vooks:
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

Yes, it may show effectiveness of what you're doing consistent with doctrine. Not always. But not never, either.

And you're quoting the wrong Scriptures. The right place to look is Acts 10 and Acts 11.

Acts 10:44-47:

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

And in Acts 11:15-18, it was confirmation to Peter and those not present:

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

My brother,
I gave you a clear verse where none other than Peter says God bore them witness and you reject it? Note it was Peter recounting this episode again. I regard it and Paul's conversion special for the several times they are repeated in Acts.

What do you do when you preach to a sinner and lead them to repentance? Do you wait until they recieve the Holy Spirit to 'confirm' anything? We have believers who never received Holy Spirit yet they are regarded as believers. Walk in faith man

nlMediator:


Yes, it may show effectiveness of what you're doing consistent with doctrine. Not always. But not never, either.

And you're quoting the wrong Scriptures. The right place to look is Acts 10 and Acts 11.

Acts 10:44-47:

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

And in Acts 11:15-18, it was confirmation to Peter and those not present:

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

vooks:
My brother,
I gave you a clear verse where none other than Peter says God bore them witness and you reject it? Note it was Peter recounting this episode again. I regard it and Paul's conversion special for the several times they are repeated in Acts.
What do you do when you preach to a sinner and lead them to repentance? Do you wait until they recieve the Holy Spirit to 'confirm' anything? We have believers who never received Holy Spirit yet they are regarded as believers. Walk in faith man

You are intentionally misunderstanding him. Peter got the confirmation of their salvation by the Acts 10&11 accounts. This was before he narrated Acts 15. Why does it matter? Because up to that point, the Jews believed the gift of the Holy Spirit was for them only. So in seeing the Gentiles receive that same gift, they were certain they were saved.

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 didn't see anything of the sort. But let us assume it existed as you said it, isn't it contained in the law? I said the law and it's ordinances were put away. Everyone knows that. That's why we are talking about specific things that were done pre-law and in which nothing replaces them in the NT. The Abrahamic covenant was not cancelled.

GOD BORE THEM WITNESS. Care to explain that?

Peter had a vision,was instructed by Holy Spirit to accompany the messengers,he had heard how he was supposed to deliver a message by which thy would be saved, he had it coming. His message was not indefinite, he would have finished and baptized them.......

This is a minor point. Let it rest, we have bigger fights ahead my broda

mbaemeka:


You are intentionally misunderstanding him. Peter got the confirmation of their salvation by the Acts 10&11 accounts. This was before he narrated Acts 15. Why does it matter? Because up to that point, the Jews believed the gift of the Holy Spirit was for them only. So in seeing the Gentiles receive that same gift, they were certain they were saved.

mbaemeka:

You are intentionally misunderstanding him. Peter got the confirmation of their salvation by the Acts 10&11 accounts. This was before he narrated Acts 15. Why does it matter? Because up to that point, the Jews believed the gift of the Holy Spirit was for them only. So in seeing the Gentiles receive that same gift, they were certain they were saved.

Thank you o jare! His rigmarole was getting frustrating. Glad he has seen the light now!?!

vooks:
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?

1. That covenant still exists. Again I ask: what was the usefulness of the covenant in the past?

2. Moot sir. It is clear as day. Paul did it because he didn't want Timothy to be ostracised by the Jews. The same Jews would have done it to Titus but they didn't because Paul took him in the presence of James and co in Jerusalem (who didn't mind that he wasn't circumcised). And you are wrong again about the Nazirite vow. It had fleshly value and that is why Paul honored it. It is similar to a christian that borrows money from his fellow christian friend and then refuses to Pay saying 'it means nothing to my salvation'.

So it is pleonastic to keep telling us that circumcision added nothing to salvation. We never said it did. But one can benefit from it physically and that is in itself valueable.

3. Bland. We never said Paul was uncomfortable with any uncircumcised man. In 1 Corinthians 7 he said if you were uncircumcised before you received Christ, you don't need to be circumcised after and if otherwise, the same remains.

4. a)That was Canaan and not Israel and yes, it is forever owned by Abraham and his seed till date.

b) Exodus 40:15 didn't say the Aaronic priesthood will last forever. It said Aarons sons will be the only priests of God's people. How do I know? 2 reasons; 1) other translations like CEV and 2) in Hebrews 7, Paul said when God swore that Jesus will be a priest forever he didn't say it like he had done so about Aaron and the levites meaning you, like the Jews, misunderstood what God was saying in Exodus and Numbers and Hebrews 7 aptly proves it.

5. You were not commanded to do anything and Paul doing it suffices nothing my friend. Didn't you just claim that Paul observed a Nazirite vow even though it meant nothing? Didn't Paul not stay unmarried? Does it mean they had spiritual implications? NO.

The 3 ways God told us to praise and worship him in the NT are very clear. We are to lift up holy hands without fear and wrath; We are to sing Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs while making melody in our hearts unto God; We are to worship God with the fruit of our lips praising his name. Full stop.

Clapping doesn't mean praise or worship spiritually. Kneeling doesn't mean it spiritually as well. If they did, then people who clap in football games are praising God and those who kneel are worshiping him as well. Clapping and kneeling are fleshly like shutting our eyes. It makes us concentrate; it shows physical obeisance and reverence BUT they are of ZERO SPIRITUAL VALUE. So understand that NOT EVERYTHING we do is spiritual and it doesn't make it wrong nonetheless.

Gombs:


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?

It is not a verse i gave you. I gave you a whole chapter to look at but as usual you just glanced through and yet hope to get something without giving attention to details.

mbaemeka:


I didn't see anything of the sort. But let us assume it existed as you said it, isn't it contained in the law? I said the law and it's ordinances were put away. Everyone knows that. That's why we are talking about specific things that were done pre-law and in which nothing replaces them in the NT. The Abrahamic covenant was not cancelled.

You both should see these for starters;
These are from the ESV

Leviticus 23: 14
And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 23:21
And you shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall hold a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.

Leviticus 23:31
You shall not do any work. It is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.


Even when you go back to Leviticus 16 the same things are found all over.

PS -
So maybe you can now answer my question:
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

You ignored my question(s)

1. Is a Christian Jew under ANY obligation to be circumcised?

2. You read too much between the lines. Paul was not saving Timothy from ostracization,Timothy a half-Jew was under no obligation to be circumcised. This came right after the Council so it is least likely the Circumcision party could have targeted a Christian for the very thing that had been ruled. Paul was avoiding his detractors unsaved Jews, the same guys who later accused him of taking a Gentile, Tophimus to the temple

3. It is your team that claims that circumcision has some value though it don't add righteousness nor save nobody. Gombs claim it is a means of identifying with the promise. That's garbage hopefully his and not CE because, such residual purposes were not sufficient to persuade Paul to circumcise Gentiles. Please let's stop word plays; when I say worthless, you know well exactly what I mean; ZERO religious value

4. Israel clings to an extremely small fraction of what Abraham was promised and you can bet in the next 3,000 years if Christ tarried,that won't change.

Exodus 40. Let's drop word play with (per)versions. Let's go Hebrews and ask us if the word EVERLASTING is used with regard to Aaronic priesthood. Can the word be qualified?
The Jews MISUNDERSTOOD? Prove from scriptures that Abrahamic covenant is eternal, and while at it tell me whether a Jew is still under the circumcision obligation

About kneeling and clapping. I find it decidedly convenient that you insist on NT yet when it comes to tithing, you excavate dead things in Genesis to prove a point.

Clapping is a command from God, it is as spiritual as lifting hands. That hands can be lifted without spiritual value don't mean lifting them is no spiritual. You can do better than argue absurdities.

I will dig more on kneeling.

Circumcision is not only of ZERO spiritual value, it is of NO religious value, none whatsoever to a believer. Any value you ascribe to it is a measure of your creative imagination that escaped Paul and the Holy Spirit

mbaemeka:


1. That covenant still exists. Again I ask: what was the usefulness of the covenant in the past?

2. Moot sir. It is clear as day. Paul did it because he didn't want Timothy to be ostracised by the Jews. The same Jews would have done it to Titus but they didn't because Paul took him in the presence of James and co in Jerusalem (who didn't mind that he wasn't circumcised). And you are wrong again about the Nazirite vow. It had fleshly value and that is why Paul honored it. It is similar to a christian that borrows money from his fellow christian friend and then refuses to Pay saying 'it means nothing to my salvation'.

So it is pleonastic to keep telling us that circumcision added nothing to salvation. We never said it did. But one can benefit from it physically and that is in itself valueable.

3. Bland. We never said Paul was uncomfortable with any uncircumcised man. In 1 Corinthians 7 he said if you were uncircumcised before you received Christ, you don't need to be circumcised after and if otherwise, the same remains.

4. a)That was Canaan and not Israel and yes, it is forever owned by Abraham and his seed till date.

b) Exodus 40:15 didn't say the Aaronic priesthood will last forever. It said Aarons sons will be the only priests of God's people. How do I know? 2 reasons; 1) other translations like CEV and 2) in Hebrews 7, Paul said when God swore that Jesus will be a priest forever he didn't say it like he had done so about Aaron and the levites meaning you, like the Jews, misunderstood what God was saying in Exodus and Numbers and Hebrews 7 aptly proves it.

5. You were not commanded to do anything and Paul doing it suffices nothing my friend. Didn't you just claim that Paul observed a Nazirite vow even though it meant nothing? Didn't Paul not stay unmarried? Does it mean they had spiritual implications? NO.

The 3 ways God told us to praise and worship him in the NT are very clear. We are to lift up holy hands without fear and wrath; We are to sing Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs while making melody in our hearts unto God; We are to worship God with the fruit of our lips praising his name. Full stop.

Clapping doesn't mean praise or worship spiritually. Kneeling doesn't mean it spiritually as well. If they did, then people who clap in football games are praising God and those who kneel are worshiping him as well. Clapping and kneeling are fleshly like shutting our eyes. It makes us concentrate; it shows physical obeisance and reverence BUT they are of ZERO SPIRITUAL VALUE. So understand that NOT EVERYTHING we do is spiritual and it doesn't make it wrong nonetheless.

mbaemeka:
So many words, nothing said.

Meanwhile, I am here laughing at the Palongo dancers.

^^^
Yinmu, yeye de smell
What you going to do at the Atilogwu dancers?
Cackle?

vooks:
You ignored my question(s)

1. Is a Christian Jew under ANY obligation to be circumcised?

You have NEVER asked this question before and my answer is still NO. Now please answer my question: what was the usefulness of circumcision in the past?

2. You read too much between the lines. Paul was not saving Timothy from ostracization,Timothy a half-Jew was under no obligation to be circumcised. This came right after the Council so it is least likely the Circumcision party could have targeted a Christian for the very thing that had been ruled. Paul was avoiding his detractors unsaved Jews, the same guys who later accused him of taking a Gentile, Tophimus to the temple

Awww, Men. This is nonsense. Pure Jews didn't even want anyone bar Jews to be circumcised. How would they then be expecting Paul to circumcise a Gentile? They could careless about Christianity as a whole let alone who is or not circumcised. On the other hand they accused Paul of taking Trophimus into the SYNAGOGUE because according to the law, NON-JEWS weren't allowed to go in to the place of worship. This is totally unconnected to Christianity.

3. It is your team that claims that circumcision has some value though it don't add righteousness nor save nobody. Gombs claim it is a means of identifying with the promise. That's garbage hopefully his and not CE because, such residual purposes were not sufficient to persuade Paul to circumcise Gentiles. Please let's stop word plays; when I say worthless, you know well exactly what I mean; ZERO religious value

Bogus point again. Nobody ever claimed circumcision had any religious or spiritual value but it had a fleshly one. You even claimed it was useful before but have since evaded my questions asking you what it's usefulness was before. As per the emboldened, not only did Gombs say it, I did too.

Romans 2:25King James Version (KJV)
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law:

Circumcision was not the covenant God had with Abraham. God had a covenant with Abraham and gave promises in Genesis 12 & 15, and then circumcision became the seal of that promise, similar to a wedding ring which is not the marriage but a sign of the marriage. It shows that the woman or man wearing the ring identifies with whomever they are married to.

Romans 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, [size=24pt]because that unto them were committed the oracles of God[/size].

This is what we have been saying ^^^.

So why did Paul not coerce anyone into being circumcised? Simple, because the seal of the NT is the Holy Spirit and he is all that matters SPIRITUALLY. But he never said circumcision was TOTALLY DISMISSED or what not- word play or not, it is spurios and specious and should be retracted.

4. Israel clings to an extremely small fraction of what Abraham was promised and you can bet in the next 3,000 years if Christ tarried,that won't change

Just like the Jews, you too are confused about the promise. Let me belabor it again. The promise about owning the WHOLE WORLD was given to Abraham and his seed and not SEEDS. That seed is Christ and we (the body of christ) are that body and seed/heir of the promise. I hope I don't need to show the scriptures clearly averring this.

Exodus 40. Let's drop word play with (per)versions. Let's go Hebrews and ask us if the word EVERLASTING is used with regard to Aaronic priesthood. Can the word be qualified?
The Jews MISUNDERSTOOD? Prove from scriptures that Abrahamic covenant is eternal, and while at it tell me whether a Jew is still under the circumcision obligation

All Jews still circumcise themselves till date. I believe your question is directed at Jewish Christians and NO they are not obligated/mandated to get circumcised anymore- doesn't mean they don't do it.

The Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT. We who are of faith are regarded as the REAL children of Abraham.

Galatians 3:14King James Version (KJV)
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The promises God made to Abraham is accessed by us via faith- faith in Jesus Christ. Meaning the agreement with Abraham is still intact. That is why we could usurp all the blessings from it by being in christ.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Albeit God made the covenant with a man, nobody can disannull it-not even you mate.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Even the LAW (which came years after) could not disannull the Abrahamic covenant.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This verse shows that the church is the SEED that God referred to in Genesis 17. So that rubbish talk about the covenant being for ISRAEL AND ISRAEL ALONE should be thrown away.

Acts 3:25King James Version (KJV)
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

If you don't get it after seeing this ^^ particular verse, you may not get it at all. Peter said the church (because we are the REAL SEED as shown from Galatians above) represents the children of the covenant- the one God made with ABRAHAM that his seed will be blessed. So how can anyone not see that this covenant is everlasting?

Again NOBODY is obligated to get circumcised anymore than they are obligated to wear a wedding ring. But you cannot claim the ring like the circumcision is COMPLETELY USELESS because it is not. It is only useless as a condition for salvation. Period.

Hebrews 7:21-24King James Version (KJV)
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

For Paul to tell his fellow Jews in this book that this man- Jesus, had an unchangeable priesthood which he got after the father swore that he will NEVER CHANGE HIS MIND concerning that. It means they (like you) "thought" the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods were everlasting- but they weren't.

About kneeling and clapping. I find it decidedly convenient that you insist on NT yet when it comes to tithing, you excavate dead things in Genesis to prove a point.

I didn't insist on nothing. It is only in the NT that we were pointed out to the spiritual part of worship hence why I referred you to it since we are discussing spiritual values of things done in the NT. In actual fact I never said anything about the NT. The assignment is open to ANY BOOK of the bible. Show me the spiritual value of kneeling and clapping.

Clapping is a command from God, it is as spiritual as lifting hands. That hands can be lifted without spiritual value don't mean lifting them is no spiritual. You can do better than argue absurdities.

The emboldened is absolute nonsense. You can do the needful and quote the relevant scriptures saying so. And that you related it to lifting of hands is even nauseatingly disingenuous. The blue font flew over me. Maybe you should rephrase it. I have mentioned the 3 things that God related to praise and worship in scriptures in the NT, you are just making the absurdities and accusing others of it. Can you remember why I mentioned kneeling and clapping to you? To show you that just like circumcision and co, there are many things we do in Christianity that have no spiritual value but they are not wrong all the same.

Circumcision is not only of ZERO spiritual value, it is of NO religious value, none whatsoever to a believer. Any value you ascribe to it is a measure of your creative imagination that escaped Paul and the Holy Spirit

Please just one quote from anyone on this thread that said circumcision has any spiritual value and if you cannot provide one then you are advised to stop employing it as diversionary tool. It is DOA.

trustman:


It is not a verse i gave you. I gave you a whole chapter to look at but as usual you just glanced through and yet hope to get something without giving attention to details.



You both should see these for starters;
These are from the ESV

Leviticus 23: 14
And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 23:21
And you shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall hold a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.

Leviticus 23:31
You shall not do any work. It is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.


Even when you go back to Leviticus 16 the same things are found all over.

PS -
So maybe you can now answer my question:
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

I have answered something similar to vooks. The law said throughout your generations like the Aaronic priesthood etc. They came with the law and went with the law. Abraham's covenant came pre-law, thus the law that came afterwards could not annull it.

Now answer Gombs' question: was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

A few facts.
1. Circumcision is not necessary for the Jew nor the Gentile. There is no requirement whatsoever to 'identify with the covenant' and there never has been. All the merits of circumcision are therefore nonexistent. wedding rings at least there is a tradition for those. There is no tradition for circumcision nowhere. A rite that was once a command, now deemed a burden,A rite Paul felt was unnecessary for Titus and one which he performed on Timothy out of pressure has zero value to nobody. God does not require any for of identifying with the covenant.


2. Circumcision was the true mark of a proselyte, a gentile convert to Judaism. Paul was accused of preventing the traditions of the Jews and if he walked with a circumcised Gentile, none of that would possibly be raised. Once again, the Council had just ruled that Gentiles needed not be circumcised. I don't see how they would still demand Timothy circumcision after this, that's why I stick to unsaved Jews. Any pressure to conform to Jewishness after Acts 15 could ONLY have come from unsaved Jews not circumcision party

3. The rest of your mishmash is unworthy of my response. Hope you don't mind

mbaemeka:


You have NEVER asked this question before and my answer is still NO. Now please answer my question: what was the usefulness of circumcision in the past?



Awww, Men. This is nonsense. Pure Jews didn't even want anyone bar Jews to be circumcised. How would they then be expecting Paul to circumcise a Gentile? They could careless about Christianity as a whole let alone who is or not circumcised. On the other hand they accused Paul of taking Trophimus into the SYNAGOGUE because according to the law, NON-JEWS weren't allowed to go in to the place of worship. This is totally unconnected to Christianity.



Bogus point again. Nobody ever claimed circumcision had any religious or spiritual value but it had a fleshly one. You even claimed it was useful before but have since evaded my questions asking you what it's usefulness was before. As per the emboldened, not only did Gombs say it, I did too.

Romans 2:25King James Version (KJV)
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law:

Circumcision was not the covenant God had with Abraham. God had a covenant with Abraham and gave promises in Genesis 12 & 15, and then circumcision became the seal of that promise, similar to a wedding ring which is not the marriage but a sign of the marriage. It shows that the woman or man wearing the ring identifies with whomever they are married to.

Romans 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, [size=24pt]because that unto them were committed the oracles of God[/size].

This is what we have been saying ^^^.

So why did Paul not coerce anyone into being circumcised? Simple, because the seal of the NT is the Holy Spirit and he is all that matters SPIRITUALLY. But he never said circumcision was TOTALLY DISMISSED or what not- word play or not, it is spurios and specious and should be retracted.



Just like the Jews, you too are confused about the promise. Let me belabor it again. The promise about owning the WHOLE WORLD was given to Abraham and his seed and not SEEDS. That seed is Christ and we (the body of christ) are that body and seed/heir of the promise. I hope I don't need to show the scriptures clearly averring this.



All Jews still circumcise themselves till date. I believe your question is directed at Jewish Christians and NO they are not obligated/mandated to get circumcised anymore- doesn't mean they don't do it.

The Abrahamic covenant gave birth to the NT. We who are of faith are regarded as the REAL children of Abraham.

Galatians 3:14King James Version (KJV)
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The promises God made to Abraham is accessed by us via faith- faith in Jesus Christ. Meaning the agreement with Abraham is still intact. That is why we could usurp all the blessings from it by being in christ.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Albeit God made the covenant with a man, nobody can disannull it-not even you mate.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Even the LAW (which came years after) could not disannull the Abrahamic covenant.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This verse shows that the church is the SEED that God referred to in Genesis 17. So that rubbish talk about the covenant being for ISRAEL AND ISRAEL ALONE should be thrown away.

Acts 3:25King James Version (KJV)
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

If you don't get it after seeing this ^^ particular verse, you may not get it at all. Peter said the church (because we are the REAL SEED as shown from Galatians above) represents the children of the covenant- the one God made with ABRAHAM that his seed will be blessed. So how can anyone not see that this covenant is everlasting?

Again NOBODY is obligated to get circumcised anymore than they are obligated to wear a wedding ring. But you cannot claim the ring like the circumcision is COMPLETELY USELESS because it is not. It is only useless as a condition for salvation. Period.

Hebrews 7:21-24King James Version (KJV)
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

For Paul to tell his fellow Jews in this book that this man- Jesus, had an unchangeable priesthood which he got after the father swore that he will NEVER CHANGE HIS MIND concerning that. It means they (like you) "thought" the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods were everlasting- but they weren't.



I didn't insist on nothing. It is only in the NT that we were pointed out to the spiritual part of worship hence why I referred you to it since we are discussing spiritual values of things done in the NT. In actual fact I never said anything about the NT. The assignment is open to ANY BOOK of the bible. Show me the spiritual value of kneeling and clapping.



The emboldened is absolute nonsense. You can do the needful and quote the relevant scriptures saying so. And that you related it to lifting of hands is even nauseatingly disingenuous. The blue font flew over me. Maybe you should rephrase it. I have mentioned the 3 things that God related to praise and worship in scriptures in the NT, you are just making the absurdities and accusing others of it. Can you remember why I mentioned kneeling and clapping to you? To show you that just like circumcision and co, there are many things we do in Christianity that have no spiritual value but they are not wrong all the same.



Please just one quote from anyone on this thread that said circumcision has any spiritual value and if you cannot provide one then you are advised to stop employing it as diversionary tool. It is DOA.

Good morning folks, great resd all through. Mba, your last post was very very on point so much so that it should be a commentary. Weldone.

Meanwhile, a quick devotion.

Born Victorious . - Saturday, November 29th .

Pastor Chris

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith (1 John 5:4).

There’s a higher life in Christ—a spiritual life to which we've been called, as Christians. We’re not ordinary. We were made to look like God, and to function like Him. We’ve been built with possibilities within our system. We‘re not in this world as victims; we were born victorious.

In Genesis, when God made man, the Bible says He gave him dominion over all things (Genesis 1:28). He gave us a life that’s superior, not only to the circumstances of life and the forces of nature, but also to spiritual beings of evil—Satan and his cohorts. Why then do some Christians still live as ordinary men,instead of living victoriously everyday? The reason is their ignorance of the Word: “They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness….I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:5-6).

Thanks be unto God. Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). The truth is, now that you're born again, now that you're in Christ, you're a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Whereas you were defeated and lived as a victim before you came to Christ, all that is history now. Today, with Christ alive in you, nothing can put you down; you’re a victor for life!

It doesn’t matter what your experience in life has been; it doesn’t matter how long you might have suffered or been in darkness; light has come to you now. Truth has been unveiled: the truth about what God has done for you, in you, and with you in Christ Jesus. Get to know who you are in Him.

Study, meditate on, and keep proclaiming, the Word, because the Word of God unveils our victorious life in Christ. You were born a victor. You were born to have dominion. You were born to live the superior life, and live triumphantly everyday.

Confession...
Dear Father, I thank you for giving me a life that’s superior to Satan, the circumstances of life, the economic conditions of this world and other problems that ruin people’s lives. I was born to have dominion, and to live a superior life, because the greater One lives in me. I’m a victor in Christ Jesus, now and always. Halleluiah!

Now, thatnwas refreshing.

Vooksm you see why we ain't ordinary? We're not mere men!

mbaemeka:


I have answered something similar to vooks. The law said throughout your generations like the Aaronic priesthood etc. They came with the law and went with the law. Abraham's covenant came pre-law, thus the law that came afterwards could not annull it.

Now answer Gombs' question: was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

Your response has not really answered the question.
BTW, i already answered Gombs when i pointed him to my response to another post by
i think Goshen360 on the issue.

vooks:
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?

What do I have to do to get you off my back? Desist from associating my moniker with your ignorance.

Get behind me Satan. I told you, light has no fellowship with darkness

sonOfLucifer:

What do I have to do to get you off my back? Desist from associating my moniker with your ignorance.

vooks:
A few facts.
1. Circumcision is not necessary for the Jew nor the Gentile. There is no requirement whatsoever to 'identify with the covenant' and there never has been. All the merits of circumcision are therefore nonexistent. wedding rings at least there is a tradition for those. There is no tradition for circumcision nowhere. A rite that was once a command, now deemed a burden,A rite Paul felt was unnecessary for Titus and one which he performed on Timothy out of pressure has zero value to nobody. God does not require any for of identifying with the covenant.
2. Circumcision was the true mark of a proselyte, a gentile convert to Judaism. Paul was accused of preventing the traditions of the Jews and if he walked with a circumcised Gentile, none of that would possibly be raised. Once again, the Council had just ruled that Gentiles needed not be circumcised. I don't see how they would still demand Timothy circumcision after this, that's why I stick to unsaved Jews. Any pressure to conform to Jewishness after Acts 15 could ONLY have come from unsaved Jews not circumcision party
3. The rest of your mishmash is unworthy of my response. Hope you don't mind

1. Hogwash. Can't repeat myself.

2. More Hogwash. What would unsaved Jews gain by demanding circumcision from someone who was a believer in something totally antitethical to their own beliefs. This makes no iota of sense. Just stick to the scriptures.

3. Hahahaha really funny bit. At least you won't go anywhere else to assert that circumcision is TOTALLY DISMISSED AGAIN.

PS: you didn't answer ANY of my questions but I understand why. . .

trustman:


Your response has not really answered the question.
BTW, i already answered Gombs when i pointed him to my response to another post by
i think Goshen360 on the issue.

In summary, was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

mbaemeka:


In summary, was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel only. God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation.

Now that you've got my answer I await yours to my question:
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?

trustman:

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel only. God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation.
Now that you've got my answer I await yours to my question:
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?

Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

1. You have learnt. Thanks

2. The same reason they accused him of perverting their traditions.

3. Dismissed vs totally dismissed nonsense, it has no value. Educate Gombs on the idiocy of 'identifying with the promises'

4. Spare me mishmash and I will gladly respond

mbaemeka:


1. Hogwash. Can't repeat myself.

2. More Hogwash. What would unsaved Jews gain by demanding circumcision from someone who was a believer in something totally antitethical to their own beliefs. This makes no iota of sense. Just stick to the scriptures.

3. Hahahaha really funny bit. At least you won't go anywhere else to assert that circumcision is TOTALLY DISMISSED AGAIN.

PS: you didn't answer ANY of my questions but I understand why. . .

So the generations have ceased and we no longer have Jews? Brilliant

mbaemeka:


Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. [/b]He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

Now that Christ has come [b]those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

mbaemeka:


Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

I may respond more fully to your post.

But for now let me give you additional information that may help you appreciate things better.

Let me make it clearer: circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17).  This covenant was later extended to Abraham's descendants through Isaac (Genesis 17:19).  Not including Ishmael but only Isaac (Genesis 17:21). In Genesis 26 God again reestablished the oath he made to Abraham with Isaac. And then with Jacob who was renamed Israel (Genesis 35). The twelve sons of Jacob later became the NATION ISRAEL. God again reinstated his covenant with the nation Israel (Exodus 22,19,ff).  
God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation. Only Israel was his special people. Circumcision was therefore a sign between God and his special people alone. Anyone other people who wished to identify with Israel under the covenant had to be circumcised.

vooks:
1. You have learnt. Thanks
2. The same reason they accused him of perverting their traditions.
3. Dismissed vs totally dismissed nonsense, it has no value. Educate Gombs on the idiocy of 'identifying with the promises'
4. Spare me mishmash and I will gladly respond

Your case is pathetic. Is any Christian not perverting Jewish tradition? Did Peter not also pervert Jewish traditions? Haha ha. Tell us if it wasn't Christian Jews that attacked Peter. The most inane remark I have seen on this issue is that 'unsaved Jews' would attack Paul for not circumcising gentiles. People Paul referred to as 'Men from James' in his writ to the Galatians.

I also thought you claimed circumcision was valueless in all ramifications? Did Paul not say it still had value? I thought you said it was dismissed in any form whatsoever? Did Paul agree with you?

As per mishmash, as it pleases you. Any scripture that exposes the flaw in any area of your beliefs is mishmash. It is the usual stock-in-trade of those who cannot learn.

vooks:

So the generations have ceased and we no longer have Jews? Brilliant

Fallacy of reducing facts to your own ill-conceived absurdities. Whatever I was referring to there had to with whatever thing God said would thrive during THEIR generations so I wonder how you reduced it to Jews.

All because you made a totally unbiblical remark that the seal of the Abrahamic covenant (and therefore the covenant itself) was TOTALLY DISMISSED.

trustman:


I may respond more fully to your post.

But for now let me give you additional information that may help you appreciate things better.

Let me make it clearer: circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17).  This covenant was later extended to Abraham's descendants through Isaac (Genesis 17:19).  Not including Ishmael but only Isaac (Genesis 17:21). In Genesis 26 God again reestablished the oath he made to Abraham with Isaac. And then with Jacob who was renamed Israel (Genesis 35). The twelve sons of Jacob later became the NATION ISRAEL. God again reinstated his covenant with the nation Israel (Exodus 22,19,ff).  
God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation. Only Israel was his special people. Circumcision was therefore a sign between God and his special people alone. Anyone other people who wished to identify with Israel under the covenant had to be circumcised. 

Many things are right with this post but let me show you the absolute lies:

1. Ishmael was circumscised Genesis 17:23 and he was NOT ISRAEL OR CONNECTED TO ISRAEL IN ANY WAY.

2.The covenant was between God and Abraham concerning Abraham and his SEED which referred anyone that hailed from or was connected to him. Paul said that SEED was Christ and his church (present day) and we are still connected to him according to Galatians 3.

I however, do agree with last aspect of your write-up. The anyone who wished to identify with the COVENANT and not ISRAEL had to be circumcised. It is a fleshly way of saying I am part of the Abrahamic covenant. Look at the proof. Period. Nobody ever said it was spiritually valuable.

mbaemeka:


Your case is pathetic. Is any Christian not perverting Jewish tradition? Did Peter not also pervert Jewish traditions? Haha ha. Tell us if it wasn't Christian Jews that attacked Peter. The most inane remark I have seen on this issue is that 'unsaved Jews' would attack Paul for not circumcising gentiles. People Paul referred to as 'Men from James' in his writ to the Galatians.

I also thought you claimed circumcision was valueless in all ramifications? Did Paul not say it still had value? I thought you said it was dismissed in any form whatsoever? Did Paul agree with you?

As per mishmash, as it pleases you. Any scripture that exposes the flaw in any area of your beliefs is mishmash. It is the usual stock-in-trade of those who cannot learn.

I see you've met vooks! Redundancy and self inflicted confusion

trustman:


I may respond more fully to your post.

But for now let me give you additional information that may help you appreciate things better.

Let me make it clearer: circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17).  This covenant was later extended to Abraham's descendants through Isaac (Genesis 17:19).  Not including Ishmael but only Isaac (Genesis 17:21). In Genesis 26 God again reestablished the oath he made to Abraham with Isaac. And then with Jacob who was renamed Israel (Genesis 35). The twelve sons of Jacob later became the NATION ISRAEL. God again reinstated his covenant with the nation Israel (Exodus 22,19,ff).  
God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation. Only Israel was his special people. Circumcision was therefore a sign between God and his special people alone. Anyone other people who wished to identify with Israel under the covenant had to be circumcised. 

I wish you cannsee how you keep shooting your foot. Started well, then ended up innthe ditch.

mbaemeka[quote]

[quote]Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

My previous reply to your post has answered part of your issue here. You must have seen the progression in the specifics of God’s covenant. It is clear from the following passages that the covenant God made with Abraham extended to and included his descendants (through the promise):
Genesis 15: 18 – “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,”

Genesis 17: 7, 10, 19, 21 – “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
“This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.”
“God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.”
“But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

My take is that you are mixing up issues here. You are confusing the initial declarations God made on his covenant with Abraham and the declaration God made after Abraham responded in faith to God’s command to offer Isaac up as a burnt offering in Genesis 22:18.

After the patriarchs, the nation Israel became God’s focal point regarding his dealings with mankind. Circumcision which was the physical sign of the covenant also came into the Law for Israel’s observance. The Law now embodied all that Israel had to do in relation to God’s covenant with them.

So, when Paul was highlighting this issue in the book of Galatians he did not need to go back to Abraham but to the Law. And so he could say in Gal. 5: 2-4, 6:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

Any insistence on circumcision as a necessity for ANYTHING in the spiritual life of the Christian amounts to being “burdened again by a yoke of slavery” Galatians 5:1.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

The passages I pasted clearly said ‘forever’ and ‘throughout your generations’. Even if you argue that the ‘forever’ may not be equivalent to ‘eternity’ because some translations use ‘lasting’ in its place, putting them together definitely imply that as long as Israel exists they are bound to keep those statutes.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

If, like you said, Christ has come to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant, it therefore means then that just as Christ came to fulfill the Law and as a result it no longer stands binding for the Christian, then his fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant equally makes the Christian free of any physical obligation of that covenant since Christ has fulfilled them all.

mbaemeka[quote]

Many things are right with this post but let me show you the absolute lies:

1. Ishmael was circumscised Genesis 17:23 and he was NOT ISRAEL OR CONNECTED TO ISRAEL IN ANY WAY.

2.The covenant was between God and Abraham concerning Abraham and his SEED which referred anyone that hailed from or was connected to him. Paul said that SEED was Christ and his church (present day) and we are still connected to him according to Galatians 3.

I however, do agree with last aspect of your write-up. The anyone who wished to identify with the COVENANT and not ISRAEL had to be circumcised. It is a fleshly way of saying I am part of the Abrahamic covenant. Look at the proof. Period. Nobody ever said it was spiritually valuable.

Look again at Genesis 17:18-21
"And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19 God said, “[size=14pt]No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son[/size], and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”
Even though Ishmael as well as others in Abraham's household were circumcised the COVENANT [/b]was only going to pass down through Isaac.
God clearly stated here too that He would establish his covenant [b]with Isaac and his "offspring after him"
Grammatically the "seed" can be a collective noun. So in Genesis you see it referring to not only Abraham but his descendants.
The fact that God reiterated in the above portion that he would establish his covenant with Abraham's children is instructive for this.

Paul was the MOST influential perverter. Of course everybody did but you can't possibly explain why Paul persecutions were overboard otherwise can you? Who told you the men from James were any threat to Peter? Peter THOUGHT / IMAGINED so and he misbehaved accordingly. Nobody tells you they were pro-circumcision. In fact if they were pro-circumcision, Paul would have rebuked them plus Peter. He just rebuked Peter because Peter was the ONLY confused guy

Any value you see in circumcision, Paul must have missed it by suffering Gentile Christian Titus and others to go uncircumcised

Am not God, I work on coherent questions and thought processes. You know that

mbaemeka:


Your case is pathetic. Is any Christian not perverting Jewish tradition? Did Peter not also pervert Jewish traditions? Haha ha. Tell us if it wasn't Christian Jews that attacked Peter. The most inane remark I have seen on this issue is that 'unsaved Jews' would attack Paul for not circumcising gentiles. People Paul referred to as 'Men from James' in his writ to the Galatians.

I also thought you claimed circumcision was valueless in all ramifications? Did Paul not say it still had value? I thought you said it was dismissed in any form whatsoever? Did Paul agree with you?

As per mishmash, as it pleases you. Any scripture that exposes the flaw in any area of your beliefs is mishmash. It is the usual stock-in-trade of those who cannot learn.

My brother,
Quit dancing around your confusion.
1. Define generations
2. Explain when generations ceased

mbaemeka:


Fallacy of reducing facts to your own ill-conceived absurdities. Whatever I was referring to there had to with whatever thing God said would thrive during THEIR generations so I wonder how you reduced it to Jews.

All because you made a totally unbiblical remark that the seal of the Abrahamic covenant (and therefore the covenant itself) was TOTALLY DISMISSED.