Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

SoylentGreen · Jul 7, 2007, 01:47 am

Quote:

In the first biblical mention of circumcision, God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. God then explained Abraham's part of the covenant (verses 10-14). "This is...the covenant you are to keep." Every male was to be circumcised, and this physical rite was to be "the sign of the covenant" with God, and it was "an everlasting covenant."

The problem surfaces when more and more gentiles began responding to the gospel by believing in the Lord Jesus . Some Jewish believers came to Antioch and taught that the gentiles had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). They also said that the gentiles should obey the entire law of Moses (verse 5).

"Circumcision goes back to God's eternal covenant with Abraham, in which God promised to be the God of his descendants. These gentiles are claiming Abraham as their spiritual father. He is the father of the faithful, and Genesis 17:12 tells us that all who are his descendants, whether physically or otherwise, fall under the covenant of circumcision. If they really have the faith that Abraham did, they will be willing to do what Abraham did. If they really have a covenant with the same God, they will gladly accept the sign of that covenant. The covenant was revealed as everlasting, not a temporary arrangement. It was commanded by God himself.

"God has called these people, and that is good. But just as the Israelites could not inherit the promises until they were circumcised, so also these gentiles cannot inherit the spiritual promises (salvation) unless they are circumcised. Until they are circumcised, they are strangers to the covenant of promise.

So all you uncircumcised christians out there, are you really prepared for heaven?

jose · Jul 7, 2007, 02:29 am

I´m in heaven, the foreskin is the most sensitive part and i believe if ¨god¨ did not want me to have a foreskin he wouldn´t have given me one in the first place

Hylife · Jul 7, 2007, 02:32 am

Quote:

10I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Quote:

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.

Quote:

15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

I think they should be ready for heaven.

Way to take Acts 15 out of context!!

This was the apostle's response to those "teachings".:

Quote:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings.
24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.

SoylentGreen · Jul 7, 2007, 03:00 am

Quote:

jose
if ¨god¨ did not want me to have a foreskin he wouldn´t have given me one in the first place.

god has given men a pleasure spot that can only be reached through anal penetration so god wants homosexuality.

Hylife

Not out of context, but in opposition.
God definitely made a pact with Abraham an unbreakable pact.
Jesus' only comment about circumcision was favorable: It was part of "the law of Moses," And he said that if something causes sin, we ought to cut it off. The Messiah specifically said that he didn't come to do away with the law, and none of it would pass away. He fulfilled the symbolism of sacrifices, but that doesn't do away with christian need to obey the plain and clear commands of God.

"God justifies people by faith, but the faith isn't genuine if christians aren't willing to obey clear commands of God in the God-breathed Scriptures that are able to make them wise for salvation. That's what christians need to do to be saved. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

Hylife · Jul 7, 2007, 03:20 am

God's covenant with Abraham has nothing to do with us today. We have the "blood of the new covenant" through Jesus Christ. We are told in scripture that the circumcision is meaningless and something that isn't necessary anymore..

SoylentGreen · Jul 7, 2007, 03:31 am

An ancient and culturally important religious law was rejected without even a hint that Jesus was against it in any way. Why was this necessary?
Why did he who was without sin undergo circumcision and baptism ?
It was as a sign of his obedience to the law, and necessary for his redemption of you.

The removal of the covenant was to make it acceptable to gentiles and in this the apostles lied so as to gain there acceptance.

Hylife · Jul 7, 2007, 02:14 pm

So you are calling the majority of the NT a lie? Why then should anyone believe any of the book? Talk about a contradiction, you're trying to make a major one here..!!

SoylentGreen · Jul 7, 2007, 02:49 pm

I am pointing out the facts. The apostles traveled to Antioch and argued that circumcision wasn't necessary. They had neither the word of god or Jesus to back their claim . They made it with the purpose of converting gentiles as being more important than following the word of god. They deliberately broke the covenant.

Does this mean that the majority of the NT is a lie or are you just trying to obscure the issue with an inflammatory comment ?

Should anyone believe any of the book, you tell me, I have shown that a lie exists in one part so what does that mean for the rest.

This is my third thread pointing out either bizarre elements or contradictions in the bible and so far I have only had either feeble responses or no responses. It would seem that theist will flock to issues that cannot be proven one way or the other such as morality or existence but choose to remain silent on the more difficult questions.

Hylife · Jul 7, 2007, 03:35 pm

How do you know by whose authority the apostles did or did not do things? Christ directly spoke to Paul, revealing his will to him, which is spoken of in scripture. There are entire chapters of the NT, specifically the epistles, devoted to the explanation as to why circumcision is not necessary. You, my friend, are making inflamatory comments and ignoring the facts that I presented to you already.

SoylentGreen · Jul 7, 2007, 03:37 pm

As far as I can see jesus only spoke favourably on circumcision. And god made a covenant.
The only facts you have shown only show that the apostles acted on there own authority and not that of there saviour or god.

Quote:

have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said

.

Not gods, not jesus's but our. Meaning those who interpreted the word of god to suite there power and glory on earth

Hylife · Jul 7, 2007, 03:47 pm

As far as I can see jesus only spoke favourably on circumcision. And god made a covenant.
The only facts you have shown only show that the apostles acted on there own authority and not that of there saviour or god.

Quote:

Quote by: SoylentGreen

Not gods, not jesus's but our. Meaning those who interpreted the word of god to suite there power and glory on earth

Ahh, again..context. Again, you paid no attention to what I posted earlier, crud, the few verses after the one you "quoted".

Quote:

27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

SoylentGreen · Jul 8, 2007, 01:13 am

Hylite must I put into bold every word of that piece you sent to show how meaningless it is ?

It SEEMED good to the holy spirit ?
Again I ask on whose authority did it seem good. As yet you have not shown that it was gods authority or is he in the habit of breaking his own covenants.
Was it jesus's and if so exactly where in the bibile does it say that to jesus it seemed a good idea not to circumcise.

It actually seemed good because the apostles were more interested in converting the gentiles for there own profit than following the words of their prophet.

And please try and explain how it is out of context.

Hylife · Jul 8, 2007, 02:31 am

It's not "breaking a covenant"; circumcision was a foreshadowing of things to come. Here's a better explanation:

Quote:

Many elements of Old Testament worship that were regulated by the ceremonial law also provided shadows of gospel truths. Examples would include the Passover and the sacrifices. The law commanded exactly how these should be observed, but the purpose for doing them was not to earn legal merits but to receive gospel truths which pointed to the coming Savior. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the gospel covenant which Abraham received from the Lord. It was also commanded in the law of Moses. Many of the Israelites and the Judaizing Christians had focused on circumcision as a legal requirement, a meritorious work on their part, and had lost sight of the gospel message it was conveying. Circumcision, thus, had both legal and gospel aspects. The gospel message was its chief purpose.

Circumcision is an OT law, part of many rules and regulations designed by God to prepare the people of Isreal for the comming Messiah while molding them into a God-fearing people. It is not meant to be binding for the NT people of God. Saying it is "required" puts the focus on what WE have to do, not what CHRIST already DID for US; and that is somehintg Christ taught "no one comes to the father except through ME"..

Quote:

1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

SoylentGreen · Jul 8, 2007, 03:33 pm

Quote:

Christ taught "no one comes to the father except through ME"..

Very true it was through christ not paul. By what authority did paul ignore the fact that jesus did not speak against circumcision that jesus went through circumcision and baptism even though he did not need to. that jesus claimed he was not here to change the law but uphold it. So far you have only pointed out what paul said and what those later on agreed to what he said.
And what paul did he did to convert gentiles , in other words a politically correct interpretation rather than any divine inspiration.

To convince me otherwise then you need to show where god spoke to paul and told him to break the covenant. To only show me that paul was an astute politician only confirms the lie.

Hylife · Jul 8, 2007, 05:05 pm

All of Paul's epistles are what God spoke to Paul!! Believe what you will, but that's all that's needed.

arielmessenger · Jul 8, 2007, 08:01 pm

has been rendered moot by the rediscovery of the fact that the Abrahamic religions are all based on religious fraud. It is not possible for a religious tradition claiming itself monotheistic and believing in only the One God to have its supreme act of righteousness be based on one confused Near Eastern god telling another polytheistic Hindu god posing as a Hebrew patriarch the supposed spiritual truth.

In other words, now that we know that Abraham was based on the Hindu Vedic god of creation, Brahma, everything that the Bible, both parts, claim as the Word of God is a lie. No real God would give such false information to the keepers of real spiritual truth and not man-made forgeries.

In the New Testament, all we can know is that John the Baptist in a "Q" verse in Luke and Matthew, and Jesus in John's Gospel were not happy with Abraham. Only what these two prophets say out of all the prophets in the Abrahamic tradition can be trusted.

Paul for sure, cannot be trusted as it was he who re-attached Christianity to both pagan Mystery Religion ideas and the Old Testament while the Johannine and Gnostic Christian traditions had already divorced themselves from them both big time by rejecting the Old Testament god of Israel and creating a new mythology based on Sophia's salvation as saving Gnosis.

Now that the End Times have arrived for Pauline Christianity and Judaism and Muhammad's Islam as well because of the Abraham fraud being exposed which is foundational to all three religions, God has sent in two new spiritual visions that are true. And one of them is a renewal of the circumcision symbolism, this time the circumcision of the penis symbol as a weapon of war.

Paxcalibur, Sword of Peace.

Story of Paxcalibur

The sword blade has been "circumcized", the blade cut and re-formed into the peace sign with a circle of brass to hold it in place and symbolize the circumcision of weapons of war, now re-made into God's new Sign of the Messiah, appropriately the Peace Sign, but what a peace sign!

It's sanctification sites became miraculously saved forever as parks and other forms of environmental protection, all together 18,140 acres at 4 out of 5 sites. And Paxcalibur has already spiritually moved over 500 Arab Christian Nazareans in Nazareth, Israel at Easter of 2003 who honored Pax and myself in the courtyard of the Basilica of the Annunciation, the Crusader built church at the site where legend has it Mary was told by Gabriel of the coming of Jesus. Pax is destined for Jerusalem.

Hylife · Jul 8, 2007, 08:35 pm

Honestly, you have produced no evidence to prove your claim is valid; do you even HAVE any??

SoylentGreen · Jul 9, 2007, 03:08 am

Quote:

[BHylife][/b]
Believe what you will, but that's all that's needed.

Fair enough Hylife if it is all you need then fine. But I would require more.

I hope you don't mind me pointing out the irony of you making that statement and then asking of arielmessenger
"Honestly, you have produced no evidence to prove your claim is valid; do you even HAVE any??"

Hylife · Jul 9, 2007, 03:34 am

It may seem ironic to you, but I have evidence, that is the Word of God.

I want to know why you're debating as if half of the book is fact and the other isn't when you don't believe in ANY of it. You say that OT laws should be valid today and I show you NT proof that makes it invalid and you say they aren't really God's Word. How is that a valid debate? If you have a sincere question or at least point I am more than happy to discuss it with you; but if you want to make random and pointless hypotheticals and half-truths just for the sake of argument and discrediting what someone else believes than I want no part in it..

SoylentGreen · Jul 9, 2007, 04:11 am

I keep getting told by theists that I should read these books and all will be made clear.
So I do, and not actually believing the idea that it can all be explained by the simple fact that god said so, I look at other reasons of why some things occurred.
You see pauls dictates as what god spoke of and being a believer accept that as true.
I see paul; as a schemer and a politician who saw an opportunity to increase the power base of his religion by converting gentiles. But in order to do so he had to deny the OT.
I have shown where god made a covenant and where jesus spoke favourably of circumcision and where he claimed to uphold the law.
You on the other hand have only shown what paul said with no evidence that it was backed by god or jesus.
Only that Paul argued what was once interpreted as a practice, a rite of passage, should now only be considered as symbolic . An argument that fitted the audience it was intended for.

You want a sincere question , then why would god break the covenant just for gentiles.?
The point, how can you expect anyone not to wonder at these and other discrepancies within the bible that can only be answered by accepting a belief in god rather than reason.

Jul 7, 2007, 03:20 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	God's covenant with Abraham has nothing to do with us today. We have the "blood of the new covenant" through Jesus Christ. We are told in scripture that the circumcision is meaningless and something that isn't necessary anymore.. "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 7, 2007, 02:14 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	So you are calling the majority of the NT a lie? Why then should anyone believe any of the book? Talk about a contradiction, you're trying to make a major one here..!! "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 7, 2007, 03:35 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	How do you know by whose authority the apostles did or did not do things? Christ directly spoke to Paul, revealing his will to him, which is spoken of in scripture. There are entire chapters of the NT, specifically the epistles, devoted to the explanation as to why circumcision is not necessary. You, my friend, are making inflamatory comments and ignoring the facts that I presented to you already. "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 8, 2007, 05:05 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	All of Paul's epistles are what God spoke to Paul!! Believe what you will, but that's all that's needed. "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 8, 2007, 08:01 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
arielmessenger BANNED Posts: 701	Please. This argueing over Old or New Testament advocation of circumcision has been rendered moot by the rediscovery of the fact that the Abrahamic religions are all based on religious fraud. It is not possible for a religious tradition claiming itself monotheistic and believing in only the One God to have its supreme act of righteousness be based on one confused Near Eastern god telling another polytheistic Hindu god posing as a Hebrew patriarch the supposed spiritual truth. In other words, now that we know that Abraham was based on the Hindu Vedic god of creation, Brahma, everything that the Bible, both parts, claim as the Word of God is a lie. No real God would give such false information to the keepers of real spiritual truth and not man-made forgeries. In the New Testament, all we can know is that John the Baptist in a "Q" verse in Luke and Matthew, and Jesus in John's Gospel were not happy with Abraham. Only what these two prophets say out of all the prophets in the Abrahamic tradition can be trusted. Paul for sure, cannot be trusted as it was he who re-attached Christianity to both pagan Mystery Religion ideas and the Old Testament while the Johannine and Gnostic Christian traditions had already divorced themselves from them both big time by rejecting the Old Testament god of Israel and creating a new mythology based on Sophia's salvation as saving Gnosis. Now that the End Times have arrived for Pauline Christianity and Judaism and Muhammad's Islam as well because of the Abraham fraud being exposed which is foundational to all three religions, God has sent in two new spiritual visions that are true. And one of them is a renewal of the circumcision symbolism, this time the circumcision of the penis symbol as a weapon of war. Paxcalibur, Sword of Peace. Story of Paxcalibur The sword blade has been "circumcized", the blade cut and re-formed into the peace sign with a circle of brass to hold it in place and symbolize the circumcision of weapons of war, now re-made into God's new Sign of the Messiah, appropriately the Peace Sign, but what a peace sign! It's sanctification sites became miraculously saved forever as parks and other forms of environmental protection, all together 18,140 acres at 4 out of 5 sites. And Paxcalibur has already spiritually moved over 500 Arab Christian Nazareans in Nazareth, Israel at Easter of 2003 who honored Pax and myself in the courtyard of the Basilica of the Annunciation, the Crusader built church at the site where legend has it Mary was told by Gabriel of the coming of Jesus. Pax is destined for Jerusalem. Last edited by arielmessenger; Jul 8, 2007 at 08:29 pm.

Jul 7, 2007, 02:29 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
jose Volcanic Erupter Location: España Posts: 2,608	I´m in heaven, the foreskin is the most sensitive part and i believe if ¨god¨ did not want me to have a foreskin he wouldn´t have given me one in the first place

Jul 7, 2007, 03:31 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
SoylentGreen Volcanic Erupter Posts: 2,866	An ancient and culturally important religious law was rejected without even a hint that Jesus was against it in any way. Why was this necessary? Why did he who was without sin undergo circumcision and baptism ? It was as a sign of his obedience to the law, and necessary for his redemption of you. The removal of the covenant was to make it acceptable to gentiles and in this the apostles lied so as to gain there acceptance.

Jul 7, 2007, 02:49 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
SoylentGreen Volcanic Erupter Posts: 2,866	I am pointing out the facts. The apostles traveled to Antioch and argued that circumcision wasn't necessary. They had neither the word of god or Jesus to back their claim . They made it with the purpose of converting gentiles as being more important than following the word of god. They deliberately broke the covenant. Does this mean that the majority of the NT is a lie or are you just trying to obscure the issue with an inflammatory comment ? Should anyone believe any of the book, you tell me, I have shown that a lie exists in one part so what does that mean for the rest. This is my third thread pointing out either bizarre elements or contradictions in the bible and so far I have only had either feeble responses or no responses. It would seem that theist will flock to issues that cannot be proven one way or the other such as morality or existence but choose to remain silent on the more difficult questions.

Jul 8, 2007, 01:13 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
SoylentGreen Volcanic Erupter Posts: 2,866	Hylite must I put into bold every word of that piece you sent to show how meaningless it is ? It SEEMED good to the holy spirit ? Again I ask on whose authority did it seem good. As yet you have not shown that it was gods authority or is he in the habit of breaking his own covenants. Was it jesus's and if so exactly where in the bibile does it say that to jesus it seemed a good idea not to circumcise. It actually seemed good because the apostles were more interested in converting the gentiles for there own profit than following the words of their prophet. And please try and explain how it is out of context.

Jul 8, 2007, 08:35 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	Honestly, you have produced no evidence to prove your claim is valid; do you even HAVE any?? "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 9, 2007, 03:34 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Hylife Molten Ash Posts: 137	It may seem ironic to you, but I have evidence, that is the Word of God. I want to know why you're debating as if half of the book is fact and the other isn't when you don't believe in ANY of it. You say that OT laws should be valid today and I show you NT proof that makes it invalid and you say they aren't really God's Word. How is that a valid debate? If you have a sincere question or at least point I am more than happy to discuss it with you; but if you want to make random and pointless hypotheticals and half-truths just for the sake of argument and discrediting what someone else believes than I want no part in it.. "Don't judge a Philosophy by its abuses.."

Jul 9, 2007, 04:11 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
SoylentGreen Volcanic Erupter Posts: 2,866	I keep getting told by theists that I should read these books and all will be made clear. So I do, and not actually believing the idea that it can all be explained by the simple fact that god said so, I look at other reasons of why some things occurred. You see pauls dictates as what god spoke of and being a believer accept that as true. I see paul; as a schemer and a politician who saw an opportunity to increase the power base of his religion by converting gentiles. But in order to do so he had to deny the OT. I have shown where god made a covenant and where jesus spoke favourably of circumcision and where he claimed to uphold the law. You on the other hand have only shown what paul said with no evidence that it was backed by god or jesus. Only that Paul argued what was once interpreted as a practice, a rite of passage, should now only be considered as symbolic . An argument that fitted the audience it was intended for. You want a sincere question , then why would god break the covenant just for gentiles.? The point, how can you expect anyone not to wonder at these and other discrepancies within the bible that can only be answered by accepting a belief in god rather than reason.