The Church has always taken that verse literally, and not (as RD "merely asserted") as a metaphor.
That's nice.
Prima facie, to modern, post-Reformation nondenominational Evangelical Christians, it appears that it at least possibly could be a metaphor, but the ancient Church never took the Scriptures according to their prima facie readings of them, but they always took Apostolic teachings as the prima facie meaning of Scriptures, and the Apostolic teachings on the "cloud of witnesses" is that it is literal.
I refer you back to post #305, and all of it's subsequent responses.
In contrast to the Apostolic teaching on the verse, RD's view is: "can only be a metaphor. There is NO literal way to take that."
To use your phrase, RD's take is a mere assertion.
Would you like to try to demonstrate how he is wrong? Or are you just going to merely assert he is wrong?
22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision—not that it is from Moses, but it is from the forefathers—and you circumcise a man on a sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely well on a sabbath?
This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision, but is Jesus criticizing the Jewish teachers of the Old Covenant law.
The point is that God gave the command to be circumcised to His people, and that the command has not been annulled since Abraham.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”
This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.
Right. It's Jesus telling His disciples to "go and teach people to observe
all things I have commanded you."
One of the things He commanded was for His people to circumcise, per the passage I gave immediately prior to this one, because He affirmed the law of Moses, and if you keep one law, then you must keep ALL the laws.
8 “He also gave him a covenant of circumcision, and he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 family heads.
Stephen is not an Apostle, and Stephen wasn't teaching circumcision either, he was reviewing the history of the Old Covenant /Old Testament.
Very important history, in fact.
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that he's giving a history lesson. It's that that history lesson shows that circumcision has always been required for God's chosen people.
45 And the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also on people of the nations.
This is not an Apostle teaching circumcision.
No, but it shows that the believers were circumcised, as per the Law of Moses. No?
2 So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the supporters of circumcision began to criticize him,
Why would they criticize Peter if Peter, an Apostle, was teaching circumcision?
You seem to have forgotten the thrust of what I'm arguing.
Circumcision was always required.
Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Those "some men" are not said to be Apostles.
Do you think they were not taught well by the Apostles?
Why do you think they taught "you must be circumcised" if they themselves were not taught "you must be circumcised"?
25 Circumcision is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law; but if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Not an Apostle teaching circumcision.
Paul is not an Apostle?
He's not teaching about circumcision?
Good grief the pretzels you're contorting into to avoid admitting the obvious!
4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; ... 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— ... 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and men the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. ... 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.
I admit this is the closest you come to substantiating your claim that, “ The Apostles taught that you must be circumcized on the 8th day after birth. ” But it still falls short of proof.
"Two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."
I've given you multiple.
Nowhere does it say what any Apostles taught,
Circumcision is a part of the law.
Do you deny that the Apostles taught the law?
If not, then you cannot deny that they taught circumcision.
it says there were men who did teach circumcision, but not that they were Apostles, and it says that Peter was conflicted, which is granted.
Where did they get the idea of teaching circumcision, except from the Apostles and the law?
I feel that here, you are merely agreeing with me. Once the Acts 15 council was convened, there just wasn't even any doubt that no Apostles, or even any other teachers /bishops /elders, taught or would ever teach again circumcision (if they did, it would have been against the council's conclusion).
You seem confused.
The Jerusalem council was not to determine what "all believers" must do or not do.
The Jerusalem council was meant to determine whether PAUL'S CONVERTS were to circumcise (and by extention, to keep the law).
They were not determining from there-on-out what new converts in Jerusalem were to do.
Why?
BECAUSE PAUL'S GOSPEL WAS COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THEIRS!
btw it wasn't just Paul but also Peter who convinced them (Acts 15:7-11) that circumcision was not a part of the New Covenant.
Because Paul had gone up before to speak in secret to Peter and a couple other Apostles, to explain it to them in private.
Well, let me know what you think now.
I think that you've not done a very good job explaining why the Bible teaches (and it does) that new believers do not have to circumcise yet old believers (prior to Acts 15) were required to, for salvation.
