Could you share with us the verses that detail the existence of these ceremonial laws and moral laws

[klutedavid]

How is it "ceremonial" in your view??

Because Exodus 22:22 is not one of the ten commandments.

So do you see Exodus 22:22 the same as circumcision, as a ceremonial law?

 

[klutedavid]

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

None of those sources you quoted obey the Sabbath commandment. So how can you say that they affirm the ten commandments?

Something is wrong in your understanding of what those sources are actually saying, about the ten commandments.

The Sabbath is a day off and could never be called a moral law.

 

[klutedavid]

No it does not. Even the Catholic Church will flat out deny that it takes no statement of belief from scripture - but only from tradition.

You are mistaken on this point of yours. Here is the refutation.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. (Catholic.com)

You must check your sources more carefully to avoid these glaring mistakes.

 

[BobRyan]

You are mistaken on this point of yours. Here is the refutation.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. (Catholic.com)

1. that is not a Catholic statement saying that they reject scripture.
2. I make no claim to base my doctrine on Catholic tradition.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

None of those sources you quoted obey the Sabbath commandment.

They all affirm a glaringly obvious detail about the Ten Commandment - that some folks still to this day struggle with.

Namely that all TEN are included in the moral law of God. Which is what I said above.

They all agree with the NT text "sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 even in the NT.

The point remains.

And they all agree with the "ceremonial" vs "moral" law of God subdivisions in the function and purpose of the various laws. That is to say that they clearly accept a Bible detail so glaringly obvious - that both sides admit to it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
How is it (Exodus 22:22) "ceremonial" in your view??

Because Exodus 22:22 is not one of the ten commandments.

Well then that is how you choose to define it... not me. It is not accurate to take your own ideas and paste them on some other denomination just because you hold to that idea.

So do you see Exodus 22:22 the same as circumcision, as a ceremonial law?

no.

Ex 22:22 "You shall not oppress any widow or orphan."

Is a moral command ... it defines what righteousness is vs sin.

 

[Soyeong]

Well we do have them contrasted for example in 1 Cor 7:19

Either there were correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US and Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3). In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correct ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. So Paul was only speaking against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised, not against what God has commanded.

Paul said that circumcision has no value, that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2), and that circumcision has value if we obey God's law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Mosaic Law. In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel will be saved, so the problem was that some Jews were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles and were considering themselves to be saved simply because they were circumcised after they were born, but even Jews need to be born again. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by seeing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), while the way to recognize that someone has an uncircumcised heart is by their refusal to submit to the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 9:26, Acts 7:51-53). So Paul was not contrasting God's commands with God's commands.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible never uses the subcategories of ceremonial and moral laws. .

Well we do have them contrasted for example in 1 Cor 7:19

19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

That only works as a contrast between ceremonial law vs moral law of God applicable to all mankind, defining what sin is or is not.

Either there were correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons

In 1 Cor 7:19 Paul does not say "Circumcision for incorrect reasons or uncircumcision is nothing".

Rather he contrasts the circumcision requirement with "the commandments of God" saying one is nothing while the other - matters a lot.

Is challengers in Acts 21 only challenge him on the issue of circumcision for Jews... they don't say a single word about circumcision for gentiles. That is not even possible under the paradigm you are suggestion as I understand it.

, or according to Galatians 5:2, Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US and Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3).

1. In Acts 16 the text specifically says that Timothy was circumcised because of the Jews who would take issue. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jew.

"he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek"

2. The incorrect reason is given in Acts 15:1-3 which was a man-made tradition that apparently only existed among Christian Jews - where they claimed that gentiles could not be saved unless they were circumcised. And the Acts 15 council flatly denied it.

3. In Gal 5:1-3 the point is made that yielding to that sort of man-made-tradition over the word of God was a bad idea.

4. The 80% of men in the US that are circumcised are not in that condition because they think that it is a requirement for going to heaven, so their reason is not the one given in Acts 15:1-3.

So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correct ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

Indeed - and God never required it of all gentiles either in NT or OT.

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by seeing their obedience to the Mosaic Law,

The Law where as Paul reminds us in Eph 6:1-2 "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandent. Something that is not true of all the writings of Moses -- we cannot say that Ex 20:12 is the first promise in all that Moses wrote regarding any sort of command.

Paul contrasts circumcision against "The commandments of God" in 1 Cor 7:19 which is only possible if one recognizes that there is ceremonial law -- that is not moral law.

And what is more the OT law of circumcision was not applicable to all gentiles, even in the OT.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said that circumcision has no value, that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19),

True.. one has value the other does not..

that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2)

Romans 3:1-2 makes it very clear that "Circumcision" does not apply to gentiles by pointing out that those who are of the circumcision are the ones whose ancestors were at Sinai getting the Law of God handed to them in written form. Specifically not gentiles.

Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God Rom 3:1-2

"THEN what advantage" is the question - because of the statements made at the end of Rom 2 where we find this

Rom 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

The law-keeper gentile in Rom 2:26-29 is uncircumcised.. and is judging the jew in that case. Which brings Paul to the question in Romans 3:1-2 of the form "well then why even be a Jew... what is the advantage for the Jew at all if that is the case?". Paul says in Rom 3:1-2 that the Jew has great advantage as those who were given the Law at Sinai and whose heritage is as those nation of priests charged with spreading the gospel message to the world in God's original plan.

Eph 2
11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

In 1 Cor 7:19 Paul does not say "Circumcision for incorrect reasons or uncircumcision is nothing".

Rather he contrasts the circumcision requirement with "the commandments of God" saying one is nothing while the other - matters a lot.

Is challengers in Acts 21 only challenge him on the issue of circumcision for Jews... they don't say a single word about circumcision for gentiles. That is not even possible under the paradigm you are suggestion as I understand it.

Either there are situations where circumcision has no value and situations where circumcision has much value in every way or Paul was contradicting himself in 1 Corinthians 7:19 and Romans 3:1-2. In Romans 2:25, Paul used a conditional statement where circumcision has value if we obey God's law, which means that that circumcision has no value if we don't obey God's law, so what matters is whether we obey God's law. Circumcision is a commandment of God, so Paul could not have been contrasting it with the commandments of God.

1. In Acts 16 the text specifically says that Timothy was circumcised because of the Jews who would take issue. His father was a Greek, but his mother was a Jew.

"he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek"

2. The incorrect reason is given in Acts 15:1-3 which was a man-made tradition that apparently only existed among Christian Jews - where they claimed that gentiles could not be saved unless they were circumcised. And the Acts 15 council flatly denied it.

3. In Gal 5:1-3 the point is made that yielding to that sort of man-made-tradition over the word of God was a bad idea.

4. The 80% of men in the US that are circumcised are not in that condition because they think that it is a requirement for going to heaven, so their reason is not the one given in Acts 15:1-3.

Indeed - and God never required it of all gentiles either in NT or OT.

You seem to agree that they were speaking against a man-made tradition, yet you take that as being against obeying what God has commanded. Gentiles were required to become circumcised in Exodus 12:48 if they wanted to eat of the Passover lamb.

 

[BobRyan]

Either there are situations where circumcision has no value and situations where circumcision has much value

My argument is not that circumcision has no value of any kind or that it would be bad for someone to be circumcised.

My argument is that there was never a Bible command in OT or NT that gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved... in fact no command at all for gentiles to be circumcised in order to worship God.

In fact even in Daniel 9:1-5 you have a prayer directly to God without priest, or sanctuary, or sacrifice. How much more the direct access to God for gentiles who chose to worship the true God.

in every way or Paul was contradicting himself in 1 Corinthians 7:19

Paul was being very consistent to point out that it did not matter if one was circumcised or not in terms of our relationship to God - but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God - just as already shown - in Romans 2 - Paul talks about a gentile who obeys the law of God - -and yet is not circumcised.

Circumcision is a commandment of God, so Paul could not have been contrasting it with the commandments of God.

You are arguing against the statement in 1 Cor 7:19 which specifically states that neither circumcision nor even uncircumcision matters.

If you want to insert "for the wrong reason" it makes no sense to say "circumcision for the wrong reason" or "uncircumcision for the wrong reason" --- does not matter at all.

You seem to agree that they were speaking against a man-made tradition

yes... the man made tradition that gentiles had to be circumcised for which we have no such command in scripture.

Gentiles were required to become circumcised in Exodus 12:48 if they wanted to eat of the Passover lamb.

Which of course many gentile believers were not doing... gentiles were not partaking in Passover as even Luke demonstrates in the book of Acts.

There is not even one dispute in the NT about gentiles needing to be circumcised to partake in Passover.

The man made tradition was that even without the Passover context - gentiles had to be circumcised as Act 15:1-2 points out ... and that is what the NT does not affirm nor does the OT affirm it. Acts 15 does not say "some argued that gentiles had to be circumcised to participate in the Passover" -- rather it says that the falsehood they taught was “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” - which meant -- regardless of whether we are talking about Passover or not... they invented that rule.

 

[Mercy74]

My argument is not that circumcision has no value of any kind or that it would be bad for someone to be circumcised.

My argument is that there was never a Bible command in OT or NT that gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved... in fact no command at all for gentiles to be circumcised in order to worship God.

In fact even in Daniel 9:1-5 you have a prayer directly to God without priest, or sanctuary, or sacrifice. How much more the direct access to God for gentiles who chose to worship the true God.



Paul was being very consistent to point out that it did not matter if one was circumcised or not in terms of our relationship to God - but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God - just as already shown - in Romans 2 - Paul talks about a gentile who obeys the law of God - -and yet is not circumcised.



You are arguing against the statement in 1 Cor 7:19 which specifically states that neither circumcision nor even uncircumcision matters.

If you want to insert "for the wrong reason" it makes no sense to say "circumcision for the wrong reason" or "uncircumcision for the wrong reason" --- does not matter at all.



yes... the man made tradition that gentiles had to be circumcised for which we have no such command in scripture.



Which of course many gentile believers were not doing... gentiles were not partaking in Passover as even Luke demonstrates in the book of Acts.

There is not even one dispute in the NT about gentiles needing to be circumcised to partake in Passover.

The man made tradition was that even without the Passover context - gentiles had to be circumcised as Act 15:1-2 points out ... and that is what the NT does not affirm nor does the OT affirm it. Acts 15 does not say "some argued that gentiles had to be circumcised to participate in the Passover" -- rather it says that the falsehood they taught was “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” - which meant -- regardless of whether we are talking about Passover or not... they invented that rule.

Was it explicitly stated by James or anyone that what the pharisees/religious leaders suggested that "circumcision was required for salvation" was false? Let us be careful not to judge unless we have full knowledge. Obeying the commandments of G-d leads to life, disobeying the commandments of G-d or sin ends in death.

Acts 15:5
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 

[Mercy74]

My argument is not that circumcision has no value of any kind or that it would be bad for someone to be circumcised.

My argument is that there was never a Bible command in OT or NT that gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved... in fact no command at all for gentiles to be circumcised in order to worship God.

In fact even in Daniel 9:1-5 you have a prayer directly to God without priest, or sanctuary, or sacrifice. How much more the direct access to God for gentiles who chose to worship the true God.



Paul was being very consistent to point out that it did not matter if one was circumcised or not in terms of our relationship to God - but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God - just as already shown - in Romans 2 - Paul talks about a gentile who obeys the law of God - -and yet is not circumcised.



You are arguing against the statement in 1 Cor 7:19 which specifically states that neither circumcision nor even uncircumcision matters.

If you want to insert "for the wrong reason" it makes no sense to say "circumcision for the wrong reason" or "uncircumcision for the wrong reason" --- does not matter at all.



yes... the man made tradition that gentiles had to be circumcised for which we have no such command in scripture.



Which of course many gentile believers were not doing... gentiles were not partaking in Passover as even Luke demonstrates in the book of Acts.

There is not even one dispute in the NT about gentiles needing to be circumcised to partake in Passover.

The man made tradition was that even without the Passover context - gentiles had to be circumcised as Act 15:1-2 points out ... and that is what the NT does not affirm nor does the OT affirm it. Acts 15 does not say "some argued that gentiles had to be circumcised to participate in the Passover" -- rather it says that the falsehood they taught was “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” - which meant -- regardless of whether we are talking about Passover or not... they invented that rule.

Abraham was commanded to keep the law of circumcision; Abraham was a gentile.

 

[Mercy74]

Either there were correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US and Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3). In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correct ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. So Paul was only speaking against incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised, not against what God has commanded.

Paul said that circumcision has no value, that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2), and that circumcision has value if we obey God's law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Mosaic Law. In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel will be saved, so the problem was that some Jews were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles and were considering themselves to be saved simply because they were circumcised after they were born, but even Jews need to be born again. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by seeing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), while the way to recognize that someone has an uncircumcised heart is by their refusal to submit to the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 9:26, Acts 7:51-53). So Paul was not contrasting God's commands with God's commands.

When you understand the purpose of circumcision, you will understand how it is needed for salvation. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant, Abraham would become the father of many nations. All the nations of the earth would be blessed through him. Abraham kept the law of circumcision, he circumcised every male in his house; including Ishmael (son of the bondservant, Hagar) and his servants. If a man believes in Christ, he becomes a son of Abraham; every son of Abraham must be circumcised and keep the whole law.

 

[BobRyan]

What is explicitly stated by James or anyone that what the pharisees/religious leaders suggested that "circumcision was required for salvation" was false? Let us be careful not to judge unless we have full knowledge.

Acts 15
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had a heated argument and debate with them, the brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
..
23 and they sent this letter with them:
“The apostles and the brothers who are elders, to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles: Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have confused you by their teaching, upsetting your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”


KJV
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

19 Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.

=====================================
Rom 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

The law-keeper gentile in Rom 2:26-29 is uncircumcised..and yet still regarded as a "law keeper" because circumcision does not apply to gentiles.

More than this - in the case above - that uncircumcised gentiles is judging the jew in that case. Which brings Paul to the question in Romans 3:1-2 of the form "well then why even be a Jew... what is the advantage for the Jew at all if that is the case?". Paul says in Rom 3:1-2 that the Jew has great advantage as those who were given the Law at Sinai and whose heritage is as those nation of priests charged with spreading the gospel message to the world in God's original plan.

 

[BobRyan]

Abraham was commanded to keep the law of circumcision; Abraham was a gentile.

The debate in Acts 15 is not about whether Abraham should be circumcised even though Melchizedek was not.

The debate in Acts 15 is about gentiles that have no relationship at all to Abraham should be circumcised even though the OT says nothing about that at all.

 

[BobRyan]

When you understand the purpose of circumcision, you will understand how it is needed for salvation. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant, .

1. That would exclude women... in fact all females of any age.
2. that would exclude all gentiles
3. IT is the position they took in Acts 15:1-2 and the council said "We gave no such commandment"

 

[Mercy74]

Acts 15
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had a heated argument and debate with them, the brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
..
23 and they sent this letter with them:
“The apostles and the brothers who are elders, to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles: Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have confused you by their teaching, upsetting your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from acts of sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”


KJV
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

19 Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood.

=====================================
Rom 2
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

The law-keeper gentile in Rom 2:26-29 is uncircumcised..and yet still regarded as a "law keeper" because circumcision does not apply to gentiles.

More than this - in the case above - that uncircumcised gentiles is judging the jew in that case. Which brings Paul to the question in Romans 3:1-2 of the form "well then why even be a Jew... what is the advantage for the Jew at all if that is the case?". Paul says in Rom 3:1-2 that the Jew has great advantage as those who were given the Law at Sinai and whose heritage is as those nation of priests charged with spreading the gospel message to the world in God's original plan.

If a man is regarded as a law keeper then he must be a law keeper, lest he be called a liar. Just because Paul said that he gave no such commandment does not mean he disagrees with the holy commandment. There is no scripture that explicitly states that circumcision is not required for gentiles. However we have examples of gentiles becoming circumcised, the foreigner or sojourner, Abraham and every male in his house. If you are honest and tell the truth, you know gentiles kept circumcision. All the nations would be blessed through Abraham, Abraham circumcised every male in his house.

 

[Mercy74]

The debate in Acts 15 is not about whether Abraham should be circumcised even though Melchizedek was not.

The debate in Acts 15 is about gentiles that have no relationship at all to Abraham should be circumcised even though the OT says nothing about that at all.

Yeshua was circumcised on the 8th day. You make alot of assumptions, the scripture does not say that Melchizedek was never circumcised. Considering that he was a righteous king who blessed Abraham, Abraham kept circumcision "seal of righteousness"; Melchizedek was probably circumcised like Christ, who was a priest in the order of Melchizedek.