I love humor, I just dont like mockery...which is the vibe I get from your post. If you are serious, or sincere, then my heart goes out to you. The circumcision has nothing to do with 'The Law', I think you mean the 10 commandments when you say that. It has nothing to do with the Sacrificial Law, which is the law that was added because of transgressions.
Did you know that transgression means to sin?
So God added a law, in case you sinned. That is the law of animal sacrifice, the law that was done away with, by Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice, The Lamb of God, our Perfect Passover...which was an animal sacrifice by the way, don't you know.
But the Circumcision was a token between God and Abraham, that God would keep His promise to him, Abraham, that a multitude would come out of his loins. Abraham is called the Father of Faith/Believing, and his token, and his seed's token of that faith in the promise was the circumcision. It has NOTHING to do with sex, perversion or the 10 commandments.
In Deuteronomy God tells His people to circumcise the forskin of their hearts, and in the NT you see that circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God. I wonder is that what it really means, just because it says it...In Acts, you see the rift about circumcision was concerning Gentiles...but Paul circumcised Timothy, and hey...no problem. Then he did the same thing to Titus, and it was cool.
Maybe a little more study without the old wine in our minds would be appropiate.
token of that faith in the promise was the circumcision. It has NOTHING to do with sex, perversion or the 10 commandments.
I disagree with that statement of yours, I believe it does, it was just a simpler way of God saying it to man. Furthermore tokens were used in dowry in Hebrew culture as a sign of virginity. Therefore the "token of the circumcision" was sexual purity.
Re-read the post. There is no mockery intended, nor any inferred. I am to the point serious and genuine in my belief that the circumcision, was God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor. Does that clear it up?
You are right on the transgression word, I meant to say trespass and changed it thanks.
I also added the illustration of work not to be funny ( althought it may well be) but for a very serious reason. Some folks say we are saved by grace alone and not works. My arguement is that keeping oneself sexually pure, is not a work(but of faith in Christianity even tho a law in Judiasm), therefore I thought a vitally important issue to bring up.
I apologize to you Rachel for the lack of clarity, but I assure you my motive was not mockery. I really didnt want to long of a letter.
You are not alone in wondering about this thing called circumcision.
Through the years I have wondered about the oddness (is that a word) of that particular process (circumcision) and it's products and byproducts physically, as well as the symbolic message which God intended to convey.
Maybe it is a guy thing to wonder about that part of our anatomy being such a big (no pun intended) topic throughout the New Testament.
Sky4it, The most interesting thing is that in the last few days I experienced some new thoughts about the subject of circumcision as well as baptism.
It is interesting how the two of us are looking into the matter at the same time.
---
Rachel:
Before I go into my theological opinion of the subject (which I will do in a later post)
of this thread, I feel strongly that the tone and attitude that I perceive behind the following words in your post needs to be addressed:
and in the NT you see that circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God. I wonder is that what it really means, just because it says it...I
----
another quote:
Maybe a little more study without the old wine in our minds would be appropiate.
I am a long time lurker, (not really but I don't post as nearly much as I read), and first time responder to one of your posts.
I know from your past posting that you would probably put yourself at the atheistic/agnostic
end of the ex-twi spectrum.
I myself would place myself at the "don't believe that TWI had hardly anything that was both accurate AND unique"
I studied my way out of the way. My studies since then have led me to what I consider to be a more mature version of Christianity.
----
I recently read part of a new book entitled "Slave". It is an autobiography of a young African girl who lost her family to the murdering,ravaging raid of modern day slave traders.
Before her capture she had also endured the female "circumcision" you mention. I have seen TV documentaries, as well as an episode of "Nip/Tuck" that dealt with the crime of female mutilation called circumcision.
If the term that I have heard is what you are referring to (And I am pretty sure it is) then I really don't think that it is in the same category as male circumcision.
Do you really think that the two are equal?
Traditional male circumcision removes non-essential skin. The resulting status of the organ (as far as I know) to be effective for it's purposes to urinate, deliver seed, and provide pleasure back to the brain are not impaired by the circumcision.
The female process removes something designed to stay there and provide pleasure to the brain, it also greatly reduces the size of the vagina (for the benefit of the husband to be) which makes non-sexual use of the vagina abnormally painful or uncomfortable.
---
So, George do you really think a discussion of Abrahamic circumcision invites the building of a straw man (woman in this case) argument?
I do respect your opinion and your intelligence.
I have seen both in your posts.
Maybe you are wanting to cut (pun intended) to the issue of ancient patriarchal cultures and how they dictated everything, with fairness to few.
My point for bringing up the circumcision was facilitated in part by the arguements of the Why Christianity thread. Particular the parts where some arrgue if there is one God then why are there so many religions to make the point that they believe God to be obtuse about what his real intentions are. Much of this conflict is resolved in the circumcision, and understanding what is error and what is truth. The covenant of the circumcision was a covenant. Therefore it must be an embodiment of truth. Furthermore it does much to resolve the conflict some assert of various religious teachings.
Darrell:
I didnt take what Rachel said as offensive. (but i thank you anyways) I can understand how if one quicked over what I wrote one might presume I was talking in gest. Of course, I agree with Rachel that what the Bible says about it is also true. ie(circumcise your heart) I was simply trying to expand upon the circumcise your heart concept.
Furthermore, the circumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Rachel quoted that one. The term but being an exception, so then you must ask yourself which commandments do I keep. Even more intriguing is the word keep. The word keep was commonly used by Jesus and John the apostle. I do not believe to keep something is a work, which speaks volumes as to why the new testament church could tell people not to commit adultry or fornication and not call that bieng justified by the law.
Lastly Darrell is a wonderful promise with all the doctinal funneling that we so speak. Jesus said quite categorically that if any man will to do his will, he will know of the doctrine. (Yes I paraphrased and did not look it up) Therefore a man's doctrine is limited or expanded correctly according to his interest in wanting to do his will. Pretty simple stuff. The bottom line is then the focus is on what my attitude is and wether I am doing God's will (as I understand it) in order to obtain "proper doctrine".
Does anyone read the Bible, believe what it says and practice it? Here, I mean.
Yes Rachel, I do, and I believe every word of it. I will try to be more careful to cite references in the future, but then it gets so long winded. I think people are tired of proving doctrinal points by scriptural multiplication. ok?
Sky4- I had posted on the what is Christianity thread on LES
And noticed this thread you started on circumcision.
In reading through it and checking the bible for context I think there are three different verses that illustrate three of the different points in this discussion.
They are Gen 17:11, Deu 10:16, Deu 30:6 The first thing I noticed is that the Hebrew word for circumcise is different in the Deu verses.
I am quoting Gen 17:1- 14 because it sets the original context of the covenant and circumcision.
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 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.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise ( 05243) the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token( 0226) of the covenant ( 01285) betwixt me and you.
Strongs info on circumcise token and covenant in Gen 17: 11- Deu 10:16 – Deu
2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2) (phrases)
a) covenant making
b) covenant keeping
c) covenant violation
AV - covenant 264, league 17, confederacy 1, confederate 1,
confederate + 01167 1; 284
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
The covenant is to make a great nation out of Abraham. The token is circumcision.
A simple analogy for me is that this is almost like branding a herd of cattle to me. The purpose is to remind the men and women of the covenant to remain a part of the nation. Sort of like reminding them to stay with the heard and breed true (maintain the blood line- in part to fulfill the promise of the messiah).
Deuteronomy seems to be using circumcision as a figure of speech since there is not a foreskin on the heart.
Deu 10:16 Circumcise(04135) therefore the foreskin of your heart(03824), and be no more stiffnecked.(07185+063263)
Strongs Hebrew- 04135 circumcise - muwl {mool}
1) to circumcise, let oneself be circumcised, cut, be cut off
a) (Qal) to circumcise
b) (Niphal) to be circumcised, circumcise oneself
c) (Hiphil) to cause to be circumcised
1) of destruction (fig.)
d) (Hithpolel) to be cut off
e) (Polel) cut down
AV - circumcise 30, destroy 3, cut down 1, needs 1, cut in pieces 1; 36
AV - heart 231, consider + 07760 5, mind 4, understanding 3, misc 9; 252
Strongs Hebrew- 07185 Stiff - qashah {kaw-shaw'}
1) to be hard, be severe, be fierce, be harsh
a) (Qal)
1) to be hard, be difficult
2) to be hard, be severe
b) (Niphal)
1) to be ill-treated
2) to be hard pressed
c) (Piel) to have severe labour (of women)
AV - harden 12, hard 4, stiffnecked + 06203 2, grievous 2, misc 8; 28
I noticed that the Hebrews were to “perform the action of circumcision” here. and that the result or matching action that the figure is illustrating is to be no more stiffnecked - hard, severe, fierce, harsh (don’t be a d*ckhead?:)--> )
This reminds me more of verses in the New Testament to destroy the old man nature
rather than referring to the circumcision of Gen 17:11 although it does figuratively
But it seems to do so to build on it. Also it does not seem to literally be part of the circumcision covenant. Or it would have been there and not in Deu.
The third verse is:
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise(04135) thine heart(03824), and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Here God is the on performing the action. It is probably still a figure but is in the form of a promise or guaranty rather than a commandment. It does not tell them to do some thing, God performs the circumcision of their heart and the result is that they will love the lord their God with all their heart and soul. Thus they will live (now and after the resurrection of the just?)
It seems to me that these three verses build on each other and are almost a result of each other. If a Hebrew stayed with the tribes of the circumcision, and circumcised the foreskin of their own heart so he or she was meek and loving towards God. God would circumcise their heart so they would “naturally fulfill the first and greatest commandment”. Kinda cool.
"The fact that circumcision is performed on the sexual organ is significant. This organ is representative of the body’s urges and this procedure indicates that we must control and sublimate these urges and conform them to the Will of God."
So, that adds some weight to what sky4it posited. Whaddaya think?
Rachel, with all due respect, don't you think your comments sound a bit condescending and stifling of open discussion? I do.
I find it interesting that people who ardently hold to the infallibility of the scriptures and "hold it forth without any P.I." can easily disagree on many matters. My interpretation of that problem is that many doctrines are bigger than human understanding allows. We'll always know "incompletely" and that includes you and me. That's where charity is supposed to rule...
The fact that circumcision is performed on the sexual organ is significant. This organ is representative of the body’s urges and this procedure indicates that we must control and sublimate these urges and conform them to the Will of God."
Thank you for saying in brevity my point all along. My illustration went a little further to illustrate that sexual purity is not a work. Like you also, I am somewhat annoyed at the prospect that mean what it says and says what it means theologists cannot come to such a simple conclusion on a simple matter. Be ye holy for I am holy is new testament stuff as well, so I do not understand where the conflict arises.
ckeer:
I dont disagree with much of what you said. All I say is that it also means sexual purity because it was a piece of flesh close to mens heart that need to be cut off. I could quote to you numerous scriptures about holiness and godliness in new testament and the old as well, but most of us have read them already so I dont see the necessity. Interestingly the children of Israel upon entering the promised land were circumcised a 2nd time. Duet 5:2 Inticating that the true circumcision, is the one of the heart (putting off the old man and flesh and putting on true holiness). My analogy is fully consistent with this. Even the words that you picked from the concordance testify that this is so. For example you used token as meaning a warning. Warning of what? Not keeping yourself pure in that area I say. I could drivel on with other words but i wont.
Icidentally, the area of Uganda from which I just returned is home to the Bugisu tribe which practices male circumcision as a rite of passage into adulthood. the subject is spread head to toe with a gray paste, adorned with dead banana leaves, and is circumcised. Then he and his procession, made up of family and other clan memebers, sort of 'slow-jog" up and down the roads. They wear something like sleighbells on their ankles, so it sounds a bit like Christmas in August to hear them coming. The subject has blood all down his legs, and besides the banana leaves is naked. Quite a sight. Incidentally, the Bugisu are known for marital fidelity and an extremely low incidence of AIDS and other STD's, especially given their African context.
The debate over circumcision was certainly a raw point of contention in the first two centuries of Christianity. It pit brother against brother - the literal, fleshly application verses the allegorical, spiritual circumcision-of-the-heart interpretation.
Perhaps it would not be too much to say - it may have been the issue which ultimately separated and even divorced Christianity from Judaism.
Paul speaks quite mockingly of those of the "circumcision" party, as might be gathered from parts of "Galatians", "1 Corinthians" and "Philippians".
If there was a universal consensus of a true meaning behind circumcision - such would have seemingly eluded the various sides in antiquity.
It's an interesting subject. You have your work "cut out" for you.
again sky4it your lack of knowledge of the jewish people and history is showing.
Jews can only marry jews. it was law to keep the tribes healthy and pure.
yes it changed when the mystery was to include the gentile only because Jesus christ had taken on death and won in victory. Up to that point how did one tell who was who? do you think some jews stayed after they were released of course they did they had set up business and families and wanted to be in the community they had been in for years!!! so many lied about being jews .
Look at the book of Ester as just one example of many.
look at the penis. naked was common in the Roman culture and it was clearly visable who was who . Again I ask you to look at the PRACTICAL sense of real live people living in real live culture .
the bible is a record of people that lived not a story of what God thinks about situation. TRY to consider where and what the jewish people dealt with politicaly SKY4 .
it was to keep the blood line pure and for identification purpose. it was law . God is a God of people not just theory.
I know this about the Lord He often puts His ways and meaning in a complex form that is rich and life long learning for ears to hear of course. I do not put His teachings in a box and say it is all about this one idea unless it is clearly written as such.
here is the problem... you must be wrong or the same RULE would apply to Gentiles and we would all have to be cut for God to be honored.
We do not so your idea is off . God does not change his mind about ideals he feels about sin esp. sexual sin.
it was for identification and the bloodline and consider this surgery was not just a snip and tuck and be on your merry way in those days it was a VERY VERY serious thing no anitseptic no clean knife many many DIED during this procedure it was to risk life itself and make the choice to be willing to die for God and his commandment!!!!! it was about faith in HIM and obedience and frankly in practical terms identification as His Chosen where often slaves or captured in lands and hated as a people.
It's only a matter of degree. The procedure for girls can be much more damaging and traumatic, I guess. But it's still the same motivation, one of trying to appease God (or gods) by mutilating the flesh.
And another thing I've always wondered, if circumcision was to be a "sign", couldn't they have figured out a more convenient location? I mean, it would be a little odd at the Walmart "Are you a Jew?" "Why sure, just looky here." There must be a better method.
And, as Evan noted, this is a practice that is hardly unique to Judaism. It's been done in numerous primitive cultures for centuries. And I STILL think it's an ignorant, superstitious act that says more about the inhibitions and fear humands inately have about sex, than it does about any god.
I actually saw 2 young bald eagles today, it was quite a site.
More interesting on the topic of the circumcision is what David was doing. When David returned from the "slaughter of the Phillistines" he came back with "foreskins". Was David out killing Phillistines and then taking there foreskin as proof? Doesn't really say does it? The law was very much oreinted towards letting the Gentiles participate, as converts. David was perhaps the greatest Minister ever of the Circumcision to the Gentilies? Me thinks so. Moreover David lived at Gath for quite a spell with one of the Philistine Kings. If he was actually (killing "10,000's) and not circumcising them certainly he would have ran into there relatives in Gath.
This also reconciles the God of Old testament somewhat with the God of the new.
here is the problem... you must be wrong or the same RULE would apply to Gentiles and we would all have to be cut for God to be honored.
I never said that the cutting away of the flesh or foreskin was a rule that still needed to be applied. You make it sound like I did. In fact, I agree with you and the gospels that the ritualistic act of circumcision means nothing by itself. That the true circumcision is of the heart. All I say is the insanely obvious, that there was a moral lesson in itabout sexual conduct. I fail to see how your comments about it as identification purposes, in any way modify what I said. I understand and agree with you that it was for idendtifation purposes and for God to call out to himself a seperate people. The point is simply this MJ, God's people were seperated to what? To Holiness and Sanctification. The things I said are consistent with that.
Also I remeber some thing in reference to David and foreskins and penis worship. One of the discovery or history channel shows on Egypt talked about the egyptian army taking the penisis of the slain enemies and bringing them back to Egypt as offerings to their Gods. This was supposedly documented by some of their mosiacs on temple walls. I think the show particularly mentioned a campaign in Palestine. I think it was before the exodus though.
people are made by a seed or a man ( again think of the culture and mind set) The blood line itself is very important at this point to Abraham and God... jews did not marry those who worshiped strange God or have sex. (if they obeyed of course) so..... to know one was "called out" from the others as seperate not doing the orgies and sexual activities including with beasts and statues and a number of idea one needed to be identified as a jew. to claim to be worshiping the God of abraham..
laws and rules are and were given by the leaders and govt. of the day and as I referred you to ester death was a result of not obeying a Kings law . Anyone could say i am a jew but circumszing was a identification that proved your religous alliance .... get the identification process now? very important very important when Gods law was to be obeyed before a king etc..
Jews have often been thrown out of their land Sky4 or /and wars have begun in what they consider their land. You seem to not realize how orthadox Jews live then or today when you write like they are on friendly terms of course as is today business are set up and communities are political BUT then and today it is and always will be a seperate person living under the guide lines of the LAW . Have you ever met or spent any time around orthadox Jews? not like hey Im jewish lets eat a bagel and some fish Im talking about those living in the will of God which is very complex in regs and rules and often time have clash with every other culture or even laws of the day.
today a person can say Im a christian and I believe abortion is wrong in God will, yet it is legal in our country. How about when a King decrees all women are to have abortions in his land or die. death was almost always the case of punishment . to have an appeal one would have to prove he was a jew and the surgery was a identification of his blood line .
I do not disagree with your last post. All I am saying is that it (the circumcision) can mean more than that as well.
I did not say that Jews without Christ are on friendly terms with God. I understand and believe that without Christ no man can come unto the father.
My point of illustration , MJ, in this particular area was to illustrate to those in the Why Christianity thread, that many religions have sprung up out of one man and God. Ie(Abraham)
(Althought Islam is patently plageristic of Moses and lacking any meaningful Godly authority and in my opinion completely false)
I fully agree with you that those that deny Christ also deny God. I am simply illustrating that if the Godly standard of the circumcision(cutting off the flesh and making no provision) had been kept, that folks of the other religions (Judiasm & Islam) would accept the things of God and Jesus Christ much easier and there would not be so much conflict and so many different religions. ok?
it is a choice to believe in our God and before Peter revealed the mystery it was also about blood line.
when the brothers fought and one was put out of His fathers house because He tricked his father who was blind Unbelievers of the one true god had to begin their own tribes. this is just one example of pure rebellion the very first was of course adam and eve choosing sin over obeying God.
the entire law was instilled by God to help people recognize their place with Him as a larger and better and good God. to be cut was a mark of belonging to the God of abraham and was used to identify who your family was.
it gave his people a way to recognize or identify themselves as a seperate people .
sin and rebeelion has been the nature of man since the very first one adam.
the very very important fact that this blood line of royalty was what was need to consider JESUS CHRIST a high priest, without that bloodline pure down through the generation He never would have had the ability to redeem ALL of Gods children from SIN! God had instilled laws and he obeyed his own laws and a HUGE oart of all of the blood of CHRIST was who had had children with whom !
resulting in the saviour Jesus Christ by his mother mary and his father also was from a royal priesthood.. it is veryvery important to god who is who on a very personal baseline!
the true God gives a Choice always has always will.
As far a your idea of where religous ideas spring from well now anywhere and anything has been worshiped and still is today right?
religous identification has very little of nothing to do with our spirit filled life worshiping God in reality.
to be religous about anything takes on any number of motives correct? YET to have a God and a spirit and a relationship that connects to something larger than humanity is also complex and rich and deep .
A spirit filled life is personal and a choice, where as a religous choice can take on any number of factors in the decision. they are seperate altogether. but this has not always been as easy to recognize or as rampant. this is why I asked you to look at just one example of many in the person of ESTER in the bible . the penalty was death Sky4 .
MOses is another example .
the fact no one was EVER able to fullfill the LAW is clear Sky4 . The idea of gee if we could just work are way into gods favor by rules and regualations is religous . and it NEVER worked because untill the blood line of christ rose up in a man willing to die and be raised as a sacrafice for our sin no one could please God.
in the least we still can not that is why we identify with the blood of CHRIST TODAY ok ok
and that blood was brought through Gods own people ok? and how did anyone know who is who?
to be circumsized was key part of the law of our God.
It cut away our flesh life (including which group or tribe or church how ever you want to say it) and led us into a SPIRIT FILLED life with the King of KINGs who is spirit.
totaly seperate....
We no longer need our males to be cut open to prove we belong to the blood of our Father Abraham ... we have a spirit within us now if we believe in Jesus christ and His accomplishments.
as I said before and you just do not get it , this is a story of real live actual PEOPLE not just ideals and thinking and maybe I will chose this way or not. Abraham was a father of a nation of Gods elect for a PURPOSE why did they want that child so badly if it was all about what they wanted to worship of course not it was about BLOOD the red stuff pouring from our veins..... untilll christ was able to redeem us all .. amen and praise God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
10
2
3
Popular Days
Aug 15
14
Aug 16
9
Aug 18
9
Aug 19
8
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 24 posts
mj412 10 posts
Darrell Bailey 2 posts
Trefor Heywood 3 posts
Popular Days
Aug 15 2004
14 posts
Aug 16 2004
9 posts
Aug 18 2004
9 posts
Aug 19 2004
8 posts
Rachel
Gee Sky...You dont read the Book much, do you?
I love humor, I just dont like mockery...which is the vibe I get from your post. If you are serious, or sincere, then my heart goes out to you. The circumcision has nothing to do with 'The Law', I think you mean the 10 commandments when you say that. It has nothing to do with the Sacrificial Law, which is the law that was added because of transgressions.
Did you know that transgression means to sin?
So God added a law, in case you sinned. That is the law of animal sacrifice, the law that was done away with, by Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice, The Lamb of God, our Perfect Passover...which was an animal sacrifice by the way, don't you know.
But the Circumcision was a token between God and Abraham, that God would keep His promise to him, Abraham, that a multitude would come out of his loins. Abraham is called the Father of Faith/Believing, and his token, and his seed's token of that faith in the promise was the circumcision. It has NOTHING to do with sex, perversion or the 10 commandments.
In Deuteronomy God tells His people to circumcise the forskin of their hearts, and in the NT you see that circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God. I wonder is that what it really means, just because it says it...In Acts, you see the rift about circumcision was concerning Gentiles...but Paul circumcised Timothy, and hey...no problem. Then he did the same thing to Titus, and it was cool.
Maybe a little more study without the old wine in our minds would be appropiate.
Hope this helps,
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Rachel:
Your comment:
token of that faith in the promise was the circumcision. It has NOTHING to do with sex, perversion or the 10 commandments.
I disagree with that statement of yours, I believe it does, it was just a simpler way of God saying it to man. Furthermore tokens were used in dowry in Hebrew culture as a sign of virginity. Therefore the "token of the circumcision" was sexual purity.
Re-read the post. There is no mockery intended, nor any inferred. I am to the point serious and genuine in my belief that the circumcision, was God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor. Does that clear it up?
You are right on the transgression word, I meant to say trespass and changed it thanks.
I also added the illustration of work not to be funny ( althought it may well be) but for a very serious reason. Some folks say we are saved by grace alone and not works. My arguement is that keeping oneself sexually pure, is not a work(but of faith in Christianity even tho a law in Judiasm), therefore I thought a vitally important issue to bring up.
I apologize to you Rachel for the lack of clarity, but I assure you my motive was not mockery. I really didnt want to long of a letter.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
sky4it:
You are not alone in wondering about this thing called circumcision.
Through the years I have wondered about the oddness (is that a word) of that particular process (circumcision) and it's products and byproducts physically, as well as the symbolic message which God intended to convey.
Maybe it is a guy thing to wonder about that part of our anatomy being such a big (no pun intended) topic throughout the New Testament.
Sky4it, The most interesting thing is that in the last few days I experienced some new thoughts about the subject of circumcision as well as baptism.
It is interesting how the two of us are looking into the matter at the same time.
---
Rachel:
Before I go into my theological opinion of the subject (which I will do in a later post)
of this thread, I feel strongly that the tone and attitude that I perceive behind the following words in your post needs to be addressed:
quote begin:
posted August 15, 2004 02:35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee Sky...You dont read the Book much, do you?
----
another quote:
and in the NT you see that circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God. I wonder is that what it really means, just because it says it...I
----
another quote:
Maybe a little more study without the old wine in our minds would be appropiate.
----
quote end
Rachel, your words seem very condescending.
Was that your intention?
---
Darrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Call it what you want, it's still ritual genital mutilation.
Funny, when it's done to little girls in Africa we all wring our hands and bemoan the fact that those peoples are so superstitious and barbaric.
When it's mentioned in THE BIBLE, it's somehow an inscrutable act of holy devotion.
Hey, maybe it is just what it seems like. An act of an ignorant and superstitious people to try to curry favor with an unknowable god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
Hi George,
I am a long time lurker, (not really but I don't post as nearly much as I read), and first time responder to one of your posts.
I know from your past posting that you would probably put yourself at the atheistic/agnostic
end of the ex-twi spectrum.
I myself would place myself at the "don't believe that TWI had hardly anything that was both accurate AND unique"
I studied my way out of the way. My studies since then have led me to what I consider to be a more mature version of Christianity.
----
I recently read part of a new book entitled "Slave". It is an autobiography of a young African girl who lost her family to the murdering,ravaging raid of modern day slave traders.
Before her capture she had also endured the female "circumcision" you mention. I have seen TV documentaries, as well as an episode of "Nip/Tuck" that dealt with the crime of female mutilation called circumcision.
If the term that I have heard is what you are referring to (And I am pretty sure it is) then I really don't think that it is in the same category as male circumcision.
Do you really think that the two are equal?
Traditional male circumcision removes non-essential skin. The resulting status of the organ (as far as I know) to be effective for it's purposes to urinate, deliver seed, and provide pleasure back to the brain are not impaired by the circumcision.
The female process removes something designed to stay there and provide pleasure to the brain, it also greatly reduces the size of the vagina (for the benefit of the husband to be) which makes non-sexual use of the vagina abnormally painful or uncomfortable.
---
So, George do you really think a discussion of Abrahamic circumcision invites the building of a straw man (woman in this case) argument?
I do respect your opinion and your intelligence.
I have seen both in your posts.
Maybe you are wanting to cut (pun intended) to the issue of ancient patriarchal cultures and how they dictated everything, with fairness to few.
Looking forward to your response,
Darrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Does anyone read the Bible, believe what it says and practice it? Here, I mean.
Everything in my post was scriptual. No PI
involved. Condecensing? I dont care what you think about that. I remember a phrase or two from the old days....
Chapter & Verse , please.
The Word, and Nothing But The Word.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Darrell and Geo:
Geo:
My point for bringing up the circumcision was facilitated in part by the arguements of the Why Christianity thread. Particular the parts where some arrgue if there is one God then why are there so many religions to make the point that they believe God to be obtuse about what his real intentions are. Much of this conflict is resolved in the circumcision, and understanding what is error and what is truth. The covenant of the circumcision was a covenant. Therefore it must be an embodiment of truth. Furthermore it does much to resolve the conflict some assert of various religious teachings.
Darrell:
I didnt take what Rachel said as offensive. (but i thank you anyways) I can understand how if one quicked over what I wrote one might presume I was talking in gest. Of course, I agree with Rachel that what the Bible says about it is also true. ie(circumcise your heart) I was simply trying to expand upon the circumcise your heart concept.
Furthermore, the circumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Rachel quoted that one. The term but being an exception, so then you must ask yourself which commandments do I keep. Even more intriguing is the word keep. The word keep was commonly used by Jesus and John the apostle. I do not believe to keep something is a work, which speaks volumes as to why the new testament church could tell people not to commit adultry or fornication and not call that bieng justified by the law.
Lastly Darrell is a wonderful promise with all the doctinal funneling that we so speak. Jesus said quite categorically that if any man will to do his will, he will know of the doctrine. (Yes I paraphrased and did not look it up) Therefore a man's doctrine is limited or expanded correctly according to his interest in wanting to do his will. Pretty simple stuff. The bottom line is then the focus is on what my attitude is and wether I am doing God's will (as I understand it) in order to obtain "proper doctrine".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Rachel:
Your comment:
Does anyone read the Bible, believe what it says and practice it? Here, I mean.
Yes Rachel, I do, and I believe every word of it. I will try to be more careful to cite references in the future, but then it gets so long winded. I think people are tired of proving doctrinal points by scriptural multiplication. ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Sky4- I had posted on the what is Christianity thread on LES
And noticed this thread you started on circumcision.
In reading through it and checking the bible for context I think there are three different verses that illustrate three of the different points in this discussion.
They are Gen 17:11, Deu 10:16, Deu 30:6 The first thing I noticed is that the Hebrew word for circumcise is different in the Deu verses.
I am quoting Gen 17:1- 14 because it sets the original context of the covenant and circumcision.
Scriptures and Strongs are from http://www.blueletterbible.org
Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 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.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise ( 05243) the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token( 0226) of the covenant ( 01285) betwixt me and you.
Strongs info on circumcise token and covenant in Gen 17: 11- Deu 10:16 – Deu
Strongs Hebrew- 05243- circumcise - namal {naw-mal'}
1) (Qal) to circumcise, become clipped, be circumcised, be cut off
AV - cut off 2, cut down 2, circumcised 1; 5
Strongs Hebrew- 0226- token - 'owth {oth}
1) sign, signal
a) a distinguishing mark
b) banner
c) remembrance
d) miraculous sign
e) omen
f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
AV - sign(s) 60, token(s) 14, ensign(s) 2, miracles 2, mark 1; 79
Strongs Hebrew- 01285 covenant -b@riyth {ber-eeth'}
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
a) between men
1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
3) agreement, pledge (man to man)
4) alliance (of friendship)
5) alliance (of marriage)
b) between God and man
1) alliance (of friendship)
2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2) (phrases)
a) covenant making
b) covenant keeping
c) covenant violation
AV - covenant 264, league 17, confederacy 1, confederate 1,
confederate + 01167 1; 284
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
The covenant is to make a great nation out of Abraham. The token is circumcision.
A simple analogy for me is that this is almost like branding a herd of cattle to me. The purpose is to remind the men and women of the covenant to remain a part of the nation. Sort of like reminding them to stay with the heard and breed true (maintain the blood line- in part to fulfill the promise of the messiah).
Deuteronomy seems to be using circumcision as a figure of speech since there is not a foreskin on the heart.
Deu 10:16 Circumcise(04135) therefore the foreskin of your heart(03824), and be no more stiffnecked.(07185+063263)
Strongs Hebrew- 04135 circumcise - muwl {mool}
1) to circumcise, let oneself be circumcised, cut, be cut off
a) (Qal) to circumcise
b) (Niphal) to be circumcised, circumcise oneself
c) (Hiphil) to cause to be circumcised
1) of destruction (fig.)
d) (Hithpolel) to be cut off
e) (Polel) cut down
AV - circumcise 30, destroy 3, cut down 1, needs 1, cut in pieces 1; 36
Strongs Hebrew- 03824-heart- lebab {lay-bawb'}
1) inner man, mind, will, heart, soul, understanding
a) inner part, midst
1) midst (of things)
2) heart (of man)
3) soul, heart (of man)
4) mind, knowledge, thinking, reflection, memory
5) inclination, resolution, determination (of will)
6) conscience
7) heart (of moral character)
8) as seat of appetites
9) as seat of emotions and passions
10) as seat of courage
AV - heart 231, consider + 07760 5, mind 4, understanding 3, misc 9; 252
Strongs Hebrew- 07185 Stiff - qashah {kaw-shaw'}
1) to be hard, be severe, be fierce, be harsh
a) (Qal)
1) to be hard, be difficult
2) to be hard, be severe
b) (Niphal)
1) to be ill-treated
2) to be hard pressed
c) (Piel) to have severe labour (of women)
AV - harden 12, hard 4, stiffnecked + 06203 2, grievous 2, misc 8; 28
I noticed that the Hebrews were to “perform the action of circumcision” here. and that the result or matching action that the figure is illustrating is to be no more stiffnecked - hard, severe, fierce, harsh (don’t be a d*ckhead?
:)--> )
This reminds me more of verses in the New Testament to destroy the old man nature
rather than referring to the circumcision of Gen 17:11 although it does figuratively
But it seems to do so to build on it. Also it does not seem to literally be part of the circumcision covenant. Or it would have been there and not in Deu.
The third verse is:
Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise(04135) thine heart(03824), and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Here God is the on performing the action. It is probably still a figure but is in the form of a promise or guaranty rather than a commandment. It does not tell them to do some thing, God performs the circumcision of their heart and the result is that they will love the lord their God with all their heart and soul. Thus they will live (now and after the resurrection of the just?)
It seems to me that these three verses build on each other and are almost a result of each other. If a Hebrew stayed with the tribes of the circumcision, and circumcised the foreskin of their own heart so he or she was meek and loving towards God. God would circumcise their heart so they would “naturally fulfill the first and greatest commandment”. Kinda cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
at this site:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br-chabadritual/
"The fact that circumcision is performed on the sexual organ is significant. This organ is representative of the body’s urges and this procedure indicates that we must control and sublimate these urges and conform them to the Will of God."
So, that adds some weight to what sky4it posited. Whaddaya think?
Rachel, with all due respect, don't you think your comments sound a bit condescending and stifling of open discussion? I do.
I find it interesting that people who ardently hold to the infallibility of the scriptures and "hold it forth without any P.I." can easily disagree on many matters. My interpretation of that problem is that many doctrines are bigger than human understanding allows. We'll always know "incompletely" and that includes you and me. That's where charity is supposed to rule...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Evan and ckeer:
Evan your comment:
The fact that circumcision is performed on the sexual organ is significant. This organ is representative of the body’s urges and this procedure indicates that we must control and sublimate these urges and conform them to the Will of God."
Thank you for saying in brevity my point all along. My illustration went a little further to illustrate that sexual purity is not a work. Like you also, I am somewhat annoyed at the prospect that mean what it says and says what it means theologists cannot come to such a simple conclusion on a simple matter. Be ye holy for I am holy is new testament stuff as well, so I do not understand where the conflict arises.
ckeer:
I dont disagree with much of what you said. All I say is that it also means sexual purity because it was a piece of flesh close to mens heart that need to be cut off. I could quote to you numerous scriptures about holiness and godliness in new testament and the old as well, but most of us have read them already so I dont see the necessity. Interestingly the children of Israel upon entering the promised land were circumcised a 2nd time. Duet 5:2 Inticating that the true circumcision, is the one of the heart (putting off the old man and flesh and putting on true holiness). My analogy is fully consistent with this. Even the words that you picked from the concordance testify that this is so. For example you used token as meaning a warning. Warning of what? Not keeping yourself pure in that area I say. I could drivel on with other words but i wont.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Icidentally, the area of Uganda from which I just returned is home to the Bugisu tribe which practices male circumcision as a rite of passage into adulthood. the subject is spread head to toe with a gray paste, adorned with dead banana leaves, and is circumcised. Then he and his procession, made up of family and other clan memebers, sort of 'slow-jog" up and down the roads. They wear something like sleighbells on their ankles, so it sounds a bit like Christmas in August to hear them coming. The subject has blood all down his legs, and besides the banana leaves is naked. Quite a sight. Incidentally, the Bugisu are known for marital fidelity and an extremely low incidence of AIDS and other STD's, especially given their African context.
Hmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Evan:
Missions work then? May God Bless and reward you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Rachael:
After trying to clear everything up in an excessive way, I think I more than obliged.
Therefore I agree with the other poster (or posters if that was the case) and think your methods were very condescending.
Don't concern yourself to much with it tho, us bottom dwellers got no where to go but up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The debate over circumcision was certainly a raw point of contention in the first two centuries of Christianity. It pit brother against brother - the literal, fleshly application verses the allegorical, spiritual circumcision-of-the-heart interpretation.
Perhaps it would not be too much to say - it may have been the issue which ultimately separated and even divorced Christianity from Judaism.
Paul speaks quite mockingly of those of the "circumcision" party, as might be gathered from parts of "Galatians", "1 Corinthians" and "Philippians".
If there was a universal consensus of a true meaning behind circumcision - such would have seemingly eluded the various sides in antiquity.
It's an interesting subject. You have your work "cut out" for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I have to rush now and get ready for work.
here are my thoughts .
I am reading about Ester.
again sky4it your lack of knowledge of the jewish people and history is showing.
Jews can only marry jews. it was law to keep the tribes healthy and pure.
yes it changed when the mystery was to include the gentile only because Jesus christ had taken on death and won in victory. Up to that point how did one tell who was who? do you think some jews stayed after they were released of course they did they had set up business and families and wanted to be in the community they had been in for years!!! so many lied about being jews .
Look at the book of Ester as just one example of many.
look at the penis. naked was common in the Roman culture and it was clearly visable who was who . Again I ask you to look at the PRACTICAL sense of real live people living in real live culture .
the bible is a record of people that lived not a story of what God thinks about situation. TRY to consider where and what the jewish people dealt with politicaly SKY4 .
it was to keep the blood line pure and for identification purpose. it was law . God is a God of people not just theory.
I know this about the Lord He often puts His ways and meaning in a complex form that is rich and life long learning for ears to hear of course. I do not put His teachings in a box and say it is all about this one idea unless it is clearly written as such.
here is the problem... you must be wrong or the same RULE would apply to Gentiles and we would all have to be cut for God to be honored.
We do not so your idea is off . God does not change his mind about ideals he feels about sin esp. sexual sin.
it was for identification and the bloodline and consider this surgery was not just a snip and tuck and be on your merry way in those days it was a VERY VERY serious thing no anitseptic no clean knife many many DIED during this procedure it was to risk life itself and make the choice to be willing to die for God and his commandment!!!!! it was about faith in HIM and obedience and frankly in practical terms identification as His Chosen where often slaves or captured in lands and hated as a people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Darrell,
It's only a matter of degree. The procedure for girls can be much more damaging and traumatic, I guess. But it's still the same motivation, one of trying to appease God (or gods) by mutilating the flesh.
And another thing I've always wondered, if circumcision was to be a "sign", couldn't they have figured out a more convenient location? I mean, it would be a little odd at the Walmart "Are you a Jew?" "Why sure, just looky here." There must be a better method.
And, as Evan noted, this is a practice that is hardly unique to Judaism. It's been done in numerous primitive cultures for centuries. And I STILL think it's an ignorant, superstitious act that says more about the inhibitions and fear humands inately have about sex, than it does about any god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan:
I actually saw 2 young bald eagles today, it was quite a site.
More interesting on the topic of the circumcision is what David was doing. When David returned from the "slaughter of the Phillistines" he came back with "foreskins". Was David out killing Phillistines and then taking there foreskin as proof? Doesn't really say does it? The law was very much oreinted towards letting the Gentiles participate, as converts. David was perhaps the greatest Minister ever of the Circumcision to the Gentilies? Me thinks so. Moreover David lived at Gath for quite a spell with one of the Philistine Kings. If he was actually (killing "10,000's) and not circumcising them certainly he would have ran into there relatives in Gath.
This also reconciles the God of Old testament somewhat with the God of the new.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
Your comment:
here is the problem... you must be wrong or the same RULE would apply to Gentiles and we would all have to be cut for God to be honored.
I never said that the cutting away of the flesh or foreskin was a rule that still needed to be applied. You make it sound like I did. In fact, I agree with you and the gospels that the ritualistic act of circumcision means nothing by itself. That the true circumcision is of the heart. All I say is the insanely obvious, that there was a moral lesson in itabout sexual conduct. I fail to see how your comments about it as identification purposes, in any way modify what I said. I understand and agree with you that it was for idendtifation purposes and for God to call out to himself a seperate people. The point is simply this MJ, God's people were seperated to what? To Holiness and Sanctification. The things I said are consistent with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
At the time when God instituted circumcision, men were worshipping the penis as a god - phallic symbols were everywhere.
God said, "Ya wanna know what I think of that thing? Chop off part of it! that's how much it means to me!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Also I remeber some thing in reference to David and foreskins and penis worship. One of the discovery or history channel shows on Egypt talked about the egyptian army taking the penisis of the slain enemies and bringing them back to Egypt as offerings to their Gods. This was supposedly documented by some of their mosiacs on temple walls. I think the show particularly mentioned a campaign in Palestine. I think it was before the exodus though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
a key word is PEOPLE here sky 4 .
people are made by a seed or a man ( again think of the culture and mind set) The blood line itself is very important at this point to Abraham and God... jews did not marry those who worshiped strange God or have sex. (if they obeyed of course) so..... to know one was "called out" from the others as seperate not doing the orgies and sexual activities including with beasts and statues and a number of idea one needed to be identified as a jew. to claim to be worshiping the God of abraham..
laws and rules are and were given by the leaders and govt. of the day and as I referred you to ester death was a result of not obeying a Kings law . Anyone could say i am a jew but circumszing was a identification that proved your religous alliance .... get the identification process now? very important very important when Gods law was to be obeyed before a king etc..
Jews have often been thrown out of their land Sky4 or /and wars have begun in what they consider their land. You seem to not realize how orthadox Jews live then or today when you write like they are on friendly terms of course as is today business are set up and communities are political BUT then and today it is and always will be a seperate person living under the guide lines of the LAW . Have you ever met or spent any time around orthadox Jews? not like hey Im jewish lets eat a bagel and some fish Im talking about those living in the will of God which is very complex in regs and rules and often time have clash with every other culture or even laws of the day.
today a person can say Im a christian and I believe abortion is wrong in God will, yet it is legal in our country. How about when a King decrees all women are to have abortions in his land or die. death was almost always the case of punishment . to have an appeal one would have to prove he was a jew and the surgery was a identification of his blood line .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
I do not disagree with your last post. All I am saying is that it (the circumcision) can mean more than that as well.
I did not say that Jews without Christ are on friendly terms with God. I understand and believe that without Christ no man can come unto the father.
My point of illustration , MJ, in this particular area was to illustrate to those in the Why Christianity thread, that many religions have sprung up out of one man and God. Ie(Abraham)
(Althought Islam is patently plageristic of Moses and lacking any meaningful Godly authority and in my opinion completely false)
I fully agree with you that those that deny Christ also deny God. I am simply illustrating that if the Godly standard of the circumcision(cutting off the flesh and making no provision) had been kept, that folks of the other religions (Judiasm & Islam) would accept the things of God and Jesus Christ much easier and there would not be so much conflict and so many different religions. ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I disagree sky4.
it is a choice to believe in our God and before Peter revealed the mystery it was also about blood line.
when the brothers fought and one was put out of His fathers house because He tricked his father who was blind Unbelievers of the one true god had to begin their own tribes. this is just one example of pure rebellion the very first was of course adam and eve choosing sin over obeying God.
the entire law was instilled by God to help people recognize their place with Him as a larger and better and good God. to be cut was a mark of belonging to the God of abraham and was used to identify who your family was.
it gave his people a way to recognize or identify themselves as a seperate people .
sin and rebeelion has been the nature of man since the very first one adam.
the very very important fact that this blood line of royalty was what was need to consider JESUS CHRIST a high priest, without that bloodline pure down through the generation He never would have had the ability to redeem ALL of Gods children from SIN! God had instilled laws and he obeyed his own laws and a HUGE oart of all of the blood of CHRIST was who had had children with whom !
resulting in the saviour Jesus Christ by his mother mary and his father also was from a royal priesthood.. it is veryvery important to god who is who on a very personal baseline!
the true God gives a Choice always has always will.
As far a your idea of where religous ideas spring from well now anywhere and anything has been worshiped and still is today right?
religous identification has very little of nothing to do with our spirit filled life worshiping God in reality.
to be religous about anything takes on any number of motives correct? YET to have a God and a spirit and a relationship that connects to something larger than humanity is also complex and rich and deep .
A spirit filled life is personal and a choice, where as a religous choice can take on any number of factors in the decision. they are seperate altogether. but this has not always been as easy to recognize or as rampant. this is why I asked you to look at just one example of many in the person of ESTER in the bible . the penalty was death Sky4 .
MOses is another example .
the fact no one was EVER able to fullfill the LAW is clear Sky4 . The idea of gee if we could just work are way into gods favor by rules and regualations is religous . and it NEVER worked because untill the blood line of christ rose up in a man willing to die and be raised as a sacrafice for our sin no one could please God.
in the least we still can not that is why we identify with the blood of CHRIST TODAY ok ok
and that blood was brought through Gods own people ok? and how did anyone know who is who?
to be circumsized was key part of the law of our God.
It cut away our flesh life (including which group or tribe or church how ever you want to say it) and led us into a SPIRIT FILLED life with the King of KINGs who is spirit.
totaly seperate....
We no longer need our males to be cut open to prove we belong to the blood of our Father Abraham ... we have a spirit within us now if we believe in Jesus christ and His accomplishments.
as I said before and you just do not get it , this is a story of real live actual PEOPLE not just ideals and thinking and maybe I will chose this way or not. Abraham was a father of a nation of Gods elect for a PURPOSE why did they want that child so badly if it was all about what they wanted to worship of course not it was about BLOOD the red stuff pouring from our veins..... untilll christ was able to redeem us all .. amen and praise God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.