I was wrong, you are no closer to seeing your error.
No explanations, still just offering denials, not answering the challenge…
Hey RET, do you need me to show what an explanation looks like? Do you just not know how to write one?
You are making my argument better than I ever could, the futility of someone who refuses to read the Bible trying to rightly divide it and declare what it means
I re-read the books in the Bible I quoted from. Why didn’t you RET?
I never saw you once quote any passage to back your case; curious. it’s almost like, you’ve been just making inferences all this time.
That’s not what “Divide” means, you’ve said that twice. Do you mean “Divine”?
Sort of like an encyclopedia, yes I was quite aware of your “technique” based on the conclusions that you have been drawing.
Are you sure about that? Or are you just sure that I did not give you an address for a quote and since you have never read the Bible you had no idea?
When you have never bothered to read the Bible you have no idea when I or anyone else is “quoting” from it.
I have been exposing you in 3 ways so far and you have now declared 2 of them entirely on your own, if you keep writing I am certain you can pull off the hat trick!
Haven’t been following this discussion closely but the thread has the little blue dot, so I click and see what y’all are arguing about. Unfortunately I’ve lot track of the actual issue. But here’s the Scripture RET was referencing.
KJV 2 Timothy 2:15:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
And from a Catholic Bible:
15 Make every effort to present yourself before [God] as a proven worker who has no need to be ashamed, but who keeps the message of [truth] on a straight path.
No, I read the whole book. That’s how i found the quotes I gave you to begin with.
Yes, you never quoted anything. You may have paraphrased something, but quote? No. And certainly not to make a case refuting what I said.
I quoted the Bible.
Acts has Gentiles complaining about Jewish customs. You said that didn’t happen, but we see clearly that it did.
You then tried to change your claim “they didn’t complain to Paul”. But that was silly; he clearly heard about it.
Ergo, you made mistakes RET. care to be honest? Or are you going to continue to be pathological with your language? Even when it comes to the Bible?
Seems to be a KJV only inclusion; no other translation uses the word this way.
KJV is not an approved translation for Catholics, partly, because it features Protestant edits, and excludes canonical books.
The edition I grew up with, the NAB, or NABRE, reads this way:
“15 Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation.”
So RET, no, I didn’t read a heretical version of the Bible. I read the full one, with 46 and 27 for Old and New, and modern use of the English language.
The Gentiles never complained about Jewish customs and Paul never abrogated or diminished any covenant in the scriptures.
They did, I quoted the passage directly.
Paul heard their minds were troubled. He didn’t predict it, he didn’t infer it, he heard it. People were talking.
He abrogated circumcision. If you suppress or repeal a practice, that fits the definition for abrogation RET, and both occurred.
Paul never abrogated any element of any covenant and the gentile churches never complained about Jewish customs to Paul or asked him to change anything (at least that is recorded in scripture).
The gentiles complained about circumcision. This was recorded.
And Paul abrogated the practice:
“They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices.”
As I said, there is no record of gentiles complaining about Jewish customs and Paul tossing out any covenant to appease them.
I quoted the passage, so you need to explain what you mean.
He suppressed Circumcision and later banned it. I can gather that he did this for reasons more than just Gentile complaints, but he did toss it out.
The definition of abrogation, fits. If you don’t believe that, you need to explain.
The verse you quoted says that some folks were saying Paul was telling Jews to abandon Moses. The rest of the passage shows Paul doing something else entirely. Paul at the very least humored his Jewish brethren. It’s in the passage not the single verse you quoted.What he did here was not suppression or banning. This seems black and white to me.
21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
I’ve long ago lost the point of this discussion. Would either of you please summarize why this matters? The thesis of your argument? Yes, I know I can go back and read, but seriously, scroll back and look at this thread.
I can’t speak for most of the law, but of circumcision, it is. He’s told them outright not to do it.
He and Peter call it meaningless, a part rejection of Christ, and people who do it “lesser brothers”.
This can all be called suppressing the practice; they are pushing people not do it.
When Judaic believers tried to enforce circumcision upon gentiles, the council of Jerusalem ruled against them and released a statement stating what specifically believers had to do.
Circumcision was deliberately absent.
Paul and his cadre altered how the Old Testament was to be approached.
Jews themselves testify to the fact that they don’t approach the Old Testament the same way Christians do.
RET doesn’t believe this.
The issue crystallized around circumcision as that’s one of the more obvious points of scripture I could point to where this occurred.
Another point I made was that Paul preached a belief that was shared by others that stories in Genesis were figurative, not literal. Orthodox Judaism reads them literally, so we can tell Christianity diverged here.