There are a lot of objections to get through and I hope to answer them by God's grace. Let's take a look.
"Does Ephesians 2:12 say you're still a gentile, still out of Israel? How about Numbers 15:15-16. Are you equal before The Lord with an Israelite, or is God a respecter of persons? Does it not say here that the foreigner and the Native Israelite have the same law and status? How about Leviticus 24:22. Try as you might to escape it, it's there. The yoke their fathers couldn't endure was using the Law for salvation. God never placed that yoke on anyone, since salvation was by grace through faith since Abraham back in Genesis 15:6."
Let's look at Ephesians 2
"11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."
All the word Gentile means is non Jew, Whether you are a Christian or not, you can be called a Gentile. The Gentiles being grafted into the olive tree does NOT change their status as Gentiles, the only change that occurs is that they are no longer pagan idolaters or atheists and agnostic. The context further shows that the Jews and Gentiles are united in one faith if they turn to Jesus Christ:
"14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit."
Paul himself makes a point that that Jews don't cease to be Jews and Gentiles don't cease to be Gentiles.
"Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
The one here refers to one in Christ as to salvation, be you a Jew or a Gentile (Or Greek in this particular translation), you are saved by Jesus' blood, the cross and are resurrected at the end of days. It matters not if you are a Jew or a Gentile, provided you have turned from idols to serve the living God himself.
Let's now look at the context of Numbers 15:
"15 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”"
The context itself pertains to how Old Testament is to function, it is not referring to how the church functions under the New covenant. The text in numbers refers to what Gentiles or the strangers when they desire to live among the Jews in the land or where the Jews are currently living.
A similar point is said of Leviticus 24:
"17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. 22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” 23 So Moses spoke to the people of Israel, and they brought out of the camp the one who had cursed and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses."
Again, This pertains to how the people of Israel were to function in the Old Testament.
The law itself wasn't bad, but Israel failed to keep it. The Gentiles were freed from the law of Moses by Jesus' own fulfillment of the law of God.
"The ruling in Acts 15 continues to Acts 15:21. The reason Gentiles only had a few *necessary* rules to follow was that there were synagogues for them to learn the rest of the Torah in after they had started following the restrictions in Acts 15:20. It was clear that since Cornelius was accepted by the Holy Spirit without circumcision or works, one didn't have to do anything other than have faith in Jesus to be saved. Acts 15:1 was thus addressed as heresy by that fact and by the witness of Abraham's righteousness in Genesis. The Pharisees among believers (different from certain men because they are called believers by the Bible) wanted to get the Gentiles to adhere immediately to circumcision and the entire law of Moses (Acts 15:5). That would've been too much for a new believer to bear, and none of them had to deal with any of that, so James decided that it would be made easy for the Gentiles turning to God, by giving them a few easy prohibitions, and letting them figure out the rest at the synagogues around them."
I speak on the Acts 15 council: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-does-acts-15-teach-does-it-teach.html
"Unfortunately, today, very few Christians even do well with those basic prohibitions. Many eat blood, are perfectly fine with meat from Halal and other idol ceremonies, and engage in some form of sexual immorality (such as divorce followed by remarriage). Clearly these weren't the only rules, because things like stealing and murder weren't mentioned. The reason such things weren't mentioned was that they were thought of as "common sense" or "basic morality", which virtually every person has, even though the Law spells them out. As for sexual immorality, the Law defines such, and it can be difficult to figure out what counts without it (for example, homosexuality, sex with a woman on her period, and premarital sex with a virgin you don't intend to marry are implied to be sins there, but there are a wide range of sexual situations one would need to figure out). If the Gentiles were required to do the Law for salvation, or get circumcised, it would be a massive stumbling block few would undergo. If they had to do the whole law for fellowship purposes immediately after being saved, it would be no good, because they would quickly feel overwhelmed by all these new prohibitions. The ruling was for them to have a few relatively easy commands to follow at first, aside from common sense, and pick up the rest later. That's why the four prohibitions are things from the Law."
I have recently penned an article on 1 Corinthians 8: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/1-corinthians-8-meat-offered-to-idols.html
See again also about Acts 15 in the article above.
Here is also a comment in a previous article I wrote on Acts 15:
"Another point made by the apologist is that it is NOT just the 4 things mentioned that are forbidden and that it cannot be used as a pretext for let's say to murder. Very true, Acts 15 itself doesn't address the subject of murder and murder is wrong anyway, it's carried over into the New Testament writings, people who don't repent of murder will not go to heaven." http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/what-does-acts-15-teach-does-it-teach.html
The point is it was a given to the New Testament church that stealing and murder was wrong, regardless of the New Testament writings being penned at the time or not. There was common sense and basic morality found in that very council. The whole point of the council was to see which of the 613 laws apply to Gentiles now that they believe in the God of Israel and need I remind you, JESUS' JEWISH APOSTLES were the ones to determine this.
"The New Covenant doesn't involve the Law changing, but involves the Law being written on our hearts: Jeremiah 31:31-34."
"31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”"
This particular covenant will be different to the Mosaic covenant. It is still made with the Jews and it does have the law of God written on their hearts, with the Gentiles being grafted in, but not necessarily the entire Torah is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. It's a covenant that is not like the one made with their fathers.
"Legalism used to mean works salvation instead of grace. Now it just seems to mean following God's commandments (1 John 5:2-3). Interesting how adaptive this buzzword is, that it attacks Jesus' very doctrine (Matthew 7:20-23, Matthew 5:17-20) and gets away with it. It's now up there with 'tolerance' for how quickly its meaning changes."
Matthew 5:17-20 I comment on here in these papers:
Furthermore, Even if you are not teaching legalism, you are not supposed to be putting Gentile believers under the Torah, you have no right to do that.
"Japheth3 August 2014 at 17:14
Even if the resurrection was a verification for a true prophet , no prophet can change the eternal law we received on mount sinai by moses and suppose to forever keep (deu 29:29). The prophets came to strengthen moses law throughout the bible not to alter and change the message and commandments . Not to abolish the laws of circumcision shabbes diet laws etc.. like yeshua did eventually!
Trev of Economia9 August 2015 at 04:34
You're right. The problem is that Christians have a poor understanding of what Jesus said or did. Many of them think He did away with the Law, and that He did indeed turn Jews and Gentiles away from the way God commanded Israel. The problem is that it's based on false witnesses who were set up by the Pharisees (Acts 7:13-15) and distortion a of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-17). Jesus even said you shouldn't even think He came to do away with the Law, and that not a joy or tittle would disappear from it until Heaven and Earth have disappeared (Matthew 5:17-20). "
What section of Acts 7:13-15 even says what you are saying?
"13 And on the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers,"
This might be a mistake on his part, I am not sure what section he is talking about.
I have already commented on Matthew 5:17 above in the papers I linked to.
"What happened was that a faith headed by Jews became headed by Gentiles around 66 AD, when James was killed, and after the fall of the second temple, antisemitism picked up, to the point that people who knew the Apostles disregarded the things they were told by them and despised Jewish people and anything ostensibly Jewish in the Bible, the Law especially. Through their commentaries, they invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine, who dies to do away with the law given by God through Moses, who does away with Israel and creates this new thing called the Church. God wouldn't give ressurection followed by ascension to a prophet sent to test you, but His Holy one would not see corruption (Psalm 16:8-11)."
Anti-semiticism and "disregarding" the Old Testament law are not closely connected. A hatred of the Jewish feasts is certainly a problem and that is different from acknowledging the feasts as good but not embracing it simply because they were never exhorted to in the New Testament.
Just because the church later became anti-semitic later in it's history, it does NOT mean it is connected to the church allowing the consumption of foods once forbidden in the Torah.
To say that "Through their commentaries, they invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine, who dies to do away with the law given by God through Moses, who does away with Israel and creates this new thing called the Church" is a rash generalisation.
A church is simply a congregation, that's it, Nothing harmful and Jesus said "On this rock i'll build my CHURCH", so Jesus had no problem using that term. Also, saying that we invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine is a lie.
We didn't invent that Jesus. The fact is, He NEVER put Gentiles under the Mosaic Law and how do we know? because his disciples did not.
Read the first one and it's last paragraph specifically. If you tell Gentiles to practice circumcision and abstain from pork or shellfish, while at the same time expressing no concern about bodily fluid purity, you are being inconsistent.
I am not saying that you specifically Trev necessarily are doing this, but think about this issue carefully.
Check also Peter's vision in the book of Acts.
Case and point, NO Torah observance is required of Gentiles, period.
"God foreknew that the Gentiles who came into the faith would try to make things easier, so He gave Steven, James, Peter, and even Paul, to do and say things that would affirm the Law in its entirety still standing. The good news for you, as a Jew, is that contrary to what the establishment says, the Moshiach came right on schedule, during the Second Temple period, and fulfilled Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, becoming a valid sacrifice for sins, so that you don't need the temple to atone, or to make up a mitzvah-based salvation scheme God never gave, but all you must do is trust in God with all your heart, soul, and resources, through the blood of God Himself, and you will be saved, and your sins atoned for. The lot of Yom Kippur came up in the left hand for 40 consecutive years, starting on 30 AD, the very year Yeshua died and was ressurected."
The comment was I think directed towards Yehuda Yisrael. I have already pointed out that not every aspect of the Law applies to Gentiles, moving on.
Still I happily agree Jesus came on schedule and fulfilled Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 so I need not labour over them.
"Statistically speaking, the chances of that are less than 1 in a trillion. It's like filling up the Grand Canyon with pennies, and pick one penny I selected earlier and mixed in the rest completely at random. Rabbis have long known that there must be some significance to that, that it meant God no longer accepted their sacrifice, but they could never figure out or admit why. I'm telling you today that the reason why is that there now stands an infinitely more valid sacrifice, a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, who has put His own blood on the ark in the tabernacle of God in Heaven, and that in doing so, there is no more need for daily continual sacrifices, even though when He reigns the world from Jerusalem, He will reinstate them under the Law, and give the true Zadokite priesthood back what was stolen from them by the Hasmoneans. He never did away with the Law, and there are plenty of verses from His own mouth affirming this, which most Christians try their best to explain away. Here are some verses showing the Law stands today. I hope you look at these, share them with your Jewish friends, ponder them, and rejoice when you realize the meaning of this:Matthew 7:15-23, Matthew 5:17-20, Revelation 21:1, Deuteronomy 30:19, Deuteronomy 17:6, Romans 8:2, 1 John 5:2, Romans 3:31, Romans 8:7, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Romans 10:6-7, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 6:53, Acts 6:8-15, Matthew 23:1-3, Acts 15:21, Acts 15:5, Acts 16:3, Acts 21:20-26, Romans 8:7, 1 John 2:4-6, John 14:15, John 1:14 (do you think that anyone would call Jesus the Word if Jesus turned people from it?), 1 John 3:4-10, Revelation 12:17, John 3:19-20, John 8:34, Luke 6:46-49, James 2, James 1:25, Matthew 19:3-9, Luke 1:6"
It's interesting that the Zadokite priesthood is mentioned here because I have written on that subject here in these papers:
Need to look at the texts raised and address them another time.
"In reading these, you will find it self evident that the first Christians, indeed Christ Himself, held to, observed, practiced, and taught the Law as a whole. Gentiles were held to the same standard, not some meager 'Noahide' standard, as the Jews, but instead of being forced to do everything before they converted, they were eased in with the rules of not eating blood, eating animals that weren't slaughtered, not practicing sexual relations forbidden by Torah, and refusing the pollutions of idols as the only hard and fast non-obvious rules (since things like not murdering and not stealing were obvious) (Acts 15:20), with the assption that they would learn the Law at synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15:21)."
Acts 15 I have already addressed previously. But to make a point about the Noahide Standard, That is the standard being conveyed, at least to a certain degree. I say certain degree because as I have mentioned elsewhere, we need to look at the Old and the New Testament to see which law applies to Christians and which do not, a point I have written on this point in the past.
There is a "Noahide" standard if you want to use the phrase. Going back to Genesis 9:
"9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
7 And you,[a] be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”"
Long before the Torah was given to the Jews, there were some basic rules the Gentiles were to live by (Which of course we know later they didn't uphold these). The moral commands were present already, long before the Mosaic law came into play and are still there long after the fulfillment of Mosaic Law through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection.
There is a link back to the Noahide Laws in the Acts 15 council, a basic set of principles, but not limited to four things as mentioned before. Case and point, the Gentiles were NOT called to observe Torah, not even the idea of weaning them into Torah is there. The Jews however are free to keep the Torah in honour of the Messiah but the Gentiles do NOT have that responsibility.
"I'm telling you that Jews and Gentiles alike have lied about Yeshua, each to their own differing levels of destruction (least in the kingdom and not in the kingdom), but it's fine because today you have been enlightened in your reading of this that there is more to the picture than you thought at first, that Yeshua is not only a real candidate for Messiah, but that He is Messiah, and He's the only true candidate for Messiah across all time, since God does not lie about when He schedules these things to pass. You know well that Haggai claimed the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than that of the first, yet rabbis deny this because of the missing Ark and Shekina Glory. What they missed was that instead of dwelling there in a cloud, God walked there in the flesh as a man named Jesus, just as He appeared to Abraham as a man and wrestled with Jacob as a man, and God did as great as to preach at his own Temple a number of times, even driving out people who were buying and selling there on what may have been a Sabbath! Furthermore, the concept of eternal torment in Hell is not a Biblical one, but God makes it plain that all will be made alive in Christ, and His steadfast love endures forever. In other words, even if you refuse Him now, and suffer ages upon ages of pain in Gehenna for your disobedience, He will still hold out the Olive Branch of Salvation for you to grab onto as soon as you're ready, and the wicked can be made righteous even then by truly having faith in Him, so that they will do no more wrong. If you made it this far, you are a true seeker of God and the truth. I hope that you are blessed in your ways, that you find salvation by faith in Yeshuah Messiah, and that you spread the true Gospel that has been hidden in a library almost everyone has, that few actually have searched honestly and diligently to learn from. Shalom"
There is eternal torment in hell in the scripture, there is plenty of evidence for it, but that is another article for another time if the Lord Wills.
Jesus wasn't driving people out of the temple because they were buying and selling on the Sabbath, it doesn't tell us what day it was, but the reason the people were removed from the temple itself was because they were profiteering in the temple and defiling it, something they shouldn't of been doing:
Read Matthew 21:
"10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
"Jesus didn't do away with a sliver of the Law. Jesus didn't even do away with circumcision. Paul didn't either for that matter, but most people who read his writings get confused (2 Peter 3:15-17), think he did, and then project that back on Jesus to find any sort of rationalization to say He did. The love of God is keeping His commandments (1 John 5:2-3). Since many Gentiles don't really like God, with all His rules and the destruction of the Caananites and various peoples in the Torah (erroneously called genocide by even some Christians), they find ways to do away with His commandments. I can guarantee you that if Judaism, with just the Tanakh alone, and no New Testament, was predominantly gentile, we would be looking at the same situation, with most gentile converts claiming the Law to be done away with, based on Isaiah or some other real prophet, who never said any such thing."
The destruction of the Canaanites I agree was not genocide, I can agree with that. Paul doesn't say Gentiles are to observe Torah and there are many reasons WHY that isn't the case as already mentioned in previous papers above. Need I repeat myself?
"Cool. The fact is, God did vindicate Jesus, but not because He broke Deuteronomy 13. He vindicated Jesus because He was innocent of breaking Deuteronomy 13, and His accusations of blasphemy were false because He was indeed God, and God wanted everyone to know He was the real deal. God would not give resurrection to a man claiming to be God if that man wasn't God, and God would not break His own rules (like Deuteronomy 4:2 or Deuteronomy 12:32). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding extra rules to the Torah and for ignoring the rules of the Torah(Mark 7, Matthew 23). They made extra rules about washing hands before eating, and they ignored honoring one's mother and father, justice, and other weighty matters of the Law. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not declare all animals clean, but anecdotally mentioned all food (and only vegetables and the meat of clean animals which are properly prepared are considered food- look up the definition of broma) being cleaned by the digestive system, as if one eats with unclean hands, the uncleanliness gets digested and expelled, and does not enter the heart, but evil words come from the heart, as does all sin. The context had nothing to do with unclean animals. Eating unclean animals goes directly against the Torah, and is thus sin, and an action from the heart, which says to God, "I don't care about this rule." It's similar to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because it's eating something God deemed forbidden."
Yes, eating unclean animals is against the Torah, which Christians are free from observing, a point you and others like you miss, Foods were declared clean for the believers in Christ. I am not repeating this again in this paper.
"The doctrine of the serpent, from the very beginning, has been "has God said" (Genesis 3:1) and "you will not surely die"(Genesis 3:4). Today, it's "God didn't mean that for you" and "it's not sin anymore". We see homosexuals who don't repent using the same rhetoric used by those who choose to eat unclean animals to justify themselves. The New Testament tells us "touch not the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17) and to not practice sexual immorality, but did not do much to clarify either matter, as it assumes we will go back to the Law to see what those are, but people who do either find ways to redefine the terms, and justify themselves. Interestingly, God used the same word (towebah, translated as abomination) in Deuteronomy 14:3, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 to describe both the act of homosexuality and unclean meat (thus the act of eating or touching it). Today the church struggles with both, with hard antinomians supporting homosexuality and soft antinomians supporting eating unclean things. I sincerely hope we can go back to the way of Christ, which has neither, but lovingly offers salvation and fellowship to those who do both, on the condition that they accept Christ and put their faith in Him to free themselves of sin (thus repent and turn away from the acts), and put their faith in His blood and grace to save them from the penalty of sin."
There is no such thing as "hard" or "soft" antinomians, there are anti-nomians period. Furthermore, Those who do not believe in the food laws applying to Christians are not anti-nomians, as said before, We need to look at the New Testament to see which laws apply and which don't. There is an exegetically based teaching that Gentiles need not observe the ceremonial laws of the Torah and there is exegetically based teaching that homosexuality is an abomination under the New Covenant, considering the moral law, minus the death penalty due to Christ's atoning death, apply to us today.
Christians, while we point out the Torah as a whole does not apply, that doesn't mean we cannot look to it to see what applies to us and what doesn't or even read it period. The NT gives us a list of sins not to commit and while sins such as pedophilia aren't mentioned explicitly, our conscience tells us that it is wrong and is sexual immorality that Christians should NOT engage in.
It wasn't just the law that God gave, he also gave man a conscience. While man who have never heard of Christ will be judged by their conscience and what they know to be right, I want to point out that doesn't mean they will be saved by it, since fallen man violates it constantly. Common sense and basic morality are there, whether or not Trev wants to acknowledge that.
Also, See my papers on homosexuality:
Specifically read the first article on Matthew 19.
To those who read this article, Feel free all to study what Trev and I have said and see what the scriptures say.