ECT Some Directions from I Cor 7 MAD cannot absorb

[Interplanner]

In some middle paragraphs on marital issues, Paul says to stay as you were called as a Christian:
stay slave
stay free
stay unmarried
stay married
stay uncirc
stay circ

Circ and Uncirc are nothing (which is why I don't believe Acts 18 is a doctrine about circ). Then the knock out:

KEEPING GOD'S COMMANDS IS WHAT COUNTS.

So apparently Circumcision is not a command anyway. And Paul knew nothing of MAD nor did any other apostle.

 

[Right Divider]

In some middle paragraphs on marital issues, Paul says to stay as you were called as a Christian:
stay slave
stay free
stay unmarried
stay married
stay uncirc
stay circ

Circ and Uncirc are nothing (which is why I don't believe Acts 18 is a doctrine about circ). Then the knock out:

KEEPING GOD'S COMMANDS IS WHAT COUNTS.

So apparently Circumcision is not a command anyway. And Paul knew nothing of MAD nor did any other apostle.

More fallacious logic from Mr. Toxic.

Gen 17:9-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:9) ¶ And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (17:10) 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. (17:11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (17:12) 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. (17:13) 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. (17:14) 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. ​

That's CLEARLY a command for THEM!

It's clear that your fallacious "outside in" version of the Bible is WRONG in just about every way.

Circumcision of the heart NEVER cancelled THEIR everlasting covenant.

 

[Interplanner]

More fallacious logic from Mr. Toxic.

Gen 17:9-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:9) ¶ And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (17:10) 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. (17:11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (17:12) 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. (17:13) 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. (17:14) 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. ​

That CLEARLY a command for THEM!

It's clear that your fallacious "outside in" version of the Bible is WRONG in just about every way.

Circumcision of the heart NEVER cancelled THEIR everlasting covenant.

Yes Mr Anti-NT

 

[themuzicman]

Circumcision of the heart NEVER cancelled THEIR everlasting covenant.

Nothing cancels their covenant. But eternal life cannot be gained through their covenant. Their covenant was for land and prosperity, if they obeyed God's commands.

But they didn't.

That's why a New Covenant was necessary. One that could not be broken. One that Jesus Christ called Israel to come into by following Him, and one joined by the Samaritans and the Gentiles.

 

[Interplanner]

Nothing cancels their covenant. But eternal life cannot be gained through their covenant. Their covenant was for land and prosperity, if they obeyed God's commands.

But they didn't.

That's why a New Covenant was necessary. One that could not be broken. One that Jesus Christ called Israel to come into by following Him, and one joined by the Samaritans and the Gentiles.

I used to think this way Music, but I have since adopted the shadow vs reality, or copy vs reality position of Hebrews and Colossians. That will no doubt make some people mad and MAD but I'm going with the stated NT position, not that of 20th century spin offs from D'ism. All previous covenant items always were only a shadow of the reality in Christ. Even the land. That is why there is no need to return to that as the Davidic theocrats insist.

It is actually stronger than that, with passages like Acts 15 on Amos 9: saying that the raised fallen tent of David always was known to be for the incoming gentiles etc. I find that Paul is often saying that there is an actual meaning to the OT that is only suggested there but now fully known and disclosed. 'Abraham believed God and it was credited as righteousness' requires all kinds of background that Gen 12 simply does not provide.

 

[Right Divider]

Nothing cancels their covenant. But eternal life cannot be gained through their covenant. Their covenant was for land and prosperity, if they obeyed God's commands.

But they didn't.

That's why a New Covenant was necessary. One that could not be broken. One that Jesus Christ called Israel to come into by following Him, and one joined by the Samaritans and the Gentiles.

There are numerous covenants. I was talking about the covenant of circumcision. Genesis 17:10, Acts 7:8

Pay attention.

 

[Lighthouse]

In some middle paragraphs on marital issues, Paul says to stay as you were called as a Christian:
stay slave
stay free
stay unmarried
stay married
stay uncirc
stay circ

Circ and Uncirc are nothing (which is why I don't believe Acts 18 is a doctrine about circ). Then the knock out:

KEEPING GOD'S COMMANDS IS WHAT COUNTS.

So apparently Circumcision is not a command anyway. And Paul knew nothing of MAD nor did any other apostle.

Or maybe Paul was telling us the Law no longer mattered in relation to our salvation...

 

[Interplanner]

Or maybe Paul was telling us the Law no longer mattered in relation to our salvation...

But he didn't have a category like that; he didn't compartmentalize. So it conflicts with what he did in Acts 18 but so be it. We are to go with the doctrine taught here, not with an incident.

There are other conflicts. There's 'be not unequally yoked' and yet the middle of I Cor 7 is 'stay in a marriage with an unbeliever, unless they want to leave' (ie, don't be the initiator of divorce, but rather the responder and let it go). Not exactly 'be not yoked'!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes Mr Anti-NT

Ignorant accusation. You must be proud.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

But he didn't have a category like that; he didn't compartmentalize. So it conflicts with what he did in Acts 18 but so be it. We are to go with the doctrine taught here, not with an incident.

There are other conflicts. There's 'be not unequally yoked' and yet the middle of I Cor 7 is 'stay in a marriage with an unbeliever, unless they want to leave' (ie, don't be the initiator of divorce, but rather the responder and let it go). Not exactly 'be not yoked'!

Explain this post a little clearer.

 

[Lighthouse]

But he didn't have a category like that; he didn't compartmentalize. So it conflicts with what he did in Acts 18 but so be it. We are to go with the doctrine taught here, not with an incident.

Circumcision was a command, you nitwit. It was a command before there was even a law. Before the 10 Commandments, even. In fact, it trumped other commandments, such as the Sabbath commandment. If the eighth day landed on the Sabbath the child was still to be circumcised.

There are other conflicts. There's 'be not unequally yoked' and yet the middle of I Cor 7 is 'stay in a marriage with an unbeliever, unless they want to leave' (ie, don't be the initiator of divorce, but rather the responder and let it go). Not exactly 'be not yoked'!

Meaning: do not become unequally yoked if you are not already. And if you are proselytize your spouse so as to make an effort to equalize the yoke.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes Mr Anti-NT

I'm totally PRO-NT.... you have not the slightest clue what the NT or the NC or any of the other covenants are.

Mr. ToxicPuffedUpAirHead. :beanboy:

 

[Right Divider]

Explain this post a little clearer.

I don't think that it's even possible.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm totally PRO-NT.... you have not the slightest clue what the NT or the NC or any of the other covenants are.

Mr. ToxicPuffedUpAirHead. :beanboy:

You're too extreme RD. I have read widely for 40 years and there is no need for you to be so dismissive. You want neither a discussion nor to learn. why are you here then?

 

[Interplanner]

Circumcision was a command, you nitwit. It was a command before there was even a law. Before the 10 Commandments, even. In fact, it trumped other commandments, such as the Sabbath commandment. If the eighth day landed on the Sabbath the child was still to be circumcised.


Meaning: do not become unequally yoked if you are not already. And if you are proselytize your spouse so as to make an effort to equalize the yoke.

Wow that's some Spirit of God at work in you guys with all your calling names and nitwits and dunderheads. Obviously, circumcision did not matter and the commands of God did. If you don't get that much out of the text, go work on something else like fantasy football.

 

[Right Divider]

You're too extreme RD.

:rotfl:

I have read widely for 40 years and there is no need for you to be so dismissive. You want neither a discussion nor to learn. why are you here then?

I'm here to help defend the Word of God from self-proclaimed "educated" twerps like you that claim "knowledge", but are instead simply perverted scripture twisters of the worst sort.

 

[Right Divider]

Wow that's some Spirit of God at work in you guys with all your calling names and nitwits and dunderheads. Obviously, circumcision did not matter and the commands of God did. If you don't get that much out of the text, go work on something else like fantasy football.

God's everlasting covenant of circumcision has been dismissed by this anti-Christ named Interplanner. Get lost.

 

[Interplanner]

"Neither circ nor uncirc means anyhting, but rather a new creation." Gal 6. Hope you are in. God wants as many as possible IN and preaching the message!

2P2P will ruin your ability to understand Galatians.

 

[Right Divider]

"Neither circ nor uncirc means anyhting, but rather a new creation." Gal 6. Hope you are in. God wants as many as possible IN and preaching the message!

2P2P will ruin your ability to understand Galatians.

So what you're saying is the the Bible contradicts itself.

So what you're saying is that this is cancelled?

Gen 17:13 (KJV)​

(17:13) 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.
​

The everlasting is NOT everlasting?

In THIS dispensation things are different. But you're too dumb to understand that.

 

[Lighthouse]

Wow that's some Spirit of God at work in you guys with all your calling names and nitwits and dunderheads.

I bet you a week of TOL [the one who is proven wrong cannot post for a week] that Jesus and various men of God in the Bible called people names, too.

Obviously, circumcision did not matter and the commands of God did.

What commands mattered if circumcision, the first command of what became the Law, did not? Give me some examples.

If you don't get that much out of the text, go work on something else like fantasy football.

I don't like football, American or otherwise.