How should I as a born again Christian begin to practice messianic Christianity?

How do Christians that believe that proper obedience to the Torah is required begin to follow it?

Hoping to gain insight from the Hebrew Roots/TO community: Let me preface my question by saying that while I understand the requirement of observing the Sabbath as commanded—as well as the importance of the LORD's Feasts—I'm trying to reconcile why food laws (Leviticus 11) seem to be such a 'big' item among the HRM/TO communities, but no emphasis is put on keeping the bodily hygiene-related laws in Leviticus 12–15; (i.e. childbirth, skin diseases, uncleanness of men/women). Do those who subscribe to Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant beliefs and who have a skin infection, sexual emission, menstruation, or given birth, refrain from meeting in/with the congregation during the required time(s) outlined in Leviticus? Let me add that I have no objection to eating clean from a health perspective. I am merely seeing inconsistency in belief when it comes to which 'clean laws' are observed and which ones are discarded.

Various theories for the location of Mount Sinai have been suggested. One is Jebel Al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia, which was in Moses's time part of Midian. The most popular location is in the south of the peninsula of Sinai at either Jabal Musa or Jabal St Catherine. St Catherine is the higher of these two peaks. What is the evidence for any of these, or any other, mountain peaks?

First off, I admit that I am not entirely sure if there is a term/title for a theological framework that suggest we must keep the Torah. Does one exist (similar to we have titles like "Reformed Theology" or "Dispensationalism")? With this, I see there are many tangential questions to the topic of Acts 15, but the questions at the end of my post here have not been addressed so I do not believe this to be a duplicate post. That said, Acts 15 appears to directly address the matter of whether Gentiles are required to keep the law of Moses, and the council’s decision seems to clearly oppose that idea. I have seen individuals suggest that this is *not* the topic/discussion within Acts 15, however, the chapter seems fairly straight forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be how the chapter unfolds: 1. **The Dispute Leading to the Council** Certain individuals come to Antioch, teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. This creates a significant dispute, leading Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to address the issue. - **Acts 15:1-2** > “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 2. **The Council Begins Discussion** Upon arrival in Jerusalem, the matter is raised again. Certain believers of the Pharisees (also?) insist that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, prompting a formal discussion among the apostles and elders. - **Acts 15:5-6* > “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. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” 3. **Peter’s Speech and the Yoke** Peter addresses the council, reminding them that God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost, and argues against placing a yoke upon them that neither their ancestors nor they could bear. - **Acts 15:10-11** > “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 4. **The Council’s Decision and the Letter** The apostles and elders decide to write to the Gentile believers, acknowledging that some had troubled them by teaching circumcision and Torah observance without the church’s authority. They instead advise Gentiles to avoid certain practices linked to pagan worship. - **Acts 15:24-29** > “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: > … For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” **My Question(s):** How do those who uphold Torah Observance reconcile their position with Acts 15? Specifically: - How is Peter’s argument in verses 10-11, which describes the law as an unbearable "yoke" and emphasizes salvation through grace, understood within the framework of Torah Observance? - How is the statement in the letter (verse 24) that teachings about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were troubling and unauthorized by the apostles addressed? - How is verse 28, which lists only a few "necessary things," interpreted in light of the earlier claims that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses? Does this not contradict such a requirement? Bible verses are KJV. Thank you and God bless.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

this previous question asks for evidence that points to Deuteronomy being written during the reign of King Josiah. A lot of modern scholarship today suggests that Deuteronomy was a much later work, produced in a much later time period. So what evidence is there that points to Deuteronomy being written before this time? I am willing to accept that Deuteronomy may have some redactions and changes, but lots of liberal scholarship points to it being a much later text, with no relevance to Moses or the first four books of the bible at all. Any general answers that highlight evidence for an early date for Deuteronomy / before the reign of King Josiah are welcome. This question may also naturally lead to the question of authorship, so if that isn’t too broad, feel free to include that in your answers as well if you deem it appropriate.

> **Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV) ** > **17** Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. **18** For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached. Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments). How much of the Law of Moses still applies?

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV >The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children **for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.** Isaiah 59:21 > “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, **on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever**,” says the Lord. Do these verses prove that Old Testament law is still to be followed since it is to be followed forever?

The [JEDP theory](http://www.theopedia.com/JEDP_theory) basically states that the first five books of the bible (the Pentatauch) were not written by a single person, but rather by four different people. I'm trying to understand if this theory is even remotely valid or if it is complete nonsense. Specifically (to avoid this being closed as argumentative), what are the most reasonable supporting arguments for this theory? Also, what are the major criticisms against this theory?

Are there any church father who rejected Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch?

Text: > “At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God; and he was > brought up in his father’s house for three months. > > But when he was set out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him away and brought > him up as her own son. > > And **Moses** *was learned in all the* **wisdom of the Egyptians**, and was > mighty in words and deeds. > > “Now when he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his > brethren, the children of Israel.” ‭‭**Acts‬ ‭7‬:‭20‬-‭23‬** ‭**Q: How did Moses speak to the children of Israel & write the Torah if he was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians?** See also: John 5:45-47

I know throughout the scriptures that strangers were always allowed to join Israel as long as they followed the laws of God and acted accordingly. However, these strangers who were allowed in the land, like the mixed multitude for example, were they adopted into a tribe? If so, are there some examples in the Mosaic law of how a stranger would be reckoned among a tribe?

> Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (NIV) After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: “***Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant*** of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. This verse indicates that the Torah was placed ***beside*** the Ark of the Covenant and stood there as a witness. But this Wikipedia mentions the Torah was once kept inside the Ark. Was there any chance ever that the Torah was kept inside the Ark? Is there any verse supporting it? *(If the information in Wikipedia is not credible, someone must update it)* ***Note:** Readers should not be confused between Torah (book) and the stone tablets (10 Commandments). The question here is about the Book, not the tablets.*

Christians say that Jesus is the prophet like Moses. In the Book of Deuteronomy, God says through Moses: > The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among > you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. For this > is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the > assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God > nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-16) Referring to when the Israelites asked Moses to speak to them directly instead of God, after He revealed the ten commandments: > When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet > and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at > a distance and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will > listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” (Exodus 20:19) But when Jesus arrived, both during his baptism and during the transfiguration, God shows his voice again. > And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I > am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) > > While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a > voice from the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well > pleased. Listen to Him!" (Matthew 17:5) Why would God show his voice again when the prophet like Moses arrived if the very reason he sent Moses was that he wouldn't need to show his voice?

***Note**: this question is inspired by the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/456/50422 . Since that question was closed as off-topic, I'm asking this new one in an attempt to contribute with an on-topic version of the former.* The Law of Moses is a collection of about [613 commandments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments) , according to the Jewish tradition. The question about the extent to which those commandments still apply today (and to what groups of people) is a very important one, as well as the source of multiple doctrinal disputes and denominational divisions among Christians. For example, some believe that the entire Mosaic Law is still morally binding, universally, on all people. Some believe that the Mosaic Law only applies entirely to the Jews, whereas the Gentiles are exempt from this obligation and only required to keep a subset (and which subset?). Some believe that only the 10 commandments are morally binding, with the exception of the Sabbath. Others believe that the 10 commandments are biding, including the Sabbath. Others go one step further and keep both the Sabbath and the feast days. There are also disputes about the contemporary applicability of tithing, the dietary laws, etc. What is an overview of Christian doctrines on the extent to which the Law of Moses still applies? How do different denominations decide which commandments are still applicable and which aren't?

What is the bible such that contains the intersection, of agreement in the word, between Jews and Christians? It seems that it's the Torah, is this correct? Are there more books? I said intersection because AFAIK, Christianity have its roots in Jewish religion. If there's no such bible, what is the approximate bible or bibles that have this? Thank you in advance. PD. I don't know much about this yet, so correct if I said something wrong.

I have heard some progressive Christians claim that Leviticus 18:22 was only condemning homosexual activities for idolatrous rituals. I know that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 was using the word "arsenokoitai" which came from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. In Leviticus 18:2-3 it says: *“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes."* There are some people who say that because of these verses, it was condemning the idolatrous practices in Egypt and Canaan which included homosexual sex. Therefore, in this context, it is only referring to homosexual activity that has idolatrous rituals involved. God was only prohibiting the rituals they did in Egypt and Canaan. We also see in Leviticus 18:21, the verse before, it says: *"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord."* Some have suggested that because of the context, Leviticus 18:22 is not prohibiting loving same-sex relationships but only ones that relate to pagan rituals. Is this true? If not, why?

Was the concept of Godhead (one God, but multiple persons) known by the Jews prior to the advent of Christianity? Were there Jews that held a Binitarian, Trinitarian or similar "Godhead" theology as a result of studying the Torah, long before Christianity came on the scene?

As is well-known, Judaism rejects all statues based on the Torah. The Presbyterian Church and Protestants reject making statutes but Roman Catholics made many statues of Jesus, Mary, Peter, and Paul. Catholics go as far as to pray to Mary and the saints. Isn’t this a violation of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness”? ---------- This question is different from others as it assumes the Decalogue hasn't been lifted as others presuppose.