• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Paul often warned about outward acts of religion done in lieu of inner spiritual conviction and devotion. If I I speak with the tongue of men and angels but don't have love...is followed by the symbolism of loud instruments. Likewise, if you are getting circumcised as an outward religious act in lieu of conversion inside...its of no effect, so why bother? Better to not do it at all.
 
Mojo said:
Paul often warned about outward acts of religion done in lieu of inner spiritual conviction and devotion. If I I speak with the tongue of men and angels but don't have love...is followed by the symbolism of loud instruments. Likewise, if you are getting circumcised as an outward religious act in lieu of conversion inside...its of no effect, so why bother? Better to not do it at all.
Click to expand...
That applies to anything.
 
The Revolting Man said:
That applies to anything.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand your reply.

I'm more on your side here. I believe that Those verses that seem to be absolutely prohibiting circumcision are probably spiritually instructional, not literal, proscriptive, prohibitions. I just don't see Paul encouraging that. This is the greatest proponent of Grace the scriptures have! Why would he be giving do and don't over a very clearly lawful thing? Grace opens, it doesn't restrict.

Whether for religious conversion (inward) that one wants to make outward, or for hygienic reasons, it would seem that Grace would allow for either, or both.
 
I'm still here because I like puzzles, and I like mental excersize and trying to figure things out. I like following debates and sometimes offer my brain jumble in type. :rolleyes: just skip it if you want to. Lol

Mojo said:
Whether for religious conversion (inward) that one wants to make outward, or for hygienic reasons, it would seem that Grace would allow for either, or both.
Click to expand...
Well said. Great point!

I think even with an extreme modern procedure, grace is going to "cover it" even if someone later decided the all off foreskin removal was more then was required.

The more extreme cut that those adhering to Judaism came up with (according to historical info) was in response to what exactly? Pride or envy? A desire to be distinctly different or better then other believers? To go the extra mile or rather inch or two in what they sacrificed to be in covenant?

Peter after the vision that prepared him for the assignment, and then seeing Holy spirit given to those in the household of Cornelious said "Can any forbid water?"....not circumcision. One might assume they were already circumcised, but that detail does not appear important enough to record.
That story also tells us that John the Baptist initiated a baptism of immersion. This seems to have been the outer sign of the believers heart (circumcised heart?) that put any convert into the body of christ. When they added souls at Pentecost they counted those baptised.
Maybe part of why Paul said "if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing"
You would then be trusting in the wrong thing.

Baptism= finished work of redemption. The believer is a new creature who's sins are covered by Yeshua's shed blood.

Getting circumcised after baptism? Might reveal a heart that really did not believe in that finished work of redemption. = No profit.

Now I'm sure the religious leaders who hated Yeshua and those who believed on Him still wanted to keep as much control of the people as possible, but why would anyone choose to let those Yeshua called blind guides lead them?

This gulf is why Judaism and Christianity are not compatible. Some followed the word made flesh and some followed those who did not want to lose their imagined authority refused to submit themselves to the one who has been given the throne.
We believe those were perhaps not even Israelites circumcised or not. "He is not a Jew that is one outwardly" could have been referencing those that Yeshua said were NOT His sheep.
If you have not yet read about king Herod, the Jewish Encyclopedia last time I checked still had enough info there to show you an Edomite heart.
(Search herod the great, but herod the terrible would be far more accurate!)
 
Start with this article and its references. This is all taken from Jewish sources recording their own history, such as the Jewish encyclopaedia. I am not certain of the original texts behind it, or if they are available in English, but the overall account of circumcision being made more strict by the rabbis around 140ad is fairly universally stated as truth by Jewish sources, both pro and anti circumcision, it's not in dispute.
https://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/historical-and-scriptural-evidence-milah-and-periah/

This article explains the connection to modern medical practices:
Routine Infant Circumcision was introduced during the late 1800's and throughout the 1900's on the pretext that it offered health and hygiene benefits, would stop the habit of masturbation, and proffered an endless list of presumed cures for a variety of ailments and diseases. As mother's opted to use physicians to give birth in hospitals or clinics, rather than using a midwife for home birth, the practice of routine circumcision of male infants blossomed and became nearly universal.

As one would expect, many of those experienced in the procedure were Jewish physicians and mohels. They taught new physicians to perform the surgical procedure as was practiced by Jewish ritual circumcision procedures. This meant that most infants underwent a fairly radical complete form of circumcision. What was performed was the Jewish "Milah" followed by "Periah", with most if not all of the foreskin being removed and the frenulum either severely damaged or completely removed. This remains the routine infant circumcision procedure to this day.
Click to expand...
 
FollowingHim said:
Start with this article and its references. This is all taken from Jewish sources recording their own history, such as the Jewish encyclopaedia. I am not certain of the original texts behind it, or if they are available in English, but the overall account of circumcision being made more strict by the rabbis around 140ad is fairly universally stated as truth by Jewish sources, both pro and anti circumcision, it's not in dispute.
https://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/historical-and-scriptural-evidence-milah-and-periah/

This article explains the connection to modern medical practices:
Click to expand...
Well that was interesting but actually quoted exactly no historical sources. Come on @FollowingHim you are smarter than to think that’s anything other and a Snopes style link to pretend there are facts behind this thing.
 
That photo is minor compared. THIS is why these dads are so desperately trying to protect their sons!

I saw another video too where a woman was making connections as to WHY these judges are ruling as they are.

This is some sick stuff here. This is what those helping children "transition" are setting them up for.
Care to see trans surgeries? This is make you lose your lunch stuff here. ☹️
Graphic video that includes profanity if I remember right. People that think being "open and affirming" is kind need to see this. It talks about the miserable failure of doctors to duplicate reproductive organs. Basically the poor confused child is being cheated out of some top quality goods, and ending up with something more like a made in China dollar store trinket that is busted when they get it!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/KtbIdjx8741G/
 
I don't agree with everything that Billy Graham said, but I do agree with the statement that “If God doesn't punish America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Ok, that was probably hyperbole, and just Billy Graham's way of saying things, because we know God doesn't need to apologize to anybody, but it is nonetheless a profound statement.
 
FollowingHim said:
Routine Infant Circumcision was introduced during the late 1800's and throughout the 1900's on the pretext that it offered health and hygiene benefits, would stop the habit of masturbation, and proffered an endless list of presumed cures for a variety of ailments and diseases. As mother's opted to use physicians to give birth in hospitals or clinics, rather than using a midwife for home birth, the practice of routine circumcision of male infants blossomed and became nearly universal.
Click to expand...

"stop the habit of masturbation" only works if the procedure lessons or destroys the ability to feel pleasure.

Hard not to see the same undercurrent of man-hating feminism that today induces women to transition their little boys so they won't grow up to be part of the patriarchy. This did after all start during the rise of first wave feminism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top