• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Biblically, why Jesus believers don't practice circumcision[Jesus believers only

Desert Snake

Veteran Member

According to the explained Covenantal Theology of the New Testament, the practice of circumcision, isn't from the Abraamic Covenant

So,
Galatians 2:3-5
Galatians 2:21
[The law cannot bring righteousness
Galatians 3:6-7
[Abraam equated with faith, not law
Galatians 3:8
[The nations, context
Galatians 3:9
[Faith equated with Abraam
Galatians 3:10
[The law is a curse
Galatians 3:14
[Abraam》》Jesus Christ, (same Covenant

Galatians 3:17
[The law was given after the Covenant with Abraam

(Contextually,
the practice of circumcision, being used as a 'basic example', of an added law, added after the Covenant with Abraam.

Galatians 3:19
[The law was "added" because of transgressions
Galatians 3:22
Galatians 3:28



The New Testament is clearly associating the practice of circumcision, with the added laws, (this means priests , and clearly isn't associating the practice of circumcision, with the Abraamic Covenant.
In fact, the New Testament is differentiating the Abraamic Covenant, from the [added laws, called a curse, by using the example of the practice of circumcision, (it's an obvious difference, though obviously other added laws aren't associated with the Abraamic Covenant , either.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I would consider this an added law that going by reference, or inference, was practiced by some. As is read in the new testament, this doesn't seem like the practice was ever considered in the same manner, so, it's something that wouldn't be inherent in the texts. The idea of different meanings is also referenced in Deuteronomy, hence some considered this literal, others wouldn't have.
 
Top