For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers - There are many persons who are indisposed to submit to authority (see the word unruly in Tit_1:6); many who are vain talkers - who are more given to talk than to the duties of practical religion (see the character of “Talkative,” in the Pilgrim’s Progress); and many who live to deceive others under the mask of religion. They make great pretensions to piety; they are fluent in argument, and they urge their views in a plausible manner.
Specially they of the circumcision - Jews, spoken of here as “of the circumcision” particularly, because they urged the necessity of circumcision in order that men might be saved; Notes, Act_15:1. This proves that there were not a few Jews in the island of Crete.
“For there are many.” (eisin gar polloi) “For there exist many.” Evil babblers already existed in New Testament days, Mar_7:5-9.
“Unruly and vain talkers and deceivers.” (anupotaktoi) “Unruly, irascible men” - (mataiologoi kai phrenapatai) “Vain or empty talkers and deceivers.” Many vain babblers have a one cylinder brain and an eight cylinder tongue, making divine claims, but being emissaries of the Devil, false prophets –Mat_7:21-23; 2Pe_2:1-2; 2Pe_2:17-18.
“Specially they of the circumcision.” (malista hoi ek tes peritomes) “Specifically those of the circumcision,” the Jews. It was professing Jews who reverted to ceremonies of Judaism that disturbed the Antioch, Jerusalem, and other New Testament churches, Act_15:1-2; Act_15:5; Act_15:23-24. Their mouths must be stopped, their false claims answered, exposed by true prophets, pastors of God, Jas_1:26.
I genuinely thought I could learn from you and be edified by your contribution. I now see that I was grossly mistaken.
Yes, he is. @DavyP Your response is an example of an ad hominem fallacious escalation and a deflection technique, utilizing religious scripture to frame a basic conversational critique as a moral or spiritual attack.
Johann made a structural observation about the conversation (pointing out a topic change/mid-sentence pivot). Rather than addressing whether you actually changed the subject, you reframed Johann’s observation as an attack on his personal credibility and a form of “bearing false witness.”
By addressing the audience as “Brethren in Christ,” you elevate a minor interpersonal dispute into a spiritual conflict, casting yourself as the victim of character assassination. Your use of Titus 1:10–14- trying to cite this passage, which deals with rebuking deceptive teachers and “vain talkers”—implicitly categorizes Johann as a subverter or false speaker whose mouth “must be stopped.” By quoting verse 12 (“The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies”), you aggressively turn the accusation of deceit back onto Johann.
In short, you counter Johann’s accusation of subject-changing by bypassing the actual topic entirely, escalating the rhetoric, and using scripture to delegitimize Johann’s standing to make the criticism in the first place. This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Just so you know my position, I DO NOT TRUST EITHER Peter nor Johann here on this forum. I only see their attempts to follow a false agenda of the doctrines of men instead of staying with what God’s Word actually teaches. And the tools they use are those I have seen many converted Jews use. And what’s funny is that they probably haven’t even considered that I may have some Jewish ancestry in me too.
So when Apostle Paul said there are many unruly talkers, especially among the circumcision, that is exactly what he meant. Even in the Book of Galatians Jewish converts to Christ sneaked around the bathrooms to spy out if the believing Gentiles there were circumcised. It made Apostle Paul so angry that in his anger he said he wished they just had their whole ‘xxxxx’ cut off!
Your rhetoric is getting old. Bordering on a personal attack because you do not like someone pointing out that you have either misread, misunderstood, or been falsely taught God’s Word. Therefore, you resort to this sort of thing.
I can give you several examples of you posting something claiming it means something it does not, and you being corrected using the very verse you are referring to.
Do you have proof of this? Do you have an example? Let’s talk about it. If you cannot present an example, then we would have to wonder if you are indeed guilty of bearing false witness. Be careful with that.