₦airaland Forum

Thank you. if you notice, I asked on a Christian. Am not interested in the physical. So can we say that ceteris paribus a circumcised Christian is in NO way privilleged over the non-circumcised in any spiritual sense?

mbaemeka:
Yes in a fleshly, physical and even medical standpoints but not in Spiritual terms like Righteousness or Right standing with God.

Do Christians NEED circumcision to identify with Abraham's covenant?

Gombs:
Not Exactly. It did not make us right before God, but it was a sign of the covenant, it was for all generations. It was a sign in the flesh to mean you identify with that covenant. You must have also missed what I wrote

Does circumcision avail ANYTHING in a Christian?

mbaemeka:
Paul said circumcision avails nothing. . .when it comes to the NEW CREATION. That's what he meant. So it is redundant to ask me what blessings I get from it spiritually. I can also ask you what you gain from not indulging in sexual immorality or from strangled animal.

1. The same can only be effected through parting male believers with their foreskins?

2. Paul circumcised because he was PRESSURED by Circumcision because of his assignment which entailed mingling with Gentiles. It proves at best that Circumcision was a deadly affair during his time. Judaizers practicing and enforcing what Moses/Abraham gave them is no proof of no-annulment.

3. The principle behind Freewill offerings is worshiping God with your substance. Not all were animal so the blood theory is pretty moot. Thank you for proving my point; you don't need to carry out a Mosaic/pre-Mosaic practice in its FORM to realize the principle behind it
Besides, why do you think NOBODY has EVER offered animal sacrifices alongside their money as Freewill offerings in Christendom?

mbaemeka:
1. It is a fleshly way of saying 'I am an heir of the promise'. Period.

2. I never said Paul circumcised to prove anything. I said by still circumcising he proved that it had not been annulled. I also stated that circumcision availed nothing in terms of righteousness.

3. What was the principle behind animal sacrifices? The blood for sin and the body burnt as a form of worship. Even if you are referring to freewill offerings we still give them today in form of money and other things. It didn't change.

4.

My brother,
Under Moses, God required BOTH heart and physical circumcision. I shared the heart verses earlier. Here they are again;

Deut 10:16 (ESV)
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. 17 F
Deut 30:6 (ESV)
6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live

This means the circumcision of the heart is not peculiar to Christians. Now, and in plainest terms, is there any VALUE in physical male circumcision on Christians?

Gombs:
You must have missed this. Read slowly please. The colored is what I am saying in summary. Go back and see what I wtore about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart.

I have observed some sect members terribly embarrassed of some of their teachings. They resisted admitting that Malachi curses are rained on non-tithers. mbaemeka was bold enough to say Christian non-tithers are NOT robbers.

On this topic, I need Gombs telling us whether he prescribes male circumcision to new uncircumcised believers in order to admit them to Abrahamic covenant/blessings. A few posts earlier, he found it funny that I questioned the VALUE of circumcision to a Christian. It is quite possible they teach this at Christ Embassy.

Goshen360:
Of course non. That's what people like Gombs are trying to do. Instead of teaching the fulfillment to that sign of circumcision by hand which is the spiritual and of the heart, not by hand. He's here twisting and arguing rubbish. These guys greatly pervert scriptures and twist it for any reason.

Circumcision was not annulled.
What is the benefit of this circumcision to a Christian? Should a new believer part with his foreskin since it was not annulled?

Gombs:
Vooks, go and sleep please. Circumcision was not annulled, if it were, the covenant will be ineffective too. Your theory that all pre mosaic acts were anulled are only a figment of your wild imagination. Thanks.

Thank you for your counsel. I hope and pray you have better tongues and wisdom than me and you won't hesitate to share the nuggets you download from your crater closet. Once again, thank you for your wise counsel.

Are you saying that Christians are ONLY admitted to Abrahamic covenant/blessings by physical male circumcision?

Gombs:
Bobo, I think you should go speak in other tongues. You need wisdom. A Ship load of it.

Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart.

Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.

The underlined are the Gentiles. You are a gentile, so am I.... ever wonder how we became part of that Covenant?

Do we have some Christian sects teaching the NECESSITY of circumcision for believers, or some spiritual merits of the same?

Goshen360:
Ask yourself this question:

When you come to Christ, DO YOU DO CIRCUMCISION BY HAND LIKE ABRAHAM AS A TOKEN OF THE NEW COVENANT? If what you're saying is true.

My brother,
I highly recommend you do private study of ALL the NT occurrences of the word CIRCUMCISION with a bias towards Pauline epistles especially Romans.

Please read this argument from Romans 4

[b]Romans 4:1-9 (ESV)
​1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For 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, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.[/b]

The thrust is Abraham Believed and was imputed with righteousness while still uncircumcised therefore he is the father of the uncircumcised as well. Circumcision sealed what he had already received but did not earn it

Gombs:
No mind them... they claim the seal of the covenant is annulled, does that not mean the covenant itself was annulled too consequentially?

Why would the same Paul teach that circumcision avails NOTHING?
Have you ever read Acts 15? Circumcision is a BURDEN the Holy Spirit deemed UNNECESSARY to lay on the Gentiles

Acts 15:28-29 (ESV)
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.

This means either the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision is a token is not for the Gentiles OR they can access the same without necessarily undergoing circumcision

Gombs:
Circumcision was a token of the covenant, the covenant/promise was to make Abraham the father of many nations and of many descendants and give "the whole land of Canaan" to his descendants.[Gen 17:2-9].

But you lied here. You said circumcision was annulled with the law, which in consequence means the covenant must have been annulled since it was the mark of the covenant you erroneously concluded was anulled. This is what bro Paul wrote, I believe him, not what you think or feel

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Notice the word THUS. The latter part was the consequence of annulment of circumcision which was a mark of the covenant.

Galatians 3:18 says the LAW did not annul the promise God gave to Abraham. This is highly irrelevant to the subject of this debate namely pre-Mosaic practices such as tithing,circumcision,animal sacrifices incorporated into the Law were annulled TOGETHER with the Law.

There is ONLY one reason why nobody offers animal sacrifices which predate Moses in Christendom and it is not because Christ sacrifice suffices. Christ sacrifice dealt away with SIN OFFERINGS (read Hebrews 9-10). It is because they were annulled together with the Law. Whatever 'principles' are to be had in these practices is realized by other means without the sacrifices. Pauline formula of giving without compulsion is certainly derived from these.

Gombs:
Galatians 3:18 did not agree with you. Thanks.

My brother,
You are insincere and you know why.

Did I miss something? Does Christ Embassy teach circumcision as a condition to Abrahamic blessings? I have never met any sect that did. That would be interesting to tear apart.

Mbaemeka has not answered the question that stupefied you. Let me repeat the question
1. Why don't you offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?
2. Is the 'eternal principle' in animal sacrifices,tithing and circumcision ONLY realizable by by doing these?

Gombs:
Mba weldone... I did not just wantbto give vooks these, for if he could not answer whether God revoked His covenant sealed with circumcision, after he's said all premmosaic principles were anulled.

It's a sure sign, that theee folks hardly know scripture,,no wonder he keeps saying 'I feel' 'I think' etc. I did not want to give him the Animal Sacrifice part, but you already did. Guess what he now said? He asked what the blessing of circumcision is? Yet, he claims Abraham’s blessings are his.

I try to ignore him, I guess I'd put in more effort.

Resident pharmacist, what do you prescribe today ?
Use the scriptures to refute the wisdom am sharing or shut up. Demolishing arguments is spiritual warfare

shdemidemi, how is this Lord's Day taking you?

Bidam:
You have tasted the guy's pomposity and arrogance as if he's the embodiment of all scriptural knowledge abi? Relax man! No need to get heated up over nothing.

1. Eternal Principles. Explain what blessing a Christian receives upon circumcision

2. Paul NEVER circumcised to fulfil nothing, it was simply getting the Circumcision party off his back. He was saying, 'this guy is circumcised, can you buzz off now?'. If Paul had a modicum of reverence for circumcision as an 'eternal' principle, he would have gladly circumcised ALL or many of his gentile partners. How many did he circumcise?

3. Principles Theory again. Does/MUST the Christian realize the principle behind animal sacrifices or circumcision ONLY by offering animal sacrifices or circumcising respectively?

4. The show-me-where-in-NT-it-was-annulled argument. Show me where Freewill animal offerings were annulled.
Note the animal sacrifices abrogated were those used as a means of dealing with sin, the red heifer,Azazel and so forth. Freewill offerings had nothing to do with sin

mbaemeka:
I have a feeling you are deliberately misunderstanding Gombs. There were a couple of things that God instituted to those who served him before the law that he still included in the law for regulation. Things like Tithes, firstfruits, circumcision, and offering of animal sacrifices. These things were eternal because God expected it (since time immemorial) of all his children whose hearts were unreceptive and unconditioned to obey him as such so he imputed it into the law to 'force' them to obey him. Even at that he placed the blessings for obeying them and the accompanying curses for doing otherwise.

Many years later, God's son came to die for mankind and by so doing he nailed the righteous requirements for following the law. This means that men could be numbered as part of God's folks regardless of their obedience to the law which God didn't set it aside per se. He let someone else fulfil it and then he accredited the success of that person's obedience to those who were to become part of his folk before he cancelled it.

Now the question is this; did the law that came years after the principles of God were instituted, annul ALL the principles even if those principles were still listed in the law that was cancelled? The answer is NO. The cancellation of the law was ONLY in respect to the righteous requirements from observing it and the concomitant curses for not doing so. The law or better still some of the principles in it were not cancelled in practice. A good example is circumcision that has been thrown about by both parties. Paul never said circumcision was to be done away with. He himself circumcised some gentile converts. Paul said circumcision was cancelled as a RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENT. Meaning that, whether I am circumcised or not, I am righteous in God's eyes as long as I believe in the death and resurrection of his son. But that didn't stop your parents from circumcising you and I am very sure it didn't stop you from circumcising your own male child (if you have any). So as you can see anyone who still circumcises himself is not amiss or following any mosaic law.

Another example is the animal sacrifices we have been making references to. What was the importance of animal sacrifices? The bible declares that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins so the blood from the sacrificed animals was a form of atonement for sin. If I wanted to be 'sinless' in God's eyes I had to make animal sacrifices to appease him for a time. Now by Jesus death and resurrection the bible unequivocally declares that the necessity for such animal sacrifices was done away with. Jesus blood was better than all such blood of bulls and goats in many regards and one of which was that those who offered such sacrifices had to keep doing them regularly to cover up for sin. In the case of Jesus he did so ONCE and for all times and he not only took away the guilt for sin but he took away the nature of sin and in turn offered RIGHTEOUSNESS to those who believed in him. This summarily means that the righteous requirements for offering animal sacrifices has not only been fulfilled in Jesus and has been DONE AWAY WITH. This is why we do not need to do so again.

In the aspect of Tithing, the bible stated that there was a blessing for observing it and also a curse for disobeying. This proves that there were righteous requirements for giving tithes in the past but when Jesus came he put away the righteous requirements of the tithes but he didn't put away the act just like he didn't do same for circumcision. This means I am not righteous or a christian because I tithe, neither am I cursed if I do not. But I can identify myself with the blessings of tithing that existed before the law and were espoused during the law without negative consequences of 'falling from grace' as long as I do not see it as a righteous requirement. For this very principle to be done away with like animal sacrifices the bible would have mentioned it like it did the latter. But the bible didn't. So I see it as equally disingenuous for anyone to stamp an authority over it and claim it has been annuled without proferring a single verse to buttress such a fact. Certainly, the bible didn't say "thou shalt continue tithing" but the bible didn't say the contrary. And what is interesting is how the same bible explained in lucid terms how the animal sacrifices were not only now unnecessary but that the very act should be abrogated. The bible also made mention of other practices and gave the same verdict but concerning circumcision for e.g, there is not a single verse saying it should be stopped- not one! All the bible said is that circumcision doesn't make anyone a child of God the

You are wise. The necessity for these confused forays into pre-Mosaic tithing is to escape the glaring differences between Mosaic tithing regime and the present 'monetary tithing'. For one, Jews tithed 22% per annum. Our self-righteous latter day Pharisees who 'thank God they are not as other men' boast of a paltry 10%.

In Pre-Mosaic offerings, we see animal sacrifices offered to God directly minus the priests' mediation. Can you imagine a crazed Paul teaching Gentiles how to personally offer lambs Abraham style reason being the Mosaic regime was annulled at Calvary and they are now 'free' to revert to Abraham by faith?

Candour:
@the bolded, pls forget all the lies. That is a later day diversion because folks have become wiser about it. Hear from the head honcho. He knows the tithe he preaches has nothing to do with Abraham but Moses

From Rhapsody of Realities



This is the true position. CEC believes a non tither is a ROBBER and you and i know where a robber will end up, don't we?

The only thing on my dashboard is Angry Bird dolls and parking ticket, no time nor space for spiritual BS.

If I left my iPad Air with the over 20 versions or so on the dashboard, trust an inspired thief to move heavens to get it

I find it decidedly convenient that of all pre-Mosaic practices, Christ Embassy sticks with tithing. They will not hesitate to remind you that it is an 'eternal principle' simply because it predates Moses. The reason is obvious, it is one doctrine from which they stand to immensely gain financially. How does circumcising males help their coffers? What about bloody animal sacrifices? They'd stain Oyak's Benny Hinn-esque wardrobe.

Sometimes back I debated with shdemidemi and debunked his 'speaking in an unknown tongue' is different from 'speaking in tongues' theory. He never responded. A week later, he resurfaces and aks me to define GRACE,WORKS and when GRACE was 'initiated'. He said upon answering these,he would respond to my rebuttal. I saw through his shenanigans and told him I was comfortable with whatever definition he believed in. In other words, I removed this condition to his response by AGREEING with him. He still refused to respond. So he won't educate me on GRACE and WORKS and he won't respond to me.

It is a classic strategy to kill an argument; put impossible pre-conditions to proceeding. Gombs wants to divert the debate to the Abrahamic covenant annulment. That's why for the sake of proceeding with the debate am prepared to work with whatever he thinks. With that out of the way, can he in the simplest words answer this;

How comes you don't offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

Goshen360:
Don't mind him, he's about to twist. That circumcision was explained in the NT, it wasn't a seal to cause God to do what he promised but a sign of new life in Christ, a result of transformation. If he's ready to argue that, then he should be ready to annul the NT too

Ok. You won't answer my question. You are conflicted and inconsistent in your appeal to pre-Mosaic practices. Sad.

Note my statement. ALL pre-Mosaic practices incorporated into Mosaic Law were annulled together with the rest of Mosaic Law. Examples are circumcision,tithing,animal offerings and so forth. This is WHY Christ Embassy never teaches pre-Mosaic animal sacrifices,circumcision but curiously enough, they retain tithing!

I don't know if the covenant was annulled or not. Educate me

Gombs:
I'm not interested in what you think or feel...give me scriptures. You haven't answered me but yet demand an answer? If I answer you now, you'd abandon my question and follow the answer in a desperate move to keep relevance.

Question is, did the covenant God sealed with circumcision, anulled too as you claimed all pre mosiac acts like tithing are annulled?

About rapture, we are in agreement.

About impact? I used Islam explosion to show you that influencing the most is not the only mark, it matters the content of what you are influencing them. Let me use scriptures;
Matthew 23:15 (ESV)
15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves..
Enough said.

What invariably happens when this discussion approaches a stalemate, somebody cheekily reminds us that the person you are discussing is doing far much 'greater' for Christ than you. Juxtapose this against Bereans examining Paul. They were nobodies exhibiting skepticism over a man who died daily,met Christ face to face and had the most glorious revelations of heavens. Are they crazy?

Oyaks used this line to silence rumors of his divorce. Am sure you watched him distinguishing a man of God from the wife of a man of God. This is a spiritualized argument from authority. Who should test Oyaks doctrines, somebody who has distributed millions of periodicals in over 500 languages? That is how unreasonable you sound in defending him by appealing to his 'labour of love'

nlMediator:
Thanks for making my point. Let anyone feel free to point out where WOFers were claiming that Jesus WILL return in their days. What I've seen christians - WOF or not - do over the years is to look at events around us and think the end is near. Sometimes, it evokes and invokes a sense of urgency that seeks to take the message of salvation to many people to save them before the opportunity is permanently lost. To make a false claim about WOF to satisfy some fanciful thoughts has become a pastime of some.

In terms of impact, you miss the point. First off, Islam does not come into the discussion. They do not win souls by preaching. They're growing by force, bribes or births. Second, Islam confirms that multitudes will choose the broad way. Choosing the broad way is different from widely disseminating your message.

At no time did Jesus want us to get the message only to a few people. He said the message will be preached to the end of the world before the end comes. Unlike those who link small crowds coming to hear them preach to Jesus' statement about the narrow way, Jesus said no such thing. His own ministry confirmed it. He had thousands coming to hear Him. His disciples got the message to thousands. They did not hide under any narrow way excuse. If your message is not getting to many, e.g., nobody is visiting your blog, it's not necessarily because narrow is the gate. It could be your message is nothing or you do not know how to get it across.

Narrow way simply means that you'll get to many, but only a few will accept. So, you can't use that as an excuse for explaining why you're not getting to many first and jumping to the fact that they did not choose you. Also, what is the definition of "few" and "narrow"? In a world of 7 billion and counting, 1 billion truly accepting Jesus is less than 20 percent. That's narrow, as it leaves 80 percent out, yet we're not anywhere near that. Or you guys think it's only narrow when only 1 percent accepts?

Finally, if you guys did not care about getting your message to many, why are you at NL that has a large audience? Why not find a small Naija-oriented site that reaches a few hundreds? That sure is narrow.

My brother,
I need to look that up first. It is more involving and has a bearing on the place of Israel in God. Paul spent three chapters of Romans tackling it. But my feeling,and I may be wrong, is the covenant with Abraham is fully realized in Christ meaning any descendant of Abraham coming to Christ no longer needs circumcision. Circumcision now is a mere cultural practice with ZERO spiritual implications on the male Jew.

I note you never answered my question. For the last time I will repeat it and allow me to judge your spirit condemned with inconsistency over appealing to pre-Mosaic practices if you won't answer the question.

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices Abraham style?

Gombs:
Ok, what about the covenant sealed with circumcision? Was it annulled too?

I have answered your question.
ALL preMosaic practices, circumcision,animal sacrifices,tithing... that were included in Moses were effectively annulled when Moses was annulled. So you can't revive any of those by claiming they are somewhat 'eternal' and that only their 'regulation' was annulled

Am circumcised sir. African way none the less. By the river without shedding no tear., no flinching.But I did that to fulfil my culture not because Abraham was told to go after foreskins

Gombs:
When you are ready to answer me...I'd Continue. It's ok if you can't. Meanwhile, aint you circumcised?



Pastor Chris is on stage. See you in hours time.

I am demonstrating the absurdity of clinging to a Mosaic practice simply because the same predated Moses. This is a popular argument by the tithing brigade. It goes like this; tithing may have been annulled together with other Laws but since it predates Moses, it an 'eternal' principle. So what was annulled was the regulations of this principle but the principle remains. This means a Christian tithing is not legalism or reverting back to the annulled Law

But those who use this line of argument are at pains to explain why they no longer circumcise as circumcision similarly predates Moses. Nor can they explain why they no longer offer animal sacrifices Abel,Noah or Abraham style without the Mosaic 'baggage of regulations'

My brother, you asked for simple answers and I did just that.
Let me repeat my question and I pray to Jesus that you will answer in like manner without sidestepping.

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

Gombs:
Bro, you said those that predated the law should be anullued, you didn't say why! Put the covenant in perspective, was it anullued too? God said it was permanent, and forever, from generation to generation. Did God lie by anulling the covenant sealed by circumcision?

Yes. The answer to your question is yes.

The Law merely gave regulations? Let's test that;
1. Animal sacrifices predate Moses by the longest.
2. The Law,according to you, 'merely' regulated animal sacrifices.
3. The Law/regulation governing animal sacrifices was annulled but animal sacrifices predating it remained

Why do you no longer offer animal sacrifices?

Gombs:
Good, they were and should be, because they came from their father, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The law merely gave regulations. Now that the law has been annulled, should those that predated it be annulled too?

Notice how I answered you. Answer me in like manner. Don't side step it if we are to continue as gentlemen.

Ad this is my main gripe with shdemidemi; inability or unwillingness to pursue his own statements or position to their (il)logical conclusion. You end up touching one too many many issues without ever solving any or educating each other. You basically talk past each other. Sometimes it is a defense mechanism to gloss over weak doctrines

BabaGnoni:
Thank you.

Seems you didn't want to give an example(s) of your understanding of an outpost

We need to milk this dry shdemidemi, need to squeeze and twist out all ounce of water in this, so that we dont leave ourselves in doubt(s)

OK with your understanding and in your own words, what is an embassy, and explain with example(s) if able to please.
Also, who sets up embassies, how, why and where about are embassies set up?

Tithing and circumcision predate the Law. Are both of these in the Law?

Gombs:
The law. Are tithing and circumcision having origin under the law?

My brother,
What was annulled in that verse?

Gombs:
Younare really funny! You quoted a verse trying to anul circumcision, a verse that does not have any jurisdiction over circumcision and tithing, for these two came before the law.

Knock yourself out

John 7:22-24 (ESV)
22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well? 24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Acts 15:1 (ESV)
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”


Here you go again confusing yourself with Mosaic vs pre-Mosaic
When the Jews demanded Gentiles be circumcised, was it after Abraham or Moses?

Gombs:
Was circumcision before or after the law? Why the above verse?

Meanwhile, what about the covenant God sealed with circumcision? Did He annul it? Provide scriptures if you can.

Let's play dating game; tithing was introduced into Christianity late into the 5th century, a good 400 years after Pentecost
Am really mad at Holy Spirit because he hid this revelation from the early church and left them to their own devices for fending off devourer

Gombs:
Tithing has existed more than 400years before Mosaic law came about.

Am well. Thank you for askin. Have you been praying for me?

shdemidemi:
Are you okay?

Faith, right motive, pure heart, not grudgingly don't make a Mosaic Law a Christian doctrine

Gombs:
Well, let God determine that. Until he comes, I wikl keep tithing, be very much assured I do these with the right motive and a pure heart, not grudgingly and debates.

circumcision is as relevant as animal sacrifices and if you have contrary opinion, please say so and explain that much in the fewest words

Hebrews 7:18 (KJV)
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Gombs:
[size=3pt]You know you've gone on with this circumcision thing, and I've tried to let you wallow in your knowledge but, a brief writ to get your mind alive. [/size] You call circumcision an expired practice? [size=3pt]Ok, I thought it was a covenant between God and Abraham to be carried out in ALL generation.

Genesis 17 MSG from v9
God continued to Abraham, “And you: You will honor my covenant, you and your descendants, generation after generation. This is the covenant that you are to honor, the covenant that pulls in all your descendants: Circumcise every male. Circumcise by cutting off the foreskin of the p.enis; it will be the sign of the covenant between us . Every male baby will be circumcised when he is eight days old, generation after generation—

Please educate me, how did circumcision become an expired practice? Remeber we became the decendants of Abraham by faith in Chriist Jesus.

Put these in perspective. This was the covenant sealed with circumcision.

1. To make Abraham the father of many nations and of many descendants and give "the whole land of Canaan" to his descendants.[Gen 17:2-9].

2. Circumcision is to be the permanent sign of this everlasting covenant with Abraham and his male descendants and is known as the brit milah.[Gen 17:9-14]

3. Covenants in biblical times were often sealed by severing an animal, with the implication that the party who breaks the covenant will suffer a similar fate. In Hebrew, the verb meaning to seal a covenant translates literally as "to cut". It is presumed by scholars that the removal of the foreskin symbolically represents such a sealing of the covenant


Service has started! See you boys later! I know someone will quote Romans 2:29 and so on...[/size]