Deuteronomy 13 test.

[Humblepie]

Deuteronomy 13

1 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,
2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’
3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 You shall walk[a] after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.
5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.


If the jews were not following God's Law, they were following another law, which is the same as going after other Gods.

 

[Humblepie]

Even though scripture states in Acts 6:13-14 that Jesus and Stephen did NOT teach against the law of moses or the customs handed down by Moses, mainstream Christians will tell you the exact opposite of what Acts 6 claims.
They (Christians today) actually would make the same claim which demands the death penalty according to the Law of Moses.

This is the reason today's Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. It's because they are commanded to by the Law of Moses.
They reject the savior because of the teachings and lack of knowledge by today's Christians.

God Gave the israelites the law and commanded them to follow it through ALL generations forever.

Paul Followed the Law of Moses and did not teach that it was of no value, only today's Christians claim that.

Paul was a law keeper:

Acts 24:14
14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing ((((all)))) things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and ((((keep the law.)))))

Acts 25:8
while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.”


If you claim any other doctrine than this, it is a doctrine of demons.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Paul was a law keeper:

Acts 24:14
14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing ((((all)))) things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and ((((keep the law.)))))

Acts 25:8
while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.”


If you claim any other doctrine than this, it is a doctrine of demons.

Paul said he was all things to all men that he might by all means save some - a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles - and he corrected Peter when the man drew back from eating with the Gentiles because Peter was inherently wrong in suggesting it was somehow wrong for him to do so, being a Jew.

Your theology reads as if it would have men do the same thing. Draw back from the Gentiles unless they observe Jewish customs. Is it all Jewish customs you wish for believers in Christ to return to or just some?

Blessings in Christ,
Hidden In Him

 

[Humblepie]

This brings me to Acts 15

There are only two things debated in Acts 15.

1) And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

And

2) 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who (((believed))) rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”


These are the only two topics that were ruled on.

1) works based salvation and

2) obedience to the Law

There is not a third topic of debate, if you say there is you are adding to the text.
Some would say the debate is "law" or "no law." And that is incorrect.

The council ruled in favor of only one of these.

The council ruled that a new convert did not have an obligation to follow the law or be circumcised in order to be saved.

In verse 21 he rules in favor of the sect of the Pharisees.
21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”




In verse 19 they ruled against those that claimed you must FIRST be circumcised in order to be saved.**

19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

**“Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Then in verse 21 the council ruled that The law is taught every sabbath where the new believers would learn the law.

So just like today, a new Christian is not obligated to be as knowledgeable or spiritual as a person whose family and themselves that have been in the faith for generations.

A new believer grows in the faith the same today as when the council made the ruling.

 

[Hidden In Him]

This brings me to Acts 15

There are only two things debated in Acts 15.

1) And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

And

2) 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who (((believed))) rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”


These are the only two topics that were ruled on.

1) works based salvation and

2) obedience to the Law

There is not a third topic of debate, if you say there is you are adding to the text.
Some would say the debate is "law" or "no law." And that is incorrect.

The council ruled in favor of only one of these.

The council ruled that a new convert did not have an obligation to follow the law or be circumcised in order to be saved.

In verse 21 he rules in favor of the sect of the Pharisees.
21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”




In verse 19 they ruled against those that claimed you must FIRST be circumcised in order to be saved.**

19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

**“Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Then in verse 21 the council ruled that The law is taught every sabbath where the new believers would learn the law.

So just like today, a new Christian is not obligated to be as knowledgeable or spiritual as a person whose family and themselves that have been in the faith for generations.

A new believer grows in the faith the same today as when the council made the ruling.

And how can a man return to all of Judaism without a temple?

 

[Humblepie]

Paul said he was all things to all men

He never said he was a lawbreaker.


He wasn't perfect, but he also never taught against the law of moses, only against using the law as a means to salvation.
Paul knew the law of moses could not justify him, only his faith. He followed the law because of his Love for God,
He loved God and was obediant, not for salvation, but because he was saved.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Paul knew the law of moses could not justify him, only his faith. He followed the law because of his Love for God,
He loved God and was obediant, not for salvation, but because he was saved.

He kept the law as a Jew that he might win the Jews, and reprimanded Peter because he was going to lose the Gentiles by knuckling under to the Jews in front of them.

What is your answer to Post #5?

 

[Humblepie]

And how can a man return to all of Judaism without a temple?

Explain please.

One cannot sacrifice because there is not a place or priest to offer it according to the Law. So by NOT offering sacrifices you are actually following the Law.

If you are not a priest you don't follow Law's regarding priest.

If you do not farm, you do not need to follow laws regarding farming.

We do not follow capital punishment laws because there is not a biblical justice system as commanded.

Can you observe the Sabbath?
Appointed feast days?

Following feast days, Sabbath, would fall under Loving God,

Not murdering, stealing, etc falls under loving others.

ALL the commandments fall into these two categories, Loving God, and loving others.

If you follow the law because you feel obligated, is that really a circumcised heart?
Not at all. So if you follow God's law out of obligation, you are following it for the wrong reason.

If you follow the law because you love God and choose to do his will, because you believe the Word of God is TRUTH,
That's a circumcised heart.

 

[Humblepie]

What is your answer to Post #5?

See post 8

 

[Humblepie]

reprimanded Peter because he was going to lose the Gentiles by knuckling under to the Jews in front of them.

Do you realize that Peter was following the TRADITIONS OF MEN by not eating with Gentiles. Peter didn't want to anger the powerful jews that demanded adherence to their traditions, the same type of traditions that jesus talked of in Mark 7:13
that is why Paul reprimanded Peter, it was putting traditions over God's Law.


Mark 7:13
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

 

[Hidden In Him]

One cannot sacrifice because there is not a place or priest to offer it according to the Law. So by NOT offering sacrifices you are actually following the Law.

No. Weak argument here. We were discussing Biblical Judaism, and in Biblical Judaism they kept the law by offering sacrifices, not by not offering sacrifices. You are arguing for a return to keeping the Law while saying not offering sacrifices is keeping the law, which seems to be simply a matter of convenience, and a dismissal of the temple sacrifices so you can continue arguing for keeping everything else.

Doesn't work that way, IMO.

 

[Free]

Explain please.

One cannot sacrifice because there is not a place or priest to offer it according to the Law. So by NOT offering sacrifices you are actually following the Law.

If you are not a priest you don't follow Law's regarding priest.

If you do not farm, you do not need to follow laws regarding farming.

We do not follow capital punishment laws because there is not a biblical justice system as commanded.

Can you observe the Sabbath?
Appointed feast days?

Following feast days, Sabbath, would fall under Loving God,

Not murdering, stealing, etc falls under loving others.

ALL the commandments fall into these two categories, Loving God, and loving others.

If you follow the law because you feel obligated, is that really a circumcised heart?
Not at all. So if you follow God's law out of obligation, you are following it for the wrong reason.

If you follow the law because you love God and choose to do his will, because you believe the Word of God is TRUTH,
That's a circumcised heart.

According to your position, you can’t just pick and choose which law to be obedient to. So, when is the last time you stoned an adulterer or homosexual? Did you do it because you had to or because you love God? If you don’t stone people, why not? Do you at least advocate for stoning for sexual immorality in your judicial system? It not, why not?

How many mixed-fabric clothes do you wear? Do you go to church on the Sabbath or on Sunday? Do you dwell in a booth for seven days?

 

[Free]

Do you realize that Peter was following the TRADITIONS OF MEN by not eating with Gentiles. Peter didn't want to anger the powerful jews that demanded adherence to their traditions, the same type of traditions that jesus talked of in Mark 7:13
that is why Paul reprimanded Peter, it was putting traditions over God's Law.


Mark 7:13
making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Where is it stated in the text of Gal 2 that Peter was adhering to Jewish tradition? The main point, if not the entire point, of Galatians is a refutation of following the law of Moses for justification. That is not tradition. Peter began to revert back to following the law of Moses, after knowing better, after he had been eating with Gentiles and eating what they ate. Hence Paul’s statements in the rest of the chapter:

Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!
Gal 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (ESV)

But notice Paul’s argument immediately before this section:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (ESV)

It went completely against the decision of the council in Jerusalem and against what Peter knew to be true. It seems as though Paul is arguing that even after one has become saved, to then follow certain parts of the law is to seek justification by works of the law.

Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. (ESV)

The entirety of Galatians works against your position, it seems.

 

[Humblepie]

According to your position, you can’t just pick and choose which law to be obedient to. So, when is the last time you stoned an adulterer or homosexual? Did you do it because you had to or because you love God? If you don’t stone people, why not? Do you at least advocate for stoning for sexual immorality in your judicial system? It not, why not?

How many mixed-fabric clothes do you wear? Do you go to church on the Sabbath or on Sunday? Do you dwell in a booth for seven days?

Free, spend more time reading post and you will find the answer to your question on stoning. I will not repeat answers to questions in this thread.

 

[Hopeful 2]

And how can a man return to all of Judaism without a temple?

Or circumcision ?

 

[Free]

Free, spend more time reading post and you will find the answer to your question on stoning. I will not repeat answers to questions in this thread.

Then you’re just picking and choosing what to follow in the law, with no actual rationale. You say that “there is not a biblical justice system as commanded.” But that is precisely what those parts of the law are.

Anyway, I’m done here. You’ve just confirmed what was obvious all along.

 

[Humblepie]

Then you’re just picking and choosing what to follow in the law, with no actual rationale.

You claim that ((((I)))) am picking and choosing.

If the law states I must offer my sacrifice at a place God commanded,
that is where I am to offer it at, not at a place of my choosing such as my back yard, if I did so, I would NOT be following his word.
It's a really simple concept.

Capital punishment:
There is a court system for all capital punishments that exists at the city gates. The Biblical capital punishment system requires a specific governmental structure founded on Biblical (Torah) based principles and guidelines. There is not a country currently on planet Earth, including Israel, that is currently employing the true Biblical structure and process necessary to carry out this commandment.

Several instances of New Testament capital punishment in Scripture were not Biblical and actually violated the commandments of God. The stoning of Stephen would be an example in Acts 6-7. He was falsely accused of teaching that Yeshua changed God’s law. Obviously Yeshua never taught that the Law of God was going to change, thus the witnesses were clearly false as Acts 6:13 says. If Yeshua taught that the Law of God was going to change, then they would be true witnesses.

Deuteronomy 16:18

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD (YHWH) your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. The cases are to be presented and judged fairly. Only the Biblically appointed judges subscribing to God’s Word are permitted to judge on these matters.

(((((((((((Any intellectually honest student of God’s Word will quickly surmise that such an application of God’s commandments is not “picking and choosing” by any stretch.))))))))))

 

[Humblepie]

Then you’re just picking and choosing what to follow in the law, with no actual rationale. You say that “there is not a biblical justice system as commanded.” But that is precisely what those parts of the law are.

Anyway, I’m done here. You’ve just confirmed what was obvious all along.

Most do not realize that those practicing the whole truth of the Bible are not refraining from capital punishment commandments because they are “picking and choosing” what commandments to obey and which ones to supposedly ignore. These commandments are for a specific group of people within the body of the holy nation of Israel that currently do not currently exist as Biblically ordained.

If anyone actually practiced the capital punishment commandments today they would actually be breaking the commandments of God, not following them. They would be ignoring and breaking the established Biblical process given to those who are Biblically accountable to enforce and judge on these matters. We are commanded to not do that ourselves, and we are not granted such autonomy.

 

[Humblepie]

But that is precisely what those parts of the law are.

as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood,



(((((((((((which the (((((ignorant))))) and unstedfast wrest,

((((((as they do also the other scriptures))))))), unto their own destruction)))))))))))))

 

[Hidden In Him]

Or circumcision ?

Well, most of the Western world does practice circumcision now, only they do it not long after birth, and I'm not sure the Jews in ancient times did it that soon. I thought it was a covenant act, and therefore done consciously later in life or something.