This raises several beautiful problems for you which you are apparently unaware of. Judaism, at least its modern and talmudic counterpart, believes in two different places for the poor Goyim, one better than the other
Your first mistake is in relying on Rabbinical Judaism to define Temple Judaism. Your second mistake is in relying upon a Christian commentary to define Rabbinical Judaism.
Basically, what you have is close - Noachide, or Gentile of the Gate is pretty accurate, albeit that a Noachide would (if he chose) endeavor through stages to become righteous.
It is the righteous Proselyte that I refer to, and your information is obviously inaccurate. One who is mikvah'd and circumcised is not a gentile any longer, but a full member of Israel. This is true even now, according to what I know... The educational phase is long, and the final acceptance is the mikvah, circumcision, and a new name... See here and here.
For a more historical understanding, see here, and especially here, the latter of which conforms more to my understanding. To wit:
[...] Another class kept practically all the Jewish laws and customs, but were not circumcised. Some again, though not circumcised, had their children circumcised (Juvenal Sat. xiv.96 ff). Such Jewish customs as fasting, cleansings, abstaining from pork, lighting the candles on Friday evening, and keeping the Sabbath (Josephus, Apion, II, 29, etc.) were observed by these Gentile sympathizers. Schurer holds that there were congregations of Greeks and Romans in Asia Minor, and probably in Rome, which, though they had no connection with the synagogue, formed themselves into gatherings after the pattern of the synagogue, and observed some of the Jewish customs. Among the converts to Judaism there were probably few who were circumcised, and most of those who were circumcised submitted to the rite in order to marry Jewesses, or to enjoy the rights and privileges granted to the Jews by Syrian, Egyptian and Roman rulers (Josephus, Ant, XIV, vii, 2; XX, vii, 1; compare XVI, vii, 6).
I probably got my understanding through Josephus, Philo, and Juvenal... among others.
And it only stands to reason that many men would stop short of full conversion for the fact of circumcision - I know that I would need a very powerful persuasion to get me past that point ; )
So I will just wander down your screed from here, till I find something beyond this topic... Ahh, this bit:
There is also another point of yours which offends common sense:
[roamer_1:] A righteous gentile might never be circumcised, though his children will be
Now this is illogical for a couple of reasons. As far as I can tell, you are denying the necessity of circumcision in the first place, so why make it a requirement for children?
The main premise for circumcision is *for* children. The Eighth Day.
Secondly, this would require circumcision for your fictional class of proselytes at least as a command for all children, and yet, Paul makes no such requirement, but equates the condition of circumcision and uncircumcision, making it absolutely of no value for anyone, even under the spurious logic that if we "love God" we will grab some sissors and gladly circumcise ourselves, even though it does not save us:
Since Paul said to keep Torah, the only way his words are not psychotic is for the argument to be about adults.
1Co_7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
How exactly does one become 'uncircumcised'?
[roamer_1:] It isn't a claim - More often than not, Paul was speaking from synagogues, and even secular history and the Roman church agree that the Christian Church began as a sect of Judaism, in the synagogues.
Notice your wording and lack of any scriptural evidence. Paul "spoke" in the synagogues.
*sigh* Why would I have to provide evidences for something so common? There is much, much more, but this will do:
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures>,
You seem to be acknowledging that the task of the Apostles in the synagogues was evangelism, not co-equal worship between two groups who are essentially the same except for their belief in Christ.
You seem to be ignorant of Temple era Judaism. There were many sects. The Nazarenes were but one of them... Pharisees, Saducees, Hellenists, Zealots, Essenes, Karaites, etc... And more to the point, many followers of different rabbis, and some of them falsely messianic. This idea of a monolithic Judaism is not true until many years later... It perhaps began with the fall of Jerusalem, but really not until Bar Kochba - Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity both began to become monolithic around that point, though Chrysotom was still whining about Christians attending synagogues and observing Sabbath even in his day...
It would really be a good study for you, this 'Christianity and the Synagogue' concept. It will offer a brilliant counterpoint to the Roman church fathers' antisemitism.
This is a red herring and also very irrational. My response was directed in wondering, if the Christians were in the synagogues being subjected to the law of Moses, how is it that they avoided being commanded to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses? Now unless you do not believe the law of Moses isn't taught in the synagogues, then your statement is simply absurd. They would have received the command, no matter how it was couched, whether for the "purpose of salvation" or for the purpose of being holier than thou.
No doubt it was a bone of contention, But your view of gentiles in the synagogue is rather narrow. Doesn't it seem odd in your view that so many gentiles were in the synagogue to hear Paul? Why were they there? Because they went there all the time. There were many righteous gentiles.
Secondly, the "law of Moses" is specifically the subject of contention in the chapter, as it says directly "circumcision and the law of Moses," and whether or not one is "commanded" to obey it or not, whether for salvation or not.
That is precisely my point - you have to look at who is saying 'circumcision and the Law of Moses'.
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.
Pharisees believed TWO Torahs were given at Sinai - one oral and one written - and these (to them) constitute the 'law of Moses'. Since the Torah certainly says nothing about circumcision being salvific, and little about adult men necessarily being circumcised, perhaps one might look to the oral torah to find such rules. No doubt you will find them there.
"Now if "no such commandment" was given, how is that possible if the commandment was given by Christ? Who came first? Christ? Or the Apostles? And what do they preach all the time in the synagogues they are supposedly present at?
No doubt the commandment was given by Yeshua, as it is written. Mat 5:17-20. And the Apostles cannot change the words of their Master - So that should color your interpretation.
I will also point out the characterization of it. They called it the "subverting" of their souls to be commanded to be circumcised and to keep the Law. Peter described it as the "yoke" that neither he nor his fathers could bare, and he also says that the Gentiles, who were not following the Law of Moses, are "purified" by their faith, and lastly, that they are saved by grace, "the same as we" (Acts 15:7-11).
Right. Understand that oral torah (where these things are found), is not to be followed... and understand the' Yoke of a Rabbi'. The 'oral torah' was a compilation of the works of the rabbis... a super-set of 'yoke'... Mat 23:1-3 addresses this directly from Yeshua (if you can understand what it says).
You also quote the fact that the Pharisees considered it essential to salvation to follow the commandments, [...]
No, what was essential to the Pharisees was their oral torah, which overrode Moses all the time.
[...] by which you probably mean "Well, you should still do it, although it makes no difference for your salvation."
Huh?
Yet you have repeatedly implied that it is a "sin" to not be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and have explicitly stated that it is part of becoming more Christ like to refrain from eating Bacon (because what is the worst sin of all? Not denying the trinity, but eating a piggy). By this we can then presume that you would believe that Peter was in obedience to the "law of Moses," although he clearly called it a unbearable "yoke."
Huh sommore? Do you need to take some pills or something?
As absurd as that already is from the context, I will put another nail in the coffin and point out that Peter was, in fact, living as the Gentiles do all along:
LOL! That isn't what it says. The context is that he separated himself from the gentiles to go hang with the Jews. You need to understand that the 'wall of separation' was never meant to be. Study the passage hard... and maybe look at the Nestle-Alland Greek text for comparison. Paul is hacking on him for his hypocrisy, and for sinning in front of the Gentiles.
[roamer_1:] I didn't see that. However, I can tell you right now that I would disagree with your interpretation.
Who cares what your opinion is? Stop giving me assertions instead of well-defended arguments.
How can I give you anything more if I never saw the post??? Gimme a link.
But of beautiful note is that you did not dispute my statement on the failure of the Roodites to affirm the Trinity. Though they try to hide this, the Roodites are indeed extremely heterodox on every subject, whether they like it or not, and therefore no denomination, knowing these facts, will accept them. Indeed, the Roodites are anathema, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Armonstrongites, and all the other cults, and not condemned by the Pope, but by God.
HAHAHAHAHA! You should really do standup.
Must be nice to speak for YHWH. 'Thus sayeth the Lord', and all that... Like the popes, the arrogance needed to belch such a thing usually means the one laying down anathemas doesn't need to be listened to. I certainly know I won't listen to you anymore.
Philo says himself that circumcision is necessary according to the Law:
"It is true that receiving circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it was capable of begetting by its own power: but let us not on this account repeal the law laid down for circumcising" (Philo, Migration 92)
And in order to become a full convert, a Proselyte of Righteousness, this command is absolutely necessary.
Juvenal distinguishes between "God Fearers" who might abstain from pork and keep some Jewish customs, and those who are proselytes (God fearers are not proselytes):
"Juvenal, like Petronius, distinguishes between two degrees of being Jewish, namely the stage of those who observe the Sabbath, worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of heavens, and abstains from eating pork, and that of those who "in time" undergo circumcision. The former obviously are the... 'God fearers,' who kept some of the Jewish observances but did not go as far as to become proselytes; the latter are those who did undergo circumcision and thus became proselytes in the fullest sense of the word." (Shafer, Judeophobia: Attitudes Towawrd the Jews in the Ancient World, p. 80)
As for Josephus, he was a Pharisee (if he did not convert to Christianity later), and a historian. Reporting the existence of something does not mean they conform to his theology or to the Bible.
Your second mistake is in relying upon a Christian commentary to define Rabbinical Judaism.
Actually, though I took the quotes from Gill, Gill was only quoting the Talmud or summarizing it. Instead of explaining how they are "inaccurate," you just say they are inaccurate, while not really being so. Everything I have written is indeed the accurate teachings of the Jews on the matter. A Proseltye of Righteousness is not a "half convert," but one who is circumcised and follows all of the Jewish laws, not some prohibitions that they choose to hold themselves too.
Your first mistake is in relying on Rabbinical Judaism to define Temple Judaism.
In order to claim that you possess a pure form of "Temple Judaism," and that Rabbinical Judaism is tainted in its belief that a Proselyte of Righteousness must be circumcised, you would need to demonstrate how one can follow bits and pieces of the law without following the whole law, according to the law. You also need to be more specific about what I am so wrong about. Just saying "Well, you are inaccurate," and then failing to demonstrate what is inaccurate about it, does nothing for you.
Basically, what you have is close - Noachide, or Gentile of the Gate is pretty accurate, albeit that a Noachide would (if he chose) endeavor through stages to become righteous.
By definition, these are only "half converts," since, as you said:
"One who is mikvah'd and circumcised is not a gentile any longer, but a full member of Israel."
This is the end goal of conversion in the first place, and is necessary for one to engage in full fellowship with the people of God and to partake of the Passover and other Jewish feasts and benefits. Hence why they are called 'Proselytes of the Gate' to begin with. They were not permitted to come any further into the Temple, and hence your claim that "Temple Judaism" accepted them is false even from their very name.
A Gentile may light candles, or do this or that, but without circumcision, he is only play acting, or operating as a half-convert. He is not actually following the whole law and has not, therefore, become a Proselyte of Righteousness.
Thus the Jews of ancient times did not command these to follow all the laws of the Gentiles, not even dietary prohibitions, and actively taught them that they could actively perform those things which were forbidden for them, such as eating foods that had died of themselves. And this they based on scriptural commands:
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.
"not to the proselyte of righteousness, for he might not eat of it any more than an Israelite, and if he did, he was obliged to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and was unclean until the evening, as in Lev_17:15 but to a proselyte of the gate, who took upon him, as Jarchi observes, not to serve idols, one that has renounced idolatry, but has not embraced the Jewish religion; such an one might eat of things that died of themselves, or were not killed in a proper manner. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan call him an uncircumcised stranger or proselyte, who had not submitted to circumcision, as the proselyte of righteousness did" (John Gill, Exposition of the Holy Bible, Deut 14:21).
It is the righteous Proselyte that I refer to, and your information is obviously inaccurate.
The Proselyte of Righteousness, by definition, is the one that is circumcised and follows the whole law, and is not the Proselyte of the gate, who is not bound to any laws except what the Jews describe as the Noahide laws. None of your links support your claim that someone may be regarded as a Proselyte of Righteousness without being circumcised. Even if you put a time table on the process like the modern Jews do, the time table is still that of waiting to become a full convert. They are not a full convert while they are only in the process of it, and until they are a full convert, they are not bound by any Jewish laws.
The educational phase is long, and the final acceptance is the mikvah, circumcision, and a new name... See here and here.
Temple Judaism, if that is what you will refer to as the plain words of the text, does not require any sort of waiting period for the Gentile to be circumcised, but just commands it as a necessity if they will sacrifice or celebrate Passover (Num 15:16, Exo 12:48).
The main premise for circumcision is *for* children. The Eighth Day.
This has already been proven false several times. Abraham and his entire house were all commanded to be circumcised, and the same is true for adult converts. There is nothing in the law that says circumcision is only nececessary for children, but voluntary for adult converts.
You also don't answer the question: If you argue that circumcision is not required by the law, why then is it required for children, in your strange world?
How exactly does one become 'uncircumcised'?
By drawing back the skin, as reported in Maccabees and Josephus:
"or "draw on" the foreskin; as some did in the times of Antiochus, for fear of him, and to curry favour with him, who, it is said, 1 Maccab. 1:15, "made themselves uncircumcised", and forsook the holy covenant; and so did Menelaus, and the sons of Tobias, as Josephus reports (b); and there were many, in the days of Ben Cozba, who became uncircumcised by force, משוכין, they had their foreskins drawn on by the Gentiles against their wills, and when he came to reign were circumcised again (c); for, according to the Jews, circumcision must be repeated, and not only four or five times (d), but a hundred times, if a man becomes so often uncircumcised (e)" (John Gill, Ibid, on 1 Co 7:18)
*sigh* Why would I have to provide evidences for something so common? There is much, much more, but this will do:
You quoted me affirming that you wrote that Paul "spoke" in the synagogue, that is, evangelized there, as opposed to worshipping there along side Jews as essentially identical worshippers. You then quote Acts which shows Paul evangelizing in the synagogue to prove... what?
The Nazarenes were but one of them... Pharisees, Saducees, Hellenists, Zealots, Essenes, Karaites, etc... And more to the point, many followers of different rabbis, and some of them falsely messianic.
And which group are you claiming represent true Temple Judaism, and which ones do not require circumcision, and upon what scriptural basis would they decide this on?
Doesn't it seem odd in your view that so many gentiles were in the synagogue to hear Paul?
Where does it say the congregation was filled with Gentiles? And if there was a Gentile present, they would have heard the Jews teaching the necessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Since the Torah certainly says nothing about circumcision being salvific,
The Torah teaches that it is necessary for a person to be circumcised even to offer a sacrifice. That nothing they could do actually saved them is irrelevant to that necessity.
Pharisees believed TWO Torahs were given at Sinai - one oral and one written -
If the bone of contention was with tradition, then the Apostles would have said so, as they do in plenty of other places. Instead, they spoke against the requirement that it is necessary to be circumcised and to follow the law of Moses, and explicitly gave commands that were consistent only with the Noahide laws, and even this, not based on strict necessity as in the dietary prohibitions, but to ease relations between Jews and Christians.
No doubt the commandment was given by Yeshua, as it is written. Mat 5:17-20. And the Apostles cannot change the words of their Master - So that should color your interpretation.
If they say "no such commandment was given", it cannot be said that a commandment was given. This is a contradiction, and so, this only colors your logic and reveals it to be nothing.
LOL! That isn't what it says. The context is that he separated himself from the gentiles to go hang with the Jews.
The context is that of "living as do the Gentiles," and requiring Gentiles to "live as do the Jews." That makes no sense if they are only talking about Jews and Gentiles sitting and eating next to each other.
I certainly know I won't listen to you anymore.
You never did, so it's no difference.