The Sabbath verses Sunday

[sparow]

Hi yes. I wanted to address this portion of your post, ie Jesus and the Father not agreeing with Paul.

I intentionally highlighted the portion regarding the Holy Spirit, unless of course you don't believe He is God? As He appears to agree with the apostles, elders and Paul.

There were earlier posts where Paul's integrity was questioned, but in the post you replied to it was only the issue of circumcision being discussed.

Hypothetically, should Satan came and quoted God incessantly, would God be in agreement with Satan?

 

[Rose_bud]

There were earlier posts where Paul's integrity was questioned, but in the post you replied to it was only the issue of circumcision being discussed.

Hypothetically, should Satan came and quoted God incessantly, would God be in agreement with Satan?

Hey sparrow,

Yes I read them, so you note that the apostles and the Holy Spirit were writing the letter to Gentiles, not wanting to burden them. There were certain requirements they had to adhere too, not the entire OT covenant. They were under a new covenant, but they were still in transition, hence they needed the wisdom of the Holy Spirit guiding them in their decisions, as they navigated this new occurrences.

I prefer not to respond to hypothetical situations.

 

[sparow]

Hey sparrow,

Yes I read them, so you note that the apostles and the Holy Spirit were writing the letter to Gentiles, not wanting to burden them. There were certain requirements they had to adhere too, not the entire OT covenant. They were under a new covenant, but they were still in transition, hence they needed the wisdom of the Holy Spirit guiding them in their decisions, as they navigated this new occurrences.

I prefer not to respond to hypothetical situations.

I believe you have responded with a hypothesis or a belief. I note that Luke wrote the history of the apostles work. Some claim that in doing so Luke was trying to reconcile the Pauline Church with the Jerusalem church. There is a new covenant, the one Jeremiah spoke of, for the Last Sheep of Israel and this is a renewed covenant, with no change. The renewed covenant may have been new to the gentiles, yet there is no record of that being taught to Gentiles in the book of Acts, what seems to have been taught was a Gospel of Paul.

 

[Rose_bud]

I believe you have responded with a hypothesis or a belief.

Hey there

Hypothesis is an assumption or interpretation based on limited information. Below is the evidence of what transpired and sufficient to provide a valid argument. A reading of the rest of Acts and the corresponding letters provides the broader context.

Below is an extract of the immediate context for the apostles writing the letter posted in Acts 15.

‭‭Acts 15:5-10
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to keep the Law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 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. Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear?

I note that Luke wrote the history of the apostles work. Some claim that in doing so Luke was trying to reconcile the Pauline Church with the Jerusalem church.

The reason for Luke writing is found in Luke 1:3-4. Luke Acts was considered one volume with two parts. This was the continuation. Luke is the account of Jesus and the what He did to bring about salvation to all who would believe. At His resurrection and during his earthly ministry He promised His followers that He would be with them, that the Father would comfort, lead and guide, teach them the truth they could not grasp yet. In Acts we understand this promise coming to fulfillment through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

There is a new covenant, the one Jeremiah spoke of, for the Last Sheep of Israel and this is a renewed covenant, with no change. The renewed covenant may have been new to the gentiles, yet there is no record of that being taught to Gentiles in the book of Acts, what seems to have been taught was a Gospel of Paul.

The gospel is the good news of the unparalleled, comprehensive, all-inclusive reign of the true King - Jesus Christ. This announcement first delivererd to the Jews, (for salvation is of the Jews), then to the Gentile. The forceful announcement and entry of a kingdom that includes all who believe that He (Jesus) is God, that he died and rose again. He was the sacrifice provided for our failure and for everything that hinders our well being. He came to restore his creation corrupted because of our rebellion against His rule.

The Jews thought this good news was for them only, but it also included the gentiles. Paul would be the one entrusted with this message and mystery and manifold wisdom of God.

For Jews the sign of the OT covenant was circumcision. To suddenly declare that gentiles are aligned with the God of Israel and not be initiated through circumcision in this covenant was a shock, hence the council calls and discussions. It was a big deal. For it does indeed speak of something new, although not explicit.

 

[sparow]

Hey there

Hypothesis is an assumption or interpretation based on limited information. Below is the evidence of what transpired and sufficient to provide a valid argument. A reading of the rest of Acts and the corresponding letters provides the broader context.

Below is an extract of the immediate context for the apostles writing the letter posted in Acts 15.

‭‭Acts 15:5-10
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to keep the Law of Moses.” The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 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. Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear?


The reason for Luke writing is found in Luke 1:3-4. Luke Acts was considered one volume with two parts. This was the continuation. Luke is the account of Jesus and the what He did to bring about salvation to all who would believe. At His resurrection and during his earthly ministry He promised His followers that He would be with them, that the Father would comfort, lead and guide, teach them the truth they could not grasp yet. In Acts we understand this promise coming to fulfillment through the presence of the Holy Spirit.


The gospel is the good news of the unparalleled, comprehensive, all-inclusive reign of the true King - Jesus Christ. This announcement first delivererd to the Jews, (for salvation is of the Jews), then to the Gentile. The forceful announcement and entry of a kingdom that includes all who believe that He (Jesus) is God, that he died and rose again. He was the sacrifice provided for our failure and for everything that hinders our well being. He came to restore his creation corrupted because of our rebellion against His rule.

The Jews thought this good news was for them only, but it also included the gentiles. Paul would be the one entrusted with this message and mystery and manifold wisdom of God.

For Jews the sign of the OT covenant was circumcision. To suddenly declare that gentiles are aligned with the God of Israel and not be initiated through circumcision in this covenant was a shock, hence the council calls and discussions. It was a big deal. For it does indeed speak of something new, although not explicit.

I would dispute that the apostles and elders had the authority to change the Law concerning circumcision. But I understand Paul had a method of starting with baby food and over time proceeding to strong meat, and, if a persons faith was weak he would do little, regarding the commandments, if his faith was strong he more would be expected. Remember Paul circumcised one of his followers, I think it was Timothy. Which makes me wonder how accurate Acts and Paul's epistles are.


<<Quote. The Jews thought this good news was for them only, but it also included the gentiles. Paul would be the one entrusted with this message and mystery and manifold wisdom of God.

For Jews the sign of the OT covenant was circumcision. To suddenly declare that gentiles are aligned with the God of Israel and not be initiated through circumcision in this covenant was a shock, hence the council calls and discussions. It was a big deal. For it does indeed speak of something new, although not explicit. Unquote.>>


I have to disagree with this. The Jews did not think there was any good news, and rejected their Messiah.

The sign of the covenant, from man is the seventh day Sabbath, from God it is the bow, even the rainbow.

Speaking of Rome: Dan 7:25, And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and Laws......

Isa 37:23, Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? And against whom has thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Even against the Holy One of Israel.

The seventh day Sabbath is a time, and Circumcision is a Law; Rome through Paul has done it.

 

[pasifika]

I would dispute that the apostles and elders had the authority to change the Law concerning circumcision. But I understand Paul had a method of starting with baby food and over time proceeding to strong meat, and, if a persons faith was weak he would do little, regarding the commandments, if his faith was strong he more would be expected. Remember Paul circumcised one of his followers, I think it was Timothy. Which makes me wonder how accurate Acts and Paul's epistles are.


<<Quote. The Jews thought this good news was for them only, but it also included the gentiles. Paul would be the one entrusted with this message and mystery and manifold wisdom of God.

For Jews the sign of the OT covenant was circumcision. To suddenly declare that gentiles are aligned with the God of Israel and not be initiated through circumcision in this covenant was a shock, hence the council calls and discussions. It was a big deal. For it does indeed speak of something new, although not explicit. Unquote.>>


I have to disagree with this. The Jews did not think there was any good news, and rejected their Messiah.

The sign of the covenant, from man is the seventh day Sabbath, from God it is the bow, even the rainbow.

Speaking of Rome: Dan 7:25, And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and Laws......

Isa 37:23, Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? And against whom has thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Even against the Holy One of Israel.

The seventh day Sabbath is a time, and Circumcision is a Law; Rome through Paul has done it.

the sign of the OT covenant is the sabbath(s)

 

[Rose_bud]

I would dispute that the apostles and elders had the authority to change the Law concerning circumcision. But I understand Paul had a method of starting with baby food and over time proceeding to strong meat, and, if a persons faith was weak he would do little, regarding the commandments, if his faith was strong he more would be expected. Remember Paul circumcised one of his followers, I think it was Timothy. Which makes me wonder how accurate Acts and Paul's epistles are.

Hey there sparrow.

Hope all is well with you today.

I'm not sure what you mean by strong faith and baby food and meat.?

Yes Paul did circumcise Timothy, it was more beneficial for the proclamation of the gospel to the Jews as Timothy was both Jew and Greek. Acts 16:1-2. And he did this for the sake of the Jews and the ministry to his own.

A similar principle is at work when Paul speaks about food sacrificed to idols. He knows that all things belong to God and an idol is nothing compared to who God is. He has freedom and no need for fear. But because of love for the weaker brother.. whose conscience will accuse him. He abstains. He will gladly offer up his liberty for the next person as he knows he is already free.

Scripture is best interpreted in its own context, immediate and broader, historical and geographical before trying to apply it to us many years later. i.e asking the question, What was happening in their time that Paul or whomever would say and do this. What kind of genre is this book. Is it poetry, narrative, historical narrative, epistle. Then within the book are their elements of poetry, rhetoric? Then also how does it compare with the overall message of the Bible, how is this text used in other books? What was the understanding people had of God during this time. Ultimately all things culminates in Christ.

It's like stepping in a room mid conversation and hearing a sentence or two. For example having someone from this generation - who never read the Bible or heard of Moses hear you say "Moses broke the two tablets". Possible question they might ask was it Samsung or Apple?? Context is important.

I have to disagree with this. The Jews did not think there was any good news, and rejected their Messiah.

Are you sure, I believe the disciples/apostles were Jews.

The sign of the covenant, from man is the seventh day Sabbath, from God it is the bow, even the rainbow.

You are correct by adding Sabbath as a sign for Israel's covenant. All three signs rainbow, circumcision and Sabbath are similar in its intent – to remind the participants in the covenant of their commitment to the agreement and respective obligations. The one key difference, while in the other covenants the signs are given for the human participation of their commitment, the rainbow is given as a reminder to God of his covenant commitment. Humanity could not keep their part of the agreement. They failed at upholding their end. They missed its spiritual implications. To hold out the hope for the promised 'seed'. And to hold out the hope for the promised 'rest'. Notwithstanding only God is faithful in keeping the covenants, another reason why He, Jesus is God and the true covenant keeper. And was both the promised seed and the promised rest.

Speaking of Rome: Dan 7:25, And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and Laws......

Isa 37:23, Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? And against whom has thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Even against the Holy One of Israel.

The seventh day Sabbath is a time, and Circumcision is a Law; Rome through Paul has done it.

See the comment on scripture interpretation, in addition to this. Be critical of your own escatological interpretive lens. Although the view I hold is that this already occurred when the temple was destroyed in 70AD with its adherence to days and laws.

 

[sparow]

the sign of the OT covenant is the sabbath(s)

I am not sure if you are making an abstract statement or not. I assume you disagree with this, "The sign of the covenant, from man is the seventh day Sabbath, from God it is the bow, even the rainbow."

Maybe it is the seventh day you object to, or maybe the issue is to do with grammar and semantics, that is, the sign is not the day, but rather men keeping the day, the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath is a sign that they/we have entered into the covenant; I vaguely recall there are about seven things that the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath is a sign of.

Or maybe you are distinguishing between the old covenant and the new covenant. Jesus revealed that no changes are made to the Law and the Prophets until after the heavens and the earth pass away. After that time or during the resurrection two changes are prophesied to occur, the Law is written by God on the hearts and minds of the saved, and the sins of the father will no longer be brought forward onto the children for three generations. God's covenant is one, even though it is revealed a little at a time. What most call the new covenant is a concoction by men, it may not be a concoction because it has not substance.

 

[sparow]

Hey there sparrow.

Hope all is well with you today.

I'm not sure what you mean by strong faith and baby food and meat.?

Yes Paul did circumcise Timothy, it was more beneficial for the proclamation of the gospel to the Jews as Timothy was both Jew and Greek. Acts 16:1-2. And he did this for the sake of the Jews and the ministry to his own.

A similar principle is at work when Paul speaks about food sacrificed to idols. He knows that all things belong to God and an idol is nothing compared to who God is. He has freedom and no need for fear. But because of love for the weaker brother.. whose conscience will accuse him. He abstains. He will gladly offer up his liberty for the next person as he knows he is already free.

Scripture is best interpreted in its own context, immediate and broader, historical and geographical before trying to apply it to us many years later. i.e asking the question, What was happening in their time that Paul or whomever would say and do this. What kind of genre is this book. Is it poetry, narrative, historical narrative, epistle. Then within the book are their elements of poetry, rhetoric? Then also how does it compare with the overall message of the Bible, how is this text used in other books? What was the understanding people had of God during this time. Ultimately all things culminates in Christ.

It's like stepping in a room mid conversation and hearing a sentence or two. For example having someone from this generation - who never read the Bible or heard of Moses hear you say "Moses broke the two tablets". Possible question they might ask was it Samsung or Apple?? Context is important.


Are you sure, I believe the disciples/apostles were Jews.



You are correct by adding Sabbath as a sign for Israel's covenant. All three signs rainbow, circumcision and Sabbath are similar in its intent – to remind the participants in the covenant of their commitment to the agreement and respective obligations. The one key difference, while in the other covenants the signs are given for the human participation of their commitment, the rainbow is given as a reminder to God of his covenant commitment. Humanity could not keep their part of the agreement. They failed at upholding their end. They missed its spiritual implications. To hold out the hope for the promised 'seed'. And to hold out the hope for the promised 'rest'. Notwithstanding only God is faithful in keeping the covenants, another reason why He, Jesus is God and the true covenant keeper. And was both the promised seed and the promised rest.



See the comment on scripture interpretation, in addition to this. Be critical of your own escatological interpretive lens. Although the view I hold is that this already occurred when the temple was destroyed in 70AD with its adherence to days and laws.

Thank you for enquiring, I am well after a bad night's sleep.

As God is one, so the truth is one, but the truth and the lie are not binary, that is, the lie is neither one nor zero, the lie is infinity, countless.

The excuses and teachings mankind makes to avoid entering into the covenant with God are infinite and vain.

 

[Rose_bud]

Thank you for enquiring, I am well after a bad night's sleep.

As God is one, so the truth is one, but the truth and the lie are not binary, that is, the lie is neither one nor zero, the lie is infinity, countless.

The excuses and teachings mankind makes to avoid entering into the covenant with God are infinite and vain.

Glad you are feeling better

 

[HIM]

I do not understand why you are quoting these verses, which in themselves are very useful, but have nothing to do with Paul assuming the authority to discontinue circumcision.

Paul isn't assuming authority

God is referring to the Sinai covenant and adding understanding.

No God isn't referring to the Sinia covenant. THE FACT you don't see that should give you great pause. It is A New covenant which the Lord is making with Israel in Moab prior to entering into the promised land. This Covenant is in addition to, or beside the one made in Horeb which is Sinai. In this one the Lord does the circumcising not us. And that circumcision is of the Heart not the flesh. Take note in Deut 10:16 where God tells the people to circumcise their hearts for the first time. But in Deut 30 God says for the first time He will do it. He will put His commandments, statutes contained in the Book of the Law in our hearts that we do them. This changed heart through God is actually the circumcision which He speaks of in verse 6. God through Paul Paraphrases these verses from Det.30:10-14 in Rom 10:6-8. It is the culmination of the Book of Romans actually.


Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Deut 29:1 (NET) These are the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

The English words are choices made by translators and with word for word translations, like the KJV, the words chosen by the translators, reflect their personal opinion, and can only be approximately equivalent anyway. Let us look at some different translations.

The word for Circumcision is translated properly. Grab a Strong's concordance you will see ever occurrence. There are not many.

 

[sparow]

Paul isn't assuming authority

No God isn't referring to the Sinia covenant. THE FACT you don't see that should give you great pause. It is A New covenant which the Lord is making with Israel in Moab prior to entering into the promised land. This Covenant is in addition to, or beside the one made in Horeb which is Sinai. In this one the Lord does the circumcising not us. And that circumcision is of the Heart not the flesh. Take note in Deut 10:16 where God tells the people to circumcise their hearts for the first time. But in Deut 30 God says for the first time He will do it. He will put His commandments, statutes contained in the Book of the Law in our hearts that we do them. This changed heart through God is actually the circumcision which He speaks of in verse 6. God through Paul Paraphrases these verses from Det.30:10-14 in Rom 10:6-8. It is the culmination of the Book of Romans actually.


Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Deut 29:1 (NET) These are the words of the covenant that the LORD commanded Moses to make with the people of Israel in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;




The word for Circumcision is translated properly. Grab a Strong's concordance you will see ever occurrence. There are not many.

Are you a Dispensationalist? That would explain a lot.

What does the word covenant mean to you, disregarding the words witchcraft origin, but considering the English Law meaning; a form of contract where one party does something on the condition that the other party does something. Gods covenant has the penalty of death as its foundation, “I set before you life and death, chose life or chose death.”

The Hebrew word means to cut, is not exclusive to circumcision, and is probably meant as a metaphor in Deut 30.

Deut 10:16, Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Israel's problem probably was to do with Pride.

Deut 10:16, So then, from now on be obedient to the Lord and stop being stubborn.

Deut 30 is prophetic, when has Israel ever been right with God?

 

[Lukaris]

The New Covenant contains the letters of Paul an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ Who selected by the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

The New Covenant contains the letters of Paul an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ Who selected by the Lord.

The New Covenant is in Jer 31:31-34
Paul quotes that New Covenant verbatim in Heb 8:6-13

It has 4 parts to it.

1. new birth, new heart, Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers - written on that new heart.
2. Adoption into the family of God
3. All taught by God
4. Forgiveness of sins

Jer 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[BobRyan]

I do not understand why you are quoting these verses, which in themselves are very useful, but have nothing to do with Paul assuming the authority to discontinue circumcision.

1. There is no OT command stating that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved - but that is something that some Christian Jews in the New Testament "made up" according to Acts 15:1-3

2. In Acts 21 Paul is accused of the very thing that you suggest and he takes steps to refute the accusation as follows

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

 

[sparow]

The New Covenant contains the letters of Paul an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ Who selected by the Lord.

I agree with what Bobryan's reply, but I add; the NT contains the epistles of Paul, the next question is who put them there. I believe most Christians confuse the Gospels with the new covenant, which brings into question what the word covenant means to them.

 

[sparow]

1. There is no OT command stating that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved - but that is something that some Christian Jews in the New Testament "made up" according to Acts 15:1-3

2. In Acts 21 Paul is accused of the very thing that you suggest and he takes steps to refute the accusation as follows

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

<<There is no OT command stating that gentiles must be circumcised to be saved - but that is something that some Christian Jews in the New Testament "made up" according to Acts 15:1-3.


You are wrong. It may depend on what you mean by “saved”; there are no commandments outside of the covenant that save, even then it is not the commandments, but the obedience and a relationship with God that saves.

With the original commandment, anyone (strangers included) living in Abraham's camp had to be circumcised. And later, any stranger living with Israel was required by commandment to be circumcised and keep the same Law as Israel.

“we have written and decided” Acts 21:25. Men do not have the authority to change God's Laws; only Satan presumes to do so; it is not possible for God to change to change the Law either, without annulling the covenant and changing His identity.

 

[BobRyan]

any stranger living with Israel was required by commandment to be circumcised

Do you have a text for that??

In Acts 13, and Acts 15 and Acts 17 and Acts 18 we see examples of non-circumcised gentiles worshipping with Jews on Sabbath ( in the Synagogues in most cases). Passover was the only thing they were restricted from engaging in as non-circumcised convert/proselytes .

from: Proselyte - Wikipedia

"A "gate proselyte"[12] is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the Jewish customs.[10] They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Seven Laws of Noah[10] (do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish rule of law) to be assured of a place in the world to come."​

from

Acts 10 - What is a “God-Fearing Gentile”? - Reading Acts

Luke describes Cornelius as God-Fearing and devout. “Devout” (εὐσεβής, 10:2) indicates someone is devoted to a particular religion or god; a person who is “profoundly reverent” (BDAG), whether this is a person who is reverent towards the God of Israel or a Greco-Roman god. The description of...

readingacts.com

"Luke describes Cornelius as God-Fearing and devout. “Devout” (εὐσεβής, 10:2) indicates someone is devoted to a particular religion or god; a person who is “profoundly reverent” (BDAG), whether this is a person who is reverent towards the God of Israel or a Greco-Roman god. The description of Cornelius as a God-Fearer (φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν) may mean he was a Gentile who was nearly a convert to Judaism, keeping as much of the Law as possible, but not submitting to circumcision. Julius Scott provides the more or less standard definition of a God-Fearer:​

​

“an unofficial class of Gentiles who stopped short of becoming full proselytes but were permitted limited participation in Jewish worship” (JETS 34 [1991]: 478).​

​

 

[sparow]

Do you have a text for that??

In Acts 13, and Acts 15 and Acts 17 and Acts 18 we see examples of non-circumcised gentiles worshipping with Jews on Sabbath ( in the Synagogues in most cases). Passover was the only thing they were restricted from engaging in as non-circumcised convert/proselytes .

from: Proselyte - Wikipedia

"A "gate proselyte"[12] is a resident alien who lives in the Land of Israel and follows some of the Jewish customs.[10] They are not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They are bound only to conform to the Seven Laws of Noah[10] (do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit fornication (immoral sexual acts), do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish rule of law) to be assured of a place in the world to come."​

from

Acts 10 - What is a “God-Fearing Gentile”? - Reading Acts

Luke describes Cornelius as God-Fearing and devout. “Devout” (εὐσεβής, 10:2) indicates someone is devoted to a particular religion or god; a person who is “profoundly reverent” (BDAG), whether this is a person who is reverent towards the God of Israel or a Greco-Roman god. The description of...

readingacts.com

"Luke describes Cornelius as God-Fearing and devout. “Devout” (εὐσεβής, 10:2) indicates someone is devoted to a particular religion or god; a person who is “profoundly reverent” (BDAG), whether this is a person who is reverent towards the God of Israel or a Greco-Roman god. The description of Cornelius as a God-Fearer (φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν) may mean he was a Gentile who was nearly a convert to Judaism, keeping as much of the Law as possible, but not submitting to circumcision. Julius Scott provides the more or less standard definition of a God-Fearer:​

​

“an unofficial class of Gentiles who stopped short of becoming full proselytes but were permitted limited participation in Jewish worship” (JETS 34 [1991]: 478).​

​

The Law of circumcision was given to Abraham and God has not rescinded any of his Laws; it is my belief hat if God changed any of his Laws, God would disqualify himself. Moses on the other hand, as well as articulating the Law for us, did change law; one obvious is the Law concerning divorce, Moses allowed divorce, Jesus said the change was invalid. Moses also let circumcision lapse, whether by command or neglect, I do not know.

Joshua 5:1-6. verse 5. ….....but all the people who were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.

The reason circumcision recommenced and the older generation circumcised a second time, was because they had forgotten God. I believe a third circumcision is now required.

New converts into the Jewish religion, are provisional, their children are fully accepted. Lev 19:34, 25:23, 45.


Israel did not always do what God said but made a lot of their own rules.

 

[BobRyan]

The Law of circumcision was given to Abraham and God has not rescinded any of his Laws

In my view Heb 10 says animal sacrifice forms of worship service are no longer required after the cross "he takes away the first to establish the second".

But your post is in response to circumcision. I was pointing out that gentiles were never required to be circumcised to be saved in the OT. That is some new idea that Christian Jews came up with in Acts 15:1-2. Something that not even the non-Christian Jews were promoting.

; it is my belief hat if God changed any of his Laws, God would disqualify himself.

Well the priesthood changed to the priesthood of Christ in Heb 7 and 8.
And the animal sacrifice system of worship changed to the one that we have now as far as I can tell from Heb 10:4-10

Moses on the other hand, as well as articulating the Law for us, did change law; one obvious is the Law concerning divorce, Moses allowed divorce, Jesus said the change was invalid.

Scripture is authored by God. Moses' allowance was within the context of the civil code of that theocracy. Morally the married people were not supposed to get divorced at all - but legally in the civil codes you can't have two people that cannot tolerate each other forced to stay together until one of them dies. It is not very practical.

Jesus does not say "Moses made a mistake due to the hardness of his heart" , rather He says that the people were in such an unsaved condition in certain cases that it was too dangerous to force them to live together "due to the hardness of your heart" meaning the sinful unsaved heart of the people in those divorce-for-safety situations.