Making Sense of Scripture's 'Inconsistency'

AGAIN with the justification! No one is arguing that there is justification in works.

Ah yes .. Someone who admits they believe in stoning. Thats what muslims believe also.

I believe that YHWH established the Torah as immovable and eternal. I can't pick and choose.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Right! Now you are catching on...

Catching on? I have believed that most of my life. You must be jewish. I have never known a jew that believed that we should be stoning people.

Such beliefs as Everyone *ever and always* has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began. are not in the belief system of any born-again Christian that I ever met, read, or read about. It sounds more like Universalism to me.

I see what you are getting at. Let me retract and reiterate:

Everyone *ever and always* who has been saved, has been saved by grace through faith, imputed as righteousness... to include every soul since the world began.

The point I was making is that no one, even from the very beginning, has been saved by anything other than the blood of Yeshua. The atonement system prior to Yeshua was temporary, as the Torah declares, waiting for a better blood than that of sheep and goats. The cross is like a pebble droped in a lake, echoing back through history as much as forward - So the purpose of Torah has never been about justification/salvation. That is not it's job.

I am not a universalist, albeit that I hope that the blood of Yeshua is far more powerful than we can imagine... After all, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess... But, as we have it now, I cannot endorse universalism at all.

So, if you don't mind sharing, could you mention the name of the religious organization (denomination?) where you worship. Also, if you don't mind, how you came to be "born-again"?

My classic education was Christian Reformed/Dutch Reformed, and my technical membership is Presbyterian OPC, though I am not much of a Calvinist anymore. Worship wise, I am going to a non-denom praise oriented Evangelical church, but study-wise I fit better with Hebrew Roots Christians and Messianic Jews.

My conversion was really rather uneventful - not any great story in that - That particular time, I got pulled hard into the Bible in my mid 20's, with an intensity that caused me to fast and drop everything else... I was convicted while reading in John, and the Spirit fell upon me soon thereafter. That isn't perfectly right, as I had felt stirrings of the Spirit in my youth... but that particular occasion is where it took.

Thank you for the clarification.

I can agree with that, although I find the OT ceremonial law to be unnecessary.

We’ll find out one day.

Catching on? I have believed that most of my life. You must be jewish. I have never known a jew that believed that we should be stoning people.

no I am not Jewish (to my knowledge).

So what, do you think YHWH didn't mean it?

“Do you really believe Paul is talking about Torah,”

He talks about the “law,” calls circumcision profitless, and even quotes Deuteronomy earlier in the epistle:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I don’t think he’s talking about the Code of Hammurabi.

“LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite”

You’re certainly free to “strive,” but it doesn’t actually make you better than anyone else or profit you in any way. You already told me that doing what you do does not justify you, and I doubt that you are going to get extra-heaven by avoiding bacon. It makes no difference what you eat or don’t eat, or whether you are circumcised or not. It’s just foolishness to think that you are pleasing God with works that were not even commanded for you to obey.

“Which ‘religious acts’ are considered vain by YHWH?”

All the ones beyond that which He now commands:

1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

“Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses...”

The Pharisees weren’t writing the Acts of the Apostles. Luke was. And Christ Himself always differentiated between the law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. If Luke actually meant “you are still required to be circumcised and to live under the law of Moses, but it is only the tradition of the Pharisees we deny,” then he would have said so. Otherwise, what follows would be 2,000 years of Christians not following all the regulations and commandments not reinforced in the New Testament... which, by the way, is exactly what happened.

“So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.”

According to Gill:

“In Beza’s most ancient copy, and in three other manuscripts, and in the Complutensian edition, it follows, “and whatsoever ye would not have done to yourselves, that do ye not to another”; in like manner the Ethiopic version also reads, as in Act_15:20 “from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well”; it will be doing a good thing, and make for the peace of the churches; in Beza’s most ancient copy it is added, “born”, or “moved by the Holy Ghost”: being influenced and assisted by him in this, and every good work:”

I don’t think any of the Gentiles actually had a problem with fornication though. It seems more like a list of sins associated with Gentiles specifically, for to appease the Jews. The ending conclusion, nevertheless, is that “no such commandment” was given to obey the laws and regulations of Moses, and no such commandment is then given.

“Isn’t that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision)”

Just your assertion. The scripture has Paul condemning Peter for his hypocrisy, since he “lived like a Gentile,” and dissimulated with the Jews who desired to have the Gentiles “live like Jews.”

” How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a ‘doctrine of devils’? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom?”

Because the old Covenant is no longer in force, and the New One is now what we are under.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

To command us to go back to what which is now obsolete, and already fulfilled in Christ perfectly, is a doctrine of devils.

“Which foods did YHWH create to be received?”

That’s an easy one, despite your sophistry:

1Ti_4:4 For EVERY creature of God is good, and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Otherwise it be pretty stupid of Paul to advise Christians to eat whatever is placed before them, asking no questions:

1Co_10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

I don’t think Pagans who might offer you food sacrificed to idols are known for keeping Kosher.

“No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.”

Which doesn’t explain:

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Nor the actions of the Apostles, who were not “in their own place”, but were picking food in the field:

Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Compare:

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

If Christ is LORD of the Sabbath, then He may do with it as He pleases, and is not servant to the Sabbath, as you would pretend. To this the Pharsees even agreed, though they would not count Jesus as the Messiah in their hypocrisy.

“There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day.”

You still have six other days to account for:

Jos 6:13 And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
Jos 6:14 And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.

“I am not lording anything over anyone.”

You just got done telling me how you are “striving to serve the Lord,” by not eating bacon and such, because, apparently, that is so holy. That’s called Lording.

“I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?”

It WASN’T there. Your inference is not a quote.

“A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah.”

There is no such thing as a “Noahide” law. It is an invention of Jewish tradition, which you did not like earlier when I quoted Kimchi.

“You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles.”

I’ve not taken the verse out of context. Compelling people to “live like Jews” is not referring to Jews eating with Gentiles, all of whom, if you are to be believed, were keeping Kosher anyway. To say that you are “living like a Gentile,” but are asking Gentiles to “live like Jews” is in reference to the believing sect of Pharisees who required obedience to circumcision and the dietary and other laws.

Your sophistry is profound.

no I am not Jewish (to my knowledge). So what, do you think YHWH didn't mean it?

OK. So you must not be a jew or a christian. Christians know that the law was there to expose sin since no one can fulfill the law. The law points to the need for a savior. Jesus Christ came and is our savior. With Christ we are not bound by the law. Christ did point to the need to honor the commandments and many things in the OT however stoning certainly is not one of them nor other petty requirements pertaining to food etc outlined in the torah. Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I see you are familiar with that.

So, yes God meant it in the OT for the reasons stated above. However we should not be stoning people. We should be encouraging them to repent and come to Christ. Hope that helps. Cheers.

A subject near and dear to my heart. So many "churched" in the Mainlines--and in university--have been tragically been taught, and swallow, the inconsistency argument. It is almost always used, as Keller says, as a defense of homosexual behavior...so as to try to muddy the ethical water for ignorant, casual Christians (like so many actually are.)

While on the main Keller's right-on here, I think he himself muddles the important logical element of covenant theology which clarifies the consistency of Scripture even more.

The nation of (theocratic/covenantal) Israel is kaput--since 587 BC no less, hence the civil penalties of the law do not, and never have, been applicable to Christians--or anyone under the New Covenant. With the re-establishment of the monarchy in the Messiah Jesus, the New Covenant completely takes over, and the OT moral law is properly understood as the right response of an already saved people loving God, and loving neighbor.

Following OT law--NOT civil (as Israel is kaput) and NOT ceremonial (since Jesus fulfilled all those sacrificial/blood obligations and, God is making one people, no longer segregated by diet/custom/ethic boundaries)--rather MORAL (since God is still holy, and created morality for our good) is NOT based on the simplistic idea that if it is repeated in the NT it applies to us (contra Keller). That's a general principle that usually works...but a more correct approach is that OT moral teachings do now, and have always applied...but the Gospel puts the Law in its proper role of not saving us, rather guiding our Holy Spirit empowered love, once we are born again.

There are several specific OT moral prohibitions (bestiality, and incest for example) which are not actually specifically repeated in the NT, rather are assumed as wrong. (Yes I know legal incest was the issue in 1 Corinthians, but even then it is approached obtusely--with Paul expressing horror that they didn't grasp the obvious evil of it).

This is why it is important to know the whole bible--as the Old Covenant (OT) laws DO actually apply to us--in their moral codes, and should not be disdained as "oh, that's in the OT" as many ignorant (even evangelical) Christians approach them today. The NT ASSUMES a thorough knowledge of, and acceptance of the normative authority of....the OT. A sloppy approach of "only if it's in the NT does it apply" approach leads to compromising and crude ethics.

On a relatively minor issue for example, acceptance of the normative authority of OT law would avoid confusion amidst Christians today: Tattoos.

Rejected by the Church for 2000 years on the basis of one tiny OT (only) proof text: "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD." (Lev 19:28), none the less many Christians enthusiastically embrace the tattoo trend today. Interestingly "I am the LORD." is the reasoning in Leviticus..ie, God owns (even) our bodies.

Paul reiterates and elaborates the principle in 1 Cor. 6:19,20: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."

Paul in context is calling for sexual purity. However purity for the body isn't limited to sexual activity.

Without an acceptance of the normative authority of OT ethical/moral commands, and therefore an ignorance of the OT--even over something as minor as tattoos--evangelicals today skate right over NT commands elaborating on the principle of God's ownership of our bodies, and do graffiti on the temples of God.

Who exactly is “Chist” I wonder....?

More of a what.

According to the Urban Dictionary:

1. Chist
A chist is a conditon caused by fatness. It’s when one’s chin extends down into the chest and becomes a single entity, a jiggling indistinguishable sloping mass of lard.
Alfred Hitchcock is perhaps a classic example of a chist. Also various facebook [deleted] (trollops) attempt to nullify or hide their chists by placing the camera above the head, looking upwards and then taking a picture from an aerial point of view using extensive lighting tricks to further obfuscate any other forms of facial fuglyness.

Thanks for posting this article. I made copies for my sons to give to friends. A great read!

[roamer_1:] Do you really believe Paul is talking about Torah,

He talks about the “law,” calls circumcision profitless, and even quotes Deuteronomy earlier in the epistle:

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Note that he speaks of the works of the law, and not the law istelf...

[roamer_1:] LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite”

You’re certainly free to “strive,” but it doesn’t actually make you better than anyone else or profit you in any way. You already told me that doing what you do does not justify you, and I doubt that you are going to get extra-heaven by avoiding bacon. It makes no difference what you eat or don’t eat, or whether you are circumcised or not.[...]

Funny, that... As firstly, Yeshua covered the curses of the law, but all of the blessings remain... And Yeshua himself describes that those who DO and TEACH the law are greater than those who break it in the Kingdom (Matt 5:18-20), so yes, there ARE 'extra heaven points', albeit that 'points' are not the point...

It’s just foolishness to think that you are pleasing God with works that were not even commanded for you to obey.

But that is the point exactly - Yes, we ARE commanded to do and teach Torah, by the Master Himself - and those words indelibly trump your interpretation of Paul.

[roamer_1:] Which ‘religious acts’ are considered vain by YHWH?

All the ones beyond that which He now commands:

An impossibility - Your interpretation neglects the fact that He comanded his disciples to do and teach Torah - And neglects that Torah cannot be changed (added to or taken from). Does YHWH change?

[roamer_1:] Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses...

The Pharisees weren’t writing the Acts of the Apostles. Luke was. And Christ Himself always differentiated between the law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. If Luke actually meant “you are still required to be circumcised and to live under the law of Moses, but it is only the tradition of the Pharisees we deny,” then he would have said so.

You misunderstand me - and Luke DID do so - Perhaps a study of how strangers were treated in the Torah would be enlightening. There is only one law, for the stranger or the Hebrew, but a new convert was not expected to be law abiding right off the get-go. It is Pharisaical tradition that demands it. The Torah infers that the convert must necessarily keep the Noachide covenant, and learn the rest on the way. Absorption by assimilation is the thing. It was the unessesary strictures that I was pointing to.

Otherwise, what follows would be 2,000 years of Christians not following all the regulations and commandments not reinforced in the New Testament... which, by the way, is exactly what happened.

That is not precisely true - But then one has to look outside of Rome to find the remnant. It was many decades before Christians were ousted from the synagogues, and that alone should give one pause in considering your statement. Christianity's root is not Rome.

[roamer_1:] So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.

I don’t think any of the Gentiles actually had a problem with fornication though. It seems more like a list of sins associated with Gentiles specifically, for to appease the Jews. The ending conclusion, nevertheless, is that “no such commandment” was given to obey the laws and regulations of Moses, and no such commandment is then given.

No, it parallels (in part) the commandments given in the Noachide covenant... Those laws commanded (directly or inferred) from Noah to Abraham, and including the Edenic and Adamic covenants... These covenants are undoubtedly for everyone, as everyone is a son of Noah.

[roamer_1:] Isn’t that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision)

Just your assertion.

No. Any reasonable chronology of Acts puts Acts 10 at the least around AD 39/40, about a decade out... and in the 'meats and sheets' vision, Peter declares he has not eaten any unclean thing (acts 10:14). So at least to that point, Peter has kept Kosher. And it should not go without notice that Peter's conclusion w/ regard to the vision has nothing to do with disobeying Torah.

The scripture has Paul condemning Peter for his hypocrisy, since he “lived like a Gentile,” and dissimulated with the Jews who desired to have the Gentiles “live like Jews.”

Right! Show me in the Torah where Jews were to separate themselves from the stranger... Again, it is Jewish tradition that is on point here - There you will find that separation in spades. The Hebrews were supposed to be set apart - but their tradition turned that into a vicious racism that was never intended... That is what Paul is pointing out.

[roamer_1:] How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a ‘doctrine of devils’? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom?

Because the old Covenant is no longer in force, and the New One is now what we are under.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

To command us to go back to what which is now obsolete, and already fulfilled in Christ perfectly, is a doctrine of devils.

Indeed the old waxeth and is ready to pass away... But has heaven and earth passed away? Or is everything fulfilled in the Torah and the Prophets? Because otherwise, the 'old' is still in force. And it matters not, as the Great Prophet who heralds in the new declares that we are to keep the old too - which is perfect in alignment with how Torah has been delivered all along - The early covenant subsumed and included in the next.

Which foods did YHWH create to be received?

That’s an easy one, despite your sophistry:

1Ti_4:4 For EVERY creature of God is good, and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

So cannibalism is cool now? Poisonous meats?

Otherwise it be pretty stupid of Paul to advise Christians to eat whatever is placed before them, asking no questions:

1Co_10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Wow. SO out of context.

I don’t think Pagans who might offer you food sacrificed to idols are known for keeping Kosher.

So what? I go to social functions all the time. And I eat there. Do I try to maintain kosher? Sure. But if I happen to eat a piece of bacon by mistake, it isn't going to kill me. If I find out the gumbo has a few shrimp in it, I am not going to die. I try to keep Torah because I love YHWH. And the argument almost throughout wrt meat from idols is about unknowingly eating them, because after the sacrifice, the meats were sold at the market. Folks were worried about that.

1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

[roamer_1:] No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.

Which doesn’t explain:

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Sure it does. Those who are doing the work of YHWH and need to work on the Sabbath to do it are not to be blamed. Never have been,

Nor the actions of the Apostles, who were not “in their own place”, but were picking food in the field:

So what, it is your assumption that one cannot even leave one's house on the Sabbath? or move from the very spot one found ones self at sundown? How absurd. People went to Temple on the Sabbath. People returned home. Your view on this is horribly skewed.

If Christ is LORD of the Sabbath, then He may do with it as He pleases...

And he did - He kept it. Perfectly. And He is our example. THAT He is Lord of the Sabbath is a great point, Because if He is God, as you say, and if God established the Sabbath FOREVER at Creation (long, long before there was a Jew), and God never changes...

There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day.

You still have six other days to account for:

For what? Because they did as they were instructed specifically to do? Your idea of what the Sabbath is for is completely unfounded. It is to be a delight, not a burden.

[roamer_1:] I am not lording anything over anyone.

You just got done telling me how you are “striving to serve the Lord,” by not eating bacon and such, because, apparently, that is so holy. That’s called Lording.

You are assigning a motive without cause. Only YHWH is holy.

[roamer_1:]I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?

It WASN’T there. Your inference is not a quote.

To be sure, it is there:

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Again I ask, why is that thought inserted into the text?

[roamer_1:] A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah.

There is no such thing as a “Noahide” law. It is an invention of Jewish tradition, which you did not like earlier when I quoted Kimchi.

Baloney. Gen 9:9 is a covenant, with direct commandments preceding it. Those, certainly, are of the Noachide covenant, if no others. The rest are inferred from those (strangled meats are eating blood, for instance), endorsed inclusions from the Edenic and Adamic covenants, or are directly commanded before the time of Abraham, where the next covenant revelation begins.

[roamer_1:] You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles.

I’ve not taken the verse out of context. Compelling people to “live like Jews” is not referring to Jews eating with Gentiles, all of whom, if you are to be believed, were keeping Kosher anyway. To say that you are “living like a Gentile,” but are asking Gentiles to “live like Jews” is in reference to the believing sect of Pharisees who required obedience to circumcision and the dietary and other laws.

No the verse is directly speaking to Peter setting himself apart among the Jews, which is Jewish TRADITION, and against Torah.

OK. So you must not be a jew or a christian.

Thankfully, i think that the qualification is above your pay grade, as it is above mine. But logic would dictate that a 'Christian' is one who follows Christ. And Yeshua (Christ) said to do and teach Torah... Explicitly.

Christians know that the law was there to expose sin since no one can fulfill the law.

That is not precisely true - Look at it from the reverse - If the fulfillment of the law negates it's purpose, then there is no more any sin, since the Torah is the definition of sin. Every time the New Testament speaks of sin, or wickedness, or iniquity, it is by definition pointing the reader right back at the Torah. So it cannot be done away with.

The law points to the need for a savior. Jesus Christ came and is our savior. With Christ we are not bound by the law.

All true. But If we love YHWH, we will keep His commandments. We are no longer bound by the curses of the law. we are bound by our love of YHWH, and our desire to keep the Torah (instructions) of His House.

Christ did point to the need to honor the commandments and many things in the OT however stoning certainly is not one of them nor other petty requirements pertaining to food etc outlined in the torah.

That cannot be true - The Torah cannot be added to or taken from. It is ONE THING. ANYONE who adds to or takes away from Torah is a false prophet.

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I see you are familiar with that.

Yes. And as I said, one might better understand the passage if one understands who has the right to cast the first stone (according to Torah), and what happens if they didn't cast it... In that you will find YHWH's intention wrt mercy. You might also note that Yeshua did not deny her crime, nor her death sentence... He pointed out that those accusing her were not qualified to stone her... Read the Torah with that in mind, and you will find something beautiful.

“You misunderstand me - and Luke DID do so - “

Merely an assertion already disproved by the direct wording of the scripture, and you did not even reply to what you were quoting of me, but just repeated yourself. You then went forward to assert things that are nowhere explained or taught in the scripture, in effect, claiming that the Christians followed Jewish tradition after all... even though you wanted me to believe that when Luke wrote “we gave no command for you to follow the law of Moses,” he actually meant “tradition.”

It does rather seem that you only say that which is convenient, but not that which is logical or scriptural.

“Indeed the old waxeth and is ready to pass away... But has heaven and earth passed away? Or is everything fulfilled in the Torah and the Prophets? Because otherwise, the ‘old’ is still in force.”

In other words, the old has not “waxed away,” and, thus, the words of Paul have no meaning in your world. But Christ is indeed the end of the law, the fulfillment of it, the full consummation of it, not just of its penalties, but by delivering righteousness and completion of the law to all those who believe:

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Such was His purpose, to fulfill the law entirely:

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

And this does not merely say, “okay, the law does not make you righteous, but you must still be obedient to every jot and tittle,”:

Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Now is circumcision commanded in the law, or isn’t it? And if it is commanded, and is a jot and a tittle, what does it mean that Christ justifies those who are uncircumcised, and are never to be circumcised?

Christ did not die for us so that we should be circumcised, or to follow those laws which have absolutely no effect on our righteousness, but so that we may be complete in Him, “circumcised without hands,” fulfilling the law perfectly by putting on Christ Himself, and obeying the law spiritually, and not carnally:

“And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
(Col 2:10-17)

Now if the body is of Christ, what is there to do but to put Him on, and be “completed” in Him by faith, and not by the works of the law? Hence the Apostle justly concludes that we are not to let anyone judge us in regard to meats and drinks, as you vainly would, or in respect to holydays, as all these were mere “shadows,” but the fulfillment is in Christ, by whom we are completed, and this, spiritually, and never carnally, but as “new creatures” no longer under the law, under the “letter of it,” which profits nothing.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

“So cannibalism is cool now? Poisonous meats?”

I’d call you a Pharisee, but not even they said something that absurd as when Christ said ‘Whatever that is without a man cannot defile him. What leaveth a man is what defiles him.”

I don’t think either Christ or Paul were thinking of cannibals, but of the Jewish dietary laws only, which is the only thing relevant. All of which are abolished, since:

“For it [whatever the Jewish law forbade] is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” And what is there that is unclean, that the power of God cannot make clean entirely through thanksgiving and prayer?

“Note that he speaks of the works of the law, and not the law istelf...”

Note that you are a sophist, since Paul speaks of both the law, and the works of the law, which you conveniently ignore.

“That is not precisely true - But then one has to look outside of Rome to find the remnant.”

There was no remnant, in 2,000 years, of Christians getting circumcised, keeping dietary laws, keeping Jewish practices and holydays, all of which are vain and worthless, and I have the entirety of history on my side, from the earliest time. You have only a conspiracy theory.

“So at least to that point, Peter has kept Kosher.”

So it follows then, that when Paul said that he “lives as do the Gentiles,” he no longer was keeping Kosher.

“So what? I go to social functions all the time. And I eat there. Do I try to maintain kosher? Sure.’

Notice though that, after saying it was “out of context,” you do not discuss the context, and then ignore the import of the passage since, we are not to “keep Kosher” at all, since “all things are lawful to me” in the eating of meats and drinks, and the fear isn’t for us at all, but for the salvation of others, not for our “conscience” sake, but theirs, since “for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?”

How then do you conclude that Paul was actually concerned with keeping Kosher, when he asserts his liberty to eat whatever he likes?

Not only do you not bother with the context, but you do not even read any of the text at all.

These are demonic doctrines, all those who teach these abominable and absurd things. Go and keep your Kosher and fantasize that God is pleased with your work. We’ll see who gets to heaven. The guy who eats the bacon, or the guy who thinks he fulfills the law through abstaining of it.

Merely an assertion already disproved by the direct wording of the scripture, and you did not even reply to what you were quoting of me, but just repeated yourself.

Nonsense.'

You then went forward to assert things that are nowhere explained or taught in the scripture, in effect, claiming that the Christians followed Jewish tradition after all...

No, they did not follow Jewish Tradition. They kept Torah. And they DID continue to do so, even beyond the rise of Rome, persecuted right alongside of the Jews as 'Judaizers' by the Roman church... But that aside, this same Paul is seen hurrying to Jerusalem in order to keep Passover, and is seen shaving his head in front of the Temple (ending a Nazarite vow). He is seen teaching in synagogues on the Sabbath - So either he is a flaming hypocrite, or what you think he says is not what he is saying.

The same goes for Peter keeping Kosher.

[...] even though you wanted me to believe that when Luke wrote “we gave no command for you to follow the law of Moses,”

He wrote no such thing. Yours is an argument from silence, just as mine - The difference is that mine recognizes the Noachide law being partially administered, and I understand that those converts are going to be hearing Moses in the synagogues, which lends a great deal to the passage...

It does rather seem that you only say that which is convenient, but not that which is logical or scriptural.

meh.

In other words, the old has not “waxed away,” and, thus, the words of Paul have no meaning in your world. But Christ is indeed the end of the law, the fulfillment of it, the full consummation of it, not just of its penalties, but by delivering righteousness and completion of the law to all those who believe:

Right... the 'end'... height, pinnacle. THE EXAMPLE. The one to be emulated. That is what disciples do, you know - They emulate their Rabbi. and your Rabbi keeps Torah perfectly.

And Paul has plenty of meaning to me. But I don't see what you see - Especially with John seemingly saying the direct opposite. And MOST especially because the Master, in His public life, lived out the exact opposite. And after all, He is the example. So if I temper Paul's words, it is only because I see them differently than you. What he is saying is governed by what he can't be saying, because as a disciple of Yeshua, he cannot gainsay His words. His private revelation cannot gainsay the very public message, nor can it trump the Torah and the prophets.

That does not change Paul's words, but it changes their meaning profoundly. And it aligns him with Yeshua, John, and the Torah, and the Prophets, all of whom must be outright ignored to obtain the 'plain meaning' that you have extracted to deliver to me.

The Christians are supposed to have the Torah of YHWH written on their hearts. How is it that what is written (according to their practices) does not resemble Torah, but rather 'without Torah' as it seems you have transmitted. You accuse me of practicing the doctrine of demons because I try to keep Torah - 'Without Torah' is called lawlessness and iniquity, even by Yeshua. which then, is the doctrine of demons?

Now is circumcision commanded in the law, or isn’t it?

Yep.

And if it is commanded, and is a jot and a tittle, what does it mean that Christ justifies those who are uncircumcised, and are never to be circumcised?

It is the circumcision of the heart that matters, and that has ALWAYS been the case. There has NEVER been justification by circumcision, anymore than there is justification by baptism (which is why infant baptism is necessarily absurd, btw). The very SAME legalism applies. Neither is there baptism or non-baptism, but rather, the baptism of the heart, convicted of sin. Without that, you are just taking a bath. Likewise, cutting the flesh of the penis has no bearing at all unless the heart knows it's worth.

Christ did not die for us so that we should be circumcised, or to follow those laws which have absolutely no effect on our righteousness, but so that we may be complete in Him, “circumcised without hands,” fulfilling the law perfectly by putting on Christ Himself, and obeying the law spiritually, and not carnally:

Exactly, though according to you, there is no resemblance to Torah in 'keeping the law spiritually'. That is as inconsistent as it can be.

Now if the body is of Christ, what is there to do but to put Him on, and be “completed” in Him by faith, and not by the works of the law? Hence the Apostle justly concludes that we are not to let anyone judge us in regard to meats and drinks, as you vainly would, or in respect to holydays, as all these were mere “shadows,” but the fulfillment is in Christ, by whom we are completed, and this, spiritually, and never carnally, but as “new creatures” no longer under the law, under the “letter of it,” which profits nothing.

Exactly right. Do as Yeshua does. Put Him on. Don't let anyone judge you for eating what He ate, Do as He does. Don't follow pagan holidays (like christmas and easter, valentines day and halloween), do as He does, following YHWH's 'rehearsals' of good things to come... Now you are getting it.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Right - but as John says, if we love him we will keep His commandments, among which is the explicit commandment to do and teach Torah - Not the letter thereof, but the spirit thereof...

I’d call you a Pharisee, but not even they said something that absurd as when Christ said ‘Whatever that is without a man cannot defile him. What leaveth a man is what defiles him.

But you said it said ALL meats. Just showing you the absurdity of that notion. Even science stands behind YHWH's words - Split-hooved Ungulates are the very best meats, Fish with scales are far less susceptible to retaining toxins... etc. A man's spirit is not defiled by eating pork, but the health of his physical being certainly can be compromised. That is what kosher seems to be for, and that is what Yeshua is pointing out.

I don’t think either Christ or Paul were thinking of cannibals, but of the Jewish dietary laws only, which is the only thing relevant. All of which are abolished, since:

“For it [whatever the Jewish law forbade] is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” And what is there that is unclean, that the power of God cannot make clean entirely through thanksgiving and prayer?

LOL! So then a Christian can follow ANY dietary law EXCEPT the hated TORAH of DEM JOOOOS! Do you hear yourself?

Look, I don't have to eat pork and shellfish to prove I am Christian. To the contrary, I will rely upon the wisdom of the Father, and consider 'food' that which HE tells me is good food. And according to the Torah (and not the Jewish Tradition), and the normal American diet, that mainly means cutting out pork and shellfish, and the addition of using the oils of plants as medicine. And my health has increased since I began to keep Torah, the blessings the Father promised are true, at least as evidenced in me.

Note that you are a sophist, since Paul speaks of both the law, and the works of the law, which you conveniently ignore.

But always in the matter of justification - Which has never been it's purpose (which is ultimately what he is pointing out). And again, to keep your interpretation of Paul, it is at the expense of John, and of Yeshua Himself.

There was no remnant, in 2,000 years, of Christians getting circumcised, keeping dietary laws, keeping Jewish practices and holydays, all of which are vain and worthless, and I have the entirety of history on my side, from the earliest time. You have only a conspiracy theory.

That simply isn't true - The Nazarenes were the remnant of the Jerusalem Church and were in evidence all the way into medieval times. Search the Roman church for their accusations against Judaizers and sabbatarians, even into the Albingensians, Waldenses, Leonists, and the very foundations of Protestantism. As to your 'history', you seem to forget that it was largely written by those whom your fathers considered the antichrist and babylon, the very inventors of 'propaganda'...

So it follows then, that when Paul said that he “lives as do the Gentiles,” he no longer was keeping Kosher.

No, it doesn't follow - The passage is about Peter separating himself and returning to talmudic tradition when the Jews were around. That is not the same thing as Torah. You will not find 'unclean' gentiles in the Torah. You will find them in the Jewish Tradition. As I said before, Paul is railing Peter for separating himself, and there is no mention of anything dietary within... And even if there WAS, the Jewish Kosher laws are not Torah kosher.

Notice though that, after saying it was “out of context,” you do not discuss the context, and then ignore the import of the passage since, we are not to “keep Kosher” at all, since “all things are lawful to me” in the eating of meats and drinks [...]

I did not - I answered the context and import by my example. One can keep kosher and associate with those who don't. All things ARE lawful, but notice that he says thereafter that not all things are expedient. The Torah itemizes that quite well.

[...] and the fear isn’t for us at all, but for the salvation of others, not for our “conscience” sake, but theirs, since “for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?”

But yet according to you, he is defiantly castigating those who keep kosher for their conscience's sake... Again, the idea seems to be ANYTHING BUT Torah. That cannot be so. That is turning liberty into license.

How then do you conclude that Paul was actually concerned with keeping Kosher, when he asserts his liberty to eat whatever he likes?

I too can eat whatever I like.

Not only do you not bother with the context, but you do not even read any of the text at all.

No, I see it differently.

These are demonic doctrines, all those who teach these abominable and absurd things. Go and keep your Kosher and fantasize that God is pleased with your work. We’ll see who gets to heaven. The guy who eats the bacon, or the guy who thinks he fulfills the law through abstaining of it.

Riiight.... Anything BUT Torah... Because Torah, the thing that YHWH called right and just and eternal, the thing that David called beautiful and wholesome... THAT is the doctrine of demons... Therein lies the biggest inconsistency in Christianity of them all.

ALL of Christendom recognizes the ten commandments - But protestants keep nine, and Romans keep seven. And I entertain the 'doctrine of demons' because I try to keep them all. Try to figger that out.

“Likewise, cutting the flesh of the penis has no bearing at all unless the heart knows it’s worth.”

It has no worth, and we are told not to do it:

1Co 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Gal_6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

“He wrote no such thing. Yours is an argument from silence, just as mine”

It is a direct reference to scripture:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Note, that you apparently believe that we should both be circumcized and keep the law.

And just so you don’t sophist your way into claiming that the “law” mentioned is the code of Hammurabi:

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Hence Paul declares, as you delicately put it, snipping the flesh off your you-know-what does not profit you, and to do so is to put yourself under law, not under grace:

Gal_5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

“The difference is that mine recognizes the Noachide law being partially administered”

You say partial, because, though the Jews invented a concept of a Noachide law in their tradition, they also teach that Gentiles are not bound to keeping the ceremonial ordinances of the law, but the seven precepts in their speculated covenant only. As Dr. Gill notes, referencing Josephus in his Antiquities, l. 20. c. 2. sect. 5.:

“others of them speak of the godly among the nations of the world, and of the proselytes of the gate, who keep the seven precepts of Noah, as persons that shall be saved; so Ananias the Jew, preceptor to King Izates, when he signified his great desire to be circumcised, in order to put him off of it, told him, that if he was determined to follow the customs of the Jews, he might worship God without circumcision, which was more peculiar to the Jews than to be circumcised”

IOW, you go beyond even the Jews. You seize upon their tradition, and then make more of their tradition than there is. And as you confess yourself, your argument is entirely by silence. But, it is clear, your argument is entirely despite the lack of silence against you, in all truth.

“But that aside, this same Paul is seen hurrying to Jerusalem in order to keep Passover, and is seen shaving his head in front of the Temple (ending a Nazarite vow). He is seen teaching in synagogues on the Sabbath - So either he is a flaming hypocrite, or what you think he says is not what he is saying.”

He would only be a hypocrite if he made it a matter of religious obligation to do it, rather than something indifferent, which he did in order to better preach to the Jews, not because he believed any were required to do it. Hence he had Titus circumcised, not because Jesus was circumcised, but because they were going to work with the Jews:

Act_16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

And thus, everytime he went to preach on the Sabbath, he was not preaching to Christian converts, but to the unconverted. But he met and celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Sunday with converts:

Act_20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

To the Jews Paul became a Jew, and to the Greeks he became a greek, and to the barbarian, likewise, he became “all things to all men”:

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
(1Co 9:20-22)

This is not hypocrisy. It is evangelism.

“Right... the ‘end’... height, pinnacle. THE EXAMPLE. The one to be emulated.”

Only if you ignore the rest of the sentence “end of the law... for righteousness to everyone that believeth.”

There is no righteousness in not eating Pork. Righteousness is received through faith, imputed onto us by the perfect of Christ, who already fulfilled the law.

Hence why we, who are sinners, are saved not by our works, but by grace, and why we need not be circumcised, or keep any of the ceremonial laws, since Christ has cleaned us already.

” And MOST especially because the Master, in His public life, lived out the exact opposite. And after all, He is the example.”

So it follows then, that I may break the Sabbath, touch lepers, touch the dead or the things the dead have touched, and eat whatever I like, as Christ declared:

1) The Apostles were righteous to break the Sabbath day, though the same act was refused in Exodus, on the grounds that the Priests who were about the work of God, though they profane the Sabbath, are guiltless; ‘and there is one greater than the Temple here.’

2) The dietary laws, which declare that a man is made unclean by what he eats, are undone, since “whatsoever entereth into a man does not defile him,” only that which leaves the man, from the depths of his heart, defiles him.

3) Christ touched lepers, the dead, and many other sick besides, all of which would have made Him unclean, yet Christ, who is Cleanliness Himself, cleaned them to the marrow.

If I should follow Christ’s example, then I would not be under the law at all, but under Him only.

” His private revelation cannot gainsay the very public message,”

To say that Paul’s revelations are merely “private,” is to put them on a lesser stand than Christ’s. But Christ’s Gospel and his are one in the same, and all of this accorded the same name as “scripture,” making it divine and infallible:

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“Right - but as John says, if we love him we will keep His commandments”

1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

“Exactly right. Do as Yeshua does. Put Him on. Don’t let anyone judge you for eating what He ate, Do as He does. Don’t follow pagan holidays (like christmas and easter, valentines day and halloween), do as He does,”

Notice that you ignore Paul’s statement that the reason we should not let anyone judge us is because these things are “shadows”, and Christ is the body.

Paul is not saying “yes, embrace the shadows, for you are under their dominion,” but rather that the shadows no longer matter at all, as those who mingle in shadows, and those who do not, are entirely equal in their position, provided they do not try to compel it upon any other, and do so for the glory of God, and not for their own salvation:

“For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
(Rom 14:2-5)

“Look, I don’t have to eat pork and shellfish to prove I am Christian. To the contrary, I will rely upon the wisdom of the Father, and consider ‘food’ that which HE tells me is good food.”

Apparently you do, as I eat all that, even right now, and you tell me that I am wrong to do so. But you miss a larger point:

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The word “meats” is Broma, in reference to foods either allowed or forbidden in Jewish law. Note Strong’s Lexicon:

bro’-mah
From the base of G977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbiden by the Jewish law: - meat, victuals.

And it is this same food which is then sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If the food was already allowed, and therefore clean, why then would it need to be received and sanctified? And if the food is unclean, what can remain unclean after having been sanctified by God? Therefore, the interpretation is, Paul is speaking of unclean foods according to Jewish law, which are then made clean, provided it is received with thanksgiving.

As long as these verses exist in the scripture, you can say stupid stuff about cannibalism until your face turns blue.

“His commandments, among which is the explicit commandment to do and teach Torah - Not the letter thereof, but the spirit thereof...”

It does not follow that to obey the commandments “in the spirit” is the same thing as “the letter thereof.” The two are directly put against each other, and circumcision is placed in the heart, and not in the flesh at all.

The interpretation then is, that the law should be applied spiritually, not carnally. Hence we celebrate the passover, not carnally, but in “sincerity and truth”:

1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

” As to your ‘history’, you seem to forget that it was largely written by those whom your fathers considered the antichrist and babylon, the very inventors of ‘propaganda’...”

I don’t know what you are referring to. If you mean that I am an enemy to the early Christians, like Ignatius, Polycarp, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc, you would be very wrong.

“No, it doesn’t follow - The passage is about Peter separating himself and returning to talmudic tradition”

Which does not explain the meaning of the phrases “Do you, as a Jew, livest as a Gentile... why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

This has to do with the way people are living, not merely separating. Since if Peter separates from the Gentiles, how does he still “live” like them, when separated?

I’ve said this multiple times, and you refuse to talk about it.

“One can keep kosher and associate with those who don’t.”

One cannot keep Kosher when receiving and eating whatever is given to you, asking “no questions.”

“All things ARE lawful, but notice that he says thereafter that not all things are expedient.”

The Old Testament does not call them “lawful,” but makes them unlawful, and the person eating of them, or of touching lepers and the like, worthy of being cut off.

The expedience is not defined on a “health” or spiritual cleanliness basis, but on the basis of “conscience,” and not our own, but of the person giving you the food.

IOW, you still do not acknowledge the context or anything in the verse, but continue to make stupid assertions.

“That is turning liberty into license.”

That’s the point, at least when it comes to food and other laws. We have the license to eat “all things,” and even receive the praise of God for it, for ‘God has received him,” as Paul puts it in other places.

Just because it contradicts your misconceptions doesn’t mean you can ignore Paul. There is no other meaning the verse can have except what he clearly says.

“I too can eat whatever I like.”

And yet, the hypocrites who teach these foul doctrines would condemn us for actually believing and practicing this statement.

It has no worth, and we are told not to do it:

1Co 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

RIGHT - Adult males don't need to be circumcised... I agree, and so does the Torah.

It is a direct reference to scripture: Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Right - a direct quote of scripture taken out of context. The context is past tense and is only an account of the original problem - Not the conclusion. And as I have already transmitted several times, circumcision of adults is not called for in the Torah. It is not a law of Moses. It is a takanot of the Pharisees.

Note, that you apparently believe that we should both be circumcized and keep the law.

I believe that an adult is not so obligated. I believe that the Torah is for every one, and that the prophets declare that final end. And SO, an infant male is to be circumcised upon the eighth day.

Hence Paul declares, as you delicately put it, snipping the flesh off your you-know-what does not profit you, and to do so is to put yourself under law, not under grace:

Gal_5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Well then I have no part in Messiah, as I was circumcised by my parents - a circumstance I had no control over - So by your reckoning I must keep the whole law... And the Jews, to whom the covenant was given in the first place also have no part in Messiah - Don't be so silly. In fact, most of Christendom is circumcised to this very day... And what an extreme bias toward women... They don't have to worry about circumcision at all! That's not fair! What now?

You say partial, because, though the Jews invented a concept of a Noachide law in their tradition, they also teach that Gentiles are not bound to keeping the ceremonial ordinances of the law, but the seven precepts in their speculated covenant only.

As I already showed you, the Noachide covenant is in the Bible. And it has always been the starting point for Judaism. I keep no Jewish tradition.

IOW, you go beyond even the Jews. You seize upon their tradition, and then make more of their tradition than there is.

I take it you never even read the passage from the Torah. If you care to study the matter, the points of Noachide are contained in commandments given IN THE BIBLE through the Edenic, Adamic, and Noachide covenants and to include those commandments up to the Abrahamic covenant. It is no Jewish tradition, regardless of what Gill may say -It is Biblical.

And as you confess yourself, your argument is entirely by silence.

So is yours - Your claim of Torah is not in the Torah. It is in the Talmud. Yeshua said to keep Torah. Paul said to keep Torah, John said to keep Torah...

He would only be a hypocrite if he made it a matter of religious obligation to do it, rather than something indifferent, which he did in order to better preach to the Jews, not because he believed any were required to do it. Hence he had Titus circumcised, not because Jesus was circumcised, but because they were going to work with the Jews:

So a vow before YHWH is not required to be kept? WOW. And feigned religiosity is a basis for evangelism? *shakes head*.

And thus, everytime he went to preach on the Sabbath, he was not preaching to Christian converts, but to the unconverted. But he met and celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Sunday with converts:

Nonsense. Christian myth. ALL Jews keep the Sabbath, and after sunset (the first day of the week), in the evening, they all gather in various houses for pot luck and fellowship as a means to extend the Sabbath. Christians were doing the very same thing - They kept Sabbath and gathered together in the evening for the same purpose. The Gentiles were being taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath,

This is not hypocrisy. It is evangelism.

Sure it is hypocrisy, which is why I think you are reading it wrong. YHWH doesn't like feigned religion.

Only if you ignore the rest of the sentence “end of the law... for righteousness to everyone that believeth.”

Still the same - He is the pinnacle... the singular example of righteousness. A disciple emulates his master.

There is no righteousness in not eating Pork. Righteousness is received through faith, imputed onto us by the perfect of Christ, who already fulfilled the law.

Aggain, the focus is not righteousness. That is not what Torah is for. The focus is obedience because we love YHWH.

Hence why we, who are sinners, are saved not by our works, but by grace, and why we need not be circumcised, or keep any of the ceremonial laws, since Christ has cleaned us already.

'ceremonial laws' is a Christian construction. There is no such division. And there you go again about 'saved by works'. I guess I will have to keep telling you that there is no one saved by works. AGAIN, that is not what the Torah is for. It is about obedience because we love YHWH.

So it follows then, that I may break the Sabbath, touch lepers, touch the dead or the things the dead have touched, and eat whatever I like, as Christ declared:

1) The Apostles were righteous to break the Sabbath day, though the same act was refused in Exodus, on the grounds that the Priests who were about the work of God, though they profane the Sabbath, are guiltless; ‘and there is one greater than the Temple here.’

Your flat wrong - the disciples were not breaking Torah, nor would Yeshua encourage breaking Torah.

2) The dietary laws, which declare that a man is made unclean by what he eats, are undone, since “whatsoever entereth into a man does not defile him,” only that which leaves the man, from the depths of his heart, defiles him.

Dietary laws do not declare a man spiritually defiled. They declare THE MEAT unclean. They have to do with physical health and what is good for the physical body. That has not changed one iota. In fact, maybe it has... With all the pollutants present today, it has perhaps become more critical... Swine retain the toxins they eat, as do bottom feeders and filter feeders..Predators have primary exposure, as do scavangers... Hmmm.. mebbe YHWH knows what He is talking about....

3) Christ touched lepers, the dead, and many other sick besides, all of which would have made Him unclean, yet Christ, who is Cleanliness Himself, cleaned them to the marrow.

Again, the Torah does not make lepers spiritually defiled - They are unclean physically because their bodies harbor a communicable disease. They are quarantined. Nor is one who touches them spiritually defiled - They are physically unclean, again for fear of communicable disease.

If I should follow Christ’s example, then I would not be under the law at all, but under Him only.

Right. Yeshua is the very embodiment of Torah. If you are under Yeshua, you are under Torah.

To say that Paul’s revelations are merely “private,” is to put them on a lesser stand than Christ’s. But Christ’s Gospel and his are one in the same, and all of this accorded the same name as “scripture,” making it divine and infallible:

You misunderstand. Yeshua, standing as the Great Prophet, declared publicly the will of YHWH. That requires very specific rules to be engaged.His words must be judged by the Torah and the Prophets for their veracity. So your declarations that he changed Torah or encouraged his disciples to do so does him damage, as if he does not align with both the Torah and the prophets (doing no damage), He must needfully be a false prophet.

Likewise Paul, who also stands as a prophet and as a disciple of Yeshua - His is a triple-threat. For he not only has to do no harm to both the Torah and the Prophets, but he must also align with the words of his master, else he too would be a false prophet and/or false disciple.

I can guess that means nothing to you, two thousand years removed and carrying standard Christian biases. But on the ground, at the time, with a Hebrew sense, that structure is an utter necessity, and cannot be broken. You declare (rightly) that Paul preaches the same Gospel as Yeshua - But if that is indeed true, and Yeshua endorsed the Torah and the Prophets (as He did, and had to, in order to be true), Then Paul cannot come with a private revelation which calls the Torah the 'doctrine of demons' and also changes the words of his master, because then it is not the same Gospel as Yeshua, and it breaks the Torah and the Prophets. That cannot be so.

Needfully, Yeshua must be interpreted with the Torah and the Prophets. His work cannot break either one.
The same with Paul, with the extension that he must also be judged against his Master, as he cannot break any.

So while you are right to quote 2Ti_3:16, you fail to admit the structures within that: The Torah is the touchstone... The ruleset... The programmatic governor. Since YHWH said it is unchangeable and eternal, it must_be_true. It is the established method of measurement. That is why it cannot be changed.

The Torah governs the Prophets - It is the measurement which the prophets are measured by. And the Prophets also measure future prophets - The Word of YHWH cannot be broken, so a future prophet cannot change what the former prophet has said.

So the Torah necessarily holds primacy, with the Prophecy a close second in judging what is said/established in the future.

Likewise, since the New Testament is the definitive tradition of the Great Rabbi, the words of the Rabbi necessarily hold more weight than the tradition which follows, as that tradition is, by it's nature, the emulation and preservation of those words. The disciple cannot change the words of his master.

Recognizing this structural design does no harm to any - it is all Scripture. But it does provide severe limits in interpretation, something that hop-along verse-slingers detest with a passion. Without it, the Word can be made to say anything. With it, A singular Word emerges - It is no longer what it can say, but rather, it is limited by what it can't say. That is what a mechanical governor does - it limits.

And finally, at the time of the writing of the NT, the 'Scriptures' were the Tanakh - The NT having not been written yet. So the definitions and concepts promoted in the NT with the weight of 'Scripture' must necessarily be defined by the Tanakh. In that, one must find the things established in the NT according to the Tanakh - Every office, every purpose, every rite and ritual is contained therein, and defy the pagan definitions which Christianity has encumbered itself with.

As an example, the term 'fullness of the Gentiles' has a very specific and targeted meaning which can be found in the Torah. It is a prophetic term, and an identifying term. It names someone with specificity. It does not mean the 'full number of the Gentiles' as standard Christianity would have it. Not knowing, one cannot fully see what is written plainly in the text.

[roamer_1:] Right - but as John says, if we love him we will keep His commandments

1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Funny thing about that word 'believe'... The Hebrew sense of the word is something like 'Hear and Do'. Kinda changes how that reads, don't it?

Notice that you ignore Paul’s statement that the reason we should not let anyone judge us is because these things are “shadows”, and Christ is the body.

Paul is not saying “yes, embrace the shadows, for you are under their dominion,” but rather that the shadows no longer matter at all, as those who mingle in shadows, and those who do not, are entirely equal in their position, provided they do not try to compel it upon any other, and do so for the glory of God, and not for their own salvation:

Likewise, notice that you ignore Pauls declaration that those shadows are of good things to come - The Holy Days are prophetic. That is their purpose. Moedim has the sense of 'rehearsals'. They are rehearsals for appointed times (appointments). They are not about any dominion. And Paul cannot be saying 'Don't pay attention to the rehearsals'... Because the rehearsals are there to guide us when the appointment happens... And like with the Spring Feasts, which Yeshua performed with an amazing exactitude, when the Fall Feasts are fulfilled, They will happen precisely upon those Holy Days, with an amazing precision.

In that vein, Paul states:

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Why is it that they will not be overtaken? Because they know the times and seasons... The Moedim.

Apparently you do, as I eat all that, even right now, and you tell me that I am wrong to do so.

I am not about judgement - it is way above my pay grade, as I have said before...

But you miss a larger point:

[1Ti 4:3-5...] The word “meats” is Broma, in reference to foods either allowed or forbidden in Jewish law. Note Strong’s Lexicon:
bro’-mah From the base of G977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbiden by the Jewish law: - meat, victuals.

The literal translation of broma is 'that which is to be eaten', so the selection of that word literally narrows the selection to Torah kosher.

And it is this same food which is then sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If the food was already allowed, and therefore clean, why then would it need to be received and sanctified? And if the food is unclean, what can remain unclean after having been sanctified by God? Therefore, the interpretation is, Paul is speaking of unclean foods according to Jewish law, which are then made clean, provided it is received with thanksgiving.

It is silly to say that. What is not physically good for you to eat remains physically the same. You miss the larger point that Torah never said a man was unclean by what he eats - rather that the meat is not fit to eat. 'It will be unclean to you...'

It does not follow that to obey the commandments “in the spirit” is the same thing as “the letter thereof.” The two are directly put against each other, and circumcision is placed in the heart, and not in the flesh at all.

Of course, but there must be a resemblance, or the law would have been without purpose. The 'letter' would be the insistence of men which quickly becomes a tradition - The Jewish tradition is the culmination of 'the letter'. But the Torah must surely contain the 'spirit' - That is why Torah means 'instruction'.

The circumcision of the heart has always been the point. that is not of 'New Testament ' origin... It is in the Torah.

The interpretation then is, that the law should be applied spiritually, not carnally. Hence we celebrate the passover, not carnally, but in “sincerity and truth”:

Good intentions aside, I don't think YHWH intended the passover to be a celebration of Ishtar's Day, with a feast primarily centered around swine. And isn't it an oddity how the actual passover, which YHWH defined and purposed, already resounds with the meaning of the day. Why cannot man celebrate THAT with sincerity and truth?

1Co_5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

RIGHT. KEEP THE FEAST. Observe the Holy Day as it was meant to be. Understand what unleavened bread represents.

I don’t know what you are referring to. If you mean that I am an enemy to the early Christians, like Ignatius, Polycarp, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc, you would be very wrong.

I mean do not put much stock in the face value of the church fathers, as those who kept the record are not noted for accuracy in transmittal. There are no early extant copies, all being after the rise of the Roman church, an edifice noted for inclusions and forgeries, and having a penchant toward edifying itself...

Which does not explain the meaning of the phrases “Do you, as a Jew, livest as a Gentile... why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

This has to do with the way people are living, not merely separating. Since if Peter separates from the Gentiles, how does he still “live” like them, when separated?

I don't think you have a grasp of how intricately the Pharisaical law permeated Jewish society (as it still does today). There is a law for absolutely EVERYTHING, to include even a proper method to put on one's shoes: Right sock, left sock, THEN right shoe, left shoe, THEN tie right shoe, then left shoe... THAT is living like a Jew, and it is most certainly *not* Torah.

And furthermore, just upthread you said Paul was doing this very same thing - Being a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles... Why is it that Paul can do so and not Peter?

One cannot keep Kosher when receiving and eating whatever is given to you, asking “no questions.”

ahh, so I HAVE TO eat anything put infront of me, no matter how vomitous? THAT is liberty? Again, you don't understand the difference between Jewish kosher and Torah kosher. If I am served a beef casserole, I don't have to worry if milk is in the mix... I don't have to worry if the meat came from a part of the cow where the tail could reach... I don't have to worry about separate dishes and pots and pans for the preparation. NONE of that is Torah.

But I won't eat blood sausage or haggis (thank YHWH for the excuse!). If I am at a dinner and they are serving pork loin, I will simply eat everything other than the pork loin... No problem.

The Old Testament does not call them “lawful,” but makes them unlawful, and the person eating of them, or of touching lepers and the like, worthy of being cut off.

No, it doesn't. Not in the sense of spiritual defilement.

The expedience is not defined on a “health” or spiritual cleanliness basis, but on the basis of “conscience,” and not our own, but of the person giving you the food.

Right - Don't make it a big deal... Don't be affronted because someone is serving/eating what is not kosher.

That’s the point, at least when it comes to food and other laws. We have the license to eat “all things,” and even receive the praise of God for it, for ‘God has received him,” as Paul puts it in other places.

Oh, so even the blood, and strangled meat, and meat offered to idols now too... Even that which was specifically and precisely prohibited by the Jerusalem Council has no bearing... I see.... /not

Just because it contradicts your misconceptions doesn’t mean you can ignore Paul. There is no other meaning the verse can have except what he clearly says.

I am not ignoring Paul... I don't agree with you on what he says. Even He contradicts what you say. Nor am I ignoring John. But I will follow Yeshua.

And yet, the hypocrites who teach these foul doctrines would condemn us for actually believing and practicing this statement.

Right. You still don't get that obedience thing, man. I Love YHWH. I believe YHWH. So I endeavor to do what He said is wise to do. Just because I CAN doesn't mean it is good for me.

“RIGHT - Adult males don’t need to be circumcised... I agree, and so does the Torah.”

A stupid statement, as Abraham was in fact circumcised as an adult, the command is given to “you” and not just to his children, and all converts according to the Law of Moses, regardless of age, are to be circumcised:

Exo 12:48 If anyone who isn’t an Israelite wants to celebrate Passover with you, every man and boy in that family must first be circumcised. Then they may join in the meal, just like native Israelites. No uncircumcised man or boy may eat the Passover meal!

“Right - a direct quote of scripture taken out of context. The context is past tense and is only an account of the original problem - Not the conclusion.”

A virtually meaningless statement, as you do not even know what you yourself are saying. If the claim that “of which we gave no such commandment” is the original condition, then you cannot claim, as you have been, that Christians were originally commanded to follow the law of Moses.

“Well then I have no part in Messiah, as I was circumcised by my parents”

You are correct in your statement, but not as to the reason. Since Paul says for them to not be “uncircumcised,” and makes clear that to be circumcised or not makes no difference any longer. You have no part in the Messiah, obviously, for the other reasons specified by Paul.

“I take it you never even read the passage from the Torah.”

You already told me earlier that it is but an “inference,” and is, like everything else, just like your other concession that you argue “from silence.” And, again, you do not even agree with the Jews who invented the concept in their Talmud to begin with.

” Christians were doing the very same thing”

Ignatius, a Christian of the 1st century, died between 95-115AD by being eaten by lions, unwilling to renounce Jesus Christ. Here is what he practiced:

Note the phrase “no longer observing the sabbath”:

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?” (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch.9)

The only group that taught otherwise was the Ebionites, from the 4th century, who were a cult that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

“I believe that an adult is not so obligated.”

What you believe simply doesn’t matter, as shown already. Also notice that in all your contradictions you give, you do not, under any circumstance, substantiate them with any verifiable facts, nor do you actually reply to anything I actually say, but simply continue barking and belching in my general direction.

“Dietary laws do not declare a man spiritually defiled. They declare THE MEAT unclean. They have to do with physical health and what is good for the physical body.”

The dietary laws aren’t ever depicted as merely being for health reasons, of which it makes no difference whether you eat them or not as a matter of morality or law. This is purely your fantasy, and no scripture ever says anything like this. The truth is, whoever even touches unclean objects, or eats them, is himself made unclean, and abominable, and guilty, according to the law:

Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

The same logic applies to touching those with diseases, or the dead, and other things rendered unclean according to the law, and such is the meaning of the Hebrew word in the first place:

“A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated): - defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.”

“So while you are right to quote 2Ti_3:16, you fail to admit the structures within that:”

You fail to answer my question, but keep talking anyway, as if through much speaking you can get out of it. If the OT speaks of unclean meats, and the NT speaks of unclean meats which are made clean through the sanctification of word of God and prayer, then we must acknowledge that this is true, and that the dietary laws are indeed removed. It doesn’t matter if you, or if any member of any cult, does not like it.

“Kinda changes how that reads, don’t it?”

Not really, as you just made an assertion, and it contradicts your earlier claims that we are not saved by works. Since we may now read the phrase as “these are the commandments... that you are circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

“And finally, at the time of the writing of the NT, the ‘Scriptures’ were the Tanakh - The NT having not been written yet. “

Another claim born from ignorance, as the Apostles believed themselves, and their close associates, scripture-producers:

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Deuteronomy. Compare:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

When the Apostles referred to the scripture, therefore, they were referring both to their own writings and teachings as well as the Old Testament.

“Likewise, notice that you ignore Pauls declaration that those shadows are of good things to come - The Holy Days are prophetic.”

Christ is the body that produces the shadow, and the Passover is celebrated whenever we dedicate ourselves to sincerity and truth, and not through actual passover keeping, which is now abolished in favor of the Lord’s Supper, which is celebrated weekly, even every day, not annually.

“The literal translation of broma is ‘that which is to be eaten’, so the selection of that word literally narrows the selection to Torah kosher.”

You’re just making things up as you go along, and it is clear to me you have no idea about anything you are talking about. Not even the Greek Old Testament make such a distinction, but says:

Lev_11:34 Of all meat(broma) which may be eaten,

And uses the word “broma” generally, for any thing that is eaten, whether it is the “meat” for lions, or “deceitful meat,” etc. Even corpses, which is the “food” for carrion eaters:

Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat (Broma) unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.

And thus, “Broma”, being a Greek word, does not just mean “foods that are clean according to Jewish beliefs,” but all foods, whether it is unclean or not, exactly as Strong’s Lexicon declares:

From the base of G0977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:—meat, victuals.

“The circumcision of the heart has always been the point. that is not of ‘New Testament ‘ origin... It is in the Torah.”

Then it follows that to be circumcised physically is still needful, which, obviously, has already been shown to be false. Since all these things, even though Paul entirely spiritualizes them, must still be followed “to the letter.”

“Why is it that Paul can do so and not Peter?”

Why must you trouble me with these stupidities? Paul’s issue with Peter was not that Peter was living as a Gentile. His issue with Peter was that he was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.

“ahh, so I HAVE TO eat anything put infront of me, no matter how vomitous? THAT is liberty? “

More stupidity, as, obviously, if it is “liberty,” you may refrain from eating it. But that you have the liberty to eat or not, is clearly liberty from the dietary laws, which can only give you “nots.”

“Oh, so even the blood, and strangled meat, and meat offered to idols now too... “

That is exactly the point of Paul’s message:

If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
(1Co 10:27-29)

The only time it is prohibited is if it offends the conscience of another, and not our own, as it is our liberty to eat of them or not, since:

1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

And therefore:

1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

“So I endeavor to do what He said is wise to do. Just because I CAN doesn’t mean it is good for me.”

Which only shows how obnoxious your posts are, since you claim to uphold the Old Testament, even while contradicting it, making lite of the dietary laws as if they were optional under the law, and for health reasons.

If this is all you believe, that we are bound to these things only by “health” reasons, then I shall make sure to cook my bacon thoroughly, and will ignore all your rantings and ravings about living like Christ, who is, apparently, only a healthnut.

A stupid statement, as Abraham was in fact circumcised as an adult, the command is given to “you” and not just to his children, and all converts according to the Law of Moses, regardless of age, are to be circumcised:

The passage you quote only says that an uncircumcised male must be circumcised in order to participate in the passover. Meanwhile, his wife and circumcised children can participate, as can his grandchildren and etc... As I said before, normal ingestion of gentiles into Judaism is a lengthy process, by way of assimilation. That is not to say that many DID become circumcised, such is their desire to obey - but it is not required of them.

And Abraham was not circumcised when the promise was given. Perhaps you should ponder that.

A virtually meaningless statement, as you do not even know what you yourself are saying. If the claim that “of which we gave no such commandment” is the original condition, then you cannot claim, as you have been, that Christians were originally commanded to follow the law of Moses.

No the original question was whether a man had to be circumcised in order to be saved, thus keeping the singular 'law' of Moses. But as I have already said, you will not find the command in the law of Moses. It is not in the Torah.

You are correct in your statement, but not as to the reason. Since Paul says for them to not be “uncircumcised,” and makes clear that to be circumcised or not makes no difference any longer. You have no part in the Messiah, obviously, for the other reasons specified by Paul.

Thankfully you don't have the stripes to be either my judge or my teacher.

You already told me earlier that it is but an “inference,” and is, like everything else, just like your other concession that you argue “from silence.” And, again, you do not even agree with the Jews who invented the concept in their Talmud to begin with.

I said 'strangled meat' is inferred... As it is. If you understood WHY no strangled meat, you would see it. But the covenant and it's direct commandments are not inferred. Nor are the direct commandments of and: the Edenic, Adamic, Noachide, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Moabic, Davidic, and Messianic laws. Each subsumes and includes the previous ones.

Ignatius, a Christian of the 1st century, died between 95-115AD by being eaten by lions, unwilling to renounce Jesus Christ. Here is what he practiced:

I am quite familiar with the church fathers, but as I said previously, I put no stock in them - There is no extant copy previous to Rome rising, And the closer you would care to put her senseless paganism toward the Early Church, the more ludicrous it becomes. A little leaven spoils the whole lump. Bow to Rome all you like - I find the whole lot to be without value, much the same as the tradition of the Jews.

The only group that taught otherwise was the Ebionites, from the 4th century, who were a cult that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect - the Nazarenes are distinct from the Ebionites, are non-trinitarian Torah-keepers and extend well into the twelfth century. Some say they were the remnant from the original Jerusalem Church. Of course Rome doesn't like them much, so they are viewed as heretic, But that is to be expected of anyone who doesn't conform to Rome. There are others too, if you care to go find them... The trick is to find those who were under the sword, not believing those who held the sword.

What you believe simply doesn’t matter, as shown already. Also notice that in all your contradictions you give, you do not, under any circumstance, substantiate them with any verifiable facts, nor do you actually reply to anything I actually say, but simply continue barking and belching in my general direction.

i am replying to you very specifically - I just don't agree with you.

The dietary laws aren’t ever depicted as merely being for health reasons, of which it makes no difference whether you eat them or not as a matter of morality or law. This is purely your fantasy, and no scripture ever says anything like this. The truth is, whoever even touches unclean objects, or eats them, is himself made unclean, and abominable, and guilty, according to the law:

Your verse-slinging aside (you would do well to read the WHOLE thing), and your inability to understand that there can be physical defilement or uncleanness aside as well, What remains is if I should be looking at the letter of the law, as you insist, or if I should be looking at the spirit of the law as the Bible instructs. I will do as the Bible says, as the Pharisaical way, the letter of the law (which oddly, you are accusing ME of), has already been shown to be not only improper, but defunct. Needless to say, I remain unconvinced.

You fail to answer my question, but keep talking anyway, as if through much speaking you can get out of it. If the OT speaks of unclean meats, and the NT speaks of unclean meats which are made clean through the sanctification of word of God and prayer, then we must acknowledge that this is true, and that the dietary laws are indeed removed. It doesn’t matter if you, or if any member of any cult, does not like it.

No, I have answered the question. You just seem to deny the answer. The practice of having an authoritative blessing from religious authorities, and the rigid imposition of regulations thereof by the same are what is at question in my opinion. And that is what I had described. What YHWH has said is clean and good food for us is ALL clean. That means ALL of the cow (except the blood, viscera, and fat) is edible. One doesn't have to have separate pots for milk and meat. one doesn't have to worry about where the tail can touch, and etc. What is bad food for you , as proven by secular science, is still bad for you to eat.

Another claim born from ignorance, as the Apostles believed themselves, and their close associates, scripture-producers:

I know that. But the Scripture that was at hand was the Tanakh. One might argue that the Gospels and letters were in circulation (which I am somewhat in favor of), But not readily available to all - Thus the 'Scriptures' of that time were certainly the Torah (which is present as a matter of course in any synagogue), and the Tanakh, which was widely available and disseminated in Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

yes... ALL Scripture... to include the never changing, everlasting Torah.

Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

That is Torah, long before Paul.

In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Deuteronomy. Compare:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Find the Hebrew idiom in 'the laborer is worthy of his hire'...

When the Apostles referred to the scripture, therefore, they were referring both to their own writings and teachings as well as the Old Testament.

Accepted, as I said. But their writings were not widely disseminated. What their writings stand upon is Tanakh, which is why they quote from it constantly (and primarily Torah).

You’re just making things up as you go along, and it is clear to me you have no idea about anything you are talking about. Not even the Greek Old Testament make such a distinction, but says:

Lev_11:34 Of all meat(broma) which may be eaten,

Right... meat which may be eaten by MAN.

And uses the word “broma” generally, for any thing that is eaten, whether it is the “meat” for lions, or “deceitful meat,” etc. Even corpses, which is the “food” for carrion eaters:

Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat (Broma) unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.

Right - the things made to be eaten by the fowls. That does not mean that fowl and Man eat the same things.

More stupidity, as, obviously, if it is “liberty,” you may refrain from eating it.

Then there is no cause to accuse me either.

But that you have the liberty to eat or not, is clearly liberty from the dietary laws, which can only give you “nots.”

That is not true. The Torah very specifically tells me what IS good for me to eat.

That is exactly the point of Paul’s message: If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? (1Co 10:27-29)

Then YHWH's word DOES return to him empty, heh? What He said in the beginning is without value. He doesn't have to keep His word, and we don't have to listen to him... What then the need for redemption, and How do you know that redemption will stick, and that he won't just change his mind again? THAT is another foremost inconsistency of Christianity. And how does all that jibe with the prophets, who unequivically prove you wrong - The only way you can go is to say that the prophets mean nothing too... It is absurd.

Which only shows how obnoxious your posts are, since you claim to uphold the Old Testament, even while contradicting it, making lite of the dietary laws as if they were optional under the law, and for health reasons.

I said no such thing. I don't consider them to be optional. Nor do I make light of them. It is YOU that makes light of them - Saying they mean nothing now.

If this is all you believe, that we are bound to these things only by “health” reasons, then I shall make sure to cook my bacon thoroughly, and will ignore all your rantings and ravings about living like Christ, who is, apparently, only a healthnut.

Like I said before... Knock yourself out. As for me, I will continue to do the best I can to observe what the prophets say will finally be in the end. That includes all of the Torah, not just the food laws.

You keep wrestling with Paul.

Law Still Binding