Fulfilled vs. Abolished

[pinetree]

Orwell would be proud.

yup..I posted the Greek....

 

[cyberlizard]

ummm.speaking of embarressing
YOU..need to read the greek..
Here it is AGAIN..
Levitical laws are in the TORAH...

PETER SAID ACCORDING TO THE LEVITICAL LAWS,GENTILES WERE UNCLEAN.I POSTED THE VERSES,WITH THE GREEK DEFINITION.SEE THE WORDS IN RED.LEVITICAL...


Acts 10:28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should notcall any person common orunclean.

That was Jewish ceremonial laws,that seperated the two,Jew and Gentile.

Greek for unclean in that verse.Acts 10:28

akathartos 169
Definition:1) not cleansed, unclean
1a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from
according to the levitical law
1b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life

i'm still waiting and your still embarassing yourself - give us specific texts from the Torah.


Steve

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

i'm still waiting and your still embarassing yourself - give us specific texts from the Torah.


Steve

LOL

 

[pinetree]

i'm still waiting and your still embarassing yourself - give us specific texts from the Torah.


Steve

I have told you before on other threads..I will not play your little tactic,of asking pinetree questions..

What is embarresing is the fact that I post alot of scripture,with definitions,but you just ask me questions,like on all the other Torah threads.

Peter said it,the Greek scholars confirm it..


See the Greek scholars,and ask them for a verse..here is mine,clear and simple.


Acts 10:28And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Those was Jewish ceremonial laws,that seperated the two,Jew and Gentile.

Greek for unclean in that verse.Acts 10:28

akathartos 169
Definition:1) not cleansed, unclean
1a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from
according to the levitical law
1b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life

The Levitical laws,came under Moses..

Last I checked,that was MOSES..TORAH!


Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?



There...so if you think you are embarresing brother pinetree,your not.

LETS SEE YOU REFUTE THE GREEK,FOR THE SCRIPTURE I POSTED...

THE BURDEN OF DEFENSE IS ON YOU,,NOT ME.

Are the new Testament ,and the scholars wrong?

Answer that..

If you can prove them wrong,I will recant.

I await...thanks.

 

[pinetree]

LOL

Your post about the Torah,in the beginning was the word,was..oh nevermind.....

 

[pinetree]

.

 

[NaLuvena]

It is not a bit..

Look what happened in Acts,when men from Jerusalem,tried to impose circumcision..on the church in Antioch

First..
Acts 15:1But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

In Antioch,it was 0pposed by Paul,and Barnabas..

Acts 15: 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them,

Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Then in Jerusalem,we see they stood up again,to try to force circumcision,and the law of Moses..


Acts 15:4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”


Then Peter stood to oppose it.The circumcision,and the law of Moses,calling it a yoke of that no one could bear.He OPPOSED circumcision.


Acts 15:
7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11


Later,in Acts,even James,a brother from Jerusalem,very Jewish ,said that those who wanted to impose the snipping,were not in agreement with him either.It was in the letter.


Acts 15:24Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,


Paul refers to the events here,in Galatians.he was glad that the very church council in Jerusalem,did not tell Titus to be circumcised.


Galatians 2;3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

The same yoke of slavery,was later spoken of by Paul in Galatians..
He did not yield to them,he obviously opposed the circumcision..calling them false brothers too.Who wee see in Galatians 1,a false gospel.



Galatians :4-5 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Later in Galatians,he said this..

Galatians 5:1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

If he preached circumcisionon,he would not have been persecuted.

Galatians 5:11But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
He even had some sharp words to those who did try to impose it..huh?

Gal5”12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Then in 6,we see again,his reaction to those who were seeking to force the law on the Galatian saints..he said force..


12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.



That is why in a nutshell,we see that he did not live Torah,as per my other post,and he did preach ,no more circumcision.Nor did Peter.They cant live Torah,then preach against the very laws of the Torah.

Paul knew,that if you get snipped,your obligated to keep the whole law..


Gal5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.


And that would put believers under a curse,because no one can keep the law..




Galatians 3:10For 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.”

Thanks.

So tell me, my friend, if Paul taught that circumcision was done away with, why did he circumcise Timothy?

This was right after the meeting you quoted from in Acts 15.

Acts 16:3

Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

If Paul taught that circumcision was done away with (as you claim) then he just did something contrary to what he taught.

Paul only taught that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. He never said that it was done away with.

This is what Paul said about circumcision.

Romans 3

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

 

[cyberlizard]

Even if a gentile is considered unclean, that does not negate the fact that Jews were not to have dealings with gentiles... otherwise the same Torah commands for both Jew and gentile would not exist.

imagine the scenario where the temple is full to the brim at passover of people slaughtering their lambs when a gentile comes with his... imagine the chaos as according to pinetree's theology thousand upon thousands of jewish people begin to run around frantically, shouting 'arrrggghhh quick run away there is someone unclean in the temple'... stupid situation...

what is worse is the law makes provisions for unclean status...

so I say it again, unless you can prove from the Torah itself your case, then I suggest you withdraw it. If this forum was a court of law, your evidence would be dismissed as not being based on a primary witness. The witness in this instance is the Torah as that is the document we are discussing.

Jewish tradition on the hand did prohibit Jews from contact with non-jews (at the time of Jesus, not the time of the giving of Torah), on the grounds of purities. So it was a-themitis for a jew to have dealings with a gentile, (athemitos = themitos with the negation point, and themitos is the word base used in the passage you keep quoting regarding Peter).


Steve

p.s. your still embarrassing yourself. Give answer supported by Torah and I'll live you alone on the subject matter.

 

[pinetree]

So tell me, my friend, if Paul taught that circumcision was done away with, why did he circumcise Timothy?

This was right after the meeting you quoted from in Acts 15.

Acts 16:3

Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

If Paul taught that circumcision was done away with (as you claim) then he just did something contrary to what he taught.

Paul only taught that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. He never said that it was done away with.

This is what Paul said about circumcision.

Romans 3

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Hello friend..

As far as Timothy goes..


In Acts 16 we see that Paul circumcised Timothy..it was for a reason.Paul would be traveling with Tim.And he did not want an obstacle,he had reasons..

They would be traveling,and preaching,and were being stalked by the Jews.

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul in 1 Corinthians explains why he did certain things.

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

But..remeber he, nor the church council in Jerusalem ordered Titus to be snipped,did they?

In fact,look what paul's words were towards those who preach snipping..

Ouch..


Philippians 3:2-3 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh

As far as doing away with it,I covered that in my super long post you quoted on..

As far as your Romans verses..

Paul does that,he raises a question,then answers..

He is really just equating Jews and circumcision,in the phraseology.

Notice he answers...

Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

He just says that...the oracles..nothing about the advantage of circumcision did he?

Again,read the Galatians post.If they snip,they gotta be under law,no 2 ways about it.

No snippy,no Mosesy...

Thanks.

 

[NaLuvena]

Hello friend..

As far as Timothy goes..


In Acts 16 we see that Paul circumcised Timothy..it was for a reason.Paul would be traveling with Tim.And he did not want an obstacle,he had reasons..

They would be traveling,and preaching,and were being stalked by the Jews.

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul in 1 Corinthians explains why he did certain things.

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

But..remeber he, nor the church council in Jerusalem ordered Titus to be snipped,did they?

In fact,look what paul's words were towards those who preach snipping..

Ouch..


Philippians 3:2-3 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh

As far as doing away with it,I covered that in my super long post you quoted on..

As far as your Romans verses..

Paul does that,he raises a question,then answers..

He is really just equating Jews and circumcision,in the phraseology.

Notice he answers...

Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

He just says that...the oracles..nothing about the advantage of circumcision did he?

Again,read the Galatians post.If they snip,they gotta be under law,no 2 ways about it.

No snippy,no Mosesy...

Thanks.

Ouch indeed!!!!

The point still remains...that if Paul said circumcision was done away with, then he would have never "snipped" Timothy......

Timothy was snipped, not to save him (he was already a believer/disciple) but to enable him to fit in.

This would fit with Paul's "circumcision is not necessary for salvation" stance.....

BTW...if Timothy was a disciple, circumcising him would really be making him do nothing extra than what he was doing already.

 

[pinetree]

Even if a gentile is considered unclean, that does not negate the fact that Jews were not to have dealings with gentiles... otherwise the same Torah commands for both Jew and gentile would not exist.

imagine the scenario where the temple is full to the brim at passover of people slaughtering their lambs when a gentile comes with his... imagine the chaos as according to pinetree's theology thousand upon thousands of jewish people begin to run around frantically, shouting 'arrrggghhh quick run away there is someone unclean in the temple'... stupid situation...

what is worse is the law makes provisions for unclean status...

so I say it again, unless you can prove from the Torah itself your case, then I suggest you withdraw it. If this forum was a court of law, your evidence would be dismissed as not being based on a primary witness. The witness in this instance is the Torah as that is the document we are discussing.

Jewish tradition on the hand did prohibit Jews from contact with non-jews (at the time of Jesus, not the time of the giving of Torah), on the grounds of purities. So it was a-themitis for a jew to have dealings with a gentile, (athemitos = themitos with the negation point, and themitos is the word base used in the passage you keep quoting regarding Peter).


Steve

p.s. your still embarrassing yourself. Give answer supported by Torah and I'll live you alone on the subject matter.

ohhhhh,your opening line is now showing something,a change ..'even if"

Embaressing..lol...

A change huh?

The Jews tried to get Paul,by accusing him of letting Gentile Trophimus into the temple.It was against the law..Fact!!

Here is more scripture that you seem to ignore,and think is wrong?


Were God,Peter,and the Greek scholars all wrong?

It says Levitical..Torah....

Apparently,since God cleansed them,the Gentiles,they were once not clean.….

Acts 10:15 (King James Version)

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Common..The greek…

koinoo <2840>

Definition:
1) to make common
1a) to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane
1b) to declare or count unclean
__________________


Why do you think you know more thanGod, Peter,and the Greek scholars who say,unclean according to the levitical law? TORAH.

That is Embarresing ...

 

[pinetree]

Ouch indeed!!!!

The point still remains...that if Paul said circumcision was done away with, then he would have never "snipped" Timothy......

Timothy was snipped, not to save him (he was already a believer/disciple) but to enable him to fit in.

This would fit with Paul's "circumcision is not necessary for salvation" stance.....

BTW...if Timothy was a disciple, circumcising him would really be making him do nothing extra than what he was doing already.

Then why not Titus..did he not have to fit in?

Perhaps you have more scripture to add to prove your point,rather than ask again,something that was already explained.

 

[cyberlizard]

ohhhhh,your opening line is now showing something,a change ..'even if"

Embaressing..lol...

A change huh?

The Jews tried to get Paul,by accusing him of letting Gentile Trophimus into the temple.It was against the law..Fact!!

Here is more scripture that you seem to ignore,and think is wrong?


Were God,Peter,and the Greek scholars all wrong?

It says Levitical..Torah....

Apparently,since God cleansed them,the Gentiles,they were once not clean.….

Acts 10:15 (King James Version)

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Common..The greek…

koinoo <2840>

Definition:
1) to make common
1a) to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane
1b) to declare or count unclean
__________________


Why do you think you know more thanGod, Peter,and the Greek scholars who say,unclean according to the levitical law? TORAH.

That is Embarresing ...

The Jews tried to get Paul by accusing him of taking a gentile into the temple...

this is a fact...

but your interpreting it devoid of context. When the Torah was given to Moses, gentiles and Jews had equal place within the Torah itself and the same command was for both. At that time (the time the Torah was given), all a gentile (Heb: ger) had to do to be counted amongst the people of Israel was live with them, accepting their God and their own.

however, as you like to say things change...

by the time period from Ezra to the now, to be counted amongst the people of God (aka Israel), things had changed somewhat.

the halakhic ruling had become that if a non-Jew wished to be counted amongst God's covenant people, they had to enter the process of ritual conversion... they progressed from being Heb: GerTzedek or righteous foreigner to becoming physically a member of the Jewish people (this is just history) - the person effectively according to the prevailing halakhah changed their ethnicity (this incidentally is what the book of Galatians is all about).

If Paul had indeed taken an uncircumcised gentile into the temple back then this would have been against the law... but that would not be the written torah, but rather the traditions later codified into the Mishnah, which was also referred to as the Law.

In an imaginary scenario, suppose Paul had been alive in Solomons' day and had taken a gentile who wanted to worship the God of Israel with him into the temple, that would have been perfectly acceptable as the halakhic rulings regarding these events had not yet appeared and would not appear for a long, long time.

The idea that a non-jews uncleanness seperated them from Jews is a non-starter. You again are still avoiding the historical context.

AND

you have not yet proven anything from the Torah...

NOW

Stop embarrassing yourself and show everyone on this forum from the words of Moses' writings themself which Paul loved to quote from exactly where it makes the argument that Jews and gentiles have no contact under the provisions of the law.


Steve

 

[pinetree]

The Jews tried to get Paul by accusing him of taking a gentile into the temple...

this is a fact...

but your interpreting it devoid of context. When the Torah was given to Moses, gentiles and Jews had equal place within the Torah itself and the same command was for both. At that time (the time the Torah was given), all a gentile (Heb: ger) had to do to be counted amongst the people of Israel was live with them, accepting their God and their own.

however, as you like to say things change...

by the time period from Ezra to the now, to be counted amongst the people of God (aka Israel), things had changed somewhat.

the halakhic ruling had become that if a non-Jew wished to be counted amongst God's covenant people, they had to enter the process of ritual conversion... they progressed from being Heb: GerTzedek or righteous foreigner to becoming physically a member of the Jewish people (this is just history) - the person effectively according to the prevailing halakhah changed their ethnicity (this incidentally is what the book of Galatians is all about).

Nice try..but the fact that if Trophimus would be in violation of the laws, proves they were still existent!Time frame!Historical content..hmmm,see below,as with peter,we see the time frame.

If Paul had indeed taken an uncircumcised gentile into the temple back then this would have been against the law... but that would not be the written torah, but rather the traditions later codified into the Mishnah, which was also referred to as the Law.

In an imaginary scenario, suppose Paul had been alive in Solomons' day and had taken a gentile who wanted to worship the God of Israel with him into the temple, that would have been perfectly acceptable as the halakhic rulings regarding these events had not yet appeared and would not appear for a long, long time.

The idea that a non-jews uncleanness seperated them from Jews is a non-starter. You again are still avoiding the historical context.

AND

you have not yet proven anything from the Torah...

NOW

Stop embarrassing yourself and show everyone on this forum from the words of Moses' writings themself which Paul loved to quote from exactly where it makes the argument that Jews and gentiles have no contact under the provisions of the law.


Steve

Steve..are you getting angry?

The tactic of your overuse of the embarrasing comment indicates that you are.

Your wrong..

Those were wll established laws..heck,the Temple was destroyed not long after Pauls visits..same time as Trophimus..

The levitical laws were the Temple laws were.(Torah)

That is where the laws were given.They still stood with Trophimus,and the same time,historical content, as Peters experience.

Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?




Here it is,from the time frame..historical content..hmmmm

CONTEXT...

SCRIPTURE....

You can read all the Rabbi's you want..I post scripture with facts!

Here is evidence of the history,and the time frame(historical content) we speak of..your point is moot.The GREEK says Levitical,that its TORAH.

Peter knew that the Torah laws separated Jew and Gentile....

Acts 10:28And he said to them, &#8220;You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

That was Jewish ceremonial laws,that seperated the two,Jew and Gentile.

Greek for unclean in that verse.Acts 10:28

akathartos 169
Definition:1) not cleansed, unclean
1a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from
according to the levitical law
1b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life


So at the time of Peters vision,it was against the Torah.That IS the historical content huh?


Facts can be embarrasing ...

 

[pinetree]

If they converted..then they were not Gentiles...

Fact still remains then that Gentiles could no go into the temple..TORAH..

That is why the old Cov is over,the place where all those laws were...
That is why I dont even understand why you are arguing?
It is over anway...
Is it not?



"the halakhic ruling had become that if a non-Jew wished to be counted amongst God's covenant people, they had to enter the process of ritual conversion... they progressed from being Heb: GerTzedek or righteous foreigner to becoming physically a member of the Jewish people (this is just history) - the person effectively according to the prevailing halakhah changed their ethnicity (this incidentally is what the book of Galatians is all about)."

 

[cyberlizard]

i'm waiting....

single verse from torah to support your claim.



Steve

 

[pinetree]

i'm waiting....

single verse from torah to support your claim.



Steve

Then from now on,dont ever quote the Greek,since you dont think it seems to matter.

Why do they say Levitical,do you differ from the scholars?..

I see you backed away from the time frame issue.

Gosh..the old cov is gone,with the very laws you seek to defend.

You dont have to feel bad..God did it.

Abolished is the temple,the laws,the priesthood,the sacrifices..boom! Gone,abolished!

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Then from now on,dont ever quote the Greek,since you dont think it seems to matter.

Why do they say Levitical,do you differ from the scholars?..

I see you backed away from the time frame issue.

Gosh..the old cov is gone,with the very laws you seek to defend.

You dont have to feel bad..God did it.

Abolished is the temple,the laws,the priesthood,the sacrifices..boom! Gone,abolished!

All that's being asked of you pinetree is that you give the chapter and verse of said "Levitical" law. What is considered Torah is in your Bible...unless of course you've ripped out the first 5 books of the old Testament and thrown it out. So, if you have access to the Torah you should be able to come up with the Torah law that you say Peter referred to which forbids Jew and Gentile to mix.

Could it be that you don't really know where that verse is and you're just too proud to admit it?

I'll give you a clue: There is a written Torah (which is the first five books of the OT) and an Oral Torah (known as the Talmud: which is Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2d century C.E.)

 

[pinetree]

All that's being asked of you pinetree is that you give the chapter and verse of said "Levitical" law. What is considered Torah is in your Bible...unless of course you've ripped out the first 5 books of the old Testament and thrown it out. So, if you have access to the Torah you should be able to come up with the Torah law that you say Peter referred to which forbids Jew and Gentile to mix.

Could it be that you don't really know where that verse is and you're just too proud to admit it?

I'll give you a clue: There is a written Torah (which is the first five books of the OT) and an Oral Torah (known as the Talmud: which is Jewish teachings explaining and elaborating on the Written Torah, handed down orally until the 2d century C.E.)

I posted sufficiant evidence.All I see is a bunch of ask of pinetree questions,as usual..but never scripture Huh?

Steve knows the obvious reason,to his semantical question.

Steve admitted the answer already..

In his post,he said they had to convert..

To what??

The Torah..that would include circumcision huh?..... Torah....and ALL the Jewish laws..Torah...to be a Jew,that is what you have to do..

Search thr Greek,it is online.

But I will save you the trouble..

Seems like we always quote the Greek,on this forum,but now it does not seem to matter..

Why do you and Steve disagree with the God,Peter,and the scholars?

Rread Acts 10 and 11..God called em clean,because they were not clean before that.(Levitically,,Torah)



And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Common..The greek&#8230;

koinoo <2840>

Definition:
1) to make common
1a) to make (Levitically) unclean, render unhallowed, defile, profane
1b) to declare or count unclean

Another verse..


Greek for unclean in that verse.Acts 10:28

akathartos 169
Definition:1) not cleansed, unclean
1a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from
according to the levitical law
1b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life


Apparently the laws were not only ended with the new cov..

Then God finalizes it when the temple,the priesthood,the laws,the sacrifices were ended.

There is some history fo ya.

 

[pinetree]

I post scripture,with the greek.So far no scripture from others..just the same old tired thing,that I will not validate.There is a reason the scholars say,it was levitical..Torah..

So my repeat question will be fine then

Disprove the scholars?

Disprove the scholars?

It is that same old game,like when people say..

"show me a verse that says the new Covenant is grace!?"

"I want to see it called that,show me a verse?!"