Whatever Happened to Forever?

[HARK!]

I think your guy says the temple was south east of where current studies place it on temple mount.

Think again.

 

[HARK!]

Paul argued against false teachers who said that a person needed to be circumcised before they could be saved

The Jerusalem Council

There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.

The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.

(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."

Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign. This is not what Torah teaches. Was Abraham saved before or after he showed the sign?

Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99.

(CLV) Gn 17:24
Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.


Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?

Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:


(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

Here is the ruling:

(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."


Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

Messiah followed the Torah, not the Talmud.

Genesis 17 (CLV)

9 And saying is the Elohim to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you for their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you for their generations: Circumcise to yourselves every male. 11 And circumcised shall you be in the flesh of your foreskin. And it comes to be for a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And a son of eight days shall be circumcised by you, every male of your generations, homeborn or acquired with money from any foreigner, he who is not of your seed. 13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian (FOREVER)

 

[Minister Monardo]

(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

This is so blatantly false. Here is Peter's side of the argument. I will stick with it.
Acts 15:10. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
This is the apostle Peter talking to you brother. Do you hear what he is saying from 2000 years ago? You aren't presenting any truth here by claiming a false dichotomy. Two arguments? NO! The same argument from 2 different peoples. Verse 1:
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
"The first group are non believers." Says who? Only you, to suit yourself.
The narrative says no such thing.
The certain men who traveled out, were sent out by the same men in Jerusalem that backed them before the leaders of the church. The testimony of Paul's letters confirms this fact.
Galatians 2:3. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Do you hear that brother. Titus>Greek>not circumcised.
On other threads I have seen you cite Paul circumcising Timothy. The narrative explained exactly why. Because the people in Jerusalem new his mother was a Jew. Sounds like Jewish Law to me. His Greek father gave him no out. Jewish identity bestowed from the mother.
Galatians 2:4. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
What are we to make of this, false brethren who would bring the Greeks into bondage. Who does Paul think he is anyway? Exactly what Gospel is he preaching?
Galatians 2:7. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me,
How can there be two Gospels? It is the same Gospel, Jew and Greek. Where was the line drawn for the Gentiles? Rejection of the false notion, taught by "certain men" sent to spy out the liberty of the ecclesia, by Pharisees desiring to be leaders, making commands, who had received no such authority from the Lord. You must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. No way.
Just because some of the Pharisees from Jerusalem agreed, you think they are right? You and them are both wrong. Why on earth would you be surprised that the Pharisees of all people would think this about Greeks. Why does Peter oppose them? Hello! He was the one The Lord gave the vision to show that the Gentiles were accepted. Do not call them unclean.
Peter NEVER speaks in favor of enforcing circumcision on Greeks.
Acts 8:23. I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
You seem to be determined to make every attempt to upend the faith of Christians. That you have taken some superior route of learning Hebrew and following Torah, and proving every Christian wrong.
So sad for you. You have been totally ineffective. No one believes what you want them to based on your flimsy scholarship. Only those who agreed with you a priori approve your sayings. This is such false scholarship. Demanding that we agree that there are only two possible arguments. No, there was one, and it was settled. You are the one trying to come back around 2000 years later to recreate the drama.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Jerusalem Council

There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.

The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.

(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."

Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign.

WAS.
This argument, debate about circumcision and the council of Jerusalem is all past tense - it is what happened. Their argument, THEN, was "you cannot be saved unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses." Acts of the Apostles 15:1.
Yes, I know Abraham was given circumcision as a sign of the covenant, but these people didn't say that. Neither did the Council correct them and say "learn your Torah; it was Abraham who was given the sign, not Moses."

By putting this into the present tense, are you saying that this argument is still going on today and is an important one? Are you saying what these men said; that circumcision is necessary for salvation?

Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?

Generally before; baptism may take place weeks, or months, later.
But I know people who were baptised as babies, later became Christians and were never baptised by immersion as adults. They had been baptised as babies, their baptism didn't save them, so it didn't matter, to them that they couldn't remember it.

Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:


(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

They argued at the time, or they argue nowadays and this debate is still going on?

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

I'm not.
I'm talking about events that happened many years ago in the days of the early church, where lifelong Jews who came to believe in Jesus, were working out their faith - and being led astray by false teachers.

I've no idea what Jews who accept the Messiah are taught today, or if there are people going around Jewish churches saying "any Gentile believer must be circumcised."
I am saying that the Gospel we preach is new life in Jesus. Jesus saves; no one else. This is not a "new argument", it has always been the case since Jesus was raised from the dead, Acts of the Apostles 4:12, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:11, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:4-5, Colossians 1:20, 2 Corinthians 5:18. Even when he was on earth Jesus said that he was the only way to the Father, John 14:6 and the giver of eternal life, John 3:16, John 6:40.

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."

No, this WAS what the Council of Jerusalem decided to write in a letter to Gentile believers.
Who was asked to deliver that letter to the Gentiles, telling them not to eat food offered to idols? Yet only a few years later, Paul wrote, "we know that an idol means nothing at all, and there is only one God, " 1 Corinthians 8:4. He went on to say that they have the freedom to eat such meat because they know the truth; that offering it to an idol means nothing and does not defile them. But that if they had fellow Christians who were weaker in their faith and believed the meat was defiled, they should refrain from eating for their sake.

Paul the strict, food law abiding Pharisee, had now come to believe that food offered to an idol meant nothing, and eating it did not make a person unclean. It was hypocrisy, but Paul learning, and growing in, his new faith that salvation was through Christ, not the Jewish law.
I would hope that all Christians grow in their faith, knowledge and understanding. It doesn't change the Gospel; it's WE who change, not the Good News.

Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.

Paul circumcised Timothy so that he could take him to a place where there were many Jews, and they would accept him. Acts of the Apostles 16:3; "Paul wanted to take Timothy along so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area."
You seem not to want to believe that.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

Taken massively out of context and doesn't apply.
Jesus never circumcised anyone.

 

[Der Alte]

(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.
This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

Whenever an argument starts with a flawed premise any conclusions will be flawed.
No matter how much someone may want Acts 15:5 to say "you must be circumcised to keep the law" it does not say that.
Even in the erroneous CLV, Acts 15:5 says
"Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, BESIDES charging them to keep the law of Moses."
There were two separate requirements, one, "they must be circumcised" and "besides" that a second requirement "keep the law of Moses."
The same objection is repeated in Acts 15:24.

Act_15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:​

The apostles and elders in Jerusalem said that the requirements some Jews were placing on the gentiles was "subverting your souls." So even they said "we gave no commandment for gentiles to "be circumcised AND keep the law." Two separate requirements. NOT circumcision to keep the law.
Paul said requiring gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law was a yoke that even the Jews could not bear. Acts 15:10 And here the apostles and elders said it was "subverting" the souls of the gentiles.
.....Later in Jerusalem with James and the elders.

Act 21:24-25
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, [keep the law vs. 24] save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.​

James and the elder said they gave no such command for gentiles to keep the law. The ONLY requirement for gentiles was "keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
Note the word "only" there was no previous, then current or later commandment for gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law and by implication attend synagogues.

 

[Der Alte]

Think again.

So where does your guy say the temple actually was? I don't have the time or inclination to watch a lengthy video. Give me the Cliff notes version.

 

[HARK!]

This is so blatantly false.

The Jerusalem Council

There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.

The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.

(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."

Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign. This is not what Torah teaches. Was Abraham saved before or after he showed the sign?

Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99.

(CLV) Gn 17:24
Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.


Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?

Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:


(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

Here is the ruling:

(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."


Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

Messiah followed the Torah, not the Talmud.

Genesis 17 (CLV)

9 And saying is the Elohim to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you for their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you for their generations: Circumcise to yourselves every male. 11 And circumcised shall you be in the flesh of your foreskin. And it comes to be for a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And a son of eight days shall be circumcised by you, every male of your generations, homeborn or acquired with money from any foreigner, he who is not of your seed. 13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian (FOREVER)

Here is Peter's side of the argument. I will stick with it.
Acts 15:10. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Peter's side of the argument was circumcision to keep the law. The yoke of circumcision wasn't put in Abraham before he came to faith. This was putting the cart before the horse. Peter Paul and James understood the Torah. They weren't following the Talmud. I would encourage you to go back and read Acts 15 objectively, with respect for YHWH's perfect Torah.

 

[HARK!]

Neither did the Council correct them and say "learn your Torah

James demanded that those new to the gospel keep these basic requirements to share table fellowship with Israel. He pulled them right out of the Torah:


(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.



Leviticus 17
7 No longer shall they sacrifice their sacrifices to hairy goat-demons after whom they have been prostituting. An eonian statute shall this become for them throughout their generations. 8 To them you shall say:Any man from the house of Israel or from the sojourners who sojourn in your midst who should offer an ascent offering or a sacrifice 9 and not bring it to the opening of the tent of appointment to offer it to Yahweh, that man will be cut off from his kinsmen. 10 As for any man from the house of Israel and from the sojourners sojourning in your midst who should eat any blood, I will set My face against the soul eating blood, and I will cut him off from among his people, 11 for the soul of the flesh, it is in the blood, and I Myself have assigned it to you to make a propitiatory shelter over your souls on the altar; for the blood, in the soul it makes a propitiatory shelter. 12 Therefore I say to the sons of Israel:No soul at all of you shall eat blood; nor shall the sojourner sojourning in your midst eat blood. 13 Any man from the sons of Israel and from the sojourners sojourning in your midst who hunt a game animal or a flyer which may be eaten will pour out its blood and cover it with soil, 14 for the soul of all flesh is its blood; as its soul is it. So I said to the sons of Israel:The blood of any flesh you shall not eat, for the soul of all flesh, it is its blood. Everyone eating it shall be cut off.

He then qualified this rudimentary compliance with the Torah, with this statement:


(CLV) Ac 15:21
For Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."

 

[Minister Monardo]

Peter's side of the argument was circumcision to keep the law. The yoke of circumcision wasn't put in Abraham before he came to faith. This was putting the cart before the horse. Peter Paul and James understood the Torah. They weren't following the Talmud. I would encourage you to go back and read Acts 15 objectively, with respect for YHWH's perfect Torah.

I don't need to re-read Acts 15, as if I am going to suddenly see support for your opinion. And your suggestion that I lack objectivity I reject, along with the 1 billion Gentiles who disagree with you. The time of the Gentiles will soon be fulfilled, and all this will be moot. You should find a new campaign plank. The Kingdom of heaven is Righteousness (which you claim some degree of expertise), peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit.
I pray the peace and joy of Christ for you and yours always. As to your endless efforts to promote circumcision and Torah observance among the nations, I have over 50 years of life experience with the Lord that says that your position is not even close to the apostles. Maybe you should re-read all of their letters and see how much of a priority you find there, over the much more weightier matters of life in Messiah. This and many statements of Messiah speak directly to you:
Matthew 23:23. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
While you spend your limited energy and resources spending hours debating matters of the law, there are many others that are dealing with weightier matters, and don't have time for the 'mint and cumin' of the Law.
I would not oppose you at all, but on this one basis, I have an in depth knowledge of the apostolic doctrine, and I do not find your message, your priorities, your 'tone of voice' or your spirit there.
Stop being so condescending. It makes me want to LOL.
James 2:13. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

 

[HARK!]

baptism didn't save them, so it didn't matter

Didn't matter...

(CLV) Ac 2:38
Now Peter is averring to them, "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Didn't matter...

(CLV) Ac 2:38
Now Peter is averring to them, "Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of your sins, and you shall be obtaining the gratuity of the holy spirit.

1 Peter 3 (CLV). 20 He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water,
21 the representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience to God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 Who is at God's right hand, being gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers being subjected to Him.

 

[HARK!]

I don't need to re-read Acts 15, as if I am going to suddenly see support for your opinion.

I'm just stating the facts. I noticed that you didn't refute them with the facts of that passage. LOL!

And your suggestion that I lack objectivity I reject,

Well good to see that you're objective about it. LOL!

along with the 1 billion Gentiles who disagree with you.

Oh, the good old argumentum ad populum fallacy. Nice touch!

Matthew 23:23. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

YES YES! You're doing very well; now read on...

(CLV) Mt 23:28
Thus you, also, outside, indeed, are appearing to men to be just, yet inside you are distended with hypocrisy and LAWLESSNESS.

I would not oppose you at all, but on this one basis, I have an in depth knowledge of the apostolic doctrine, and I do not find your message, your priorities, your 'tone of voice' or your spirit there.
Stop being so condescending. It makes me want to LOL.

LOL!

 

[Minister Monardo]

I'm just stating the facts. I noticed that you didn't refute them with the facts of that passage. LOL!

Already have answered to your "statement of facts'. Twice. Review your notes. You are the one who never refuted mine, so that ball is in your court. Unless you consider saying the same thing over and over a refutation. LOL.

 

[HARK!]

Already have answered to your "statement of facts'. Twice. Review your notes. You are the one who never refuted mine, so that ball is in your court. Unless you consider saying the same thing over and over a refutation. LOL.

I said with the facts of that passage, not with random non sequitur.

 

[Der Alte]

....
This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

Whenever an argument starts with a flawed premise, as this one does, any conclusions will be flawed.
No matter how much someone may want Acts 15:5 to say "you must be circumcised to keep the law" it does not say that.
Even in the erroneous CLV, Acts 15:5 says

"Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, BESIDES charging them to keep the law of Moses."​

There were two separate requirements, one, "they must be circumcised" and "besides" that a second requirement "keep the law of Moses."
The same objection is repeated in Acts 15:24.

Act_15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:​

The apostles and elders in Jerusalem said that the requirements some Jews were placing on the gentiles was "subverting your souls." So even they said "we gave no commandment for gentiles to "be circumcised AND keep the law." Two separate requirements. NOT circumcision to keep the law.
Paul said requiring gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law was a yoke that even the Jews could not bear,. Acts of the apostles 15:10. And here the apostles and elders said it was "subverting" the souls of the gentiles.
.....Later in Jerusalem with James and the elders.

Act 21:24-25
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, [keep the law vs. 24] save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.​

James and the elder said they gave no such command for gentiles to keep the law. The ONLY requirements for gentiles was these four

"keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."​

Note the word "only," vs. 24, there was no previous, then current or later commandment for gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law and by implication attend synagogues ONLY the four requirements listed above.

 

[HARK!]

Whenever an argument starts with a flawed premise, as this one does, any conclusions will be flawed.

^^^^^^^FAULTY PREMISE ALERT^^^^^^^

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.


False premise - Wikipedia

 

[Minister Monardo]

I said with the facts of that passage, not with random non sequitur.

Here is one you ignored and covered over with repetition.
Timothy>Circumcised by Paul>He was Jewish by his mother/grandmother-Law. Fact known by the establishment at the Temple.
Titus>Greek>NOT Circumcised. 'Certain Men', false brethren sent from Jerusalem by Pharisees tried to insist that he and other Greek believers be circumcised.
Paul vehemently opposed their claims, and went to Jerusalem with Barnabas to confront the Pharisees who were supporting this teaching. They were not ordained leaders of the church, but doctrinally they are your ancestors.
Acts 15:1. And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved.
You claim that these men mentioned in verse one are 'unbelievers'. The narrative makes no such claim.
You are making this up to support your idea that there were two separate arguments.
I have pointed this out previously, but you ignore my rebuttal and repeat the same claim, as if you say something over and over enough times, it will become true.
Let's say this again. Titus>Greek>not circumcised. Was Paul doctrinally bipolar? Did he take one approach in Galatia and a different one in Jerusalem? Not random. Not non. Not sequitur.

 

[HARK!]

Here is one you ignored and covered over with repetition.
Timothy>Circumcised by Paul>He was Jewish by his mother/grandmother-Law. Fact known by the establishment at the Temple.

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.

 

[Der Alte]

^^^^^^^FAULTY PREMISE ALERT^^^^^^^
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
False premise - Wikipedia

Wiki, really? Every article has one or more [Edit] links anyone can change, add, delete anything without review.
Let us read a valid explanation from Psychology Today.

A false premise is a form of misdirection. A basic argument consists of a premise, statements or propositions supporting the premise, and an inference or a conclusion. An argument is a collection of statements or propositions that attempt to support a premise.
Inference is a process whereby new beliefs are formed based on established beliefs. The premise provides support or evidence for the inference. A liar establishes a false premise to support an inference that is not true.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-talking/201912/false-premise-is-lie-in-truth
​

 

[Minister Monardo]

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.

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.