Applying logical thought processes to the Scriptures

[ZephBonkerer]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word because that principle has often been abused and used as a cover for what is essentially hypocrisy or moral relativism. But ethical standards by their very nature are oftentimes situational.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong. I see no contradiction between these principles.

 

[Soyeong]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

I've infrequently run across people who say things like that. We are instructed to worship God with all of our mind, so He expects us to use the mind that He gave us.

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word because that principle has often been abused and used as a cover for what is essentially hypocrisy or moral relativism. But ethical standards by their very nature are oftentimes situational.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong. I see no contradiction between these principles.

God's laws are indeed situational. For example, there are situations where killing someone is sinful when it is murder and situations where killing someone is lawful when it administering the death penalty to someone who has been found guilty of deserving that in a court of law, or situations such as with Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-13). Likewise, the Israelites were given as a gift a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness that had the condition "when you enter the land..." that could only be obeyed when it is the situation that they are in the land.

Furthermore, a number of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests or make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that the priests who drew the duty of doing that were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. In other words, there are situations where following one command takes priority over following a different command. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. Likewise, this is why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get a child or an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. No command was intended to be used as an excuse to prevent us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.

 

[chevyontheriver]

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word because that principle has often been abused and used as a cover for what is essentially hypocrisy or moral relativism. But ethical standards by their very nature are oftentimes situational.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong. I see no contradiction between these principles.

You make sense.

There is an approach used in Catholic moral theology relating to mortal sin to distinguish between the objective morality of an action and the subjective guilt involved. One distinguishes between the seriousness of an action as well. Thus something like abortion is always evil no matter what. It is also a major deal and not trivial. But the question is then whether the person knows it was wrong (maybe they don't know) and was free to chose or not choose it (being forced mitigates guilt) and whether they then actually freely chose it in full knowledge of the seriousness of it. Back to the abortion example, someone forced into an abortion against her will has about zero guilt even though the deed is objectively evil.

A corollary to this is that we in the Church can condemn an action in generalities but we need to be very cautious about condemning a person who does an evil action. Basically we can't go there. This is also found in the legal system where killing a person could be justifiable homicide, manslaughter, or varying degrees of murder. It depends on the person legally AND morally.

For more on this I refer you to Germain Grisez, a pre-eminent moral philosopher, and particularly his 'The Way of the Lord Jesus'.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

One always needs to be cautious in using Scripture because only some of it is systematic theology. Much of it just isn't systematic theology. Much of it is best understood even liturgically, or allegorically, or whatever. But some of it really is systematic enough to approach with logical syllogisms. But watch people resist this one: Jesus is God from the moment of his conception. Mary is the mother of Jesus. So Mary is the mother of God. I don't want to get into an argument about that here but just to note how much of an argument that can generate. It seems boringly simple. Yet it generates a lot of heat.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

The scripture interprets the scripture well. However, once people who are born again by the Holy Spirit start experiencing something related to scripture, the memory of a scripture during a circumstance becomes their core interpretation.

 

[John Mullally]

I've infrequently run across people who say things like that. We are instructed to worship God with all of our mind, so He expects us to use the mind that He gave us.


God's laws are indeed situational. For example, there are situations where killing someone is sinful when it is murder and situations where killing someone is lawful when it administering the death penalty to someone who has been found guilty of deserving that in a court of law, or situations such as with Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-13). Likewise, the Israelites were given as a gift a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness that had the condition "when you enter the land..." that could only be obeyed when it is the situation that they are in the land.

Furthermore, a number of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests or make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that the priests who drew the duty of doing that were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. In other words, there are situations where following one command takes priority over following a different command. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. Likewise, this is why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get a child or an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. No command was intended to be used as an excuse to prevent us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.

The 10 commandments were written specifically to the OT Jews under the Mosaic Law (i.e. Old Covenant). Just as there are no commandments to New Covenant believers to conduct Hebraic sacrifices, there are no commands in the New Covenant (i.e. post Calvary) for Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath. If that was important to Gentile believers it would be plainly taught in the NT, Instead, Paul made a point that he did not teach Gentile believers to keep nearly all Mosaic Law per Acts 21:25, which reiterates the decision in Acts 15 (15 years earlier). Those NT decisions (which you continually repudiate) exclude requiring Gentile believers from keeping the Sabbath - which others modern day Judaizers also do not accept. Your zeal for OT legalism clearly crosses the line as you reject Paul in Acts 21:25. Paul clearly does not instruct Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath - but you do. Thus you contradict Paul. Consider NT teaching and stop.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (NKJV)​

 

[Diamond72]

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

Today we have AI that approaches the Bible with logic and reason. I think there is nothing wrong with using the scientific method to understand the Bible. We have lots of resources available to us.

 

[timothyu]

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Would it follow the will of man or of God? That is the ultimate definer.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong.

Again the standard would be would it follow the will of man or of God? However the act of defining right and wrong was the result of eating the forbidden fruit so that defining in itself is wrong.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

It sounds like we all agree that there is nothing inappropriate or improper about applying logical thought processes to the Word of God. Now my question becomes: what do we make of those who appear to object to this?

I actually had someone say to me something like "when you use phrases like 'A does not necessarily imply B' in your explanation it should have been a red flag for you to stop". Though I asked what made him think this was problematic, I never got an answer.

In another case, someone was making what I saw as dubious claims about God's Word. I appealed to common sense and common decency in supporting my position. Her answer was something like "common sense and common decency are cultural constructs and have nothing to do with this conversation". The discussion was regarding what the Scriptures say about a controversial moral issue, so I had a hard time understanding how common sense and common decency could possibly not be relevant.

 

[CoreyD]

There are times I've found myself in some heated debate or controversy regarding what the Word of God does and does not say regarding some moral or ethical issue. This is what I found bizarre: There have been times when I would advance some assertion in logical terms ("A implies B / A / Therefore B") and those who disagree with me would rebuke me not because my logic was flawed but apparently because I am using logical thought processes at all!

Has anyone else experienced this? We use logical thought processes when examining technical literature, game rules, or solving a mystery. Why then would it be inappropriate to do the same with the Word of God? Perhaps this can help us understand who we are dealing with whenever we encounter this kind of thing. I'm likely not the only one who has encountered this.

I believe where a person falls down in this, is dogmatism.
If a person uses logic, but is willing to acknowledge there could be an alternative, and is willing to consider that, I think that shows humility, for which the person ought to be commended.

I believe, the best, or rather, the right approach, is to use scripture to explain scripture.
If there is some conflict somewhere, then it is obvious, the person needs to consider that there might be a need to readjust their understanding.
If, the scriptures are not clear on the subject, then humility will allow us to accept there is another opinion, and thus we do not insist that we are right, and that's final.

 

[CoreyD]

To add some context: I took the position on a (now closed) thread that an action may or may not be sinful depending on the context - that is, the surrounding facts and circumstances. In some Christian circles, "situation ethics" has become a dirty word because that principle has often been abused and used as a cover for what is essentially hypocrisy or moral relativism. But ethical standards by their very nature are oftentimes situational.

I believe that there is indeed an objective standard of right and wrong - one that transcends time and space. I also believe that the situation (setting, context, facts, circumstances, etc) is relevant when defining right and wrong. I see no contradiction between these principles.

I believe, we need to recognize that if the scriptures do not explicitly condemn something, and we reason on Bible principles, but the other person does not agree, we should remember that spiritual growth and maturity takes time, and is not achieved at the same rate, nor acquired by all persons.

So rather than argue on the matter, as if we think brainstorming the person will make them suddenly see our side, we need to be patient, and acknowledge the person's point of view.
Reason with them, but move along to something else, if no agreement is reached.
Who knows what time, and scriptural use and application, will do for that person. Hebrews 5:14 -
Solid food is for those who are mature, who through training have the skill to recognize the difference between right and wrong.

It's in God's hands. Not ours. 1 Corinthians 3:6 - I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.

 

[CoreyD]

I've infrequently run across people who say things like that. We are instructed to worship God with all of our mind, so He expects us to use the mind that He gave us.

Romans 12 is a beautiful scripture.
Romans 12:1 -
Therefore I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies [dedicating all of yourselves, set apart] as a living sacrifice, holy and well-pleasing to God, which is your rational (logical, intelligent) act of worship.
- Amplified Bible

God's laws are indeed situational. For example, there are situations where killing someone is sinful when it is murder and situations where killing someone is lawful when it administering the death penalty to someone who has been found guilty of deserving that in a court of law, or situations such as with Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-13). Likewise, the Israelites were given as a gift a number of laws while they were still wandering the wilderness that had the condition "when you enter the land..." that could only be obeyed when it is the situation that they are in the land.

Furthermore, a number of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests or make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that the priests who drew the duty of doing that were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. In other words, there are situations where following one command takes priority over following a different command. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. Likewise, this is why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get a child or an ox out of a pit on the Sabbath. No command was intended to be used as an excuse to prevent us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.

I like the fact you said, "appear to conflict".
I think, a good way to look at it, is in its proper context.
For example, what constituted 'rest'? The Israelites understood that they were to cease from their regular labor.
However, that ceasing from their own labors did not include ceasing their activities in carrying out their worship.

I thought giving this attention, would be appropriate, since it is a good example, of how we use scriptures to explain a matter, rather than depend upon our own reason, or logic.
Sometimes the two, greatly conflict.

 

[CoreyD]

It sounds like we all agree that there is nothing inappropriate or improper about applying logical thought processes to the Word of God. Now my question becomes: what do we make of those who appear to object to this?

I would perhaps start by trying to understand their objection, and go from there.

I actually had someone say to me something like "when you use phrases like 'A does not necessarily imply B' in your explanation it should have been a red flag for you to stop". Though I asked what made him think this was problematic, I never got an answer.

I don't know what the conversation was about, here, but it would help me to understand to ask. So, I think you did well in asking.

In another case, someone was making what I saw as dubious claims about God's Word. I appealed to common sense and common decency in supporting my position. Her answer was something like "common sense and common decency are cultural constructs and have nothing to do with this conversation". The discussion was regarding what the Scriptures say about a controversial moral issue, so I had a hard time understanding how common sense and common decency could possibly not be relevant.

I don't know what her position was, but I know atheists use that reasoning - "common sense and common decency are cultural construct". So, I understand to some extent, what she was perhaps trying to convey.

Common decency and common sense in this world, are at odds with God.
1 Corinthians 3:19 - For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

 

[Soyeong]

The 10 commandments were written specifically to the OT Jews under the Mosaic Law (i.e. Old Covenant). Just as there are no commandments to New Covenant believers to conduct Hebraic sacrifices, there are no commands in the New Covenant (i.e. post Calvary) for Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath. If that was important to Gentile believers it would be plainly taught in the NT, Instead, Paul made a point that he did not teach Gentile believers to keep nearly all Mosaic Law per Acts 21:25, which reiterates the decision in Acts 15 (15 years earlier). Those NT decisions (which you continually repudiate) exclude requiring Gentile believers from keeping the Sabbath - which others modern day Judaizers also do not accept. Your zeal for OT legalism clearly crosses the line as you reject Paul in Acts 21:25. Paul clearly does not instruct Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath - but you do. Thus you contradict Paul. Consider NT teaching and stop.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (NKJV)​

The examples that I gave work to show that God's laws are situational regardless of whether or not you agree that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with Christ's example.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 22:12-14). Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he hadn't repeated any of the commands in the Torah, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and He did not go to the cross or establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross (Acts 21:20). Gentiles can look at what Jesus taught and decided whether or not to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught.

I don't reject Acts 21:25, but rather I just consider Paul to be a servant of Christ, so I don't interpret that verse as essentially ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow Christ. Either Acts 21:25 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for a mature Gentile believer or it does not, so it is contradictory for someone to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, such as the greatest two commandments, while also treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Furthermore, Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on the greatest two (Matthew 22:36-40), so if you think that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Torah.

Our salvation is from sin and again the Torah is how we know what sin is, so if a Gentile were not obligated to obey the Torah, then they would have no need to repent from their sins, no need of the Gospel message, no need of salvation from transgression the Torah, no need of grace, and no need of Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness. However, the reality is that Gentiles are not permitted to do what God has revealed to be sin (Romans 6:15).

 

[John Mullally]

The examples that I gave work to show that God's laws are situational regardless of whether or not you agree that followers of God should follow what God has commanded in accordance with Christ's example.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 22:12-14). Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he hadn't repeated any of the commands in the Torah, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and He did not go to the cross or establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Torah is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross (Acts 21:20). Gentiles can look at what Jesus taught and decided whether or not to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught.

I don't reject Acts 21:25, but rather I just consider Paul to be a servant of Christ, so I don't interpret that verse as essentially ruling that Gentiles shouldn't follow Christ. Either Acts 21:25 contains an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required for a mature Gentile believer or it does not, so it is contradictory for someone to treat it as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow, such as the greatest two commandments, while also treating it as being an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. Furthermore, Jesus said that all of the other commandments hang on the greatest two (Matthew 22:36-40), so if you think that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also think that Gentiles should obey the rest of the Torah.

Our salvation is from sin and again the Torah is how we know what sin is, so if a Gentile were not obligated to obey the Torah, then they would have no need to repent from their sins, no need of the Gospel message, no need of salvation from transgression the Torah, no need of grace, and no need of Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness. However, the reality is that Gentiles are not permitted to do what God has revealed to be sin (Romans 6:15).

You contradict what Paul said in Acts 21:25 as you continue to push for Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath. Watch yourself - Paul had very harsh words for Judaizers in his day (Galatians 5:12),

 

[timothyu]

Paul had very harsh words for Judaizers in his day

Except there were no Jews when God said to keep it holy.

 

[Soyeong]

You contradict what Paul said in Acts 21:25 as you continue to push for Gentile believers to keep the Sabbath. Watch yourself - Paul had very harsh words for Judaizers in his day (Galatians 5:12),

I did not contradict Acts 21:25, but rather I explained why I disagree with your interpretation of it and how I think it should be interpreted. I am also in complete agreement with Paul’s stance against the Judaizers and have never suggested that Gentiles need to become circumcised in order to become saved. Paul’s problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ.

 

[John Mullally]

I did not contradict Acts 21:25, but rather I explained why I disagree with your interpretation of it and how I think it should be interpreted. I am also in complete agreement with Paul’s stance against the Judaizers and have never suggested that Gentiles need to become circumcised in order to become saved. Paul’s problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ.

The 10 commandments were written to OT Jews. No where in the NT are Gentile believers commanded to be circumcised or keep the Sabbath. We agree that many things such as sacrifices ended at Calvary. If continuance of keeping the Sabbath was important to Gentile believers, God would have insured it be mentioned in Acts or the Epistles. - but it is not mentioned. Comprende?

You are a Judaizer as you demand observance of the Law of Moses to Gentile believers that is obviated in Acts 15 or Acts 21:25. Paul's curse in Galatians 5:12 remains.

 

[Soyeong]

The 10 commandments were written to OT Jews. No where in the NT are Gentile believers commanded to be circumcised or keep the Sabbath.

Again, the NT calls for Gentiles to repent from their sins and sin is the transgression of God's law.

We agree that many things such as sacrifices ended at Calvary.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head and the only vow prescribed in the Bible that involves doing that is a Nazarite vow in Numbers 6, which involves making offerings. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to pay for offerings of others in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against God's law and in order to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the law and if the law had ended at Calvary, then it would have had no power to prevent Jesus from being a priest if he were here on earth. So sacrifices did not end at Calvary, but rather they only ceased because of the destruction of the temple, and they will resume when the third temple is built (Ezekiel 36:26-27). If all of Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed and sacrifices would still be being offered in accordance with the law.

If continuance of keeping the Sabbath was important to Gentile believers, God would have insured it be mentioned in Acts or the Epistles. - but it is not mentioned. Comprende?

Neither Jesus nor the Apostles were in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, nor did they think we should reveal against the Father, nor did they say anything about any of God's laws not being important to follow, nor did they say anything about editing God's laws down to just what would eventually be recorded that they repeated. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if there hadn't been any laws repeated in the NT, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22. The Bible is clear that Gentiles should refrain from sin and that sin is the transgression of God's law.

You are a Judaizer as you demand observance of the Law of Moses to Gentile believers that is obviated in Acts 15 or Acts 21:25. Paul's curse in Galatians 5:12 remains.

The position of the Judaizers is that they wanted to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved (Acts 15:1), which is not my position. If you want to consider someone to be a Judaizers because they think that Gentiles should obey the Law of Moses, then you should consider Jesus to be a Judaizer and we should all be Judaizers, but that is not what it means to be a Judaizer. Again, Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Jesus, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved.