NOTES TAKEN FROM OTHER SITES I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE
WHO KNOW'S WHAT HAPPENED BUT I AM ONE OF FEW WHO LISTEN BECAUSE MY SOUL DEPENDS ON ALL THIS STUFF 
Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions about Sunday > The vast majority of Christian churches today teach the observance of >Sunday, the first day of the week, as a time for rest and worship. Yet it >is generally known and freely admitted that the early Christians observed >the seventh day as the Sabbath. How did this change come about? > > History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that >a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and >substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following >quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there >is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the >Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week. > > In the second portion of this booklet are quotations from Protestants. >Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept >Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for >a first-day Sabbath. > > Roman Catholic Confessions > >
 James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89. > "But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will >not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The >Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we >never sanctify." >

 Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174. > "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power >to institute festivals of precept? > "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which >all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the >observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of >Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural >authority." > 

John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and >Academies (1 936), vol. 1, P. 51. > "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the >Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law, that He Himself has explicitly >substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely >abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His Church the >power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as Holy >Days. The Church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course >of time added other days as holy days." >

 Daniel Ferres, ed., Manual of Christian Doctrine (1916), p.67. > "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts >and holy days? > "Answer. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which >Protestants allow of, and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by >keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the >same Church.' >

 James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a >signed letter. > "Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten >Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the >Church change the seventh day -Saturday - for Sunday, the first day? I >answer yes . Did Christ change the day'? I answer no! > > > "Faithfully yours, J. Card. Gibbons" > The Catholic Mirror, official publication of James Cardinal Gibbons, >Sept. 23, 1893. > "The Catholic Church, . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed >the day from Saturday to Sunday." > Catholic Virginian Oct. 3, 1947, p. 9, art. "To Tell You the Truth." > "For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the >Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We >have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, >that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep >Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the[Roman Catholic] church >outside the Bible." > 

Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Converts Catechism of Catholic Doctrine >(1957), p. 50. > "Question: Which is the Sabbath day? > "Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. > "Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? > "Answer. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic >Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday." >

 Martin J. Scott, Things Catholics Are Asked About (1927),p. 136. > "Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that worship should be changed from >Saturday to Sunday .... Now the Church ... instituted, by God's authority, >Sunday as the day of worship. This same Church, by the same divine >authority, taught the doctrine of Purgatory long before the Bible was made. >We have, therefore, the same authority for Purgatory as we have for >Sunday." >

 Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, >Illinois. > "Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the >Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts: > "1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith >and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. >The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, >stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man. > "2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. >Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, >as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach >and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of >the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. 
We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she >made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried >priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic >marriages and a thousand other laws. > "It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in >pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is >nothing in their Bible." >

 T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18,1884. > "I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from >the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law >in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible >says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: >'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep >holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows >down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church." > Protestant Confessions > Protestant theologians and preachers from a wide spectrum of >denominations have been quite candid in admitting that there is no Biblical >authority for observing Sunday as a sabbath. > > Anglican/Episcopal >

 Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism , vol. 1, pp.334, 336. > "And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first >day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere >commanded to keep the first day .... The reason why we keep the first day >of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we >observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the church >has enjoined it." > Canon Eyton, The Ten Commandments , pp. 52, 63, 65. > "There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about abstaining from >work on Sunday .... into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters.... The >observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as >the observance of Sunday." >

 Bishop Seymour, Why We Keep Sunday . > We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from >Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy Catholic Church." >

 Baptist > Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, a paper read before a New York ministers' >conference, Nov. 13, 1893, reported in New York Examiner , Nov.16, 1893. > "There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that >Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of >triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day >of the week .... Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not >in the New Testament absolutely not. > "To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' >intercourse with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath >question . . . never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that >during forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. > "Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early >Christian history . . . . But what a pity it comes branded with the mark of >paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, adopted and >sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to >Protestantism!" > 

William Owen Carver, The Lord's Day in Our Day , p. 49. > "There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish >seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance." > Congregationalist >

 Dr. R. W. Dale, The Ten Commandments (New York: Eaton &Mains), p. >127-129. > " . . . it is quite clear that however rigidly or devotedly we may >spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath - . . 'Me Sabbath was founded >on a specific Divine command. We can plead no such command for the >obligation to observe Sunday .... There is not a single sentence in the New >Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed >sanctity of Sunday." >

 Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, >vol. 3, p. 258. > " . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and >was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath." > Disciples of Christ > 

Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, Feb. 2, 1824,vol. 1. no. 7, >p. 164. > "'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' >Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No; it never was changed, nor >could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason >assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, >can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the >Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that >august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think >his name is Doctor Antichrist.' > First Day Observance , pp. 17, 19. > "The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a >mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day >of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere >in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of >the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible >any intimation of such a change." >

 Lutheran > The Sunday Problem , a study book of the United Lutheran Church >(1923), p. 36. > "We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish sabbath faded >from the mind of the Christian Church, and how completely the newer thought >underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. >We have seen that the Christians of the first three centuries never >confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both." > Augsburg Confession of Faith art. 28; written by Melanchthon, approved >by Martin Luther, 1530; as published in The Book of Concord of the >Evangelical Lutheran Church Henry Jacobs, ed. (1 91 1), p. 63. > "They [Roman Catholics] refer to the Sabbath Day, a shaving been >changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it seems. >Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the >changing of the Sabbath Day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, >since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!" > Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church >

Henry John Rose, tr. (1843), p. 186. > "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a >human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to >establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the >early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday." > John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday , pp. 15, 16. > "But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old >Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be >kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, >for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of >the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect." >

 Methodist > Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26. > "Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament >as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of >worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to >transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day." >

 John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., John Emory, ed. >(New York: Eaton & Mains), Sermon 25,vol. 1, p. 221. > "But, the moral law contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by >the prophets, he [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of his >coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken >.... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in >all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other >circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of >man, and their unchangeable relation to each other." >

 Dwight L. Moody > D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), >pp. 47, 48. > The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. >This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the >Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at >Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with >when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?" > Presbyterian > T. C. Blake, D.D., Theology Condensed, pp.474, 475. > "The Sabbath is a part of the decalogue - the Ten Commandments. This >alone forever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution >. . . . Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been >repealed, the Sabbath will stand . . . . The teaching of Christ confirms >the perpetuity of the Sabbath." 

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1 John 2:3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1 John 2:1 ¶ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
3 ¶ And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

John 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(1 John 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.) (James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.)
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Ac 19:34, Ac 21:39, Ro 1:16, Ro 2:9, Ro 2:10, Ro 2:17, Ro 2:28, Ro 2:29, Ro 3:1, Ro 10:12, 1Co 9:20, Ga 2:14, Ga 3:28, Col 3:11.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
YESHUA was very upset at the Pharisees for breaking his law.
Luke 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
He evidently "forgot" to tell his followers that they didn't need to keep the law any more.
2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2 Peter 3:1 ¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2 John 1:5 ¶ And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
For another few glimpses of the Messiah's doctrine, look at Matthew 7:12, 19:17-18,
23:23, and Luke 16:17-20.
Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Ac 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Lu 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
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.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Romans 3:27-28? Read Matthew 12:36-37. Also James 2:24 and surrounding verses
Romans 6:14? Read Matthew 19:17, 1 John 3:4, 2 John 5:2-3 (listen to the original commandments), James 2:10-11
Romans 7:4-9? Read Matthew 5:19, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:15, 1 John 3:4
Romans 8:2? Read Matthew 19:17, 1 John 2:1-4
Galatians 3:10? Read Revelation 22:14, Isaiah 58:13-14
Galatians 3:11? Read James 2:24, Matthew 12:36-37
Galatians 5:3-4? Read Matthew 5:19-20, James 2:8-11, Romans 3:31, Romans 6:15
1 Timothy 1:9? Read 1 John 1:8-10, 1 John 2:1-6, James 2:10, 1 John 3:4

The reason most people don't see this when they read the "Old Testament," is because their understanding of, "what the Scriptures say," is affected by hundreds of years of theology formed by previous generations studying and interpreting the Hebrew Bible in a Hellenized (non-Hebrew) way. This "mindset" is not an easy thing to shake off (especially in the USA) as it is reinforced daily by family, friends, sermons, books, Christian TV programs, Christian holidays -- the entire culture we live in. 
The Hebrew View of the Law/Torah
Terminology
We begin with what Christianity calls "the Law," but in Judaism is called the Torah -- the term given to the first five books of the Bible. This is also referred to by Christians as the "Pentateuch" (a Greek term). The term "Law," especially in the legal sense as the western mind understands it, is not an appropriate translation of the word "Torah." A correct translation of Torah is "instruction" or "revelation" -- as in "God's instruction," or "revelation from God." This is how the Torah is presented in Judaism.
The Torah is a revelation of the character of God as well as an insight of what is to come. The Torah is God's instruction on how those who place their trust in Him (Jew or gentile) are to live, so that "all will be well with them." (Deuteronomy 4:40) Verses such as Exodus 12:48-49, Leviticus 24:22 and Isaiah chapter 56, show that the Torah was not strictly for the Hebrews, but also for those Gentiles who wanted to be part of God's people. Although God chose to present His revelation through the Jewish people, it was not to be solely "their religion." They were to be a "light to the world," and bring this revelation to the Gentiles, as Yeshua reminded them in His sermon of Matthew chapter 5.
Though the Torah proper is the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), the term "Torah" can also include the rest of the Tenakh (commonly called the "Old Testament") and the books of the "New Testament," in that they are God's continued revelation/instruction. None of God's later revelation in the rest of the Tenakh (the Prophets & Writings) contradicts the Torah, and none of the "New Testament" contradicts the Torah, Prophets or Writings. God's word is one.
What Does the Tenakh say about the Torah, Forgiveness of Sin, and Salvation?
Unlike the movie, "Back to the Future," we will for the purpose of this study of the Torah, go "forward into the past." In the Gospel of John chapter 3, we have one of the foundational verses of "faith-based Christianity:"
You must be born again.
Christians tout this as a preeminent "faith teaching of Jesus." Notice however, what the Messiah says to Nicodemus when the latter asks, "How can these things be?"
Yeshua replies to him: "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not know these things?"
Nicodemus is criticized by the Messiah, who says that as a "teacher of Israel," he should have known about being "born again." Now how would Nicodemus know about this if it was a new teaching of Yeshua?
The answer is that "being born again" is not an original teaching from Yeshua and the launching point for some new Christian faith. Being born again was and is fundamental to Torah-based Judaism, as the message of the Torah has always been to have faith in God for salvation and not "work your way."
This can be seen in the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 10:16 -- "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiffnecked no longer." 
The term "stiffnecked" is equivalent to not having faith. God called the generation in the wilderness stiffnecked because they failed to trust (have faith) in Him. (See Exodus 32:9; 33:3,5; 34:9, Deut. 9:6,13; 2 Chron. 30:8; Acts 7:51)
Hebrews 3:7-4:2, commenting on these same stiffnecked people, said they received the Gospel but failed as they did not "mix it with faith," and "went astray in their hearts."
Deuteronomy 30:6 -- "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." 
Here the word "live" is used in a spiritual sense and is equivalent to salvation.
The epistles show that "circumcision of the heart" is the equivalent of "being born again": 
Romans 2:29 -- "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart ..." 
Colossians 2:11 -- "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands ..." 
God has always asked that we first recognize and trust in Him before trying to "do" anything for Him. To have faith/trust in Him is the "first commandment."
Exodus 20:2-3 & Deuteronomy 5:6-7 -- I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Habakkuk 2:4 & Romans 1:17 -- "The righteous live by faith." (Paul quotes this "Old Testament" verse in Romans to make his point.)
Hebrews 11:6 -- "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." (This chapter then goes on to list those who "followed the Law," such as; Moses, David and Samuel)
Yeshua continues His discussion with Nicodemus, speaking of His ascending to heaven (John 3:12-13), thus linking the Torah, (as God spoke about it in Deuteronomy 30:11-14), with Himself (as Paul wrote in Romans 10:1-8). Yeshua concludes his discussion by pointing to the incident of the Children of Israel looking upon the bronze serpent and living (John 3:14) as a faith issue (Numbers 21:9) comparing that to faith in Himself.
God does not change. Salvation in Torah-based Judaism has always been by faith, both before Moses and after him, as well as before Yeshua and after Him. The Torah is God's revelation, as Yeshua is also God's revelation. Faith, Torah and Yeshua are inseparable. Salvation was always through faith, Messiah and Torah, as Yeshua is the lamb slain since the foundation of the world (Hebrews 4:3, 9:26; Rev. 13:8). Yeshua Himself said: 
John 8:56 -- "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad."
Yeshua is the goal of the Torah (Romans 10:4, see the section below, "Making the Hebrew Connection: Torah and Messiah.") Yeshua is the Torah in the flesh -- the point of John 1:1.
MAN has always been saved by faith Exps
In Hebrews chapter 11 -- the "Faith Hall of Fame" as some have called it, we find three interesting names from the Tenakh -- Moses, David and Samuel. The book of Hebrews says they were saved by faith, even though they were well known for following the Torah.
In writing Psalm 119, David can't say enough about following the Torah. But, according to Christian theology, there is a dilemma with regard to what he writes.
David writes the following about himself:
Psalm 119:22 -- "Take away from me reproach and contempt, for I have kept your testimonies." 
Psalm 119:51 -- "... yet have I not declined in my interest or turned aside from your Law." 
Psalm 119:56 -- "I have kept your precepts ..." 
Psalm 119:102 -- "I have not turned aside from your ordinances ..." 
Psalm 119:121 -- "I have done justice and righteousness ..."
Is this the same David that committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah murdered? Not to mention a number of other documented violations of the Torah. According to Christian theology, David is clearly a liar. How can he claim to have followed "the Law," when we all know how he broke it in some terrible ways? To add to the "confusion," God Himself calls David, "a man after His own heart." (1 Samuel 13:14)
So is David a liar? Perhaps God is making an "exception" for him?
There is a hint of the answer found in Psalm 119 itself: 
Psalm 119:159 -- "Consider how I love your precepts; revive me and give life to me, O Lord, according to your loving kindness." 
The term "loving kindness" is hesed in Hebrew, and is the equivalent of the word grace in the "New Testament." David knew he was saved by God's grace -- NOT by keeping all the commandments perfectly, but rather by what he says at the beginning of the verse; "Consider how I love your precepts ..."
An interesting question to ask is, "Why does God save us?" The typical reply might be, "So we won't go to hell." That may be true, but it's an incomplete answer. In fact, God saves us so that we can perform the commandments (mitzvot) of His Torah in this lifetime. Our performing God's mitzvot is part of His desire to return us back into a correct relationship, the purpose and intent of mankind, as first seen in the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden). 
(Taking it a step further, one could ask, why did Yeshua say, "we would always have the poor?" (Matthew 26:11) Part of the answer is so that we would be able to perform the mitzvot of charity!) (9)
Psalm 119 shows David asking to be saved so that he could then follow God's Torah. God judged David on his faith AND desire to follow the Torah, NOT on his ability to keep every point of it. No one has ever been "saved" by their ability to keep Torah, nor has that ever been an option for salvation. 
The idea that Torah-based Judaism taught that anyone was ever saved by works is false. Throughout the ages there have indeed been those in Judaism who have taught incorrectly. The behavior of specific individuals or groups does not change what Torah-based Judaism has always taught. Even the error of the Jewish leaders at the time of Yeshua does not make Christianity, or any other religion correct. (Let God be true but every man be a liar -- Romans 3:4.) The only thing that is "right," is what God Himself established.
Faith and desire to follow His Torah are inseparable according to God.
Why is this so? 
God says what He wants from us ... to fear Him, walk in His ways, to love Him and to serve Him with all your heart and soul (Deuteronomy 10:12) -- "His ways" were given in the Torah. 
However, you cannot walk in His ways (follow the Torah) without faith (Hebrews 10:38) 
Salvation "Under the Law"
Salvation "Under the Law"
Let us examine the aforementioned quote by Christian author, Norman Geisler:
While Moses set up the moral and social structures that guided the nation, the Law could not save anyone from the penalty of their sins, which is death. As Paul says, 'By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin' (Rom 3:20). The revelation which came through Jesus, though, was one in which the sins which the Law made known are forgiven, 'being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus' (v. 24). Christ's revelation builds on the foundation of Moses by solving the problem of which the Law made us aware. 
Geisler's statement summarizes Christianity's view of the Torah, forgiveness of sin and salvation: 
There was no actual forgiveness and true salvation before Yeshua, when people were "under the Law," as all the Law could do was expose sin. 
Forgiveness came only when Jesus arrived on the scene. 
Scripture has something different to say on the subject however, with God Himself making it clear that forgiveness was attainable long before Yeshua's death and resurrection:
Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now and let us reason together says the Lord, Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.
Strong's Concordance shows that there are more references to God forgiving sin in the book Leviticus, than in any other book in the Bible. Perhaps God wasn't serious all those times He told people that their sins were forgiven when they did what He told them to do, in faith?
An argument is made by some that the sacrifices in the "Old Testament" didn't really forgive sin, (even though the words of the Bible say they did). Rather, they merely provided a "covering" for people's sins. Unfortunately, there is nothing in Scripture that supports this idea, or indicates we should not believe what we read when God says their sins were forgiven. Attempts to prove otherwise always stem from pulling verses out of their context. 
For example:
Hebrews 10:4 -- "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin."
The problem here is that this verse is in the specific context of the Yom Kippur sacrifice - not the daily sacrificial system in general. Christianity does not understand the difference between the two and completely misses the point of the letter of Hebrews. (See the section below, "Christianity's Difficulty With the Law," for more about Yom Kippur and the book of Hebrews.)
Another Christian teaching is that until "Jesus' victory at the cross," we were totally powerless against sin. If that is true, why did God tell Cain, the son of Adam, that he could win out over sin:
Genesis 4:7 -- "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."
The fact that people could be considered righteous and blameless in God's sight, before Yeshua's death, is shown as early as Cain (above), through the Tenakh (i.e., David), right up to before Yeshua's birth, where in the "New Testament," Scripture says of the parents of "John the baptist":
Luke 1:6 -- "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
According to Christian doctrine, how could these people be considered righteous, "according to the Law," prior to "Jesus' work on the cross?"
Why did God Give the Torah at Mount Sinai?
If salvation was always attainable by faith from the time of Adam, and the Torah (God's word), was also always in existence (John 1:1), then why did God give the Torah (as we have it in the Bible) to Moses at Mount Sinai?
The short answer is; Out of mercy.
First, recall the days of Noah. Man had become so sinful that God, after first removing the righteous (Torah-observant) people, such as Enoch and Methuselah, spared Noah and seven others to repopulate the earth. However, before He did this, out of mercy, He gave man 120 years to repent. (Genesis 6:1-8) They failed and the flood came. Note that Noah knew what animals were unclean (Genesis 7:2), even though this was well before Moses received the Torah which contained those instructions. Therefore, we know that God's revelation of the Torah, in some way, was given to man from the beginning.
Skip ahead ten generations to Abraham's time. God makes Abraham a promise to inherit certain lands that are presently occupied by evil people. However, God tells him that the time for their destruction has not yet arrived, as they have not reached the fullness of their wickedness (Genesis 15:16). God, out of mercy, gave those people another 400 years to turn from sin back to Him -- which they did not do.
Finally, move forward to the arrival of the Yeshua the Messiah. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son ..." (John 3:16) We all know the rest of that verse. Again, God acts out of mercy. Man has continually strayed from God. Ignorance of God's will, His Torah, is no excuse. That is why God, in the Torah he gave Moses, prescribed sacrifices for sins done in ignorance of the Torah.
God, in His mercy, hasn't destroyed the earth every other generation since Noah, or continually struck individuals with lightning bolts -- though some may have deserved it. Yeshua has been involved here, acting as a propitiation (an advocate or buffer) between God and man -- not only for believers, but also for the rest of the world. (1 John 2:2) Scripture tells us that the Lord's salvation was done at the foundation of the world. The idea of the Messiah's work being "done" thousands of years before His earthly crucifixion and resurrection, may be hard for some to grasp, however God does not work within the concept of time as we relate to it.
To summarize; the Torah at Sinai was given out of mercy and for several related purposes: 
•	To give guidance, as man's sin was getting so bad 
•	To "stir up" sin in man, in that given a "line to cross," human nature will be tempted to do so (Romans 7:7-11) 
•	To make man realize how he falls short of God's holiness 
•	To point man to God, whom he must trust for salvation, as trust in God is "Commandment #1" 
The Torah was also given to show man how to live for God and with your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). The fact that we have faith in Yeshua does not void what the Torah says about HOW to do this. Christianity teaches that we don't have to follow the Torah, as Jesus nullified its specifics by summarizing everything in the two commandments that He gave in this Matthew verse. Instead of following God's revelation (the Torah), Christianity says we now have "liberty from the Law." We now follow something called "the law of love" or "law of Christ." Christianity says we are now "led by the Spirit" and no longer subject to "the Law."As previously outlined, Christianity, in one form or another, teaches that God gave Moses and His people a list of commandments they were to obey perfectly in order to be saved, but as sinful humans, they could not keep these. Therefore, there was no way to "follow the Law" until Jesus arrived to usher in the "era of grace"-- 1300 years later.
According to this theology, God told His people to do something He knew they could not do, with the stipulation that if they failed, they were damned.
Is God a sadist? Of course not. Yeshua Himself said that even we, being evil, treat our children fairly, and that God treats us better than any of us treat our own. Yet some form of this perverse idea is taught throughout Christianity's denominations.
Examine what God Himself said when He gave the Torah:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 -- "For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it.' But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it." 
God Himself makes it clear -- He told His people that the Law was not too hard for them to follow.
Is the Law "a curse" that Yeshua came to do away with? Two frequently cited verses Christianity uses to support the idea that "the Law is a curse," are:
Galatians 3:10 -- For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them."
Galatians 3:13 -- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"
Clearly, there is something called the curse of the Law. But is the Law itself a curse? 
•	First, recall that God gave it so that "it would be well" with His people (Deuteronomy 4:40). 
•	Paul wrote that the Law is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12). 
•	Paul stated that the Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14). 
•	Paul said that he himself delighted in the Law (Romans 7:22-25). 
•	When accused that he might be teaching that the Law was done away, Paul took steps to prove otherwise (Acts 21:21-26). 
On the surface there seems to be quite a contradiction. How can something God gave, which is holy, righteous and good, that Yeshua practiced and upheld (Matt 5:17-20), that "James" (Ya'acov/Jacob is his real name!) said was to be our standard (James 1:22-25), that Paul himself delighted in and also followed, be called a "curse" by Paul?
Part of the problem is a failure to understand and teach the dual nature of the Torah. God Himself alluded to this duality when He gave the Torah:
Deuteronomy 30:15-17a -- "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your hearts turn away so that you do not hear, you shall surely perish ..."
Notice in those verses that "faith" comes before, and is tied directly to, obedience. First, God says He commands His people to "love the Lord" (trust/faith), and then walk in His ways (obey Torah). Next, He says if their hearts turn away (lack of faith) they will perish. God's view of faith is not void of action on our part. It is not a matter of "just believing" in certain facts.
The most famous verse in Judaism is the Shema, found in Deuteronomy 6:4:
Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu Adonai echad.
"Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
"Shema," the first word of the verse, is usually translated "hear," but is a complex word that implies to, "'accept,' implying faith, commitment, and obedience." (10)
Hebrews 3:7-4:2, says Moses and the children of Israel were preached the Gospel in the Wilderness, but they perished. Were they condemned for "failing to follow every point of the Law?" No, It was due to lack of faith. The book of Hebrews says they did not "mix" what they knew to do (the Torah) with faith. Faith in God and following Torah are inseparable.
Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, writes about the purpose of the Torah. He compares it to a tutor to us before faith (11). Yet, he also talks about "the curse" of the Law. One seems "good" and the other "bad." How can this be?
The answer lies with the duality of the Torah and its multiplicity of purpose. One function of the Torah is to show man how sinful he is and that he stands condemned before a righteous God. This is not all the Torah does however! Only by trusting in God for salvation, AND agreeing to walk in His ways, can man escape judgment (1 John 2:4).
What is important to know here is that the Torah itself is not a curse, rather, the curse is but one part of the Torah.
The "curse of the law" AND its function of being "a tutor" (actually, a "guide" or "guardian," literally one who escorts you), apply to those who have not yet placed their faith in God. Christianity incorrectly teaches that when Paul spoke of the Law serving as a guardian before Yeshua, he was saying that it held the Jews, under the Law of Moses, in bondage until Yeshua came and died. (12) This is a biased misreading of the text, as God does not change. What Paul is saying is that in the life of every living person (yesterday and today), the Torah functions as such before they come to Messiah.
After anyone comes to trust in Yeshua, those two particular aspects of the Torah cease. (It being a "guardian" and a curse.) However, Torah's role as God's revelation of how we are to live for Him continues.
The Torah is a way of living for God, so all will be well with you, is the other side of the duality of the Law -- a blessing and guide for us to live, and a revelation of God to us, so that we can draw closer to Him.
The Torah lists 613 direct commandments. According to the Judaism of Yeshua (and today) 365 of these are considered "negative" commandments. You can call these the "thou shall not's." The purpose of these negative commandments is to; a) point out (even to arouse) sin, b) show man he is condemned by his sin, and, c) point him to God for salvation. 
There are 248 "positive" commandments. The purpose of the positive commandments, is to show us the things God wants us to do AFTER coming to faith.
As believers, we are indeed "no longer under the Thou shall not's," BUT ONLY in that they no longer condemn us, as we now trust God for salvation. By "not under the Law," it does not mean we can murder, steal, or break any of God's Torah. It is assumed we no longer do those things as we now trust in God and live for Him. Rather, it means we are no longer under the curse of those negative commandments.
Put succinctly, this is what Paul is teaching throughout his letters: 
Attempting to gain salvation by following the Torah on your own without faith, and inevitably failing at some point, is the "curse of the Law" -- not the Torah itself.
Reading the "New Testament" with this Hebrew understanding of where Paul was coming from, eliminates the conflicts caused by the (false) idea that he made contradictory statements about "the Law." Everywhere he went, Paul preached against the "popular" teaching that you could earn your salvation through legalistic observance of Torah. However, he never taught against Torah being a part of the life of any believer.
Christianity's Difficulty with "the Law"
As mentioned, the Hebrew view of faith is not just "believing" in God, as some teach. Even demons believe in him (James 2:19) and know who Yeshua is (Matthew 8:29). Having repented (teshuvah) in faith, we are now to look at the Torah as our "how-to guide" regarding God's will for our lives. The entire Torah is the "Law of Liberty" we are to live by. (James 1:25; 2:12) We cannot pick and choose which Torah commandments we want to follow either (James 2:10-11). 
Any religion which, under the guise of "liberty," picks what it wants out of the Torah according to its own criteria and rejects the rest, stands in opposition to God's liberty through the Torah. (13)
Herein lies a significant problem with Christian Bible interpretation. When it comes to defining what "faith" is, Christianity pays little heed to the fact that in the Hebrew Bible, including the books of the "New Testament," the Hebrew authors had a different view of what "faith" meant as it was taught in their culture. Their view of "faith" is not the same as what we think of in our 20th century non-Hebrew culture.
You can have the best Greek interlinear Bible in the world, but if you don't put the "New Testament" text back into its first century Hebrew context, you cannot arrive at a correct understanding.
For example, Christianity, particularly the more evangelical Protestant denominations, have difficulty explaining parts of the book of "James" -- especially verses such as:
James 2:24 -- "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." 
If you open a dozen Christian Bible commentaries, you will probably get a dozen "explanations" of this verse. The "Protestant reformer," Martin Luther, had great concerns over the book of "James" being in the Bible, because in his view, it taught works as part of faith. Luther was too immersed in Hellenized Christianity and had such a hatred for the "works" in the Roman church, to understand what this Hebrew writer, (Ya'acov, the brother of Yeshua) was saying. Luther also disregarded Torah because of its "works."
Because of this anti-Torah mindset, the book of "James" (along with the rest of Scripture) continues to be misunderstood. For instance, when "James" makes a POSITIVE reference to the "Law," such as in this verse, it's taught that he can't possible mean the Torah. Take this verse as an example:
James 1:25 -- "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the word, this man shall be blessed in his deed."
The famous Christian teacher and author, J. Vernon Mcgee gives the following explanation of the above verse:
"'The perfect law of liberty.' This is not the Mosaic Law; it is the law of grace. James does not talk about law here in the same sense that Paul does. When Paul talks about the law, he is talking about the Mosaic Law. When James talks about law, it is the law of faith. There is love in law in the Old Testament, and there is law in love in the New Testament." (14)
McGee doesn't offer any evidence to support why he says Paul means one thing and James another. His explanation as to why "James' law" can't be the same as "Paul's law," is based on the standard Christian theological view of "the Law," that being: 
"Paul's Law" is the Law of the "Old Testament" which he taught was done away with in terms of us following it. 
As James is making a "positive" reference to "Law," (us looking into it as our guide) then this "good Law" of James can't be the same "bad law" of Paul's, therefore it must mean something else, something called, "the law of grace." 
Christianity will point to certain "New Testament" verses to "prove" the Law has ended. The aforementioned theology book by Charles Ryrie, on the subject of "The End of the Law" makes these three claims: 
"The Jerusalem Council settled this matter early and clearly (Acts 15) ... Peter described the Law as an unbearable yoke ... they did not try to place the believers under the Law ... they realized the Law had come to an end." 
"In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul even specifies that the part of the Law which was written on stone (the Ten Commandments) was done away. He dares to label the moral part of the Law as a ministry of death and condemnation, but thank God, this has been replaced by the New Covenant which brings life and justification." 
"In Hebrews 7:11-12 ... if the Law has not been done away, then neither has the levitical priesthood, and Christ is not our High Priest today. But if Christ is our High Priest, then the Law can no longer be operative and binding on us." (15) 
Unfortunately, Ryrie's conclusions are arrived at by interpreting Scripture through the same preset anti-Torah bias. An interpretation of the same three verses from a context-sensitive, pro-Torah standpoint, would be as follows: 
Acts 15 -- The Jerusalem Council was called to address the specific issue of Gentiles having to prove themselves through works of the Torah PRIOR to salvation (15:1). The Gospel was now going out to a very pagan Gentile world, and these new believers were coming directly into the faith of Israel through the Messiah, no longer having to "come up through the ranks" of Judaism as Gentiles had before. This was a "new way" of doing things, but it was confirmed by God (15:8). However, it was difficult for many Jews to accept this "instant acceptance of Gentiles," as these converted pagans knew nothing of Torah and brought a lot of terrible practices with them. Once they accepted Yeshua, the Council in fact required these Gentiles to follow certain minimal Torah commands (15:20) in order to fellowship with Jewish (and also other Gentile) believers who already knew and kept Torah. The council gave these basic Torah commands with the understanding that they would learn more of Moses' Torah as they attended Synagogue/Temple. (This is the meaning of Acts 15:21.) Peter's comment in verse 10 is pointing out that if God had commanded perfect Torah observance as a prerequisite to faith, then they all were in jeopardy, as none of them could keep it perfectly prior to faith. 
2 Corinthians 3:7-11 -- Paul does not "label the moral part of the Law, a ministry of death and condemnation." Rather, what he is saying is that only the Spirit of God, received through faith, gives life to the written text of the Torah, which if attempted to be followed apart from the Spirit (in faith), indeed brings death (the curse of the Law). Paul also taught this in Romans chapter 8, saying that those coming to faith, being of the Spirit, are no longer condemned by the Torah -- now saved, they are to follow it. (See the section below, "Is the Torah Realy for Believers?) It is not the Law that is taken away, but the veil (blindness of trying to do Torah without faith) that is removed (circumcised) through trusting in Yeshua. 
Hebrews 7:11-12 -- The book of Hebrews is concerned with a very specific teaching that Christianity is ignorant of. Hebrews shows that Yeshua is the permanent Yom Kippur salvation sacrifice and that His priesthood is part of a heavenly priesthood based in the heavenlies, that began with Adam and was passed through the "first born" (or specifically one more deserving than the first born, i.e., Seth, Shem, Jacob). As such, this aspect of the priesthood, the role of the High Priest (cohen hagadol) at Yom Kippur, has changed. In fact, it has in a sense, reverted back to that of the first born. God's original intention was for the first born of each family to continue acting as a priest, but this was corrupted by the sin of the golden calf and only then given to the Levites. (16) The first Covenant was not in itself corrupt. It was the sin of the people, (who made the promise to follow the Torah), that caused it to be considered corrupt (Hebrews 8:8). The new (renewed) Covenant, is essentially the same Covenant. It is "different" primarily in that it is based not on the promise of sinful men, but on the better promise of the Messiah, whose priesthood is eternal (Hebrews 5:6-9, 7:20-22, 8:6). Yeshua's death did not do away or change other parts of the Torah, including the rest of the sacrificial system (which was/is for reconciliation, NOT salvation). Hebrews is concerned with the salvation sacrifice of Yom Kippur, not the rest of the sacrificial system. Additionally, we are NOT yet in the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31; Hebrews 8:13.) The books of Ezekiel and Revelation show the sacrificial system (other than the Yom Kippur sacrifice) will return during the Millennium when the Temple is back on Mount Moriah and Yeshua again walks the earth, ruling sinful man with a rod of iron. (17) There is no inconsistency in the idea that parts of the Torah were destined to change as the Torah has that "built into itself." For example, Israel received new revelation for when they were in the Land. Another example is found in Numbers 27:1-11, where we see the addition of commands to deal with the situation where a man dies without any sons to inherit. In none of these cases does God take away the Torah. These things are done, as author David Stern states, "Within the framework of one eternal Torah." (18) 
Oddly, Christian author Ryrie acknowledges that the Jewish view of the Law was that of a unit. Speaking of the moral, ceremonial and judicial aspects of the Law, he states:
"Though this threefold division is almost universally accepted in Christian theology, the Jewish people either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it" ... "commands from various parts of the Law were equally binding and the punishment equally severe. The Law was a unit." ... "James approached the Law as a unit. He decried partiality because it violated the law to love one's neighbor as oneself, and this single violation, he said, made the people guilty of the whole Law (James 2:8). He could scarcely arrive at such a conclusion unless the Law were a unit." (19)
Ryrie admits there is a problem understanding how the Law still applies to Christians. His reply is that "the Law of Christ contains some new commands ... some old ones ... and some revised ones." (20)
Ryrie is correct about the unity of the Torah. This then provokes the question; If; a) the Jewish view of the Torah was that of a unit, and, b) Yeshua's own brother "James" taught oneness of the Law in his letter in the Bible, and, c) Yeshua taught the unity of Torah by saying not the smallest part of the Law was done away with by Him -- then how does Christianity defend its position of picking and choosing what is now binding on Christians as part of the "Law of Christ?"
There is no basis for doing so according to the Jewish faith of Yeshua and His early followers. How this theological change came about will be discussed further in this document.
In fact, God does not change. (A popular sentiment heard in churches but not practiced, as the foundation of Christianity is based on the notion that God did change, replacing Torah-observant Israel, as His people, with the non-Torah observant gentile "Church.") 
Torah-based Messianic Judaism is the only "religion" God ever created. It is the faith of Yeshua and the faith of Paul (more properly Rabbi Sha'ul) before AND after his Damascus road conversion. It is the faith of the rest of the "New Testament" writers and the faith of the original Messianic community in the first century. (Also known as Nazarene Judaism.)
Torah-based Judaism has always been a religion of salvation by faith -- "Faith" as defined by the Judaism of Messiah Yeshua, his brothers Ya'acov and Yehuda, and his apostles, Kepha, Mattityahu, Yochanan and Sha'ul -- NOT a 20th century westernized gentile definition.
God Himself directly links the Sabbath of the ten Commandments to His work at the time of creation. He clearly says that it was blessed for that reason (Exodus 20:11). Nehemiah's reference in no way "implies" any such thing. The Hebrews were following the Sabbath before Mount Sinai, as seen in Exodus 16:25-26 and is written about in Jewish literature. 
God makes it clear that Gentiles would one day come into the faith that He established with Israel. The Gentiles were never to have some new faith apart from Israel (Isaiah 54:1-3). Paul reiterates this in Ephesians 2:10-12 where he says Gentile believers are now no longer strangers to the covenant and ordinances of Israel -- and this includes the Sabbath. 
The Sabbath was and is far more than just a "rest day." The statement that "failing to rest" brought strict penalties is inaccurate. Sabbath was and is a day of study, prayer and devotion focused on the coming "Sabbath" we would enter into one day with the Messiah.

The fact that Sabbath was abolished for Sunday is not a sign that "God commanded it." Rather it is a sign that the original Torah-based community and its faith had been pushed aside and that Gentile anti-Semites 
History shows that Sunday worship replacing the Sabbath is a tradition of man, specifically the early Roman church. This was a key subject at the Council of Trent, held in northeast Italy (1545 to 1563). The papal representative, the Archbishop of Reggio, silenced the "scripture only" arguments of Martin Luther and the Protestant "reformers" when he correctly stated:

The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only; they profess to hold the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant's claim that they stand upon the written word alone is not true. Their profession of holding the Scriptures alone as the standard of faith is false. Proof ... The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they truly hold the Scriptures alone as the standard, they would be observing the seventh day as it is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath as enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted, and do practice, the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the (Catholic) Church. Consequently, the claim of Scripture alone as the standard fails and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition as essential' is fully established, the Protestants themselves being Judges." (25)
God Himself says what the relationship of the Gentile who comes to true faith is to the Sabbath and all the Torah:
"Blessed is the man that does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, 'The Lord will surely exclude me from His people.' And let not any eunuch complain, 'I am only a dry tree.' For this is what the Lord says: 'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant -- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve Him, to love the name of the Lord to worship Him, and who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant -- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." (Isaiah 56:2-7)
The book of Revelation confirms this:
Revelation 22:14a -- "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Paul did not change any of these commandments. He himself kept Torah and spoke in favor of it in many places, such as: Acts 16:1-3; 18:18; 20:6,16; 21:17-26; 24:17-18; 25:8; 27:9; 28:17; Romans 3:31; 7:12; 1Cor. 5:6-8; 11:17-34; 16:8.
Most Christian's insight into the Judaism of Yeshua's day is limited to the few glimpses found in the "New Testament," taken apart from its historical context, and interpreted in a non-Hebrew fashion. This is part of the problem. If you have a skewed view of the culture of the times, you will arrive at incorrect conclusions that will contribute to and reinforce false doctrines. No level of grammatical scrutiny can make up for this. Trying to read the English text, solely "in its immediate grammatical context," isn't reliable, as the text of modern Christian bibles has been altered to suit Christian theology.
"Jewish Christians" -- There was no such thing as a "Jewish Christian." That is a modern term. Usage of this term supports the false idea that these first Jewish believers had now gone from Judaism to "Christianity." The earliest reference to the term "Christian" may have been the one commonly recognized as being given to the believers at Antioch (Acts 11:26) by the local Roman ruler, as a derogatory slur. (28) The original Jewish believers in Yeshua remained Torah-observant Jews (Acts 21:20). 
They "called the place they met a synagogue" for one of two reasons. They either were at a synagogue building, or they were meeting somewhere else under the authority of the synagogue. Not only was there no "Christianity" in existence at this time, in fact no "Christian" group could have organized and met, as this would not have been permitted by Rome. The Jews had such permission, as an existing group, under Roman law. (29) Aside from the legal aspect, early believers continued to go to Synagogue, including Gentile converts, as this was the only place the Scriptures were read and where they would learn Torah (Acts 15:21) 
"Renting a synagogue" -- This is an example of how ludicrous ideas can be passed along as "knowledge." It would have been illegal for Jews to rent their buildings out to any new group that was not sanctioned by Rome. Jewish believers in Yeshua had full rights as Jews to continue going to normal synagogue services on the Sabbath. "They met on Sunday ..." This has no basis in fact. Jewish believers in Yeshua continued meeting at synagogue (or the Temple) for Sabbath. Common practice would be havdallah -- meeting in homes after sundown on Saturday to continue discussions and praise from the Sabbath. This explains Paul "preaching until midnight" in Acts 20:7. The first day of the week for Jews (like Paul) began at Sundown at the end of the Sabbath -- Saturday, not "Sunday." Again, they did not "conflict with the meeting of the Jews" because they remained Jews and were still going to Synagogue alongside their Jewish brethren who did not (yet) believe in Yeshua. 
How did we get from this Torah-based Messianic Jewish faith like this ... 
•	And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many tens of thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law (Acts 21:20) 
•	I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. (Acts 22:3) 
•	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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19) 
•	REVELATION 21:1 A new heaven and new earth
First century Rome had its "problems" with its Jewish province in Judea-Samaria. There were a number of skirmishes and two major wars fought in the first and second centuries. With the war that ended in 70 AD, much of the Torah-based Jerusalem-centered Messianic community was killed or scattered.
Two important events occurred around this time: 
James (actually named Jacob/Ya'acov) the brother of Yeshua died. 
The Temple was destroyed. 
This combination of events caused a greater division between the Jerusalem Jews who believed in Yeshua and those who did not. Yeshua's brother, Ya'acov, was actually very instrumental in holding the believing and non-believing Jewish communities together. (30) This fracture in the Jewish community is significant as it pushed those Jews who believed in Yeshua (and also the gentiles who were coming to faith in Yeshua), further away from the rest of Judaism. 
This division gave Gentiles (coming right out of the pagan Roman culture) who had no regard for the Jewishness of their "faith" a louder voice in community affairs and interpretation of Scripture. Anti-Jewish polemic can be found as early as the teachings of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch at the end of the first century. Ignatius spoke out against Gentile Christians having anything to do with Jewish forms of worship and that Jews becoming Christians should stop living as Jews, saying that it was "absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end." (31)
With the war of 132 AD, Jerusalem was literally "plowed under," by the Romans and renamed Aelia Capitolina. Shrines to the Roman gods, Jupiter and Venus, were erected. What little was left of the community of Jewish believers in Yeshua was wiped out and soon replaced with a very Roman non-Jewish "church." Rome went on to wipe out most of Judea, destroying 985 towns and killing over a half million Jewish men. (32) Even more died later from starvation, disease and fire. Rome then passed harsh laws banning worship on the Sabbath, the Jewish (Biblical!) feasts, public Jewish rituals, and reading of Torah. This is part of the reason we went from Saturday to Sunday worship. Jews, including those who followed Yeshua, weren’t allowed within 150 miles of the city. The lineage of Jewish successors to Yeshua and Ya'acov ended and a string of Gentile popes soon followed.
The leadership of this new Gentile "church" was quick to embrace the Roman government's position regarding Jews and was overtly hostile to anything Jewish, including the Torah. Numerous false doctrines were established as early as the second century. Among these were the teachings that "the Law" was actually given as a punishment to the Jews, that Jerusalem had been destroyed and taken from the Jews due to their sin, and that the "Church" had replaced Israel as God's people.
For instance, as early as the second century, we have "Church father" Justin Martyr, saying:
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all your festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart. The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and your cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of your land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observance of the Sabbath as a mark. (33)
In the third century, we have the following opinion from the famous Origen of Alexandria:
We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election. (34)
The attitude of these two "Church fathers" was not an anomaly. The whole of Roman society around the time of Yeshua and Paul was extremely anti-Jewish. One reason being that many Roman families had lost sons in the Jewish wars. Roman intellectuals of the day wrote much derogatory material about the Jews living among them. (35) Roman society was pagan and centered around the worship of many gods. In the midst of this was a Jewish society of around 7 million, (about 10 percent of the Roman population), a very noticeable minority. (36) Jews were despised for their peculiar religious practices and failure to worship the gods of Rome as every other conquered people was forced to do. (37) The new "Gentile Christians" came out of this background and had no regard for anything Jewish. Once the Jewish leadership had been removed, changes were immediately put into effect with little opposition.
Continued anti-Jewish laws passed by the Roman government, assured that there would be "no going back." Constantine, (the 4th century emperor of Rome, who remained a pagan sun worshipper unto his deathbed), claimed to have had "a vision" that led him to "legalize Christianity." This initiated a process that would eventually make paganized Christianity the religion of the Empire. Now, if you were a Jew, and wanted to "believe in the Messiah," you had to publicly renounce all things Jewish and become "a Christian." Any Gentile who joined with the Jews in their worship would be breaking the law and punished. As early as the fifth century, laws were passed preventing Jews from holding public offices and forbidding the building of new Synagogues. (38)
The church councils of the fourth century formulated the doctrines and creeds that Christianity holds to this day. These councils were made up of Gentiles from the same anti-Semitic background as those of the previous two hundred years. Jewish believers who held regard for Torah were barred from attending these meetings, and their positions on the meaning of Scripture with regard to Torah were "overruled." (39) One of the earliest councils ruled that anyone found eating with Jews would be prevented from taking communion so that he would "learn to amend," (40) and that marriage to a Jew would result in excommunication. (41) 
The remaining believers who held fast to the Torah observant doctrines of the original community were mocked and considered at best "weak" in their faith if not in fact heretics.
For example, we have Epiphanius, in the fourth century, stating:
"They [the Nazarenes] have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah... but since they are still fettered by the Law -- circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians." (42)
By the end of the 4th century, anything resembling a "pro-Torah" view of "the faith" had become non-existent in what was now called "Christianity." The Councils of Antioch (341CE) and Laodicea (360CE) prohibited Christians from participating in Jewish rituals. As one modern historian puts it, this was all done to show that Jewish tradition was, "inherently evil, obsolete and irrelevant for practical Christian life." (43)
Faith in Yeshua went from being 100 percent Jewish to 100 percent anti-Jewish in less than 300 years.
All of this laid the foundation for what became the Christian "Church." Persecution of Jews throughout history, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, numerous mass expulsions throughout history, and of course the Holocaust, are all the direct result of the Church's anti-Semitic doctrines.
Nor was any of Christianity's anti-Jewish foundation changed with the "Protestant Reformation" of the 16th century. These "reformers," such as Luther and Calvin, were as anti-Semitic, if not more so, as their predecessors a millennium before them. Martin Luther's writings were a favorite of Adolph Hitler, who acquired many of his ideas on how to deal with Jews from him. (44) The concerns of the "reformers" were solely with what they felt was corruption and abuse of power in the Christian/Catholic church. They had no desire to bring the Church back to the Torah-based Judaism of Yeshua and the apostles. (45)
It is critical to understand the following:
The anti-Semitic ideologies and anti-Torah theologies of the early Church leaders and later Protestant "reformers," established the foundation for all Christian opinion, Catholic and Protestant, to this very day. All "interpretation" of Scripture coming from Christian teachers, authors or institutions, including every Christian Bible translation available and all of their footnotes, every Christian Bible commentary book, study course, Sunday sermon and seminary's teaching curriculum and movies, has been filtered through the doctrines of these men and hundreds of years of compounded error.
                                     YESHUA verses the pharisees
Teachings of YESHUA the Pharisee TALMUDIC Teachings of the Pharisees The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. - Matthew 2:27
 The Sabbath was given into your hands, and you were not given into her hands. - Yoma 85b
 By not doing for others you betray God. - Matthew 25:45
 One who betrays his fellow, it is as if he has betrayed God. - Tosefta Sh'vuot, ch. 3 
Insulting someone is like murder.- Matthew 5:21-22 
One who shames the face of his fellow, it is as if he has murdered him.- Bava Mezia 58b 
Gazing lustfully upon a married woman is akin to adultery.- Matthew 5:28 
One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her.- Kallah, Ch. 1
 God causes it to rain for the wicked as well as for the righteous.- Matthew 5:45 
God causes it to rain for the wicked as well as for the righteous.- Taanit 7a 
Don't do good deeds to be noticed.- Matthew 6:1 Don't do good deeds to be noticed.- Berachot 17b 
Give alms to the poor in secret; let your left hand not know what your right hand does.- Matthew 6:3 
The greatest form of charity is when you give and do not know to whom you give, and the recipient takes and does not know from whom he takes.- Bava Batra 10b 
Do not elongate your prayers.- Matthew 6:7 
One who prays too intensely and too lengthily brings on himself heartache.- Berachot 55a 
Do not worry about where your food will come from tomorrow, or your drink. - Matthew 6:25-31 
He who has what to eat today, and says, "What shall I eat on the morrow?" has little faith. - Sotah 48b
 Each day has enough of its own troubles. - Matthew 6:34
 Each day has enough of its own troubles. - Berachot 9b 
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. - Matthew 5:34-37
 A righteous yes is a Yes; a righteous no is No. - Bava Batra 49b 
Wisdom was given to the babes. - Matthew 11:25 
Prophecy has been taken from the wise and given to the babes. - Baba Batra 12b
 It is much better to lose a limb than for your whole body to go to hell. - Matthew 5:29-30 
Better that one's belly burst than one should go down to the pit of destruction.- Niddah 13b 
Do not be called Rabbi. - Matthew 23:8 Despise the position of Rabbi. - Avot 1:10 
The Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not expect Him. - Matthew 24:44 
Three things come upon a man when he does not expect them: a lost item, the sting of a scorpion, and the Messiah. - Sanhedrin 97a 
Yeshua taught in a parable that they can please the king (God) by pleasing one another. - Matthew 25:40
 One who is pleasing unto other people is pleasing unto God. - Avot 3:3 
Love your enemy. - Matthew 5:43 
They who are insulted but insult not back; who hear themselves reproached but answer not; who serve out of love and rejoice in their affliction--of them it is written in Scripture: They that love God are as the going forth of the sun in its might. - Yoma 23a, Gitin 36b, Shabat 88b
 There will be no marital union in the world to come. - Matthew 22:23-30 
There will be no marital union in the world to come. - Ma'asrot 4:5-6

A comparison of the verses in this table (which is by no means exhaustive) reveals; 
a) Much of what Yeshua said was not "original" 
b) Yeshua directly quoted and supported the teachings of the Talmud 
How then do Christian teachers and authors get away with such false statements as the ones quoted by Mr. Pentecost?
For one thing, who is going to challenge them?
Christians have no need to, as they are comfortable being fed whatever comes from the pulpit that supports what they're told to believe. Jews who do not follow Yeshua certainly have no desire to build a case that supports His Messiahship. Who does that leave to tear away the cloak of deception? Fortunately, God has a remnant, and truth has a way, albeit slowly, of finding its way into view.
Yeshua did criticize some of the Pharisees for not practicing what they preached, for hypocrisy, and for making the "fences" they placed around the Torah greater than the Torah's commands themselves. What Christians don't understand is that vehement criticism was common between the various factions within Pharisaism, and was considered a normal part of discourse.
For instance, the Pharisees themselves noted that not all among themselves were good, in fact saying there were "seven types of Pharisees." (49) As for Yeshua calling some of them names such as "sons of Satan," this was not unfamiliar dialogue among religious Jews at that time. The same term was used by the disciples of Rabbi Hillel to describe a disciple of Rabbi Shammai, just before Yeshua's time. (50)
It is critical to note that Yeshua never rebuked the Pharisees for teaching Torah correctly, a good example being Matthew 23:23. Here Yeshua says to them, "It's fine if you want to add things to your lives that you feel bring you closer to God." (Tithing on dill and cumin were not required by Torah). But He then says, you should keep what the Torah says is required first, then do these optional things." Yeshua did not tell them to stop doing Torah -- He told them to do it right.
Yeshua not only quoted and supported Pharisaic teaching, as seen in the chart above, He also upheld the religious authority of the Pharisees. He told the people to obey the Pharisees, as they "sat in Moses' seat," meaning their authority came from God. (Matthew 23:1-3)
When Yeshua spoke, He often was expressing His opinion on an existing interpretation of the Scriptures, supporting someone else's opinion. Much of Judaism's doctrine was "worked out" before Yeshua's time by the Pharisaic schools of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai. For instance, in Matthew 7:12, we find His famous "golden rule":
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Yeshua is reiterating what Hillel had taught years before:
"What you do not like, do not do to anyone else; this is the whole Torah and everything else is explanation." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabat 31a)
In most cases, Yeshua upheld the teachings of Hillel (who was the grandfather of Gamliel, who instructed Paul). Hillel's opinions were actually considered more "liberal." On rare occasion, such as His ruling on divorce (Matthew 5:31), Yeshua upheld the teachings of Shammai, which taught more to what may be called "the letter of the Law."
Teaching::                                                        Yeshua                                   Hillel
Critical of tithing of plants grown only for seeds;Matthew 23:23                Ma'asrot 4:5-6
Healing by faith on the Sabbath was allowed;     Mark 3:2-4               Tosefta Shabat 7:14
Reached out to sinners and taught them          Luke, Ch. 15         Avot D'Rebbe Natan 3:1

Allowed the handling of an item on Sabbath for
 which there was no need                                       John, Ch. 5             Betzah 26b

The evidence is overwhelming. The Talmud, when compared to Scripture, shows that Yeshua upheld its Pharisaic teachings. Scripture shows He also upheld the Pharisaic authority in religious matters. When properly understood, (bias aside) His criticism of the Pharisees was within the framework of Pharisaic discussion with them as they were always critical of themselves. (This could best be called "a family argument" - the Talmud is loaded with such a wide array of opinions -- it is known as "arguing for the Kingdom," or, "arguing for the cause of HaShem [God].)
History and the Bible show that Yeshua identified Himself as a Pharisee. In fact, when the Pharisees went out to question John the Baptist about who John was, he said that one among THEM (the Pharisees) was the Messiah to come (John 1:26-27). 
Yeshua was a Jew, a rabbi and a Pharisee, who wore tzitzit (Numbers 15:37-41), always upheld Torah, often quoted Talmud, and was Orthodox in His practices. 
Returning to Paul, (properly named Sha'ul), he also read, understood, taught, and wrote about the Hebrew Scriptures and the Hebrew Messiah from a Pharisaic Hebrew mindset. Paul was personally taught by Gamliel -- a Pharisee and the head of the Sanhedrin -- probably for the purpose of taking over the Sanhedrin's leadership, which would have made Paul the equivalent of "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." 
Paul said he was a "Hebrew of Hebrews," a term that means he was not a Hellenistic Jew (Jews that had largely abandoned much of the Torah in order to be "more accepted" in the Greek/Roman culture they lived in). Scripture shows that none of this changed when Paul became a believer -- he remained a Torah observant rabbi and a Pharisee until the day he died. Twenty years into his ministry for Yeshua, he still identified himself as a Pharisee. (Acts 23:6, 26:5) Once you shake off the anti-Jewish mindset that "Pharisee = bad," then the supposed conflict vanishes.
All of this creates a serious problem for those who wish to understand Paul's epistles today.
How can a Christian, reading Paul's letters, in the 20th century westernized, anti-Torah culture and religion that he has been raised and taught in, understand the deep meanings of Second Temple-period Jewish religious texts, written by a first century Rabbi, Pharisee and advanced Torah expert?
And you wonder why Paul sounds so confusing, hard to follow, and even contradictory to many people who read him. For instance, in the Christian Bible commentary, "The Daily Study Bible Series; the Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians," by William Barclay, it says of Galatians 3:19-22:
"This is one of the most difficult passages Paul ever wrote, so difficult that there are almost three hundred different interpretations of it!" 
Peter warned that Paul was hard to understand. Peter also wrote that there would be those who would twist Paul's words to mean something wrong. What kind of people would do that? Peter said these are lawless men (2 Peter 3:17). By "lawless," did Peter mean people who were without Roman law? Of course not. Lawless, in this religious context (understanding Paul's writings and other Scriptures correctly), refers to being without God's Law - the Torah. Peter is saying that those who twist Paul's writings are those who don't have (know/follow) Torah. They will approach these letters, in (often willful) ignorance, and incorrectly interpret them.
This is the legacy of the Christian church. As early as 187, the Christian Bishop Iraneus counted twenty different varieties of Christianity. By the year 384, Epiphanius counted eighty. (55) The lack of grounding in Torah allowed for every heresy to creep in under the guise of "love" and "liberty." The "New Testament" Scriptures warn about this in several places. Of course, no group who thinks they are "right with God," (especially if they are the "dominant voice") would consider themselves to be the false teachers spoken of in these texts.
The Torah has commandments in it that apply only to those living in the land of Israel. It also has rules that apply only to the priests, and others solely for the High Priest. There are instructions for men and others for women -- some to the married versus not married. As mentioned, it also leaves flexibility for amendment based on God's perfect plan. Paul taught in the same way. He also instructed Timothy to "rightly divide" the word of God -- meaning there is a correct way to "sort these things out" -- according to Torah!
Doesn't Paul Teach that We Don't Need to Follow the "Law?"
The first issue to address is that Paul's letters were dealing with specific situations. There were in fact TWO prominent heresies that crept into the early Messianic community in Paul's time. One was the idea that gentiles had to become Jews first, taking on all the Torah before they could be saved. This was the first problem to arise, coming from the "Jewish camp," as they had received the message of Yeshua first. They were still holding on to traditional ideas concerning Gentile salvation. Most Christians are aware of this situation as it is thoroughly taught throughout Christianity, the proponents of which are usually called "Judaizers," although this term is also used in a prejudiced fashion for anyone wanting to bring anything Jewish into their faith.
What is generally not taught in Christianity is the false teaching that later arose from the "Gentile side of the aisle." This was the view that gentiles had no relationship to Torah after they were saved. The background to this problem was completely different than the other one as it had to do with the pagan culture most of the new Gentile converts (outside of Israel) were coming out of. The majority of Christians today have not studied first century history and are unaware that Gentiles coming to faith in Yeshua, (those not already involved with Synagogue/Temple Judaism), were coming directly out of an extremely anti-Semitic Roman society. This is critical to a proper understanding to the Scriptures (especially Paul's letters). Two books that address this subject well are, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, by Louis H. Feldman, and The Mystery of Romans, by Mark Nanos. (56)
Paul was facing two very different types of problems, and it is important to know which he is addressing in his letters. For example, his early letter of Galatians dealt with the former (Jewish) heresy, whereas Romans, dealt primarily with the latter (Gentile) one. (57) 
Three important rules of Bible interpretation are: 
Grammatical/Literary Context 
Historical Context 
Cultural/Religious Context 
Returning to Paul's "opponents" in Galatians. These were recent Jewish converts who had an incorrect or incomplete view of faith/salvation. This is shown in several places including; 2:3-5; 3:1-4; 5:2-11 and 6:12-15. These people were telling new Galatian converts that you had to do certain things for salvation, other than trust in God through Yeshua. They were of the same faction mentioned in Acts chapter 15.
Note however, that these men also had an incorrect idea on what Paul was in fact teaching, accusing him of teaching against the Torah. (58) If ever Paul had the opportunity to show that we no longer had to follow the Torah, this was it -- However, Paul denied the charge that he taught against Torah in the strongest way possible, by taking a Nazarite vow. (Acts 21:21-26) This involved him performing sacrifices and offerings (Numbers 6:1-21)
Paul's message to the Galatians is to remind them of the correct equation: 
Torah-based faith + Nothing Else = Salvation.
This is the same message Moses gave his people in his day.
Paul does discuss "lifestyle" at the end of this letter. In Galatians 5:16-22, Paul makes a comparison between "walking in the spirit" and "walking in the flesh." He defines those who walk in flesh in verses 19-21 (adulterers, fornicators, sorcerers, etc.) What do those all have in common? They are all transgressions of the Torah. They are violators of the "negative commandments" of the Torah.
Because Christianity's interpretation of Scripture is founded on a Greek/western approach and not a Hebrew one, verse after verse in the "New Testament" are stripped from the original context in which the Torah-observant authors wrote them. In place of this, an anti-Semitic, pagan "spin" has been placed on the Word of the God of Israel.
The book of Hebrews says what the generation in the wilderness received was the Gospel (Beh-so-rah') and it was to be followed in faith. (Isn't it interesting that they received the Gospel BEFORE the Messiah died and was resurrected?) The "Old Testament" shows us that what they received was the Torah, that they needed to follow in faith. Thus a connection is made between the Gospel and the Torah.
The Torah = the Gospel = the Word = "memra" (59) = Yeshua = the walking Torah who "tabernacled" among us. (John 1:1-14)
The Word of God is amazingly consistent and interwoven when you interpret it correctly.
The term "tabernacle" (booth) relates to Succot, which is the seventh and "most Messianicly-related" of God's feasts/appointed times (moedim). Recall when Peter saw Yeshua appear with Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:1-13). What did he think and what did he do? He viewed what was happening before his eyes in terms of the Messianic fulfillment of Succot, the "feast of Tabernacles," and immediately wanted to build booths ("succah").
You can begin to see the "big picture" when you put the "New Testament" back in its Hebrew context!
Take another look at what Deuteronomy 30:11:14 says about the Torah/Law:
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it.' But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."
Now read the comparison Paul makes between the Torah and Yeshua in Romans:
"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the goal of the Torah. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them. And the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, 'Do not say in your heart 'Who will ascend into heaven?'' (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.' (that is the word of faith which we preach) ..." (Romans 10:1-8)
The above rendition corrects two terrible mistranslations of the text that appear in almost all Christian Bibles. First, in verse 4, Yeshua (Christ) is NOT the "end" of the Law, (as in "abolishment of the Law.") He is the goal at which the Torah aims (Gk: "telos" = "goal" in this context, not "end"). (60)
Also, the word "But," at the beginning of verse 6, has been replaced with the word "And," (Greek = "de" = "and" in this context, not "but") as this is correct. Paul, instead of showing some type of contrast between Moses/Torah and Yeshua/Grace, reveals a similarity and continuation, as God has not changed. If Paul wanted to draw a contrast he would have used the word "alla" which can only mean "but" which he in fact uses at the beginning of verse 8. (61)
Unfortunately, Christianity is guilty of bias in its translation(s) of the Bible. (62) This is especially true of the "New Testament" -- a term placed in quotation marks throughout this document, as it has no basis in Scripture and promotes the false idea that there was an "old" way (Judaism) before Yeshua, and a "new" way (Christianity) after Him. The "New Testament" writers did not view some new "church" as replacing the faith of Israel.
Not only is the idea of a new entity and faith ("the Church" and Christianity) replacing that of Israel's (Torah-observant Messianic Judaism), contrary to the unchanging Word of God, the word "church" itself is not in the Bible. The Greek word so translated, ekklesia, means "called out ones," not "church." Ecclesia was the same word used by the 70 Jewish rabbis who created the Greek Tenakh -- the "Septuagint," well before Yeshua lived. (The Septuagint is also called the LXX in literary references referring to these 70 rabbis.) (63)
Luke, in the book of Acts, makes it clear that those of Israel who accepted the Messiah of Israel AND followed the Torah, were the "ecclesia." (64)
The translation of "ecclesia" into "church" is completely wrong and is yet another mistranslation used to support a concept alien to what the Scriptures say.
First we have to address the issue of "fluff" -- vague concepts that Christianity teaches such as "Christian liberty," and "the law of love." These terms don't have a precise definition -- they only define themselves in terms of being "not the Law." For instance, commenting on 1 John 2:3, J. Vernon McGee's Christian Bible study series says:
"First of all, let me point out that this verse has nothing to do with the security of the believer. John is talking about assurance. As God's children, we are in a family. But how can we have assurance that we are in God's family? He is telling us that assurance comes by keeping His commandments. "If we keep His commandments" does not refer to the Ten Commandments. John is not dealing with any legal aspects; he is dealing with family matters." (65)
The same commentary says the following about James 2:12:
"The 'law of liberty' is the law of Christ. The Lord Jesus said, 'If ye love me, keep my commandments' (John 14:15). What is His commandment? 'This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.' (John 15:12) (66)
"Assurance," but not "security?" Not God's "commandments," but "family matters?" The same author writes that the Old Testament commandments of the Father are replaced by new ones from "Jesus," such as; "bear ye one another's burdens," rejoice evermore," "pray without ceasing," and "quench not the Spirit."
It is true that following the commandments IS THE BELIEVER'S ASSURANCE that they have God's Spirit in them -- however those commandments are His Torah -- God has not changed. If Yeshua's commandments are not God's commandments, then Yeshua is not God, or we have a divided God. Christianity supplants the Torah with these vague concepts and teaches that the believer is to know what they mean for himself by "following the guidance of the Holy Spirit," thus allowing for multiple interpretations, many of which contradict God's Torah. 
If this teaching isn't the doctrine for itching ears that turns from God's Word, then what is? (2 Timothy 4:3)
The teaching that "we are free from the Torah," is a product of hundreds of years of anti-Semitic theology and is in opposition to Scripture. The "New Testament," when put back into its Hebrew context, says this about the Torah and believers in Yeshua: 
•	Faith does not abolish any part of the Torah as a whole (Matthew 5:17-21, James 2:10) 
•	Keeping the Torah is part of the faith that gets you to heaven (Matthew 19:17; Revelation 12:17; 14:12; 22:14) 
•	You will abide in Yeshua's love, if you keep Torah (John 14:15-23) as He abided in the Father's love by keeping Torah (John 15:10; Hebrews 2:17-18, 4:15) 
•	Faith in Yeshua does not cancel out what the Torah says, it establishes it (Romans 3:31) 
•	Torah is itself "liberty" and the standard we are to judge ourselves by (James 1:22-25) 
•	It is those of the flesh who are not subject to the Torah (Romans 8:5-8) 
•	If you say you know Him, and ignore His Torah, you are a liar (1 John 2:3-7) 
•	It does not matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, what matters is keeping God's Torah (1 Cor. 7:19) 
•	The "law of love" is that we keep his Torah - which is by no means a "burden" (1 John 5:3; 2 John 1:6; Matt. 11:29,30) 
These "New Testament" references to "Torah" might at first confuse people as they aren't used to thinking in these terms. However, when the Jewish New Testament authors, and Yeshua, spoke of law/commandments in a religious context, it must be interpreted as "Torah," unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, as this was what it meant to them in their culture.
This Torah, including the rest of the Tenakh ("Old Testament"), are the Scriptures Paul wrote about to Timothy;
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:17)
There are several important teachings in these three verses: 
Timothy had the Scriptures, since he was a child. This did NOT include the "New Testament." 
God's plan of salvation in the "Old Testament" Scriptures was faith not works. 
The "Old Testament" Scriptures were what was to be used by believers in Yeshua for; doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. 
With the "Old Testament" Scriptures, the man of God is thoroughly furnished. 
Works is inseparable from faith. 
Christianity preaches "Jesus" almost exclusively from the New Testament. Did Paul and the other disciples preach Yeshua using the New Testament? Of course not -- all they had was the Tenakh. This is not diminishing the books of the New Testament which are indeed Scripture. The point is that the Torah, which is the Word of God, came first, and nothing can contradict it or it is to be rejected.
Torah is the foundation for properly interpreting the teachings of the "New Testament" -- NOT the other way around.
Every book of the "New Testament" was written by a writer with a Messianic Hebrew mindset with the assumption that it would be read and/or taught by someone with the same Messianic Hebrew mindset. Thanks to 1900 years of anti-Torah theology, this is no longer the case. The result is the false teachings about Torah and the "New Testament" that define Christianity.
The verses in the Tenakh (Old Testament) that point to the return of the Messiah and the "millennium," all show Torah observance. 
•	The sacrificial system (for reconciliation, NOT salvation) returns. (Ezekiel 45:13-20) 
•	The nations don't come to do Christmas in Jerusalem, they come to do Succot. (Zechariah 14:16-19) 
•	Believers are going to be priests in the Kingdom -- you cannot be a priest and disregard Torah. (Hebrews 7:12) 
•	The priests are all dressed in the 4 garments of the High Priest, reflecting a continual state of Yom Kippur. (Ezekiel 44:17-18 - Also see Exodus 28, Leviticus 16:4) (67) 
•	Men will take the tzitzit (fringes or tassels) of a Jew in that day and say "take me to the Lord." (Zechariah 8:23) 
•	The Millennium itself is the fulfillment of what the weekly Sabbath points us to. 
In Isaiah 61:3 (the portion Yeshua read part of in Luke 4:16-21) it speaks of the Messiah, in the Millennium, calling His people "trees of righteousness." This term is a Jewish euphemism for being Torah observant. Revelation chapter 22 reflects the same idea, where "tree of life" also represents Torah. As mentioned earlier, Revelation places a stipulation on those hoping to enter New Jerusalem -- they are the ones who kept his Torah:
Revelation 22:14a -- "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Outside the city are those who violate Torah (Rev. 22:14b).
Christianity has had its way for a long time, reinterpreting the verses of the both the "Old" and "New" Testaments in an anti-Torah, "Greek" mindset, to mean something other than what they say.
We are saved by faith alone -- but this faith, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, (both "Old" and "New" Hebrew Testaments) is a trusting relationship that is inseparable from following God's word on how we are to live -- His Torah. Yeshua Himself is inseparable from the Torah, as He is its goal and fulfillment -- the "walking Torah."
This teaching is consistent through the "New Testament" when interpreted correctly. Paul himself says if you are a Gentile who has chosen to follow the Messiah -- welcome to the Torah of Israel! (Ephesians 2:10-12)