Replies

“RIGHT - Adult males don’t need to be circumcised... I agree, and so does the Torah.”

A stupid statement, as Abraham was in fact circumcised as an adult, the command is given to “you” and not just to his children, and all converts according to the Law of Moses, regardless of age, are to be circumcised:

Exo 12:48 If anyone who isn’t an Israelite wants to celebrate Passover with you, every man and boy in that family must first be circumcised. Then they may join in the meal, just like native Israelites. No uncircumcised man or boy may eat the Passover meal!

“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.”

A virtually meaningless statement, as you do not even know what you yourself are saying. If the claim that “of which we gave no such commandment” is the original condition, then you cannot claim, as you have been, that Christians were originally commanded to follow the law of Moses.

“Well then I have no part in Messiah, as I was circumcised by my parents”

You are correct in your statement, but not as to the reason. Since Paul says for them to not be “uncircumcised,” and makes clear that to be circumcised or not makes no difference any longer. You have no part in the Messiah, obviously, for the other reasons specified by Paul.

“I take it you never even read the passage from the Torah.”

You already told me earlier that it is but an “inference,” and is, like everything else, just like your other concession that you argue “from silence.” And, again, you do not even agree with the Jews who invented the concept in their Talmud to begin with.

” Christians were doing the very same thing”

Ignatius, a Christian of the 1st century, died between 95-115AD by being eaten by lions, unwilling to renounce Jesus Christ. Here is what he practiced:

Note the phrase “no longer observing the sabbath”:

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?” (Ignatius, The Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch.9)

The only group that taught otherwise was the Ebionites, from the 4th century, who were a cult that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

“I believe that an adult is not so obligated.”

What you believe simply doesn’t matter, as shown already. Also notice that in all your contradictions you give, you do not, under any circumstance, substantiate them with any verifiable facts, nor do you actually reply to anything I actually say, but simply continue barking and belching in my general direction.

“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.”

The dietary laws aren’t ever depicted as merely being for health reasons, of which it makes no difference whether you eat them or not as a matter of morality or law. This is purely your fantasy, and no scripture ever says anything like this. The truth is, whoever even touches unclean objects, or eats them, is himself made unclean, and abominable, and guilty, according to the law:

Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
Lev 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

The same logic applies to touching those with diseases, or the dead, and other things rendered unclean according to the law, and such is the meaning of the Hebrew word in the first place:

“A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense (contaminated): - defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.”

“So while you are right to quote 2Ti_3:16, you fail to admit the structures within that:”

You fail to answer my question, but keep talking anyway, as if through much speaking you can get out of it. If the OT speaks of unclean meats, and the NT speaks of unclean meats which are made clean through the sanctification of word of God and prayer, then we must acknowledge that this is true, and that the dietary laws are indeed removed. It doesn’t matter if you, or if any member of any cult, does not like it.

“Kinda changes how that reads, don’t it?”

Not really, as you just made an assertion, and it contradicts your earlier claims that we are not saved by works. Since we may now read the phrase as “these are the commandments... that you are circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

“And finally, at the time of the writing of the NT, the ‘Scriptures’ were the Tanakh - The NT having not been written yet. “

Another claim born from ignorance, as the Apostles believed themselves, and their close associates, scripture-producers:

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Deuteronomy. Compare:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

When the Apostles referred to the scripture, therefore, they were referring both to their own writings and teachings as well as the Old Testament.

“Likewise, notice that you ignore Pauls declaration that those shadows are of good things to come - The Holy Days are prophetic.”

Christ is the body that produces the shadow, and the Passover is celebrated whenever we dedicate ourselves to sincerity and truth, and not through actual passover keeping, which is now abolished in favor of the Lord’s Supper, which is celebrated weekly, even every day, not annually.

“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.”

You’re just making things up as you go along, and it is clear to me you have no idea about anything you are talking about. Not even the Greek Old Testament make such a distinction, but says:

Lev_11:34 Of all meat(broma) which may be eaten,

And uses the word “broma” generally, for any thing that is eaten, whether it is the “meat” for lions, or “deceitful meat,” etc. Even corpses, which is the “food” for carrion eaters:

Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat (Broma) unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.

And thus, “Broma”, being a Greek word, does not just mean “foods that are clean according to Jewish beliefs,” but all foods, whether it is unclean or not, exactly as Strong’s Lexicon declares:

From the base of G0977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:—meat, victuals.

“The circumcision of the heart has always been the point. that is not of ‘New Testament ‘ origin... It is in the Torah.”

Then it follows that to be circumcised physically is still needful, which, obviously, has already been shown to be false. Since all these things, even though Paul entirely spiritualizes them, must still be followed “to the letter.”

“Why is it that Paul can do so and not Peter?”

Why must you trouble me with these stupidities? Paul’s issue with Peter was not that Peter was living as a Gentile. His issue with Peter was that he was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews.

“ahh, so I HAVE TO eat anything put infront of me, no matter how vomitous? THAT is liberty? “

More stupidity, as, obviously, if it is “liberty,” you may refrain from eating it. But that you have the liberty to eat or not, is clearly liberty from the dietary laws, which can only give you “nots.”

“Oh, so even the blood, and strangled meat, and meat offered to idols now too... “

That is exactly the point of Paul’s message:

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. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
(1Co 10:27-29)

The only time it is prohibited is if it offends the conscience of another, and not our own, as it is our liberty to eat of them or not, since:

1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

And therefore:

1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

“So I endeavor to do what He said is wise to do. Just because I CAN doesn’t mean it is good for me.”

Which only shows how obnoxious your posts are, since you claim to uphold the Old Testament, even while contradicting it, making lite of the dietary laws as if they were optional under the law, and for health reasons.

If this is all you believe, that we are bound to these things only by “health” reasons, then I shall make sure to cook my bacon thoroughly, and will ignore all your rantings and ravings about living like Christ, who is, apparently, only a healthnut.

The passage you quote only says that an uncircumcised male must be circumcised in order to participate in the passover. Meanwhile, his wife and circumcised children can participate, as can his grandchildren and etc... As I said before, normal ingestion of gentiles into Judaism is a lengthy process, by way of assimilation. That is not to say that many DID become circumcised, such is their desire to obey - but it is not required of them.

And Abraham was not circumcised when the promise was given. Perhaps you should ponder that.

No the original question was whether a man had to be circumcised in order to be saved, thus keeping the singular 'law' of Moses. But as I have already said, you will not find the command in the law of Moses. It is not in the Torah.

Thankfully you don't have the stripes to be either my judge or my teacher.

I said 'strangled meat' is inferred... As it is. If you understood WHY no strangled meat, you would see it. But the covenant and it's direct commandments are not inferred. Nor are the direct commandments of and: the Edenic, Adamic, Noachide, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Moabic, Davidic, and Messianic laws. Each subsumes and includes the previous ones.

Ignatius, a Christian of the 1st century, died between 95-115AD by being eaten by lions, unwilling to renounce Jesus Christ. Here is what he practiced:

I am quite familiar with the church fathers, but as I said previously, I put no stock in them - There is no extant copy previous to Rome rising, And the closer you would care to put her senseless paganism toward the Early Church, the more ludicrous it becomes. A little leaven spoils the whole lump. Bow to Rome all you like - I find the whole lot to be without value, much the same as the tradition of the Jews.

The only group that taught otherwise was the Ebionites, from the 4th century, who were a cult that denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

You are incorrect - the Nazarenes are distinct from the Ebionites, are non-trinitarian Torah-keepers and extend well into the twelfth century. Some say they were the remnant from the original Jerusalem Church. Of course Rome doesn't like them much, so they are viewed as heretic, But that is to be expected of anyone who doesn't conform to Rome. There are others too, if you care to go find them... The trick is to find those who were under the sword, not believing those who held the sword.

i am replying to you very specifically - I just don't agree with you.

Your verse-slinging aside (you would do well to read the WHOLE thing), and your inability to understand that there can be physical defilement or uncleanness aside as well, What remains is if I should be looking at the letter of the law, as you insist, or if I should be looking at the spirit of the law as the Bible instructs. I will do as the Bible says, as the Pharisaical way, the letter of the law (which oddly, you are accusing ME of), has already been shown to be not only improper, but defunct. Needless to say, I remain unconvinced.

No, I have answered the question. You just seem to deny the answer. The practice of having an authoritative blessing from religious authorities, and the rigid imposition of regulations thereof by the same are what is at question in my opinion. And that is what I had described. What YHWH has said is clean and good food for us is ALL clean. That means ALL of the cow (except the blood, viscera, and fat) is edible. One doesn't have to have separate pots for milk and meat. one doesn't have to worry about where the tail can touch, and etc. What is bad food for you , as proven by secular science, is still bad for you to eat.

Another claim born from ignorance, as the Apostles believed themselves, and their close associates, scripture-producers:

I know that. But the Scripture that was at hand was the Tanakh. One might argue that the Gospels and letters were in circulation (which I am somewhat in favor of), But not readily available to all - Thus the 'Scriptures' of that time were certainly the Torah (which is present as a matter of course in any synagogue), and the Tanakh, which was widely available and disseminated in Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew.

yes... ALL Scripture... to include the never changing, everlasting Torah.

Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

That is Torah, long before Paul.

In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Deuteronomy. Compare:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Find the Hebrew idiom in 'the laborer is worthy of his hire'...

When the Apostles referred to the scripture, therefore, they were referring both to their own writings and teachings as well as the Old Testament.

Accepted, as I said. But their writings were not widely disseminated. What their writings stand upon is Tanakh, which is why they quote from it constantly (and primarily Torah).

You’re just making things up as you go along, and it is clear to me you have no idea about anything you are talking about. Not even the Greek Old Testament make such a distinction, but says:

Lev_11:34 Of all meat(broma) which may be eaten,

Right... meat which may be eaten by MAN.

And uses the word “broma” generally, for any thing that is eaten, whether it is the “meat” for lions, or “deceitful meat,” etc. Even corpses, which is the “food” for carrion eaters:

Psa 79:2 The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat (Broma) unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.

Right - the things made to be eaten by the fowls. That does not mean that fowl and Man eat the same things.

More stupidity, as, obviously, if it is “liberty,” you may refrain from eating it.

Then there is no cause to accuse me either.

But that you have the liberty to eat or not, is clearly liberty from the dietary laws, which can only give you “nots.”

That is not true. The Torah very specifically tells me what IS good for me to eat.

That is exactly the point of Paul’s message: 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. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? (1Co 10:27-29)

Then YHWH's word DOES return to him empty, heh? What He said in the beginning is without value. He doesn't have to keep His word, and we don't have to listen to him... What then the need for redemption, and How do you know that redemption will stick, and that he won't just change his mind again? THAT is another foremost inconsistency of Christianity. And how does all that jibe with the prophets, who unequivically prove you wrong - The only way you can go is to say that the prophets mean nothing too... It is absurd.

I said no such thing. I don't consider them to be optional. Nor do I make light of them. It is YOU that makes light of them - Saying they mean nothing now.

Like I said before... Knock yourself out. As for me, I will continue to do the best I can to observe what the prophets say will finally be in the end. That includes all of the Torah, not just the food laws.

You keep wrestling with Paul.