diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Clearly Paul is not describing a pagan spring fertility goddess feast. He is tell us Christians to celebrate the Passover feast.

---

Paul's a strange writer. In the middle of admonishing the people of Corinth for their boasting in their immorality, Paul takes a moment to tell them to celebrate the Passover.

(Or, Paul is using the Passover/Leavening of bread as an allusion to describe how their sin seeps into their daily life like yeast throughout dough...)

Hope you're doing well.

---

Yes, those are all part of the great symbolism involved in the Passover and Matzot (unleavened bread).

Therefore, let us keep the feast.

Personally, I like the interpretation that either the 14th or the 15th sunset fulfills the commandment. After all, it says sunset of a day that both starts and ends at sunset. That's also the only way I can think of to make the Last Supper a Passover meal while Christ is also the Passover sacrifice the following day. Going by just the 14th, Jesus can't be a Passover sacrifice after the Passover seder and meal. Going by just the 15th means that the Last Supper wasn't a Passover meal at all, thought it clearly is. The either/or interpretation fixes both these issues, and also makes me think of God as less rigidly legalistic than we are.

Counting days from sunset to sunset, as God does, if you are eating after the second sunset on the 14th, then you are actually eating on the 15th and not the 14th. Yeshua kept the Law perfectly.

Matthew 26:26-27
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Yeshua became our Passover sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins when HE said it happened. His execution was due to the sin of man NOT following His commandments. If they were following His commandments properly, then they would have been observing a High Sabbath and not running around murdering people.

BTW, the cup after the Passover meal is called the Cup of Redemption by the Jews. How fitting. Do this in remembrance of HIM. Therefore, let us keep the feast!

Win At Life said:

---

There is some historical evidence (can't put my finger on it at the moment) that the Sadducees kept the Passover on the 14 and some commoners did both not knowing which was right. But Judaism as we know it today is descended from the Pharisees, so just like then, they still keep it on the 15th to this day.

---

I don't know about Passover specifically, but in the ancient world, there was often confusion over which day it was, due to people actually having to observe a new moon in order to declare a new month (a practice that is still done in the Islamic calendar today). And so Jews adopted a tradition of celebrating festivals for an extra day just to be safe.

I hope WaL I'm not stepping out of bounds here, but this thread seemed a good place to place this essay.

Learning From the Jewish Easter
by R. R. Reno - First Things

In 325AD, Constantine and his Anti-Semitic Council of Nicea forbid the keeping of Passover called for in both the OT and NT as kept by Yeshua Himself. Constantine's feigned conversion to Christianity was a lie proven by his murdering both his son and wife shortly thereafter. He was a pagan, who hated anything biblical that reminded him of Jews, proclaiming:

"For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people.."

The replacement of Passover was given to the pagan Spring fertility goddesses, which have changed from culture to culture over the centuries, but the spirit is surprisingly consistent. The beginning of the week after Yeshua's execution was the biblical feast of Bikkurim (First Fruits), but that too has been deliberately forgotten and merged with pagan symbolism of eggs dyed in the blood of sacrificed babies and fertile rabbits.

You may say that you don't give any weight to the ancient pagan origins and that those don't mean anything to you, because you are doing them now with Jesus in mind. That would be like your wife having sex with another man and telling you that it doesn't mean anything to her, because she has you in mind while she is doing those things. Would that be acceptable to you? Certainly not. And it's not acceptable to YHWH Yeshua HaMashiach either.

Shalom

Win At Life said:

---

Anti-Semitic Council of Nicea

---

Indeed it was.

If it was totally clear, then it would have been a controversy for hundreds of years. I agree your interpretation is valid, but that doesn't make it the only valid interpretation.

My go to example is abstaining from work in the Sabbath. Defining work is a philosophical exercise. Do you have to get paid to consider it work? Are mental and physical activity considered work? Are sports work? What if you're a professional athlete? If you genuinely enjoy a strenuous task, does it still count as work?

I think we can take lesson from the Rechabites and the different flavors of modern Judaism. Set a consistent interpretation and follow it without worrying if your particular observances are the best/perfect/true/only way to do things

There's something that doesn't make sense when you equate following Torah and Judaizing. The Council of Jerusalem condemned the Judaizers. Who lead the Council? James. James is famous for being the most dutiful Torah follower in Jerusalem, even to the point where rabbis and priests would come to him for advice and to settle Torah disputes. They even came to him to condemn Christians, knowing how respected he was. They were greatly surprised when he instead preached the Gospel and they killed him.

The idea that James would condemn people for following the Law, and then turn around and follow and teach the Law better than anyone else in Jerusalem doesn't make any sense. Also, if James could follow the Torah is entire life as a Christian and die a heroic martyr, then following the Torah can't be incompatible with an acceptable Christian life

As for Ignatius:
The word "Judiazer" is not defined in scripture. However, keeping Passover as mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, or else Paul was a Judiazer and Christianity is a farce. But keeping God's Word as He instructed us to do is not, and cannot, be the definition of Judiazer.

A Judiazer is a Jew who rejects Yeshua as the Mashiach, His divinity outright, His blood for our salvation and preaches a doctrine of following the Law in order to earn salvation.

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

This is wrong. Scripture is opposed to this. I'm opposed to this. Paul is opposed to this. But both Paul and I are saying God's instructions are asking you to keep the Passover NOT in order to earn salvation. Do not confuse the two.

As for Constantine:
If you want to follow that man for your doctrine, then please go murder your own son and wife as he did. I choose not to follow that man, but YHWH Yeshua HaMashiach.

As for Trinity:
I can affirm the divinity of Yeshua without requiring Him to be a tri-person god-head. The Spirit is Rauah in Hebrew, means the breath of God and is a feminine word. If you want to make the breath of God into a distinct person, then use the correct pronoun "she" instead of the false "he". And the word in Aramaic is neuter. The breath of God should be called an "it" and not a "He"(or even a she).
You are required to twist the reality of this to make a 3-man, tri-headed god, which is borrowed from paganism that well predates Christianity. I have a photo from a museum in Vienna from an Egyptian relief dated 1000 years before Christ showing the Trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus. Mithras was a Persian Trinity. Zeus was one third of a Trinity. Trinity is a pagan concept not found in scripture, but rolled into the faith by your murders founder Constantine. I worship YHWH Yeshua HaMashiach echad.

First off, your understanding of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) suffers from the same flaw as I outlined above to Ordhound04. Please read that.

Your go to example about HOW to keep the Sabbath is putting your eyes on man. Don't look to professional athletes. Don't look to me. Don't look to any man about HOW to keep the Sabbath. Put your eyes on YHWH Yeshua HaMashiac and His Word and ask Him IF you should keep the Sabbath. That should be the starting point.

Your argument seems to be that because we can't all agree on exactly how to keep the Sabbath equally one man to another, then that means it should be abolished completely AND that also God is erasing that from His instructions to us for the same reason. We all do not need to keep the Sabbath equally. There is great freedom in God's instruction even within the bounds of what He has told us to do and not do. Your Halacha can be very different from mine and we can both still not be violating any of God's instruction.

HOW we keep the Sabbath is a completely separate issue from whether God has abolished the Sabbath or not. Has He? Has God abolished His Sabbath? Should we preach abolishing God's Sabbath (and Passover, for that matter) at it's appointed time (moedim)?

Daniel 7:25 He (anti-Christ) will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times (moedim) and in law;

It is the work of the anti-Christ to alter the moedims such as Sabbath and Passover and to abolish God's Laws. You are literally arguing FOR the doctrine of the Anti-Christ! I am saying keep the Passover. Yeshua kept the Passover, Paul tells you to keep the Passover in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. Do not preach the doctrine of Anti-Christ and let us keep the feast!

Retort to Ignatius:

You seem to be prescribing following the Law of Moses as if there is the old convent was not fulfilled. Paul preached directly against that. Off the top of my head the epistles of Hebrews and Romans come to mind.

The Judaizers did not reject Jesus. They were Christians who demeaned circumcision, and following the law of Moses. They were a Christian sect, not Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah.

As to Constantine:

I don't get my doctrine from Constantine. Constantine didn't write the Nicene creed. Also, considering king David did some horrible things to the husband and Bathsheba maybe ad hominem attacks isn't your best play there. We can talk about whether or not they were tried in court and found guilty of crimes necessitating the death penalty that era, but again I best do you have an emotional ad hominem attack.

As to the Trinity;

I think it's clear that you don't grasp what the trinity is beyond strawman. Zeus was not a trinity, but a created thing, so not divine in the Christian sense, nor worthy of worship even if Zeus did exist. (He doesn't). It seems your watching too much zeichytonbe honest. Moreover if Jesus is not fully God, he's not "Devine". Is your contention that God can be broken into pieces?

Keeping Passover:

The Passover of Moses is a shadow of the true Passover of what we call "Easter" in English, but Pascha/Passover in pretty much every other language. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is true Passover. The foreshadow brought into light. So we honor the true Passover, foreshadowed in Egypt all those years ago. We just call it easter because of Germans.

Chill out man. No need to be so defensive. I'm not advocating the abolition of anything. I keep Torah in my own way and agree that Torah is amazingly beneficial to anyone who wants to better understand God.

I just envy the Jewish faith in that rabbis can argue all day long and then go share a Passover meal together. Most Christians, and Messianics, act like there is no room for disagreement is the faith. Which is ridiculous

Quote:

---

You seem to be prescribing following the Law of Moses as if there is the old convent was not fulfilled. Paul preached directly against that. Off the top of my head the epistles of Hebrews and Romans come to mind.

---

Paul is telling you to keep the Passover from the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. If he then preached against that very thing in Hebrews and Romans, he was an idiot or a liar. So, is Paul and idiot or are you distorting what he's writing?

2 Peter 3:5-6
and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul cannot have preached not keeping the commandments or else he contradicts not only his own words, but the teaching of the Apostle John as well.

1 John 2:3-4
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Show that you love Him and know Him. Keep His commandments. Keep His feasts. Do not teach others to annul even the least of the commandments. Whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Shalom

Oh boy. Win, I probably won't stick around the thread, but I can't help myself on this topic.

Staff - as we've discussed over email, my position is the Apostolic (Catholic / Orthodox) position. This is extremely easy to verify. I will NEVER stray from Catholicism here. Go ahead and check.

Christ is risen, peace to all!

Now:
Who are the people Israel? Those who follow Logos, Christ, the Word of God (NOT the Bible, which is a product of the Apostolic Church).

The Apostolic Church has :
Sacrifice (Eucharist)
Temple (body)
Priesthood
Ark (St. Mary)

Christ has fulfilled the promises of the Law .... He is the law itself!

We know what Jewish was before April 3, 33 AD. After Christ rose again, there was a separation....we must choose - Christ or Barabbas! At the foot of the Cross, this term changed....fully changed by 70 AD. A radical break. Where is the priesthood, the Temple, the Sacrifice? With the people Israel!
This is the Gospel of St. John.

"Jewish" is NOT ... DNA. Racism is to be condemned - always. I refer to THEOLOGY.
Christianity is older than Judaism. WHY? BECAUSE THE DEFINITION CHANGED IN 70. Rabbinic Judaism is not Temple Judaism.

THEOLOGY. What is the unifying characteristic of the huge term "Jewish"? That the Messianic claim of Christ is wrong. From 70 to today.

Friends, come to the Sacraments.

I wish you peace.

Brief follow up:

"Semitic / Anti-Semitic" invented by the radical journalist Wilhelm Marr, who was angry at Jews for turning toward Zionism and "betraying" the revolutions of 1848.

The term is weaponized. He made it "racial." I REJECT THIS.
Semitic best refers to a language grouping....was my Christian grandmother from Aleppo, Syria ... Semitic? She thought so.
THEOLOGY. LOGOS...Christ.....This is the crux of the "Jewish" debate.
Who is Christ? Accept or reject as a defining characteristic???

Let us consider three human actions.

- The parents of the man born blind had a "fear of the Jews." They were Jews! Same ethnic group. Same religion. Why the fear? Why the difference? The difference is .... who is Christ? DEFINITION CHANGE, 33 to 70. We see it in real time.

- 1948, Israel Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome. Head of a very major European Jewish community, and a very prominent Jewish family.
He becomes a Catholic.
Exact same as me. He was very different before baptism. Then, a definition change. Is he still Jewish? What did his former flock think? (Research it.)
The difference? LOGOS.

- Ivanka Trump. Married Jared. What did she do to prepare? Formally renounced her Christian baptism. In writing.

THEOLOGY is the operative word here. Accept or Reject. This is the division.

You seem to be conflating and confusing what God is asking of us from scripture with bad, non-scripture doctrine of Jews both in Yeshua's day and the present. Yeshua preached against the error of the Pharisees and Sadducees who deviated from scripture in their practices and doctrines, and so do I. I disagree with all the Jewish errors you mentioned, but that doesn't mean a call back to proper scripture interpretation and instructions is equivalent to joining the Jews in their error.

However, what probably confuses you is that a call back to scripture as Yeshua and the Apostles kept His instructions is considered offensive to your doctrine. Certainly confusing for you, but it also should be concerning as well. The last day of the feast of unleavened bread starts with a High Sabbath from tonight at sundown until tomorrow at sundown. Therefore, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, let us keep the feast!

Shalom.

You are interpreting the New Testament in a specific way, which I'm sure is defensible because you seem like a pretty intelligent guy.

That's exactly the issue, though, isn't it? How many intelligent, prayerful people have disagreed vehemently, even with similar backgrounds and the same translation? Does the Holy Spirit speak against Himself? I saw my pastor uncle's Southern Baptist church torn over the "grace / salvation" debate about 20 years ago. Same people, same good and smart people.

There's some essential META issues here......

The Bible is NOT the Word of God.

Jesus Christ the Logos is the literal Word of God.

The Bible is an inspired product....of the Apostolic Church (Catholic / Orthodox). It was argued very intensely over....for 3 centuries, in Councils of Rome (yup).

Why is Revealing in? Why is Hebrews in? Why is the Book of Enoch .... quoted by St. Jude and absolutely known and read by the Apostles....why is it out?

Because the Apostolic Church said so.

For the Apostolic Church, even if the pastor is terrible (and this is very possible) ..... THE SACRAMENTS REMAIN. THAT IS THE CENTER, THE SOURCE, AND THE SUMMIT OF WORSHIP.

The reason Bibles in your home do NOT contain the Book of Enoch, when the pre-70 Jewish and God-fearer houses of worship read from it? And St. Jude thought enough of Enoch to quote it! Jesus absolutely knew this document, and it was read in houses of worship.

Why is it out? Why is (the once extremely controversial) Hebrews in?

The Apostolic Church - in Councils over 3 Centuries - made a decision, and eventually a final decision.

So what came first? The Bible? Or the Church?

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Romans 7:6
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Jeremiah chapter 31 also does a beautiful job at foreshadowing this coming new covenant.

That is not to say Paul and the Apostles preached lawlessness. I would contend Paul is giving a master class on the distinction between ceremonial and natural law. Now, all may not have explicated it in operationally defined theological terms, but that doesn't mean it can't be defined in explicated, nor does it mean that we must follow the totality of the Old Testament law. Scripture and unanimous consent of the early church fathers confirms this.

Romans 3:1-2
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

According to Romans 3:1-2, I follow the Jewish Masoretic Tanak (OT), which does not include Enoch or the rest of your OT Apocrypha and Yeshua also excluded them in Matthew 23:35. Yeshua is my Jewish High Priest and I will follow Him over your 4th century pagan-influence Jew-haters.

I also follow the Aramaic/Syriac text for the Brit Chadasha (NT), because I believe they were prime. However that's not dramatically germane to the discussion and we're still using basically the same texts, so this does not really address what they are specifically saying. Also, I don't believe there's much in your Apocryphal texts that has bearing on the specific point being made; and if they did, then they would contradict writings that we both agree are scripture, which is a problem for you and not for me.

So getting back to scripture itself, what verse do you use that contradicts the simple instruction by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 to keep God's feast of Passover and unleavened bread with the newness of Christ's symbolism instead of the bad doctrine of the Pharisees?

Still interested in your take on the META issues: what came first, the Church (IMO Apostolic spiritual authority given to St. Peter and the Apostles) or the texts? Related, what is the Word of God (IMO, Christ the Logos)?

Related, your take on the verses might be very defensible. Or maybe not. Very intelligent and prayerful people would disagree vehemently, wouldn't they?
The Bible (IMO a literal product of the Apostolic Church) does not speak against itself. The Holy Spirit does not speak against Himself. And yet we see division upon division.
Who decides? Who interprets? You? (IMO: not me. The Church).

Quote:

---

your 4th century pagan-influence Jew-haters.

---

Certainly many Saints such as St. John Chrysostom despised Jews and were quite harsh about it.
Why?
Because the definition changed very radically, and very definitively, after 70AD, exactly as Christ predicted, when no stone would be left unturned.
Christianity is thus older than Judaism, which was re-defined wholly....a process quite obvious to see unfolding in "real time" throughout the Gospel of St. John especially.

Would you really consider Rabbinic Judaism (post-70) the same as Temple Judaism?

If so, then it is important to recognize that very literally no early Christians thought that.

Paul is preaching keeping the feast of Passover and unleavened bread in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8. You are interpreting other writings of Paul as being contradictory with this without ever providing a solution that does not contradict.

Acts 21:24
take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you (Paul) yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

In Acts 21:24 Paul made sacrifices and vows in the temple just to prove to everybody that he kept the Law. If he taught others not to keep the Law in Hebrews and Romans, then he was a hypocrite, a liar or a complete idiot, and least in the Kingdom of Heaven according to Yehsua in Matthew 5:19. How do you reconcile your interpretation in Hebrews and Romans that contradicts Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 and Acts 21:24 (and many others)?

The confusion you have in Hebrews is understandable. And that confusion is caused by the fact that the translators you trusted have deliberating inserted a key word in there that is not in the text to further their doctrine even though that doctrine contradicts other scriptures.

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

You will notice here that the word "covenant" is italicized in the NASB, because they are telling you that word is not in the original text. More properly translated, it should read:

Hebrews 8:13
When He said, "new" He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Hebrews chapter 8 is about the new priesthood in Yeshua verses the old earthly priesthood. The "new" in Hebrews 8:13 is the priesthood, not the covenant. Yeshua becoming our new High Priest and that the existing earthly priesthood was becoming not only obsolete, but was soon dissolved with the destruction of the Temple. That is, we no longer need to go to an earthly priesthood, because Yeshua has become our high priest.

In Hebrews 8, Paul quotes Jeremiah 31, and the word used for this change in Jeremiah 31 is Chadash, which can mean renewed as well as new. It's up to the reader/interpreter to decide which it is supposed to mean. Does this mean an abolishment of the Laws or a renewal of the Law on our hearts? The immediate surrounding text clearly shows the Law is renewed (not abolished).

Jeremiah 31:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.

If the Law is on your mind and in your heart you will know them, love them and keep them or else you are a liar and the truth is not in you.

In Paul's letter to the Romans, he goes on at length preaching against the bad 1st century Jewish doctrine of earning salvation by keeping the Law, verses putting your faith in YHWH Yeshuah HaMashiach for your salvation. We see this in several places, and one of them is Romans 5:1.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

We are saved (justified) by faith (not our own works). I agree with that. What they have died to in Romans 7:6 is that bad doctrine of being justified by our works. It's actually true, that if Yeshua had never come and paid the price, then we all would actually still have only one way to be saved; and that would have been to keep the Law perfectly. But now that Yeshua has come, we are dead to that doctrine and made alive though faith in what He has done for us.

If you love Him you will keep his commandments.

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be!

Romans 6:12-13
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Romans 6:15
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be!

Romans 7:22
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

Quote:

---

As for Trinity:

I can affirm the divinity of Yeshua without requiring Him to be a tri-person god-head.

---

W a L,
For clarification:

This seems to rule out the affirmation of one divine being as detailed by the Nicene Creed. Therefore, one can reasonably state your belief is outside of small-o orthodox Christianity, for all its many and tragic divisions.

Now, I respect your belief, but we should be clear here that YOU are the interpreter.

We could go around and around all day long volleying verses back and forth, but the META issues simply have to be clarified:
Who or whom decides?

Win At Life said:

---

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be!

Romans 6:15
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Romans 7:7
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be!

Romans 7:22
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

---

As you show there, Paul acknowledges and we are no longer under the law, but under grace. But, also says it is not a license to sin. "May it never be!".

I would also point out, that the Scriptures were originally written in Greek. In fact, All of the earliest manuscripts we have Are all in Greek.

Moreover, we learn that Paul did not allow Titus to be circumcised. So my question is, is Paul a liar, a fool, or are you miss understanding what Paul is saying? Now the confusion and misunderstanding you have is understandable. I've even seen some Who demand "keeping Torah" Who have called Paul a heretic.

I'm amused that 1 Cor 5:7-8 is mentioned quite a bit in this thread by WaL because it is the EXACT reading from the epistle/lesson at Holy Mass on Easter Sunday (TLM/EF). Moreover, it is prayed, at least in part, in other parts of the Mass too.

https://maternalheart.org/propers/HolyWeek/Easter%20Sunday/Easter%20Sunday.pdf

Alleluia, alleluia. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus.

Alleluia, alleluia. Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.

Ordhound04 said:

---

Moreover, we learn that Paul did not allow Titus to be circumcised. So my question is, is Paul a liar, a fool, or are you miss understanding what Paul is saying? Now the confusion and misunderstanding you have is understandable. I've even seen some Who demand "keeping Torah" Who have called Paul a heretic.

---

Paul outright admitted to being a liar (Roman 3:7), or at least to changing his message depending on his audience (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

commando2004 said:

---

Ordhound04 said:

---

Moreover, we learn that Paul did not allow Titus to be circumcised. So my question is, is Paul a liar, a fool, or are you miss understanding what Paul is saying? Now the confusion and misunderstanding you have is understandable. I've even seen some Who demand "keeping Torah" Who have called Paul a heretic.

---

Paul outright admitted to being a liar (Roman 3:7), or at least to changing his message depending on his audience (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

---

So is Paul a heretic when he says in 1 Corinthians that we are not under the law? Is Paul, in scripture, wrong when he says to not get circumcised?

Also, everybody change the way they talk depending on the audience, but the truth and message is the same. Quoting old testament scripture to a bunch of Greeks would make almost no sense. We can use the language world views of those we are trying to convert towards the truth of Christ. Provided, it does not contradict Christ. Do you think call contradicted Christ regarding circumcision?