Replies

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.