God gave the law about Circumcision.

[GWH]

Did I say that? No I didn’t.



A single case where the rationale was clearly explained does not make a sound argument for circumcision of all Christians.

Yes, it is not valid to treat historical passages as though they are prescriptive, doctrinal or didactic.

 

[Needevidence]

I already told you Revelation is using figurative language for doctrines of demons. It has nothing to do with real food. That's the only possible explanation because both Paul and Jesus said that nothing a person eats can defile them

to me at least this part of REV is clear, its not figuratively speaking - - so basically ignore it - are you saying that all of Rev should be ignored or just the bits that you want!

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

to me at least this part of REV is clear, its not figuratively speaking - - so basically ignore it - are you saying that all of Rev should be ignored or just the bits that you want!

You're simply choosing to ignore the plain speech of Jesus and Paul in other verses that contradict a literal interpretation of that Rev verse.

 

[Needevidence]

You're simply choosing to ignore the plain speech of Jesus and Paul in other verses that contradict a literal interpretation of that Rev verse.

not at all - Rev is the last book and this particular part you want to brush away as being figuratively speaking - 'plain speech' of Jesus (I gave you that), which speech of Jesus are you referring too.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

not at all - Rev is the last book and this particular part you want to brush away as being figuratively speaking - 'plain speech' of Jesus (I gave you that), which speech of Jesus are you referring too.

There is nothing from outside a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Mark 7:15​

​

Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15​

 

[Soyeong]

Paul had something to say about this topic:

TOP #24: The only circumcision that is salvific is that which is inward or of the heart and done by the Spirit. [RM 2:25-29] Paul says that physical circumcision according to a written code has value only if one obeys the law, meaning perfectly per RM 3:23.

TOP #25: All have sinned by breaking moral law but may be justified by God’s grace through faith in Christ’s redemption or atonement. [RM 3:9-26] The most familiar part of this passage is v. 23-24, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

TOP #26: Abraham is the spiritual father of all who have faith in God and Jesus. [RM 4:1-25]

TOP #27: Those who have been justified via faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ (LJC) receive the Holy Spirit in their hearts (HS). [RM 5:1-5]

Paul used an example of Gentiles shows that they have a circumcised heart by keeping God’s law, which was putting to shame those who were physically circumcised, but who were not keeping God’s law, so he was not speaking about perfect obedience. God never commanded circumcision for the purpose of earning our justification, so the Bible can speak against becoming circumcised for an incorrect reason without speaking against becoming circumcised for the reasons for which God commanded it.

 

[Soyeong]

The old law you quoted is a foreshadow or poor reflection of the truth in Christ like a pattern beforehand . we in Christ have a circumcision to partake of but it’s not the foreskin of Israel’s old covenant Christianity has thier own circumcision

“in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2:11-12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

but to become circumcised to the law of Moses in thier manor is a sign that you’ve agreed to keep the entire covenant law that was never given to anyone but Israel’s tribes

they had removed a small portion of flesh , in Christ our flesh is removed through the operation of baptism

Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being someone who walks in obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:25-29) while someone having an uncircumcised heart only refers to them being someone who doesn’t walk in obedience to the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53). In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so someone being in Christ also only refers to them being someone who walks in obedience to the Law of Moses.

 

[Needevidence]

There is nothing from outside a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Mark 7:15​

​

Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15​

Your taking Mark 7:15 out of context – this relates to traditions and clenciness - Ungodly attitudes imply defiled heart - but I can see where you could argue that point.

Mark 7:

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men— the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

but it does not abrogate fornication or eating food sacrificed to idols - which Jesus says is a sin - again Rev the last book and Jesus words.

 

[Cameron143]

Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being someone who walks in obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:25-29) while someone having an uncircumcised heart only refers to them being someone who doesn’t walk in obedience to the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53). In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so someone being in Christ also only refers to them being someone who walks in obedience to the Law of Moses.

Circumcision of the heart is not simply obedience. Obedience is a result of such a transaction, but the circumcision of the heart is an operation of the Spirit that transforms an individual. In the old days, it was known as a spiritual operation that led to conversion.

 

[Soyeong]

That is absolute insanity. Jesus was circumcised so we need to be circumcised?

Have you even read the New Testament? Try starting out with the book of Galatians, Paul has a lot to say about this.
If you are one of those anti-Paul people to your own destruction, how about James and Peter?

Acts 15:

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The topic that they were discussing was whether salvation is earned as the result of circumcision (Acts 15:1) or whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:1). In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith and this is the position the Peter argued in favor of. God never commanded circumcision for the purpose of becoming saved, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. It is contradictory to consider someone to be a servant of God while also interpreting them in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

 

[Soyeong]

There is nothing from outside a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Mark 7:15​

​

Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15​

Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, including saying that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord, so he affirmed its authority and everything that has come from the mouth of the Lord, which includes everything spoken in Deuteronomy 5:31-33. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not do that. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for him is if they teach against obeying His law, so again Jesus did not do that. So it is incorrect to interpret Mark 7 in a way that turns Jesus against obeying what has come from the mouth of the Lord in Deuteronomy 14.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you in interpret the NT as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should either conclude as I do that you must have misinterpreted it or conclude that it was written by false prophets, but Deuteronomy 13 doesn’t leave room for you to consider someone to be a servant of God while also interpreting them in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

 

[Soyeong]

Try reading the Bible instead of wasting the time of people who have. Start in Galatians. Either you accept the Bible as God's word in its entirety or you have no basis for salvation.

In Hebrews 11, it lists examples of people who had saving faith even though they had never read the NT, so that is ultimately unnecessary for salvation. Paul was a servant of God, so Galatians should not be interpreted in a way that turns it against obeying what God has commanded.

 

[Dino246]

not trying to do anything - my position is clear that Jesus says you need to keep the law and Revelations the last book points to at least somethings - your position appeared to be different.

Your understanding of the new covenant is severely lacking.

Christians’ relationship with God is based on faith, not on the keeping of the law.

 

[Soyeong]

He didn't. He fulfilled it, so that you didn't have to relate to God on the basis of the law. He freed you from the law of sin and death, that you might walk in the Spirit.

The Hebrew “yada” refers to an intimate relationship or knowledge based on experience, such as in Genesis 4:1, Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law, so someone can’t have an intimate relationship with the God of Israel by refusing to follow His instructions for how to do that. Jesus fulfilled the law by teaching us how to correctly obey it so that we could know how to have a relationship with God.

In Romans 7:22-8:2, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin, which held him captive, which was waging war against the law of his mind, and that he served with his flesh. Moreover, Paul said that the Law of the Spirit has freed us from the the law of sin and death, so the Law of God is not the law of sin and death, but rather they lead us in opposite directions. We have been freed from the law of sin and death in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around. The Spirit is God, so it doesn’t even make sense to think that the Law of the Spirit frees us from the Law of God. Moreover, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God.

 

[Dino246]

Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, including saying that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord, so he affirmed its authority and everything that has come from the mouth of the Lord, which includes everything spoken in Deuteronomy 5:31-33. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not do that. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for him is if they teach against obeying His law, so again Jesus did not do that. So it is incorrect to interpret Mark 7 in a way that turns Jesus against obeying what has come from the mouth of the Lord in Deuteronomy 14.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you in interpret the NT as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then you should either conclude as I do that you must have misinterpreted it or conclude that it was written by false prophets, but Deuteronomy 13 doesn’t leave room for you to consider someone to be a servant of God while also interpreting them in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded.

Your rationale is deeply and fatally flawed. Either you MUST keep the WHOLE law, or you are free from keeping it by faith in Jesus’ finished work. Since you don’t keep the whole law, and don’t believe in Jesus’ finished work, you are cursed to destruction.

Galatians 3:10 states clearly “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’”

I’ll go with what the Scripture states.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul also thought it permissible to eat food sacrificed to idols unless one was in the presence of someone weaker in faith whose conscience it offended--apparently including the writer of RV 2:20.

Paul said eating food sacrificed to idols is nothing, so Revelation is obviously using figurative language to describe following doctrines of demons

Paul drew a distinction between eating meat that had been previously offered to idols and participating in the ceremony by eating meat that from the altar:

1 Corinthians 10:14-22
“Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?”

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Your taking Mark 7:15 out of context – this relates to traditions and clenciness - Ungodly attitudes imply defiled heart - but I can see where you could argue that point.

Mark 7:

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men— the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

but it does not abrogate fornication or eating food sacrificed to idols - which Jesus says is a sin - again Rev the last book and Jesus words.

You are free to live in bondage

 

[Soyeong]

Circumcision of the heart is not simply obedience. Obedience is a result of such a transaction, but the circumcision of the heart is an operation of the Spirit that transforms an individual. In the old days, it was known as a spiritual operation that led to conversion.

In Romans 2:25-29, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God’s law and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit lead us to obey His law, but in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey God’s law.

 

[Cameron143]

In Romans 2:25-29, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God’s law and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit lead us to obey His law, but in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey God’s law.

Right. Obedience can be an evidence of a circumcised heart, but is not its cause.

 

[Dino246]

In Romans 2:25-29, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God’s law

That’s not what it says but rather a slanted misrepresentation of Paul’s words.

The point of the passage is not to commend obedience to the law, but to demonstrate that physical circumcision is irrelevant if one doesn’t obey the law. There’s a critical contextual factor: this is about Jews and non-Jews, not about Christians.