Rainbow crosswalks?

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 :slight_smile:

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.

NIV

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.

Acts 21:21

As I said, there is no record of gentiles complaining about Jewish customs and Paul tossing out any covenant to appease them.

1 Like

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.

The verse you posted does not support this assertion. Do you have a source to support this assertion and thus the remainder of your post?

You realize maybe that some large part of Christianity also views stories in Genesis literally and would certainly disagree with you that Paul finds them figurative.

I’ll admit that one doesn’t, and I apologize for the oversight.

The others however are clear.

Galatians 6:15
Galatians 5:2
1 Corinthians 7:18-19
Most of what occurs in Acts 15.

That’s… less negotiable. Paul’s habits are not literal, and he is outright saying events and people in Genesis are figurative:

These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.

Galatians 4:24

If you look into practice among Jewish scholars of the age, approaching scripture as “spiritual reading” (allegorical) was common. Paul differentiated between this and those parts of scripture that were “according to flesh” – actually happened (as when he prefaces in 1 Corinthians 10:18Look at Israel according to the flesh…”).

Sure thing.

First I stated that the Bible was very clear about what constitutes “Justice” as opposed to “Vengeance”.

AS then commented that the Bible was not clear on this and anyone’s opinion regarding the Biblical meaning of “Justice” was merely “Metaphysical Assumption”, he then made the comment that he could infer from the Bible that extremely harsh punishments that far exceed the offense could be fine because they would serve as a deterrent.

I said BS, the Bible is clear and his case could not be argued with the Bible and the Bible is only “Metaphysical Assumption” to those who don’t believe it is the Word of God.

AS then replied that he had an “Expert” whose opinions are above reproach who says that the Jews and Christians “Approach the Bible” differently and that is why I think the Bible is clear regarding what constitutes “Justice” but that is just my “Metaphysical Assumption”.

I then asked AS how his “Expert” could possibly know how “I approach the Bible” as a Christian.
AS had no answer for that so he said his evidence was that I disagreed with his expert (quite convenient!)

AS then attempted to misdirect away from the subject of “Justice” since he realized that he could not argue that the Bible was vague on the matter and his chosen direction was to say that Christians (at the order of Paul the Apostle) ditched many elements of Biblical covenants because the Gentiles were complaining about having to embrace them.

I again called BS because Paul never abrogated or in any way diminished any covenant in the Bible and the Gentile believers never complained about any customs or traditions (At this point I have also pointed out numerous times that it was clear that AS has never read the scriptures)

AS then decided a shortcut search had led him to a couple places in scripture that PROVED my declaration was wrong and Paul had indeed answered the complaints of Gentiles regarding Jewish customs by ditching the customs.

That was the point that I gave him a lifeline, I said that I would explain why the scriptures he had found were in fact condemning what he was trying to say and not defending his ridiculous position if he would admit that he is an Atheist/Agnostic, but as long as he was maintaining that he is a Christian I would not assist in his error by pretending that he could understand the Bible while simultaneously refusing to read it.

Then he kept digging…And digging…And digging. At one point I thought he was beginning to see his error but he quickly proved that he was no closer than before. He made several attempts to condemn the idea that the Bible was the final authority for Christians because the Catholic Pope was the only human alive at any given time who has a direct pipeline to God and can know the actual truth; I did not bite on that desperation attempt to change directions because I have debated AS many times.

I left several clues along the way that he completely missed, they would have led him to the study of Biblical covenants and he would have learned that the Salvation Covenant was not an extension of any former covenant and the former covenants had been fulfilled; not “abrogated” by Paul or any Christian.

Had he bothered to read the scriptures he would have learned that the Abraham covenant which introduced circumcision was a mark to identify Abraham’s direct descendants and the promise from God if Abraham did this was to make his descendants into a great nation, it had absolutely nothing to do with salvation from the Law of Sin and Death.

Had AS then bothered to read the Mosaic covenant he would have discovered that the promises God made if Israel would keep their end of the Law were also temporal, earthly promises; salvation from the Law of Sin and Death was never a promise in that covenant either.

Had he bothered to read the descriptions that Jesus gave to the covenant that he was establishing he would have learned that Jesus made it very clear that his covenant was not an addendum to any former covenant; that any attempt to join them would be like putting “New Wine in an old Wine-skin, the old Wine-skin would burst”.

He would also have learned that the objections to Jesus from the religious “experts” was largely based on their belief that the promised Messiah would be a political/military leader who would restore the sovereignty of Israel, some feared the war that this would bring about and others wanted this fight but Jesus continually corrected them by saying that he was forming a covenant to save the souls of men, not create a new dispensation of geographical Israel.

This information would have made it clear to AS that the Gentile Christians were NEVER obligated to become proselyte Jews in order to obtain the gift of salvation from the Law of Sin of Death; those covenants were never made with gentiles and Christians were never required to chain all these covenants together (they were in fact warned by Christ that it could not be done)

So the scriptures that AS “found” (and claimed that I had never read) were not a story of how some Messianic Christians had gone to some Gentile churches and rightly informed them that they were not right with God because they were not becoming proselyte Jews, then the Gentiles balked and bitched to Paul who then said “Okay, never mind that stuff, we will just toss that out”.

AS’s chosen scriptures were in fact of case of several Messianic Jews who had been too lazy to understand the scriptures and in their arrogance and ignorance sought to burden the gentile churches with their completely incorrect assumptions, so both Paul and Peter admonished these lazy “Experts” (the archaic version of todays Google-Babies) and set the churches straight on the covenant of Salvation from the Law of Sin and Death.

In other words it was believers who lacked the inclination to learn what the scriptures said who decided to just take their ignorance fueled assumptions to other believers and lay burdens on them that had nothing to do with the covenant of Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone and the resulting relationship with God through his Spirit that would lead Christians into all truth.

AS chose scriptures that he thought made his point when in fact his chosen scriptures condemned those who do exactly what he was trying to do; use his human assumptions in place of a working knowledge of the scriptures to arrogantly spout error and call it “Biblical”.

I was enjoying the irony although I know I shouldn’t have :wink:

I said the bible is a container of metaphysical assumption. Which it is. It’s a list of axiomatic assertions that one takes on faith to be true.

I’m not seeing the fault in this definition, and you’ve never explained.

That’s another hard no RET, you misunderstood what I said there.

“You can just as easily say…” is my invoking someone asserting another metaphysical assumption. The both implicit and explicit example I used was the Koran and cutting of hands.

Now, as an aside, the Bible does have some lopsided punishments; marrying within family, adultery, cursing your parents, all come with the penalty of death. These exceptions owe to its origins, and were not my point.

I did have an answer; you exposed yourself by calling it heresy.

I know, because you tipped your hand. If you didn’t mean to do that, you should have said something else.

Which is the same as admitting you’re not presenting an argument.

I can’t be an agnostic if I firmly believe God exists. Sorry RET, that’s apart of the definition.

Nope, I said “Sola Scriptura is a minority position within Christianity”. Which you admitted.

The Pope was only an example to show different metaphysical assumptions existed between Christian denominations. Which you can’t deny.

Afterall, if we Christians weren’t making different assumptions, they’re wouldn’t be disagreement on these things.

Then why did Peter and Paul speak ill of it, and people who practice it? You never explain this.
It was not simply in response to them pushing it onto Gentiles, even in absence of that, they condemned circumcision as meaningless and unnecessary.

You don’t explain how this fails to meet the definition of abrogation, which is simply the suppression or repeal of a practice.

Instead, you changed your claim to try and avoid admitting you made an error; twice.

Which means this goes back to what I said at the start; you don’t offer trust. Instead of being forthright about an error, you hide it. Instead of openly sharing your point, you play games.

The true irony, is that you continue to exercise that error, and pretend this is Christian behavior. You know that it’s not.