Did the Apostles Fail God's Test regarding the Greatest Commnadment?

June 14, 2020

Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22: 34-40 (NIV)

In his answer to the question "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus quoted a commandment from Deuteronomy 6:5, which was not one of the "Ten Commandments", but a commandment from God's Law of Moses that was "greater" than the "Ten Commandments" in some way.

Later in Deuteronomy Moses taught the Israelites that God would test them on that very commandment, and how to tell when God was testing them, and how to fail or pass that test:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (NIV)

Although Christians tend to think of signs or miracles as an endorsement from God for the teachings of the person doing the signs and miracles, this passage teaches that signs or miracles are not an endorsement, but rather a signal that God is testing whether people will turn away from God's earlier commands and instructions. The writings of the apostles are often [mis]interpreted as if the apostles were actually teaching people to disregard God's earlier instructions found in God's Law of Moses -- specifically the instructions now classified by some as "ceremonial". If those popular [mis]interpretations of the apostles' writings were correct, that would put the apostles among those that "preached rebellion against the Lord your God" because "he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow".

June 29, 2020

Do you think the apostles and other followers of Jesus were aware of what Deuteronomy 13 says about how God intended to test people regarding the very commandment that Jesus identified as the "first and greatest commandment"?

Why do you think it is that modern followers of Jesus don't seem to be aware of God's intention to test His people regarding this greatest commandment, and they don't seem to be aware of the method that God would use for this test?

This test seems very closely related to the test that Eve failed when she accepted the new revelation from the amazing miraculous talking serpent, instead of testing the serpent's message using the older instructions previously provided by God. Eve was deceived because she gave more weight to the "new" teaching than to the older instructions of God.

On the other hand, the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 tested the new teachings of the apostle Paul by searching the Old Testament scrolls that were used in Jewish synagogue. The Bereans were commended when they gave the most weight or authority to the older instructions provided by God and used those older instructions to test whether the newer teachings of Paul were true.

The Bereans apparently found that Paul's new teachings were in agreement with the Old Testament scrolls, just as Paul himself later testified about his own beliefs -- "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the prophets" (Acts 24:14) That certainly couldn't be truthfully said by (or about) most of the preachers, teachers and writers who have expounded on Paul's writings during the past 1000 years.

Have we been deceived just as Eve was deceived, by accepting new teachings that disagree with God's older instructions?

June 29, 2020

Are you advocating that Christians should observe the commandments that the Jewish people became aware of through supernatural means?

June 30, 2020

22 hours ago, Gustave said:

Are you advocating that Christians should observe the commandments that the Jewish people became aware of through supernatural means?

I'm advocating that people should read the Scriptures, interpret them responsibly in full context so that the interpretation of each passage agrees with all of God's Word that was given prior to that passage, and then live as actual followers of Jesus according to God's Word as revealed in the life and lifestyle of Jesus.

July 1, 2020

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I'm advocating that people should read the Scriptures, interpret them responsibly in full context so that the interpretation of each passage agrees with all of God's Word that was given prior to that passage, and then live as actual followers of Jesus according to God's Word as revealed in the life and lifestyle of Jesus.

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is.

See the source image

July 1, 2020

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is.

God did give specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means, as you say. Where in Scripture does it say that those laws were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel? According to Scripture the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites was included in the covenant at Sinai. According to Jewish religious history that "mixed multitude" included representatives from each of the 70 nations that comprise the world.

Scripture shows that any non-Israelites living in the land of Israel were expected to learn God's Law of Moses and do it. (Deuteronomy 31:10-13)

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

Can you explain to me the "reasoning" that would stipulate that the followers of Jesus would not actually follow the religion that Jesus himself made (John 1:3) and followed? How could there be "followers" or "disciples" of Jesus who don't actually follow their leader?

Jesus commanded his Israelite disciples to "make disciples of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:18-20). According to the New Testament, Jesus is one with the God of the Old Testament who commanded all the Israelites (including his disciples) to follow the laws and instructions given through Moses. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, and who his disciples claimed that he is, the Books of Moses cannot be excluded from the content encompassed by "all that I have commanded you" which Jesus commanded his disciples to teach to all nations.

The apostle Paul taught that non-Israelite followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11). That fully agrees with the original terms of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 17), of which non-Israelites are heirs (Galatians 3:29), because Jesus is a literal descendant of Abraham who has purchased those he has redeemed. Paul taught that non-Israelites who follow Jesus are no longer alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel but are fellow-citizens (Ephesians 2:12-13, 19).

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that describes a "church" that considers itself separate from Israel? I have not been able to locate any such passage.

July 1, 2020

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is.

I disagree!! Israel has always been or supposed to be an example to all gentiles or the other people in the world, but never did there function! Also he tells his disciples to go and preach to all the world!! Isaiah 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' " And in Acts Paul quotes this from Isaiah, 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' " So the Bible is written for all, not just the Hebrews/Jews!!

July 3, 2020

On 7/1/2020 at 10:12 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

God did give specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means, as you say. Where in Scripture does it say that those laws were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel? According to Scripture the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites was included in the covenant at Sinai. According to Jewish religious history that "mixed multitude" included representatives from each of the 70 nations that comprise the world.

Scripture shows that any non-Israelites living in the land of Israel were expected to learn God's Law of Moses and do it. (Deuteronomy 31:10-13)

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

Can you explain to me the "reasoning" that would stipulate that the followers of Jesus would not actually follow the religion that Jesus himself made (John 1:3) and followed? How could there be "followers" or "disciples" of Jesus who don't actually follow their leader?

Jesus commanded his Israelite disciples to "make disciples of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:18-20). According to the New Testament, Jesus is one with the God of the Old Testament who commanded all the Israelites (including his disciples) to follow the laws and instructions given through Moses. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, and who his disciples claimed that he is, the Books of Moses cannot be excluded from the content encompassed by "all that I have commanded you" which Jesus commanded his disciples to teach to all nations.

The apostle Paul taught that non-Israelite followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11). That fully agrees with the original terms of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 17), of which non-Israelites are heirs (Galatians 3:29), because Jesus is a literal descendant of Abraham who has purchased those he has redeemed. Paul taught that non-Israelites who follow Jesus are no longer alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel but are fellow-citizens (sEphesians 2:12-13, 19).

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that describes a "church" that considers itself separate from Israel? I have not been able to locate any such passage.

That's how valid ceremonial laws come to be known [supernaturally] because man cannot know them by nature [naturally].

Yeah, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" cannot be used to posit what you're saying - in fact Deuteronomy 5, 3 rebuts your position;

Deuteronomy 5,3: The Lord made NOT this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

The law was the contractual part of what the Children of Israel had to comply with - the ceremonial aspects of that law were alien to the fathers of the Jewish people - Adam was ingorant of the kind of sabbath enjoined via Moses as was Noah and everyone else. Later, Scripture describes "the [ CEREMONIAL ] law" as needing to be replaced, set aside. In any even Acts Chapter 15 wouldn't read the way it does if your interpretation was within 1000 miles of the mark. I'm sorry, crypt crawling or grave robbing ceremonial laws is just that - playing with the dead

July 3, 2020

On 7/1/2020 at 2:12 PM, phkrause said:

I disagree!! Israel has always been or supposed to be an example to all gentiles or the other people in the world, but never did there function! Also he tells his disciples to go and preach to all the world!! Isaiah 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' " And in Acts Paul quotes this from Isaiah, 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' " So the Bible is written for all, not just the Hebrews/Jews!!

Exodus 31, 17: It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

If God wanted all nations to observe the ceremonial laws like the sabbath those ceremonial laws wouldn't have been a sign between God and 'the children' of Israel. Notice that Israel [Jacob] was ignorant of any demand or commandment to observe the Sabbath - it didn't exist at that time.

See Deuteronomy 5, 1- 15. Jacob, according to the text, is excluded.

July 4, 2020

8 hours ago, Gustave said:

f God wanted all nations to observe the ceremonial laws like the sabbath

The Sabbath was not a ceremonial law!! The Sabbath was created at Creation! There were no Hebrews at that time??

July 4, 2020

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

The Sabbath was not a ceremonial law!! The Sabbath was created at Creation! There were no Hebrews at that time??

You (or anyone else) do not know, by conscious means, any ceremonial law - you become aware of those types of laws by supernatural means.

Ezekiel 20,5: And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the Lord your God; In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands: Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt. Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them."

God "chose" Jacob's children to be special among the nations. The Scripture says God gave (not reminded) the offspring of Jacob God's statues, Judgements AND Sabbaths. The Sabbaths were defined to be a sign between God and the children of Israel. Here it is another way;

Deuteronomy 5,1: And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

The covenant spoken of above is defined clearly in Exodus:

Exodus 34, 28: And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Your posturing of an argument that requires the Sabbath being given before Scripture explicitly says it was is akin to arguing that Columbus day has been celebrated / observed every year as a Federal Holiday since October 12 1492 [Julian] when history shows it wasn't a Federal holiday until 1968. This is one thing I'll have to admit I just don't get about SDA theology.

On one hand SDA's claim that when the Bible says in Colossians 2 that Christians need not worry about Judaizers that because its plural its not the Sabbath day yet Ezekiel 20 clearly shows that the weekly sabbath is part of that plural.

July 4, 2020

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yeah, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" cannot be used to posit what you're saying

Hi Gustave,
Your responses are rather random.

You don't seem to pay attention to the context of passages. For example, I've previously explained to you in detail the context of Deuteronomy 5:3 showing conclusively that more than two-thirds of the Israelites that Moses was talking to had not been present at Mt. Sinai when the Covenant was made. For nearly all the Israelites that Moses was speaking to in Deut chapter 5, it actually was their fathers or grandfathers that God had made the covenant with, so we know that the meaning that you are trying to get from Deut 5:3, is not the meaning that would have been understood by Moses or by the Israelites who were listening to Moses when he spoke that verse.

Those who read and understand the Scriptures will not be fooled by your assertions.

July 4, 2020

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Hi Gustave,
Your responses are rather random.

You don't seem to pay attention to the context of passages. For example, I've previously explained to you in detail the context of Deuteronomy 5:3 showing conclusively that more than two-thirds of the Israelites that Moses was talking to had not been present at Mt. Sinai when the Covenant was made. For nearly all the Israelites that Moses was speaking to in Deut chapter 5, it actually was their fathers or grandfathers that God had made the covenant with, so we know that the meaning that you are trying to get from Deut 5:3, is not the meaning that would have been understood by Moses or by the Israelites who were listening to Moses when he spoke that verse.

Those who read and understand the Scriptures will not be fooled by your assertions.

The context is simply that when you live within the authority of another group you follow their laws - this is no different than if you moved from India to the U.S. You would find yourself falling under Federal Law, the Law of the State, the County and City. Nothing more than that going on there. That's the context.

The Forefathers were told that the promise would be realized through their seed [later] - being told that through you down the road something would happen does not mean it happened to you and that's where you need to push this to get where you're going.

I'm thinking you have that backwards Ron, Scripture says the Covenant was not made with their Forefathers & that's accurate - it was foretold or promised to the Forefathers and realized at the point of Moses.

July 4, 2020

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

The context is simply that when you live within the authority of another group you follow their laws - this is no different than if you moved from India to the U.S. You would find yourself falling under Federal Law, the Law of the State, the County and City. Nothing more than that going on there. That's the context.

Although recognizing the proper jurisdiction and authority of a passage does play a role in interpreting Scripture, it does not comprise the whole context. To understand the full context of a passage of Scripture a responsible interpreter has to take into account everything that God has revealed prior to each passage that is being interpreted.

You seem to be very selective about which portions of God's Word that you accept as God's Word, giving precedence instead to man-made theories and platitudes (i.e. man-made categories of law, "when in Rome...", etc.) whenever actual Scripture doesn't suit your preferred interpretation. If that happens, then Scripture is being used merely as a tool to bolster a man-made philosophy or world view or to promulgate a man-made religion.

We all have a strong tendency to notice in Scripture only the things that agree with what we already believe. In order to overcome that natural "confirmation bias" we need to be diligent about continually testing our beliefs and assumptions by what is in Scripture, and filtering out whatever beliefs and assumptions are not actually written in Scripture.

I don't think a person who believes that some portions of Scripture are "obsolete" or "not applicable" will be able to understand any subsequent passage of Scripture in full context. When the Bible authors were choosing the words with which to convey God's message to those who would read that message, none of them considered any earlier portions of Scripture to be anything less than the authoritative Word of God.

The apostle Paul was speaking specifically of the Old Testament scrolls when he wrote to Timothy, "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17) Unless a person fully believes what Paul confirmed in this passage regarding the validity, applicability, and authority of the complete Old Testament, how could that person ever hope to really understand what Paul wrote in his epistles?

If you're interested, I'm willing to tell you which parts of the full context you seem to be overlooking. You could show your interest by answering the questions I've asked you earlier in this thread.

July 4, 2020

41 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Although recognizing the proper jurisdiction and authority of a passage does play a role in interpreting Scripture, it does not comprise the whole context. To understand the full context of a passage of Scripture a responsible interpreter has to take into account everything that God has revealed prior to each passage that is being interpreted.

You seem to be very selective about which portions of God's Word that you accept as God's Word, giving precedence instead to man-made theories and platitudes (i.e. man-made categories of law, "when in Rome...", etc.) whenever actual Scripture doesn't suit your preferred interpretation. If that happens, then Scripture is being used merely as a tool to bolster a man-made philosophy or world view or to promulgate a man-made religion.

We all have a strong tendency to notice in Scripture only the things that agree with what we already believe. In order to overcome that natural "confirmation bias" we need to be diligent about continually testing our beliefs and assumptions by what is in Scripture, and filtering out whatever beliefs and assumptions are not actually written in Scripture.

I don't think a person who believes that some portions of Scripture are "obsolete" or "not applicable" will be able to understand any subsequent passage of Scripture in full context. When the Bible authors were choosing the words with which to convey God's message to those who would read that message, none of them considered any earlier portions of Scripture to be anything less than the authoritative Word of God.

The apostle Paul was speaking specifically of the Old Testament scrolls when he wrote to Timothy, "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:15-17) Unless a person fully believes what Paul confirmed in this passage regarding the validity, applicability, and authority of the complete Old Testament, how could that person ever hope to really understand what Paul wrote in his epistles?

If you're interested, I'm willing tell you which parts of the full context you seem to be overlooking. You could show your interest by answering the questions I've asked you earlier in this thread.

I'm being selective about the context.

See: Exodus 12, 49 & Leviticus 24, 22

"Ye shall have ONE MANNER OF LAW, as well for the Stanger, as for one of YOUR own country".

&

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn and to the stranger that sojourneth among you".

So yes, if you joined a gypsy caravan and were traveling through the States, while you were inside each State you would be subject to the laws of that state, as well as the laws of the County and City of that State. This is exactly what was going on with the "strangers" who were "on the road" with the Children of Israel. As you can see, I'm not the one who is taking indecent liberty with the context at all - you are.

Paul was speaking of the Septuagint - the Scriptures the Jews at that time appealed to / read from.

Check 2 Peter 3, 16 - St. Peter understood Paul's writing to be Scripture - this is why 1 Thessalonians 2, 13 says that the Apostolic Authorities words WERE the Word of God. I realize that this may fly in the face of your existing beliefs and preferred interpretation - but if you're honest you will have to address this issue given that Paul said what he is recorded as saying in Acts 15.

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

Yes, I can. Matthew 8, 5-13.

“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

That's telling me that when everything is done there will be more individuals OUTSIDE Israel that are saved than there will be "in Israel". Of course I'm interested in understanding what your context for this Scripture is as well as several others.

July 4, 2020

Some other texts that show there were people outside of Israel that Jesus considered "already His".

"And other sheep I have, which are NOT of this fold, them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd".... John 10, 16

This one fold is "The Church", which is the Body of Christ. 1st Corinthians 12, 12 -27, Eph 1, 22-23 & Colo 1, 24.

According to Scripture there was no longer to be Jew or Gentile.

"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". Galatians 3, 28

So, as Scripture says, Salvation came from the Jews because that's the people the promised Messiah would come from - its quickly stated that the time had come where it no longer mattered what one called him / herself AND that going to the Temple didn't have the same juice it used to. These are Scriptural facts.

Gentiles didn't have to become Jews to become Christians because they were already Jesus' Sheep even before being called. These Gentiles were following the general broad laws of God and were acceptable to Him - all the while worshipping Zeus and eating roasted hogs and perhaps even "Oysters". Romans 2, 12 -29

What you are suggesting about Gentiles becoming essentially Jews reminds me of an old Blur song from way back in the day lol.

July 11, 2020

On 7/4/2020 at 11:23 AM, Gustave said:

I'm being selective about the context.

Yes, indeed you are. That is very apparent.

On the one hand you acknowledge that a person traveling with Israel would be subject to the same laws as Israel:

On 7/4/2020 at 11:23 AM, Gustave said:

See: Exodus 12, 49 & Leviticus 24, 22

"Ye shall have ONE MANNER OF LAW, as well for the Stanger, as for one of YOUR own country".

&

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn and to the stranger that sojourneth among you".

So yes, if you joined a gypsy caravan and were traveling through the States, while you were inside each State you would be subject to the laws of that state, as well as the laws of the County and City of that State. This is exactly what was going on with the "strangers" who were "on the road" with the Children of Israel.

But on the other hand, when the Scripture says explicitly that those who were formerly outside of Israel are with Israel you totally ignore that part:

On 7/4/2020 at 11:23 AM, Gustave said:

Yes, I can. Matthew 8, 5-13.

“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

That's telling me that when everything is done there will be more individuals OUTSIDE Israel that are saved than there will be "in Israel". Of course I'm interested in understanding what your context for this Scripture is as well as several others.

Notice that the verse you quoted explicitly says that those who come from the east and west will be "with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and they will be feasting "in the kingdom of heaven". Obviously, these people from the east and west are going to be familiar with several concepts that, in your words, "were communicated outside of reason". Reason would tell us that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead and will not be feasting. It would require knowledge gained by "supernatural means" to show up at the feast Jesus spoke of. Reason does not tell us about the existence of a "kingdom of heaven", yet these people who come from the east and west are feasting "in the kingdom of heaven", which is a concept that requires knowledge gained by "supernatural means", knowledge that is gained by reading the Scriptures written by Israelites, Scriptures that were already in existence when Jesus spoke the words you quoted from Matthew. These people from the east and the west are apparently not surprised by the existence of the feast, the existence of "the kingdom of heaven", or by the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because Jesus says they "will take their places at the feast". These people would also not be surprised that the kingdom has a King, that the King sits on a throne, or that the kingdom has laws that have been given by that King and have been communicated by the "supernatural means" that are available to the King of the "kingdom of heaven". They would also not be surprised to find those laws written in the Scriptures provided to the Israelites by the King of the "kingdom of heaven".

God testified of Abraham, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5) Although Abraham lived before God's laws were written down by Moses, the author of Genesis makes no distinction between God's laws that Abraham kept and the laws that were later known to the author of Genesis himself as God's laws. Look up in Scripture all the places where God speaks of "my law" and "my laws". We find that prior to Sinai God tested the Israelites with manna regarding "my law" concerning Sabbath (Exodus 16:4 & 28). When speaking of the promise regarding the throne that Jesus will receive (Luke 1:32), King David specified that God's statutes and commandments are written in the Law of Moses and are a condition of the promise concerning his throne (1 Kings 2:3) and Solomon confirmed that those laws that King David kept and are written in the Law of Moses are referred to by God as "my law". (2 Chronicles 6:16) We also find in Jeremiah 31:33 that God promises to put "my law" within those who participate in the new covenant.

The apostle Paul teaches that not all of Abraham's descendants are children according to the promise --the promise that Sarah would have a son-- but that it is only the descendants of Isaac and Jacob that were Abraham's children of promise (Romans 9). So according to Paul in Romans 9 the descendants of Abraham who are the children "according to promise" are Israelites (those descended from Isaac and Jacob/Israel). So when Paul says of the non-Israelite followers of Jesus in Galatians 3:29, "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise," Paul is teaching that if you are Christ's then you have in fact become Israelites (which makes sense according to the terms of the covenant we inherit from Abraham because we have been purchased into the household of Jesus, who is an Israelite). Jesus said, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did." And God said, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)

So the "many" who "will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" are not separate from the Israelites living according to different laws than Jesus gave to the Israelites and to his disciples to teach to "all nations".

July 12, 2020

On 7/4/2020 at 11:23 AM, Gustave said:

Paul was speaking of the Septuagint - the Scriptures the Jews at that time appealed to / read from.

It's true that the Greek-speaking Jews did read the Septuagint. But the story in Acts 6:1 lets us know that among the followers of Jesus the Greek-speaking Jews were a minority whose widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution. The majority of the believing Jews were Hebrew-speaking. The historical context tells us why. At the time of the Maccabees the Jews who adopted the Greek language and culture had been traitors both to God and to the Jewish nation. The Greek ruler had outlawed the Jewish religion and the Greeks brutally killed faithful Jewish men, women and children. The Greeks also desecrated God's Temple in Jerusalem with pagan idols and pig sacrifices. Because the Greek-speaking Jews had cooperated with the enemy, the ensuing generations of faithful Jews would have avoided using Greek as their primary language. The memory of what the Greeks had done was kept alive each year as the Jews celebrated the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) to commemorate the victory of the faithful Jews over the Greeks and the re-dedication of the Temple. The participation of Jesus at Temple at the Feast of Dedication is mentioned in John 10:22-23.

The predominance of Hebrew-speaking among the Jews is also shown in the story of the arrest of the apostle Paul in Acts 21:37-40. The Roman officer is surprised that Paul spoke Greek. Then Paul addressed the crowd of angry Jews in the Hebrew language.

July 12, 2020

On 7/4/2020 at 3:48 PM, Gustave said:

This one fold is "The Church", which is the Body of Christ. 1st Corinthians 12, 12 -27, Eph 1, 22-23 & Colo 1, 24.

You seem to envision "The Church" as something distinct or separate from Israel. That's not unusual for modern Christians, but that idea would have been completely foreign to the followers of Jesus during New Testament times.

Earlier you mentioned the Septuagint as the version of Scripture that Greek-speaking Jews read and appealed to during New Testament times. The Septuagint is an essential part of the context for any part of the New Testament that was written in Greek, because the writers or translators (and readers) of the Greek New Testament would have grown up reading regularly from the Old Testament in Greek (the Septuagint). The Greek words that are used in the Septuagint already had an established meaning before they were written into the Greek New Testament.

To understand the New Testament meaning of the English word "church", we would need to look at the Septuagint to find out the contextual meaning of the Greek word ekklesia, from which "church" has been translated.

In the Septuagint the first mention of the ekklesia is found in Deuteronomy 4:10 where Moses refers to "the day of the assembly (ekklesia)" referring to the specific day that the whole congregation of Israelites assembled at Mt. Sinai to hear God speak the words of the covenant. Here is that full passage from the Bretton English translation of the Septuagint:

9 Take heed to thyself, and keep thy heart diligently: forget not any of the things, which thine eyes have seen, and let them not depart from thine heart all the days of thy life; and thou shalt teach thy sons and thy sons’ sons, 10 even the things that happened in the day in which ye stood before the Lord our God in Choreb in the day of the assembly [ekklesia]; for the Lord said to me, Gather the people to me, and let them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days which they live upon the earth, and they shall teach their sons. 11 And ye drew nigh and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire up to heaven: there was darkness, blackness, and tempest. 12 And the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire a voice of words, which ye heard; and ye saw no likeness, only ye heard a voice. 13 And he announced to you his covenant, which he commanded you to keep, even the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two tables of stone.

That was the ekklesia at its inception. If we used the common [mis]translation of ekklesia from our New Testaments in English we could say that the giving of the law at Mt Sinai was the day of 'The Church" (ekklesia) -- the day "The Church" first existed. The word ekklesia in its various forms is used 154 times in the Septuagint. Throughout the Septuagint the primary meaning of ekklesia (with very few exceptions) is a large assembly of Israelites gathered together, usually at Mt. Sinai, or at the tabernacle, or at the Temple. The people who first read the New Testament would have understood ekklesia in that context provided by the Septuagint. They never would have thought that the ekklesia was somehow separate from the Israelites or separate from the covenant that was made on "the day of the ekklesia".

When William Tyndale was translating the New Testament into English he refused to use the word "church" in his translation because he was well aware of what ekklesia meant in the Old Testament Septuagint and knew that translating the word ekklesia as "church" would give English-speaking readers of the New Testament a totally wrong idea. A few years after Tyndale was executed for his translation work, King James specifically directed the translators of the KJV to restore the traditional words like "church" and "bishop" in the new KJV (Authorized) translation they would be making. Sadly, most subsequent English translations have used the traditional words of the KJV rather than the more accurate wording of Tyndale's translation. As a result we now have a "church" that thinks it is separate from the ekklesia of Israel.

July 12, 2020

23 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Yes, indeed you are. That is very apparent.

On the one hand you acknowledge that a person traveling with Israel would be subject to the same laws as Israel:

But on the other hand, when the Scripture says explicitly that those who were formerly outside of Israel are with Israel you totally ignore that part:

Notice that the verse you quoted explicitly says that those who come from the east and west will be "with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and they will be feasting "in the kingdom of heaven". Obviously, these people from the east and west are going to be familiar with several concepts that, in your words, "were communicated outside of reason". Reason would tell us that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead and will not be feasting. It would require knowledge gained by "supernatural means" to show up at the feast Jesus spoke of. Reason does not tell us about the existence of a "kingdom of heaven", yet these people who come from the east and west are feasting "in the kingdom of heaven", which is a concept that requires knowledge gained by "supernatural means", knowledge that is gained by reading the Scriptures written by Israelites, Scriptures that were already in existence when Jesus spoke the words you quoted from Matthew. These people from the east and the west are apparently not surprised by the existence of the feast, the existence of "the kingdom of heaven", or by the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because Jesus says they "will take their places at the feast". These people would also not be surprised that the kingdom has a King, that the King sits on a throne, or that the kingdom has laws that have been given by that King and have been communicated by the "supernatural means" that are available to the King of the "kingdom of heaven". They would also not be surprised to find those laws written in the Scriptures provided to the Israelites by the King of the "kingdom of heaven".

God testified of Abraham, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5) Although Abraham lived before God's laws were written down by Moses, the author of Genesis makes no distinction between God's laws that Abraham kept and the laws that were later known to the author of Genesis himself as God's laws. Look up in Scripture all the places where God speaks of "my law" and "my laws". We find that prior to Sinai God tested the Israelites with manna regarding "my law" concerning Sabbath (Exodus 16:4 & 28). When speaking of the promise regarding the throne that Jesus will receive (Luke 1:32), King David specified that God's statutes and commandments are written in the Law of Moses and are a condition of the promise concerning his throne (1 Kings 2:3) and Solomon confirmed that those laws that King David kept and are written in the Law of Moses are referred to by God as "my law". (2 Chronicles 6:16) We also find in Jeremiah 31:33 that God promises to put "my law" within those who participate in the new covenant.

The apostle Paul teaches that not all of Abraham's descendants are children according to the promise --the promise that Sarah would have a son-- but that it is only the descendants of Isaac and Jacob that were Abraham's children of promise (Romans 9). So according to Paul in Romans 9 the descendants of Abraham who are the children "according to promise" are Israelites (those descended from Isaac and Jacob/Israel). So when Paul says of the non-Israelite followers of Jesus in Galatians 3:29, "And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise," Paul is teaching that if you are Christ's then you have in fact become Israelites (which makes sense according to the terms of the covenant we inherit from Abraham because we have been purchased into the household of Jesus, who is an Israelite). Jesus said, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did." And God said, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)

So the "many" who "will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" are not separate from the Israelites living according to different laws than Jesus gave to the Israelites and to his disciples to teach to "all nations".

You are missing the caveat the Bible clearly explains - specifically that since the Resurrection there is no Jew, Gentile, slave or free - humanity is now considered ONE in Christ.

You appear to be forgetting that a specific Covenant was made with Noah and THAT Covenant included ALL humanity (Genesis 9, 9-11) for the duration of the earth. The Covenant made with "The Children of Israel" did not include all humanity or even the forefathers of Israel as Deuteronomy 5, 3 clearly says:

"The Lord our God made a Covenant with US in Horeb. NOT WITH OUR FATHERS DID THE LORD MAKE THIS COVENANT, BUT WITH US, WHO ARE ALL OF US HERE ALIVE THIS DAY".

This omits Abraham as is clearly seen:

"Look to the rock from which YOU [Israel] were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look unto Abraham your Father and to Sarah who bore you for when he was but ONE I called him, and I blessed him and made him many". Isaiah 51, 3

"THIS COVENANT" is identified clearly in Exodus 25, 16:

"And you shall put into the Ark THE COVENANT WHICH I SHALL GIVE YOU".

It's additionally clarified that these "COMMANDMENTS" are specifically for the son's of Israel:

"And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the Ark, and in the Ark you shall put THE COVENANT I SHALL GIVE YOU. There I shall meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two Cherubim that are upon the Ark of the Covenant , I will speak with you of all that I will give you IN COMMANDMENT FOR THE SONS OF ISRAEL". Exodus 25,21

I'd say that's pretty clear direct Old Testament evidence that the Covenant given at Horeb was specific to the Sons of Israel and didn't predate them. Of course there are elements of that law that obviously did that falls into the moral or natural category but certainly not ceremonial law that requires supernatural communication. Christians are not obligated to become ceremonial law abiding Son's of Israel to benefit from the Salvation that came from the Jews.

God, speaking to Abraham, said:

""And by you all the families of the earth SHALL BLESS THEMSELVES". Genesis 12, 2

This is future tense - something that WILL EVENTUALLY HAPPEN.

The New Testament is explicit that Christians are not to become Jews in the sense of ceremonial laws (laws of Moses).

Philippians 3, 2: Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the circumcision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Romans 14, 14: I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.

Now, I'll more directly address your point with the following Scripture.

Ephesians 2, 13 : But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"

There were "commandments CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES" that expired, were set aside. Ezekiel 20 is quite clear that "the Sabbath" was understood to be a statute / ordinance. Therefore, working on the Sabbath or going to a football game is just as permissible as conducting those same activities on any other day of the week. Obviously the Party of the Circumcision would take issue with what I'm saying but St. Paul doesn't.

July 12, 2020

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

You seem to envision "The Church" as something distinct or separate from Israel. That's not unusual for modern Christians, but that idea would have been completely foreign to the followers of Jesus during New Testament times.

Earlier you mentioned the Septuagint as the version of Scripture that Greek-speaking Jews read and appealed to during New Testament times. The Septuagint is an essential part of the context for any part of the New Testament that was written in Greek, because the writers or translators (and readers) of the Greek New Testament would have grown up reading regularly from the Old Testament in Greek (the Septuagint). The Greek words that are used in the Septuagint already had an established meaning before they were written into the Greek New Testament.

To understand the New Testament meaning of the English word "church", we would need to look at the Septuagint to find out the contextual meaning of the Greek word ekklesia, from which "church" has been translated.

In the Septuagint the first mention of the ekklesia is found in Deuteronomy 4:10 where Moses refers to "the day of the assembly (ekklesia)" referring to the specific day that the whole congregation of Israelites assembled at Mt. Sinai to hear God speak the words of the covenant. Here is that full passage from the Bretton English translation of the Septuagint:

9 Take heed to thyself, and keep thy heart diligently: forget not any of the things, which thine eyes have seen, and let them not depart from thine heart all the days of thy life; and thou shalt teach thy sons and thy sons’ sons, 10 even the things that happened in the day in which ye stood before the Lord our God in Choreb in the day of the assembly [ekklesia]; for the Lord said to me, Gather the people to me, and let them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days which they live upon the earth, and they shall teach their sons. 11 And ye drew nigh and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire up to heaven: there was darkness, blackness, and tempest. 12 And the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire a voice of words, which ye heard; and ye saw no likeness, only ye heard a voice. 13 And he announced to you his covenant, which he commanded you to keep, even the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two tables of stone.

That was the ekklesia at its inception. If we used the common [mis]translation of ekklesia from our New Testaments in English we could say that the giving of the law at Mt Sinai was the day of 'The Church" (ekklesia) -- the day "The Church" first existed. The word ekklesia in its various forms is used 154 times in the Septuagint. Throughout the Septuagint the primary meaning of ekklesia (with very few exceptions) is a large assembly of Israelites gathered together, usually at Mt. Sinai, or at the tabernacle, or at the Temple. The people who first read the New Testament would have understood ekklesia in that context provided by the Septuagint. They never would have thought that the ekklesia was somehow separate from the Israelites or separate from the covenant that was made on "the day of the ekklesia".

When William Tyndale was translating the New Testament into English he refused to use the word "church" in his translation because he was well aware of what ekklesia meant in the Old Testament Septuagint and knew that translating the word ekklesia as "church" would give English-speaking readers of the New Testament a totally wrong idea. A few years after Tyndale was executed for his translation work, King James specifically directed the translators of the KJV to restore the traditional words like "church" and "bishop" in the new KJV (Authorized) translation they would be making. Sadly, most subsequent English translations have used the traditional words of the KJV rather than the more accurate wording of Tyndale's translation. As a result we now have a "church" that thinks it is separate from the ekklesia of Israel.

Israel was invited into "THE CHURCH" as much as the Gentiles were invited into it. Difference being that it was easier for the Gentiles than it was for the Jews because of their proclivity to make a temporary law into an idol and worship it. Gentiles worshipped false God's and so did the Jews. I would suggest reading Acts Chapter 15 again.

July 13, 2020

God did give specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means, as you say. Where in Scripture does it say that those laws were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel? According to Scripture the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites was included in the covenant at Sinai. According to Jewish religious history that "mixed multitude" included representatives from each of the 70 nations that comprise the world.

I don't think so:

Leviticus 22, 8: That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith; I am the Lord. They [ Children of Israel ] shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they [ Children of Israel] bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they [ Children of Israel ] profane it: I the Lord do sanctify them [ Children of Israel ]. There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.

Notice the words "they" & "them" - does it sound like the stranger was part of "them"?

Now, notice the following directions that come from "God" pertaining to this specific commandment.

Deuteronomy 14, 21: Ye [ Children of Israel ] shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself: thou [ Children of Israel ] shalt give it unto the stranger [ NOT a child of Israel ] that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God.

You can't get more direct than that - a 'Child of Israel' was forbidden to eat or even touch something that had died of itself or if it had been killed by a wild beast or died of itself.

BUT a Child of Israel can GIVE it or SELL IT to a stranger within the gates and the stranger is welcome to hammer it down. As the text says, the Israelite COULDN'T do this because THEY were a holy people unto God - exactly as Scripture said they were until all these ceremonial commandments were destroyed by Christ - after that one act there was no longer a difference between a Jew or a Gentile - Slave or free - all were ONE in Christ.

"

July 13, 2020

The standard for determining the meaning of a Greek Biblical word is the English translation that is commonly cited as Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon(A & G) . As a Lexicon, A&G uses as sources for its definitions the Bible, early Christian literature, the Apostolic Fathers, the LXX, and more. As a Lexicon, it differs from a concordance which only considers Biblical use. The Biblical student will want to remember that in any Biblical translation, words have common meanings associated with the common understandings of the people in that day.

A&G provides the following meanings for the Greek word transliterated as "ekklesia" and translated as "church."

* Assembly, such as a regularly summoned political body.

* Gathering, meeting:

* Congregation of Israelites.

* Christian church or congregation.

* House Churches or congregations.

* Universal Church

* Local church or congregation.

On a personal basis is, my understanding of the central meaning of that word is: "A group of people, called to come out of a larger body to form a smaller group united in a central purpose."

.

July 14, 2020

On 7/13/2020 at 5:10 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

The standard for determining the meaning of a Greek Biblical word is the English translation that is commonly cited as Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon(A & G) . As a Lexicon, A&G uses as sources for its definitions the Bible, early Christian literature, the Apostolic Fathers, the LXX, and more. As a Lexicon, it differs from a concordance which only considers Biblical use. The Biblical student will want to remember that in any Biblical translation, words have common meanings associated with the common understandings of the people in that day.

A&G provides the following meanings for the Greek word transliterated as "ekklesia" and translated as "church."

* Assembly, such as a regularly summoned political body.

* Gathering, meeting:

* Congregation of Israelites.

* Christian church or congregation.

* House Churches or congregations.

* Universal Church

* Local church or congregation.

On a personal basis is, my understanding of the central meaning of that word is: "A group of people, called to come out of a larger body to form a smaller group united in a central purpose."

.

I agree with this.

Initially "The Church" was comprised of Jew's who accepted Jesus as The Christ. This was, as you say, a group of people called to come out of a larger body (Judaism).

This group "assembled themselves" [people who believed in Christ be they Jewish or otherwise ] together on the 1st day of the week.

Hebrews 10,25
1st Corinthians 16, 1-2
Acts 20, 7

Hebrews 10, 26 says its a sin for Christians to not assemble themselves together & 1 Corinthians 16, 1 says that the early Church "ordered" a Christian assembly to take place every Sunday. Act's 20, 7 shows the Apostles were gathering together on Sunday when they were together. Secular history that was recorded during the time it was illegal (and very dangerous) to be a Christian observed that Christians were assembling on the 1st day of the week for a "ritual" involving bread and wine. Hmmm, it seems reasonable to conclude from the Biblical and secular evidence that:

1) The Apostles did not fail God's test

&

2) The tradition of assembling on the 1st day of the week was a Tradition "ordered" by the early Church (as in the Apostolic Church).

July 14, 2020

I decided to check out Gustave's use of the Biblical texts. In doing so, I have referenced both the NIV and The Catholic Bible: Personal Study Edition.

* Hebrews 10:25: No mention as to the 1st day of the week and not implied by Gustave.

* I Corinthians 16:1-2: No mention of meeting to worship, Simply a day to do one's book keeping and set aside the money to be given to the author of this Biblical book when he arrived.

* Acts 20:7: The one verse which which mentions the 1st Day of the week. It does not state that this was their common day to meet together. It only tells us that It was a special meeting in that Paul addressed them just prior to begin his journey the next day. It is not a sin to have a worship service on any day of the week. Yes, it states that they "broke bread.' That term could imply a celebration of the Lord's Supper, Or it could imply that Paul was a very long speaker and they all had a meal together.

In any case, that one verse does not demonstrate conclusive support for Gustave's positon.

Sign In

Did the Apostles Fail God's Test regarding the Greatest Commnadment?

Recommended Posts

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Gustave

Ron Amnsn

Gustave

Ron Amnsn

phkrause

Gustave

Gustave

phkrause

Gustave

Ron Amnsn

Gustave

Ron Amnsn

Gustave

Gustave

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Gustave

Gustave

Gustave

Gregory Matthews

Gustave

Gregory Matthews

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity