Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
But the verses you have referenced don't prove your point at all. They would rather say the opposite. "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing."
If you are saying that circumcision was a condition of salvation for some, then it was not nothing at all, it was a lot. But Paul says that it was nothing.
It´s nothing in the Body of Christ. However, what was important was to abide by the commandments that God had for you--under the covenant of circ or uncirc. Again, Paul is describing spiritual states in this passage since it was impossible to become uncirc. For those saved into the Body of Christ after the beginning of the dispensation of the grace of God, circ or uncirc, were under the same set of rules as we are today
Quote:
You seem to be saying that God was dealing with Israel exclusively until the middle of Acts. Are we to understand this as meaning that he was not dealing with anyone else until then? If so, what is the special point when God stops dealing exclusively with Israel? Is it when Cornelius gets saved, is it when Paul announces (according to you) that he is an apostle of the gentiles? Or some other time? Or perhaps it should be when the centurion who oversaw the crucifixion exclaimed "This truly was the Son of God!"
As I posted before, God did deal with Gentiles through Israel. A Gentile had to enter into a covenant relationship with Him through Israel. Please reread the post I made yesterday regarding this very topic--about 14 posts ago.
The salvation of Cornelius is when God made this truth know to Peter and the circumcision (Acts 10:44-48, 11:18). Even James recognized this truth (Acts 15:14). However, He began this plan with the conversion of Paul (Acts 26:18) as a pattern for all those who would believe after (1 Tim. 1:16).
According to the Scriptures, when did God first visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name? There was no mystery under the dispensation of the grace of God until this happened (Eph. 3:1-9).
Precisely!
"God has been reduced to dispensationalism with a capital D was his opening statement.
He throws it out there and then gets upset when people respond. My posts were clear and simple and concise concerning this topic. I only got one comment from the initiator of this thread, and that was "what scriptures?" I didnt even respond as the comment was inane. I mean arent we talking about the dispensational viewpoint of the scriptures in light of biblical interpretation?!
I immediately saw it as the usual smokescreen that gets thrown out when someone doesnt have an answer--or for that matter is not truly interested in the answer or even any imput to a query or question they might have posted. Same old nit picking, but no real interest in growth.
I apologize for my negetivity, but this is the reason I find posting often useless. I have much to share, but only to those who are interested in growth and not just pontificating all the day long.
My question meant, which of the following scriptures in addition to the ones in our present Old Testament Canon did you think Paul meant when he referred to Timothy as having been immersed in them since boyhood. They were all scriptures and all respected. I can't vouch for the dates of all of them but most of them were probably around when Timothy was a boy. On the other hand I have probably missed out a good few so it is not as if there are exactly just a handful of them. You thought my question was inane so please forgive me for being inane twice: which scriptures out of these do think was Paul referring to?
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Letter of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Azariah
Baruch
Prayer of Manassas
Bel and the Dragon
Wisdom of Sirach
Wisdom of Solomon
Additions to Esther
Tobit
Judith
Susanna
Psalm 151
The Books of Adam and Eve
Life of Adam and Eve (a.ka. The Apocalypse of Moses)
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Book of Adam
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
1 Enoch
2 Enoch
Melchizedek
The Book of Abraham
The Testament of Abraham
The Apocalypse of AbrahamNEW July 18, 2004
Joseph and Aseneth
Selections from The Book of Moses
Revelation of Moses
The Assumption of Moses (aka: The Testament of Moses)
The Martyrdom of Isaiah
The Ascension of Isaiah
The Revelation of Esdras
The Book of Jubilees
Tales of the Patriarchs
The Letter of Aristeas
The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 2 Baruch)
The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 3 Baruch)
Fragments of a Zadokite work (aka: The Damascus Document)
As I posted before, God did deal with Gentiles through Israel. A Gentile had to enter into a covenant relationship with Him through Israel. Please reread the post I made yesterday regarding this very topic--about 14 posts ago.
I did read it carefully just before I wrote my post which you are answering. But your response concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman was way short of the mark. That fact is that Jesus did not require her to enter into the covenant of Israel. He simply said to her that her daughter had been healed. I felt that you were looking for creative solutions there by saying that she had recognised Israel. You needed to say something like that to salvage your doctrine. The scriptures simply don't support your contention that God only dealt with Israel until mid acts. And then you wipe away the momentous significance of the Cornelius narrative with a single "However" as if all it needed to prove your doctrine was your own opinion. The facts are that the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Cornelius story completely disprove your contention that God only dealt with gentiles until Paul. Everything else you say about it is wriggling and writhing. And then you left out the Ninevites. And the deaf and dumb man Jesus healed from the Decapolis.
I did read it carefully just before I wrote my post which you are answering. But your response concerning the Syro-Phoenician woman was way short of the mark. That fact is that Jesus did not require her to enter into the covenant of Israel. He simply said to her that her daughter had been healed. I felt that you were looking for creative solutions there by saying that she had recognised Israel. You needed to say something like that to salvage your doctrine. The scriptures simply don't support your contention that God only dealt with Israel until mid acts. And then you wipe away the momentous significance of the Cornelius narrative with a single "However" as if all it needed to prove your doctrine was your own opinion. The facts are that the Syro-Phoenician woman and the Cornelius story completely disprove your contention that God only dealt with gentiles until Paul. Everything else you say about it is wriggling and writhing. And then you left out the Ninevites. And the deaf and dumb man Jesus healed from the Decapolis.
Apparently you missed the citation from Isaiah dealing with the Gentiles. You must have also missed what it was the Syro-Phoenician woman said prior to her daughter being healed. You also must have missed it when Jesus told the woman that He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. You also must have missed what James said about when God first visited the Gentiles.
What has happened here is simple. You were confronted with the Scriptures, you are unable to respond with the Scriptures, so you are left to your own ideas about what you think it all means. It's clear that you don't value the Bible. You've said it yourself that we need to make up our own rules of interpretation. We also need to manipulate the Bible. One only has to look at how much Scripture you quote.
He didn't even address me. I guess you should feel privileged. There are people reading who never engage at all. Remember that and keep posting.
I humbly apologize for my sort of tirade. You are absolutely correct, i have received quite a few messages from those who would never post but do read and are thankful for the fellowship in the Word.
God's grace and love is ever flowing....praise Him!
You must have also missed what it was the Syro-Phoenician woman said prior to her daughter being healed.
No I didn't miss that. She acknowledged that she was a dog, not in the covenant of Israel. I don't see how that amounts to Jesus answering her prayer on the basis she accepted the covenant. There is no indication she accepted the covenant. Only that she recognised Jesus as a man of God and had faith in him.
Quote:
Apparently you missed the citation from Isaiah dealing with the Gentiles.
I didn't miss that one either. The passage does not support your view. It says that those who want to join the commonwealth of Israel will be accepted and will be authorised to access the courts of prayer and be able to offer sacrifices, etc. It does not say that only those who come to the Lord in this way can be accepted. The example of the Ninevites proves this.
Slogan/motto:
Ephesians 3:9: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"
Reputation:
June 16th, 2009, 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
No I didn't miss that. She acknowledged that she was a dog, not in the covenant of Israel. I don't see how that amounts to Jesus answering her prayer on the basis she accepted the covenant. There is no indication she accepted the covenant. Only that she recognised Jesus as a man of God and had faith in him.
Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV)
1. Land forever. Gen 17:8 (KJV)
2. City FROM heaven. Rev 21:2 (KJV)
3. Heavenly places. Eph 2:6-7(KJV)
Don't mix them, leavening the whole household of God. Luke 13:21 (KJV)
Jonah 3:10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
According to what standard? Yours? Mine? God's?
Quote:
No I didn't miss that. She acknowledged that she was a dog, not in the covenant of Israel.
Adrial, I accept your apology, assuming it was aimed at me. I have now I hope responded to you and Judging U.
I ask you please only to think a bit from my viewpoint too. When I receive comments such as
Quote:
Here's some advice. Go read your Bible.
when I in fact do read my Bible all the time, including in the Greek original so that I can get as close to the text as possible because I believe that it is inspired by God and I don't want to read second best if I can help it.
or when someone tells other contributors not to post until I have answered such and such a post
or when someone invents quotes that I never said or
or when I get bad rep calling me accursed,
or various other such things, it does not exactly endear me to writing in a gentle and peaceable manner. And sure my OP was provocative, but not impolite. But anyway, I apologize for making you feel unresponded to and I hope we can go on from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign No I didn't miss that. She acknowledged that she was a dog, not in the covenant of Israel. I don't see how that amounts to Jesus answering her prayer on the basis she accepted the covenant. There is no indication she accepted the covenant. Only that she recognised Jesus as a man of God and had faith in him.
Excellent reasoning! Clearly you understand the proverb "The less said the better." and you have pursued this to its best conclusion by saying nothing at all!
It´s nothing in the Body of Christ. However, what was important was to abide by the commandments that God had for you--under the covenant of circ or uncirc. Again, Paul is describing spiritual states in this passage since it was impossible to become uncirc. For those saved into the Body of Christ after the beginning of the dispensation of the grace of God, circ or uncirc, were under the same set of rules as we are today
You seem to have agreed that circumcision was nothing in the body of Christ. How can you maintain that it was a condition of salvation? After all, the body of Christ did consist of Jewish believers did it not?
You seem to have agreed that circumcision was nothing in the body of Christ. How can you maintain that it was a condition of salvation? After all, the body of Christ did consist of Jewish believers did it not?
Because the BOC came after the covenant of circumcision. Those saved under the covenant of circumcision maintained that covenant. Hence the difference between Rom. 4:1-5 and James 2:14-26. Now there is no difference.
Slogan/motto:
Ephesians 3:9: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"
Reputation:
June 16th, 2009, 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
Saul to Paul:
Excellent reasoning! Clearly you understand the proverb "The less said the better." and you have pursued this to its best conclusion by saying nothing at all!
Thank you. Do you understand Genesis 12:1-3 (KJV) and how
the SyroPhenecian woman fits into the Abrahamic covenant?
1. Land forever. Gen 17:8 (KJV)
2. City FROM heaven. Rev 21:2 (KJV)
3. Heavenly places. Eph 2:6-7(KJV)
Don't mix them, leavening the whole household of God. Luke 13:21 (KJV)
Finding Joy through the light of His Word: 
Adrial
Linear Mode
