Jake Wilson

@MikeBorden If you belong to those idiots who think they are born again because "they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour", then you're likely beyond the point of rescue (which I hope is not the case). Do you pray regularly in the Spirit/in tongues? It helps you to walk in the Spirit, and if you are in the Spirit you will try to avoid breaking the God-given instructions as to how you should live (Torah means instruction/teaching, NOT LAW).

@MikeBorden "The liberty wherewith Christ has made you free (from "salvation by works" and the law of sin and death) is not a license to transgress Mosaic Law, - which you are subject to IF YOU HAVE BEEN SPIRITUALLY CIRCUMCISED (which I strongly doubt). But if you are regenerate/born again, then you are subject to Mosaic Law.

@MikeBorden One cannot attain salvation through law adherence, but one can lose one's salvation through law breaking (which remains sin as the Epistle of James tells you). Providing you are regenerate, your law violations have not been forgiven to provide a fresh start for more law violations. However, I strongly doubt that you are my brother. There are some 2 billion lawless "Christians" like you, and as per Scripture they will all descend into Gehenna once they have taken their last breath.

@MikeBorden You seem to refuse the meaning of the yoke of bondage: it means misusing the the Law of Moses (including the Oral Law) as a vehicle for salvation. The Gentiles who are addressed in Galatians wanted to get physically circumcised because the Pharisees had told that otherwise they can't be saved. If one starts with such works-righteousness, then one must go the whole way = obey the entire Written Law and Oral in order to get saved.

@MikeBorden If "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink", how about stop eating and drinking altogether? To abuse that verse to convince yourself that you can eat what God has declared unclean, is very sad. I assume you're Trinitarian? They usually misconstrue one verse after the other.

@MikeBorden The unclean creatures whom Peter is to "slay and eat" symbolise Gentiles which are to be "killed" (through water baptism), - the passage refers to the Gentile mission, and has nothing to do with food laws. Peter had misunderstood that vision, which is why he stated that he had not eaten any unclean animals. Do you think the fact that Peter had not eaten any unclean animals by 40 CE shows that Jesus abolished the dietary laws? It's the other way round (obviously).

@MikeBorden. By the way, Paul's sect (the Nazarenes) kept the Torah (Sabbath, feasts, etc) up to the fifth century when they slowly faded into oblivion. Their orthodoxy was suppressed by the Gentile Church, - Constantine & Co, etc. which has provided the basis of mainstream Christianity, a substitute religion that has virtually nothing to do with the faith of the early followers of the Messiah.

@MikeBorden There are no contradictions in Scripture; they only arise when people misinterpret verses (which they gladly do if it supports their churchy religiosity). Paul said: "However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." Paul believed pork was unclean, and having faith means action = he did neihter eat pork nor did he ditch the dietary laws.

@MikeBorden Romans 14 has nothing to do with the dietary laws of Lev 11 or Dt 14. "koinon" doesn't mean 'unclean' in the biblical sense of unclean meats, but rather in the biblical sense of 'unclean' as 'ceremonially defiled' or 'common,' in relation to what is holy or set apart for God. And 'all things' refers to the context of Romans 14:2, i.e. all meats are clean, whether they're the remains of pagan sacrifices or not. The vegetarian extremists said "all meat is unclean." Context!!!

@MikeBorden. A note on the early Christians, called Nazarenes: «They [the priests] often sent for us, asking to tell them about Jesus, whether he is that Prophet, the eternal Messiah whom Moses foretold. Because only in this point we, who believe in Jesus, differ from the unbelieving Jews» (Clementine Recognitions 1.43). I wish you well, Mike.

@Mike Borden. Mainstream Christianity is truly controlled by the Man of Lawlessness (I do hope you know who that is). «The Nazarenes […] accept Christ but have not relinquished the observance of the old Torah» (Jer. Comm. Isa. 8.14).

@MikeBorden Once you are born again, you're not under the law's punishment anymore, you can keep it freely without dreading punishment if you fail. Yes, in the sight of God, according to the New Covenant, a true Jew is a regenerate person (who keeps the God's instructions not in order to be saved, but because he is saved).

@MikeBorden Striving to obey the letter as a vehicle for salvation kills, not as a way of life. If you break God's instructions for his people, you neither love Him nor your neighbour. You follow religious sentimentality.

@Mike Borden. Thus, if after you have been born-again, after you have become part of the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), and after you have become subject to Mosaic law continue to walk like a Gentile, then this endangers your salvation. You cannot achieve salvation through Torah observance, but you can lose it through ditching the Torah = lawlessness (there are enough warnings by Jesus in the NT where the lawless spend eternity). Don't follow the majority.

@Mike Borden. In James it tells you that the transgression of the Law is sin. That has not changed. Although, as a Gentiles, you were not under the Law of Moses, you are a descendant of a law-breaker (Adam), and thus a sinner ("Torah" means instruction, teaching, NOT "law"). Once you are grafted into "the Israel of God" (regenerate Jews and Gentiles) you become subject to Mosaic Law, except for physical circumcision; it's exactly the other way round than people think.

@MikeBorden Honour one day above another, etc. is somewhere in Romans. Some folk fasted on certain days, others didn't. The verse has nothing whatsoever to do with ditching the Sabbath. I recommend studying some history, e.g. how the Sabbath became Sunday in the 2nd century, etc.

@MikeBorden As said, no one kept the Torah for justification. If you are truly regenerate, then you are not under the law (of sin and death), so that the righteousness of the law (of Moses) may be fulfilled by you (Rom 8:1-4). If you walk in the Spirit, you will certainly avoid pork, adultery, or breaking the Sabbath. The "schoolmaster" btw. (KJV), also refers to the law of sin which enslaves man, NOT to Mosaic Law.

@MikeBorden "He has abolished the law, the commandments [expressed] in statutes." (Eph 2:15). The context of a partition wall that had been removed intimates which statutes were abolished: the ones that partitioned Jews from Gentiles. The Torah contains various statutes that prohibited Israel from associating with foreigners, particularly through matrimonial and other covenantal relations. These laws were annulled (as Peter found out in 40 CE).

@MikeBorden Kefa had been shown not to call any man unclean (ACTS 10:28), so he ate with Gentiles. He stopped doing so when the decree against “circumcision for salvation” was delivered to Antioch (ACTS 15:22-30), as he feared the extremists’ reaction. These were unsaved Jews who had falsely accused Stephen of law-breaking before stoning him. Kefa was anticipating tension and thought it better to submit to Jewish Kashrut again before getting killed.

@MikeBorden 1 Cor 9:20-22 does not imply eating unclean animals to "win the Gentiles" (v. 21: NOT being without God's law = Mosaic Law). Why do you think Peter says in 40 CE that he had never eaten anything unclean (Acts 10:14)? Because like all Nazarenes, he was Torah observant. Paul wouldn't offend Jews who keep the Oral Law, but would adapt. Yes, he would eat meat offered to idols, but not pork. That you think an imitator of Yeshu would eat pork is quite something.

@MikeBorden Jesus was born subject to the Law of Moses, but not to free the Jewish people from the Law of Moses but from the Law of Sin and Death. I asked you: "Since when have Gentiles ever been under the Law of Moses?" The correct answer is: "Never." Yet still you maintain that Jesus has redeemed the Gentiles from the Law of Moses? :-) I refuted your misconstruel of Acts 15/Gal, but you never respond to the points where you have been refuted, instead you jump to your next "proof verse."

The fence between Jews & Gentiles has been taken away.

@MikeBorden I will still try to reply to this, but I suppose all my input will be deleted after my account has been wiped out.

@MikeBorden Since I have cancelled my account (again), I include a link to an article re Mosaic Law and Jesus: researchgate.net/publication/…

@MikeBorden "To redeem those under the law"? Since when were Gentiles ever under Mosaic Law? "Under the law" refers to the Law of Sin, which unregenerate Gentiles and Jews are under. In pre-New Covenant times, Gentiles became subject to the Written Torah through PHYSICAL circumcision. Yet, since the ratification of the New Covenant, Gentiles become subject to the Written Torah through SPIRITUAL circumcision which occurs during full water immersion. The rest I may tackle tomorrow.

@MikeBorden Just to add: When Pharisees (in this case Shammaites, the strictest school) speak of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:5), they do not simply mean the Written Law but the entire body of man-made Pharisaic Law - that was and is the yoke. Paul followed Christ, - do you think he ate pork chops, ditched the Sabbath, and enjoyed Sunday meetings? And the Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, imitated Paul.

@MikeBorden The Gentiles in Acts 15 had to forbear any sacrificial-sexual idolatry instantly in order to RETAIN THEIR SALVATION. It's like telling a new church member to stop watching porn or shooting heroin = that is the start of a "Christian" walk. Acts 15:21 means what it says: the Gentiles attended Synagogue services on Shabbat to get acquainted with the Torah.

@MikeBorden The yoke is the Oral Law, a plethora of minute regulations introduced on top of the Written Torah, and binding in order to be saved according to the Pharisees.

@MikeBorden Physical circumcision is a sign of the eternal, Abrahamic Covenant and applies only to the literal descendants of Avraham. The New Covenant wasn’t provided to create proselytes or graft Gentiles into unregenerate Israel but into the Israel of God, to wit, into a body of reborn Jews and Gentiles. Circumcising born again Gentiles is diametrically opposed to salvation since it reunites them with fallen men (in this case with Jewry outside the New Covenant).

@MikeBorden Which is why in those days (say 135-140 CE) renouncing Jewish practices which had been embraced by the Messiah's followers for one century made your chances of survival greater. A Gentile Christian is a Gentile, his belief in Christ doesn't change that. Gentile converts are not to be circumcised, but they were all led into Torah observance (see Acts 15:21).

Which is why in those days (say 135-140 CE) renouncing Jewish practices which had been embraced by the Messiah's followers for one century made your chances of survival greater. A Gentile Christian is a Gentile, his belief in Christ doesn't change that. Gentile converts are not to be circumcised, but they were all lead into Torah observance (see Acts 15:21).

@Mike Borden. I was using "pagan" as a synonym for "Gentile". Yes, the replies I have got seem to have come from biased people, incl. yours. In 135 CE the death penalty was announced on Torah observance, so it should be obvious that the Gentiles who took over the observant Jerusalem assembly had a motive to change things. It's obvious that the original gospel written by Matthew, viz. the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS was replaced at that time with a Hellenized, Gentile-friendly substitute.

Your answer was redundant, all the irrelevant stuff about 4th and 5the century MS, etc. - what does it have to do with the 1st century? Nothing.

@Jake Wilson. Well, had you read my question and how I define "evidence", the correct reply would have been: "No, we do not have any evidence for the existence of four first-century Greek gospels (apart from guesswork & wishful thinking).

I did not quite get what allows you to suggest that the original Gospel [of John, I suppose] was written in the AD 50-63 period, but it's likely not that crucial anymore.

These numbers don’t mean anything. Has it never occurred to you that the interest to corrupt the gospel text could be a bit greater than to corrupt Homer’s Iliad?

My question says that I am purely looking for evidence, doesn't it? I am not looking for autographs ("originals"), but something a bit more tangible would be nice.

As for 𝔓52, the J. Rylands Library states: «Recent research points to a date nearer to 200 CE, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that any earlier fragments from the New Testament survive» (the other fragment of Jn is dated to 175 CE though, too late anyway). The Oxyrhynchus fragments have been identified as excerpts from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and Matthew's Hebrew Gospel does not underlie canonical Matthew. I am not interested in what "is now regarded as practically established" or in some "traditional dating" - I am interested in evidence (of which you present none).