Circumcision

[Guojing]

And you cannot accept what His Son taught: That it was His Father's forever covenant that would bring both Jew and Gentile together as a new creation - in Him.

I'll be praying for you. Blessing and Peace Brother

Yes, that is the Body of Christ. But that is not under any covenant.

If I am wrong, please share the scripture in which you are using.

 

[Studyman]

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

You understand the words in bold, what do they mean?

No such thing means no such thing. The verse you quoted was directed to Paul, who is a circumcised Jew.

I posted the very words of scripture, and asked you a question, which you once again, refused to answer.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 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, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

This is why Paul didn't take Gentiles into the Temple and make them take a vow and Shave their heads.

As Moses told him in the Law and Prophets that Paul believed in.

Duet. 23: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.

You keep trying to force your adopted religious philosophy into Paul's mouth. Neither Acts 15, nor Acts 21 promotes that Paul taught against the Torah. You will have to go find another place for support of this popular religious philosophy.

 

[Studyman]

Forgive me Brother, But I fear you misapprehend the normal order of things, contemporaneous to Paul's proselyting among the Gentiles or Nations (Goyim). As had always been the case, after revealing the Good News, there were 'minimum requirements' the Goyim had to first meet, in order for a Jew to elaborate on the teachings of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus the Christ) concerning the covenant of Truth (Torah). This is what @HARK! referred to here:

The inference here is simple and logical.

1. A Torah observant Jew would not abide with anyone that did not keep the First & Second Commandments, abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols (like pouring out a portion of your drink as an offering to a false deity), and (The Seventh Commandment) prostitution (sexual immorality), and what is strangled (consuming meat from an animal that had not been been killed in the manner prescribed under Torah), and blood(another Torah instruction not to drink blood or to consume bloody meat.
   • For both of these matters, let's read: Leviticus 17:10-14 CJB 10 When someone from the community of Isra’el or one of the foreigners living with you eats any kind of blood, I will set myself against that person who eats blood and cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.’ 12 This is why I told the people of Isra’el, ‘None of you is to eat blood, nor is any foreigner living with you to eat blood.’
     13 “When someone from the community of Isra’el or one of the foreigners living with you hunts and catches game, whether animal or bird that may be eaten, he is to pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 14 For the life of every creature — its blood is its life. Therefore I said to the people of Isra’el, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it will be cut off.’
2. Once they agreed to those terms, they would be taught Torah (the 'Law' [more accurately 'instruction']) that Messiah Yeshua taught throughout His Ministry, keeping in mind that Yeshua repeatedly taught He only said and did what the Father instructed Him.
3. Once the Gentile had learned the basics (that to what they were committing) they were to allowed to CHOOSE to enter into a Covenant relationship with the sons of Jacob. Then and only then were they allowed to CHOOSE to take the 'Sign' of the Covenant of Abraham (Circumcision) making them 'one of the family' so to speak.
4. For clarification's sake, the Sign of the Covenant (Torah) with Jacob (AKA Israel) is the seventh day Sabbath (The Fourth Commandment).
5. Think of this like you would the process of entering into a business deal. First you investigate with whom you are getting into a business relationship. They would need to be of good repute. Then you ascertain the nature of the business proposition, understanding your goals and the goals of the other parties. You negotiate the terms of the contract and finally, after deciding that this agreement is fair and consistent with everyone's interests, you enter into a contractual agreement under the law. See the similarities?
   
   You can find the same elements in the meeting with Adonai at Sinai and the giving of the Ten Commandments. After all, they had already developed an intimate relationship with the Father and His Prophet Moses during the Exodus. The only question remained when they got to Sinai was to ask the sons of Israel and the mixed multitude if they were in agreement; that is, were they willing to commit. Please remember also that this was including Gentiles in the same fashion as described in Acts 15.
   
   So, to be precise, what James decided in Acts 15 was
   
   1. The uncircumcised believers, which Paul was assigned to (Galatians 2:7-9) did not have to obey ALL the Torah - yet.
   2. The circumcised believers, of the little flock(?) (See Note) which James, Peter and John were assigned to (Galatians 2:7-9), must still obey the Torah.
6. NOTE: Around 3,000 believed at the Shavuot (Feast of weeks or Pentecost if you prefer the Greek) and that was just one day! Many more thousands more came to believe in Yeshua long before Paul has his 'epiphany' on the road to Damascus.
   
   Remember also, that Moses was raised among the Egyptians and was not circumcised like his brother Aaron. Note Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet (or touched it to his feet); and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.)
   
   I fear you have greatly misapprehended the context of the Council of Jerusalem if you think it was a 'small flock' or that Adonai, Who was not a 'respecter of persons', would advocate treating the Gentiles in Galatia any different than He did Moses or the mixed multitude at Sinai. Messiah Yeshua taught Torah, the Writings and the Prophets to His disciples. In regard to circumcision, what exactly do you think they taught theirs?
   
   Offered in His Love,

This is my understanding as well. God's Sabbath is one Outward Sign of who purchased us. Circumcision is an inward sign of commitment and "putting on the New Man" which after God is created in Righteousness and True Holiness.

Yeshua once said to His People, "Let your Light Shine". I don't think He meant that men should flash their nakedness to others, to show them "the sign". It's more of a private commitment, between God and man in my view.

A great topic of discussion, to be sure.

 

[Studyman]

Yes they were charging these new to the faith to be circumcised, in addition to keeping the Torah.

James ruled that they must keep the Torah. That falls in line with what YHWH and Yahshua had already said.

However, these Pharisees were putting the cart before the horse. Circumcision is the seal of faith.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

(CLV) Ro 4:11
And he obtained the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in uncircumcision, for him to be the father of all those who are believing through uncircumcision, for righteousness to be reckoned to them,

Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99 years old.

It's important for new believers to grow strong in their faith, and for the change to take place within. Without that inward change, outward signs like circumcision and baptism mean nothing.

Absolutely. I thought I promoted this view in my post. I didn't think there was any discernable difference between the religious philosophy of the men who came down from Judea, and those from the Sect of the Pharisees which believed. The Apostles turned the Gentile Converts away from both.

Perhaps I should have worded my reply in a better way.

Abraham didn't bear a burden (for those who love to do the will of the father, the burden is light) of circumcision before he was mature in his faith. Those who assert that new believers must show that outward sign to share Torah fellowship, need to read more Torah.

That was the exact point of my post. Perhaps I didn't understand the OP in the first place. I would only say that I don't believe Circumcision is an "Outward Sign", but one inwardly. As I said, I don't think Yeshua meant, when HE said to "let my light shine", that I should flash myself to show others "the sign". I think the 7th Day Sabbath of God is an "outward sign", and other instructions in righteousness. But the Circumcision of God is a private matter between God and man, in my view.

 

[HARK!]

Absolutely. I thought I promoted this view in my post

I was just agreeing and expanding on what you posted.

 

[HARK!]

As I said, I don't think Yeshua meant, when HE said to "let my light shine", that I should flash myself to show others "the sign".

LOL!

 

[Studyman]

I was just agreeing and expanding on what you posted.

 

[Studyman]

I was just agreeing and expanding on what you posted.

Perhaps the forum has made me a little gun shy.

Blessings Hark.

 

[Studyman]

LOL!

I was grinning when I thought of it.

Have a great night Hark

 

[HARK!]

Perhaps the forum has made me a little gun shy.

Blessings Hark.

This thread needs more fellowship.

Blessings multiplied, Brother.

 

[Guojing]

You keep trying to force your adopted religious philosophy into Paul's mouth. Neither Acts 15, nor Acts 21 promotes that Paul taught against the Torah. You will have to go find another place for support of this popular religious philosophy.

I never said anything about Paul teaching against the Law, if you read my post properly.

I am merely saying James himself said in Acts 21:25 that the gentile believers are to do no such thing, meaning they do not have to keep the Law, unlike the circumcised believers, which is my point 2 that I have given to you.

 

[daq]

I never said anything about Paul teaching against the Law, if you read my post properly.

I am merely saying James himself said in Acts 21:25 that the gentile believers are to do no such thing, meaning they do not have to keep the Law, unlike the circumcised believers, which is my point 2 that I have given to you.

Actually that is a disputed statement.

Acts 21:25 KJV (T/R, BYZ text type)
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Acts 21:25 ASV (N/A, Western text type)
25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.

One can say that the N/A and Western text types have omitted the key phrase which you are using for your argument: another can just as easily say that the T/R and Byzantine text types have added the spurious phrase you are using for your argument.

Nobody "wins" the argument because the text it is in dispute.
It is not a good idea to formulate doctrine based on disputed statements or variants.

 

[Guojing]

Actually that is a disputed statement.

Acts 21:25 KJV (T/R, BYZ text type)
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Acts 21:25 ASV (N/A, Western text type)
25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.

One can say that the N/A and Western text types have omitted the key phrase which you are using for your argument: another can just as easily say that the T/R and Byzantine text types have added the spurious phrase you are using for your argument.

Nobody "wins" the argument because the text it is in dispute.
It is not a good idea to formulate doctrine based on disputed statements or variants.

They are not disputing the existence of that phrase, they are disputing what it meant.

But yes, when in doubt I always use KJV

 

[HARK!]

I am merely saying James himself said in Acts 21:25 that the gentile believers are to do no such thing, meaning they do not have to keep the Law, unlike the circumcised believers, which is my point 2 that I have given to you.

In the OP I demonstrated that what James declared that the Ger Toshav must obey four laws that come right out of the Torah; as they continue their studies of the Torah on the Sabbaths.

 

[HARK!]

They are not disputing the existence of that phrase, they are disputing what it meant.

But yes, when in doubt I always use KJV

The KJV is a corrupt translation. In addition it does not conform to textual criticism.

 

[Guojing]

In the OP I demonstrated that what James declared that the Ger Toshav must obey four laws that come right out of the Torah; as they continue their studies of the Torah on the Sabbaths.

So what does the phrase, do no such thing, means to you literally?

 

[HARK!]

Actually that is a disputed statement.

Acts 21:25 KJV (T/R, BYZ text type)
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Acts 21:25 ASV (N/A, Western text type)
25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.

One can say that the N/A and Western text types have omitted the key phrase which you are using for your argument: another can just as easily say that the T/R and Byzantine text types have added the spurious phrase you are using for your argument.

Nobody "wins" the argument because the text it is in dispute.
It is not a good idea to formulate doctrine based on disputed statements or variants.

Added to my Critical Text folder.

 

[HARK!]

So what does the phrase, do no such thing, means to you literally?

I made my statement in the OP. If you disagree that; I feel confident that we can agree that James was not contradicting Messiah.

(CLV) Mt 19:16
And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?"

(CLV) Mt 19:17
Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."

 

[Guojing]

I made my statement in the OP. If you disagree that; I feel confident that we can agree that James was not contradicting Messiah.

(CLV) Mt 19:16
And lo! one coming to Him said, "Teacher, what good shall I be doing that I should be having life eonian?"

(CLV) Mt 19:17
Yet He said to him, "Why are you asking Me concerning good? One is good. Yet if you are wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts."

Okay given your views towards the KJV, you prefer that the phrase did not exist.

Do the others here also think like that?

That I can understand why they are disagreeing as well

 

[HARK!]

Okay given your views towards the KJV, you prefer that the phrase did not exist.

That assumption carries no more weight than the presumption that the KJV reflects the autograph manuscript.

Do the others here also think like that?

Do you presume that I presume to speak for "the others?"

That I can understand why they are disagreeing as well

I'm not so presumptuous as to presume that I understand why anyone disagrees, unless they specifically tell me why they disagree.