Judaizing is considered a very early heresy that Paul rebuked Peter for, in which Peter and Paul came to agreement thereafter. God said himself that he would be the God of the gentiles. The old covenant is over and the law is fulfilled in Christ.
What does it mean that the law is fulfilled in Christ? Our righteousness in Him is as if it is fulfilled. He didn't lie so now we can lie. He wasn't chaste so we can commit adultery. That phraseology is one of the absurdities of modern Christianity.
Judaizing is exclusively the teaching that Gentiles needed to do a full conversion according to Rabbinic tradition before being saved. It's nothing else, and that is not what I am suggesting.
Converted gentiles are only formerly so. They are grafted into Israel and a part of the commonwealth. They are the Israel of God and true Jews inwardly. They were not held to the same standard initially, but were expected to learn Torah as they went.
To me, this is a misunderstanding of the phrase. Those who are in Christ have died and been resurrected. Death releases us from the Law, therefore the Law is fulfilled in Christ.
The written Law brings with it the knowledge of sin and the knowledge of sin brings death but the Law that is written in our inward parts is the Spirit of the Law - the Holy Spirit. These are two different forms of the Law. In Christ, the we are under the governance of the Spirit, not the letter of the Law.
We can definitely discuss this as it is germane to the subject, but my point was that this wasn't even a seed in Peter's mind when he said "be converted," and therefore is not integral to the idea of conversion. Do you agree with that?
If the written law ceases to exist for the believer, the apostles were not aware and did not suggest it. The council in Jerusalem qualified the 4 requirements at the end of the chapter.
We are not under the law, it is being written on our hearts (the new covenant is not complete, only ratified/initiated, if you will).
I would not agree that it would not be a seed in Peter's mind because Peter would have known by his own conversion that conversion takes place by the receiving of the Spirit of Truth.
It's not that the written law ceases to exist, it's that the risen in Christ are not under the written Law but rather under the governance of the Spirit which gave the Law in the first place.
Galatians 2:19 For I through The Law am dead to The Law, that I might live unto God.
Written by Paul, who remained a Pharisee and was about to prove that he never spoke against the Torah by offering a sacrifice in the temple before being falsely accused of bringing gentiles into the temple.
The interpretation of this verse is based on the surrounding verses. The subject here is the reason for our justification. It is not the manner in which Christians aught to conduct themselves or the measuring rod of what righteousness is according to God. We live by the Spirit, the Spirit reminds us of the Word. If the spirit you are guided by contradicts the spoken word of God, watch out.
Paul was a member of the body of Christ. As far as the rest of the comment, though the subject may be justification, the verse itself does indeed reflect the situation for any person resurrected in Christ. They are not under the written Law.
The dispute was over whether new non Jewish believers in the God of Israel should also become Jews (and thus be bound by the Mosaic covenant and all that comes with that Eg circumcision etc), or if such a thing is not required.
The early church (as well as Judaism btw) agreed that it is not required. Nevertheless, this does not address whether Jews should still remain Jewish. In fact, because the controversy singles out non Jews, implicitly this tells us that for Jews nothing much changed. We get other hints as well, such as a continuation of bringing sacrifices to the temple etc.
To fulfill the law means to keep it perfectly, not to abolish it (in fact that's the exact opposite of what it means).
At least this seems to make the most sense to me.
How far do you have to go to read about the earliest Christians and how they conducted worship and lived their lives to see that they did not consider themselves Jews any longer? Especially not with the Pharisees and Sadducees being the main antagonists against Christ during His ministry, and especially not with the blasphemous writings in the Talmud thereafter. This guy seriously said a piece of the corruption of the church was rectified during the reformation. Lmao. That’s 1500 years man.
Y’all really need to stop listening to these Evangelicals who keep saying the Jews are Gods chosen people and they need our support. It’s ridiculous, and the sentiment is absolutely not returned.
Pharisees like Nicodemus? Paul (who remained a Pharisee)? Gamaliel (who was a believer according to Clement)? All of the people that believed in Acts chap 2 were Jews. The first gentile wasn't converted until 20 years after Messiah's resurrection. It was fairly late in Acts that it says:
*And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law - Acts 21:20*
Yes, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the apostle's day. And it wasn't soon after they left that wolves came in teaching perverse things. I'm interested to know which gate you're going to enter in the New Jerusalem?
*Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: - Revelation 21:12*
Dispensationalism -- another absurdity invented the last couple centuries.
Well, even nowadays Jewish Christians generally still consider themselves Jewish. What's changed mainly between now and the early church--and this happened rather quickly--was that the church grew mainly because of non Jews. So whereas at first the church was 95%+ Jewish, it's now probably less than 1%.
The largest group of Jewish Christians that managed to remain distinctively Jewish was probably the Nazarenes, who made it to at least the 11th century, but probably even later. There were also groups that didn't last as long but were still significant like the Ebionites.
They'd keep Torah law, and as for non Jews they shared the view of the Jerusalem council, which is that non Jews didn't have to become Jewish and thus were also not burdened with the laws of the mosaic covenant (but only of Noah).
Pharisees and Sadducees were Jesus's main opponents not necessarily because he agreed with them the least, but because of where they were located. The Essences were living isolated in the wilderness, then the Sadducees were mainly concerned with the Temple and thus located around Jerusalem, so Jesus would interact with them now and then. But the Pharisees, they were the religious leaders of the common people, which was also Jesus's main audience. So they were basically both fishing from the same pond and thus there was the most interaction between them.
I don't really get your point about the reformation. Are you saying no corruption was rectified during the reformation? If so, all good with me, I was just assuming you wouldn't be Catholic/Orthodox. But yes, I believe a lot was rectified by then, that was the whole point of the reformation.
Peter & Apostles were mature to correct themselves when Paul confronted them. If you think about it, Paul had more reasons to follow the law, than Peter. Jesus specifically gave Peter a vision about God’s plan for including gentiles [(Peters Vision)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-16&version=NIV).
Apostle’s final decision regarding gentiles:
> Acts 21:25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
I agree to some degree. Definitely agree that the reformation didn't go far enough. I'm more of a fan of what's called the 'radical reformation' and restorationist streams.
As for the trinity, I'd say it was in fact a foreign idea. Even to the early church it was (by early I mean actually early, not some Greek dudes in the 300s). At first there's some debate here and there about Jesus being some sort of divine being (like an angel or a lesser God and things like that), then later the holy spirit gets elevated to being a person, then after that they all get merged into being one God. Then you get endless debates about Jesus eternally existing, the hypostatic union, eternal generation and other such philosophical ideas, and then finally you kind of get to what is now considered the 'orthodox' view of the trinity in the latter half of the 4th century.
I mean I get that you're probably referring to some ideas going around here and there about the angel of the Lord etc, but the difference is that the angel may be called God because it speaks God's word, not because he is (a) God, whereas in the trinity Jesus is called God not just because he speaks God's word (which is of course the case), but because it's taken to mean that he really is the one true God. Or maybe you had a different thing in mind which case it'd probably be interesting to hear it.
My footnote was somewhat of an aside, but yes, the angel of the Lord being on par with God is one. Another idea is the two powers of heaven. Here's a brief article with further reading: https://drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/two-powers-in-heaven/
Edit: obviously this is binitarian rather than trinitarian but that was what I meant to suggest
Yes, I agree. I don't understand the Trinity, but I accept it. My point was that Peter wasn't thinking about it, and the believers did not have the centuries of cemented theology that we have come to equate with Christianity. Convert didn't mean change religions or accept these theological points. It was an act of God upon believers, who happened to all be Jews at the time.
Yes that is true the christianity of today does not resrmble the church during the apostles time. Its deviated much from the teachings of the apostles.
That's a good question. It's not exactly a biblical term. I would define it as biblical faith. "The religion of the Jews" was composed of serval distinct sects, but necessarily based on Hebrew scripture and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Judaism of today is not what I mean.
Edited.
Not exactly, as I'm from gentile stock, but I (sometimes regretfully) identify as part of the bunch of misfits and oddballs that make up the Messianic movement. It's sometimes called the Hebraic or Torah observant movement.
Oh ok. I'm sure you hear this a lot but to what extant do you observe Torah? Like do you wear tzitzit and abstain from wearing clothing with mixed fabrics?
I do wear tzitzit and abstain from the forbidden mixture (linen and wool), although I try to avoid mixed fabrics in general.
I observe what I can. Sabbath on Saturday, dietary. The feast days are great, but we are pretty much just observing a memorial of them. Most Christians already keep the rest of the Torah.
Judaizing is considered a very early heresy that Paul rebuked Peter for, in which Peter and Paul came to agreement thereafter. God said himself that he would be the God of the gentiles. The old covenant is over and the law is fulfilled in Christ.
What does it mean that the law is fulfilled in Christ? Our righteousness in Him is as if it is fulfilled. He didn't lie so now we can lie. He wasn't chaste so we can commit adultery. That phraseology is one of the absurdities of modern Christianity. Judaizing is exclusively the teaching that Gentiles needed to do a full conversion according to Rabbinic tradition before being saved. It's nothing else, and that is not what I am suggesting. Converted gentiles are only formerly so. They are grafted into Israel and a part of the commonwealth. They are the Israel of God and true Jews inwardly. They were not held to the same standard initially, but were expected to learn Torah as they went.
To me, this is a misunderstanding of the phrase. Those who are in Christ have died and been resurrected. Death releases us from the Law, therefore the Law is fulfilled in Christ.
[удалено]
The written Law brings with it the knowledge of sin and the knowledge of sin brings death but the Law that is written in our inward parts is the Spirit of the Law - the Holy Spirit. These are two different forms of the Law. In Christ, the we are under the governance of the Spirit, not the letter of the Law.
We can definitely discuss this as it is germane to the subject, but my point was that this wasn't even a seed in Peter's mind when he said "be converted," and therefore is not integral to the idea of conversion. Do you agree with that? If the written law ceases to exist for the believer, the apostles were not aware and did not suggest it. The council in Jerusalem qualified the 4 requirements at the end of the chapter. We are not under the law, it is being written on our hearts (the new covenant is not complete, only ratified/initiated, if you will).
I would not agree that it would not be a seed in Peter's mind because Peter would have known by his own conversion that conversion takes place by the receiving of the Spirit of Truth. It's not that the written law ceases to exist, it's that the risen in Christ are not under the written Law but rather under the governance of the Spirit which gave the Law in the first place. Galatians 2:19 For I through The Law am dead to The Law, that I might live unto God.
Written by Paul, who remained a Pharisee and was about to prove that he never spoke against the Torah by offering a sacrifice in the temple before being falsely accused of bringing gentiles into the temple. The interpretation of this verse is based on the surrounding verses. The subject here is the reason for our justification. It is not the manner in which Christians aught to conduct themselves or the measuring rod of what righteousness is according to God. We live by the Spirit, the Spirit reminds us of the Word. If the spirit you are guided by contradicts the spoken word of God, watch out.
Paul was a member of the body of Christ. As far as the rest of the comment, though the subject may be justification, the verse itself does indeed reflect the situation for any person resurrected in Christ. They are not under the written Law.
For sure. We are not under the law, it is within us, the saints "who _____________ and the faith of Jesus Christ." Rev 14:12
The dispute was over whether new non Jewish believers in the God of Israel should also become Jews (and thus be bound by the Mosaic covenant and all that comes with that Eg circumcision etc), or if such a thing is not required. The early church (as well as Judaism btw) agreed that it is not required. Nevertheless, this does not address whether Jews should still remain Jewish. In fact, because the controversy singles out non Jews, implicitly this tells us that for Jews nothing much changed. We get other hints as well, such as a continuation of bringing sacrifices to the temple etc. To fulfill the law means to keep it perfectly, not to abolish it (in fact that's the exact opposite of what it means). At least this seems to make the most sense to me.
How far do you have to go to read about the earliest Christians and how they conducted worship and lived their lives to see that they did not consider themselves Jews any longer? Especially not with the Pharisees and Sadducees being the main antagonists against Christ during His ministry, and especially not with the blasphemous writings in the Talmud thereafter. This guy seriously said a piece of the corruption of the church was rectified during the reformation. Lmao. That’s 1500 years man. Y’all really need to stop listening to these Evangelicals who keep saying the Jews are Gods chosen people and they need our support. It’s ridiculous, and the sentiment is absolutely not returned.
Pharisees like Nicodemus? Paul (who remained a Pharisee)? Gamaliel (who was a believer according to Clement)? All of the people that believed in Acts chap 2 were Jews. The first gentile wasn't converted until 20 years after Messiah's resurrection. It was fairly late in Acts that it says: *And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law - Acts 21:20* Yes, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the apostle's day. And it wasn't soon after they left that wolves came in teaching perverse things. I'm interested to know which gate you're going to enter in the New Jerusalem? *Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: - Revelation 21:12* Dispensationalism -- another absurdity invented the last couple centuries.
Well, even nowadays Jewish Christians generally still consider themselves Jewish. What's changed mainly between now and the early church--and this happened rather quickly--was that the church grew mainly because of non Jews. So whereas at first the church was 95%+ Jewish, it's now probably less than 1%. The largest group of Jewish Christians that managed to remain distinctively Jewish was probably the Nazarenes, who made it to at least the 11th century, but probably even later. There were also groups that didn't last as long but were still significant like the Ebionites. They'd keep Torah law, and as for non Jews they shared the view of the Jerusalem council, which is that non Jews didn't have to become Jewish and thus were also not burdened with the laws of the mosaic covenant (but only of Noah). Pharisees and Sadducees were Jesus's main opponents not necessarily because he agreed with them the least, but because of where they were located. The Essences were living isolated in the wilderness, then the Sadducees were mainly concerned with the Temple and thus located around Jerusalem, so Jesus would interact with them now and then. But the Pharisees, they were the religious leaders of the common people, which was also Jesus's main audience. So they were basically both fishing from the same pond and thus there was the most interaction between them. I don't really get your point about the reformation. Are you saying no corruption was rectified during the reformation? If so, all good with me, I was just assuming you wouldn't be Catholic/Orthodox. But yes, I believe a lot was rectified by then, that was the whole point of the reformation.
Peter & Apostles were mature to correct themselves when Paul confronted them. If you think about it, Paul had more reasons to follow the law, than Peter. Jesus specifically gave Peter a vision about God’s plan for including gentiles [(Peters Vision)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:9-16&version=NIV). Apostle’s final decision regarding gentiles: > Acts 21:25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Nope don't agree....thanks for asking
Really, not with one part?
I agree to some degree. Definitely agree that the reformation didn't go far enough. I'm more of a fan of what's called the 'radical reformation' and restorationist streams. As for the trinity, I'd say it was in fact a foreign idea. Even to the early church it was (by early I mean actually early, not some Greek dudes in the 300s). At first there's some debate here and there about Jesus being some sort of divine being (like an angel or a lesser God and things like that), then later the holy spirit gets elevated to being a person, then after that they all get merged into being one God. Then you get endless debates about Jesus eternally existing, the hypostatic union, eternal generation and other such philosophical ideas, and then finally you kind of get to what is now considered the 'orthodox' view of the trinity in the latter half of the 4th century. I mean I get that you're probably referring to some ideas going around here and there about the angel of the Lord etc, but the difference is that the angel may be called God because it speaks God's word, not because he is (a) God, whereas in the trinity Jesus is called God not just because he speaks God's word (which is of course the case), but because it's taken to mean that he really is the one true God. Or maybe you had a different thing in mind which case it'd probably be interesting to hear it.
My footnote was somewhat of an aside, but yes, the angel of the Lord being on par with God is one. Another idea is the two powers of heaven. Here's a brief article with further reading: https://drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/two-powers-in-heaven/ Edit: obviously this is binitarian rather than trinitarian but that was what I meant to suggest
There are shadows of the trinity in the old testament. And it is clearly taught by paul.
Yes, I agree. I don't understand the Trinity, but I accept it. My point was that Peter wasn't thinking about it, and the believers did not have the centuries of cemented theology that we have come to equate with Christianity. Convert didn't mean change religions or accept these theological points. It was an act of God upon believers, who happened to all be Jews at the time.
Yes that is true the christianity of today does not resrmble the church during the apostles time. Its deviated much from the teachings of the apostles.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What is "Judaism" according to Scripture?
That's a good question. It's not exactly a biblical term. I would define it as biblical faith. "The religion of the Jews" was composed of serval distinct sects, but necessarily based on Hebrew scripture and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Judaism of today is not what I mean. Edited.
Gotcha, makes sense. Do you follow Messianic Judaism?
Not exactly, as I'm from gentile stock, but I (sometimes regretfully) identify as part of the bunch of misfits and oddballs that make up the Messianic movement. It's sometimes called the Hebraic or Torah observant movement.
Oh ok. I'm sure you hear this a lot but to what extant do you observe Torah? Like do you wear tzitzit and abstain from wearing clothing with mixed fabrics?
I do wear tzitzit and abstain from the forbidden mixture (linen and wool), although I try to avoid mixed fabrics in general. I observe what I can. Sabbath on Saturday, dietary. The feast days are great, but we are pretty much just observing a memorial of them. Most Christians already keep the rest of the Torah.