Posted on 01/07/2014 1:55:56 PM PST by Gamecock
“Right... meat which may be eaten by MAN.”
Trust me, bacon can be eaten by man in VAST quantities.
“Then there is no cause to accuse me either.”
Remember, it was you who started to falsely claim that we are obligated to keep the whole law of Moses. Though, apparently, you do not really mean that, re: circumcision, and the cleanliness and other basis behind the dietary and non-touching laws.
So when you said “all the law,” you really only meant “as I understand it, and not as it is written.”
“That is not true. The Torah very specifically tells me what IS good for me to eat.”
The law of Moses only tells you what the Jews are to eat, not Gentiles.
Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
Though, even the Jews are under the same liberty as Christians are today.
“I said no such thing. I don’t consider them to be optional.”
Then you deny the liberty you just affirmed a moment ago, as, since it is not “optional,” then it follows that we HAVE to do it as a matter of law, and those who do not follow it are unclean according to the law and are in rebellion against God.
Though you also say that the dietary and other laws are just to do with “health” reasons, and that that is the real “spirit” of the law. If we accept your claim rather than what the scripture actually teaches is their purpose, then as long as I cook my bacon well then I can eat it all I want, as it fulfilled the law “to the spirit.”
“The passage you quote only says that an uncircumcised male must be circumcised in order to participate in the passover.... but it is not required of them.”
Keep your arguments straight. Recall you claimed that the reason why Paul says that we are not to be circumcised, is because Paul only wants children to be circumcised, which you claim is taught in the scripture. You also claimed that we are supposed to be celebrating passover. The scripture directly teaches that circumcision is required, of all males, whether adult or not, otherwise they cannot participate in the Passover at all. Thus circumcision is absolutely required of all males, if what you claim is true.
“And Abraham was not circumcised when the promise was given.”
Abraham was immediately circumcised when God commanded Him to do it, along with the 318+ members of his house (whoever of that number were male) of whatever age:
Gen 17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
“No the original question was whether a man had to be circumcised in order to be saved, thus keeping the singular ‘law’ of Moses.”
There is no “singular” in it, as the scripture says “circumcision AND the law of Moses.”
You’ve been told this many times, but you choose to ignore it.
“I said ‘strangled meat’ is inferred...”
You cited Acts 15 in response to Paul allowing meats sacrificed to idols. Acts 15 includes meats offered to idols as well as meats strangled, which Paul here allows (the former) by name. But it also includes meats “strangled,” since the Gentiles did not keep Kosher in the way they prepared meals. As anything that leaves the blood stagnated in the body is called “strangled,” and is therefore forbidden by the Jewish law as well, yet Paul here allows it. Thus the prohibition of the council was only for “conscience” sake as well, and not in regards to their true liberty.
“I am quite familiar with the church fathers,”
You didn’t even know that the Jews circumcised adult male converts, why would I then believe you that you are familiar with the church fathers? If you actually took the time to read them, you would have to believe that the Romanists left in tons of information hostile to their religion, but just erased all the ones pertaining to your religious cult.
“You are incorrect - the Nazarenes are distinct from the Ebionites, are non-trinitarian Torah-keepers and extend well into the twelfth century. “
The Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same group, and had identical teachings, even if some of the church fathers mistakenly separated the two. Most correctly identified them as the same. Though, you just outed yourself by mentioning that you look up to a non-Trinitarian group. Any group that does not believe in the Trinity is considered a cult by Christian standards.
“Needless to say, I remain unconvinced.”
How could I possibly convince a Sophist who isn’t even Christian? If one does not uphold the Trinity, then it is impossible for one to claim they are a member of the body of Christ.
“and the rigid imposition of regulations thereof by the same are what is at question in my opinion”
Your opinion is irrelevant. It is unsupported and even contradicted directly in the text, which refers to whatever it is that Men eat, whether Jew or Gentile alike.
“I know that. But the Scripture that was at hand was the Tanakh.”
How do you say “I know that,” and then oppose it the next sentence? If you just agreed with me, then you just agreed that the letters on the paper that Paul or Peter or John had just written was considered scripture, right then and there, the very instant they wrote it. You agree that the Gospels are scripture, which the Nazerenes/Ebionites rejected. Thus you do “not know it.” You’re just conceding your absurd assertions and then repeating them anyway.
“Accepted, as I said. But their writings were not widely disseminated”
It doesn’t matter if it was widely disseminated or not, thoough you’re wrong anyway about it. Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus, no doubt in on the conspiracy, quoted from virtually every book in the New Testament, and they wrote to churches literate in the scripture, even specifically, citing particular books and passages quite liberally that they were in possession of.
“yes... ALL Scripture... to include the never changing, everlasting Torah.”
Except circumcision, apparently, that changed. And the cleanliness consequences of the scripture, that changed, and can be ignored freely.
“THAT is another foremost inconsistency of Christianity. “
So non-Christians criticize Christianity. So what else is new?
” And how does all that jibe with the prophets, who unequivically prove you wrong”
YOUR Prophets maybe. The ones in the Bible are all on my side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.