How can anyone claiming to be part of Yahweh’s people so blatantly disregard his “eternal laws”?

by srd 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • srd
    srd

    Excerpts from http://contradictionsinthebible.com/circumcised-or-not/

    Given the Priestly writer's strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh's festivals such as the Passover---all "eternal laws" expressed through Yahweh's mouth!---we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Paul's complete disregard for the Priestly writer's beliefs, the "eternal covenant of circumcision" as the Priestly writer put it, is blasphemous we might say toward this specific text, the author who wrote it, and most importantly this author's conception of Yahweh! It is no coincidence that the historical record has shown that Paul's form of "Christianity" was rejected by the Jews, and rightly so since it also rejected the Torah of Moses! Rather it was adopted by the non-Jewish Greek world and even arrogantly defended by imposing a whole new re-interpretive framework onto these texts which sought to interpret them away or bring them in line with their own beliefs. Readers' concerns trump those of the authors.

    Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible Given the Priestly writer’s strict adherence to circumcision as the covenantal sign by which one belongs to Yahweh as his people, is heir to the promise of the land, and can partake in Yahweh’s festivals such as the Passover—all “eternal laws” expressed through Yahweh’s mouth!—we might rightly be able to grasp the seriousness of the charges laid against Paul by the Jerusalem church in allowing uncircumcised males into the covenant, into the Passover feasts, and into the inheritance of the land (Galatians).

    Read more at: Contradictions in the Bible

  • moshe
  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Most christians dont realise that Paul came on the scene decades after Jesus died, his books 'written' 70 years later +

    Paul NEVER even met the biblical Jesus, he claimed to see him on a road, 30 years after Jesus died......no honest !!!

    With no bias at all for the Roman dude Paul....... the Roman Church chose most of his books fo the old testament . Gone was the Jewish identity and now a NEW (ROMAN) christian identity.

    It is this simple people, go get some history books ! It is a load of bollox

  • JWB
    JWB

    Actually I have some issues with 'Paul' too. One of which is that he got Timothy circumcised out of concern for the sensibilities of certain Jews (Acts 18:1-3), and yet he opposed Peter on the matter of Peter's showing concern for the sensibilities of certain other Jews (Galatians 2:11-14) - although of course Peter's actions were nowhere near as drastic!

  • mP
    mP

    I started a long thread about The Mosaic Law, where xians claimed that Jesus replaced them. The fact he was a good Jew, and constnatly said that the law will last forever didnt quite matter for them. The most obvious observation is that all Christians are ultimately liars when it comes to articles of faith.

    Math 5:17-19.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit