Do you keep the Sabbath? (poll)

[Hentenza]

Regarding Mark7:19 this is what was in the original transcripts

καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα
Katharizōn panta ta brōmata
Literally: "cleansing all foods"

The phrase modifies the digestion process, not food laws.

You kidding right? I thought I had heard it all. First you claim that it was an addition but when I point you to the codex Sinaiticus and you realize your error, you now invent some other excuse to continue trying to put the Mosaic law back on the Christian’s back. There is absolutely nothing in this verse about digestion. The food laws are gone just like the rest of the Mosaic law.

Secondly, you still have not posted a verse that shows that the Mosaic law was given to the gentiles.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You kidding right? I thought I had heard it all. First you claim that it was an addition but when I point you to the codex Sinaiticus and you realize your error, you now invent some other excuse to continue trying to put the Mosaic law back on the Christian’s back. There is absolutely nothing in this verse about digestion. The food laws are gone just like the rest of the Mosaic law.

Secondly, you still have not posted a verse that shows that the Mosaic law was given to the gentiles.

You have not posted one verse that says God's commandments are really the commandments of Moses when God identified them as His, numbered them, wrote them and Have His name in each of them that pertain to how we love God. Moses is not mentioned once.

A parable is not meant to take literal. When Jesus literally tells you what the parable He is speaking about means Mark7:20 Mat15:15-20 faith is about believing Him. But just like those before us, didn't either Mat15:14 probably best I take His advise on this as well. We can debate this but what we say or think does not matter. God spoke clearly on this subject as He did on many others. He will be the one to sort this out.

I do wish you well.

 

[Hentenza]

You have not posted one verse that says God's commandment meant Moses

What do you mean? The Mosaic law WAS given to Moses to give to Israel.

or that Moses is God

Nope. He isn’t.

or that God's people do not need to keep God's commandments.

Never argued that so Strawman. The thing is that now we walk in the Spirit which guides us and shows us the way to repentance which is something that the law never could do.

Or that God made a mistake when He stated clearly what we eat has some serious consequences. Isa66:17

No mistake. He gave that command to those under the law, Israel. He did not give that command to the gentiles. In fact, you can read which commandments were repeated to be part of Jesus two love commandments and the dietary laws were not,

When Jesus literally tells you what the parable He is speaking about means Mark7:20 Mat15:15-20 faith is about believing Him. But just like those before us, didn't either Mat15:14 probably best I take His advise on this as well.

Jesus literally tells you that He fulfilled the law and that all foods are clean. Literally.

Still waiting for that verse that shows that the Mosaic law was given to the gentiles.

 

[DamianWarS]

Paul did not redefine what God stated

You're right, he uses his own words. Words have the power to express different things in different contexts and Paul has the freedom to use his words creatively. In the case of 1 Cor 7:19 we uniquely have the ability to compare it with 2 other mirror verses (Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15) that carry the same meaning for greater clarity. Paul is not challenging what Christ said in Mat 15 and Mark 7 but is making a different point and his point is regarding the new creation not the 10 commandments.

You seem to get locked into a narrow view and refuse to see another view. I admit if it were not for Galatians, the passage would be difficult to understand as to Paul's specific meaning. But since we do have Galatians, we can eliminate the guess work because the the similarities of the verses in question have such a striking resemblance to ignore them would be irresponsible.

 

[Fervent]

Paul did not redefine what God stated

Right? Who does he think he is, Ellen G. White?

 

[Studyman]

Because you left the context of Galatians 2. The issue is Titus not being compelled to be circumcised. NOT how it is fulfilled in and through Christ.

The Circumcision Paul speaks to here, is the Circumcision Jesus was a Minister of, that Paul was also made a minster of. A Circumcision of the Heart, as Moses teaches. A circumcision rejected by the Pharisees, the wicked Kings of Israel, the Israelites that fell in the Wilderness, Sodom, and many others according to the God inspired Holy Scriptures. A Circumcision rejected by the Jews who were bewitching the Galatians, who crept unawares to seduce and influence the Church of God, including Titus.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified "by Christ", we ourselves also are found sinners,

Isn't vexing the Non-Jew who chooses to Join himself to the Lord, "walking not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel"?

is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again (The Doctrines and Traditions of the religion who defiled me in the first place) the things which I destroyed, (Like persecuting the Church of God) I make myself a transgressor.

By Titus' refusal to be circumcised, he was not heeding what was written in the Law by the understanding of those in Jerusalem .

Yes, These preachers who contended with them, were ignorant of God's Law, and had gone about establishing their own. They rejected God's Commandments in favor of their own traditions. If they had been faithful and obedient to God like Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna, they would have received the Spirit of Truth that God gives to those who obey Him, and would have known the Christ, as Zacharias and Simeon knew Christ.

Paul told us "why" these men who had become fools, who were bewitching to Galatians with their doctrine in Romans 1:21,22.

This issue, not fellowshipping with Gentiles and taking on their customs is all being said in context verse 16 where it states

There is no "LAW" of God that directed His People to not fellowship with faithful non-Jews. In Fact, God's Law specifically states;

Lev. 19: 34 But the stranger (non-Jew) that dwelleth with you "shall be unto you as one born among you", and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Those Galatians who Peter was fellowshipping with, had received the Holy Spirit from God, according to Paul's own words. Are they not exactly what this LAW is referring to? And yet the Pharisees didn't consider them as children of Abraham at all. And Peter was influenced by their wicked doctrines. Peter was "transgressing God's Laws", by separating himself from these "non-Jews" who "Believed" to go sit with the mainstream preachers of that time, that didn't believe. And Paul rebuked him for his disobedience, as also required by God's Law..

So this behavior of eating or fellowshipping with faithful Gentiles, "CANNOT" be the "works of the Law" that the children of the devil were promoting to the Galatians.

I'm not going to address the same points over and over with you. But I would like to address a few of the things that I know you are mistaken about. And I know these things are the result of the influence we are surrounded with as I was influenced by them as well. So it isn't meant to demean or insult, just point out.

We are not made righteous by the works of the Law, by what we do if it is not through the faith of Jesus Christ.

What does it mean, "The Faith of Jesus"? I think it means "Living by" God's Instruction in righteousness, in a world where no one really believes in Him. Like Noah, and Abraham, and Moses and Caleb, and David and Danial and Shadrack and Abednego and Zacharias and Simeon and EVERY EXAMPLE of Faithful man given to us by the God and Father of all. Just as the Christ Jesus Himself did! In fact, it isn't my will that matters, it's God's Will. My will killed me. But Jesus made me alive so I can choose this time to "deny myself" and follow Him. "Lo, in a volume of a book it is written", I come to do Thy will Oh Lord".

Eating with would be considered fellowshipping, wouldn't it?

Gentiles would be unbelievers, unclean, heathen in the Jews eyes.

First, Who is teaching you that the Galatians Peter was fellowshipping with were "Unbelievers"? And it was a mistake for men to listen to the Pharisees, children of the devil then, why are men still listening to them today?

The Jews have a law in the Book of the Law about not mingling with people who were not of Israel.

No they don't. You have been taught that the Jews religion was a religion that promoted obedience to God's Laws. That they were trying to earn salvation by obeying God's Laws. This is an insidious lie, and a Leaven that infects everyone who adopts it. It's not true brother.

Gen. 17: 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, "and he that is bought with thy money", must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Ex. 12: 48 And when a stranger (Non-Jew) shall sojourn with thee, "and will keep the passover to the LORD", let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger (Non-Jew) that sojourneth among you.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger (Non-Jew) sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger (Non-Jew) that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers (non-Jews "inwardly") in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Is. 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

2 Blessed is the man (Jew or Gentile) that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

3 Neither let the son of the stranger (Non-Jew), that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD "hath utterly separated me from his people": neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.

And yet, I have heard religious men who call Jesus Lord, Lord, further the religious philosophy of the Pharisees, that it was GOD's Law that relegated faithful Non-Jews as "without Christ, being aliens "from the commonwealth of Israel", and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world"

But when we read the Book of the Law, and the Prophets ourself, hear what it is saying my friend. God literally said to the Non-Jew who turned to Him, "Don't Say The LORD "hath utterly separated me from his people".

This is the reason why I replied to your Colossians sermon.

4 For thus saith the LORD "unto the eunuchs" that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 5 "Even unto them" will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

And to drive this home, because God knew we would be living in a world with these evil doctrines, HE continues.

6 Also the sons of the stranger (Non-Jew), that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

So here we are, surrounded by this worlds religions who preach to anyone who will listen to them, that it was God's Laws that caused the Wall of Separation" between Faithful Gentiles and Jews. They preach that it was God's Laws that relegated the faithful Gentile as "without Christ, being aliens "from the commonwealth of Israel", and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world"

That is was God's Laws that were against Jesus, Paul and the Church of God, that Jesus nailed to the Cross.

But it's a deception as anyone can see, who is seeking the "Circumcision" Jesus was a minister of, the Truth of God.

The question is, do men believe Him?

Peter and the Disciples knew this was not an issue anymore through the Body of Christ,

It was NEVER an issue with God for a Non-Jew to turn to Him. It was always an issue with the rebellious, "uncircumcised of heart" Jews. Why do you think God sent Israel on their journey if not in part, as a witness for Him? A witness to Whom, If not "Non-Jews"? Will you at least answer this question?

Rom. 2: 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24 For the name of God is blasphemed "among the Gentiles through you", as it is written.

Mal. 1: 11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, "and a pure offering": for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

12 But ye have profaned it, "in that ye say", The table of the LORD is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

In other words, they say, "God's Laws are impossible to obey, a Yoke of Bondage HE placed on our necks, and they are against us.

 

[Studyman]

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

These 3 verses are mirror versions of each other. In the 3 verses circumcision is addressed as nothing or without value.

That is popular religious philosophy in this world God placed me it. But consider what is actually written.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

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

Perhaps you can explain how a person who is "circumcised" can become "uncircumcised".

Of course Paul isn't talking about Literal cutting loose skin of a man's penis. But I understand how powerful tradition and pride can be in the uncircumcised heart.

I'm not making a statement as to the broader meaning of circumcision just that in these verses they all follow the same format. Circumsion is negated and contrasted with "what counts".

But Paul calls the Pharisees or "Jews religion" "The Circumcision", this is undeniable Biblical Truth. He calls Non-Jews, "the uncircumcision". This is undeniable as well. So in each verse, Jew and Gentile actually fit the context of the message more clearly that trying to figure out how to get the skin put back on.

And as it is written, Jesus was the "Minister of Circumcision" and HE made Paul a minister of the same Circumcision as well. A Circumcision promoted by Moses, that is, "circumcision of the heart". So to say "Circumcision" doesn't matter, is not true.

A deeper study on circumcision would no doubt show us a lot more than something without any value but as for these verses that's the focus it takes with a goal to highlight the "what counts" part.

Well it's certainly true that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, contrary to the "Jews Religion" who Full well rejected the commandments of god that they might keep their own traditions. But there is "Circumcision" of the heart. So I would be careful not to let popular religious philosophy influence the reading of the Scriptures.

 

[DamianWarS]

That is popular religious philosophy in this world God placed me it. But consider what is actually written.

18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

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

Perhaps you can explain how a person who is "circumcised" can become "uncircumcised".

Of course Paul isn't talking about Literal cutting loose skin of a man's penis. But I understand how powerful tradition and pride can be in the uncircumcised heart.

I think you're reading into what I'm saying too much. 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15 all negate circumcision (fact) and contrast it with "what counts" (fact) and that's my point. You can interpret circumcision in the context to know uniquely what he is negating. That part I'm not explicitly trying to define, and I recognize this could be a jew/gentile meaning, or it could be a contrast on law, or of physical circumcision, or some blend. however, regardless of what it is, Paul says it has no value. Paul's point is not promoting circumcision; he is de-emphasizing it and shifting the focus to "what counts". So your protest in defining circumcision is or what it is not seems to be moot. At best, you could argue it's A but not B (I'm not sure if that's your point), but since the passage is not promoting A or B it can't be used to support either, only used to de-emphasize it (whatever "it" is)

I think it's also a bit irresponsible to say all NT uses of circumcision may only mean jew/gentile. That certainly is a use within the NT but each passage needs to be studied to understand its broader meaning. Col 2 for example, is clearly drawing illusions from the literal cut off flesh to unpack the deeper meaning of circumcision. Now, Paul clearly is promoting the spiritual value in Col, yet in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 he is demoting it. So we can say that Paul intends a different value of circumcision in Col. than with 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 verses. Galatians also has already established a circumcision attempt (with Titus), so packed in Paul's use in Gal will include a meaning of physical circumcision, as is presented in the context, as well as a more abstract cultural meaning. Since 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15 are mirror verses 1 Cor 7:19 should be considered in the same light as Gal 5:6, and Gal 6:15. Paul's discouragement of becoming uncircumcised could easily be tongue-in-cheek, but it's more loaded than just saying it's only contrasting jew/gentile.

If we were able to clarify directly with Paul, asking "you mean culturally not physical, and I can continue to seek physical circumcision?" I'm sure Paul would do a face palm action and say you've missed the point. Or if you say "oh, you mean physically not culturally and I can continue to convert culturally". Again, another face palm, you've missed the point again. As demonstrated in Col. the value of circumcision is found in its spiritual component through Christ not in the literal cutting of flesh (explicit point of Col.) nor in our cultural observance of Jew or Gentile (most dominant focus in 1 Cor 7).

whatever you want to pack in the word, it's doesn't matter, 1. Paul is calling it nothing, and 2. Col. still speaks to a departure from the literal cutting of flesh, and certainly passages like 1 Cor 7 can speak more to a departure from culturally converting. Both hold and both can make sense in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15. since using both doesn't conflict with Paul's teaching, then circumcision (cultural association or physical) can be look at as the thing without value in all these verses.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Scriptures do not say the the commandments of God are redefined. When something is used interchangeably it means it works backwards and forwards, not just the one we like based on our own definition of it.

first we need to look at the context where "commandments of God" is used to understand what is intended. Mat 15 and Mark 7 both quote within the 10 commandments and outside. So we cannot say Christ was trying to isolate the 10, he actually is advocating for capital punishment in his point. We know, however, Christ takes the punishment for our forgiveness (substitutionary atonement) and Christ knew this as well, even though he quotes the capital punishment. So Christ has a far more loaded statement than simply pointing out not keeping a law and intentionally addressing something that he will fulfill.

in 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:1, Gal 6:15 Paul is making a different point; his use of "what counts" aligns with new tesatment themes of the new creation (he directly says this in 6:15). He is not contrasting Christ, it's his own point, and he is using his own words to make that point. Paul's use is post-resurrection, which carries different implications than before the resurrection. Had Christ mentioned to the Pharisees about the sacrificial law he would be right in calling it a commandment of God too (since it is) but we don't pack this in with Paul's use because he uses it after Christ's resurrection under new revelation. So the two are loaded statements with contextual meaning. Christ's use on the surface points backwards, but we know he packed in a redemptive message, possibly alluding to himself with the capital punishment. where Paul's points forward under the revelation of the redemptive message. The point is they are different contexts and need to be applied differently but that doesn't mean they conflict each other.

 

[linux.poet]

Your answer: It is
Why I asked this question the first commandment of the Ten Commandments because if we can't get through the first commandment its not going to apply to the other 9. If one of them goes, they all go James2:11

So I asked when does only worshipping the God of Creation ever show as being a curse in the Bible.

It's pretty obvious. The Law that defines sin both brings life to those who keep it in the power of the Holy Spirit and is "contrary and against" sinners to condemn them to fiery hell. To the believer, keeping the law is a blessing, and to the unbeliever, trying to keep the law and failing is a curse that brings judgement and condemnation. To live in perpetual guilt and self-condemnation is a miserable existence. That's what I meant.

Blessing for one group, and curses for the other. The Pharisees made the Law even worse, and fell under the Woes pronounced by Our Lord. They were abusing unbelievers who could not keep the Law.

 

[linux.poet]

Why the Ten Commandments sits under God's mercy seat, it defines what sin is, its God's standard of Judgement and righteousness. He never left that to our own understanding


1 John3:4 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
James 2:11 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law

Sin is breaking any of the Ten Commandments.

Which of the 10 commandments did Adam break when he ate of the fruit in the Garden and plunged humanity into sin?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It's pretty obvious. The Law that defines sin both brings life to those who keep it in the power of the Holy Spirit and is "contrary and against" sinners to condemn them to fiery hell. To the believer, keeping the law is a blessing, and to the unbeliever, trying to keep the law and failing is a curse that brings judgement and condemnation. To live in perpetual guilt and self-condemnation is a miserable existence. That's what I meant.

Yes, but its a separate law (the law of sin and death -Rom7:22-23) that brings the curses Deut31:24-26 Deut 28:14-16 the Law of God is perfect converting the soul Psa19:7 written by our perfect Savior Exo31:18 Deut4:13 and is holy just and good Rom7:12 its shows us our sins Rom3:20 Rom7:7 James2:11 but can't save us, the law of Moses was added because of sin as a temporary means of remissions of sin through the animal sacrifices that always pointed to Jesus. Sin however remains the same in the NT 1John3:4James2:11 what changed is the Priesthood and how we go about forgiveness of sin 1John1:9 if we hear His voice and repent which means turn from and walk in the opposite direction, as Jesus said go and sin no more.

Blessing for one group, and curses for the other. The Pharisees made the Law even worse, and fell under the Woes pronounced by Our Lord. They were abusing unbelievers who could not keep the Law.

The Pharisees were not keeping God's Laws, they were keeping their own man-made laws and enforcing them on others. Something Jesus condemned Mat15:1-14 Mark7:7-13

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Which of the 10 commandments did Adam break when he ate of the fruit in the Garden and plunged humanity into sin?

The very first commandment to only worship God. He placed his will, pleasing his wife over obedience to what God said. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. The commandment to not vain His name- this commandment is more than just using His name in a holy manner- its taking on Christ's name which means representing Christ in a holy manner. When we are listening and following the other spirit over God yet claiming to be a Christian it is breaking the third commandment. There could be an argument of breaking all of the commandments as they are all interconnected- why breaking one we break them all. James2:11

 

[linux.poet]

Yes, but its a separate law that brings the curses Deut31:24-26 not the Law that is perfect converting the soul

The curses in Deuteronomy apply to the nation of Israel when they break any of the Laws that apply to them, including the ceremonial laws. The Israelites were thrown into exile in Babylon because they failed to observe the Sabbath Year, which is a different law than the 4th commandment, and that is the final curse on the list.

When Paul was writing the letter to the Colossians, he was writing to Gentiles who were never under the Deuteronomy law at all. The curses that apply to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy are different than the curse of failing to keep the Decalogue that I just told you. The latter applies to Jew and Gentile alike and it's what Jesus has set us free from in the power of His Sacrifice on the Cross - the curse of Sin, Death, and hell.

The very first commandment to only worship God. He placed his will, pleasing his wife over obedience to what God said. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway.

How do you hold Adam accountable to a law he did not know about (and the entirety of humanity would not know about) for thousands of years after he lived?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The curses in Deuteronomy apply to the nation of Israel when they break any of the Laws that apply to them, including the ceremonial laws. The Israelites were thrown into exile in Babylon because they failed to observe the Sabbath Year, which is a different law than the 4th commandment, and that is the final curse on the list.

The only Laws we are told that ended are the ones contained in ordinances Eph2:15 Col2:14KJV, hand written by Moses, that mainly had to to with the earthy priesthood duties, food and drink offerings and animal sacrifices for the remissions of sins.

When Paul was writing the letter to the Colossians, he was writing to Gentiles who were never under the Deuteronomy law at all. The curses that apply to the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy are different than the curse of failing to keep the Decalogue that I just told you. The latter applies to Jew and Gentile alike and it's what Jesus has set us free from in the power of His Sacrifice on the Cross - the curse of Sin, Death, and hell.

The curses and blessings of the law of God applies to us too. This is right before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Only two groups.

Those with faith uphold the law of God, not to be saved, but that's how someone who is saved lives, obeying God through love and faith which reconciles us back to God.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

The other group sadly, rejects what God placed in their hearts Rom 8:7-8 His Laws Heb8:10 2Cor3:3

15 But outside (cursed) are dogs and sorcerers (Breaking commandment #1 Exodus 20:3) and sexually immoral (breaking commandment #7 Exodus 20:14) and murderers (breaking commandment #6 Exodus 20:13) and idolaters (breaking commandment #2 Exodus 20:4-6), and whoever loves and practices a lie (breaking # 9 Exodus 20:16 or any of the commandments 1 John 2:4) Breaking one we break them all James 2:11-12 Exo 20:1-17 .

Why Jesus said:

Mat 5:19 Whoever (anyone) therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Rom2: 11 For there is no partiality with God.12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;

How do you hold Adam accountable to a law he did not know about (and the entirety of humanity would not know about) for thousands of years after he lived?

We are told where there is no law there is no sin Rom4:15, they sinned so obviously God told them the laws to only worship Him and not vain His name or bow to idols or break His holy Sabbath that was made for man Mark2:27 the Greek word Jesus used means mankind, the Hebrew word means Adam that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God (to be followers) before the very first Sabbath Exo20:11 Gen2:1-3

Why Cain knew it was sin to murder Abel, thou shalt not murder, only found in God's Ten Commandments.

Lets not forget Whose commandments the Ten are they are God's commandments Exo20:6 Deut4:13 Exo31:18- they all are shown in principles and shown they were given as commandments prior to Mt Sinai and I can show you examples. Sadly, man is the one who has lowered the standard of God's commandments, laying them aside and making them of no effect Mark 7:7-13 Mat15:3-14 making them equal or less than the laws through man that would have never been given in the first place if God's commandments were kept. Sin separated us from God Isa59:2 (breaking His laws 1John3:4 James2:11) doing the same thing that got Lucifer kicked out of heaven 1John3:8 and Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden is not how we are to reconcile. If we love Jesus, we would let Him define His owns laws which He did, both personally written and spoken and God claimed them as "My commandments" Exo20:6 Deut4:13 i.e. God's commandments - God's Testimony Exo31:18, not mans. I do not understand the issue with God's commandments- the first 4 has God's name in each one of them on how we are to love and serve Him and if we love Him why would we not want to keep them. John14:15 Exo20:6 1John5:3 instead of following the power who changed them against the Authority of God Dan7:25. Just like Adam and Eve were tested as well as those in the wilderness, so are we. I pray we make right decisions and follow the narrow path back to God and not follow what is popular by man. A form of godliness without the power of God. Eze20:12 Eze20:20 Exo20:11 Rev14:7

 

[HIM]

How do you hold Adam accountable to a law he did not know about (and the entirety of humanity would not know about) for thousands of years after he lived?

He was made in the image and likeness of God; God was with him. He knew, more so than any after him.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[Studyman]

How do you hold Adam accountable to a law he did not know about (and the entirety of humanity would not know about) for thousands of years after he lived?

Col. 1: 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and "which was preached to every creature which is under heaven"; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Do you think Paul is in error here? That God flooded and destroyed the inhabitants of the earth for sins they didn't know were sins? That God destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, who didn't know any better?

That Cain really did not know it was evil and against God's Law to murder his brother?

I'm not sure that the Scriptures teach that God holds people accountable for breaking His Laws they didn't know were His Laws.

 

[Studyman]

I think it's also a bit irresponsible to say all NT uses of circumcision may only mean jew/gentile.

I never said that all reference to Circumcision in the NT means "only" Jew and Gentile. But most certainly many times Paul used those words, it meant Jew or Gentile. This is simply undeniable Biblical Fact.

That certainly is a use within the NT but each passage needs to be studied to understand its broader meaning.

That is the point I am making.

Col 2 for example, is clearly drawing illusions from the literal cut off flesh to unpack the deeper meaning of circumcision.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

This would be the circumcision Moses spoke of, Duet. 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin "of your heart", and be no more stiffnecked.

So this is essential for Salvation. There is NO Salvation without this "circumcision". It is very important.

But in 1 Cor. 7 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

This is not talking about "Circumcision of the heart" which is everything. Rather, Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, which are nothing as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ.

Gal. 3: 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, (Circumcised of the heart) then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I understand how important it is for this world's religions to promote the end of God's Laws, they use circumcision as a tool for this purpose. But God didn't create this statute so that people would reject His judgments and commandments. It is my hope that you might consider these things.

 

[DamianWarS]

I never said that all reference to Circumcision in the NT means "only" Jew and Gentile. But most certainly many times Paul used those words, it meant Jew or Gentile. This is simply undeniable Biblical Fact.



That is the point I am making.



11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

This would be the circumcision Moses spoke of, Duet. 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin "of your heart", and be no more stiffnecked.

So this is essential for Salvation. There is NO Salvation without this "circumcision". It is very important.

But in 1 Cor. 7 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

This is not talking about "Circumcision of the heart" which is everything. Rather, Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, which are nothing as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ.

Gal. 3: 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, (Circumcised of the heart) then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I understand how important it is for this world's religions to promote the end of God's Laws, they use circumcision as a tool for this purpose. But God didn't create this statute so that people would reject His judgments and commandments. It is my hope that you might consider these things.

I of course advocate the spiritual values but as for literal circumcision it's not a value I see promoted in the NT despite your defence for the matter. There is simply too much presented in the NT that would seem to be deemphasising the literal practice that it would become a point of being too irresponsible or cyptic for the apostles to not address this with greater clarity.

Circumcision points to Christ, without Christ the litteral it has no value as it's substance is only found through Christ. Even to the point that while not having the physical we can still partake of the spiritual. For example law doesn't extend this practice to females yet they are still co-participants of the spiritual despite the missing physical component. So clearly the spiritual may work without the physical even taking place.

But I will admit it is a more consistent position than others who would see law cut up to value it only in part over the whole thing. I see law as all pointing to Christ but the old covenant practice of law is inferior to Christ himself, ane he is always the better way. For example in Mat 12:12 Christ shows goodness itself superior to Sabbath law practice showing us there are more noble mechinisms of law that still keep law and do not break it despite their outward appearance. The question I ask with Mat 12:12 is if this goodness Christ speaks off is a mechanism of keeping law then why not just always do good then you will always keep law? Is this not consistent with the greatest commandments Christ speaks of and the NT authors teach? Christ is the goodness that we should be seeking and then mirroring in our day to day practice of faith guided by the Holy Spirit, in this space there is no room for unlawful practice.

 

[Studyman]

I of course advocate the spiritual values but as for literal circumcision it's not a value I see promoted in the NT despite your defence for the matter.

This is why, in my understanding, so many people argue with you sir. Because of foolish and untrue statement such as the one above. You can find not one word in any of my posts, where I defended the practice of cutting the loose skin off a penis for salvation, and it is my stated position that God doesn't care about the loose skin on a man's penis, contrary to the Pharisees assertion that HE did in the OT. He has always only cared about the heart of man. When HE commanded "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" this was a command about the heart of man, not oxen. When HE speaks about cutting off the loose skin of a penis, it is a command concerning the fleshy heart of man, not the penis for crying out load. When Jesus said to drink His Blood and Eat His Flesh, it is a command about the heart of man, not sifting through the rubble in Jerusalem trying to find a piece of His flesh to eat.



Some men must feed the lust of an uncircumcised heart, to become a talebearer among the brethren, by accusing others of defending the Pharisees version of circumcision. You have free will to do so, But it isn't true. I was simply pointing out that Paul wasn't as obsessed as many are, with the physical practice. And that many times his reference to the word "circumcision" was concerning Moses teaching regarding the heart. And many times it was a reference to Jew or non-Jew, such as the case in 1Cor. 7. And sometimes it was a reference to the Literal practice. Like the verse below.

Rom. 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles "through you", as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, "if thou keep the law": but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

You are free to disagree, but please be honest about the words others post.