Your argument is based on the incorrect assumption on the inspiration and writing of the Bible.
God inspired Moses to write Genesis 17. God also inspired Paul to write what he wrote in the New Testament. Both were inspired by God. You paint a picture that forces God to never change his mind or else be a liar. Even more, if God chooses to change HOW he fulfills a promise, that doesn't nullify the promise and make God a liar. God makes it clear that Circumcision in the flesh was just a forshadow of the true circumcision that would one day come by the Spirit.
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:28-29
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Colossians 2:11
So, when you ask inflammatory questions like
So which is it, is Paul your god or are you believing in a blatantly obvious contradiction?
You paint a false dichotomy and paint Paul to be a false teacher.
Let me ask you, as I've asked before, please show me how I'm misunderstanding Paul, James and Peter when I say that they clearly teach that Circumcision in the flesh is no longer required in the New Covenant.
Do you consider Paul to be a false teacher?
Do you accept the inspiration of the Greek New Testament as coming from God as equal in authority to the Hebrew Old Testament?
If you don't, then please don't respond to these posts anymore. These posts are for people who believe in the inspiration and authority of the whole Bible. For if you don't believe in the inspiration and authority of the New Testament then no amount of Scripture quoted from the NT will ever change your mind.
RE: Contending for the Faith: part 1 of ?