A different gospel?

[TB2]

Actually, it's the claim/position of NT teaching

Well of course everyone thinks their view is the "right" "biblical" one

 

[fastfredy0]

But could a caveman understand it?

Caveman? Sounds like an evolutionary character.
I'm sure Adam and all his offspring could understand the salvific message; this assumes the message is simple. Matthew 19:14 suggests the salvific message is simple in my mind. Tom Constable says: Children provided an excellent object lesson that Jesus used to illustrate the qualities necessary for entering and serving in the messianic kingdom.

Aside: Granted, the message is not so simple that a fetus or 1 year old a mental challenged could understand but might be a tangential topic.

 

[fastfredy0]

Was there any special revelation of God then?

If not, they were judged by their conscience (Ro 2:14-15).

I agree they are judged ... and they all go to hell IMO as they know nothing of Christ.

 

[fastfredy0]

The earliest humans (not "cavemen") would have been much more intelligent than we are! Humanity has been degenerating, ever since the fall of Adam.

Hmmm ... surprised they didn't invent flight, go to the moon, etc. etc. etc. ... or maybe they did?

 

[Eleanor]

@Eleanor

I think you both will enjoy and appreciate this if you have a chance.

What’s Wrong with Wright: Examining the New Perspective on Paul by Phil Johnson

My assignment in this hour is to give a critical review of an influential book by Anglican author N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham. The book is titled What Sai

www.ligonier.org

That is perfect!

And I say again, you're quite a useful fella'.

 

[TB2]

Hypothetical question: What if it turned out that the New Perspective view that the “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews--- is essentially what the early fathers understood by “works of the law,” while the so-called “old perspective” (that it represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort) lacks similar parallels?

What if it turned out that Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.” And what if Calvin then cites Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome as saying these refer to the Jewish “ceremonies” (which is wrong in Calvin’s view), and then Augustine that these are any works done apart from God’s grace (which for Calvin is also an incorrect limitation). And then, what if (surprisingly and uncharacteristically) Calvin doesn’t cite any of the fathers in favor of his view (that these are all works, even those produced by God in his own people)?

And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does? What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?

And what if it turned out that even prior to this from Paul to Irenaeus (around 180 AD) that this (so-called "new perspective" type) understanding of “works of the law” is ubiquitous in the tradition prior to Origen.

Would the "new perspective" view of "works of the law" still be heretical and anti-Christian?

 

[Carbon]

Caveman? Sounds like an evolutionary character.

Yea, your right. When I was younger and believed in such, I though cavemen were kinda cool, a little creepy, but cool.

I'm sure Adam and all his offspring could understand the salvific message; this assumes the message is simple. Matthew 19:14 suggests the salvific message is simple in my mind. Tom Constable says: Children provided an excellent object lesson that Jesus used to illustrate the qualities necessary for entering and serving in the messianic kingdom.

Aside: Granted, the message is not so simple that a fetus or 1 year old a mental challenged could understand but might be a tangential topic.

I also believe people back then, throughout the centuries were pretty smart. We have been dumbed down since the fall. IMO

 

[Carbon]

That is perfect!

And I say again, you're quite a useful fella'.

Well, at least I'm good for something.

They don't call me good for nothin,.... umm.......

 

[fastfredy0]

But a different Jesus would be one who is worshiped with the belief that He is a creature.

Well, the hypostatic union proposes Jesus is part creature. Maybe to lawyer like a comment *giggle*

It would be a Jesus who was not born of a virgin

You believe that a person who thought Mary was not a virgin would be disqualified for salvation.
I can't go along with that. I know of no verse associating salvation with agreeing to a virgin birth.

was raised from the dead.

I believe this is necessary to make salvation work .... but if a weirdo was perfect in every other aspect of salvation .... hmmm, I'm not sure ... I'd vote NO if I had to vote. You do have 1 Cor. 15:4 going for you.

One whose work was not sufficient to save but only made salvation possible.

I agree. I don't find many who do when I propose such a thing.

So though it is not an arithmetic problem--it isn't all this knowledge that saves one it is God placing them in Him, and then teaching them from His word, and some knowledge and some beliefs are necessary.

Agreed. Thanks for your insights

 

[Eleanor]

Hypothetical question: What if it turned out that the New Perspective view that the “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews--- is essentially what the early fathers understood by “works of the law,” while the so-called “old perspective” (that it represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort) lacks similar parallels?

What if it turned out that Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.” And what if Calvin then cites Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome as saying these refer to the Jewish “ceremonies” (which is wrong in Calvin’s view), and then Augustine that these are any works done apart from God’s grace (which for Calvin is also an incorrect limitation). And then, what if (surprisingly and uncharacteristically) Calvin doesn’t cite any of the fathers in favor of his view (that these are all works, even those produced by God in his own people)?

And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does? What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?

And what if it turned out that even prior to this from Paul to Irenaeus (around 180 AD) that this (so-called "new perspective" type) understanding of “works of the law” is ubiquitous in the tradition prior to Origen.

Would the "new perspective" view of "works of the law" still be heretical and anti-Christian?

Works of the law simply mean merit, anything you do that contributes to the removal of your sin debt and right standing with God,
lest anyone should boast (Ro 4:2, 1 Co 1:29, Eph 2:9).
It's about boasting and taking credit for God's work, about robbing him of or at least sharing in his glory, a real no-no (Isa 42:8, 48:11).

 

[Eleanor]

And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does? What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?

It's about boasting.

 

[ReverendRV]

Hypothetical question: What if it turned out that the New Perspective view that the “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews--- is essentially what the early fathers understood by “works of the law,” while the so-called “old perspective” (that it represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort) lacks similar parallels?

What if it turned out that Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.” And what if Calvin then cites Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome as saying these refer to the Jewish “ceremonies” (which is wrong in Calvin’s view), and then Augustine that these are any works done apart from God’s grace (which for Calvin is also an incorrect limitation). And then, what if (surprisingly and uncharacteristically) Calvin doesn’t cite any of the fathers in favor of his view (that these are all works, even those produced by God in his own people)?

And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does? What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?

And what if it turned out that even prior to this from Paul to Irenaeus (around 180 AD) that this (so-called "new perspective" type) understanding of “works of the law” is ubiquitous in the tradition prior to Origen.

Would the "new perspective" view of "works of the law" still be heretical and anti-Christian?

Pantheism ~ by ReverendRV * August 3

Matthew 5:34,35 KJV; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

God created the heavens and the earth; He spoke and it was so. To the LORD God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands; and there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. ~ But there are some people who see the glory of God in his Creation and worship the Creation rather than the Creator. I understand why they hear the testimony of the heavens, but I don’t understand why they suppress its voice to the point they do not look past the creation for God. Pantheism is the belief that creation is Divine and God exists as everything. Some say that the earth is a divine goddess who teaches them about life. We do learn about life from the world but if we listened a little closer to the earth, we would hear a ‘still small voice’ with grandiose ramifications, crying out in the wilderness like John the Baptist. ~ Shh; listen…

One day when John the Baptist saw Jesus, he shouted “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the world!”; a declaration that Jesus is the Christ. One day John’s disciples asked about Jesus and his ministry of Baptism. John said “You yourselves bear me witness that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him. I stand and hear him, rejoicing greatly because of his voice. He must increase but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from Heaven is above all.” ~ The heavenly Angels refuse to receive our worship, and John the Baptist pointed away from himself to the one who is to be worshiped. The heavens declare ‘his’ Glory and if the earth could speak to us it would say, “You yourselves bear me witness that I do not say that I am Divine; but I do rejoice in the Divine. I hear him; he must increase and I must decrease.” The earth testifies it is not eternal. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that decay rules the day and the earth must decrease. The Bible says the earth and all flesh are corrupt and filled with violence. Have you ever hated someone? The Bible says that Hatred is Murder and that our feet are swift to shed blood! God sends Sinners to a Demons Hell to serve out an eternal sentence for the crimes they commit. Would you be guilty? ~ Oh, only if we could swear an oath and be forgiven!

We are not to swear oaths by the heavens, the earth, or even the city of Jerusalem; but vowing allegiance to the Great King of that city is not prohibited. You can make a vow of allegiance in his name; the great King is the Lord Jesus Christ! The Apostle Peter had it right when he said Jesus is the Son of the living God; Deity through Unity. He’s great in part because he lived a human life that accrued a Righteousness which pleased God his Father. As John the Baptist said, Jesus is the spotless sacrificial lamb that takes away the Sin of the world. He did this by shedding his blood on the Cross as a Propitiation for Sin. God is pleased to give you the good record of Jesus so that you may live! When you come to him through Faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior, your Sin debt is forgiven and you are adopted into the family of God. The Bible describes the vow for us; “If you confess with your mouth the LORD Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” ~ Look past the temporal earth and search the horizon for the eternal God through his Christ; do not trade the truth in for a lie. Amen and amen…

Revelation 21:1 NIV; Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

 

[TB2]

Works of the law simply mean merit, anything you do that contributes to the removal of your sin debt and right standing with God,
lest anyone should boast (Ro 4:2, 1 Co 1:29, Eph 2:9).
It's about boasting and taking credit for God's work, about robbing him of or at least sharing in his glory, a real no-no (Isa 42:8, 48:11).

But what if the merit view is incorrect and not supported by early church history? What if turns out that the "new perspective" take on works of the law us actually the original first and second century church perspective that Calvin knew about but rejected?

 

[TB2]

Pantheism ~ by ReverendRV * August 3

Matthew 5:34,35 KJV; But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

God created the heavens and the earth; He spoke and it was so. To the LORD God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands; and there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. ~ But there are some people who see the glory of God in his Creation and worship the Creation rather than the Creator. I understand why they hear the testimony of the heavens, but I don’t understand why they suppress its voice to the point they do not look past the creation for God. Pantheism is the belief that creation is Divine and God exists as everything. Some say that the earth is a divine goddess who teaches them about life. We do learn about life from the world but if we listened a little closer to the earth, we would hear a ‘still small voice’ with grandiose ramifications, crying out in the wilderness like John the Baptist. ~ Shh; listen…

One day when John the Baptist saw Jesus, he shouted “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the world!”; a declaration that Jesus is the Christ. One day John’s disciples asked about Jesus and his ministry of Baptism. John said “You yourselves bear me witness that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him. I stand and hear him, rejoicing greatly because of his voice. He must increase but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from Heaven is above all.” ~ The heavenly Angels refuse to receive our worship, and John the Baptist pointed away from himself to the one who is to be worshiped. The heavens declare ‘his’ Glory and if the earth could speak to us it would say, “You yourselves bear me witness that I do not say that I am Divine; but I do rejoice in the Divine. I hear him; he must increase and I must decrease.” The earth testifies it is not eternal. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that decay rules the day and the earth must decrease. The Bible says the earth and all flesh are corrupt and filled with violence. Have you ever hated someone? The Bible says that Hatred is Murder and that our feet are swift to shed blood! God sends Sinners to a Demons Hell to serve out an eternal sentence for the crimes they commit. Would you be guilty? ~ Oh, only if we could swear an oath and be forgiven!

We are not to swear oaths by the heavens, the earth, or even the city of Jerusalem; but vowing allegiance to the Great King of that city is not prohibited. You can make a vow of allegiance in his name; the great King is the Lord Jesus Christ! The Apostle Peter had it right when he said Jesus is the Son of the living God; Deity through Unity. He’s great in part because he lived a human life that accrued a Righteousness which pleased God his Father. As John the Baptist said, Jesus is the spotless sacrificial lamb that takes away the Sin of the world. He did this by shedding his blood on the Cross as a Propitiation for Sin. God is pleased to give you the good record of Jesus so that you may live! When you come to him through Faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior, your Sin debt is forgiven and you are adopted into the family of God. The Bible describes the vow for us; “If you confess with your mouth the LORD Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” ~ Look past the temporal earth and search the horizon for the eternal God through his Christ; do not trade the truth in for a lie. Amen and amen…

Revelation 21:1 NIV; Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

But what was your answer to the hypothetical question?

 

[TB2]

So the NP is way off base when they say that by works of the law Paul only means Jewish ceremonies

But what if it turned out that that was actually closer to the first and second century church understanding and what if Calvin knew this but rejected it?

 

[TB2]

Hypothetical question: What if it turned out that the New Perspective view that the “works of the law” refer to Sabbath observance, food laws, and circumcision—those things that identified Jews--- is essentially what the early fathers understood by “works of the law,” while the so-called “old perspective” (that it represents the Judaizers’ attempt to secure salvation through moral effort) lacks similar parallels?

What if it turned out that Calvin in his commentary on Romans says about 3:20 that “it is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean.” And what if Calvin then cites Chrysostom, Origen and Jerome as saying these refer to the Jewish “ceremonies” (which is wrong in Calvin’s view), and then Augustine that these are any works done apart from God’s grace (which for Calvin is also an incorrect limitation). And then, what if (surprisingly and uncharacteristically) Calvin doesn’t cite any of the fathers in favor of his view (that these are all works, even those produced by God in his own people)?

And what if it turned out that Calvin’s assessment is basically right — that the early church holds to a quite different view of “works of the law” than he does? What if Calvin’s earliest source on this, Origen, says in his Romans commentary (around 240 A.D.) that “the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals"?

And what if it turned out that even prior to this from Paul to Irenaeus (around 180 AD) that this (so-called "new perspective" type) understanding of “works of the law” is ubiquitous in the tradition prior to Origen.

Would the "new perspective" view of "works of the law" still be heretical and anti-Christian?

Hypothetically what if the early first and second century church view on "works of the law" was closer to the "new perspective" view? And what if Calvin knew it too? Wouldn't we want to know the truth of the matter?

Well this is what a new book claims the evidence demonstrates. In what some reviewers have called the most important book on Pauline studies in the past decade (see below):

Now I don't expect anyone's view to change and I'm sure some people will just dismiss this work out of hand. But hypothetically IF what this work claims is true about the first and second century church wouldn't you want to know it? Wouldn't we want to have the most accurate view possible even if it requires some adjustments in our thinking? I honestly have no attachments here. If the evidence favors the Old Perspective then I would want to adopt that. If it favors the "New" I'd want to adopt that. I have never questioned the gospel but I do question various interpretations I've had over the years and have always tried to stay open to correction and have in fact found I've needed to correct and/or adjust my biblical understanding many times. I believe everyone here wants to do the same and be as accurate and faithful to Scripture as we can and adjust and correct our understanding as needed. This evidence seems to point to the need for such a correction. BUT EVEN IF you ultimately reject it can you at least appreciate how this is not some wholly made up, invented interpretation out of thin air, but that there is a possible basis for this, even if you ultimately find it unconvincing?

Matthew J. Thompson's (2022) book Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

Here's an interview of the author, a positive review, and a negative review, and author's response.

Amazon description: "What did Paul mean by "works of the law"? "Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from "works of the law," a disputed term that represents a fault line between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. Was the apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second-century readers understood these points in conflict, how their readings relate to "old" and "new" perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the "new" perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both modern viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ."

Summary of additional extrabiblical evidence:

"This reading, standard within Protestant circles for 450 years, began to be questioned toward the end of the 20th century. Criticism focused not directly on the reading of St. Paul as such, but on the presuppositions outlined above that are required to support that reading. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and advanced studies of Second Temple Judaism produced a very different picture of what the Judaism of the first century AD in general, and pharisaism in particular, from Luther’s presumptions. Pharisaism was not a legalistic system in which one earned personal salvation or eternal life. There was a lively sense of forgiveness and grace. Second Temple Judaism understood that the Torah contains means of dealing with human sinfulness, ways of purification and repentance. This then required that what St. Paul is calling “works of the Torah” couldn’t be referring to keeping the commandments or doing good. Further, the numerous places where the New Testament, and St. Paul himself, speak positively of the Torah never jibed well with the Lutheran reading. This school of thought became known as the “New Perspective on Paul.” It argued that the “works of the law” which St. Paul describes specifically refer to the works that were commanded to Israelites, and only Israelites, within the Torah. These particular commandments, for example circumcision and keeping kosher, were never given for Israel to enforce them upon their neighbors. Rather, they were commandments that distinguished Israel from her neighbors. These were the commandments which St. Paul would not see enforced upon Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel through Jesus Christ."

 

[TB2]

*UPDATE ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN *

On a separate (non controversial note) earlier this week I had the opportunity to have a two hour conversation with Barrie Schwortz, a leading expert on the Shroud of Turin and one the few alive today who has physically examined and handled the Shroud. On top of that, Barrie is a Jew who believes (on the basis of the evidence) that the Shroud is the authentic burial shroud of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and he brought me up to date on current research (for one I had no idea that the 1988 radiocarbon dates have been debunked). Whatever your personal views on the subject you'll find Barrie's story a fascinating one. Here is a link to those resources including Barrie's recent interview on the Glen Beck Show:

*UPDATE ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN *

 

[ReverendRV]

Hypothetically what if the early first and second century church view on "works of the law" was closer to the "new perspective" view? And what if Calvin knew it too? Wouldn't we want to know the truth of the matter?

Well this is what a new book claims the evidence demonstrates. In what some reviewers have called the most important book on Pauline studies in the past decade (see below):

Now I don't expect anyone's view to change and I'm sure some people will just dismiss this work out of hand. But hypothetically IF what this work claims is true about the first and second century church wouldn't you want to know it? Wouldn't we want to have the most accurate view possible even if it requires some adjustments in our thinking? I honestly have no attachments here. If the evidence favors the Old Perspective then I would want to adopt that. If it favors the "New" I'd want to adopt that. I have never questioned the gospel but I do question various interpretations I've had over the years and have always tried to stay open to correction and have in fact found I've needed to correct and/or adjust my biblical understanding many times. I believe everyone here wants to do the same and be as accurate and faithful to Scripture as we can and adjust and correct our understanding as needed. This evidence seems to point to the need for such a correction. BUT EVEN IF you ultimately reject it can you at least appreciate how this is not some wholly made up, invented interpretation out of thin air, but that there is a possible basis for this, even if you ultimately find it unconvincing?

Matthew J. Thompson's (2022) book Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception.

Here's an interview of the author, a positive review, and a negative review, and author's response.

Amazon description: "What did Paul mean by "works of the law"? "Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from "works of the law," a disputed term that represents a fault line between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. Was the apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second-century readers understood these points in conflict, how their readings relate to "old" and "new" perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the "new" perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both modern viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ."

Summary of additional extrabiblical evidence:

"This reading, standard within Protestant circles for 450 years, began to be questioned toward the end of the 20th century. Criticism focused not directly on the reading of St. Paul as such, but on the presuppositions outlined above that are required to support that reading. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and advanced studies of Second Temple Judaism produced a very different picture of what the Judaism of the first century AD in general, and pharisaism in particular, from Luther’s presumptions. Pharisaism was not a legalistic system in which one earned personal salvation or eternal life. There was a lively sense of forgiveness and grace. Second Temple Judaism understood that the Torah contains means of dealing with human sinfulness, ways of purification and repentance. This then required that what St. Paul is calling “works of the Torah” couldn’t be referring to keeping the commandments or doing good. Further, the numerous places where the New Testament, and St. Paul himself, speak positively of the Torah never jibed well with the Lutheran reading. This school of thought became known as the “New Perspective on Paul.” It argued that the “works of the law” which St. Paul describes specifically refer to the works that were commanded to Israelites, and only Israelites, within the Torah. These particular commandments, for example circumcision and keeping kosher, were never given for Israel to enforce them upon their neighbors. Rather, they were commandments that distinguished Israel from her neighbors. These were the commandments which St. Paul would not see enforced upon Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel through Jesus Christ."

There IS the Old Perspective of Saint Peter...

Judaizers ~ by ReverendRV * June 13

Acts 15:5 NIV; Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The Law of Moses is near the heart of the Christian Faith. John Gill said the Torah is the Law; the first five books in the Old Testament. Reading it was accomplished by dividing those books into portions, which in turn, were read through the year; otherwise it would take all day Saturday to read the whole Law. The Ten Commandments are found in these books; and they also give hundreds of other Ordinances, which are also called the Law. One of these Ordinances was that of Circumcision. ~ Some of the members of the newborn Church came from a sect of Jews who were infamous for believing that the Law of Moses had to be kept, in order for anyone to be a Christian. History would go on to call these types of people Judaizers; those who believe you’re not a child of God if you do not keep God’s Laws. ~ This is known as a Works Righteousness…

Saint Paul was sent from the Church in Jerusalem, to the Gentiles. He believed exactly the same as the Church’s leaders; the Law of God was important to him too. Paul taught the Gentiles that the Law says we are not to make carved images of what we think God is like. This was making a God to suit ourselves; it is Idolatry. This also breaks the first Commandment, which is to have no other gods before the LORD; how could Idolatry not break it? The Christian Pharisees worshiped a god that suited themselves; one who expects God’s children to keep the Law of Moses. They believed this before they joined the Church, and after they joined; both perspectives are Sinful. The Bible says that the Law was meant to show us we are Sinners. If a Law could Save, no other way would have been sought; God's Laws are called killing letters. Have you Idolized anyone? Jesus said that in the Bible, men are called gods; you are Idolizing a god and the letter of this Law of Moses has killed you! The wages of Sin is death; an eternal death in the Lake of Fire…

The Judaizers had to be found out; their influence was the cause of the first convening in history of a Church Council; the Council of Jerusalem. Saint Peter advised those who were gathered, of the Council’s conclusion. “Brothers, you know God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from me the message of the Gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He didn’t discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Why do you test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles, a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the Grace of our Lord Jesus that we are Saved, just as they are.” ~ Peter says that if you will put your Faith in the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you will be Saved from Sin and Hell by Grace; just as he was! If you ever try to Work your way into Heaven, or if you are a ‘Judaizing Pharisee’ in the Church; you are testing God! Repent of your Sins; follow Jesus Christ…

Matthew 4:7 NIV; Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

[TB2]

There IS the Old Perspective of Saint Peter...

Judaizers ~ by ReverendRV * June 13

Acts 15:5 NIV; Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The Law of Moses is near the heart of the Christian Faith. John Gill said the Torah is the Law; the first five books in the Old Testament. Reading it was accomplished by dividing those books into portions, which in turn, were read through the year; otherwise it would take all day Saturday to read the whole Law. The Ten Commandments are found in these books; and they also give hundreds of other Ordinances, which are also called the Law. One of these Ordinances was that of Circumcision. ~ Some of the members of the newborn Church came from a sect of Jews who were infamous for believing that the Law of Moses had to be kept, in order for anyone to be a Christian. History would go on to call these types of people Judaizers; those who believe you’re not a child of God if you do not keep God’s Laws. ~ This is known as a Works Righteousness…

Saint Paul was sent from the Church in Jerusalem, to the Gentiles. He believed exactly the same as the Church’s leaders; the Law of God was important to him too. Paul taught the Gentiles that the Law says we are not to make carved images of what we think God is like. This was making a God to suit ourselves; it is Idolatry. This also breaks the first Commandment, which is to have no other gods before the LORD; how could Idolatry not break it? The Christian Pharisees worshiped a god that suited themselves; one who expects God’s children to keep the Law of Moses. They believed this before they joined the Church, and after they joined; both perspectives are Sinful. The Bible says that the Law was meant to show us we are Sinners. If a Law could Save, no other way would have been sought; God's Laws are called killing letters. Have you Idolized anyone? Jesus said that in the Bible, men are called gods; you are Idolizing a god and the letter of this Law of Moses has killed you! The wages of Sin is death; an eternal death in the Lake of Fire…

The Judaizers had to be found out; their influence was the cause of the first convening in history of a Church Council; the Council of Jerusalem. Saint Peter advised those who were gathered, of the Council’s conclusion. “Brothers, you know God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from me the message of the Gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. He didn’t discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Why do you test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles, a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the Grace of our Lord Jesus that we are Saved, just as they are.” ~ Peter says that if you will put your Faith in the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you will be Saved from Sin and Hell by Grace; just as he was! If you ever try to Work your way into Heaven, or if you are a ‘Judaizing Pharisee’ in the Church; you are testing God! Repent of your Sins; follow Jesus Christ…

Matthew 4:7 NIV; Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Thank you for your reply. I don't see how that is OP though. Isn't Acts 15.5 actually supporting the NP that "works of the law" are those things that identify one as being a Jew like circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath observance"?

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

I must admit for forty plus years of my life I was taught and have believed the OP that this was all about merit works of righteousness trying to earn salvation, but the evidence for the NP has challenged me to reconsider. I noticed things in Galatians for example I never noticed before how it really does seem to be focused on Jewish customs that are identifying marks of a Jew that distinguish from Gentiles:

Galatians
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

And circumcision seems to be one of the frequent example that Paul brings up.

At any rate it is any interesting topic of discussion. Thank you for your response. Blessings

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you for your reply. I don't see how that is OP though. Isn't Acts 15.5 actually supporting the NP that "works of the law" are those things that identify one as being a Jew like circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath observance"?

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

I must admit for forty plus years of my life I was taught and have believed the OP that this was all about merit works of righteousness trying to earn salvation, but the evidence for the NP has challenged me to reconsider. I noticed things in Galatians for example I never noticed before how it really does seem to be focused on Jewish customs that are identifying marks of a Jew that distinguish from Gentiles:

Galatians
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

And circumcision seems to be one of the frequent example that Paul brings up.

At any rate it is any interesting topic of discussion. Thank you for your response. Blessings

I would say that the crux of the OP is whether the New Perspective on Paul, is or is not; the epitome of Judaizing. As for the notion of 'always be reforming', it doesn't get more Reforming than the Council of Jerusalem; the first Reformation. The New Perspective on Paul can't be valid; because of the Old Perspective of Peter...