Circumcision

[mercy1061]

Because Titus wasn't a child of Israel and Timothy was. Paul circumcised Timothy and didn't circumcise Titus in response the scripture you have cited... To show that he is the father of every uncircumcised person and father of the circumcised.

No, that is not why according to the ancient scriptures. The ancient scriptures clearly indicate that the reason pharisee Shaul circumcised Timothy is because of the jews living in those towns; this is the very same reason Titus was never circumcised. Shaul also wanted to have Timothy travel with him; I hope you learn a "torah kingdom law" lesson from pharisee Shaul and apostle Peter; if someone wants to travel with a pharisee he must be circumcised. Of course, Timothy mother being jewish, could have help pharisee Shaul persuade Timothy to become circumcised. However, this does not excuse Titus from being circumcised. Why did Titus not become circumcised? Please remember Timothy's father was a greek.



Gal 2

3 But they didn’t force my Gentile companion Titus to undergo b’rit-milah. 4 Indeed, the question came up only because some men who pretended to be brothers had been sneaked in — they came in surreptitiously to spy out the freedom we have in the Messiah Yeshua, so that they might enslave us. 5 Not even for a minute did we give in to them, so that the truth of the Good News might be preserved for you.


You had people in those days who pretended to be brothers had been sneeked in, those fake brothers could not persuade Titus to be circumcised.


What does Apostle Peter say about jews communicating with gentiles?

Acts 10
28 He said to them, “You are well aware that for a man who is a Jew to have close association with someone who belongs to another people, or to come and visit him, is something that just isn’t done. But God has shown me not to call any person common or unclean;

Did pharisee Shaul continue to travel with Titus? Did pharisee Shaul leave Titus? Pharisee Shaul wanted Titus to "attend to the matters still not in order".

Titus
5 The reason I left you in Crete was so that you might attend to the matters still not in order and appoint congregation leaders in each city — those were my instructions.

 

[mercy1061]

It pertains to the descendants of Abraham>Isaac>Jacob>children of Israel. Doesn't matter if Abraham's mother was Jewish or not.

First you say that if a mother is jewish, the son is jewish, for this reason Timothy was circumcised by pharisee Shaul. Then you contradict yourself by saying it does not matter if Abraham's mother was jewish, but I presume you consider Abraham a jew.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

First you say that if a mother is jewish, the son is jewish, for this reason Timothy was circumcised by pharisee Shaul. Then you contradict yourself by saying it does not matter if Abraham's mother was jewish, but I presume you consider Abraham a jew.

It's not a contradiction. Circumcision was given, as is evidenced by the Torah, during the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel, to rise with Isaac, whom the Covenant would be maintained with, as an everlasting pact between God and Israel.

 

[etZion]

Circumcision is not making Gentiles Jews.

Correct, a misnomer for many. In the first century however it did. But not according to Biblical Judaism, a Ger who took on circumcision, did not become a Jew (a native born).

This is where we can see Acts 15, not opposing the commandment of circumcision as per the Torah, but instead the teaching in the 1st Century, embedded in Acts 15:1, a false doctrine.

 

[etZion]

Correct. The entire premise of Bilateral Ecclesiology is separating Jews and gentiles, and it claims that this is what Sha'ul really meant by "one in Mashiakh!" Kinser's interpretation is the exact OPPOSITE of what Sha'ul actually taught, it is what he was so vehemently opposed to, and dedicated his life to combatting! In essence, Sha'ul was fighting against the eighteen measures of Shammai, which halakhically separated Jews and gentiles in all manners of everyday affairs, and especially in religious affairs.

For instance:

(Gal 5:2-3 Complete Jewish Bible)
Mark my words - I, Sha'ul, tell you that if you undergo b'rit-milah the Messiah will be of no advantage to you at all! Again, I warn you: any man who undergoes b'rit-milah is obligated to observe the entire Torah!

Sha'ul is referring to the eighteen measures of Shammai when he says "obligated to observe the entire Torah!" Just imagine the implications for the gentile who has just come to faith in Yeshua. After he undergoes the painful [and dangerous at that time] procedure of brit milah, he is halakhically required to separate himself from his gentile family and friends. He is now eligible for all manner of Roman persecution, including the taxation imparted to all Jews, which in many cases would impoverish them. Talk about a yoke! Talk about a burden one is unable to bear!

I agree well said...

 

[mercy1061]

I agree well said...

The burdens did not belong to the gentiles; the burdens were being carried by the apostles. The apostles could not carry this heavy burden circumcising all of these gentiles. However, if the gentiles, follow Abraham's example honoring "torah kingdom law", Abraham circumcised himself! Abraham also circumcised every male living in his household.


Acts 15
10 So why are you putting God to the test now by placing a yoke on the neck of the talmidim which neither our fathers nor we have had the strength to bear?

 

[David Ben Yosef]

The house of Israel also consisted of other people of different nationalities. Matthew 15:24 KJV
24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 ASV
24. But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Huh? Do you realize that the lost sheep of the house of Israel in the Scripture quote above refers to the ten tribes of Israel, not gentiles? I ask because it does not appear so.

 

[mercy1061]

It's not a contradiction. Circumcision was given, as is evidenced by the Torah, during the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel, to rise with Isaac, whom the Covenant would be maintained with, as an everlasting pact between God and Israel.

Do you honestly understand what you are saying? You say if the mother is jewish, the son is jewish, and he should therefore obey torah, the son should be circumcised. Then you say Titus does not have to be circumcised because his mother is not jewish; but Abraham's mother was not jewish, and Abraham circumcised himself, not only himself but every male living in his household. Of course NONE of your assertions are recorded in the torah, but it is only your unsupported oppinion not found published in "torah kingdom law".

 

[etZion]

The burdens did not belong to the gentiles; the burdens were being carried by the apostles. The apostles could not carry this heavy burden circumcising all of these gentiles. However, if the gentiles, follow Abraham's example honoring "torah kingdom law", Abraham circumcised himself! Abraham also circumcised every male living in his household.


Acts 15
10 So why are you putting God to the test now by placing a yoke on the neck of the talmidim which neither our fathers nor we have had the strength to bear?

Mercy, the context is not the commandment of circumcision, but instead what we see in Acts 15:1, it is a false doctrine.

The Apostles were not burdened by circumcision, their parents circumcised them. Instead, the burden is in line with Acts 15:1, we see the same language in Matthew 23, about heavy burdens. If the Torah commands themselves are a heavy burden, then we have major contradictions in God's word, where He says specifically in Deut 30:11 says For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

Psalm 119, talks about how delightful God's Torah is. Thus, if anyone is equating Acts 15 "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" to the Torah, they are not correctly interpreting Acts 15, but are instead creating a contradiction.

 

[mercy1061]

Mercy, the context is not the commandment of circumcision, but instead what we see in Acts 15:1, it is a false doctrine.

The Apostles were not burdened by circumcision, their parents circumcised them. Instead, the burden is in line with Acts 15:1, we see the same language in Matthew 23, about heavy burdens. If the Torah commands themselves are a heavy burden, then we have major contradictions in God's word, where He says specifically in Deut 30:11 says For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

Psalm 119, talks about how delightful God's Torah is. Thus, if anyone is equating Acts 15 "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" to the Torah, they are not correctly interpreting Acts 15, but are instead creating a contradiction.

The topic of discussion is circumcision; if the gentiles refuse to become circumcised, they are to be cut off from the people. So the pharisees are right, circumcision would bring about salvation, the gentiles can not continue to hear the gospel if they are excommunicated. Now imagine 5 K people get saved, are the apostles suppose to circumcise all of those gentiles?

Matt 23

Then Yeshua addressed the crowds and his talmidim: 2 “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. 3 So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!


If you disobey the pharisees (including Shaul) you disobey "torah kingdom law" and Yeshua.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

The topic of discussion is circumcision; if the gentiles refuse to become circumcised, they are to be cut off from the people. So the pharisees are right, circumcision would bring about salvation, the gentiles can not continue to hear the gospel if they are excommunicated. Now imagine 5 K people get saved, are the apostles suppose to circumcise all of those gentiles?

Matt 23

Then Yeshua addressed the crowds and his talmidim: 2 “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. 3 So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!


If you disobey the pharisees (including Shaul) you disobey "torah kingdom law" and Yeshua.

The Abrahamic covenant only pertains for the people in the Abrahamic covenant. Paul didn't circumcise Titus.

 

[mercy1061]

The Abrahamic covenant only pertains for the people in the Abrahamic covenant. Paul didn't circumcise Titus.

You have not adequately EXPLAINED your position to show your understanding or insight, concerning the ancient scriptures. You have only stated facts that we BOTH already know. You don't have to answer my questions or EXPLAIN your position, we can not continue our discussion. We will have to AGREE to disagree on all points concerning "torah kingdom law".

Prov 4:7

The beginning of wisdom is: get wisdom!
And along with all your getting, get insight!


Luke 20

One day, as Yeshua was teaching the people at the Temple, making known the Good News, the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers, along with the elders, came up to him 2 and said, “Tell us, what s’mikhah do you have that authorizes you to do these things? Who gave you this s’mikhah?” 3 He answered, “I too will ask you a question. Tell me, 4 the immersion of Yochanan — was it from Heaven or from a human source?” 5 They discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From Heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From a human source,’ all the people will stone us, because they’re convinced that Yochanan was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.” 8 Yeshua said to them, “Then I won’t tell you by what s’mikhah I do these things.”

 

[David Ben Yosef]

The burdens did not belong to the gentiles; the burdens were being carried by the apostles. The apostles could not carry this heavy burden circumcising all of these gentiles. However, if the gentiles, follow Abraham's example honoring "torah kingdom law", Abraham circumcised himself! Abraham also circumcised every male living in his household.

Once again, you completely missed the point of my post. It was not about circumcision. Except for how it applies to the eighteen measures of Shammai.

The Apostles would not have been burdened at all having to circumcise gentile converts, they would have simply appointed the proper people for this procedure. You sure do come up with some really off the wall ideas.

Acts 15
10 So why are you putting God to the test now by placing a yoke on the neck of the talmidim which neither our fathers nor we have had the strength to bear?

The unbearable yoke in question was the eighteen measures of Shammai. It was Beit Shammai Pharisees who came from Judea in the opening verses of Acts chapter 15.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

You have not adequately EXPLAINED your position to show your understanding or insight, concerning the ancient scriptures. You have only stated facts that we BOTH already know. You don't have to answer my questions or EXPLAIN your position, we can not continue our discussion. We will have to AGREE to disagree on all points concerning "torah kingdom law".

Prov 4:7

The beginning of wisdom is: get wisdom!
And along with all your getting, get insight!


Luke 20

One day, as Yeshua was teaching the people at the Temple, making known the Good News, the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers, along with the elders, came up to him 2 and said, “Tell us, what s’mikhah do you have that authorizes you to do these things? Who gave you this s’mikhah?” 3 He answered, “I too will ask you a question. Tell me, 4 the immersion of Yochanan — was it from Heaven or from a human source?” 5 They discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From Heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From a human source,’ all the people will stone us, because they’re convinced that Yochanan was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.” 8 Yeshua said to them, “Then I won’t tell you by what s’mikhah I do these things.”

You're complicating this.

Circumcision isn't relevant to the likes of Titus and Cornelius because they weren't born in Abraham's house. However Paul states Abraham is the father of the circumcision AND uncircumcised. John the Baptist said "And don’t suppose you can comfort yourselves by saying, ‘Avraham is our father’! For I tell you that God can raise up for Avraham sons from these stones!"

The Abrahamic covenant(Genesis 17) doesn't even suggest a little bit about non Jews being circumcised UNLESS they were purchased with money from a foreigner that isn't his seed. And even the text doesn't indicate that slave born in the house be circumcised on the 8th day. Only pertains to Abraham's house.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Should a person in the Abrahamic hope in any of these promises?


Passover
Unleavened Bread
Firstfruits
Pentecost
Trumpets
Day of Atonement
Tabernacles
Simchat Torah.


Do these things have anything to do with Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant?

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

Should a person in the Abrahamic hope in any of these promises?


Passover
Unleavened Bread
Firstfruits
Pentecost
Trumpets
Day of Atonement
Tabernacles
Simchat Torah.


Do these things have anything to do with Gentiles in the Abrahamic covenant?

Those aren't promises. It's a promise for the ressurection.

 

[mercy1061]

Once again, you completely missed the point of my post. It was not about circumcision. Except for how it applies to the eighteen measures of Shammai.

The Apostles would not have been burdened at all having to circumcise gentile converts, they would have simply appointed the proper people for this procedure. You sure do come up with some really off the wall ideas.

The unbearable yoke in question was the eighteen measures of Shammai. It was Beit Shammai Pharisees who came from Judea in the opening verses of Acts chapter 15.

When did the aposltes appoint anyone to circumcise thousands of gentiles? According to you, the apostles ruled against circumcision. Which is it? Did the apostles rule against circumcision or did they appoint people to circumcise over thousands of gentiles? You contantly contradict yourself, that is why, I can not continue this fruitless conversation with you.



Did Abraham appoint anyone to circumcise the males living in his household? Did Levi, appoint anyone to circumcise those Canaanites? Did David appoint anyone to circumcise those Philistines? Your ideas lack "torah kingdom law" foundation; we can AGREE to disagree on all points concerning "torah kingdom law".

 

[HannibalFlavius]

Those aren't promises. It's a promise for the ressurection.

Each one of those days are promises mpssoff.

What should a gentile hope in the feast of Tabernacles?

I don't have to say because many people can write sermons on it.

What should a gentile hope for the First fruits?

Many people can write a sermon on it because these promises are ALL we hope in.

The feast of Tabernacles is not just a day that takes place in the future, it is a reality taking place in being found in a Sukkah.

WE don't have to wonder what happens on the Sukkot, Zechariah 14 and Revelation show what takes place.


These days are promises to all that believe in God, and if you do not receive the promises that pertain to these days, then you are utterly lost.


If we do not know the times and the seasons to prepare, then God will come on us like a thief in the night, I mean to say that God has a prepared proclaimed day of coming to you personally, and if he comes like a thief in the night into your house, he has come into your very being.


What day is the wedding feast?

It is an appointed day that we wait upon when everyone will seek to enter the marriage chamber to consummate a marriage, but those people who are caught unaware will not enter into the chamber.

Should gentiles hope in the marriage feast of the Lamb?


What day is set apart for the marriage feast?

 

[etZion]

The topic of discussion is circumcision; if the gentiles refuse to become circumcised, they are to be cut off from the people. So the pharisees are right, circumcision would bring about salvation, the gentiles can not continue to hear the gospel if they are excommunicated.

What is happening in Acts 15:1, is very interesting, as it is being taught by certain Pharisees and is not correct, not only is it not correct, the Apostles go against these certain Pharisees and Paul in his writings, calls them the false circumcision.

We also know that the issue is not over the commandment of circumcision based on the conclusion they give, and that conclusion is in Acts 15:11 concludes that Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. If the issue was over the commandment of circumcision, then Peter's answer misses the point, but instead his answer was perfect, as the issue was never over obedience to God's law.

Circumcision never brought about salvation, and never will. You do not understand what circumcision was given for. It was given as a sign of the covenant made with Abraham, to represent the cutting off of the flesh. Then and only then, was it applied to all who would eat of the Passover... it did not make one a Jew, and it did not make one a native born, it never saved anyone. If you want to believe that it did, you will have to do so outside of the guidelines of scripture, basically inventing your own belief.

Now imagine 5 K people get saved, are the apostles suppose to circumcise all of those gentiles?

Your premise is false, so this argument is also false, your argument misses the point of Acts 15. You think Acts 15 is dealing with chopping off some foreskin and that is not correct. See Acts 15:1, that is your context.

Matt 23

Then Yeshua addressed the crowds and his talmidim: 2 “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. 3 So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!


If you disobey the pharisees (including Shaul) you disobey "torah kingdom law" and Yeshua.

Yeshua and the Apostles at many times invalidated the traditions (not doing what the Pharisees taught), in Mark 7 we see a perfect example. The fact that the Apostles disagreed with the Pharisees in Acts 15, also shows that your understanding of Matthew 23, needs to be re-assessed. The more appropriate understanding would be in regard to the Torah, and not the traditions, which in many ways, according to Yeshua, invalidated the very words of God.

You can't have Yeshua ignoring certain Pharisaic teachings and turning around telling his Apostles to do everything they say, contradiction of terms. This instead must be in response to the Pharisees and the Scribes, which were the only ones teaching the Torah.

 

[David Ben Yosef]

When did the aposltes appoint anyone to circumcise thousands of gentiles?

Are you kidding me? I can only guess that the English language is not your native tongue, because I never suggested any such thing...you did!

The burdens did not belong to the gentiles; the burdens were being carried by the apostles. The apostles could not carry this heavy burden circumcising all of these gentiles.

According to you, the apostles ruled against circumcision.

What in G-d's name are you talking about?! I never said any such thing! Please quote me saying that then. Good luck trying to find it because nothing like that has ever come out of mouth anywhere in this thread, or elsewhere.

Which is it? Did the apostles rule against circumcision or did they appoint people to circumcise over thousands of gentiles?

Again, I never said the Apostles circumcised anyone. I said if they needed to they would simply appoint the proper people for that procedure....if need be. Your the one that suggested otherwise, and I quoted you saying it above!

You contantly contradict yourself, that is why, I can not continue this fruitless conversation with you.

Praise G-d! Because I have absolutely had it with you. You cannot quote me contradicting myself anywhere in this thread. You, on the other hand, have managed to make it an artform! I'm pretty sure you are just trying to aggravate me and waste my time [which is not funny by the way] because nobody could possibly be THAT illiterate. Now do us both a favor and stop quoting me out of context so we don't have to speak to one another ever again. I'll ignore you, and you ignore me. Good day to you, sir.