The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

[Paprika]

Regardless, can you answer the question I asked, if these verses are related?

They are related as they are both accusations against Paul. Yet Paul's defense before Felix only addresses the latter.

Because we have different stations. Jews take a vow to be God's chosen and an example for Gentiles, teachers of God to the world. Jesus being the leader of Jews as such. At this point the same is true, the 2 Olive Trees are Gentiles and Jews:

That doesn't answer my question. Gentiles previously had to convert to Judaism and strive to keep the entire law, in order to be considered people of God. Why don't they have to do so now?

Yep, as much as Gentiles can make sacrifices to Jesus under the Christmas Tree..."Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

Jesus has done away with the need for the Temple sacrifices and in general with the first covenant that had its faults, making it obsolete. Why should then the Jews continue to make Temple sacrifices?

[JohnnyP]

They are related as they are both accusations against Paul. Yet Paul's defense before Felix only addresses the latter.

It seems to be all about the same thing.

Acts 21:28 ...and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple...

Acts 24:14 ...believing all things which are written in the law...

That doesn't answer my question. Gentiles previously had to convert to Judaism and strive to keep the entire law, in order to be considered people of God. Why don't they have to do so now?

It may be they never did except among Judaizers, and may be why Noahide Law exists today in Judaism. That may be why for example Uriah was called a Hittite, and Ruth the Moabite became a Jewess. I think you are addressing the question from the mindset of Judaizers. When in fact there may have been various schools of thought on the matter, and even less today in mainstream Judaism derived from a Pharisaic position.

Jesus has done away with the need for the Temple sacrifices and in general with the first covenant that had its faults, making it obsolete. Why should then the Jews continue to make Temple sacrifices?

There is no Temple today. For a more obscure thought, do you ever wonder why nothing in Revelation says for Jews to stop sacrifices, but rather, to avoid sacrifices to the wrong thing?

Revelation 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

[Paprika]

It seems to be all about the same thing.

They are not. You cannot therefore assume that Paul's defense against one set of charges is meant to be a defense against all other charges.

It may be they never did except among Judaizers, and may be why Noahide Law exists today in Judaism. That may be why for example Uriah was called a Hittite, and Ruth the Moabite became a Jewess. I think you are addressing the question from the mindset of Judaizers. When in fact there may have been various schools of thought on the matter, and even less today in mainstream Judaism derived from a Pharisaic position.

Can a Christian Jew then choose not to make the vow to keep the Mosaic Law and live under the "relaxed" Mosaic Law?

There is no Temple today.

That's avoiding the point. Before the Temple was destroyed, should Christian Jews still have made sacrifices? If it is rebuilt, should they make sacrifices?

For a more obscure thought, do you ever wonder why nothing in Revelation says for Jews to stop sacrifices, but rather, to avoid sacrifices to the wrong thing?..."Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

[alexeyhurricane]

didnt Paul offered sacrafices in the temple when Jacob asked about his vow???? jewish disciples did follow the G-d's Law , Acts 28

[alexeyhurricane]

i think there is limit how many commandments gentile obliged to keep and how many jewish disciple i think there is difference , covenant is just distraction to go on and on and ignore G-d's commanments

[RBerman]

To veer off the topic perhaps too wildly, apologies: even if Christmas/Easter/etc. traditions really came from idolatry, would you consider that a similar type of situation, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 8 -- where idols are not really being celebrated? And that type of view expresses Freedom of the Law of the Spirit vs. Slavery under the Law of Moses?

I mention this only to try to find some greater middle ground to differentiate between legalism vs. breaking the Law.

First, let's be sure we're using "legalism" in the same way. Being legalistic doesn't mean being strict. I might say, "Women should not wear makeup or pants," or, "Christians should not dance, drink alcohol, or watch TV or movies," or "Christians should not go to any business on Sundays." That would be morally stringent, but not legalistic. Being legalistic would be saying that any of those things, or anything else, actually impacts one's eternal destiny. Legalism is an attempt to earn God's favor through behavior, without implying which specific behaviors are involved.

In regard to your specific question: That sounds like a thread all its own. I find it very hard to disentangle cultural habits, personal preferences, and Biblical mandates when it comes to things like, "Is Halloween an unwholesome celebration of death, or a prideful mockery of deviltry that ought to be taken more seriously, or a declaration of Christ's victory, or just a fun time to play dress-up games?" Similar questions arise with Christmas, Easter, or any other activity that means different things to different people at different points in history. The very least we should take away from 1 Cor 8 is that such things matter, and we shouldn't just assume they are meaningless in general just because they are (at least apparently) meaningless to us.

[JohnnyP]

They are not. You cannot therefore assume that Paul's defense against one set of charges is meant to be a defense against all other charges.

Are you saying his defense in Acts 24:14 of believing the Law is not a defense against Acts 24:6 accusation of breaking the Law by profaning the Temple?

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple...

Acts 24:14 ...believing all things which are written in the law...

Can a Christian Jew then choose not to make the vow to keep the Mosaic Law and live under the "relaxed" Mosaic Law?

I see no biblical reason to call yourself Jewish if you reject full Torah. I also see no biblical reason to call yourself Christian or Jewish if you don't believe in God, yet some do, Christian Atheists and Jewish Atheists. If I was non-observant or atheist and descended from Israel, I'd call myself an Israelite not Jewish. But people are gonna do what they're gonna do...

That's avoiding the point. Before the Temple was destroyed, should Christian Jews still have made sacrifices?

Yes, as Jesus implied that Law was to be observed Matthew 23:2-3, not seeing a point where he said to stop. We may already assume Paul participated in Nazarite vows and offered doves. If you say Paul became a Jew to win Jews meaning that he observed Torah as a Jew, would he have made other animal sacrifices with them? If he did would that deny the sacrifice Jesus made? So for Christian Jews they would be symbolic of what Jesus did for them. As baptism by mikveh would mean more than conversion to Judaism, etc. Apostles also didn't avoid praying at the Temple, etc. even though not much is said about them sacrificing animals.

If it is rebuilt, should they make sacrifices?

I think pushing ahead without Jesus would be like Jews refusing to serve Nebuchadnezzar, destruction of 1st century Temple akin to exile by Babylon:

Jeremiah 27:8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Similarly, some non-Christian Jews like Neturei Karta are opposed to establishing a State of Israel altogether until Messiah returns:

The Talmud in Tractate Kesubos (p. 111a), teaches that Jews shall not use human force to bring about the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the universally accepted Moshiach (Messiah from the House of David). Furthermore it states that we are forbidden to rebel against the nations and that we should remain loyal citizens and we shall not attempt to leave the exile which G-d sent us into, ahead of time. -NK

What do you make of Ezekiel 46, is it about Jesus as Prince, or something else? Like:

Ezekiel 46:4 And the burnt offering that the prince shall offer unto the LORD in the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish, and a ram without blemish.

---

RBerman yes probably for another thread sometime, thanks...

[Paprika]

Are you saying his defense in Acts 24:14 of believing the Law is not a defense against Acts 24:6 accusation of breaking the Law by profaning the Temple?

It could be, but I think no reason to assume it, since he later defends himself of the charge. I think that as part of a merism -"the Law and the Prophets"- he is defending against the implied charge in being "a ringleader of a sect" by claiming that he still holds to the Jewish fundamentals.

You, on the other hand, need to do some cogent argumentation to make your point.

I see no biblical reason to call yourself Jewish if you reject full Torah. I also see no biblical reason to call yourself Christian or Jewish if you don't believe in God, yet some do, Christian Atheists and Jewish Atheists. If I was non-observant or atheist and descended from Israel, I'd call myself an Israelite not Jewish. But people are gonna do what they're gonna do...

You're not answering my question. In your understanding, can a Christian Jew choose to live as a Christian Gentile? Does he suffer any penalty?

Yes, as Jesus implied that Law was to be observed Matthew 23:2-3, not seeing a point where he said to stop.

Jesus told the people to observe what the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do. In context, we must note that Jesus himself disregarded many of the
regulations of the Pharisees, and that the rest of Matthew 23 consists of strong condemnation of the scribes and the Pharisees. So I think you need to consider the nuances.

But granted, I think that he was telling them to follow the Mosaic Law still. My claim, with Paul, is that "that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives", and upon death the person is released.

We may already assume Paul participated in Nazarite vows and offered doves. If you say Paul became a Jew to win Jews meaning that he observed Torah as a Jew, would he have made other animal sacrifices with them? If he did would that deny the sacrifice Jesus made?

Yes and yes.

What do you make of Ezekiel 46, is it about Jesus as Prince, or something else?

Frankly I'm not sure how to deal with the interpretation of the prophecies.

[JohnnyP]

It could be, but I think no reason to assume it, since he later defends himself of the charge. I think that as part of a merism -"the Law and the Prophets"- he is defending against the implied charge in being "a ringleader of a sect" by claiming that he still holds to the Jewish fundamentals.

You, on the other hand, need to do some cogent argumentation to make your point.

There's not a reason to assume Acts 24:14 is defending against Acts 24:5 but not Acts 24:6 of breaking the Mosaic Law, or to think Paul lies to say he believes in the Mosaic Law but secretly does not. I don't feel compelled to argue all that much against a kind of conspiracy theory that Paul snuck around with Gentiles to break the Law but denied it when accused.

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Acts 24:14... believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

You're not answering my question. In your understanding, can a Christian Jew choose to live as a Christian Gentile? Does he suffer any penalty?

I did answer your question of, "Can a Christian Jew then choose not to make the vow to keep the Mosaic Law..." which implies someone who thinks he is Jewish by a Jewish mother, etc. but has not made any vow to keep the whole Law yet -- and in such a case I see no reason to call yourself Jewish to begin with if you decide not to vow to keep the whole Law.

If one has already made the vow to be Jewish, better take it up with God if you want to go back on it, that's not anything I would want to advise about.

Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Jesus told the people to observe what the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do. In context, we must note that Jesus himself disregarded many of the regulations of the Pharisees, and that the rest of Matthew 23 consists of strong condemnation of the scribes and the Pharisees. So I think you need to consider the nuances.

But granted, I think that he was telling them to follow the Mosaic Law still. My claim, with Paul, is that "that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives", and upon death the person is released.

I have. The context is about authority of the Seat of Moses regarding Mosaic Law. The context is not to obey them no matter what if they told Jews to blaspheme, etc.

Yes and yes.

Is that "yes" Paul became a Jew to win Jews meaning that he observed Torah as a Jew and made animal sacrifices with them?

And "yes" that in making those sacrifices, Paul denied the sacrifice Jesus made? Or if not can you clarify?

Frankly I'm not sure how to deal with the interpretation of the prophecies.

If Ezekiel 46 is about Jesus making animal sacrifices himself in the future, then we have a problem saying animal sacrifices are obliterated yet.

[Paprika]

There's not a reason to assume Acts 24:14 is defending against Acts 24:5 but not Acts 24:6 of breaking the Mosaic Law, or to think Paul lies to say he believes in the Mosaic Law but secretly does not.

Firstly, Acts 24:6 is not "He broke the Mosaic Law" but "He even tried to profane the temple".

Secondly, given that 24:14 begins with "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect,", it is clear that it is defending against 24:5. Whether it defends agains 24:6 is something you have to show. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't feel compelled to argue all that much against a kind of conspiracy theory that Paul snuck around with Gentiles to break the Law but denied it when accused.

You're the one portraying it as a "conspiracy theory" and "sneaking", which is an inaccurate portrayal as the behavior would be public.

Is that "yes" Paul became a Jew to win Jews meaning that he observed Torah as a Jew and made animal sacrifices with them?

The first yes is "yes, it is possible that Paul was referring to making animal sacrifices". As regards Paul and the Nazarite sacrifices, as I turn to the text there is nothing that says that Paul was making the sacrifices, though he did intend to fund them. Would that have been denying the sacrifice of Jesus? In effect, yes, though intention is unknown.

If Ezekiel 46 is about Jesus making animal sacrifices himself in the future, then we have a problem saying animal sacrifices are obliterated yet.

Well, I have never said they were obliterated.

[JohnnyP]

Firstly, Acts 24:6 is not "He broke the Mosaic Law" but "He even tried to profane the temple".

Profaning the Temple was allowed under Mosaic Law? No, from Acts 21:28 they accused Paul of bringing unclean Greeks into the Temple which by interpretation would violate:

608: That anyone who is unclean shall not enter the Camp of the Levites (Deut. 23:11) (according to the Talmud, in the present day this means the Temple mount) (CCN193). -Judaism 101

Not to enter the Temple mount in Jerusalem, even outside the Temple itself, when one is in a state of severe ritual impurity. Gentiles are not permitted to enter the Temple itself, but by Torah Law they would be allowed to ascend the Temple mount and even to enter the women’s section of the Temple, because they are not able to become ritually impure; by rabbinical decree, gentiles are considered constantly in a state of moderate ritual impurity that excludes them from parts of the Temple mount. Thus, under this commandment, gentiles may ascend the Temple mount only up to a boundary a certain distance from the Temple itself. -Hasidic University

Secondly, given that 24:14 begins with "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect,", it is clear that it is defending against 24:5. Whether it defends agains 24:6 is something you have to show. The burden of proof is on you.

Not only in Acts 24:14 does Paul defend against profaning the Temple by saying he believed the Law, but he does it again in Acts 25:8:

Acts 24:6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

You're the one portraying it as a "conspiracy theory" and "sneaking", which is an inaccurate portrayal as the behavior would be public.

If he was breaking the Law openly why would he defend himself against it in Acts 24:14 and Acts 25:8, was he delusional? And if he was breaking the Law openly then he'd blow any chance of him being a Jew to Jews parading around openly eating BLTs with Gentiles. Either way your theory doesn't make sense.

The first yes is "yes, it is possible that Paul was referring to making animal sacrifices". As regards Paul and the Nazarite sacrifices, as I turn to the text there is nothing that says that Paul was making the sacrifices, though he did intend to fund them. Would that have been denying the sacrifice of Jesus? In effect, yes, though intention is unknown.

Paul by example taught Jews to deny Jesus in order to win Jews to Jesus?

If Ezekiel 46 is about Jesus making animal sacrifices himself in the future, then we have a problem saying animal sacrifices are obliterated yet.

Well, I have never said they were obliterated.

Seems you said the need was obliterated, which wouldn't be the case if Jesus makes sacrifices himself in the future...

Jesus has done away with the need for the Temple sacrifices and in general with the first covenant that had its faults, making it obsolete.

[Paprika]

I must say I reaching the limit of my patience, what with "marcionism", "Gentiles can make sacrifices to Jesus under the Christmas Tree" and other screwiness. But I will try one last time.

1) "believing everything laid down by the Law"
Observant Jews would say that they "believe in the Law", yet they would also say they too are sinners. Thus "believing in the Law" is not a defense against an accusation of transgressing the law.

If you don't agree with this, then we cannot progress any further.

2) "Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews"
Is this a claim that Paul has never once in his entire life transgressed against the Mosaic Law? Of course not; this statement must be taken in context; and the context is a reply to certain charges brought against Paul in the presence of Festus.

If you don't agree with this, then we cannot progress any further.

[JohnnyP]

1) "believing everything laid down by the Law"
Observant Jews would say that they "believe in the Law", yet they would also say they too are sinners. Thus "believing in the Law" is not a defense against an accusation of transgressing the law.

If you don't agree with this, then we cannot progress any further.

2) "Paul said in his own defense, "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews"
Is this a claim that Paul has never once in his entire life transgressed against the Mosaic Law? Of course not; this statement must be taken in context; and the context is a reply to certain charges brought against Paul in the presence of Festus.

If you don't agree with this, then we cannot progress any further.

Openly transgressing the Law by intentionally eating pork etc. with Gentiles would show offensive disregard and disbelief in its validity for Jews. This is what Paul defended against. That's not the same as believing in the Law for Jews but making some mistakes in observing it here and there.

So no I don't agree with your application of those ideas in relation to condoning of and consistent open transgression of Law with no shame, vs. a sometimes transgression of the Law due to being human and then repenting for it.