logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Noach  
#51 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:41:40 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

The question being debated isn't whether or not circumcision saves you. Its whether circumcision should be performed. While KP spent alot of time talking about blinkers, turns, and cars, the fact remains that circumcision is an important Torah instruction. Nowhere did Yahuwah say don't do it anymore. It goes to show how much religious baggage needs to be shed, that this is even a debate. Why try to explain it away? Why not just do waht Yahuwah asked us to do?
Offline TRUTH B-TOLD  
#52 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 1:51:52 PM(UTC)
TRUTH B-TOLD
Joined: 3/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 133
Man
Location: USA

Code:
The question being debated isn't whether or not circumcision saves you. Its whether circumcision should be performed.


Well, what we no for sure is that circumcision of our fleshly foreskin will not save us, unless there are some here that will debate that. We also know that no one will enter the Kingdom of Elohim without first being circumcised by Yahweh and that will be of the heart. So, I would agree that we must be circumcised, but who do we call to circumcise us ? A doctor ? A jewish priest ? A christian ? Ghost Busters ? I know who I called and that's Yahweh, for he is the one that I rely on & trust in.

Also, as some questioned at the beginning of this thread the motive of bring up this question, it would seem to me it is to bring a futher divide between those that are for & against the teachings of Paul. That is an assumption, so if it was not forgive me for my insinuation.

This debate took place between Paul & Peter and other apostles, and seemingly Paul prevailed. Did Peter and the others whom walked with Yahshua just get bullied by Paul or did they who knew the language of their time just get hoodwinked by someone with a sly tongue. What this is about is whether or not what Paul taught was right or wrong. What he did was admonish Peter for his hypocrisy. Peter taught as Paul while he was amongst the gentiles, even as going as far as breaking the meat & cleanliness law about going in the home of gentiles and eating with them. But when he was around those of the circumcision he would switch hats so to speak and pretend that he was a law keeper. Paul called him on this and admonished him face to face about it. Saying how can you break the law and then say that they now must circumcised, Peter knew he was headed back into the bondage that he was freed from and he acknowledge it to be so. Paul wasn't trying to belittle Peter, he was trying to turn him back to the WAY and save his life.

2 Pet.3:15-17 " 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Peter was shown the vision from Yahweh of the clean & unclean, he try to fight the words of Yahweh, but he caught on. He was starting to slip back into his old ways, when Paul put him back on the right path.
Offline Noach  
#53 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:20:02 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

Since there is no functional Lewite preisthood, a doctor would be a good choice.

The thought of the self proclaimed apostle putting Peter, much less anyone, on the right path is nightmarish. Thankfully, since Paul taught that circumcision was not necessary, we know that what he taught was not the right path since it contradicts the Torah.
Offline bigritchie  
#54 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:57:44 PM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:
Code:
The question being debated isn't whether or not circumcision saves you. Its whether circumcision should be performed.


Well, what we no for sure is that circumcision of our fleshly foreskin will not save us, unless there are some here that will debate that. We also know that no one will enter the Kingdom of Elohim without first being circumcised by Yahweh and that will be of the heart. So, I would agree that we must be circumcised, but who do we call to circumcise us ? A doctor ? A jewish priest ? A christian ? Ghost Busters ? I know who I called and that's Yahweh, for he is the one that I rely on & trust in.

Also, as some questioned at the beginning of this thread the motive of bring up this question, it would seem to me it is to bring a futher divide between those that are for & against the teachings of Paul. That is an assumption, so if it was not forgive me for my insinuation.

This debate took place between Paul & Peter and other apostles, and seemingly Paul prevailed. Did Peter and the others whom walked with Yahshua just get bullied by Paul or did they who knew the language of their time just get hoodwinked by someone with a sly tongue. What this is about is whether or not what Paul taught was right or wrong. What he did was admonish Peter for his hypocrisy. Peter taught as Paul while he was amongst the gentiles, even as going as far as breaking the meat & cleanliness law about going in the home of gentiles and eating with them. But when he was around those of the circumcision he would switch hats so to speak and pretend that he was a law keeper. Paul called him on this and admonished him face to face about it. Saying how can you break the law and then say that they now must circumcised, Peter knew he was headed back into the bondage that he was freed from and he acknowledge it to be so. Paul wasn't trying to belittle Peter, he was trying to turn him back to the WAY and save his life.

2 Pet.3:15-17 " 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Peter was shown the vision from Yahweh of the clean & unclean, he try to fight the words of Yahweh, but he caught on. He was starting to slip back into his old ways, when Paul put him back on the right path.


Wow..........................................Did I accidentally log onto a christian forum? Is this YadaYahweh forums or the Southern baptist forums where everyone makes silly excuses why they do not have to obey the Creator and quote the Christian god Paul as their excuse?

Offline cgb2  
#55 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:58:04 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:

....
What he did was admonish Peter for his hypocrisy. Peter taught as Paul while he was amongst the gentiles, even as going as far as breaking the meat & cleanliness law about going in the home of gentiles and eating with them. But when he was around those of the circumcision he would switch hats so to speak and pretend that he was a law keeper. Paul called him on this and admonished him face to face about it. Saying how can you break the law and then say that they now must circumcised, Peter knew he was headed back into the bondage that he was freed from and he acknowledge it to be so. Paul wasn't trying to belittle Peter, he was trying to turn him back to the WAY and save his life.


Hmmm..
1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I made myself a servant to all, in order to win more,
1Co 9:20 and to the Yehuḏim I became as a Yehuḏite, that I might win Yehuḏim; to those who are under Torah, as under Torah, so as to win those who are under Torah;
1Co 9:21 to those without Torah, as without Torah – not being without Torah toward Elohim, but under Torah of Messiah – so as to win those who are without Torah.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became as weak, so as to win the weak. To all men I have become all, so as to save some, by all means.

TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:

Peter was shown the vision from Yahweh of the clean & unclean, he try to fight the words of Yahweh, but he caught on. He was starting to slip back into his old ways, when Paul put him back on the right path.


Are you sure that not eating in gentile homes was in Torah, or rather a false Oral Law/tradition that YHWH had to root out by 3 visions with an interpretation?
Act 10:28 And he said to them, “You know that a Yehuḏite man is not allowed to associate with, or go to one of another race. But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.1 Footnote: 1See v. 35.
Offline James  
#56 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:18:24 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:
Also, as some questioned at the beginning of this thread the motive of bring up this question, it would seem to me it is to bring a futher divide between those that are for & against the teachings of Paul. That is an assumption, so if it was not forgive me for my insinuation.


Since I am the one that started the discussion, I can assure you that Paul was not on my mind when I did. I find this to be subject of interest, and in my studies something that is of significance to Yah, and so when i read the verse I cited to start it off, I thought I would bring it up. I did not intend in any way for this to become a Paulin debate at all. While there are a few here who find Paul's writings to be useful, non of them believe Paul to be scripture. And while I was pretty sure it would probably bring division I brought it up anyways, because if all we do here is talk about what we all agree on, and don't challenge each other than we become nothing more than what the average Christian church has become. Steel sharpens steel, if we don't challenge each other where we disagree we will dull. I don't know about everyone else, but I find it really hard to find anyone to engage in any kind of intellectual discussion about Yah's word outside of the forum.

There is currently a thread dedicated to Question Paul, so let's keep that discussion there, and not in this one here. Unless Paul is cited as source for why Circumcision should or should not be performed, there is no need to bring him up here.

Matthew wrote:
Also, if you read really close regarding circumcision in the Tanakh you'll notice that circumcision as a sign is intimately associated with Abraham's ownership of the Land.


I have to disagree with you on this Matthew there are many verses speaking of circumcision that have nothing to do with ownership of the land. The Exodus verse above pertains to the uncircumcised not being allowed to participate in Passover. The Ezekiel 44 I cited speaks of the uncircumcised of heart, and uncircumcised of flesh, being brought in to Yah's sanctuary and polluting it, which has nothing to do with ownership of the land. Even Genesis 17, while the ownership of the land was mentioned in the previous verse, the verse dealing with circumcision are all about the beriyth/covenant, and the land is not mentioned again. Not to mention in the context of the covenant the land is very much symbolic of heaven, not just the physical land of Israel.

By the way Matt, I think you are right about Isiah 56.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Walt  
#57 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:33:39 PM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

bigritchie wrote:
Wow..........................................Did I accidentally log onto a christian forum? Is this YadaYahweh forums or the Southern baptist forums where everyone makes silly excuses why they do not have to obey the Creator and quote the Christian god Paul as their excuse?



I'm going to interject here

We need to keep it about the discussion

The free exchange of ideas needs to be encouraged & promoted & flowing freely - we don't want people to feel tepid or hesitant about floating thoughts/concepts/understandings/perceptions/possibilities/positions/beliefs (had to throw in a little YY style amplification)

We are all coming from different angles of approach at different speeds with different departure times with a multitude of configurations of religious baggage (both carry on and checked in) and undressed battle wounds and some of us are feeling like our landing gear won't lower to make a safe landing and our fuel tank is too empty to make another circle around

Listen
If Yahuweh can speak to me through a Bob Marley song.......... ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE


OK
Carry on

Edited by user Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:45:43 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline shalom82  
#58 Posted : Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:55:32 PM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
“And Yahuweh said to me, ‘Son of man, place on your heart, see with
your eyes, and listen with your ears to all which I am saying to you
concerning all of the statutes of the House
of Yahuweh, and concerning His entire Towrah. Place it on your heart, on the path and entrance to the
Household and Home and with regard to you setting forth from the Temple.’”
“And you shall say to the rebellious ones, to the House of Yisra’el, this is
what My Foundation, the Upright Pillar, Yahuweh, says: ‘Your greatest,
most detestable abomination of all in the House of Yisra’el is including and pursuing sons of foreigners who are uncircumcised of heart and who are uncircumcised of flesh to exist
in My Temple to defile
and profane it and Him alongside My Home, in your coming near and approaching My
bread, My finest and choicest oil and wine, and My blood. You broke My Familial
Covenant Relationship by all your detestable abominations and by not closely and personally
observing the required function of My Set-
Apart and Purifying Ones.’”
“And you were appointed to personally and carefully observe this required function concerning My Temple on
your behalf.’ Thus says My Foundation, the Upright Pillar, Yahuweh: ‘Every
foreign son who is uncircumcised in heart and in the flesh shall not be
included inside My Temple.
’”(Ezekiel 44:8-9
)
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline cgb2  
#59 Posted : Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:39:25 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.1 I did not come to destroy but to complete. Footnote: 1The Law and the Prophets is a term used for the pre-Messianic Scriptures.
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.1 Footnote: 1Lk. 16:17.
Mat 5:19 “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

I can look out my window and see heaven and earth are still here, and conclude that not one jot or tittle as been annulled from the Torah.

Mat 23:1 Then יהושע spoke to the crowds and to His taught ones,
Mat 23:2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Mosheh.
Mat 23:3 “Therefore, whatever they say to you to guard, guard and do. But do not do according to their works, for they say, and do not do.
Mat 23:4 “For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but with their finger they do not wish to move them.

It’s said that when they sat on the seat of Moshe, they could only read the Torah without commentary (oral law/traditions). Clearly the first “they” is Moshe. Also in the Aramaic Mathew the first they is “He” (Moshe).

In response to Kepha’s (Peter) speech:
Act 15:13 And after they were silent, Yaʽaqoḇ answered, saying, “Men, brothers, listen to me:
Act 15:14 “Shimʽon has declared how Elohim first visited the gentiles to take out of them a people for His Name.
Act 15:15 “And the words of the prophets agree with this, as it has been written:
Act 15:16 ‘After this I shall return and rebuild the Booth of Dawiḏ which has fallen down. And I shall rebuild its ruins, and I shall set it up,
Act 15:17 so that the remnant of mankind shall seek יהוה, even all the gentiles on whom My Name has been called, says יהוה who is doing all this,’
Act 15:18 who has made this known from of old.
Act 15:19 “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to Elohim,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from the defilements of idols, and from whoring, and from what is strangled, and from blood.1 Footnote: 1See v.29.
Act 15:21 “For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.”

So, in addition to these essential 3 stop gap biggies, what would they eventually hear Moshe proclaim?
Offline Walt  
#60 Posted : Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:45:44 AM(UTC)
Walt
Joined: 10/26/2008(UTC)
Posts: 374
Man

Is it about the physical act, or is it about trusting and obeying Yahuweh?

I don't think a piece of skin still being attached to the body is going to be an obstacle to a true relationship with our Creator
But not trusting Him and doing what He says WILL be an obstacle

What reason is there to not to get snipped?
"I wont get circumcised because ____________________"
"Don't obey the command by God to get circumcised because ___________"

It's cool nowadays to get tats and piercing all over the body, which involves pain, so it can't be that aspect

Do we ignore the clear literal command in search of a "deeper hidden meaning"?
Do we try to find some wiggle room around what He says to do?
or
Do we trust Him enough to obey without excuse - Father KNOWS Best
Offline Matthew  
#61 Posted : Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:23:52 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Man this is an interesting topic. Glad we haven't really beaten each other over it.

But I have developed a number of questions/ponderings:

1) Is there a command in the Torah stating that uncircumcised males may not enter the temple grounds? My reasoning behind this question comes from circumcision of foreigners always being in relation to having the Passover meal. Obviously eating Passover is a biggie, but I'm not finding anything forbidding foreigners from partaking in normal Jewish life, for example offering a thank offering.

The Ezekiel passages seems to emphasise the priests error and how they are to correct it during the Millennium, and the fact the service has to be done in the right way to represent what Yahweh has done for us.

2) Why is only Passover referenced in regards to a foreigner having to be circumcised in order to partake of it? Why aren't the other festivals (Miqra'eh) mentioned? Can an uncircumcised Gentile freely partake in Tabernacles?

3) How does it affect us that Scripture mentions nothing of Enoch and Noah's circumcision status? Is there a lesson here? <--- not a rhetorical question, but a genuine question so we can get to the bottom of it.

4) Well, not a question but just a train of thought really. Genesis 17 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

This passage has two things to consider/up for discussion: 1) circumcision is for Abraham's descendants and for those who have been bought (mainly foreigners) by his descendants, 2) it says "his people" not the usual "My people." From this I'm gathering it says circumcision, as per Abraham's covenant, is for Abraham's physical descendants only and for those directly in the employment of Jews. And the "his people" part seems to say that if a descendant of Abraham is not circumcised he is to be excluded from living amongst the Jews, which does not directly say excluded from God's family. A very physical thing in other words.

5) Exodus 12:48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.” What this says to me is that if I wish to eat of the Passover meal, then I have to circumcise all the males in my household so that I may partake of it.

6) According to Joshua 5 no males were circumcised while in the desert, but it's clear the Jews were circumcised as they entered Promised Land. This seems to be another sign linking circumcision directly with living in Israel. Interesting to note: the Jews who left Egypt were circumcised, but yet they failed to make it through to Israel.

7) Acts 10 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. I asked this earlier, but why did Peter suggest baptism and not circumcision for the uncircumcised Gentiles? What happened here in Acts 10 is confirmed by Peter's words in Acts 15:7-11.

8) From speaking with Jews it seems that circumcision is compulsory for Jews but optional for Gentiles.
Offline James  
#62 Posted : Monday, January 31, 2011 8:28:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
1) Is there a command in the Torah stating that uncircumcised males may not enter the temple grounds? My reasoning behind this question comes from circumcision of foreigners always being in relation to having the Passover meal. Obviously eating Passover is a biggie, but I'm not finding anything forbidding foreigners from partaking in normal Jewish life, for example offering a thank offering.

There is nothing specifically stating they can’t participate in other aspects of “Jewish” life. However Genesis 17 to me makes it clear that those desiring to participate in the Covenant must be. The 13 verse emphasizes it by using muwl muwl, certainly must be circumcised. And in verse 12 usually translated as he who is born in your family, and he who is bought from all the sons of foreign lands. “He who is bought” is kesep miqnah, however kesep could just as easily have been kasap, since the original was not vowel pointed, making it those who strongly desire and have a yearning to be purchased and acquired. Either way however, they both apply to us, we are those who desire to be acquired by Yah, and we are those who Yah has purchased, and therefore we should be circumcised.

Matthew wrote:
The Ezekiel passages seems to emphasize the priests error and how they are to correct it during the Millennium, and the fact the service has to be done in the right way to represent what Yahweh has done for us.

In Ezekial 44 Yahuweh said ‘Every foreign son who is uncircumcised in heart and in the flesh shall not be included inside My Temple.’ In light of Revelation 3 saying, ‘All who are victorious will become pillars in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it.’
So those who are uncircumcised of heart and of flesh are not allowed to enter the Temple. If circumcision of the heart is all that Yah cares about why was and in the flesh used?

Matthew wrote:
2) Why is only Passover referenced in regards to a foreigner having to be circumcised in order to partake of it? Why aren't the other festivals (Miqra'eh) mentioned? Can an uncircumcised Gentile freely partake in Tabernacles?

As I see it the Passover is the first step on the path, it is the narrow door through which we must enter, you can’t partake of the other steps until you have taken the first step. Until we benefit from Passover we cannot benefit from Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Reconciliations and especially not the destination Shelters. So by stating that you have to be circumcised to participate and benefit from the Passover by extension you are not able to benefit from the rest of the feasts.

Passover is the door we have to pass through to start down the path to Yah. If we were to benefit from UB, but not Passover it would do us no good. So by predicating participation and benefiting from Passover Yah assured that no one would participate or benefit from any of the other Miqra without being circumcised.

So as eloquent as Ken’s metaphor is, as they usually are, it seems to me that Yahuweh is saying that circumcision is more than signaling your intent to turn onto the path; it is a prerequisite to entering the path. The path being the Miqra, the six step path leading to the destination of Shelters, eternity with Yah.

Matthew wrote:
3) How does it affect us that Scripture mentions nothing of Enoch and Noah's circumcision status? Is there a lesson here? <--- not a rhetorical question, but a genuine question so we can get to the bottom of it.

We do not know much of anything about Enoch. And while we know more about Noah this issue is never addressed concerning Noah, so anything would be speculation.

Most assume that since the Torah was given to us through Moshe that it didn’t exist prior to that, however we are told in Genesis 26:5 that Abraham observed Yahuweh’s Towrah. So one could speculate that Enoch and Noah had it as well. But again it is pure speculation.

Yahuweh tells us in Exodus 12:49 that there is only one Towrah, and that it exists for everyone. That Towrah prescribes circumcision for all males.

Matthew wrote:
4) Well, not a question but just a train of thought really. Genesis 17 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

This passage has two things to consider/up for discussion: 1) circumcision is for Abraham's descendants and for those who have been bought (mainly foreigners) by his descendants,

As I pointed out above, it could just as easily be those who strongly desire and yearn to be purchased and acquired. But even if it isn’t it still applies to us. How are we brought into Yah’s family? We are adopted, literally purchased by Yahuweh via Yahushua, a descendant of Abraham.
Matthew wrote:
2) it says "his people" not the usual "My people." From this I'm gathering it says circumcision, as per Abraham's covenant, is for Abraham's physical descendants only and for those directly in the employment of Jews. And the "his people" part seems to say that if a descendant of Abraham is not circumcised he is to be excluded from living amongst the Jews, which does not directly say excluded from God's family. A very physical thing in other words.

While it says “his people” in English translations, the Hebrew is actually Her family, or Her People. The pronound Hu is in the feminine forum. Since this is being spoken to Abraham, a male, the Her family to me could only be a reference to the Set Apart Spirit. Therefore this is speaking of being cut off from Yahuweh’s family.

Matthew wrote:
5) Exodus 12:48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.” What this says to me is that if I wish to eat of the Passover meal, then I have to circumcise all the males in my household so that I may partake of it.

Yes, the prescription of circumcision was not just to circumcise yourself, but to circumcise your sons. We should dedicate ourselves to raising our children in Yahuweh’s ways.

Matthew wrote:
6) According to Joshua 5 no males were circumcised while in the desert, but it's clear the Jews were circumcised as they entered Promised Land. This seems to be another sign linking circumcision directly with living in Israel. Interesting to note: the Jews who left Egypt were circumcised, but yet they failed to make it through to Israel.

But the Promised Land is a metaphor throughout Scripture of heaven. i.e. Carefully consider, respect and honor accordingly your father and mother for the purpose of lengthening your das within the land which relationally Yahuweh your God has given you.

It makes it clear in Joshua that they were not allowed to enter into the Promised Land, symbolic of heaven, until they were circumcised. Also interesting to note, is it goes on to show them keeping the Passover after being circumcised, but before they entered the Promised Land.

Matthew wrote:
7) Acts 10 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. I asked this earlier, but why did Peter suggest baptism and not circumcision for the uncircumcised Gentiles? What happened here in Acts 10 is confirmed by Peter's words in Acts 15:7-11.

Peter is not perfect, Peter is not God, Peter got many things wrong in his life. Also Acts is not Scripture. Acts was also compiled years after the events it depicts, and was compiled mostly from hearsay, so while it has value it is not the whole story, and should not be used to negate Scripture. We don’t know what else Peter told them. And just because he said to be baptized does not mean he never told them to be circumcised, or that they were never circumcised.
Also as someone else has already pointed out Peter’s words in Acts 15 seem to indicate that his small list was a stop gap, and that they all had the words of Moses being taught. Indicating that he assumed they would hear the word of God through the teachings of Moses, and would follow them. It seems to me that he wanted them to do it because it was what God told them to do, not because it was what he, Peter, or the group of men that was assembled there, told them to do. Just as I don’t want anyone here to go and get circumcised because I tell them to, I want them to see that Yahuweh wants them to.

Matthew wrote:
8) From speaking with Jews it seems that circumcision is compulsory for Jews but optional for Gentiles.

Yes that is the Jewish position. Jews believe that only they are called to keep the Torah, and that gentiles are not. But that is hardly a credible authority.

While rereading over the verses in Scripture pertaining to circumcision I noticed that in Exodus 4, Yahuweh was on the verge of killing Moshe, until his wife circumcised their son. It seems Yah was going to kill Moshe for not circumcising his son, as prescribed. Moshe was supposed to go and lead the Yahudi out of Egypt, and teach them the ways of Yahuweh, yet he himself had not kept one of the most important tenants of Yah’s. We know Moshe was not perfect throughout the rest of the time he spent in Yah’s presence, but this one thing that brought Yah to the verge of killing him.

Not to detour the discussion, but I must say that I find it a bit odd that every time circumcision comes up in the Tanakh, or the eye witness accounts, it is prescribed, the only time it is ever mentioned in terms of not being done are in Paul’s letters, and Luke’s, who was a friend and disciple of Paul, Acts. Also every time Yahuweh or Yahushua talk of it, it is in terms of it being done, and only men, Peter, Paul etc. speak of it not needing to be done.

The way I understand it there is no difference between those naturally born into Yah’s family and those adopted and grafted into His family. There is but one Covenant, and but one Torah, and it applies to everyone. We are all, natural born and adopted, saved by our participation in Yahuweh’s covenant, and Yahuweh’s covenant is not a one way thing. Many people seem to be hung up on the idea of Yahuweh requiring something of us, but a covenant relationship requires something of both parties involved. Our participation in the covenant is contingent upon us holding up our end of the bargain, just like any relationship or agrement. There are things we are required to do if we want to participate in it. Just as Abraham had to leave Babylon, religion, to enter into Yahuweh’s covenant, so must we. Just as Abraham had to trust and rely on Yahuweh so must we. Just as Abraham had to walk and be upright actively engaging with Yahuweh, so must we. Just as Abraham had to be circumcised, so must we.

I spoke earlier of Genesis 17:14 which says “Any uncircumcised male who relationally is not circumcised of the flesh of his foreskin, then that soul shall be cut off from Her family, My Covenant Relationship he has nullified.”
Several points are interesting and important here. Yahuweh says "that soul" (nephesh), not "that man" or "that person", but "that soul" shall be karath, cut off and uprooted from "Her family", not "his family", not "your family", but "Her family". And then the second part, My Covenant Relationship, my Beriyth he, the one who is uncircumcised, has parar, nullified, broke, violated thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought it to nothing, invalidated it and dissolved it. He is saying that the man who is uncircumcised didn’t just violate or break it, but that he has nullified and invalidated it, bringing it to nothing, and dissolving it. Parar speaks of violating a covenant, and thus being in a state of disassociation. Being in a state of disassociation with either Yahuweh or the covenant is not a place that any of us want to be, nor is being cut off from Her family, since the only candidate for Her in this verse is the Ruwach Qowdesh. These are not light words, and we should take them as such.

Yahuweh didn't spend a whole lot of time differentiating between what Yahudi should do and what gentiles should do, because in His view once we are adopted into his family we are all Yahudi, and he isn't interested in what those who aren't part of His family do. He has one family, one Torah, one covenant, and there is but one path to Him. There is a reason he didn't say Yahudi who wish to follow me do this, and gentiles who wish to follow me do that, in His eyes all that choose to follow Him are Yahudi.

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Matthew  
#63 Posted : Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:32:41 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James, I hope you do not mind but I am just gonna cover one issue that I thought most interesting to discuss:

James wrote:
Matthew wrote:
2) it says "his people" not the usual "My people." From this I'm gathering it says circumcision, as per Abraham's covenant, is for Abraham's physical descendants only and for those directly in the employment of Jews. And the "his people" part seems to say that if a descendant of Abraham is not circumcised he is to be excluded from living amongst the Jews, which does not directly say excluded from God's family. A very physical thing in other words.

While it says “his people” in English translations, the Hebrew is actually Her family, or Her People. The pronound Hu is in the feminine forum. Since this is being spoken to Abraham, a male, the Her family to me could only be a reference to the Set Apart Spirit. Therefore this is speaking of being cut off from Yahuweh’s family.


James wrote:
I spoke earlier of Genesis 17:14 which says “Any uncircumcised male who relationally is not circumcised of the flesh of his foreskin, then that soul shall be cut off from Her family, My Covenant Relationship he has nullified.”
Several points are interesting and important here. Yahuweh says "that soul" (nephesh), not "that man" or "that person", but "that soul" shall be karath, cut off and uprooted from "Her family", not "his family", not "your family", but "Her family". And then the second part, My Covenant Relationship, my Beriyth he, the one who is uncircumcised, has parar, nullified, broke, violated thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought it to nothing, invalidated it and dissolved it. He is saying that the man who is uncircumcised didn’t just violate or break it, but that he has nullified and invalidated it, bringing it to nothing, and dissolving it. Parar speaks of violating a covenant, and thus being in a state of disassociation. Being in a state of disassociation with either Yahuweh or the covenant is not a place that any of us want to be, nor is being cut off from Her family, since the only candidate for Her in this verse is the Ruwach Qowdesh. These are not light words, and we should take them as such.

Yahuweh didn't spend a whole lot of time differentiating between what Yahudi should do and what gentiles should do, because in His view once we are adopted into his family we are all Yahudi, and he isn't interested in what those who aren't part of His family do. He has one family, one Torah, one covenant, and there is but one path to Him. There is a reason he didn't say Yahudi who wish to follow me do this, and gentiles who wish to follow me do that, in His eyes all that choose to follow Him are Yahudi.


Since your response I have obviously discussed it with others - no intro needed ;)

Firstly, I fully understand the spiritual application you have applied here, but I do have a few objections.

David Bowie (Icy) contacted James Tucker (of http://www.biblicalexegesis.org/) on my behalf. J Tucker simply advised us that the pronoun "hu" is dependant on the grammatical gender not the biological gender of the object. Therefore depending on the form of the word "nephesh," the object (noun) in this case which is singular and feminine, will cause the verbs, pronouns, words-related-to-it to be conjugated into the same form as well. I am no Hebrew expert therefore believe these Hebrew speakers actually might know what they are talking about.

Tucker basically says: "...biological gender and grammatical gender aren't the same. Hebrew has two genders—Masculine and Feminine. Pronouns must agree with their antecedent in number and gender—although there are times when this doesn't occur, but other linguistic elements are at work (i.e., count nouns)." I think in other words, the verbs and pronouns are technically "gender-less" and both governed by the noun they are referring to, in this case "nephesh." And we know "nephesh" is referring to the person who is physically circumcised. Therefore "his people" would be the correct translation as we are speaking in English here and those speaking Hebrew would know it is a grammatical issue and not a biological issue. I speak Portuguese, which has similar grammatical rules, so I know what the are saying.

In your translation of Genesis 23:9 you have translated it as "he" not "her" when if using the same reasoning as you stated it would be "her," but then it would not make sense.

So, if we are going to apply a spiritual application to the verse, that we are going to be cut off from our family (God's family of spiritual children), then we have to apply a spiritual application to the first part of the passage as well, that circumcision must be of the heart and we must be bought by Yahshua's sacrifice, His blood.

If it is to be physically applied, then it has to be physical. Therefore, 1) you must be a physical descendant of Abraham, 2) a child 8 days old (bringing Leviticus 12 into play), and 3) a non-Jew must be bought with money to be an employee of a Jew.

Of course, if you want to physically partake of Passover in the place God chooses (Deuteronomy 16:2,5-8) then circumcision is a must. It is not that I do not want to physically partake of it, no, but rather because we are unable to.

Some other things I would like people to consider:

Why has Yada not taken Peter's Acts 10 experiences (vision and time spent at Cornelius's house) into consideration in his translation of Acts 15?

Also, people like to quote Matthew 5:17-20 in order to push the notion that we have to be physically circumcised to be saved; however, I would like to point out that we need to read the whole Sermon on the Mount in order to understand what exactly He was taking about. And that was our inner attitude, our character and treatment of others, the loftier matters of Torah and the Prophets. In other words bringing the Torah into our hearts.

Will God honour one's circumcision if it was not done in honour of him? How can we say, "Phew, glad I was circumcised as a tot" and assume God accepts it? Take for example that not too long ago our parents were having their children circumcised because they thought it prevented masturbation as they had a negative attitude towards sex.
Offline Matthew  
#64 Posted : Thursday, February 3, 2011 8:32:50 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Sorry guys, can't help it, just have to post some more things to consider:

1) Job, Abraham's contemporary, was a Gentile who was never asked to do the things Abraham was, yet was highly praised by God.

2) Circumcising one's children separates the rite of circumcision from free-will, therefore it only establishes citizenship of Israel and not spiritual destiny. Circumcision does not make someone righteous.

3) Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant not long after his circumcision. Again meaning that the rite itself does not establish one's destiny.

4) In Acts 10 Peter realised that the new Gentile believers should be baptised to confirm their new status as eternally living believers because it was in likeness of the burial and resurrection of Yahshua. Circumcising them would only identify them with Israel, when in fact they were not Israelites.
Offline bigritchie  
#65 Posted : Friday, February 4, 2011 7:16:01 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Matthew wrote:
Sorry guys, can't help it, just have to post some more things to consider:

1) Job, Abraham's contemporary, was a Gentile who was never asked to do the things Abraham was, yet was highly praised by God.

2) Circumcising one's children separates the rite of circumcision from free-will, therefore it only establishes citizenship of Israel and not spiritual destiny. Circumcision does not make someone righteous.

3) Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant not long after his circumcision. Again meaning that the rite itself does not establish one's destiny.

4) In Acts 10 Peter realised that the new Gentile believers should be baptised to confirm their new status as eternally living believers because it was in likeness of the burial and resurrection of Yahshua. Circumcising them would only identify them with Israel, when in fact they were not Israelites.


What does any of this have to do with YOU being obedient to the Creator?

Matthew, sooner or later you are going to have to stop making excuses and start saying "yes Sir". I don't mean that rude, I really don't, I honestly just do not understand why religious people who claim to worship YHWH do not obey him, and instead constantly make up excuses as to why they cannot.

Whether Baptism or Circumcision "punches your ticket to heaven" or not, is not even the question. The question is obedience, And if you you truly love the Creator with all your heart, soul, and might you will do what he says.........period.

Let's use some common sense here. What would happen to you at your personal work place if you ignored direct commands from your boss? What would happen if you made constant excuses as to why you did not obey? What would happen if instead of doing what he said, you ignored it and spiritualized it away?

None of us in our right minds would disobey our human bosses! Yet we think we can disobey the Creator?
Offline VinceB.  
#66 Posted : Friday, February 4, 2011 3:11:47 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

bigritchie wrote:
What does any of this have to do with YOU being obedient to the Creator?

Matthew, sooner or later you are going to have to stop making excuses and start saying "yes Sir". I don't mean that rude, I really don't, I honestly just do not understand why religious people who claim to worship YHWH do not obey him, and instead constantly make up excuses as to why they cannot.

Whether Baptism or Circumcision "punches your ticket to heaven" or not, is not even the question. The question is obedience, And if you you truly love the Creator with all your heart, soul, and might you will do what he says.........period.

Let's use some common sense here. What would happen to you at your personal work place if you ignored direct commands from your boss? What would happen if you made constant excuses as to why you did not obey? What would happen if instead of doing what he said, you ignored it and spiritualized it away?

None of us in our right minds would disobey our human bosses! Yet we think we can disobey the Creator?


I could not agree with you more bigritchie in what you said - and what you said holds true not just with Baptism and Circumcision, but all He's invited us to participate with Him in, as you indicated in what you wrote...and I think we all tend to lean away from the fact, and since He's done all the enabling Himself, that our obedience to Him should be, from our perspective: a celebration; and that we get to celebrate our relationship with Him as in our observing what we know He said, and is the Truth, and in that spirit...
HWHY
Offline MadDog  
#67 Posted : Friday, February 4, 2011 4:21:16 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Matthew - then why bother doing anything at all? Why observe the Feasts? Why read the Torah? Why observe the Sabbath? Why forbide the eating of pork in your diet? You are using the same reasoning that Paul was and whom I think without a doubt is a false-prophet.

Circumcision is only a "sign" of the Covenant between Yahweh and an individual. Yahweh never said it would make you "more" righteous or just plain righteous.

Quote:
Gen.17

[9] And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
[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.
[11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
[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.
[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.
[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.

[23] And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.


Of course this way before the nation of Israel came into existance. Please take note that just like with the seven Feasts, he says these are "my" feasts, "my" covenant, and not 'Jewish" feasts or "Jewish" covenant.

Furthermore Ishmael, the man, didn't have any beef with either Isaac or Abraham, he in fact buried Abraham along with Isaac. It was Ishmael's descendants who would be the problem.

Quote:
Gen.21

[20] And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.


Also, concerning Ishmael:

Quote:
Gen.25

[8] Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
[9] And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;


Lastly, there is no way you can know that Job was not a Yahudim, let alone know whether he was circumcised or not. Just because he lived in the land of Uz doesn't mean he was a gentile.

Edited by user Friday, February 4, 2011 6:47:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline shalom82  
#68 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:02:26 AM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
....now I can go sleep with my wife during her menstruation while I eat a ham sandwich in front of my idol of ba'al...because the loftier matters are in my heart and I have the right attitude and I treat people well. . The Torah is a document that is for those who have the heart and attitdue for YHWH to "observe and do" ( you will find that in both the Torah and also in the words of Yahushua....once again Yahushua upholding Torah). You then look to the jot and tittle proclamation in Matthew 5:18 and I can't see where there is any ground to dismiss the lighter matters of Torah (even if indeed you consider circumcision to be a lighter matter within the Torah)....in your pursuit of the weightier matters. Morevoer, if all Torah commandments are to be observed and done that includes circumcision. Obvserve it...by all means...understand it....try to see if you can comprehend its deeper meaning....then after all of that....remains the simple injunction: DO IT!!!!!

There have been several issues brought up by those who advocate Torah and these issues have not been addressed or tackled. They are merely glossed over and when one mistake or exposed edge is noticed it is exploited to the fullest. James....in his response made many valid points and rather than look at that response as a whole you concentrate one one point at the exclusion of all the rest and somehow that invalidates the rest of his response?

The burden of proof in my opinion is on the anti-circumcision and by extension anti-Torah crowd in this issue. I still don't undertand how you can pick and choose. Do you follow the food ordinances, do you follow the marital statues, do you follow the Sabbath precepts? It has already been brought up in this debate that it doesn't matter if it is circumcision or niddah. The rejection of commandments represents a paradigm. If you reject one....you reject them all. This is exactly what christians do. They find reasons and excuses to not do the commandments. This is not just some debate that ends with circumcision. What is the next commandment that will be abrogated by the "spiritual meaning" of the Torah.

As for your Matt. 5:17 comment I don't really appreciate the "pushing" comment. It seems to me that to you we are trying to force on this community something unclean or perverse. Forget the fact that we cannot force or coerce or "push" anyone into doing anything. We are advocating the Torah of YHWH and we are trying to keep it as a unified one in both spiritual and physical...ceremonial and moral application. How many people have tried to dissect the Torah and ended up like waves crashing against the rocks when their faulty logic is exposed. They say things like, "the Sabbath is a ceremonial precept, we don't have to worry about it anymore...afterall as 'Jesus' said 'the sabbath was made for man...not man for the sabbath'", and then you go and you read about the Shabbat in the Torah and it is infact a moral precept having attached to it the treatment of of your God, yourself, your family, foreigners and even animals. Isn't that what you were criticizing us about? The fact that we can't understand the spiritual side of Torah.

You say that we need to put Matthew 5 in context. That Yahushua says a lot more than Matt. 5;17. You are right...he does say a lot more and I am surprised that you would have the audacity to accuse us of taking things out of context if you read what does come after "Do not think....". Moshiach has a lot to say and most of it has to do with Torah. There is the "deeper meaning" of Torah....no doubt...but He is saying to do that deeper meaning. He is not saying "forget making an offering"...he is saying reconcile with your brother before you make the offering. He is going back to vCain and Abel which would have been such an obvious statement to his audience. He is not saying simply do not commit adultery....He is saying do not even think of the act that would be adultery. Does that somehow abrogate the simple "do not commit adultery"? Does the fact that Yahushua emphasizes that anger is the spirit of murder abrogate "Do not murder" He goes on to clearly delineate between the criminal law code of the Torah and personal conduct between those in the community. An eye for an eye was not merely said. It was written. That means it was being misapplied....I can only imagine to the worst possible effect. That doesn't do way with Torah....or only speak to a spiritual message. How does settling with your neighbor before you resort to the Torah prescrbed courts abrogate Torah? It doesn't. How does saying the YHWH intended marriage to be between a man and a woman...unto death....but allowed for man's deficiencies...abrogate Torah? Does criticizing the practice of making oaths to anything other than YHWH anti-Torah?....no....you will actually find that one in Torah too. Yahushua with his teaching in Matt. 5, 6 and 7 shows that the spritual and physical sides of Torah cannot be torn asunder and that the Torah cannot be butchered into some manmade catagorization. I don't think for one second that the exhortation to rely on God is an anti-torah invention of Yahushua that is so much more spiritual and better than Torah. What is Torah if it is not the reliance on YHWH? Giving to/Caring for the needy is anti-torah and at any rate is only a matter of the heart and not an act? Yahushua goes on to talk about false prophets and how exactly does one know when someone is engaging in false prophesy?.....please remind me. I believe you will find that in Torah. What does Yahushua say in Matthew 7?
Quote:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I have to say what you are advocating is the proto-wide gate. This is the same thing that was said nearly 2000 years ago....and look at where it has gotten the christian church....to a "poligion" that the remnant of the Hebrew nation would only recognize as a pagan institution. Granted...for the time being your gate is more narrow than say the gate of a catholic or a protestant.....but keep on riding this logic to its ultimate conclusion. Given enough time....that is where you will end up.

What does Yahushua also say in Matthew 7?

Quote:
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

What law is that? Is that the Roman law, natural law, the laws of time and space? It is Torah. "I never knew you....you who practice Torahlssness!"

In Matthew 5-7 it is almost as if Yahushua is saying, "The deeper meaning is doable...or "do the deeper meaning." It is a fools errand to carve up the Torah.. What does it mean if you comprehend the deeper/spiritual meaning of Torah....is that somehow some sort of license...to eat chazzer and practice necromancy and incest and practice animal cruelty and scarify and mark your skin or craft idols or abuse the land or go whoring and practice homosexuality and etc etc etc? Not according to Yahushua. Furthermore....in your eyes the deeper meaning of circumcision of the flesh is circumcision of the heart. That is also faulty. It has already been illustrated that the covenant contains both...even in the same verse. There is nothing to comprehend. They are both commandments that we are to DO. Circumcision of the heart is not just this intangible etheral notion. It has direction...it is definite. It is rooted in Torah.

It seems to me that you would favor Pauls declaration that loving your neighbor as yourself is the summation of the Torah at the exclusion of Loving YHWH with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your strength as Yahushua put before loving your neighbor. In effect you say treating others well is more important than a lighter matter like circumcison. Afterall how does my neighbor or my fellow man benefit from my circumcision? He doesn't. But what about YHWH and how we treat him. It goes to the first part of the summation of Torah...."Love YHWH your God...." This act is for Him...prescribed by Him....never abrogated by Him. So I think it is foolhardy to relegate it to the status of an unimportant lighter matter of the Torah. Furthermore, I can't help but notice that you at least by your writing are implying that those of us who embrace circumcision by that very attitude can't possibly have circumcised hearts. Where does this logic come from? If you advocate the Torah....you can't have Torah in your heart.....?!?

Just because Yahushua does not expound with every single Torah precept in Matthew 5-7 does not mean that those not covered do not matter or that they are somehow cancelled.

Yahushua does mention circumcision if people do not remember and He clearly states that it is important enough of a thing that it is done on the Sabbath. By reading the passage it is no stretch to assume that Yahushua approves of and agrees with this practice. He never says...."why do you even bother circumcising a baby....let alone do it on the sabbath? It isn't an important commandment anyway and it is abrogated by the deeper meaning of Torah. As long as you have Torah in your heart and treat others well...something like circumcision doesn't matter."

The issue is this. Replace circumcision with any other Torah precept....our arguments would be the same. This could be about eating mice or the 7th day sabbath or the niddah. My position is the same....and I assume our position is the same.
I think for most people that "advocate circumcision...." it is really at the heart of it not merely about circumsison. It is about the Torah as a whole and a paradigm...a way of looking at the Torah....seeing it as an indivisiible whole unified in spirit and work. It could be any precept. This is the one we happen to be stuck on.

The logic that because there were gentiles that were righteous without circumcision to me is shortsighted and faulty thinking that once again ignores the context. Noah was obviously a man that was esteemed by YHWH. If we continue on in the logic that Noach was not circumcised we could go on and say that Noah wasn't given hardly any commands that were later given in torah. There is no explicit implication that Noach's righteousness was based on Moshiach. Therefore...why worry about all of this time focusing on what Yahushua said. Perhaps Noah didn't even need Yahushua and if Noah didn't then why do we? Just be a noachide....and you are set. By using this logic all of the Torah is done away with. No Moedim to worry about, no dietary laws.....no sabbath. The same can be said for Abraham. There is no evidence that he took part in Yom Kippurim....that means we should just blow it off.....

What exactly is your point about Ishmael being kicked out of the covenant. (if he was...which is to say that the evidence is not conclusive). The only thing that we get from that is that physical circumsicion is not enough. Not one single person ever once made that claim. What have we said over and over again? Circumcision of the heart AND circumcision of the flesh. Is this somehow supposed to be some big revelation that a mere physical circumcision is not enough? The whole unfolding of the history of Israel proves that point thorouglly beyond any shadow of a doubt. But my question to you...that tiny remnant of Israel that has existed throughout history.....that remant mentioned by YHWH to EliYahu.....were they circumcised in the flesh?

What you have been saying over and over again about those of us in the "circumcision" being satisfied with our circumcisions that were done witout our consent before we had memory seems like sour grapes to me. So I will say it I am sorry. sorry I was circumcised as a newborn. There is nothing I can do about it. I wish actually that it hadn't been done to me..... That it would have been a concious choice for me as a way to ener into YHWH's covenant rather than just some meaningless cusomary medical practice of the day. But I don't have that choice. I can't and won't cut off any more . I am not asked to. In this regard I imagine I probably feel much like any Egyptian male adult did as he entered the covenant (though the difference is I was circumcised at birth rather than early adulthood). You however do have the choice. It is I who envies you...and it is a strange thing indeed if it is the other way around. Which by the way...I am not saying you do. Don't get me wrong I am not saying the 8th day circumcision should be replaced by adult circumcision The 8th day is of course preferable and essential but what I am saying is that I wish my parents would have circumcised me as a newborn in a conscious effort to be obediant to YHWH and as the first step in my walk according to the covenant....since that is not the case I would rather that they would have just left it alone so I could have made that decision. They didn't so there is nothing I can do about it.
Let us not pretend that there were not people coming into the covenant that were circumcised after their eighth day on earh. Moshe's son was circumcised in childhood and others like Obadyahu, UriYah and Zelek were more than likely circumcized in adulthood....making the concious choice to enter into the covenant.

Furthermore the issue with Abraham whether nor not it applies only to Abraham's people (born in his house or purchased) is irrelevant. It is much too broad of a net. Who are Abraham's people? There are many nations descended from Abraham....the vast preponderance of them being in the middle east. The covenant is refined and only a mere fraction of the children of Abraham is within the covenant nation. With who does the covenant reside...it is Israel and what is the contract of the covenant? It is the Torah...what is prescribed in Torah? Circumcision. People come into the covenant by entering a mere branch of Abraham's extensive household. You do not serve YHWH by becoming a Muslim...like the majority of Abraham's children are. When you enter into the covenant you enter into Israel.....not Midyan or Edom....and their descendant nations. This goes for the man or the woman entering into the covenant. Ruth says Amekh Ami w'Lohaikh Elohai....she is not talking about Noach or Abraham or Iyob. She is talking about Yisra'El.

Even Paul admits as much with his "grafted in" and "commonwealth" comments.

YHWH does not change....but that does not mean that the story is static....things happen and the situation evolves according to the appointed times. That is why your desire to look to any character like Noach, Abraham, or Iyob is so unfortunate. The clock has moved forward. Their situations are not ours. It almost seems to me like your logic is if Noach or Iyob were not circumcised or if Abraham did not celebrate Sukkoth then they are set against it...their stories stand as testimonies against the Torah. That is not the case...the story has unfolded since their time. The scripture is not a snapshot....it is a book...the story progresses.. By your logic I could take one "shapshot" of the scriptures and proclaim Adam and Chawwah did not wear clothes or eat meat. Therefore we don't need to wear clothes and we must not eat meat. It sounds absurd. But I am not looking at your immediate logic....I am looking at the place where your logic ultimately takes you if you ride it to it's ultimate destination.

Furthermore, I don't understand why it is always about Peter or Paul with those in the anti-torah camp. Why not quote Y'aqob or Yahuchanan.....better yet why not quote Yahushua haMelech Moshiach? I mean it is stunning to me. We say...YHWH's Tanakh says this...or Yahushua says that...and your answer is but Paul....but Peter. Both the Tanakh and Yahushua say to beware of those who annull and dismiss the Torah. That is enough for me. Being that that is the case any words that are explictly set against Torah or are construed to be against Torah are the ones that should be discounted and dismissed. Such a thing is not a progression of the story. It is part of an entirely different plot set against the unfolding of YHWH's revelation to men. It is a dangerous fiction...whether it be from a strict reading of the text or an invention by the minds of men.

Will the nations practice Torah in the coming time. Will they cling to the Yahudi to learn Torah? Is YHWH's temple a house of prayer for all nations? These facts make your comments on the Ezekiel passage nearly incomprehensible. This is not about how the priests offer the red hefer or use the laver or burn the incense.or what animals are to be used for what service or how the menorah is maintained. It is specific. It is about foreigners being allowed to defile the House of YHWH by their very presence...the fact that they have not embraced the covenant. I have to once again wonder if circumcision of the heart and flesh is not shorthand for embracing the covenant in toto. YHWH does not want religious tourism. He is not interested in quanity...but rather quality. "You want to enter My Temple... then embrace Me in my entirity....love Me b'khol lababkha ub'khol nafshekha ub'khol m'odekha. You don't make a stop at My Hekel as some roadside attraction on your pilgramage to Haran or Babylon or Rome or Karnak."

Observe.....and Do.



YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline Sunny  
#69 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 4:06:58 PM(UTC)
Sunny
Joined: 9/20/2009(UTC)
Posts: 20
Location: Georgia

This doesn’t specifically pertain to circumcision but more about my experience regarding obedience on Yah’s instruction.

Learning what it means to observe the Sabbath and doing it has been a gradual transition for me.

I would say to Yah, okay this week I’m not going to do any work or commerce this Sabbath and I would find myself Friday evening or Saturday morning telling Yah “I’m just going to do this one thing that I didn’t finish” or “if I don’t get this billing out I won’t get paid in time”. Or “I have to make this purchase otherwise it won’t come in on time” etc…..

In the mean time I had mentioned to my mom (who is in the Christian religion) that I was going to start observing the last day of week as Sabbath just as Yah told us.

This went on for a couple of months until last Sabbath (after finishing “just one thing” and settling in to study) I found myself going back to a live stream Messianic speaker who observes the Sabbath.

I had been very conflicted about tuning in because I’m just trying to stick to the Torah, Prophets and Psalms, Mat, Mark, John and Rev.

I would listen in because I’m so desperate for fellowship, then I would get this disturbing feeling and turn it off saying I’m done, no more.

Well I found myself tuning in, the second he popped up he was quoting the below scripture:

The Parable of the Two Sons: Mathew Chp 21

28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Yahushua said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. “

I told my Father “and my earthly mom” that I was going to be obedient about the Sabbath. And here I was being like the disobedient son.

Even though I was half way there, I was still negotiating with Yah through the process. Even though I had told my mom I was not going to work or do commerce, I was still justifying some things.

I don’t know if I’m doing everything right, I guess that’s why Josiah is one of my favs, because he had a responsive heart.

Once he found the scriptures, he stepped on the path. Yes the path is leading to Yah but it may take a detour now and then. We must continually seek his instruction and guidance and trust that Yah is merciful.

He calls us out, people who are trained up in religion or secular humanism. . Even though I try to study the scriptures on the week day, it seems I learn the most on the Sabbath, setting it aside to spend time with Yah. He knows what’s best.

When we turn from our religion, change our perspective and don’t look back, when we get on the path that leads to Yah’s family, it doesn’t mean we instantly know the right way to go.

My goodness I don’t know about you guys but I knew nothing about Yah’s feast and their meaning. I mean nothing, and I grew up in the “church”.

I can’t express the grieving process I’ve experienced. Saying goodbye to all that’s familiar, tradition, family, friends. Yes some of your friends and family may still be there but it will never be the same. It’s a very lonely place.

But as we continue to seek and learn the truth, we must do our best to be obedient, for our own good because our Father knows what’s best for us. And as we learn and grow let’s trust and rely that He will consider all things, and that He will be merciful because none of us have arrived.

I don’t post much, because most of the time I don’t think I have much to offer. But I so enjoy reading everyone’s posts. I feel a familiarity with you. Thanks for taking the time to post as you learn and discuss, we all gleen from it. Especially on things that are confusing and not clearly understood.

I wish we could all meet up somewhere. I know we all don’t agree and we are all at different levels of understanding, but it would be a great family reunion.

Offline Matthew  
#70 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 7:15:53 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
shalom82 wrote:
The burden of proof in my opinion is on the anti-circumcision and by extension anti-Torah crowd in this issue. I still don't undertand how you can pick and choose.


It is not about picking and choosing. It is about what we can and cannot do. Can we keep the Passover as prescribed in Torah? No we cannot, so as a Gentile should I go half way?

Let us pretend for a moment a functional temple exists in Jerusalem and it is time for Passover when all males are required to attend. I would never object to someone getting circumcised because Torah clearly states that Gentile males have to be circumcised in order to partake of the Passover (Exodus 12:48). In fact I would be making sure people, especially my household, were. And just for the record, I do not object to people getting circumcised, for example tagim, but in fact think it is great that he, aged 76, is getting it done.

shalom82 wrote:
It seems to me that you would favor Pauls declaration that loving your neighbor as yourself is the summation of the Torah at the exclusion of Loving YHWH with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your strength as Yahushua put before loving your neighbor. In effect you say treating others well is more important than a lighter matter like circumcison. Afterall how does my neighbor or my fellow man benefit from my circumcision? He doesn't. But what about YHWH and how we treat him. It goes to the first part of the summation of Torah...."Love YHWH your God...." This act is for Him...prescribed by Him....never abrogated by Him. So I think it is foolhardy to relegate it to the status of an unimportant lighter matter of the Torah.


I like what you say here, our focus should be upon Yahweh first and foremost, since from Him we learn to live and love.

shalom82 wrote:
Furthermore, I can't help but notice that you at least by your writing are implying that those of us who embrace circumcision by that very attitude can't possibly have circumcised hearts. Where does this logic come from? If you advocate the Torah....you can't have Torah in your heart.....?!?


I'm sorry if I come across like that. To me the "logical conlcusion," as you put it, of focusing too much on the literal observance leads down a very tricky and dark slope. If a functional temple existed I would say literal observance to the whole Torah is of utmost importance, especially the new rules and regulations, as Ezekiel 44 stresses for the Millennium. But over and over again Yahweh stresses our heart attitude as opposed to our offerings.

shalom82 wrote:
What you have been saying over and over again about those of us in the "circumcision" being satisfied with our circumcisions that were done witout our consent before we had memory seems like sour grapes to me. So I will say it I am sorry. sorry I was circumcised as a newborn. There is nothing I can do about it. I wish actually that it hadn't been done to me..... That it would have been a concious choice for me as a way to ener into YHWH's covenant rather than just some meaningless cusomary medical practice of the day. But I don't have that choice. I can't and won't cut off any more . I am not asked to. In this regard I imagine I probably feel much like any Egyptian male adult did as he entered the covenant (though the difference is I was circumcised at birth rather than early adulthood). You however do have the choice. It is I who envies you...and it is a strange thing indeed if it is the other way around.


By the way, I am circumcised twice over. Go figure?! ;)

shalom82 wrote:
why it is always about Peter or Paul


To point the finger: it was Yada who started it! Yada pins Peter against Paul in his wayward translation of Acts, when the passages in question do not speak of a Peter in favour of believing Pharisees and circumcision for salvation. Also, Yada did not take into consideration Peter's vision and Cornelius's house experiences in Acts 10, of which Peter recalls in Acts 15:7-11.



But here is the question: where is the command for non-Jews to be circumcised?

Five points to consider:

1) I am not a physical descendant of Abraham
2) I am not Jewish and 8 days old
3) No Jew has paid money for me to be in their employment in the land of Israel
4) I wish to partake of Passover, but alas, I cannot
5) There is no Millennial temple

So where is the command that says I must be circumcised regardless?

Of course, if I convert and wish to identify with Abraham, become a sign-bearer and live in the promised land then, certainly, I will be circumcised (for the third time).



Here's an interesting video series, titled the Mikveh, by Michael Rood. In the first episode he covers circumcision about midway through it.
Offline MadDog  
#71 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 8:21:29 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Matthew wrote:



But here is the question: where is the command for non-Jews to be circumcised?

Five points to consider:

1) I am not a physical descendant of Abraham
2) I am not Jewish and 8 days old
3) No Jew has paid money for me to be in their employment in the land of Israel
4) I wish to partake of Passover, but alas, I cannot
5) There is no Millennial temple

So where is the command that says I must be circumcised regardless?

Of course, if I convert and wish to identify with Abraham, become a sign-bearer and live in the promised land then, certainly, I will be circumcised (for the third time).

------------------------------------------


Well, I guess I get a free pass on everything then. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can break the Sabbath. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can go out and worship idols. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can eat pork. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can blaspheme Yahweh's name.

Where does it say we can't celebrate Christmas or Easter or Halloween? Those seven Feasts of Yahweh, that's for them there Jews only, we gentiles can knock ourselves out with our own customs and traditions.

Gee, here I was all worried about obeying a silly book called the Torah, but Matthew's got it figured out. All you have to be is a non-Jew and your golden.

Matthew wrote:
To point the finger: it was Yada who started it! Yada pins Peter against Paul in his wayward translation of Acts, when the passages in question do not speak of a Peter in favour of believing Pharisees and circumcision for salvation. Also, Yada did not take into consideration Peter's vision and Cornelius's house experiences in Acts 10, of which Peter recalls in Acts 15:7-11.


Yes, I can see it now. I can see how you can place Peter and/or Paul's words and deeds above what Yahweh said. How could I have been so blind? If Peter and/or Paul said it, then yes they automatically abrogate Yahweh immediately. Duh!!!

Edited by user Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:25:45 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Matthew  
#72 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:08:20 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MadDog wrote:
Well, I guess I get a free pass on everything then. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can break the Sabbath. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can go out and worship idols. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can eat pork. Hey since I'm a non-Jew I can blaspheme Yahweh's name.

Where does it say we can't celebrate Christmas, or Easter or Halloween? Those seven Feasts of Yahweh, that's for them there Jews only, we gentiles can knock ourselves out with our own customs and traditions.

Gee, here I was all worried about obeying a silly book called the Torah, but Matthew's got it figured out. All you have to be is a non-Jew and your golden.


We are only kidding ourselves if we think we can keep all the rules and regulations associated to the Feasts. All we can do is ponder their significance. Yes cool, let us take off work, go camping over Tabernacles, but we cannot truly keep them as Torah prescribed.

And we both know the Ten Commandments say not to worship idols and to keep the Sabbath. In fact Sabbath is told quite a few times outside of Torah to be kept by foreigners, i.e Isaiah 56. And I recall the Disciples warning us against idols.

Here is a question to ponder: where is command that Gentiles are required to be circumcised? Circumcision is something you are, not something you do. Of course if a Gentile wants to go to Israel and wants to be as a native then by all means keep the command, there is extreme symbolism in doing the act for that purpose.

Here is another question: why did Peter request water baptism as opposed to circumcision to the uncircumcised Gentiles who had received God's Spirit?

Remember the topic: is circumcision a prerequisite for salvation?
Offline Matthew  
#73 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:10:07 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MadDog wrote:
Yes, I can see it now. I can see how you can place Peter and/or Paul's words and deeds above what Yahweh said. How could I have been so blind? If Peter and/or Paul said it, then yes it automatically abrogates Yahweh immediately. Duh!!!


Missed the point!
Offline MadDog  
#74 Posted : Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:15:16 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
We are only kidding ourselves if we think we can keep all the rules and regulations associated to the Feasts. All we can do is ponder their significance. Yes cool, let us take off work, go camping over Tabernacles, but we cannot truly keep them as Torah prescribed.

And we both know the Ten Commandments say not to worship idols and to keep the Sabbath. In fact Sabbath is told quite a few times outside of Torah to be kept by foreigners, i.e Isaiah 56. And I recall the Disciples warning us against idols.

Here is a question to ponder: where is command that Gentiles are required to be circumcised? Circumcision is something you are, not something you do. Of course if a Gentile wants to go to Israel and wants to be as a native then by all means keep the command, there is extreme symbolism in doing the act for that purpose.

Here is another question: why did Peter request water baptism as opposed to circumcision to the uncircumcised Gentiles who had received God's Spirit?


What? But Yahweh gave the Ten Commandments and seven Feasts to Moses and the Jews? How can that be? Yahweh did say to Abraham to circumcise all his household including "not thy seed" (i.e. gentile). Matthew you are being too strignet with the Torah. He made a covenant with Israel on the mount, not with the gentiles. And on top of that since we are outside the boundaries of Israel we can do whatever we want. What gives you the authority to say otherwise?

Yahweh gave Israel his personal name, but me as a gentile I choose to call him LORD GOD and JESUS. Don't worry, he knows my heart and I need not worry about petty little details like the Torah. God is Love man, peace in the middle east, we are all God's children right?

Idols are cool as long as you dedicate them to Yahweh, that's what the Vatican says. Who are you to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, after all it's all about the heart being in the right place, right? Come on, stop bringing people down with that OLD TESTEMANT stuff. We'll remake Yahweh in our own image.

Sabbath...Schmabit! That's okay too we'll just move the Sabbath to the first day of the week and declare that the Sabbath. It's all good. It's not likes it's a God given law or anything. Yahweh knows our hearts and he knows we are only trying to convert pagans into his kingdom. The end justifies the means.

Perish the thought that maybe we are supposed to do BOTH the physical and spiritural adherents to the best of our ability. Maybe Peter was supposed to do BOTH. It really wasn't up to Peter, Paul, Pharisees, or circumcised congregation to pick and choose which commandent's the gentiles were able to bare. I recall some characters in the Torah who were rascals but STILL had fellowship with Yahweh like Samson, David, Solomon, Yonah, Moses, Abraham. Peter didn't say "Thus says Yahweh..." he pretty much spoke his own mind not Torah based.

Here's a groovy idea...if I wanted to have fellowship with Yahweh then I would most logically want to adhere to all his commandments (to the best of my ability) whether I was a Jew or not. Therefore if circumcision is required of the Jews no matter where they are as a token of the covenant then it would be reasonable to conclude that I (as a gentile) should follow suit. I would therefore, by default, utilize my "free-will" to follow Yahweh's Torah, and not have to wait on Yahweh to give me a law or permission to do so.

Matthew wrote:

Remember the topic: is circumcision a prerequisite for salvation?


Yes, as per Yahweh's covenant established under Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and further re-established under Moses on the mount.

And you didn't answer about Christmas, Halloween, or Easter? It's not written anywhere in scriputre that we can't celebrate them.
Offline Noel  
#75 Posted : Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:57:27 AM(UTC)
Noel
Joined: 9/27/2009(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: UK

This is not directed at any individual, but is just an observation....................

A circumcision done because of prevailing medical or cultural practice in a country (e.g the USA) and not for Torah reasons, by parents who perhaps were not saved themselves, and for someone who is not in the land is perhaps not what it is all about.

'The Happen To Have Been Circumcised Brigade' may not only be missing the point, they may be helping others to miss the point as well. Consider the following

How can a circumcised and pork averse person imagine that they are okay and well within the precepts of the Torah when (for example) they are prepared to let a tsunaumi of sewage into their houses each day by absorbing the spiritual, moral, criminal, sexual, and anti-God output of their televisions. Even at it's most benign, these circumcised (and therefore OK with Yah folk) are happy to waste vast amounts of their lives watching completely unprofitable things such as sporting activities, soap operas and animations along with the idol worship of the celebrities and participants which inevitably follows. And this being frequently punctuated of course by mind altering advertisements to modify their behavior for the commercial benefit of others. And they are prepared to let their children do likewise, probably the most damaging thing you can do for your offspring. I am sure many here would not fit this description, but I am prepared to bet that there are also many who do

Please, any of you who fit this category either in whole, or in part, cease pointing the finger at those who happen to live in countries where circumcision is not the norm, does not happen automatically like it does where you are, and consider that maybe there are areas in your lives which themselves could do with a bit of cutting back. Yah tells us to set no evil thing before our eyes, and to teach his precepts to our children. I am sure if TV was as widely watched by the Jews in the dessert, then maybe Yah would have mentioned this aspect of life in the Torah. The average US citizen takes in between 25 and 30 hours each week of it.

The usual response to this, I find is from those who say 'well I only watch the news, and nature programes'

Oh Phull-eeze.

I do not say this from a point of view of 'Holier than thou', as I am probably the worst sinner on this forum. But I cannot put up with 'religiosity' from persons who may have got the wrong grip on reality, too heavy on ritual and too light on the disciplines within their own lives.


Noel
Offline lassie1865  
#76 Posted : Sunday, February 6, 2011 9:23:02 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

I think that "doing the Passover" today would mean embracing Yahowsha as Ma'aseYah and His sacrifice; UB would be just that: gathering together to eat the Passover meal, eating unleavened bread for 7 days and keeping the 1st and 7th days as days of rest;
the literal land and Temple would be for us the land and the Temple in the Millennium and into eternity. I assume that only those "who are chosen", the "Bride", the "few", those who are circumcised in the heart and in the flesh, will serve in the Millennial Temple and actually get to live "in the City." I think everyone else will have to live "outside the City"; the farther from the City, the "darker" it will be.

Remember, YHWH said "whoever will take hold of My Covenant . . . " I am always reminded of Ruth; she was a Gentile, but she bound herself to YHWH and the Torah in order to marry Boaz, the redeemer . . . ; Yahowsha said to follow the whole Torah as YHWH gave it, not as the Rabbis have taught it . . .

Just my 2 cents . . .

Edited by user Monday, February 7, 2011 9:41:10 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline sirgodfrey  
#77 Posted : Sunday, February 6, 2011 7:12:48 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Shalom82 check your PM
Offline shalom82  
#78 Posted : Sunday, February 6, 2011 10:33:07 PM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Not one person....not one....has ever said on this forum or on this post specifically that physical circumcision is enough. If we had said that then we would be in direct opposition to what was revealed to YirmeYahu...specifically stating that those who are only circumcised in the flesh shall be punished...if we had you indeed would have a case against us...since that is not the case I would appreciate it if you would refrain from dissimulation. What has been said over and over and over again? There is a need to be circumcised in the heart and in the flesh and that to a degree circumcision of the flesh is evidence of circumcision of the heart...through a willingness to be obedient to YHWH. No one here has said "don't eat pork and then get circumcised and then you are right with YHWH....do whatever you want as long as you have those two catagories checked off". What has also been said over and over again. That this is not simply an issue about circumcision. It is about the whole Torah. That includes everything...every precept....from safeguarding your fellow man against preventable injury to caring for the poor and the needy. It includes the injunctions not to commit adultery and to fulfill your oaths and to only swear to YHWH if you do make an oath. Not one person has said....are you circumcised? iF so....go ahead and revel in smut and violence and idolatry....you are right with Yah. Go ahead indulge in a cult of personality or the idolotry of money or for that matter any one thing that a person can put before Yah....which is almost anything. Not one person said that. If I am circumcised and I go around bowing to ba'al then my circumcision might as well have been done for the sake of kemet or allah.....it profits me nothing. Why are words being put in our mouths? We are the ones who have been fearful of license and negating Torah...any precept of Torah....and now we are being accused of advocating circumcision because it gives us license?!?!?!?!

We in the "brigade" are demeaned and accused of being legalistic and ritual-centric and every other common christian anti-Torah slander. But still at the end of the day....how does one "keep" the Torah without physically doing the commandments. It is all well and good to "observe" but that is still one half of the story....and I don't understand why we are condemned for heeding the words of YHWH (in whatever form He decides to reveal them in) YHWH existing as Yahushua says that those who practice/do the commandments (and this is not in any way specific...but rather explicitly inclusive) and teach men to do likewise shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. This shows that this is not merely about an "inner attitude" or some obscure matter of the heart. The only legalist when it comes to observing Torah is the one who goes as far as the literal text goes and no more. A legalist doesn't physically commit adultery but he feels no need to refrain from looking. A legalist is one who does not physically commit the act of murder but sees nothing wrong with indulging his anger. The courts are the first resort for the legalist rather than reconciliation. Obeying the commandment to circumcise is not a legalistic act. I contend that it is a matter of the heart....a matter of inner attitude....and to a degree (however preliminary) evidence of that much mentioned circumcised heart. We are not legalistic or ritualistic when we endeavor to do the commandments and do them correctly with the proper Kabanah (intention). Yahushua makes it clear that the inner attitude...the Kabanah is to be done as well. Y'aqob reiterates this. If YHWH as it has been correctly stated desires obedience then how is doing the commandments (whatever one we are talking about) wrong? It is much more glamorous to talk about charity, justice, and mercy but the fact remains that circumcision exists as a commandment. I still get this distinct feeling that it is felt that if one advocates circumcision it is assumed that somehow they don't care about the "weightier matters of Torah" I don't understand where this notion comes from.

Also there is this to consider. There are these allusions whether veiled or explicit that we who are advocating circumcision are ritualistic legalists and that YHWH prefers obedience or an attitude of the heart rather than ritual or burnt offerings. First off circumcision is obedience so I don't get how we have the wrong attitude or are not right in the heart. It is like you are saying YHWH desires this sort of obedience.....not that sort of obedience.(eventhough He explicitly mentions that obedience as something He desires). I am sorry this is something He brought up. We didn't invent this. It is like you want to put a premium on loving your neighbor as yourself and if somehow we are obedient to any precept that doesn't have anything to do with that then we cannot love our neighbors. We have never put a premium on circumcision at the exclusion of all the rest. We have never said "get circumcised so you don't have to worry about the old widow that lives across the street or the orphan begging in the street". Why now is obedience to YHWH considered ritual....or burnt offerings. Generally speaking you make a burnt offering when you have missed the mark...when you have sinned (I understand there are other offerings including the thank and fellowship offerings...but generally speaking the day to day offering that most people will feel the need to give is the sin/trespass offering). Circumcision is not some sort of offering. You can not put it in that catagory like the blood of lambs and bulls. Circumcision is not an offering...it is obedience....which as we all know is what YHWH wants.

Furthermore, the issue of non covenant/pre-covenant assumption circumcision has already been addressed. Most of us who advocate circumcision were circumcised at birth and those who made the decision to do so and those to carried it out had no intention of being faithful to the Covenant. We have admitted that. We never said our circumcisions were ideal. We weren't held in the arms of our Grandfathers or Fathers as a respected member of our community circumcised us dedicating us to YHWH with the promises to raise us up in His ways citing the scriptures and praising His name and celebrating Him....with Tehellim and joy. I wish my circumcision had been with a Kabanah for YHWH. That was not what was done. Do you think we are happy about that? Do you think that we feel good that our circumcisions were meaningless medical conventions? I can tell you I don't. I am not complacently self satisfied with my circumcision. The reality however is that it was done. I made it explicitly clear in my last post that I wish that it hadn't been done to me at that age just because of some meaningless uneccesary medical convention. Nothing was right about my circumcision as a newborn. It was not on the eighth day it was not done for the reasons mentioned above. Much rather I would have left it be until I was able to make that commitment and decision to have it done for the right reasons with proper Kabanah. I can't do that. What is done is done. That does not change the fact that it should be done for the right reasons and that the Scriptures give is a very clear picture of reality. The reality is twofold...first...there were people coming into the covenant that were already circumcised. No mention is made about what do do in that specific case. Secondly.....there were males older than 8 days that either through their parents decision or through their own decision were circumcised and entered into relationship with the God and people of the Covenant. Furthermore, it has already been said that this debate was about those who were able to be circumcised. It has never been about those who for whatever reason be they a eunuch or in poverty or in slavery etc etc etc cannot perform the act. You who think that we are a bunch of heartless bloody thugs with no empathy or sympathy demanding that those who are not must be circumcised without realizing how easy it is for us to say to do so due to the fact that we have no memory of the pain associated with the act do not understand. We had no choice. our position does not come out of some sort ot smug self satisfaction. Like we are in the club and you aren't. We are the ones who are relying on YHWH's mercy here. We are the ones having to assume that what was done is enough to satisfy Him. You out there who are not circumcised on the other hand have the great priviledge of carrying this act out for the right reasons with the right intentions. I envy you in the best possible way.

As for your 5 questions Matthew the majority of them have have been discussed at length and I don't feel the need to keep explaining my/our position.. Passover is not just a dinner Look to first Passover for the answers. The covenant resides with Israel and Israel alone....when you enter into the covenant you are entering into Israel. The answers are also found in Ezekiel. Not all who are Israel are in the land. That goes for those who are "native born" and those of the adoption. The land is important but it is not the be all end all. Every day throughout the entire earth little boys are circumcised in obedience to the covenant. Circumcision is not exclusively a land commandment. You are right when you say that we cannot observe any of the feasts even if we are in the land properly or to the exacting standard prescribed in the Tanakh. That is true. But how is that different for any Yahudi in the time of Babylonian exile, or the Roman Diaspora or even down to the present day. It is written:
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever YHWH your God disperses you among the nations, 2and when you and your children return to YHWH your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3then YHWH your God will restore your fortunesa and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.

In the chapters previous to the 30th it is is made clear that Moshe is indeed relaying that YHWH meant the entire covenant not just a portion that was commanded on one particular day. Tell me...how does any member of the covenant be they "native born" (as far as native born can be when born in a foreign land) or the foreigner "obey....everything" in the covenant in a foreign land? I forward the notion that practicing/doing what one can (however limited in scope) of Torah outside of the land with genuine willingness and intent is accepted by YHWH as if it were obedience to the whole. We cannot perform the Passover perfectly...but we can be circumcised. That is what I take away from this.


They did not cease performing the circumcision because their passovers were only memorials....and because they were not/are not in the land. Being that that is the case circumcision must mean something more than what you make it out to b (with either your land or passover arguments). It is not just like some sort of rule for a fancy restaurant where you have to wear a tie or a jacket in order to dine there. Circumcision is not merely about passover and it applies to more people than live in the land. YHWH never once states that in order to be part of the covenant you must reside in the land. Of course there were different rules for those who lived in the land but I don't think for one second He expected or desired His covenant people the live as an isolated self sufficient group with as minimal contact with the outside world as possible. We can see allowances like the "second Pesach" as evidence of that reality. They are called upon to be His witnesses. How can you carry out this mission if you don't even live among those in the rest of the world. This comes down to who are the covenant people and what is prescribed in the covenant. As you are fond of quoting Isaiah 56 let us remember what it does say. What is the foreigner worried about in Isaiah 56? He is worried that eventhough is is bound to YHWH he is excluded from YHWH's people. YHWH says this is not the case. To me it is simple if we are YHWH's people we are Israel....and this is the reality...whether or not you have the blood of Israel coursing through your veins....it ALWAYS.......ALWAYS......ALWAYS comes down to choice. You can be native born and forsake the covenant....and you can be a foreigner and embrace it with all of your heart. Furthermore, Israel is not considered by YHWH to be any more of a natural child than the Goyim....though they are declared the firstborn. Ezekiel 16 makes this very very clear. Israel is adopted. The foreigners who received Yahushua have been given the right to be called children of God (John 1:10-12). This is also the language of adoption. That would make the goyim younger siblings but still part of the same covenant family. As I said before whether or not Paul advocates or dismisses circumcision he does say that much in his "grafted in" and "commonwealth" comments.. If is is as simple as becoming a citizen of Israel (according to YHWH's standards of citizenship and the example set by Ruth (and by the way I am not talking about the modern political entity known as Israel but rather the covenant/remnant Israel that exists independent of modern political realities) then circumcision is imporant and there is no need to have an Israeli passport before you get it done. Another point to consider is that the passover circumcision requirement is not the only commandment that carries the distinction of being for the native born AND the foreigner. I see no evidence that contravenes the simple reality that Goyim from have always entered into the covenants of promise. As it was for the mixed multitude, Kaleb, Rahab, Ruth, UrriYah, Zelek, and ObadYahu it is for us.

Another thing to consider in Paul's writing is that previously the gentiles had been separated from "the covenants of the Promise".Which would mean that we were separated from the Abrahamic, Sinaitic and Davidic covenants that all pertain to the promise ot the Messiah. The implication is that we were previously excluded....if then we are brougnt near and participate in those covenants....then there are covenant obligations. One of them being circumcision....So a person can be the judge if Paul is advocating or rejecting circumcision. Whatever the case may be...he does say that we are now members of those covenants and the reality is that those covenants do include the obligation in question. So if he does advocate circumcision then those of us who agree with Yada owe him a rather large apology. If he has indeed rejected circumcision than he really is a dissimulator that is so beguiling because he mixed truth with lies and this is an instance where he has been bitten hard by his own words. Whatever the case may be....I reiterate....Paul says it. We are members of the covenants of the promise...and all that entails.

Let us digress for one moment. Let's say that we are not members of the Sinaitc covenant given to Israel but rather of the Abrahamic covenant. Still at that rate....how does one escape circumcision? Infact circumcision is THE sign of the Abrahamic covenant...it is the only token and identifying mark in that covenant....at least that was mentioned. If we are children of Abraham (as Paul stated we were (though for different intents)) then we are indeed members of his household and therefore must be circumcised. We are commanded to keep the way of YHWH by doing what is right and just. What is part of the way of YHWH? Personally I don't believe that the covenants are separate. They are intertwined steps in the unfolding of one covenant. Being that there is one covenant that takes us back to square one. If we are part of the Abrahamic covenant then we are part of the Sinaitic covenant. This means that we are to observe and do the contract of the covenant which is Torah and Torah includes circumcision....be you and 8 day old baby or an 89 year old man.

I am not going to sit around and wait to be trapped by circumstance to demonstrate my love and my zeal for YHWH, and His covenant and the land and people of that covenant. YHWH never said that those who were aware and who were awake had to wait....or that we should live our lives in any matter we see fit until He returned. We are blessed to be in this unique group that understands. Why should we walk like those in ignorance and darkness? Tell me where you will find that. We all admit that in the latter days the Torah will be in full effect, the Hekel will rebuilt and the appointed times of YHWH will exist in their fullest measure. The Goyim from the ends of the Earth shall come to Zion to learn Torah and even priests will be taken from among them. The services will be resumed and no person with uncircumcised heart or uncircumcised flesh shall defile the House of YHWH. If that is the case then I will be prepared for that reality as if it is coming tomorrow. I will be proactive and strive to do what I can now in this present time and not wait until after that day comes....like some lazy procrastinating schoolboy that waits till the night before to cram for the midterm he will have that very day. Given the extensive passages where it is stated over and over again that the Torah shall be practiced by all nations in the millenium...even unto the ends of the earth and the remotest islands....why do we doubt that it is for us in this time...we who have taken hold of the covenant in the present? Where is it said to ignore the covenant till the future if you comprehend it now?
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline tagim  
#79 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 2:00:17 AM(UTC)
tagim
Joined: 9/30/2010(UTC)
Posts: 218
Man
Location: westen new york

Thanks: 3 times
Shalom82. You make me feel so good, and lucky. Ouch!
Offline James  
#80 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 5:49:08 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Matt wrote:
David Bowie (Icy) contacted James Tucker (of http://www.biblicalexegesis.org/) on my behalf. J Tucker simply advised us that the pronoun "hu" is dependant on the grammatical gender not the biological gender of the object. Therefore depending on the form of the word "nephesh," the object (noun) in this case which is singular and feminine, will cause the verbs, pronouns, words-related-to-it to be conjugated into the same form as well. I am no Hebrew expert therefore believe these Hebrew speakers actually might know what they are talking about.

Tucker basically says: "...biological gender and grammatical gender aren't the same. Hebrew has two genders—Masculine and Feminine. Pronouns must agree with their antecedent in number and gender—although there are times when this doesn't occur, but other linguistic elements are at work (i.e., count nouns)." I think in other words, the verbs and pronouns are technically "gender-less" and both governed by the noun they are referring to, in this case "nephesh." And we know "nephesh" is referring to the person who is physically circumcised. Therefore "his people" would be the correct translation as we are speaking in English here and those speaking Hebrew would know it is a grammatical issue and not a biological issue. I speak Portuguese, which has similar grammatical rules, so I know what they are saying.

I’m not going to argue with his reasoning, his Hebrew is likely much stronger than my own, and I am ill equipped to debate this.

So accepting that, let’s say that soul shall be karat from its family, or his family. First I would say who is “his” family that one would really have to worry about being cut off from, your earthly family or your heavenly family.

Personally I find the next sentence to be the much more damning and worrisome one. My Covenant Relationship, my Beriyth he has parar, nullified, broke, violated thwarted, split open and tore apart, brought it to nothing, invalidated it and dissolved it.

There is but one Covenant in Scripture. We all benefit and are adopted into Yah’s family through that covenant, so to nullify and dissolve it is not advisable. There is no mention anywhere of a separate covenant between Abraham for the land. There is but One Covenant. Yahuweh didn’t say My Covenant Relationship for the land he has parar, he said My Covenant Relationship he has parar. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture of multiple covenants, unless I am missing something if so please show me. In the entire conversation establishing the Covenant the land is only mentioned once:

And ‘Abram existed as a son of ninety-nine years, and Yahuweh appeared as God to ‘Abram and said, ‘I Am God Almighty. Walk in My presence. Exist upright in accord with the truth, and I will give as a gift My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you. And I will cause you to increase and to thrive, multiplying your power and strength.’

Then ‘Abram fell in His presence, and God spoke to him, saying: ‘Here I Am, look at Me. I have a Covenant Relationship with you. And you shall be a father of exceedingly great Gentiles. No longer shall your name be called ‘Abram, but your proper and personal name shall exist as ‘Abraham. For I have given you the designation of father of the exceedingly great Gentiles. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful. And I will entrust you to the Gentiles and there will be kingdoms produced because of you. And I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you, and between Me and your offspring after you in their dwelling places and generations, for an eternal and everlasting Covenant Relationship, existing yesterday, today, and tomorrow on behalf of and according to God and your offspring after you And I give to you and to your offspring after you the land you are living in as a stranger, all of the land Canaan for an everlasting property to posses, and to them [your descendants] I will exist as their God.’

And God said to ‘Abraham, ‘And you shall observe My Covenant Relationship, and your offspring after you in their generations. This is My Covenant Relationship between Me and between you and between your offspring after you. Circumcise among you, every male. And you all will be circumcised of the flesh of your foreskin and it will exist specifically as the sign of the Covenant Relationship between me and between you. And circumcise a son of eight days among you, every male on behalf of your home, he who is born in the family and he who desires to be bought from all of the sons of foreign lands, he who relationally is not from your seed. Certainly must be circumcised he who is born in your family, and he who is bought with your silver, and My Covenant Relationship exists in your flesh to be a Covenant Relationship forever. And the uncircumcised male who relationally is not circumcised of the flesh of his foreskin, then that soul shall be cut off from Her/His/Its family, My Covenant Relationship he has nullified.’



The land was merely a benefit of the Covenant; it was not the focus of the covenant. And as I have already said, the Promised Land is continually used as a metaphor for heaven. Also notice that Yah said that ‘Abraham would be a father of exceedingly great Gentiles.

Speaking of uncircumcised males Yah has said, ‘My Covenant Relationship he has nullified. One cannot benefit from a nullified covenant. And since repeatedly he has said Circumcised of the flesh, including the reference to circumcision directly before, this cannot be talking of circumcision of the heart. This is not a Covenant only related to the Yahudi’s ownership of the land; it is not only for the physical descendants of Abraham. This is the one and only Covenant of Yahuweh with man, it is the way we become Yahuweh’s children. Yahuweh didn’t say this is my Covenant with you, and then latter say that he is creating a covenant with gentiles, there is but one Covenant. All who are in Yah’s family are Yahudi (those who belong to Yah), and are Yisraelites (those who strive with and struggle on behalf of God). Born a gentile I have been adopted into Yah’s family, I am Yahudi. Abraham was a gentile, until he entered the covenant with Yahweh. If this covenant is only with ‘Abraham, and his physical descendants, then we are all in trouble, because there is no other Covenant in Scripture.

Matt wrote:
In your translation of Genesis 23:9 you have translated it as "he" not "her" when if using the same reasoning as you stated it would be "her," but then it would not make sense.

I just looked over Gen 23:9 again, and hu appears three times in the verse, twice in the masculine and once in the feminine. The two times it appears in the masculine, I translated it as him and he, and when it appeared in the feminine it was in relation to the land, so I translated it as it, although I had mentioned in footnotes elsewhere in the document that when speaking of the land, it is usually in the feminine, and could also accurately be translated as her. But each time I translated hu as he or him in this verse it was in the masculine and not feminine.


Matt wrote:
So, if we are going to apply a spiritual application to the verse, that we are going to be cut off from our family (God's family of spiritual children), then we have to apply a spiritual application to the first part of the passage as well, that circumcision must be of the heart and we must be bought by Yahshua's sacrifice, His blood.

That is flawed reasoning Matt. The first part does not leave any room for spiritualizing as it says of the flesh. God tells us that being cut off from our family is not something we should worry about, he tells us it will happen, it is being cut off from His family that we should be worried about.

Matt wrote:
Of course, if you want to physically partake of Passover in the place God chooses (Deuteronomy 16:2,5-8) then circumcision is a must. It is not that I do not want to physically partake of it, no, but rather because we are unable to.

To me the message seems to be you cannot participate in the Passover unless you are participating in the covenant, and you cannot participate in the covenant unless you are circumcised.
Does the fact that you are not able to offer an unblemished lamb at the temple in complete accord with the Torah stop you from commemorating it anyway? Does it mean we can or should ignore it?

Matt wrote:
Also, people like to quote Matthew 5:17-20 in order to push the notion that we have to be physically circumcised to be saved; however, I would like to point out that we need to read the whole Sermon on the Mount in order to understand what exactly He was taking about. And that was our inner attitude, our character and treatment of others, the loftier matters of Torah and the Prophets. In other words bringing the Torah into our hearts.

Yes he does speak of understanding and attitude, but he also talks of doing. And understanding does not negate doing. We understand by doing, can you do it for the wrong reason, and not understand it, YES, but just because you understand what it means doesn’t mean you are free to ignore doing it. Yahushua spoke often of keeping His commandments. He spoke often of understanding them as well, largely because the audience to whom he was speaking really didn’t have a problem with doing; they were just doing for the wrong reason. It’s like Ya’qob spoke of trust and works going hand in hand, the Yahudi of Yahushua’s time had come to rely on works, and forgotten about trust, it seems today that we have moved to the opposite where people proclaim faith, but ignore works. Both are essential, we show our Trust through our works, by obeying what He has asked us.

Matt wrote:
Will God honour one's circumcision if it was not done in honour of him? How can we say, "Phew, glad I was circumcised as a tot" and assume God accepts it? Take for example that not too long ago our parents were having their children circumcised because they thought it prevented masturbation as they had a negative attitude towards sex.

Since this issue has shown up so many times, I decided to ask my dad, why he circumcised me. He gave me a really straight forward answer, ‘The bible says to.’

Now does that mean that it was done in honor to Yahuweh, well my father was raised Roman Catholic, but is more non-denominational, and non-practicing than anything. So I don’t know.

I can’t control why I was circumcised, no one done as a child can, what I can control is what I take from it, and how I let it affect me. I can still come to understand its importance, and uses it as a sign to remind me. And I can still follow what Yahuweh has asked, and circumcise my sons when they are born, and they will have no say in it, but I will teach them what it means and why it was done.

Also while looking into this particular challenge; several things have occurred to me. In Joshua we are told that while those who were born in the wilderness where not circumcised, that all those who came out of Egypt were. Since none of them knew Yahuweh or had a relationship with Him, it is unlikely that they were circumcised in honor of Yah, most likely they were circumcised out of habit. Since Yah never said that they had to be circumcised again, Joshua 5:2 does not include “a second time” in the DSS. So the reason it was done doesn’t seem to matter there. Josiah grew up never having read Towrah, so was likely not circumcised in honor of Yah, but again out of tradition. Yah never told him to be circumcised again, so again it doesn’t seem to matter. Yahushua’s disciples were raised in a culture of rabbinical/pharisetical Judaism, so again not likely done in honor of Yah, and they were never asked to be circumcised again. As I said we they/we cannot control why were circumcised, we can only control how we view and understand it, and that seems to be enough for Yah. Those who are not are blessed in that they can choose to do it, in honor of Yahuweh.
Matt wrote:
1) Job, Abraham's contemporary, was a Gentile who was never asked to do the things Abraham was, yet was highly praised by God.

Little is known about who Job, so anything is speculation. We have no idea what happened, or what he did prior to the story told in Job.

Matt wrote:
2) Circumcising one's children separates the rite of circumcision from free-will, therefore it only establishes citizenship of Israel and not spiritual destiny. Circumcision does not make someone righteous.

The second part of this is a straw man, no one has said that circumcision makes one righteous.

The first part is a logical fallacy; A does not lead to B. There is free will in circumcision. There are two ways circumcision is described. The first is the parent using there free will obeys Yah and circumcises their child, but when that is not done Yah has provisions for adults who can use their free will to be circumcised. Since being circumcised does not force one into the covenant, one must still make that choice; free will is always in play. Also, citizenship is never mentioned, it is all about participation in the covenant.

Matt wrote:
3) Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant not long after his circumcision. Again meaning that the rite itself does not establish one's destiny.

A Straw Man. No one has said that circumcision is sufficient. It is necessary but not sufficient.

Matt wrote:
4) In Acts 10 Peter realised that the new Gentile believers should be baptised to confirm their new status as eternally living believers because it was in likeness of the burial and resurrection of Yahshua. Circumcising them would only identify them with Israel, when in fact they were not Israelites.

Acts is a record of the Acts of the Apostles, not Scripture. It is a history of what men did. Where these men in a position of great knowledge and experience, yes, but they were flawed men none the less. Peter was wrong before this, so we have no reason to think him perfect here. Also that is an extrapolation, not a statement made by Peter.

A loving Father who adopts children into his home makes no distinction between the adopted and the natural born. He loves both the same, and both have the same rules.
Matt wrote:
So where is the command that says I must be circumcised regardless?

See the Genesis verse above. An uncircumcised man who is not circumcised of the flesh has nullified Yah’s Covenant Relationship. If this Covenant only applies to the physical descendant of Abraham, then all of us Gentiles are in trouble, as it is the only Covenant Yahuweh has. Circumcise a son of eight days among you, every male on behalf of your home, he who is born in the family and he who desires to be bought from all of the sons of foreign lands, he who relationally is not from your seed. All of us gentiles are a part of Yahuweh’s family because we were bought by a descendant of Abraham.
Matt wrote:
Remember the topic: is circumcision a prerequisite for salvation?

It seems to me that this is only true by extension. As I understand it circumcision is a prerequisite for participation in the covenant. But since salvation is a benefit of the Covenant one cannot be saved if they are not within the Covenant Relationship.
Noel wrote:
'The Happen To Have Been Circumcised Brigade' may not only be missing the point, they may be helping others to miss the point as well. Consider the following

How can a circumcised and pork averse person imagine that they are okay and well within the precepts of the Torah when (for example) they are prepared to let a tsunaumi of sewage into their houses each day by absorbing the spiritual, moral, criminal, sexual, and anti-God output of their televisions. Even at it's most benign, these circumcised (and therefore OK with Yah folk) are happy to waste vast amounts of their lives watching completely unprofitable things such as sporting activities, soap operas and animations along with the idol worship of the celebrities and participants which inevitably follows. And this being frequently punctuated of course by mind altering advertisements to modify their behavior for the commercial benefit of others. And they are prepared to let their children do likewise, probably the most damaging thing you can do for your offspring. I am sure many here would not fit this description, but I am prepared to bet that there are also many who do

Please, any of you who fit this category either in whole, or in part, cease pointing the finger at those who happen to live in countries where circumcision is not the norm, does not happen automatically like it does where you are, and consider that maybe there are areas in your lives which themselves could do with a bit of cutting back. Yah tells us to set no evil thing before our eyes, and to teach his precepts to our children. I am sure if TV was as widely watched by the Jews in the dessert, then maybe Yah would have mentioned this aspect of life in the Torah. The average US citizen takes in between 25 and 30 hours each week of it.

The usual response to this, I find is from those who say 'well I only watch the news, and nature programes'

Oh Phull-eeze.

I do not say this from a point of view of 'Holier than thou', as I am probably the worst sinner on this forum. But I cannot put up with 'religiosity' from persons who may have got the wrong grip on reality, too heavy on ritual and too light on the disciplines within their own lives.

Noel, this is not only a straw man, but a non sequitur. No one has said all you have to do is be circumcised and then everything else is fine, no one, not one person here has said it. No one has said be circumcised and then go do whatever you want. This would be as if I took what you wrote and said that your argument was that as long as we don’t watch the crap on TV we are fine with Yah, and don’t need to listen to everything else he has said. That is not the point you are making, and it would be dishonest of me to say it was. This thread is about the topic of circumcision, there are other threads dedicated to other commandments of Yah, and other precepts, but this thread is to discuss circumcision, not in exclusion to everything else, but in inclusion of everything else.
The point being made by myself and others is that we should try in every way possible to follow Yahuweh’s instructions. The reason circumcision it is being stressed, at least by me, so much is because at least to some of us it appears that to Yah it is an exclusionary ordinance. When Yahuweh says that a man who is uncircumcised of the flesh has nullified His Covenant, it makes it come across as a pretty important issue in my opinion.

But again, and I will state this in all caps so as to stress it. CIRCUMCISION IS NOT SUFFCIENT, IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, NOT EVERYONE WHO IS CIRCUMCISED IS SAVED. There can we stop this now, this is one area where we all agree, circumcision is not sufficient for salvation.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline lassie1865  
#81 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 10:04:47 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Truly, truly.
Offline Matthew  
#82 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 3:17:42 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MadDog wrote:
And you didn't answer about Christmas, Halloween, or Easter? It's not written anywhere in scriputre that we can't celebrate them.


First passage that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 16:21-22 "Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to Yahweh your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these Yahweh your God hates." Of course there is the literal application, which we cannot do even if we wanted to since no altar is present in Jerusalem, but the spiritual application should be obvious.



I will hopefully respond to James' and shalom82's lengthy posts someday. But don't hold your breath because I feel as if I've spoken enough.
Offline MadDog  
#83 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 8:00:44 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
First passage that comes to mind is Deuteronomy 16:21-22 "Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to Yahweh your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these Yahweh your God hates." Of course there is the literal application, which we cannot do even if we wanted to since no altar is present in Jerusalem, but the spiritual application should be obvious.



I will hopefully respond to James' and shalom82's lengthy posts someday. But don't hold your breath because I feel as if I've spoken enough.


You still haven't answered my question?

Where in scripture does it specifically say that we cannot celebrate specifically by name Christmas, Easter, and Halloween? Of course the answer is you can't and yes the spiritual application should be obvious but it's not obvious to billions of Catholics and Protestants. They'll throw the same arguement you are about "it's not written in scripture" and also "that's the OLD TESTEMENT" canard. Hey Peter and Paul said it so that overrides Yahweh's Torah. I just don't see how you don't see that Matthew.

I am just trying to use the same logic you are with your "Where in scripture does it command gentiles to get circumcised?" Yes you won't find those specific words to the "T" however the spiritual applications should be obvious, if you want a relationship with Yahweh then follow his covenant to the best of your ability. And no, no where does Yahweh say that if you do this, you will be "more" righteous, but he does say that it is a token of the covenant. And yes there were certains things gentiles and even most Hebrews couldn't perform like the priestly Levite duties.

I think James, shalom82, and Yada have spoken very convincingly about this. You however want to treat Peter, Paul, Acts as the Torah itself. Perhaps taking Yada words under advisement is good here. Look at scripture from the beginning to end. Don't jump around from the so called Renewed Covenant back to the Torah and try and fit a square peg into a round hole. Just because it's in scripture doesn't mean Yahweh authorized it or condoned it, the scripture's are only reporting certain events that happened way back in the day. Something I think we are too familar with when people accuse Yahweh of authorizing the killing of babies by smashing them against rocks or condoning rape.

Some things came to mind on what happened with Peter and Cornelius:

1) Cornelius managed to please Yahweh, so much so that Yahweh sent an Angel AND an Apostle AND the Set-Apart Spirit to minister to him. On top of that Cornelius, "presumably" did it without the assistance of reading the Torah, Yahsuhwa, or even the Apostles. How many of us here and now can claim such a boast?

2) Cornelius having accomplished a great feat like this and James' best advise is that "that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Really? Really, really? THAT'S ALL that Cornelius and the other gentiles of his ilk are only able to handle, despite a visitation from an Angel and being filled with the Set-Apart Spirit. Insulting now that I think about it.

Quote:
Acts.15

[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
[19] Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
[20] But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
[23] And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
[24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
[25] It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[26] Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
[28] For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
[29] That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


3) Troubled you with words? Subverting your souls? The Torah troublesome and subversive? As if this scenario has never, ever come up in the past (i.e. the Torah). Please also note James' "my sentence is" remark, it's not "Thus says Yahweh." I also don't see the Set-Apart Spirit communicating anything to them at this meeting.

4) Judas Ischariot was also filled with the Set-Apart Spirit and able to perform all kinds of miracles too at one time. Look at how that turned out.

Edited by user Monday, February 7, 2011 10:19:36 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Matthew  
#84 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 10:14:42 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MadDog wrote:
You still haven't answered my question?


I believe I did answer your question. The Hebrew word אשרה ('asherah) should explain the link to Easter and associated traditions. I believe Jeremiah is thorough in its debunking of Christmas.

MadDog wrote:
I am just trying to use the same logic you are with your "Where in scripture does it command gentiles to get circumcised?" I think James, shalom82, and Yada have spoken very convincingly about this. You however want to treat Peter, Paul, Acts as the Torah itself. Perhaps taking Yada words under advisement is good here. Look at scripture from the beginning to end. Don't jump around from the so called Renewed Covenant back to the Torah and try and fit a square peg into a round hole. Just because it's in scripture doesn't mean Yahweh authorized it or condoned it, the scripture's are only reporting certain events that happened way back in the day. Something I think we are too familar with when people accuse Yahweh of authorizing the killing of babies by smashing them against rocks or condoning rape.


Why are only Levites told to do temple service? Why is the land of Canaan promised to Abraham's physical descendants, why are other nations not included? I'm just saying circumcision is not a requirement for salvation because there is no command for Gentiles to be circumcised, unless of course you have purposefully chosen to live in the land of Israel and be a sign-bearer. It's a noble thing, but not a requirement. If circumcision is a requirement for salvation regardless of one's condition then the only way we can have our sins atoned for is through the literal application of Leviticus 16.

To say Acts is not Scripture then you have no worthy record of the fulfilment of Pentecost. To throw out the book of Mark leaves you with no verifiable evidence of the chronological fulfilment of Passover. And then Matthew agrees with both Luke and Mark at every turn, which I don't think Yada has considered. So that leaves John, but then in Rev 21:14 Yahshua considers the 12 worthy. But since Yada doesn't trust Acts then Matthias (Acts 1:26) can't logically be included because he was put forth by unreliable Peter in the unreliable book of Acts. It's a one-way ticket to a world of contradictions.

MadDog wrote:
Some things came to mind on what happened with Peter and Cornelius:

1) Cornelius somehow managed to please Yahweh, so much so that Yahweh sent an Angel to minister to him. On top of that Cornelius, "presumably" did it without the assistance of reading the Torah, Yahsuwha, or even the Apostles.

2) Cornelius having accomplished a great feat like this and James' best advise is that "that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." Really? Really, really? THAT'S ALL the Cornelius and the other gentiles of his ilk are only able to handle, despite a visitation from an Angel and being filled with the Set-Apart Spirit. Insulting now that I think about it.


The point is to show that God poured out His Spirit on uncircumcised Gentiles and some of the first advice was to stay away sexual immorality and from pagan traditions. That's great advise if you ask me.

MadDog wrote:
3) Trouble you with words? Subverting your souls? The Torah troublesome and subversive? I also don't see the Set-Apart Spirit communicating anything to them at this meeting.


Again, where is the command that Gentiles, from the giving of the Torah to Moses until today, have to move to Israel to carry out the signs, for example Leviticus 12?

Israel failed horribly in trying to carry out the literal signs of the Torah. To say the Gentiles had to carry out the signs that were the task of Israelites would be placing on them an unnecessary burden.
Offline MadDog  
#85 Posted : Monday, February 7, 2011 11:32:06 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
Matthew wrote:
I'm just saying circumcision is not a requirement for salvation because there is no command for Gentiles to be circumcised, unless of course you have purposefully chosen to live in the land of Israel and be a sign-bearer. It's a noble thing, but not a requirement. If circumcision is a requirement for salvation regardless of one's condition then the only way we can have our sins atoned for is through the literal application of Leviticus 16.


Well there you have it as you have stated it, Matthew. The Torah in itself is not a requirement either, by reading scipture backwards, but that is not Yahweh said. Again I say to you Matthew, that circumcision is a ONLY A SIGN OF THE COVENANT, it is a doorway, nothing else.

I'm taking a break. I added stuff to my reply that you didn't see. However, how about we just kick all "scripture" to the curb altogether? That would be best since there is absolutely nothing spiritually or physically that we can do or attempt to do (in this sense you are correct). So what if we read and comprehend the "Torah" spiritually? What good does that do? That in itself doesn't guarantee salvation either. I thought that the Torah was perfect and complete?

What about physically? Nope! Won't work either because we are not Jews, have a Temple, etc.. How about a symbolic gesture like circumcision? Nope, out the window with that idea too whether you're a Jew or Gentile because it doesn't even begin to lead to salvation.

Spiritually? Maybe, only if we have "warm fuzzy feelings" about Yahweh or is it called "faith." That's it...faith, faith is the answer. I'll just pretend that there is a God beyond all reason. I'll hope beyond all hope and pray that there is a God and if my belief is great enough and true when I die, then ka-boom, instant salvation.

I am changing my screen name from "MadDog" to "SadDog." I thought Yahweh was someone I could trust. I thought I could rely upon his word. Turns out it's a bunch of hooey. I thought that maybe if I wanted a relationship with him, I should at least try to observe the Torah with all my might, strenght and soul.

I thought Yahweh would enable me to somehow, someway would understand that I was only human with free-will. I was bound to fail all the while counting on Yahweh's Torah not to fail. Peter, Paul, and James were correct, and Yahweh lied.

Even though the spiritual applications should be obvious of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham (i.e. righteous and unrighteous) (i.e. Jew and Gentile), but nooooooo, that's not obvious enough either.

Yahweh tried to enable Israel to stand as a beacon of light for all the world by providing them with a city, a temple, the Ark of the Covenant, etc. They were supposed to be the shinning example for all the world to see. However they failed miserably, so since they failed miserably, that means Yahweh failed miserably. But what was Yahweh to do? Break his covenant?

According to Matthew, yes, apparently so. Yahweh broke his promise with the Jews AND Gentiles or was so inept that he just couldn't keep it up from his side of the covenant. If the Jews can't keep their part of the covenant, why should we burden the Gentiles with it? Neither Jew nor Gentile can keep the sign of the covenant, i.e. circumcision or is it just the entire Torah, Prophets and Psalms as best as we can observe them. I fogret which.

I thought only humans could break their word, but not Yahweh. According to Matthew, Yahweh has broken ALL of his covenant, not just circumcision. What is there left for us Matthew? Reading a bunch of stupid words of a bygone era, of a civilization snuffed out by history. Where is your god? Is your god living or dead? By what authority should I listen to him? How can I trust in him?

Why should I, a gentile, even listen to Yahweh?

Quote:
Exod.5
[1] And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith Yahweh God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
[2] And Pharaoh said, Who is Yahweh, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not Yahweh, neither will I let Israel go.

Edited by user Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:08:21 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline FredSnell  
#86 Posted : Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:45:23 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
To the great minds here that I just love to read. Your answers are always, even if you yourselves feel questionable, are always beautiful and in truth and so refreshing. If I might though, doesn't circumcision require us to set apart something small and to us, that's really rather insignificant? Don't get upset with me, but aren't the ppl of today,(those to YHWH) really just a small thing, yet in the end, be one of the largest events ever. Just like the small country of really no significance except to those living there, yet in the end be the very catalyst that the entire world will witness? Isn't setting ourselves apart only really of any significance btw us and the Creator? Help me out! I feel that it's actually what He's been telling us all along. His requirements arent' hard and don't ask much. But it is us ourselves that make it large. Like christian do on Sunday, making it a huge event, when He just wants us in His company, seperated.
Offline FredSnell  
#87 Posted : Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:30:23 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I'm gonna expand on my thoughts a little more. Sense Islam requires ones thinking head to be severed in the event you do not believe, and our Father ask only a small portion of our unthinking head, (sorry about that) I think it's for us men to do this if only for the reason being, if you do decide to take this covenant, not seriously, so goes your spiritual marriage. And as far as our physical marriage, what's the last thing any man that would cheat on his wife see, just before he does cheat? His covenant btw him and Father, causing any man, I would hope, to remember that oath and stop and turn around. Sorry, just thinking as I'm working.
Seperate, it means so much, I feel, but like I said, "I'm a baby," among you.
Offline Daniel  
#88 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:47:58 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

SF May Ban Infant Circumcision

Quote:
Self-described "civil rights advocates" say that a ballot proposition to ban circumcision is on track for gathering signatures, meaning that San Franciscans may vote on the measure this November.

The proposed law is being spearheaded by local resident Lloyd Schofield, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

It's part of a national push to end the procedure, which some say is steeped in tradition but poses risks and has little medical benefit.

[snip]
[pardon the pun]

Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.

If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed.


Read the entire article here.
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline James  
#89 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:11:42 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Daniel wrote:
SF May Ban Infant Circumcision



Read the entire article here.


And yet they continue to allow abortion. So foreskin has more rights than a fetus.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline FredSnell  
#90 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:12:41 PM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Even though the SF ban is the most ridiculous story for some time, in a way it makes sense. With folks young enough learning of YHWH and marrying, is makes sense to me the Satan would start putting in penalties against these true children of His. They being some of the very first kids raised under Torah from birth and learning of Yah's path. After todays earthquake in that city with that name, if SF were to be hit next, I could see a more direct message being sent. What a mess.
Offline VinceB.  
#91 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:53:57 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

James wrote:
And yet they continue to allow abortion. So foreskin has more rights than a fetus.



reading that over at Drudgereport, that was my first thought: it's OK to kill babies but 1000 dollar fine and a year in prison if you have your child circumcised...

political and religious schemes are getting seriously thick now; the shipwrecked cherub must be pulling out a lot of stops in bamboozling the human race
HWHY
Offline sirgodfrey  
#92 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:28:25 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Don't get the Khazar Jews mixed up with true and physical Yisra'el.
Offline VinceB.  
#93 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:40:53 PM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

sirgodfrey wrote:
Don't get the Khazar Jews mixed up with true and physical Yisra'el.


I confess, as much as a shock learning about Paul/Sha'uwl (what his true nature was), trying to figure out whom the pedigree of Yisreal/Jacob/Ya'aqob is from that of Esau...I've read/heard Khazar Jews are not descendants of Yisrael, rather of Esau - which to me would be more shocking a discovery than what I've learned about Paul...so yeah, I ask Yah to clarify this to me and teach me the truth just as He'd done with me related to Sha'uwl.
HWHY
Offline Matthew  
#94 Posted : Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:21:28 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James wrote:
And yet they continue to allow abortion. So foreskin has more rights than a fetus.


Well spotted James. The hypocrisy is maddening.
Offline alphacanis  
#95 Posted : Saturday, February 26, 2011 8:37:26 PM(UTC)
alphacanis
Joined: 10/15/2009(UTC)
Posts: 5
Man
Location: orange county, california

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Foreskin vs. Fetus. Defending Sha’uwl in the resistance of reason has to have become a tiresome burden when this analogy is meaningful.
Offline Daniel  
#96 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 3:44:11 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

Today is tagim's big day. Lets all remember him and his little friend in prayer today.
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline tagim  
#97 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 10:49:34 AM(UTC)
tagim
Joined: 9/30/2010(UTC)
Posts: 218
Man
Location: westen new york

Thanks: 3 times
ouch!
Offline Richard  
#98 Posted : Monday, February 28, 2011 11:44:31 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
I was trying to think of an entertaining snippet to share with you, Bill ...
Offline jatrom  
#99 Posted : Sunday, May 22, 2011 7:58:35 AM(UTC)
jatrom
Joined: 10/7/2010(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Namibia

Well, after my decision to start keeping Sabbath, this one is next - circumcision or not... Seems that there is no way around it. Only thing is, my youngest son(10years old) isn't fond of the idea. I promised him however that he'll be lying next to his father... What I am greatful for is the fact that my sons can take this journey with me which gives me the chance to explain and teach them 'on the fly'..
Offline VinceB.  
#100 Posted : Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:45:46 AM(UTC)
VinceB.
Joined: 12/2/2010(UTC)
Posts: 228

Knowing Yah relationally on His terms as He's delineated it in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms; in His Sabbaths, His Feast Days is how He brings us into a relationship with Him.

As I continue reading Book II Chapter 6 on Shabuwa' in preparation for that Feast coming up, more and more I'm convinced 'observing' the Torah is how we share what we know with those around us...people see us observing Torah Prophets and Psalms (keeping Sabbaths, keeping Feasts, Circumcision etc) is sharing what we know whether they like it or not...some will embrace it and try and find out more; most will reject it - regardless, by observing it we're sharing what we know with those around us.

I can appreciate the you showing what you know by observing it in which others can know the will of Yah too...
HWHY
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.