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.
“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.