JEWISH CHRISTIANITY IS REAL CHRISTIANITY
The Church was Jewish before it started abandoning the Faith
NT LAW-KEEPING PROOFS
The New Testament never contradicts the Law of Moses. Nothing says bluntly
that it was ever wrong. Even when Jesus referred to Moses allowing divorce
when he shouldn't have he was speaking of a case where Moses only regulated for
those who were going to divorce anyway and his regulations imply nothing about
approval for it for God set it up to be one man and one woman for life.
Does it go one step further to actually say that the Law is still in force?
It does.
As a Jew, Jesus had to praise all the bloodshed which God had sanctioned because
in his prayer and in his preaching he stressed that the scriptures which
commanded it were void of error. On the Sabbath, he sang psalms that were
eulogies of the wickedness of he Law. If honest he would not have appealed to
any Old Testament scriptures at all to add weight to his doctrinal statements if
there was anything in them that God had not sanctioned for what is the point of
quoting something that could be an insertion from a tampered Bible? If he would
have and did he was far from being an honest man.
The New Testament allowed slavery. It could have been forbidden Christians to
have slaves but it allowed it. It is silly to say it had to allow slavery
because of the social system of the day for not everybody was Christian.
Christians were a minority group and were despised anyway so opposing slavery
couldn’t have made things any worse.
Paul taught that every commandment of the Law was holy, fair and good (Romans
7:12). He complained that though he knew the Law was good he did not always obey
it (v15, 16). Romans 3:31 supposedly says Paul contradicted the teaching
of the Law that obedience to it made you righteous before God and thus fit to
enter his presence. The text merely says that faith in Jesus recognises
and gives the utmost respect to the law. Faith in Jesus does not
contradict the law but validates it.
John defined sin as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). So, since it is
wicked to break the Law it is right to follow the Law. Christians allege that
Paul wrote against Jewish Christians who sought to get Christians to obey the
Law of Moses for Jesus had cancelled the Law. They pretend that the Law Paul
asked his followers to live under was not the Law of Moses but the Law of God
about right and wrong. Their position falls to pieces when it is realised that
if they were right Paul would not have used the simple term, “The Law,” for both
Laws. He and his secretary, Tertius, wouldn’t have been so sloppy and confusing.
If he were writing to
Christians who stupidly thought they were to live like Jews then he would have
known what they would have thought he meant, when he advocated the bending of
the knee to the Law. He would have prevented this misunderstanding.
Never does the Bible distinguish between the moral law and the religious law.
There is only the Law.
Romans 13:8 says that loving other people fulfils the whole Law.
1 Timothy 1:8 says that the Law is good if it is not abused. To do what is not
good is to do what is bad so if the Law is good then it should be obeyed. To
call it good means, “Obey it!”
Do these texts mean the Ten Commandments only? No. They were the heart of the
Law and all the other commandments came forth from them like spokes. They were
not the Law but a bit of it. The New Testament would make it clear it means only
these if it did mean them. The Ten Commandments were to be interpreted in the
light of the rest of the Law. For example, “You shall not kill”, means “Do not
kill except in self-defence, when I have prescribed the death-penalty – for
kidnappers, adulterers, homosexuals, etc – or command war”. It is stupid to say
the Ten Commandments can be plucked or followed out of the context of the Law.
The first of the commandments says that God is to be worshipped by being obeyed
meaning by the Law.
It is stupid to say that you can use the commandment that some render “You shall
not kill” to forbid killing animals or capital punishment or anything – a
murderer will have been asked by his victim not to kill him and does that mean
the victim thinks that the killing will not be a murder. Of course not! Killing
can mean murder though not all killing is murder. Yet the Christian Church
thinks it can reinterpret the commandments and that God wants them to keep them.
Its commandments may have the same wording as God’s but they are not his
commandments which even the Church admits are still to be obeyed. When the New
Testament enjoins keeping the commandments of the Law which are supposed to be
the ten it is proof that the whole Law is still in force according to the true
Christian religion.
Acts 21 makes it clear that the prophets of the early Church taught that the Law
was still completely in power long after modern Christianity says Jesus got rid
of it. Jesus allegedly inspired them to do so from on high according to many
places in the Bible. Paul was accused by the apostles of telling Jewish
Christians not to keep the Law. Obviously, they wanted him neither to teach that
they could obey the Law out of custom if they wanted to or that they should cast
it aside. To make the Law optional is the same as telling some of them to
disregard it. It is saying, “If you don’t want to keep the Law then don’t do
it.” The Law made life harder so nobody wanted to keep it though they supported
it. To ask people to give it up when they want would be unfair on those who make
themselves keep it. The apostles told him to prove that he was not hostile to
the keeping of the Law by undertaking a ritual purity rite – a rite for the
removal of uncleanness – and he agreed to. They asked him to prove that he did
not regard the Law as abolished or optional. Obviously, the rite was only one of
the things they asked for. It was too easy so you can be sure Paul had to do a
lot more than that.
So, it can be proved that the barbaric edicts of the Law, such as those that
what certain criminals tortured to death, advocate an eye for an eye and the
chopping off of the hands of anyone who hurts a man in the groin are as much a
part of the correctly understood Christian religion as they are of Islam and
Judaism.
The Sanhedrin would not have decided to give the Christians some tolerance if
the Church was set against the rites and ethics of the Law (Acts 5:39). They
would not have come to believe that a sect like that could be from God like Acts
says they did. So, the Church was obedient to scriptural Judaism. If the
Christians condemned lying as bad they would have told the Jews if they wanted
to arrange things so that they could get people to stop doing what the Law
demanded. The Sanhedrin would have made sure that they had no intention of
discarding the Law or had a forbidden attitude towards it like, “It is fine to
obey the Law as long as you know it is not necessary.” The Sanhedrin had met
many sects that only seemed to honour the Law and knew they had to be careful.
Acts 2 says that the community of the followers of Jesus were looked up to by
everyone. This would not have been so if they had been watering down the Law of
Moses or making a God of Jesus Christ.
There is more evidence in the New Testament that the Law is over Christians than
for any of the distinctive doctrines of the Church. The Church only exploits the
Bible if it does not reverence it because it would be Jewish Christian if it
did.
Christians admit that Jesus never rescinded the moral law (page 14, Sunday or
Sabbath? John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1943).
No case can be made for making a difference between the laws God brings into
legislation and moral law. God knows more than we do and can make laws that seem
strange to us for morality is about doing the least possible evil or damage. So
it was moral then to kill adulterers in Old Testament times. If it is not moral
now it is because God is working in different circumstances.
JAMES WANTS THE LAW OBEYED
James the brother of Jesus who was known for his devotion to the Law according
to Josephus seems to have written the Epistle of James. Sources outside the
Bible say he was a loyal Jew. This means that the Law he commands adherence to
in the authority of Jesus Christ is the Law of Moses in its fullness.
James, in his epistle, taught that the person who offends against the Law in one
point breaks all its rules (2). It is thought that the Law of liberty he
mentions is another Law. But if the Law of Moses is righteousness then it is the
Law of liberty, the remedy for bondage to stupidity and error and evil. He
quoted some commandments to show that to break one commandment is to break all
and said that this is breaking the Law meaning the Law of Moses.
James declared that anybody who judges his brother unfairly is criticising and
judging the Law (4:11).
James 5:12 says that above all things we must not swear but must just answer yes
and no. He means that we should not swear when yes or no would do or that we
should be so truthful that we don’t need oaths. He is not saying that taking
oaths is wrong.
James 4:1-3 says that lusts and selfishness are to blame for wars. Some see that
as forbidding wars. But even people who believe in war believe that human
badness is to blame. The side that is in the right however is not to blame. It
is only defending itself or should be.
CIRCUMCISION
Circumcision is said in the New Testament to be the sign of making a covenant
with God to keep his Law that he gave to Moses.
When the New Testament condemns circumcision it only condemns the physical act
without the spiritual side being taken into account. It stresses that
circumcision is worthless unless you intend to circumcise your heart and keep
God’s Law. Romans 2:25 says that circumcision is good and right if you can keep
the Law of Moses. But once you break the Law you break the contract signified by
your circumcision and it is no longer any good. Your circumcision is now
uncircumcision. 1 Corinthians 7:18 is the only verse that says one must not be
circumcised but it says it in the context of a list of things not to bother
doing including marrying or fighting for your freedom if you are a slave for the
focus must be entirely on the return of the Lord Jesus.
Circumcision for the right reasons is part of New Testament doctrine for it
never explicitly did away with it.
ANIMAL SACRIFICE NOT BANNED
The Bible God says the blood sacrificing Levitical Priesthood is still in force.
God made a covenant establishing an everlasting priesthood with Phinehas the
grandson of Aaron (Numbers 25:13). The Church says he meant that they would be
priests forever not that there would be priests forever. But what would God
promise them they would be priests forever for? He was promising that the
priesthood would never be abolished.
The New Testament says that animal sacrifice was really useless in itself but
only served as a sign that atonement for sin was necessary. Jesus provided that
atonement. Now if the sacrifices represented that before Jesus came they can
still represent it after.
There is no definite statement in the New Testament that the Jewish feasts are
done away. They had to be kept under obligation to divine law. A God who does
them away would make it clear. Acts 20:6 shows the apostles still observed
Judaism and the feasts after they were supposedly done away. The proof texts
against the keeping of feasts refer to man-made feasts not the divinely
instituted feasts of the Law of Moses. See Galatians 4:10. Galatians was not
written against Jews but against heretical Jews who said that you have to be
circumcised to get into Heaven. Old Testament doctrine however teaches that
circumcision is not about Heaven but about the right to be Jewish and to inherit
the Holy Land.
Some of the feasts required sacrifice of animals so animal sacrifice is still
needed.
CONCLUSION
The Law of Moses with its superstitions and cruelties is still in force
according to the Bible. Jesus could not and did not teach that the days which we
have to obey it are gone. The Law is said to be no longer obligatory for us in
the sense that we want to obey it so it is no longer like a Law and in the sense
that if we fail Jesus has obeyed the Law for us in our place so we are still
counted as obeying the Law perfectly. The fact that we need Jesus to do some of
the work for us indicates that the Law has his sanction as being fair and
correct.
The Law of Moses is not for the Hebrews alone but for the world.
The Bible is an evil book that deserves to have its pages torn out and used to
shine windows. Any other use is criminal. Stop calling it the good book. It
should be banned for it opposes social order.