Sin of Denominationalism

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Today our society is filled with many "churches". Many uninspired men have started their own churches and put their own twist to it. Considering 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, this is wrong. Thoughts on the matter?

"Thoughts on the matter?" I've read some of your posts in this thread, and it seems fairly clear to me that you have opinions on the matter, but not a lot of thought. For example, in your second post in this thread you state that only "what the Bible says should be taught." Well, most denominations try, I think, to do that to the best of their ability (presumably enlightened by the inspiration of the deity they worship). But if you are -- and you will be -- confronted by a flat-out contradiction, how do you teach "only what the Bible says?" Let me provide an example, using only books beginning with "G:"

• “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.” — Genesis 17:10
• “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Now, using only the Bible (and all of the Bible) what would you say is exactly "what the Bible says should be taught" about circumcision? Would you be surprised if some reader other than yourself might have a different interpretation than yours? Can you provide a fool-proof way to resolve that itty-bitty conflict (that does not consist entirely of you own obviously-unbiased opinion)?

 

[CohenDavidson]

"Thoughts on the matter?" I've read some of your posts in this thread, and it seems fairly clear to me that you have opinions on the matter, but not a lot of thought. For example, in your second post in this thread you state that only "what the Bible says should be taught." Well, most denominations try, I think, to do that to the best of their ability (presumably enlightened by the inspiration of the deity they worship). But if you are -- and you will be -- confronted by a flat-out contradiction, how do you teach "only what the Bible says?" Let me provide an example, using only books beginning with "G:"

• “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.” — Genesis 17:10
• “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Now, using only the Bible (and all of the Bible) what would you say is exactly "what the Bible says should be taught" about circumcision? Would you be surprised if some reader other than yourself might have a different interpretation than yours? Can you provide a fool-proof way to resolve that itty-bitty conflict (that does not consist entirely of you own obviously-unbiased opinion)?

Okay, so what you have just done would seem logical, as I just posted in another thread, one of the most misunderstood pages in the Bible is the page separating the old and new testament. The Bible says in Colossians 2:14 that the old law was nailed to the cross, circumcision was a part of the Law of Moses and a step in the process of becoming a Jew... Now that we are under a new law, we are told we are not to be circumcised. This is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that when that which is perfect comes that which is in part would be done away with. 1 Corinthians 13:10. That which is perfect or complete has come, so we no longer are under the over 600 laws and statutes of the Law of Moses... We are to use the whole Bible, as it can be used for our learning... Romans 15:4. The new testament and the ideas taught about salvation and worship and other things contained in it is to be followed. When you look into the Bible you begin to see it fits as a puzzle does. The pieces come to fit perfectly, you must be willing to look, however. Thanks for the comment!

 

[2ndpillar]

Colossians 2:14 that the old law was nailed to the cross

Paul’s Colossians 2:23, suggests that following Paul's "broad” ”way” (Matthew 7:13) would prevent “self indulgence”. As 75% of the U.S. self claim to be “Christians”, and 74% of the U.S. is overweight. It seems that “nailing the “Law and the prophets” to the cross, didn’t seem to work in preventing “self indulgence”. On the other hand, Yeshua said he came to fulfill the “Law and the prophets”, and one was not to think that “I came to abolish the Law”. Anyone annulling even one of the “least” of these commandments, so would be called “least”. Saul’s name was changed to “Paul”, which means “little”, and the foremost of “little”, is “least”. As Paul is foremost of all things, such as the foremost sinner, it only seems reasonable that those in the kingdom, would call him “least” (Matthew 5:17-19).


Christianity in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[2ndpillar]

• “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.” — Genesis 17:10
• “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Now, using only the Bible (and all of the Bible) what would you say is exactly "what the Bible says should be taught" about circumcision? Would you be surprised if some reader other than yourself might have a different interpretation than yours? Can you provide a fool-proof way to resolve that itty-bitty conflict (that does not consist entirely of you own obviously-unbiased opinion)?

Can I answer, pleeeeeeze?

The “covenant” you quoted (Genesis 17:10), was given to a non Jew, Abraham, whose name means, father of the peoples/nations/Gentiles. As for your quote of Galatians 5:2, that would be a quote from part of the “tare” “seed” (Matthew 13:25), which was sown in the same field as the “good seed”. The growing tares, would be protected (Matthew 13:29) among the growing wheat, until the “end of the age” when the wheat had ripened, such as the “time of the harvest”, and then the tares would be the “first” to be “gathered up” and thrown into the fire (Matthew 13:30 & 39). As for why Paul, a shepherd of Zechariah 11:4-10, should do as he did, it was because the “LORD my God” had chosen two shepherd to “pasture” “the flock doomed to slaughter”. Paul being the shepherd/staff called “Favor”, because of his false gospel of grace, who was to “break my covenant” with “all the peoples”/Gentiles. The second staff, called “Cords” , and referred to as the “worthless shepherd” (Zech 11:17), would be Peter.

 

[Truthseeker]

Look at history... He had 14 wives... one was 9 years old. Come on man, be real. This man used his "message to acquire female companions. If Muhammad was from God, then why does he contradict Jesus on so many principles, such as marriage? Jesus said Marriage is between on man and women and they are not to get divorced except for adultery. Matthew 5:27-32 Muhammad obviously did not do this, having 14 wives. Jesus said we are to love our enemies... Matthew 5:39-44 Muhammad spread Islam with the sword, killing his enemies look at history. Can by no means say that Jesus and Muhammad stood for the same ideas and principles. Jesus taught Christians to be peaceful men and women in the flesh... Muhammad bred violence and destruction.

God can change the law of God if He chooses to according to the conditions of time and place. Christ certainly did. Besides God allowed polygamy in the Qur'an on the condition that you treat all wives equally and said elsewhere that you are not going to be able to do that. So really the Qur'an prefers one wife. Muhammad was the head of the community of Medina, and He tried to satisfy His followers by marrying their daughters. Besides as a perfect reflection of God, He could treat all His wives equally. He only had children with His first wife, and married no other while she was alive.

Jesus did not specify you were to have only one wife. That is not in the Bible. In the Old Testament some had more than one wife, such as Abraham.

Muhammad did not spread Islam with the sword. He said let there be no compulsion in religion. If anybody spread their religion with the sword, it was the Christians. Charlemagne did this. Also it was expected that a member of the domain of a king to follow a certain interpretation of scripture that the king believed. Look at England under Henry VIII. Of course this is not Christ's fault. But Islam specified there was to be no compulsion in religion, so they didn't.

Muhammad killed His enemies because He was defending His community, not to force the others to convert to Islam.

 

[CohenDavidson]

. If anybody spread their religion with the sword, it was the Christians.

The difference is, Jesus started the church. He and his teachings did not advocate for violence... Muhammad on the Other hand did. Whoever practices violence in the name of spreading the gospel is doing it way wrong. That is sin! To spread Islam by the sword is exactly how it was spread from the beginning by its founder Muhammad...

 

[CohenDavidson]

Jesus did not specify you were to have only one wife.

Yes he did, right here Mark 10:6-9 No longer two flesh, but one... Showing it is between one man and one women.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay, so what you have just done would seem logical, as I just posted in another thread, one of the most misunderstood pages in the Bible is the page separating the old and new testament. The Bible says in Colossians 2:14 that the old law was nailed to the cross, circumcision was a part of the Law of Moses and a step in the process of becoming a Jew... Now that we are under a new law, we are told we are not to be circumcised. This is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that when that which is perfect comes that which is in part would be done away with. 1 Corinthians 13:10. That which is perfect or complete has come, so we no longer are under the over 600 laws and statutes of the Law of Moses... We are to use the whole Bible, as it can be used for our learning... Romans 15:4. The new testament and the ideas taught about salvation and worship and other things contained in it is to be followed. When you look into the Bible you begin to see it fits as a puzzle does. The pieces come to fit perfectly, you must be willing to look, however. Thanks for the comment!

But then, is it not absolutely fascinating that -- living under this "new law" -- the great majority of American-born males (especially those of non-Hispanic origin) are in fact still circumcised? Didn't they read the update you cited?

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes he did, right here Mark 10:6-9 No longer two flesh, but one... Showing it is between one man and one women.

Perhaps.

 

[Truthseeker]

The difference is, Jesus started the church. He and his teachings did not advocate for violence... Muhammad on the Other hand did. Whoever practices violence in the name of spreading the gospel is doing it way wrong. That is sin! To spread Islam by the sword is exactly how it was spread from the beginning by its founder Muhammad...

Muhammad did not advocate for violence. See this:

61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things).
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 8)

It's true there are passages in the Qur'an where it says to kill the idolators but that is only in the context of the idolators of the time attacking them.

 

[CohenDavidson]

But then, is it not absolutely fascinating that -- living under this "new law" -- the great majority of American-born males (especially those of non-Hispanic origin)are in fact still circumcised? Didn't they read the update you cited?

Well I wouldn't say this is because of religious reasons, though some still do. It is more practiced for cleanliness. I was circumcised when I was a very you child, of my parent's choosing, not for religious purposes, but for health reasons. Circumcision is a fascinating topic. In the times God commanded his people to be circumcised, I can only imagine he did this for the reason of keeping disease from his people.

 

[CohenDavidson]

Muhammad did not advocate for violence. See this:

61. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the one that heareth and knoweth (all things).
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 8)

It's true there are passages in the Qur'an where it says to kill the idolators but that is only in the context of the idolators of the time attacking them.

I'm not to sure how true that is. You may be right on that, however, the point is, Jesus and Muhammad did not stand for the same thing. If Jesus's words were true, Muhammad was a lie. If Muhammad's words were true, Jesus was a lie. To say they both stood for the same ideas and principles is faulty. As for Jesus, I believe his words. I can not see how Muslims can accept the words of Jesus and Muhammad to be collective. They were not, they were contradictory in every way.

 

[Truthseeker]

I'm not to sure how true that is. You may be right on that, however, the point is, Jesus and Muhammad did not stand for the same thing. If Jesus's words were true, Muhammad was a lie. If Muhammad's words were true, Jesus was a lie. To say they both stood for the same ideas and principles is faulty. As for Jesus, I believe his words. I can not see how Muslims can accept the words of Jesus and Muhammad to be collective. They were not, they were contradictory in every way.

It's all a matter of interpretation. Rightly interpreted they stood for the same spiritual principles, but the material laws were changed to fit a different time and place. I know you won't agree with me, but that is what I believe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well I wouldn't say this is because of religious reasons, though some still do. It is more practiced for cleanliness. I was circumcised when I was a very you child, of my parent's choosing, not for religious purposes, but for health reasons. Circumcision is a fascinating topic. In the times God commanded his people to be circumcised, I can only imagine he did this for the reason of keeping disease from his people.

Okay, so just a quickie question for you: when you say "His people" (that God was trying to keep disease from), we can assume that the rest of the people in the world were not "His people," that they were the people of some other God -- perhaps one who didn't care so much about disease?

(By the way, the Egyptians practiced circumcision, too. And other cultures, like native Australians, Hawaiians and Samoans practiced subincision -- slitting the urethra open from head of the penis to near the base. Go figure! Maybe it's not about God at all -- just us being fascinated --and frightened -- by the power of sexuality.)

 

[CohenDavidson]

It's all a matter of interpretation. Rightly interpreted they stood for the same spiritual principles, but the material laws were changed to fit a different time and place. I know you won't agree with me, but that is what I believe.

Well If you aren't willing to change I can do nothing... maybe you will see at some point

 

[CohenDavidson]

Okay, so just a quickie question for you: when you say "His people" (that God was trying to keep disease from), we can assume that the rest of the people in the world were not "His people," that they were the people of some other God -- perhaps one who didn't care so much about disease?

(By the way, the Egyptians practiced circumcision, too. And other cultures, like native Australians, Hawaiians and Samoans practiced subincision -- slitting the urethra open from head of the penis to near the base. Go figure! Maybe it's not about God at all -- just us being fascinated --and frightened -- by the power of sexuality.)

Yes, I when I refer to "his people" I refer to exactly that, It could be that circumcision was already present in the world, but God commanded this (on the eighth day when vitamin K (blood clotting agent) is at its peak) I can only see to prevent disease. I have no doubt it was from God. Especially considering we see the peak of vitamin K on day eight.

 

[GreenpeaceRECo-operative]

Are you on a pc or a phone? On a phone it's 'tools' and a PC it's 'edit' at the bottom left of your post.

Thanks. I´m on a PC, and I don´t see an "edit" at the bottom left of my post. Is there a "preference" category I need to check or something? How odd is this?

 

[Rival]

Thanks. I´m on a PC, and I don´t see an "edit" at the bottom left of my post. Is there a "preference" category I need to check or something? How odd is this?