“Do you really believe Paul is talking about Torah,”
He talks about the “law,” calls circumcision profitless, and even quotes Deuteronomy earlier in the epistle:
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
I don’t think he’s talking about the Code of Hammurabi.
“LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite”
You’re certainly free to “strive,” but it doesn’t actually make you better than anyone else or profit you in any way. You already told me that doing what you do does not justify you, and I doubt that you are going to get extra-heaven by avoiding bacon. It makes no difference what you eat or don’t eat, or whether you are circumcised or not. It’s just foolishness to think that you are pleasing God with works that were not even commanded for you to obey.
“Which ‘religious acts’ are considered vain by YHWH?”
All the ones beyond that which He now commands:
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
“Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses...”
The Pharisees weren’t writing the Acts of the Apostles. Luke was. And Christ Himself always differentiated between the law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. If Luke actually meant “you are still required to be circumcised and to live under the law of Moses, but it is only the tradition of the Pharisees we deny,” then he would have said so. Otherwise, what follows would be 2,000 years of Christians not following all the regulations and commandments not reinforced in the New Testament... which, by the way, is exactly what happened.
“So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.”
According to Gill:
“In Beza’s most ancient copy, and in three other manuscripts, and in the Complutensian edition, it follows, “and whatsoever ye would not have done to yourselves, that do ye not to another”; in like manner the Ethiopic version also reads, as in Act_15:20 “from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well”; it will be doing a good thing, and make for the peace of the churches; in Beza’s most ancient copy it is added, “born”, or “moved by the Holy Ghost”: being influenced and assisted by him in this, and every good work:”
I don’t think any of the Gentiles actually had a problem with fornication though. It seems more like a list of sins associated with Gentiles specifically, for to appease the Jews. The ending conclusion, nevertheless, is that “no such commandment” was given to obey the laws and regulations of Moses, and no such commandment is then given.
“Isn’t that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision)”
Just your assertion. The scripture has Paul condemning Peter for his hypocrisy, since he “lived like a Gentile,” and dissimulated with the Jews who desired to have the Gentiles “live like Jews.”
” How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a ‘doctrine of devils’? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom?”
Because the old Covenant is no longer in force, and the New One is now what we are under.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
To command us to go back to what which is now obsolete, and already fulfilled in Christ perfectly, is a doctrine of devils.
“Which foods did YHWH create to be received?”
That’s an easy one, despite your sophistry:
1Ti_4:4 For EVERY creature of God is good, and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Otherwise it be pretty stupid of Paul to advise Christians to eat whatever is placed before them, asking no questions:
1Co_10:27 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.
I don’t think Pagans who might offer you food sacrificed to idols are known for keeping Kosher.
“No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.”
Which doesn’t explain:
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Nor the actions of the Apostles, who were not “in their own place”, but were picking food in the field:
Exo 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Exo 16:30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
Compare:
Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
If Christ is LORD of the Sabbath, then He may do with it as He pleases, and is not servant to the Sabbath, as you would pretend. To this the Pharsees even agreed, though they would not count Jesus as the Messiah in their hypocrisy.
“There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day.”
You still have six other days to account for:
Jos 6:13 And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
Jos 6:14 And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.
“I am not lording anything over anyone.”
You just got done telling me how you are “striving to serve the Lord,” by not eating bacon and such, because, apparently, that is so holy. That’s called Lording.
“I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?”
It WASN’T there. Your inference is not a quote.
“A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah.”
There is no such thing as a “Noahide” law. It is an invention of Jewish tradition, which you did not like earlier when I quoted Kimchi.
“You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles.”
I’ve not taken the verse out of context. Compelling people to “live like Jews” is not referring to Jews eating with Gentiles, all of whom, if you are to be believed, were keeping Kosher anyway. To say that you are “living like a Gentile,” but are asking Gentiles to “live like Jews” is in reference to the believing sect of Pharisees who required obedience to circumcision and the dietary and other laws.
Your sophistry is profound.
He talks about the “law,” calls circumcision profitless, and even quotes Deuteronomy earlier in the epistle:
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Note that he speaks of the works of the law, and not the law istelf...
[roamer_1:] LOL! So because I strive to follow the way of the Father, the way declared by the Son, I am being self-righteous? Quite the opposite”
You’re certainly free to “strive,” but it doesn’t actually make you better than anyone else or profit you in any way. You already told me that doing what you do does not justify you, and I doubt that you are going to get extra-heaven by avoiding bacon. It makes no difference what you eat or don’t eat, or whether you are circumcised or not.[...]
Funny, that... As firstly, Yeshua covered the curses of the law, but all of the blessings remain... And Yeshua himself describes that those who DO and TEACH the law are greater than those who break it in the Kingdom (Matt 5:18-20), so yes, there ARE 'extra heaven points', albeit that 'points' are not the point...
It’s just foolishness to think that you are pleasing God with works that were not even commanded for you to obey.
But that is the point exactly - Yes, we ARE commanded to do and teach Torah, by the Master Himself - and those words indelibly trump your interpretation of Paul.
[roamer_1:] Which ‘religious acts’ are considered vain by YHWH?
All the ones beyond that which He now commands:
An impossibility - Your interpretation neglects the fact that He comanded his disciples to do and teach Torah - And neglects that Torah cannot be changed (added to or taken from). Does YHWH change?
[roamer_1:] Pharisees consider their tradition to be a part of the Law of Moses...
The Pharisees weren’t writing the Acts of the Apostles. Luke was. And Christ Himself always differentiated between the law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. If Luke actually meant “you are still required to be circumcised and to live under the law of Moses, but it is only the tradition of the Pharisees we deny,” then he would have said so.
You misunderstand me - and Luke DID do so - Perhaps a study of how strangers were treated in the Torah would be enlightening. There is only one law, for the stranger or the Hebrew, but a new convert was not expected to be law abiding right off the get-go. It is Pharisaical tradition that demands it. The Torah infers that the convert must necessarily keep the Noachide covenant, and learn the rest on the way. Absorption by assimilation is the thing. It was the unessesary strictures that I was pointing to.
Otherwise, what follows would be 2,000 years of Christians not following all the regulations and commandments not reinforced in the New Testament... which, by the way, is exactly what happened.
That is not precisely true - But then one has to look outside of Rome to find the remnant. It was many decades before Christians were ousted from the synagogues, and that alone should give one pause in considering your statement. Christianity's root is not Rome.
[roamer_1:] So I take it that it is your belief that eating blood, meats that were strangled or offered to idols, and fornicating, are the only sinful things for Christians? Is that really what you think? After all, this is all the conclusion of the council stated in the literal.
I don’t think any of the Gentiles actually had a problem with fornication though. It seems more like a list of sins associated with Gentiles specifically, for to appease the Jews. The ending conclusion, nevertheless, is that “no such commandment” was given to obey the laws and regulations of Moses, and no such commandment is then given.
No, it parallels (in part) the commandments given in the Noachide covenant... Those laws commanded (directly or inferred) from Noah to Abraham, and including the Edenic and Adamic covenants... These covenants are undoubtedly for everyone, as everyone is a son of Noah.
[roamer_1:] Isn’t that odd, as Peter was keeping Kosher at least a decade and a half after the resurrection (meats and sheets vision)
Just your assertion.
No. Any reasonable chronology of Acts puts Acts 10 at the least around AD 39/40, about a decade out... and in the 'meats and sheets' vision, Peter declares he has not eaten any unclean thing (acts 10:14). So at least to that point, Peter has kept Kosher. And it should not go without notice that Peter's conclusion w/ regard to the vision has nothing to do with disobeying Torah.
The scripture has Paul condemning Peter for his hypocrisy, since he “lived like a Gentile,” and dissimulated with the Jews who desired to have the Gentiles “live like Jews.”
Right! Show me in the Torah where Jews were to separate themselves from the stranger... Again, it is Jewish tradition that is on point here - There you will find that separation in spades. The Hebrews were supposed to be set apart - but their tradition turned that into a vicious racism that was never intended... That is what Paul is pointing out.
[roamer_1:] How can it be that Torah, which is called good and righteous is a ‘doctrine of devils’? Was David lying? Were the Prophets lying when they said the whole world will follow Torah in the Kingdom?
Because the old Covenant is no longer in force, and the New One is now what we are under.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
To command us to go back to what which is now obsolete, and already fulfilled in Christ perfectly, is a doctrine of devils.
Indeed the old waxeth and is ready to pass away... But has heaven and earth passed away? Or is everything fulfilled in the Torah and the Prophets? Because otherwise, the 'old' is still in force. And it matters not, as the Great Prophet who heralds in the new declares that we are to keep the old too - which is perfect in alignment with how Torah has been delivered all along - The early covenant subsumed and included in the next.
Which foods did YHWH create to be received?
That’s an easy one, despite your sophistry:
1Ti_4:4 For EVERY creature of God is good, and NOTHING to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
So cannibalism is cool now? Poisonous meats?
Otherwise it be pretty stupid of Paul to advise Christians to eat whatever is placed before them, asking no questions:
1Co_10:27 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.
Wow. SO out of context.
I don’t think Pagans who might offer you food sacrificed to idols are known for keeping Kosher.
So what? I go to social functions all the time. And I eat there. Do I try to maintain kosher? Sure. But if I happen to eat a piece of bacon by mistake, it isn't going to kill me. If I find out the gumbo has a few shrimp in it, I am not going to die. I try to keep Torah because I love YHWH. And the argument almost throughout wrt meat from idols is about unknowingly eating them, because after the sacrifice, the meats were sold at the market. Folks were worried about that.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
[roamer_1:] No. For if he disposes of the Sabbath, then he is a false prophet, and not to be hearkened to.
Which doesn’t explain:
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Sure it does. Those who are doing the work of YHWH and need to work on the Sabbath to do it are not to be blamed. Never have been,
Nor the actions of the Apostles, who were not “in their own place”, but were picking food in the field:
So what, it is your assumption that one cannot even leave one's house on the Sabbath? or move from the very spot one found ones self at sundown? How absurd. People went to Temple on the Sabbath. People returned home. Your view on this is horribly skewed.
If Christ is LORD of the Sabbath, then He may do with it as He pleases...
And he did - He kept it. Perfectly. And He is our example. THAT He is Lord of the Sabbath is a great point, Because if He is God, as you say, and if God established the Sabbath FOREVER at Creation (long, long before there was a Jew), and God never changes...
There is nothing I am aware of that says they fought on the Sabbath - It was the 7th day of the siege, not necessarily the Seventh day.
You still have six other days to account for:
For what? Because they did as they were instructed specifically to do? Your idea of what the Sabbath is for is completely unfounded. It is to be a delight, not a burden.
[roamer_1:] I am not lording anything over anyone.
You just got done telling me how you are “striving to serve the Lord,” by not eating bacon and such, because, apparently, that is so holy. That’s called Lording.
You are assigning a motive without cause. Only YHWH is holy.
[roamer_1:]I was not quoting. But I will defend the inference, as if not, why would it be there?
It WASN’T there. Your inference is not a quote.
To be sure, it is there:
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Again I ask, why is that thought inserted into the text?
[roamer_1:] A proselyte begins with the Noachide law and learns the way of Torah.
There is no such thing as a “Noahide” law. It is an invention of Jewish tradition, which you did not like earlier when I quoted Kimchi.
Baloney. Gen 9:9 is a covenant, with direct commandments preceding it. Those, certainly, are of the Noachide covenant, if no others. The rest are inferred from those (strangled meats are eating blood, for instance), endorsed inclusions from the Edenic and Adamic covenants, or are directly commanded before the time of Abraham, where the next covenant revelation begins.
[roamer_1:] You have taken the verse out of context - Show me in the Torah where a Jew cannot eat among the gentiles.
I’ve not taken the verse out of context. Compelling people to “live like Jews” is not referring to Jews eating with Gentiles, all of whom, if you are to be believed, were keeping Kosher anyway. To say that you are “living like a Gentile,” but are asking Gentiles to “live like Jews” is in reference to the believing sect of Pharisees who required obedience to circumcision and the dietary and other laws.
No the verse is directly speaking to Peter setting himself apart among the Jews, which is Jewish TRADITION, and against Torah.