Under Law

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

How do you know? 

"On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham",  He said his descendants would be strangers in a land not theirs, and would be afflicted four hundred years  (Genesis 15:13, 18).   Exactly 430 years later - to the day, Israel came out form Egypt.  That day was the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:41). 

The Passover in Egypt, was eaten on the anniversary of the evening when the "burning torch and the "smoking oven" passed between the halved animals, as Abraham lay in vision. 

I'm willing to bet that Abraham commemorated that night/day every year from then on.   The LORD's appointed times are His times.  We see them repeated, even before they had names like Passover or Sakkot. 

 

How do I know? 

Because Scripture says; "moreover I gave THEM my Sabbaths". 

Scripture identifies "them" as the "Children of" Israel. 

[8thdaypriest]

I won't copy Photodude's post.  All I can say is Yik!!!!!!!!   We were discussing the symbolism of believing Gentiles being "grafted in" to Israel, and becoming "partakers of the covenants" without benefit of circumcision or the pharisaic education process that went with it.  Please take the sensationalism somewhere else!  

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, Gustave said:

How do I know? 

Because Scripture says; "moreover I gave THEM my Sabbaths". 

Scripture identifies "them" as the "Children of" Israel. 

The covenant with the Children of Israel was a continuation of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  True.  The LORD expanded His commands concerning the moed (appointed times), to more perfectly typify/prophesy the coming Messiah and His work.  That's what Israel was "chosen" for.  And to display to other peoples, the benefit of serving Yahweh. 

Did you want the LORD to boom the Sabbath command to every culture worldwide?  lol  He began with Israel.  Israel was supposed to spread the news.  Instead, they walled it off. 

Ezekiel 20:12 says "sabbaths" plural.   Wouldn't these sabbaths be all of the moed - not just the 7th day rest. 

Besides, just because something has fallen from human awareness/memory, does not mean the LORD has forgotten about it.   Israel forgot Him, forgot His commandments, and forgot His  commands for the Temple, more than once.  

At Sinai, the LORD did not say He was giving them a new command to rest on the 7th Day.  He said in effect, "Don't forget it."  It's been holy since I created the heavens and the earth. 

The 7th Day Rest is the only one of the moed that the LORD wrote in stone.  That says it's more special.  It's right there with all the other ones you say are "moral" [not requiring special instruction] (except maybe for the one about images). 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Moral vs "ceremonial"

What does "moral" mean anyway?  Does "moral" only involve our treatment of other people?  Does it not involve our relationship with our Creator?   Who defines "moral" ?  God does.   In many ancient cultures, virgins had sex with worshipers at their temples.  They didn't consider that "immoral".  In some cultures they sacrificed human beings - to their gods.  They didn't consider that "immoral".  So you could say that even the adultery laws, and commands concerning marriage were "special instruction" for the Israelites, along with merciful treatment of slaves, etc. etc. etc.  Very different from the cultures surrounding them. 

If God has commanded something, then not doing what He has commanded IS open rebellion against Him.  That is immoral.  Which means that the prophetic/typical laws WERE moral laws.  There is no law of God, that is not a "moral law".  

The ONLY ONE specifically "changed" was "the priesthood".  With the priesthood goes the prophetic system of animal sacrifices.  That law was "changed" by God Himself .   

[JoeMo]

53 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The sinner (or husband in the case of a wife or daughter who had sinned) was to confess the sins over the head of the animal to be sacrificed as the "sin offering", with his hands pressing down on the animal.  We don't know whether the priest actually "heard" the confession.  It's possible.  But the sinner was talking to God, not to the priest.  The sinner would slit the animal's throat. 

Another thing -

The OT priests would examine the sacrifice - not the sinner.  With 20/20 hindsight, this is a big clue to me that the Father looks at the perfection of the sacrifice - His Son - rather than the perfection of the confessing sinner.  Priests can't override the perfection of the sacrifice by refusing absolution.

[B/W Photodude]

53 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I won't copy Photodude's post.  All I can say is Yik!!!!!!!!   We were discussing the symbolism of believing Gentiles being "grafted in" to Israel, and becoming "partakers of the covenants" without benefit of circumcision or the pharisaic education process that went with it.  Please take the sensationalism somewhere else!  

Sorry you consider the barbaric torture of babies as sensationalism.

Also, don't believe you are in a position to suggest others go elsewhere, as I don't suggest the same to you!

[B/W Photodude]

On September 17, 2019 at 8:57 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

The question we have been discussing, is whether that command should be obeyed today, by those who belong to Christ.  I think Paul made it clear, that it does not need to be - for Gentile converts.  Believers are circumcised in heart (where it counts) by Christ. 

Seems you were the one who brought it up as something to be considered to be done today! I can show you many many reasons not to do it and any reason you can come up with to justify it can be quickly knocked down.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The covenant with the Children of Israel was a continuation of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  True.  The LORD expanded His commands concerning the moed (appointed times), to more perfectly typify/prophesy the coming Messiah and His work.  That's what Israel was "chosen" for.  And to display to other peoples, the benefit of serving Yahweh. 

Did you want the LORD to boom the Sabbath command to every culture worldwide?  lol  He began with Israel.  Israel was supposed to spread the news.  Instead, they walled it off. 

Ezekiel 20:12 says "sabbaths" plural.   Wouldn't these sabbaths be all of the moed - not just the 7th day rest. 

Besides, just because something has fallen from human awareness/memory, does not mean the LORD has forgotten about it.   Israel forgot Him, forgot His commandments, and forgot His  commands for the Temple, more than once.  

At Sinai, the LORD did not say He was giving them a new command to rest on the 7th Day.  He said in effect, "Don't forget it."  It's been holy since I created the heavens and the earth. 

The 7th Day Rest is the only one of the moed that the LORD wrote in stone.  That says it's more special.  It's right there with all the other ones you say are "moral" [not requiring special instruction] (except maybe for the one about images). 

 

Humanity started out rather small, with two people. If the Sabbath was as some on this forum claim it was (practiced or known about prior to Moses) we'd see some examples of that -we don't, we see the opposite along with multiple statements in Scripture that indicate all the feasts laid out in Leviticus 23 were unknown  and not observed prior to Moses.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I won't copy Photodude's post.  All I can say is Yik!!!!!!!!   We were discussing the symbolism of believing Gentiles being "grafted in" to Israel, and becoming "partakers of the covenants" without benefit of circumcision or the pharisaic education process that went with it.  Please take the sensationalism somewhere else!  

Grafted into Israel in ONLY the Sense that we are enabled to lay claim to the promise made to Abraham NOT that we might become Jews to become Christians. I think I just figured out somewhat of where you're coming from. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The term "Sabbath" in Scripture is used for both the weekly 7th day and for feast days that the Jews observed throughout the year.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The covenant with the Children of Israel was a continuation of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  True.  The LORD expanded His commands concerning the moed (appointed times), to more perfectly typify/prophesy the coming Messiah and His work.  That's what Israel was "chosen" for.  And to display to other peoples, the benefit of serving Yahweh. 

Did you want the LORD to boom the Sabbath command to every culture worldwide?  lol  He began with Israel.  Israel was supposed to spread the news.  Instead, they walled it off. 

Ezekiel 20:12 says "sabbaths" plural.   Wouldn't these sabbaths be all of the moed - not just the 7th day rest. 

Besides, just because something has fallen from human awareness/memory, does not mean the LORD has forgotten about it.   Israel forgot Him, forgot His commandments, and forgot His  commands for the Temple, more than once.  

At Sinai, the LORD did not say He was giving them a new command to rest on the 7th Day.  He said in effect, "Don't forget it."  It's been holy since I created the heavens and the earth. 

The 7th Day Rest is the only one of the moed that the LORD wrote in stone.  That says it's more special.  It's right there with all the other ones you say are "moral" [not requiring special instruction] (except maybe for the one about images). 

 

The Lord boomed the moral commandment not to murder and steal  to every culture worldwide excepting those extreme outliers (headhunters & such) you previously mentioned. The Lord had to boom the command to circumcise penises & observe certain feast days because those type of commandments are ceremonial and require "special" revelation. 

Like here;

Genesis 17, 9: And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. ¹⁰ This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

&

Verse 23: Then Abraham took Ish′mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. ²⁴ Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. ²⁵ And Ish′mael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. ²⁶ That very day Abraham and his son Ish′mael were circumcised; ²⁷ and all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him

 

Point being that Abraham was nearly 100 years old before was informed about circumcision and yet Abraham found favor in sight of God. Abraham, if you are Bible Only, lived the rest of his life & his Son's lived the rest of their lives completely ignorant of the 7th day Sabbath or any of the other feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23. No one practiced those feasts because they were not moral or natural. 

 

 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The priest - as a TYPE of Christ, "made atonement for" the one who had broken the Covenant.   The sinner (or husband in the case of a wife or daughter who had sinned) was to confess the sins over the head of the animal to be sacrificed as the "sin offering", with his hands pressing down on the animal.  We don't know whether the priest actually "heard" the confession.  It's possible.  But the sinner was talking to God, not to the priest.  The sinner would slit the animal's throat.  The priest would dissect/clean the animal, and offer it with salt and grain, on the alter.  The priest would eat a portion also, thus taking a reminder of it into the Sanctuary. 

The priest did not say, "I absolve thee".   The OT priest was acting as a mediator, presenting the sinner's offering to God as a token of the sinner's repentance.  Jesus has presented Himself - His own life, as our "sin offering". 

Jesus is the "one Mediator" between God and man.  (I Tim 2:5).   Yes, Jesus has been given authority to on earth to forgive sins (Matt 9:6).  His Father gave Him that authority. 

You forgot to include the other words.

"BEFORE THE LORD FOR HIS SIN". 

Matthew 9, 1-8: "...and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

"As the Father has sent me, I am sending you". John 20,21

The early church absolutely understood it that way, however, I will readily concede it likely that those who lost the Acts 15 argument over the Law of Moses and the Circumcision issue probably didn't participate in confession. The Orthodox Church isn't a great fan of Catholicism and even they admit confession was Apostolic. 

Jump to 5:45 where that topic starts.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

12 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

When God created Adam (foreskin and all), He declared everything was good. But it amazes me that Christian parents in America seems to think they can improve on God's creation. There are even those who claim it is what God wants, which demonstrates they cannot even read their Bibles. It is very clear that for Jews and Greeks, circumcision no longer had any merit.

The ideas presented by Photodude require examination.  They are related to this thread because in NT times it is quite certain that the males who were "under law" would have been circumcised in the same manner that Jesus and Paul had been circumcised.  It is also possible that those who were not "under law" were also circumcised in the manner of Abraham's circumcision, rather than in the manner of Pharisee circumcision.

Photodude has correctly noted that God declared the created world "good", and "very good".  At that point in time the humans were totally obedient to whatever God instructed them to do, and that obedience was also an integral part of the world that was "very good".  If it is going to be considered wrong to "think they can improve on God's creation", then wouldn't it also be considered "wrong" to stop obeying God's instructions that were given later.  If making changes to God's creation is wrong, then it would also have been "wrong" for Adam and Eve to pick fruit to eat because that would change the shape of the tree that God created good (without providing anesthetic for the tree), and it also places food into the "good" stomachs that God presumably created empty of food.  It would also be "wrong" to get a haircut, trim one's fingernails, perform any kind of surgery, or to break or displace the female hymen.  It seems obvious that at least some of these activities should not be considered "wrong", so it should be safe to disregard the amazement that some have expressed regarding those who desire to follow God's instructions regarding circumcision.

The argument that circumcision is wrong because it supposedly is motivated by a desire "to improve on God's creation" seemes to be based on flawed or incomplete logic.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The ideas presented by Photodude require examination.  They are related to this thread because in NT times it is quite certain that the males who were "under law" would have been circumcised in the same manner that Jesus and Paul had been circumcised.  It is also possible that those who were not "under law" were also circumcised in the manner of Abraham's circumcision, rather than in the manner of Pharisee circumcision.

Photodude has correctly noted that God declared the created world "good", and "very good".  At that point in time the humans were totally obedient to whatever God instructed them to do, and that obedience was also an integral part of the world that was "very good".  If it is going to be considered wrong to "think they can improve on God's creation", then wouldn't it also be considered "wrong" to stop obeying God's instructions that were given later.  If making changes to God's creation is wrong, then it would also have been "wrong" for Adam and Eve to pick fruit to eat because that would change the shape of the tree that God created good (without providing anesthetic for the tree), and it also places food into the "good" stomachs that God presumably created empty of food.  It would also be "wrong" to get a haircut, trim one's fingernails, perform any kind of surgery, or to break or displace the female hymen.  It seems obvious that at least some of these activities should not be considered "wrong", so it should be safe to disregard the amazement that some have expressed regarding those who desire to follow God's instructions regarding circumcision.

The argument that circumcision is wrong because it supposedly is motivated by a desire "to improve on God's creation" seemes to be based on flawed or incomplete logic.

Circumcision regardless of the type met it's end, officially, in Christ, at the point of the Resurrection. It also stands that Abraham had his penis "customized" by the act of circumcision and Adam was created  and entered the world without it and continued that way throughout his life. Enoch also walked with God and remained uncut - he also had the favor of God. 

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Seems you were the one who brought it up as something to be considered to be done today! I can show you many many reasons not to do it and any reason you can come up with to justify it can be quickly knocked down.

I was NOT justifying circumcision for believers today.

But do you think the LORD's command to Abraham - to circumcise, was "barbaric" ? 

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Another thing -

The OT priests would examine the sacrifice - not the sinner.  With 20/20 hindsight, this is a big clue to me that the Father looks at the perfection of the sacrifice - His Son - rather than the perfection of the confessing sinner.  Priests can't override the perfection of the sacrifice by refusing absolution.

Good point Joe.  I'm gonna write this one in the margin of my Bible.  I want to remember it.

[8thdaypriest]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Point being that Abraham was nearly 100 years old before was informed about circumcision and yet Abraham found favor in sight of God. Abraham, if you are Bible Only, lived the rest of his life & his Son's lived the rest of their lives completely ignorant of the 7th day Sabbath or any of the other feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23. No one practiced those feasts because they were not moral or natural. 

Are you equating "moral" with "natural" ?   Cause I don't think those two things are the same.   Man's nature is carnal, therefore immoral.  Man will "naturally" do what he can get away with, UNLESS indwelt by the Spirit of God.   The indwelling is stronger than our carnal nature, which allows us to live "morally".  

Why does it matter exactly WHEN the LORD reminded human beings (a few of them) about His special rest day?  If the LORD declared the 7th Day "holy" - set apart for the LORD, at creation - the day after creating Adam and Eve,  I would assume He told Adam about it.  Where did Moses get the creation account that he wrote down?  I think there's a verse that says Moses consulted other sources.  If human beings then forgot a whopping lot of the LORD's work, I think the LORD would reintroduce it slowly, first calling Abraham and establishing a relationship with him, then going on to Jacob, finally to the rescue of Israel from Egypt, then the revelation of his "Law".  And even that was not a FULL revelation.    

The first human beings were offering animal "sacrifices".  Right?   When Cain brought plants, the LORD rejected his offering.  I think it can be assumed that Adam had some instruction about this, and had passed that instruction on to Cain and Abel.  Job offered sacrifices for his children, in case they had sinned.  Job lived about he same time as Abraham, perhaps earlier.   How did Job know what was sin and what wasn't, and what to offer as "burnt offerings" ?   Because the Bible does not specifically say "Shem instructed Job, doesn't mean he didn't.  Their actions say they were "instructed" by someone. 

 

 

[JoeMo]

I believe that God instructed the antediluvians as well as Noah and the postdeluvians of the Law.  Israel "forgot"  the Law in the 400 years of slavery in Egypt - surrounded by a pantheon of false gods and mystic ritual.  God needed to reintroduce Israel to the Law - just like He had to reintroduce Himself to them - when they left Egypt.

God's Law (at least the "10") is eternal. It has existed since God said "Let there be light".  It may not have been codified until Sinai, but it still existed.

[8thdaypriest]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

Grafted into Israel in ONLY the Sense that we are enabled to lay claim to the promise made to Abraham NOT that we might become Jews to become Christians. I think I just figured out somewhat of where you're coming from. 

The "grafted in" analogy comes from Romans 11.   Paul uses the Olive Tree to symbolize Israel.  He got that from Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 11:16-17 “The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit, with the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, and its branches are broken.” (See also, Jeremiah 5:10-11.)

So the Olive Tree represents Israel. 

Romans 11:13-24  “For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I [Paul] am an apostle to the Gentiles . . .”  “And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, . . . You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.” 

The "root" represents Christ.  Paul says the root is holy (Rom 11:16), and we partake of The Root. 

The Olive Tree represents all the redeemed people of God.  Believers grafted in.  Unbelievers "broken off" ("cut off" was the OT term for "cut off from Israel").  Only those who remain attached to "the Tree" (citizens of Israel) will be saved. 

This picture does not support the idea that "the Church" has "replaced" Israel, as the chosen people of God. 

    Ephesians 2:11-22 [Paul - writing to Gentile believers] “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh [meaning uncircumcised]  . . . that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”

Once the Gentiles came to faith, they were no longer "aliens" or "strangers" "from the commonwealth of Israel".   Which means that believing Gentiles become citizens of Israel.  

And if there is one law for both - Israel and strangers who sojourn with them in faith - then the question is:  What requirements of that Law - as commanded at Sinai,  are still requirements today - for BOTH Jew and Gentile believers in Christ ?   

Other things support the idea that "Israel" is the redeemed people of God.  Jerusalem will be the capital city.   The truth that we are "Abraham's seed" if we belong to Christ, and are "circumcised in heart".  

Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/17/2019 at 8:22 AM, Gustave said:

Last two questions.

A)
Do you believe in the Trinity?

b)
Do you believe that St. Paul went rogue and taught things contrary to what Jesus and the other Apostles wanted?

A.  The Bible doesn't use the term "Trinity" nor does it emphasize the "three-ness" of God.  I believe everything the Bible actually says about the nature of God, and I believe that everything Jesus claimed about himself and his relationship to God.  I believe about the Spirit of God the same as the people who wrote the Old Testament and the New Testament, which is somewhat different than the way people explain the Spirit of God today.

B.   I believe that it is possible for any man, including the apostle Paul, to teach things that are contrary to Scripture.  So everything must be tested by previously existing Scripture to see whether it is true. In Acts 17:10 the Bereans were commended for testing the teachings of Paul using the Old Testament scrolls found in the Jewish synagogue to see whether Paul's teachings agreed with the Old Testament.  The Bereans found that Paul's teachings were in agreement with the previously existing Scripture of his day, just as Paul himself claimed about his own teachings.  I agree with the conclusion of the Bereans that Paul's teachings are all valid because, when his writings are correctly interpreted in context, Paul's teachings do agree with the Old Testament. 

However, many people misinterpret Paul's writings, ignoring much of the context.  It is common to hear people claim that Paul wrote things that contradict and overthrow previous Scripture.  Those misinterpretations of Paul's writings are very popular in Christianity even though it is obvious that those teachings would never have passed the same test that the real teachings of Paul passed -- the test the Bereans used -- searching the Scriptures daily to see whether Paul's teachings were compatible with previous Scripture.

Christians today tend to do the opposite of what the Bereans did.  The Bereans used the Old Testament as the standard of truth to determine whether Paul's teachings were true, but Christians today use their own out-of-context interpretations of Paul's writings as the standard of truth to determine whether any of the Old Testament scrolls are still true.

If the apostle Paul had actually been teaching things that are contrary to the Old Testament, as many people today claim he did, then Paul would definitely be a false teacher.  I don't believe that is the case.

[JoeMo]

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:14-17)

What scripture was Paul talking about?  The Old Testament!  The New Testament didn't exist yet.  The Old Testament was the standard used by the early church.

[Ron Amnsn]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Circumcision regardless of the type met it's end, officially, in Christ, at the point of the Resurrection.

That's a popular teaching about the Bible.  However, it is not a teaching that is actually found in the Bible.

If you look at everything that the New Testament says about circumcision, you realize that there must have been at least two types of circumcision that were talked about.  In Galatians 5:2 the apostle Paul says, "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."  That sounds pretty bad.  But in Acts 16:3 we are told that Paul himself circumcised Timothy.  Did Paul intentionally put Timothy into the situation where Christ would profit Timothy nothing?  No, because we later hear many good things about Timothy and his relationship to Christ.  Evidently Paul was talking to the Galatians about a kind of circumcision that was different than what Paul himself did to Timothy.

If you look at all the New Testament verses where Paul seems to be speaking against circumcision, none of those verses address the circumcision of 8-day-old male Jewish (or Gentile) babies.  All of those verses address situations where the males are old enough to chose whether or not they will be circumcised.  Jewish babies have never made that choice for themselves. 

Some people try to use Acts 21:21 to say that Paul was teaching against circumcising children, but if you read the whole passage you find that in verse 21 it is James talking, and James is reporting to Paul a false rumor about Paul that had been told to the Jews in Jerusalem.  James then proposes a plan that will prove the rumor is false, and Paul carries out that plan to show that the rumor is false.  It's so ironic when modern Christians who claim to be following the teachings of Paul repeat the same accusations against Paul that Paul's enemies made against Paul while he was alive.

[JoeMo]

20 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Evidently Paul was talking to the Galatians about a kind of circumcision that was different than what Paul himself did to Timothy.

Or could the difference be the motivation for circumcision?  In Galatians, they were being circumcised because the Judaizers convinced them that circumcision was required for salvation.  Maybe Timothy asked to be circumcised so he could "fit in" better when he accompanied Paul and/or preached in synagogues.

[Ron Amnsn]

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

Circumcision regardless of the type met it's end, officially, in Christ, at the point of the Resurrection.

The Jerusalem council evidently disagrees with your claim. The Jerusalem council did not find fault with any of the teachings of Moses, but rather with the teachings of the men who had gone out without authorization.  James specifically mentioned in the council that Moses is taught in every city, but the council didn't apply their decision to every city.  They sent their decision only to the cities where the unauthorized men had taught, and applied their decision only to Gentile believers, not to Jews.

[phkrause]

Also lets not forget that when Joseph was tempted by Potiphar's wife he knew what Adultery was!! Yet as was mentioned by Gustave, the 10 Commandments were not even spoken of!! Obviously they were!!