Abraham, by faith or works

[Stranger]

That is not how I do it.

I use discussions as a means to search for knowledge whether from the discussion at hand or further research I am inspired to do. Some conversations are dead in that they fail to directly educate me but even such conversations can inspire me to do research that bears fruit.

Like I said, once a person has a certain belief or system of theology down, very seldom are they convinced out of it, right or wrong.

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

Like I said, once a person has a certain belief or system of theology down, very seldom are they convinced out of it, right or wrong.

Stranger

There may be some truth to that but the reasons for it may vary according to the individual. I know that the more I have to support a particular tenet the more solid that tenet becomes. Another person may see it as a point of faith and this throw out evidence that reveals a particular tenet as false. There is after all a difference between the gaining knowledge and denial of the evidence.

I am still open to the idea that any theory reached by deductive reasoning can be disproved. Even those conclusions reached by inductive reason, which are more solid by nature, may be shown to be flawed due to unstable premises or invalid reasoning. The more they are tested and stand the less likely they will be erroneous.

 

[Stranger]

There may be some truth to that but the reasons for it may vary according to the individual. I know that the more I have to support a particular tenet the more solid that tenet becomes. Another person may see it as a point of faith and this throw out evidence that reveals a particular tenet as false. There is after all a difference between the gaining knowledge and denial of the evidence.

I am still open to the idea that any theory reached by deductive reasoning can be disproved. Even those conclusions reached by inductive reason, which are more solid by nature, may be shown to be flawed due to unstable premises or invalid reasoning. The more they are tested and stand the less likely they will be erroneous.

Sounds good.

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

Research it, the 12 tribes are the 12 tribes of Israel. Not "could be".

I chose not to make the call because my purpose was to establish a hypothesis as both valid and sound. I uses from Paul's writings to reveal that in regards to the Spirit Christians are Jews and from there they can be apportioned among the twelve.

To further the case I could point out the words of prophesy in Zechariah 8:23 and Jeremiah 31:27 but it is a hypothesis that I do not think can be tested.

On the other hand do you believe James was excluding those Gentiles according to there flesh or not? I see it as unlikely that he would and thus I view his words as referring to the twelve tribes of Israel in regards to the Spirit and not their flesh. That is why Gentiles in regards not only honored the book as God give but also canonized it.

As you see my belief is based on my assessment of Jame's character than on physical evidence.

 

[H. Richard]

I chose not to make the call because my purpose was to establish a hypothesis as both valid and sound. I uses from Paul's writings to reveal that in regards to the Spirit Christians are Jews and from there they can be apportioned among the twelve.

To further the case I could point out the words of prophesy in Zechariah 8:23 and Jeremiah 31:27 but it is a hypothesis that I do not think can be tested.

On the other hand do you believe James was excluding those Gentiles according to there flesh or not? I see it as unlikely that he would and thus I view his words as referring to the twelve tribes of Israel in regards to the Spirit and not their flesh. That is why Gentiles in regards not only honored the book as God give but also canonized it.

As you see my belief is based on my assessment of Jame's character than on physical evidence.

***
Other than your conjectures and assumptions do you have any scriptural evidence to support your idea that Gentiles become Jews.

The book of James was canonized because it was written by James who knew Jesus in the flesh and was the leader of the 12 in Jerusalem. His book is just as valid as the 4 gospels and as such was included. But it is written to the Jews who were under the law of Moses. It was not written to the Gentile grace church of His body. For you, or anyone else, to say it is written to the Gentile grace church is adding to the word of God. God said, through James, that it was written to the Jews and for you to say it was written to the Gentile too is making a liar out of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Stranger]

***
Other than your conjectures and assumptions do you have any scriptural evidence to support your idea that Gentiles become Jews.

The book of James was canonized because it was written by James who knew Jesus in the flesh and was the leader of the 12 in Jerusalem. His book is just as valid as the 4 gospels and as such was included. But it is written to the Jews who were under the law of Moses. It was not written to the Gentile grace church of His body. For you, or anyone else, to say it is written to the Gentile grace church is adding to the word of God. God said, through James, that it was written to the Jews and for you to say it was written to the Gentile too is making a liar out of the Holy Spirit.

The Jews were not under the Law at this time.

And, though written to the believers of the scattered Jews, the book of James is Christian. And the epistle is important for Christians, Jew or Gentile.

To say as you do that it is only for the Jews because it is written to the scattered 12 tribes, means the book of Romans is only for those in the Church at Rome. And the Thessalonian letters would only be to the church at Thessalonica. Silly isn't it.

Are the letters Christian? If so, they are to all Christians. They can have a Gentile emphasis, or a Jewish emphasis, but they are Christian.

Stranger

 

[H. Richard]

The Jews were not under the Law at this time.

And, though written to the believers of the scattered Jews, the book of James is Christian. And the epistle is important for Christians, Jew or Gentile.

To say as you do that it is only for the Jews because it is written to the scattered 12 tribes, means the book of Romans is only for those in the Church at Rome. And the Thessalonian letters would only be to the church at Thessalonica. Silly isn't it.

Are the letters Christian? If so, they are to all Christians. They can have a Gentile emphasis, or a Jewish emphasis, but they are Christian.

Stranger

***
Your idea is silly. It is a smoke screen that you want to use to get around the fact the the Holy Spirit inspired James to write his letter to the Jews ONLY.

Prove it by the scriptures. All of the 12 were under the law. They were not Christians. They were believing Jews, those that believed Jesus was their Messiah and King. No where in the scriptures did Jesus or the 12 (11) rescind the law. If you say they did then show the scriptures. James was teaching law to the Jews as late as Acts 21.

The Christian label was put on the followers of Paul in Antioch, not the 12(11). These were under grace, not law, and it is based on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But the 12 (11) did not teach this. What they taught was under the law/ If You think they did then show the scriptures.

The theme behind some is that Jesus just came to set up a new and better religion so that mankind can work for their salvation.

 

[kerwin]

***
Other than your conjectures and assumptions do you have any scriptural evidence to support your idea that Gentiles become Jews.

The book of James was canonized because it was written by James who knew Jesus in the flesh and was the leader of the 12 in Jerusalem. His book is just as valid as the 4 gospels and as such was included. But it is written to the Jews who were under the law of Moses. It was not written to the Gentile grace church of His body. For you, or anyone else, to say it is written to the Gentile grace church is adding to the word of God. God said, through James, that it was written to the Jews and for you to say it was written to the Gentile too is making a liar out of the Holy Spirit.

You do understand certain English words like "conjectures and assumptions" or you are intentional misusing them. After all, neither is a synonym of hypothesis.

The passage you ask me for is one of Paul's. There is a couple in Revelation that use that principle as well.

Romans 2:28-29 American Standard Version (ASV)

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Revelation 2:9 American Standard Version (ASV)

9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the [a]blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Footnotes:

Revelation 2:9 Or, reviling

Revelation 3:9 American Standard Version (ASV)

9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and [a]worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Footnotes:

Revelation 3:9 The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, or to the Creator.

The book of James is written to both the Jews and Gentiles and they are not divided in Christ.

There are many books reported to be written by Apostles, of which James the Just was not one, that were canonized due to doctrinal disagreements. The book of James was canonized; which reveals that the canonizers held it to be in accordance with their doctrine. That means their doctrine simply is not yours perhaps because God calls a Jew those that are circumcised according to their hearts while you call a Jew those that are circumcised to the flesh.

 

[FHII]

I am addressing the conversation as a whole. James was a Christian, as were his followers (speaking of Jewish Christians under HIS watch as a Pastor).

But there is a problem which has been addressed but quickly forgotten: In Acts 15 James only released gentiles from circumcision and the Law. He did not extend this portion of grace to Jewish Christians.

Second, James STILL set forth rules for gentiles, which Paul reported but he himself did not require fully.

Third, in Acts 21 we see James NOT living up to his decree.

So James himself said if you are guilty of one point of the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

James still required circumcision... Therefore they were still under the law. Even though they named the name of Christ.

So Richard is right... As long as they still required circumcision and obedience to the law (remember, James never released Jews from the law), they were stll under the law.

I am slightly different from Richard in that I believe we are under a spiritual law of faith and must do works OF faith (which are unseen and spiritual in nature... Comes down to having faith).

If that was what James was saying, I would agree.

But, it wasn't.

 

[kerwin]

I am addressing the conversation as a whole. James was a Christian, as were his followers (speaking of Jewish Christians under HIS watch as a Pastor).

But there is a problem which has been addressed but quickly forgotten: In Acts 15 James only released gentiles from circumcision and the Law. He did not extend this portion of grace to Jewish Christians.

Second, James STILL set forth rules for gentiles, which Paul reported but he himself did not require fully.

Third, in Acts 21 we see James NOT living up to his decree.

So James himself said if you are guilty of one point of the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

James still required circumcision... Therefore they were still under the law. Even though they named the name of Christ.

So Richard is right... As long as they still required circumcision and obedience to the law (remember, James never released Jews from the law), they were stll under the law.

I am slightly different from Richard in that I believe we are under a spiritual law of faith and must do works OF faith (which are unseen and spiritual in nature... Comes down to having faith).

If that was what James was saying, I would agree.

But, it wasn't.

You should reexamine those conclusions.

Consider that Scriptures teaches us that the Jews and not the Gentiles made a covenant with God. Circumcision of the flesh was part of the covenant between Abraham and his decedents and God and though it is rephrased in the old covenant it was already binding from the oath Abraham swore to God to seal his part of their covenant. So like its predecessor the old covenant is not set aside because of the new covenant though it is superseded some aspects of the old covenant because those under it have the Law placed in them and written on their hearts. In addition certain of the sacrifices are also superseded by Jesus choice to sacrifice himself but even those useless things are still binding to the Jews according to Jesus' words.

The ancestors of the Gentiles took neither the oath of Abraham nor the oath of the old covenant so why would it bind them. Instead the Gentiles are only held accountable for those commands that are eternal. Some guidance to these were sent to the Gentiles by those held to be knowledgeable in order to show Paul was in agreement with them and his opponents were not.

The only one Paul addresses which might contradict is the command to abstain from food sacrificed to idols. I do not think he is actually contradicting it so much as giving credence to the idea gods do not exist and so the flow of his argument starts by giving credence to his opponents in 1 Corinthians 8 in order to make one point and then slams down on them is 1 Corinthians 10:21 by saying "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons".

So no, I do think he disagreed with any of those stricture but instead preached against doing them by works and not faith.

So where do you get that Paul did not teach the same things?

 

[Angelina]

This thread has been tidied up. Please be cautious when posting as this thread is being monitored. Thank you.

 

[Stranger]

***
Your idea is silly. It is a smoke screen that you want to use to get around the fact the the Holy Spirit inspired James to write his letter to the Jews ONLY.

Prove it by the scriptures. All of the 12 were under the law. They were not Christians. They were believing Jews, those that believed Jesus was their Messiah and King. No where in the scriptures did Jesus or the 12 (11) rescind the law. If you say they did then show the scriptures. James was teaching law to the Jews as late as Acts 21.

The Christian label was put on the followers of Paul in Antioch, not the 12(11). These were under grace, not law, and it is based on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But the 12 (11) did not teach this. What they taught was under the law/ If You think they did then show the scriptures.

The theme behind some is that Jesus just came to set up a new and better religion so that mankind can work for their salvation.

Jesus did away with the Law at the cross. The veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom showing it was God who did away with the Law. Matt.27:51 " And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;" At that point, no one is under law.

2Cor. 3:7 " But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious...." That is the Law.

2Cor. 3:9 " For if the ministration of condemnation be glory...." That is the Law.

2Cor. 3;11 " For if that which is done away was glorious...." That is the Law rescinded.


As far as James teaching the Law in Acts 21, Paul also followed the Law in Acts 21, wrongfully. Does that mean that what Paul wrote is to be considered under Law? No. It means the Law was very hard for the Jews to remove themselves from.

The book of James is written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Don't you agree? If God did away with the Law, then why would He inspire one to write under the Law? He didn't.

I am a firm believer in grace. And I recognize the problems in the book of James. But the answer to that is not to say James is written under Law. If you say that, then there must be other books you believe, in the New Testament, that are written under Law. Are there?

Stranger

 

[Born_Again]

The words of Jesus Christ....

Matthew 23:23English Standard Version (ESV)
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." ~ Under law




Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV)

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."


Matthew 27:51 (ESV)
"51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split."
This act did not necessarily rescind the law if the law is in force until heaven and earth pass away. Those two scriptures would contradict themselves if that were the case.

 

[Stranger]

The words of Jesus Christ.... Matthew 23:23English Standard Version (ESV)
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." ~ Under law



Matthew 5:17-20 (ESV) Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 27:51 (ESV)
"51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split."
This act did not necessarily rescind the law if the law is in force until heaven and earth pass away. Those two scriptures would contradict themselves if that were the case.

Concerning Matt. 5:18, " ...Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Note the "till all be fulfilled". Christ fulfilled all the Law.

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Stranger

 

[H. Richard]

I am addressing the conversation as a whole. James was a Christian, as were his followers (speaking of Jewish Christians under HIS watch as a Pastor).

But there is a problem which has been addressed but quickly forgotten: In Acts 15 James only released gentiles from circumcision and the Law. He did not extend this portion of grace to Jewish Christians.

Second, James STILL set forth rules for gentiles, which Paul reported but he himself did not require fully.

Third, in Acts 21 we see James NOT living up to his decree.

So James himself said if you are guilty of one point of the law, you are guilty of the whole law.

James still required circumcision... Therefore they were still under the law. Even though they named the name of Christ.

So Richard is right... As long as they still required circumcision and obedience to the law (remember, James never released Jews from the law), they were stll under the law.

I am slightly different from Richard in that I believe we are under a spiritual law of faith and must do works OF faith (which are unseen and spiritual in nature... Comes down to having faith).

If that was what James was saying, I would agree.

But, it wasn't.

***
James was not a Christian! He was a Jew that believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and King. There was a difference between a Jew and a child of God until grace came. With the destruction of the Jewish Temple God has set aside the nation of Israel and the Jewish religion, temporarily, and in this age of grace all men, Jews and Gentile, must come to God in the same way, faith in the work of Jesus on the cross. I don't use the word "Christian" because it has become a label for religions to use.

I am not saying a child of God will not do good things. But I do not intend to make those good things a requirement for salvation so I don't include them in the same paragraph. Nor do I believe that a person decides for themselves to go out and do a good work with the thought that it will give them some browny points. They must be as lead by the Holy Spirit. Everything necessary for salvation was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. The children of God believe this, have faith in this , have trust in this, and are confident in this.

It is a FACT that the Holy Spirit was in James when he wrote the book of James. It is also a FACT that the Holy Spirit told James who to write to. For anyone to say the Holy Spirit was in error and James should have said the Gentile too they are mis-representing the word of God. God said and then man says opps he left out the Gentiles. Foolishness!

Then there are those that teach Gentiles become Jews. They do not understand that in this age of Grace there is not any difference between Jew and Gentile. Both feed off the same root which is Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. The scriptures they use to support their teaching is directed to the Jews and they spoke of a time in the 1000 year reign of Jesus on this earth. Another case where men make assumptions that are based on not being able to see who the words of God are written to.

 

[FHII]

***
James was not a Christian! He was a Jew that believed Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and King. There was a difference between a Jew and a child of God until grace came. With the destruction of the Jewish Temple God has set aside the nation of Israel and the Jewish religion, temporarily, and in this age of grace all men, Jews and Gentile, must come to God in the same way, faith in the work of Jesus on the cross. I don't use the word "Christian" because it has become a label for religions to use.

I am not saying a child of God will not do good things. But I do not intend to make those good things a requirement for salvation so I don't include them in the same paragraph. Nor do I believe that a person decides for themselves to go out and do a good work with the thought that it will give them some browny points. They must be as lead by the Holy Spirit. Everything necessary for salvation was accomplished by Jesus on the cross. The children of God believe this, have faith in this , have trust in this, and are confident in this.

It is a FACT that the Holy Spirit was in James when he wrote the book of James. It is also a FACT that the Holy Spirit told James who to write to. For anyone to say the Holy Spirit was in error and James should have said the Gentile too they are mis-representing the word of God. God said and then man says opps he left out the Gentiles. Foolishness!

Then there are those that teach Gentiles become Jews. They do not understand that in this age of Grace there is not any difference between Jew and Gentile. Both feed off the same root which is Jesus Christ and His work on the cross. The scriptures they use to support their teaching is directed to the Jews and they spoke of a time in the 1000 year reign of Jesus on this earth. Another case where men make assumptions that are based on not being able to see who the words of God are written to.

The destruction of the Jewish temple to me seems insignificant. THAT temple was destroyed when Christ died and rose from the dead.

James was a Christian because he recognized Jesus as the Lord. Rhat is proven by Jas 1:1. The problem was that he was still wrestling with grace and works. Grace is just as valid for the Jew. He was having a problem with that as he was trying to show he had faith by works.

What James and Paul both agree with is that works only justify faith in the eyes of men. And Jesus spoke of that too. See Jas 2:18, Rom 4:2 and Mat 6.

This was a transition time. I have no problem with the history of James not accepting the doctrine of grace through faith alone. History says he was a martyr because he would not denounce Christ.

 

[H. Richard]

The destruction of the Jewish temple to me seems insignificant. THAT temple was destroyed when Christ died and rose from the dead.

James was a Christian because he recognized Jesus as the Lord. Rhat is proven by Jas 1:1. The problem was that he was still wrestling with grace and works. Grace is just as valid for the Jew. He was having a problem with that as he was trying to show he had faith by works.

What James and Paul both agree with is that works only justify faith in the eyes of men. And Jesus spoke of that too. See Jas 2:18, Rom 4:2 and Mat 6.

This was a transition time. I have no problem with the history of James not accepting the doctrine of grace through faith alone. History says he was a martyr because he would not denounce Christ.

***
You stated this; "The destruction of the Jewish temple to me seems insignificant. THAT temple was destroyed when Christ died and rose from the dead.

I don't really believe the destruction of the Temple was "insignificant". It ended the period of time where a Jew could be saved just by believing Jesus was his/her Messiah and King. After about 40 years of the 12(11) telling the Jews of Israel that Jesus was their Messiah and King the fig tree (Israel) did not bare fruit so God cut it down. (The parable of the barren fig tree) It is important to know that all of the 12(11) writings ended right before the Temple was destroyed.

The message is clear, No one can be saved by Just believing Jesus was the Jew's Messiah and King. In this age of God's grace they have to believe in grace and grace is all about what God's Son did on the cross where He shed His blood to pay for the sins of the whole world. Today, under grace, a person has to believe in, have faith in, trust in, have confidence in what Jesus did for them on the cross.

Today a person can not be saved (made a child of God) unless they believe God. It is very simple and anyone who really want to can be saved but only if they trust in the message of God's grace.

This grace period will also end when Jesus returns to set up His rule from Israel. Under Jesus' rule in Israel the law will be written on the hearts of the Jews only.


Zech 8:23
23 "Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."'"
NKJV

 

[kerwin]

...
As far as James teaching the Law in Acts 21, Paul also followed the Law in Acts 21, wrongfully. Does that mean that what Paul wrote is to be considered under Law? No. It means the Law was very hard for the Jews to remove themselves from.
...

Stranger

I disagree with this statement of yours though the rest of what you write is fine.

Paul was not wrong in following the Law but rather he was keeping his oath to God in follow the God given customs of his people. Had he been a Gentile and done so because he believed it was necessary to do so in order to be saved then he would have sinned because his ancestors did not take the oath that God gave to the children of Israel. The difference that you see in Paul's practices here and when he aided in circumcising Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.

 

[Stranger]

I disagree with this statement of yours though the rest of what you write is fine.

Paul was not wrong in following the Law but rather he was keeping his oath to God in follow the God given customs of his people. Had he been a Gentile and done so because he believed it was necessary to do so in order to be saved then he would have sinned because his ancestors did not take the oath that God gave to the children of Israel. The difference that you see in Paul's practices here and when he aided in circumcising Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.

That is fine. I know many Christians who disagree with me on this. But I do think Paul was in error here. Had he done so on his own desire I think it would be different. But he was motivated by James to do this in order to show "that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." (Acts 21:24) Also, I do not think Paul would be correct in following the Law on his own, even if he is a Jew.

It is true with Timothy in that it was Pauls decision to have him circumcised to remove any barrier from the Jews. But when Titus was compelled by the Jews to be circumcised, then Paul refused. (Gal.2:3) "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:"

So because James was motivating Paul to do this to prove that he keeps the law, I believe he was wrong in doing it. And actually I believe Paul was wrong in going to Jerusalem in the first place as God had warned him not to go earlier. (Acts 22:17-18) "And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

That is fine. I know many Christians who disagree with me on this. But I do think Paul was in error here. Had he done so on his own desire I think it would be different. But he was motivated by James to do this in order to show "that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law." (Acts 21:24) Also, I do not think Paul would be correct in following the Law on his own, even if he is a Jew.

It is true with Timothy in that it was Pauls decision to have him circumcised to remove any barrier from the Jews. But when Titus was compelled by the Jews to be circumcised, then Paul refused. (Gal.2:3) "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:"

So because James was motivating Paul to do this to prove that he keeps the law, I believe he was wrong in doing it. And actually I believe Paul was wrong in going to Jerusalem in the first place as God had warned him not to go earlier. (Acts 22:17-18) "And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."

Stranger

I will have to see what you say about Acts 22:17:18 because I only remember a number of people warning Paul not to go when he would be imprisoned and taken to Rome. I simply am not remembering the one you mention.

Why did Paul specify Titus was a Greek if that was not relevant. Remember he aided another to circumcise Timothy who was considered a Jew because his mother was a Jew; though his father was not.

Even though James urged Paul to purify himself to reveal he was still an observant Jew he also told the Gentiles that they need not concern themselves with non-moral issues like circumcision and purification. Today's Jews agree with James and Paul and not with the false brothers.

I think that most of Paul's disagreement with the circumcision group was about circumcision.

Here is a Scripture to ponder. Consider that circumcision is a commandment of God to Abraham and his descendants but not to anyone else.

1 Corinthians 7:18-19 English Standard Version (ESV)

18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

Here you will see that one must be circumcised in order to be a son of Abraham; much less a Jew.

Genesis 17:9-14 English Standard Version (ESV)

9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”