IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITHIN YOU ?

[shnarkle]

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Ezekiel 18:30-31 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. [31] Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

A holy sanctified heart can be made only by God. Ezekiel is using literary license.

 

[shnarkle]

agree.


Galatians 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

He's referring explicitly to the sacrifice of Abel, not his faith.

odd what is spoken of the resurrection body of Christ is: John 20:27
[27] Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Could suggest those are the marks of the circumcision of Christ in the putting off of the body of sins of the flesh. Galatians 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

I don't see your point here.

 

[shnarkle]

Why would God re establish an old law that was weak and begggarly?

He doesn't. The law that was weak and beggarly was the sacrificial system, not the commandments. The law that was added to deal with transgressions pointed to Christ' sacrifice, but Paul also points out that when the new covenant is established, there is no more sacrifice for sin because only those sins committed under the old covenant are covered. There are no sins committed under the new covenant, therefore there is no need for a sacrificial system anymore.

 

[shnarkle]

Hebrews 10:7-9 KJV
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law; [9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


Tecarta Bible

And the first relied upon a sacrificial system. The second doesn't need the sacrifice of Christ any longer because the new creation doesn't sin. The new creature is in Christ, and there is no sin in Christ. That's the good news! Do you believe?

 

[shnarkle]

exactly. Get your point. But bring up the member here on the board who shared she is being told she can’t join the church she attends unless water baptized. You suggested she has already been baptized of Fire which was insightful. Can’t remember...Did you tell her the church was right in refusing her, and suggest she “fulfills all righteousness” by doing as the church told her to join?

Of course not. She doesn't believe what they believe. If she was led by the Spirit into that community, that would be a different story, but she sees that they are hung up on ritual when they have a potential member who doesn't even believe what they beleive. It's pointless.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

literary license.

Do not know what literary license means.

 

[shnarkle]

Do not know what literary license means.

It means they can't make themselves clean. Eating with unwashed hands does not defile anyone because they're already defiled. The corrupt fallen heart of humanity cannot be defiled. It is already defiled. It cannot clean itself. God has to do that.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Of course not. She doesn't believe what they believe. If she was led by the Spirit into that community, that would be a different story, but she sees that they are hung up on ritual when they have a potential member who doesn't even believe what they beleive. It's pointless.

Hung up on a ritual.

 

[shnarkle]

Hung up on a ritual.

Yep. It's pointless if one is not born again. Christ was a life giving spirit, and he was baptized. See the difference?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

As God commanded them to create a new heart in them. To me (doesn’t mean it is right but only my understanding at this time) only God could create a New heart in them(which He does) and only God could circumcise without hands as only God can build up a temple made without hands...a habitation for and of God. Ephesians 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

This is unbiblical.

was only giving you the verse of where I thought God commanded them “make you a new heart” Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Agree only God can make a new heart. That was the point. As the circumcision made without hands can only be God. men could perform circumcision in the flesh but not the circumcision made without hands. There is that which is possible with men. And that which is ONLY possible with God. we could go on and on and never agree and it is not profitable. surely the Sabbath would be another disagreement if this is one. We just don’t agree which is okay but makes it pointless to discuss the topic any further. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[shnarkle]

was only giving you the verse of where I thought God commanded them “make you a new heart” Ezekiel 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Agree only God can make a new heart. That was the point. As the circumcision made without hands can only be God. men could perform circumcision in the flesh but not the circumcision made without hands. There is that which is possible with men. And that which is ONLY possible with God. we could go on and on and never agree and it is not profitable. surely the Sabbath would be another disagreement if this is one. We just don’t agree which is okay but makes it pointless to discuss the topic any further. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

You seem to be ignoring the point altogether, which is why do you insist on a double standard? Why do you say, the law of circumcision is no longer valid when Paul himself says it is beneficial? Just as importantly, if the law is beneficial, why do away with it? More importantly, why have you not done away with all of it then?

Paul is simply pointing out that one cannot please God in the flesh. This doesn't mean we are then given an invitation to sin. Those who are not born again, should keep God's laws because they are not just beneficial, but they point to Christ, and the sinner needs all the help they can get.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

You seem to be ignoring the point altogether, which is why do you insist on a double standard? Why do you say, the law of circumcision is no longer valid when Paul himself says it is beneficial? Just as importantly, if the law is beneficial, why do away with it? More importantly, why have you not done away with all of it then?

Paul is simply pointing out that one cannot please God in the flesh. This doesn't mean we are then given an invitation to sin. Those who are not born again, should keep God's laws because they are not just beneficial, but they point to Christ, and the sinner needs all the help they can get.

Above you spoke on it is not what goes into a man which defiles the man; but that which comes out of him. You said if that man is already defiled then washing his hands is pointless. Did I understand? Are you saying if a man is clean he then SHOULD wash his hands which is profitable in not being defiled by that which enters into the man?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

You seem to be ignoring the point altogether, which is why do you insist on a double standard? Why do you say, the law of circumcision is no longer valid when Paul himself says it is beneficial?

Romans 2:26-27 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Counted for circumcision... “counted” by God for circumcision ...the uncircumcision counted for circumcision by God and if God said it then why should I doubt it?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

You seem to be ignoring the point altogether, which is why do you insist on a double standard? Why do you say, the law of circumcision is no longer valid when Paul himself says it is beneficial? Just as importantly, if the law is beneficial, why do away with it? More importantly, why have you not done away with all of it then?

Paul is simply pointing out that one cannot please God in the flesh. This doesn't mean we are then given an invitation to sin. Those who are not born again, should keep God's laws because they are not just beneficial, but they point to Christ, and the sinner needs all the help they can get.

Signing off. But regarding Jesus being baptized of John. This was before the resurrection and the gospel going to the gentiles. This was when He came only for the lost sheep of Israel. This was before the resurrection when even Christ told the woman the children’s bread was not to be cast to the dogs. His word says they uncircumcised are counted for circumcision. AND keep the Righteousness of the Law while uncircumcised by men yet circumcised by God.

 

[Waiting on him]

Galatians 5:11,14 KJV
[11] And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. [14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Tecarta Bible

 

[Waiting on him]

You seem to be ignoring the point altogether, which is why do you insist on a double standard? Why do you say, the law of circumcision is no longer valid when Paul himself says it is beneficial? Just as importantly, if the law is beneficial, why do away with it? More importantly, why have you not done away with all of it then?

Paul is simply pointing out that one cannot please God in the flesh. This doesn't mean we are then given an invitation to sin. Those who are not born again, should keep God's laws because they are not just beneficial, but they point to Christ, and the sinner needs all the help they can get.

Pray for us @shnarkle, we’ll be praying for you.

 

[shnarkle]

Above you spoke on it is not what goes into a man which defiles the man; but that which comes out of him.

Here again, context is key. Logical fallacies will only confuse us. A defiled human being cannot be further defiled except by what emerges from their heart. This is not an invitation to use drugs, engage in sodomy, or eat garbage just because Jesus says, "it isn't what enters a man that defiles him".

You said if that man is already defiled then washing his hands is pointless.

It is pointless only in that it can never make him righteous. This is the purpose of ritual washing according to the legalists.

Are you saying if a man is clean he then SHOULD wash his hands which is profitable in not being defiled by that which enters into the man?

Yes. Washing your hands before you eat, or after you go to the bathroom, or come into contact with a corpse, blood, feces, etc. is profitable. It is common sense. It is the best way to curtail or prevent the spread of disease. Jesus' disciples were being accused of defiling their ontological state by not washing their hands before sitting down to have a meal.

A Pharisee could go to the bathroom, wash his hands, and then just as he's getting ready to sit down to a meal a few minutes later, he will then go and wash his hands again simply because it reinforces his sense of righteousness in the public eye.

 

[shnarkle]

Signing off. But regarding Jesus being baptized of John. This was before the resurrection and the gospel going to the gentiles. This was when He came only for the lost sheep of Israel. This was before the resurrection when even Christ told the woman the children’s bread was not to be cast to the dogs. His word says they uncircumcised are counted for circumcision. AND keep the Righteousness of the Law while uncircumcised by men yet circumcised by God.

And yet, you keep ignoring the fact that they keep the righteous requirement of the law. That is why they are counted. The circumcised don't keep the law, therefore they are cut off, and Paul cuations those who have joined themselves to Israel to hold fast to the that same righteous standard or suffer the same fate as their Jewish brethren.

 

[shnarkle]

Romans 2:26-27 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Counted for circumcision... “counted” by God for circumcision ...the uncircumcision counted for circumcision by God and if God said it then why should I doubt it?

No doubt about it. They kept the law. Look at what you just posted. They are counted BECAUSE THEY KEPT THE LAW.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Here again, context is key. Logical fallacies will only confuse us. A defiled human being cannot be further defiled except by what emerges from their heart. This is not an invitation to use drugs, engage in sodomy, or eat garbage just because Jesus says, "it isn't what enters a man that defiles him".



It is pointless only in that it can never make him righteous. This is the purpose of ritual washing according to the legalists.



Yes. Washing your hands before you eat, or after you go to the bathroom, or come into contact with a corpse, blood, feces, etc. is profitable. It is common sense. It is the best way to curtail or prevent the spread of disease. Jesus' disciples were being accused of defiling their ontological state by not washing their hands before sitting down to have a meal.

A Pharisee could go to the bathroom, wash his hands, and then just as he's getting ready to sit down to a meal a few minutes later, he will then go and wash his hands again simply because it reinforces his sense of righteousness in the public eye.

you are talking to someone who has struggled with obsessive compulsive disorder and washes her hands more often than she should. Not because I think it will make me more righteous before God but simply because I don’t want to get sick. Mainly I was wondering if you were saying not washing your hands made you defiled before God. Just because you get sick from germs doesn’t change how God sees a child. It is pointless to worry everyday over what could happen. I’ve actually had to work with trusting God that even if I get sick...it is okay. Once a really close friend’s daughter called me and said “Mommy is so sick she can’t stand up. She has been throwing up and won’t get out of the shower. She wants to know if you can come take care of us.” May sound stupid but it took a lot to put my own fear of germs and my own selfishness aside and go help but knew it is what God wanted regardless of being exposed to germs.