"Torah Observers" don't follow the clean meat laws
- Thread starter RestingInJesus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The only way to replace Christ with law keeping is to believe law keeping saves you. We are told if we love Christ we will obey Him, and also that God and the Father speak as one. What the Father says, Christ says.
We need to look to scripture to see what Christ fulfilled and how He did it. Christ IS our high priest, we were given rites to help us obey law and now we are given the Holy Spirit, we used innocent blood of animals as symbolic of Christ's blood now we have the blood of Christ, etc.
P Because you are listing some purposes of the law, it does not mean your list is complete. Every word of scripture is truth. The word translated from the Hebrew as "law" was a word meaning guidance.
God made it clear from the day of creation that He is God, we are not. We are not given the power to create the world or people or to create salvation. It was ALWAYS Christ who saved, even when the symbolic blood of Christ was used. There was never salvation without innocent blood. Lev 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have appointed it to you to make atonement on the altar for your lives, since it is the lifeblood that makes atonement.
The problem comes from people not studying times enough to recognize the definitions of bible talk. The prophets who reported God's words to them used language and meanings of their day. In Christ's day when Jews said everyone must become Jews to join them with circumcision leading the list, that was called the Law of Moses. It was rites given to help obey the law, not the law itself.
Prophets reporting God's words to them would never speak for disobeying the Lord. We are told of the basic law of the Lord, and each commandment of the Law of Mt Sinai tells how to practice that basic law.
We need to look to scripture to see what Christ fulfilled and how He did it. Christ IS our high priest, we were given rites to help us obey law and now we are given the Holy Spirit, we used innocent blood of animals as symbolic of Christ's blood now we have the blood of Christ, etc.
P Because you are listing some purposes of the law, it does not mean your list is complete. Every word of scripture is truth. The word translated from the Hebrew as "law" was a word meaning guidance.
God made it clear from the day of creation that He is God, we are not. We are not given the power to create the world or people or to create salvation. It was ALWAYS Christ who saved, even when the symbolic blood of Christ was used. There was never salvation without innocent blood. Lev 17:11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have appointed it to you to make atonement on the altar for your lives, since it is the lifeblood that makes atonement.
The problem comes from people not studying times enough to recognize the definitions of bible talk. The prophets who reported God's words to them used language and meanings of their day. In Christ's day when Jews said everyone must become Jews to join them with circumcision leading the list, that was called the Law of Moses. It was rites given to help obey the law, not the law itself.
Prophets reporting God's words to them would never speak for disobeying the Lord. We are told of the basic law of the Lord, and each commandment of the Law of Mt Sinai tells how to practice that basic law.
'If one is going to live by the law - then he is obligated to live by all of it. There are no "parts" to the Law.'
I agree.
here's a parallel I see
a few years ago, Microsoft stopped supporting Windows XP. I believe there are known security risks in xp, so using it on the internet exposes one to real dangers.
in 70 ad, God stopped supporting the law (no temple). Continuing to use it in its partial state exposes one to real risks.
I agree.
here's a parallel I see
a few years ago, Microsoft stopped supporting Windows XP. I believe there are known security risks in xp, so using it on the internet exposes one to real dangers.
in 70 ad, God stopped supporting the law (no temple). Continuing to use it in its partial state exposes one to real risks.
S
I'm sorry, sister, but I'm not following you. My response above was to FreeNChrist, who verbatim said the following of MacBestus (and presumably meant it of the rest of us Messianics or HRM folks who hold beliefs similar to MacBestus):
Are you and FreeNChrist the same person? If not, I'm not quite sure why you are responding as if I was directing that to you, or why you think that I assumed you "replaced God with the Torah". Please help me understand where you're coming from, since looking through the most recent comments, I'm only seeing one time where I have responded to one of your comments, and looking at it closely now, I honestly think I meant it to be a general comment inspired by someone else's earlier comment that the purpose of the Law is to identify sin, and not a quoted response to what you said specifically.
I think this is a big misunderstanding of which comments and responses are directed to which people. But looking at your response #97 above, I do think there is something I could add to what you said, so I'll do that in a quoted response to #97 and not here.
Are you and FreeNChrist the same person? If not, I'm not quite sure why you are responding as if I was directing that to you, or why you think that I assumed you "replaced God with the Torah". Please help me understand where you're coming from, since looking through the most recent comments, I'm only seeing one time where I have responded to one of your comments, and looking at it closely now, I honestly think I meant it to be a general comment inspired by someone else's earlier comment that the purpose of the Law is to identify sin, and not a quoted response to what you said specifically.
I think this is a big misunderstanding of which comments and responses are directed to which people. But looking at your response #97 above, I do think there is something I could add to what you said, so I'll do that in a quoted response to #97 and not here.
M
Hello depleted!
You gave me this verse:
John 19:*28**After this, Yahushua knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
*29**Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
*30**When Yahushua therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit
I assume to prove the law fulfilled?
I am actually not certain what your point is here.
I have never denied Messiahs sacrifice. Or that he fulfilled all the Scripture pertaining to his Sacrifice. The final sin offering. The Spring Feasts. The suffering servant prophecies. All fulfilled by his first coming. The messiah ben Yosef prophecies the Jews call them
If you are trying to say he fulfilled the Whole Old Testament or even the whole of Torah. I am quite sorry your mistaken. The fall feasts. The feast of trumpets is the second coming. Did I miss it? All the Messiah ben David law and prophecies have not been fulfilled yet.
If I am talking about something you didn't intend I apologize. As I said I was not sure of your point.
Messiah told us a really big clue about when the final fulfillment would happen. How we would know.
Matthew 5:18**For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
And we know that happens after the white throne judgement at the end of the Millennium.
Revelations 21:*1**And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
You probably weren't trying to say all Torah was fulfilled since that is so easily shown in error, but I just answered it that way in case.
Peace be unto you.
You gave me this verse:
John 19:*28**After this, Yahushua knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
*29**Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
*30**When Yahushua therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit
I assume to prove the law fulfilled?
I am actually not certain what your point is here.
I have never denied Messiahs sacrifice. Or that he fulfilled all the Scripture pertaining to his Sacrifice. The final sin offering. The Spring Feasts. The suffering servant prophecies. All fulfilled by his first coming. The messiah ben Yosef prophecies the Jews call them
If you are trying to say he fulfilled the Whole Old Testament or even the whole of Torah. I am quite sorry your mistaken. The fall feasts. The feast of trumpets is the second coming. Did I miss it? All the Messiah ben David law and prophecies have not been fulfilled yet.
If I am talking about something you didn't intend I apologize. As I said I was not sure of your point.
Messiah told us a really big clue about when the final fulfillment would happen. How we would know.
Matthew 5:18**For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
And we know that happens after the white throne judgement at the end of the Millennium.
Revelations 21:*1**And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
You probably weren't trying to say all Torah was fulfilled since that is so easily shown in error, but I just answered it that way in case.
Peace be unto you.
S
As I said in my previous post above this one, I honestly think I meant this to be a general comment inspired by someone else's comment that the purpose of the Law is to identify sin, and not a quoted response to what you said specifically. I don't see it as opposing what you were saying, but building upon it or following on it. So, I wasn't trying to change your words and try to say you're wrong about something you never said.
But to comment on the two quotes "to show man how perfect God is" and "to show us our sin" -- I don't think these two ideas are completely unrelated. We know that God is perfect and cannot sin and, likewise, there was no sin found in the Messiah. By looking at His perfection, we see where we fall short (sin). And when we realize we are in sin and doomed to death, we drop to our knees and call out to God for salvation, as you said. The Torah-Law has shown us our sin, how much we fall short of our perfect God and Messiah, and convicts us. My long response above is about what happens next.
To be honest, I don't know what you believe or how you choose to live your life in following the Messiah. That being said, I would like to hear your thoughts in response to my questions about how the Torah-Law is meant to convict the unbeliever of the perfect standard of God and the sins (where we fall short of that perfect standard) contained within, but once that person becomes a believer, those things within are no longer sins to the believer.
I appreciate your recommendation to read Romans. I actually read the whole letter last night in prayer, as I was planning to write a response to a Grace777x70 post which quoted it a lot, so I wanted to make sure I worked through it and had all the context in mind before I set about writing.
But to comment on the two quotes "to show man how perfect God is" and "to show us our sin" -- I don't think these two ideas are completely unrelated. We know that God is perfect and cannot sin and, likewise, there was no sin found in the Messiah. By looking at His perfection, we see where we fall short (sin). And when we realize we are in sin and doomed to death, we drop to our knees and call out to God for salvation, as you said. The Torah-Law has shown us our sin, how much we fall short of our perfect God and Messiah, and convicts us. My long response above is about what happens next.
To be honest, I don't know what you believe or how you choose to live your life in following the Messiah. That being said, I would like to hear your thoughts in response to my questions about how the Torah-Law is meant to convict the unbeliever of the perfect standard of God and the sins (where we fall short of that perfect standard) contained within, but once that person becomes a believer, those things within are no longer sins to the believer.
I appreciate your recommendation to read Romans. I actually read the whole letter last night in prayer, as I was planning to write a response to a Grace777x70 post which quoted it a lot, so I wanted to make sure I worked through it and had all the context in mind before I set about writing.
D
Here's the problem. The Bible is about God. You keep taking it to be about Man. If the center isn't God, why debate anything? You keep taking this back to the Torah shows us.... Neither Torah nor us is the center. Keep making either the center and you spin your wheels, as it sure seems you've done on this thread.
John 19:28-30
After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished,
said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.”
A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on
a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine,
he said, “It is finished,”and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
that was said [to fulfill this scripture] Psalms 69:21 (KJV)
They gave me also gall for my meat;
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Matthew 27:34 (KJV)
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall:
and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
-not fulfilled below
John 14:3 (KJV)
And if I go and prepare a place for you, [I will come again],
and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Christ said He would [come again] God can not lie
Enoch prophesied of this event, that has not happened yet.
Jude 1:14 (KJV)
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished,
said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.”
A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on
a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine,
he said, “It is finished,”and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
that was said [to fulfill this scripture] Psalms 69:21 (KJV)
They gave me also gall for my meat;
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Matthew 27:34 (KJV)
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall:
and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
-not fulfilled below
John 14:3 (KJV)
And if I go and prepare a place for you, [I will come again],
and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
Christ said He would [come again] God can not lie
Enoch prophesied of this event, that has not happened yet.
Jude 1:14 (KJV)
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
M
I feel your desperation. But relax. Before my creator I have never had a persona on this site before the Macbestus. I am not some old nemesis here for revenge or some other melodramatic hysteria.
You appear to be responding as free n christ as well as depleted. Honest mistake.
Or are you both the same? Not that I care really. But now I am curious?
Before your creator I ask. Are you both really the same person?
You appear to be responding as free n christ as well as depleted. Honest mistake.
Or are you both the same? Not that I care really. But now I am curious?
Before your creator I ask. Are you both really the same person?
So you have to choose, working at the law or coming to Christ and receiving rest from your work. But you people have already made your choice, haven't you? Its whats known biblically as 'stiffnecked'.
Why don't you just say 'yes we have.'? Why not just say 'We understand working at the law and that is what we'll do.'
Ok. That's fine.
That is what your understanding allows. You have not entered into faith.
Galatians 3:23-25
[FONT="]23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.[/FONT]
[FONT="]24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/FONT]
[FONT="]25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
And what is not of faith? Working at the law is not of faith. Will definitions of Greek or Hebrew words tell you differently?[/FONT]
Why don't you just say 'yes we have.'? Why not just say 'We understand working at the law and that is what we'll do.'
Ok. That's fine.
That is what your understanding allows. You have not entered into faith.
Galatians 3:23-25
[FONT="]23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.[/FONT]
[FONT="]24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/FONT]
[FONT="]25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
And what is not of faith? Working at the law is not of faith. Will definitions of Greek or Hebrew words tell you differently?[/FONT]
Paul who preached to gentials on the sabbath day,
is this working at the law?
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia,
and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
-here was A perfect chance to tell gentials not to follow the commandments,
but here he was teaching new gentials on the sabbath, who never before keep it.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews
and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together
to hear the word of God.
-why not preach the next day, why wait a whole week before speaking?
Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of
Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side,
where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto
the women which resorted thither.
-
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,
they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
-
Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy,
with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart
from Rome and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them,
and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,
and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
In each case Paul was preaching to Gentiles in Gentile cities on the Sabbath.
it is recorded over 80 times Paul preached to gentials on the sabbath day.
-
there is a future time
[h=3]Isaiah 14:7 (KJV)[/h]
is this working at the law?
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia,
and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue,
the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
-here was A perfect chance to tell gentials not to follow the commandments,
but here he was teaching new gentials on the sabbath, who never before keep it.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews
and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them,
persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together
to hear the word of God.
-why not preach the next day, why wait a whole week before speaking?
Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of
Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side,
where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto
the women which resorted thither.
-
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia,
they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
-
Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy,
with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart
from Rome and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them,
and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath,
and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
In each case Paul was preaching to Gentiles in Gentile cities on the Sabbath.
it is recorded over 80 times Paul preached to gentials on the sabbath day.
-
there is a future time
[h=3]Isaiah 14:7 (KJV)[/h]
The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
Last edited:
M
Grandpa my friend. I have never said i am under the law. I have constantly said I am
Under Grace.
As much as you want me to be under the law I just cannot do it for you.
The law is our schoolmaster. For us to learn his way.
If you learned maths in school, once you matriculated did numbers and thier manipulation change? Of course not. However you were no longer graded on your work by your maths master.
Really. It is silly how you want me to promote Torah for salvation. I just remember what I learned in school.
Under Grace.
As much as you want me to be under the law I just cannot do it for you.
The law is our schoolmaster. For us to learn his way.
If you learned maths in school, once you matriculated did numbers and thier manipulation change? Of course not. However you were no longer graded on your work by your maths master.
Really. It is silly how you want me to promote Torah for salvation. I just remember what I learned in school.
Grandpa my friend. I have never said i am under the law. I have constantly said I am
Under Grace.
As much as you want me to be under the law I just cannot do it for you.
The law is our schoolmaster. For us to learn his way.
If you learned maths in school, once you matriculated did numbers and thier manipulation change? Of course not. However you were no longer graded on your work by your maths master.
Really. It is silly how you want me to promote Torah for salvation. I just remember what I learned in school.
Under Grace.
As much as you want me to be under the law I just cannot do it for you.
The law is our schoolmaster. For us to learn his way.
If you learned maths in school, once you matriculated did numbers and thier manipulation change? Of course not. However you were no longer graded on your work by your maths master.
Really. It is silly how you want me to promote Torah for salvation. I just remember what I learned in school.
S
I believe that you're letting your personal interpretation of the theology of his letters override the straightforward reading of the situation in Acts 21. I gave you a hypothetical situation of a newborn son, using the exact same phrasing of Acts 21 but with substituted words to show how serious of a misreading you're coming away with. Do you believe, in that example, that I have a newborn son or no? Answer, then apply the same reading comprehension to Acts 21.
I humbly suggest you try the following exercise: Leave your personal theology aside and read Acts for what it says itself, then think about how if it truly does serve as a witness that Stephen was not speaking against the Temple or the Torah-Law (6:13), nor did he say that Messiah would physically destroy the Temple or change the customs Moses handed down to them (6:14), that Paul was eager to keep one of the Biblical feasts in Jerusalem (18:21), that he entered into a sincere vow with God in an attempt to demonstrate that there was no truth to the false reports that he taught Jews among the non-Jews to not circumcise their children and that he did indeed walk upright in obedience to the Torah-Law (21:24), and that Paul defended himself three times that he believed the Torah-Law and the Prophets (24:14), and committed no offense against the Torah-Law or the Temple (25:8), or against the Jewish people or their customs (28:17) -- take a moment, and if you imagine accepting the idea that the book of Acts records that Messiah, Stephen, and Paul kept the Torah-Law, then take another moment to think through what this would mean for how you interpret the theology of Paul's letters. Even if you don't buy it yourself, you will at least have an understanding of where us Messianics and HRM folks are coming from.
I know this wasn't the exact point you were trying to make, but I should note that majority opinion means nothing. If it did mean something, then the Catholic Church would be right on their doctrine and practices, having been the majority opinion for about 1,700 years.
Messiah Yeshua-Jesus is my example for life and living. Is He yours? If so, then I suggest you walk as He walked and honor the Father's commands as He did.
The law of Moses are not Moses' commands, but they are the instructions of God. And Messiah walked upright according to them. Again, you want to make it about "law keeping" but it's about following Messiah and walking as He walked. I'll take that any day over walking as any man walked.
Do you understand which disputes about the Torah-Law were behind Paul's directive here? If not, then you can't use it as a blanket statement to avoid things you don't like talking about. Here is a Messianic Apologetics article that offers one perspective for your consideration (http://messianicapologetics.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Epistle_of_Paul_to_Titus.pdf).
So yes, I agree with Paul: If you come across a Cretan, Gnostic, or anyone else who peddles Jewish myths and human commands and twists the Torah-Law to support an ascetic, esoteric, or otherwise extra-Torah lifestyle (i.e., a lifestyle that goes far beyond the Torah commands; e.g., it's not good enough to just avoid sexual immorality, but you must avoid sexual relations altogether; or, it's not good enough to just avoid eating the meat of unclean animals, but you must starve yourself of all manner of food and drink), then avoid engaging in unprofitable disputes about the Torah-Law with this person.
(As a side note, the impact of gnostic, ascetic, and esoteric influences on first century Judaism is very important to study if one is to understand who and what ideas Paul often opposes in his letters -- it was not always pure Biblical Torah-Law being addressed, but a perverted version of it)
Thanks for sharing, but this is the second time you haven't answered my question directly, so I'm going to infer your answer from your words here: Yes, you interpret "Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law" to mean something other than what it straightforwardly says, in a manner that means the reports were actually truthful and that James and Paul colluded in a grand public deception because of "religious pressure", by which Paul presented himself in a false manner and made a false vow with God.
This confirms my inference above, that you believe it was all a grand public deception because of "religious pressure". Also, God's holy, righteous, good commands should not be likened to leaven. Leaven is equated with sin throughout the Scriptures, and Paul says that the Torah-Law is not sin (Rom. 7:7).
What is the "ill-advised wisdom of man"? James' directive to Paul to take the nazarite vow and pay for four others? Acts 21:27-29 makes it clear that the crowd is upset because of the false rumors that they still believe and their false assumption that he had brought Trophimus into the Temple, not because of James' directive, which was James' and Paul's best attempt to show the false rumors to be untrue. But it's too bad that the rumors won out and persisted (even to this day 2,000 years later, people are still believing the false rumors!).
Again, I believe your personal theology is causing you to read "zealous for the Law" as a negative, pejorative statement, when it shouldn't be read that way. Only the ones who insisted on circumcision and Torah-Law observance as a prerequisite for salvation were in error of defiling the gospel of the grace of Messiah. This crowd in Jerusalem was stirred up by false rumors, as Acts plainly states and you quote above.
Again, this is a conversation between Paul and non-Jewish men about circumcising themselves in order to merit their salvation because they were afraid they weren't really saved by their faith in Messiah. You have yet to demonstrate where Paul is talking to Jewish men about circumcising their children on the eighth day. So, you cannot use these verses as support of your idea that the false rumors in Acts were actually true reports about Paul telling Jewish people among the non-Jews to not circumcise their children. He teaches this nowhere in any of his letters. Peter warned us Paul's teachings were getting twisted into lawlessness (2 Peter 3:14ff), and we see the fruit of that when the false reports reach Jerusalem and Paul is falsely accused of teaching something he never taught and walking in disobedience.
I humbly suggest you try the following exercise: Leave your personal theology aside and read Acts for what it says itself, then think about how if it truly does serve as a witness that Stephen was not speaking against the Temple or the Torah-Law (6:13), nor did he say that Messiah would physically destroy the Temple or change the customs Moses handed down to them (6:14), that Paul was eager to keep one of the Biblical feasts in Jerusalem (18:21), that he entered into a sincere vow with God in an attempt to demonstrate that there was no truth to the false reports that he taught Jews among the non-Jews to not circumcise their children and that he did indeed walk upright in obedience to the Torah-Law (21:24), and that Paul defended himself three times that he believed the Torah-Law and the Prophets (24:14), and committed no offense against the Torah-Law or the Temple (25:8), or against the Jewish people or their customs (28:17) -- take a moment, and if you imagine accepting the idea that the book of Acts records that Messiah, Stephen, and Paul kept the Torah-Law, then take another moment to think through what this would mean for how you interpret the theology of Paul's letters. Even if you don't buy it yourself, you will at least have an understanding of where us Messianics and HRM folks are coming from.
I know this wasn't the exact point you were trying to make, but I should note that majority opinion means nothing. If it did mean something, then the Catholic Church would be right on their doctrine and practices, having been the majority opinion for about 1,700 years.
Messiah Yeshua-Jesus is my example for life and living. Is He yours? If so, then I suggest you walk as He walked and honor the Father's commands as He did.
The law of Moses are not Moses' commands, but they are the instructions of God. And Messiah walked upright according to them. Again, you want to make it about "law keeping" but it's about following Messiah and walking as He walked. I'll take that any day over walking as any man walked.
Do you understand which disputes about the Torah-Law were behind Paul's directive here? If not, then you can't use it as a blanket statement to avoid things you don't like talking about. Here is a Messianic Apologetics article that offers one perspective for your consideration (http://messianicapologetics.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Epistle_of_Paul_to_Titus.pdf).
So yes, I agree with Paul: If you come across a Cretan, Gnostic, or anyone else who peddles Jewish myths and human commands and twists the Torah-Law to support an ascetic, esoteric, or otherwise extra-Torah lifestyle (i.e., a lifestyle that goes far beyond the Torah commands; e.g., it's not good enough to just avoid sexual immorality, but you must avoid sexual relations altogether; or, it's not good enough to just avoid eating the meat of unclean animals, but you must starve yourself of all manner of food and drink), then avoid engaging in unprofitable disputes about the Torah-Law with this person.
(As a side note, the impact of gnostic, ascetic, and esoteric influences on first century Judaism is very important to study if one is to understand who and what ideas Paul often opposes in his letters -- it was not always pure Biblical Torah-Law being addressed, but a perverted version of it)
Thanks for sharing, but this is the second time you haven't answered my question directly, so I'm going to infer your answer from your words here: Yes, you interpret "Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law" to mean something other than what it straightforwardly says, in a manner that means the reports were actually truthful and that James and Paul colluded in a grand public deception because of "religious pressure", by which Paul presented himself in a false manner and made a false vow with God.
This confirms my inference above, that you believe it was all a grand public deception because of "religious pressure". Also, God's holy, righteous, good commands should not be likened to leaven. Leaven is equated with sin throughout the Scriptures, and Paul says that the Torah-Law is not sin (Rom. 7:7).
What is the "ill-advised wisdom of man"? James' directive to Paul to take the nazarite vow and pay for four others? Acts 21:27-29 makes it clear that the crowd is upset because of the false rumors that they still believe and their false assumption that he had brought Trophimus into the Temple, not because of James' directive, which was James' and Paul's best attempt to show the false rumors to be untrue. But it's too bad that the rumors won out and persisted (even to this day 2,000 years later, people are still believing the false rumors!).
Again, I believe your personal theology is causing you to read "zealous for the Law" as a negative, pejorative statement, when it shouldn't be read that way. Only the ones who insisted on circumcision and Torah-Law observance as a prerequisite for salvation were in error of defiling the gospel of the grace of Messiah. This crowd in Jerusalem was stirred up by false rumors, as Acts plainly states and you quote above.
Again, this is a conversation between Paul and non-Jewish men about circumcising themselves in order to merit their salvation because they were afraid they weren't really saved by their faith in Messiah. You have yet to demonstrate where Paul is talking to Jewish men about circumcising their children on the eighth day. So, you cannot use these verses as support of your idea that the false rumors in Acts were actually true reports about Paul telling Jewish people among the non-Jews to not circumcise their children. He teaches this nowhere in any of his letters. Peter warned us Paul's teachings were getting twisted into lawlessness (2 Peter 3:14ff), and we see the fruit of that when the false reports reach Jerusalem and Paul is falsely accused of teaching something he never taught and walking in disobedience.