Circumcision

[HARK!]

(for no one can keep the law)

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

(CLV) Lk 1:5
There came to be, in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zechariah, of the routine of Abiah, and his wife, of the daughters of Aaron, and her name is Elizabeth.

(CLV) Lk 1:6
Now they were both just in front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord, blameless.

(CLV) Ac 25:8
Paul defending that "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the sanctuary, nor against Caesar did I any sin."

 

[klutedavid]

James settled this at the Council of Jerusalem. Again the debate was about circumcision for salvation, VS, circumcision to keep the law. These were the opposing arguments at the debate. The winner was circumcision to keep the law. Then James handed down a decree of obedience to the Torah in his closing arguments. Shortly thereafter Paul circumcises Timothy.

Negative, you must read the text and understand what the text is saying. Stop reading the scripture in the dark.

This is the apostles reply and given by Peter to the question.

Do Gentiles need to be circumcised and obey the law?

Acts 15:8-9
And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Acts 15:11
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.

That was the reply that Peter gave regarding that question, and you did not mention either verse for some unknown reason.

 

[Strong in Him]

No one HAS to be circumcised, but that's not an option on your poll - so it's impossible to vote.
Women were NEVER circumcised - yet we are still saved by Jesus. So even if I were to be convinced by your one sided arguments, it doesn't apply to me - never has, never will.

 

[HARK!]

He made no distinction between us and them

(CLV) Ro 2:25
For circumcision, indeed, is benefiting if you should be putting law into practice, yet if you should be a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

 

[HARK!]

No one HAS to be circumcised, but that's not an option on your poll - so it's impossible to vote.

Again, there were only two sides to this debate. ^You don't get to add your own arguments, 2000 years after the fact. This debate has been settled.

 

[Scott Husted]

Again, there were only two sides to this debate. ^You don't get to add your own arguments, 2000 years after the fact. This debate has been settled.

The dialectic you have created I assume for you have the same answer?

 

[Strong in Him]

Again, there were only two sides to this debate. ^You don't get to add your own arguments, 2000 years after the fact. This debate has been settled.

Yes it has.
Paul said:
"if you allow yourself to be circumcised, Christ is of no value to you", Galatians 5:2.
"again I declare to any man who lets himself be circumcised, that he is required to keep the whole law", Galatians 5:3.
"All who rely on keeping the law are under a curse, for it is written, ' curse is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the law'." Galatians 3:10
"for in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value", Galatians 5:6.
"if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I being persecuted?" Galatians 5:11.
"neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything", Galatians 6:15

Circumcision is not necessary, means nothing and anyone who does it is obliged to keep the whole law; end of argument.
The false teachers in Paul's day were those who were going around saying; 'you have to be circumcised to be saved'. Paul and the apostles argued against them - fact.

 

[HARK!]

"if you allow yourself to be circumcised, Christ is of no value to you", Galatians 5:2.

Paul said this:

(CLV) Ro 2:25
For circumcision, indeed, is benefiting if you should be putting law into practice, yet if you should be a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Actions speak louder than words:

(CLV) Ac 16:3
This one Paul wants to come out with him, and, taking him, circumcised him because of the Jews who are in those places, for they all were aware that his father belonged to the Greeks.

(CLV) Ac 16:4
Now, as they went through the cities, they give over to them the decrees to maintain, which have been decided upon by the apostles and elders who are in Jerusalem.

 

[Der Alte]

Again, there were only two sides to this debate. ^You don't get to add your own arguments, 2000 years after the fact. This debate has been settled.

You are partially correct, there were only two sides but not the two sides you claim.
One side the Pharisee Christian from Jerusalem said that gentile Christian must be circumcised AND keep the law.
The other side Paul and his companions in Antioch, Syria dissented and disputed with them
Anybody can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to by quoting selective verses out-of-context. So let's look at your one verse in-context.

Acts of the apostles 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts of the apostles 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them,​

Why would Paul dissent and dispute with the men from Judea about gentiles being circumcised if he was going to tell gentiles later that they had to study Torah in the synagogues? Would they not have to be circumcised to attend sysngogue?

Acts of the apostles 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts of the apostles 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? ​

Is Paul going to say that circumcision and keeping the law was a yoke that even the Jews were not able to bear then later tell gentile Christians to go to synagogues, learn Torah and keep the law?

Acts of the apostles 15:19-21
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.​

This is the first of three times the four, and only four, requirements for gentiles are given. No command to attend synagogues.
Verse 21 is saying only gentiles have to be given special instructions because the Jews don't need it they already have Moses being preached in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Acts of the apostles 15:24
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:​

Paul and the others gave no such command i.e. be circumcised and keep the law. Also no command for gentiles to go to synagogues.

Acts of the apostles 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.​

The second time the four, and only four, requirements are given to the gentiles. And no greater burden than the four requirements. No command to go to synagogues.

Acts of the apostles 21:24-25
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, [keep the law vs. 25] save ONLY that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.​

The third time when the four, and only four, requirements are given to the gentiles. And again Paul says they gave no such command for gentiles to keep the law and thus no command to go to synagogues.

 

[Strong in Him]

Paul said this:

(CLV) Ro 2:25
For circumcision, indeed, is benefiting if you should be putting law into practice,

But I'm not.
I'm in Jesus, the fulfiller of the law - the one that was never given to me anyway.

Actions speak louder than words:

(CLV) Ac 16:3
This one Paul wants to come out with him, and, taking him, circumcised him because of the Jews who are in those places, for they all were aware that his father belonged to the Greeks.

I said at least twice in your other thread, that Paul circumcised Timothy so that the Jews would accept him and he would be able to go among them and preach the Gospel.
The verse even says this, if you read it.
It was you who suggested that Timothy was taking "the next step in his walk with the Messiah" - Scripture doesn't say that at all.

I'm guessing you have no answer for the verses that I've posted?

 

[Greengardener]

Picking up on the recent posts, I find myself wondering if this was another example of the traditions of the elders and the written words of God that God Himself said man would live by them. Remember the religious leaders added much to the written word that Jesus opposed. If James referenced that the Gentiles can hear Moses READ, perhaps he too was entering this differentiation: that what God said still works, but that we need to set aside all the other religious/political conclusions previously promoted that try to set aside God's actual words to us.

 

[HARK!]

Is Paul going to say that circumcision and keeping the law was a yoke that even the Jews were not able to bear then later tell gentile Christians to go to synagogues, learn Torah and keep the law?

He's talking about Abraham. Abraham came to faith before he acted in faith. This has been covered throughout this thread ad nauseam. Those who were saying that the act precedes coming to faith, were putting the cart before the horse. Quite simple actually. You don't have to come up with some, grandiose, convoluted explanation; if you just let scripture interpret scripture.

 

[HARK!]

But I'm not.
I'm in Jesus, the fulfiller of the law - the one that was never given to me anyway.

(CLV) Ro 8:3
For what was impossible to the law, in which it was infirm through the flesh, did God, -sending His own Son in the likeness of sin's flesh and concerning sin, He condemns sin in the flesh,

(CLV) Ro 8:4
that the just requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who are not walking in accord with flesh, but in accord with spirit.

 

[HARK!]

I said at least twice in your other thread, that Paul circumcised Timothy so that the Jews would accept him and he would be able to go among them and preach the Gospel.
The verse even says this, if you read it.
It was you who suggested that Timothy was taking "the next step in his walk with the Messiah" - Scripture doesn't say that at all.

I'm guessing you have no answer for the verses that I've posted?

It does say that. It doesn't say that Paul was a violent hypocrite and forced circumcision in Timothy.

Timothy was going to begin ministering to the Jews. This was the next step in his walk. How do you minister to someone who has taken steps in their walk that you have not yet taken?

Your question has been answered ad nauseam.

 

[Der Alte]

He's talking about Abraham. Abraham came to faith before he acted in faith. This has been covered throughout this thread ad nauseam. Those who were saying that the act precedes coming to faith, were putting the cart before the horse. Quite simple actually. You don't have to come up with some, grandiose, convoluted explanation; if you just let scripture interpret scripture.

Wrong! It has been misrepresented ad nauseum in this and other threads.
I have gone through the entire passage more than once and Paul said three times they gave no command for gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law.
Paul never said that gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law. Never!
There were two groups Pharisees from Judea and Paul and his companions. The Pharisees demanded that gentiles be circumcised AND keep the law. Paul said, twice, they gave no such command. The ONLY requirement for gentiles was "that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

 

[HARK!]

Picking up on the recent posts, I find myself wondering if this was another example of the traditions of the elders and the written words of God that God Himself said man would live by them. Remember the religious leaders added much to the written word that Jesus opposed. If James referenced that the Gentiles can hear Moses READ, perhaps he too was entering this differentiation: that what God said still works, but that we need to set aside all the other religious/political conclusions previously promoted that try to set aside God's actual words to

Agreed. This was a debate between following the Talmud (oral law) or following the Torah.

 

[HARK!]

Wrong! It has been misrepresented ad nauseum in this and other threads.

Let's talk about misrepresentation.

Here is scripture that you obviously read; because you posted it:

Acts of the apostles 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

..and here is how you twisted scripture up in your mind to support your presuppositions:

Is Paul going to say that circumcision and keeping the law was a yoke that even the Jews were not able to bear

If you were well versed in the word of YHWH, you would understand that there were no Jews in the time of Abraham

(CLV) Jn 7:22
Therefore Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but that it is of the fathers) and on a sabbath you are circumcising a man.

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

Paul never said that gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law. Never!

Here is what Paul did say. Let's not ignore it.

(CLV) Ro 2:25
For circumcision, indeed, is benefiting if you should be putting law into practice, yet if you should be a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

(CLV) 1Jn 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we may be keeping His precepts. And His precepts are not heavy,

 

[HARK!]

The ONLY requirement for gentiles was "that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

While they went to the synagogue to hear the Torah read every Shabbat.

 

[Der Alte]

Let's talk about misrepresentation.
Here is scripture that you obviously read; because you posted it:
..and here is how you twisted scripture up in your mind to support your presuppositions:
If you were well versed in the word of YHWH, you would understand that there were no Jews in the time of Abraham

Let's look at the verse again you highlighted the wrong words.
I said "Is Paul going to say that circumcision and keeping the law was a yoke that even the Jews were not able to bear..."

Acts of the apostles 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers NOR WE were able to bear?​

"Nor we" refers to Paul and his companions who were Jews.
Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[HARK!]

"Nor we" refers to Paul and his companions who were Jews.
Everything else is irrelevant.

Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin.

(CLV) Php 3:5
in circumcision the eighth day, of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, in relation to law, a Pharisee,

Read your Bible!