vooks:
Resident pharmacist, what do you prescribe today ?

Maybe olanzapine dissolving tablets will do this time. It is fast and very effective.

Use the scriptures to refute the wisdom am sharing or shut up. Demolishing arguments is spiritual warfare

Are you ok? Was the question directed to me?

Goshen360:

[s]
1. You're about to twist what was anulled in the NT. I hope you can stand to this.

New International Version
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ,

New Living Translation
When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised," but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision--the cutting away of your sinful nature.

2. Maybe you need to understand what happened in the covenant of God NOT with Abraham BUT with Himself (a foreshadow of the New Covenant), BUT Abraham was a beneficiary just as Christians are beneficiaries to the New Covenant. So you will understand why Paul made a statement such as, [/s]

New International Version

What I mean is this: [size=20pt] The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.[/size] 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 3:18

This scripture is what I wanted to use and nail Vooks to the cross of ignorance, should he have answered boldly like he implied that the pre mosaic acts were incorporated into the Mosaic law and anulled. He said pre mosaic covenant like Circumcision were annulled. I now asked whether God anulled the covenant, he kept going round circles. Paul thought otherwise, so did I.

Goshen360:

So tell us, is circumcision part of the covenant that was established? Is that what Paul was teaching?

Gombs:

This scripture is what I wanted to use and nail Vooks to the cross of ignorance, should he have answered boldly like he implied that the pre mosaic acts were incorporated into the Mosaic law and anulled. He said pre mosaic covenant like Circumcision were annulled. I now asked whether God anulled the covenant, he kept going round circles. Paul thought otherwise, so did I.

So tell us, is circumcision part of the covenant that was established? Is that what Paul was teaching?

First, we must find out what the covenant itself is and it entails and we can determine if circumcision is the covenant or part of the covenant. Then we can understand what Paul was teaching.

vooks:
I have answered your question.
ALL preMosaic practices, circumcision,animal sacrifices,tithing... that were included in Moses were effectively annulled when Moses was annulled. So you can't revive any of those by claiming they are somewhat 'eternal' and that only their 'regulation' was annulled

Am circumcised sir. African way none the less. By the river without shedding no tear., no flinching.But I did that to fulfil my culture not because Abraham was told to go after foreskins

Galatians 3:18 did not agree with you. Thanks.

Gombs:


Galatians 3:18 did not agree with you. Thanks.

See the covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham. Note the bolded portions

Genesis 17:10-14 KJV
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. [11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [12] And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. [13] He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [14] And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Is that the same covenant you're under today? Is that the same covenant Paul was promoting in Galatians?

Goshen360:


So tell us, is circumcision part of the covenant that was established? Is that what Paul was teaching?

[KJV] Genesis 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

[KJV] Genesis 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


Self explanatory bro.

First, we must find out what the covenant itself is

https://www.nairaland.com/1957135/midas-touch-balanced-approach-biblical/82#28272006

and it entails and we can determine if circumcision is the covenant or part of the covenant. Then we can understand what Paul was teaching.

See what Paul was teaching.
Physical circumcision was a sign of Israel’s covenant with God; it was to be for all generation. Circumcision of the heart, therefore, would indicate Israel’s being set apart to love God fully, inside and out. Simple. It was a prophecy Deuteronomy 30:6. Paul taught it in Romans 2:29... in summary, he said It refers to having a pure heart, separated unto God.

Go study.

Galatians 3:18 says the LAW did not annul the promise God gave to Abraham. This is highly irrelevant to the subject of this debate namely pre-Mosaic practices such as tithing,circumcision,animal sacrifices incorporated into the Law were annulled TOGETHER with the Law.

There is ONLY one reason why nobody offers animal sacrifices which predate Moses in Christendom and it is not because Christ sacrifice suffices. Christ sacrifice dealt away with SIN OFFERINGS (read Hebrews 9-10). It is because they were annulled together with the Law. Whatever 'principles' are to be had in these practices is realized by other means without the sacrifices. Pauline formula of giving without compulsion is certainly derived from these.

Gombs:


Galatians 3:18 did not agree with you. Thanks.

Candour:


See the covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham. Note the bolded portions

Genesis 17:10-14 KJV
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. [11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [12] And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. [13] He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [14] And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Is that the same covenant you're under today? Is that the same covenant Paul was promoting in Galatians?

Bobo, answer me in plain terms...was the covenant annulled?

Read my post to Goshen for further instructions. Thanks

Gombs:


[KJV] Genesis 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

[KJV] Genesis 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.


Self explanatory bro.




https://www.nairaland.com/1957135/midas-touch-balanced-approach-biblical/82#28272006



See what Paul was teaching.
Physical circumcision was a sign of Israel’s covenant with God; it was to be for all generation. Circumcision of the heart, therefore, would indicate Israel’s being set apart to love God fully, inside and out. Simple. It was a prophecy Deuteronomy 30:6. Paul taught it in Romans 2:29... in summary, he said It refers to having a pure heart, separated unto God.

Go study.

I never doubt your great ability to twist scriptures. . When there's agreement between two people, common sense should tell you a SIGNature....it shall be a token OF THE COVENANT between me and you. Simple English, folks trying to twist it around.

Gombs:


Bobo, answer me in plain terms...was the covenant annulled?

Read my post to Goshen for further instructions. Thanks

Did he say circumcision IS THE covenant or A SIGN?

vooks:
Galatians 3:18 says the LAW did not annul the promise God gave to Abraham. This is highly irrelevant to the subject of this debate namely pre-Mosaic practices such as tithing,circumcision,animal sacrifices incorporated into the Law were annulled TOGETHER with the Law.

There is ONLY one reason why nobody offers animal sacrifices which predate Moses in Christendomand is not because Christ sacrifice suffices. Christ sacrifice dealt away with SIN OFFERINGS (read Hebrews 9-10). It is because they were annulled together with the Law. Whatever 'principles' are to be had in these practices is realized by other means without the sacrifices. Pauline formula of giving without compulsion is certainly derived from these.

Circumcision was a token of the covenant, the covenant/promise was to make Abraham the father of many nations and of many descendants and give "the whole land of Canaan" to his descendants.[Gen 17:2-9].

But you lied here. You said circumcision was annulled with the law, which in consequence means the covenant must have been annulled since it was the mark of the covenant you erroneously concluded was anulled. This is what bro Paul wrote, I believe him, not what you think or feel

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Notice the word THUS. The latter part was the consequence of annulment of circumcision which was a mark of the covenant.

Goshen360:


I never doubt your great ability to twist scriptures.

A subtle way to hide your head in shame.. thanks for the compliment.

Goshen360:


Did he say circumcision IS THE covenant or A SIGN?

If the sign of the covenant was annulled, the covenant would be effectively annulled too, no be so? That was why Paul used thus here. If circumcision is annulled, what then is the sign of the covenant? Care to answer?

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and [size=20pt]thus[/size] do away with the promise.

Gombs:


Circumcision was a token of the covenant, the covenant/promise was to make Abraham the father of many nations and of many descendants and give "the whole land of Canaan" to his descendants.[Gen 17:2-9].

But you lied here. You said circumcision was annulled with the law, which in consequence means the covenant must have been annulled since it was the mark of the covenant you erroneously concluded was anulled. This is what bro Paul wrote, I believe him, not what you think or feel

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Notice the word THUS. The latter part was the consequence of annulment of circumcision which was a mark of the covenant.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this bro. The Abrahamic covenant was never annulled to start with. The Abrahamic covenant is foundational to all of Scripture. It is the key to both the Old and New Testaments and is foundational to the whole program of redemption. All subsequent revelation is the outworking of this covenant. This covenant, and the subsequent covenant framework, is the key to understanding Scripture. I guess the antitihers would read legalistically into any scripture they perceive tithe is mentioned. Good job bro..

Why would the same Paul teach that circumcision avails NOTHING?
Have you ever read Acts 15? Circumcision is a BURDEN the Holy Spirit deemed UNNECESSARY to lay on the Gentiles

Acts 15:28-29 (ESV)
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

This means either the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision is a token is not for the Gentiles OR they can access the same without necessarily undergoing circumcision

Gombs:


Circumcision was a token of the covenant, the covenant/promise was to make Abraham the father of many nations and of many descendants and give "the whole land of Canaan" to his descendants.[Gen 17:2-9].

But you lied here. You said circumcision was annulled with the law, which in consequence means the covenant must have been annulled since it was the mark of the covenant you erroneously concluded was anulled. This is what bro Paul wrote, I believe him, not what you think or feel

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

Notice the word THUS. The latter part was the consequence of annulment of circumcision which was a mark of the covenant.

Bidam:
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this bro. The Abrahamic covenant was never annulled to start with. The Abrahamic covenant is foundational to all of Scripture. It is the key to both the Old and New Testaments and is foundational to the whole program of redemption. All subsequent revelation is the outworking of this covenant. This covenant, and the subsequent covenant framework, is the key to understanding Scripture. I guess the antitihers would read legalistically into any scripture they perceive tithe is mentioned. Good job bro..

No mind them... they claim the seal of the covenant is annulled, does that not mean the covenant itself was annulled too consequentially?

Gombs:


Bobo, answer me in plain terms...was the covenant annulled?

Read my post to Goshen for further instructions. Thanks

The covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Hear Paul

Galatians 5:6 KJV
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

In Christ, the physical circumcision which God ordered of Abraham and which Israel prided themselves in is totally useless in Christ.

What is subsisting is the promise God made to Abraham when he called him which was re-echoed in Galatians 3.

Gombs:


If the sign of the covenant was annulled, the covenant would be effectively be annulled too, no be so? That was why Paul used thus here. If circumcision is annulled, what then is the sign of the covenant? Care to answer?

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and [size=20pt]thus[/size] do away with the promise.

The truth is mbaemeka and i have already reiterated on this thread to the antithers that Gentiles do not REQUIRE circumcision for salvation. The truth is that God revealed this to Peter first but i guess he had a difficulty accepting it because it goes against clear statement from scripture in Genesis 17:12-14. Those who support the necessity for circumcision on the Jerusalem council quoted Genesis which says it was an everlasting covenant for all generation and says that those who were not circumcised will be cut off from God's people. You can see why this position was a powerful position which Paul vehemently refused and refuted. The gist is circumcision for gentiles is not a mandatory requirement for salvation even Apostle James used a scripture from Amos to buttress this truth.

Gombs:


If the sign of the covenant was annulled, the covenant would be effectively be annulled too, no be so? That was why Paul used thus here. If circumcision is annulled, what then is the sign of the covenant? Care to answer?

The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and [size=20pt]thus[/size] do away with the promise.

Circumcision is NOT the covenant. It's a sign. That was circumcision MADE by hand, a shadow of God's circumcision of the heart. The circumcision made by hand WAS TO ISRAEL and of the spiritual done in Christ. We are circumcise by HAND BEFORE come to christ AND THAT CIRCUMCISION HAS NO THING TO DO WITH THE NEW COVENANT IN CHRIST.

In the new covenant, circumcision of the heart IS THE SIGN OR TOKEN OF THE NEW COVENANT which was the fulfillment of the covenant Paul said CAN NOT be annulled.

Ask yourself this question:

When you come to Christ, DO YOU DO CIRCUMCISION BY HAND LIKE ABRAHAM AS A TOKEN OF THE NEW COVENANT? If what you're saying is true.

Bidam:
The truth is mbaemeka and i have already reiterated on this thread to the antithers that Gentiles do not REQUIRE circumcision for salvation. The truth is that God revealed this to Peter first but i guess he had a difficulty accepting it because it goes against clear statement from scripture in Genesis 17:12-14. Those who support the necessity for circumcision on the Jerusalem council quoted Genesis which says it was an everlasting covenant for all generation and says that those who were not circumcised will be cut off from God's people. You can see why this position was a powerful position which Paul vehemently refused and refuted. The gist is circumcision for gentiles is not a mandatory requirement for salvation even Apostle James used a scripture from Amos to buttress this truth.

Gbam!

Bidam:
The truth is mbaemeka and i have already reiterated on this thread to the antithers that Gentiles do not REQUIRE circumcision for salvation. The truth is that God revealed this to Peter first but i guess he had a difficulty accepting it because it goes against clear statement from scripture in Genesis 17:12-14. Those who support the necessity for circumcision on the Jerusalem council quoted Genesis which says it was an everlasting covenant for all generation and says that those who were not circumcised will be cut off from God's people. You can see why this position was a powerful position which Paul vehemently refused and refuted. The gist is circumcision for gentiles is not a mandatory requirement for salvation even Apostle James used a scripture from Amos to buttress this truth.

Thank God you're telling him the truth as regards circumcision. At least, you're sincere in this one.

My brother,
I highly recommend you do private study of ALL the NT occurrences of the word CIRCUMCISION with a bias towards Pauline epistles especially Romans.

Please read this argument from Romans 4

[b]Romans 4:1-9 (ESV)
​1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.[/b]

The thrust is Abraham Believed and was imputed with righteousness while still uncircumcised therefore he is the father of the uncircumcised as well. Circumcision sealed what he had already received but did not earn it

Gombs:


No mind them... they claim the seal of the covenant is annulled, does that not mean the covenant itself was annulled too consequentially?

vooks:
Why would the same Paul teach that circumcision avails NOTHING?
Have you ever read Acts 15? Circumcision is a BURDEN the Holy Spirit deemed UNNECESSARY to lay on the Gentiles

Acts 15:28-29 (ESV)
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Bobo, I think you should go speak in other tongues. You need wisdom. A Ship load of it.

Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart.

Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.

This means either the Abrahamic covenant of which circumcision is a token is not for the Gentiles OR they can access the same without necessarily undergoing circumcision

Gen 17 MSG
God continued to Abraham, “And you: You will honor my covenant, you and your descendants, generation after generation. This is the covenant that you are to honor, the covenant that pulls in all your descendants: Circumcise every male. Circumcise by cutting off the foreskin of the pe.nis; it will be the sign of the covenant between us. 

Every male baby will be circumcised when he is eight days old, generation after generation—this includes house-born slaves and slaves bought from outsiders who are not blood kin. [b]Make sure you circumcise both your own children and anyone brought in from the outside. [/b]That way my covenant will be cut into your body, a permanent mark of my permanent covenant. An uncircumcised male, one who has not had the foreskin of his joystick cut off, will be cut off from his people—he has broken my covenant.”

The underlined are the Gentiles. You are a gentile, so am I.... ever wonder how we became part of that Covenant?

Do we have some Christian sects teaching the NECESSITY of circumcision for believers, or some spiritual merits of the same?

Goshen360:

Ask yourself this question:

When you come to Christ, DO YOU DO CIRCUMCISION BY HAND LIKE ABRAHAM AS A TOKEN OF THE NEW COVENANT? If what you're saying is true.

Candour:


The covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Hear Paul

Galatians 5:6 KJV
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

In Christ, the physical circumcision which God ordered of Abraham and which Israel prided themselves in is totally useless in Christ.

What is subsisting is the promise God made to Abraham when he called him which was re-echoed in Galatians 3.

There was nothing like covenant of circumcision. Thanks

Thank you for your counsel. I hope and pray you have better tongues and wisdom than me and you won't hesitate to share the nuggets you download from your crater closet. Once again, thank you for your wise counsel.

Are you saying that Christians are ONLY admitted to Abrahamic covenant/blessings by physical male circumcision?

Gombs:


Bobo, I think you should go speak in other tongues. You need wisdom. A Ship load of it.

Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart.

Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.

The underlined are the Gentiles. You are a gentile, so am I.... ever wonder how we became part of that Covenant?

Goshen360:


Thank God you're telling him the truth as regards circumcision. At least, you're sincere in this one.

Go siddon! There is no place where tithing was condemned or nullified.

Vooks, go and sleep please. Circumcision was not annulled, if it were, the covenant will be ineffective too. Your theory that all pre mosaic acts were anulled are only a figment of your wild imagination. Thanks.

vooks:
Do we have some Christian sects teaching the NECESSITY of circumcision for believers, or some spiritual merits of the same?

Of course non. That's what people like Gombs are trying to do. Instead of teaching the fulfillment to that sign of circumcision by hand which is the spiritual and of the heart, not by hand. He's here twisting and arguing rubbish. These guys greatly pervert scriptures and twist it for any reason.

Circumcision was not annulled.
What is the benefit of this circumcision to a Christian? Should a new believer part with his foreskin since it was not annulled?

Gombs:
Vooks, go and sleep please. Circumcision was not annulled, if it were, the covenant will be ineffective too. Your theory that all pre mosaic acts were anulled are only a figment of your wild imagination. Thanks.

vooks:
Thank you for your counsel. I hope and pray you have better tongues and wisdom than me and you won't hesitate to share the nuggets you download from your crater closet. Once again, thank you for your wise counsel.

Are you saying that Christians are ONLY admitted to Abrahamic covenant/blessings by physical male circumcision?

Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart. 

Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.

You must have missed this. Read slowly please. The colored is what I am saying in summary. Go back and see what I wtore about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart.

Gombs:


There was nothing like covenant of circumcision. Thanks

Fine and correct. The covenant with Abraham was sealed with the token of circumcision. So let me rephrase it. The token of circumcision of the foreskin which God required of Abraham and which Israel prided themselves in is absolutely useless to Christianity

Galatians 5:6 KJV
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.