My broda,
Paul circumcised Timothy under pressure. That was a very light concession seeing Timothy was half Jew. But he was uncircumcised as an adult.

Acts 16:3 (ESV)
3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Can it get clearer than this verse. Repeat after me, 'he took him and circumcised him BECAUSE of the Jews'.....am not a fault finder so I hope and pray you learn something and not play dumb, you goofed.

The idea of Paul actions in Acts contradicting his epistles is pure garbage. Here is why.

Galatians 2:3 (ESV)
3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
The events described in this verse took place in Jerusalem. Paul and Titus RESISTED all pressure to circumcise him. What you don't have is the record of Titus in Jerusalem in Acts but recall the resistance was because there was pressure from the Jews in the first place. So whatever Paul did in their(Jews) face is recorded for Gentiles in Galatians

Gombs:


I doubt the above. Paul was a staunch Jew (He gave his CV too), infact, he was so jew that he had to do much to come minister to them, even after Jesus clearly stated his ministry was to the Gentiles.

I thonk you meant He circumcised Timothy because he was under pressure from the jews. I hope you can see you're wrong and take corrrection? Timothy, was half greek and half Jew, though the apostles resolution was that circumcision should not be a basis for being saved. He yeah, bowed to pressure of the Jews and circumvented the resolution. He circumcised Timothy who was a new convert, just to please the Jews who were taught one has to be circumcised before saved.

Later, there was another instance where Paul did his best to conform to Jewish practices. When he got to Jerusalem the local church expressed its concern:'
… it is said that you teach all the Jews in the gentile world to turn their backs on Moses, telling them to give up circumcising their children and following our way of life. What is the position then?' (Acts 21: 21-22, New English Bible)

Christian leaders in Jerusalem, knew that this idea was extremely controversial, and called on Paul for guidance. Paul did not answer their question directly. [b]He affirmed that he instructed gentile converts to abstain from fornication and a few other rules. [size=20pt]He said that he followed the law. [/size][/b]However, nothing is recorded as directly refuting the charge that he had been advising Jews to turn their backs on Moses and to stop circumcising their children.

In any case, the whole point was lost in an enormous melee that resulted in Paul being arrested at Jerusalem and finally sent to Rome. Paul's actions about circumcision in Acts are noticeably different from the thoughts he expressed in his letters. Some of this may be due to the fact that he was dealing with Jews in Acts whereas in his letters he was writing to Gentiles.

Another difference is that Acts writes about his actions whereas in his letters, Paul is writing for himself. However, there does appear to be a development of his thought on the subject. When his letters are examined in the order in which they appear in the New Testament, his attitude to circumcision as a requisite for salvation becomes steadily more hostile.

Gombs:


They still cannot comprehend this... no mind trustman and humility trash..he's yet to see my post to him. In acts 15, the apostles listed some of Moses' law that should be observed by the Gentiles, I now asked them, weremthe apostles mistaken to know the Law has been totally abolished?

You are the ones that things are difficult for to comprehend. Now, let's go about it this way:
1. In Acts 15 the issues were clear - At that council  this was said about some of them: "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:9). 
In contention were:
- firstly, that it is necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised physically. 
- secondly, that it was necessary for them to be ORDERED to keep the law of Moses. 

At the end of the day the decision arrived at which cancelled any necessity for physical circumcision as a precondition for anything in the spiritual life of the Christian was: 
"28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

The things listed by the Apostles through the Holy Spirit ( I emphasize THE HOLY SPIRIT because it was not just arbitrarily done by the Apostles) that the believers should abstain from were specific and definite. It does not give room for anyone to want to try and add to it TODAY. 

Can anything be clearer than this?

Now, it did not mean no one MUST circumcise again. It only meant circumcision was no longer a condition or a sign of God's covenant with the NT believer. The sign is no longer a physical one but a spiritual one - the Holy Spirit - Ephesians 1: 13& 14

Again let me point you to Romans 4: 
"9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,"

What do we see here: 
1. Abraham was saved by faith in Christ, as he was then revealed, BEFORE he was circumcised. 

2. The verse 11 tells us the purpose was to make him the head representative of all who would believe WITHOUT being circumcised. 

What does this tell us?
Simply this: circumcision is not the key issue for the spiritual life of the believer today. 

In 1 Corinthians 7 we are told this:
"Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision."
Why? Because circumcision is NO LONGER a precondition today for anything in the spiritual life of the Christian. 

In Galatians 6 we see this:
"12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God."

This portion should again be self explanatory.

Lastly, understand that the principle of INSPIRATION guarantees that God's complete message to us was put down perfectly in Scripture.

^^
Do you still maintain Circumcision was for Israel and Israel alone? Let us start from there.

Vooks, you've said your bit, me mine... let the readers see and discern which is true by God's Spirit. You might also want to revisit my post you quoted. I added some things after you added some others things to yours Thanks

Gombs,
It is very clear that circumcision does not avail salvation. It is not a condition for salvation. There are many things which don't save like spiritual gifts or fasting but are VERY important. I hold that Paul's circumcising Timothy ONLY under pressure and not circumcising Titus at all is the best proof of the fact that circumcision has ZERO value to a believer. You don't agree. You said when we circumcise, we are 'identifying with the promiset'.

Gombs:

We've said it here, physical circumcision only means you identify with the promises, but it does not make you righteous.

Could you please answer these questions;

1. Exactly what do you mean when you say that circumcision 'identifies us with the promise?'
2. Does CE teach circumcision as a necessity of 'identifying with the promise'?
3. If I am not circumcised and hence do not 'identify with the promise' what am I missing?

Gombs:
^^
Do you still maintain Circumcision was for Israel and Israel alone? Let us start from there.

Vooks, you've said your bit, me mine... let the readers see and discern which is true by God's Spirit. Thanks

Gombs:
^^
Do you still maintain Circumcision was for Israel and Israel alone? Let us start from there.

Vooks, you've said your bit, me mine... let the readers see and discern which is true by God's Spirit. You might also want to revisit my post you quoted. I added some things after you added some others things to yours Thanks

First, can you see the point we are making?

Your question has been answered long ago in my response to Goshen360 maybe a page or so before.

Why not try and seek clear understanding of one issue before wanting to jump to another.

vooks:
Gombs,

Could you please answer these questions;

1. Exactly what do you mean when you say that circumcision 'identifies us with the promise?'

it was a mark of the covenant God had with Abraham, it was for ever, from generation to generation.

2. Does CE teach circumcision as a necessity of 'identifying with the promise'?

let me call Pastor Chris.

3. If I am not circumcised and hence do not 'identify with the promise' what am I missing?

well, Abraham's got you covered...

Romans 4:11 ESV
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

trustman:

First, can you see the point we are making?

Your question has been answered long ago in my response to Goshen360 maybe a page or so before.
Why not try and seek clear understanding of one issue before wanting to jump to another.

forgive me for taking you serious.

Abraham got me covered? Did he cover my tithing as well?

If there is NO difference whatsoever between a circumcised and uncircumcised Christian, is circumcision of ANY value to a believer?

Gombs:


well, Abraham's got you covered...

Romans 4:11 ESV
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
.

[quote author=vooks post=28411364]

Abraham got me covered? Did he cover my tithing as well?

Yup!!

If there is NO difference whatsoever between a circumcised and uncircumcised Christian, is circumcision of ANY value to a believer?

but his is what we've be saying na, Physical circumcision does not make you righteous, but spiritual circumcision. However, folks do physical circumcision for health reasons too.

...be right back.. End of month frenzy!

We all know it does not make you righteous. It is all about what it does, not what it doesn't.

Of course health reasons are not in question since they are accessed by everyone including SonofLucifer

Can we say circumcision has ZERO spiritual value?

Gombs:
but his is what we've be saying na, Physical circumcision does not make you righteous, but spiritual circumcision. However, folks do physical circumcision for health reasons too.

vooks:
My broda,
But circumcision was NEVER retained for ANY reason. Acts 15 Council did more than clarify that circumcision was not necessary for salvation; it was dismissed altogether as a burden. Proof of this is, Paul ONLY circumcised to avoid the bugging unbelieveing Jews. If there was ANY benefit ( which you can't name but Gombs calls 'identifying with the covenant' but can't substantiate) Paul would have circumcised more readily than only when pressured by non-believers.

So circumcision among Gentiles was not a noble practice abused like spiritual gifts in Corinth,for which proper use needed emphasis, it was an unnecessary BURDEN

Galatians 2:3 (ESV)
3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

Acts 16:3 (ESV) 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek

Why would Paul stay with an uncircumcised Gentile Timothy UNTIL he visits Jerusalem? Why couldn't he circumcise him earlier? Because circumcision was totally useless and irrelevant for a Christian. In Jerusalem, his haterz,nitpickers would not have hesitated to remind everyone that he hang around uncircumcised Gentiles. So he just went along, made a concession for peace sake

Note Titus remained uncircumcised

If the Jews had put pressure on him to commit sexual immorality would he have done it?

Your points are moot because Paul still went on to physically circumcise people "after he knew it was completely dismissed". Does this make any sense?

In the Jerusalem council they resolved to remove the burden of circumcision from the 'saved' Gentiles. Why was it a burden? Because the Christian Jews believed that one was not saved if they weren't circumcised (Acts 15:1), so Paul and Barnabas shared their testimonies of Gentiles getting and 'acting' saved who weren't circumcised and as such the Leader- James, conceded that circumcision was not necessary for salvation and told the Jews not to put pressure on Gentiles who believed in Jesus but were uncircumcised.

So why did Paul still cower to pressure atimes and circumcise some people even as he didn't do so at other times? It is the same reason he later taught his church in Corinth that eating meat sacrificed to Idols meant nothing as long as it was sanctified with Prayer and thanksgiving (somewhat contradiction to the resolution of the Jerusalem council).

There are some things you know (according to the word of God) are not wrong, but you still refuse to do them to appease fellow christians who have weak consciences. Paul said (concerning meat sacrificed to Idols) that as far as he was concerned, they meant nothing because he was only conscious of one God in heaven. But if he was in the gathering of babes (who still believe in idols/demons) he would turn down the meat so as not to make them think that since a 'whole Apostle Paul' could eat meat that was once sacrificed to Idols then we too can even visit their temples- which would be a sin and God would have held Paul responsible for that. So look at it from that angle.

Paul knew that if he didn't circumcise those Gentiles, the Jews around would have ostracised them like they did in Antioch. So to pander to their feeble-mindedness he did what he had to but in his heart he knew those Gentiles were saved as long as they believed in Jesus.

So what is the import of circumcision? As we have said before a) to carnally identify with the Abrahamic covenant b) to keep it (Genesis 17:10). Notice that God said to Abraham "between you and thy seed" in Genesis, and Paul making reference to that verse said the seed in question was Christ and not even the Physical Jews. So even if circumcision doesn't make me saved or seal my salvation as it were, it makes me 'conscious' that I am a child of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Also notice how I used the words 'carnal', conscious etc. It is because the significance of circumcision is now fleshly.

But it makes zero sense for you to ask me what spiritual value it holds. What spiritual value does clapping hold? What spiritual value does not kneeling to pray hold? Will God unhear my prayers if I stand? So because these things hold no spiritual value does it mean they have been TOTALLY DISMISSED from the NT?

That's the same way with Tithes and offerings.

^^
Wow! Awesome. Gracias

1.Circumcision is not sin. Paul would resist all pressure to sin just to please men. Bad example.

2. Paul did not circumcise 'people', he circumcised Timothy and Timothy ALONE

3. Paul undertook an IRRELEVANT practice for peace sake, and he resisted the same elsewhere- Gal 2:3. 'to the Jews he became Jews'. When I visit naija, I will put on the traditional garb just to blend not that I care. They look horrible

So there is no spiritual nor religious value real or imagined in circumcision. Keep your 'consciousness'. Paul would scoff at that. Titus with his joystick intact was as 'conscious' as any man can be of his place in Christ and his relationship to Father Abraham

Clapping hands, kneeling are all spiritual exercises

mbaemeka:


If the Jews had put pressure on him to commit sexual immorality would he have done it?

Your points are moot because Paul still went on to physically circumcise people "after he knew it was completely dismissed". Does this make any sense?

In the Jerusalem council they resolved to remove the burden of circumcision from the 'saved' Gentiles. Why was it a burden? Because the Christian Jews believed that one was not saved if they weren't circumcised (Acts 15:1), so Paul and Barnabas shared their testimonies of Gentiles getting and 'acting' saved who weren't circumcised and as such the Leader- James, conceded that circumcision was not necessary for salvation and told the Jews not to put pressure on Gentiles who believed in Jesus but were uncircumcised.

So why did Paul still cower to pressure atimes and circumcise some people even as he didn't do so at other times? It is the same reason he later taught his church in Corinth that eating meat sacrificed to Idols meant nothing as long as it was sanctified with Prayer and thanksgiving (somewhat contradiction to the resolution of the Jerusalem council).

There are some things you know (according to the word of God) are not wrong, but you still refuse to do them to appease fellow christians who have weak consciences. Paul said (concerning meat sacrificed to Idols) that as far as he was concerned, they meant nothing because he was only conscious of one God in heaven. But if he was in the gathering of babes (who still believe in idols/demons) he would turn down the meat so as not to make them think that since a 'whole Apostle Paul' could eat meat that was once sacrificed to Idols then we too can even visit their temples- which would be a sin and God would have held Paul responsible for that. So look at it from that angle.

Paul knew that if he didn't circumcise those Gentiles, the Jews around would have ostracised them like they did in Antioch. So to pander to their feeble-mindedness he did what he had to but in his heart he knew those Gentiles were saved as long as they believed in Jesus.

So what is the import of circumcision? As we have said before a) to carnally identify with the Abrahamic covenant b) to keep it (Genesis 17:10). Notice that God said to Abraham "between you and thy seed" in Genesis, and Paul making reference to that verse said the seed in question was Christ and not even the Physical Jews. So even if circumcision doesn't make me saved or seal my salvation as it were, it makes me 'conscious' that I am a child of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Also notice how I used the words 'carnal', conscious etc. It is because the significance of circumcision is now fleshly.

But it makes zero sense for you to ask me what spiritual value it holds. What spiritual value does clapping hold? What spiritual value does not kneeling to pray hold? Will God unhear my prayers if I stand? So because these things hold no spiritual value does it mean they have been TOTALLY DISMISSED from the NT?

That's the same way with Tithes and offerings.

Goshen360:


Why have you decided to rush in to type like Bidam. That's why he also came, rush and clicked like for you and quoted you, talking rubbish too,


Both of you can't even understand simple logic. The circumcision you both referring to is IN THE FLESH. That phrase often go along natural circumcision and I made it clear that most of us, Gentiles was circumcised IN THE FLESH of our foreskin in about 8 days or so depending on culture while some even in adult are still not circumcised BEFORE we come to Christ.

When Paul said the Law is spiritual, he knows what he was saying by the Spirit in the sense that, those it was given to are so spiritually blind that they can't see beyond the spiritual truth contained therein which is all wrapped "in Christ". They held unto the dos, donts, regulations, commandments and rituals without understand what the Spirit was saying. Today, by the Apostolic revelations, we understand what's behind circumcision:

New International Version
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

New Living Translation
When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature.

The above verse completely dismiss circumcision IN THE FLESH, MADE BY HANDS....which was what I referred to here:
...Why does it mean something different to us in the NT? Our fleshly circumcision was already done to us when we're new born babies and that's not a subject of condition for salvation in the first place, because it is irrelevant to when we came to Christ.

...AND interpreted by Apostolic revelation to mean, what is not done by a physical procedure by hands BUT the cutting away of your sinful nature done by Christ.



Does Bidam & other Law keepers agree with you in this one also? As for me, I completely agree with you on this one.



...without feeling it makes you rich, blessed and without making you feel the windows of heaven will be opened to pour out blessings that there will be no room to contain it and finally, without making you feeling devourer is rebuked because you tithe.

***edited***



This is the crux of the tithe matter: It is always attached to one blessings or the other. This is where you people failed completely in tithe argument. The pre-law tithing after the order of Abraham wasn't done FOR ABRAHAM TO BE BLESSED AND HE WASN'T EVEN EXPECTING ANY BLESSINGS AS YOU CAN READ, HE RETURNED THE OTHER STUFFS TO THE KING and he was blessed before the tithe to Melchi. Where do you people get your example of "pre-law blessing of tithing" from?

2. The blessings of tithing in the law? Don't even go there. I have asked Bidam in the past and will ask you too. Do you think God is a liar that he's not obligated to keep His word if truly He promised He will pour you out blessings that there will be no room to contain it? Ever since you people have been tithing and expecting the "blessings of tithing in the law", have you experience such a blessings that there will be no room to contain it? You people should be distributing blessings by now if truly there's no room to contain that kind of blessings promised by God. I challenge you to produce the evidence of blessings of tithing in the law that in your house, there's truly no room to contain such blessings.

In a simple statement: There's no (special) blessings in tithing than it is in giving. I and many around the world don't tithe but a giver and I'm blessed greatly. You don't want me boast do you?

There are alot of things wrong with this post but I am currently using my phone to reply you.

1. I still fail to see the logic about anything being dismissed. You quoted a verse saying we were ALSO spiritually circumcised and you concluded it dismissed the first one? How so?.

2. The fleshly circumcision doesn't mean anything different to us. It means what it means while the spiritual circumcision means what it means as well. God told Abraham " you are righteous and I have a covenant with you. As a mark of that covenant, circumcise yourself and your seed from now till eternity". Didn't the righteousness come before the circumcision? So why is the circumcision being dismissed in the NT? It never made anyone righteous to begin with BUT SOME PEOPLE THOUGHT AND TAUGHT SO, so Paul was correcting them. Period.

3. Windows of heaven, rebuked devourer etc were the blessings God said would come from tithes and offerings. Are you also saying the blessings of the law do not exist again? NB: I believe the curses to be abolished that's why a non-tither who is christian is still saved and righteous.

4. Yes Melchi blessed Abraham before he gave the tithes. The question is did Abraham ever let any King before and after Melchi pray for him, bless him or give him anything? No. So why did he subject himself to Melchi? And please don't question anyone's ability to reason again. We went to the law to see the blessing of what Abraham did pre-law. It is called rightfully dividing the word of truth. Malachi 3 shows me the importance of tithing like Hebrews 7 does too and these things weren't clearly shown in Genesis 14.

5. For your question about evidence of my uncontained blessings. I SMH.

vooks:
1.Circumcision is not sin. Paul would resist all pressure to sin just to please men. Bad example.

2. Paul did not circumcise 'people', he circumcised Timothy and Timothy ALONE

3. Paul undertook an IRRELEVANT practice for peace sake, and he resisted the same elsewhere- Gal 2:3. 'to the Jews he became Jews'. When I visit naija, I will put on the traditional garb just to blend not that I care. They look horrible

So there is no spiritual nor religious value real or imagined in circumcision. Keep your 'consciousness'. Paul would scoff at that. Titus with his joystick intact was as 'conscious' as any man can be of his place in Christ and his relationship to Father Abraham

Clapping hands, kneeling are all spiritual exercises

1. So if circumcision is not a sin why will it be TOTALLY DISMISSED FROM THE NT? see the flaw?

2. Hair-splitting. Whether he circumcised Timothy and Timothy ALONE means nothing. He circumcised him after Acts 15. That's the point.

3. Wrong. Paul didn't say he resisted Titus from being circumcised. He said NOBODY FORCED/COMPELLED Titus to be circumcised even though he was a Gentile.

4. Please tell Genesis 17 and Galatians 3 or Romans 3 that circumcision has zero benefits. It is cyclical to keep mentioning spiritual benefits to it. I already said physical circumcision is physical. Period.

5. Please provide verses showing clapping and kneeling as spiritual.

1. It is dismissed because it has outlived its usefulness. The elaborate animal sacrifices were fulfilled. They were not useless. God did not give Israel useless laws. Animal sacrifices are not sinful neither. I saw this analogy. Once you fill a bucket with water, adding anything else will spill the water. The bucket is filled and can't be used for any other purpose. But it is still useful. That's the Law.... circumcision & tithes for you

2. 'People' is misleading because it presents Paul as an advocate of circumcision among Gentiles. He was not. He stood by Titus in Jerusalem in the face of Judaizers and never bowed to no pressure. Circumcising Timothy was a concession (the only one) not borne out of some 'identifying with the promise' theory

3. Moot point. study that verse closely. How is it relevant to what Paul is saying? Bottom line, Paul hanged around uncircumcised Gentiles who couldn't give a hoot about 'carnally identifying with the promise' because that imaginary nonsense don't exist

4. I said circumcision HAS NO BENEFITS not HAD NO. Tenses my brother. It was instituted by God, is as relevant as burnt offerings. Zero benefit NOW not THEN. It is slightly less useful than washing hands with Dettol jel. heard it lowers chances of HIV infection...surface area stuff

5. Eph 3:14, Psalms 47:1----Spirit inspired acts of worship

mbaemeka:


1. So if circumcision is not a sin why will it be TOTALLY DISMISSED FROM THE NT? see the flaw?

2. Hair-splitting. Whether he circumcised Timothy and Timothy ALONE means nothing. He circumcised him after Acts 15. That's the point.

3. Wrong. Paul didn't say he resisted Titus from being circumcised. He said NOBODY FORCED/COMPELLED Titus to be circumcised even though he was a Gentile.

4. Please tell Genesis 17 and Galatians 3 or Romans 3 that circumcision has zero benefits. It is cyclical to keep mentioning spiritual benefits to it. I already said physical circumcision is physical. Period.

5. Please provide verses showing clapping and kneeling as spiritual.

mbaemeka:


1. So if circumcision is not a sin why will it be TOTALLY DISMISSED FROM THE NT? see the flaw?

[size=20pt]2. Hair-splitting. Whether he circumcised Timothy and Timothy ALONE means nothing. He circumcised him after Acts 15. That's the point.[/size]

3. Wrong. Paul didn't say he resisted Titus from being circumcised. He said NOBODY FORCED/COMPELLED Titus to be circumcised even though he was a Gentile.

4. Please tell Genesis 17 and Galatians 3 or Romans 3 that circumcision has zero benefits. It is cyclical to keep mentioning spiritual benefits to it. I already said physical circumcision is physical. Period.

5. Please provide verses showing clapping and kneeling as spiritual.

That's what I was trying to drive home, but vooks don't seem to want to understand. Thanks buddy!

For the colored, vooks, I'd want to learn too...in all honesty I know about kneeling, but clapping is a no no. David once said Psalms 95:6 - Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.

My brother,
circumcising NOW is as worthless as burnt offerings. That has been my point all along. It has ZERO benefits to nobody outside the supposed medical reasons.

You have been pushing for a theory that it 'identifies us with the promise' which is flat out wrong. It doesn't.

PS: Worthless things are not necessarily sin.

Gombs:


That's what I was trying to drive home, but vooks don't seem to want to understand. Thanks buddy!

For the colored, vooks, I'd want to learn too...in all honesty I know about kneeling, but clapping is a no no. David once said Psalms 95:6 - Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.

vooks:
My brother,
circumcising NOW is as worthless as burnt offerings. That has been my point all along. It has ZERO benefits to nobody outside the supposed medical reasons.

You have been pushing for a theory that it 'identifies us with the promise' which is flat out wrong. It doesn't.

PS: Worthless things are not necessarily sin.

Well, do you know if you know something right and don't do it, it's sin? For example, the true gospel preachers here, who seem to know how the church should be and hasnot done aanything in that regard, I hope the know they'd be sinning? But good news is, they're wrong.nso they're not sinning.

Define 'worthless things'! Paul was right to say circumcision did not bring righteousness, for Abraham was righteous before circumcision. The Jew thought it to be sin to ignore circumcision. How then did you conclude that it was not a sin to ignore it according to the jews? Remember you said " circumcision is not sin". A notion mba pointed out. If it was a sin in the day not to circumcise, Bringing us back to mba's question,

If the Jews had put pressure on him to commit sexual immorality would he have done it? 

Why did Paul circumcise Timothy after the resolution in chapter 15?

James 4:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

That is very true my broda. But not everything that you know is good are you obligated to do it.

For instance, John the baptist telling Herod that it was wrong to have his brother Philip's wife. He could do nothing other than point out the wrong. I may not be a Reverend like Oyaks, in fact I don't even have a church. This does not disqualify me from pointing out something that is clearly unscriptural in churches like a doctrine or practice.

Worthless things are things of no value to anybody. A good example is offering burnt offerings TODAY.

I didn't quite get your question but I said circumcision is not sin meaning you don't break ANY Law/Commandment in doing so. The fact that it was dismissed entirely as unnecessary on the Gentiles means it had NO benefits for them. So you have a practice you are not bound to do, that you just been told is unnecessary yet doing it is not sin.

Paul circumcised Timothy to avoid unnecessary distraction on his mission in Judea/Jerusalem. I believe there is no better explanation than this verse;
1Cor 9:20 20 (KJV) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
And this is why I preach in a suit. The audience wants a suit, I don one but I hate suits, they just look good on mannequins and Mickey Stone

Gombs:


Well, do you know if you know something right and don't do it, it's sin? For example, the true gospel preachers here, who seem to know how the church should be and hasnot done aanything in that regard, I hope the know they'd be sinning? But good news is, they're wrong.nso they're not sinning.

Define 'worthless things'! Paul was right to say circumcision did not bring righteousness, for Abraham was righteous before circumcision. The Jew thought it to be sin to ignore circumcision. How then did you conclude that it was not a sin to ignore it according to the jews? Remember you said " circumcision is not sin". A notion mba pointed out. If it was a sin in the day not to circumcise, Bringing us back to mba's question,



Why did Paul circumcise Timothy after the resolution in chapter 15?

Gombs:


That's what I was trying to drive home, but vooks don't seem to want to understand. Thanks buddy!

For the colored, vooks, I'd want to learn too...in all honesty I know about kneeling, but clapping is a no no. David once said Psalms 95:6 - Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.

Maybe this scripture will help concerning clapping of hands.

1For the choir director. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. O clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God with the voice of joy. 2For the LORD Most High is to be feared, A great King over all the earth.…Psalm 47:1

vooks:
1. It is dismissed because it has outlived its usefulness. The elaborate animal sacrifices were fulfilled. They were not useless. God did not give Israel useless laws. Animal sacrifices are not sinful neither. I saw this analogy. Once you fill a bucket with water, adding anything else will spill the water. The bucket is filled and can't be used for any other purpose. But it is still useful. That's the Law.... circumcision & tithes for you
2. 'People' is misleading because it presents Paul as an advocate of circumcision among Gentiles. He was not. He stood by Titus in Jerusalem in the face of Judaizers and never bowed to no pressure. Circumcising Timothy was a concession (the only one) not borne out of some 'identifying with the promise' theory
3. Moot point. study that verse closely. How is it relevant to what Paul is saying? Bottom line, Paul hanged around uncircumcised Gentiles who couldn't give a hoot about 'carnally identifying with the promise' because that imaginary nonsense don't exist
4. I said circumcision HAS NO BENEFITS not HAD NO. Tenses my brother. It was instituted by God, is as relevant as burnt offerings. Zero benefit NOW not THEN. It is slightly less useful than washing hands with Dettol jel. heard it lowers chances of HIV infection...surface area stuff
5. Eph 3:14, Psalms 47:1----Spirit inspired acts of worship

1. What was it's usefulness before? That's how to help you see the flaw in your argument.

2. Rubbish. Nobody COMPELLED Titus to be circumcised. That's what Paul said. But when they compelled Timothy, Paul cowered and he would have not done so if he knew it was COMPLETELY DISMISSED.

3. Your point is not only moot but diversionary. Paul was saying that those Judaizers didn't put pressure on Titus in JERUSALEM and now they have come to Galatia (Gentile land) to put pressure on you. Showing that they're not interested in your spirituality- they only want to gratify the flesh because if that were not the case they would have preached their circumcision everywhere including Jerusalem. This akin to those who make women 'cover their hair' or not 'wear make up' yet they don't care if such women are even born again to begin with.

4. Nonsense again. God said it would be everlasting. Everlasting means even now. Paul said it is beneficial to you ONLY if you are obedient to all the laws or saved. You on the other say it was useful but not anymore. Please why was it useful before? If you can answer this,you will see the ccontradictions in your argument.

5. Thank you for those verses that Paul said 'he bows to God in prayer' and the Psalmist said 'clap your hands to God'. I am sure you thought I asked you for a verse that says such were ever done in the bible. Let me show you my question again:

please provide verses showing clapping and kneeling as SPIRITUAL

In other words showing their value SPIRITUALLY.

Thank you.

Gombs:


That's what I was trying to drive home, but vooks don't seem to want to understand. Thanks buddy!

For the colored, vooks, I'd want to learn too...in all honesty I know about kneeling, but clapping is a no no. David once said Psalms 95:6 - Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker.

Yes bro. I know people bow down, kneel, and clap during praise and worship but there is not a single verse in the scriptures that says they have a spiritual meaning like say 'raising of hands' does. Yet those things are not wrong like when we close our eyes or close our palms in prayer. Bowing down or kneeling, and clapping are fleshly ways of showing reverence and appreciation to someone. When Alexis Sanchez scores a good goal we clap our hands in admiration and appreciation FOR what he has done. Same way the Yorubas do ba le alot to show respect to elderly ones but all these things are physical and fleshly NOT that they are wrong.

Jesus said the TRUE WORSHIPERS will worship the father IN SPIRIT and ACCORDING TO THE WORD. And that word worship there actually meant 'to bow, kneel'. So Jesus was saying true kneeling or bowing to GOD will be in spirit because that's what God truly desires. Does it then mean that those of us who kneel and clap are wrong? No sir and that is what I was trying to show him concerning circumcision.

He kept asking us for the SPIRITUAL VALUE of it and I kept telling him that not everything we do has spiritual value. It doesn't mean they are wrong or DISMISSED COMPLETELY. If I stand in prayer God will still hear me. If I sit he still will. What he wants me to do spiritually is have faith (because faith is the response of our spirit to his word). If I kneel in prayer God will still hear me and if I lay on the floor he still will as long as I have faith. If I shut my eyes The name of Jesus will still work and if I open my eyes it still will. So because these things don't affect my spirit man doesn't mean they are now USELESS or COMPLETELY DISMISSED. That's what I was showing him.

Bidam:
Maybe this scripture will help concerning clapping of hands.

1For the choir director. A Psalm of the sons of Korah. O clap your hands, all peoples; Shout to God with the voice of joy. 2For the LORD Most High is to be feared, A great King over all the earth.…Psalm 47:1

thanks buddy!.. i just learnt

mbaemeka:


4. Nonsense again. God said it would be everlasting. Everlasting means even now. Paul said it is beneficial to you ONLY if you are obedient to all the laws or saved. You on the other say it was useful but not anymore. Please why was it useful before? If you can answer this,you will see the ccontradictions in your argument.
Thank you.

Leviticus 23 stated many things God said were to be done forever or 'throughout your generations' or words to that effect.
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

[quote author=mbaemeka post=28419473]

Yes bro. I know people bow down, kneel, and clap during praise and worship but there is not a single verse in the scriptures that says they have a spiritual meaning like say 'raising of hands' does.

true... any input from anybody?

Yet those things are not wrong like when we close our eyes or close our palms in prayer. Bowing down or kneeling, and clapping are fleshly ways of showing reverence and appreciation to someone. When Alexis Sanchez scores a good goal we clap our hands in admiration and appreciation FOR what he has done. Same way the Yorubas do ba le alot to show respect to elderly ones but all these things are physical and fleshly NOT that they are wrong.

nice points i must say

Jesus said the TRUE WORSHIPERS will worship the father IN SPIRIT and ACCORDING TO THE WORD. And that word worship there actually meant 'to bow, kneel'. So Jesus was saying true kneeling or bowing to GOD will be in spirit because that's what God truly desires. Does it then mean that those of us who kneel and clap are wrong? No sir and that is what I was trying to show him concerning circumcision.

vooks, what sayeth thou?

He kept asking us for the SPIRITUAL VALUE of it and I kept telling him that not everything we do has spiritual value. It doesn't mean they are wrong or DISMISSED COMPLETELY. If I stand in prayer God will still hear me. If I sit he still will. What he wants me to do spiritually is have faith (because faith is the response of our spirit to his word). If I kneel in prayer God will still hear me and if I lay on the floor he still will as long as I have faith. If I shut my eyes The name of Jesus will still work and if I open my eyes it still will. So because these things don't affect my spirit man doesn't mean they are now USELESS or COMPLETELY DISMISSED. That's what I was showing him.

vooks... he's got some pointers your know!

trustman:


Leviticus 23 stated many things God said were to be done forever or 'throughout your generations' or words to that effect.
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

i have read the above verse, and saw none of the above bold, not even a vaguest hint...can you please furnish me how you concluded on that or at least paste your bible version?

vooks:
No. Coming to Christ is not confirmation of nothing, just stated as a matter of fact

So many things are stated in the Bible as a matter of fact. Like Jesus telling Zacchaeus that salvation has come to his house. To you it may not be a confirmation of anything, because the word 'confirm' is not used. To me it confirms that all types of sinners, including tax collectors can be saved. You're free to see the Word as you choose.

1. Usefulness is restricted to the covenant Abraham had with God

2. Neither was Timothy compelled. Paul just did it. Some things can be dismissed WITHOUT being banned. Paul offered sacrifices per Nazirite vow. It is no sin to do such but they are on NO VALUE to nobody. So dismissal vs complete dismissal is a nonsensical dichotomy

3. Point was and remains, Paul was perfectly at ease with Titus the uncircumcised Gentile

4. Everlasting means up to and including eternity? Everlasting can by qualified. Will circumcision be carried out in regeneration? Does a Christian Jew need circumcision?

Gen 17:8 (KJV) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Will the Jews inhabit Israel forever?

Exodus 40:15 (KJV)
And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations

Numbers 25:13 (KJV)
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel

Is Levitical priesthood everlasting in any way?

Everlasting as used in Genesis appears to me to mean PERMANENT not eternal. The priesthood ended with Jesus Christ yet it was everlasting. Am strongly persuaded that circumcision NOW (after Christ) is completely useless for EVERY believer Jew or Gentile. It adds nothing to what the believer receives in Christ nor does it act as a sign of ANYTHING

5. Being commanded to do so and the Fact that Paul did it suffices. Or you wanted an epistle on kneeling in prayers?

mbaemeka:


1. What was it's usefulness before? That's how to help you see the flaw in your argument.

2. Rubbish. Nobody COMPELLED Titus to be circumcised. That's what Paul said. But when they compelled Timothy, Paul cowered and he would have not done so if he knew it was COMPLETELY DISMISSED.

3. Your point is not only moot but diversionary. Paul was saying that those Judaizers didn't put pressure on Titus in JERUSALEM and now they have come to Galatia (Gentile land) to put pressure on you. Showing that they're not interested in your spirituality- they only want to gratify the flesh because if that were not the case they would have preached their circumcision everywhere including Jerusalem. This akin to those who make women 'cover their hair' or not 'wear make up' yet they don't care if such women are even born again to begin with.

4. Nonsense again. God said it would be everlasting. Everlasting means even now. Paul said it is beneficial to you ONLY if you are obedient to all the laws or saved. You on the other say it was useful but not anymore. Please why was it useful before? If you can answer this,you will see the ccontradictions in your argument.

5. Thank you for those verses that Paul said 'he bows to God in prayer' and the Psalmist said 'clap your hands to God'. I am sure you thought I asked you for a verse that says such were ever done in the bible. Let me show you my question again:



In other words showing their value SPIRITUALLY.

Thank you.

It doesn't confirm nothing. Peter had been sent specifically by the Holy Spirit to teach them salvation. He never needed any other confirmation. The fact that he had a vision of the clean and unclean animals was enough.

nlMediator:


So many things are stated in the Bible as a matter of fact. Like Jesus telling Zacchaeus that salvation has come to his house. To you it may not be a confirmation of anything, because the word 'confirm' is not used. To me it confirms that all types of sinners, including tax collectors can be saved. You're free to see the Word as you choose.

vooks:
It doesn't confirm nothing. Peter had been sent specifically by the Holy Spirit to teach them salvation. He never needed any other confirmation. The fact that he had a vision of the clean and unclean animals was enough.

Ha ha, but Peter was sent by God to preach to Cornelius' household and you agreed it was confirmation when the Holy Ghost fell on them? You're withdrawing that now? In fact, Peter himself saw that as confirmation and said so. That's also what convinced the apostles that were not there with him when he narrated the story to them. The vision served its purpose in making him go there but what happened there was what confirmed it to him. As I said earlier, feel free to believe what you want.

Acts 15:8-9 (ESV)
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith


Actually, the Holy Spirit confirmed to them not Peter. Anyway, don't push your meanings onto scriptures. Numbers. can mean anything and at best they show effectiveness of what you are doing not the accuracy of your doctrine.

Cheers bro

nlMediator:


Ha ha, but Peter was sent by God to preach to Cornelius' household and you agreed it was confirmation when the Holy Ghost fell on them? You're withdrawing that now? In fact, Peter himself saw that as confirmation and said so. That's also what convinced the apostles that were not there with him when he narrated the story to them. The vision served its purpose in making him go there but what happened there was what confirmed it to him. As I said earlier, feel free to believe what you want.