Ah, and that is the key: Yeshua's enemies didn't think that He and His disciples kept Torah. Why? Because Yeshua rejected some (not all, which surprises some people) of the extra-Biblical traditions which had been built up around Torah. Therefore, their opinion of His Torah-observance was wrong, since it was He, not they, who interpreted the Torah correctly.
(That wasn't an accusation, btw. I was just demonstrating the dangers of basing one's theology on what the Bible records Yeshua's enemies as saying.)
I totally disagree with you on divorce. I think Jesus did abolish what the standard was on divorce according to Mosaic law.
Since you don't explain how you think this the case or answer my argument, there's no way for me to respond to this.
Galatians 3:23-28
Again, pay attention to the key phrase: under the law. I've already differentiated being "under" the law (which includes being under its condemnation when we violate it) and being under Grace but seeking to obey God's Torah.
How then was the Torah a pedagogue? The term "pedagogue" refers to a slave who was given charge over the children of a household. As part of his duties, he was given the authority to punish the children when they failed. Now, when the children grow up, they are no longer under the pedagogue and no longer fear being caned by him for their misdeeds, of course--but does that mean that they cease to walk in the ways of the lessons that the pedagogue taught them? Not at all.
Likewise the Torah. Before the Messiah, the whole nation of Israel was "under the Torah"--they had agreed with one voice to keep it (Exo. 24:3ff), and were therefore under the curses of disobedience it pronounced (Deu. 27). Yeshua came and took those curses on Himself, so that we are no longer threatened by them (Gal. 3). The children have grown, the pedagogue no longer weilds his cane: Does that mean that we throw off all the lessons of the teacher and cease to obey what he taught us? Not if we are wise and love the Father who put the pedagogue over us to teach us His ways.
The big error that we want to avoid--and this was why Galatians was written--is believing that Salvation is anything other than by grace received in faith--that is, trust. It is not faith + works (though genuine faith will result in works), nor is it faith + Jewishness (circumcision). God has redeemed us from our Egypt of sin by His outstretched arms; now we're simply learning to walk in His ways.
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body. That is:
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (1 Co. 12:4-6)Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of ALL law.
Agreed. We're just disagreeing over the implications of that. I would argue that since He said that He came "not to abolish, but to fulfill," that His fulfillment, in whatever form you conceive it, does not result in the abolishon of the Torah. The fact that the essence of the New Covenant is to have the Torah written on our hearts would seem to confirm this (Jer. 31:31ff).
I gave you the reason I follow the Ten Commandments.
Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.
I think there are verses from Scripture that support that day too.
Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!
In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath! The synagogues did not permit alms to be collected on the Sabbath. Ergo, the second part of the verse, "that there be no gatherings when I come" actually supports the idea that Sha'ul was expecting to worship with them and address them on the seventh day rather than the first--if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?
Why then did he say that they should lay aside funds on the first day of the week? Because his letter would have been read to them on the Sabbath, when they gathered in the synagogue/church to worship. Ergo, he was telling them to go out the very next day after the letter was read and set aside the gift.
In any case, neither of these supports the idea of a change in the Sabbath. God specifies that the Sabbath is to be on the seventh day, even tying it to the act of Creation (making it a universal, not merely a Jewish, cycle). He repeats this numerous times in the Tanakh (the OT). For there to be a change in the Sabbath, an equally clear and blunt statement would have had to be made by one with the authority to change the Torah--no mere Apostle, but Yeshua Himself! You'll find that neither He nor any Apostle made any such change.
That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.
Pedagogue also means a teacher or schoolmaster.
pedagogue /peddgog/ • noun formal or humorous a teacher, especially a strict or pedantic one.
That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body.
HUH? I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality. You took one line from the verses I gave you from Galatians. I quoted Gal. 3:23-28 and you only keyed in on 28. I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they? Why would the Messianic Jews say that the Jews in their congregations are expected to follow Torah laws, but the Gentiles can refrain from it? How is that equal?
Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.
Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings? How does that prove that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be followed? Your point please? Frankly, my sins/or not having sinned isn't the issue here. The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.
Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!
In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath!
Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul! The fact that he was leaving the next day had nothing to do with it.
As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths
Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."
That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.
I'm sorry you feel that way. This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday: