I know that some hold to this, but I don't. I accept no supposed "two-house theories" or any ideas that our God offers two salvations; one salvation, one Torah.
No, no "two house", but God wrote the lesson in Israel's history through the Law of Moses, which was "added because of sin till the seed should come to whom the promise was made". (Gal.3:19). So the universal law and the Law of Moses are not "two
Gospels" or "two
salvations" as you and/or sometimes Bob and others keep calling it. It was a phase God used in His plan to raise up Israel and show through her that man was fallen and needed a savior, not a bigger set of laws, and the savior would also come through her.
No evidence? Eric, they went to Temple! They would not be allowed in to where they went in the Temple, if they did not follow halakah! A male could not even go there unless they were circumcized, mikvahed, and doing halakah! Also, our Lord was not a Christian; He was a practicing Jew (Matthew 5:17 - 19; Luke 4:16 - 30; John 7:37 - 39; 10:22 - 30; Acts 11:26)! He and His followers observed Sabbaths and other holy days (Matthew 26:17 - 21; John 10:22; Acts 2; 13:14; 16:13; 17:2; 1 Cor 5:8). Believing Gentiles also observed the holy days (Acts 13: 42 - 44 and Scriptures I have mentioned before here.)
To clarify, as someone else pointed out, there were Gentile proselytes, who were already grafted into Israel and kept the whole law, as the Torah specified. But not all gentiles who were coming into the Church were like this. And the whole city coming to the synagogue on the sabbath says nothing about them all "
keeping" the sabbath. The proselytes would have, but everyone else simply went on the day when the service was given and the preaching done.
I turned NOTHING on its head.
Centuries of teaching "christian" tradition has erased significant portions from the minds of believers, to the point at which they are not reading what the Word actually says.
Oh, and I forgot to mention something. Somewhere, you wrote that the believers left the Temple and the synagogue. I cannot remember the reason you gave -- I think you said they were not allowed to come because they believed in our Lord? This is incorrect. Check history. Until the destruction of the Temple, there were many sects of Jews who attended the Temple and the synagogues. There were and are many sects of Judaism, and just as today, some believe in our Lord and some do not.
Historically, the reason some believers left believing Judaism initially was because of the tax Rome put on Jews after the Destruction. They simply did not want to be identified with them because it hurt their pocket books. They later further distanced themselves from Jews and Judaism because animosity had grown between the groups because most would not support their fellow Jews in their fights with the Romans or help them pay off the huge debt Rome had given them for reparations.
As a result of that animosity, the "church" rewrote the Laws of our God, making it a sin to attend services on Sabbath and a sin not to attend their churches on Sunday. They further made rules that what is commonly called "communion" had to be taken within the church and from the hands of their leaders, rules re baptism, rules re almost anything they could think of.
While I have carefully avoided using church history as authoritative proof (apologists in the rebuttals to SDA and Armstrongism, as well as the rest of "the cults" often make the final appeal to "historic Christianity"), as I am aware that it can be wrong, and much of it has in fact been wrong. But on the sabbath issue, I have read the SDA and others' "Sabbath to Sunday", history, but it is still unconvincing that there was such a rapid change in such a short period of time. By early 2nd century, we see Sunday coming to be accepted, and while this may not have been scriptural, still, it is a lot to suggest that they were all strictly sabbatarian, and then in a few decades switched over. Yes as I have even argued in other areas, paganism was creeping into the Church then. But it crept in slowly, and the first set of doctrines to really gain a foothold was Gnosticism. This was what was warned about in the epistles, not a change from the sabbaths to "pagan days". Much of this alleged history parallels the Church of Christ/JW/Baptist bridism claims that the true church was rapidly driven completely underground, and surfaced at times through such "small persecuted groups" (the "little flock" throughout the ages) as the Waldenses, Albigenses, Catharii and Anabaptists. But these groups were not sabbatarian, but rather ranged from orthodox Catholics resisting some of the added corruptions in the Roman system, to obscure ascetic sects whom themselves were steeped in dualistic paganism.
What we see in real history is that the Church generally met every day, (Acts 2:46) and liberty was given regarding observance of days (Col.2:16, Rom.14), so there were some converted Jews and gentile proselytes who kept the sabbath, and a quartodeciman "passover" communion, and others who then introduced Sunday as "the eighth day" superseding the sabbath. Then, as we know, the Church moved away from Jewish practices, and as antisemitism grew, eventually began to squelch them. Your history given above, could be true. What I was referring to was Jesus' prophecies in John 16:2 "they shall put you out of the synagogues", and also Matt.10:17ff). It seemed by the context, that Christ would be the "offense" causing the rift. But what you said could come into play, as well. Still, they were preaching Christ in the synagogues and temple, and those who rejected Jesus as Messiah, would of course begin to react. (That was a much greater difference than the difference between other Jewish sects).
So still, while there were some keeping the sabbath, it was not universally kept, and definitely not mandated. The change from a universal mandatory sabbath to a universal mandatory Sunday would not have occurred that quickly. There would have been much opposition, if it was in fact seen as "obedience to the Law of God", and not just as a Jewish preference. Once again, the shift to paganism was much more subtle than that. The Sabbath-to-Sunday literature points to small pockets where both days were kept for a few centuries, but still this was no "holdover" from any mandatory universal sabbath practice in the church.
Our Lord abolished No Part of Torah, and I challenge you to show me where He did! It Is Not There! If it were, He would be a LIAR! As I quoted before, "Do Not Think I Came To Abolish Law Or The Prophets; I Did Not Come To Abolish But To Fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law."
I know that some teach that "until all be fulfilled" equals "it is finished," but it absolutely Cannot, unless heaven and earth passed away at the time He was crucified. They have missed the point, using their theology to interpret Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to interpret their theology.
Once again, if this were true, then we should be keeping all 613 commandments of the Torah. We simply add Jesus to the Law, because "NOT ONE JOT NOR TITTLE" shall pass. But this means all of those laws regarding the temple ritual, sacrifices, etc. we can't pick and choose and say, "oh, well
those were "fulfilled", but not these other ceremonial practices.
It doesn't say "not one jot nor tittle shall pass until all be fulfilled WHEN heaven and earth pass away. (Please don't get into mixing up phrases like Bob, and I hope I'm not giving him any ideas
). Heaven and earth passing away is obviously the last event. But "all being fulfilled" is NOT, but rather refers to Christ's death on the Cross and rising again. Else. once again, we simply add Jesus to the Law, and must keep bringing sacrifices to the Temple. Oh, but there is no temple! Either God allowed this to happen because "all is fulfilled", or we have a serious problem.
The "yoke" mentioned was the additional laws added by PEOPLE to the Torah our God had given. You are confused on Acts 15.
I would suggest rereading it, breaking it down, if necessary, into readable segments.
You go and reread the CONTEXT. (Perhaps breaking scripture up into little "segments" is the problem in the first place. You need the overall picture to understand what is being said). The issue was
circumcision, along with "keep[ing] the Law of Moses" (v.1, 5). That was certainly not some law added by people! Once again, the proselytes who had been there may have been keeping them, but with new converts to Christ, they were demanding it, and Paul is speaking against this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You above even suggest a sacrifice was therefore still obligatory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:-D WHERE!!!!!?????
Above, where you discuss Paul and his Nazarite vow. If anything this proves that "keeping the Law" we read about in the NT included sacrifices (not some made up division between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Torah), and if you're using this to prove Paul kept "the Law" "long after the resurrection", and so should we, then this would include literal sacricfices (as well as Nazarite vows)! So the only conclusion is that Paul yielded that time. But later, he clearly spoke out, even against other apostles, regarding making people keep the Law.
