Rainbow crosswalks?

They were complaining to someone, how else did Paul or the Council hear about it? And they were complaining, that’s what Paul said. They didn’t stay silent, they didn’t go along with it, they objected to it.

Circumcision was apart of the Convenant, yet Paul is outright saying “don’t do it”.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

– Galatians 5:2

Peter equally said in Acts 15 not to do it; that faith in Christ was sufficient to have a covenant; circumcision was unnecessary.

I am fine with you thinking whatever you want about any portion of Scripture, if however you would prefer to actually know what this portion is communicating (rightly divide the scriptures in other words) then you will need to actually read the book.

If there is anyone following this who does read the scripture and would like to hear what these portions mean in context I would be happy to elaborate but I don’t pretend that “cheat sheet Bible readers” can ever comprehend anything of value or “get it right”.

RET, none of this is an explanation. You’re just denying it again.

Can you offer one or not?

If you don’t, you’re not answering the challenge.

I have told you explicitly that I will not answer any challenge regarding scripture from anyone who refuses to read the Bible; I have given you several options if you want me to engage.

Read the Bible or admit that you are an Atheist or Agnostic, but as long as you maintain that you are a Christian who refuses to read the Bible then I will leave you to the only path that can possibly exist for you; the path of error.

I didn’t see you say there were terms you could dictate. You didn’t leave wiggle room when you said "ignoring challenges is bad". Either answer the challenge, or you’re precisely what you described.

And you’re exactly what I said on top that; lazy and complacent. Feinting arguments you had no intention of making.

I never said I didn’t read the Bible, you said that.

I said you didn’t read these books. Because they’re saying exactly what you said they didn’t.

As a Catholic, the early Church and what arguments its leaders went through was taught at length to us. You want to tell me that early arguments like this didn’t happen, but I know that’s bullcrap RET.

Tension between the Hebrews and Gentiles existed. That’s a fact.

If you were honest, you would admit you had blindspots here, and quit feeding me this facade of an argument you don’t have.

So far in this thread you have claimed:

What is read in the Bible is just “metaphysical assumption”

The Bible is not authoritative over the “chosen man” and those who think that the Bible is the highest authority are a minority so they must be wrong.

One Jewish scholar speaks for all Judaism and Christianity when he says that he knows how I approach scripture.

That means that you approach religion in the same way that you approach every other topic that you debate on this forum, you make dogmatic declarations as if the opinions are your own but when challenged you say “your not arguing with me, you are arguing with (enter designated thinkers name)” ; with of course the standard misdirection.

It is possible for people to shirk their critical thinking responsibilities on many subjects while taking their religious ideas serious enough to have a discussion; I know several people like this and their sincerity regarding their Faith means I will discuss any matter of a biblical nature with them.

But that is not you, I have been testing you for multiple posts to see if you are able to notice that the 2 scriptures you have been referencing are condemning believers who are using scripture out of context to decieve believers (probably out of ignorance of the scriptures since they were not cast out); which is precisely what you are trying to do by claiming that Paul & Peter are altering the previous covenants when these portions have absolutely nothing to do with the previous covenants.

The irony of you selecting scriptures which condemn the very practice that you are engaged in is not coincidence; the Bible cannot be rightly divided by those who reject its authority in place of men.

So if the Holy Spirit has not called foul within you as you have continued to butcher these scriptures I would have to be quite a fool to think that I could carve a path through your convictions that are based on hearsay alone.

Your religious ideas are your business, right up to the moment that they are not; no man can will that moment for himself or anyone else; I will not pretend that I can will it for you.

Metaphysical is directly related to first principle. Your objection just seems to come from your lack of familiarity with the term. You have not offered any explanation for why you think the term does not apply.

Thank you for admitting you’re in the minority. You’re also historically very recent; Sola Scriputura was not position of the Church in the 1st century. Which is among the reasons I don’t consider it credible.

Here was the bottom line; can you prove the Jews approach things as you say they do?

I did, so where was your proof? No, I’m not taking your word, you have not earned that trust.

You need to provide evidence RET.

If they’re truly dogmatic, that means they can’t just be my own. By definition.

That means there’s a larger body behind it. Here, it’s the Catholic Church.

Who i express no shame in touting the stance of. Why shouldn’t I RET? That’s my faith afterall.
Why would I not take their stance on this?

I don’t owe you neutrality. And I don’t expect anyone to do any less for their faiths.

They abrogated circumcision; an old covenant practice. That was my claim, and scripture shows they did it.

You claimed you could prove this was wrong, you have not done so.

Gentiles did complain, a custom was abrograted, . You denied these things, and you were wrong.
Shifting goal posts only means you won’t be honest.

You only had to answer the challenge, you played a game instead of answering.

Your desire to one-up me whenever you can, trumps your ability to tell the truth.
You over-leveraged what you thought you knew here, and you messed up.

That would be quadrupling down? I lost count but thank you for illustrating my point nonetheless.

Here’s what you said, here’s my answer: You admit you were trying to mislead me.

To claim this, you would have to be saying circumcision is not an Old covenant Practice. But we know it is.
It is apart of Mosaic Law, and it’s still practiced by Jews today.

Peter and Paul abrogated the practice. They admonished people who still asked for it, calling them “lesser brothers”. So what I said was correct.

Peter and Paul never attempted to alter or diminish any covenant that God had made with men, not one time, not ever (at least that is recorded in scripture).

They abrogated a practice; Circumcision. The implication is that they also abrogated other practices.

I claimed this, and it is correct.Scripture shows that.

Peter and Paul never abrogated any element of any covenant that God had entered with man prior to the New Testament; not one time, not ever (at least that is recorded in scripture)

They abrogated circumcision and called people who stuck to it “lesser brothers”.

If you read the text, they refer to the old law as a “guardian” that is no longer necessary.

You must understand that MOST of the “laws” given by Moses had mostly to do with HEALTH. Avoid pork (because of trichinosis and other similar problems). Avoid shellfish (because of bad allergic reactions by some–unknowable until eaten), etc. Quite likely, the concept of circumcision was promoted for similar hygienic reasons and given the trappings of religious ritual to promote the practice.

They abrigated nothing including circumcision and those who attempted to attach the salvation of man to the circumcision covenant were indeed “lesser believers”.

In fact they were “believers” who spoke of scriptures that they didn’t bother to understand and sought to burden others with their ignorance (sound familiar?), this is not the unpardonable sin but clearly worthy of the admonishment that Paul gave them.

They abrogated circumcision, they said it was worth exactly nothing.

“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.”

Galatians 6:15

“Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.”

1 Corinthians 7:18-19

I’m not saying the whole law was abrogated, I’am saying this was, because it was.

The Church later outlawed ritual circumcision, just to hammer in the point.

Peter and Paul never abrogated any element of any covenant that God had entered with man prior to the New Testament; not one time, not ever (at least that is recorded in scripture)

They abrogated circumcision, which is why the Church outlawed it.

They refer to it as “both dead and deadly”.

By definition, abrogation, which means to suppress a practice, or repeal it, did occur. The Bible testifies to this, as do external sources from the 1st and 2nd century.

“A practice”?

Do I sense that you have finally begun to see your error so a subtle goalpost shift to save face was in order?

Do I sense you didn’t pay attention to what I said at the start?

You responded to this RET.

And to the 3-4 other times I used this word:

So why pull this crap now?