Could you share with us the verses that detail the existence of these ceremonial laws and moral laws

[Mercy74]

OK. That is my understanding too.

But you say Isaac was circumcised without hands. Did Abraham control the tool you speak of with some kind of brain waves? I know Solomon actually lit his stables with electric lamps because some of them have been found. So did Abraham use some kind of computer to manipulate the circumcision tool? Or did Abraham use his hands to control the tool? If he did Isaac was not circumcised without hands. And there is no way Abraham was able to circumcise the heart of Isaac. Only God can circumcise the heart. And no one gets to heaven without the circumcision of the heart.

WITHout means "absence" of hands. When a student is marked "absent" from class it means the student was supposed to be present in class that day. So please pay close attention to what I am saying. Isaac was circumcised WITHout hands, mean hands were supposed to be used but a metal tool instead or in conjunction WITH. The holy commandment said nothing about a "tool" being used. That tool or sword must come from G-d to perform the circumcision.

 

[Mercy74]

Why do you refer to it as the "foreskin of sin"? And why are females apparently free from it, although not from sin itself? Did foreskin become sinful, or what made *it* the sinful thing?

So what would you say about Christians who claim circumcision is barbaric? I find it hard to accept that the physical is barbaric, if the spiritual is a life saving change.

The promise was made to Abraham, Abraham wanted an heir or son to obtain his inheritance. Abraham was promised to become a great nation, circumcision was the "proof" that Abraham would indeed receive this promise. Circumcision involves the cutting away that sinful nature. It was common practice to cut off the foreskins with a man made metal tool, knife or sword. After that "outer flesh" or that which Pharisee Shaul calls "body of flesh" is permanently cut away, that man remains circumcised forever. A similar thing occurs when a caterpillar transforms into a beautiful butterfly.

 

[Gary K]

WITHout means "absence" of hands. When a student is marked "absent" from class it means the student was supposed to be present in class that day. So please pay close attention to what I am saying. Isaac was circumcised WITHout hands, mean hands were supposed to be used but a metal tool instead or in conjunction WITH. The holy commandment said nothing about a "tool" being used. That tool or sword must come from G-d to perform the circumcision.

A tool held in a person's hand becomes an extension of their hand to accomplish a certain task. They are called hand tools for a reason. They are meant to be used by the hand.

I'm sorry but your reasoning reminds me of the kind of abstraction found in the Babylonian Talmud which so distorted the meaning of scripture that the Jews ended up believing in anything but scripture by the time of Christ's birth. Their pride in their Greek style "reasoning" led them to reject and murder Jesus rather than taking the common sense meaning of scripture.

Genesis 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.*n5
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.

In this original passage to Abraham on circumcision there are provided no instructions as to how circumcision was to be performed. God left it up to Abraham's common sense as to how this was to be done.

Since you insist that the meaning of the requirement of circumcision means it must be done by a God-provided tool, where in the instructions to Abraham did God say He was providing the tool with which to perform the circumcision?

Your abstraction collapses pretty rapidly in the plain reading of scripture.

 

[Gary K]

The promise was made to Abraham, Abraham wanted an heir or son to obtain his inheritance. Abraham was promised to become a great nation, circumcision was the "proof" that Abraham would indeed receive this promise. Circumcision involves the cutting away that sinful nature. It was common practice to cut off the foreskins with a man made metal tool, knife or sword. After that "outer flesh" or that which Pharisee Shaul calls "body of flesh" is permanently cut away, that man remains circumcised forever. A similar thing occurs when a caterpillar transforms into a beautiful butterfly.

Paul quite clearly refutes this argument.

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also;
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Add to this Paul's warning to the Galatians about trusting in physical circumcision called for by the Judaizers. He is astonished at how quickly they are being deceived into stopping trusting in the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision of the heart. You know that circumcision found in Colossians 2. Instead they are being convinced to trust in physical circumcision.

 

[Mercy74]

A tool held in a person's hand becomes an extension of their hand to accomplish a certain task. They are called hand tools for a reason. They are meant to be used by the hand.

I'm sorry but your reasoning reminds me of the kind of abstraction found in the Babylonian Talmud which so distorted the meaning of scripture that the Jews ended up believing in anything but scripture by the time of Christ's birth. Their pride in their Greek style "reasoning" led them to reject and murder Jesus rather than taking the common sense meaning of scripture.



In this original passage to Abraham on circumcision there are provided no instructions as to how circumcision was to be performed. God left it up to Abraham's common sense as to how this was to be done.

Since you insist that the meaning of the requirement of circumcision means it must be done by a God-provided tool, where in the instructions to Abraham did God say He was providing the tool with which to perform the circumcision?

Your abstraction collapses pretty rapidly in the plain reading of scripture.

A tool held in a person's hand becomes an extension of their hand to accomplish a certain task. They are called hand tools for a reason. They are meant to be used by the hand.

I'm sorry but your reasoning reminds me of the kind of abstraction found in the Babylonian Talmud which so distorted the meaning of scripture that the Jews ended up believing in anything but scripture by the time of Christ's birth. Their pride in their Greek style "reasoning" led them to reject and murder Jesus rather than taking the common sense meaning of scripture.



In this original passage to Abraham on circumcision there are provided no instructions as to how circumcision was to be performed. God left it up to Abraham's common sense as to how this was to be done.

Since you insist that the meaning of the requirement of circumcision means it must be done by a God-provided tool, where in the instructions to Abraham did God say He was providing the tool with which to perform the circumcision?

Your abstraction collapses pretty rapidly in the plain reading of scripture.

G-d never mentions a "hand tool" or any man made tool to be used to perform the circumcision required. Paul says the circumcision from Christ is to be performed WITHout hands. Again, the word "hand" is not mentioned in the ancient text (Genesis 17:12), so the "extension from the hand" is clearly an addition to the scripture.

John 6:63

The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I am commanding you.

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

 

[Mercy74]

Paul quite clearly refutes this argument.



Add to this Paul's warning to the Galatians about trusting in physical circumcision called for by the Judaizers. He is astonished at how quickly they are being deceived into stopping trusting in the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision of the heart. You know that circumcision found in Colossians 2. Instead they are being convinced to trust in physical circumcision.

"Circumcision on the 8th day" is a holy commandment from G-d.

Leviticus 12
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

 

[Gary K]

"Circumcision on the 8th day" is a holy commandment from G-d.

Leviticus 12
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

I'll stick with Paul and the apostles and disregard the enemies of Paul and the Gentile Christians.

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, andnot in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[Thera]

G-d never mentions a "hand tool" or any man made tool to be used to perform the circumcision required. Paul says the circumcision from Christ is to be performed WITHout hands. Again, the word "hand" is not mentioned in the ancient text (Genesis 17:12), so the "extension from the hand" is clearly an addition to the scripture.

I thought they used rocks? The only tools I remember mentioned in the bible were rocks (flint knives) used by Zipporah and Joshua. God actually tells Joshua to make flint knives.

It sounds kind of silly to claim circumcision was supposed to be done with hands only (i.e. without tools).

 

[Mercy74]

I thought they used rocks? The only tools I remember mentioned in the bible were rocks (flint knives) used by Zipporah and Joshua. God actually tells Joshua to make flint knives.

It sounds kind of silly to claim circumcision was supposed to be done with hands only (i.e. without tools).

So you have to quote what God said to Joshua to somehow prove your point. The holy commandment was made to Abraham, many years prior. Let us carefully look at Joshua 5:2;

At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.”

Of course the younger generation had not been circumcised. However we can not ignore the word "again". No mention of the original commandment "circumcision on the 8th day".

 

[Gary K]

I thought they used rocks? The only tools I remember mentioned in the bible were rocks (flint knives) used by Zipporah and Joshua. God actually tells Joshua to make flint knives.

It sounds kind of silly to claim circumcision was supposed to be done with hands only (i.e. without tools).

Or Zipporah could have used an obsidian knife. It's actually less likely to cause an infection than stainless steel, and it's sharper. It's found wherever there there have been lava flows.

The argument being used here is basically the same one used against the Galatians. It's to trust in the ceremonial laws rather than to faith in Christ. It's the same blindness come upon Israel that Paul speaks to. The foolishness of saying that the outward circumcision is the same as the circumcision of the heart, done by God Himself and promised by God, is pretty remarkable.

 

[Mercy74]

Or Zipporah could have used an obsidian knife. It's actually less likely to cause an infection than stainless steel, and it's sharper. It's found wherever there there have been lava flows.

The argument being used here is basically the same one used against the Galatians. It's to trust in the ceremonial laws rather than to faith in Christ. It's the same blindness come upon Israel that Paul speaks to. The foolishness of saying that the outward circumcision is the same as the circumcision of the heart, done by God Himself and promised by God, is pretty remarkable.

The generation of Joshua did not trust in ceremonial laws because the younger generation had never been circumcised. Joshua had to circumcise the entire congregation. Did Moses circumcise his sons? Circumcision on the 8th day is supposed to be performed by the father!

 

[Thera]

The generation of Joshua did not trust in ceremonial laws because the younger generation had never been circumcised. Joshua had to circumcise the entire congregation. Did Moses circumcise his sons? Circumcision on the 8th day is supposed to be performed by the father!

Where does scripture say that?

 

[Mercy74]

G-d told Abraham to circumcise his son on the 8th day. Abraham is Isaac's father.

 

[Gary K]

The generation of Joshua did not trust in ceremonial laws because the younger generation had never been circumcised. Joshua had to circumcise the entire congregation. Did Moses circumcise his sons? Circumcision on the 8th day is supposed to be performed by the father!

Where does scripture say that?

The fact that Joshua circumcised all those who entered the promised land is found in Joshua 5.

The rest of his post is nothing but a rabbit trail. The reason the kids were not circumcised during the time in the wilderness was exactly because they were traveling around in the wilderness. If you live in tents on sand the dust gets into everything. Circumcising the kids would have resulted in many, many infections. God is reasonable so He put off the circumcisions until after they got to land that was not all sand because of the hardship of infections.

Joshua did the circumcision just after the COI crossed the Jordan River. That is told in verse 1 of chapter 5.

 

[Gary K]

The generation of Joshua did not trust in ceremonial laws because the younger generation had never been circumcised. Joshua had to circumcise the entire congregation. Did Moses circumcise his sons? Circumcision on the 8th day is supposed to be performed by the father!

The fact that Zipporah circumcised her sons while Moses was being threatened with death and that was acceptable to God says your entire argument is a fallacy. Moses would have been killed if her circumcision of her sons was not acceptable. On top of that God called Moses to rescue his fellow Israelites from bondage knowing that Moses' sons were not circumcised at that time. That they weren't was no secret from God at any time.

I find it very ironic that your arguments up to this point was that all physical circumcisions were done without hands because God would provide a tool. The irony is great that you point everyone to the very verses where God told Joshua to make hand tools, i.e. knives, to use for the circumcisions. Knives cannot be used without hands. This was the very place in scripture for you to show the proof of no hands being used. The very fact that God told Joshua to now circumcise the people who made it to the promised land with the knives he was to make says that God had no problem with them being uncircumcised up to that point. If Israel had been rebelling against God in not circumcising their children He would have never allowed them to enter Canaan as the previous time they were to enter Canaan God turned them back because of their rebellion and lack of faith.

Your arguments are meaningless.

 

[Mercy74]

The fact that Joshua circumcised all those who entered the promised land is found in Joshua 5.

Joshua 5:2
At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.”

Only the younger generation were not circumcised, so circumcision had to be performed again. The second circumcision (the word "again" is used by YHWH) was to be performed by flint knives. What does "again" mean? Joshua must have performed a second circumcision with flint knives?

The rest of his post is nothing but a rabbit trail. The reason the kids were not circumcised during the time in the wilderness was exactly because they were traveling around in the wilderness. If you live in tents on sand the dust gets into everything. Circumcising the kids would have resulted in many, many infections. God is reasonable so He put off the circumcisions until after they got to land that was not all sand because of the hardship of infections

Scripture reference for this assertion? Joshua 5 deals with the second circumcision, not the first.

 

[Mercy74]

The fact that Zipporah circumcised her sons while Moses was being threatened with death and that was acceptable to God says your entire argument is a fallacy. Moses would have been killed if her circumcision of her sons was not acceptable. On top of that God called Moses to rescue his fellow Israelites from bondage knowing that Moses' sons were not circumcised at that time. That they weren't was no secret from God at any time.

Please read my post #101:
"Moses was circumcised by his mother! So women or mothers played a vital role in keeping the law of circumcision."

I find it very ironic that your arguments up to this point was that all physical circumcisions were done without hands because God would provide a tool. The irony is great that you point everyone to the very verses where God told Joshua to make hand tools, i.e. knives, to use for the circumcisions. Knives cannot be used without hands. This was the very place in scripture for you to show the proof of no hands being used. The very fact that God told Joshua to now circumcise the people who made it to the promised land with the knives he was to make says that God had no problem with them being uncircumcised up to that point. If Israel had been rebelling against God in not circumcising their children He would have never allowed them to enter Canaan as the previous time they were to enter Canaan God turned them back because of their rebellion and lack of faith. Your arguments are meaningless.

Did Joshua circumcise the Israelites the "second time" with flint knives?

Joshua 5:2
At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time."

 

[Thera]

Did Moses circumcise his sons? Circumcision on the 8th day is supposed to be performed by the father!

Please read my post #101:
"Moses was circumcised by his mother! So women or mothers played a vital role in keeping the law of circumcision."

You're contradicting yourself. First you say circumcision is supposed to be done by men (the father), then you say women play a vital role in circumcising. Which is it? Either way, you are clearly wrong in one instance, and I say it is the first instance that is incorrect.

Did Joshua circumcise the Israelites the "second time" with flint knives?

Joshua 5:2
At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make for yourself flint knives and circumcise again the sons of Israel the second time."

Obviously, the first time was in Genesis 17 with Abraham, when Abraham circumcised the males in his household. Since that day, no mass circumcision had been needed, as boys were circumcised at 8 days of age. Circumcision was again needed in Joshua's time, as the Israelites had let the covenant sign lapse - whether due to being in Egypt, or the travels in the desert, or for something else. Once one has been cured of one's foreskin, how can one be cured of it a second time? What else can the second circumcision mean then, other than the second since Abraham?

This was why Joshua 5:9 states "And the Lord said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day."

The reproach of Egypt on the Israelites (uncircumcision) was rolled away by their circumcision.

 

[Mercy74]

You're contradicting yourself. First you say circumcision is supposed to be done by men (the father), then you say women play a vital role in circumcising. Which is it? Either way, you are clearly wrong in one instance, and I say it is the first instance that is incorrect.

No contradiction:

Genesis 21:4
Eight days after Isaac was born, Abraham circumcised him as God had commanded.

Obviously, the first time was in Genesis 17 with Abraham, when Abraham circumcised the males in his household. Since that day, no mass circumcision had been needed, as boys were circumcised at 8 days of age. Circumcision was again needed in Joshua's time, as the Israelites had let the covenant sign lapse - whether due to being in Egypt, or the travels in the desert, or for something else. Once one has been cured of one's foreskin, how can one be cured of it a second time? What else can the second circumcision mean then, other than the second since Abraham?
This was why Joshua 5:9 states "And the Lord said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day."
The reproach of Egypt on the Israelites (uncircumcision) was rolled away by their circumcision.

Abraham did not circumcise every male living in his house on the 8th day.

Romans 9:7
Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too.

 

[Thera]

No contradiction:

Genesis 21:4
Eight days after Isaac was born, Abraham circumcised him as God had commanded.

So women (e.g. mothers) can circumcise also, as in Zipporah's case.

Abraham did not circumcise every male living in his house on the 8th day.

Hence this was the first circumcision of the sons of Israel. The second (in Joshua's time) was when they had allowed themselves into uncircumcision again (by not circumcising males on the eighth day).