Are Judaism and Christianity one Religion

I would add Acts 22 to the above.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=920384&postcount=265 -- That is the link to the Lev 11 post referenced above.

In Acts 22-26 Paul repeatedly states that he has never taught anything contrary to the Word of God as given in the OT. The argument there is that it is ONE God and ONE religion - but the Jews were perverting it.

In Heb 11 it is the OT saints that are HELD UP as models for NT saints.

In Romans 4 it is ABRAHAM that is "our father" and in Romans 9 we are told that we as saints inherit the promises of the OT scriptures given to Israel.

In James 2 we are pointed back to the OT laws as we are in Eph 6:1-4 speaking of the 5th commandment as the "First commandment with a promise".

John 14:15 we have the precross statement of Christ saying "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments" and we see the same thing of th saints in Rev 12 and Rev 14 "here are they who keep the commandments"

In 2Tim 3 we are told that those OT scriptures ARE sufficient for salvation.

The only way this actually works is via ONE Bible, ONE God, ONE Gospel.

When Malachi comes along - we do not say "which scripture should we read - the 38 books of the OT or Malachi". Rather we say "scripture now contains 39 books" and after the NT we say "scripture now contains 66 books".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Acts 10 -
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
13 A voice came to him, ""Get up, Peter, kill and eat!''
14 But Peter said, ""By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.''
15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "" What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.''
16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
17 Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate;

At this point – certain things are glaringly obvous.

#1. Peter did NOT take the “wheat debate” in Mark 7 and Matt 15 to mean “eat rats cats and dogs” for he states even now that he has never done such a thing.

#2. Peter makes his point about having NEVER eaten unholy or unclean food – with honor as a point of faithfulness. He does not state it in the form “I have really really been trying to eat more rats and less beef steak but I just have not been able to quite get those rats and cats down my throat. Please pardon me this one last time for not eating enough dogs and bats”.

#3. At the end of the vision Peter is not “CLEAR on his need to eat rats” – rather he is confused and wants to know what the ACTUAL meaning of the vision is!!


18 and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there.
19 While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, ""Behold, three men are looking for you.
20 ""But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.''

This part appears to be very clear to Peter – no mystery at all. The Holy Spirit is speaking and Peter instantly obeys. He does not say “OH NO LORD I have never associated with gentiles”

Three men show up – and the vision with the animals is repeated 3 times. The connection between the men and the vision is clear

21 Peter went down to the men and said, ""Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?''
22 They said, ""Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was divinely directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and hear a message from you.''
23 So he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him.
26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "" Stand up; I too am just a man.''
27 As he talked with him, he entered and found many people assembled.
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
29 ""That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.'

Here again Peter makes the point of immediate and instant willingness to do all that God has commanded EVEN if it goes against the unbiblical man-made tradition of the Jews! Peter is eager to be IN harmony with God’s command once it is clear – and not in confusing symbols.

And here Peter gives us the "interpretation" of the vision "God has SHOWN me that I should not call ANY MAN unholy or unclean". He does not say “God has said that we should not call any rat unclean” because that is not the focus of the Gospel.

30 Cornelius said, "" Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments,
31 and he said, "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God.
32 "Therefore send to Joppa and invite Simon, who is also called Peter, to come to you; he is staying at the house of Simon the tanner by the sea.'
33 ""So I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind enough to come. Now then, we are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord.''
34 Opening his mouth, Peter said: ""I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35 but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.

This is the second time Peter has emphasized the true meaning of the dream. Notice it is not in the form “evangelize gentiles and try to eat more rats while you are doing it”

 

In 1 Cor 10 Paul argues that they were all Baptized into Christ and that the Rock was Christ EVEN in the OT.

In Heb 4 Paul argues that WE are given the same Gospel as they were. In Gal 3 Paul argues that the Gospel was preached to Abraham. In Gal 1 Paul says there has only ever been one Gospel.

Your statement "Christianity comes before the father by way of the Son where as the Jews came by way of the prophets and the law" you place the Jews as coming to God "by works" by "the prophets and the law" vs "grace" --

But that is by definition a Gospel of works claiming to have access to God "by works alone".

Wouldn't you agree?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
There has only been ONE Gospel in all of time according to Gal 1:6-11 and that ONE Gospel was "preached to US JUST as it was TO THEM also" as Paul tells us in Heb 4:1-3.

They are ONE religion - worshiping ONE God and preaching ONE Gospel.

That was the focus of all the OT sacrifices and is the focus of our NT Communion service.

Same story - same Gospel - same mechanism for access to God -- faith in the Messiah's substitutionary death for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
By taking a two-Gospel, two-religion approach as you are doing we can then start slicing up the Bible between the Christian-Bible vs. the Jewish-Bible and the pick-and-choose two-gospel system kicks in full speed.

The point is that the religion God established is not the same thing as "what the Jews turned it into" according to Mark 7. The fact that they did not accept What God taught - does not change what God taught.

Paul argues that what THEY (Jews in rebellion against God's Gospel) were doing is creating "another Gospel". But when the NT authors reference the scriptures - the Word of God (that can not be broken John 10:35) they argue that it is "pure" and undefiled. Paul says in Romans 7 that "it is spiritual" and "holy just and good". That is why you have such a strong NT focus on "Keep My commandments" -- "Keep the commandments of God"

But Jesus said "Abraham SAW My day and was glad" John 8.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wow. Christianity is NOT a religion. Judaism is. Catholicism is. Christianity does not require rules, regulations, procedures, laws, steps, traditions. Nothing in Christianity requires the Believer to keep certain statutes, obligations, duties, in order to retain his or her status as a Believer. Judaism does. Catholicism does. A Christian cannot be excommunicated!

Judaism and Catholicism are 180 degrees apart from Christianity.

A debate which tries to make Christianity and Judaism one "religion" is doomed from the get-go.

 

Gosh it isnt a difficult concept, you obey God because you love Him, and if you dont that proves you dont love Him, nor do you know Him.... SIMPLE Romper Room stuff here!


1Cor:2:9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Jn:14:21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.



This is ABC stuff guys!


Dont you get it? You dont keep the law to try to EARN salvation, you do it because you love God and because He tells you to do it.

But if you dont do it, you prove you dont love God at all.... and only those who LOVE HIM will be allowed into heaven...

thus:

1 Cor 2:
9: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.


Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

thats just talking about the heavenly sanctuary and the death of Jesus

 

is God HIMSELF saying that by eating rats, cats, bats, decaying flesh and human flesh that they would make themselves an abomination before Him?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=920386&postcount=267
How do you read it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Are you really ready to charge God with the man-made traditions of the Jews??

Ok - let's clarify what you are saying.

1. One God? Seems to me that you agree.
2. Authors TWO religions? You seem to say that.
3. And they both teach the ONE and only Gospel? or TWO gospels?
4. Do they BOTH provide salvation?

Are the saints of Heb 11 saved under the Jewish religion in your view?

If saved - were they saved by works or by grace through faith?

If they were saved by grace through faith - why do you call this two religions?

In Acts 21 when Paul is busy proving that he abides by all the laws of the OT - which religion is he??

Acts 21
10 As we were staying there for some days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.
11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ""This is what the Holy Spirit says: "In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'''
12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem.
13 Then Paul answered, ""What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.''
14 And since he would not be persuaded, we fell silent, remarking, "" The will of the Lord be done!''
15 After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem.
16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. [/quote]

Paul relates his ministry to the Gentiles and is actually proud of what God has done through him among the Gentiles. His report is received with praise and rejoicing. Paul is not in a frame of mind to back down from his ministry. In fact he has indicated prior to arriving in Jerusalem that he is willing to die for his faith and the cause of Christ.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, ""You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
21 and b]they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs[/b].

The charge leveled against Paul by CHRISTIAN Jews is that he is telling Jews (not simply Gentiles) to forsake Moses - to stop
"Being Jews" - to stop walking according to the customs/laws God gave to Moses. Notice that they do not accuse him of teaching THEM this error - NOR do they indicate that James or any of the other Apostles IN Jerusalem have taught them to "forsake Moses". This is key. Their only "concern" is "rumors" that Paul in ADDITION to his ministry to Gentiles has been telling those Jews who live OUT from Jerusalem AMONG the Gentiles - to "forsake Moses".

Many Christians today (who teach a 2-Gospel system) argue that these Christian Jews attacking Paul - are "Exactly RIGHT!". That Paul's ministry WAS to show that the laws given to Moses were abolished. That Christ nailed His LAW to the cross for ALL mankind. That nothing of the LAW given to Moses was applicable to ANYONE and this was the NEW Gospel available after the Cross. BOTH Jew and Gentil should consider it ABOLISHED, and those bad ol' Judaizers that did NOT consider it abolished were not really saved. IN this 2-Gospel system Grace and New Covenant Gospel replacing the Old Covenant method of Salvation in place for 4000 years prior to the cross. Christians argue that this is FOUNDATIONAL to the NT Gospel message and Paul has no choice but to fearlessly APPROVE of that kind of Gospel rather than deny it.

Now lets see if Paul agrees with that view of the Gospel.

Acts 21
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.[/quote]

Notice the "recommendation" is to explicitly follow the Num 6:1-11 oath SHOWING in the eyes of all that Paul not only taught conformity to the OT text of scripture (God's Word) - but HE HIMSELF PRACTICED it. The saints in Jerusalem argued that this would be public VISIBLE PROOF that the charges made against Paul were false.

Many Christians today argue that the charges against Paul were TRUE to the last detail. IN their 2-Gospel Model New Covenant Gospel is the REPLACEMENT of the Mosaic law - it would be nothing short of heresy to publically engage in following the laws of Moses with the explicit PURPORSE of PROVING that NO SUCH replacement was being taught in the GOSPEL message just proclaimed and praised in Jerusalem by Paul's report.

Furthermore it would be hard to argue that Paul abandoned the Gospel for "fear" of threat/injury etc - since he CAME to Jerusalem ALREADY prepared to die for his faith - (see vs 13)



In Christ,

Bob

 

2 Cor 3 makes it very clear that there is NO SALVATION under the "covenant of DEATH" that is NOT the "Gospel" of being saved by grace through faith.

If your argument is that "another gospel" saved in the OT - not the New Covenant - then you have two gospels by definition.

In the OT the sanctuary service symbolized the Old Covenant - however salvation itself can only work one way - and only ever did work one way - and that is via the New Covenant of justifcation by grace through faith.

In other words the saints of the OT were saved under the New Covenant.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are presenting God's Word - the Scriptures used by NT saints as a "Christless religion".

Christ said of the scriptures "These are they that speak of ME".

In 1Peter 1 -- Peter says that the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow are the subject of the OT text of scripture.

In Acts 17 we are told that Paul preached Christ from the OT.

In Heb 4:1-2 "We have had the Gospel preached to us JUST as they ALSO".

Rather than a Christless religion that is not the same as the NT Religion - the NT authors present the SCRIPTURE as the TEXT of their religion.

Your view is consistent with the way many people divide up scripture today - but I am arguing that it is inconsistent with both the OT and NT text.

In Christ,

Bob