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.
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.
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.
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.
Thankfully you don't have the stripes to be either my judge or my teacher.
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.
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.
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.
i am replying to you very specifically - I just don't agree with you.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Right... meat which may be eaten by MAN.”
Trust me, bacon can be eaten by man in VAST quantities.
“Then there is no cause to accuse me either.”
Remember, it was you who started to falsely claim that we are obligated to keep the whole law of Moses. Though, apparently, you do not really mean that, re: circumcision, and the cleanliness and other basis behind the dietary and non-touching laws.
So when you said “all the law,” you really only meant “as I understand it, and not as it is written.”
“That is not true. The Torah very specifically tells me what IS good for me to eat.”
The law of Moses only tells you what the Jews are to eat, not Gentiles.
Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
Though, even the Jews are under the same liberty as Christians are today.
“I said no such thing. I don’t consider them to be optional.”
Then you deny the liberty you just affirmed a moment ago, as, since it is not “optional,” then it follows that we HAVE to do it as a matter of law, and those who do not follow it are unclean according to the law and are in rebellion against God.
Though you also say that the dietary and other laws are just to do with “health” reasons, and that that is the real “spirit” of the law. If we accept your claim rather than what the scripture actually teaches is their purpose, then as long as I cook my bacon well then I can eat it all I want, as it fulfilled the law “to the spirit.”
“The passage you quote only says that an uncircumcised male must be circumcised in order to participate in the passover.... but it is not required of them.”
Keep your arguments straight. Recall you claimed that the reason why Paul says that we are not to be circumcised, is because Paul only wants children to be circumcised, which you claim is taught in the scripture. You also claimed that we are supposed to be celebrating passover. The scripture directly teaches that circumcision is required, of all males, whether adult or not, otherwise they cannot participate in the Passover at all. Thus circumcision is absolutely required of all males, if what you claim is true.
“And Abraham was not circumcised when the promise was given.”
Abraham was immediately circumcised when God commanded Him to do it, along with the 318+ members of his house (whoever of that number were male) of whatever age:
Gen 17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
“No the original question was whether a man had to be circumcised in order to be saved, thus keeping the singular ‘law’ of Moses.”
There is no “singular” in it, as the scripture says “circumcision AND the law of Moses.”
You’ve been told this many times, but you choose to ignore it.
“I said ‘strangled meat’ is inferred...”
You cited Acts 15 in response to Paul allowing meats sacrificed to idols. Acts 15 includes meats offered to idols as well as meats strangled, which Paul here allows (the former) by name. But it also includes meats “strangled,” since the Gentiles did not keep Kosher in the way they prepared meals. As anything that leaves the blood stagnated in the body is called “strangled,” and is therefore forbidden by the Jewish law as well, yet Paul here allows it. Thus the prohibition of the council was only for “conscience” sake as well, and not in regards to their true liberty.
“I am quite familiar with the church fathers,”
You didn’t even know that the Jews circumcised adult male converts, why would I then believe you that you are familiar with the church fathers? If you actually took the time to read them, you would have to believe that the Romanists left in tons of information hostile to their religion, but just erased all the ones pertaining to your religious cult.
“You are incorrect - the Nazarenes are distinct from the Ebionites, are non-trinitarian Torah-keepers and extend well into the twelfth century. “
The Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same group, and had identical teachings, even if some of the church fathers mistakenly separated the two. Most correctly identified them as the same. Though, you just outed yourself by mentioning that you look up to a non-Trinitarian group. Any group that does not believe in the Trinity is considered a cult by Christian standards.
“Needless to say, I remain unconvinced.”
How could I possibly convince a Sophist who isn’t even Christian? If one does not uphold the Trinity, then it is impossible for one to claim they are a member of the body of Christ.
“and the rigid imposition of regulations thereof by the same are what is at question in my opinion”
Your opinion is irrelevant. It is unsupported and even contradicted directly in the text, which refers to whatever it is that Men eat, whether Jew or Gentile alike.
“I know that. But the Scripture that was at hand was the Tanakh.”
How do you say “I know that,” and then oppose it the next sentence? If you just agreed with me, then you just agreed that the letters on the paper that Paul or Peter or John had just written was considered scripture, right then and there, the very instant they wrote it. You agree that the Gospels are scripture, which the Nazerenes/Ebionites rejected. Thus you do “not know it.” You’re just conceding your absurd assertions and then repeating them anyway.
“Accepted, as I said. But their writings were not widely disseminated”
It doesn’t matter if it was widely disseminated or not, thoough you’re wrong anyway about it. Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus, no doubt in on the conspiracy, quoted from virtually every book in the New Testament, and they wrote to churches literate in the scripture, even specifically, citing particular books and passages quite liberally that they were in possession of.
“yes... ALL Scripture... to include the never changing, everlasting Torah.”
Except circumcision, apparently, that changed. And the cleanliness consequences of the scripture, that changed, and can be ignored freely.
“THAT is another foremost inconsistency of Christianity. “
So non-Christians criticize Christianity. So what else is new?
” And how does all that jibe with the prophets, who unequivically prove you wrong”
YOUR Prophets maybe. The ones in the Bible are all on my side.