Circumcision

Der Alte · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
Waffling again?

Before I mentioned using the Strong's numbers to identify words in the Biblical text I said I did not use it for definitions. I could read the English find a word I want to define, switch over to Hebrew or Greek text find the word then go to the lexicon. Clicking on a number is faster, it eliminates one step.

Zao is life · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
So you're accusing Paul of caving in hypocrisy, and chopping off another man's flesh in the process?

I don't buy it. Lashon hara!

What does a new creation in Christ mean to you? The "same old same old" creation, or a new creation, in which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters?

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Lost4words said:
1 Corinthians 9:20-23
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Right. A great example of this can be found in Acts 17, the pedestal to the unknowable god.

It's not about whipping out the Ginsus, and going to work on an unwilling participant. This is worse than what he went to Jerusalem to discuss. Lashon hara!

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Der Alter said:
It seems disingenuity is your strong suit. Before I mentioned using the Strong's numbers to identify words in the Biblical text I said I did not use it for definitions. I could read the English find a word I want to define, switch over to Hebrew or Greek text find the word then go to the lexicon. Clicking on a number is faster, it eliminates one step.

If you go back and read for context; like I asked you to before; and cease from this senseless quibbling; you'll see that I already stated that I use the Strong numbers as reference numbers. It would seem that you are demonizing me, for doing exactly what you do.

Zao is life · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
So you're accusing Paul of caving in hypocrisy, and chopping off another man's flesh in the process?

I don't buy it. Lashon hara!

Lashon hara
Also found in: Acronyms.

No lashon hara sign in the Mea Shearim quarter of Jerusalem
The Hebrew term lashon hara (or loshon horo) (Hebrew לשון הרע; "evil tongue") is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about another person.[4] Lashon hara differs from defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, rather than falsehood and harm arising.

Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it says something negative about a person or party, is not previously known to the public, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true. Statements that fit this description are considered to be lashon hara, regardless of the method of communication that is used, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a letter, telephone, or email, or even body language.

Source: Lashon hara

Acts 16:1-3 "And he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a woman who was a Jewess and who believed. But his father was a Greek. He was well reported of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted him to go with him, and taking him he circumcised him, because of the Jews who were in those places; for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

OK so now that we've established that Paul circumcised Timothy because he felt the need to appease people like you who insist on circumcision, what does "a new creation in Christ" mean to you? "The same old same old" creation, or a new creation in which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything?

Gal 6:15 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation."

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Lashon hara
Also found in: Acronyms.

No lashon hara sign in the Mea Shearim quarter of Jerusalem
The Hebrew term lashon hara (or loshon horo) (Hebrew לשון הרע; "evil tongue") is the halakhic term for derogatory speech about another person.[4] Lashon hara differs from defamation in that its focus is on the use of true speech for a wrongful purpose, rather than falsehood and harm arising.

Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it says something negative about a person or party, is not previously known to the public, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true. Statements that fit this description are considered to be lashon hara, regardless of the method of communication that is used, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a letter, telephone, or email, or even body language.

Source: Lashon hara

Hmmm. Good point. It's not lashon hara.

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
OK so now that we've established that Paul circumcised Timothy because he felt the need to appease people like you who insist on circumcision, what does "a new creation in Christ" mean to you? "The same old same old" creation, or a new creation in which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything?

Who decided? Where does scripture say appease?

Zao is life · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
Who decided? Where does scripture say appease?

It's implied in the statement, "because of the Jews who were in those places"

Would he have done the same if they were Gentiles?

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Would he have done the same if they were Gentiles?

Again who is he?

Zao is life · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
Who decided? Where does scripture say appease?

It's implied in the statement, "because of the Jews who were in those places"

Would he have done the same if they were Gentiles?

What does "a new creation in Christ" mean to you? "The same old same old" creation, or a new creation in which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything?

Gal 6:15 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation."

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Would he have done the same if they were Gentiles?

Yet again, He who?

Zao is life · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
Yet again, He who?

Are you enjoying your game?

Paul circumcised Timothy. The text states he (Paul) circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who were in those places.

You asked where it states Paul did so to appease people like you who insist on circumcision. So I showed you that the fact that it states "... because of the Jews who were in those places" implies it.
So as you knew perfectly well before you started your game, I'm asking if Paul would have done the same if the people in those places were Gentiles?

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Are you enjoying your game?

Paul circumcised Timothy. The text states he (Paul) circumcised Timothy because of the Jews who were in those places.

You asked where it states Paul did so to appease people like you who insist on circumcision. So I showed you that the fact that it states "... because of the Jews who were in those places" implies it.
So as you knew perfectly well before you started your game, I'm asking if Paul would have done the same if the people in those places were Gentiles?

It's not a game. I'm very technical. I prefer that things are well defined in my quest for the truth. It makes it easier to identify problems in the process early on.

So you are asserting that it was Paul's decision that Timothy be circumcised; and not Timothy's decision?

That is what I thought you were asserting; but I want to be sure.

I reject that premise; so if that is your premise; the rest of your argument is built on a faulty premise; unless you can prove the premise. You can't. Paul is not going to criticize the Talmud Party for pushing coerced circumcision; then right after Paul leaves the meeting, force Timothy into a situation that resembles rape.

I find the mere suggestion disgusting.

a-lily-of-peace · Apr 25, 2020

The covenant made by circumcision of the flesh promises the blessings of the things of the flesh - the land, full of flocks and fields, vineyards and vanities (at least as The Preacher saw it) but the new covenant doesn’t promise any of those things because it holds its promises in the world to come.

see:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say?“Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Galatians 4:21-31, NKJV)

Guojing · Apr 25, 2020

SpiritPsalmist said:
It was never needed for salvation, even Abraham was saved by his faith which was accounted to him as righteousness. In Galatians, Paul makes that quite clear...we just have to read it deliberately, slowly, so as not to miss things and in its full context.

Somehow Genesis 15:6 is a very popular verse that people memorized, thanks to Paul, but people often don't continue on to Genesis 17

Genesis 17:14 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

In the OT, before Christ came, if a Jew is cut off from national Israel, and broke the covenant of God, do you think he can still be saved?

Dkh587 · Apr 25, 2020

Lost4words said:
You are wrong.....The Jewish nation. The old Covenant Israel....Jews....

God bless you my friend

The new covenant is only with Israel - Jeremiah 31:31-33

The new covenant is not with any gentile nation, nor was a covenant with Gentiles prophesied.

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

Dkh587 said:
The new covenant is only with Israel - Jeremiah 31:31-33

Some people like to write off the prophets and say, "oh that was just a vision. It's just a picture show. That don't mean nuthin'."

Hebrews confirms the reality:

(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.

(CLV) Mt 15:24
Now He, [Yahshua] answering, said, "I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

pasifika · Apr 25, 2020

HARK! said:
The Jerusalem Council

There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.

The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.

(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."

Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign. This is not what Torah teaches. Was Abraham saved before or after he showed the sign?

Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99.

(CLV) Gn 17:24
Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.

Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?

Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:

(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

Here is the ruling:

(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."

Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

Messiah followed the Torah, not the Talmud.

Genesis 17 (CLV)

9 And saying is the Elohim to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you for their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you for their generations: Circumcise to yourselves every male. 11 And circumcised shall you be in the flesh of your foreskin. And it comes to be for a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And a son of eight days shall be circumcised by you, every male of your generations, homeborn or acquired with money from any foreigner, he who is not of your seed. 13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian (FOREVER)

Circumcision is done by the Spirit..Not by human hands. Circumcision of the heart.

pasifika · Apr 25, 2020

Dkh587 said:
The new covenant is only with Israel - Jeremiah 31:31-33

The new covenant is not with any gentile nation, nor was a covenant with Gentiles prophesied.

You need to understand who is Israel in the New covenant..
Not all who are descendants from Israel are Israel. Romans 9

HARK! · Apr 25, 2020

pasifika said:
Circumcision is done by the Spirit..Not by human hands. Circumcision of the heart.

(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.

Circumcision

Why must we be circumcised?

To be saved.

To keep the law.

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

שמע

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

שמע

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency