Thursday 19 February 2015

Addendum to What does Acts 15 teach? Does it teach Torah Observance to Gentiles

There were some texts that I was going to cover to see whether or not they actually teach Mosaic observance is required of Gentiles or not. 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21 were briefly covered, but let's take a look at the other texts:

Amos 3:7
One of the points claimed about this passage is that it is not telling us in advance that any commandments would ever be abolished. Let us look at the context:

"3 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:

2 “You only have I chosen
    of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
    for all your sins.”
3 Do two walk together
    unless they have agreed to do so?
4 Does a lion roar in the thicket
    when it has no prey?
Does it growl in its den
    when it has caught nothing?
5 Does a bird swoop down to a trap on the ground
    when no bait is there?
Does a trap spring up from the ground
    if it has not caught anything?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
    do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
    has not the Lord caused it?
7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing
    without revealing his plan
    to his servants the prophets.
8 The lion has roared—
    who will not fear?
The Sovereign Lord has spoken—
    who can but prophesy?
9 Proclaim to the fortresses of Ashdod
    and to the fortresses of Egypt:
“Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria;
    see the great unrest within her
    and the oppression among her people.”
10 “They do not know how to do right,” declares the Lord,
    “who store up in their fortresses
    what they have plundered and looted.”
11 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“An enemy will overrun your land,
    pull down your strongholds
    and plunder your fortresses.”
12 This is what the Lord says:

“As a shepherd rescues from the lion’s mouth
    only two leg bones or a piece of an ear,
so will the Israelites living in Samaria be rescued,
    with only the head of a bed
    and a piece of fabric[a] from a couch.[b]”
13 “Hear this and testify against the descendants of Jacob,” declares the Lord, the Lord God Almighty.

14 “On the day I punish Israel for her sins,
    I will destroy the altars of Bethel;
the horns of the altar will be cut off
    and fall to the ground.
15 I will tear down the winter house
    along with the summer house;
the houses adorned with ivory will be destroyed
    and the mansions will be demolished,”
declares the Lord."

Israel themselves are being chastised by YHWH. YHWH himself explains that before he acts towards his people, he doesn't hide his plan from them when they are in rebellion and that he always reveals his will to the prophets before enacting the decree. I have already made clear that the Acts 15 council doesn't teach what 119 ministries wants to assert so read that if you have not already done so:

In addition to the previous information I gave, let us observe once again what Acts 15 says after James has finished speaking:

"Acts 15:24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.


Considering the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, the means that God is the one who had his hand in the council's decision and in a way, he has revealed his will and decree for the Gentile nations. My claims and the claims of others who hold to my position are not contradicting the text.

Malachi 3:6
A commonly abused text for several reasons and in this context, is used as a means to justify Torah Observance among Gentiles:

"Malachi 3:6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.

“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’

8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the Lord Almighty."

YHWH is speaking to the people of Israel and chastising them for not tithing and bringing their offerings to him and condemning their apathy in this area. However, this is not a proof text for Christians to observe the Torah under the new covenant.

When it says that YHWH does not change, it is talking about him, his eternal nature. He is not capricious, he still hates sin, he is holy righteous and just, he is all of these things, yesterday, today and forever. His nature doesn't change. HOWEVER, That doesn't mean he cannot change his plans for the New Covenant, and that isn't even brought into question.

For more information on the subject of tithing, read this article here:

Hebrews 13:8
Different verse, same as the first with respect to Jesus, Because Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, He is unchanging in his nature like his Father heaven. Same as before with Malachi 3:6 and of course John 1:1 doesn't assert the point of Torah Observance, as that particular text is a description of Jesus in eternity past with the Father rather than speaking of an utterance of God.

Matthew 23 and Matthew 28:19
Matthew 23 has already been covered in the previous paper but i'll restate my points here as a reminder:
"Jesus is talking specifically to the disciples, namely the 12 and the crowds who have gathered around him. The Acts 15 council doesn't have that connection to those in Moses seat. The thrust of Jesus' point to the disciples is they are to submit to their leaders, listen to their teaching and carry it out, but not emulate how they live, because they are hypocrites and do not practice what they preach. His words in the context of the passage pertain to what was going on at that time. It is also a warning to us Christians against hypocrisy in general. There is nothing to suggest that the Acts 15 council is forcing Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law based on the words of Matthew 23, it is not there even implicitly."

To continue from there, The Great Commission itself is not a teaching to put the Gentiles under the Torah, but is a charge to the apostles to take the teachings of his Gospel to the ends of the earth, to Israel and beyond. The Acts 15 council did decide what to do with respect to the Gentiles when they come to the knowledge of God but I need not repeat the points I have made about that passage here.

There isn't much to say here but I'll let you guys search the scriptures to find the truth.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday 18 February 2015

What does Acts 15 teach? Does it teach Torah Observance to Gentiles

Once again, this article is not disparraging Messianic Jews for wanting to keep Torah because they feel it honors the Messiah, hence Romans 14 and Colossians 2 I am not to act as their judge in that regard. As long as they don't seek to use it as a means of biblical justification, then I am ok with that.

However, what I DO take issue with, is having Gentiles being bound to the Mosaic Law and regardless of if the intention is noble such as again not using it to justify yourself before a holy God or forcing Gentiles under a yoke which Jesus never put them under. 

I was directed to a video by a ministry known as 119 Ministries. The video can be found here: (Video is now defunct).

The first points summed up is that Acts 15 itself has two positions proposed by Unbelievers and Believers. Let's look at the first section: 
"Acts 15:5 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”"

A claim is made that a third position is not being introduced, I may explain that there is such found later on but aside from that point, the video actually starts off pretty well, He is correct that there are to individuals, ones who advocate a legalistic perspective and those who advocate an obedient perspective, meaning you are saved by faith, but keep the law out of love an obedience rather than keep your salvation. So far, fine, but the claim that a third position is not being advocated is a stretch.

No one has been successful in keeping the law and that grace is needed to be sure, which the apologist acknowledges but unfortunately he claims that Peter advocates the second position, that the believers in Jesus, Gentiles included by inference, are to keep the Torah as a whole.

Although Peter doesn't oppose the second view above, does it really mean that he himself advocated that Gentiles themselves are obligated to observe the Laws of Moses from beginning to end? Not really. More over it makes the point that only some of the believers stood up and proclaimed what they proclaimed in Acts 15:5, it is not an indication that all the believers in Jesus held that Gentiles are to keep the Sabbath under the new covenant. Yes there are two views being disputed at the beginning of the passage, but that doesn't remove the idea that a third idea is being proclaimed. 

The apologist makes the point that the Gentiles were not born into God's ways, hence they are not going to understand it all from day 1, that they need to be taught how to walk in God's ways and that the paganism must be addressed and that rather than give the entire law right from the start from the Gentiles, the council had to deal with the weightier sins first, namely idolatry. There is no question that one cannot follow demons and God together, after all, two cannot walk the same road if they disagree.

However, you cannot use this as a pretext to force the Gentiles under the Mosaic Law, as the rest of the scripture makes plain a Gentile is not under the Mosaic Law, read the following article for more information:

The apologist isn't entirely incorrect, He does make the valid point that those who become believers will not know everything that is required of them, that there is a starting point and they move on from there, growing in the faith.

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.

Sadly, the apologist goes on to say that Acts 15:21 is unaddressed by the mainstream theological presentation because they don't know what to do with it and he himself gives his answer. His answer is James intended that it would be more than those 4 instructions in verse 20, but in fact 21 clarifies the instructions, basing it on the Greek word for for and says the verse relates back to what has already been stated in verse 20 and to expand on what has been said. In other words, James has more than just those 4 in mind.

However, The point of verse 21 is not to put Gentiles under the Mosaic law, James is just making the comment that the Mosaic Law was well known among the Gentile converts already in Judaism because they had been read in the synagogues, from generation to generation. He is not suggesting that the Gentile believers are to observe the Torah in it's entirety, no Gentile is told that in the New Testament. They are not idles in verse 21, but are in the video, misapplied.

It is true that in first century Judaism and before you had Gentiles who wanted to become part of the Jewish people and thus adhered to the Law. I shall comment on Matthew 5:17-20 to further illustrate a point later in this paper as to whether or not Gentiles are to observe the Torah in it's entirety.

Case and point, There is no ignoring the context of the debate on the part of Christians, the third point is right there and is carried over into the rest of the New Testament. The subject of Timothy will be looked at later.

Also, interesting point has been made on this subject by Grace Communion Interenational on Acts 15:21: which I recommend reading:

On Michael L Brown's line of fire page where he speaks on the Mosaic Law, There was a comment that I had noticed and thought it would be interesting to share from a user called Ray (Bold and italic emphasis mine):
"Here was the sentence of James:
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Acts 15:19-21)
There’s a lot we can learn from the law of Moses. We still are in need of it today. It’s good for reading. It helps us learn about ourselves, others, about God, about righteousness, justice, fairness, equity, the difference between one thing and another, goodness, and the severity of God.
We still need to remember these things even though the yoke of the law is not upon our necks.
It still makes for good reading.

He then goes onto the point that Jesus or Yeshua, tells us in Matthew 23 to observe and do what is taught in the seat of Moses, namely the law of Moses, and teach that to the others. In other words, they have to do more than remove their paganism, but be obedient to the Law of Moses. The removal of paganism being a priority and an immediate change with the obedience to the Law of Moses coming afterward and that the disciples learnt this from Moses seat.

The context of Matthew 23 is as follows:
"Matthew: 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

Now let's address his points. Jesus is talking specifically to the disciples, namely the 12 and the crowds who have gathered around him. The Acts 15 council doesn't have that connection to those in Moses seat. The thrust of Jesus' point to the disciples is they are to submit to their leaders, listen to their teaching and carry it out, but not emulate how they live, because they are hypocrites and do not practice what they preach. His words in the context of the passage pertain to what was going on at that time. It is also a warning to us Christians against hypocrisy in general. There is nothing to suggest that the Acts 15 council is forcing Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law based on the words of Matthew 23, it is not there even implicitly.

Yes it is true that the removal of paganism, sorcery and idolatry is the first step and that repentance is that step, but that doesn't automatically entail placing the Gentiles under the Mosaic Law. You don't overwhelm them to be sure and that we should not sin.

I have read Acts 15:21 as well as the context BEFORE this video and have NEVER concluded on the basis of that text that Mosaic obedience is required of Gentiles, it's simply not there.

There are individual texts he cites, but those shall be tackled in another paper if the Lord Wills but I will say, the charge that somehow Christians who do not keep the Mosaic Law are somehow Denying that the law is Perfect, Just, Good, Life, Truth, Light, Way, Freedom and Holy, is down right reprehensible, not to mention the apologist is guilty of eisegesis, what we are charged with. Christians who don't adhere to the Mosaic Law DO NOT deny that the Torah is good, we just make the point that while it is indeed the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, We just simply point out to the New Testament as a whole to make the point that we need to determine biblically what applies to us today from the Mosaic Law. To echo the words of David Pawson:
"Christianity is rooted in Judaism, which it is rooted in the Old Testament as we are. But how much of of the former should be kept in the latter? How much of the Old Testament comes through to the New? How much of those 613 laws actually apply to us, that is one of the biggest questions we have got to face when you study the Old and the New Testament." David Pawson: Galatians Part 1 (Unlocking The Bible Series):

There is also no accusation from us the the disciples were guilty of adding or subtraction.

There is also another point made by Pawson in his book, Unlocking the Bible, which is composed of material adapted from his videos, This is what he says:
"What, then, are we to make of the law of Moses today, remembering that there are not just 10 laws but 613 in total? We may have a hunch that we are not tied to them all, but how many are we tied to? For example, some churches teacher their members to tithe. Others have strcit rules about the Sabbath, even if for them Sabbath is Sunday, not Saturday as observed by the Jews. Every Christian has to come to terms with this difficulty, it is complicated by the fact that Jesus said 'I have not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it.'" David Pawson, Unlocking the Bible pg 149.

I would suggest picking up the book, or watching his talk on Levitcus for more information.

Case and point, Acts 15 doesn't bolster the idea that Gentiles are under Mosaic Law,

Now to quickly go back to Matthew 5:17-20:
"Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is not disregarding the OT as a whole as irrelevant, he is making the point that it is pointing to him and he is not coming to remove the Law or the Prophets, as some would presume. He goes on to say that ALL must be accomplished, namely his mission of redemption, both his first coming and second and what he will do in those comings, like dealing with sin on the cross, thus paying the debt to God that we owe. He came to fulfill what was written and some of those ordinances have been fulfilled in him.

2nd Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21 were texts mentioned in the video, the other texts will be dealt with another time if the Lord Wills, but for now, these two shall suffice. Both were mentioned and in essence the point was and it's being paraphrased here, "Heaven and earth haven't passed away yet, therefore we are to keep the Mosaic Law". However that doesn't work, since Jesus isn't addressing the subject of Gentiles observing the Torah. Once again he is addressing his Jewish audience. The Law and the Prophets point to him and that he intended to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament and to keep the Law no man could keep.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying murder or adultery are allowed, nor am I saying Jesus' words are irrelevant to Christians, God forbid such blasphemy, my point is that Jesus himself does NOT tell the Gentiles to keep the Torah

A point that requires further comment is this, Fulfillment is NOT Abolishing something.

I have written in my paper "Observance of Torah demanded of Gentiles?" what commands apply to us and which don't. A command from the Law itself isn't abolished or done away with, rather Christ fulfills that aspect of the Law by his obedience. It is his fulfillment of the Mosaic Law that free Christians from it but I emphasis this, There are laws that apply and laws that don't, We are under the Law of Christ. The article also covers the vision of Peter.

Now moving on to Acts 16, The apologist brings up the point of Timothy being circumcised in Acts 16:1-4. He firstly says the council sends Paul and the others appointed to give the decrees made but first Paul stops and goes to Timothy to circumcise him and bring him along on his mission. The apologist then poses the question:
"If Acts 15 teaches the Law of God is abolised, which includes circumcision, then why would Paul circumcise Timothy before heading out on a trip that intends to deliver a decree that supposedly abolishes circumcision?"

Here's the answer, Timothy was circumcised was for 2 reasons:
1. Evangelistic accommodation
He could not get into the synagogue unless he had been circumcised. It was so he could go with Paul to the synagogue to deliver the Gospel to the Jews

2. Because he was Jewish
In light of the fact Timothy was raised in the ways of Judaism, it only seemed right that Paul would circumcise Timothy in keeping with the Jewish law.

That's why he was circumcised. There is nothing wrong with Jews themselves being circumcised, it's a sign that they were Jewish, but for a Gentile, it would mean coming under the Law. The decree isn't abolishing circumcision in and of itself, It just simply doesn't apply the Law of Circumcision to the Gentiles, nothing more, nothing less.

The apologist then goes to Galatians 2 claiming that Paul addressing a claim that Paul was against circumcision and he goes on to claim that it was the Legalistic group that was condemned and that the circumcision of the legalist was false but keeping God's commands in the faith is what counts, including circumcision.

However, Paul is not suggesting that circumcision is to be enacted on Gentile Christians at all, period.
"2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[b] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”"

The Judaizers were condemned by the letter for putting the Gentiles under the Mosaic Law, not for carrying out the decree of Acts 15, which again doesn't sanction putting the Gentiles under. It amazes me that the apologist would appeal to this context, considering Titus considered being circumcised, and yet was in the wrong for doing so. This isn't a Jewish individual getting circumcised as mentioned in Acts 15:5 where he or she is doing the Mosaic Law out of obedience to God, this is a Gentile who hasn't been put under the Mosaic Law and is LEAD ASTRAY by the group. The Jewish believers who are trying to circumcise Gentiles are in the wrong in the chapter, NOT in the right. Furthermore Paul highlights in the SAME Letter the Christians have a circumcision of the heart in Christ, not a circumcision of your foreskin.

"5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

Paul isn't against circumcision in and of itself, He is opposing individuals who want to circumcise Gentile Converts, which Acts 15 relieves Gentiles from. This is a far cry from the point made by the apologist. Paul doesn't suggest that the Gentiles are to keep the Torah out of obedience. He calls for obedience to Christ yes, but not obedience to the Mosaic Law.

Finally, He goes to Acts 21 and gives us the exposition on the passage we need, namely Paul was falsely charged with abandoning the Torah and telling Jews to abandon the Torah, to which James tells Paul to prove that this is not the case by partaking of a Nazarite vow.

The apologist asks why the 4 requirements given to the Gentiles in Acts 15 cited and says that there is a difference between Jews and Greeks and understanding what that difference is, namely Jews being raised knowing the Lord of God and Greeks entering the faith not knowing the Laws of God, Thus in Acts 21 Paul refutes the claim by the individuals and that James says that Paul walks orderly, meaning that Paul does keep the Torah, the whole one. The apologist claims means that walking orderly means keeping the Law of God including circumcision. Here is another point:
"The original accusation to Paul in Acts 21 was only about the relationship with Paul and Jews but Acts 21 also makes a point in mentioning the same conclusion found in Acts 15, to inform them that the same instructions to keep the whole Law of God went out to the Gentiles as well as detailed in Acts 15"

I already covered Acts 15 previously so we needn't labor over that point again. Paul himself was Torah observant which I will not deny and he was falsely accused of telling Jews to abandon the Torah, however it doesn't follow at all to suggest that James is advocating that Gentiles are to keep the Torah, though he does say Paul is walking orderly for what he is doing.

The Gentiles walk orderly in Christ, but not because they are under the Mosaic Law, that is something they are relieved from as mentioned before.

Paul partaking of the offerings for the purpose of his testimony to the Messianics likewise would not of hindered his teaching against the Judaizers in Galatians, because they were trying to say in essence you were saved by the law, which Paul made clear was not the case.

Not to mention when speaking to the Corinthian church, Paul said this:

"1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

In certain cases, Paul would have observed the practices of the Jews when reaching out to them, but with respect to the Gentiles, he did not observe these customs, but still retained holy living. It was for his testimony to certain groups that he took this approach.

This doesn't mean however that he was prepared to evil and sin just to clarify, since he exhorts the congregations to live holy lives in his letters, but that is NOT the same as telling Gentiles to observe the Torah, he and the apostles no where say such.

The Torah is lovely and all the things mentioned above by the apologist, but how does this prove Gentiles are under the Torah? It's simply not there.

Even Paul refers to the law as a school master that leads to Christ:
"23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Some could make the argument that Paul isn't saying that Gentiles are free from the Torah's demands, quite to the contrary, he doesnt say they are under it. The law is there for a  number of reasons, to show you how bad you are, and to point to the one who can save you, namely Christ. Even Christ says in the Gospels "search the scriptures for they bear witness of me." I know the apologist in the video states that he and his congregation (They don't state this in the video but actually make the point that Gentiles were to keep the Torah out of love for God) do not keep the Torah to hold onto salvation but because they love the Lord and that is admirable, but at the same time, they should NOT be forcing Torah Observance on Gentiles, otherwise there is a danger of following in the footsteps of the Judaizers, even if that isn't your intention.

To the Messianic Jews reading, specifically those who have come from Jewish backgrounds, if you keep the Torah because you love the Lord, wonderful, I really mean that. As long as you are not trying to merit salvation through the Law or put Gentiles under it, Fine, Each to his own with respect to disputable matters as in Romans 14 and in Colossians 2:16-17.

I am not to judge you for keeping Torah nor am I disparaging the Torah, Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.

119 Ministries doesn't do that. As noble as their intentions regarding this matter maybe, This isn't to say they are in the right in propagating what they say.

Learning the Torah is vital for Christians, is not the entire Old Testament is vital to learn and NOT just the Torah. There is much to learn from it and to see how the Old Testament points to Jesus, not to mention it is a reminder to the church itself to stay faithful to God, lest one run the risk of being destroyed due to disobedience. However, this isn't to say that Christians are obligated to observe circumcision, ritual purity, the Jewish feasts, Jewish food laws etc. They are important for learning and growing in grace, but not required of us Gentiles to practice.

I also recommend others to read the following paper on these issues:

Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism

PS. Anything else that may be added to this paper will be added in an addendum below.

Edit 2nd of September 2017: 
This is an addendum that was written later:

Sorry for not including this earlier.

Saturday 14 February 2015

Anti-Pauline Heresy: A response to jcabra19 2

This is a second response to jcabra19 and this I hope will be my last response as jcabra19 absolutely refuses to back down from his position that Paul was a false apostle.

The arguments he responds to shall be viewed in brackets but both previous points made by both of us will be in bold:

("To be honest, you don't have anything to say with respect to 2nd Peter, His letter refutes your point about Paul in the first place")

Oh how the conjecture continues.  Listen, if you cannot refute the context of 2Peter without only emphasizing the one portion you believe helps your cause, it is not I who has "nothing" to say.

You appealed to 2nd Peter to justify your heresy, the problem is the whole letter itself doesn't back up your claim. You don't read the letter in context. I did refute you, you just don't want to accept correct.

("and No I did NOT shrug of anti-semticism of Ignatius, which is something I need to look into.")
You infact have.  To ignorantly use the validation of a man who's role in the beginning persecution of Jew's as "authoritative" by means of apostolic lineage, not only show's for the lack of research you have for your own findings, it's also contra Biblical.  The Messiah specifically said, that no good tree can bear bad fruit.  So unless your under the impression that John taught Ignatius to hate Jew's, then it seems evident that you need further study in the matter.

John did not teach people to be anti-Semitic. Furthermore, Your dismissal of Ignatius' testimony of Paul doesn't invalidate his testimony of Paul. The fact you charge me with glossing over his anti-semitism is libel and quite frankly offensive. I condemn those who are anti-semitic with Jews and when I have admin on Paltalk, have dotted individuals for their hateful remarks.

("I wasn't brushing it aside or shrugging if off if you actually paid attention")

I have infact paid attention, this is exactly why it has taken you over 2 day's to address this point. And its not as if you haven't had time, you in fact managed to concoct another blog and comment further here for two day's with no mention.. Nice try, but lacking truth.

Who cares if I was late getting round to addressing it?

("Oh look, The writer regards Paul as a brother.")
I cannot begin to describe the smile I have from utter bewilderment as to the fallacy of this argument.  

Let me ask you this, have you ever heard of the "apostles" Quartus, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Onesimus or Philemon?  Of course not, that's because they ARE NOT Apostles.  But Paul calls them brothers!  Your obvious false attempt to make "brother" and "Apostle" synonymous lacks serious credibility.

If by your standard of "brother" equating to "Apostle", then this means that the Book of Revelation should be revised to numerate to 21 instead of 12.  Which is a beautiful correlation by example as this proves, as your religion as well shows, that it has no problem in moving numbers and contextual meanings.  

My argument is not brother and apostle are synonymous terms, My argument is Paul is a true apostle and brother in the faith. This shows you don't read carefully what someone actually is saying.
As Keith Thompson notes:
Argument #7 - Paul would have to be the thirteenth apostle. How is this possible when the following verses say there are only twelve? Revelation 21:14, Matthew 19:28

Actually the New Testament broadens “apostle” from the twelve (Mark 3:14; Acts 1:2, 26) and those who helped historically found the church (Ephesians 2:20; Rev. 21:14) to others outside the twelve like Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19) and others (Romans 16:7). Paul was not claiming he was in the group of the twelve. Daugherty just doesn’t realize according to the New Testament one can be an apostle without being one of the original twelve. Again, an “apostle” just means one who was sent as a representative of another who bears the authority of the sender (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], p. 421). Others besides the original twelve fit these criteria. Nowhere does the New Testament say there could not be other apostles outside the twelve.

The word apostle can be used in a general sense referring to those who are representatives of Christ or to the 12 specifically depending on the context. The individuals you mentioned are NOT THE 12 obviously, but are apostles in the general sense as mentioned above.

(" I already refuted your misuse of the letter in my article, so seriously, give up using 2nd Peter to condemn Paul, it's not your friend, it's your enemy")

If by "refuted" you mean give an explanation according to your doctrinal position despite what is factually recorded, then I hate to break it to you, but their is no consolation prize for an attempt at answering the misconceptions you portray.  Interjection  is not fact.

No I went through your points and corrected what you said about 2nd Peter, Don't give me this argument of you gave"an explanation according to your doctrinal position despite what is factually recorded", I could take that dismissal with you and completely disregard your points alltogether.

("The fact he mentions Paul in passing as a brother means that Paul is NOT who he has in mind when condemning false teachers.")

I was going to address this portion in the earlier response to your definition of what a "brother" is, but it actually fits here as well.

Your view is not only logically flawed, it is also flawed in contrast to what Paul say's in his epistles.  Paul himself gives various examples as to how a "brother" is not always as you define, and is in fact far from one who acts or believes in concordance with what is taught as doctrinally orthodox.

Rom14:10, 15 and 21

The contrast is even much more evident with Paul's own words in 1Cor5:11

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."

Even Paul himself admits that one who is called a "brother", can still merit exclusion by basis of heretical practices.  

So why believe as you do in regards to Peter when Pauls own measure validates what I've already said?  Lets not by hypocritical about this.

Yes, the word brother can apply to false brethren, but my argument is not that brother in and of it's self proves my case, it's how the word brother is used in context.

"9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

Such an example is found in the one presented. HOWEVER, That is not how Paul is called a brother, read carefully 2nd Peter again and you'll see:
"2 Peter 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Paul is confirmed to be a true brother in the faith by Peter, not the brother that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 5. Peter's point here is that Paul's letters as well as the books of the Old Testament are distorted by heretics. Notice again it is NOT JUST the Old Testament that these false teachers distort, but Paul's own writings. This shows that Paul's writings were an authoritative source. I demonstrated in the previous paper that Paul is not who Peter has in mind when writing his condemnation:

It makes no sense that Paul is the one who is being condemned by Peter because that would make absolutely no sense, It would mean that Paul is distorting himself.

For that matter, Why would Peter show to his audience that Paul is a false apostle and false believer in Jesus because of false teachers who misuse the scriptures, when it that same context Peter AFFIRMS that Paul was given wisdom BY GOD and wrote to the congregations across the land?

Do you see why your twisted mishandling of 2 Peter doesn't work and WHY I said 2 Peter was your enemy? If you don't see it, then again you are a spiritually blind individual continuing in his error despite me correcting you.

("Only a spiritually blind individual such as you would continue with this argument despite being exposed.")

The only thing being exposed, is that the belief that a brother equating to an "apostle" somehow means that their status as such does not merit the fact that even THEY can be viewed as heretical enough for excommunication.  Might I add that this "exposure" did not come by on your part.

Again my argument is NOT brother is synonymous with apostle or vice versa. That point about the usage of the word brother has bee answered above.

("I am not convinced by Jewish arguments or Muslim arguments with respect to Paul because they twist the Bible")

You're accusing others of Scriptural misrepresentations when in fact your religion chooses to translate "חָדָשׁ" as "New" from Jeremiah 31!? If this isn't the most hypocritical of all replies thus far. Your whole religion is based on a mistranslation viewed on purpose to promote the doctrines in "Hebrews".  
Not to mention the fact that even your own Apostle scripturally mishandled the context of supposed quotes he uses in his epistles.  Yet your religion is still adamant that Paul is correctly quoting and correctly contextualizing the Scriptures he's obviously abusing.

Gal3:10// Gal3:12-13// Rom3:10// 1Cor10:8// 1Cor 2:9 and countless others.

Already Refuted the misuse of Galatians 3 in a previous article:

The point of Jeremiah 31 will need some looking into if the Lord Wills.

As for the passages in 1st Corinthians, let's look. First the context of Exodus 32:
"Exodus 32:2 Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.”

5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

7 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’"

Paul quotes this to the congregation but I am not sure where the misquotation is: Let's see what he said:
"1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,[b] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

Paul isn't mixing up the events, He is talking about the history of Israel generally with respect to the mistake they made of falling into idolatry.At first glance it looks like he seems to be getting the events mixed up, but that isn't the case. The thrust of his point of mentioning these moments in history is to warn the church, not to go down the same route that the Israelite people did in the Old Testament, There is no evidence of him misquoting the passage.

As for the other passage, there are some good commentaries on this particular section found here:
Gill's exposition says the following with respect to this passage and more but i'll quote the relevant part:
"But as it is written,.... Not in an apocryphal book, called the Apocalypse of Elijah the prophet, as some have thought, but in Isaiah 64:4 with some variation; and is brought to prove that the Gospel is mysterious and hidden wisdom, unknown to the princes of this world, and ordained before the world was, for the glory of the saints: for the following words are not to be understood of the glories and happiness of the future state; though they are indeed invisible, unheard of, and inconceivable as to the excellency and fulness of them, and are what God has prepared from all eternity, for all those on whom he bestows his grace here; but of the doctrines of grace, and mysteries of the Gospel, as the context and the reason of their citation abundantly show; and are what 

eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: which could never have been seen to be read by the eye of man, nor the sound thereof ever heard by the ear of man, had not God been pleased to make a revelation of them; and though they are to be seen and read in the sacred writings, and to be heard either read or expounded, with the outward hearing of the ear; yet are neither to be seen nor heard intellectually, spiritually, and savingly, unless, God gives eyes to see, and ears to hear; the exterior senses of seeing and hearing are not sufficient to come at and discover the sense of them; flesh and blood, human nature cannot search them out, nor reveal them, no nor the internal senses, the intellectual capacity of men: "

Feel free to check the others out.

Carrying on.

("just like you are, to try and make out Paul to be against Jesus.")

And again you call "me" blind?  The Messiah in Matthew 6:14-15 say's that forgiveness is merited on whether or not you forgive others.  Yet Paul in his own delusional thinking seems to equate forgiveness with the murder of an innocent man.  This is far from synonymous preaching. 

So it is not "I" who try to make Paul to be against Him, Paul does a fine job doing that on his own.  The problem lies with those who's delusion allows them to overlook obvious preachings yet determine they are some how in line with each other.

Where does Paul say what you are saying? I already point out their teachings don't contradict each other. Please show me where Paul is against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:14-15?

(" to be valid, you have to butcher and defame Paul's writings.")

Defame? Not on my part, his words speak clearly for them selves.  And butcher? Let me ask you this, who is the one representing Paul's words as they are, and who is the one giving endless explanation with little regard for what is actually recorded? Hint, that would be you.

This point can be turned against you. You give an "endless explanation with little regard for what is actually recorded" according to your silly logic with respect to 2nd Peter. You don't know the difference between exegesis and trying to gloss over points, I am exegeting what Paul said, you are twisting what he said. You do defame Paul because of your portrayal of him as a rancid deceiver and you distort his words rather than read them in context.

("You yourself are a heretic who has NO SHAME in twisting the words of the blessed apostle ")

Oh great, the ever redundant and hypocritical use of the word "heretic".  Was Martin Luther a heretic for questioning the catholic hierarchy? In the same respect, hold your allegations against others as your religion is viewed as heretical amongst others.  This is personified by The Messiah's own parable of the servant with debt.  But because your doctrinal basis surrounds Paul, and not HIm, I wouldn't expect much of an intelligent response to this as well.

Apples and Oranges jcabra19, You are condemning one who is regarded even by the apostles of Christ as genuine and comparing that to Martin Luther standing against an apostate church, Here's the difference, Luther was justified in challenging the apostate Roman Catholic Church, whereas you are unjustified in standing against Paul who Peter even regarded as a brother in the faith and a co-worker.

("who, need I remind you was appointed by Jesus.")

And your proof of this is where? 3 times Paul gives his conversion experience, and all three times he changes the details therein. Anyone who cannot re-tell their own story more than once correctly, is obviously a liar.  This is exactly why Anania's words are spoken by "the messiah" in Acts 26, yet not mentioned as being said by "him" in chapters 9 or 22. 

Its the equivalent of proclaiming that the prince of York told you that you would be knighted, only to retell the same story by implicating that it was the queen herself that told you.  Obvious lie

Nothing more than a conspiracy here, I already showed why Paul's details where different in the previous paper:

As said before, Ananias functions as a proxy on behalf of Jesus, the same can be said of the prince of York functioning as a proxy on behalf of the queen. Read the article again.

("Keith isn't claiming that Muslims are the first individuals to argue against Paul, If you paid attention, ")

On the contrary, if YOU had paid attention, you would notice the lack of such disclaimer on the title of the video.  Nice try though.

(" His documentary addresses the Muslims specifically, because his ministry is directed TO THAT GROUP as one of the groups whose arguments he responds to.")

And again, he's an apologist for who? That right, answering islam. Not answering "the Ebionim".  And that is because more people are willing to listen to any condemnation aimed at muslims who already have the international spot light.  It is nothing more than a sensationalists attempt to pander for donations, such as obvious by the "donate" button right under his picture.  But again, asking for money for "spiritual" seed IS a Pauline doctrine.  How convenient.

And again, if you're done advertising for his monetary purpose, you might want to ask him why he feels the need to remove comments that provably proves his doctrines wrong.  That is far from the attitude and work of one claiming to be a servant of The Most High, 

How Keith deals with comments on his YouTube page is his business.

Furthermore, he writes for two websites, Answering Islam (co-writer) and Reformed Apologetics ministries (head of ministry). He mainly deals with Roman Catholics, Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, Atheists and Muslims. Writing for Answering Islam doesn't mean he CANNOT address other groups.

I myself despite the name of my ministry Answering Judaism, don't address Rabbinic Jews early, but sometimes I address some Messianic Jews (Not all since I don't believe all are heretical), Roman Catholics, Muslims and the Eranoites, a cult group from the Philippines.

Just because one writer writes for a specific website, doesn't mean he cannot address a multitude of groups.

You don't even get WHY Keith brought up the Ebionites. The Ebionites were used by the Muslims to deny Paul was a true apostle and Keith was pointing out that the Ebionites were a SECOND CENTURY group that has NO basis for rejecting Paul.
He is answering the Muslim individuals who raise this argument as an argument against Paul.

Prove your point that Paul is a false apostle instead of ranting against my fellow co-worker in Christ.

Oh and BTW, There is nothing with donating money to a ministry to assist them in giving the Gospel to others, that is why Paul asked for donations. What do you assume EVERY ministry that asks for a donation is somehow a snake and slave of Satan? Only Heretics and false teachers shouldn't be given money, such as those prosperity preachers who are greed mongering snakes who exploit the general public.

("Anyway, I am done with talking to you, because all you want to do is continue in your belief system and not accept correction. This conversation is over.")

Your conversation is over because you still fail to address many of the inconsistencies with your reply's, and cannot remedy a factual and Scriptural reply to support your obvious use of personal interjection.  So please don't attribute your concession to a lack of brain washing of your doctrines on my part.  Because the last portion of your reply can easily be said of you. Let's not be a pharisee now.

I gave you scripture and factual support FROM the scripture. Don't give me this excuse of using it to "support your obvious use of personal interjection." because that isn't going to get us anyway.

You are the one who cannot even read 2nd Peter let alone the Bible correctly. Believing Paul to be a brother and apostle in the faith is not the result of brain washing. That is just as silly as the argument "You are a Trinitarian because of Sunday school". I don't accept Paul because I am brain washed, I accept him because his writings are part of the Bible and God inspired the canon and gave it to us.

Don't give me this pathetic rhetoric of "Constantine influenced the church this" or "Roman Catholics gave you Paul's canon that". The Roman Catholics and Constantine did NOT give us Paul's letters, that is a lie, you know it and Jesus is against liars. Repent of your wickedness jcabra19 and your lies, for one day all stand before the judgement seat of Christ on the day of Judgement.

Not much to say except, Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

16th of October 2018: For the past few months, Keith's website is known now as "Exegetical Apologetics" His article response can be found in that new link.

Thursday 12 February 2015

Written dialogue with jcabra19

Here are the comments made by jcabra19 and myself in the exchange we had:
11 Jan 2015
The first link you provide is hypocrisy at its finest, he accuses a certain rabbi for conflicting ideals. He then goes on to prove his own apostle as correct by trying to establish misunderstanding through The TANAK.

The heart of his multiple blogs STILL rely's on the words of Paul, and Paul alone.  He or She spends most of thier time establishing what Paul really means, which is not factual to what Paul really writes. Their argument is no different from the multiple apologetic attempts at verifiying Paul's apostleship, as those who propose so here on youtube.
Show less
24 Jan 2015
+Keith Thompson Man this Jewish cabra person is everywhere about this topic lol
10 Feb 2015
+******** You should ask why "Keith" chose to delete my replies, yet leave his as if his rebuttals go on with no reproofing.

And I Am "everywhere" about this topic for the same reason's evangelicals evangelize.
Show less
10 Feb 2015
+jcabra19 You haven't even touched my arguments for Paul's apostleship. I have used church fathers as well as the NT. You haven't established that he is a false apostle. That's your point that you need to prove. The fact the apostles themselves extended fellowship TO Paul shows you to be wrong.
Show less
10 Feb 2015
I have in fact made such argument, fortunately for you the author of this video chose to delete such comments that put your links to shame.

Moreover I should ask where you draw the conclusion that The Apostles "extended fellowship to Paul"?  From what IS recorded in Acts, Paul was BROUGHT to the Apostles, not sought by them.  Several times in His writing He seems to show that he is giving an interpretation rather than a command

And why use "church fathers" as a prime example and neglect what Scriptures have to say for themselves?  If we are allowed to draw from exo biblical example, then this would only hurt your argument further.

The FACT, that Paul is not numbered as a recognized Apostle in Revelation, along with the fact that the "False apostle" mentioned therein taught laxation concerning idolic food consumption is proof positive that Paul is not an Apostle of The Lamb.

But I Am not expecting a relevant reply to those facts, as your own reply's to the quotations of the rabbi you choose are always answered in a manner that gives misdirection. And you call them a hypocrite?

You quote Pauls passages and give an interpretation that follows smoother logic, yet neglect the fact that what you claim or interpret is far from what is actually written.  Such as how your doctrinal view's neglect The Messiahs own words concerning His Law.

Show less
10 Feb 2015
+jcabra19 If the Lord Wills I may take a look into your objections, but right now, I'll leave it at that.
Yesterday 01:27
So you're attributing your own unwillingness to hear truth and weigh the facts as if G-d doesn't will it for you?  This is just one of the many reasons I ask all of you to come out of this religion.

If you believe G-d doesn't want you to grow in understanding, you might as well keep to your doctrines.

But I should warn you, if you believe your religion is correct, and your "brothers" like "Keith Thompson"  who feel no wrong doing in falsely portraying peoples own words, then I wish you the best of luck.
Show less
Yesterday 13:11
+jcabra19 It's not an unwillingness to hear truth, you made an assertion about Paul, so you were asked to back it up.

For your information, I do believe God DOES want us to grow in understanding.

Small interactions I have had with Rabbinic Jews have actually bolstered faith in Christ rather than diminish it. It gets me to think on their position and if what they say is valid. Anyway, i'll leave it at that.
Show less
Yesterday 15:47

Lets say I was a totally unaware unbeliever and wanted to learn about Christianity,  would it suffice If I learned from Mormons?  In that same respect you shouldn't expect much nor judge much from small interactions with "Rabbinic" Jews.

Because the position I hold doesn't diminish The Messiah, it upholds Him and each of the smallest teachings He enforced.
Show less
Yesterday 16:01
Red herring jcabra. Mormonism doesn't reflect Christianity. Your position doesn't uphold Jesus because it rejects the one HE appointed. You haven't dealt with what I have said in my paper.
Yesterday 16:10
I don't say EVERY conclusion by the Rabbinic camp is valid, I say some of their conclusions are valid and can fit with both the Old AND New Testament.
Yesterday 16:17

And Rabbinc Judaism doesn't reflect Judaism at all.

But just listen to your own reasoning, you claim that my position doesn't up hold The Messiah because I question someone claiming to have witnessed Him?  You should judge my position on whether or not I believe every word of His in His Good News!
Not whether or not I believe every one making claims about Him.  If thats the case, then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him.

And I have "dealt" with everything you've said, but thanks to the hypocrisy of the author of this video, and what is obviously observable above, all my replys to you are deleted.

But your "blog" is self defeating because I Am not arguing for the sake of Rabbinic Judaism.  Im not asking you to argue for Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, so why expect me to counter arguments made by Rabbis?  Moreover it should be pointed out that you've even left many holes in your arguments that even went un touched by you in your own article.

You took "Blumenthal's" argument and automatically deemed it a "conspiracy" without addressing what they've said, and in turn giving your doctirnal interpretation as to what Paul means.  Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?

That is just  as how Keith Thompson chooses to portray peoples words, by hiding them.

What both of you do is no different from what Catholics do to those who they view as "heretics". They attempt to discredit them and attempt to remove their words from ever being seen.. This is exactly how and why Rabbinic (Pharisaic) Jew's see The Messiah as a heretical false teacher.
Show less
Yesterday 16:23
+bobo577 Yet their conclusions about The Messiah and Who He is and Was are far from valid, despite His Own words which are harmonized with Torah.  What you fail to realize is that the majority of the apprehension of Christianity that Jew's have is Paul and his doctrinal teachings.  
Show less
Yesterday 21:18
+jcabra19  OK, You are not a Rabbinic Jew, that's fine and I never said Rabbinic Judaism is Biblical, if you hold up the Messiah, Answer me this jcabra19

Why is it in Acts 9 Jesus tells Ananias the following:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

You also strawmanned my point about Paul, my argument was not "Then you should believe EVERYONE who's ever made a claim about Him or claimed to have seen Him."
This is Jesus telling Ananias that HE appointed Paul. Do you dare speak against Jesus on this?

If Jesus and the APOSTLES acknowledged Paul as a true apostle, then your argument is refuted. Let me reitirate a point I made to a Rabbinic Jew on Paul:
"In my articles on the Pauline Conspiracy, I go through Yisroel Blumenthal's points about Paul ONE by ONE. But I am happy to reiterate certain points here. regarding Paul.

"Paul's revelation by him going to the apostles could be verified by them particularly, because they themselves had walked with Jesus, were aware of what he taught and thus could judge Paul correct or incorrect based on their masters teaching. If what Paul received went against what Jesus himself taught, then the apostles would have to reject him just like the other candidates you mentioned.

Muhammad and the others cannot speak to the apostles, thus it is very easy to deny their claims when comparing them to Paul.

Additionally in 2nd Peter 3:16, Peter treats Paul's writings as authoritative as the TANAKH. Best case scenario, the apostle Peter wrote it, Worst Case, another man wrote it. Either way, the early Christians accepted Paul's writings as authoritative, including such men as Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of John the Apostle." This can be found in the comments section here:

Only Paul himself can be verified as reliable with respect to seeing Jesus and being a true believer and apostle in light of what I have said above. No other can make this claim.

This is what 2nd Peter has to say about Paul: "3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

If this is written by Peter, once again, you have an apostle of the Lord Jesus refuting you. If you are going to accept Jesus, you have to accept not only the apostles teaching, but Paul's as well.

But carrying on with my point since you won't let it go. I do address Yisroel's arguments in the article itself and am CORRECTING what he says about Paul.

By what you are meaning " Despite judging what Paul himself writes. You are no different from the author of this video in means of hypocrisy. How much honesty can I expect from people like you when you purposefully over look obvious writings, yet choose to portray them in your own light?"

Are you saying we CAN'T understand what Paul is saying and thus have to read on a surface level without understanding him? Surface level understanding of a text is not exegetical, you need to read in context and seek to understand it more than simply looking at the text on it's own.

Plus your point "What you fail to realize is that the majority of the apprehension of Christianity that Jew's have is Paul and his doctrinal teachings.  " is a false statement. With or without Paul, the Rabbinic side at best sees Jesus as a mistaken Rabbi and at worst, a miserable heretic in Judaism. With or without Paul, Jesus is still rejected by the Rabbinic Jews in the first place. You cannot pin the blame on Paul for the Jews rejection of Jesus.

Here is an article I wrote responding to a Muslim:, I mention that there were Jews that converted and Paul was the one WHO BROUGHT them the Gospel, as well as the other apostles conveying it to their people.
Show less
Yesterday 21:32
+jcabra19 Oh, And BTW, Keith refutes more Anti-Pauline nonsense here:

Anyway, I am done here. I may pen an article if the Lord Wills to respond to some of your comments, but I think this is fine for now.

I brush the dust of my feet.
Show less
(" OK, You are not a Rabbinic Jew, that's fine and I never said Rabbinic Judaism is Biblical,")

But your picture of "Answering Judaism" is very indicative that you are correlating Rabbinic Judaism with ALL of Judaism.  If thats the case, then we can easily conclude that catholicism is representative of all of Christendom.

("Why is it in Acts 9 Jesus tells Ananias the following")

What Paul claims to Luke about Ananias is as suspicious as why the same words told to Paul in Acts 26 are again the same words told to Ananias in Acts 9. Paul some how now magically transposes what was told to Ananias in Acts 9, and now claims it was told to him in chapter 26.  Yet he somehow doesn't feel the need to mention that The Messiah said these very words to him (Paul) in chapters 9 and 22 of his "conversion"?

I might as well ask you why "jesus" say's what "he" say's to his disciples in the book of nephi.

("This is Jesus telling Ananias that HE appointed Paul. Do you dare speak against Jesus on this?")

No this is Paul's account as recorded by Luke, of whom was not an eye witness to this very happening.  And The Messiah said that Heaven and Earth would disappear before The Law would go away, yet you so readily believe so by the word of a pharisee?  And you ask ME if "I" dare to speak against Him on that?  Thats very hypocritical of you.

("You also strawmanned my point about Paul,")

No I didn't. You blindly accept Paul as a legitimate Apostle for no other reason that his books are canonized through the process of your own religions choosing.  And again, since that is the case you should as well accept the accounts of EVERYONE who's ever made such claims with no proof.

("If Jesus and the APOSTLES acknowledged Paul as a true apostle, then your argument is refuted.")

If they infact did, then yes.  But because NO WHERE does The Messiah or HIs Apostles call Paul an Apostle, ever, then your supposed refutation is lacking.

("Let me reitirate a point I made to a Rabbinic Jew on Paul")

Enough with this "Rabbinic Jew", you've got your hands full with the subject at hand . Don't strawman this argument by addressing a quarell you had with someone else and determine through your own reasoning that your self viewed defeat of their argument, some how transposes here.

("then the apostles would have to reject him just like the other candidates you mentioned.")

1John 2:19 speaks tons as to who did not continue with them. Isn't it peculiar that Paul proclaims that his mission was not with the others?  And whats even funnier about this reply is that it is packed with nothing but conjecture. If your trying to substantiate an argument based on "if's and woulds", you have a better chance of establishing SDA doctrines than proving your point.

("Muhammad and the others cannot speak to the apostles, thus it is very easy to deny their claims when comparing them to Paul.")

Your bringing up a muslim prophet and accusing me of straw manning?

("Additionally in 2nd Peter 3:16, Peter treats Paul's writings as authoritative as the TANAKH")

1. Did you ever wonder why your earliest church fathers denounced the second Petrine epislte (2 Peter) as being pseudepigrapha?  Its because it sharpens the contrast between true Messianic adherence and Pauline dogma. And here are the points being addressed.

  A.2Peter1:16-18: The fact Peter mentions that they did not devise a cunning "tale" concerning The Messiah, but were infact eye witness to Him, puts Pauls vision into question as he was blinded during his experience. With verse 18 being illustrative of the contrast of The Apostles actually hearing His voice, as opposed to Paul's companions not hearing anything.

  B.2Peter1:20 also addresses Paul's blatant abusive use of prophetic writings to further his false doctrines. Example, what is written in Deut27:26, is not correctly reflected by Paul's supposed quote as in Gal3:10. And this is just one instance of many.

  C.2Peter2:1-2. The destructive heresy's that Peter is addressing can be co related to no one else but Paul. As he is the only one teaching the abrogation of The Law, which IS denial of The Messiah as He HImself said they would not pass till Heaven and Earth disappear. Not to mention that Paul deny's G-d by claiming "he became their father (1Cor4:15), and claiming the prophecy in Isaiah49 is applicable to him, as opposed to admitting it as a prophecy of The Messiah.

  D.2Peter2:4-9 Addresses men of righteousness, of which Paul seems to think otherwise according to Rom3:10. The same men who had to come across THE LAWLESS and persevered (2Tim1:15). Lawless, here being the key word, which mirror's Paul voidance of such Laws.

  E.2Peter2:9-12. In addition, Peters's portrayal of people who despise authority cannot be none other than Paul, as he himself constantly downplayed the other Apostles, more importantly Peter. This parsha also addresses Paul's uncalled for attack on Angels (Rom8:38/1Cor4:9/1Cor6:3...etc), as he does call them "weak and beggarly elements" Gal4:9

  F.2Peter2:13-16 With Paul's many abusive misquotations of The Writings, its easy for Gentile's to be "seduced" into taking Pauls words on prophecy's. Peter also say's that he has left the "straight way", that is to say the following of The Apostles teachings known as "The Way". But the hardest evidence against Paul is the co relation that Peter makes to Balaam. Because like Paul, Balaam was on a road to persecute G-d's chosen people(Acts26:11), he was stopped by an Angel(Acts26:13), and ultimately taught that eating food sacrificed to idols was permissible(1Cor8). Paul is the New Testament Balaam. In addition, Peter say's that these people are an "accused BROOD". Now where else have you heard the word "BROOD"? Thats right, from The Messiah Himself when speaking of the pharisee, of which Paul made claim.

  G. 2Peter2:18-22. I could only imagine who else Peter could be speaking about who constantly boast (2Cor9:2/2Cor10:8-13/ 2Cor11:16), yet it should be obvious.  And in verse 21, Peter say's that this person would have been better off not knowing THE WAY of RIGHTEOUSNESS, notice righteousness is mentioned in the contexts of acts, not faith alone. Furthermore, this same person abandoned the "sacred command that was passed on to them". Its funny that Paul claims in Gal2:10 that he was only instructed to remember the poor, but the same is not relfected in Acts 15. He was instructed to teach his disciples to observe dietary restriction.

 H.2Peter3:1-2. Peter compels the recipients to remember The Prophets and Teachings, especially those by The Apostles whom The Messiah chose. Paul never once mentions any teaching's of The Messiah while He was on Earth.

  I.2Peter3:3-8. It seems here that the recipients are under the impression that His return is at any second. This could have come from on one else but Paul (Rom13:12). 1Thes4:16-18 say's we who are ALIVE twice, this really indicates that Paul believes that The Messiah would return before his death.  And since he did not return in such a timely fashion as Paul describes, it leaves his disciples to scrutiny from others.

 J.2Peter3:10-13. Now, if your under the impression that The Law is done away due to the murder of The Messiah, even though He say's Heaven and Earth would go first. These verses reinforce that perspective. Peter describes HOW Heaven and Earth will pass, of which leaves to conclude that it has not occurred yet.  Thus leaving Paul's doctrine of The Law to question.

  K.2Peter3:15-16. The coup de gras for the Christian reply to Sau'ls invalidity as an Apostle. I have shown you from the first chapter, all the way up till now how Peters letter addresses many inconsistencies that congregants have had to deal with, of which mirror Pauline doctrines.
            (a)"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So where do you see that Peter call's Paul an "Apostle"? No where, he call's him a brother. Paul does this as well, yet they are not Apostles.  Moreover, he say's that the wisdom given him is hard to understand, now to those who are believers, why would this be hard? Its because The Father is not the author of confusion, and his revelations are not from Him. Now, in order for you to conclude that Peter is speaking of people who are unstable, you must believe that the word "they" is referring to them.  Yet "they" is referring to Paul's epistles, of which have been dissected from the first verse. Of which provably distort scriptures as We have proven here.

 L .2Peter3:17. "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."  Im going to draw your attention to the word "wicked".  The word for wicked in Hebrew is "רָשָׁע", it means one who is guilty of sin.  And according to 1John, sin is transgression against The Law. And the Greek word "ἄθεσμος" means LAWLESS. No coincidence that Paul teaches that following The Law is no longer necessary.

("Either way, the early Christians accepted Paul's writings as authoritative, including such men as Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of John the Apostle.")

Ignatius of Antioch is as provably a disciple of John as the popes claim to Apostolic lineage to Peter.  And early christians accepted Paul's writings because it allowed them to ignore The Law, and they were BOUND by Constantine to accept as their emperor believes. But if your going to take the word on an anti semite, of whom spawned more Jew hating believers than himself, then be my guest.

("Only Paul himself can be verified as reliable with respect to seeing Jesus and being a true believer and apostle in light of what I have said above. No other can make this claim.")

Yet you have to neglect The Messiah's own Words regarding how many witnesses is needed to establish any matter as true.  And exactly how many witnesses did Paul have when he was miraculously "converted"?

("If this is written by Peter, once again, you have an apostle of the Lord Jesus refuting you. If you are going to accept Jesus, you have to accept not only the apostles teaching, but Paul's as well.")

This is the heart of the matter yet again. Your WHOLE position is based on if's, but we KNOW 2 Peter was not written by Peter, that is fact. Even your own church fathers disputed that.

And If I accept The Messiah, why do I also have to accept someone who teaching contrary to what He say's Himself?  You have a self defeating argument, because NO WHERE do any of The Apostles teach as Paul does in any manner concerning The Law. Neither does The "OT" Scriptures support what Paul claims.

("Are you saying we CAN'T understand what Paul is saying and thus have to read on a surface level without understanding him? Surface level understanding of a text is not exegetical, you need to read in context and seek to understand it more than simply looking at the text on it's own. ")

What I Am saying is that your OWN interpretation of what Paul is saying is diametrically opposed to what is written.  Your "exegetical" method is exactly why your religion has over 3,000 different denominations.  You guy's interpret what you want, how you want and draw your own conclusions despite what is scribed on the parchment.

And please don't address "context" with me. Your whole religion uses Acts10:14 as proof positive evidence that ALL FOOD IS CLEAN for consumption.

("Plus your point "What you fail to realize is that the majority of the apprehension of Christianity that Jew's have is Paul and his doctrinal teachings.  " is a false statement. With or without Paul, the Rabbinic side at best sees Jesus as a mistaken Rabbi and at worst, a miserable heretic in Judaism.")

You again prove my point, your whole premise is a strawman itself as you cannot differentiate Rabbinic Judaism from the rest.  And no, it is not a false statement because Deuteronomy 13 PLAINLY say's that anyone coaxing you to follow a g-d you do not know is a test from Him to see if you love Him.  Your g-d is a g-d who negates The Fathers Law, thus your apostle is false by this very criteria.  This is also reflected in Deuteronomy 4:2

("Oh, And BTW, Keith refutes more Anti-Pauline nonsense ")

And? If someone like Keith, feels it is okay to erase the words of those who question your doctrines, you both are no different from the religious hierarchies that attempted to quell Martin Luther.


" I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"
Show less
So instead of addressing the issue at hand, you concoct yet another blog with the same measure of ill context as you do with the "Rabbi".

Moreover make assumptions as to whether or not I Am a Messianic Jew  and continue to comment under the premise that your assumption is correct? I cannot begin to explain how faulty that criteria is.

Furthermore, you transpose the commentary here onto your blog to make it seem as if I was addressing your blogs in the first place, when in fact it was YOU who made the issue of your blogs, and not the other way around.  I can only imagine that you took the same dishonest liberty with the "conversations" with that "Rabbi".  Of which is not exclusive to your religion, as your doctrines are derived from mis contextualized and mis translated portions of Scripture you choose.

And then you have the gall to proclaim shame and tap dancing on my part? You've purposefully neglected to include the argument in its entirety in attempts to discredit facts that provably refute your assertions.  In addition, you play on the lack of visible comments on my part and suppose that my argument is being represented fairly.  How hypocritical.

Listen, just because you post a blog with doctrinal teachings that are not supported by Scriptures as they read (of which you take great liberty to define on your own), does not justify nor solidify your heretical teachings and beliefs as orthodox.  Your WHOLE premise is only supported by your own explanation of what Paul is "saying", instead of reading what he say's as is. Your attempts to contextualize Paul's words are neglectful as you must jump from different books to gather a definition of the context you see fit.  Thats horrible exegesis.

You really should take your own advice in regards to repentance, because you are just as guilty as you like to view others. 
Show less
I never said you addressed my blog anyway. I'll be happy to post our conversation in it's entirety on the site, that way all can see the conversation.

For your information, Yisroel Blumenthal in his paper was addressing Michael L. Brown and considering Brown had not responded to Contra Brown or it's supplement for nearly 6 years, I'd thought i'd take a crack at dealing with some of his objections. I first began to tackle some of those objectiosn back in 2013.

For that matter, Yisroel Blumenthal in an article he did, did clarify his points to me so I could understand and then I responded again with a much better understanding of the point he was making.
You talk about me jumping to other contexts? You brought up those verses in the first place while you were "exegeting" 2nd Peter and what you did was make mincemeat out of 2nd Peter as well as the rest of the Bible. If you have to be SO brazen as to appeal to 2nd Peter to disprove Paul when that same letter affirms Paul as reliable. You are not very honest with the Biblical text.

Answering Judaism