1 corinthians 9:19-23

[Michael Moon]

You like that argument? Haha I thought you might. Seriously though, how does a torah starter pack work? Why wouldn’t the starter pack start with more vital commands like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” or “Thou shalt not kill”? Is food really that important? Color me skeptical, but if I was telling a group of former pagans that they need to keep the law of Moses, I think three out of the four commands would be WAY down the list... especially if they can hover there with those four indefinitely.

They were four rules that most of the gentiles hadn't been keeping at that point. Having people have to sell their entire herd of swine just to enter the church was probably just as outrageous to them then as it would be now. Ofcourse the change should happen eventually.

I don't believe all of the gentile believers at that time were murdering on a daily basis. And they had heard and accepted the gospel which meant they already knew what the two greatest commandments were (Love the Lord your God, Your neighbor). They were told to separate themselves from four common issues that the Jerusalem Council found pressing and worth having the gentiles immediately stop. The gentiles didn't have freezers full of blood or an animal strangling factory. It was reasonable for them to cease those actions immediately. They were partaking now in the Lord's communion and should therefore not eat the meat sacrificed to any other master. Temple prostitution was a very common practice, as were certain forms of incest in regions around Judea.

They were pressing matters in my mind, and clearly in the Jerusalem Council's mind(s).

As an example, I can't recall the last time I heard a sermon against murder. In fact, I'm nearly certain I have NEVER heard a sermon specifically about the sin of murder. But that is because it is typically understood that one should not murder. Sadly, that is falling apart because of abortion, so perhaps more churches need to start up some teachings against murder.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not being passive-aggressive in any way, I think you're anticipating conflict between the two of us and seeing it where it is not intended.

I did not say anything about how to calculate the 10%. You're right that it is 10% of the increase. My point was that it was 10% of the increase on all seed crops - so that includes minor crops, and therefore includes the three crops named by Jesus. The Pharisees had not invented the need to tithe these crops - that requirement is in the Law. They might have been calculating the quantity rightly or wrongly, I have no idea as Jesus doesn't comment on that.

Jesus' criticism was that the Pharisees were being really pedantic about making sure they calculated their tithe on the most random minor crops, which was the law but a tiny little corner of it, while neglecting the weightier matters such as justice.

I could imagine Him saying "seriously Mr Pharisee, how much cumin do you really grow, and would it really be a big deal if you got that tithe wrong? Stop weighing it all, just grab a handful to give to the temple and get busy with something more important"

This is a side issue. You’re wrong. It’s not a big deal.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

The Law does kill us. Not because it is evil but because it is good (Romans 7:12) and WE are evil! We must be dead to receive new life. For we must know that we have wronged God to truly repent and receive new life. Knowing we have wronged God means knowing we have sinned.

Yes I mostly agree with you here. The law given at Sinai is not evil, no one is arguing that it is. We are evil. The law given at Sinai is weak, not because the law is bad, but because we are.

The change is in us. Not in the Law. The Law was made to bless those who keep it and curse those who go against it. It still does that today, the change is that we are empowered through the Holy Spirit to be like Christ. Sanctification leads us towards the perfection of Christ. His SINLESSNESS is his perfection. Sin is the transgression of God's Law.

But, here’s the rub, nobody keeps it. And the law has changed. Would you say that not one jot or tittle has changed?

The Law of Sin and Death is just that. By breaking the Law we sin and deserve death. By the ministry of the spirit we are granted rebirth and power! The Law condemns us because we are unable to keep it on our own (not because the Law is too difficult to keep, but rather because we are rebellious and evil), we are too weak (Romans 8:7-8). But through the Spirit we are empowered to keep the Law! We are empowered to no longer live in the flesh and hold enmity against God. We are able to keep the Law because we can rely on the Spirit to do the heavy lifting. And if we fail, if we fall into the flesh, if we sin, we can ask for forgiveness, and we can truly repent. We can be forgiven and continue our walk.

I get what you’re saying, and in part I agree with you, but there is a different law that we are in after we are baptized into Christ death and born again from above. What you’re saying here necessitates a change in the law. You cannot have Christ and an unchanged law. The law does not include human sacrifice or a priest from the tribe of Judah. Do you see what I’m saying?

So should we then be free to break the law so that God's grace abounds? (Romans 6)

Something to ponder here, the question you are asking me is the thing Paul was accused of teaching. Do you see which side of the equation you are standing on? Which covenant did Paul say he was a minister of, the letter or the Spirit?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

This is a side issue. You’re wrong. It’s not a big deal.

If it’s not a big deal, just say he’s right. Would it be so difficult? Lol

 

[The Revolting Man]

You like that argument? Haha I thought you might. Seriously though, how does a torah starter pack work? Why wouldn’t the starter pack start with more vital commands like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” or “Thou shalt not kill”? Is food really that important? Color me skeptical, but if I was telling a group of former pagans that they need to keep the law of Moses, I think three out of the four commands would be WAY down the list... especially if they can hover there with those four indefinitely.


So what are your thoughts on 2 Corinthians chapter three?

How does a New Covenant starter pack work? Do you tell people up front incest and bestiality are allowed or do you stay quiet and hope they don’t figure it out?

And once again, there is no Law of Moses. Moses did not write a single word of it. You’re not even getting basic terminology right. God wrote it, some of it with His own hand and in rock.

And you keep asking questions but you never answer one? Why?

II Corinthians 3 is the height of Pauline writing. It is dense and rich and I don’t understand much of it. I will say this, if it does away with the Old Testament then it appears to do away with the new too.

6 who also made us adequate asservants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The New Testament is written in letters. Also, I’m very excited to see how your dispensationalist beliefs handle a “ministry of the Spirit”. That would be some fun cognitive dissonance to watch.

Besides, you’ll never convince me that the “ministry of death” is something God commanded Israel to obey as some kind of millenia long object lesson to the rest of us. There’s something else going on in that chapter. It certainly talks about words at the start in the context of the Corinthians being a letter of commendation for Paul. Maybe there’s something going on with that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If it’s not a big deal, just say he’s right. Would it be so difficult? Lol

It would be a lie. He’s not right but this will lead off in to endless rabbit trails and allow you to squirm out of answering any of the myriad obvious problems with claiming that the Bible starts in Matthew 1:1.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

They were four rules that most of the gentiles hadn't been keeping at that point. Having people have to sell their entire herd of swine just to enter the church was probably just as outrageous to them then as it would be now. Ofcourse the change should happen eventually.

I don't believe all of the gentile believers at that time were murdering on a daily basis. And they had heard and accepted the gospel which meant they already knew what the two greatest commandments were (Love the Lord your God, Your neighbor). They were told to separate themselves from four common issues that the Jerusalem Council found pressing and worth having the gentiles immediately stop. The gentiles didn't have freezers full of blood or an animal strangling factory. It was reasonable for them to cease those actions immediately. They were partaking now in the Lord's communion and should therefore not eat the meat sacrificed to any other master. Temple prostitution was a very common practice, as were certain forms of incest in regions around Judea.

They were pressing matters in my mind, and clearly in the Jerusalem Council's mind(s).

As an example, I can't recall the last time I heard a sermon against murder. In fact, I'm nearly certain I have NEVER heard a sermon specifically about the sin of murder. But that is because it is typically understood that one should not murder. Sadly, that is falling apart because of abortion, so perhaps more churches need to start up some teachings against murder.

There is at least one remaining problem with this theory, it does not say that in the text. It also doesn’t make any sense if Paul and Peter were there teaching them to keep Torah and the men from Jerusalem came and said they needed to be circumcised, that it would cause an uproar so big Paul and an entire entourage had to go to Jerusalem to get an answer. Wouldn’t a “hey we’re getting to it” suffice? I mean getting circumcised isn’t fun, but it’s not that big of a deal. The pagan men of Hamor and Shechem’s city didn’t waste any time getting it done.

 

[Michael Moon]

But, here’s the rub, nobody keeps it. And the law has changed. Would you say that not one jot or tittle has changed?

God's grace will always be in more supply than man's obedience. For me it is just about trying to please the master. I know I can't do everything perfectly on my own. But no, I don't believe any of it has changed per se.

"And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none." - Ezekial 22:30.

I get what you’re saying, and in part I agree with you, but there is a different law that we are in after we are baptized into Christ death and born again from above. What you’re saying here necessitates a change in the law. You cannot have Christ and an unchanged law. The law does not include human sacrifice or a priest from the tribe of Judah. Do you see what I’m saying?

The Law (Torah) is the instruction of God. His instruction certainly does include many prophetic statements about Christ. But if you're looking for Moses' words Deuteronomy 18 contains a very clear prophesy of the coming Messiah. You do also have multiple mentions of the "order of
Melchizedek which I won't pretend to fully understand.

Something to ponder here, the question you are asking me is the thing Paul was accused of teaching. Do you see which side of the equation you are standing on? Which covenant did Paul say he was a minister of, the letter or the Spirit?

In Acts 21 Paul takes a vow specifically to prove that he is not teaching that the Law should not be kept. Paul is a minister of the Spirit, I'm not debating that. But being a minister of the Spirit does not dismiss God's Law. The same way being a Christian does not make one immune to sinning.

There is at least one remaining problem with this theory, it does not say that in the text. It also doesn’t make any sense if Paul and Peter were there teaching them to keep Torah and the men from Jerusalem came and said they needed to be circumcised, that it would cause an uproar so big Paul and an entire entourage had to go to Jerusalem to get an answer. Wouldn’t a “hey we’re getting to it” suffice? I mean getting circumcised isn’t fun, but it’s not that big of a deal. The pagan men of Hamor and Shechem’s city didn’t waste any time getting it done.

That they need to be circumcised in order to join the assembly (in-person). Basically, they were deciding what gentiles had to do to fellowship with the believers. Not what they needed to do to be saved. So again, they didn't want to start with anything drastic. As for the "hey we're getting to it", I believe you already know what passage most of us would point to: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:21).

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

How does a New Covenant starter pack work? Do you tell people up front incest and bestiality are allowed or do you stay quiet and hope they don’t figure it out?

Oh those are the first two things I lead with in evangelism

And once again, there is no Law of Moses. Moses did not write a single word of it. You’re not even getting basic terminology right. God wrote it, some of it with His own hand and in rock.

John must not have gotten the memo about this when he “falsely” quoted Jesus as using this very term.

I’m seeing a pattern here. You once told me the term “dead works” doesn’t appear in Scripture.
Then something similar about the new covenant.

And you keep asking questions but you never answer one? Why?

Never answer one? That’s categorically false.

II Corinthians 3 is the height of Pauline writing. It is dense and rich and I don’t understand much of it. I will say this, if it does away with the Old Testament then it appears to do away with the new too.

This sounds like the start of every history channel documentary on the Bible, right before they tell us it’s a fairy tale.

The New Testament is written in letters. Also, I’m very excited to see how your dispensationalist beliefs handle a “ministry of the Spirit”. That would be some fun cognitive dissonance to watch.

Do dispensationalists not believe in the work of the Holy Spirit?

Besides, you’ll never convince me that the “ministry of death” is something God commanded Israel to obey as some kind of millenia long object lesson to the rest of us. There’s something else going on in that chapter. It certainly talks about words at the start in the context of the Corinthians being a letter of commendation for Paul. Maybe there’s something going on with that.

Millenia long object lesson for the rest of us? I’m not that narcissistic. I will go with the reason Scripture gives, it was added because of transgressions.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

God's grace will always be in more supply than man's obedience. For me it is just about trying to please the master. I know I can't do everything perfectly on my own. But no, I don't believe any of it has changed per se.

I understand the desire to please the Father, I only encourage you to be sure what you are doing to please Him is what He wants you to be doing.

You can understand how saying there is no change looks like cognitive dissonance right? How do you square the two? Someone claiming priestly duties under the law of Moses from the tribe of Judah would be breaking the law that priests come from Levi, would he not? And if God’s plan was for the law of Moses to continue under Christ, couldn’t God have given the law differently or had Christ’s lineage come through Levi, so that Christ could have been a high priest under the law? Is Christ breaking his own law or did he make the old obsolete as Hebrews says and initiated a new covenant, one that was promised to Abraham’s seed, Christ Himself?

The Law (Torah) is the instruction of God. His instruction certainly does include many prophetic statements about Christ. But if you're looking for Moses' words Deuteronomy 18 contains a very clear prophesy of the coming Messiah. You do also have multiple mentions of the "order of
Melchizedek which I won't pretend to fully understand.

Yes the law and the prophets foretold of Him, but that’s a different thing.

In Acts 21 Paul takes a vow specifically to prove that he is not teaching that the Law should not be kept. Paul is a minister of the Spirit, I'm not debating that. But being a minister of the Spirit does not dismiss God's Law. The same way being a Christian does not make one immune to sinning.

Paul didn’t teach Jews to stop keeping the law, but he specifically told gentiles not to start. Remain as you were called.

That they need to be circumcised in order to join the assembly (in-person). Basically, they were deciding what gentiles had to do to fellowship with the believers. Not what they needed to do to be saved. So again, they didn't want to start with anything drastic. As for the "hey we're getting to it", I believe you already know what passage most of us would point to: "For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:21).

Here’s the letter. I see nothing in it instructing the gentile believers to take on any other burden than these basic things and in light of Paul’s epistles the dietary things were for the consciences of others, which is in keeping with the command to love one another.


Acts 15:23-29 KJV
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: [24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: [25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, [26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. [28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; [29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

[rgmann]

I think this is a fairly universal understanding of salvation among most Christians. The only thing we differ on is exactly which things are sinful - which things should be expected to change during that process of sanctification. But the basic principle of justification vs sanctification that @The Revolting Man is espousing is fairly universal.

If believers in Christ are obligated to observe the ceremonial commandments of Torah (e.g., circumcision, dietary regulations, sabbath restrictions, monthly and yearly feasts, etc.), as a number of people here are asserting, then it’s simply a dodge to say that the debate between us is only about sanctification but not salvation. There’s no such thing as justification by faith apart from genuine repentance from sin. A man who professes to be saved by faith in Christ and continues to live in unrepentant disobedience to His commandments is a liar. If those who are pushing mandatory Torah observance are correct (and they most certainly are NOT!), then professing believers who refuse to repent and start obeying the ceremonial commandments are unsaved liars who do not practice the truth.

“If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.” (1 John 1:6)

A man cannot be justified or forgiven apart from sincere confession of his sins to the Lord.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)

“Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4)

“If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.” (1 John 2:29)

“Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning.” (1 John 3:6-7)

“In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:10)

I could go on and on, but the above scriptures ought to suffice. The false teaching that the ceremonial commandments of Torah, which were in effect under the old covenant, are still mandatory under the new covenant is most definitely a salvation related issue. As I’ve stated before, there’s no middle ground or compromise between these two contrary “understandings” of the gospel. One is the true gospel. The other is a perversion of the true gospel – a false gospel. These are not peripheral issues that we can “peacefully” agree to disagree over. They cut right through the heart of the gospel.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is a side issue. You’re wrong. It’s not a big deal.

We have certainly gone down a rabbit trail about small seeds. But the real point I was making was that Jesus pointed out that some laws were more important than others. Just to be clear, do you believe I am wrong about that? Or just wrong about cumin seed? (which I agree is not a big deal)

 

[The Revolting Man]

Oh those are the first two things I lead with in evangelism

Now you see this is a question that you should be answering, not trying to evade with sarcasm. If, as you say, the whole Law is done away with then most moral restrictions are as well. The New Testament is light on details about those things.

You can’t forbid incest and bestiality with a New Testament only faith. How do you reconcile this?

 

[The Revolting Man]

We have certainly gone down a rabbit trail about small seeds. But the real point I was making was that Jesus pointed out that some laws were more important than others. Just to be clear, do you believe I am wrong about that? Or just wrong about cumin seed? (which I agree is not a big deal)

I completely disagree but this is straying in to a intra-Torah keeper debate that was had recently. It wasn’t resolved there and it won’t get resolved here and it’s not important at the moment.

 

[Mark C]

Sometimes the $#!^ gets so thick it deserves a hose-down. Not because I expect those who "break [not just!] the least of these commandments and teach men to do so" are going to quit, but because those who are being lied to deserve better:

. A man who professes to be saved by faith in Christ and continues to live in unrepentant disobedience to His commandments is a liar.

That's as close as he gets...

But this is transparently pitiful:

...Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God...

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

...Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil...

I emphasize the twisted word for a reason.

I could go on and on, but the above scriptures ought to suffice.

Oh, the irony! If only he knew what the word righteousness meant! And I'm not talking about three levels of twisting through Greek and churchiantiy. The original Hebrew root word is:

צָדַק​

and it literally connotes OBEDIENCE to His Instruction (torah). Those who do so are called 'tzaddikim', righteous ones in English, or just those who walk in obedience to His Word.

"Righteousness" is explicitly "obedience to His instruction." UN-righteousness is literally, rebellion, or, with understanding of the root word tz-d-k
-- "torah-less-ness".

It's the same word He used when He SPOKE the warning -- no, and not in Greek -- in Matthew 7:21-23, and said "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the malchut shemayim, but those who DO the WILL of My Father in hashemayim."

Guess what that 'will' is called? Hint: He instructs us in it.

And those who DO His will are called by the same root word for 'righteous,' torah-obedient. Likewise, a 'tzaddik' is one who knows, studies, and walks in His Word.

He ends with what I call (ever so apropos here) the 'scariest verse in Scripture' - or it should be, to those who "practice torah-less-ness":

"...and I will declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness...unrighteousness...TORAH-less-ness."

​

PS> Any doubters, do a word search for the variants. First use(s) is with respect to Noah, in Genesis 6:9, then 7:1. Some English translations render the same root into words like "just" as well. And, yes, it's the same word Abraham dickered with YHVH about in Sodom..."what if there were just TEN 'tzaddikim'?"

 

[JudahYAHites]

Sometimes the $#!^ gets so thick it deserves a hose-down. Not because I expect those who "break [not just!] the least of these commandments and teach men to do so" are going to quit, but because those who are being lied to deserve better:


That's as close as he gets...

But this is transparently pitiful:


I emphasize the twisted word for a reason.

Oh, the irony! If only he knew what the word righteousness meant! And I'm not talking about three levels of twisting through Greek and churchiantiy. The original Hebrew root word is:

צָדַק​

and it literally connotes OBEDIENCE to His Instruction (torah). Those who do so are called 'tzaddikim', righteous ones in English, or just those who walk in obedience to His Word.

"Righteousness" is explicitly "obedience to His instruction." UN-righteousness is literally, rebellion, or, with understanding of the root word tz-d-k
-- "torah-less-ness".

It's the same word He used when He SPOKE the warning -- no, and not in Greek -- in Matthew 7:21-23, and said "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the malchut shemayim, but those who DO the WILL of My Father in hashemayim."

Guess what that 'will' is called? Hint: He instructs us in it.

And those who DO His will are called by the same root word for 'righteous,' torah-obedient. Likewise, a 'tzaddik' is one who knows, studies, and walks in His Word.

He ends with what I call (ever so apropos here) the 'scariest verse in Scripture' - or it should be, to those who "practice torah-less-ness":

"...and I will declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness...unrighteousness...TORAH-less-ness."

​

PS> Any doubters, do a word search for the variants. First use(s) is with respect to Noah, in Genesis 6:9, then 7:1. Some English translations render the same root into words like "just" as well. And, yes, it's the same word Abraham dickered with YHVH about in Sodom..."what if there were just TEN 'tzaddikim'?"

Just for good measure as the questions I put forth earlier have been sidestepped. Maybe I was out of line and derailed the topic with the questions so @Mark C per chance is there any correlation between righteous / righteousness and holy / holiness?

 

[rgmann]

And those who DO His will are called by the same root word for 'righteous,' torah-obedient.

You are simply proving the point I was making, albeit in a very convoluted and incoherent fashion. Your false teaching that “righteousness” for new covenant believers in Christ consists of obeying every jot and tittle of the old covenant Torah, to include all of the ceremonial commandments, is indeed a salvation related issue. A person cannot be justified by faith and continue to live in unrepentant disobedience to the ceremonial commandments of the Torah if they are still mandatory under the new covenant. This debate is not merely over minor disagreements regarding one’s growth and sanctification. You are preaching the same type of false gospel preached by the Judaizers, which was condemned by the Apostle Paul in Galatians and by the Apostles at the Jerusalem council – “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).

 

[Michael Moon]

You are simply proving the point I was making, albeit in a very convoluted and incoherent fashion. Your false teaching that “righteousness” for new covenant believers in Christ consists of obeying every jot and tittle of the old covenant Torah, to include all of the ceremonial commandments, is indeed a salvation related issue. A person cannot be justified by faith and continue to live in unrepentant disobedience to the ceremonial commandments of the Torah if they are still mandatory under the new covenant. This debate is not merely over minor disagreements regarding one’s growth and sanctification. You are preaching the same type of false gospel preached by the Judaizers, which was condemned by the Apostle Paul in Galatians and by the Apostles at the Jerusalem council – “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).

Stop acting like we're all running around trying to cut the tip of your willy off. The Judaizers were teaching that those things were necessary for someone to even be allowed into the Assembly. The Torah vs. Non-Torah debate that has been on this forum far longer than you or I is not about who is allowed on the forum, or even who we would personally call one of the brethren. It's an in-house debate on what the Father wants.

 

[frederick]

As an example, I can't recall the last time I heard a sermon against murder. In fact, I'm nearly certain I have NEVER heard a sermon specifically about the sin of murder. But that is because it is typically understood that one should not murder. Sadly, that is falling apart because of abortion, so perhaps more churches need to start up some teachings against murder.

I was present in an assembly a little while ago where the sermon was about the sin of murder. I've personally preached on it three times. It's not that unusual in some circles.

 

[frederick]

Paul didn’t teach Jews to stop keeping the law, but he specifically told gentiles not to start.

Yes, and Paul was a Jew, as was Peter and the other apostles, so he was free to keep Jewish customs and laws. Perhaps some don't realise non-Jews are not required to keep Jewish customs(?) Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in compelling the non-Jews to live as Jews. Galatians 2:14, But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? The words, to live as Jews, are the translation of one Greek word; ἰουδαΐζειν, literally meaning, to Judaize. If Jews are free to live as non-Jews (as Peter was), surely those who are non-Jews are free to live as non-Jews. Perhaps it's time, as Paul did with Peter, to remind people it's wrong to try to Judaize non-Jews and compel them to live as Jews.

This debate will continue to go round and round as long as there is no distinction made between Jews and non-Jews, or between the circumcised and uncircumcised as Paul refers to them. Shalom