Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

Thus since these can be misunderstood by the unlearned and unstable who wrest such to their own damnation, not understanding context, as you evidently failed to do with me, then you need to censor the Lord and His Spirit for using words that may appear to be "antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean." Or whatever.

No, I do not need to censor the LORD in any fashion whatsoever. I already made my objections to a word, which does not appear in the Scriptures, clear. I suggested using words which actually appear in the Scriptures, and see that suggestion has been rejected.

No, I do not need to censor the LORD in any fashion whatsoever. I already made my objections to a word, which does not appear in the Scriptures, clear.

No, you originally said nothing about one word being the issue, but instead you mentioned "words" in response to my reproof of the inconsistency of those who impose keeping all the ceremonial law, which is what Paul censored, even (according to your NAB) wishing they were castrated, while as shown, using words that were objectionable to both Gentiles and Jews:

But all those Judaizers who even had marital relations last night must remain unclean till the evening. (Leviticus 15:16-18) I wonder how many observe that one.

Are you trying to mock the Torah and the Jews ? Perhaps you should reflect on your words and understand how antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean

Are you trying to mock the Torah and the Jews ? Perhaps you should reflect on your words and understand how antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean they appear appear

You only began the focus on "Judaizier" after the rash unwarranted nature of your protest was exposed, while i was not even addressing the Torah Observant Jews, but as per NT judgment, those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus, which the former find offensive.

Moreover, objecting that the word "Judaizier " is not found in Scripture is desperate, as such a word as "Trinity" is also not found, and is objectionable to Jews, while Judaizier is also used by RC scholarship .

Thus to be consistent, you do need to reprove the Holy Spirit, and your own church, and as your reproof me also has no warrant, your only recourse is again to revert to the "I trust them and not you" tactic, and again bring out the thought police in you:

Are your thoughts and behavior pure now, or are they impure and contentious, that you would ask such a question to mock the Law of Moses given by God, and the LORD Jesus Christ who already told us:

And here again i was not at all mocking the Law of Moses, but (if you cared about context rather than going off half cocked) instead those who profess to be Christians but mock the New Covenant by requiring literal observance of the ceremonial law.

Your application at MSNBC is pending.

I detest all the antisemitism that stained, or still stains, the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

That is good, but the issue is that reproving "Christians" who impose literal observance of ceremonial laws, which the apostles did, and which is what i did, only to be charged with expressing antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean words, by a rash RC who will not admit her/his error but impugns that faith by trying to defend it.

No, you originally said nothing about one word being the issue, but instead you mentioned "words" in response

Yes, while I find the repeated use of that word offensive, it was your post 894 that triggered my reproving question. I did not write about it until you introduced intimate relations between what I understood as a Jew and his wife into the discussion. If you excluded Jews, including Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah, from the equation, I would have ignored it. I did not realize you were not speaking of a Jew. Honestly, I found the focus on that intimacy a bit creepy in that context but going back I see you introduced it before in a longer post. I think trying to get Gentiles to follow Torah is dangerous from several angles and historically gets Jews killed; so many of the Gentiles who name the name do not obey the most basic commandments in the New Testament, otherwise they would be one as he prayed. You can resume telling the Gentiles not to live as Jews. I'm fine with that.

.Yes, while I find the repeated use of that word offensive, it was your post 894 that triggered my reproving question. I did not write about it until you introduced intimate relations between what I understood as a Jew and his wife into the discussion..

That was not when you made the protest about the word "Judaizer," but it is when you censored me as expressing what you saw as antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean words, rashly supposing i was addressing typical Jews, not Messianic believers who mock the full newness of the New Covenant.

I did not realize you were not speaking of a Jews. Honestly, I found the focus on that intimacy a bit creepy in that context but going back I see you introduced it before in a longer post...You can resume telling the Gentiles not to live as Jews. I'm fine with that.

It is not at all "creepy," but thanks for your permission to do what Scripture shows, and for finally, if not straight forwardly, admitting that your response was rash, out of context, and unwarranted.

Better hunting next time.

The end.

FYI - Re: the word "Judaizers":

ioudaizo

mityahadim

In Galatians 2:14 it means to "live like Jews" (RSV, neb, NASB, Phillips), "follow Jewish customs" ( NIV ), or "live by the Jewish law" (Barclay). The context for this reference is the episode in Antioch when Paul condemns Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Peter's actions are viewed by Paul as a serious compromise of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone, lending support to the position that sought to impose Jewish ceremonial law on the Gentiles. Thus, Paul interprets Peter's withdrawal in terms of its effect in compelling Gentile Christians to live like Jews.

The term "Judaizer" has come to be used in theological parlance to describe the opponents of Paul and Barnabas at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15 ) and those who sought to preach "another gospel" in the churches of Galatia (Galatians 2:4,12; 6:12; cf. Philippians 3:2 ). In this sense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles to observe Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." It appears that these individuals agreed with much of the apostolic kerygma but sought to regulate the admission of Gentiles into the covenant people of God through circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law. Insisting that "Unless you are circumcised … you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1 ), these "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5 ) posed a serious threat to the gospel of grace and the universality of the Christian mission.

Paul's Galatian epistle portrays the Judaizers as having come from the Jerusalem church to his churches in Galatia, stressing the need for Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law, both for full acceptance by God (legalism) and as the basis for Christian living (nomism) (Galatians 6:12-13 ). Amidst the rising pressures of Jewish nationalism in Palestine during the mid-first century, and increased Zealot animosity against any Jew who had Gentile sympathies, it would appear that these Jewish Christians embarked on a judaizing mission among Paul's converts in order to prevent Zealot persecution of the Palestinian church. (http://www.studylight.org/dictionary/bed/view.cgi?n=395)

Sounds like a perfectly Scriptural term to use to me!

In this sense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles to observe Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." ... Sounds like a perfectly Scriptural term to use to me!

Indeed, even if it offends some.

"And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased." (Galatians 5:11)