J
JRKH
Guest
Of all they ways that God could have chosen to have his people marked…Why Circumcision??? 
Thoughts???
Peace
James
Thoughts???
Peace
James
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Cutting off the foreskin is a permanent mark and a constant reminder of the covenant with God.Of all they ways that God could have chosen to have his people marked…Why Circumcision???
Thoughts???
Peace
James
The foreskin is not needed, does not disable a man in any manner, and really there is nothing else externally that could be cut off in that respect.
J
JRKH
Guest
Interesting…But why does it need to be something cut off?
A “brand” or a tattoo could also be a permanent mark and not disable a man in any manner.
Seems interesting that it’s the genitalia that God chose for the mark…Or maybe that’s just a “modern” outlook…
Of course I don’t really expect there to be a clear-cut answer to this…
Just sort of one of those “Friday” questions…(Or I have too much time to think…
)Peace
James
T
thistle
Guest
I don’t know. Circumcision seems pretty “clear-cut”!Interesting…But why does it need to be something cut off?
A “brand” or a tattoo could also be a permanent mark and not disable a man in any manner.
Seems interesting that it’s the genitalia that God chose for the mark…Or maybe that’s just a “modern” outlook…
Of course** I don’t really expect there to be a clear-cut** answer to this…
Just sort of one of those “Friday” questions…(Or I have too much time to think…
Peace
James
T
Todd977
Guest
Perhaps circumcision of the male reproductive organ was chosen because God’s promise to Abraham concerned reproduction, that he would have numerous descendants.
Perhaps circumcision was given to make maintaining proper male hygiene easier, especially in regions where water is scarce. Many of the other laws of Moses seem to be designed to promote a safe and healthy lifestyle.
Perhaps circumcision was given to make maintaining proper male hygiene easier, especially in regions where water is scarce. Many of the other laws of Moses seem to be designed to promote a safe and healthy lifestyle.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Can’t remember where I heard it, maybe in one of my theology classes from a professor - it was something like this: Many of the early sins were often sexually related. Adam and Eve had shame over “nakedness,” Noah was violated sexually, etc… The covenantal rite seeks to remind God’s people to give up such offenses to God and turn to Him.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
I agree with the permanence idea, and why not tattoos or brands?Interesting…But why does it need to be something cut off?
A “brand” or a tattoo could also be a permanent mark and not disable a man in any manner.
Seems interesting that it’s the genitalia that God chose for the mark…Or maybe that’s just a “modern” outlook…
Of course I don’t really expect there to be a clear-cut answer to this…
Just sort of one of those “Friday” questions…(Or I have too much time to think…
Peace
James
Tattoos and brands are meant to have a specific look, but do to aging and the like, the look can change over time, and while the reminder might still be there, the look may not be the same. I don’t know if that really matters or not, but…
Also, it could have been a way to separate themselves from the Pagans of the time who I feel would be likely to have tattoos or brands associated with their religion (think of the prohibition of tattoos and such in the OT Law). Also, I feel like brands would be way too much pain for a child to bear, as a child was the one to be marked, and getting a baby to hold still long enough to make a good tattoo seems like it just wouldn’t work. Circumcision seems less painful and a lifelong reminder.
J
JRKH
Guest
:bigyikes:I don’t know. Circumcision seems pretty “clear-cut”!
I
InternetWoman
Guest
The Jews were not unique in their practice of circumcision. The pagans used it as a mark of transition into manhood. I’ve heard Scott Hahn say that it was the father-in-law that circumcised his future son-in-law (what a way to start a relationship!). So it was already something with which the Jews would have been familiar. God just “re-purposed” it. Perhaps to teach his new people that He was now their ultimate Father? Or given that circumcision would have been part of preparation for marriage and a new family - that God was now the head of their new family (or they were becoming part of his)?
S
SpidersfromMars
Guest
I would agree with this theory.
J
JRKH
Guest
Interesting ideas folks…
One of the things that sort of got me thinking about this was the idea of “modesty” and the mark being on the reproductive organ.
Of course I realize that there were (and are) different standards of modesty in different cultures.
But I could only imagine if someone came to a culture like ours (but where circumcision had not been previously practiced) and announced that God commanded that we cut the foreskin of the penis as a sign of our belonging to Him.
I think it’s sometimes good to think on such things to recognize just how radical our faith actually is.
Peace
James
One of the things that sort of got me thinking about this was the idea of “modesty” and the mark being on the reproductive organ.
Of course I realize that there were (and are) different standards of modesty in different cultures.
But I could only imagine if someone came to a culture like ours (but where circumcision had not been previously practiced) and announced that God commanded that we cut the foreskin of the penis as a sign of our belonging to Him.
I think it’s sometimes good to think on such things to recognize just how radical our faith actually is.
Peace
James
F
fred_conty
Guest
I heard of this one time. If someone made a promise to do something, then that person put his hand on his(aw! you know) and made the promise. This was the way they made contracts valid and binding.
So just maybe this was their way of making the covenanent or contract with God. And I don’t recall women ever making contracts in the old testiment just the men. (By the way, I’m a male shovenistic (aw! you know)).
Aren’t we lucky.
So just maybe this was their way of making the covenanent or contract with God. And I don’t recall women ever making contracts in the old testiment just the men. (By the way, I’m a male shovenistic (aw! you know)).
Aren’t we lucky.
V
Verbum
Guest
HI JRKH,
Originally circumcision is a hygienic practice, especially among desert peoples. Water is something rare in the desert and could be rarely used for intimate cleaning. This might lead to serious dermatological, and possibly other, problems.
When the Jews compared themselves to non-desert peoples, they realized that circumcision was a distinguishing mark of their nation. God confirmed this usage as a way of setting his chosen apart from other peoples.
Verbum
Originally circumcision is a hygienic practice, especially among desert peoples. Water is something rare in the desert and could be rarely used for intimate cleaning. This might lead to serious dermatological, and possibly other, problems.
When the Jews compared themselves to non-desert peoples, they realized that circumcision was a distinguishing mark of their nation. God confirmed this usage as a way of setting his chosen apart from other peoples.
Verbum
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
If it was only for ‘an outward sign’ of allegience to that particular Entity’s rules, it would have made more sense to have amputated the left ear lobe or something. There must have been a great deal of ‘inspecting’ going on to prove one was a proper Jew in that regard.
But the hygiene angle likely plays a part as they were super concerned with the uncleanness of women.
However, it seems chastity would be better served with the protective covering; perhaps circumcision provided greater assurance that ‘go forth and multiply’ wouldn’t be hindered.
In Gospel of Thomas (53):
Code:
His disciples said to Him (Jesus), "Is circumcision beneficial orHe said to them, “If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable.”
Thigh Oath
taylormarshall.com/2008/10/testimony-and-testicles-oath-of.html
“The ‘thigh oath’ is in Gen. 24:2-3: And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3. And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth…”
It’s interesting that their god(s) inhabited the lower regions of the body.
“The placing of one’s hand under the “thigh” is a euphemistic way to refer to swearing upon the testicles of the master.” (Maybe not so euphemistically - more like directly.)
Something that just occurred to me…maybe the phrase ‘the one-eyed viper’ began here. And the ‘all-seeing’ eye couldn’t see so well with the ‘eyelid’ closed most of the time? All the naked male statues that seem so - unnecessary. And the obsession of female statues/paintings with one breast exposed? Another ‘all-seeing’ eye? Lilith?
A couple of hours ago while researching Lilith (Isa. 34:14) from a Jewish perspective, I came across the article below - and am a bit shocked. The understanding (or lack thereof) I had for the plight of the Jews and Jesus’ hope to bring them back into the fold has been rattled.
The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling
samliquidation.com/noahidenews51.htm (4th title down)
The expanded info on the pharisees was interesting but when I got down to the books of the Talmud and what information the religious text actually contains - THUD.
"3. SEDER NASHIM (women). This section includes a 13-page introduction to the Soncino edition by Rabbi J.H. Hertz. These books are principally distinguished by their sub-sewer filth and obscenity:
Kethuboth (on the sum due a wife who is divorced) occupies 2 volumes and 728 pages of Talmudic sex filth (e.g. a baby girl being fair prey for adult men)."
It isn’t that the mission has changed but that it is making more sense why in 2,000 years the Jewish people could resist Christ so completely. If every day one reads nothing but such material as a religious obligation, how would chastity and Truth ever find an inroad? This is so bizarre, to me.
I just can’t reconcile all I’ve heard about the modesty and religious disciplines of the Jewish religion - with this. Who is their God, really? Baal? No wonder Christ didn’t/doesn’t ‘fit the bill’ as their Messiah. His Presence must have brought unbearable conviction.
Today, I am convinced that if a religion has a God that does not include Christ and the Holy Spirit, then then it is a false god at the head of it - be it Ball, Lilith, Loki or whoever else may be in the mix of ‘powers and principalities’.
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
It appears the disconnect I saw above concerning the Talmud may have roots in Numbers 25:1-5 and the following:
revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes’ Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
“The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way.”
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
I haven’t finished researching the topic but this article goes a long way in providing an explanation for not only the bizarre contents of the Talmud but also the treatment of Ethiopian Jews today. Like Catholics and Protestants, I wonder if there are different names for those Jews who subscribe to the Talmud and those Jews who do not (in the United States).
revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians are very knowledgeable of the Old Testament. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes’ Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:
“The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way.”
Because they are not traffickers in Talmudic tradition, the black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.
I haven’t finished researching the topic but this article goes a long way in providing an explanation for not only the bizarre contents of the Talmud but also the treatment of Ethiopian Jews today. Like Catholics and Protestants, I wonder if there are different names for those Jews who subscribe to the Talmud and those Jews who do not (in the United States).
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
Turns out they were/are called the Sadducees, Karaites and the Samaritans - those who rejected the Talmud as ‘divine’. No wonder the Samaritans got a good parable in the NT, eh?
truetorahjews.org/qanda/talmud1
Since this is off-topic, I’ll let this rest now. Just caught an unexpected case of ‘consuming interest’.
C
Cider
Guest
Even when I was Jewish it made no sense to me.
C
Cider
Guest
So you’re linking and posting clips from an article written by a holocaust denier and a anti zionist group. Do you really think they are representative of Judaism?Turns out they were/are called the Sadducees, Karaites and the Samaritans - those who rejected the Talmud as ‘divine’. No wonder the Samaritans got a good parable in the NT, eh?
truetorahjews.org/qanda/talmud1
Since this is off-topic, I’ll let this rest now. Just caught an unexpected case of ‘consuming interest’.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I really have no idea what the answer to this is. I know that back in the times of Judaism when the New Covenant had not yet been established that the Pagans were almost always uncircumcised and so I guess that circumcision was a way of distinguishing Jewish people, the people of the Old Covenant, from the Pagans.
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
Yes, but the location kinda strains that theory. It’s difficult to imagine a sane process of proving one’s religious affiliation.
Had a strange thought today. I’m really beginning to wonder if there isn’t something very different going on - like a demonic blood covenant, like the one that had the birds cut in half and a walk down the middle of them (the feel of demonic ritual). Perhaps the Blood of Christ was an ‘undo’ or ‘overwrite’ of the blood covenants done by ‘anti-christs’ in the Old Testament. Perhaps it is only by Christ that those sworn to ‘Baal-Peor’ can be free to choose anew.
Just a thought but it’s almost like an example of ‘truth is stranger than fiction’. What if every circumcison done since then has been an unwitting connection to Satan? Just did a check to see when circumcision became common in the U.S.
“Nowhere did preventive circumcision become more popular or more rigorously enforced than in the United States. A short but fully documented history of its institutionalisation reports an amazing tale of misdirected zeal. This statistical essay, A century of circumcision, offers some reflections on why a nation which prides itself on its individualism and its love of freedom should be so keen on this mark of uniformity and servitude.”
I wonder if the decline of the ‘enlightenment period’ was due to this practice? The sexual crimes/porn and increasing violence explosions a natural consequence of this ‘covenant’?
Wiki:
"The WHO estimated in 2007 that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), almost 70% of whom are Muslim.[1] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, Israel, South Korea, the United States and parts of Southeast Asia and Africa.
It is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa and Oceania and most of Asia. Prevalence is near-universal in the Middle East and Central Asia.[1][57] Non-religious circumcision in Asia, outside of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines, is rare,[1] and prevalence is generally low (less than 20%) across Europe.[1][58]
Estimates for individual countries include Taiwan at 9%[59] and Australia 58.7%.[60] Prevalence in the United States and Canada is estimated at 75% and 30% respectively.[1] Prevalence in Africa varies from less than 20% in some southern African countries to near universal in North and West Africa."
Scary stuff. If women already belonged to ‘him’ since the Fall (issue of blood), then I guess we’re just one big duped nation who really needs to find the Holy Spirit, in practice, not theory.
Would Baptism in Jesus’ name mitigate the effects for both sexes?
- Status