A gentlemen who was courting me was Hebrew Roots. On our third date I said we needed to talk about our Christian perspectives and how, if we were to have a relationship, his belief system would impact 'us.' Well, he said if we dated me being a "conventional Christian" wouldn't be a problem but, if we married I'd need to "convert". (Note- when we very first started talking he said he observed Torah to honor God but it wasn't salvific.) So, I said "convert to what? I am a follower of Jesus." He said, "...eating kosher, observing the sabbath, celebrating feasts, our sons/circumcised...." ...I brought up that first, the Jew's circumcision is a ritual...not just what U.S. docs do, so I doubt you have done that and all the other restrictions. And then I mentioned Acts council only outlining sexual immorality/blood etc....And he said (and this is LITERALLY the moment my mind went "nope...run.") and this is a quote, "that's just something they came up with as an afterthought." Meaning, the bible just happened to put that in for all eternity but it really was a quick meeting before they taught gentiles to observe all of Torah. I was like...wow. Not only did this conversation solidify my understanding of the Gospel, but it shook out my budding interest in Hebrew roots as it immediately was clear, from that statement, how heretical it could be. I still honor the Jewish grounding of Jesus and Christianity, but Jesus' way is my guide. Period.
Where ever you are in revelation of theological beliefs, to start any kind of relationship both parties should be in the same place by their own heart. Either person ‘converting’ their belief for the other person, shows a love of that person that outweighs the creator, or a need to satisfy one’s own lusts more then pleasing the creator
@@scottmoran9338 Sure...Yep. Totes. However, at the time I was thinking that it was strange that if not-salvific and is honorific than what is the need for 'conversion'? So, specifically he said that it would be ok if I'd be eating shrimp/pork/catfish while we'd be dating but once married I would be expected to store since he, "as my head priest" would not deem such behavior honorific of Jesus. It is strange that he would have been ok with me "not honoring" Christ while dating. Also, honoring Christ seems rather a personal thing that ought not be determined by another as individuals are responsible for their personal relationship with Messiah. Further,...Christ is our head priest even after a woman is married. When I was young, dumb, and unsaved 20 yrs ago right out if highschool, I made the mistake of marrying a Jehovah's Witness which probably was why I did a big "NOPE" with this fellow. I'm super sensitive to 'cult' vibes now. It is a shame. It is truly difficult to find gentlemen that are in love with Christ who also truly understand their role as lead.
He left out verse 21 and the preceding verses in order to tear down a TO strawman. TO have basis for their claims when you read the whole chapter. 21 strongly implies that the council understands the gentiles will hear the rest taught in the synagogues on the Sabbath where Moses has been taught from times of old in every city.
The one word that sums up my experience with Torah observant Christians is "pride." Unconsciously perhaps, but they seem to carry themselves as if they are just a little bit holier than thou.
In talking about this I often bring up the concept of "Binding and Loosening" in the Jewish context when it comes to areas like the apostles saying "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us". As far as Halacha etc. goes. I also bring up the scriptural principle of "In the mouth of two or three witnesses" things are established. In my experience, Torahists want to discount all the early Christian witness on the concept but are largely acting alone or parrots their own contemporary rabbis with this position.
Excellent vid! I'm not jewish, don't follow Torah keeping (yes to 10 commandments & common sense). I love the way you easily, with scripture, are able to sweep away the veil of confusion & make what I know to be the truth very plain. JESUS IS LORD!!!
@@TheBiblicalRoots I was in conversation with someone on this thread. He or she reckons that in a lot of manuscripts the word "new" does not appear in Luke 22:20 where Jesus said "this is the new Covenant in my blood". Might be a good point to address in a future video. Not for me of course, but for our Torahist friends😉
Brother, you said something like, "if you keep these requirements you can live here in the land," or something like that. I just read a paper that is now a book by Frank Thielman called, 'Paul and Law: A Contextual Approach,' that explained that after the events of the exile the Jews became strict because of the fact that they were punished for not keeping the Law. After the events of the Maccabees, the Jews required those living in the land to follow all of the Torah. Under John Hyrcanus the Idumeans were forced to live under the requirements of the Law of Moses. This frames a huge understanding of the mindset of what Paul was dealing with, hence the Judaizers. They weren't requiring it under Roman rule, but they wanted to since under Antiochus IV they weren't allow to practice the Torah and were even killed for doing so.
This may be one of the best scriptural findings yet to support the role of the law for non-Jewish believers vs the HR view. Praying for your ministry. My husband and I are thankful for the good teachings.
2 Corinthians 11 Complete Jewish Bible 11 I would like you to bear with me in a little foolishness - please do bear with me! 2 For I am jealous for you with God’s kind of jealousy; since I promised to present you as a pure virgin in marriage to your one husband, the Messiah; 3 and I fear that somehow your minds may be seduced away from simple and pure devotion to the Messiah, just as Havah was deceived by the serpent and his craftiness. 4 For if someone comes and tells you about some other Yeshua than the one we told you about, or if you receive a spirit different from the one you received or accept some so-called “good news” different from the Good News you already accepted, you bear with him well enough! 5 For I don’t consider myself in any way inferior to these “super-emissaries.” 6 I may not be a skilled speaker, but I do have the knowledge; anyhow, we have made this clear to you in every way and in every circumstance. 7 Or did I sin in humbling myself so that you could be exalted, in proclaiming God’s Good News to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other congregations by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and had needs, I did not burden anyone: my needs were met by the brothers who came from Macedonia. In nothing have I been a burden to you, nor will I be. 10 The truthfulness of the Messiah is in me, so that this boast concerning me is not going to be silenced anywhere in Achaia. 11 Why won’t I ever accept your support? Is it that I don’t love you? God knows I do! 12 No, I do it - and will go on doing it - in order to cut the ground from under those who want an excuse to boast that they work the same way we do. 13 The fact is that such men are pseudo-emissaries: they tell lies about their work and masquerade as emissaries of the Messiah. 14 There is nothing surprising in that, for the Adversary himself masquerades as an angel of light; 15 so it’s no great thing if his workers masquerade as servants of righteousness. They will meet the end their deeds deserve. The entire context of this passage is awesome. However, The Messiah said there would be a strong delusion, and Many would say .... But , who do you say the Messiah is? The attorney general of Israel Rabbi Sha'ul, never taught or preached against the Kingdom message, Paul knew what the Kingdom was supposed to be, and He spent some years out there with The Essenes, before He started preaching.....yeah , he knew what the Kingdom was all about. The Messiah only had one message, to one group of folks....Lost house of Israel, Repent for the Kingdom is at hand. So, our, first question should be who's the Lost House of Israel?, and who's the found House of Israel? now this However, was after being tested by Satan in Matthew 4 , and all he done was quote The Holy Scriptures( what did He quote, his own Kingdoms rules , right?) Satan left Angels came. Now to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy of chapter 8 and 9 he preached repent for the kingdom of heavens here. Y'all, see.... Yahweh /Yeshua /and The Ruach Ha Kodesh/ is all right there Genesis 1, The Kingdom was introduced there! it was lost! .... therefore, Yeshua brought back the original Kingdom....... His Father's Kingdom! Moreover Yeshua literally said if you love me keep my commandments. if he was the word and he is the word then, therefore, He is all of the covenant of The Word of Yahovah, He was Adam's covenant, Enoch, Noah's, Shem , Abraham, Isaac, also Jacob, and all the Lost House of ISRAEL. Isn't that what Rabbi Paul said in Romans 11.....
Hi Andrew! The Bible doesn't explicitly tell us. But my guess as to why the Jerusalem Council didn't write these things was because (a.) they were writing to people who had already accepted the Gospel of Jesus and (b.) Moses was never rejected. Blessings, Rob
The requirement for Gentiles to abstain from blood, and strangled meats, was because that practice was offending the consciences of the new Jewish Believers so as to cause some of them to stumble; not that it was God's desire that the Mosaic Law be extended into the New Covenant, or upon Gentiles. No new creation in the New Covenant is under Mosaic Law to observe its rituals, we're being led by the spirit of the law (to be seen by God if we truly practice righteousness), not the letter of the law (to be seen by men outwardly appearing to be righteous). I can't believe this is still an unresolved point of contention for the churches 2000+ years later, which are majority Gentile anyway. (Titus 3:9) *But avoid foolish ... strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.* (Rom 7:6) But *now we are delivered from the law,* that being dead wherein we were held; that *we should serve in newness of spirit,* and *not in the oldness of the letter.* (Rom 2:29) But *he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.* (Rom 2:14) For *when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:* (Rom 2:15) *Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;*
Interesting point. It would make it difficult to have a community meal if half the congregation were celebrating the same way they had in pagan temples
Amen! What the counsel did is right in line with Paul's teachings about "stumbling" a brother...which we do not, as Christians, have the liberty to do.
On the subject I approach it from the standpoint of a Phronema (mindset, Zeitgeist), aka having "the mind of Christ" on a matter. I tend to wax poetic on the meaning of what an apostle was (taken from the emissaries sent out by Kings), I speak of Christ opening their minds to understand the scriptures prior to ascending to heaven.
Random question but do you think the whole blood thing isn’t that you cannot have blood in your meat “think of blood sausage” But rather that you can’t eat animals that are still living ? Just a curious thought
3:21 - possibly because these were some of the most glaring issues the people of that culture needed to deal with. It's not a huge stretch to say that these were probably just a "starter pack" for Gentile believers. In fact, it's a great explanation for verse 21 of chapter 15.
The Bible says not to add to Scripture. Stretching definitely does this. It’s mind boggling all the teachings people come up with that are completely outside the text, and quite often from silence, regularly going against other Scripture/Bible principles as well.
That's great because my wife, son, and daughter-in-law are all living under the Mosaic Law keeping feast and sabbath, and I'm not living that way anymore. It was a burden for me, and it is not for them. I can be OK with that, thank you for that understanding.
Yes the were four things they felt were very important for the new believers to start doing immediately, and the rest could be learned at synagogues on Sabbath. Yes, it does sound like they could learn them later on. I think it might take some time to learn the rest . It is my understanding that at some point Elijah, Ruth, and Rehab, were grafted into Israel. They, at some point, left behind their gentile cultural background didn’t they? Do you believe they could have somehow maintained their gentile identity?
Hi, Leslie! The problem with that theory is that it is not supported anywhere in the Bible. We don't see Gentiles entering the synagogue to learn the law, and nowhere in the NT does it tell us that Gentile followers of Jesus ever should (or did) learn the entire law. In fact, Jesus specifically told His followers, “They will put you out of the synagogues” (John 16:2)! And He said their adversaries “will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons” (Luke 21:12). And that came true: Believers in Jesus were eventually forced out of the synagogues by Jewish rabbis who instituted _Birkat HaMinim,_ a benediction against heretics that made it clear that even Jewish believers in Jesus weren’t welcome in the synagogues. So, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Gentile followers of Jesus weren’t going to attend synagogue every Sabbath to learn the rest of the law. Blessings, Rob
The NT refers to Jews and Gentiles throughout. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. At salvation bond didn’t become free, male didn’t become female anymore than Gentiles becoming Jew. We simply can’t make things up and insert them into the text of Scripture to fit a narrative. The wild branch didn’t get grafted into the natural branch but into the root. The natural branch isn’t the root. The wild branch doesn’t become a natural branch upon being grafted in.
Leviticus 17 and 18 seem to be the advice of the Holy Spirit , both parties gained something, and the problems were solved . In time, the church had to navigate between , until the destruction of the temple when Christianity separated from Judaism and enforced the New Covenant in Jesus.
These 4 commandments have to be kept to be allowed to visit the synagogues in order to learn the law of Moses. The decision was that adult converts don't have to be circumcised (immediately). That's all. But James believed that Gentile Christians like Jewish Christians have to keep the law and learn the law. *"For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues"* acts 15 21 Paul also never mentioned the 4 commandments. For me its a big problem. And to keep the law is obligatory.
@@maxquen5560 you are basing your point upon someone and something you haven't supported in your statement. Titus who? Prophet Abraham went through circumcision but your Titus is greater than him? Sorry for not being impressed.
14:54 - "some new observations on Acts 15".....and a whooooole lot of conjecture and speculation based, not on Scripture, but on someone's commentary. That's what I took away from the video. I know I didn't come across as particularly gentle in my comments. And I appreciate how even-keel you seem to be in presenting your case. But it was anything but compelling. Shalom.
I am definitely going to remember those exact words "No greater burden". That is very helpful, I have encountered the "Starter package" idea a lot. It is completely a historical, only representing groups like the Judaizers and the Ebionites.
@Solberg, Great breakdown for Gentile implications of Acts 15 from a classic Christian stance. The Apostolic approach is clearly inspired from Leviticus 17-18 with the ger toshav. However, two points need strong attention: (A) The video does not address the Jewish responsibility and calling. Mark Kinzer: ”As Michael Wyschogrod has argued, the fact that the case [of Gentile obligations] is debated at all reveals that both sides accepted as a given the obligation of Jewish Yeshua-believers to live as Jews, in conformity with Jewish national custom as codified in the Torah” (Kinzer, Mark S. Postmissionary Messianic Judaism. Brazos Press, 2005, 66). Perhaps that is why Acts 21's conclusive perspective on the Decree is not emphasised in the video? (B) The tone in the Apostolic Decree is indeed very gracious while addressing complex social situations. But to call the Apostolic Decree mere advice and guidance for cultural harmony a la Rom 14-is untenable since the prohibition on "sexual immorality" (Lev 18) is on the list. It seems more likely to be the basis of Paul's Rule in All the Churches, ie "remain in your calling" (cf. Rudolph, David J. Paul’s “Rule in All the Churches” [1 Cor. 7:17-24] and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation. Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations).
2:20 - You know what else wasn't included in that list for Gentile believers? Honoring your father and mother. Prohibition against murder. Prohibition against theft. Prohibition against bearing false witness....oh, how about loving your neighbor as yourself?...I guess even Jesus' two greatest commands aren't required. At least, not for Gentile believers. According to this line of reasoning, that is.
Here's another thing: In all N.T. cases of the conversion of Gentile believers, what were they required to do? Repent a be baptized. Why were they never commanded to begin learning and keeping the Law?
11:36 - "although Gentile Christians are not under the Law, the Jewish Scriptures still have authority." Wow, how's that for a self-contradicting sentence?
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.
To professor, the four restrictions as per his words are permitted but not required. Professor seems to claim more authority than the Primary disciples of Yeshua.
Hi, Rob, The context for Acts 15 is salvation through obedience to the Law, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be SAVED.” (v1) / "But we believe that we will be SAVED through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (v11). This approach makes Peter's "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" statement non-contradictory. If you take his words as meaning God's Law you run into problems with God's description of His Law "But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." (Deu 30:14) or read any Psalm about God's Law... This sure doesn't sound like a yoke no one was able to bear, but salvation by perfect obedience was, hence the Messiah needing to fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law. The tie back for the 4 laws to Leviticus is very interesting find! Unfortunately I don't think it works well in your favor... While yes there is distinctions at time in the Law between a sojourner and the native born, God makes it clear His ultimate intention with a stranger is to have one Law over the native and sojourner (Exo 12:49, Lev 24:22, Num 9:14, Num 15:15). Even more so this was in no way to avoid "conflict" with the native Israelite. God's prohibitions in Leviticus was because failing to meet these standards resulted in real Earthly destruction. Take your example in Leviticus 18, versus 27-26, "(for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the LAND BECAME UNCLEAN), lest the LAND VOMIT YOU OUT when you make it unclean, as it VOMITED OUT THE NATION that was before you." or Lev 20:22 “You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live MAY NOT VOMIT YOU OUT." These aren't just suggestions in the Old Testament and aren't in the New Testament, these are natural laws woven into the fabric of our reality that have real world consequences. You can observe this happening in our modern times quite easily... Also I believe missing the vital verse 21 "For from ancient generations Moses [the Torah] has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." while not re-iterated in the final letter. It seems as if it was so obvious to everyone that if the previously pagan Gentiles would abstain themselves from at least these four they would be allowed to fellowship in the Temples and learn "Moses"... Thanks for the video
The problem with your interpretation is that Paul quite literally told gentiles they shouldn’t get circumcised. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 (ESV): Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. If this was some decided point about “oh they can learn Torah as they go” then circumcision would be first and foremost. You CANNOT keep Passover without it. Period. Exodus 12:48 (ESV): 48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it So here you have a dilemma with interpreting the verse to be a starter pack. If it were a starter pack, they would have clearly stated YES they need to keep it, but they can take their time to learn. That’s not what was decided. And we see that Titus didn’t get circumcised, which means Titus did NOT keep Passover. Galatians 2:3-5 (ESV): But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in-who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery- 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. People make the argument that the issue was circumcision for salvation, but that only shows a lack of understanding of how Torah actually works. Circumcision is the start. Period. If you become a Torah observant Jew that’s the start. They do it as infants for that reason. You can eat kosher and whatever other laws but if someone isn’t even circumcised they can’t do all of the feasts. I’m also interested in what you think this verse means? You can say it’s about being saved, but how can someone keep Torah without it? And what does Paul mean when he says circumcision means nothing? Galatians 5:2-6 (ESV): Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
@@SabastianDuke Hey there, You bring up some good points however how would you go about explaining the 40 year trek with Israel in the wilderness? According to Joshua 5:5 "Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised." there was a growing number of Israelites that were uncircumcised seemingly obeying precepts of God's Law. I am not saying circumcision isn't important, Abraham, our forefather and THE man of faith, his covenant of promise that we've been adopted into that gave us the Messiah requires circumcision. Gen 17:9-10 - "And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." To get to Paul, he can be confusing at times. It's why we were specifically warned by Peter to be careful when interpreting is word, especially if it's removing God's Law (2Pe 3:14-17). Also note that Paul uses "being a Jew" and "circumcision" interchangeably, ie. (Eph 2:11). That being said if 1 Corinthians 7 use of circumcision means "God's commandment to circumcise your males" and not "get under a Rabbi and have him circumcise you to become a Proselyte", Paul gets reeeeally confusing. Why would Paul one of the most studious people of his age on the scriptures especially the Torah, a man who was a devout and observer of God's Law (Acts 21:24 "...but that you yourself also live in observance of the law." / Acts 24:14 "...I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets", see also Acts 17:1-2, Acts 20:16, Acts 22:30-23:5, Acts 23:26-29, Acts 25:7-11, Acts 27:9, Acts 28:17). Why would he in the same breath say a commandment of God counts for nothing but keeping the commandments of God is the only thing that matters? Is Paul going crazy, or lives and teaches contradicting doctrines? This mindset can be applied to the Galatians passage as well. Circumcision is a metaphor for becoming a Proselyte and taking on the oral Torah of the Pharisees something Jesus specifically called them out on, see Mark 7:8. There's a hint in the Galatians passage as well, v4 "you who would be justified by the law". This explains that these "Judaizers" are looking to achieve justification through the Law and not what the scriptures teach justification by grace through faith in the Messiah. Appreciate the discourse.
@@TheLastTrollasaurs it’s not as confusing as you seem to make it. It’s definitely confusing and unbalanced if you try to teach that people are required to keep the law of Moses though. He only seems crazy if you’re not understanding what he means. It’s a false dilemma. If you believe that the only law of God that could ever exist is the law of Moses then sure, that would be definitely a contradiction. But the law of Moses had a starting point and an ending point. It didn’t always exist and it was prophesied that a new covenant would come. The law and covenant are one and the same. Paul most likely did live in complete obedience to the law. He wasn’t lying. And that’s a red herring because we aren’t talking about whether or not a person raised up under the law continued to live in that manner. We are talking about if the gentile believers were taught that they were required to keep those laws for obedience.
@@TheLastTrollasaurs as far as the Joshua passage, if you read the context it will help. It is making the point that those people were being disobedient and they were circumcised to fix that problem. Joshua 5:2-12 (ESV): At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time.” 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. 5 Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the Lord; the Lord swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the Lord had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed. 9 And the Lord said to Joshua, “Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.” And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day. First Passover in Canaan 10 While the people of Israel were encamped at Gilgal, they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening on the plains of Jericho. 11 And the day after the Passover, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the land, unleavened cakes and parched grain. 12 And the manna ceased the day after they ate of the produce of the land. And there was no longer manna for the people of Israel, but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year. It even shows them keeping Passover after doing that. It doesn’t say the uncircumcised were keeping it before. Also, as far as the rabbinic circumcision thing, show that in the text? Where does it say that? Paul quite literally says to stay the way you were called. It doesn’t say anything about rabbinic stuff or the intent of your circumcision. That’s just adding to the text things that aren’t stated.
@@SabastianDuke one big hole in your argument is that Paul circumcised Timothy in acts 16. Which takes place after the council. This other commenter is correct. You must balance scripture with scripture in order to fully understand Paul.... if you take his verses about circumcision out of context it makes it sound like he hates circumcision and like if you get circumcised you are condemned to a life of slavery. What about all of the Gentile babies who have been circumcised not because of their parents faith but because of social norms or health reasons? Are they under some "yoke" or "burden"?? James is clear that the entire WORLD is guilty under the law of God. Keeping it for salvation is ridiculous because we have already broken commandments and if you break one you are guilty of breaking all. That's why we need a Savior. People who say that this is talking about just keeping the law out of obedience and love for God are deceived. It's about trying to be saved by your works which is foolishness. Acts 15 addressed the same problem.
5:34 - I see. So, these four "commandments" given to Gentile believers in Acts 15...even THOSE weren't really commands. More like, suggestions. ??? Is this why so many still feel okay with eating things like blood sausage and blood pudding, even despite THIS passage???Good grief!!
Nope 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.
In the 2 times in Acts 15, and the once in Acts 21, it doesn’t say to abstain from EATING blood, it just says to abstain from blood. True, Lev 17 addresses the abstaining from eating blood, but Lev 18:19 also addresses the need to abstain from blood in the context of sex during a woman’s monthly cycle. …something not too many people talk about…
The cycle comes under another general category in Torah, Deut.24:1, ערוה. The point is to procreate and to abstain from all other release, Gen.1:26-28, avoid immorality, NT. In Acts 15:20: ...abstain from the impurity of-the idols and the immorality and the strangled and the blood. Strangled animals are non-kosher, kosher meat is bled out. Pigs were sacrificed to idols (1Maccabees 2). Pigs and other animals cannot be slaughtered in a kosher manner because they have two blood supplies to the brain, it is not an instantaneous slaughter. Shall we dine on cat and dog tonight?
7:06 - Torah obedience was NOT the "burden neither we nor our forefathers could bear." Christians I've talked to never read the whole passage at the beginning of Acts 15. Torah obedience wasn't the issue being discussed. Go back and read the first verse of Acts 15 again. The issue was whether we need to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses TO BE SAVED. TO BE SAVED. Not whether we need to keep the Law at all. Big difference.
You are correct. Christianity has this disconnect involving the oral law, circumcision and salvation. How can one equate Torah obedience with bondage or a burden when multiple times The Father says keeping His Laws are not to hard for us?
So if one is required to keep all the laws of the Torah in order to be saved... How could it be fair to grade on a curve as folks gradually learn what the laws contained in the Torah are? So much of what Hebrew Roots advocates teach bring to mind Proverbs 18:17...
This is the problem... I'm not even Hebrew roots and I can see that rob is tearing down a strawman. I have never heard a TO person say that Christians have to keep the law in order to be saved. They are simply pointing out that if you ALREADY love the Lord, it makes sense to pursue His commandments. Nobody can keep the law perfectly... We are already all guilty of breaking it that's why we need a Savior to begin with... Like if I love my husband I'm not going to disregard what he tells me to do. Learn Jesus parables... He teaches us this. Jesus also taught the same thing as the prophets in the Old testament. This is shown in the parable of the wicked vine-growers.
@@charitybrook6279 Not according to my Hebrew Roots friend he isn't. No, my friend says that you are saved by faith alone through Christ alone-but that you must keep the Torah to maintain your salvation. And when it comes to keeping God's commandments, they habitually equivocate on the meaning of the term "law" and are really bad at keeping the one where men are commanded to love their wives. NOBODY is saying that you can love Jesus and not care about right and wrong. The moral "law" is binding on all men and for all time, no matter what anyone believes; the Old Covenant "law" was giving to a specific people for a specific time and purpose. Moral laws are not the same as cultural, ceremonial, civil or dietary laws.
@@jessebryant9233 that's not what Jesus said. Jesus gave the greatest two commandments (which are found in the Law) and then said that ALL of the law and the prophets hang off of these two. Meaning ALL of the law is relevant to either loving God, or loving neighbor. You and I might not think food laws are important for example... But neither did Adam and Eve apparently. If God says that He made some things for food, and some not, then isn't it part of loving God to *not* eat things that He tells us not to eat because He didn't make them for food for us to begin with?? Isn't it our covetousness (just like Adam and Eve) that draws us to be disobedient to God in such a simple command as "though shall not eat"? If we can't keep such a simple command... How do we expect ourselves to keep greater commands like "though shall not murder"? Which interestingly is the very next sin you see after the fall... Adam and Eve coveted what God told them wasn't food, they disobeyed God and faced the consequences. Then their son Cain had envy and hatred in his heart for his brother, which ked to murder. That's why Jesus said if you hate your brother you have murdered him in your heart already. There are heart principles behind the letter of the laws. I can't speak for your friend... It seems like he is on the wrong path if he truly believes that way and treats his wife poorly. That is not showing the fruit of the spirit. We don't have to do anything for salvation it's a free gift. But it's also a narrow path. And God wants a bride without spot or blemish right? Didn't He say to "be holy for I Am Holy"? Clearly that means He has a standard. The free gift is the fact that we are all guilty before a Holy God, and we can't DO anything to be saved. If we do good works, it's purely out of love not because "we have to". That shows a wrong motive in someones heart. Even on earth a good father's love is unconditional, but he still wants order and respect in his house right? Is a father pleased if his children are only doing things out of obligation but they huff and puff the whole way through?? No!! We see this in how God was not pleased with Israel because their heart was wrong. Father's want children who actually desire of their own free will to be obedient because they simply love their dad and want to serve him, as he serves them. We should have the same attitude towards our Father in heaven shouldn't we?? I believe many people are saved from many different denominations. What sets us apart from those who are not, is not whether we understand the law... It's about what our heart is like towards God and keeping his commandments to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However I do believe that God desires always to bring us into GREATER understanding, and if His law is truly written on our hearts then we will want to follow Him wherever He leads us... Even if He leads us into not eating things he commanded not to be eaten. Does that make sense?
@@charitybrook6279 1. What's not what Jesus said? And I agree, ALL of the moral law is relevant to loving God and neighbor. Charity, I don't know what you're trying to say here. You believe that eating pork, worshiping on Sunday, not observing feast days = hating God or neighbor? 2. Adam and Eve? So when God himself gave a specific command directly to Adam... _What are you talking about?_ But then, God changed what could be eaten a couple of times, didn't he? Also, do you think that WHO God gave the command to is also unimportant? Again, not sure what you're trying to argue here... 3. Such a simple command? See James 2:10 and Isaiah 65:6... And also examine your own thoughts and actions from the past 24-hours. 4. Adam and Eve coveted? Yep. They did what God specifically told them not to do. NOBODY is saying that sin does not exist, ONLY that there is a DIFFERENCE between the moral law and all the other types of laws that I listed. 5. My point regarding my friend is that what you claim is a strawman isn't, given my friends position, who, unlike yourself, is part of the Hebrew Roots movement. 6. Who said that the path is a broad one? Who said that there is no objective moral standard? I'm having hard time following you here... 7. EXACTLY! One cannot claim to be repentant and to have placed their faith in Jesus and live like the Devil. And NOBODY here is claiming one can. 8. Don't say that to my Hebrew Roots friend! He insists that God's love is conditional. "If you do this, then God will do that." Old Covenant stuff... promised to the Jewish people and predicated upon them following the Torah of the Old Testament. 9. Again, take that up with the Hebrew Roots folks. Your beef is NOT with me. My friend says that our hearts are wrong if we do not keep the laws of the Old Covenant God made with the nation of Israel. Do you observe ALL that God commanded in the Old Testament? 10. Who said they don't? I know I didn't. 11. Absolutely! So, what are you driving at? You're NOT a Torah keeper, right? Isn't that what you said, that you're not part of these groups? 12. And what commandments are those? The 10 Commandments? Feasts? Days? Sabbaths? Dietary laws? The moral law? Mixed fabrics? Animal sacrifice? Capital punishment? 13. What are we commanded not to eat? And when was that command given? To whom was it given? How many times was that altered?
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.
Excellent insights yet again Rob . Clarity matters . "Requirement" begs the question : "for what" ? Clearly not for justification/Everlasting Life before God . Faith alone in Messiah Jesus alone for His doubtless Guarantee alone sets the anchor in the water : Romans 3:20-5:11 , Galatians , the book of John (1:12-13,3:1-18,4:10-14,5:24,6:2847,11:23-27,20:31) - and Paul's direct answers in Acts 16:31 & 1 Timothy 1:16 further clarify .
Why did you leave out verse 21?? Seems kind of deceptive to me to not address that at all when it's a key point to all of the claims TO make about this council. And when you read verse 21 right after reading the preceding verses it does indeed seem to imply that they will learn the rest later...
@@charitybrook6279 where in The words of the letter is verse 21 reiterated? Why would the disciples send gentile to the synagogue when Christ said his followers would be kicked out of the synagogue
@@JGez83 why does it need to be reiterated? During the discussion among the apostles it is implied by verse 21 that the new believers will be learning these things over time in the synagogues. Then they write the letter with their instructions knowing this to be the case. And yeah, He did say that, and yeah that happened repeatedly because the leaders of the synagogues cared more for doctrines of men than doctrines of God. But guess what Paul (the apostle to the gentiles) was doing every Sabbath?? Preaching in the synagogues!!! The gentiles even begged him to return and preach to them again on the coming Sabbaths in -said synagogues.
14:30 - Here, you yourself become guilty of superimposing an issue into the story, that is totally foreign to the text. No, this was not about new Gentile believers trying to avoid offending Jewish believers. Read the beginning of chapter 15!
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.
Nobody has to keep first Torah in order to follow Jesus Christ.Jesus Christ is not only Messiah of the Jews but Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour of the world and after the resurrection and before ascending to heaven Jesus Christ said to his disciples, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:and, lo, I am with you alway,even unto the end of the world, Amen. (Matthew28:18-20) Anyone who wants to accept Jesus Christ should straightly follow the commandments of Jesus Christ that are commandments of God.
Acts 21:25 seals the deal for me....... "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe NO SUCH THING save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication". (KJV).
It seems like someone is working hard to find some way to make Acts 15 fit their systematic. We think the gentiles were told to avoid fornication just to keep from offending the Jews? And because the list matches instructions given for the sojourner and for Israelites (like most other laws given by Moses), somehow that means the list from the Jerusalem Council was completely unrelated to following Torah? That bit actually seems to indicate the opposite. Are you looking for the truth of God's Word or just to bolster an existing theological construct that you latched onto at some point?
I agree with him concerning the kosher food laws which were tied to the ceremonial laws, but the seventh day Shabbat is different. It was not part of the ceremonial law and was established during creation, and is one of the 10 Commandments that God himself wrote. If you're going to include the Shabbat with what the Apostles mentioned during the council, then is it okay to murder, steal, or dishonor your parents?
Hi, Clarence! The weekly Shabbat was not established during creation. There are no commands for a weekly rest in Gen 2. The Shabbat commands were not given until after Israel was rescued out of slavery in Egypt. As for murder being okay, why would you think that is the case? The "laws" of God that run the universe and define right and wrong were true long before the Law of Moses was given. When God commands us not to murder today, it’s not because of the Ten Commandments. It’s because of His universal principle against murder. Long before God gave Israel the Law of Moses, Cain was judged for murdering his brother Abel (Gen 4:8-16). Same thing with sexual morality. Under the New Covenant, God doesn’t forbid adultery because of the Ten Commandments. Unfaithfulness and sexual immorality were wrong long before the Law of Moses, as we see, for example, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18-19). Because mankind was made in God’s image, we have a "compass" of objective morality, so to speak, baked into our human DNA. And under the New Covenant, God's law is written on our hearts. Shalom,. Rob
Paul spent years with pagan Christians before that Jerusalem council. In that time you would think he would have taught those people to obey the law of Moses but apparently he didn't. He could have gavr them that starter package or whatever you call it and them teach them more. But it would seem according to both chapter 14 and 15 that Paul didn't expect gentile believers to obey the law of Moses. Nor does he teach that in his letters. You can find lot of stuff what love is and what Paul teaches about it.
@@cherylaguilar5421 What gets me, is they use the Christian Bible, both OT and NT which were Canonized by Men of God who worshipped on the Lord's Day and weren't keeping the law of Moses. They believe God raised up not a single person who understood the Scriptures for 2000yrs. Truly a Low IQ Cult
Read the Bible thoroughly.God hates the Sabbath.Now,Sabbath should be kept in the way of Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ said, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:8)
@@ruth4019 I love your advice but the question arise if Jesus is the lord of the Sabbath that mean he is the owner of the Sabbath how he hates his own day (the Sabbath)?. Or did God the Father make a mistake to command the Israelites to keep Sabbath holy, so he sent Jesus to correct it. So that christian can choose any day to worship. It sounds to me difficult to digest.
@@pn5607 Jesus Christ do not hate the SABBATH DAY.God the Father meant by saying this because it was being kept by hypocrite Jews/Israelites. By saying "your sabbaths or your feasts days" mean "Sabbath kept by you or feasts/festivals celebrated by you." God said he not only hates Sabbath but worship, animal sacrifice, burnt offerings, new moons,of Jews.(Isaiah 1,Amos5:21-23) and more. Read the Bible thoroughly.Read it yourself.
@@pn5607 all in the name of Sun worship. Yeshua said, "If you do not abstain from the world you will not happen upon the Kingdom. Unless you observe Shabbat as a Sabbaton you will not look upon the Father." - Thomas 27.
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.
Hi Rob Another great try, but I think this misses the point, and many others fall at the same place as many argue from different stand points. To be “saved” takes a change of heart and most importantly, the turning away from other Gods and their worship which is the basis of this. “Saved” is not a entry ticket into the pearly gates of Heaven, but an exit ticket out of worldly bondage Jude in the new testement notes this whilst referencing the forshadow of the exodus. “Now I want to remind you, although you are fully informed once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe [who refused to trust and obey and rely on Him].” Jude 1:5 (AMP) I did however find it interesting regarding the linking back to Leviticus which is an interesting observation
2 Corinthians 11 Complete Jewish Bible 11 I would like you to bear with me in a little foolishness - please do bear with me! 2 For I am jealous for you with God’s kind of jealousy; since I promised to present you as a pure virgin in marriage to your one husband, the Messiah; 3 and I fear that somehow your minds may be seduced away from simple and pure devotion to the Messiah, just as Havah was deceived by the serpent and his craftiness. 4 For if someone comes and tells you about some other Yeshua than the one we told you about, or if you receive a spirit different from the one you received or accept some so-called “good news” different from the Good News you already accepted, you bear with him well enough! 5 For I don’t consider myself in any way inferior to these “super-emissaries.” 6 I may not be a skilled speaker, but I do have the knowledge; anyhow, we have made this clear to you in every way and in every circumstance. 7 Or did I sin in humbling myself so that you could be exalted, in proclaiming God’s Good News to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other congregations by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and had needs, I did not burden anyone: my needs were met by the brothers who came from Macedonia. In nothing have I been a burden to you, nor will I be. 10 The truthfulness of the Messiah is in me, so that this boast concerning me is not going to be silenced anywhere in Achaia. 11 Why won’t I ever accept your support? Is it that I don’t love you? God knows I do! 12 No, I do it - and will go on doing it - in order to cut the ground from under those who want an excuse to boast that they work the same way we do. 13 The fact is that such men are pseudo-emissaries: they tell lies about their work and masquerade as emissaries of the Messiah. 14 There is nothing surprising in that, for the Adversary himself masquerades as an angel of light; 15 so it’s no great thing if his workers masquerade as servants of righteousness. They will meet the end their deeds deserve. The entire context of this passage is awesome. However, The Messiah said there would be a strong delusion, and Many would say .... But , who do you say the Messiah is? The attorney general of Israel Rabbi Sha'ul, never taught or preached against the Kingdom message, Paul knew what the Kingdom was supposed to be, and He spent some years out there with The Essenes, before He started preaching.....yeah , he knew what the Kingdom was all about. The Messiah only had one message, to one group of folks....Lost house of Israel, Repent for the Kingdom is at hand. So, our, first question should be who's the Lost House of Israel?, and who's the found House of Israel? now this However, was after being tested by Satan in Matthew 4 , and all he done was quote The Holy Scriptures( what did He quote, his own Kingdoms rules , right?) Satan left Angels came. Now to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy of chapter 8 and 9 he preached repent for the kingdom of heavens here. Y'all, see.... Yahweh /Yeshua /and The Ruach Ha Kodesh/ is all right there Genesis 1, The Kingdom was introduced there! it was lost! .... therefore, Yeshua brought back the original Kingdom....... His Father's Kingdom! Moreover Yeshua literally said if you love me keep my commandments. if he was the word and he is the word then, therefore, He is all of the covenant of The Word of Yahovah, He was Adam's covenant, Enoch, Noah's, Shem , Abraham, Isaac, also Jacob, and all the Lost House of ISRAEL. Isn't that what Rabbi Paul said in Romans 11.....
Let's be frank here: No, we dont have our work cut out for us. Rob, notice 'thou shall not murder' is not in Acts..yet you believe that one should keep that as a follower of Christ yes? So, no matter how you slice it, THIS is a starting point for all new believers... This is a crux of the mainstream christian position as it directly contradicts Yeshua's words with what is "eternal life"....which he quotes the bottom half of the big ten, not Acts 15. Why not include the "two most central commands to the Jewish people?" you ask. "Saturday sabbath and eating kosher." Rob, cause those are NOT the two most central commands of the Jewish people. As a Professor I would hope you would be aware of that fact. Shema and have no other gods are the two most central commands...of which Acts 15 explicitly and outright expresses. Why? “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to *abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.* 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” Those things listed above directly keep gentiles from interacting with Jews in a "shul" or even temple area due to idol worship. In fact, if the mainstream christian position is correct then you have a problem here with the "works" mentioned that one would NEED to have. Now to address the. "No greater burden" part... What is the context? FIRST TURNING TO GOD AFTER HEARING THE GOSPEL because God can see their heart. However, then vs 16-18 describe how gentiles were prophesied to turn to God without Torah keeping first(which is how ALL humans are saved, including Jews BTW) YET then commanded to keep parts of the torah(of which christianity later claims eating meat sacrificed to idols is ok because Jesus didnt repeat that command) Rob, with all due respect, it isnt us that has our work cut out for us. It's yall. I might recommend that you study Torah a bit more since you were unfamiliar with where those 4 were at in the Torah, but only found them by studying someone else's work. You should be privy to this info since you "rebuttal Torahism." I love how you conclude his work though as its always fascinating to me when someone concludes what TO people have but in order to shove that conclusion out of the readers mind he must first say, "although Gentile christians are not under the lathe OT scriptures still have authority. ...." Brother, if you cannot see this as a last ditch effort to avoid the plain truth then I dont know what to say? You avoided the part on learning Moses in the synagogue every shabbat..... So, if you are told this meat you are about to eat was sacrificed to idols, would you eat it Rob? Yes or no?
Thanks! With all due respect, while you said that you don't have your work cut out for you, it seems to me like you're working pretty hard to interpret Acts 15 in your favor by importing ideas that I don't believe are found or implied in the text. Also, here's a video I made on Acts 15:21, which most certainly does *not* teach that the Gentiles would be learning Moses in the synagogue every Shabbat. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CDCowRTOGJ4.html Blesings, Rob
Good comments! If we're supposedly under NO rules, then why did this Council start with 4, and such an ODD 4? Why not murder? Why not Love for God and Love for Neighbor (2 more rules that always get added to the "No Rules" list). The answer is that they needed two very opposite groups (Long time Jews and newly converted Pagans)to get along, so they picked the 4 most blatant things these Pagans had to get rid of first. Why in verse 21 is there a reference to being able to hear the rest of Torah later? Nope, didn't even give that verse a look. Folks that are against this: There's a lot to Torah. I've been determined to keep Torah for YEARS now, and I'm barely understanding doing anything right and my head is filled with questions. I'm not saying it's hard. I'm saying it's a lot for someone not raised in it to take onboard and respond to. These Pagans from Acts 15 were much, much further away from the target than I am as someone raised in a Christian family. They started them off with a very personal list that would stop them from doing the very worst things that they were doing. It's the same as if a heroin addict or a prostitute decided to follow Jesus, but didn't know where to start. Good advice to such a person would be: Stop the heroin, stop the sexual immorality. Get those under control and you'll be better positioned to see where to go next. People are saved by faith. There's never been another way, in all of history, yet Torah was (and always will be) necessary. Wrap your mind around that. Everyone saved the same way, yet Torah required the whole time. These Pagans were already "saved", now they had to begin learning to do what God wants from a person, which is that they NOT SIN. You don't go from an orgy loving, idol-worshiping, human and animal sacrificing drug user to the kind of person that God wants overnight! You have to start somewhere and Acts 15 is about finding that starting point for these people.
Rob, reads Leviticus 11 with one eye open, he doesn't see the word sin mentioned so he concludes is not sin since Messiah came to tell His followers is okay to eat anything you one and become a heathen now that He(Yeshua) has made it clean. He read the words abomination/detestable and ignores what it means to God. The word itself in the content that it was written means, something that God himself loath, abhors, evil and has a complete hatred when the command is disobeyed. But to Rob the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is now Jesus. Rob promoted Jesus to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which he admitted to me and bench YeHoVah and designated Him to be a little lower than the angels, who now stands at the right hand of the new God Jesus. This is what we call replacement theology by these replacement theologians.
Courtney, after how many months (weeks?) of being a follower of Jesus did you first realize that every Christian who came before you had it wrong and that you had to set them all straight?
My understanding is that the 4 things that gentiles are commanded to abstain from are 4 laws found in the Torah and they all relate to pagan temple worship. Which makes sense, they would have been 4 things that needed urgent attention for new believers coming out of paganism. But they are told that Moses is proclaimed every Sabbath in the synagogue, surely that means they would learn Moses every Sabbath? Why even make that exclamation if it wasn't relevant to the new gentile believers? It's like teaching someone the basics of the gospel and then saying to them, for the gospel is preached every Sunday in the churches. Implying they will learn the full gospel when they attend church every Sunday.
Thanks, Pip. It turns out that there isn't any biblical or historical precedent for Gentile converts to the Law of Moses being given these four restrictions or something similar. There also isn't any biblical precedent for the idea of gradual obedience, where we only have to obey a few of God's commandments at first and we can start obeying the rest over time. There's also no scriptural evidence in the NT that Gentile believers in Jesus were ever expected to, or ever did, learn to keep the Law of Moses. Verse 21 does not imply that Gentiles will learn the Law of Moses in the Synagogues. Notice it's not a statement that looks to the future, but rather a comment on historical traditions. "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” James is reminding the Gentiles that they're joining a Jewish movement. So, it makes a lot more sense if we view those four restrictions not as a “starter pack” leading to the Law of Moses, but rather as guidelines to help the Gentiles avoid offending their new Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ. Which is a very common theme in the New Testament, that Christians should not use their freedom to offend others or cause them to stumble. Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks for the reply. I'm having a bit of a struggle at the moment. I came to faith from atheism, not being raised in Christianity and I went from life long atheism straight into Torah observant Christianity. I have been in the Torah movement for 7 years. This last year I've been re-evaluating things, my eschatology changed from Premillennial dispensationalism to Postmillennial covenant theology, I've become reformed in my theology, Calvinist, covenant theology and I agree with the majority of the Westminster confession of faith. I find myself aligning with classic Presbyterian theology. This has been a massive change and a paradigm shift in practically every part of my theology. I ended up leaving my Torah fellowship because we didn't see eye to eye on these things. I'm actually now attending a Sunday church for the first time in my 7 years of faith. So a lot has changed in the last year. But I'm finding it very difficult to leave the Torah behind. I still see it everywhere in scripture and every fiber of my being says it's wrong to break Torah. It has been so ingrained into me that even the thought of not keeping it feels sinful. I've been watching a lot of your videos and I do find some things you teach to be convincing but I still have this ingrained reaction that I'm fighting against. One thing I have come to realize through studying the book of Hebrews, is that the laws to do with the priesthood and temple have definitely gone through a change or "reformation" transferring it from the earthly Temple and Priesthood to a heavenly Temple and Priesthood. And with that change came a change in the law, but I still don't see that as an abolition of the law but rather a reformation, from physical to spiritual. But what that looks like practically I don't know. I assume that when we meet as a body we are fulfilling Temple law, our worship and prayers are our sacrifices and when we meet together on feast days we are meeting at the heavenly temple. This is my current understanding. But as for Sabbath and the dietary laws I just don't see that they were abolished. I'm trying to test them and hold them up to scrutiny but it's so difficult to find a straight and simple answer.
@@pipinfresh hey brother. Just wanted to reach out as someone who began my journey into Torah this year. I for one appreciate you and your honesty and recognize that we are all just trying to figure these things out to the best of our broken abilities! All that said, let the Spirit guide you and always remember to love the Lord and love your neighbor. No matter where you finally land on this issue, whatever you do, never stop growing and always walk out your faith with grace and sincerity! Praise the Father for you and your willingness to learn regardless of where you stand now or where you will be in your faith in a year!
@@pipinfresh Take 25 minutes and learn the truth about Acts 15. Steve teaches with love and gentleness. . ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M6v1H03dOQ0.html
Peter speaks well of Paul. If Peter was so deceived by Paul, how can we trust verses like Acts 5:1-5? Even Polycarp later continues to speak well of Paul to the Philippians. "These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, not because I laid this charge upon myself, but because ye invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you, which is the mother of us all, while hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor. For if any man be occupied with these, he hath fulfilled the commandment of righteousness; for he that hath love is far from all sin." (Translated by J.B. Lightfoot) Blessings. Edit: And also! Acts 9:10-19. Ananias, a disciple at Damascus was a witness to Paul's conversion. His testimony has helped lay this sort of argument to rest for myself.
@@StephenLoney "peter" was written about 150ad. peter never endorsed paul. did jesus lie when he warned us to not believe anyone making the claim paul made?
Acts 21:21-24. is very clear about jews. and Acts 21:25 is for gentiles. it's clear as day gentiles are not required to do jewish things or circumcise. simple as that. its different for jews. we have the same faith but different outward expressions.
The yoke was following the law FOR SALVATION! It was also speaking to the fact that they had so many man made requirements for the people to keep in order to be saved. The yoke was not simply following the law. It was following it for salvation and placing requirements on the people that God did NOT require.
That's not what the pharisee bros say the 2nd time. And if that was the case, why is there no qualifier for such a thing in the council's letter? No mention anywhere of gentiles keeping Torah in obedience.
If it isn't a Yoke, how are you making out keeping them? Where do you bring the required offerings for the Feast days? How about capital punishment for breaking Sabbath. No Yoke there.
@@salpezzino7803 I keep them the best I can. Thankfully Jesus died for my transgression when I fail. 💗 Are you perfect in keeping his commands that are stated in the New Testament? No? Jesus covers that? It’s the same for me. It’s a simple concept whether you’re keeping commands in the Old Testament or the new. We do our best to be obedient and when we fail Jesus has taken care of that. 💗
@@Nicole-eu4vx By keeping the Old Testament law of Moses, you are rejecting Jesus's finished work on the Cross, so He will be no use to you. Why would Paul and James warn 'If you miss 1 you are Damned?' They were speaking to the New Covenant Church. Sorry, Dear. You are adding the law of Moses to the Cross, which is the false gospel Paul spoke of
@@salpezzino7803 I don't think you have thought this through from our perspective brother. The issue in Scripture was not about obedience to the Torah. As is stated in Acts 15 twice and alluded to once, some religious leaders were telling converts that they "must do such and such" in order to be saved. Most of us here that practice Torah do not teach that one "must" practice Torah for salvation. Rather, we believe that it is what the Father desires of us as His disciples once we are saved.
Okay Rob, I may be the last one to figure this out, but I think the reason we disagree on these peripheral issues is because we are starting from different base lines. We interpret the scriptures in line with our worldview. Most Torah observant folks are coming from a Protestant perspective in that we are protesting the apostasy of the Catholic Church and have no confidence in Constantine’s conversion. We have a serious problem with his edict of 321. On the other hand, I gather that you are on board with the Christian emperor Constantine. If I remember correctly you referred to him as the “defacto head of the church”. Also if I understand you correctly you speak favorably about Ignatius of Loyola who was instrumental in the Counter reformation and the formation of the Jesuits. I’ve never heard you mention the four world empires of the book of Daniel but I would be curious to know your opinion about this beast that was prophesied to attempt to “change times and laws.”
Hey, John! That's a very interesting observation. Personally, I think Constantine ushered in a sad age for the Church. When Christianity became a legal religion in 311, that was one thing. But once it began enjoying the endorsement of the Roman state, I feel like we started veering off track. For the first 300 years, the Church was countercultural and more closely resembled the posture of service and humility that Christ taught. And it grew tremendously during that time. With political power came corruption of purpose and some decidedly un-Christlike pursuits. Personally I don't see much of a correlation between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church modeled in the New Testament church. As far as Daniel's vision, I think we could see the 4th beast as representing Rome (thought Greece is also possible). And if you're referring to phrase "and shall think to change the times and the law" from Daniel 7:25, that section seems to refer either to the antiChrist, or Antiochus. (See 1 Maccabees 1:41-45). Blessings, Rob
This professor is reading scriptures from what version of the bible? And what version of a version? While the scribes and Hebrew/Aramaic are the closest or original language, ..rabbi tovia singer reads the original language and is very accurate, ...if we think in context the romans and the Greeks still trusted in pagan gods! So they are speaking of people coming from pagan gods...the Greeks
This may come as a complete shock to you, but Rabbi Tovia Singer and Dr. Solberg are completely agreed on the fact that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the Law of Moses.
@@nickmansfield1 I tried to be a Noachide once but it was just way too hard to follow in the footsteps of a stone age drunkard who let himself be saw-d0-ma1zed by his own sons. And it was just way too hard to give up eating the flesh of a living animal, as much as that might be relevant to our present times. So now I became a Christian and it's so much less advanced! I only have to do things like love my enemies and forgive people who hurt me. Easy-peasy! Our heroes are people like St. Damien of Molokai who gave up his life caring for poor lepers, but I know that doesn't even compare to all the holy warriors you've got in the Noachide Movement...SAD!
@@billyhw5492 try not to totally misrepresent what I wrote. You stated this: "Rabbi Tovia Singer and Dr. Solberg are completely agreed on the fact that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the Law of Moses." Hence I pointed out how much those two perspectives have in common. Speaking ill of the prophets is something Yeshua never taught. I applaud Abraham's religion; beyond that of Noach. I see it as being quite silly how they stop at Noach.
If you believe that keeping Torah is permitted but not required, then why do you have this channel? Why did Paul fight tooth and nail against judaizers and keeping the law as a believer?
@@sbeasley7585 when you say Jew, you probably mean Orthodox Jews, they don't necessarily keep Torah, they interpret Torah, and that put them in conflict with Yeshua's divine prophetic interpretation of Torah. After King Josiah's reforms they could no longer worship in the high places so they decreed that every dining table would become an altar. They make the Torah more difficult to observe in multiple other ways too. Hence young Israelis are often alienated. Conversely Yeshua preached a lot of their Judaism which was later codified.
so according to christianity Paul and his doctrine is above God and his 10 commandments. Above Jesus and what he taught about the 10. Above the 12 real apostle and what they taught about the law. So exactly why should i listen to this self proclaimed "apostle".
Rob here is the TO interpretation of Acts 15 since they believe the apostles were teaching them Torah already watch how it all makes no sense Acts 15 according to the TO. 1But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2. And Paul and Barnabas replied,” we are teaching the Gentiles to observe the Torah and they will become circumcised to observe the Passover as required by the law.” 3. And the men from Judea replied, “ Oh, never mind, continue what you are teaching.” End of Acts 15 Oh but let’s not stop it there let’s end it a little bit later. 5. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” 6. And the council in the elders replied,” Peter and the other apostles are already teaching the Gentiles to observe the law of Moses to keep the Passover as required to become circumcised.” 7. Then the believing Pharisees replied,” then we feel there is no longer need for this council and request these proceedings to be closed.” Alternate ending to Acts 15 according to TO interpretation
This is a complete strawman. For a number of reasons. The apostles taught different things to different groups of Christians all centered on the gospel of the cross, with the understanding that people who accept the gospel will pursue the Word and knowledge of God on their own in the scriptures AND on the synagogue every Sabbath where Moses is taught in every city since times of old as acts 15 says! When Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians did the Ephesians receive the same letter? My goodness...
@@charitybrook6279 it isn’t a strawman. And yes Ephesians would also have received the letter to Galatia because his letters CIRCULATED around the churches🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️ Using this line of reasoning Titus only had Titus and Timothy only had 1st and 2nd Timothy and they were for no one else🤣🤣🤣🤦🏼♂️
@@JGez83 clearly they were written for edification of the whole body, (that's why they have been preserved today) but if you think every believer immediately got a copy of the same letters you are mistaken. Also, Paul supposedly taught against circumcision and then circumcised Timothy in acts 16 AFTER the council of Jerusalem. How do you interpret that?
@@charitybrook6279 lol now YOU strawmanning me I never said they received them immediately. Paul did teach against circumcision Timothy was circumcised because the Jews knew he had a Jewish mother and the scripture clearly says he circumcised him in account of the Jews Acts 16 Paul came also to Derbe and Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him >>>>>because of the Jews
@@JGez83 I didn't say you said that they received it immediately. I'm just pointing out that by the time the letters were compiled it was years after they had been written. So people would have been exposed to different info at different times. They didn't all receive uniform teachings, the apostles taught what they believed was relevant to the people they were speaking directly to, and expected that they would be bereans and learn the rest over time while they were in the Scriptures and prayer. My point about Paul circumcising Timothy wasn't that we all have to be circumcised. If you get circumcised as an adult, you aren't following the command in the Torah anyway. It was to be done on the 8th day. It was an expression of faith from the parents not so much the kids. For the kids it was more of an ethnic marker, which is why it was done to Timothy on account if the Jews. I'm sure Timothy felt he should for evangelistic purposes. And that's why Paul did it. Not to keep the law. But that's the point I was trying to make, Paul supposedly teaches against circumcision but then circumcised Timothy... Which means that when we read the verses about circumcision and the law we must be really careful to interpret it correctly, otherwise we could become confused and make Paul say things that he never said. As Peter warned us, if we misinterpret Paul it leads to lawlessness. Implying that is not what Paul taught. And Paul himself was put on trial for teaching against the law of Moses, and he denied it. They had to call false witnesses to testify against him! I don't think that Paul taught against the law unless he was lying while he was on trial...
For all you Christians who view this video, read this very carefully. God in Leviticus mention unclean animals, although the word SIN does not appear in any of the verses God uses the term Abomination and detestable 8 times, If you don't know what these words mean I suggest you look it up then ask yourself if Rob is teaching the truth, So, the question you might one to ask yourself, was Yeshua(Jesus) send to tell you that unclean animals are no longer to be consider SIN unto God? If you believe that he was sent to now tell you eating unclean animals is no longer SIN, then He cannot be the Messiah(Christ) the Jews were expecting. Ponder on these words. I want to see how many so called Christians would respond to these words.
@@JGez83You lack understanding what you read. When God created in the beginning it call everything He created Tov. Do you know what Tov means, is not the word good, it means created for a purpose(Tov). You keep understanding scripture with Greek mindset. I'm asking you again, did God call eating unclean animals SIN?
@@luiscajigas5567 you never answer my question YOU ran away from like the coward we all know you to be you wannabe Israelite-Judaizing troll. And YOU don’t have a “Hebrew” mindset YOU have a gentile pretending to be a Hebrew mindset Um no your interpretation isn’t even supported by Jews themselves of the word Tov. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@JGez83 the reason you won't answer my question I been asking you from the beginning is because you know it's SIN. Which makes it impossible for Messiah to claim all unclean animals clean, otherwise he would be condoning SIN and that would disqualify him as the Messiah. Keep drinking the kool-aid with Rob.
I believe that just as Jewish believers in Jesus were permitted to keep the Law of Moses, and being fellow believers with the Gentile converts - and if we should eat together, it would be honouring to our Jewish believer guests that what meat was prepared - we Gentile believers should follow the three meat recommendations. As far as the fourth and last prohibition, that of not being sexually immoral, it is pleasing to all men and especially to God.
4:43 - it's almost laughable that you use a the phrase "Torah traditions," considering these two words, -- "Torah" and "traditions" -- are completely two concepts that are completely juxtaposed to each other by Messiah in His recorded dealings with the Pharisees. "Torah" is most certainly NOT traditions. It is the commandments of the living God, written down by Moses. "Tradition" is originated by man.
Rob Solberg, I am responding to the first 5 minutes of your video, I will probably respond to the rest of the video tomorrow. I had to write a page, and hope that Gentile believers read this page and conclude that you want nothing to do with God's law, which is why you aggressively continue to attack them. Acts 15 is not a common battleground for Torahism; it is a chapter that you do not understand, which causes you to interpret it to suit your distorted view and to continue attacking God's laws because you want nothing to do with God's law. According to verse 1, it tells us that certain men (probably Pharisees) who came down from Judea were teaching the brethren that they could not be saved unless they were circumcised in the manner of Moses. According to verse 5, there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying that it was necessary for them to be circumcised and to command them to keep the law of Moses. What was in question had nothing to do with removing God's laws, but rather, whether the works of the law were necessary for salvation, and this is clear from verse 1 through 5. Being circumcised is not a burden; all that is required is to be clipped, but telling a person that they must observe the law of God to be saved is heresy, and that was the issue. Again, the issue was about whether one had to observe the law to be saved, not about removing the law of God. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works; it is a gift from God, not of works, lest any man boast, which was what the Pharisees were teaching, and it had nothing to do with abolishing God's law. The Pharisees always appeared to be establishing their own righteousness, which is why the Scriptures tell us, if our righteousness does not exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. Rob Solberg, your problem is that you convinced yourself of the lie, that all those who observe the law of God are teaching that one must follow the law of God to be saved, otherwise you would not have brought up Acts 15. But as previously stated, you indulge yourself in attacking God's law. Rob Solberg, please explain Acts 13: When the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. On the next Sabbath day (verse 44), almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. It is clear that Jews and Gentile believers were observing the Sabbath, but because you want nothing to do with God's laws, you want nothing to do with the Sabbath. Rob Solberg, Peter's vision had nothing to do with eating unclean animals, but about God cleaning man, and Peter understood the vision. Rob Solberg, you quoted Acts 15:28, 29. The Council did not decide! Why don't you read verse 7? When there had been much disputing, Peter rose up with authority and explained his vision and settled it, and verse 12 says that all the multitude kept silence. Peter cleared it, that salvation is by grace and not by the works of the law, as indicated in the Epistle to the Ephesians. It had nothing to do with doing away with God's laws, but since you want nothing to do with God's laws, you would do everything and anything to aggressively attack God's laws. You don't realize it, but you are eating grass and you will continue until you understand that God's laws still applies. This has nothing to do with making it a burden, it is clear from the Scriptures that God's law are not a burden. Rob Solberg, do you believe 1st John 5:3, where it states, for this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome, in other words, not difficult to carry out or fulfill, being that as we walk after the Spirit, the Spirit will fulfill the righteousness of the law. If you answer yes to this question, it makes it clear that you have no understanding as to why they said except to abstain from four things, and God did not say that. The term that was used was, "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost." Do you know why the word "seem" was used? Being that you want nothing to do with God's laws you will continue to aggressively attack God's law. Rob Solberg, you told your new followers that they are allowed to eat kosher but not required. Why didn't you follow up with one of your past statements, that you find it weird if a Christian wants to follow God's laws, which you call Moses laws? You find it weird because you want nothing to do with God's laws.
My ignorant friend in Acts 13 the Gentile are proselytes to Judaism which is why they are there in the first place they were going there before the disciples came and before Messiah🤣🤣🤦🏼♂️go actually read it in the Greek You also ignore the same person that wrote 1 John 5 3 also wrote chapter 3 22-24 which says what those commandments are. You also ignore that the disciples of John didn’t teach YOUR Judiazing heresy
@@JGez83 ugh.... tell me about it.... soooo many times the enemy misquotes scripture. ESPECIALLY John regarding Messiah's commands. People just don't like to read whole books in context.
Acts 15:1 informs the context, which is works salvation regarding those who were trying to force the Gentiles to be circumcised and obey the law to be saved. Acts 15:11 further verifies this. The yoke of bondage was not the law, it was the additions to the law by the religious authorities. Deuteronomy 30 explains that the law isn't too difficult or out of reach. Either the Father lied, or an interpretation that assumes the law is unbearable bondage is wrong. The gentiles were coming from paganism. The 4 things were the first things they were to do in order to be in fellowship as new believers. They also happened to be major core issues that needed to be addressed. Churches today wouldn't stop at just 4 things in their discipleship process, why would we assume that this situation was any different? Acts 15:21 new believers would be attending synagogue on the Sabbath where they would learn the rest and grow as disciples. No further instruction was needed because as they learned Torah they would begin walking it out on their own. It doesn't take elaborate explanations to understand what was being said. We just have to be more nuanced with the contextual clues that are given. In the end. Do what you feel led to do. Read Scripture how you believe it should be read. Wherever you land on this. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Blessings
The Apostle Paul wrote: Philippians 3:3 KJV - For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Galatians 5:14 KJV - For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Galatians 5:6 KJV - For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Galatians 6:15 KJV - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Galatians 6:13-15 KJV - For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Titus 3:5 KJV - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3:6 KJV - Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
We do not know who wrote Acts. It is believed that is was the same author who wrote Luke based on Acts 1:1. It is also believed that Acts was written decades after the events occured, certainly after Luke was written. Concerning Acts Ch 15 as with other chapters, the author could be biased or we may not have the original manuscript info as when copies were made as time went by, copyists could have very well made changes to suit the belief system at the time of copying. WIth that said Ch 15 lacks vagueness as it is reported that certain men from Judea came to teach the bretheren. Why not identify by name/tribe ( or other ref) who they were. The sayings of Peter and James were biased by the writer who supposedly accepted the new teachings that lead to Christianity. Over the centuries one can manupilate the words to suit ones belief. The direction, at the council, was not given in a legalistic manner ( even though Paul claims to be an authority of the Law) that coverd all bases.
He tore down a strawman in this and many other videos... If he actually wanted to address what TO people believe, he would have addressed Acts 15:21 and the preceding verses. Instead he left those out and framed his arguments as if TO people are just pulling these ideas out of nowhere. Which they aren't, they are getting it from verse 21 which does indeed imply that the gentiles will be learning these things every Sabbath in the synagogues where from times of old Moses is taught in every city.
Rob, to you, they cannot be sin because that would contradict everything you've been teaching. But to God, it's the Hebrew word sheqets, meaning "abomination." The word abomination is used eight times in Leviticus 11. God tells us that he not only abhors the eating of classifiable unclean foods, but he considers them evil. And he says it should be repulsive to his people, whom he wants to keep holy. And yet, here you are teaching the exact opposite because you believe Jesus, while talking to a Jew blurted out to them that they could now eat unclean food, even though God considered it an abomination. Wow, did the Messiah come to tell us that something evil and abominable to God is no longer an abomination to God? Did God change his mind about the specific sin? Wow, you must have gotten this revelation at the same time you received a divine assignment from God to teach against His law and commandments. You said in your debate that anyone who opposes the teaching of the law of Moses is a false prophet. You should meditate on these words.
@@JGez83 you are nothing more then a kool-aid drinking person who lacks sooooo much understanding. If I were you i would keep my mouth shut and let people think of you as an intelligent person.
Hi Luis! Jesus did not say, "Thus he declares all foods clean." That was a phrase added by the author of the Gospel summing up what Jesus taught in that passage. Second, if eating unclean food is a moral sin that applies to all people, how do you explain God's command to Israel that, "You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God" (Deut 14:21). If your position is correct, then God is encouraging sojourners and foreigners to sin in this passage. Likewise, He was encouraging Noah to sin in Gen 9:1-3. But we know God would never condone sin! The kosher food laws were only given to the nation of Israel, and only for a limited period of time. Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRootsFirst, in Chapter 14, God addresses Himself to Israel, who are holy to Him. The heathen are not holy to God, which is why God gave Israel the law and commandments in order for them to walk in a holy manner before Him. Heathens could eat anything they wanted since the law and commandments were not given to them. When God said to give to the heathens, the strangled animal was not an unclean classed animal. Let me make that clear: it was a clean animal that was either killed by another animal or died of natural causes. It's still a clean animal to eat, but not for the Israelites, because they are holy unto God. If an Israelite ate a strangled animal defined as clean, he would bear the iniquity of being disobedient to God's commandment. So, to set things straight, Deuteronomy 14:21 is not dealing with unclean classified animals, but clean animals that died naturally or were torn by another animal. Second, to address your second question, you must ask yourself, why did God give this law to the Israelites? Remember, they are holy to him. So, your real question is, why not the Gentiles? The promises were for the Israelites, not the Gentiles. According to the scriptures, the Messiah died to redeem those under the law, to remove the curse of the law, and to fulfill the promise made to their father. Now that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree, and they have become part of the commonwealth and fellow citizens with the Holy People of God, the aliens and foreigners have now become one with Israel concerning the promises. Under the guidelines given by God, Israel does not become one with the aliens and foreigners; they become part of the commonwealth. One nation, one law. It is God's Law, not gentile opinions on what applies and does not apply to them. If God doesn't want his chosen holy people to eat unclean animals, that would apply to those who have become one with Israel and are now considered holy people according to God. God's holy people will abstain from unclean animals and those that are holy to him. The heathen are not holy to God, which is why God gave Israel the law and commandments in order for them to walk in a holy manner before Him. Heathens could eat anything they wanted since the law and commandments were not given to them. When God said to give to the heathens, the strangled animal was not an unclean classed animal. Let me make that clear: it was a clean animal that was either killed by another animal or died of natural causes. It's still a clean animal to eat, but not for the Israelites, because they are holy unto God. If an Israelite ate a strangled animal defined as clean, he would bear the iniquity of being disobedient to God's commandment. So, to set things straight, Deuteronomy 14:21 is not dealing with unclean classified animals, but clean animals that died naturally or were torn by another animal. Second, to address your second question, you must ask yourself, why did God give this law to the Israelites? Remember, they are holy to him. So, your real question is, why not the Gentiles? The promises were for the Israelites, not the Gentiles. According to the scriptures, the Messiah died to redeem those under the law, to remove the curse of the law, and to fulfill the promise made to their father. Now that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree, and they have become part of the commonwealth and fellow citizens with the Holy People of God, the aliens and foreigners have now become one with Israel concerning the promises. Under the guidelines given by God, Israel does not become one with the aliens and foreigners; they become part of the commonwealth. One nation, one law. It is God's Law, not gentile opinions on what applies and does not apply to them. If God doesn't want his chosen holy people to eat unclean animals, that would apply to those who have become one with Israel and are now considered holy people according to God. God's holy people will abstain from unclean animals and are not to be rebellious. I hope this makes sense to you.
Thanks, Luis! You said, "Let me make that clear: it was a clean animal that was either killed by another animal or died of natural causes. It's still a clean animal to eat, but not for the Israelites, because they are holy unto God." And that's exactly my point. God gave different dietary laws to the Israelites than He did for non-Israelites (Gentiles). For Israel, the animal that died of natural causes was unclean. For the Gentiles, it was not. Because the kosher food laws were given to set apart Israel from all the other nations. In fact the Hebrew word _qadosh_ (holy) means "set apart for God." I agree with you that under the New Covenant, Gentile believers are grafted into Israel (not the other way around). But Gentiles who come to faith in Jesus are not grafted into the Law of Moses or the Sinai Covenant. They don't become members of national/political Israel. They become members of the family of God. And under the New Covenant, we are still under the righteous requirements of God's law. But the way we fulfill those requirements has changed. "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3-4). "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16) Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob, accordiing to your answer eating unclean animal cannot be sin is it because that would contradict everything you've been teaching. But according to God and the Hebrew word He uses sheqets, meaning "abomination." It is still Sin. The word abomination is used eight times in Leviticus 11. God tells us that he not only abhors the eating of classifiable unclean foods, but he considers them evil. And he says it should be repulsive to his people, whom he wants to keep holy. And yet, here you are teaching the exact opposite because you believe Jesus, while talking to a Jew not gentiles blurted out to them that they could now eat unclean food, even though God considered it an abomination. Wow, did the Messiah come to tell us that something evil and abominable to God is no longer an abomination to God? Did God change his mind about the specific sin? Wow, you must have gotten this revelation at the same time you received a divine assignment from God to teach against His law and commandments. You said in your debate that anyone who opposes the teaching of the law of Moses is a false prophet. You should meditate on these words.
As a Christian this is how you begin the journey into the bondage of an unbearable yoke. Yes this is lame and meant to be satire. Don't bite me... Human flesh is unclean. 🤪 1. Begin by observing the Sabbath on Saturday (Yes, taking a day off to focus on the Father, your Savior, and your family is tough! Oh, and there is that pesky fellowship issue that must be considered since the the majority of mainstream Christianity meets on Sundays instead of the day the Father sanctified as Holy!) 2. Celebrate the Father's Feasts (Yes... It's difficult to celebrate the Fathers feasts and enjoy their prophetic purposes. They require cooking and decorating and fellowship and... Seriously, who needs the Father's Feasts when there is Christmas? A holiday that is celebrated by almost EVERYONE, Christian or not!!!) 3. Eat Biblically clean (No pork and shellfishies!!! That seems impossible with a barbie and seafood place at every corner! And really, the Father's garbage walking garbage disposals taste so good. Why not eat whatever? Rat seems appetizing too!) 4. Place scripture at your gates and above the thresholds of your house (Using a hammer and nail to hang a sign is hard right? As a budding keyboard theologian why take the time for 5 minutes of manual labor to be different from the world when there are arguments to be had online and heretics to slay! And really, who wants their neighbors to think they are weird and start asking questions about their faith?) 5. Avoid mixed fabrics (But... Science hasn't proved this is beneficial... Has it? Has it? Surely the Father was just being silly? There aren't any actual studies on this subject available... Are there?) 6. Wear tzitzit (These might make you stand out too much right? Why be set apart and wear something to remind you that you should do good things in accordance with what God asks you to do from His Scripture? It's just too much to demand of us. Besides, we have WWJD bracelets! 7. Circumcise your children on the 8th day (I know. We normally circumcise our boys as soon as they pop out... Waiting a few days is such a burden... And let's not even start with the fact that once you begin to practice Torah that you may be convicted to be circumcised yourselves... Oh wait. Most of us in the west already are. Lucky us for missing that bullet!)
@@salpezzino7803 I am willing to give this one more go. Can you please provide a scripture showing that either of the two ate pork or any unclean animal? Thanks.
@@justinbutcher44 Show me they didn't. Noah ate plants till after the Flood then God told him: '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. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything' == So the entire World ate Pig, Abraham was a Gentile and we don't see any Pork restrictions until Mount Sinai and those were only for the Son's of Israel. You may want to spent less time on RU-vid and more in the Word
@@justinbutcher44 This may help Genesis 1:29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.
@@justinbutcher44 Those clean and unclean animals brought on the Ark, were not for Food they were for sacrifices. How do we know? NOAH DIDN'T EAT ANIMALS.
yes the law of Moses. He means the 10 commandments. the church taught billions of people that they do not have to keep the 10 commandments. which is the opposite of what Jesus taught. so how about you christians tell me how you do not have to obey the 1st commandment!
Don't cook up stories. No Church tells so.Read the Bible thoroughly. One of the Ten commandments say to keep the Sabbath and later God says that He hates your Sabbaths.
@@narcissistinjurygiver2932 You are not well informed about Christianity. The first greatest commandment of Jesus Christ is "you shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart,and with all your soul,and with all your mind." Nowhere it says that you must worship Satan instead of God.
Rob, this is something that I am trying to send to Jonathan, but I cannot find his post, but I would like you to read it. Today, I was studying a few passages in the book of Genesis and Mark 7:19 in its context. I hope you truthfully weigh the below according to the scriptures. Be truthful to the last paragraph. Again, this is an address to jonathan, but I'd like you to read it. You have conditioned yourself to pull verses out of context, which is why you continue to distort scriptural truth. If God in Genesis 7 made it clear that there are clean and unclean animals, then Genesis 9 is being pulled out of context, because why would God say all meat is good to eat but then command his people to not eat unclean animal? If I tell you to set aside all drugs, the bad drugs (those that harm the body) and the good drugs (those that benefit the body), then I say all drugs are good for you. Would you take the bad drugs? Please answer "YES or NO". If NO, why not? How did Noah know which animals were clean and which animals were unclean? Another thing, have you read Genesis 6:21? God instructs Noah to gather of all food that is eaten. It is safe to state that this verse makes it clear and implies that Noah knew what to eat and not to eat. Let's go to Genesis 2:9, out of the ground, the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was pleasant to the sight, wasn't it? What happened when they took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? It is clear that you pulled the verse out of context, and that is what happens when does not take the Scriptures as a whole when studying. One needs to take the Scriptures as a whole and not just pull verses out of context to support a distorted view. Regarding Mark 7:19, the oldest manuscript found was in the 4th century, which was right after 325 AD, around the time of the first Council of Nicaea, which was also in the 4th century, who wanted nothing to do with the God of Israel nor with the Jews. So, one can understand why a phrase was added with parenthesis. Another thing, let's assume that Mark 7:19 referred to all meats. A general statement is being made. Mark was speaking to the Pharisees, not to the Gentiles, so he didn't need to say clean or unclean because he understood that eating unclean meat was forbidden. Don't you think that the Pharisees would have questioned him if he was referring to unclean animals? Mark 7:19 had nothing to do with clean and unclean, nor was it discussed in the passage, or was it? And if it was, show me.
Clearly you ignore Jewish writings that say otherwise in regards to Genesis 9 2-3 like the arrogant troll you are because I am not leaning on my own understanding Gen 9 2-3 without the verse breaks because breaks are not in the original text 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. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. From the Targums JPS 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all. ONK 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heavens, in all which creepeth upon the earth, and in all fish of the sea; into your hands shall they be delivered. Every moving thing that liveth, for you it shall be to eat; as the green herb I have given you the whole. PAL 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and on every fowl of the heavens; of all that the earth swarmeth forth, and all the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing which liveth to you shall be for food: as the green herb have I given to you the whole. From Jubilees 6 6 (vs 9 if using Sefaria) And behold I have given unto you all beasts, and all winged things, and everything that moves on the earth, and the fish in the waters, and all things for food; as the green herbs, I have given you all things to eat. Antiquities of the Jews Book 1 Ch 3 Sect 8 8. When Noah had made these supplications, God, who loved the man for his righteousness, granted intire success to his prayers: and said, that it was not He who brought the destruction on a polluted world; but that they underwent that vengeance on account of their own wickedness; and that he had not brought men into the world, if he had himself determined to destroy them. It being an instance of greater wisdom not to have granted them life at all, than, after it was granted, to procure their destruction. But the injuries, said he, they offered to my holiness and virtue, forced me to bring this punishment upon them. But I will leave off for the time to come to require such punishments, the effects of so great wrath, for their future wicked actions: and especially on account of thy prayers. But if I shall at any time send tempests of rain, in an extraordinary manner, be not affrighted at the largeness of the showers; for the water shall no more over-spread the earth. However, I require you to abstain from shedding the blood of men; and to keep your selves pure from murder; and to punish those that commit any such thing. >>>>>I permit you to make use of all the other living creatures at your pleasure, and as your appetites lead you: for I have made you lords of them all; both of those that walk on the land, and of those that swim in the waters, and of those that fly in the regions of the air on high: excepting their blood: for therein is the life.
And once again Paul said when you go to an unbelievers house eat whatever they put in front of you. Unbelievers didn’t abide by Lev 11 therefore everything they would have is unclean therefore YOU cant be Torah Observant and do as Paul said Remember Sam the arrogant so called Jew. That whatever one eats gets pooped out according to the Messiah You are also going to ignore that Lev 11 and Deu 14 21 say the Israelites may not eat an animal even a clean animal that dies of itself……but they can give it to the stranger with their gates that they may eat of it. You are also going to ignore that Lev 11 1-2 says it was ONLY for the children of Israel NOT ALL MANKIND.
My unlearned friend the animals in Genesis 7 are not speaking about clean and unclean for eating why because he takes of the clean animals and makes a sacrifice in Ch 8. Deer is NOT CONSIDERED an acceptable sacrifice or offering in the Torah Tanakh the Dead Sea Scrolls or ANY external Jewish writings therefore Deer is “unclean” for the altar or are you saying Noah made a sacrifice of animal that was never deemed acceptable as a sacrifice?.?.?.? We are also going to ignore that aquatic animals are not on the Ark and therefore Noah doesn’t know what is clean and unclean in regards to them (unless you read it into the text) because he only knows what is ON THE ARK per Ch 7. You esiegete scripture I exegete and critically think on scripture my unlearned fake Jewish friend.
I give you an A for effort, Sam! You are working really hard to make this work for you. I admire your commitment, but sadly, you are unable to see your own bias in your interpretation. Just to be clear, is it your position that the statement in Mark 7:19b should be removed from the Bible?
@@JGez83 Are the animals in Leviticus 11 detestable and an abomination to God? So according to your view, Messiah came to tell us that these animals which God consider sinful to eat are not to be consider sinful anymore since as Rob says Jesus is the new God of Israel. Stop drinking Rob kool-aid
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Biblical Contradiction #2: Did God create the heavens and earth from the formless deep OR did Yahweh create them from the slaying of the primaeval sea monster Leviathan /Rahab?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Are The Ten Commandments Based On The Forty-Two Principles Of Maat That Appeared 2,000 Years Earlier? - Ancient Pages"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
*Let's briefly run through the 'ten plagues':* First the rivers are turned to blood, all the fish die and the waters stink. No one has any water to drink. This lasted for seven days and would have resulted in mass deaths due to dehydration. Amongst the first to die would have been the children. *The author doesn't think to explain how the Hebrews were saved from this. No record of it was made anywhere in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 7:17-25. This is followed by a plague of frogs which had somehow survived the rivers of blood that had killed all the fish. A mere inconvenience, nothing more, and a big stink when they all died, *but no record anywhere.* Exodus 8:2-13. Next we have the plague of lice about which very little is said *and of course no record was made.* To a people who would have been accustomed to lice this would probably have been nothing remarkable. Exodus 8:16-18. Then the flies. Apart from the land being 'corrupted', whatever that means, there don't appear to have been any ill effects from this and they disappear as quickly as they came a few days later. *Nothing worth recording there, obviously.* Exodus 8:21-31. Now the author seems to begin to lose the plot and describes a 'grievous murrain' *which kills all the Egyptians' cattle, horses, camels and sheep.* ***They all died - hold that thought.*** *No Egyptian historian or keeper of official records deems it worthy of mention.* Exodus 9:3-6. Next come the boils which afflict everyone and everything, including all the livestock ***even though they had been killed by the 'grievous murrain' a few days earlier,*** *apparently, and yet no-one thought to write anything down anywhere.* Of course, anyone who understood anything about microorganisms and the aeteology of boils would have described this as an infestation with Staphylococcus - the signs of faecal contamination - but the author was obviously unaware of these. Maybe he was just in too much of a muddle by now to care. Exodus 9:8-11. Now it's hailstones so bad that every plant, every tree, every servant (for servant read slave) ***and even the livestock (that our story-teller has forgotten already that he killed off in the fifth plague before given them boils in the sixth) were harmed.*** It looks like our story-teller has learned from his earlier silly mistake with killing all the livestock too soon then having to resurrect them later. He mentions that some plants survive. Do I smell stinking fish again? *The greatest hail storm in all Egyptian history, apparently, but not worthy of being recorded.* Exodus 9:18-25. It's the turn of the locusts and it's suddenly obvious why some plants had to survive. *How could the locusts turn Egypt into a barren desert if the hail storm had done it earlier?* Good thinking there. Shame about the earlier boob! *Mysteriously, no Egyptian scribe appears to notice any of this or the inevitable famine and mass starvation which would have ensued.* Exodus 10:4-15. And for the penultimate trick, it's going to be dark for three days. *No one makes a record of this, obviously.* Exodus 10:21-23. The last 'plague' is not so much a plague as a ritual genocide. *Here our tale takes a nasty turn and the true character of the Hebrew god is revealed in all its glory - a petty, vindictive, homicidal psychopath who has not yet acquired the omniscience he will be granted later. He kills every firstborn Egyptian in a single night,* ***including the firstborn of all the cattle that died in the fifth plague.*** *For some reason he needs the Hebrews to leave a secret sign so he doesn't kill them too. Weirdly, he can't tell his own chosen people from ordinary Egyptians and doesn't even know where they live.* And he had been leading up to this, apparently, because after every plague he 'hardens the heart' of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't let the Hebrews go. He had actually been planning this genocide all along just to impress people with his powers. *And still no-one thought even this mass killing in a single night worth making a note of in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 12:1-30. And then, of course, Pharaoh could muster up 600 horses to pull the chariots ***from amongst all the dead livestock from the 5th plague*** (Exodus 14:7). Google *"Rosa Rubicondior: Origins Of The Exodus Myth"* *Watch* Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University, lecture 7 from 10:05 to 26:45 minutes and lecture 8 from 0:00 to 12:05 minutes. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH- A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus"* *"For you were (not) slaves in Egypt: The ancient memories behind the Exodus myth - Archaeology - **Haaretz.com**"* *"Why the Exodus Story Has Value Despite Being Complete Myth - Psychology Today Australia"* *"Is the Exodus a Myth? - Worlds Beyond"* *"Historicity of Exodus and Moses - The Creatively Maladjusted"* *"Biblical Contradiction #81. When did the Exodus allegedly happen: during the reign of Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) OR in 1447 BC?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Biblical Contradiction #87. Does the god of the Hebrews reveal himself to Moses in Midian OR in Egypt?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Bible Contradiction **#134**. Which Ten Commandments?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Bible Contradiction **#147**. Who writes the laws and commandments on stone tablets: Moses OR Yahweh?"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Ten Reasons Why the Bible’s Story of the Exodus is Not True - by Tim Zeak - ExCommunications - Medium"* *"Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah - Thomas Shoemaker"* *"Sargon the Great and Moses - The Word of Me… Wordpress"* *"The Documentary Hypothesis | Fewer Lacunae"* *"The Death of the Documentary Hypothesis | Rev. David Bokovoy"* *"The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis | Rev. David Bokovoy"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
