You deny and do not even perceive the slur in your response.
Perhaps you should consider the context of the debate, and explain how reproving Judaizers, and challenging them to be consistent in their position, is somehow mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean. Do it!
I did, and I think you crossed the line so I reproved you.
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
If you do see my reproof of Judaizers as mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, then you must reprove Paul for wishing of such, I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:12) "Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!" - NAB And Peter for stating Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10) But which the Judaizers deny was referring to such laws as i referred to.
Peter and Paul are my apostles; I believe and trust them. They were not antisemitic in the least.
But since you defend them, do you remain unclean till the evening after marital relations (if married)?
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:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
You cling to the Council of Jerusalem, and well you should, and then mock the holy catholic apostolic church as Roman. Do you then set aside the other councils that followed, and set up to yourself your own re-formed religion ? How is that different from what these Hebrew-Christian/Messianic/Roots/Adventist/Etc. people are doing ?
You deny and do not even perceive the slur in your response.
Rather, i do not assent to your baseless charge which thus depends on mind reading. Simply because a RC says something does not make it true, even if their church presumes this of herself.
Perhaps you should consider the context of the debate, and explain how reproving Judaizers, and challenging them to be consistent in their position, is somehow mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean. Do it!
I did, and I think you crossed the line so I reproved you.
Really? So if a RC had said what i did then you would change him with the same? In any case, fine, i invite let others to judge.
The context was that of a form of Judaizers teaching that obedience to Christ includes keeping typological laws, physical dietary/cleanliness/washing/liturgical ordinances which centered on the Temple, that of [ only in meats and drinks, Lev 10:9; 11:2-47; Num 19:7; Dt. 14:3-21; Ezek. 4:14; and divers washings, Exo_29:4; 30:18-21; 31:9; 35:16; 40:12; Lv. 14:8-9; 15:1-28; 16:4,24, 17:15-16; 22:6; Num. 19:2-21; Dt 21:6, 23:11; and carnal ordinances, Lv. 23:2-34; imposed [on them] until the time of reformation. Mk. 7:15,18-23; Acts 10:13-15; 1 Cor. 10:25-26; Col. 2:16-17; Rm. 14:15; Gal. 4:10; 1 Tim. 4:1-5; Heb. 13:4; , regarding meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ, (Colossians 2:16-17) as debated here .
And as Paul himself said in response to the full Judaizers of his day,
"I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:12) "Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!" - NAB;
And Peter stated as regards keeping all these codes,
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (Acts 15:10)
Then I responded :
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.
But to which af_vet_1981 declared,
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.
Yet i neither mocked the Torah or the Jews anymore than Peter did in stating this was too heavy a yoke to bear, but as per NT judgment, i challenged those who would impose these codes on us actually observed these.
And under the New Covenant then,
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Yet rather than admit his reactionary rant was wrong, he actually doubled down and asserted,
Which applies to himself, since it is he who manifestly engaged in misjudgment and would not receive reproof, thus he next resorted to arguing:
Peter and Paul are my apostles; I believe and trust them. They were not antisemitic in the least.
Which is absurd, for unless af_vet_1981 is judging my motive - which he should make clear - the issue is whether my response to keeping all such cleanliness ordinances is actually antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean, or that it is demanding consistency of Judaizers who contend that Christians must keep all theses codes, having pointed out that the literal observances of these codes are abrogated under the New Covenant.
And as the latter of what is obvious, then it leaves af_vet_1981 as slanderously judging my motive, and in fact i am very much pro-Israel.
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: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil...
This is simply more mind reading and perverse reasoning, as my upholding the New Covenant abrogation of these codes is no more mocking the Law of Moses and the LORD Jesus Christ who fulfilled it than the apostles did in doing so, but it is recognizing that the Lord did fulfil it so "that that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)
You cling to the Council of Jerusalem, and well you should, and then mock the holy catholic apostolic church as Roman. Do you then set aside the other councils that followed,
Thus is more perverse Roman reasoning, as not only according to your judgment would this be mocking the Law of Moses given by God, and the LORD Jesus Christ since they also recognized the New Covenant and did not enjoin submission to such laws as the one i invoked, but,
1. affirming what a magisterium decided does not mean one must concur with all it said, unless it is in Scripture. Unless we need to submit to all those who sat in the seat of Moses taught.
2. The church of Acts 15 was a fundamentally different church than that of Rome.
3. Nowhere is a perpetually infallible magisterium essential or promised.
Do you then set aside the other councils that followed, and set up to yourself your own re-formed religion ?
I neither set aside all that other councils followed or set up my religion as, but i contended for the faith of the NT church and for Scripture-based truths they held and councils held, which is why i rejected the cleanliness laws and called Judaizers to be consistent inn keeping them, even if your Roman reaction was to charge this was mocking the Torah and the Jews, and is antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean!