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

Mercy74 · Nov 23, 2020

BobRyan said:
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"

Moses was circumcised by his mother! So women or mothers played a vital role in keeping the law of circumcision.

Mercy74 · Nov 23, 2020

Soyeong said:
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.

I agree that the way a gentile show their circumcised heart is by their obedience to the Mosaic law. Circumcision is inward, a matter of the heart, love for the law of G-d.

Soyeong · Nov 24, 2020

BobRyan said:
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.

I agree that the Bible doesn't command Gentiles to be circumcised in order to earn our salvation and that a Gentile doesn't need to become circumcised in order to worship God, but that doesn't mean that Gentile should not become circumcised.

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.

Some Jews were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles because they were circumcised and this was what Paul was denying had value.

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.

Again, the topic Paul was discussing was in regard to the wrong understanding of circumcision. Again, you are ignoring that Paul said in Romans 2:25 that circumcision has value if we obey God's law, which means that there are situations where circumcision has value and situations where it does not, so Paul saying that circumcision has no value in 1 Corinthians 7:19 is speaking in regard to a situation where it does not have value, but was not speaking in regard to all situations, especially because Romans 3:1-2 says that circumcision has much value in every way. Likewise, it would be incorrect to hyper focus on Romans 3:1-2 in order to insist that circumcision always has value when Paul was only speaking in regard to the situation where it has value.

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

Paul speaking against circumcision being used for a man-made tradition should not be mistaken as speaking against there being value in obeying what God has commanded..

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.

There wouldn't have been any dispute over whether Gentiles should become circumcised in order to partake in Passover because that is a command of God, not a tradition of men. It doesn't make sense have a dispute over whether follower of God should follow God.

Soyeong · Nov 24, 2020

Mercy74 said:
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.

There is a significant difference between the position that only those who are circumcised will be saved and the position that we need to become circumcised in order to earn our salvation. Our salvation was never something that could be earned that God would owe to us in return for our efforts.

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2020

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Soyeong said:
I agree that the Bible doesn't command Gentiles to be circumcised in order to earn our salvation and that a Gentile doesn't need to become circumcised in order to worship God, but that doesn't mean that Gentile should not become circumcised.

Then we may indeed be agreeing on the basics here.

When we bring someone to Christ we preach the Gospel to them and then have them baptized. At that point they are a member of the church. And as you just agreed - we do not tell them that they cannot be a Christian or saved or ... unless they are circumcised. However we do tell them that the Sabbbath is one of the ten commandments for mankind, kept by all mankind after the cross for all eternity in the New Earth according to Is 66:23.

This is what we see in that 1 Cor 7:19 statement of Paul.

Again, the topic Paul was discussing was in regard to the wrong understanding of circumcision. Again, you are ignoring that Paul said in Romans 2:25 that circumcision has value if we obey God's law

But in Romans 2 he claims the gentile is fully obeying God's law as an uncircumcised gentile.

Paul speaking against circumcision being used for a man-made tradition should not be mistaken as speaking against there being value in obeying what God has commanded..

True.

But God never commanded gentiles to be circumcised and in Romans 2 Paul states that uncircumcised gentiles are fully obeying what God commanded.

There wouldn't have been any dispute over whether Gentiles should become circumcised in order to partake in Passover because that is a command of God, not a tradition of men.

Agreed. That was not the dispute.

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2020

Soyeong said:
There is a significant difference between the position that only those who are circumcised will be saved and the position that we need to become circumcised in order to earn our salvation. .

Both of which would be wrong.

Mercy74 · Nov 24, 2020

Soyeong said:
I agree that the Bible doesn't command Gentiles to be circumcised in order to earn our salvation and that a Gentile doesn't need to become circumcised in order to worship God, but that doesn't mean that Gentile should not become circumcised.

Some Jews were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles because they were circumcised and this was what Paul was denying had value.

Again, the topic Paul was discussing was in regard to the wrong understanding of circumcision. Again, you are ignoring that Paul said in Romans 2:25 that circumcision has value if we obey God's law, which means that there are situations where circumcision has value and situations where it does not, so Paul saying that circumcision has no value in 1 Corinthians 7:19 is speaking in regard to a situation where it does not have value, but was not speaking in regard to all situations, especially because Romans 3:1-2 says that circumcision has much value in every way. Likewise, it would be incorrect to hyper focus on Romans 3:1-2 in order to insist that circumcision always has value when Paul was only speaking in regard to the situation where it has value.

Paul speaking against circumcision being used for a man-made tradition should not be mistaken as speaking against there being value in obeying what God has commanded..

There wouldn't have been any dispute over whether Gentiles should become circumcised in order to partake in Passover because that is a command of God, not a tradition of men. It doesn't make sense have a dispute over whether follower of God should follow God.

Those who are circumcised have the very "WORDS OF GOD". There are many bibles in the United States. All men (including gentiles) must obey the commands of G-d, so all men must become circumcised if they wish to enjoy the blessings of Abraham; all nations will be blessed through Abraham; Abraham practiced circumcision on the 8th day (with Isaac). The United States practice circumcision, therefore the US will last if she honors G-d. However we can all agree the US struggles to keep the whole law of G-d. Circumcision has value if the gentiles obey G-d's law, we agree that circumcision is G-d's law. So how can you become circumcised and not keep G-d's law? Every man that is circumcised; circumcision is customarily performed by the father; his father must practice "circumcision on the 8th day". This way every man that is circumcised must keep the whole law; not only in part. Isaac was not only circumcised, Isaac was circumcised on the 8th day, the law must be kept perfectly. It is through Isaac, that Abraham's seed would be named.

Mercy74 · Nov 24, 2020

Soyeong said:
There is a significant difference between the position that only those who are circumcised will be saved and the position that we need to become circumcised in order to earn our salvation. Our salvation was never something that could be earned that God would owe to us in return for our efforts.

This difference is without distinction, circumcision is never practiced by the man becoming circumcised. Thus no man can earn "circumcision on the 8th day", he received circumcision from his father! There is a spiritual lesson this son must learn and live by. That his "seal of righteousness", he received from his father. A manufacturer puts a "seal" or logo on his product so everyone knows that their product was produced by the owner. The owner or "father" of the company take full responsibility for his product.

Mercy74 · Nov 24, 2020

BobRyan said:
Then we may indeed be agreeing on the basics here.

When we bring someone to Christ we preach the Gospel to them and then have them baptized. At that point they are a member of the church. And as you just agreed - we do not tell them that they cannot be a Christian or saved or ... unless they are circumcised. However we do tell them that the Sabbbath is one of the ten commandments for mankind, kept by all mankind after the cross for all eternity in the New Earth according to Is 66:23.

This is what we see in that 1 Cor 7:19 statement of Paul.

But in Romans 2 he claims the gentile is fully obeying God's law as an uncircumcised gentile.

True.

But God never commanded gentiles to be circumcised and in Romans 2 Paul states that uncircumcised gentiles are fully obeying what God commanded.

Agreed. That was not the dispute.

How can any man earn salvation by being baptized "unto repentance"? His baptism is performed by the priest or preacher of righteousness. The scripture explicitly says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". So it is understood everyone must believe, and not only believe but undergo baptism in order to be saved. The same principle applies here, Abraham walked by faith, and if you believe in Christ, you become a son of Abraham. Abraham circumcised not only his sons but every male living in his house! If you are a true son of Abraham you will keep the commandments of G-d (including circumcision).

Daniel Marsh · Nov 24, 2020

HereIStand said:
Based on Robert Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, the moral laws (against incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, and inappropriate behavior with animals) are in Leviticus 18 and 20. Also, Gagnon argues that Christ references these same chapters in Mark 7:21-23, as does Paul in I Corinthians 5.

Food laws are addressed in Leviticus 11, purification laws in Leviticus 12, and laws about leprosy in Leviticus 13 and 14. To what extend these (and similar) laws still apply today, could be debated. It can't be debated that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 still apply today.

From Romans 14? and the sheet of animals lowered to Peter in the Book of Acts, we know those no longer apply. It is debatable if against incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, and inappropriate behavior with animals have been ruled out. We know that Apostles wrote about some of those things.

Daniel Marsh · Nov 24, 2020

BobRyan said:
1 Cor 7:19 says that ceremonial laws like circumcision do not matter "but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" --

The Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19 references this - as does the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19.

Ex 20:11 says the Sabbath was given to mankind at creation.
Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for Sabbath" thus the making of BOTH is referenced just as we see in creation week.

Hebrews 7 tells us that the laws concerning earthly priesthood ended at the cross.
Hebrews 10:4-12 tells us that the laws concerning animal sacrifices ended at the cross. So this means all ceremonies that specify liturgy only in animal sacrifices - also end.

Rev 14:12 "the saints Keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Matt 19 Jesus said "if you would have eternal life - Keep the Commandments". He is then asked "which ones" and Jesus gives all the Ten Commandments related to man's-duty-to-man.

D.L. Moody, Andy Stanley, R.C.Sproul, the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" , the Catholic Document 'Dies Domini" by Pope John Paul II. All of them (and many more) admit to these basics in the Bible.

Moses tells his readers in Genesis 7 and 8 - that Noah knew about the clean-vs-unclean animal laws of Leviticus 11. Those laws say not to eat diseased meat or rats etc. Noah takes the unclean animals by "two's" onto the ark - so eating even one of the unclean species = species-extinction. But he takes the clean animals by 7's - so eating one of the clean animals does NOT result in "species extinction"

The 614 Torah Laws are addressed to Israel, not Geniles, nor Christians of the New Covenant. If you choose to live under the old Covenant rather than Grace --- that is your problem.

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2020

BobRyan said:
1 Cor 7:19 says that ceremonial laws like circumcision do not matter "but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" --

The Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19 references this - as does the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19.

Ex 20:11 says the Sabbath was given to mankind at creation.
Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for Sabbath" thus the making of BOTH is referenced just as we see in creation week.

Hebrews 7 tells us that the laws concerning earthly priesthood ended at the cross.
Hebrews 10:4-12 tells us that the laws concerning animal sacrifices ended at the cross. So this means all ceremonies that specify liturgy only in animal sacrifices - also end.

Rev 14:12 "the saints Keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Matt 19 Jesus said "if you would have eternal life - Keep the Commandments". He is then asked "which ones" and Jesus gives all the Ten Commandments related to man's-duty-to-man.

D.L. Moody, Andy Stanley, R.C.Sproul, the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" , the Catholic Document 'Dies Domini" by Pope John Paul II. All of them (and many more) admit to these basics in the Bible.

Moses tells his readers in Genesis 7 and 8 - that Noah knew about the clean-vs-unclean animal laws of Leviticus 11. Those laws say not to eat diseased meat or rats etc. Noah takes the unclean animals by "two's" onto the ark - so eating even one of the unclean species = species-extinction. But he takes the clean animals by 7's - so eating one of the clean animals does NOT result in "species extinction"

Daniel Marsh said:
The 614 Torah Laws are addressed to Israel, not Geniles,

Turns out -- gentiles also have to "not take God's name in vain" -- just like everyone else.

So then no wonder the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and almost every Christian denomination on planet earth accepts the Ten as being included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

I thought we all agreed.

Hence the reference to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and a lot of other Christians that recognize this basic detail

BobRyan · Nov 24, 2020

Daniel Marsh said:
The 614 Torah Laws are addressed to Israel, .

So is the New Covenant - both in the NT and the OT..

Do you consider yourself excluded from the New Covenant??

And even if you do consider yourself excluded from it - surely you can understand the fact that almost all Christians take the view of accepting the New Covenant.

Mercy74 · Nov 24, 2020

Daniel Marsh said:
The 614 Torah Laws are addressed to Israel, not Geniles, nor Christians of the New Covenant. If you choose to live under the old Covenant rather than Grace --- that is your problem.

If you are "under grace", this means that grace is above your understanding; you have not obtained or grasped it.

Romans 6:14
Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

Gary K · Nov 26, 2020

There is a Biblical position on circumcision that I don't see anyone addressing in this discussion.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
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:

Paul is referring here to the promise found in Deuteronomy that God would circumcise our hearts.

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jesus agreed with the above statement.

Luke 10:25 ¶And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

The OT concept of the circumcision of the heart is the NT equivalent of the new birth. Jesus told Nicodemus that no man would see heaven without being born again, and chided Nicodemus because he, a teacher in Israel, did not understand this concept. So clearly being born again was taught in the OT or Jesus could not have chided Nicodemus for not knowing about it. The parallels between the results of the new birth and the cirumcision of the heart in the OT are too clear to be missed. They are one and the same experience.

Jesus said the following about the new birth:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore, only those who have experienced circumcision can enter heaven. Scripture is very clear on this.

Mercy74 · Nov 26, 2020

Gary K said:
There is a Biblical position on circumcision that I don't see anyone addressing in this discussion.

Paul is referring here to the promise found in Deuteronomy that God would circumcise our hearts.

Jesus agreed with the above statement.

The OT concept of the circumcision of the heart is the NT equivalent of the new birth. Jesus told Nicodemus that no man would see heaven without being born again, and chided Nicodemus because he, a teacher in Israel, did not understand this concept. So clearly being born again was taught in the OT or Jesus could not have chided Nicodemus for not knowing about it. The parallels between the results of the new birth and the circumcision of the heart in the OT are too clear to be missed. They are one and the same experience.

Jesus said the following about the new birth:

Therefore, only those who have experienced circumcision can enter heaven. Scripture is very clear on this.

Do you understand the carnal circumcision commanded by G-d to Abraham "circumcision on the 8th day"? The carnal circumcision performed on the 8th day is WITHout hands. In practice not theory, a tool is normally used to cut off that "foreskin of sin". This tool or sword must be used to cut off that sinful nature;

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Hebrew 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

This Word of G-d or "sword of the spirit" came to Abraham and told him to circumcise his son Isaac on the 8th day. Practice of carnal "circumcision on the 8th day" is necessary for understanding the theory concerning circumcision of the heart. Do you seek to understand this theory WITHout appropriate practice?

Gary K · Nov 27, 2020

Mercy74 said:
Do you understand the carnal circumcision commanded by G-d to Abraham "circumcision on the 8th day"? The carnal circumcision performed on the 8th day is WITHout hands. In practice not theory, a tool is normally used to cut off that "foreskin of sin". This tool or sword must be used to cut off that sinful nature;

Ephesians 6:17
Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Hebrew 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

This Word of G-d or "sword of the spirit" came to Abraham and told him to circumcise his son Isaac on the 8th day. Practice of carnal "circumcision on the 8th day" is necessary for understanding the theory concerning circumcision of the heart. Do you seek to understand this theory WITHout appropriate practice?

Hummmm.... Who performed the circumcision on Isaac?

Thera · Nov 27, 2020

Mercy74 said:
Do you understand the carnal circumcision commanded by G-d to Abraham "circumcision on the 8th day"? The carnal circumcision performed on the 8th day is WITHout hands. In practice not theory, a tool is normally used to cut off that "foreskin of sin". This tool or sword must be used to cut off that sinful nature;

Why do you refer to it as the "foreskin of sin"? And why are females apparently free from it, although not from sin itself? Did foreskin become sinful, or what made *it* the sinful thing?

Mercy74 said:
This Word of G-d or "sword of the spirit" came to Abraham and told him to circumcise his son Isaac on the 8th day. Practice of carnal "circumcision on the 8th day" is necessary for understanding the theory concerning circumcision of the heart. Do you seek to understand this theory WITHout appropriate practice?

So what would you say about Christians who claim circumcision is barbaric? I find it hard to accept that the physical is barbaric, if the spiritual is a life saving change.

Mercy74 · Nov 27, 2020

Gary K said:
Hummmm.... Who performed the circumcision on Isaac?

Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8th day.

Gary K · Nov 28, 2020

Mercy74 said:
Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8th day.

OK. That is my understanding too.

But you say Isaac was circumcised without hands. Did Abraham control the tool you speak of with some kind of brain waves? I know Solomon actually lit his stables with electric lamps because some of them have been found. So did Abraham use some kind of computer to manipulate the circumcision tool? Or did Abraham use his hands to control the tool? If he did Isaac was not circumcised without hands. And there is no way Abraham was able to circumcise the heart of Isaac. Only God can circumcise the heart. And no one gets to heaven without the circumcision of the heart.

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

Mercy Messianic Judaism

Mercy Messianic Judaism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Mercy Messianic Judaism

Mercy Messianic Judaism

Mercy Messianic Judaism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Mercy Messianic Judaism

an old small town kid

Mercy Messianic Judaism

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

Mercy Messianic Judaism

an old small town kid

Similar threads