I read through Leviticus 12 (short chapter) and this is the closest I could find:
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Leviticus 12:3
Leviticus 12 does command 8th day circumcision, but most of the text refers to a woman's uncleanliness after childbirth.
I think you may have meant Exodus 12:
And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for silver, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. Exodus 12:43-44
He continues:
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. Exodus 12:48
A Gentile (stranger) is by definition not "one that is born in the land", unless he is a slave in Israel, that was bought with silver and circumcised by their Israelite master. Once circumcised, that slave may eat of the Passover sacrifice. As Gentiles grafted into Israel, we were not bought by silver or gold. Peter explains:
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19
This is Passover language, but not the literal Passover lamb in Jerusalem, but the sacrifice of Yeshua.
Paul talks to Gentiles about the importance of keeping the feast of Unleavened Bread, but does not say Gentiles may EAT the Passover which is slain in Jerusalem according to the commandment. This is consistent with the Torah.
This explains why when Paul was traveling among the Gentiles, he mentions"the days of unleavened" several times (Acts 12:3 and Acts 20:6) but does not mention Passover except in regard to Yeshua being our Passover. He tells the Gentiles in Corinth:
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:7
The Gentiles knew the Torah. They knew that they could not participate in the EATING of the Passover sacrifice, because they were Gentiles (foreigners). But they REMEMBER the Passover by the instructions of Yeshua to "Do this in remembrance of Me". The "Me" here is the Passover Sacrifice. Gentiles may remember the Passover and keep the feast of Unleavened bread. Yeshua is the Passover which the Gentiles must eat, whether circumcised in the flesh or uncircumcised in the flesh.
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53
This is for the Gentile to remain in the Royal Law of Love, even while uncircumcised in the flesh. Yeshua is our righteousness, being the Word of God made flesh.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. Romans 10:5
The Pharisaical "sect of the circumcision" believed that NO commandment of the Torah could be kept while uncircumcised in the flesh. Traditionally, the circumcised could not even enter the home of uncircumcised Gentiles.
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou went in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. Acts 11:2-3
This is not a Torah issue, since the Torah does not forbid circumcised men to eat with uncircumcised men. This is a tradition.
But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. Acts 11:9
Likewise, Gentile adult circumcision, outside of the situation described in the Torah, is also a tradition.
Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19
Okay, we agree on this.
That is good!
In the Torah a stranger (ger) is someone who lives in the borders of Israel but is not a citizen, is not an Israelite. It would be like someone coming to be a resident in America from another country and working there but not permanently, unless later they changed their mind and applied for it and were accepted and went through the process of becoming a citizen, which in the Torah would be getting circumcised and observing the Passover.
There is nothing here about slaves. And there is nothing here about a purchase. That matter of slaves wanting to keep the Passover was already finished. It is now talking about strangers, which are not limited to slaves.
It goes on to state that NO uncircumcised person is allowed to eat of the Passover.
Abraham and his whole household getting circumcised is further proof that circumcision in not limited to 8 day year old children. That is just when it is mandatory for children to be circumcised and not any earlier because any day before that and they will bleed to that. And circumcision is important as the sign of the covenant and that is why one is not to delay it extra days after or else face being cut off.
It is true that God specifically states in the Torah that no uncircumcised person is allowed to EAT the Passover sacrifice. More specifically:
Then He continues to explain the ordinance of the slave foreigner (who was bought with silver) partaking in Passover. Then God says:
I read this as a continuation of the exception of the law "no stranger shall eat thereof", that slave foreigners who are sojourning with the Israelites must become circumcised before eating the Passover sacrifice.
God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision:
The covenant between God and Abraham and his decedents is eighth day circumcision.
In addition to the covenant, God also instructed Abraham to circumcise his adult males and his foreign slaves bought with silver. This is consistent with the passage in Exodus 12. It is not a command for Gentile believers to become circumcised as adults.
Your quotes about uncircumcised nations keeping the Passover as spiritualized in Yeshua assumes the New Testament is true. It is not. Have you actually compared the Tanakh prophetic proof texts of the NT with them in the Tanakh and looked at the full context of the Tanakh? They are ridiculously taken out of context. Plus the irreconcilable contradictions between the Four Gospels, like the Last Supper you just mentioned, which the Synoptics say was on the Passover but in John it says instead it was before and that Yeshua died on the Passover.
Concerning the timeline of the three synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John please see below:
https://steemit.com/christian-trail/@ironshield/bible-study-my-response-to-mark-aka-mr-easyfix
If you've decided the New Testament is not true, it's not my place to convince you otherwise. That is between you and your Savior, the God of Israel.
I believe you cannot keep the Torah without listening to the words of the "Prophet like Moses" which are spoken in the Name of the Most High God of Israel.
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/21-ways-yeshua-is-a-prophet-like-moses/
What is the Royal Law of love?
The Royal Law of Love is the Torah, it is the standard by which we will be judged:
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of Pharisaic beliefs. They actually taught that certain commandments of the Law were mandatory for the Nations to keep and they called these the Noahide Laws.
This is in regard to "believing" Pharisees, ones who have accepted Yeshua as Messiah. They were outraged that uncircumcised "believers" were keeping Torah in the diaspora while remaining uncircumcised. They took it upon themselves to 'initiate' believers into the Pharisaical sect of that time. Adult circumcision is how they "make proselytes". This was the same sect that Yeshua called hypocritical - meaning they were teaching the Law of Moses, not doing it themselves, while expecting their followers to do it perfectly.
The Noahide Movement began in the 12th century with Maimonides' interpretation of the Talmud. It became popular again as the modern "Noahide" movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
I do not agree with the Noahide laws for Gentile interpretation, as the conclusion of Ecclesiasties states it's the whole duty of man (not just Israelite) to fear God and keep His commandments:
I also do not agree with the idea that the Acts 15 decision was James mandating "Noahide laws" for Gentile believers. It's a square peg in a round hole.
The laws given to Noah are good and righteous, but not complete. For example, in the future Gentiles will come to Jerusalem to keep the feast of Sukkot.
This is not included in the instructions given to Noah, but do pertain clearly to Gentiles (nations). The instruction for Sukkot are in the Torah. (Leviticus 23:34)
I don't believe in Paul, but I disagree that your interpretation is necessitated here. He also mentions being in slavery and marriage in the same type of language in the same chapter. One could interpret this as Paul saying one did not have to get circumcised due t the present distress (1Corinthians 7:26), the great tribulation they were going through in those times, fleeing from their persecutors, which would have been extremely difficult, next to impossible, if one had recently been circumcised and was in the state of recovery. Just like how it would be hard do so with as a man with a wife and children to take along. And slaves being disobedient to their masters and trying to get out of their position would cause their masters to be angry with them and think that religion is bad, giving it a bad reputation, and bring more persecution on Christians.
Overall I don't buy it though that Paul was pro-Torah. How almost everybody who reads his letters comes to opposite conclusions and have done so all throughout Christian history, including me when I first read the Bible, 2Peter admitting he's hard to understand and easy to twist into lawless, therefore admitting his epistles are incoherent, and certain hints in his epistles and in Acts, these things lead me to think that the traditional Church position on Paul is probably generally the correct message he was trying to get across.
Paul was absolutely pro-Torah. It was his life. If he was not, he would never have been accepted among the believers in Jerusalem, who are also pro-Torah. Zealous for the Torah!
Our modern translations have mangled Paul's already difficult language in his letters to the Gentiles. Paul refers to the law of the flesh (sin) and the law of the Spirit (Torah). But anti-Torah and Anti-Jewish interpretations by Christians have destroyed his point in many cases. This is a very ancient misunderstanding of Paul. Even in his day, rumors were circulating that he was teaching to forsake Moses. A 2000 year old rumor, still circulating today.
Paul did not teach the Jews or Gentiles to forsake Moses (God forbid), but rumors were circulating in Jerusalem that he was teaching Jews to forsake Moses and not perform the 8th day circumcision on children. This is a false testimony.
Paul participates in the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:1–21) to demonstrate his adherence to the Torah spoken by the mouth of God.
Paul did abandon the Pharisaical practices, which Yeshua called hypocritical. To other Pharisees, made him look lawless. But Paul made a practice of obeying the commands of God over the traditions of the elders. There were numerous attempts on his life for this. Peter and the apostles also followed this practice:
They loved the Torah. Yeshua is the Torah made flesh.