Paul’s beef was that the JEWS in the synagogues would not allow Gentiles to join the covenant without being circumcised in flesh. That is right on the part of the Jews because of Genesis 17 as well as in Ezekiel it is clear that no stranger is to join unless they are circumcised in BOTH the heart AND in the flesh. Shall they disobey God to please Paul and the Gentiles?
What are you talking about? Please clarify because I am having a hard time understanding what you said here. It is too mystical.
God did not reveal Himself through Moses. This is evident in that they called into question more than once what Moses was saying. God revealed Himself through the Law. Proverbs 2:1-11.
I don’t know what you mean that the Israelites fathomed such a thing. Hosea 11:9 … they didn’t.
Oh no, they haven’t… nor have we.
Yes, and they got the Law (Torah) through Moses (Exodus 19–20; Deuteronomy)… or would you think the Torah descended LITTERALLY from the sky?
Do you read the Bible ONLY in its litteral, concrete sense?
Had I missed the point of your post here? I was trying to reply to it. Yourself were replying to a post of mine, which was…Gentiles were never required, even by the apostles to be circumcised … that is not a requirement to be considered righteous. When it is required is when a Gentile wants to join to the covenant between God and Israel. And man does not resurrect after death … not in the zombie type way so many believe. Is not 2,000 years enough to see this is a fact and that the Tanakh saying such is not lying?
…this one
Lapell;5738280:
Paul started preaching Jesus as the awaited Messiah after he received a vision of the resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus as told in the Acts of the Apostles, and he met with Peter and some Apostles to make sure what he was preaching was kosher doctrine in their view. They confirmed that his message was the same Gospel they were preaching. Paul tells this in his letter to the Galatians.
Read Galatians again. Actually, in the very first chapter you can see that there were disagreements with Paul. Genesis 17 … that token of the covenant between God and Abraham is in the flesh, and it is an everlasting sign. And clearly in that chapter, circumcision was to be for all those who entered into that covenant. Ezekiel 44:9 confirms that this was never abolished. “Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.”
The Gentiles were never under the Laws given to the Jewish. If they want to enter into the covenant and they are doing it because their heart has been circumcised, they will not argue the circumcision of the flesh.…which in turn was replying to this one, where you were replying to another post of mine…
And my post (starting with “Sorry madame!”) was a reply to this, which I kinda wonder where you have taken this from. I doubt you read it just in the TaNaKH! You have got it from someone else from a much later time than Paul, maybe a contemporary… How versed are you in the study of the Bible to affirm things like this. I am not even sure you do know what you were talking about!
Lapell, the point is, Christianity claims to be the better minister to the world of what is said in the Tanakh. Yet, you all claim that God was a man. This is not something that founded in the tanakh. Read it. You will find the opposite written there numerous times … one of which is in Hosea 11:9.
The Church claims that Jesus promoted the Christians as being the new “chosen.” Jesus said that salvation is of the Jews … John 4:22. So, the bad witnessing is not just the part of a few Christians, but the Church as a whole. You misrepresent not only the teachings of Jesus, but the whole of the Tanakh… and even worse, you misrepresent them to the world.
Keep trying… you haven’t tripped me up yet, Lapell.
I read most of the Tanakh as metaphorical concepts. Why do you ask?