II don't think buggy argued whether they are a nation or not. Since there is a nation called Israel from 1948, I really don't understand what is happening. The time of the Gentiles isn't over at this point and time.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
II don't think buggy argued whether they are a nation or not. Since there is a nation called Israel from 1948, I really don't understand what is happening. The time of the Gentiles isn't over at this point and time.They are a nation whether they are under a theocratic rule or not.
Cain and Abel weren't subject to the levitical law not in existence during their life time.Until you notice the details in the actual text. And the fact that even Cain and Able were offering sacrifices -- as this was the OT form of liturgy for all mankind.
I guess we weren't supposed to notice Cain and Abel didn't have the law issued at Sinai.Were we simply "not supposed to notice"???
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?Nonesense... your argument that the liturgy of the OT "violates the Sabbath according to the OT" is your own "argument against the text" ... why do I have to explain the obvious???
What is the problem with it? Most likely you haven't figured out a way to dismiss the passage.You keep quoting this --
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
As if it helps your case... why keep doing that??
We don't see anything telling us those gentiles kept the covenant issued at Sinai as you insist. Merely appearing in the synagogue isn't proof of observing the sabbath ort he law. Since it says gentiles, they were considered foreigners and couldn't participate in the rites of the law.we see even in the NT among NON-Christian Jews the uncircumcised gentiles worshiped the One True God in the Synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:1-5 Sabbath after Sabbath.
We grant you the same courtesy.No wait! I don't think you understand -- I have always said you have the right to ignore whatever details you wish. I fully agree to your right to do so.
You dismiss the qualifier.But for the rest of us --
Isaiah 56 still says this
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
Hello Bob.
You said earlier that Gentiles were not circumcised in the Old or New Testament.
Gentiles did not have to become Jews to worship the true God. That was never an OT demand.
Gentiles were told to observe the Sabbath in Isaiah 56:1-8 but never told that they had to be circumcised to be saved or to worship the one true God.
All mankind to come before God "from Sabbath to Sabbath" and bow down in worship Isaiah 66:23 -- but never do we see "all mankind circumcised" in OT or NT.
Hence Paul's statement here
"circumcision is nothing and uncirumcision is nothing but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
I showed you that Gentiles were circumcised to celebrate the Passover.
Why can't you admit to your error?
Exodus 12:48 - And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
We have to look at this in context, because right before this, he was disputing Judaizers that claimed that the only way to be saved, was to first be circumcised, but he pointed out Abraham.
Cain and Abel weren't subject to the levitical law not in existence during their life time.
The law is weak because it doesn't and can't change the will.Hello Devin P.
I have an issue with the following.
Sin is sin, whether one has the law or not, because it boils down to how you treat other people. God can judge you just as effectively with or without the law.
Romans 2
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.
God destroyed the world already, think Noah. How many living in the time of Noah had the law?
The law demonstrates what sin is but the law does not cover a range of other sins. In effect the law is weak, one because it cannot save anyone. And two, because the law does not deal with the major sins in society today (gluttony, gambling, drinking, drugs, porn, e.t.c.)
Identifying a sin with the law is useless, unless someone has the power to deal with that sin.
No. A person will be punished for not accepting redemption.What he means by all who have sinned without the law will perish without it is referring to those without it. Gentiles, or disobedient ones. Those without the law will still be punished according to it.
Sin is the transgression of the law. You wouldn't be able to sin without the law being in place.
Sadly for that suggestion - there is no exegesis of Jeremiah 31 where Jeremiah tells his readers to "ignore written scripture" as Jeremiah himself is in fact writing "more written scripture" -- and we all know it.
The same Law known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on the heart under the New Covenant - as we see stated clearly in Jeremiah 31.
That cannot be bent into "do whatever you feel like doing" since as we all know - mankind continues to have a sinful nature even AFTER being converted.
Moses and Elijah - standing WITH Christ in glory -- BEFORE the cross... in Matthew 17 -- do not preach an "ignore written scripture" doctrine.
Hello Bob.They were not offering pigs up to God as a sacrifice -
They were not supposed to be taking God's name in vain -
They were not supposed to murder -
They were not required to be circumcised in order to worship the one true God.
In fact no gentiles were required to be circumcised in the OT if all they wanted to do was live in their own land and worship the true God.
You need to provide the written evidence of this law, before the law was given to Israel at Mt Sinai.They were not supposed to be taking God's name in vain
Yes, the law was written on the heart, not the ten commandments alone but the entire law. This also includes everything the Prophets wrote, so gluttony and heavy drinking are included for example.That's an excellent point, I kinda wish I'd thought of it.
The Torah that Jeremiah was speaking of was the actual Torah. The NT was not even written yet.
It's such a simple yet profound point that I can't see any way to refute it.
Indeed "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18
Were not given as "an alternate gospel" but they are written on the heart under the Jer 31:31-33 New Cov
Hello Bob.They were not offering pigs up to God as a sacrifice -
They were not supposed to be taking God's name in vain -
They were not supposed to murder -
They were not required to be circumcised in order to worship the one true God.
In fact no gentiles were required to be circumcised in the OT if all they wanted to do was live in their own land and worship the true God.
Hello Bob.
A Gentile that converted to Judaism would be taught the law, why is that?
Because that is the law that God gave to the nation of Israel. .
How do you know if the Gentiles who came to worship in the temple were circumcised or uncircumcised?Hello David -
I actually said this --
Gentiles did not have to become Jews to worship the true God. That was never an OT demand.
Gentiles were told to observe the Sabbath in Isaiah 56:1-8 but never told that they had to be circumcised to be saved or to worship the one true God.
As we see even in the NT among NON-Christian Jews the uncircumcised gentiles worshiped the One True God in the Synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:1-5
All mankind to come before God "from Sabbath to Sabbath" and bow down in worship Isaiah 66:23 -- but never do we see "all mankind circumcised" in OT or NT.
Hence Paul's statement here
"circumcision is nothing and uncirumcision is nothing but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Indeed -- a "bait and switch" on your part having nothing at all to refute the much more general statement
Gentiles did not have to become Jews to worship the true God. That was never an OT demand.
As we see even in the NT among NON-Christian Jews the uncircumcised gentiles worshiped the One True God in the Synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-4, Acts 18:1-5
Because your equivocation between the special case of 'Passover participation' with my more explicit statement about "never told that they had to be circumcised to be saved or to worship the one true God. " is much more transparently disconnected from "in order to celebrate Passover" then you may have at first imagined to yourself.
As I keep pointing out - over and over.
so then not a requirement for all gentiles to keep Passover, to move to Israel or to be circumcised in order to worship God and accept the Bible.
But if such a gentile DID want to move to Israel and keep Passover - they would need to be circumcised.
Almost never would happen.
The point remains in that case.
1 Cor 7:19 "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
How do you know if the Gentiles who came to worship in the temple were circumcised or uncircumcised?
Did I miss a verse?
Hello Bob.
Before the law of Moses where is it written that people could not take God's name in vain?
I think you got your ideas from some MJ group. What you post makes me so sad, I cannot respond with anything else fearing being reported.Exodus 12:48 - And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Joshua 5:2 - At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
I'll also mention Abraham getting circumcised. Since you're arguing only Jews, or Israel needed to be circumcised, yet, Abraham was neither, and still got circumcised.
This (Joshua 5:2) was referring to Israel. I'll note, Israel at this time was made up of the offspring of both, natural born, and grafted Egyptians. Both were made to be circumcised. He made no distinction, meaning we can be safe in saying it was to all of the children of both the former Egyptians, and the first Israelites.
We have to look at this in context, because right before this, he was disputing Judaizers that claimed that the only way to be saved, was to first be circumcised, but he pointed out Abraham. That, first he had faith, and then he solidified that faith and sealed it by circumcision. Just as Abraham was, he said we are to be. He was making an example, saying, we are saved and justified by faith alone, but that eventually that faith would cause us to get circumcised. Not to save ourselves, but because we already were saved by Jesus - through faith.
Joshua 5:5 - Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that wereborn in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
This verse says that "all the people" that came out were circumcised. Came out of where? Egypt. All those that came out of Egypt. Egyptians also came out with Israel, and they were counted as Israel, because they followed after YHWH. This doesn't say, all natural-born Israel, except those born in Egypt. No, it said that all that came out of Egypt. This is including the Egyptians that came out as well.
It then goes on to describe those that weren't circumcised, as those that were born along the way after they had come out. So, since all the first generation was dead, and the second generation was alive, most of them from the second generation weren't circumcised. This makes no distinction between natural born, nor foreigner, because as Torah says constantly, they shall be to them as one born IN the land. That they shall be as a NATIVE born.
There is not one law for the Israelites, and another for gentiles. Otherwise, as someone else so wisely pointed out on one of these forums. If this was the case, then God would have had no ground to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because they weren't part of Israel. They were gentiles. Nor would He have any grounds to give Israel the promised land, because as He says, it's not for Israel's righteousness that He gives them the land, but because of the unrighteousness of those being removed. They wouldn't be expected to live up to the standards of the law not given to them. His law has no limitations to who it applies to. It applies to all flesh, because His law is the only way we know what sin is, meaning, if it was only given to Israel, no one else would be sinning, because the very definition of sin wouldn't even be applicable to them.
No the law is partly in place to legally deal with sin. Another part is to drive us to the Redeemer Jesus the Christ.What he means by all who have sinned without the law will perish without it is referring to those without it. Gentiles, or disobedient ones. Those without the law will still be punished according to it.
Sin is the transgression of the law. You wouldn't be able to sin without the law being in place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?