The Basics

[twnsrkr]

and you are not misunderstanding?
Better to interpret scripture with scripture. See for example
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Validating Paul with Paul.

Joh 5:31 ¶ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Do you know that Jesus was circumcised (because it was law). But Paul wrote
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

And yet Paul later circumcises a man. Hows that for conflicting testimony.

 

[r035198x]

Validating Paul with Paul.

Joh 5:31 ¶ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

I validated Paul with Peter. You ignored that part.

And yet Paul later circumcises a man. Hows that for conflicting testimony.

You are now demonstrating that you are just arguing from things you hear people say rather than what the Bible actually says.
Did you read Acts 15? Was it Paul that demanded that Gentiles not be circumcised?

Did you even read that verse:
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Was Timothy circumcised because of the law orbecause he was being prepared to minister to Jews who did not accept teaching from any uncircumcised person?
Why did you ignore the other questions I asked in the previous posts?

 

[Tink]

Please be sure not to turn this into a debate. I would hate for my thread to be locked. Thanks, y'all.