“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.
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.