I have observed some sect members terribly embarrassed of some of their teachings. They resisted admitting that Malachi curses are rained on non-tithers. mbaemeka was bold enough to say Christian non-tithers are NOT robbers.

On this topic, I need Gombs telling us whether he prescribes male circumcision to new uncircumcised believers in order to admit them to Abrahamic covenant/blessings. A few posts earlier, he found it funny that I questioned the VALUE of circumcision to a Christian. It is quite possible they teach this at Christ Embassy.

Goshen360:


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.

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

None that I know of or have heard of. Circumcision holds no promise of financial rewards like tithe like you observed earlier.

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.

If wasn't annulled, do you do circumcision when you came to Christ AS A SIGN OF THE NEW COVENANT?

vooks:
1. Eternal Principles. Explain what blessing a Christian receives upon circumcision

2. Paul NEVER circumcised to fulfil nothing, it was simply getting the Circumcision party off his back. He was saying, 'this guy is circumcised, can you buzz off now?'. If Paul had a modicum of reverence for circumcision as an 'eternal' principle, he would have gladly circumcised ALL or many of his gentile partners. How many did he circumcise?

3. Principles Theory again. Does/MUST the Christian realize the principle behind animal sacrifices or circumcision ONLY by offering animal sacrifices or circumcising respectively?

4. The show-me-where-in-NT-it-was-annulled argument. Show me where Freewill animal offerings were annulled.
Note the animal sacrifices abrogated were those used as a means of dealing with sin, the red heifer,Azazel and so forth. Freewill offerings had nothing to do with sin

1. It is a fleshly way of saying 'I am an heir of the promise'. Period.

2. I never said Paul circumcised to prove anything. I said by still circumcising he proved that it had not been annulled. I also stated that circumcision availed nothing in terms of righteousness.

3. What was the principle behind animal sacrifices? The blood for sin and the body burnt as a form of worship. Even if you are referring to freewill offerings we still give them today in form of money and other things. It didn't change.

My brother,
Under Moses, God required BOTH heart and physical circumcision. I shared the heart verses earlier. Here they are again;

Deut 10:16 (ESV)
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. 17 F
Deut 30:6 (ESV)
6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live

This means the circumcision of the heart is not peculiar to Christians. Now, and in plainest terms, is there any VALUE in physical male circumcision on Christians?

Gombs:




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.

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

You never mentioned tithe in the context I quoted you, it was based on circumcision. Why are you so greatly twisting your own words. This tithe thing has eaten deep into you o, Bidam.

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.

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

Paul said circumcision avails nothing. . .when it comes to the NEW CREATION. That's what he meant. So it is redundant to ask me what blessings I get from it spiritually. I can also ask you what you gain from not indulging in sexual immorality or from strangled animal.

Candour:


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.

Not Exactly. It did not make us right before God, but it was a sign of the covenant, it was for all generations. It was a sign in the flesh to mean you identify with that covenant. You must have also missed what I wrote

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.

1. The same can only be effected through parting male believers with their foreskins?

2. Paul circumcised because he was PRESSURED by Circumcision because of his assignment which entailed mingling with Gentiles. It proves at best that Circumcision was a deadly affair during his time. Judaizers practicing and enforcing what Moses/Abraham gave them is no proof of no-annulment.

3. The principle behind Freewill offerings is worshiping God with your substance. Not all were animal so the blood theory is pretty moot. Thank you for proving my point; you don't need to carry out a Mosaic/pre-Mosaic practice in its FORM to realize the principle behind it
Besides, why do you think NOBODY has EVER offered animal sacrifices alongside their money as Freewill offerings in Christendom?

mbaemeka:


1. It is a fleshly way of saying 'I am an heir of the promise'. Period.

2. I never said Paul circumcised to prove anything. I said by still circumcising he proved that it had not been annulled. I also stated that circumcision availed nothing in terms of righteousness.

3. What was the principle behind animal sacrifices? The blood for sin and the body burnt as a form of worship. Even if you are referring to freewill offerings we still give them today in form of money and other things. It didn't change.

4.

Gombs:


Not Exactly. It did not make us right before God, but it was a sign of the covenant, it was for allngeneration. You must have also missed what I wrote

Most European cultures don't do circumcision (they might have started now), they considered it abhorrent during the early years of Christianity. In fact it was a way of smoking out Jews who might otherwise have escaped the holocaust. Does it mean the christians among them missed this sign with God?

Was Paul making a case for our physical circumcision today?

Does circumcision avail ANYTHING in a Christian?

mbaemeka:


Paul said circumcision avails nothing. . .when it comes to the NEW CREATION. That's what he meant. So it is redundant to ask me what blessings I get from it spiritually. I can also ask you what you gain from not indulging in sexual immorality or from strangled animal.

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 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.

People still give freewill offerings in church mate. They give it in form of money.

Meanwhile the covenant God had with Abraham was marked with circumcision. If the covenant was annulled, it follows logically that the circumcision should have been too but it was not.

vooks:
Does circumcision avail ANYTHING in a Christian?

Yes in a fleshly, physical and even medical standpoint but not in Spiritual terms like Righteousness or Right standing with God.

vooks:
Do Christians NEED circumcision to identify with Abraham's covenant?

Stop being redundant. I have answered this na, and I won't any further than I did.

Do Christians NEED circumcision to identify with Abraham's covenant?

Gombs:


Not Exactly. It did not make us right before God, but it was a sign of the covenant, it was for all generations. It was a sign in the flesh to mean you identify with that covenant. You must have also missed what I wrote

vooks:
Does circumcision avail ANYTHING in a Christian?

I thought I and mba has answered this?

Thank you. if you notice, I asked on a Christian. Am not interested in the physical. So can we say that ceteris paribus a circumcised Christian is in NO way privilleged over the non-circumcised in any spiritual sense?

mbaemeka:


Yes in a fleshly, physical and even medical standpoints but not in Spiritual terms like Righteousness or Right standing with God.

vooks:
1. The same can only be effected through parting male believers with their foreskins?

2. Paul circumcised because he was PRESSURED by Circumcision because of his assignment which entailed mingling with Gentiles. It proves at best that Circumcision was a deadly affair during his time. Judaizers practicing and enforcing what Moses/Abraham gave them is no proof of no-annulment.

3. The principle behind Freewill offerings is worshiping God with your substance. Not all were animal so the blood theory is pretty moot. Thank you for proving my point; you don't need to carry out a Mosaic/pre-Mosaic practice in its FORM to realize the principle behind it
Besides, why do you think NOBODY has EVER offered animal sacrifices alongside their money as Freewill offerings in Christendom?

1. What else will be the physical replacement of the principle?

2. Paul was pressurized by people who thought that CIRCUMCISION MADE ANYONE RIGHTEOUS. Paul knew that CIRCUMCISION didn't do that anymore. That was his only grouse with it. People felt circumcision + Jesus = salvation but Paul said ONLY Jesus = Salvation even though circumcision is not wrong. Get it?

3. Freewill offerings were peace or thanksgiving. The importance was the way it was perceived by God. So I am not helping your case. Because a tithe is ten per cent of what you get- regardless of money, lamb or farm produce.

vooks:
Thank you. if you notice, I asked on a Christian. Am not interested in the physical. So can we say that ceteris paribus a circumcised Christian is in NO way privilleged over the non-circumcised in any spiritual sense?

In terms of being RIGHTEOUS yes. That's all Paul said. A christian that refuses to honor his parents is as righteous as the one that does but you cannot claim they will have the same christian experiences. The reason is simple: God's word gave a blessing for the latter and it is very New Testamenty!

Gombs:


References please. Thanks. It would be great if you have any reference to ANY bible teaching Chrisrian from European culture who don't do circumcision.

There are plenty on the internet if you care to explore but the below should help

www.circumcisioninformation.com/circ_world.html

Physical circumcision has nothing to do with Christianity. Once again, see what Paul told the early Europeans who were being coerced into forced circumcision as a sign of acceptance before God

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

1. Who said there MUST be a physical equivalent?

2. Paul was pressured by men, not by Holy Spirit to circumcise. It means he would not have done it but for the ignorant folks. So his circumcising does not mean circumcision was not annulled, only misunderstood significance of the same

3. A tithe is 10%. Jews gave that TWICE per annum and once more every third year totaling to 22% p.a. That's a principle you need to run with if at all. You just admitted that you are living out the principle of giving to God willingly without butchering animals.

mbaemeka:


1. What else will be the physical replacement of the principle?

2. Paul was pressurized by people who thought that CIRCUMCISION MADE ANYONE RIGHTEOUS. Paul knew that CIRCUMCISION didn't do that anymore. That was his only grouse with it. People felt circumcision + Jesus = salvation but said ONLY Jesus = Salvation even though circumcision is not wrong. Get it?

3. Freewill offerings were peace or thanksgiving. The importance was the way it was perceived by God. So I am not helping your case. Because a tithe is ten per cent of what you get- regardless of money, lamb or farm produce.

vooks:
My brother,
Under Moses, God required BOTH heart and physical circumcision. I shared the heart verses earlier. Here they are again;

Deut 10:16 (ESV)
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. 17 F
Deut 30:6 (ESV)
6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live

This means the circumcision of the heart is not peculiar to Christians. Now, and in plainest terms, is there any VALUE in physical male circumcision on Christians?

Nobody's heart was truly circumcised until Jesus died. Remember that the law is good and righteous but it could not make anyone righteous. If it was possible for anyone to obey the law in totality such a person would have had a truly circumcised heart but none could. So Jesus met all the requirements of the law and gave us the credit. So in that sense circumcision of the heart is entirely Christian.

vooks:
1. Who said there MUST be a physical equivalent?

2. Paul was pressured by men, not by Holy Spirit to circumcise. It means he would not have done it but for the ignorant folks. So his circumcising does not mean circumcision was not annulled, only misunderstood significance of the same

3. A tithe is 10%. Jews gave that TWICE per annum and once more every third year totaling to 22% p.a. That's a principle you need to run with if at all. You just admitted that you are living out the principle of giving to God willingly without butchering animals.

1. Circular. What was the mark of the covenant? What was the significance? That's the only way we can talk about a replacement by any other means like we could do with freewill offerings.

2. Would Paul have been pressured to indulge in sexual immorality? Paul didn't say or allude to any annulment of Circumcision. He only said it had no spiritual importance!

3. They gave such percentages ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Prior to the law Abraham and Jacob gave ONLY ten per cent. Meaning 10 % was the benchmark. One could go higher if they wanted. Even on NL we have Tithers who give as much 35% of their income and it is of their own volition. Which is what God truly expected of his children.

Are you saying there are some spiritual non-righteousness BENEFITS to Christian male circumcision?

Not honoring parents is rebellion against Holy Spirit. There are good reasons why Spirit baptized Christians Ananias and Saphira perished

mbaemeka:


In terms of being RIGHTEOUS yes. That's all Paul said. A christian that refuses to honor his parents is as righteous as the one that does but you cannot claim they will have the same christian experiences. The reason is simple: God's word gave a blessing for the latter and it is very New Testamenty!

Candour:


There are plenty on the internet if you care to explore but the below should help

www.circumcisioninformation.com/circ_world.html

Christianity has nothing to do with Christianity. Once again, see what Paul told the early Europeans who were being coerced into forced circumcision as a sign of acceptance before God

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

That was the best you could get, a statistic before the second world war? Really? Haba bobo.

The bold is shocking, mare you this confused? How many times will I write to you that physical circumcision was your way of identifying with the covenant, but it was no way a keans of making one righteous?

1. Romans 4. Read it backwards thrice. Abraham's righteousness came before circumcision. Circumcision just sealed it. Christians need NO MARKS to be admitted to Abrahamic covenant.

2. You claimed that Paul circumcising Gentiles is proof circumcision was not annulled. That's a bold lie. He only circumcised out of pressure. He also took the Nazarite vow. You want to do that as well?

3. Malachi curses and blessings were based on the Mosaic prescribed/MANDATORY 22% 'tithe'

mbaemeka:


1. Circular. What was the mark of the covenant? What was the significance? That's the only way we can talk about a replacement by any other means like we could do with freewill offerings.

2. Would Paul have been pressured to indulge in sexual immorality? Paul didn't say or allude to any annulment of Circumcision. He only said it had no spiritual importance!

3. They gave such percentages ACCORDING TO THE LAW. Prior to the law Abraham and Jacob gave ONLY ten per cent. Meaning 10 % was the benchmark. One could go higher if they wanted. Even on NL we have Tithers who give as much 35% of their income and it is of their own volition. Which is what God truly expected of his children.

Gombs and co are 'tied' to the old covenant because they must necessarily use it to justify MANY of their stand and practices today. 

Romans 4 states this about Abraham:
"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.

This portion makes it clear that all who believe without being circumcised, have righteousness counted to them as well.

Circumcision was for all successive generations of Israel and Israel ALONE. It was a sign in the flesh to mean they identified with the covenant God made.  

Because they can't distinguish between what is for the NATION Israel and what is for the New Covenant they (Gombs and Co) lump things up.  They therefore do all they can to twist scripture to line up with their preconceived ideas. 

PS
They even twist people's posts and run away from questions that clearly show their positions as faulty or false.

vooks:
Are you saying there are some spiritual non-righteousness BENEFITS to Christian male circumcision?

Not honoring parents is rebellion against Holy Spirit. There are good reasons why Spirit baptized Christians Ananias and Saphira perished

I never said so and if I did you can be kind enough to show it to me. I only said (to me) CIRCUMCISION is like Tithes in that one's righteousness is not tied to observing it. However, there are benefits to be enjoyed from it and they are physical.

Not honoring parents is a disobedience to the law of Moses and you cannot claim that law has been annulled for two major reasons:

1. Honoring parents preexisted the law
2. Paul mentioned it again in the NT.

So 2 christians imputed with Christ's righteousness could experience 2 different physical experiences based on the above (I.e the blessing derived). One Christian might die too soon and disobedience to that eternal principle could be the reason. While another Christian that should have died soon will live longer because of their obedience to that principle.

That's the same way with Tithes.

[quote author=Gombs post=28288235][/quote]

Bro, check again. I modified that error at least 10mins ago

Gombs:


That was the best you could get, a statistic before the second world war? Really? Haba bobo.

The bold is shocking, [size=16pt]mare[/size] you this confused? How many times will I write to you that physical circumcision was your way of identifying with the covenant, but it was no way a keans of making one righteous?

Stop being a child my friend. I corrected that error almost immediately I posted it. Meanwhile, see the enlarged in your post, should I assume you're also confused in your haste to point out an error?

Gombs, that site talks about curcumcision practices in Europe and other places. It's not restricted to any period.

Once again, the Europeans who didnt/dont physically circumcise, are they missing out on identification with the covenant?

[quote author=trustman post=28288311][

b]Gombs and co are 'tied' to the old covenant because they must necessarily use it to justify MANY of their stand and practices today.[/b] 

Romans 4 states this about Abraham:
"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.

This portion makes it clear that all who believe without being circumcised, have righteousness counted to them as well.

No one douted that, maybe you should step back and read where we came from. Physical and Spiritual circumcision. The matter is, has physical circumcision been annulled?

Circumcision was for all successive generations of Israel and Israel ALONE. It was a sign in the flesh to mean they identified with the covenant God made.  

You can lie sha

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.

 Make sure you circumcise both your own children and anyone brought in from the outside. 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.”

From the above bold, you saying it was Israel alone? What of the slaves? By the way, was Abraham an Israelite?

[s]Because they can't distinguish between what is for the NATION Israel and what is for the New Covenant they (Gombs and Co) lump things up.  They therefore do all they can to twist scripture to line up with their preconceived ideas. [/s]

Thrash. God made a deal with Abraham, to be replicated in ALL generation. You now came from your board room, that it was for Israel and Israel alone. Go and sit down somewhere and watch

vooks:
1. Romans 4. Read it backwards thrice. Abraham's righteousness came before circumcision. Circumcision just sealed it. Christians need NO MARKS to be admitted to Abrahamic covenant.

2. You claimed that Paul circumcising Gentiles is proof circumcision was not annulled. That's a bold lie. He only circumcised out of pressure. He also took the Nazarite vow. You want to do that as well?

3. Malachi curses and blessings were based on the Mosaic prescribed/MANDATORY 22% 'tithe'

1. Circular again. Nobody here has said that circumcision made anyone righteous. That is the position you have to take to make anything you say about the law non-moot. Circumcision was a SEAL of the promise the same way the HOLY SPIRIT is a seal of the promise to those who accept Jesus by faith. That's what Paul was explaining to the circumcision obsessed Jews who thought that one could not be righteous without it. He said Even Abraham was righteous without it let alone us who are children of Abraham by the spirit.

2. Totally nugatory point mate. If it was outrightly done away with Paul would NEVER have done it. Paul's argument was that it didn't make or mark anyone as righteous in Gods eyes. Period. Same way wearing trousers by women doesn't make them unrighteous. But some churches even after knowing this still insist that women forbid trousers because of the 'physical implications'.

3. Christ has redeemed us from the curses. So focus on the blessings at least the ones listed there referred to tithes and offerings. And even in the NT Paul listed some other benefits of Tithing that were not captured in the OT.