Yahushua, Yahusha or Jesus?

[Ken Rank]

Men are NOT circumcised unless they are not Jewish and are converting to Judaism. So he is telling GENTILES not to get circumcised and the belief that converting to Judaism will bring salvation.

The argument is circumcision unto salvation... or circumcision unto joining the family of God. This was a well known argument in that day, Acts 15:1-2 begin with it... and the decision by the Acts 15 Council @Radagast was turning back a 50 year old argument between Hillel and Shammai. Hillel (whose school taught "Spirit of the law" )believed that a new convert should only have the 4 things mentioned in the Acts 15 letter... the same 4 things. Shammai (whose school taught "letter of the law") accepted those 4 things but ADDED the need to recite all 613 commands AND be circumcised immediately. Shammai's position was accepted by the Jews at that time (between 10-20BC) and that was halacha... Jewish law at that time. Paul and the rest of the Jerusalem Council, took the softer position with the understanding that this was simply a starting point and that one would learn as they continued on their journey. This is why at the end of the Acts 15 letter it says, "And Moses (an idiomatic reference to God's Law) is read in the synagogues every Shabbat." In other words... start with these 4 things and go learn the rest.

There is no historical argument for the dispensational position of today. You (Radagast) are welcome to believe whatever you want, but historically, the first Christians (who were Jews, the message went into the nations after Yeshua's death and of course by foot so SLOWLY at first) believed in Yeshua as messiah AND remained zealous for the law (Acts 21:20). In fact, the word for "many thousands" in Acts 21:20 is murias which is the Greek word for 10,000 and it is in PLURAL which means AT LEAST 20,000 of the 80,000 Jews in and around Jerusalem accepted Yeshua as Messiah AND continued walking in Torah. That isn't how it is taught today, but that is the truth.

 

[AFrazier]

Latin
Case Singular
nominative - Iēsus
genitive - Iēsū
dative - Iēsū
accusative - Iēsum
ablative - Iēsū
vocative - Iēsū

That's what I said. Do you have a point? A question?

 

[Soyeong]

Paul says quite clearly that, for those who follow the path of circumcision, there is no salvation through Jesus. None at all.

Again, that is not at all what Paul said. Do you believe that Messiah was of no value to Paul, the other Apostles, and to all of the other Jews who came to faith in him, who were all circumcised? Did Paul made Messiah of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised? Roughly 80% of the men in the US are circumcised, so are you saying that Messiah is of no value to us? Can you no see the absurdity of saying that Christ is of no value to the people who seek to follow the example that he set for his followers? Paul said that circumcision has value much in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision has no value, what matters of obeying God's Law (1 Corinthians 7:19), so the issue is that circumcision has not value of its own and that its value is entirely dependent on whether someone obeys God's Law (Romans 2:25), and Gentiles who obey God's Law will be recognized as having a circumcised heart (Romans 2:26, Deuteronomy 30:6). Clearly our motivation for getting circumcised is a factor and Paul was not speaking against people keeping the whole law, but only spoke against those who are trying to become justified by keeping it.

I was quoting the actual Bible (ESV translation). Here is the NIV, if you prefer:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Here "circumcision" obviously includes all the other Jewish rituals.

You quoted Scripture and then you said "in other words...", and I did not disagree with the Scripture you quoted, but with your rephrase of it. Circumcision in this passage was shorthand for requiring Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes and obey God's Law in order to become saved, including all of their oral laws and traditions that they taught for how to obey God's Law. The problem is that God never required all Gentiles to become circumcised and while He did required all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to become circumcised in order to become saved, and if God did not require it, then it was therefore a man-made requirement that they were rejecting in Acts 15:1 and Galatians. The further problem is that you've taken something that was only against obeying man as being against obeying what the God that you serve has commanded.

Again, while God had many purpose for giving the Law, it was never given for the purpose of providing the means of becoming justified, so we should not mistake something that was only against obeying God's Law for the purpose of becoming justified as being against obeying God's Law for any reason. Trying to become justified by obeying God's Law completely misses the whole point of keeping and perverts it because it takes the focus off growing in an inward relationship with God based on faith and love and makes it about our outward performance. God has always disdained it when His people honored him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him.

 

[Radagast]

Roughly 80% of the men in the US are circumcised, so are you saying that Messiah is of no value to us?

Paul says "if you let yourselves be circumcised," talking about adults. Most of the men you mention had no choice, being circumcised as children.

And Paul isn't talking about that one specific physical act anyway; he's talking about the choice to practice Jewish law when he says "Christ will be of no value to you at all."

 

[Radagast]

or circumcision unto joining the family of God.

Joining the family of God is done through baptism, which Paul calls the "circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2:11-12):

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

 

[Devin P]

Then how do you reconcile this?

Acts
The law is an unbearable yoke. (Acts 15:10)

Romans
The law reveals sin but cannot fix it. (Romans 3:20)

If the law worked then faith would be irrelevant. (Romans 4:14)

The law brings wrath upon those who follow it. (Romans 4:15)

The purpose of the law was to increase sin. (Romans 5:20)

Christians are not under the law. (Romans 6:14)

Christians have been delivered from the law. (Romans 7:1-6)

The law is good, perfect and holy but cannot help you be good, perfect or holy. (Romans 7:7-12)

The law which promises life only brings death through sin. (Romans 7:10)

The law makes you sinful beyond measure. (Romans 7:13)

The law is weak. (Romans 8:2-3)

1 Corinthians
The strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)

2 Corinthians
The law is a ministry of death. (2 Corinthians 3:7)

The law is a ministry of condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:9)

The law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:10)

The law is fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:11)

Anywhere the law is preached it produces a mind-hardening and a heart-hardening veil. (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)

Galatians
The law justifies nobody. (Galatians 2:16)

Christians are dead to the law. (Galatians 2:19)

The law frustrates grace. (Galatians 2:21)

To go back to the law after embracing faith is “stupid”. (Galatians 3:1)

The law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (Galatians 3:10)

The law has nothing to do with faith. (Galatians 3:11-12)

The law was a curse that Christ redeemed us from. (Galatians 3:13)

The law functioned in God’s purpose as a temporary covenant from Moses till John the Baptist announced Christ. (Galatians 3:16 & 19, also see… Matthew 11:12-13, Luke 16:16)

If the law worked God would have used it to save us. (Galatians 3:21)

The law was our prison. (Galatians 3:23)

The law makes you a slave like Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Ephesians
Christ has abolished the law which was a wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:15)

Philippians
Paul considered everything the law gained him as “skybalon” which is Greek for “poop”. (Philippians 3:4-8)

1 Timothy
The law is only good if used in the right context. (1 Timothy 1:8) (see next verse for the context)

It was made for the unrighteous but not for the righteous. (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Hebrews
The law is weak, useless and makes nothing perfect. (Hebrews 7:18-19)

God has found fault with it and created a better covenant, enacted on better promises. (Hebrews 8:7-8)

It is obsolete, growing old and ready to vanish. (Hebrews 8:13)

It is only a shadow of good things to come and will never make someone perfect. (Hebrews 10:1)

I used to debate a lot on this site, but God has shown me that it's not the wisest thing to do. It hasn't reached anyone, and it wastes a lot of time. I'll point out, that in my message, I never said that I was or that we should, observe the law to be saved, but because we already are saved. That we try our best, and where we slip, Jesus catches us.

I can reconcile them, by reading them in context, but there's like 50, so because I drive seasonally for UPS, and it's the busiest week of peak season, I don't have the time to respond to all of those individually, especially because we'll probably never agree anyway, but I'll give you a few verses.

Romans 2:13 - (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 1:22 - Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.

James 2:14-17 - 14What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead.

James 2:18-24
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that, and shudder!
20 O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?
21 Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did.
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God.
24 As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I used to debate a lot on this site, but God has shown me that it's not the wisest thing to do. It hasn't reached anyone, and it wastes a lot of time. I'll point out, that in my message, I never said that I was or that we should, observe the law to be saved, but because we already are saved. That we try our best, and where we slip, Jesus catches us.

I can reconcile them, by reading them in context, but there's like 50, so because I drive seasonally for UPS, and it's the busiest week of peak season, I don't have the time to respond to all of those individually, especially because we'll probably never agree anyway, but I'll give you a few verses.

Romans 2:13 - (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 1:22 - Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.

James 2:14-17 - 14What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead.

James 2:18-24
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that God is one. Good for you! Even the demons believe that, and shudder!
20 O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless?
21 Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did.
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God.
24 As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone.

Not every answer is for the person being addressed. Sometimes others read and get some direction and answers as well.

I suppose you are espousing that we should follow the Mosaic Law because Abraham had faith and acted on that faith. Then entire episode of Abraham with Issac to which this refers is all pointing again to Jesus. The Lord made this clear with the ram caught in the thicket. I think it was also clear to Abraham and he understood it even a some level. Now to conclude that because Abraham had faith, and he acted on it, because he believed, and then tie that in to the NT believer when Abraham did not have the Mosaic Law to tell the Christian the Lord also expects us to follow the Mosaic Law to which no one was able to is in error.

Do forget Jesus said;

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So what is Jesus saying exactly? He is saying unless you do much much better than any Pharisee (whom devoted their full attention to the Mosaic Law) and you EXCEED that you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What he is saying is there is by no means of men following any law that will get you in. It is only through Jesus that you can. The whole point of the law was to show everyone there was no way possible to do this for a man. So why would anyone desire to undo the finished work of the cross "it is finished" and put themselves back under a yoke that even the men who devoted all of their time, effort, and energy still could not. To do so is to trample on the cross and to toss out grace entirely. It is rooted in pride, self righteousness, spiritual elitism and futility.

 

[Devin P]

Not every answer is for the person being addressed. Sometimes others read and get some direction and answers as well.

I suppose you are espousing that we should follow the Mosaic Law because Abraham had faith and acted on that faith. Then entire episode of Abraham with Issac to which this refers is all pointing again to Jesus. The Lord made this clear with the ram caught in the thicket. I think it was also clear to Abraham and he understood it even a some level. Now to conclude that because Abraham had faith, and he acted on it, because he believed, and then tie that in to the NT believer when Abraham did not have the Mosaic Law to tell the Christian the Lord also expects us to follow the Mosaic Law to which no one was able to is in error.

Do forget Jesus said;

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So what is Jesus saying exactly? He is saying unless you do much much better than any Pharisee (whom devoted their full attention to the Mosaic Law) and you EXCEED that you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What he is saying is there is by no means of men following any law that will get you in. It is only through Jesus that you can. The whole point of the law was to show everyone there was no way possible to do this for a man. So why would anyone desire to undo the finished work of the cross "it is finished" and put themselves back under a yoke that even the men who devoted all of their time, effort, and energy still could not. To do so is to trample on the cross and to toss out grace entirely. It is rooted in pride, self righteousness, spiritual elitism and futility.

The scribes weren't upholding the law. They were more concerned with their own man-made traditions and their wealth and image, and judging others, and keeping others from the truth than with the law of God.

See, always, God has desired all people to come to know Him. Not just Israel, and not just Jews. He's always wanted all gentiles to come into Israel, but Jews boarded up the way for gentiles, keeping the truth from them. Judging them, calling them unclean filthy beasts, and being more focused on the ways of this world than with the matters of God.

The scribes and pharisees weren't following God's holy righteous law, but the law of man. Man-made laws, that were much lower than God's law. This is what Jesus did away with, the confusion that came about with the scribes and pharisees sitting in the seat of authority, preaching a doctrine that led to death - the commandments of men, not of God.

Jesus also said to go, and sin no more.

Sin, is the transgression of the law, so wouldn't He be saying, go, and transgress the law no more?

He also said that in the day He returns, He'll say, depart from me ye who work iniquity. But, that word iniquity, in the greek is the word "anomia" which literally means lawless - for one of two reasons. The ignorance of the law, or the desire to be without it. So Jesus won't say, depart ye worker of iniquity, but lawlessness.

The "mosaic" law, isn't the "mosaic" law, it's God's law. It's eternal, and existed far before Moses' day. This is why Abraham killed the ram, it's why Noah gave God a first fruit offering of all the clean animals after the order written about by moses, it's why Noah could only eat clean animals, it's why Judah said that Tamar was more righteous than he - after the law of inheritance written about by moses, it's why God looked on Abel with favor for his burnt offering after the order of the burnt offering written about in the law of moses. There's so many examples of the law being present before it was written. Note, it was only written because man's sin was increasing, but before sin increased, God's spirit lived in man more than it does now, making it so men knew more clearly the ways of God than we do now. Now we have to either read, or be taught.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

The scribes weren't upholding the law. They were more concerned with their own man-made traditions and their wealth and image, and judging others, and keeping others from the truth than with the law of God.

See, always, God has desired all people to come to know Him. Not just Israel, and not just Jews. He's always wanted all gentiles to come into Israel, but Jews boarded up the way for gentiles, keeping the truth from them. Judging them, calling them unclean filthy beasts, and being more focused on the ways of this world than with the matters of God.

The scribes and pharisees weren't following God's holy righteous law, but the law of man. Man-made laws, that were much lower than God's law. This is what Jesus did away with, the confusion that came about with the scribes and pharisees sitting in the seat of authority, preaching a doctrine that led to death - the commandments of men, not of God.

Jesus also said to go, and sin no more.

Sin, is the transgression of the law, so wouldn't He be saying, go, and transgress the law no more?

He also said that in the day He returns, He'll say, depart from me ye who work iniquity. But, that word iniquity, in the greek is the word "anomia" which literally means lawless - for one of two reasons. The ignorance of the law, or the desire to be without it. So Jesus won't say, depart ye worker of iniquity, but lawlessness.

The "mosaic" law, isn't the "mosaic" law, it's God's law. It's eternal, and existed far before Moses' day. This is why Abraham killed the ram, it's why Noah gave God a first fruit offering of all the clean animals after the order written about by moses, it's why Noah could only eat clean animals, it's why Judah said that Tamar was more righteous than he - after the law of inheritance written about by moses, it's why God looked on Abel with favor for his burnt offering after the order of the burnt offering written about in the law of moses. There's so many examples of the law being present before it was written. Note, it was only written because man's sin was increasing, but before sin increased, God's spirit lived in man more than it does now, making it so men knew more clearly the ways of God than we do now. Now we have to either read, or be taught.

Ha, I thought you said you do not like to debate because it doesn't produce anything.....yet that is exactly what your doing lol.

You guys crack me up. Do you follow the Torah? Yes. Oh so you mean you follow the Mosaic Law? yes So you shave? Um I repent. So basically you cherry pick what you want to follow and what you don't? Umm no, not exactly.....are you kidding me.

 

[Soyeong]

Ha, I thought you said you do not like to debate because it doesn't produce anything.....yet that is exactly what your doing lol.

You guys crack me up. Do you follow the Torah? Yes. Oh so you mean you follow the Mosaic Law? yes

The word "Torah" means "instruction" and it usually is used to refer to the five books of Moses, though it can also refer to a specific set of instructions or to all of God's instructions. When instructions come with penalties for not following them, then it can also be appropriate to refer to it as "law", though we should not lose sight of the fact that it's primary purpose is to instruct us how to walk in God's ways and to reflect His attributes to the world.

So you shave? Um I repent. So basically you cherry pick what you want to follow and what you don't? Umm no, not exactly.....are you kidding me.

Are you interested in an honest conversation or not? I have said it twice now that the Torah does not prohibit shaving, so there is no need to repent of doing that.

 

[Soyeong]

Not every answer is for the person being addressed. Sometimes others read and get some direction and answers as well.

I suppose you are espousing that we should follow the Mosaic Law because Abraham had faith and acted on that faith. Then entire episode of Abraham with Issac to which this refers is all pointing again to Jesus. The Lord made this clear with the ram caught in the thicket. I think it was also clear to Abraham and he understood it even a some level. Now to conclude that because Abraham had faith, and he acted on it, because he believed, and then tie that in to the NT believer when Abraham did not have the Mosaic Law to tell the Christian the Lord also expects us to follow the Mosaic Law to which no one was able to is in error.

There is much evidence for many of the laws given at Sinai were already being followed throughout Genesis. For example, in Genesis 7:2, Noah was given instructions about what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to distinguish between the two or what their significance was, and in Genesis 8:20, Noah knew to offer a clean animal, so we can reasonably infer that God had already given prior instructions in that regard. In Genesis 26:5, Abraham obeyed God's voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. It doesn't going into details about what those commands were, but there is no doubt that they can be summarized as instructions for how to walk in God's ways, in the same way that the Mosaic Law can be summarized. God's righteousness is eternal so it is reasonable that God's instructions to Abraham for how to act in accordance with His righteousness would have paralleled the instructions that God gave to Moses for how to do that.

The fact that God said that what He commanded was not too difficult for us completely undermines your stance that no one is able to obey it, and your refusal to acknowledge this point is rather glaring.

Do forget Jesus said;

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So what is Jesus saying exactly? He is saying unless you do much much better than any Pharisee (whom devoted their full attention to the Mosaic Law) and you EXCEED that you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What he is saying is there is by no means of men following any law that will get you in. It is only through Jesus that you can. The whole point of the law was to show everyone there was no way possible to do this for a man.

In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their traditions, so they were devoting themselves to their traditions and were by no means giving their full attention to the Mosaic Law. They had a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Law, which is why they failed to obtain righteousness (Romans 9:30-Romans 10:4). There is again nowhere in Bible that says that that the whole point of the Law was given to show us that we can't enter the Kingdom, much less that it even had that as one of its purposes. Rather, God's Laws is straightforwardly instructions for how to act as a citizen of His Kingdom. The way to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees is by grace through faith, and by the grace through the same faith we are therefore required to be careful to obey all of God's commands.

So why would anyone desire to undo the finished work of the cross "it is finished" and put themselves back under a yoke that even the men who devoted all of their time, effort, and energy still could not. To do so is to trample on the cross and to toss out grace entirely. It is rooted in pride, self righteousness, spiritual elitism and futility.

According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do things that are in accordance with the Law. Furthermore, verse 14 does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so to trample on the cross would and to toss our grace would be to turn from being zealous to do the good works that God's Law instructs back to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. Obedience to God is not about pride, self-righteousness, spiritual elitism, and futility, but about showing our love for God and our faith in His to teach us how to walk in His ways, and thereby growing in a relationship with Him based on love and faith.

 

[ConvictionofGod]

That's what I said. Do you have a point? A question?

just an addition that didn't really require further comment

 

[Ken Rank]

Joining the family of God is done through baptism, which Paul calls the "circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2:11-12):

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Interesting that in a post that brings clarity to the spirit of the law/letter of the law debate in the first century, you grab one piece of one sentence to attempt to make a point that does not allow you to grow in any way. Instead, you just put your head down and keep pushing. I ask this of many people, so I will ask you... Are you the same today as your were 5 years ago? Is your understanding of God and His word exactly as it was 5 years ago or have you grown? And in 5 years, do you expect to be exactly where you are now or do you expect to grow and be able to apply more of what you have learned? The answers SHOULD be obvious.... you have grown and will grow... and yet do not see that you expect us to conform to your current understanding. Moreover, you might admit that you expect to grow, but when others come with certain conclusions you do not currently accept, you immediately look for ways to prove them wrong rather then confidently and prayerfully considering what is being shared.

I would encourage you to reduce the dogmaticism a notch and engage in conversation that would allow you to understand your opponents position as well as he does. I can show you that "rightly dividing the word of truth" meaning standing in between of all possibly interpretations and weighing it all out evenly and prayerfully so as to make sure we can come to the conclusion GOD DESIRES us to come to.

 

[FredVB]

Jesus is named so in the manuscripts we have to use for scripures. Yahweh is, too.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Are you interested in an honest conversation or not? I have said it twice now that the Torah does not prohibit shaving, so there is no need to repent of doing that.

You don't even know what it says.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard

According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do things that are in accordance with the Law.

Have you read the previous chapter?

Titus 1

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

That is a direct reference to those who teach the law as in Mosaic Law, the Pharisee. THis is a direct warning against this teaching you are pushing.

Also your exegesis of Titus 2 is not correct. I seriously do not have the time to correct every wacky interpretation you present in order to twist scripture to say we are to keep the Mosaic Law. You are not even considering anything that is written yet you accuse me of not wanting honest discussion.

 

[Soyeong]

You're getting really good at ignoring Deuteronomy 30:11-14, and the worst is that you're doing this while accusing me a cherry picking.

You don't even know what it says.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard

Again, I have addressed this verse twice. The word used for "mar" means "to corrupt, blemish, destroy, deveste, ruin, harm, jeopardize, waste, polluted, ravage, or spoil", none of which I would use to describe the actions of someone shaving their beard to make it look neat and presentable. It is more like the action of taking a neatly trimmed hedge and hacking away at it haphazardly with a chainsaw than taking an overgrown hedge and making the sides even. It is more than likely referring to a pagan practice where mourners would tear out their hair at funerals.

Have you read the previous chapter?

Titus 1

10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

That is a direct reference to those who teach the law as in Mosaic Law, the Pharisee. THis is a direct warning against this teaching you are pushing.

The circumcision group was teaching that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes and to live as Jews according to all or their oral laws and traditions in order to become saved. I have said nothing like that, but rather I am in agreement with Paul's criticism of them.

Also your exegesis of Titus 2 is not correct.

I do not want to interpret the Bible incorrectly, so if you think that my exegesis of Titus 2 is not correct, then please explain why it is not correct and explain how it should be correctly interpreted.

I seriously do not have the time to correct every wacky interpretation you present in order to twist scripture to say we are to keep the Mosaic Law. You are not even considering anything that is written yet you accuse me of not wanting honest discussion.

Why did you ask how those verses could be reconciled if you are unwilling to discuss how any of them should be interpreted? And will you explain to me how that is part of an honest conversation? I have tried to address everything you have said, so I have no idea why you think that I have not considered anything that is written, though if you would point out something that I have missed, then I would be happy to consider it. Meanwhile, I can point to a number of things that I've said that you've not even acknowledged, and at this point you are intentionally ignoring Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in favor of others verses, so it seems to me that you a projecting onto me the things of which you are guilty.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Jesus is named so in the manuscripts we have to use for scripures. Yahweh is, too.

Yeah, in English...NT manuscripts were originally in Greek...

 

[Ken Rank]

Yeah, in English...NT manuscripts were originally in Greek...

I know this is off topic, but we have how many DSS manuscripts that have been found and they all date between 150BC and 70AD. And not one... not one... is in Greek. Why would we think the Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah would have written their letters in Greek? Mind you, Greek is what we have minus the Peshitta, and I have no issues with that, but the idea of James, John, Matthew... having written in Greek?

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus is named so in the manuscripts we have to use for scripures. Yahweh is, too.

The name Jesus is only in English bibles. His name appeared in the original English bibles according to it's Latin rendering, Iesus. That was changed to Jesus but it still didn't sound as it does today, at first, because the J carried the German influenced Y sound.

I am not saying all this to cause contention... just clarifying. "Jesus" as a name does not appear as we see it as I wrote it until the 1700's and not as we can hear it until the early 1800's.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I know this is off topic, but we have how many DSS manuscripts that have been found and they all date between 150BC and 70AD. And not one... not one... is in Greek. Why would we think the Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah would have written their letters in Greek? Mind you, Greek is what we have minus the Peshitta, and I have no issues with that, but the idea of James, John, Matthew... having written in Greek?

Many were written in Greek because many were written to Greek speaking/reading gentiles throughout the empire. My point was that "Jesus" is English and was never in any original manuscripts...