The Church started in the wilderness

[Bro.T]

Yes, I can and I have. But as you say, you can't.
Gal 3:22-24, 4:21-5:7, Heb 8:13, 2 Cor 3:12-18, Col 2:14-16, Rom 10:4, 1 Cor 9:20

Not one verse says or has anything to do with the removing of the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday). In the future please don't be lazy and not post the verses or Scriptures. If you post like that again mostly likely I will not respond.

There is no dispute that Paul went to the synagogue every sabbath "reason with them out of the Scriptures". Why did he go on the sabbath? First, because it was "his" tradition ("his manner"). Secondly, that is when people were there. If there were no people there (as there weren't any other day of the week) then he would have been reasoning with himself, and no new disciples would have been made.

Paul was in the process of writing those letters during this time, and his writings were even then being accepted as being Scripture (2 Pet 3:16). And Paul would not teach one thing and then write another. He was consistent in his teaching with what we have that was written by him.

He didn't go to the Church. He went to the Jews who were worshiping on the sabbath, and was reasoning with them to bring them into the Church.

Did he? No. In 1 Cor 9:19-23, Paul makes it clear that he changed his tactics, way of living, mannerisms, and activities to fit the people he was trying to reach at different times. To the Jews, he ate the Jewish diet, kept the Jewish day of worship, and observed the dress and customs of the Jews. But to the Gentiles, he lived as a Gentile, ate as a Gentile, and did not observe the Jewish day of worship (as the Gentiles did not also).

That's not what Paul is saying, having nothing to do with food or worship day. Paul is simply saying that he met people where there mindset is, or there knowledge and understanding of the word of God. God had Peter to clearly warn people like you about some of Paul’s writing. (2Peter:3:15-16) (v.15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (v.16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Now let us take heed to this warning, you can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on a hand full of verses out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.

Jesus lived His entire life subject to the Old Covenant. The OC did not end until His death on the cross. So yes, Jesus kept the sabbath every week for His entire life. But after His death the sabbath was no longer a binding law on anyone.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Let us avoid this at all costs, seeking a better reward. Jesus will return real soon And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:12).

You are correct, there is no commandment in the NT to keep the first day (Sunday) as a holy day. And there is also no commandment in the NT to keep the seventh day (Saturday) as a holy day. There is NO holy day specified in the NT.

I agree. there is no support for ANY day being considered a holy day in the NT.

 

[Bro.T]

It doesn't seem like you're interested in confronting the issue. Paul is quite clear on the topic of circumcision, there is no confusing it with a private interpretation and he repeats himself quite a lot.

Do not and I repeat tell me I'm not confronting the issue when I post scripture and verses concerning the matter. That is some sick stuff for a person to ask a question and then come back and respond like this. You already knew how you felt about the subject at hand. I explain how I see and that's it, do how you feel. I show you how the lord feel about it in the future through scriptures, believe what you will.

peace in Jesus might name

He is also quite clear on where his message comes from, just read the opening of Galatians if you doubt his message. It feels like you are defaulting to "I dunno" so ignore it and digress to how Abraham did it. My motivation needs to be missional, it's not merely about how it affects me but how it affects those around me, specifically how can I show others Christ through these values. Cutting off your foreskin or you are cut off from God is a counter-gospel message, where I can champion it as an abstract like Col 2 it is difficult to do the same when emphasizing the flesh.

Sin itself is called "in the flesh" which is part of the meaning of circumcision but this characteristic itself is an abstract and although it can embody the concrete or even physical "flesh" it doesn't have to, and those things don't define it. As Jesus makes clear, such as in Mat 5, sin starts in the heart. Murdering someone or committing adultery certainly has flesh involved but the sin itself comes from the heart, the fleshly part is more the object of the sin than it is the sin itself.

NT teaching shows "what goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Paul continues this applied to circumcision saying circumcision is nothing. He also hits the same marks when he calls idols nothing or that food and drink have no intrinsic spiritual power. He is not looking at the world as clean/unclean and then being informed on where he can go or not go, but instead sees the world as God's and all that is in it thus is holy, it's defilement comes from our sinful motivation so this is where we should be addressing, not the physical things, but the heart.
Note in 1 Cor 7:10 Paul after saying circumcision is nothing he says what matters is keeping God's commandments. well what are God's commandments if not circumcision? We know the answer to this because Paul is quoting himself in Galation 5:6 saying the same thing, then again in Gal 6:15 but he unpacks "God's Commandments" in respect to loving each other addressing Christ's law, or the law of love. This is also unpacked in Gal right in the middle of the context Gal 5:14 "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" We know that Paul means by God's commandments because he spells it out for us in Galations from it's mirror verses. Galatians was the first letter he wrote and every other letter tends to pull or expand off of it, we can get foundational thinking from Paul when we read Galatians. And Paul is explicit, his words in this letter are not of "private interpretation" they are "received by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12) So why this allergy of not address these topics he very clearly brings up and repeats throughout his other letters?

 

[Doug Brents]

Not one verse says or has anything to do with the removing of the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday).

Those passages (many individually, and certainly as a group) state clearly that the Old Covenant has been removed completely, totally, and in every respect (which includes sabbath keeping). No, they don't change the sabbath from the seventh day, but they do remove the requirement of keeping the sabbath at all.

In the future please don't be lazy and not post the verses or Scriptures. If you post like that again mostly likely I will not respond.

If you choose to not respond, that is your business. Your threat is meaningless to me.

That's not what Paul is saying, having nothing to do with food or worship day. Paul is simply saying that he met people where there mindset is, or there knowledge and understanding of the word of God. God had Peter to clearly warn people like you about some of Paul’s writing. (2Peter:3:15-16) (v.15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (v.16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Now let us take heed to this warning, you can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on a hand full of verses out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.

Is that your "go-to" excuse when you don't want to accept what Paul is saying ... that it is "hard to understand"? No, this part of what Paul is saying is very easy to understand. He doesn't use convoluted language or difficult phrasing. The Old Covenant was obsolete, so it was removed in favor of the New Covenant. Paul wrote over half of the NT, so most of what we read in the NT comes from him. We cannot ignore it just because some of it is "hard to understand". We MUST dive into the hard parts (of which this topic certainly is not one) and seek to understand them.

Yes, Paul is saying that he changed his mannerisms to match his audience, as long as those mannerisms were not sinful. He became like a Gentile when he taught the Gentiles. He became as like one under the Law (even though he was not under the Law himself) when he taught those under the Law (1 Cor 9:20).

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

It is ALL of the Law that was the schoolmaster, not just the sacrificial laws. The sacrificial laws were there only because there were violations of the moral laws. If there had been no violation of the moral laws, there would have been no need for the sacrificial system. And the violation of the moral laws continues even today, but the sacrifices are no longer needed because we have one sacrifice that covers all sin.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Let us avoid this at all costs, seeking a better reward. Jesus will return real soon And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:12).

Again with this tired, false, misleading argument. There is no longer any good in animal sacrifice whether we continue to sin or not; Jesus' sacrifice is the ONLY sacrifice for sin that has any value (or ever did). Yes, if we continue to sin willfully after we have accepted Christ (we become unrepentant for our sins) then His sacrifice for us will become ineffective, and there is no other sacrifice for sin besides His. But that has no bearing on what His law is that we must follow today. It is the NT Law (the law of Christ) that we must follow today, not the Law of Moses given at Mt Sinai.

 

[Leaf473]

Not one verse says or has anything to do with the removing of the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday). In the future please don't be lazy and not post the verses or Scriptures. If you post like that again mostly likely I will not respond.


That's not what Paul is saying, having nothing to do with food or worship day. Paul is simply saying that he met people where there mindset is, or there knowledge and understanding of the word of God. God had Peter to clearly warn people like you about some of Paul’s writing. (2Peter:3:15-16) (v.15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (v.16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Now let us take heed to this warning, you can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on a hand full of verses out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins.

Say, Bro.T, here's a law I'd like to talk about

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 25:5 - New International Reader's Version

Suppose two brothers are living near each other. And one of them dies without having a son. Then his widow must not marry anyone outside the family. Her husband’s brother should marry her. That’s what a brother-in-law is supposed to do.

www.biblegateway.com

Do you practice this? The church that you gather with on the seventh day, do they practice this?

Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Let us avoid this at all costs, seeking a better reward. Jesus will return real soon And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:12).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I find it quite strange that people will not give God the Creator credit for the Ten Commandments, but instead give it to the creation Moses, when no scripture says this. Exo 34:28 Deut 4:13 Exo 31:18 Exo 32:16 etc. etc. And as if God in the OT is a different God in the NT and somehow the law of Christ is not the law of God as if there is a dichotomy between God and Christ. Sad. Not something the apostles taught James 2:10-12, Rom 7:7 Rom 2:21-23, Rom 13:9 Rev 12:17 Rev 22:14 Rev 14:12 or what Jesus taught Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 Mat 5:17-30 Mat 19:17-19 but it was something we were warned about Gal 1:8, Acts 20:29, 2 Tim 3:5,

 

[trophy33]

I find it quite strange that people will not give God the Creator credit for the Ten Commandments, but instead give it to the creation Moses, when no scripture does this. And as if God in the OT is a different God in the NT and some how the law of Christ is not the law of God as if there is a dichotomy between God and Christ. Sad.

You find it strange because you are a member of a specific American sect from the 19th century, in which you follow a woman which you consider to be prophetically inspired and so throw away all the global Christian development that happened before and outside of your specific modern sect as worthless, since the first church, through reformation till today.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Perhaps we are reading different bibles.

My bible say God wrote and God spoke the Ten Commandments and it was His work, it does not say Moses or a woman from the 19th century.


Exo 32:16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets.
Deut 4:13 So He (God) declared to you His (God) covenant which He (God) commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He (God) wrote them on two tablets of stone.
Exo 20:6 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me (God) and keep My (God) commandments.
Mat 15:3 He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’;
John 14:15 5 “If you love Me (Jesus i.e. God) keep My (God) commandments.
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His (God) commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Not one verse says Moses or a women from the 19th century. But it does say God and there is only one God of the Universe Exo 20:11 and if we love Him we should obey and follow Him.

 

[trophy33]

Perhaps we are reading different bibles.

There are thousands of different bibles, but thats not the issue, here. The issue here is that you are reading your bible through the lens of your specific religious group teachings.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

There are thousands of different bibles, but thats not the issue, here. The issue here is that you are reading your bible through the lens of your specific religious group teachings.

Ok, where does those verses say it was spoken and written by someone in the 19th century. What lens do you see them through if you refuse to give credit to God when God claimed them as His.

 

[trophy33]

Ok, where does those verses say it was spoken and written by someone in the 19th century. What lens do you see them through if you refuse to give credit to God when God claimed them as His.

You are not making sense. I did not say that the verses say something about the Seventh day adventists. I said you find the views of others strange, because you are reading those verses through the lenses of your specific religious sect and dismiss everything which does not fit your social bubble.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You are not making sense. I did not say that the verses say something about the Seventh day adventists. I said you find the views of others strange, because you are reading those verses through the lenses of your specific religious sect and dismiss everything which does not fit your social bubble.

You claimed I follow a women, but I quoted Who I follow and those verses are all written by God and/or spoken by God not anyone else. If you choose not to believe or follow them then I would suggest it is you who are following thru a lens of another, not what God said, who we are to follow. 1 John 2:6 We are either with God, or by default against Him Mat 12:30 so I guess we will all have to decide which side of the battle we are on and the path we end up on is made through our decisions Rom 6:16 Rev 22:11 Rev 22:14-15

 

[trophy33]

You claimed I follow a women, but I quoted Who I follow and those verses are all written by God and/or spoken by God not anyone else. If you choose not to believe or follow them then I would suggest it is you who are following thru a lens of another, not what God said, who we are to follow. 1 John 2:6

Anybody can quote many verses to support any idea they prefer. Flat Earthers, Evolutionists, YEC, vegans, meat eaters, Roman Catholics, various Protestants, Sabbatarians...

Thats nothing new.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Anybody can quote many verses to support any idea they prefer. From the Flat Earthers to Roman Catholics to Protestants to Sabbatarians.

Thats nothing new.

When we don't believe what proceeds out of the mouth of God, I would consider the direction we are heading.

Take care.

 

[trophy33]

When we stop believing a thus saith the Lord, I would consider the path we are on.
Take care.

Bye.

 

[DamianWarS]

Do not and I repeat tell me I'm not confronting the issue when I post scripture and verses concerning the matter. That is some sick stuff for a person to ask a question and then come back and respond like this. You already knew how you felt about the subject at hand. I explain how I see and that's it, do how you feel. I show you how the lord feel about it in the future through scriptures, believe what you will.

peace in Jesus might name

The issue is not that you didn't post scripture, it is not the commentary of the scripture. It is how that scripture and commentary shows how you reconcile NT teaching on circumsion.

Your reply said you look back to Abraham and show how Abraham kept God's commandments. That's not an example of how you reconcile NT teaching, and it would seem you are just ignoring how NT teaching broadly discourages the act and even going as far as calling it nothing. Can you give me some more direct comments for example on how you reconcile Gal 5?

 

[Leaf473]

God wrote the ten commandments, the first five books of the Bible collectively are called The law of Moses

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 24:44 - New American Standard Bible

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Bro.T]

The issue is not that you didn't post scripture, it is not the commentary of the scripture. It is how that scripture and commentary shows how you reconcile NT teaching on circumsion.

Your reply said you look back to Abraham and show how Abraham kept God's commandments. That's not an example of how you reconcile NT teaching, and it would seem you are just ignoring how NT teaching broadly discourages the act and even going as far as calling it nothing.

I believe it is, and you didn't mention the other things I point out in that post. Maybe you just don't understand somethings I point out.

Can you give me some more direct comments for example on how you reconcile Gal 5?

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments. So the people in Gal 5 were still operating under the first covenant, which also needed a priest. Paul says in Gal 5: 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

We're not under sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins). Paul explained this in; (Hebrews 10: (v.1) For the law (what law, the law of animal sacrifice?) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (v.9) Then said he, (Jesus) Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. (v.10) By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins. So the bible tells you to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2 :36-38). And by doing so you come up under his precious blood and then you are saved from your sins that are past, not present or future sins but for sins that are past. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Paul says at verse 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Paul is not saying not to get circumcision, he just saying what difference does it matter whether you are or not, if you don't have faith and love in the first place. Now in other places Paul have said, I believe not to circumcise Gentiles or something like that. But that's why I took you to Ezekiel 44th ch. That's pretty much what the Chapter is talking about, Paul then get more into love with the fruit of the Spirit, etc.

 

[Bro.T]

Say, Bro.T, here's a law I'd like to talk about

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 25:5 - New International Reader's Version

Suppose two brothers are living near each other. And one of them dies without having a son. Then his widow must not marry anyone outside the family. Her husband’s brother should marry her. That’s what a brother-in-law is supposed to do.

www.biblegateway.com

Do you practice this? The church that you gather with on the seventh day, do they practice this?

Naw. I lot of those things Israel did as a nation in there own land. The Israelites lives under the laws of Gentiles now in captivity, that would probably be a hot mess in court with some of those situation.

 

[Bro.T]

Those passages (many individually, and certainly as a group) state clearly that the Old Covenant has been removed completely, totally, and in every respect (which includes sabbath keeping). No, they don't change the sabbath from the seventh day, but they do remove the requirement of keeping the sabbath at all.

If you choose to not respond, that is your business. Your threat is meaningless to me.

Is that your "go-to" excuse when you don't want to accept what Paul is saying ... that it is "hard to understand"? No, this part of what Paul is saying is very easy to understand. He doesn't use convoluted language or difficult phrasing. The Old Covenant was obsolete, so it was removed in favor of the New Covenant. Paul wrote over half of the NT, so most of what we read in the NT comes from him. We cannot ignore it just because some of it is "hard to understand". We MUST dive into the hard parts (of which this topic certainly is not one) and seek to understand them.

Yes, Paul is saying that he changed his mannerisms to match his audience, as long as those mannerisms were not sinful. He became like a Gentile when he taught the Gentiles. He became as like one under the Law (even though he was not under the Law himself) when he taught those under the Law (1 Cor 9:20).

It is ALL of the Law that was the schoolmaster, not just the sacrificial laws. The sacrificial laws were there only because there were violations of the moral laws. If there had been no violation of the moral laws, there would have been no need for the sacrificial system. And the violation of the moral laws continues even today, but the sacrifices are no longer needed because we have one sacrifice that covers all sin.

Again with this tired, false, misleading argument. There is no longer any good in animal sacrifice whether we continue to sin or not; Jesus' sacrifice is the ONLY sacrifice for sin that has any value (or ever did). Yes, if we continue to sin willfully after we have accepted Christ (we become unrepentant for our sins) then His sacrifice for us will become ineffective, and there is no other sacrifice for sin besides His. But that has no bearing on what His law is that we must follow today. It is the NT Law (the law of Christ) that we must follow today, not the Law of Moses given at Mt Sinai.

There's nothing you saying removing no Commandments, no Sabbath day from the Commandments. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

This is future most of the Old Testament is prophecy. You don't understand what going on.
Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[DamianWarS]

Paul says at verse 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Paul is not saying not to get circumcision, he just saying what difference does it matter whether you are or not, if you don't have faith and love in the first place. Now in other places Paul have said, I believe not to circumcise Gentiles or something like that. But that's why I took you to Ezekiel 44th ch. That's pretty much what the Chapter is talking about, Paul then get more into love with the fruit of the Spirit, etc.

Galations is Paul's first letter, it's why he opens up with a list of his credentials and explicitly says it's revelations from Christ not himself.

Gal 5:6 says "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love"

This is a mirror of Gal 6:15 and of 1 Cor 7:19

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

1 Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

All three describe the same thing. Each contrast circumcision as nothing with the thing that counts. The thing that counts is not 3 things, it is one thing. 1 Cor 7:19 says it's keeping God's commandments, Gal says it faith expressed through (5:6) and the new creation (6:15). Since each are the same thing it means keeping God's commandments = faith expressed through love = the new creation.

Paul is indeed addressing circumsion and is discouraging it. In v5:11 be says "if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" He has explicitly taken a anti circumcision stance. Of we read more of 1 Cor 7 he if you're not already circumcised, don't get circumsied.

v18 (the one right before 19) says
Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.

There is no confusing this message. Paul unambiguously tells us that circumcision is not needed. You're quick to say the new covenant was built up without the sacrafical laws but Paul's defence would include circumcision as well.