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.