Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in any way similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

The Three Types of The Hebrew Roots Movement

The Hebrew Roots Movement can be divided into three different types.  However it is a very diverse movement where on each of these levels there can be a variety of disagreements on interpretations of various Scriptures and Bible Prophecy and related issues like the Sacred Name Movement and which version of The Hebrew calendar to use ect.

Type 1 would be people like the late Chuck Missler who believe Christians should study the Torah and Hebrew customs to help understand The New Testament's cultural context and symbolism.  But they still believe in the basic Christian Doctrine that we are not under The Law anymore, they believe it can be good to do things like observe The Holy Days of Leviticus 23, but they should never be made obligatory.

Now maybe someone reading this has had some very limited and specific experience with American Evangelicalism that makes them think there are none who aren't at least Type 1.  However there are Independent Baptists like the Pastor I do not like to name who engage in what I call Reverse-Legalism considering it sinful to do any "Jewish Customs", and to some extent that problem goes all the way back to Ignatius of Antioch..  And related to that is the belief of hyper KJV Onlyists that you should never even check the original Hebrew Text or even the Greek for that matter.

But even among people who aren't Reverse-Legalists there is still a common lack of interest in studying The "Old Testament" beyond what we absolutely need to know, or will quote a Torah Law only when it suits their Conservative Politics.  Being even a Type 1 Hebrew Roots person requires more then just a willingness to check the Hebrew when you're unsure what a Verse is saying, or the basic understanding of how Passover works required to even have an opinion on Easter chronology.  

Type 1 is what I consider myself, though to what extent I externally act like it may depend on my mood.

Type 2 are those who reject the basic Christian Doctrine that we are no longer under The Law, but while still keeping Paul just reinterpreting him.  

Type 2 has become the most well known form even though back in the 2000s people like Chuck Missler were more common.  Type 2 has became what you're assumed to be if you engage in Hebrew stuff at all.  Though a lot of Type 2s don't like to be called Hebrew Roots because they don't want to be associated with Type 3 and will prefer to be called Torah Observant.

Type 3 are those who reject Paul as a False Apostle.  Though not all Anti-Paulians are even doing Hebrew Roots stuff, some Anti-Semites think even Paul was too Jewish (like Alfred Rosenberg), some Anti-Paul people blame his problems on the Pharisees rather then the Greeks, kind of shows the duality of Paul when you think about it.

As I said there are disagreements even within each type, and among Paul rejecters the disagreements include whether or not to add Hebrews and Luke-Acts to what texts they condemn as Heretical.

The Reverse Legalists probably feel the existence of Type 2 and especially Type 3 vindicates their condemning even Type 1s like me, they will insist it's a gateway drug that inevitably leads to the more full blown heresies.  However I have been a Type 1 Hebrew Roots Believer since long before any of this was as popular as it's become, since long before I started these blogs, and the ways I've changed have gone in the opposite direction, I've become even more of an Anarchist, even more Antinomian.

Do Paul and James Disagree?

When it comes to accusing The New Testament of being ideologically inconsistent with itself, the biggest factor is suggesting an inherent conflict between The Epistle of James, and what Paul taught particularly in Romans and Galatians.  With how most Christians try to reconcile this being filtered through which presumed position they take.

First off I think Paul's Soterolgoy is misunderstood as I explain in The Free Gift of Grace.  Justification and Salvation are not the same thing, in Ephesians Paul says we are Saved by Grace through Faith with the Faith being the Faith of Jesus.

Among skeptics and Anti-Paul cults this accusation goes beyond just saying they don't agree, but saying James wrote his Epistle specifically against Paul.  Thing is a lot is missing if that was the plan.  James never brings up the issue of Circumcision even once. Nor does his discussion of the Law of Moses actually make it binding in the minutia, since in Chapter 2 Verse 8 like Paul and Jesus he makes the point that you're doing fine as long as you "Love thy Neighbor as you love thyself".  James also agrees with Paul that no one is without Sin.  He also never names Paul in it, which if it was directed against a single notable heretic is what I'd expect.

Paul and James are emphasizing different things because they are dealing with different issues.  But Paul still stressed the value of good works.  And James clarified what good works he cared about in Chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 which are not the Laws the Hebrew Roots movement obsesses over.

It is often alleged that Paul himself refers to being in conflict with James.  The problem is three out of four times the name James appears in 1 Corinthians and Galatians Paul is clearly referring to him positively and stresses their agreement, and Acts is the same, no evidence of conflict between Paul and any James exists in that book.  It's only because of what Paul said we even know Jesus Brothers including James specifically became Apostles, the Gospels alone at face value do not tell us that.

But Galatians 2:12 then refers to the Legalists as "certain came from James".

First of all the grammar in the Greek is not so explicitly implying people sent by an individual, so even if the same James refereed to so positively a few verses earlier is the James meant, these people's actions may not accurately reflect the will of that James.  It just says there came certain people, and they are in some way "from James".

In 1st Corinthians there's no references to people saying they are "of James" but rather to groups saying they are of Peter, Apollos, Paul himself and even Jesus.  Here everyone understand Paul is not blaming either Peter or Apollos themselves whatever issues these people have, and we see even some putting emphasis on Paul himself get rebuked by Paul.

But here is a fact about the name James people overlook when discussing this issue, that name doesn't actually exist in the Greek at all, it's just the name Jacob.

Every time you see Jacob rather then James in the KJV New Testament it's examples where the Greek spelling just stops at the B with no additional suffix to help clarify grammar.  Most of those are references to the Jacob of Genesis.  But it was also the name of Joseph the husband of Mary's father/ancestor according to Matthew's genealogy which perhaps contextualizes him giving that name to his second son (first he actually begat), Jesus's name was given by the Angel.

Every time it appears with any additional letters at the end the KJV makes it James.  And it seems in Galatians 2:12 that suffix is the basis for the word "from" in the translation.

So it could be the IakObou of Galatians 2:12 is not any contemporary Jacob, but Paul's way of referring to those who want to keep the Faith as Nationalist/Ethno-Centric as possible.  Who's successors today are British Israelism and Two-House Theology, which sometimes overlaps with the Hebrew Roots movement.

Early Jewish-Christian groups.

The different early Jewish-Christian groups mentioned in Early Church writings are often confused with each other, some of that confusion may begin witch the Greek and Latin fathers themselves not always treating them as different.  Nazarenes, Ebonites and Hebrews are three names that get thrown around.

The Nazarenes according to most references were not guilty of any major Heresies, they had the entire New Testament, they viewed Jesus as the Son of God and The Messiah, and believed in The Virgin Birth, and they did not reject Paul.  They were viewed as outside of Orthodox Christianity only because they kept Torah.

The Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was Divine, used only an altered version of Matthew, and rejected Paul as well as the Virgin Birth.

The name Nazarenes is Biblically used of Believers in Acts 24:5, but it is of outside origin just as much as the name Christian was.  Contrary to how some people present it, I feel the origin of the name Christians in Acts 11 at Antioch is presented positively.

A website called NazareneJudaism.Com claims the Nazarene sect were the True Church and seek to identify themselves as the heirs to that group.  They have a lot of good information, but I also have to disagree with them in many areas.  Mainly they think the fact that the Nazarenes kept the Law means they must have disagreed with "Christianity" that we're not under it anymore.

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho distinguished between Jewish-Christians who keep the law but don't teach it's obligatory, and those who teach it is obligatory.  I believe the former were the Nazarenes and the later the Ebonites.  My own position is that keeping the Law can be beneficial, but we are not obligated to keep it.

The Nazarenes as I said used the proper New Testament, but they did have the original Hebrew version of Matthew.  Confusion seems to come in via that the altered Matthew the Ebonites used was called the Gospel According the Hebrews and sometimes of the Nazarenes.  In Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures of Christianity book, everything he puts under either the Nazarenes or the Ebonites I view as being from the Ebonite Gospel, and I think the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews may be the same as the Gospel of the Egyptians.

The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as the Son of God, but it's difficult to verify if they held a true Trinitarian doctrine.  What's said of their Christology could be interpreted as consistent with Arianism, or a view that Jesus had no pre-existence before being conceived in Mary's Womb (which is sometimes an aspect of Modalism).  It's difficult to know one way or the other.  However that the Arian Emperors engaged in a lot of Antisemitism makes me think them and the Nazarenes wouldn't have seen eye to eye.

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/antioch the Gentile Christians of Antioch at least originally weren't that Antisemitic, but often joined the Jews in Synagogues.  But after the Church married Rome the establishment started trying to fight this.  It may not be a coincidence that the key adversaries of Nestorius (Cyril of Alexandria and the Sister of Theodosius II) were also highly Antisemitic.

In Antioch, various means were used to counteract the great influence which the Jews had upon the local Christians. The synod of Antioch (341) forbade the Christians to celebrate Easter when the Jews were observing Passover, and John Chrysostom of Antioch, in his six sermons (c. 366–387), vituperatively denounced those Christians in Antioch who attended synagogues and resorted to the Jewish law courts.

When Christianity became the state religion, the position of the Jews of Antioch deteriorated. The Jews of Imnestar were accused of having crucified a Christian boy on the feast of Purim, and the Antiochian Christians destroyed the synagogue (423 C.E.). When the emperor Theodosius II restored it, he was rebuked by Simon Stylites and refrained from defending the Jews. In the brawls between the sport factions known as the "blues" and the "greens," many Jews were killed.

So that may make interesting background for my Nestorians and the Church of The East post.  Epiphanius of Salamis associates the Nazarenes with Boreas (Aleppo) and Basanitis (Bashan), thus placing them near Antioch.

Some commentators view the Gospel reaching Damascus as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission, but that's because of Old Testament Aram being misleadingly translated as Syria.  Antioch was the capital of the Roman Province of Syria, so the Church being established in Antioch by the end of Acts 11 is what I view as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission.

The Law of Moses and Christianity

There are two extremes on the issue of keeping the Law of Moses in the Church.  There is the "God never changes" so keeping the Law is just as Important as ever crowd.  Some may even argue it's stricter now.  And then there is the full on it is BAD for Christians to keep the Law, even the Holy Days, camp.

The latter is absurd, to suggest it's bad to follow Jesus example by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.  The only way it would ever become bad is if you try to force it on others.

The extremists of the former camp come in varieties.  I have said already about all I care to regarding those who want to reject Paul as a false Prophet.  Or anyone else who will deny Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

To those like Rob Skiba, who I greatly respect.  The key issue I want to ask is, did Paul mean what he said when he said "all things are lawful to be, but not all things are beneficial" in Corinthians?  All the issues you can point out about the health benefits of not eating Pork are relevant to the beneficial part of that statement, but they do not undermine the lawful part.

I believe in Eternal Security.  I believe there are different judgments for Believers and Unbelievers.  I believe only Believers will receive rewards and only Unbelievers will receive punishments.  But some Believers will get no rewards as the Bema account in Corinthians shows.  There are five different Crowns we can win, I don't want to go in depth on them here.  But the point here is that one is a reward for not sinning, maybe one or two others are also relevant to the law.  But Martyrs have a guaranteed crown no matter how they lived their Christian life up to that point.

One of the arguments for suggesting the Law is now stricter for Christians is to say that because now all Believers are "Kings and Priests" that laws unique to the Priests and Kings in the Torah now apply to all Believers.

Leaving aside the issue that the Priesthood in question here is not the Aaronic one, but of Melchizedek (it may surprise you to learn that even Rabbis have taught that the Priesthood of Melchizedek in a sense includes all believers).  What the New Testament actually teaches is that we all have the opportunity to be Kings and Priests.

Apostates, as I have argued before, lose their citizenship in the Kingdom (but not their Salvation).  So they certainly won't become Kings of it.

I would hesitate to argue you are a King by winning any Crown, since there are two different Greek words for Crown used in the NT.  But I would advise that if you want to be a King in the Kingdom then it would help to follow the instructions God gave the King (which Solomon failed to follow) in Deuteronomy.  But that does not make it a Sin to not follow those instructions.

My point is keeping the Law is good, as long as you're not doing it thinking it contributes to your Salvation.  My objection to much of what I hear from the Torah observing community lies only in my opposition to making other Christians feel obligated to do anything.

Rob Skiba complains about strawmen he's accused of.  But he's engaging in one when he says things like "I'm just saying it's a good idea to obey God".  I believe we should obey God, but I believe God's commands are different for each of us, we are to be lead by The Holy Spirit.  When Jesus said "Those who love Me obey My commandments" in John it's right before he talks abut sending the Comforter, that is not a coincidence.

I feel the most important command God has given me personally is to never tell other people what to do, and to politely and respectfully as I can oppose those who do tell others what to do.  That is why I spend so much time on the Homosexuality issue even though I'm mostly Straight myself, and why regardless of economic disagreements I tend to vote Libertarian.  But on the Homosexuality issue  I show it's not condemned in the Torah either, practicing Homosexuals can keep perfectly Kosher.

And yes I know Rob insists he's not telling anyone what to do.  But so much of the what he says in context easily comes off that way, intentionally or not.

I know it is popular now to suggest every use of the word Sin should be defined by 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."  But I say perhaps the word "Law" should be defined by Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which I have a second witness for in how Jesus defined the two greatest commandments.  As well as James 2:8.

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Update October 28th 2016:  And now I have made on on this Blog.

 Using The Interne ton The Sabbath.

Update April 2016: And I did a follow up on the Lunar Sabbath issue.

Update June 2024: As that Prophecy Blog is Retired now I'm gonna need to redo the more important of those, mostly on this Blog probably rather then Materialist Eschatology.

I've changed The Lord's Day is The Sabbath not Sunday quite a bit, abandoning tangents I don't feel like supporting anymore and adding some new material.

For Sin is the Transgression of The Law

1 John 3:4

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

This verse is popular with the people who insist they're not Legalists but sure talk like they are.  Who feel as long as they aren't saying it's necessary for Salvation they don't qualify as Judiazers.   Problem is I know too many people who started out that way and then slowly slid into full blown legalism.

They usually only quote the second half.  In context an argument can be made this means every Sin is a transgression of the Law, but not every transgression of The Law a Sin.  At the very least the cause and effect they have reversed, they like to say if there is no Law there is no Sin.  In fact The Law exists to tell us what is sinful, Paul said in Romans 1 the Romans were without excuse even though they were Pagans who never knew the Law of Moses.

And they insist this verse should tell us what Paul means by Sin every time he used the word, even though this isn't a Paulian Epistle.  Regardless of the validity of that lexical assumption, there is a deeper issue.

There is this popular Video online of a Pastor putting a row of kids on stage to demonstrate a deconstructive chain reaction that begins with saying there is no Sin without The Law.  The full testimony of the New Testament, (however you view this verse of 1 John) says that The Law exists to help us know when we're Sinners (Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:19).  So that destroys his entire chain reaction, The Law exists because of Sin not the other way around.

They think the word "Law" must mean the Law of Moses every time it's used even in the New Testament.  Forgetting that the Book of Esther spends a lot of time talking about Laws that aren't Hebraic at all.

But they insist on defining ever use of the word Sin based on this verse, how about we define every use of Law based on Galations 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which has a second witness in what Jesus said about the two greatest commandments.

Jeremiah 31 foretells a new Covenant coming, and says in verse 33.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Now to this day Rabbinic and other Jews insist this refers to merely a re-instituting of the Mosaic Covenant.  But Paul clarifies this in the Book of Hebrews. In Chapter 8 where he explains that the Law of Moses was always imperfect, and the New Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

Romans 13:10 refers to the Law of Love.  James 1:25 and 2:12 refer to the Law of Liberty.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me," and then the following statement is different.

I can again recommend reading Romans 14.

But I keep hearing people equating saying we're not under The Law of Moses to Christians arguing we don't have to Obey God.  It is important we obey God, but his instructions come from The Holy Spirit now.  The Word is still a useful guide to help The Holy Spirit in instructing us, but it is not a means for us to Judge other people, fellow Believers or not.

But still the word Obey never occurs in John's Gospel.

Now people like to quote John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What is ignored is the very next verse where He promises to send the Comforter (The Holy Spirit), the Commandments He means by that are those which come from The Holy Spirit.

A Believer letting The Holy Spirit lead them while following The Golden Rule and what Jesus called the Two Greatest Commandments should have little trouble keeping from doing the most obviously evil things.

But there are grey areas, and areas where His instructions may be different for different believers depending on the different plans God has for them.

Things like the Dietary Laws, and Keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days are by no means a vital issue worth being divisive over.

Now I am also against the Reverse-Legalists as I like to call them.  Independent Baptists and others who think keeping Jewish Holidays and getting Circumcised as an adult is somehow now a Sin.

It is certainly never a Sin to do what Jesus did because Jesus was without Sin, and He observed Tabernacles in John 7 and Hanukkah in John 10.

Choosing to keep The Law under no delusion that it effects Salvation can be good for spiritual Growth, so long as you don't try to impose it upon others or think it makes you better (more right with God) then anyone else.

I close with 1 Timothy 1:8-9.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,".

Dietary Laws and Pork

So there are people out there seeking to deny even that the Dietary Laws don't apply to Christians.  Especially in regards to Pork.

They say Acts 10/11 isn't about food at all.  That is indeed not the main point, the main point is about not excluding Gentiles.  But the fact remains Jesus told Peter to Eat.

Even under the Old Testament it was not something required of Gentiles.  If you were not circumscribed dietary laws didn't apply to you.  Pork is included in no scholar's version of the hypothetical Noahide Laws.  The only dietary law to predate Moses is the law against eating live animals and drinking blood from Genesis 9.

I'm fully aware that it actually is healthy to follow the dietary laws.  Pork isn't healthy.  The issue is beneficial vs unlawful.  In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul says "all things are lawful unto me but not all things are beneficial".  People want to take the last part as undermining the first, but it's only in regards to Biblical Laws people play that game.  The fact that it's legal to smoke tobacco but not healthy doesn't mean cops are gonna arrest you anyway.  (They might actually under our horribly corrupt government but that's not how a just legal system works).  The ramifications for doing something unhealthy is that your health will be hurt.  Nothing more and nothing less.

They point to lots of references to Pigs being a favorite animal to use in pagan sacrifices. (I didn't see any sources but I'll take their word on it for now).  Then point to the commands not to eat foods sacrificed to animals and say, that means Pork.

No, it means don't eat the meat of an animal sacrificed to an idol.  Sacrificial meat does get eaten, including in Biblical sacrifices.  Pig, lamb, beef, or even vegetables doesn't matter eating food offered to idols we are told we shouldn't do.

It doesn't mean any animals considered eligible for a pagan sacrifice.  Lots of the same animals that are Biblically clean were eligible also.  Especially Bulls, I've read a lot in the past about Bulls in pagan sacrifices.  In Egypt bulls were offered to Apis their bull god.  Apis was probably what inspired the Golden Calf, which in turn inspired Jeroboam's calf Idols he built at Bethel and Dan.

But even on the subject of meats sacrificed onto Idols, Paul clarifies.

1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."

 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:  Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

We're to refuse to eat it only if we're specifically told it was offered to an Idol  And the issue is setting an example, not the meat itself.   These same teachers of Paul are discussed in this article.

Now I've seen people say that "The Jews didn't even think of Pork as food" to try and render verses like the above irrelevant.  If it wasn't thought of as something eligible to be food God would never have commented it in any dispensation.  Just as he never goes out of his way to condemn eating dirt or feces.

Rob Skiba, who is actually the main person I've had in mind this entire post (and some guests he's had on his show), actually refers to when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a Pig on the Altar as if that event is recorded in the Book of Maccabees.  It's not, I've read first and second Maccabees, there is no reference to a pig being offered there.  There is no verification Anitochus was personally in Jerusalem at all when the Idol was consecrated.  It refers to sacrifices to the Idol on the Altar but not what kind of animal was sacrificed.  Since second Maccabees implies it was Dionysus festivals celebrated in the Temple, it seems more plausible the sacrifices made were animals sacred to Bacchus.

Nor is the whole Menorah burring for 7 days on 1 days worth of oil story in them. Nor is either incident mentioned in the Biblical authentications of Hanukkah, not in Daniel not in Haggai not in John 10.  Both events would be included in the Epic miniseries I want to make about the Maccabean Revolt, because they're things the audience will want to see.  But their historical foundation is non existent, they're more pharisaic fables.

Now I don't want to accuse Rob of lying, but it's difficult when he specifically says the Book of Maccabees defines the Abomination of Desolation as being when the Pig was killed on the Altar. Maccabees doesn't mention a Pig but it mentions the Idol, Dios Olympos placed in The Temple.  The Hebrew word for Abomination used in Daniel isn't the one from Leviticus 18 that can mean any unclean act, it's the one used when it's a derogatory term for the Idol itself, like in 1 Kings 11.

That was the first Abomination of Desolation.  The future one will be a Man deifying Himself in the Holy Place.  Proclaiming himself to be God. In the Holy of Holies.

If the Pig being offered did happen.  That it was a Levitically unclean animal only added insult to injury.  The point was it was an offering made to an Idol.

I did find a reference to Swine's Flesh being sacrificed in I Maccabees.  But it's not directly connected to the Abomination, to the Temple or said to be something Antiochus did personally.  However I did find in Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 a reference to Antiochus sacrificing Swine's Flesh on the Altar, and a similar claim exists from a Pagan POV in Diodorus Siculus.  None of that changes that the Abomination of Desolation is defined as being the Idol, not the Swine's Flesh.

Now they go on to insist that eating Pork isn't even discussed in Acts 15 as something those Gentile believers were doing.  That's irrelevant.  In the end there are only three restrictions we are held to.  No idolatry, no prostitution (that is what fornication meant in 1611 and what Proneia means in Greek) and no eating Blood.

Eating Blood was distinct from the other dietary laws.  Being the only one with a basis that goes back to Genesis 9.  And likewise it is in Acts 15 treated as distinct from the food offered to Idols.

These people trying to undermine how we aren't under the Law of Moses like to say things like "does God change" as if saying yes to that would be a horrible heresy.  Actually The Hebrew Scriptures record God repenting (repent means a change of mind) many times.  I point this out elsewhere to refute those who think repent always means repenting of Sin.  He repented in Numbers and He repented of what he was going to do to Nineveh in Jonah.

It's actually a Gnostic heresy to see God as completely unchangeable.  Augustine of Hippo was a Gnostic and the main thing keeping him from converting to Christianity was that he was uncomfortable with the Old Testament depicting an emotional God who sometimes changes his mind.  It was when Ambrose convinced him those emotions could be allegorized away that he became a Christian but brought much of his Platonism and Gnosticism with him.  And thus both Catholicism and Calvinism were born.

When God makes a Promise or a Covenant or swears an Oath then He won't change on that.  Which is why you can be assured you are saved by faith and salvation can't be lost.  So yes in certain senses God doesn't change as Malachi said, but Calvinists take that verse out of the grander context of Scripture.

Specifically on the idea of God changing what people are or are not allowed to do.  That He does change those can be proven form The Torah alone.

Before The Flood we weren't allowed to eat meat at all, not just certain meats, read Genesis 1 and 2 carefully.  After The Flood God gave Noah permission to eat animals.  We have this movement of people acting like it's insulting to The Torah to suggest a restriction on Pork could be lifted, but an even bigger restriction was lifted in Genesis.

God ordained Capital Punishment in Genesis 9, when in Genesis 4 he goes out of his way to protect Cain form being killed for his murder.  Now I believe it's disallowed again.

Abraham was married to his Sister and it wasn't a problem.  Adam and Eve's first children only had that option.  But brother-sister incest was condemned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  1 Corinthians 5 I feel shows that Incest restrictions still apply.  But that was not a purely ceremonial or cleanliness issue.

So yes Malachi says God doesn't change.  But the greater testimony of Scripture shows what is and isn't legal clearly is not what is meant by that.

The dietary laws are exactly the issue in Romans 14.  Where Paul goes on to explain not to judge someone either way on keeping or not keeping the dietary laws.

That is important. There is in response to people like Skiba, others, (like the pastor I do not name) who want to act like it's a Sin to keep any Jewish laws.  That is absurd, to suggest you can Sin by following Jesus example in observing Passover, Tabernacles and Hanukkah.  These people are the other side of the same coin.  So I've coined the phrase Reverse-Legalism.

As long as you're not under any delusion that it matters one way or the others to your Salvation keeping the Jewish laws is fine, imposing them on others is not.  Colossians 2:16 makes clear not to let any man judge us either way in regards to "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."  Now the Reverse-Legalists will point to the next verse calling them mere shadows of things to come.  That does mean we don't have to keep them, but we can observe them as long as we remember that are fulfilled in Jesus.

Back to regular legalists, they engage in the Lexical fallacy by wanting to read 1 John 3:4 into every verse that uses the word Sin.

They also objects to the word legalist, saying it should only be used of Judaizers.  The word Judaizer I would only use of Judaizers, but I tend not to use it at all because I don't want to sound anti-semitic.
Legalism is an illness with three levels, each level can manifest differently.

The top level is believing the Law particularly circumcision is required for Salvation.  The Judaizers were top level.

Middle is thinking it's needed to keep salvation or to prove salvation, hence denying Eternal Security.  And I include "perseverance of the saints" as a denial of Eternal Security.

The low level is I think where Rob Skiba is, he's certainly not top level. Saying that the Law is needed for qualifying as a good faithful Christian.  That too is wrong, at the Bema Judgment we'll be judged based on our obedience to The Holy Spirit, not keeping a written law code, yes I mean even specific New Testament commands when I say that.

Low level can be harmless.  But I know people who started there and were in time lured into the higher more dangerous levels.

The Law of Moses was always imperfect.  Now it is done away with.  Jesus fulfilled the Law by living a perfectly sinful life.  Now the Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

As commander William Riker once said "When has Justice ever as simple as a rule book".

If The Holy Spirit is personally convicting you to do or not do something then you should listen.  But the Holy Spirit has different plans for each individual.  The Spirit convicts me often, but my enjoyment of Pork it doesn't convict.

Judaizers are not the only Legalists

So I watched a sermon from the pastor I don't like to name, where he was defending Christmas.  I agree essentially with what he was saying.  But he then went on to condemn celebrating Jewish Holy Days.

This reminded me of stuff I already covered slightly.

I know there is a Hebrew Roots movement out there calling for trying to put Christians back under the Law, and that is wrong.

But we also have counter to that a new kind of Legalisim, that says no matter what the reason it's a sin period for a Christian to get Circumscribed, or follow the dietary laws, or keep the Sabbath, or observe Jewish Holy Days.  All the passages they are drawing on for this are about Judiazers.

It's wrong to teach you need to follow The Law to obtain Salvation, or to keep Salvation, or to prove Salvation.  Or in my view even that it's needed to lead a good obedient rewarding Christina Life.  The Law is written on our Hearts now, it's between each individual and The Holy Spirit how he lives.

He started his Christmas sermon with Romans 14, I love Romans 14.  But he pretty much makes it sound like the specific context of Romans 14 is about Vegetarianism.  It's not, Romans 14 like most of what Paul was dealing with in Romans came down to disputes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians living in Rome.  It's about the dietary laws, he is saying it's ok to eat non kosher foods, and also ok not to.  But if EITHER side tries to judge the other that is wrong.

Colossians 2:16 is often misused.  "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"  It's saying let no one Judge you concerning them, but it gets taken as saying it's bad to observe them.

Zachariah 14 and Ezekiel 45 both show that the Holy Days and the Sabbath will be apart of the future when Jesus Reigns on Earth.  And I believe Ezekiel 40-48 is the New Creation not the Millennium.

Jesus we know during His life kept the Passover and Tabernacles, and Hanukkah.  No matter what your excuse, no matter what your view on The Law or dispensations is.  To say it's a Sin to do something Jesus did is absurd.

Now I also think it's wrong to require people to do anything Jesus did, especially for Salvation.  He lived a perfectly Sinless life FOR US so we don't have to.  But he did nothing that can be considered a Sin.

Acts references numerous times the Early Church observed Old Covenant customs.  I've spoken elsewhere against the Sunday replacing The Sabbath myth.

Also right after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Paul goes and gets one of his new gentile converts circumcised.  Now that gets abused by Rob Skiba to say you don't need circumcision for Salvation but you still need to do it to obey God.  That is wrong, but it does show if someone wanted to purely for like it's health benefits to be circumscribed Paul was not gonna throw everything he said in Galatians at them.

This Pastor says that any holiday he celebrates is going to be about Jesus (though elsewhere in the Sermon he offhandedly mocks those calling Thanksgiving bad).

Messianic Jews and other Christians who keep the Jewish Holy Days make them about how they point to Jesus and The New Testament.  Because all Scripture points to Jesus.

During the Passover Seder they draw on how Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and tie that into Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and I think Esther is more relevant to Passover then people realize.  And of course they quote from The Last Supper.  On First Fruits they are reminded how Paul called Jesus our First Fruits.  On Shavout they talk about Acts 2 and the end of Joel 2, to me Revelation 6 and 7 should also be thrown in.

Basically the Nisan Holy Days are when we should be observing the "Easter" Holy Week, and the Feast of Weeks (Shavout) when we should observe Pentacost, (Karaite reckoning rather then Rabbinic) as opposed to the convoluted Catholic reckoning.  Still I would not call it a Sin to observe them on the Catholic dates (or Rabbinic reckoning, or the Samaritan one for that matter), since we're not bound by the Law at all anyway, commemorating the Passion is good even if it's not actually on the right day.  But the Pagan traditions that filtered into it (including the name "Easter" itself, we should call it Resurrection Sunday and/or First Fruits) like the Bunny and the Eggs I would recommend dropping.

If one wants to adapt them to our modern Solar Calendar for convenience sake but not using the Catholic method.  First I'd say still begin each day the previous Sunset.

My recommendation would be to have April 6th (or the Thursday closest to it) function as the 14th of Nisan, with the previous Sunday (or April 2nd) as Palm Sunday/The Triumphal Entry and the following Sunday as Resurrection Sunday/First Fruits.  Then the Sunday 7 weeks from First Fruits would be Pentecost and the Thursday a week and a half before that Ascension Thursday.  And if you wanna do something for Second Passover that'd be May 6th.  March 6th would be the fast of Esther, the 7th and 8th would be Purim and the 10th Yom Adar.  And the New Year would be March 24th.  And the last day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 21) would be April 13th.

An alternative method would be to make Nisan 14 equal March 25th and Nisan 17 equal March 25th, I actually like using those days for The Annunciation and the Visitation.  Along with June 24th or 25th for the Birth of John The Baptist and the Summer Solstice for the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

If one wants a similar adaptation to our Calendar for the Tishri Holy Days.  Simply having September equal Tishri can be convenient, since September literally means 7th month.  But if you want Hanukkah to fall on Christmas then you'd rather have October be Tishri.  People who support a September 11th 3 BC birth of Jesus have reason to make that day the first of Tishri.  I however believe between the Yom Kippur and Tabernacles following that is when John The Baptist was conceived (Sunset September 20th to Sunset September 24th).  I have an eschatological hypothesis that involves Yom Teruh being Sunset September 25th to sunset September 26th in 2033 AD.

The Fall Feast Days tend to be viewed as Eschatological in how they apply to Jesus.  I think The Rapture is very relevant to the Feast of Trumpets and maybe also Yom Kippur.  The 7th Trumpet will sound on Tishri 1st I believe, and Yom Kippur may be the Bema Judgment as well as much later the White Throne Judgment, and I see Tabernacles as when New Jerusalem will descend.

But Tabernacles could also be just a good excuse to read John 7, and I think 8, 9 and the beginning of 10 were on Tishri 22.  I also think the First of Tishi was when the Star of Bethlehem was first observed, But the Magi arrived in Jerusalem a year and three months later.  I think Yom Kippur is possibly the day Gabriel appeared to Zachariah.  But at the very least it's a great time to talk about the significance of The Veil being torn when Jesus was on The Cross.  Many of course look to the Tishri Holy Days for the Birth of Jesus, but I don't anymore.

Some also think the Transfiguration happened on Tabernacles, I do not believe that chronologically works.  But seeing a thematic connection to Tabernacles is still valid.

Purim can be used as a great time to show how the Book of Esther points to Jesus.  Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged on the 17th of Nisan, the same day as The Resurrection.  And I've talked about the significance in Haman and his sons technically dying the same way Jesus did.

Of course he doubles down on Hanukkah saying it isn't even ordained in the Old Testament.  I have refuted that notion elsewhere too.

How does one make Hanukkah about Jesus?  Those who say Jesus was born on a Fall Feast Day often place His Conception during Hanukkah (first of Tevet most likely) making that the time of the Annunciation and Visitation, I supported that in the past but not anymore.  Some who are among the minority defending the traditional date for Christmas think Jesus was born during Hanukkah.  I however have argued that the December 25th Jesus was born on was late in Tevet.  That would make it one of those years where Hanukkah fell near Thanksgiving.  There is evidence the early origin of Thanksgiving (which was not originally in November) was The Pilgrims observing a form of Tabernacles.  And Hanukkah has been called a sort of Second Tabernacles based on 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.  1 Maccabees 4:44-59 does talk about "Sacrifices and Thanksgivings" being offered in some translations.

At the very least Hanukkah can be a good excuse to get people to read John 10.  Many also seeing how it revolves around The Menorah (being often called The Festival of Lights) as a good time to talk about all the New Testament symbolism it has, the 7 Lamp stands surrounding The Throne in Revelation 4, the Seven Fold Spirit.  As well as Jesus being the Light of The World.

Hanukkah is about history that we know is a type of the End Times, Antiochus Epiphanes is a type of The Antichrist.  So it's a good prompter to studying Bible Prophecy.

Oh, that's right, this Pastor had in another Sermon ranted on how he rejects the notion of Antiochus Epiphanes having anything to do with Daniel, people like him are the straw-man Preterists cling to to make all Futurists look bad.

His logic was that you shouldn't have to read anything else to understand The Bible.  Only The Bible is God's Word, but part of the purpose of Prophecy is to authenticate God's Word, therefore proving from secular historical documentation that Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled is vital.

But showing his hypocrisy again he brings his understanding of New World Order conspiracy theories into his view of Bible Prophecy, a lot of extra Biblical sources are needed to make that work.