Passover & Christianity

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/29/2017 at 10:57 PM, RichardRuhling said:

Ron, We both agree that the whole Bible is inspired. We differ on interpretation.

Yes, we both agree that the Bible is inspired.  The serpent did not try to convince Eve that God's instructions regarding the tree and fruit were not inspired-- that would have been difficult since she had heard the instructions either directly from God himself or relayed through Adam, who she knew spoke regularly with God face to face.  Instead, the serpent convinced Eve that God's inspired instructions were not valid.  That is the difference between what you believe and what I believe.  I believe the Word of God given through Moses is still valid, because I am living during the time that God's Word itself declares that it would still be valid, and because Jesus and his followers lived according to all of God's Word.

During the great apostasy foretold by Jesus and Paul, Christians found many clever theories to render various parts of the Bible no longer valid.  They were so successful in convincing themselves some parts of Scripture were no longer valid that they would condemn as heretics those who still lived the way Jesus and the apostles had lived.  Of course, the theologians who did not live according to God's Law of Moses (as Jesus and the apostles had lived) felt the need to justify their own lawlessness. 

One method they used to justify their non-Biblical lifestyle was to invent a classification system to divide God's instructions into "moral" law and "ceremonial" law (and various other categories) so they could invalidate those instructions that seemed too bothersome or too Jewish.  Such a classification system was unknown among the Jews and believers who wrote the Bible.  Today's Christians who have adopted the "moral-vs-ceremonial" classification system overlay that system onto the Bible and filter God's Word through a man-made theory.  They proclaim certain passages in the Bible to be evidence of the "moral-vs-ceremonial" classification system, and then extrapolate from their self-proclaimed "truth" that large portions of God's truths are no longer valid. The contrived system is so fuzzy that few Christians can agree on which supposedly "ceremonial" laws are no longer valid.  For example most Christians will tell you the Passover and feast of Unleavened Bread are completely "ceremonial" and were done away with, but others will say that certain parts are still valid.

Another method that was used to set aside God's instructions was to declare, without any Scriptural authority, that the only parts of God's Law of Moses that remain valid are the parts that are restated or recorded in the New Testament after the resurrection of Jesus.

While growing up I was taught those man-made theories (and others) and believed them fully.  It wasn't until I tried to find my beliefs in the Bible that I found out those were man-made theories.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/29/2017 at 10:57 PM, RichardRuhling said:

You are ignoring the context of the veil of the temple being rent by God as a sign that those sacrificial services were ended.

It seems that the "context" you want me to believe is all the centuries of non-Scriptural teachings that have accumulated around the the tearing of the Temple veil.  At one time I filtered the New Testament through those man-made doctrines that disagree with what is written in the Bible.   Now I believe what the New Testament actually teaches about the tearing of the veil, interpreted within the context in which the New Testament was written.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/29/2017 at 10:57 PM, RichardRuhling said:

You explain dogma from one meaning but overlook the other meaning afforded by an online concordance--it says "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment"

The meaning of dogma that you quote is taken from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889) which is a revised and expanded translation of Grimm's earlier Greek-German Lexicon.  You can view Thayer's full entry at the top of page 154 (and at the end of page 153) at https://archive.org/stream/greekenglishlexi00grimuoft#page/154/mode/1up .  If you look up the ancient Greek documents that Thayer references as examples of the meanings he provides, you find that they don't actually support the definition that Thayer gives. 

For the first part of the meaning, "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses"  Thayer references 3 Maccabees i. 3 and Philo's allegorical interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 as the best historic examples of dogma used with that meaning.  However, neither passage actually supports that meaning effectively.

First let's look at 3 Maccabees i. 3.  Here is the passage from Breton's English translation:

But Dositheus, called the son of Drimulus, by birth a Jew, afterward a renegade from the laws and observances of his country, conveyed Ptolemy away, and made an obscure person lie down in his stead in the tent. It befell this man to receive the fate which was meant for the other.

The phrase "laws and observances of his country" comes from the Greek, "nomina kai ton patrion dogmato".  The two pertinent words are nomina, a form of nomos  which is used many times in the Septuagint to refer to God's Laws and instructions, and the word dogmato, a form a dogma which is never used in the Septuagint to refer to any of God's Laws or instructions.  In this passage we have specifically the phrase patrion dogmato, which is translated in The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint as "ancestral doctrines".  The author of 3 Maccabees distinguished between the laws (nomina) and the man-made observances of the country (patrion dagmato).  Remember, this is one of the best example that Thayer and Grimm could find from historic Greek documents to support the idea that dogma referred to "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses".  They came up with a passage that mentions a backslidden Jew who was no longer keeping the law or the Jewish customs, and in this passage dogma refers to the Jewish customs rather than to the Law of Moses.

Now let's look at the example Thayer provides from Plato's allegorical commentary on Genesis 2 and 3:

XVI. [53] Speaking here of the man whom God moulded, it merely says that He “placed him in the garden.” Who then is it of whom it says later on “The Lord God took the man whom He had made, and placed him in the garden to till it and to guard it” (Gen. 2:15)? It would seem then that this is a different man, the one that was made after the image and archetype, so that two men are introduced into the garden, the one a moulded being, the other “after the image.” [54] The one then that was made according to the original has his sphere not only in the planting of virtues but is also their tiller and guardian, and that means that he is mindful of all that he heard and practised in his training; but the “moulded” man neither tills the virtues nor guards them, but is only introduced to the truths by the rich bounty of God, presently to be an exile from virtue. [55] For this reason in describing the man whom God only places in the garden, Moses uses the word “moulded,” but of the man whom He appoints both tiller and guardian he speaks not as “moulded,” but he says “whom He had made”; and the one He receives, and the other He casts out. And He confers on him whom He receives three gifts, which constitute natural ability, facility in apprehending, persistence in doing, tenacity in keeping. Facility in apprehending is the placing in the garden, persistence in doing is the practice of noble deeds, tenacity in keeping the guarding and retaining in the memory of the holy precepts. But the “moulded” mind neither keeps in mind nor carries out in action the things that are noble, but has facility in apprehending them and no more than this. Accordingly after being placed in the garden he soon runs away and is cast out.

The word translated as "truths" is dogmata in the Greek and the word "precepts" is dogmaton, both forms of dogma.  Granted, Philo does mention Moses as the author of Genesis and Philo does use forms of the word dogma to refer to things that God is teaching to the two Adams in the garden.  However if God was teaching Adam "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses" (as Thayer apparently defines dogma in this passage) in the Garden in Genesis, then wouldn't those truths and precepts predate the fall of Adam and be intended for all humans for all time? 

If these are the best examples that Thayer could find in the historic Greek literature to show that dogma means "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses" then it appears that Thayer took a lot of liberty in creating his definitions.  There is a statement Thayer wrote in the introduction of the Lexicon that explains why the definitions he provides are not strictly the meanings used by the historic Greek writers:

The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should
not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student
often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it
bears in a given context or discussion : —or, to state the same truth from another point of
view, the lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or
another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the
passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to
some extent, the functions of the exegete, although he can and should refrain from rehearsing
the general arguments which support the interpretation adopted, as well as from arraying the
objections to opposing interpretations.

So we should expect that Thayer's own theological beliefs affected the definitions that he provided. If Thayer believed that God's Law of Moses was "nailed to the cross" then that belief would come out in the definitions that he provided for the Greek word dogma, in spite of the evidence that Greek authors never used dogma to refer to God's Law of Moses.

[Ron Amnsn]

54 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

At the bottom of 1100 words (I didn't read them all) ...

You misunderstand my position.

The bulk of those 1100 words were quoted from your source, Thayer, and from his flimsy references to show from his own work that there is no basis for the definition of dogmasin in Col 2:14 or Eph 2:15 as "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses".

I think I do understand your position.  At least I've read it.  I do agree with the parts of your position that are founded on Scripture.  It's your willingness to accept man-made traditions that are contrary to Scripture that I disagree with.  Perhaps we can discuss this further after Thursday.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/30/2017 at 0:21 PM, jackson said:

If you say that physical circumcision in no longer necessary, but rather circumcision of the heart, then keeping the Passover as outlined in Exodus is not to be strictly adhered to forever as stated in Ex 12:14.

If the ceremonial law involving circumcision no longer requires actual circumcision, then what is to preclude other ceremonial laws from being modified, including the observance of the Passover itself? It appears that you are agreeing that when the Bible says forever, it means only to a designated time.

I didn't say that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for participation in the Passover sacrifice.  Two of the three examples I gave obviously included physical circumcision, and I believe the third example also includes physical circumcision for those males who participate in the Passover sacrifice.  I believe the male Gentile believers that the apostle Paul was writing to were choosing at some point to be physically circumcised after the manner of Abraham, but that Paul was teaching them that it was not necessary for them to be circumcised according to the man-made requirements of the established proselyte program for Gentiles, which supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew so that he could be saved.  Abraham himself did not meet some of the requirements for circumcision that were later added by the Jewish sages.

I do agree that when the Bible says "forever" it means only to a designated time.  That is the Biblical meaning of "forever".  However, the time period designated in the Bible for the Passover sacrifice was throughout the generations of the Israelites, rather than "until Messiah dies" as is often mistakenly assumed.

[8thdaypriest]

On 4/25/2017 at 3:54 PM, jackson said:

Ron,

Jesus also told Moses the following:

Ex 12:43          And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:  12:44         But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.   12:45     A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 12:46          In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.   12:47  All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.   12:48     And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.   

Jesus also told Paul the following:

1 Cor 7:18       Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 

If Jesus required circumcision to participate in the Passover and didm’t require circumcision for a new convert, then th seems obvious that keeping the Passover was neither required nor permitted for an uncircumcised convert. No?

   

Gentile converts (the true ones) WERE circumcised - in heart. 

And all of the redeemed (including women) will be "circumcised in flesh" when we are "changed in a moment" and the old "flesh" is gone.  We will have new spiritual bodies.  They will be circumcised by Joshua (Yeshua-Christ himself) when we cross the sky (rolled back as a scroll) just as Israel cross the Jordan (on the 10th day of the first month).

Which is WHY the LORD said - concerning the Temple shown to Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 44:9 "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.'"

1.  I believe those "circumcised in heart" will be those redeemed at the Second Coming.

2.  How would the doorkeepers check to know whether a person is circumcised in heart?  That means Christ Himself IS the doorkeeper.

3.  There would be no need for a command concerning the uncircumcised, and foreigners, unless there WILL BE such in the kingdom of Messiah - at least for some period of time. 

[Ron Amnsn]

17 hours ago, jackson said:

OK. I had thought you were saying  that spiritual circumcision would  meet the requirement for Passover participation.

For those followers of Paul, who choose to believe that Paul taught contrary to the Law of Moses (in spite of Paul's own testimony otherwise), it seems that in their belief system "spiritual circumcision" would be sufficient to allow participation in a Passover sacrifice. Of course, such people usually have no interest in participating in an actual Passover sacrifice, so the issue would probably be irrelevant. 

On the other hand, even for those who believe that physical circumcision would still be required for participation in the Passover sacrifice, the issue is not currently relevant because nobody is currently doing Passover sacrifices in accordance with God's Law of Moses.

 

17 hours ago, jackson said:

So if you believe physical circumcision is still necessary, how do you square that with Jesus’ command through Paul saying:

1 Cor 7:18       Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

 

The examples you  gave appear to be more for practical reasons for preaching among the Jews than for adherence to the command of God. After all, 1 Cor 7:18 is too plainly written to be easily controverted.

I don't think it's valid to assume that any particular interpretation of something that Paul wrote is "Jesus' command", especially when that interpretation disagrees with what Paul did himself.  In Revelation 2:2 Jesus commended the assembly of believers at Ephesus for testing apostles to see whether those men were valid apostles, and in Acts 17:10 the people in the Jewish synagogue at Berea were commended for using the Old Testament scrolls to test whether the apostle Paul's teachings were true, so it seems obvious that there must be a Biblical method to test apostles and their teachings, and that we should be using that Biblical method to test every interpretation of Paul's writings to see whether those interpretations are true.

If we interpret 1Cor 7:18 as "Jesus' command" in the way that you have, then we see that Paul himself did not follow that command in the case of Timothy.  Was Timothy circumcised when he was called? No. Did Paul circumcise him? Yes.  How do you square Paul's actions in the case of Timothy with your interpretation of "Jesus' command"?  Remember that Paul's circumcision of Timothy occurred soon after the decision of the Jerusalem Council supposedly determined that circumcision was not necessary.  Should we conclude that Paul was not a follower of Jesus since he did not follow "Jesus' command" as interpreted by you from Paul's own writings? I think not.  I suspect that it's the interpretation of what Paul's "plainly written" statement in 1Cor 7:18 actually meant in the original context that is faulty, rather than Paul being a hypocrite who didn't even follow his own teachings.

It seems that many Christians have an overly simplistic view of the circumcision issue in the New Testament, and that they like that simplistic view so much that they want to ignore actual Jewish context within which the whole circumcision discussion took place.

[8thdaypriest]

On 4/29/2017 at 4:18 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Where in Scripture do you get the idea that those who continue to follow God's instructions regarding the Passover sacrifice have judged/thought/declared that the sacrifice of Jesus as the Lamb of God was unacceptable?  Could that be just a carry-over of the anti-Jewish doctrines that were rampant in the church of the Roman empire?

Where in the Bible do you find the idea that God could be insulted by people continuing to obey His instructions during the time period that God instructed that those instructions were to be followed?  The concepts that "God is insulted" by obedience, or that it is "a slap in the face of Jesus" to keep doing what God instructed his people to do are very popular concepts, but they are not taught in Scripture.

Where in Scripture do we find God's instructions to stop doing the so-called "types" when someone decides that a so-called "anti-type" has fulfilled the type?  When the apostle Paul declared, "when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away," was he talking about setting aside any of God's Law?  No.  The man-made theory of "types" and "anti-types" is just that -- a man-made theory.  I don't believe that man-made theories should be used to set aside any of the Bible.

By the way, we don't sacrifice a Passover lamb currently, just as Daniel and Jeremiah probably didn't sacrifice a Passover lamb during the Babylonian captivity.

IF the priesthood has been "changed", then there is no longer a place to take a sacrifice.

The law commanded that every sacrifice must be brought to a priest of Aaron, at the Temple on the Mount.   

The priesthood has been changed.  That is THE ONLY CHANGE I find in Scripture, concerning the LAW.

  NKJ  Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."

But it is NOT the only change concerning the priesthood - in Scripture.  The priesthood was changed once before.

After the golden calf rebellion at Mount Sinai, the LORD changed the priesthood FROM "the firstborn" TO the family of Aaron/tribe of Levi. 

Exodus 22:29 [Yahweh speaking]  “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me.” (NRS)

Numbers 8:17-18 “I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn
                                of the children of Israel.”

That WAS a change of the priesthood. 

When Jesus died on the cross, the sin of that rebellion was washed away from those who confessed with repentance.   This allowed the LORD to change the priesthood BACK to the original priesthood of the "firstborn".

Jesus is "the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15), which is why Jesus is high priest.

Israel IS God's "firstborn" (Exodus  4:22).  In the NT they are called "the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven" (Heb. 12:22-24).

Which is why Israel redeemed will become "priests of God and of Christ" (Rev. 20:6)

Concerning the promise to Phinehas:  He was a "firstborn", so (assuming he was faithful) he will be included in the "priests of God and of Christ" - forever. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

This thread has introduced several topics.

Christians commemorating Passover

Time prophecies concerning the "time of the end"

Questions concerning the timing of Jesus death, and His last Passover meal with His disciples

     Personally, I believe Jesus died on a 6th day (Friday), and rose at dawn of the following 1st day (Sunday).  

     There is a detailed study on this topic at my website.  Link  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/45-Three-Days-Nights.pdf

Question regarding whether we should return to the sacrifice of animals at the Temple of Yahweh on the Mount in Jerusalem, IF/WHEN it is restored.

     I just posted a comment concerning the END of animal sacrifices. 

     There is a study at my website titled "The Priesthood of the Firstborn".  Link  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/21a-FIRSTBORN.pdf

     There is also a study titled "The End of Sacrifices"  Link  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The End of Sacrifices.pdf

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

For those followers of Paul, who choose to believe that Paul taught contrary to the Law of Moses (in spite of Paul's own testimony otherwise), it seems that in their belief system "spiritual circumcision" would be sufficient to allow participation in a Passover sacrifice. Of course, such people usually have no interest in participating in an actual Passover sacrifice, so the issue would probably be irrelevant. 

On the other hand, even for those who believe that physical circumcision would still be required for participation in the Passover sacrifice, the issue is not currently relevant because nobody is currently doing Passover sacrifices in accordance with God's Law of Moses.

 

I don't think it's valid to assume that any particular interpretation of something that Paul wrote is "Jesus' command", especially when that interpretation disagrees with what Paul did himself.  In Revelation 2:2 Jesus commended the assembly of believers at Ephesus for testing apostles to see whether those men were valid apostles, and in Acts 17:10 the people in the Jewish synagogue at Berea were commended for using the Old Testament scrolls to test whether the apostle Paul's teachings were true, so it seems obvious that there must be a Biblical method to test apostles and their teachings, and that we should be using that Biblical method to test every interpretation of Paul's writings to see whether those interpretations are true.

If we interpret 1Cor 7:18 as "Jesus' command" in the way that you have, then we see that Paul himself did not follow that command in the case of Timothy.  Was Timothy circumcised when he was called? No. Did Paul circumcise him? Yes.  How do you square Paul's actions in the case of Timothy with your interpretation of "Jesus' command"?  Remember that Paul's circumcision of Timothy occurred soon after the decision of the Jerusalem Council supposedly determined that circumcision was not necessary.  Should we conclude that Paul was not a follower of Jesus since he did not follow "Jesus' command" as interpreted by you from Paul's own writings? I think not.  I suspect that it's the interpretation of what Paul's "plainly written" statement in 1Cor 7:18 actually meant in the original context that is faulty, rather than Paul being a hypocrite who didn't even follow his own teachings.

It seems that many Christians have an overly simplistic view of the circumcision issue in the New Testament, and that they like that simplistic view so much that they want to ignore actual Jewish context within which the whole circumcision discussion took place.

For those interested, there is a study on this topic of physical circumcision at my website.

Link  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40hc-Circumcision.pdf

[B/W Photodude]

43 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

For those interested, there is a study on this topic of physical circumcision at my website ...

Timothy had the choice as an adult to submit to this act upon his body. He also was an unusual for Paul situation, as Paul said to beware of dogs and those of the concision. And it was two thousand years ago.

Today, some people are trying to get past such atrocities as cutting the genitals of their babies. And as many in the intactivist movement say,

"It is time to stop carving your religion into the bodies of your babies."

People would be horrified if you suggested cutting little girls in the name of religion, but look the other way with boys. I listened to all the mission stories when young and in church-sabbath schools of how terrible it was in "heathen" countries where they did to women such things as the neck rings of Thailand, the binding of feet of the young girls of China, the massive lip plates put in in Africa, but seldom did anyone stop to think that in the USA, at one time approx 90% of baby boys were strapped down, and their foreskins ripped and cut off of them usually without the benefit of anesthesia. (Circumcision has been compared to having your fingernails pulled out.)

FWIW, the circumcision of Abraham was not the type of cutting done today, but that is another long history lesson into bizarre religious obsessions. God never intended that men be cut, Israel have kings, or even that people get easy divorces and Jesus noted when walking this earth. He also, in the event that people didn't succumb to the heathen practice of genital cutting, have figured out a different way to teach the cleansing of sin from the heart. Get it straight, Abraham was not the first person to even have genital cutting.

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Get it straight, Abraham was not the first person to even have genital cutting.

According to history books, the Egyptians practiced a form of male circumcision. 

Concerning Timothy, who was half Jewish -  Paul wanted to take him to Jerusalem with him, and was afraid "the Jews"  would raise a riot - saying that Paul was preaching against the Law.  Just think about loud demonstrations today, drowning out the speaker. 

Paul did NOT circumcise Titus, who also went up to Jerusalem with Paul.  But Titus was NOT part Jewish. 

The REASON why Paul circumcised Timothy was NOT because God still wanted it done as a sign of covenant.  It is debatable, whether Paul's action in the case of Timothy, sent the right message, or the wrong message.

Male circumcision actually DID have some benefit, before the age of antibiotics.  During WWI, it was noted that circumcised males had a much lower incidence of venereal disease.  And still today, Jewish women have a lower incidence of cervical cancers.  One might expect that something commanded by the Creator would be good for human beings.  HE never commanded female circumcision, or any other disfiguring of women. 

[Ron Amnsn]

43 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

According to history books, the Egyptians practiced a form of male circumcision.

In some English versions Jeremiah 9:35-26 makes it sound like there were other nations that circumcised:
25 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh— 26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” (NIV)

At the time of Paul, when a man who had been circumcised Egyptian style came to Jerusalem, was he allowed into the inner Temple courtyard with the Jews, or did he have to stay out in the court of the Gentiles?

[B/W Photodude]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Male circumcision actually DID have some benefit, before the age of antibiotics.  During WWI, it was noted that circumcised males had a much lower incidence of venereal disease.  And still today, Jewish women have a lower incidence of cervical cancers.  One might expect that something commanded by the Creator would be good for human beings.  HE never commanded female circumcision, or any other disfiguring of women. 

There has been a virtual war on the foreskin for thousands of years. And today, people keep trotting out one supposed benefit after another to justify cutting children genitals. Even the VD thing is suspect. It is poor practice to start cutting off body parts because something might go wrong with it. For example, 1 in 36 women will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Do we go around cutting off the breast tissue of baby girls? Far more women will die of breast cancer than men will ever die of foreskin problems. 

And so what if cutting will reduce the frequency of VD? Do you not hear what you are saying? You are looking at your newborn boy and saying, "I know you are going to be a boy [censored] when you grow up, so lets just cut you so you will be safer when fornicating!"

During WWII, General Patten was said to have an issue with intact men. The soldiers would be lined up and made to drop their pants. Intact men are promptly marched off to the military hospital for forced mutilations. Many were observed to be weeping after this procedure, which they were unable to object to due to the possibility of being court martialed in wartime.

Apparently you missed the fact in another of my posts that only 1 in over 16,000 men in Finland ever need cutting for a VALID medical reason. (In 1973, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that there was no VALID medical reason to cut a child.) And approximately 80% of the men in the world today are intact. You could even say a majority of SDA men are intact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWfHO8yQaRY

The origins of genital cutting are difficult to determine. However, it has been proposed that the Egyptians, who worshipped baboons, were imitating the appearance of "excited" baboons when they initiated genital mutilation. They were doing this before Abraham was told to be cut. For some reason, way back then, men had a practice of exposing genitals to each other and even took oaths on their testicles. (You may be aware that the words testicle and testimony are rooted in the same word!) So, when the servant of Abraham who took an oath to find a wife for Isaac, he did so by holding Abrahams testicles! (I read this one in a book written by an SDA. They used euphemisms in the Bible such as "putting his hand under the thigh" of Abraham.).

http://taylormarshall.com/2008/10/testimony-and-testicles-oath-of.html

http://www.carmentablog.com/2014/09/26/witness-testicle-linguistic-analysis-latin-word-testis/

So, any cut that Abraham would have been ordered to do (brit milah) would have left him looking different than the Egyptians. I suspect God could foresee that people would try to imitate Egyptians and wanted them to be different. I do not see where God would have so ordered such a "Covenant" if there would have been no efforts to imitate heathen peoples. When the Jews got to Ancient Greece, because they did not have the radical cutting of the Egyptians, they found it very easy to appear intact to be able to participate in the Grecian Olympics. Unfortunately, the "sages" and other religious leaders became alarmed. They then started the practice of brit periah, which is the removal of all of the foreskin covering the glans (equal to the coverage of a 3 x 5 card). Ironically, they then ended up looking like the baboon worshipping Egyptians! Did brit periah make it to Palestine in the time of Paul? Don't know. But you can read more about this in the Apocryphal books of the Maccabees.

http://www.covenantcircumcision.info/milah_vs_Periah.html

http://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/historical-and-scriptural-evidence-milah-and-periah/

So, one more time, stop mutilating the genitals of children, boys or girls.

[8thdaypriest]

On 5/15/2017 at 7:17 PM, B/W Photodude said:

So, one more time, stop mutilating the genitals of children, boys or girls.

Thank you Photodude.  I think I said that physical circumcision is no longer necessary, in order to be "in Christ".  But I DO BELIEVE the LORD commanded at least a type of physical circumcision, beginning with Abraham.  I believe that circumcision was a TYPE or prophecy. 

Let me try again.

1.  Physical circumcision was only a PROPHECY of the TRUE circumcision of the flesh. 

That true/real "circumcision of the flesh" will take place - FOR redeemed Israel at the Second Coming.  (We who believe in Jesus are Israelites - grafted in.)

We will receive new spiritual bodies.  The "flesh" will be gone/changed.  THIS is the "circumcision" the LORD was speaking of, in the prophecy to Ezekiel.  HE was not saying that "genital mutilation" - as you call it - would continue in the Kingdom of Messiah. 

In Joshua Chapter 4-5, we have the TYPE.  The Children of Israel crossed the Jordan on the 10th day of the first month, 4 days before Passover.  THEN Joshua "circumcised the people" (Joshua 5:3).  (The name Joshua is of course, Yeshua, or Jesus.)  THEN they kept the Passover.  THEN they ate the produce of "the land" and the manna ceased. 

NOTE:  None of those born during the 40 years of wilderness wandering had been circumcised (Joshua 5:4).  Which FITS with our "wandering" in this wilderness dominated by Satan, since Adam left the Garden. 

We will cross the SKY - which will be "rolled back as a scroll" - just like the Jordan was rolled back for Israel.  We will be "circumcised" by Jesus, when we are "changed in a moment" and receive new "spiritual" bodies (1Cor. 15:44).  The old "natural body" (the flesh) will be gone. 

THIS IS WHY the LORD told Ezekiel - concerning His future Temple.   "Thus says the Lord GOD: 'No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.'" (Eze 44:9 NKJ)

The only human beings who will enter the future Temple of Messiah's Kingdom will be those who are "circumcised in heart" AND have new spiritual bodies.  I do NOT BELIEVE this prophecy is talking about male genital circumcision. 

I believe Ezekiel's Temple will be the 8th millennium Temple.  (I realize many believe it will be the 7th millennium Temple.) The  "foreigner who is among the children of Israel" will be those resurrected with "the rest of the dead" at the 8th millennium.

[8thdaypriest]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

None of those born during the 40 years of wilderness wandering had been circumcised (Joshua 5:4).  Which FITS with our "wandering" in this wilderness dominated by Satan, since Adam left the Garden. 

This one is for Richard.

NKJ  Joshua 5:7 Then Joshua circumcised their sons whom He raised up in their place; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8 So it was, when they had finished circumcising all the people, that they stayed in their places in the camp till they were healed. 9 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "This day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." Therefore the name of the place is called Gilgal to this day. 10 Now the children of Israel camped in Gilgal, and kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight on the plains of Jericho."

I don't know how many days it would take to "heal" from physical circumcision, but 2 or 3 days seems pushing it.  I think it possible, that the Children of Israel kept that Passover 30 days later (the "second Passover).  The text doesn't specify in which month they kept it.  Just that they kept it on the 14th day of the month, following their circumcision and healing from same.  

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/14/2017 at 3:18 PM, B/W Photodude said:

FWIW, the circumcision of Abraham was not the type of cutting done today,

It's good to see the opponents of circumcision acknowledge that there are different types/methods of circumcision.  When we read everything in the New Testament that the apostle Paul wrote about circumcision, we find that he was dealing with different kinds of circumcision.

 

On 5/14/2017 at 3:18 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Timothy had the choice as an adult to submit to this act upon his body.

Yes, the context of every statement that Paul makes against circumcision in the NT shows that in all cases Paul was dealing with situations where the male who might be circumcised was old enough to make the decision for himself.  None of Paul's statements against circumcision were applicable to 8-day old babies, because babies aren't making the choices that Paul spoke of.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/15/2017 at 5:17 PM, B/W Photodude said:

There has been a virtual war on the foreskin for thousands of years.

There has also been a war on the instructions of God for thousands of years.
 

On 5/15/2017 at 5:17 PM, B/W Photodude said:

It is poor practice to start cutting off body parts because something might go wrong with it.

Agreed.  But it is also very poor practice to start ignoring the instructions of God.  God instructed the heirs of Abraham to cut this particular not-very-useful body part from male babies as a sign of being in covenant with God.  I was born in the US during the time when male babies were routinely circumcised at birth (rather than on the eighth day as a sign of covenant).  Most of my male classmates were circumcised, some weren't, it was never brought up as an issue.  I never ever heard any of my peers lamenting the fact that a doctor had cut off his foreskin before he could remember the procedure.  The lack of a foreskin does not seem to interfere with any necessary bodily functions.  There doesn't seem to be any evidence that those who were "mutilated" by being circumcised as babies had more mental health issues on average later in life than those who remained intact.

Of course, female circumcision is a different issue than male circumcision.
 

On 5/15/2017 at 5:17 PM, B/W Photodude said:

However, it has been proposed that the Egyptians, who worshipped baboons, were imitating the appearance of "excited" baboons when they initiated genital mutilation.

A lot of speculative theories regarding history and religion have been proposed by those who oppose following the instructions of God's covenants.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/14/2017 at 3:18 PM, B/W Photodude said:

at one time approx 90% of baby boys were strapped down, and their foreskins ripped and cut off of them usually without the benefit of anesthesia. (Circumcision has been compared to having your fingernails pulled out.)

If "pain" is going to be used to determine whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, then it seems some of the other common medical and "beauty" practices should also come under scrutiny-- body piercings, shaving, hair removal, tattoos, face lifts, giving birth, and abortion.

One of the most common indicators of the true motive of those who oppose circumcising baby boys for religious purposes is that many of those same people often turn a blind eye toward the abortion industry or they actively promote a woman's right to abort her unborn children.  If a person opposes religious circumcision for boys, but does not oppose abortion, it seems quite obvious that such a person is actually anti-religion, rather than pro-baby. Abortion causes permanent harm to the victims who have no choice in the matter.  I suspect an aborted baby's pain of being crushed or torn to pieces by the doctor without the benefit of anesthetics is somewhat more than the pain of circumcision.

[B/W Photodude]

Apparently there were three responses to my post by  Ron Amnsn. I will merge them all into one post
and try and organize it a bit.

Quote

 

There has also been a war on the instructions of God for thousands of years.

But it is also very poor practice to start ignoring the instructions of God.

A lot of speculative theories regarding history and religion have been proposed by those
who oppose following the instructions of God's covenants.

One of the most common indicators of the true motive of those who oppose circumcising baby
boys for religious purposes is that many of those same people often turn a blind eye
toward the abortion industry or they actively promote a woman's right to abort her unborn
children.  If a person opposes religious circumcision for boys, but does not oppose
abortion, it seems quite obvious that such a person is actually anti-religion, rather than
pro-baby. Abortion causes permanent harm to the victims who have no choice in the matter.

 

Unfortunately, some of your responses were disingenuous at best. Many of the statements
you disagree with you try to lump it into some other usually unrelated issue. I suspect
this is not a good way to have a conversation.

So, in your responses to my post you insinuated that I am at war with the instructions of
God, I am ignoring the instruction of God, I am thru opposing the instructions of God
engaging in speculative theory, and just throw in being anti-religion and anti-baby thru
wanting to abort them!

Do be aware that many of those in the intactivist movement are young mothers who are now
referred to as "regret moms" and thru research after the fact often have a first born
circumcised son and all after are intact. They, after being startled by the condition of
their cut son, researched the issue and said "no more."

Quote

 

Yes, the context of every statement that Paul makes against circumcision in the NT shows
that in all cases Paul was dealing with situations where the male who might be circumcised
was old enough to make the decision for himself.  None of Paul's statements against
circumcision were applicable to 8-day old babies, because babies aren't making the choices
that Paul spoke of.

 

That is speculative theory. Paul did not say beware of the concision if you are an adult.
He said beware of the concision and there were no conditions to it. Perhaps he was
ignoring God's instructions or even worse, he was promoting abortion. Note what he wrote, 

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." Philippians 3:2

Quote

 

God instructed the heirs of Abraham to cut this particular not-very-useful body part from
male babies as a sign of being in covenant with God.

 

What is really nice is when someone responds to your post, they have actually read it and
the other associated media. There was a nearly ten minute YouTube video discussing the
ethics, health benefits, and many other associated topics related to circumcision and the
medical profession. It is a "mantra" of pro-cutters to refer to foreskin as a not very
useful or even useless body part.

Some of the KNOWN damaging effects of circumcision for the male include DEATH, loss of the
penis from being burned off (one Atlanta doctor burned off two in one week!), followup
surgeries to correct damage to the boy (one pediatric urologist reported a large part of
his practice was repairing circumcision damage), excessive bleeding to near death,
interruption in maternal-child bonding, and altered pain responses noted more than a year
after birth.

No one is interested in ending this cycle of abuse and little research money is dedicated
to the study of circumcision. One baby was tested before and after via functional MRI and
had alterations after circumcision that persisted. The hospitals administration got of
this study (probably went outside usual human research protocals) and shut it down.

Quote

 

I was born in the US during the time when male babies were routinely circumcised at birth
(rather than on the eighth day as a sign of covenant).  Most of my male classmates were
circumcised, some weren't, it was never brought up as an issue.  I never ever heard any of
my peers lamenting the fact that a doctor had cut off his foreskin before he could
remember the procedure.  The lack of a foreskin does not seem to interfere with any
necessary bodily functions.

 

Even if your classmates didn't bring it up, it doesn't justify it. One study showed that
approx 30% of boys had no idea whether they were circumcised or not. The problem with the
whole topic is there has not been a lot of communication among males regarding the
practice of cutting and neither side really understands what the other sides lives with.
Much of the information today comes from men cut as adults. Here are some statements:

Quote

 

Men circumcised as adults regret being circumcised:
   After the circumcision there was a major change. It was like night and day. I lost most
   sensation. I would give anything to get the feeling back. I would give my house.

   Slowly the area lost its sensitivity, and as it did, I realized I had lost something
   rather vital. Stimuli that had previously aroused ecstasy had relatively little effect.
   . . . Circumcision destroys a very joyful aspect of the human experience for males and
   females.

   Sight without color would be a good analogy. . . . Only being able to see in black and
   white, for example, rather than seeing in full color would be like experiencing an
   orgasm with a foreskin and without. There are feelings you'll just never have without a
   foreskin.

   http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm  

 

Bet you didn't know that when they cut you that they cut away 75% of your sensory nerves
from your penis. Doesn't sound quite so useless now. This decrease sensitivity means more
guys have to engage in different practices to achieve any satisfaction.

Quote

"The reduced
penile sensitivity resulting from circumcision may affect male sexual behavior without
awareness of the connection. In a national study reported this year in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, circumcised men were more likely to engage in alternative
methods of stimulation (e.g., oral sex and masturbation) than uncircumcised men."

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm

 

Quote

 

Of course, female circumcision is a different issue than male circumcision.

 

Female circumcision may be different that male circumcision, but it does not mean it is
any more damaging to women than it is to men. The vast majority of women cut in the world
today are no more injured than men are by cutting, yet it is a federal crime in the US to
even simulate it by a pinprick for a drop of blood.

One person, a former SDA, is given credit for this societies focus on the cutting of
children's genitals. That man would be John H Kellogg. Kellogg seemed to have real issues
when it came to sexuality. He is even on record as saying boys of about the age of four
should be cut without anesthesia (the pain would help them remember to not masturbate!)
and he advocated the pouring of carbolic acid on the genitals of little girls. Nice guy.

http://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-legacy-of-cereal-sociopathy-and-1777402050

Quote

If "pain" is going to be used to determine whether something is right or wrong, good or
bad, then it seems some of the other common medical and "beauty" practices should also
come under scrutiny-- body piercings, shaving, hair removal, tattoos, face lifts, giving
birth, and abortion.

With the exception of abortion, which you seem to need to throw in, those are all
procedures that consenting adults engage in. I am simply arguing that infants are unable
to give consent for a non-emergent procedure that is primarily done due to the ignorance
of the parents. Again, stop carving your "religion" into the bodies of your babies.

If you want to removes body parts as an adult when you are able to answer for yourself, go
for it. Reality is, few adult men do it. And try and hold an adult male down and cut him
without his consent and see what happens.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/23/2017 at 1:16 PM, B/W Photodude said:

That is speculative theory. Paul did not say beware of the concision if you are an adult.
He said beware of the concision and there were no conditions to it. Perhaps he was
ignoring God's instructions or even worse, he was promoting abortion. Note what he wrote, 

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." Philippians 3:2

Where are you getting your definition of what "concision" or katatomen  means?  It is not defined in the Bible.  All we know is that concision was something to watch out for, and it appears that Paul was contrasting "the concision" with "the true circumcision" of which Paul was a part.  Paul was himself circumcised as a baby and Paul also circumcised Timothy himself.  Was Paul warning the Philippians to be on guard against Paul himself? That wouldn't make any sense.  So whatever "the concision" was, we can be fairly certain that it was not the kind of circumcision that Paul received as a baby and it was not the kind of circumcision that Paul did to Timothy. 

If circumcision of 8-day-old male babies as God instructed was considered in the NT to be some sort of mutilation, then Jesus because he was circumcised would have been [supposedly] "mutilated" and would not have been "without blemish".

If Paul was actually ignoring God's instructions as you suggest, then it seems Paul would have been an outright liar, because when Paul testified before Felix he clearly stated "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," (Acts 24:14 NIV).  If Paul taught against the Law as you suggest, then Paul lied blatantly to Felix and to others, and it wouldn't be wise for the followers of Jesus to pay any attention to anything Paul wrote because it would probably be a lie as well.  On the other hand, if Paul testified the truth to Felix about his own beliefs, and we have no reason to believe he testified falsely, then it is clear that Paul was not teaching as you suggest. 

When Paul taught at the Jewish synagogue in Berea, the people there were commended for searching the OT scrolls to determine whether Paul's teachings were true.  If Paul had been teaching people to ignore God's instructions, how would the Bereans have been able to confirm those teachings in the OT scrolls?  If you are currently teaching the same as what Paul taught, where in the OT scrolls could I confirm that your teachings regarding circumcision are true?  If Paul's gospel could be confirmed in the OT by the Bereans, but your teachings can't be confirmed in the OT, then it seems quite plain that you are teaching something different than Paul taught.

 

[B/W Photodude]

On 5/26/2017 at 11:51 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Where are you getting your definition of what "concision" or katatomen  means?  It is not defined in the Bible.  All we know is that concision was something to watch out for, and it appears that Paul was contrasting "the concision" with "the true circumcision" of which Paul was a part.  Paul was himself circumcised as a baby and Paul also circumcised Timothy himself.  Was Paul warning the Philippians to be on guard against Paul himself? That wouldn't make any sense.  So whatever "the concision" was, we can be fairly certain that it was not the kind of circumcision that Paul received as a baby and it was not the kind of circumcision that Paul did to Timothy. 

If circumcision of 8-day-old male babies as God instructed was considered in the NT to be some sort of mutilation, then Jesus because he was circumcised would have been [supposedly] "mutilated" and would not have been "without blemish".

If Paul was actually ignoring God's instructions as you suggest, then it seems Paul would have been an outright liar, because when Paul testified before Felix he clearly stated "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," (Acts 24:14 NIV).  If Paul taught against the Law as you suggest, then Paul lied blatantly to Felix and to others, and it wouldn't be wise for the followers of Jesus to pay any attention to anything Paul wrote because it would probably be a lie as well.  On the other hand, if Paul testified the truth to Felix about his own beliefs, and we have no reason to believe he testified falsely, then it is clear that Paul was not teaching as you suggest. 

When Paul taught at the Jewish synagogue in Berea, the people there were commended for searching the OT scrolls to determine whether Paul's teachings were true.  If Paul had been teaching people to ignore God's instructions, how would the Bereans have been able to confirm those teachings in the OT scrolls?  If you are currently teaching the same as what Paul taught, where in the OT scrolls could I confirm that your teachings regarding circumcision are true?  If Paul's gospel could be confirmed in the OT by the Bereans, but your teachings can't be confirmed in the OT, then it seems quite plain that you are teaching something different than Paul taught.

concision
All words are not defined in the Bible as it is not a dictionary! So, checking an online
dictionary I find this:

Quote

Definition of concision
1
archaic :  a cutting up or off
2
:  the quality or state of being concise

Now given that concision is a word used in the KJV, you often find a much clearer meaning
if you use the archaic definition of the word, and in fact, you often find incredibly
interesting concepts in archaic words. So, note #1 which says "a cutting up or off." To
further look into the subject 

Quote

 

DOGS, EVIL WORKERS, AND THE CONCISION

Philippians 3:2 says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
In the verse Paul exhorts us to beware of three things—dogs, evil workers, and the
concision. The fact that there is no conjunction in this verse indicates that these three
things refer to one kind of person, a person who is a dog, an evil worker, and part of the
concision. The word "evil" in this verse denotes something that is in rebellion against
God’s economy. According to the Bible, any worker who is against God’s regulation is an
evil worker. The word concision is a contemptuous term for circumcision. Originally the
word circumcision was a term of honor among Jews. But in this Epistle the Apostle Paul
used not the word circumcision, but the word concision, a term of despite. In other words,
when the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, fleshly circumcision was no
longer honorable, but dishonorable. Therefore, he used the term concision to diminish the
honor of circumcision.

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/DOGS-EVIL-WORKERS-AND-THE-CONCISION-1.HTML

 

We have no idea of what method of circumcision that Paul, Timothy, or Jesus received. If
the radical cut of the "sages" qualified as a blemish, then Jesus did not receive the cut
that resembled the cut of the baboon worshipping Egyptians did. And that is not even the issue here.
Paul was an adult before circumcision became an issue. It is written that the question of
circumcision was settled by Paul and the other apostles in a council in Jerusalem and the
concision was made a non-issue. Nevertheless, like the Pharisees of old, even people of
today are trying to justify the cutting of babies.

If Paul was a liar "for ignoring God's instructions", then so were all the other apostles
who were in agreement that it was no longer an issue. It is also a no-go on the Berean
issue.

I really think that you are trying to hard to make a case for continued requirements that
males be ritualistically genitally mutilated to satisfy a religious requirement. And you
failed. So, as before it is time to stop carving your religion into the bodies of baby
boys.

[Ron Amnsn]

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  And you are also entitled to choose which ever commentators you wish to believe, even if those commentators have no valid reason to interpret the passages the way they interpret them other than the man-made traditions handed down by the church of the dark ages.  There are other valid ways to interpret the verse-- interpretations which agree with Paul's own claims about his own beliefs and do not make him a liar.

You seem to be forgetting that you started out by informing us that there were different types of circumcision.  But now you want us to interpret certain statements in the Bible as if they were blanket statements against all types of circumcision, even though the full context shows that Paul still circumcised Timothy as he was on his way to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem Council to the churches. 

If you carefully read the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, you will notice that the Council applied the decision only to Gentiles, so it couldn't have been a decision to stop circumcising 8-day-old Jewish baby boys.  It was also sent to the believing Gentiles only in the specific cities where unauthorized men had gone teaching something that distressed the Gentile believers.  This was after James had specifically stated in the Council meeting that Moses was preached in every city.  If the Council had considered God's instructions regarding circumcision given through Moses to be the problem, wouldn't they would have addressed their response to the believers in every city where Moses was known to be preached, rather than addressing the decision only to the Gentiles and only in the specific cities where the unauthorized men had gone stirring up trouble?  Since most Christians don't live in those specific cities, the decision of the Jerusalem Council isn't really applicable to most Christians.
 

18 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

If Paul was a liar "for ignoring God's instructions", then so were all the other apostles
who were in agreement that it was no longer an issue. It is also a no-go on the Berean
issue.

Circumcision of males remained an issue within Judaism and is still practiced in Judaism today, and is required by many Messianic Jewish congregations for full membership.  If circumcision is an issue among the Jewish followers of Jesus today, on what basis do you assert that it was no longer an issue 2000 years ago among both believers (the Jerusalem Council) and among non-believing Jews (those at the Jewish synagogue in Berea)? 

You seem to be interpreting the New Testament as if it was written by proto-Protestants within a Protestant context.  That was not the case, of course.  It was written in a Jewish context.

Acts tells us that near the end of Paul's ministry the false accusation was actually made against Paul by his enemies that he was teaching Jews to stop circumcising their male babies.  "They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." (Acts 21:21 NIV)  The elders of the Jerusalem congregation made a specific recommendation to Paul so that "everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."  (Acts 21:24 NIV)  Paul proceeded to do the specific thing that had been recommended by the elders.  If Paul did that only to fool people (as many Christians claim), then Paul would again have a serious integrity issue that would call his entire ministry into question.  However if the rumors were indeed false, as stated by the elders, then it makes sense that an honest Paul would try to straighten out the record by following the recommendation of the elders, and that Jesus would later commend Paul for his actions in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11). 

It's rather ironic that today it is people who claim to be "followers" of Paul who make the same false claims about Paul as the false claims that were made by Paul's enemies while Paul was alive -- that he was teaching Jews to stop circumcising their baby boys.

 

[B/W Photodude]

On 5/28/2017 at 7:25 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

 

You seem to be forgetting that you started out by informing us that there were different types of
circumcision.  But now you want us to interpret certain statements in the Bible as if they were
blanket statements against all types of circumcision, even though the full context shows that Paul
still circumcised Timothy as he was on his way to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem Council to
the churches.

If you carefully read the decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, you will notice that the
Council applied the decision only to Gentiles, so it couldn't have been a decision to stop
circumcising 8-day-old Jewish baby boys.

Circumcision of males remained an issue within Judaism and is still practiced in Judaism today, and
is required by many Messianic Jewish congregations for full membership.

I hope you don't throw your back out during all the twisting to reinterpret Scripture! Paul may have
had Timothy undergo circumcision, but there is nothing to indicate he in anyway believed it
necessary for salvation. He was still going into synagogues throughout the Diaspora preaching to the
Jews. But the Jerusalem council laid down an important principle in that circumcision was no longer
a requirement. "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Col. 3:11 There is not one set of rules for
Jew and another for Gentiles. And even Jewish babies are entitled to ethical treatment and respect
of their bodies.

But as you say, some Messianic Jewish congregations require circumcision, but that is not a
legitimate reason to continue to say circumcision is a requirement. If I was to go along with things
that were not specifically discontinued in Scripture, I could also say multiple wives were ok (actually we still have polygamy
today, it is just serial polygamy instead of parallel polygamy!), if my children acted up it was OK
to take them out and stone them to death, and I have a set of rules on how to have a slave. I could
also kill family members I was having trouble with and still be in a good relationship with God. I
really see the difficult time God has had in trying to save people throughout the ages. Many of the
serious flaws of then seem to be understood today as serious ethical flaws, just not all yet. But
there will be a people before the end who have the image of God developed in them.

Leading the way in the intactivist movement in America are two nurses. One is Marilyn Milos. She
said, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time. It imprints the connection
between the brain and penis with pain instead of pleasure." She went on to say, "I talked with a
rabbi in Israel who is against circumcision. He said it's not even in the Torah. There is no direct
sentence in the Torah saying it should be done. It's pretty vague and can be interpreted every which
way."
http://www.birthintobeing.com/circumcision

Here is Rabbi Natan's writings,

Quote

 

The early Egyptians gifted us with circumcision. The patriarch
Abraham was 99 years old when he made the covenant (hebrew: Brit') with Yahweh. He circumcised
himself. And we know that it was a small symbolic cut..the removal of the tip of the foreskin that
hung over the glans.

In the second century , the Jews at this time were wanting to participate in the Greek and Roman
olympics..they competed in the nude. The Greeks and Romans only allowed 'intact' males..as they
celebrated the human form in its wholeness and completeness.

So, if a Jewish man wanted to compete..he would hang some weights from his existing foreskin and
'restore' himself. The Rabbis of this era did not take kindly to this practice of physical
assimilation so they instituted two new rituals into the circumcision procedure.

1.Periah..the complete removal of the foreskin, exposing the glans, and in some cases, the removal
of the frenulum (the extra-sensitive band of tissue on the underside of the penis.)

2.Metzitzah..the sucking of the blood from the cut penis

These two procedures are still performed among Orthodox Jews world wide.

So, from a simple snip at the time of Abraham, we now have a major blood-letting ceremony, complete
with blood sucking.

This has got to stop..it is endangering the sexual integrity and  health of our men and women and it
has major potential for further dividing the Jewish people.

Our task as Jews is to be a "light unto the nations", and to be a holy people.

Circumcision does not contribute to either of these principles.
http://www.rabbinathan.com/writings/circum.shtml

 

As above, one of these days, perhaps the real reason for such an act on a baby will be known instead of just guessed at from a historical viewpoint.

So, being that I am an RN, issues such as circumcision which is damaging to baby boys is of interest
to me along with other issues of men's health. In fact, thru involvement in the profession of
nursing I am even obligated to promote changes which are beneficial especially to the defenseless
young.

The profession of nursing, collectively through its professional organizations, must articulate
nursing values, maintain the integrity of the profession, and integrate principle of social justice
into nursing and health policy. (ANA statement of ethics)

Some see it as an almost non-issue, but in some countries when they learn the extent of cutting of
baby boys in America, they are appalled.

The Danish Nurses Organisation declared non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys unethical
and a direct violation of children’s rights according to the UN convention.

http://childrightsnurses.org

Quote

 

Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision
Anaheim, California
March 3, 1989

We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial
prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.

We recognize the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts.

Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of
their children's normal genitalia.

Physicians and other health-care providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate
normal body parts.

The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the
individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully
informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure.

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

 

Even the United Nations through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has included language that
recognizes the right of an individual to be free from torture and other non-consented violations of
their persons. This is an edited copy keeping the protions that directly apply to the question:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-human/

So, this is where this all gets very strange to me that vast parts of the civilized and/or Christian
world today can turn from this practice of cutting the genitals of children, but large numbers of
American SDAs are stubbornly insisting they have a right to do whatever they want with their
children and even say it is required in the Bible (ones of the ways I know they haven't even read
it!)

Since this is one of several posts I have written on this subject, some may wonder why. But I am not
the one trying to get into children's pants to cut them! I still say along with many others in the
intactivist movement, "Put down the knife and step away from the baby!"

I do find it bizarre that people will get upset about pedophiles, but have no problem handing over
their baby boy to someone and basically say, "Cut off part of his genitals, and I'll pay you!"

For all those who have already cut your sons, just apologize if it ever comes up. Don't make any
excuses or try to justify it. The vast majority of men who resent the unethical act done on them are
very forgiving of their parents. The parents who try and justify it are the ones who get into
trouble with their sons, and there are some sons who hate their parents for what they did.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 2/17/2018 at 12:49 PM, RichardRuhling said:

Response to Ron Amnsn ( Not an SDA ) who asks for a passage that supports The Lord's Supper in place of the Passover

In Exodus chapter 12 when God explains the Passover to Moses, God says three times that the Passover is to be kept throughout the generations of the Israelites:

• "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast."
• "And you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as a statute forever." (v 17)
• "It was a night of watching by the LORD, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; so this same night is a night of watching kept to the LORD by all the people of Israel throughout their generations. " (v 42)

That seems quite clear that God (Jesus) instructed the Israelites to celebrate the Passover as long as there were generations of Israelites, rather than only until Messiah died.

In Luke chapter 22, where Luke describes the "Lord's supper" Luke actually calls the meal "the Passover".  The Passover is the "this" that Jesus was talking about when he commanded, "Do this in remembrance of me."

• "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover." (v 1)
• "Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (v 7)
• "So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, 'Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.' ” (v 8)
• "and tell the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ " (v 11)
• "And he will show you a large upper room furnished; prepare it there." (v 12)
• "And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover." (v 13)
• "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." (v 15)
• "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' " (v 190

So Luke quotes Jesus calling the meal "the Passover" at least four times.  How many times does Luke or Jesus refer to the meal "the Lord's Supper"?  Zero times.  That term appears only in the headings that the translators inserted into the text.

If Jesus was instituting something different than the Passover, why did he call what he was doing "the Passover" and not give the event a new name?

The term "Lord's supper" occurs only once in the New Testament, that's in the passage from 1 Corinthians 11 which you quoted from, where Paul says regarding what the congregation was doing, "it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat."   When Paul refers to the event that actually occurred, Paul refers to it as "the night when he was betrayed".  Since the Lord referred to the supper as "the Passover" and by no other name, where in Scripture do you get the idea that the "Lord's supper" is something different than the Passover?  And since Paul himself had already in the same epistle admonished the Corinthian congregation to celebrate the festival of Passover (5:8), there is no room to surmise that what Jesus refers to as "the Passover" somehow replaces or abolishes the Passover. 

Ellen White wrote that it was Jesus himself that gave the instructions of the Law to the Israelites through Moses.  Those instructions specified that the Passover was to be celebrated "throughout their generations" in remembrance of what happened when they left Egypt.  Jesus taught that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)  Certainly that would include the words that Jesus gave to Moses regarding the duration of the Passover celebration, at least until we have clear instruction from Jesus himself to do otherwise.