Whatever Happened to Forever?

[Der Alte]

I see. I didn't realize that you used the Pharisaic Talmud as your compass. The Torah says the lineage is of the Father. This clarifies the root of many of our disagreements. I'll just stick with the Torah. Thanks for sharing.

Where does Torah say what you claim?

 

[Minister Monardo]

You want to try again. The narrative states definitively that is why Paul circumcised Timothy.
Do you really think that I know Pharisaic Talmud? Do you really think I care?
Let's try this one more time, since you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this:
Titus>Greek>not circumcised.
Titus>>>>>>Greek>>>>>>not circumcised. Read Galatians 2, since you think you know the facts. Re-read Acts, since your facts are not consistent with what is written.
You are the one who uses the fact that Paul circumcised Timothy to support the necessity of doing so. Now you say that the reason given in the narrative that explains his actions are Talmud, and therefore non sequitur. Only one conclusion follows: your whole argument is non sequitur. Keep trying, but at some point, if you keep saying the same thing over and over when you have been proven false, is just an old fashioned lie.

Acts 16:[CLV]1 Now he arrives also at Derbe and at Lystra. And lo! a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman, yet of a Greek father, 2 who was attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. 3 This one Paul wants to come out with him, and, taking him, circumcised him because of the Jews who are in those places, for they all were aware that his father belonged to the Greeks."
Was Paul being a hypocrite here? The reason, as stated sounds a lot like why Peter stopped eating with the Greeks.
So to be clear, YOU need to read Acts 16 to support your claims.

 

[ewq1938]