 suggests (in my opinion) that this was being done far more routinely that the one feast per year. Further, here seems to be an eschatalogical fulfillment anticipated and brought to pass in the words of 1 Cor. 5:6-8

2. Acts 10:11-13 - three words: "...arise, kill, eat."

3. The New Testament Scriptures were written in the Greek - we are cautioned to wisely and with careful scholarship to translate these wonderful words into the vulgar language of whatever peoples it comes to. But we are told to consult these original languages when confronted with interpretive difficulties. If all our English versions did as much in terms of using Hebrew names, I would have no problem with this pronunciation. In fact, I refer in prayer (at times) to our Savior as Yeshua. But, as far as I can see, there seems to be almost an idolatrous insistence in some quarters of this movement.

4. Jesus' custom prior to his death was in fact Saturday worship (Luke 4:16.) Immediately after, note what his "custom" became and that of his disciples. 1st day of the week, 1st day of the week, 1st day of the week. He was pleased to be Resurrected thereon and to begin a new assembly day for the saints.
"Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun...9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you."
"Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Further, unless one assumes that the leaders of the church have Romanish declaratory power over the church, its doctrine and worship it MUST be assumed that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is a command from Christ and not just from tradition of Paul's apostolic authority, to wit: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The Lord of the Sabbath has declared a new one unto his people: Rev. 1:10

5. Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." To further solidify this idea, Colossians promises us, "2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Circumcision is gone, for everyone who trusts in Jehovah's atonement. We all have a new sign. Likewise, New Covenant Sabbath keeping anticipates a MAJOR change in the accidents of it. Is. 58 shows that the Jew-Gentile distinction as one "people" of God, worshipping together, is a picture of a change in the day in powerful way which could never be fulfilled under Old Covenant distinctions. Foreigners couldn't go beyond the "Gentile" court. Eunuchs couldn't come AT ALL due to Levitical law. And yet, both are promised a heritage therein according to this passage.

My final assessment: Christ's first instructors were "Messianic Jews." Far be if from me to repudiate that fact! But for those within this movement who marry Jesus Christ to shadowy figures of Old Testament imagery undermine His wonderful work entirely. Insistence on using Yiddish or Hebrew words to "properly" worship the Lord is idolatry of those languages and to be abhorred by God's people. Holiness is not defined by a keeping of dietary laws made in the Old Testament. One doing so is "will-worshipping" in the New covenant and committing idolatry. The Sabbath is not what it was - Christ shows us how it is now kept, and when to keep it. Lastly, God made of one blood all peoples- to create some distinction made on flawed eschatology is lethal to our aim of believers. Given the multiplicity of views within the movement, it is hard to nail down.

But, if I am correct that many of the above tenets are insisted upon, this is a synagogue of Satan. For those that are orthodox on the major points and only observe, say, dietary laws and Yiddish/Hebrew terms on a customary/social/evangelical level, there is nothing condemnable about them. I would tread carefully when dealing with any of them and see that they are not astray in those chief areas of orthodoxy."

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/what-do-we-make-of-messianic-judaism.78039/

And the last sentence…"see that they are no astray in those chief areas of orthodoxy."

That hits home with me because the Doctrine of God (Trinity included) is of most importance to orthodoxy.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

I probably will respond to more of your last two posts later.

Peter's vision could be viewed as a double entendre. That is, the vision both grants access to the Gentile and never is qualified by any of the New Testament authors as prohibiting eating pork. In fact, the Lord tells Peter to not call what is now clean as common.

---

Yes, I suppose you could choose to interpret the meaning as one that BOTH makes Yeshua truthful AND makes Him a liar. Or you could choose to interpret the meaning as limited to only the one that makes Yeshua's words truthful like Peter did in his own interpretation of his own story. Your choice.

"Arise, kill, and eat."

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"Arise, kill, and eat."

---

"I am the door"

Win At Life said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"Arise, kill, and eat."

---

"I am the door"

---

Oh please. I'm not the one who interprets the Bible woodenly.
The text is very specific there in its historical narrative genre.

Can you name any place in the book of Acts which uses allegory?

And if you state Acts 1:8, then I am going to roll my eyes.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Win At Life said:

---

TheGreatEscape said:

---

"Arise, kill, and eat."

---

"I am the door"

---

Oh please. I'm not the one who interprets the Bible woodenly.
The text is very specific there in its historical narrative genre.

Can you name any place in the book of Acts uses allegory?

And if you state Acts 1:8, then I am going to roll my eyes.

---

I interpret the meaning of Peter's vision the same way Peter tells us he interprets it. You are the one who disagrees with the interpretation of Peter's vision that is provided for you right in the story. And you choose a different interpretation than what is given to one that contradicts scripture and makes Yeshua a liar, hypocrite and sinner. Bizarre. Why would someone do that? Only some who hates God's Law would do that. Only someone in rebellion to the simple things God is asking of you would do that. If you can't be trusted in the simple things, how could you be trusted in the hard things?

The vision in Acts 10 meant that the Gentiles were not under the dietary laws and should not be further disqualified nor discriminated against in any way. The miraculous sign of speaking in other languages was a further confirmation that pork eaters and uncircumcised Gentiles were welcomed into the covenant.

And even then, Peter continued to be hesitant to fully incorporate the Gentile into the covenant by discriminating against them by refusing to sit at the same table with Gentiles when eating later on in Acts chapter 15.

The question thus became; should we require Gentiles and Cornelius to be circumcised?

The answer was discussed and decided upon in the Counsel of Jerusalem, which was mentioned later in Acts 15.

This is why St. Paul's letter to the Galatians is dated around the same time as the Counsel of Jerusalem.

Galatians 2:3-14 (ESV)

{3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought inwho slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows NO partiality)those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

Paul Opposes Peter

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"}

If you want to follow the dietary laws and other Jewish Believers do as well, then there is no prohibition for doing so.
If you want to be circumcised, which I am a fan of because Timothy was, then that's fine as well. But Titus wasn't circumcised.
But neither circumcision nor dietary restrictions should be imposed upon followers of Jesus Christ. And that is what we believe that you are doing. You all are making a personal maxim into a universal that is not in the text.

You are assuming the Roman in Acts 10 was eating pork, because that's want you've already decided you want to hear. But Acts 10:2 says he "feared God". Do you suppose scripture means he feared the Indian god, Vishnu? Do you suppose it means he feared the Egyptian god, Ra? Of course not. He was living in the land of Israel surrounded by those who believed YHWH was god. And he FEARED the god of that land he was immersed, whose people were immersed in eating biblically clean. In many parts of Israel you would have had to go considerably out of your way to obtain something unclean to eat. And for anyone who FEARED that god, there were plenty of markets only offering clean foods all around you. It's ridiculous to think this man described in Act10:2 who FEARED YHWH would have served pork to a Jewish man.

As for the rest, there is a key distinction missed by most Christians even though it's right there in scripture. The issue was that over the centuries since the return from Babylon, Jews fell into an increasing list of man-made rules they had created AND then said you had to follow those AND the scriptural law IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. That's bad doctrine found nowhere in scripture. But most Christians see Yeshua and the Apostles speaking against this bad doctrine of man-made rules they also called laws and trying to annul those, with them abolishing all of God's holy and righteous and good Laws. That's a small distinction, but has huge consequences.

Part of the bad Jewish doctrine included non-scriptural man-made rules to not eat with Gentiles and not allow Gentiles into their synagogues. To "convert" a Gentile proselyte, they would spend a long time putting all these man-made rules on them for approximately a year or two. Only then, after keeping everything they wanted long enough and certain they would not turn back is when they would circumcise the Gentile as the final sign of his conversion and declare him now SAVED. This is a horrible works-based salvation doctrine not found anywhere in scripture, and is why circumcision (or not) appears so prominently in the NT to confirm if a man was saved or not saved by works of the law. Circumcision became the litmus test for those Jews to determine if a Gentile was saved or not, and allowed in their synagogue or not.

Knowing that, now let's look at your verses and see what they say. And what do you know, we see it in the VERY FIRST verse of your Acts 15.

Acts 15:1 (NASB) Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

This works-based salvation doctrine is the clear target of the entire book of Galatians as Paul repeats this error multiple times throughout the letter.

Gal 2:16 (NASB) nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Gal 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly

Gal 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

Gal 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Works of the law, works of the law, works of the law, geeze Paul, you don't need to keep beating me over the head with this. I got it the first time. But even with his almost excessive description of this one problem, it seems Christians STILL miss this.

So, if you don't take these verses out of their context and run with them in the direction you've already decided you want to go, you can see they don't say what you'd like them to say. Or at worst, you have two plausible interpretations; one interpretation that makes a mockery of Yeshua's words in Matthew 5:17-19 and 23:23, and one that doesn't. Yet you are determined to choose the interpretation that makes Yeshua a liar, hypocrite and sinner because you hate God's directions for your life. No man will have an excuse for hating something so simple in the end. It is rebellion against God's simple directions to you. Mankind has hated God's words from the very beginning until the present and only a remnant has ever been faithful to His simple Words. There is nothing new under the sun.

Hey, I just woke up. My name is Yeshua. So I guess you can call me Jesus because the Greek name Jesus is less "holy."
If we are to be weird about always saying Yeshua and G-d and stuff like that, then we should find the Septuagint that the Apostle quoted from as being less holy. We should find all of the Hebrew equivalent words in the Greek New Testament and change them as well.

Let's sing:

Yeshua and the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho.
Yeshua and the battle of Jericho and the walls of food came down…

Back to our primary discussion, Yeshua instructed Sant Shimon to arise, kill, and et. He was told that now all
foods were kosher. I adhere to what Gentile Sant Luka records that Sant Shimon obeyed the vision. And NO, I don't believe that Shimon forced other physical-Jews, of whom became redeemed of the Lord, to forsake Kosher laws.
I never implied that.

Also, I also yada the aspect of how Yeshua cleaned up other incorporation of man's laws that were added to YHWH's Torah. And by the way, the W in Hebrew makes the V sound in our English. Y'all need to start another new tradition and type YHVH because typing YHWH is falsely transliterated into the less holy English lettering.
In fact to be consistent in these rules, the name of YHVH should only be written in Hebrew letters.

Maybe I can become a Christ Jew like you and eat a bunch of food before the Lord's Table, which St. Saul says not to do; and then pig out at Passover done as often as we can in remembrance of Jesus as he instructed us to do perhaps weekly and not just in Passover?

For then we couldn't find anywhere in Scripture commanding us to only partake of the Lord's Table in Passover, could we?

All of these scenarios are also man's law that you all have added and that is why issues like dietary laws and circumcision are liberty of conscience issues.

So is the apparent insistence that we should only use the name Jesus instead of Yeshua or Yeshua instead of the name Jesus.

Or the apparent insistence that what is prohibited from being a required in the New Testament violates Matthew chapter 5. For the entire sacrificial system is prohibited in the book of Hebrews…guess we have to be consistent and seek after Zionism to start animal sacrifices again in the rebuilding of the third temple, but we can find no prophecy giving permission to do so as we found the other two buildings had.

All of these pseudo-requirements were types and shadows that the author of the letter of Hebrews is very well aware of the annulled dietary laws, circumcision, and the sacrificial system. I'm certain that both Peter and the author of Hebrews were aware of Matthew 5. The Epistles interpret the Gospels. So there is that.

IMHO, you're both right and you're both wrong. If you want me to quote Scriptures for all this, just let me know. I'll go back and edit them in later. First, you need to understand what the Law is. For a Bronze Age Hebrew, the Law was the perfect way to live, and the perfect way to worship. It was right and wrong as spelled out by God Himself with specific directions and God's answers to direct legal cases in the nation of Israel during the Exodus. For a Jew or a Christian, there has never been a more perfect standard for right or wrong. That's the Law. However, the Law is also a set of judgements, rewards, and penalties. Certain laws such as murder or theft carry specific, immediate penalties. However, the vast majority of the Law promises community material benefits such as peace, prosperity, and victory for obeying it, and community penalties such as defeat, suffering and mass death. It should also be noted that there is no reason whatsoever to subdivide the Law into moral, ceremonial, legal categories. The text of Scripture jumbles them all together in the middle of a narrative. The categories very much read like a post-hoc justification of existent practices as opposed to an unbiased opinion formed from the text itself.

Anyway, it's useful to divide the Law into these two aspects. First is the commands, prohibitions, and instructions of the law itself. These describe good and evil, how to live a life pleasing to God, and how to worship God as He wishes. Second is the blessings and curses that come from following or not following the commandments. Taking this in order, there is no reason to say that the commands, prohibitions, and instructions of the Law have gone away. There is plenty of Scripture that argues against that specifically in both OT and NT. You could just as soon say "murder is good" as you would say "eating shrimp is good" at least qualitatively. All of the commandments still represent good and evil the same as they did then, only as appropriate for an agricultural Bronze Age society. So in that manner, the Law is still here and active as much as it ever was.

So let's look at the second part. The blessings and curses of the Law. For a Christian, that part is entirely moot. The worst the Law can proscribe directly is death individually. The worst it can do to the community is suffering and death. The blessings promised are wordly and material. All of those are inconsequential to Christians. Christians are called to take up their cross and give their lives just as Christ did. Suffering and death is expected. Material benefits are entirely beside the point. Therefore the Law no longer has any teeth. It's like we're all already on the books for torture tomorrow and death the next day. We are baptised into death and raised again. What possible threat could the Law hold over us in such a situation? It can't kill us any extra. A large chunk of Romans is Paul talking about just this fact. Once all the penalties and curses of the Law become redundant, then what power does the Law have over any of us? Thus Paul talks about how everything is permissible. Not just eating shrimp. Not just stopping sacrifices, but also murder, rape, theft, torture, cannibalism, and cruelty. Christians already expect to be treated like we've done all those things, by suffering and dying. So the Law holds no power over Christians at all. Paul immediately invokes my first point. If the Law is no longer judge, jury, and executioner, then what good is it? Well it is still a guide or a teacher. It tells us right and wrong and allows us to direct our behavior accordingly. Not because we fear judgement for breaking it, but because doing the right thing is important for followers of God for it's own sake.

So for Christians, the Law is no longer our judge. It provides benefits we are not supposed to care about, and it threatens penalties that we are resigned to receive regardless. In that way it is outdated. But it is still our guide. It still points to the right way to live and worship. In that way it will always be present and never pass away.

Brief tangent: The inability to follow commandments doesn't mean you aren't following the Law. Some commandments are currently impossible to fulfill. Animal sacrifice is a perfect example. It is currently impossible to practice that as directed in the Law. Committing sacrifices in the wrong way is explicity against the Law, so we follow the Law by not committing sacrifices. There is also some interpretation that comes into play when trying to follow Laws written for a Bronze Age agricultural society when you live in a modern, industrial society. Some things just don't directly apply.

I'll try to respond to more later, Ramblin. And thank you for participating with us.

But I disagree that the law is divided into morality and punishment.
For Israel had no further distinction of church and state that even England had moreso.

And when the Westminster divines wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith, they used the 39 Articles as a launching point. For they separated the law into the moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral law always stands. And the divines stated that the civil or judicial law stood in its general equity thereof. In other words, the civil law , which is sometimes jumbled up with the moral and such, is a case law system.

We have a case law system, save only Louisiana. What we do and how the civil law is still foundational is amended to our own laws by any good Judge who calls himself a Christian.
A Christian judge ought to esteem the judicial or civil law's generally equity.

That is to say that a good Judeo-Christian judge tries to harmonize the punishment aspect to judicial law and moral law jurisprudence; and alter legal precedent as he or she can which is what every secularist judge is hypocritically doing himself or herself. The judge has to follow the punishment within the bounds of what is currently established by the legislature as well.

All legislation is legislating morality. So what the Christian legislator passes through the law making branch are laws and consequences or punishments of the law adjusted to deter the breaking of civil (judicial) and the moral law accordingly to the needs of restraining evil and often driving the righteous back into proper fellowship with the Divine.
I was just speaking to a peace officer yesterday about how myself and another man has thanked him for executing or carrying out the law for us to return to Godliness and being a good citizen again.

So, it is true that the moral and civil law are one and the same. But it is true that the moral law is a legal code like
Louisiana, which tried anti restrain evil by predicting the future trends of injustice and evil. And the civil or judicial law is a case law system based upon the general equity of the law.