Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Ron Amnsn

Did the Apostles Fail God's Test regarding the Greatest Commnadment?

Recommended Posts

Ron Amnsn
Jesus replied: “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  Matthew 22: 34-40 (NIV)

In his answer to the question "Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus quoted a commandment from Deuteronomy 6:5, which was not one of the "Ten Commandments", but a commandment from God's Law of Moses that was "greater" than the "Ten Commandments" in some way.

Later in Deuteronomy Moses taught the Israelites that God would test them on that very commandment, and how to tell when God was testing them, and how to fail or pass that test:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”  you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.  It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.  That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.  Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (NIV)

Although Christians tend to think of signs or miracles as an endorsement from God for the teachings of the person doing the signs and miracles, this passage teaches that signs or miracles are not an endorsement, but rather a signal that God is testing whether people will turn away from God's earlier commands and instructions.  The writings of the apostles are often [mis]interpreted as if the apostles were actually teaching people to disregard God's earlier instructions found in God's Law of Moses -- specifically the instructions now classified by some as "ceremonial".  If those popular [mis]interpretations of the apostles' writings were correct, that would put the apostles among those that "preached rebellion against the Lord your God" because "he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Amnsn

Do you think the apostles and other followers of Jesus were aware of what Deuteronomy 13 says about how God intended to test people regarding the very commandment that Jesus identified as the "first and greatest commandment"?

Why do you think it is that modern followers of Jesus don't seem to be aware of God's intention to test His people regarding this greatest commandment, and they don't seem to be aware of the method that God would use for this test?

This test seems very closely related to the test that Eve failed when she accepted the new revelation from the amazing miraculous talking serpent, instead of testing the serpent's message using the older instructions previously provided by God.  Eve was deceived because she gave more weight to the "new" teaching than to the older instructions of God.

On the other hand, the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 tested the new teachings of the apostle Paul by searching the Old Testament scrolls that were used in Jewish synagogue.  The Bereans were commended when they gave the most weight or authority to the older instructions provided by God and used those older instructions to test whether the newer teachings of Paul were true.  

The Bereans apparently found that Paul's new teachings were in agreement with the Old Testament scrolls, just as Paul himself later testified about his own beliefs --  "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the prophets" (Acts 24:14)  That certainly couldn't be truthfully said by (or about) most of the preachers, teachers and writers who have expounded on Paul's writings during the past 1000 years.

Have we been deceived just as Eve was deceived, by accepting new teachings that disagree with God's older instructions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

Are you advocating that Christians should observe the commandments that the Jewish people became aware of through supernatural means? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Amnsn
22 hours ago, Gustave said:

Are you advocating that Christians should observe the commandments that the Jewish people became aware of through supernatural means? 

I'm advocating that people should read the Scriptures, interpret them responsibly in full context so that the interpretation of each passage agrees with all of God's Word that was given prior to that passage, and then live as actual followers of Jesus according to God's Word as revealed in the life and lifestyle of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I'm advocating that people should read the Scriptures, interpret them responsibly in full context so that the interpretation of each passage agrees with all of God's Word that was given prior to that passage, and then live as actual followers of Jesus according to God's Word as revealed in the life and lifestyle of Jesus.

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is. 

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Amnsn
2 hours ago, Gustave said:

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is.

God did give specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means, as you say.  Where in Scripture does it say that those laws were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel?  According to Scripture the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites was included in the covenant at Sinai.  According to Jewish religious history that "mixed multitude" included representatives from each of the 70 nations that comprise the world.

Scripture shows that any non-Israelites living in the land of Israel were expected to learn God's Law of Moses and do it. (Deuteronomy 31:10-13)

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

Can you explain to me the "reasoning" that would stipulate that the followers of Jesus would not actually follow the religion that Jesus himself made (John 1:3) and followed?  How could there be "followers" or "disciples" of Jesus who don't actually follow their leader?

Jesus commanded his Israelite disciples to "make disciples of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:18-20).  According to the New Testament, Jesus is one with the God of the Old Testament who commanded all the Israelites (including his disciples) to follow the laws and instructions given through Moses.  If Jesus is who he claimed to be, and who his disciples claimed that he is, the Books of Moses cannot be excluded from the content encompassed by "all that I have commanded you" which Jesus commanded his disciples to teach to all nations.

The apostle Paul taught that non-Israelite followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11).  That fully agrees with the original terms of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 17), of which non-Israelites are heirs (Galatians 3:29), because Jesus is a literal descendant of Abraham who has purchased those he has redeemed.  Paul taught that non-Israelites who follow Jesus are no longer alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel but are fellow-citizens (Ephesians 2:12-13, 19).

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that describes a "church" that considers itself separate from Israel?  I have not been able to locate any such passage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
6 hours ago, Gustave said:

In that case the full context of the Scriptures agree with secular and Jewish religious history - God gave specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means - these laws that were communicated outside of reason were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel and attempting to adopt them is like putting a skirt, lipstick and earrings on a pig - everyone can recognize what it is.

I disagree!! Israel has always been or supposed to be an example to all gentiles or the other people in the world, but never did there function! Also he tells his disciples to go and preach to all the world!! Isaiah 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' " And in Acts Paul quotes this from Isaiah, 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' " So the Bible is written for all, not just the Hebrews/Jews!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 7/1/2020 at 10:12 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

God did give specific laws to the Jewish people by supernatural means, as you say.  Where in Scripture does it say that those laws were not intended for people outside the Children of Israel?  According to Scripture the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites was included in the covenant at Sinai.  According to Jewish religious history that "mixed multitude" included representatives from each of the 70 nations that comprise the world.

Scripture shows that any non-Israelites living in the land of Israel were expected to learn God's Law of Moses and do it. (Deuteronomy 31:10-13)

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

Can you explain to me the "reasoning" that would stipulate that the followers of Jesus would not actually follow the religion that Jesus himself made (John 1:3) and followed?  How could there be "followers" or "disciples" of Jesus who don't actually follow their leader?

Jesus commanded his Israelite disciples to "make disciples of all nations ... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you," (Matthew 28:18-20).  According to the New Testament, Jesus is one with the God of the Old Testament who commanded all the Israelites (including his disciples) to follow the laws and instructions given through Moses.  If Jesus is who he claimed to be, and who his disciples claimed that he is, the Books of Moses cannot be excluded from the content encompassed by "all that I have commanded you" which Jesus commanded his disciples to teach to all nations.

The apostle Paul taught that non-Israelite followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11).  That fully agrees with the original terms of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Genesis 17), of which non-Israelites are heirs (Galatians 3:29), because Jesus is a literal descendant of Abraham who has purchased those he has redeemed.  Paul taught that non-Israelites who follow Jesus are no longer alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel but are fellow-citizens (sEphesians 2:12-13, 19).

Is there anywhere in the New Testament that describes a "church" that considers itself separate from Israel?  I have not been able to locate any such passage. 

 

That's how valid ceremonial laws come to be known [supernaturally] because man cannot know them by nature [naturally].

Yeah, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" cannot be used to posit what you're saying - in fact Deuteronomy 5, 3 rebuts your position;

Deuteronomy 5,3: The Lord made NOT this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

The law was the contractual part of what the Children of Israel had to comply with - the ceremonial aspects of that law were alien to the fathers of the Jewish people - Adam was ingorant of the kind of sabbath enjoined via Moses as was Noah and everyone else. Later, Scripture describes "the [ CEREMONIAL ] law" as needing to be replaced, set aside.  In any even Acts Chapter 15 wouldn't read the way it does if your interpretation was within 1000 miles of the mark. I'm sorry, crypt crawling or grave robbing ceremonial laws is just that - playing with the dead 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
On 7/1/2020 at 2:12 PM, phkrause said:

I disagree!! Israel has always been or supposed to be an example to all gentiles or the other people in the world, but never did there function! Also he tells his disciples to go and preach to all the world!! Isaiah 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' " And in Acts Paul quotes this from Isaiah, 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' " So the Bible is written for all, not just the Hebrews/Jews!!

Exodus 31, 17:  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

If God wanted all nations to observe the ceremonial laws like the sabbath those ceremonial laws wouldn't have been a sign between God and 'the children' of Israel. Notice that Israel [Jacob] was ignorant of any demand or commandment to observe the Sabbath - it didn't exist at that time. 

See Deuteronomy 5, 1- 15. Jacob, according to the text, is excluded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phkrause
8 hours ago, Gustave said:

f God wanted all nations to observe the ceremonial laws like the sabbath

The Sabbath was not a ceremonial law!! The Sabbath was created at Creation! There were no Hebrews at that time??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
1 hour ago, phkrause said:

The Sabbath was not a ceremonial law!! The Sabbath was created at Creation! There were no Hebrews at that time??

You (or anyone else) do not know, by conscious means, any ceremonial law - you become aware of those types of laws by supernatural means. 

Ezekiel 20,5:  And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the Lord your God; In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands: Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt. Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.  But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them."

God "chose" Jacob's children to be special among the nations. The Scripture says God gave (not reminded) the offspring of Jacob  God's statues, Judgements AND Sabbaths. The Sabbaths were defined to be a sign between God and the children of Israel. Here it is another way; 

 

Deuteronomy 5,1:  And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

The covenant spoken of above is defined clearly in Exodus:

Exodus 34, 28: And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Your posturing of an argument that requires the Sabbath being given before Scripture explicitly says it was is akin to arguing that Columbus day has been celebrated / observed every year as a Federal Holiday since  October 12 1492  [Julian] when history shows it wasn't a Federal holiday until 1968. This is one thing I'll have to admit I just don't get about SDA theology. 

On one hand SDA's claim that when the Bible says in Colossians 2 that Christians need not worry about Judaizers that because its plural its not the Sabbath day yet Ezekiel 20 clearly shows that the weekly sabbath is part of that plural. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Amnsn
12 hours ago, Gustave said:

Yeah, "when in Rome do as the Romans do" cannot be used to posit what you're saying

Hi Gustave,
Your responses are rather random.

You don't seem to pay attention to the context of passages.  For example, I've previously explained to you in detail the context of Deuteronomy 5:3 showing conclusively that more than two-thirds of the Israelites that Moses was talking to had not been present at Mt. Sinai when the Covenant was made.  For nearly all the Israelites that Moses was speaking to in Deut chapter 5, it actually was their fathers or grandfathers that God had made the covenant with, so we know that the meaning that you are trying to get from Deut 5:3, is not the meaning that would have been understood by Moses or by the Israelites who were listening to Moses when he spoke that verse.

Those who read and understand the Scriptures will not be fooled by your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Hi Gustave,
Your responses are rather random.

You don't seem to pay attention to the context of passages.  For example, I've previously explained to you in detail the context of Deuteronomy 5:3 showing conclusively that more than two-thirds of the Israelites that Moses was talking to had not been present at Mt. Sinai when the Covenant was made.  For nearly all the Israelites that Moses was speaking to in Deut chapter 5, it actually was their fathers or grandfathers that God had made the covenant with, so we know that the meaning that you are trying to get from Deut 5:3, is not the meaning that would have been understood by Moses or by the Israelites who were listening to Moses when he spoke that verse.

Those who read and understand the Scriptures will not be fooled by your assertions.

The context is simply that when you live within the authority of another group you follow their laws - this is no different than if you moved from India to the U.S. You would find yourself falling under Federal Law, the Law of the State, the County and City. Nothing more than that going on there. That's the context. 

The Forefathers were told that the promise would be realized through their seed [later] - being told that through you down the road something would happen does not mean it happened to you and that's where you need to push this to get where you're going. 

I'm thinking you have that backwards Ron, Scripture says the Covenant was not made with their Forefathers & that's accurate - it was foretold or promised to the Forefathers and realized at the point of Moses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Amnsn
11 hours ago, Gustave said:

The context is simply that when you live within the authority of another group you follow their laws - this is no different than if you moved from India to the U.S. You would find yourself falling under Federal Law, the Law of the State, the County and City. Nothing more than that going on there. That's the context.

Although recognizing the proper jurisdiction and authority of a passage does play a role in interpreting Scripture, it does not comprise the whole context.  To understand the full context of a passage of Scripture a responsible interpreter has to take into account everything that God has revealed prior to each passage that is being interpreted.

You seem to be very selective about which portions of God's Word that you accept as God's Word, giving precedence instead to man-made theories and platitudes (i.e. man-made categories of law, "when in Rome...", etc.) whenever actual Scripture doesn't suit your preferred interpretation.  If that happens, then Scripture is being used merely as a tool to bolster a man-made philosophy or world view or to promulgate a man-made religion. 

We all have a strong tendency to notice in Scripture only the things that agree with what we already believe. In order to overcome that natural "confirmation bias" we need to be diligent about continually testing our beliefs and assumptions by what is in Scripture, and filtering out whatever beliefs and assumptions are not actually written in Scripture. 

I don't think a person who believes that some portions of Scripture are "obsolete" or "not applicable" will be able to understand any subsequent passage of Scripture in full context.  When the Bible authors were choosing the words with which to convey God's message to those who would read that message, none of them considered any earlier portions of Scripture to be anything less than the authoritative Word of God. 

The apostle Paul was speaking specifically of the Old Testament scrolls when he wrote to Timothy, "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."  (2 Timothy 3:15-17)  Unless a person fully believes what Paul confirmed in this passage regarding the validity, applicability, and authority of the complete Old Testament, how could that person ever hope to really understand what Paul wrote in his epistles?

If you're interested, I'm willing to tell you which parts of the full context you seem to be overlooking.  You could show your interest by answering the questions I've asked you earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
41 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Although recognizing the proper jurisdiction and authority of a passage does play a role in interpreting Scripture, it does not comprise the whole context.  To understand the full context of a passage of Scripture a responsible interpreter has to take into account everything that God has revealed prior to each passage that is being interpreted.

You seem to be very selective about which portions of God's Word that you accept as God's Word, giving precedence instead to man-made theories and platitudes (i.e. man-made categories of law, "when in Rome...", etc.) whenever actual Scripture doesn't suit your preferred interpretation.  If that happens, then Scripture is being used merely as a tool to bolster a man-made philosophy or world view or to promulgate a man-made religion. 

We all have a strong tendency to notice in Scripture only the things that agree with what we already believe. In order to overcome that natural "confirmation bias" we need to be diligent about continually testing our beliefs and assumptions by what is in Scripture, and filtering out whatever beliefs and assumptions are not actually written in Scripture. 

I don't think a person who believes that some portions of Scripture are "obsolete" or "not applicable" will be able to understand any subsequent passage of Scripture in full context.  When the Bible authors were choosing the words with which to convey God's message to those who would read that message, none of them considered any earlier portions of Scripture to be anything less than the authoritative Word of God. 

The apostle Paul was speaking specifically of the Old Testament scrolls when he wrote to Timothy, "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."  (2 Timothy 3:15-17)  Unless a person fully believes what Paul confirmed in this passage regarding the validity, applicability, and authority of the complete Old Testament, how could that person ever hope to really understand what Paul wrote in his epistles?

If you're interested, I'm willing tell you which parts of the full context you seem to be overlooking.  You could show your interest by answering the questions I've asked you earlier in this thread.

I'm being selective about the context. 

See: Exodus 12, 49 & Leviticus 24, 22

"Ye shall have ONE MANNER OF LAW, as well for the Stanger, as for one of YOUR own country".

&

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn and to the stranger that sojourneth among you". 

So yes, if you joined a gypsy caravan and were traveling through the States, while you were inside each State you would be subject to the laws of that state, as well as the laws of the County and City of that State. This is exactly what was going on with the "strangers" who were "on the road" with the Children of Israel. As you can see, I'm not the one who is taking indecent liberty with the context at all - you are. 

Paul was speaking of the Septuagint - the Scriptures the Jews at that time appealed to / read from. 

Check 2 Peter 3, 16 - St. Peter understood Paul's writing to be Scripture - this is why  1 Thessalonians 2, 13 says that the Apostolic Authorities words WERE the Word of God. I realize that this may fly in the face of your existing beliefs and preferred interpretation - but if you're honest you will have to address this issue given that Paul said what he is recorded as saying in Acts 15

Can you show from Scripture that God considers those who have been purchased and redeemed by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to be outside Israel?

 

 

Yes, I can. Matthew 8, 5-13.

Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.  I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

That's telling me that when everything is done there will be more individuals OUTSIDE Israel that are saved than there will be "in Israel". Of course I'm interested in understanding what your context for this Scripture is as well as several others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

Some other texts that show there were people outside of Israel that Jesus considered "already His". 

 

"And other sheep I have, which are NOT of this fold, them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd".... John 10, 16

This one fold is "The Church", which is the Body of Christ. 1st Corinthians 12, 12 -27, Eph 1, 22-23 & Colo 1, 24.

According to Scripture there was no longer to be Jew or Gentile.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". Galatians 3, 28

So, as Scripture says,  Salvation came from the Jews because that's the people the promised Messiah would come from - its quickly stated that the time had come where it no longer mattered what one called him / herself AND that going to the Temple didn't have the same juice it used to. These are Scriptural facts. 

Gentiles didn't have to become Jews to become Christians because they were already Jesus' Sheep even before being called. These Gentiles were following the general broad laws of God and were acceptable to Him - all the while worshipping Zeus and eating roasted hogs and perhaps even "Oysters".  Romans 2, 12 -29

What you are suggesting about Gentiles becoming essentially Jews reminds me of an old Blur song from way back in the day lol. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...