What Does God Want?

What does God Want from Me?

Does He want you to believe the right things or live the right way? Does He want you to hold the “correct” teaching about Him? Or is He more concerned with who you become?

Let me put it to you another way. What do you think pleases God MOST about your life?


Is it when you’re diving into the deep end of the pool to study Him in all his glorious ways? When you’re learning more about Him? Or is it when you love your neighbors as you love yourself? When by faith and through choices you’re transformed more and more into the likeness of Jesus?

What matters MOST to HIM: That you amass more information about Him, or that you become more like Him?

Sorry, you can’t have it both ways

The easy answer is to say it’s both. He does care about both. They both matter. But for the purpose of this discussion, I’m asking you to think about which takes priority and take a side. What do you think God wants to be the priority in your life and his church? More Knowledge of him or more transformation? I’m NOT asking us to discuss this in relation to soteriology.

Job, the man God brags about

Consider Job. Man, did he ever impress God. He even brags about him to Satan. The Lord may be holding Job up as the most eminent among all living humans. What was it that grabbed God’s attention? What turned his head and caused him to consider Job?

It wasn’t his systematic theology. It certainly wasn’t his understanding of the sovereignty of God or the problem of evil. Not if you asked his friends. According to them, Job was a theological newb, a borderline heretic! They’re the ones who understood the deep things of God. Not Job. But God wasn’t impressed with them. He was impressed by Job’s blameless and upright life.


We don’t have to guess about this. God tells us in His own words:

“And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”

We don’t know how much Job knew about the God of the universe. But we do know that he knew enough to radically alter the way he lived. THAT’S what impressed God. I think that’s what always impresses him.

What did Jesus believe?

When they asked Jesus to sum up the Old Testament law into one command, he gave two. They both deal with how we live: Love God and love your neighbor. God wants each of us to have Him as King and then to treat every person around us the way our King commands. Both of those broad categories have behavior as the key component. The Epistles and the early church fathers all say the same thing. God wants us to live a certain way.

Go Deeper

American Christianity has become more concerned with understanding the ways of God than living by them. And it’s decimating the church. We’ve mistakenly believed that God’s goal is that we have more information about Him. But is that what He wants? Is that the object of the Christian life? Does God want us to have more and more information about who He is? Simply for the sake of having our theology wrapped up in a nice box and stored on our bookshelves? Or does he want us to become like Jesus?

Ask your Neighbor

I heard a missionary tell a story about a primitive culture they were working in. When a new convert came to Christ, they’d teach them to love their neighbor. They taught them what it meant and how it looked and how they should do it. Then then they sent them out to do it.

In a week or two, the people of the church would ask the unbelieving neighbor how the new convert was doing. “Is he treating you like you want to be treated?” If the answer was “NO!” then they would go over the lesson again and send him back out to live his faith. When he finally got it right, they would move on to the next thing.

How’s that for a discipleship course?

Don’t misunderstand me. I LOVE theology! It’s so much easier to study about God and the Christian faith than it is to put it into practice. Isn’t it? But imagine a world where Christians live out what they already know about God. There would be a lot more Mother Teresa’s than theologians.


That’s my take. Now it’s your turn. What do you think is most important to God, how we live or what we believe? Why do you see it that way?

If you liked this post, you should check out this one: Does God Care about Our Theology?

About Jim

Not For Itching Ears is a blog dedicated to discussing the American Evangelical church. It is a place for people to share their thoughts on a host of issues relating to this subject. Jim is available to speak at weekend services, and retreats at no cost to churches in Florida. Contact us for more information.

Posted on February 28, 2021, in Christianity, Contemporary Church Culture, The Christian Life, Theology, Worship and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 59 Comments.

  1. What do you think pleases God MOST about your life?
    Obey all of His Word, His prophets, the law of Moses and His Son, Yeshua’s teachings.
    Who is our God?
    It is Yahuwah, the Father of Yeshua.
    Do we need to please Yah?
    Definitely as even Yeshua must please the Father.
    Did Yeshua came to start Christianity which is new and different from the law of Moses?
    No.
    Christianity was formed in 325 AD (Nicean Council) by false apostles/ popes/ bishops.

    Like

    • Christianity was formed in 325 AD (Nicean Council) by false apostles/ popes/ bishops.

      Have you read the letters of Clement and Ignatious or Justin Martyr? They would disagree with you on that one.

      Like

      • No one can proof the letters of Clement and Ignatious or Justin Martyr are accurate without perversion. The Tanakh (Hebrew OT books) is the true Word of God. Christianity is saying that the Tanakh (Hebrew OT books) is no more relevant for us (New Covenant) today. That is a lie of Satan.

        Clement lived in the times of Paul and he must have died around 150 AD max. How they assemble and where they assemble was not written in detail in the epistles of the apostles. Apart from that there were no records of the Papal Church models written in the Bible. Yeshua did not start a Church like Christianity and you will find the model of God’s temple and synagoges written in the bible for us to follow but Christianity changed them all and they have changed all the law of Moses.

        Like

        • Do you believe one needs to embrace a Jewish lifestyle to be a true Christian?

          Paul and the early church both believed that the 10 commandments remain in effect for believers. The works of the law Paul talked about were the customs of the Jews, the things that made them unique to the cultures around them:

          Holidays
          Sacrificial system
          Circumcision
          Festivals etc

          So adopting Jewish customs as a requirement to belong to the people of God has been eradicated.

          I’m not sure if you’d agree with that. Do you?

          Like

  2. ” So adopting Jewish customs as a requirement to belong to the people of God has been eradicated. ”

    Jewish customs is Not from humans but it is the custom from the laws / commandments of God.
    The laws / commandments of God is the requirements to belong to God.
    Jewish customs has Never been eradicated because they are of the laws / commandments of God.
    Yeshua did not have the prerogative to eradicate the laws / commandments of God, let alone Paul. But Christianity says Paul’s writings teaches that the law of God is now abolished.
    For God is the head of Yeshua (the Father is greater than Yeshua).

    Like

    • So do you think Paul got it wrong? Or has he been misunderstood?

      Like

      • Paul did not got it wrong but the Middle ages popes manipulated the translation and distorted the apostles and Paul’s letters / manuscripts which the Papal burned.

        Paul was correct but his writings were forged and manipulated by the ruling government, the Papal burning whatever that opposed their falsified bible (false translation and false interpretation of the manuscripts). All the NT manuscripts were copies copied by believers who survived the killings of believers by Nero and other rulers. We can proof text the NT manuscripts with the Tanakh i.e the Word of God which cannot be eradicated.

        Bear in mind, Yeshua cannot annul the Tanakh i.e the Word of God.
        Yeshua was sent by God to do God’s biding (Yeshua cannot rebel against God).

        Like

        • I’m asking all these questions to understand your position. It sounds like you’re saying that Paul got it right, but his letters were changed by the Catholic church in the middle ages. That would mean that the New Testament you and I have in our hands is not accurate. It’s a forged document that has been altered.

          If that’s your position, then what do you base your assertion on that Paul got it right? How would you know? Do you have access to any of his writings that were not forged/manipulated?

          Like

  3. If that’s your position, then what do you base your assertion on that Paul got it right? How would you know?
    1. Most translations of the the Bible are based off of manuscript copies. There are no original writings in anyone’s possession, but there are lots of copies.
    Very true. Many of the NT manuscript copies are forgeries by false apostles, brethren. So the only way to proof text them is to refer to the Tanakh i.e. OT books.
    You likely don’t have access to anything better than translators use.

    So, how do you know your translation isn’t full of errors too? We can know by comparing the writings of the NT books (*every translated or added verses) with the OT books in our bibles. For e.g. :
    Lawlessness have been purposely translated to evil in Mat 7:21 – 23 to justify the Papal teachings that the law of God have been abolished.
    Whereas in Roman 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    Paul wrote here that whoever do not submit to the law of God is the enemy of God. This means we must obey the law of God but the Papal teaches we need not obey the law of Moses.

    With that said then what did Paul meant we are not under the law but under grace? This verse 14 translation is very delusive. And many think that the law of God have been abolished.
    On the contrary Paul magnified that we must obey the law of God though we are under grace in verse 15.
    Don’t you see the falsification of Paul’s writing?
    Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
    15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

    1 Cor 5:7 For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
    8 Therefore let us keep the feast,
    Paul wrote here that we should keep the passover feast of God but the Papal changed it to Easter and changed the law of Sabbath to Sunday when Yeshua kept the Sabbath.
    Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue.

    Can you see the Papal evil schemes?

    Papal main evil schemes is to abolish and change the law of Moses in the NT books to make us sin against God.
    While Paul wrote the wages of sin is death.
    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
    Papal magnifies “* but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”” to justify the law of God is not a salvation issue and to justify that we are saved even if we transgress the law (sin) because we now are under grace (the law is not deadly nor relevant anymore).

    And John wrote sin is the violation and rebellion or perversion of the law of God.
    1 Jon 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

    Do you have access to any of his writings that were not forged/manipulated?
    No. It was told that the Papal have some early manuscripts kept in secret.

    Understand that the bible which Paul use is the Hebrew OT books i.e. the Tanakh including the Hebrew book of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, etc .which is not cannoned by the Papal in our bibles.

    And Yeshua did not have the prerogative to eradicate the laws / commandments of God, let alone Paul. For God is the head of Yeshua (the Father is greater than Yeshua).
    But Christianity / the Papal distorted Paul’s writings to justify that the law of God is now abolished.

    Thus we can compare the NT books with the Hebrew OT books to proof text the NT books in order to find the distortion, errors, forgeries, perversion and mistranslation of our bibles.

    Like

    • Interesting. So I’d take it you and your group don’t consider yourselves to be part of the Christian faith?

      Do you align more with the Ebionites of the first century?

      Like

      • Do you align more with the Ebionites of the first century? No we don’t.

        So I’d take it you and your group don’t consider yourselves to be part of the Christian faith? No.

        The gospel is not the dominant Church Christian faith concept but our faith is based on every Word of God written in the Old Testament books with the teachings and understanding of the New Testament books which crucially need to be scrutinized from the distortion / perversion in the Middle ages.

        Did Yeshua came to destroy the law of God and start a Church? No.

        The main perversion from the beginning is the eradication of the Torah i.e. the law of God to delude us with the dominant Church Christian faith concept that abolish the law of God.

        Like

        • So you don’t see yourselves as part of the Christian faith. Do you align more with the Jewish faith or something else? Does the group you belong to have a name or something that identifies the movement?

          Like

  4. @Jim

    It occurs to me that you are caught in a logical conundrum. However, the conundrum is not immediately obvious.

    Does He want you to believe the right things or act the right way? Does He want you to hold, and defend until death the “correct” teaching about Him? Or is God more concerned with how you live your life?

    That is a theological question. However, it offers a false choice.

    What is the puzzle here?
    1. What God wants us to believe (about Him) is theology.
    2. How God wants us to live is also theology.
    3. To know how about how God wants us live, we must know Him, and we must have the faith to put what we believe into practice.

    To know who God is and what God values requires us to have a theological understanding of God. Hence what you are advocating is your own theological of opinion of what God values most, not whether God cares about our theology.

    Does God care whether we put our beliefs about Him into practice? Yes. We are suppose to love God and our neighbors. If our words and actions are not in accordance with what we call our beliefs, even the most correct theological beliefs, then our faith is dead. Even knowing that requires us to know some theology.

    The demons know God — have a better theological understanding of God — than we do, but the demons have no trust in God. They are unwilling to put their faith in Him. I think that your complaint is that some people have the same problem.

    Do I really have a problem with what you believe? That faith without works is dead? No. I just think your frustration over needless controversy is ironically creating a needless controversy. I don’t think you have a problem with theology. I just think you want people to put what you think the correct theology into practice. Don’t we all do the same thing?
    🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Tom,

      Thanks for stopping by. You completely misunderstand my point and where I’m coming from. That’s why you think there’s a logical conundrum. Let me clarify…

      I agree that Theology is the study of God and the things of God. Those things matter. If anything I’ve said in any of our conversations has led you to believe otherwise, I correct that here. I believe I said that in the post.

      But how much theology did a first century Christian need to live the Christian life? Not much.

      I agree choosing one over the other is a false choice. Both are needed. But for the sake of discussion I wanted people to share what they thought took priority. You may say they’re equal, but I doubt you live each day of your life as though they are. I don’t. And THAT’S the point.

      Here’s a thought exercise. If God were to weigh Tom’s theological knowledge and his application of that knowledge, which would weigh more? I don’t know you, but you likely know more about God than your life shows. I don’t know any follower of Christ who claims they live out MORE than they know. I don’t, that’s for sure. If there’s an imbalance in one’s life, then more application is the answer. Not more information. Although more information isn’t wrong and in some cases can help clear things up.

      If we allow the study of God to become a substitute for following God, we’ve erred. We’ve gotten it upside down. What matters to God is that we take what we know of him and live it out. That’s the point of this post. It’s pretty hard to argue against that position if you take the Bible seriously.

      I don’t care if people agree with me on this. That’s not why I write. I put these thoughts out there to interact with other people’s views. I enjoy friendly conversations with people who hold contrary positions.

      Like

      • @Jim

        How much information did 1st Century Christians have? They did not have lots of books, but they had the apostles, people who knew the apostles, and the first edition of the New Testament in their own language. Because people were dying for it, they also took their faith seriously. So, I loath to underestimate their theological knowledge.

        Here’s a thought exercise. If God were to weigh Tom’s theological knowledge and his application of that knowledge, which would weigh more?

        I will really admit I don’t live up to the theological knowledge I have, but we study theology so that we know what God expects of us and so we have the wisdom to try to live up to God’s expectations.

        To do what is right and to avoid what is wrong, we must study and learn about God, what He has revealed about Himself. We must follow the example of Jesus.

        Like

        • Tom, we agree on 97% of this. Where we disagree is on priority. I believe living out what one knows takes priority over learning more. Much like what Paul alluded to in Philippians 3 “Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”

          You believe they’re of equal importance.

          In the theological classroom setting, I’d agree. They are equal. But out in the real world? I’ve found we don’t treat them the same. We tend to value one over the other. That’s what I saw over and over again when I was pastoring. The people had a hunger and thirst for knowledge. But when it came to living that knowledge out? There was a famine in the land. That was the universal experience of all my friends who pastored. For the most part, we don’t apply our knowledge the way God created us to. That’s where I’m coming from.

          But we both believe that growing in one’s knowledge of God is mandatory.

          Liked by 1 person

        • @Jim

          What is the Gospel? It is the story of our salvation by Jesus Christ. To have faith in Jesus we must have faith in Jesus and the truth of the Gospel. That is, we must believe basic Christian theology. This belief, this trust in Christ and His Gospel, is what saves us. If we strive to live out this faith by doing good works in response to God’s command to love Him and our neighbors, then our faith is alive.

          We are justified by what we believe, not our works. Our works only show what we believe.

          When people have a hunger and thirst for knowledge, but they fail to live that knowledge out their faith is not yet alive.

          Like

        • “When people have a hunger and thirst for knowledge, but they fail to live that knowledge out their faith is not yet alive.”

          Well, are you saying your faith is not yet alive? You’ve admitted that you don’t put into practice everything you know. None of us do.

          To be clear, I’m not talking about justification or earning God’s favor. Is that what you think I’ve been getting at this entire time?

          Liked by 1 person

        • @Jim

          I am just saying we cannot follow the example of Jesus if we don’t know anything about it. I am just saying we cannot accept the gift of salvation if we don’t know what Jesus did to save us.

          Like

        • On that we agree!

          Liked by 1 person

  5. So you don’t see yourselves as part of the Christian faith. Do you align more with the Jewish faith or something else?
    We don’t align more with the Jewish faith nor any faith group.

    We are open to the Hebrew Root teachings of the Tanakh and the teachings and understanding of the New Testament books which crucially need to be scrutinized from the distortion / perversion in the Middle ages.

    Does the group you belong to have a name or something that identifies the movement?
    No, reason is:
    There is no one who is able to prove the copied letters of Paul and the other apostles are without perversion.
    Even if there is, we know that the followers of Paul and the other apostles were wiped out by Nero and other rulers (from about 65 AD to 150 AD) leaving none behind to teach us today.

    Note that the schism / apostasy from Paul’s time onward which many didn’t realize, the whole of Asia Minor rejected Paul, followed by the distortion / perversion of the Bible in the Middle ages.
    All this makes it even harder for us the find Truth (in accuracy) from the New Testament books.

    Like

    • You don’t identify with the Jewish faith, but you do use their book and follow their Old Testament customs?

      There’s no name for your group. It sounds like your a small group numerically speaking. I’ve never ran across anyone who holds your views. Are there followers of your faith all over the world, or is it mainly regional? How many people do you know personally who hold the same view?

      Like

      • We are mainly researching and studying Hebrew Root teachings of the Old Testament books to correct the distortion / perversion of the New Testament books from every sources we can find.

        The Jews owns the Hebrew Old Testament books but they rejected Yeshua.
        The Vatican posses (distortion / perversion of) the New Testament books.
        Our faith is based on the Hebrew Old Testament books teachings and on Yeshua’s teachings by the apostles in the New Testament books.
        Whoever abides in both teachings belongs to Yeshua and we are One in Him.
        Jews and non Jews are One in Him.
        Thus we doesn’t belong to any denominational group as all differ in doctrines.
        We all belongs to Yeshua only.

        There’s no name for our group. We are only a very small group.
        In Acts 24:5 believers are called Nazarenes (*but they did not profane the temple):
        5 For we have found this a pestilent man, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
        6 ( * Who also hath gone about to profane the temple ): whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
        12 And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither exciting the people to sedition, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
        14 But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

        Like

        • If your view on this is correct, that means God allowed his message for the world to be completely lost. And he allowed it to be replaced by a false message.

          Then he has sent your group to restore it. Now, that could be possible. But why do you think God would allow that?

          Like

  6. Why did God allow the Nero and other rulers to kill His people?
    Why did Yeshua says that few are those who will find the gate to Heaven?
    Why did God allow the nation of Israel to be wiped out for 2000 years?

    Will God save all of Jacob’s children today or in the future?
    Will God bring them back to Jerusalem today?
    Or God will only save many non Jews and a few Jews only?

    All the answers are in the bible.

    Like

    • In order for your view to be the correct view, several things had to happen:

      God allowed the true message of Christ to be perverted within years of the cross.

      Both the Jews and the followers of Jesus misunderstood the true purpose of the cross. As a result they each lost their way.

      Everyone who thought they were following Christ, since the 50’s, hasn’t followed him. They’ve died in their sins and are without hope.

      God did nothing to stop this incorrect teaching for 2000+ years

      Until now, when he’s revealed the real truth to you and your small group.

      Now, I’ll admit that’s possible. But one must take that on faith and you have no hard evidence. What is more likely? That the entire history of the Christian faith got it wrong, or you have it wrong?

      I find it extremely hard to believe your view and therefore reject it.

      Like

  7. I can’t convince you if you believe Christianity Church Fathers doctrines which are based solely on the distorted writings of Paul in the NT books.

    Like

    • That’s not where you’ve failed to convince me. The proof you’ve offered fails to make a persuasive argument. You study the Hebrew. You’ve discovered that everything that contradicts your view in the New Testament has been changed. All the writings of the anti-nicene Fathers that contradict your view have been altered That’s the only way you can even remotely get close to being right. Even then, it’s a huge stretch.

      You still haven’t answered the question. Why would God allow the death of his Son to become meaningless for over 2000 years until you’re tiny group uncovered the real story?

      What is more likely? That you’re group understands the plan of God after all these years? Or that the followers of Christ got it right in the beginning and passed the truth down to us?

      The logical answer is that you’re the one who holds the error, notwithstanding how messed up the church is today.

      Like

  8. The cross is not a licence to abolish / disobey the law of God.

    Understand PAUL writings in Romans 11:

    A. Will God allow non Jewish believers to rebel or violate His laws? No

    Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
    22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    B. For it is not Jesus but the Father, YAH’s covenant unto Israel, when YAH shall take away Israel sins.

    Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

    C. Did God cast away his people at any one time?
    No. there are Jewish believers in every ages but they are few and are marginalized all the time.

    Romans 11:1 Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
    2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

    D. God have reserved to Himself seven thousand men through out the ages.

    Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
    4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

    E. Will God allow all His Jewish believers to be wiped out? No way.
    If it is so no one can be saved anymore.

    F. We are studying Hebrew Root teachings from these Jewish believers whom God have reserved to Himself from then until today.
    There are Jewish believers in every ages but they are few and are marginalized all the time.

    Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    G. So why would you believe that non Jewish believers in 325 AD got the doctrines right?

    Like

    • So why would you believe that non Jewish believers in 325 AD got the doctrines right?

      Why would you believe that the anti-Nicene Fathers got it wrong? Why do you believe that your group, so far removed from that era, got it right? How do you know that your small group of Jewish believers aren’t the ones who distorted and changed the message? Those are the real questions.

      Like

  9. I will give you all the reasons.

    We know that Christianity altered and abolished the law of Moses
    We know that there were two non Jewish Christian denominational groups fighting to gain control from Constantine in around 311 to 325 AD – canon of the bible).
    We know of the burning of early manuscripts by the popes in the Middle ages.
    We know of the false apostles written in Paul’s letters.
    We know of the false apostles doctrines / schism / apostacy which begun in Paul’s days.
    We know of the evil schemes and killings of believers from Nero till the Middle ages.
    We know of the contradiction of the text in the New Testament books.

    No one can proof that the New Testament books are accurate without perversion but we know that the Hebrew OT Bible is the genuine Word of God.

    How on earth could the non Jewish believers in 325 AD Nicean Council got the doctrines right when they abolish the law of Moses for their pagan Sun god worship service on Sunday, etc.?

    Like

    • Do you think it was impossible for the Council to get it right? I think it’s at least possible they got it wrong.

      Alex, do you believe Paul’s strong words against the works of the law were not included in the original NT manuscripts? We’re those words forged and added at a later date? If they were altered, did that happen before 100AD or after?

      My understanding of Paul on this subject is that the law of God stands. The 10 commandments weren’t abolished. In fact, Jesus intensified them. Humanity is still required to not kill our neighbors, to not commit adultery etc. Jesus clearly referenced this when he summed up the whole law into two commandments. But the ceremonial law, food laws and sacrificial system? They no longer apply. Clearly, the anti-Nicene Fathers saw it that way.

      But it sounds like you believe a follower of Christ must obey the 613 commands of the Old Testament. Do you?

      Like

      • The 10 commandments weren’t abolished. In fact, Jesus intensified them.
        So do you observe and obey the Sabbath law?
        Alex, do you believe Paul’s strong words against the works of the law were not included in the original NT manuscripts?
        I see this is misinterpreted by many that the law have been abolished.
        What does the works of the law means, (that is the problem) ?
        Because Paul says the law is not abolished in Romans 3:31 .
        If they were altered, did that happen before 100AD or after? After.

        Jesus clearly referenced this when he summed up the whole law into two commandments.

        But the ceremonial law, food laws and sacrificial system, they no longer apply?
        There are Nothing in the bible that says they no longer apply.
        But only the sacrificial system was replaced by Yeshua, the sacrificial lamb of God.
        The sacrificial and Levi priesthood laws have been changed – Hebrew 7:12

        Yeshua did not abolish the ceremonial law, Sabbath or feast of God.
        Yeshua did not abolish the food laws

        The Levi priesthood laws have been changed – Hebrew 8.

        Do follower of Christ must obey the 613 commands of the Old Testament?
        Not all but most of them.
        What does He summed up the whole law into two commandments means, does it means that the rest no longer apply?

        Like

  10. How do you know that your small group of Jewish believers aren’t the ones who distorted and changed the message?
    All the Jewish believers aren’t the ones who distorted and changed the message because they use the Hebrew OT Bible i.e the genuine Word of God to debunk the Church Fathers doctrines (from 325 AD).

    Like

    • The early church used the translation of the 70 as their Old Testament.

      Still, having access to the same OT doesn’t mean anything. The overwhelming number of Jewish people rejected Christ and they had the same scriptures. Are we to grant that they got it right, simply because they have the same scriptures?

      Like

      • The overwhelming number of Jewish people rejected Christ and they had the same scriptures.
        Are we to grant that they got it right, simply because they have the same scriptures?

        I am not talking about the overwhelming number of Jewish people who rejected Christ.

        I am talking about the Jewish remnant who believed Christ that God have reserved to Himself through out the ages.
        For in the first place God had chosen the Jews and Israelites to be His children.
        And every Gentile believers must obey the same law of Moses to belong to God.

        God has chosen Paul and the 12 Jewish apostles to teach everyone the gospel.
        That is why every believers must learn from their epistles in the New Testament.

        Did God chose non Jews like St Augustine and others to teach everyone the gospel? No, for they themselves must learn from the same bible as we are using today.

        Do you think that the New Testament books are accurate without perversion?

        Do you think that St Augustine and others got their doctrines right?

        Like

        • Do you think that St Augustine and others got their doctrines right?

          Well, I believe Augustine probably got some of it wrong. At least, those who interpreted him later got him wrong. I believe a lot of the modern church certainly has it wrong.

          To be clear, is it your view that a person must become Jewish to follow Christ? Or they must at least embrace the OT Law in it’s entirety (minus the sacrificial system) to follow God?

          Like

        • I am talking about the Jewish remnant who believed Christ that God have reserved to Himself through out the ages.

          I know you are. The entire Jewish nation had access to the Archives. My point is that there has been more than one response by Jewish people to the claims of Christ. So, claiming that some follow him AND reject Paul’s teaching because they had access to the Old Testament, isn’t strong evidence. Of course you have Paul, who was Jewish, who had access to the Old Testament arguing against keeping ceremonial laws and customs etc very powerfully. That must mean something.

          You said earlier that you think Paul got it right. I think you also believe that we no longer have an accurate record of what Paul actually taught. His words have been altered. Is that right?

          Like

  11. Why would God allow the death of his Son to become meaningless for over 2000 years until you’re tiny group uncovered the real story?

    This statement is incorrect as there are Jewish believers of Yeshua in every ages who believed in the atonement of Sins by His death at the tree or cross.

    God allow the death of his Son for the atonement of SINS for all but it is not to give us a licence to sin against His laws, the law of Moses which the popes abolish in the 325 AD Nicean Council.

    Like

    • Well…relatively meaningless.

      Like

      • Please explain why God allow the death of his Son?

        Did God allow the death of his Son in order to abolish the law of Moses?

        Like

        • Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. We can discuss what he meant by that. But I think it’s more helpful to look at the Council of Jerusalem’s take on it:

          Are Gentile believers, required to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses to be saved?

          That assertion was presented to the Apostles (those who actually walked around with Jesus and heard his teaching directly from his mouth) and the elders. It was a serious question that couldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There was support for this view among the Jewish believers. Apparently, enough support that it required a LONG discussion. All this strengthens your point. At the end of all that discussion, they concluded that the Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised, nor follow the Laws of Moses, to be saved.

          I’m assuming your group believes that either A) that ISN’T what was decided by the council and the Church altered the manuscripts of Acts. Or B) That is what they wrote, but sometime later changed their mind OR it has been misunderstood.

          Or maybe there’s another option I haven’t considered. On it’s face, without any of Paul’s writings, that seems like pretty strong evidence against your point.

          Like

  12. Would it be fair to say you reject most of what Paul taught?
    I believe most of what Paul taught in his writings.

    Or do you believe what he taught has been changed?
    It is clear the (Middle ages period) ruling Papal which have full power over the translation and canon of the bible, they had distorted the bible to change and abolish the law of God.

    We find much contradiction in the epistles of Paul (reasons is the Papal had distorted his writings in the bible). They only need to alter some of the sentences or words in his epistles to justify that the law of God no longer apply anymore.

    Like

    • Alex, thanks for having this conversation with me. I’m enjoying it a lot.

      I’m curious what particular verses you believe have been altered by Paul. Do you mind sharing them with me? It would help if you also shared what you think Paul originally wrote in those verse.

      Like

  13. The largely marginalized Jewish believers of Yeshua since the early church, aren’t the ones who distorted and changed the Gospel because they teach us the Hebrew OT Bible which are the genuine Word of God to debunk the Church Fathers doctrines (from 325 AD).

    Paul wrote that God said He had reserved to Himself a remnant of Jewish believers.
    Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    Will God allow all His Jewish believers to be wiped out? No way.
    If it is so no one can be saved anymore.

    We are studying Hebrew Root teachings from these Jewish believers whom God have reserved to Himself in every ages from Paul until today. These remnant of Jewish believers would have passed down their teachings but most of their letters, writings or books were burned by the Papal during the Middle ages, leaving behind some who managed to flee away.
    These books are hard to find today because they are not accepted by the main line churches nor are they popular to Christians by and large.

    Over the years, Hebrew Root teachers have re-translated much of the Hebrew OT books to English for us today and corrected the errors in our KJV bible.
    For e.g.
    Beresheeth – ,Genesis
    To Our Forefathers Yisrael
    Torah Parsha 1

    Beresheeth 1:1
    Gen 1:1. Beresheeth bara Elohim Aleph-Taf ha shamayim v-et ha-aretz.

    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the surface of the deep mayim. And the Ruach of Elohim moved upon the face of the mayim

    KJV Gen 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    Note: In the beginning, It is Elohim Aleph-Taf (Yeshua) who created the heaven and the earth.

    It was Yeshua who created the heaven and the earth.
    Paul verified this in
    Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
    15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
    16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    Like

  14. [ Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. We can discuss what he meant by that. But I think it’s more helpful to look at the Council of Jerusalem’s take on it:
    Are Gentile believers, required to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses to be saved?]

    Note that we find much contradiction in the epistles of Paul (reasons is the Papal had distorted his writings in the bible). They only need to alter some of the sentences or words in his epistles to justify that the law of God no longer apply anymore.

    Acts 15 is misquoted frequently. If people actually studied what James was quoting they might interpret that passage differently. The four prohibitions are taken right from Leviticus 17 and 18.

    Obstain from things offered to idols (Leviticus 17:7-9)
    And from the blood (Lev 17:7-9)
    From things strangled (Lev 17:12-13)
    And fornication (Lev 18:26)

    James was quoting passages right out of Leviticus. The separation of the Law into categories convenient for modern theological discussions is absent from their understanding. We throw the phrase ceremonial law out there all the time. The Bible never mentions something called ceremonial law.

    James obviously saw Leviticus as binding on the new covenant believers – James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he (God) that said, Do not commit adultery; said also, Do not kill. Now if thou committest no adultery, yet if thou killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law (* here James is quoting the law “God said” proved that he still keeps the law of Moses).
    The law is the Word of God the Father which None can abolish
    ( Take note that Paul did not preached anything that opposed the law of Moses in Acts 24 )

    I get that some things have been fulfilled where the type has meant antitype. However, the sloppy way we quote Acts 15 leads to a lot theological confusion and error.

    In response to the view of ( they concluded that the Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised, nor follow the Laws of Moses, to be saved);

    What does it means ‘ to be saved”?
    To be saved would means to be delivered from the wages of Sin i.e. Death ( justification by Faith in God ).
    Thus I agree that Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved but every one must be circumcised in the heart to be holy and acceptable to God.
    Taking Acts 15 to assume that Gentiles didn’t have to be follow the Laws of Moses to be holy and acceptable to God is wrong, right?
    There is Nothing in Acts 15 to proof that the rest of the Laws of Moses no longer apply anymore ( Take note that Paul did not preached anything that abolish or opposed the law of Moses in Acts 24 ).
    More important is this; Yeshua fulfilled the law but His fulfilment of the law did not and cannot abolish the law for not a dot of the law can pass away because the law is the Word of God – Mat 5.

    Like

    • “Acts 15 is misquoted frequently. If people actually studied what James was quoting they might interpret that passage differently. The four prohibitions are taken right from Leviticus 17 and 18.

      Obstain from things offered to idols (Leviticus 17:7-9)
      And from the blood (Lev 17:7-9)
      From things strangled (Lev 17:12-13)
      And fornication (Lev 18:26)”

      Remember, the context of the letter to the Gentiles was this assertion: “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” They believed, as you do, that followers of Yeshua MUST keep the entire law of Moses. Unlike you, they believed male followers of Yeshua MUST be physically circumcised.

      How can you understand the answer of the council to be “Yes, they must be required to obey the entire law of Moses, but they don’t need to be circumcised.”? Especially when they included such things as “We don’t want to make it difficult for Gentiles who are turning to God” and “We don’t want to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements…”

      That’s not how it reads. You can say Gentiles are required to keep some of the laws, the exact ones listed. That’s what the actual text says. To conclude that the four things prohibited is just another way for the council to say. “Yes! You are required to keep ALL the laws of Moses in order to be followers of Jesus” is reading into the text.

      The real problem for me is that you believe that the council required Gentiles to follow all the law of Moses EXCEPT physical male circumcision. That clearly MUST be part of the requirement, if your view is correct. Circumcision was the most basic sign of being part of the covenant community. If Gentile believers are required to follow all 613 laws of the Old Testament to be followers of Jesus, then by definition, males must be circumcised.

      Like

  15. [ Remember, the context of the letter to the Gentiles was this assertion: “The Gentiles must must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” ]

    Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
    19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
    20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
    21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

    This tells us they have been already taught the law of Moses in the synagogues every sabbath day and No one is arguing to follow or Not to follow the law but the few from the sect of the Pharisees which believed are arguing that it is required to be circumcised and to command Gentiles believers to keep the law of Moses ( that’s all ), the argument is not if it is required to be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses to be Saved.

    They decided that Gentiles believers abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood (these are from the law of Moses). They did not say anything about invalidating the rest of the law of Moses to the Gentiles believers.
    The law is the Word of God the Father which None can abolish.
    For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

    Acts 15 vs 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

    [ That’s not how it reads. You can say Gentiles are required to keep some of the laws, the exact ones listed. That’s what the actual text says. To conclude that the four things prohibited is just another way for the council to say. “Yes! You are required to keep ALL the laws of Moses in order to be followers of Jesus” is reading into the text. ]

    Remember the problem with the verses in Acts 15 is whether it had been distorted by the Papal or not. There are much contradictions in the bible.

    No one can take Acts 15 alone to proof that the rest of the law of Moses is not required to keep / follow anymore.

    Thus to proof the law of Moses is still valid, we take text from:
    Mat 5 Yeshua says He did not destroy the Law of Moses
    Romans 3:31 Paul confirmed the Law of Moses is valid.
    Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
    2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
    3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

    [ The real problem for me is that you believe that the council required Gentiles to follow all the law of Moses EXCEPT physical male circumcision. ]

    The real problem for every one is Not only to believe that the council required Gentiles to follow all the law of Moses EXCEPT physical male circumcision in Acts 15 which is only a small portion of the Gospel.

    The real problem for every one is did God the Father sent His Son to abolish His own law, the law of Moses.

    Did God retain these law for Gentiles believers to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood (these are from the law of Moses) ONLY and abolished the rest of the law of Moses?.
    No !
    God says touch not the unclean thing written in the law of Moses besides abstaining from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
    Touch not the unclean thing includes do not touch dead animals and do not eat pork, the unclean animals and etc.
    Paul affirmed this in –
    2 Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
    18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

    Like

    • Remember the problem with the verses in Acts 15 is whether it had been distorted by the Papal or not. There are much contradictions in the bible.

      No one can take Acts 15 alone to proof that the rest of the law of Moses is not required to keep / follow anymore.

      The Reformed among us could solve so many of their problems if they took the same view as you. Any verse that contradicts their view could be wiped away by simply saying…..”That’s been distorted by the Catholics.”

      Is there any manuscript proof that backs up your claim regarding Acts 15? Are there ANY copies of Acts manuscripts in existence today that show the non-altered/distorted version you claim existed?

      Without any proof, the entire context of the Council of Jerusalem argues against your position. The plain reading is obvious. “Must the Gentiles be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses?” Answer: “No. But they should strive to avoid these things…”

      I’m pretty clear on where you stand Alex. I’m haven’t been attempting to change your view. Rather I’ve wanted to understand it. I value clarity over agreement. I’ve got that clarity. This has been a great conversation. Feel free to jump in and share your view any time!

      Like

  16. [ Is there any manuscript proof that backs up your claim regarding Acts 15? Are there ANY copies of Acts manuscripts in existence today that show the non-altered/distorted version you claim existed? ]

    This is RSTNE, a Restoration version of the translated Hebrew OT and Greek NT books:

    Like

    • The question I asked was if there was any manuscript evidence to support your claim that the Catholic church altered Acts. So the answer is No. There is no manuscript evidence that proves Acts was altered by the Catholic church. The RSTNE is a VERSION of the Bible. I assumed you understood my reference to manuscripts was ancient manuscripts, not a modern translation of the Bible.

      Your claim that Gentiles must follow the law of Moses is based on the assertion that the Catholic church altered the parts of the Bible that you disagree with. There should be some reliable, ancient manuscripts that back up this claim. Without any physical evidence to support the claim, it amounts to nothing more than a hope or a wish. Or worse. The claim sounds like this to me “There is NO way that’s what Paul and the others said. It doesn’t agree with our view, so it must have been doctored by the evil enemies of God.” It’s far more likely that you’re view is the thing that has been altered, not the Scriptures.

      Like

  17. [ Your claim that Gentiles must follow the law of Moses is based on the assertion that the Catholic church altered the parts of the Bible that you disagree with. There should be some reliable, ancient manuscripts that back up this claim. ]

    You did not get my point.
    My point is Gentiles must follow the law of Moses is based on the bible you and I are using itself and Not based on the assertion that the Catholic church altered the parts of the Bible.
    All my bible verses are quoted from the KJV bible itself to debunk the views of the main line churches that we need not follow the rest of the law of Moses.

    [ The claim sounds like this to me “There is NO way that’s what Paul and the others said. It doesn’t agree with our view, so it must have been doctored by the evil enemies of God.” I ]

    You got it wrong, I did not claim that “There is NO way that’s what Paul and the others said. It doesn’t agree with our view, so it must have been doctored by the evil enemies of God.”
    In fact I agree with all the epistles of Paul.

    I claim the only problem is the New Testament books have been mistranslated or distorted by the Papal ( who are the evil enemies of God ) during the Middle ages to make the law of Moses no longer required anymore.

    Is it fair to say that you side their doctrines that we do not need to follow the law of Moses?

    Like

    • I must have misunderstood you Alex.

      Do you believe that the manuscripts used to translate The council of Jerusalem’s letter to the Gentile’s have been altered?

      A.Yes, I believe they’ve been altered
      B. No, I do not believe they have been altered/doctored.

      It would help me understand your view better if you clearly answered yes or no.

      Like

  18. A. Yes, I believe they’ve been mistranslated instead of fully altered.

    Like

    • So you believe that they’ve been partially altered? You can’t partially alter something. If it’s been “partially” altered, hasn’t it been altered? I think it’s possible that something like that could have happened. But there would be manuscript evidence of this.

      The ancient manuscript evidence for any alteration in Act 15 is non-existent. There are some verses in Acts where the manuscripts differ with each other. But they differ in very small ways. None of those are in Acts 15 and none of them have anything to do with what you and I are talking about.

      If Acts 15 had been altered, there would be evidence of that in the manuscripts. It’s not there.
      So I dismiss that claim on the evidence.

      Has it been mistranslated? I agree with you that this is possible. But again, where’s the evidence? I have over 30 different Bible versions in my personal library. Based on your assertion, I read Acts 15 in every one of them. None of them translate the Council of Jerusalem’s meeting and letter differently. Yes there is difference of words and phrases, but the thrust of the translations are all the same. So I dismiss this claim as well.

      You and I clearly disagree on this point. I think we probably agree on a lot of other issues. Just not this one. I’ve truly enjoyed the conversation Alex. Thanks!

      Like

  19. [ Has it been mistranslated? I agree with you that this is possible. But again, where’s the evidence? I have over 30 different Bible versions in my personal library. Based on your assertion, I read Acts 15 in every one of them. None of them translate the Council of Jerusalem’s meeting and letter differently. Yes there is difference of words and phrases, but the thrust of the translations are all the same. So I dismiss this claim as well. ]

    Remember,
    No one in this world can prove that the New Testament books are the genuine or accurate narrative of the apostles without perversion.
    There are so much contradictions in the New Testament books.
    To trust the interpretation of Acts 15 by the Nicean Council over the Prophets books and the law of Moses in the Old Testament books would tantamount to undermining or rejecting the Word of God the Father, Yahuwah.
    The gospel of Yeshua is not Yeshua’s own gospel.
    The gospel of Yeshua is from the Word of God the Father, Yahuwah.
    Therefore No one can conclude that the rest of the law of Moses are no longer required (base on Acts 15 alone or solely on the New Testament books.).

    With regards to doctrines, the Non-Jewish main line churches would never accept the Hebrew Root teachings of the Gospel by the largely marginalized Jewish believers who embrace the grace of justification by faith in Yeshua and keeping all the commandments of the Father.
    The Non-Jewish main line churches fear their whole church would collapse if their doctrines are proven wrong, do you also fear that?

    Like

    • No one in this world can prove that the New Testament books are the genuine or accurate narrative of the apostles without perversion.

      I’d throw that back at you….You can prove that they have been perverted? I know you claim that they have, and I’ve seen your “proof”. But I don’t think you’ve even remotely come close to proving your claim.

      Therefore No one can conclude that the rest of the law of Moses are no longer required (base on Acts 15 alone or solely on the New Testament books.)

      Lot’s of people have come to that conclusion. The entire historical Orthodox Christian Faith has, as well as the Anglican and Protestant churches. This is one thing they all agree on. By your own admission, your view is a minority view.

      I don’t think any church fears that they’re understanding of the Gospel would be proved wrong. They certainly don’t fear when it comes to the issue we’re talking about. That’s been my experience.

      I do think you make some good points Alex. but I don’t agree with your conclusions I think Acts 15 and the rest of the NT make it clear that a Gentile believer is not required to adopt a Jewish lifestyle and follow the 613 laws of the OT to be a follower of Jesus.

      Like

  1. Pingback: Why Didn’t God Stop the Church from Charting Diverse Paths? | Christianity 201

Don't just stare at the screen, join the conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: