Did the Apostles Keep the Torah Law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CHRISTINE77 said:
This is a little off track, but it’s interesting that gentiles were not required to be circumcised in Paul’s time, but now most Christians are circumcised. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
I don’t really know but I do know there is a big difference between circumcising infants and circumsising adults. The latter was (is?) an impediment to conversion to Judaism.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
I don’t really know but I do know there is a big difference between circumcising infants and circumsising adults. The latter was (is?) an impediment to conversion to Judaism.
Click to expand...
Jews are traditionally circumcised on the 8th day after they are born. Most boys (at least in the US) are circumcised in the hospital shortly after birth.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Jews are traditionally circumcised on the 8th day after they are born. Most boys (at least in the US) are circumcised in the hospital shortly after birth.
Click to expand...
Right, but remember the debate in Acts was about adult converts.
 
Back to the origional question. It seems that if the apostles observed the Jewish law/Torah, then we have to conclude that they did not believe Jesus was God. As this would be deal breaker under the Halacha.
 
Valke2 said:
Back to the origional question. It seems that if the apostles observed the Jewish law/Torah, then we have to conclude that they did not believe Jesus was God. As this would be deal breaker under the Halacha.
Click to expand...
What’s Halacha?
 
Valke2 said:
Back to the origional question. It seems that if the apostles observed the Jewish law/Torah, then we have to conclude that they did not believe Jesus was God. As this would be deal breaker under the Halacha.
Click to expand...
It’s actually not clear when the divinity of Jesus became clear to the Apostles. It was at least by the time that John wrote his gospel because the Gospel of John is pretty clear on that from the opening. But clearly they believed he was the Messiah.

I don’t know if we want to dive here into the whole question of whether Jesus as incarnate God is contrary to Halacha. That really deserves its own thread (I’m sure there are many already).

But this was not the essential question that the Apostles faced nor was it the issue that caused Jews to hesitate to follow Jesus. The essential question was simply: was Jesus the Messiah.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
This is a little off track, but it’s interesting that gentiles were not required to be circumcised in Paul’s time, but now most Christians are circumcised. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
If you read in Genesis the story of 4 of Jacob’s/Israel’s sons, one of who was Judah, that settle next to a village and formalized relations with the village. For some reason, all the village adults agreed to have themselves circumcised. While they were still recuperating 1-2 days later, Judah and 3 of his brothers went and killed all the adults. Think about it, 4 people were able to kill an entire village simply because they were so sore from their circumcision.

What’s the point of this story? Circumcision in ancient Israel with blunted instruments (compared to our present-day scaples) on adults is a whole lot different than what it is today.

Today, although its not required, its thought to be more sanitary.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Like most Christians, I’ve taken it for granted that Paul declared the Torah to be dead.

But there is an interesting argument that the apostles kept the Torah Law and that it was only later that it fell out of practice as gentiles, who undoubtedly were not obligated to keep the Torah, came to dominate the Church.

For example:

hebrewroot.com/Articles/gal_2.htm

Probably Paul’s most direct statement on in support of this is Romans 3:31:

“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

I’m not even sure what the official Catholic position is on this.
Click to expand...
The New Covenant isn’t about negating the Law-or no longer having to observe it. It’s about how man observes it-whether on not its even possible to truly observe it without Gods’ grace. Here the writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah:

**This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
**
The Catholic position is that we must observe the Law, but by this new way, according to the Spirit, that Jesus showed us and made possible.
 
fhansen said:
The New Covenant isn’t about negating the Law-or no longer having to observe it. It’s about how man observes it-whether on not its even possible to truly observe it without Gods’ grace. Here the writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah:…The Catholic position is that we must observe the Law, but by this new way, according to the Spirit, that Jesus showed us and made possible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The fundamental quesiton is whether or in what way the New Covenant alters the original and whether such alteration grew over time.

It can’t be as simple as saying that Catholics observe the Law in a new way because they eat pork, for example, which was clearly forbidden in the OT. The usual distinction is made between ritual and social requirements but there is no such distinction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top