sabbath

[posthuman]

remember that with the Jews circumcision was an everlasting covenant nothing to do with Salvation so that could not be removed, God does not break his covenants

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:29)
​

this links salvation to being sons of Abraham

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.​

These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:​

“Be glad, barren woman,​

you who never bore a child;​

shout for joy and cry aloud,​

you who were never in labor;​

because more are the children of the desolate woman​

than of her who has a husband.” ​

Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
(Galatians 4:21-31)

​

does this seem to comport with you saying that the covenant with Abraham has nothing to do with salvation?
or is this in fact declaring that the covenant with Abraham is our salvation - being realized in Jesus Christ, the Seed ?

so what does it mean, then, that the promise, the covenant, our salvation by grace through faith, our partaking in Abraham -- what does it mean that this has nothing to do with the law, and what does it mean that now that faith has come, submitting to the physical sign of that covenant is tantamount to falling from grace and making Christ of no effect?

is physical circumcision a shadow? is it replaced with "the good things to come" ?

 

[posthuman]

The Apostle Paul understood that the covenant of circumcision was an everlasting covenant that God made with Abraham and his seeds.

yeah, and if you read Galatians, Paul also understood that inclusion in this covenant was no longer ((if ever truly)) contingent on the carrying out of physical acts. he says the same thing in Romans 2 -

No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. ​

(Romans 2:29) ​

​

not cherry-picking; just refraining from quoting 8 chapters for brevity's sake. if one has circumcised flesh but has a wicked heart, they may as well not even be circumcised it hasn't gained them any standing with God. but if one is uncircumcised in the flesh yet is upright in their heart, does God not accept them because from a carnal point of view they don't bear the physical signs of the promise?

so if God accepts circumcision of the heart, without regard for circumcision of the flesh, and if those who are circumcised on heart can make themselves spiritually 'uncircumcised' by later seeking to be justified by becoming physically circumcised ((pretty much the whole epistle to the Galatians)), is a principle being taught here that has application to anything else? if this doesn't have any broader application on the other hand, why is so much written about it in Romans 2? Romans isn't a letter like Galatians to a specific people in error; it's an extraordinarily complex, orderly, systematic explanation of the gospel, right theology, and the doctrines of our salvation. so what is circumcision doing in ch. 2?

 

[posthuman]

Even though the Apostle Paul was strongly condemning the concept that one must be circumcised in order to be saved, from Galatians 5:11 it appears as if they were accusing him of teaching circumcision which is why he asked if that was true why am I being persecuted?

apparently the people teaching them that in order to be truly saved they had to carry out physically certain commandments having to do with signs in the flesh, were claiming that 'Paul also says so' -- and Paul, denying that is the case, in Galatians 5:11 is pointing out how absurd that is.

if he was still preaching that salvation is either achieved by ((Romans)) or contingent on ((Galatians)) physically carrying out liturgy in the flesh, then there wouldn't be any 'offense of the cross'

 

[3angelsmsg]

Are we limiting the power of God in our lives? Becos of unbelief. Do we believe the lie of devil? He is saying you can never overcome sin in your body.

Jesus said, we ought to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? Somehow we don't believe it is possible.

Yet Jesus said, with men all things are not possible, and not so with God. With God all things are possible.

And the scripture below speaks of a remnant that is keeping the commandments of God.

In Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ

What are your thoughts?

 

[JamOn]

Are we limiting the power of God in our lives? Becos of unbelief. Do we believe the lie of devil? He is saying you can never overcome sin in your body.

Jesus said, we ought to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? Somehow we don't believe it is possible.

Yet Jesus said, with men all things are not possible, and not so with God. With God all things are possible.

And the scripture below speaks of a remnant that is keeping the commandments of God.

In Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ

What are your thoughts?

good question if all things are possible with God and a person can’t overcome their sin is it still possible to be saved?

 

[3angelsmsg]

good question if all things are possible with God and a person can’t overcome their sin is it still possible to be saved?

Honestly that difficult question too. It makes me think of when the unpardonable sin was committed against the Holy spirit.

There is no chance if the unpardonable sin was committed.

If we have attitude of dear Lord search my heart and know me. God can work with us in repentance. If we feel we are poor of soul.

 

[JamOn]

Honestly that difficult question too. It makes me think of when the unpardonable sin was committed against the Holy spirit.

There is no chance if the unpardonable sin was committed.

If we have attitude of dear Lord search my heart and know me. God can work with us in repentance. If we feel we are poor of soul.

And that also goes back to all things being possible quite difficult to understand these, to be honest those three things is complex indeed.

 

[JamOn]

it would be sort of saying basically all things possible but not really about most is but there’s that little possibility it isn’t possible.

 

[JamOn]

Though if one knows equivalents to rejecting the who then it’s solved I think.

 

[JamOn]

why is the sabbath not been kept by all Christians? I need guidance please

seems it would be to believe seems to be how to keep it

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

Its not possible for carnal people to keep the law. All that carnal people keep is their carnal understanding of what they think the law says.

So, as soon as you start working at the law in your own understanding you fall short of the mark. Both your understanding and your work fall short of what is intended.



What is possible is to be CAUSED to walk in Gods Statutes by Abiding in Christ and being transformed into a new creation.

Hebrews 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

DO you understand what this verse is saying?

The Law DOESN'T cause us to walk with God.

The Bringing in of a Better Hope causes us to walk with God.


Galatians 3:10-13
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:


Working at the law in our own understanding and strength is ABSOLUTELY done away in Christ.



Just think about this for a brief moment. Whose work should you trust to make you righteous according to the Law? Your own? Or Gods?

Wouldn't it be much better to have God make you righteous instead of trying to do it yourself? Don't you think He has a better understanding of what Righteousness is? Don't you think He has more ability than yourself?


Romans 9:30-33
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

--------------------------
Do a little search in the Scriptures and you will see that if you walk after the Spirit, the Spirit will fulfill the righteousness of the law. It is up to you if you want to accept that Scriptural truth.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

I would say to them that this is where we differ in our beliefs you have told me what you believe now let me tell you what I believe. We are seed planters someone else might come along and water the seed but only the Holy Spirit can make that seed grow and be accepted. So yes, in my heart I can still call them a brother or sister as long as they have repented and accept Jesus as their Savior.

What I call hard liners and scare tactics have never worked on me and it is also why some unbelievers steer clear of so called Christians. Who wants to be around someone always telling you that you are going to Hell? I would rather be around someone telling me that God loves me to the point He sacrificed His Son for us.

--------------------
What I am stating is Scriptural, you need to substantiate yourself through the Scriptures. You need to read Galatians 1, if anyone comes to you with another Gospel, not that it is another. If you call them your brothers then I am safe to say that you can be easily deceived. You need to prove your position with Scripture.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

apparently the people teaching them that in order to be truly saved they had to carry out physically certain commandments having to do with signs in the flesh, were claiming that 'Paul also says so' -- and Paul, denying that is the case, in Galatians 5:11 is pointing out how absurd that is.

if he was still preaching that salvation is either achieved by ((Romans)) or contingent on ((Galatians)) physically carrying out liturgy in the flesh, then there wouldn't be any 'offense of the cross'

__________________
I am 9 hours ahead of eastern time, it is past the New Years, so I will respond to your emails when I have a chance.

 

[JesusLives]

--------------------
What I am stating is Scriptural, you need to substantiate yourself through the Scriptures. You need to read Galatians 1, if anyone comes to you with another Gospel, not that it is another. If you call them your brothers then I am safe to say that you can be easily deceived. You need to prove your position with Scripture.

As I would talk to them in my belief I would back it up with scripture and if they would allow me I would ask if I could use their Bible as to not pull it out of a book they are not used to. Unless you are wanting me to back up my belief with scripture to prove a point to you then ask the question and I will be happy to back up why I want to lovingly encourage a brother or sister to continue their journey with Jesus.

 

[JesusLives]

__________________
I am 9 hours ahead of eastern time, it is past the New Years, so I will respond to your emails when I have a chance.

In that case Happy New Year 2020 to you.... We will have a few more hours for us to be in 2020 as it is a little after 5PM here.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

i don't know about the covenant God made with Abraham having nothing to do with salvation.
Galatians 3 seems to equate the two, actually:

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.​

(Galatians 3:7-9)​

​

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.​

(Galatians 3:14)​

​

you may say, well, the covenant with Abraham and the promise to Abraham are different?

What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. ​

(Galatians 3:17-18)​

​

but doesn't that passage call them the same?


it's awfully significant then, that the sign of the covenant/promise in the flesh is taken away though the promise/covenant still stands -- that it stands by faith rather than by observation of fleshly rite. was physical circumcision a shadow of the good thing to come? because scripture calls us sons of Abraham by faith - because the promise is to & through The Seed not by law or by carnal descendancy

do you think that fact might be 'offensive' to the circumcision?
as tho the workers in the vineyard, who had labored all day, might be offended at someone who does 10x less, but receives the same reward? those former workers might say, hey, that's not fair, that guy has to do all the things we had to do, right? but God would say, why are you angry because I AM generous?

-------------------------------

The topic being discuss is circumcision and if you read Acts 15 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, that was what I was stating, that circumcision had nothing to do with Salvation. There are many people saved today and they are not even circumcised. If one gets circumcised they will identified themselve with Abraham, the covenant God made with him with the flesh. I think this would answer your post.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

​

If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

(Galatians 3:29)​

​

this links salvation to being sons of Abraham

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.​

These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:​

“Be glad, barren woman,​

you who never bore a child;​

shout for joy and cry aloud,​

you who were never in labor;​

because more are the children of the desolate woman​

than of her who has a husband.” ​

Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.​

(Galatians 4:21-31) ​

​

​

does this seem to comport with you saying that the covenant with Abraham has nothing to do with salvation?
or is this in fact declaring that the covenant with Abraham is our salvation - being realized in Jesus Christ, the Seed ?

so what does it mean, then, that the promise, the covenant, our salvation by grace through faith, our partaking in Abraham -- what does it mean that this has nothing to do with the law, and what does it mean that now that faith has come, submitting to the physical sign of that covenant is tantamount to falling from grace and making Christ of no effect?

is physical circumcision a shadow? is it replaced with "the good things to come" ?

---------------------

God made a everlasting covenant with Abraham of circumcision by hand, not with the Gentile. I agree, that circumcision get be looked upon as a shadow of the circumcision of the heart, but one is circumcised in the heart when he believes. We are saved by grace through faith.

 

[tourist]

Why you being so hard on everybody? Are you sleeping on tacks or something? I think you need to get a better mattress you would feel better and be happy.. Hope you know I am joking with you cause I think you need to laugh a little and not be so serious all the time.

Don't think a new mattress would help me to sleep better but perhaps a softer pillow and snuggled up close to my honey.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

yeah, and if you read Galatians, Paul also understood that inclusion in this covenant was no longer ((if ever truly)) contingent on the carrying out of physical acts. he says the same thing in Romans 2 -

No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. ​

(Romans 2:29) ​

​

not cherry-picking; just refraining from quoting 8 chapters for brevity's sake. if one has circumcised flesh but has a wicked heart, they may as well not even be circumcised it hasn't gained them any standing with God. but if one is uncircumcised in the flesh yet is upright in their heart, does God not accept them because from a carnal point of view they don't bear the physical signs of the promise?

so if God accepts circumcision of the heart, without regard for circumcision of the flesh, and if those who are circumcised on heart can make themselves spiritually 'uncircumcised' by later seeking to be justified by becoming physically circumcised ((pretty much the whole epistle to the Galatians)), is a principle being taught here that has application to anything else? if this doesn't have any broader application on the other hand, why is so much written about it in Romans 2? Romans isn't a letter like Galatians to a specific people in error; it's an extraordinarily complex, orderly, systematic explanation of the gospel, right theology, and the doctrines of our salvation. so what is circumcision doing in ch. 2?

-----------------------------------------------

Again, in my previous post, I explained it. Where did I say that one has to be circumcised to be saved, show me? Circumcised in the heart is a sign that you are saved by grace through faith. Maybe now you understand what I am stating.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

apparently the people teaching them that in order to be truly saved they had to carry out physically certain commandments having to do with signs in the flesh, were claiming that 'Paul also says so' -- and Paul, denying that is the case, in Galatians 5:11 is pointing out how absurd that is.

if he was still preaching that salvation is either achieved by ((Romans)) or contingent on ((Galatians)) physically carrying out liturgy in the flesh, then there wouldn't be any 'offense of the cross'

---------------

Everything you stated, I made that clear in one of my previous post, if you would have read it would have prevented you from having me responding five of your post. Bold he does not bother me, I respond to everything because the person needs to know that I read their post.