Do you wear a tallit in church?

[someguy14]

There is nothing in the NT text that implies we need a garment to gain the Spirit, in fact all the clear objective text, goes against this.

Your professing one does not "need" to wear talit, yet the truth remains, one does not "need" to not wear a talit and wear a goatee.

James 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Does one fight against condemning, only to condemn themselves...supporting and eye for an eye concept while desperately fighting against it...

Turn the other cheek to those that condemn, faith is understanding that God is in complete control, not doubting, and condemning another. Wear a talit, don't wear a talit, God is judge.

 

[Frogster]

But frog you didn't answer Yitzak's point about the reference in Ephesians.

Sure I did, he is ignoring how Paul told thay very Ephesian elder not to let the law party invade his church in 1 Tim 1, and in 1 Tim 4, that ephesian elder Tim was told that this teaching is from demons. So he ignores other important text, about Ephesus.

Why would Paul tell Timothy not to let them put the church under law sanctification, those same Ephesians? See what I mean?

like I tried to tell him, these former pagans were often violent and would be abusive to their families, look how they were reverting into gross stuff in 4-5.

Ok, so Paul wields an elemental "don't do that " at them, honor your parents.

So sometimes there are elementals in scripture, like Paul said in gal 4, the law was for children, they were enslaved by law as a nation until Christ came, proving law is elemental, Gal 4:1-6. hence, he quickly wielded an elemental at them, but that is far from his whole vast theology as a whole.

So in the end, what law folks do is ignore all Paul taught, and basically prooftext Paul, and try to use that verse to act like Paul taught law, while they are clinging to an elemental thing, ignoring all the higher end of the truth spectrum in the teaching.

So yeah, we got a "don't do that" wielded at these former loonies in Ephesus. But law proponents now want to proof text paul, clinging to that, verse wielded to babes, and ignore all the higher truths about law that Paul taught. So really with all due resppect, they are stuck in elementalism and stuck in a theological prooftext, igonoring sooo much, hanging their hat on that minor verse, that subordinate verse, ignoring alot of major majority thought from Paul.

The overpress certain text.

 

[Frogster]

But frog you didn't answer Yitzak's point about the reference in Ephesians.

In other words..so what? Paul mentioned the law. I might tell a young convert, no don't kill or steal. But is that it? Is that my whole teaching?

Paul could not write a full Romans thesis every time he wrote the other letters, but we have to know all of Paul, and not just cling to that verse, like Paul wanted everyone under law.

I hope you ask Yitzchak, why that very same book, says this?


Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,


In that portion there he was really teaching doctrine, and look at what he just said.

So, when reading text, we have to understand the context, and when is he really teaching higher truths, or maybe just wielding a "don't do that" kind of thing, or a "do that".

Sure, i might wield a "don't do that bad boy!" too, but in the end, Paul had a much higher truth to tell, and he did, so law promoters cling to the elementals of what he wrote, trying to prove their point, ignoring the vast theology in all it's fullness, by using that verse.

Prooftexting Paul, or overpressing a certain verse or verses, ignoring all the vast higher teaching.

But no, we don't want to commit adultery or worship demons, or steal, but that is an elemental truth, but law does not stop that internally, and often not externally, and law is not the anwer.

So the law side of the isle have to understand who was told what, why, and what is the backround and what were the conditions of each letter.

 

[Frogster]

I did not misquote Frog or misunderstand his question, by the way. I simply and intentionally rephrased his question to get to the main point based upon his other posts. His question about Paul and how Paul sees Abraham rests within the greater context of Frog's teaching that Paul is anti law and anti Jewish. Within that Context , Frog is saying that Paul uses the example of Abraham to teach against the law. Which of course is false.

It's not false. Show me 1 verse where he is not warding off judaism, circumcsion which means conversion to judaism, law, or race using Abraham.

Look right here, the law voids the Abrahamic promise, because it works wrath.

Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

I have more from Rom 4, but look here, blessed in Abraham and the gospel, cursed under law, a clear juxtaposition of law to the gospel, using Abraham.



Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”3:9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”


Look here, the jews even have to walk pre-circumcison, all said using Abraham.

Rpm 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

I have more, but this should suffice.

Not only is it not true that the example of Abraham teaches against the law , it is also not true that Paul is anti law in a more general sense.

Take Proverbs 28:9 as an example. Does God hate prayer ? Of course not. What God hates is prayer done in the wrong attitude. As we can see in this passage God speaks highly of the law. But to get out of this passage that God is putting down prayer would be wrong. It is only prayer within this context that God is against.




There are many such examples in scripture where God speaks in a negative sense about something which is normally seen as a blessing and even something which God has commended us to do.

Take Matthew 6:15 as another example. Is this passage saying that God is unwilling to forgive ? Of course not. It is a conditional statement. God desires to forgive us. God is always willing to forgive.





Since there is no basic agreement upon the overall concept , there is not point to skip right to arguments about the passage in Romans chapter four.
But with the context properly laid that God speaks highly of the law as something good , these passages such as Romans 4 are given to instruct concerning the misuse of the law with a wrong attitude which turns something good into something despised by God. Just like the passage about prayer in proverbs.

It is as though some think that the Devil somehow slipped in and gave the law to Israel. But the Scripture teaches that God gave the law to Israel. God does not tempt with evil. The law is good. This is the clear teaching of scripture.

I posted what scripture says, the law was added to increase the tresspass rom 5;20, sin has dominion under law Rom 6:14, the power of sin is the law 1 cor 15:56, sin was aroused or by law rom 7:5, etc. Not to mention all were imprisoned in sin and law in Gal 3:22-23, so that should tell you as to the intent of law, as per rom 5:20, and Gal 3:24-25 uses the pedagogue word there, not a very pleasant description.


Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.


And all this was written as he used Abraham and the promise, while showing it was not about law, and we can't be heirs of Abraham by law, or judaism in galatians in several citations, it says so. So those verses are what he said earlier, blessed in the Abrahamic goseple, cursed under law, in a prison, as elemental children are under a strict pedagogue.

The law of circumcision is given within the context of Covenant. It is a covenant entered into by faith and the circumcision is a command of God. Something good.







In Romans 4 , God corrects some errors which Israel has entered into regarding the covenant and the law. This is the context of Romans 4. Not an anti law God who is somehow double minded and now suddenly regrets giving the law and the circumcision as though it was some sort of mistake that God made. Of course not.

Notice that in Romans four , it begins with the premise that the Jews can and already have have been blessed with the blessing of Abraham. It then makes the point that the Gentiles can also be blessed the same way. Notice the word also in this verse. Attention to detail here will notice that the word also is a connecting word which connects the blessing of Abraham given already to the Jews as also applying equally to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace was first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles as Jesus says.





Then the passage continues. Notice the phrase righteousness counted to them as well. Counted to them as well assumes the premise that it was already counted to those who entered into the sign of circumcision because they were in faith.






The error that many in Israel made was they focused upon the sign and not upon the faith that the sign was meant to show. They actually violated what the circumcision stood for but kept the outward sign. There was nothing wrong with the sign of circumcision. The sign became detestable in the context of those who were unfaithful.

In the same way that a wedding ring is a sign of love and faithfulness and the covenant promise between a man and his wife. If a spouse unfaithful and does not love their spouse , even their wedding ring which is a good sign of the covenant becomes detestable to the other spouse. It becomes a mockery. I can remember how glad I was when my ex wife changed her last name because she remarried. I did not look upon her having my name as a good thing any more after her being unfaithful.

God himself does not want us to carry his name in vain. Nor does he want us to bear a sign of the Covenant when we have not kept the basis that the covenant stands upon. Which is faith.



To make an analogy and put it in terms which we can understand, God would rather have a faithful bride without a wedding ring and wearing blue jeans rather than to have an unfaithful bride who is all proper outwardly.

God is still interested in the circumcision. But He is after the circumcision of the heart. When the outward reflects an inner reality , it is a beautiful thing. But when the outward is a mockery of something which is not true , it becomes something detested. This passion of God's heart is what is behind the passage which speak of the law and circumcision as something negative.


Continuing with the Romans four passage. Here Paul brings the point home and makes it so blunt , that it cannot be misunderstood. Don't think that you can trust in the law to entice God to grant you righteousness. God is after your heart and his promise of righteousness is received by faith.






It is amazing to me that someone would see the focus of this passage as being anti law. The focus is upon God's promise and upon faith.

Now as far as circumcision, paul totally used Abraham pre circumcison, to ward off those who would impose circumcision by trying to get the church to be jewish, so really, please study up on this deeper!

 

[Frogster]

I did not misquote Frog or misunderstand his question, by the way. I simply and intentionally rephrased his question to get to the main point based upon his other posts. His question about Paul and how Paul sees Abraham rests within the greater context of Frog's teaching that Paul is anti law and anti Jewish. Within that Context , Frog is saying that Paul uses the example of Abraham to teach against the law. Which of course is false.

Not only is it not true that the example of Abraham teaches against the law , it is also not true that Paul is anti law in a more general sense.

Take Proverbs 28:9 as an example. Does God hate prayer ? Of course not. What God hates is prayer done in the wrong attitude. As we can see in this passage God speaks highly of the law. But to get out of this passage that God is putting down prayer would be wrong. It is only prayer within this context that God is against.




There are many such examples in scripture where God speaks in a negative sense about something which is normally seen as a blessing and even something which God has commended us to do.

Take Matthew 6:15 as another example. Is this passage saying that God is unwilling to forgive ? Of course not. It is a conditional statement. God desires to forgive us. God is always willing to forgive.





Since there is no basic agreement upon the overall concept , there is not point to skip right to arguments about the passage in Romans chapter four.
But with the context properly laid that God speaks highly of the law as something good , these passages such as Romans 4 are given to instruct concerning the misuse of the law with a wrong attitude which turns something good into something despised by God. Just like the passage about prayer in proverbs.

It is as though some think that the Devil somehow slipped in and gave the law to Israel. But the Scripture teaches that God gave the law to Israel. God does not tempt with evil. The law is good. This is the clear teaching of scripture.


The law of circumcision is given within the context of Covenant. It is a covenant entered into by faith and the circumcision is a command of God. Something good.







In Romans 4 , God corrects some errors which Israel has entered into regarding the covenant and the law. This is the context of Romans 4. Not an anti law God who is somehow double minded and now suddenly regrets giving the law and the circumcision as though it was some sort of mistake that God made. Of course not.

Notice that in Romans four , it begins with the premise that the Jews can and already have have been blessed with the blessing of Abraham. It then makes the point that the Gentiles can also be blessed the same way. Notice the word also in this verse. Attention to detail here will notice that the word also is a connecting word which connects the blessing of Abraham given already to the Jews as also applying equally to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace was first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles as Jesus says.





Then the passage continues. Notice the phrase righteousness counted to them as well. Counted to them as well assumes the premise that it was already counted to those who entered into the sign of circumcision because they were in faith.






The error that many in Israel made was they focused upon the sign and not upon the faith that the sign was meant to show. They actually violated what the circumcision stood for but kept the outward sign. There was nothing wrong with the sign of circumcision. The sign became detestable in the context of those who were unfaithful.

In the same way that a wedding ring is a sign of love and faithfulness and the covenant promise between a man and his wife. If a spouse unfaithful and does not love their spouse , even their wedding ring which is a good sign of the covenant becomes detestable to the other spouse. It becomes a mockery. I can remember how glad I was when my ex wife changed her last name because she remarried. I did not look upon her having my name as a good thing any more after her being unfaithful.

God himself does not want us to carry his name in vain. Nor does he want us to bear a sign of the Covenant when we have not kept the basis that the covenant stands upon. Which is faith.



To make an analogy and put it in terms which we can understand, God would rather have a faithful bride without a wedding ring and wearing blue jeans rather than to have an unfaithful bride who is all proper outwardly.

God is still interested in the circumcision. But He is after the circumcision of the heart. When the outward reflects an inner reality , it is a beautiful thing. But when the outward is a mockery of something which is not true , it becomes something detested. This passion of God's heart is what is behind the passage which speak of the law and circumcision as something negative.


Continuing with the Romans four passage. Here Paul brings the point home and makes it so blunt , that it cannot be misunderstood. Don't think that you can trust in the law to entice God to grant you righteousness. God is after your heart and his promise of righteousness is received by faith.






It is amazing to me that someone would see the focus of this passage as being anti law. The focus is upon God's promise and upon faith.

Look how Paul says Israel was enslaved under elementalism, all as he is about to show that after the slaves were ransomed, then they would be Abrahamic heirs, after the liberation from the slavery, more text using Abraham, juxtaposed to the slavery of Judaism and the law. Notice the children word, the law was for an elemental stage in judaism then it says until the date set, until means temporar, like Gal 3:19, the law was UNTIL Christ, until..until..it says fulness of time, all chronological wordage that show the law was temporary, and for children enslaved under it, UNTIL the gospel of Abraham.

By the way, THE FATHER set the date of when the age of law would come, clear chronolical text here. The children were ransomed from the law, to thenget the adoption and the Spirit.

Gal 4:4 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

 

[robinvanpersie]

Look how Paul says Israel was enslaved under elementalism, all as he is about to show that after the slaves were ransomed, then they would be Abrahamic heirs, after the liberation from the slavery, more text using Abraham, juxtaposed to the slavery of Judaism and the law. Notice the children word, the law was for an elemental stage in judaism then it says until the date set, until means temporar, like Gal 3:19, the law was UNTIL Christ, until..until..it says fulness of time, all chronological wordage that show the law was temporary, and for children enslaved under it, UNTIL the gospel of Abraham.

By the way, THE FATHER set the date of when the age of law would come, clear chronolical text here. The children were ransomed from the law, to thenget the adoption and the Spirit.

Gal 4:4 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Is it possible to be obedient to the Law of God as a child, fellow-citizen and fellow-heir in the Household of God?

 

[Frogster]

I did not misquote Frog or misunderstand his question, by the way. I simply and intentionally rephrased his question to get to the main point based upon his other posts. His question about Paul and how Paul sees Abraham rests within the greater context of Frog's teaching that Paul is anti law and anti Jewish. Within that Context , Frog is saying that Paul uses the example of Abraham to teach against the law. Which of course is false.

Not only is it not true that the example of Abraham teaches against the law , it is also not true that Paul is anti law in a more general sense.

Take Proverbs 28:9 as an example. Does God hate prayer ? Of course not. What God hates is prayer done in the wrong attitude. As we can see in this passage God speaks highly of the law. But to get out of this passage that God is putting down prayer would be wrong. It is only prayer within this context that God is against.




There are many such examples in scripture where God speaks in a negative sense about something which is normally seen as a blessing and even something which God has commended us to do.

Take Matthew 6:15 as another example. Is this passage saying that God is unwilling to forgive ? Of course not. It is a conditional statement. God desires to forgive us. God is always willing to forgive.





Since there is no basic agreement upon the overall concept , there is not point to skip right to arguments about the passage in Romans chapter four.
But with the context properly laid that God speaks highly of the law as something good , these passages such as Romans 4 are given to instruct concerning the misuse of the law with a wrong attitude which turns something good into something despised by God. Just like the passage about prayer in proverbs.

It is as though some think that the Devil somehow slipped in and gave the law to Israel. But the Scripture teaches that God gave the law to Israel. God does not tempt with evil. The law is good. This is the clear teaching of scripture.


The law of circumcision is given within the context of Covenant. It is a covenant entered into by faith and the circumcision is a command of God. Something good.







In Romans 4 , God corrects some errors which Israel has entered into regarding the covenant and the law. This is the context of Romans 4. Not an anti law God who is somehow double minded and now suddenly regrets giving the law and the circumcision as though it was some sort of mistake that God made. Of course not.

Notice that in Romans four , it begins with the premise that the Jews can and already have have been blessed with the blessing of Abraham. It then makes the point that the Gentiles can also be blessed the same way. Notice the word also in this verse. Attention to detail here will notice that the word also is a connecting word which connects the blessing of Abraham given already to the Jews as also applying equally to the Gentiles. The gospel of grace was first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles as Jesus says.





Then the passage continues. Notice the phrase righteousness counted to them as well. Counted to them as well assumes the premise that it was already counted to those who entered into the sign of circumcision because they were in faith.






The error that many in Israel made was they focused upon the sign and not upon the faith that the sign was meant to show. They actually violated what the circumcision stood for but kept the outward sign. There was nothing wrong with the sign of circumcision. The sign became detestable in the context of those who were unfaithful.

In the same way that a wedding ring is a sign of love and faithfulness and the covenant promise between a man and his wife. If a spouse unfaithful and does not love their spouse , even their wedding ring which is a good sign of the covenant becomes detestable to the other spouse. It becomes a mockery. I can remember how glad I was when my ex wife changed her last name because she remarried. I did not look upon her having my name as a good thing any more after her being unfaithful.

God himself does not want us to carry his name in vain. Nor does he want us to bear a sign of the Covenant when we have not kept the basis that the covenant stands upon. Which is faith.



To make an analogy and put it in terms which we can understand, God would rather have a faithful bride without a wedding ring and wearing blue jeans rather than to have an unfaithful bride who is all proper outwardly.

God is still interested in the circumcision. But He is after the circumcision of the heart. When the outward reflects an inner reality , it is a beautiful thing. But when the outward is a mockery of something which is not true , it becomes something detested. This passion of God's heart is what is behind the passage which speak of the law and circumcision as something negative.


Continuing with the Romans four passage. Here Paul brings the point home and makes it so blunt , that it cannot be misunderstood. Don't think that you can trust in the law to entice God to grant you righteousness. God is after your heart and his promise of righteousness is received by faith.






It is amazing to me that someone would see the focus of this passage as being anti law. The focus is upon God's promise and upon faith.

Why did the blessing of Abraham, the promise of the Spirit come after law? These vses were a prelude to Gal 4, after the curse of the law, in Abraham came the adoption of the Spirit, not under law, more text using Abraham to show inheritance can't come by law or judaism, it is also another chronology here, after..after the curse and the law, after ...it is the same idea as Gal 4, in my previous post, after...after..the law was until..until...the time of Abraham. Through faith, the law is not of faith, Gal 3:12.

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

 

[Frogster]

Is it possible to be obedient to the Law of God as a child, fellow-citizen and fellow-heir in the Household of God?

You were on my grace thread in ther GT section.

the just shall live by faith, juxatposed to law here. u tell me how to live.


GL 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

 

[robinvanpersie]

You were on my grace thread in ther GT section.

the just shall live by faith, juxatposed to law here. u tell me how to live.


GL 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

I understand...but that seems to be referring to those who seek to be justified by the Law. Obviously this is impossible, because no one can perfectly keep it. In order to be justified by it, one would have to keep it perfectly.

But that wasn't my question. My question is, 'is it possible to be obedient, or to obey the Law of God as a child of God, believer in God, fellow-citizen of the Household of God?'

 

[Frogster]

I understand...but that seems to be referring to those who seek to be justified by the Law. Obviously this is impossible, because no one can perfectly keep it. In order to be justified by it, one would have to keep it perfectly.

But that wasn't my question. My question is, 'is it possible to be obedient, or to obey the Law of God as a child of God, believer in God, fellow-citizen of the Household of God?'

there is more in galatians about santification, for their future than the inital act of imputation, paul did not wan them to live under law for their future, that was the issue that was really stressed.

the just shall live by faith was how they were to live onward.

 

[Frogster]

<Froggy hops to another lillypad>

rib-it

 

[robinvanpersie]

there is more in galatians about santification, for their future than the inital act of imputation, paul did not wan them to live under law for their future, that was the issue that was really stressed.

the just shall live by faith was how they were to live onward.

did we ever discuss this?

I don’t understand what you mean. I didn’t know it was possible for a born again Christian to be under the law.

 

[Frogster]

just out of curiosity, have we ever discussed this? thanks

 

[robinvanpersie]

just out of curiosity, have we ever discussed this? thanks.

Have we ever discussed what? This is the second time I've been on this forum and I have yet to discuss with anyone properly.

 

[someguy14]

My question is, 'is it possible to be obedient, or to obey the Law of God as a child of God, believer in God, fellow-citizen of the Household of God?'

It is the only way to be obedient unto the law of God. For God Himself is the law of God. God is the only good. Only by God, with God, is one able to accomplish all that God requires. One is only able to be perfect in the Father(Father God), with the Father(Father God).

 

[Frogster]

It is the only way to be obedient unto the law of God. For God Himself is the law of God. God is the only good. Only by God, with God, is one able to accomplish all that God requires. One is only able to be perfect in the Father(Father God), with the Father(Father God).

god is a rule book?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

There is no point. I have been over the law with Frogster many times. He just has a severe opposition to the law or for anyone that holds to any aspect of Old Testament law. This tread is an example of that to bash anyone that has/uses a talit.

And yet there was that opening post that said people could wear what they wish....yea right. I find it interesting that supposedly Paul fought against the wearing of tallit's when he made tallits.

We will be celebrating the Feast of Yah during the millenium for example. They are not the feast of Israel but His appointed times. There are curses even then on those that fail to send a representative.

True. There are a lot of observances we will observe during the millenium. Sad to say many won't have a clue as to what to do. Especially if they've been rallying against such.

 

[Frogster]

And yet there was that opening post that said people could wear what they wish....yea right. I find it interesting that supposedly Paul fought against the wearing of tallit's when he made tallits.



True. There are a lot of observances we will observe during the millenium. Sad to say many won't have a clue as to what to do. Especially if they've been rallying against such.

The tallit word in the Greek in Acts 18, also says leather in the Greek, does a tallit have leather?

Paul was from tarsus, where they made the tents that people live in.

Paul would be able to make tents in Corinth, while he worked for a living, they had olympic type games there, they would need tents for the visitors, just like we would have motels to stay in while visiting the events.

Why would it take 3 people in Acts 18 to make a small tallit? He worked with P and Q who made tents, it was not tallits. 3 people don't make a tallit.

Paul also would not be wise to make a garment, that he would not want his gentile churches to wear. He fought off judaism, he would not promote it.

Abraham had no tallit, and they were sons of Abe, without a tallit.

There you have it, from the frog, thanks.

 

[Frogster]

not to mention the jews hated paul, they kept beating him up, and tried to kill him, like all of the sudden they are going to but a tallit off the guy?

that would make no sense.

 

[Yitzchak]

The tallit word in the Greek in Acts 18, also says leather in the Greek, does a tallit have leather?

So are you saying that this same Greek word " skenos " translated in this verse as tabernacle should be translated as leather ? That seems silly.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Are you also saying that Peter wanted to do some leather working in this passage ? Again the same Greek word skenos is used.

Mar 9:5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Were they trying to find leather for God in this verse ?

Act 7:46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.

Did the Word in this verse make leather among us? Again the Greek word skenos is used.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

In this verse , the Hebrew " Yeshab " used for dwell is translated into our word skenos in the Septuagint. It has absolutely nothing to do with leather.

Gen 13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.

Is there a single verse you can cite where skenos is translated as leather ??