Who are the Noahides? Over the last 30 years, there has been this movement among Jewish apologists. They claim that God does not want everyone to be Jewish, however God apparently wants Gentiles to follow seven laws that were given to Noah. A plain reading of the Bible shows that these laws weren’t given to Noah, however these laws exist throughout the Old Testament.
Some people like Rabbi Tovia Singer, says that Noahidism is the oldest religion in the world. This is just as fake as saying the that Islam is the oldest in the world. Rabbi Singer says the following on his website:
It may be said that the Noachide movement is the oldest religion in the world.
This is true. It may be said, but it’s a lie. Where were the Noahides in 500 BC, 100 AD, 700 AD, 1200 AD, 1800 AD? They didn’t exist simply because this religion didn’t exist. Noahidism is not the oldest religion in the world but one of the newest. Scientology is even older than Noahidism.
It’s ironic that Jewish apologists will oppose the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of Christian groups that pretend to be Jewish by wearing skullcaps, prayer shawls and going to churches they call synagogues. At the same time they don’t have a problem saying Noahidism is the oldest religion in the world.
These are the seven laws that must be followed by non-Jews according to Noahidism:
- The prohibition of idolatry
- The prohibition of blasphemy
- The prohibition of murder
- The prohibition of theft
- The prohibition of immoral sexual relations
- The prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal
- The commandment to establish courts to enforce the commandments
Christians follow all of these laws though Jewish apologists will say that the Trinity is idolatry, at the same time not being able to prove it from the Hebrew Bible.
The problem with these laws is that they are very minimal. While these laws need to be followed, they won’t make a society better. There is no command to love your neighbour. There is no command to honour your father and your mother. There is no command to feed the poor. There is no command to repent of your sins. There is no command to hate evil. There is no command to accept the Prophets or the Messiah. There is no command to preach the message of God to all nations.
Not only is this movement fake, it doesn’t make humanity better in the slightest. These laws are so incomplete. Unlike Noahidism, the Catholic faith will make a civilization better. If Europe had adopted Noahidism instead of Catholicism, no one would be loving their neighbours, feeding the poor, and many other important things. It would be a very immoral and evil society.
Fortunately this movement has almost no traction or following and going nowhere fast. Most Jews don’t even know about this movement. Only a minority of Jews engage in promoting this fraudulent religion. They know that it doesn’t go back to the days of Noah but the 20th Century. It’s a lie, a scam, and a fraud. It’s a tool of Satan to keep people from Christ and his Church.
You Christians are getting desperate obviously. Your faith is crumbling while Noahide movement is exploding in the last 10 years, especially in the last three, contrary to all expectations, mostly due to Internet (ban devilish Internet :). It’s true that very few Jews know about Noahides but why should they kniow it anyway? They are following Torah already. There are enough Rabbies who do know it and that’s enough. The time will show where it is heading to. Christianity failed to establish true morality time and again. In The States the rate of young people leaving Christianity is unseen before, inquire for yourself if you don’t trust me. You can’t go on holding people in grip for long preaching hell fire which is completely pagan idea and has nothing to do with The Bible (so called “Old Testament”). Christians are waking up, protestants above all, thanks to you guys. Believing in an idol, god-man or whatever leads nowhere and many people have realised it. There will be many more as time goes by. They need something better than Sunday story preaching and being nice to grannies. No offense pall but I was a student of Christian theology on a Tyndale University (https://www.tyndale.ca/programs/english) for two academic years learning for a preacher in then my Baptist Church. If I weren’t there I would have probably remained Christian for the rest of my life. G-d’s ways are weird indeed. (I know you will not publish this comment but I’ve written it for you not for publishing) Baruh Hashem bro and start reading The Eternal Book for serious. There is no JC in there
Hello,
I find it odd that you didn’t respond to a single point that I made. Yes, a lot of young people leave Christianity in a secular country like America but just as many people who are born Jews leave Judaism. The thing is, most of those who leave become atheists. They don’t go to a religion that is younger than Scientology like you have. I have friends in many religions but none of them have ever even heard of you guys. In a talk by Rabbi Skobac about Noahidism, he mentioned that Noahides are often the only ones in their city. Exploding? I think not.
Can God become a man. Christians have refuted this from the beginning. In the very pages of the New Testament, then the writings of the early Church Fathers such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Ambrose and many more.
The fact that Jewish apologists haven’t even tried to deal with the material we’ve presented shows that they aren’t interested in the truth.
Let me ask you something. The Tanakh asks that we use equal scales in Proverbs 11:1.
You believe Jesus Christ is not in the Tanakh. Okay. Can you show me using the same standards where the Oral Torah is found in the Tanakh?
> Can you show me using the same standards where the Oral Torah is found in the Tanakh?
There is an explicit reference to the Oral Law at Deuteronomy 12:21 in which a set of instructions on how to slaughter is referenced, but not provided in the text. However, a better source is the legal system established by the Torah in Numbers 11 in which a council of 71 elders is established to create binding precedent. Their powers are explained in Deuteronomy 17 in which they shall establish judgements which we are not permitted to deviate from. That is what the oral law is. Nothing more and nothing less than an inherited list of rulings and obligations from those who were empowered by G-d to establish them from which we are commanded by G-d not to deviate from.
The commands on how to kill animals are in Leviticus 17. Yes, God did establish a court. Also, where in Deuteronomy 17 is there an Oral law. It’s a court.
Leviticus 17 is about the sacrificial system.
> This is so the Israelites will bring to the Lord the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the Lord, at the entrance to the tent of meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. Lev. 17:5 NIV
Deuteronomy 12 is about meat for food.
> When the Lord your God has enlarged your territory as he promised you, and you crave meat and say, “I would like some meat,” then you may eat as much of it as you want.
And the laws are different between sacrificial meat and meat for food. It also doesn’t seem like you have unpacked the implication of your interpretation. Under your interpretation of scripture, only sacrificial animals scarified in the temple would be permitted to be eaten. However, the bible lists lots of animals that can be eaten for food but may not be slaughtered at the temple, so your interpretation cannot be correct.
This is an explicit reference to the oral law, but it is complicated to unpack. That is why I proffered Deuteronomy 17 which is the real source of the oral law. And you seem to have accepted the argument, but repeated the question as if it didn’t answer it. To repeat the argument, the law establishes a court of law, i.e., the Sanhedrin. The commandment concerning this is to
> Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. (Deut. 17:11)
This to me settles the question. The decisions of the law courts are to be binding, and we are not to deviate from them. Therefore your objection begs the questions, what do you believe the oral law to be? To help you see where I’m coming from, I’m going to ask a series of leading questions. If you were interested in observing this law, how would you do it? How would you know what the rulings of this court were so that you could ensure compliance with the law? Further, how would you do this in a secular society with an identically functional legal system?
I’m a lawyer. And in law, there is something called the common law. Which as luck would have it, is a type of precedential oral law, exactly the type instituted in the torah. If I wished to get a broad strokes account of the rulings of these courts, I would go check a Restatement. For example, the Restatement of Torts in American law is in its second edition and was published between 1965 and 1979. If I wanted to do a deep dive on a particular issue, or to ground a concept I found in a Restatement, I would consult the published discussions on the law by the Supreme Court. This is of course simplified, but it is correct.
By direct analogy, the Torah establishes a “Constitution” which establishes a court of law which is to establish binding precedent on how the law is to function in practice. The discussions of these rulings constitute the Talmud along with ethical and historical discussions. The restatement of this law is found in a book called the Mishneh Torah (literally translates to restatement of the teaching), although most Jews use more modern restatements. However, if I wanted to know the source of the laws in the Mishneh Torah, or I wanted to see the discussions and rulings themselves to check if the restatement was correct, I would consult the Talmud.
Therefore, your objection, “where is the oral law, all it does is establishes courts,” falls flat to Jews and the legally trained. What do you mean where is the oral law? It’s part of how precedential court systems work. The oral law is right there. And if if that doesn’t answer your objection, then we may be working with different conceptions of what the oral law is purported to be.
I posted a much longer response, but it doesn’t seem to have gone through, so I’ll shorten it down to the highlights. I had mentioned Deuteronomy 12 in passing because it is merely an example. However, to clarify, Leviticus 17 states that you cannot eat blood and what to do with it, but it is absolutely not under any stretch of the imagination a description of “how to slaughter.” However, my main point was the establishment of courts that are empowered to enact binding precedential decisions, and you seem to have accepted it, but restated the question as if it was not answered. This leads me to believe that we are not talking about the same thing, and I cannot be sure that you know what Jews mean by an Oral Law, and what the main point of my argument was. I’m going to try another approach at an explanation.
> You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. (Deut 17 NIV)
First some leading questions. If you wanted to observe this commandment today, how would you do it? How would you know what the decisions were? How would you act accordingly? Where would you find these decision? And hypothetically, how would you observe this commandment in a modern secular society?
I’m a lawyer. American law has a concept called the Common Law, which is a binding precedential tradition in the exact same manner as the one established by Torah Law, and at one point, it was even an oral tradition before being committed down to writing too. If I wanted to know the law, I would consult something called a Restatement of Law. For example, the Restatement of Torts is a restatement of the principles of the common law as it relates to civil suits and is used in law schools and court rooms to this day. If I wanted to do a deep dive into the minutia of the law, or to seek a grounding for the law found a Restatement, I would consult decisions and discussions of law at the Supreme Court who is so empowered to enact binding interpretation of the written laws of the country and the common law. This is an essential aspect of how precedential court systems work and every court system has something analogous.
This is also true of Torah Law. The so called “oral law” is in Hebrew, torah shebaal pe, literally instruction from the mouth, is the Common Law, in contradistinction to the written law, torah deoraitha, literally instruction from the scripture. The tradition of legal interpretation can be found in the Mishneh Torah, literally Restatement of the Instruction, which matches written scripture to the instruction of the court, namely the Sanhedrin, which is the Supreme Court in this legal system. If I wanted to do a deep dive into the minutia of the law, or I wanted to justify the rulings found in a restatement such as the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch, I would reference the Talmud, which is constituted by the rulings and the legal discussions of the Sanhedrin, along with ethical and historical teachings. Generally speak, when people refer to “the oral law”, the Talmud and its “companion publications” is what is being referenced.
So this is what we mean by Oral Law. This is why the argument, “there is no oral law here, there is only a court system” falls flat to Jews and those with any legal experience. Where there is a court, there is a law that comes out of the mouth of judges by necessity. There is no idealized ethereal law up in heaven. This is a real legal system executed by real people, so it’s going to work like a real legal system.
> Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
It is in your mouth.
It went though, I was just away from my computer all day and couldn’t publish the comment. It went through and I published them both.
Read further down in Leviticus 17, it’s for food as well.
I’m okay with courts. I don’t believe there was an orally transmitted law as some Jews believe. I understand that there a debate between an Oral law from Sinai and rulings of the Sanhedrin.
I agree 100 percent! Even most of the pagans live by those 7 laws. God wanted his kingdom to be spread through the Jewish people. The noahide laws spread nothing. The problem within the Christian churches today is a lack of any kind of love for their neighbors. The noahide laws would legitimize the lack of love and the selfish behavior of most christians. Jesus was sent to condemn that selfish unrighteous behavior among the pharisees. And now some jews want to nullify even the basic principles of the torah? That’s insane! That’s just another deception to mislead people away from God. Or make them think they are following God, when in reality they are following satan.
Hi Spartaeus,
When did you first learn about the Noahide movement?
God bless,
Allan
The reason I found your site here was asking a simple question that only requires a child like comprehension:
Why now?
Under whose authority?
Jesus words make perfect sense to me so I will be wanting to stay close to what he prescribed:
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets”.
Personally I think it’s satanic to call anything that accepts God as the one true God a fraud, id even go as far to say it’s blasphemous. On the surface it might look simple, but they’re at least trying!
Noachides are the overt/out in the open Lucifer worshipers who are exchanging the baton from their covert counterparts the freemasons, a continuation of androgynous perverted loveless beings hell bent on destroying ALL of Gods institutions, marriage between men and women and creating loving wholesome families that support a loving society.
This pre-flood religion talks a good respect for God but deceptive in that their god is Lucifer.
> Where were the Noahides in 500 BC, 100 AD, 700 AD, 1200 AD, 1800 AD?
A botched version of it appears in Acts 15 and Jubilees, so this shouldn’t be news to Christians. The laws are documented in the Talmud, which was compiled in the 4th century but contains discussions going back to the early second temple period. But even assuming the latest date, it predates your assumptions by over a thousand years. This article was not well researched considering the wikipedia page contains these references. However, the most glaring omission is from the bible itself. Here is a Christian translation so nobody can be accused of playing with it:
Genesis 9:8-17 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.[a] 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
The challenge to you then is, what is the content of this covenant? What is the covenant for the descendants of Noah? How is it enforced? Was G-d wrong that this covenant would be for “all future generations?” If no, then what exactly are you exposing? If yes, then your deity could not be very clever if simply the passage of time was enough to outwit his scripture. The article of the title is exposing noahide fraud, but it is closer to exposing the ignorance about the noahide law among Christians.
lol nice takedown of this garbage article ShamanSTK
I’m not sure why I can’t reply in-line, but I’ll post the response here. Wow, I guess I didn’t trim that down at all. I am bad at being concise lol You can delete the first one if you want, they’re pretty much identical. So, this is where I don’t understand your response. To me, this seems like a contradiction, so I want to know what you mean by it.
> I don’t believe there was an orally transmitted law as some Jews believe. I understand that there a debate between an Oral law from Sinai and rulings of the Sanhedrin
You’re okay with a court debating and enforcing law. But then you deny that there was a legal tradition that was transmitted orally. The talmud is the oral tradition written down in order to preserve it in light of persecutions of the sages. For this to make sense to me, it would seem like you’re denying the talmud exists. But it clearly does, and the oral laws are even mentioned in the new testament, so it doesn’t seem to me that you could mean there was not an oral law in the same way I’m saying there was and is one. Could you expound on what it is you don’t believe existed?
Hi,
Yes, there are oral traditions mentioned in the NT but how does that conclude that there is an oral law from Sinai. If you’ve read Mark 7, you’ll know that Jesus Christ criticizes certain oral traditions of the Pharisees saying they go against the commands of God.
Allan
Jesus goes further than you allege in Mark 7. He criticizes every aspect of the law. He even refutes written law uncontroversially from Sinai.
> 14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
The defiling of the person via forbidden foods is written torah, not oral torah. But that’s pretty much besides the point. Jesus’s opinion on the law, written or otherwise, has little to nothing to do with their existence. Again, the oral law is taken as existent by the time of Jesus, and that’s all I wished to demonstrate by that. Again, I was certain you couldn’t mean there was no oral because you subscribe to the NT which already accepted its existence. Here you clarified what you mean more helpfully:
> but how does that conclude that there is an oral law **from Sinai**.
This then is where there is a hangup. It is that it is specifically from Sinai. The majority of what is called the oral law is not necessarily directly from Sinai in its modern form. There is a concept of called Halakha l’Moshe m’Sinai, the law of Moses from Sinai, which is a list of certain details of certain laws which are not in dispute and do not have a source in scripture, nor have we preserved a tradition have their reasonings. These are an aspect of the oral law, but they are not the entire oral law. For example, Maimonides (the one who wrote the Mishneh Torah I referenced earlier) writes in his introduction to the Mishneh
> And we have also not found a disagreement in that which the verse states (Leviticus 23:40), “the fruit of a beautiful tree,” such that one would say it is a citron (etrog), and the other say it is quinces or pomegranates or other [fruit] beside it. And we have also not found a disagreement about a “leafy tree” that it is [anything but] a myrtle.
The law in the written torah obviously needs details, and these details in observance are going to be going back to Moses, who obviously instituted the whole system and served as its first judge. See Exodus 18.
However, I want to consider a moment the nature of the Revelation at Sinai. Moses was not given the written scripture on Sinai. Think about it, the narrative of the Torah continues for a whole 40 years more and includes subsequent revelations. So this then begs the question, what was revealed on Sinai? And why did it happen twice?
In broad strokes, the narrative of the scripture is that Moses went up to Sinai, came down with the 10 commandments, witnessed the Sin of the Golden Calf, smashed the tablets of the covenant, went back up to Sinai, and returned back down with the law that begins being expounded right away in Exodus 34 and a new set of tablets.
Some more leading questions. What was the content of the revelation at Sinai? What differentiates the first revelation at Sinai from the second revelation at Sinai? What was the status of the law after the revelation but before it was written at the end of the life of Moses? Was it oral torah or was it written torah? What of the other 610 commandments given at Sinai that were not committed to writing immediately?
The traditional understanding is this. Moses went up to Sinai and received the oral law concerning the distinctive gift of the Jews, i.e. shabbat and tradition, and received a written law on two tablets, the first tablet concerning religious duty of the Jewish people, and the second being the remainder of the Law of Adam, i.e., the aspect of the Noahide law that is universal. (The commandment concerning the living limb only applies to meat eaters, and Israel was not permitted meat in the wilderness, only mana.) Upon returning, the sin of the calf made it apparent that a society of customs of service to G-d was necessary to ensure continued compliance to the truth of G-d and his oneness. He returned and received what? Not the written torah. No, he only got back the same 10 commandments. But he was given the oral law of the whole torah, and over the course of 40 years, it was developed into a functioning legal system and nation, and then it continued to develop in the fashion all legal systems do. At the end of Moses’s life, he committed the entire account to writing via a revelation in the tabernacle where it is stated G-d spoke to him from between the Cherubim.
Rejecting this account begs some questions that need answering. If the law is only a written law, what was given on Sinai? When was the written law revealed? What form did it take? If Moses was given the whole written torah on Sinai as we have it today, is there not free will? Was Moses forced to be righteous while Aaron’s sons and Korach were forced to sin? Was the 40 years in the desert a period of strict determinism?
The narrative of the torah is fairly explicit when unpacked that the oral law predates the written law and is the foundational law. It cannot contradict the written law because truth cannot contradict truth, but the written law is not a self sufficient fully functioning legal system any more than the Constitution is. In fact, we see the same thing in American Law. The common law long predates the constitution. This is why the Rambam can write:
> And that is that the explanations that were transmitted from the mouth of Moshe have no disagreement about them in any way. As behold, from then until now, we have not found a disagreement occur among the sages at any time, from the days of Moshe and until Rav Ashi, such that one say, “They take out the eye of one who has taken out the eye of his fellow, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 19:21), ‘an eye for an eye'”; and the second one say that it is only indemnity that he has to pay.
The oral law was what it was prior to it being committed to writing as eye for an eye. There was never any confusion as to this. This did not need to be debated. Nobody ever thought this verse ever meant anything that what it had always meant from when Moses first instituted the legal system.
I think you’ve misunderstood Jesus Christ in Mark 7. In other places in Mark he stresses the importance of the law. You’ve asked many questions throughout this response. Can you list 1 or 2 out that you want me to answer because these discussions are easier to address if its one topic at a time.
> I think you’ve misunderstood Jesus Christ in Mark 7.
The law states that it is what goes into the person that defiles them. Jesus seems to say here that is not the case, but you seem to disagree. Can you explain the specific verse I cited in a way that is not critical of the written law?
The questions are one topic at a time. In context, they are rhetorical questions which pose the problem I wish to address. I then go on to answer with a single explanation that is at odds with your religion but answers all the questions raised. You can answer all the questions with a single answer if your answer is sufficient. I cannot separate them because they constitute one objection, and if your explanation is not sufficient to answer all of them, then your answer is not sufficient to answer any of them.
This is not a gish gallop as I suspect you might feel it is. This is more of a, “this is the explanation, and if it’s not right, these are the problems that need addressing.” For example, one might say, “gravitational lensing occurs around this region that is too small and dark to contain anything other than a blackhole given the degree of lensing. Therefore, we can know there is black hole there.” If you want to say that is not correct, then you have a series of questions you must answer. What else can have such a mass in the space? If not a black hole, wouldn’t we expect a star or galaxy which would be visible? If the mass and space is correct, and it isn’t a black hole, is relativity wrong? Is our math wrong? Etc. You see where I’m coming from. You need to offer a complete explanation because if you miss even one of these questions, your answer fails as it cannot be a complete explanation of what you seek you show.
Jesus Christ is referring to the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. You can make of that what you will but modern Jews do the same with respect to the sacrificial system and other laws such as meat and dairy mixed. We need to keep this in the context of Mark 12 where he summarizes the law; again, the spirit not the letter. Also, in Mark 7 he’s not saying anything about specific verses. Also, this wasn’t the point I was trying to bring up, but his critique of oral traditions that contradicted scripture which you essentially ignored. You said the NT brings up oral traditions. It does and much can be said about it. However, it doesn’t praise and validate all of them. It also doesn’t give their origin, and this is true whether the tradition is good or bad.
Again, not sure why I can’t respond inline. But I think the topic of the conversation has drifted off topic. I really don’t care what Jesus has to say about the law any more than I would care why any other non-observant Jew would. The purpose of the thread was to show definitively that the torah makes explicit reference to the noahide law, which I did. And in a different thread, to show that there is an oral law that is baked into the legal system of the Mosaic Law, which I also did. If we agree on this, that I’m happy. The only reason I brought in the New Testament is to show that these concepts existed before the time of Jesus and was not a modern invention as your article and comments erroneously claimed.
But there is one thing that I don’t understand that you said, or what you could even possibly mean by it. “Spirit of the Law” isn’t something that exists in the Hebrew Bible. That term doesn’t exist, nor is there an analogous concept. The closest I can come to charity is the idea that observance of the law in the absence of ethical, moral, and spiritual actions and growth is for naught. And I think we can all agree on that, but it isn’t something I can apply to this statement here.
> You can make of that what you will but modern Jews do the same with respect to the sacrificial system and other laws such as meat and dairy mixed.
I have no clue how to parse this into anything to which I can respond.
I suspected that you wouldn’t care what the Lord Jesus Christ says but I went there because you talked about the oral law mentioned in the NT. I concede that there were oral traditions at the time of Jesus, though it doesn’t give a source and is spoken of in different ways.
I don’t feel like getting into a “Spirit of the law” discussion right now. You may think this is odd terminology but I think the same thing about things being “baked into the legal system of the Mosaic Law”. Both Christians and Jews use extra-Biblical terminology to describe Biblical concepts.
Hahahah,,,this is so funny,,its not funny, The Torah has been around a long time,,,Christianity has not. God spoke to millions of people that heard Him, and you dont believe in Gods words…how sad. Christianity like the Crusaders, killed many who didnt believe like them. And Im to listen to the none sence of another god? That would be idolatry. Noahides [ righteous of the nations are mentioned in Genesis. Christianity says if you dont go their route your out.Ive been there. I was a pastor, and found out about Torah, and saw the Hebrew language is so different then the Christian bible in English..hope you check it out once,,,and learn from Torah,,,about the ONE GOD AND THERE IS NO OTHER..its refeshing to know truth of this matter…shalom, from a Noahide[ righteous of the nations] The 7 Noahide principles,,,not a religion,,but a way of life from the maker of the universe..shalom
I’m just curious where God gave us the 7 laws?
Hummm, Christians dont follow the first law,,,,prohibition against idolatry…once you add to the God of Israel,,that is called idolatry. So for that reason ,,Christians dont follow the 7 Noahide principles. ,,given to Adam and Noah. One needs to know who the God of creation is before one says Christians follow these 7 principles. One should not lie about it either.Because Christians beleive in the trinity.So that leaves them out right there.
Would you be interested in coming on my Youtube channel for a livestream? Or if you just prefer a private chat on Skype, that would be fine. I believe there are good answers to the questions that you ask and I’d like to have a chance to explain them to you in full.
God bless,
Allan