Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Orthodox Jewish Website Condemns Judge’s Forcing Circumcision on Gentile
The Jewish Independent ^ | May 19, 2014 | Yori Yanover

Posted on 05/19/2014 4:02:19 AM PDT by Tzvi INN.com

Don’t get me wrong, as a Jewish person, I support with every fiber in my body the requirement, even the need for Jewish parents to circumcise their sons. But over the years, I’ve read tons of evidence proving both sides of the circumcision debate, and I have had no use for them. The only valid reason I see for the brutal attack with a sharp knife on a defenseless infant is if God said so.

(Excerpt) Read more at thejewishindependent.com ...


TOPICS: Judaism; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: circumcision; gentile; jewish; orthodox
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 05/19/2014 4:02:19 AM PDT by Tzvi INN.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

not even if it is shown that it reduces the risk of cancer?


2 posted on 05/19/2014 4:10:02 AM PDT by mfish13 (Elections have Consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

Looks like he’s accepted the opposition’s premise.


3 posted on 05/19/2014 4:21:01 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com
you signed the contract, you can’t change your mind about it.

Fundamentally, the purpose of government is to enforce contract law. If people start throwing contracts out the window, and if judges shrug and say, "That's OK" then you don't really have government in any real sense.

4 posted on 05/19/2014 4:26:54 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

“Brutal attack with a sharp knife” is overly dramatic. If there are in fact “tons of evidence” proving both sides of the debate, I’ve yet to hear them.


5 posted on 05/19/2014 4:32:54 AM PDT by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

“God said so” because it’s a good thing - just like everything else God has commanded. Although the Law of Moses has been made obsolete by the gospel, medical science has confirmed many of its instructions to be beneficial. (Surprise, surprise!) Circumcision is one of them.

As to the “brutal attack with a sharp knife on a defenseless infant”: That’s rather silly. What if the child needed a different surgical operation? Parents who love their child will do what is best for him, even when it’s painful.


6 posted on 05/19/2014 4:33:34 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com
brutal attack with a sharp knife

You want a dull knife?

7 posted on 05/19/2014 4:45:15 AM PDT by gasport (Will operate for food.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com
From the article:

“I could see the judge ordering folks to avoid becoming 60 on the grounds that it could make their penis sick, but it would probably be overturned.”

This guy is obviously not the deepest thinker.

8 posted on 05/19/2014 4:51:42 AM PDT by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

My sons are circumcised. That being said, it was a medical procedure, I am not now against it, I never gave it much thought, but I agree with this mother. Why the idiot father wants it done is to control the situation and he is just like so many fathers that want to control things.

I also agree with the writer that it is an attack on this child, not medically necessary or called for.


9 posted on 05/19/2014 4:55:54 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com
Another Jew objecting to his G-d given commandment which his ancestors followed for thousands of years. It has been shown that this practice is safer than not circumcising and toss away the gross violation of infant civil liberties BS. An 8 day year old Jewish male child is circumcised not just for health reasons but because it is a mark of the bond between Jews and G-d, yes, a friggin’ covenant for ALL TIME so stop your bellyaching you ACLU type. I'm a Jew too.
10 posted on 05/19/2014 4:58:38 AM PDT by Netz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

A Jew is obligated to circumcise from Genesis 17:10 Exodus 4:24-26 is before the law and the covenant at Sinai.


11 posted on 05/19/2014 5:00:14 AM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

The procedure is not medically necessary. There are voices for and against routine circumcision. Contract law is all well and good but it was just the contract for a plan and plans change.
This is a terrible time in a boy’s life to choose for a circumcision in view of the psychosocial development going on. For a judge to tell a mother she needs to basically lie to her son is a further outrage.
This is what comes of giving judges too much power over individual freedom. Neither the Mom nor the child has broken the law and they do not deserve to have their freedom of choice abridged over a medical procedure that is in many medical circles considered not only unnecessary but also detrimental. Just ask plastic surgeons who can utilize this skin if needed for grafting due to some misadventure.


12 posted on 05/19/2014 5:04:50 AM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
If people start throwing contracts out the window, and if judges shrug and say, "That's OK" then you don't really have government in any real sense.

You mean like the Obama Administration did when they negated the rights of GM and Chrysler's bond, debt and stockholders during the "auto industry bailouts?"

We ALREADY don't have Government in any real sense, what we have has been lawless tyranny since January 2009.

13 posted on 05/19/2014 5:12:10 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
Oh, I agree. Just pointing out that in smaller, more local cases, if people stop respecting contracts, then they are offering support to Obama-style tyranny through "do-gooder" judges.

We have a fascist system now.

14 posted on 05/19/2014 5:14:22 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

the brutal attack with a sharp knife on a defenseless infant
_____________________________________

and I always thought that the Nanny was such a nice girl...


15 posted on 05/19/2014 5:28:03 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Taglines can get you audited)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
“Brutal attack with a sharp knife” is overly dramatic.

Well, they did it to me and I couldn't walk for a year!

16 posted on 05/19/2014 5:47:32 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

U.S. Will Spend $24.5M to Circumcise Men in Swaziland
Melanie Hunter
4/14/2014

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/us-will-spend-245m-circumcise-men-swaziland

Predominately a muslim country, not going to work. It is a painful procedure, which is why it is done in hospital before a male baby is released to go home. Not done on Preemies until they reach a certain weight.


17 posted on 05/19/2014 5:59:38 AM PDT by GailA (IF you fail to keep your promises to the Military, you won't keep them to Citizens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
A Jew is obligated to circumcise from Genesis 17:10 Exodus 4:24-26 is before the law and the covenant at Sinai.

Abraham's descendents, you mean? Would that include Edomites? ;-)

Nevertheless, it was a commandment of the Law of Moses, and as such was regarded by many Jews as necessary for becoming one of God's people. (See Acts 15, for instance.) They were wrong.
18 posted on 05/19/2014 8:27:54 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

My sons are circumcised. That being said, it was a medical procedure, I am not now against it,


You are not against it so obviously you just don`t like men being the head of the family, with that attitude this cowboy don`t want to be your hero.


19 posted on 05/19/2014 9:39:12 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

The dude in the case is not the “head of the family”, you silly, he is a baby daddy, doesn’t even live with the woman and child. The child is not a baby, he is 3 or 4. This is not a necessary medical procedure, it is an unreasonable demand by an idiot sperm donor.

You must not be a very astute cowboy.


20 posted on 05/19/2014 6:32:44 PM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

“Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.”

Is Paul a hypocrite or did he have Timothy Circumcised to fulfill Genesis 17:10?


21 posted on 05/19/2014 6:56:02 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

and he is just like so many fathers that want to control things.


That is not what my disagreement is about, I may agree with you but don`t know because I don`t know why they are not living together, who,s idea was it?

The comment below is what I was referring to.

and he is just like so many fathers that want to control things.>>>>>

By the way, what does that word astute mean?


22 posted on 05/19/2014 8:28:51 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

I work with families that are suing each other

Many of the dads just want to control things even though they are not living with the family and have left for seemingly greener pastures. That was my context. Not to be confused with the devoted dad who has laid down his life for his wife and family.


23 posted on 05/19/2014 8:59:40 PM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
>> “Although the Law of Moses has been made obsolete by the gospel” <<

.
You make Yeshua into a liar with that ridiculous statement.

Matthew 5:

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Incase you haven't noticed, Heaven and Earth have not yet passed away, nor has anything but Passover and Pentecost been fulfilled.

.

24 posted on 05/19/2014 9:08:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
No, Paul was not a hypocrite for circumcising Timothy. As Luke explains in the passage you quoted, he did it "because of the Jews which were in those quarters."

I Corinthians 9 helps us understand what that means:

"For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof."

Acts 21 has another example of Paul (and other disciples) making overtures to the Jews to ease their transition from the old Law to the gospel of Christ. Paul declares his love for Israel in Romans 9 and 10, and he went to great lengths - suffering imprisonment, beatings, etc. - to make peace between those who clung to the Law and those who understood the "new covenant" more fully.
25 posted on 05/20/2014 6:07:29 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah.
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

- Jeremiah 31:31-34

No, Jeremiah is not calling Jesus a liar.
26 posted on 05/20/2014 6:13:59 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

That was my context. Not to be confused with the devoted dad who has laid down his life for his wife and family.


I understand.


27 posted on 05/20/2014 7:13:09 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

You are calling Yeshua a liar, by totally twisting what the prophet was saying.

Yeshua and his apostles declared plainly that “doers of the Law will be Justified.”

Salvation will be dependent on “Believing on him” which means believing as a disciple, his every word and teaching, and completely following the same.

Easy Believers will be cast into “outer darkness.”

Intellectual belief, as you and many others have, is the same level of belief that Satan and his angels have, and it won’t save them either.


28 posted on 05/20/2014 9:34:36 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You are calling Yeshua a liar, by totally twisting what the prophet was saying.

Will you explain, then, what Jeremiah was saying?

Yeshua and his apostles declared plainly that “doers of the Law will be Justified.”

You've really misunderstood Romans 2:13. Have you read Romans 3:20?...

"by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight"

In fact, it seems you've missed the entire point of Paul's letter to the Romans. Here's a short passage worth considering from chapter 2:


"For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.

If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?

and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:

but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

29 posted on 05/20/2014 10:22:00 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com
Just for the record, at eight days of age I was cognizant enough to piss on the mohle after he cut me.

Mom was proud...

5.56mm

30 posted on 05/20/2014 10:28:11 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Your failure to understand what Yeshua’s earthly ministry was all about has left you in a daze.

The general purpose of his ministry was to restore the original Torah to his people. Torah is the law of the Kingdom of Yehova until “All things are accomplished.” They were living under a false “Law” created by the pharisees, and that law was what Paul was deriding in Romans 3.

Jeremiah was declaring a time when all of Yehova’s people would live with Torah “written on the fleshly tables of their hearts.”

When you post short portions of a chapter, torn from the context of the chapter, the meaning is destroyed. This is especially true for Paul’s epistles. They didn’t survive the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek in an easy to read condition. The Greek makes no distinction between Yehova’s Torah, and the Pharisee’s Takanot and Ma’asim that is absolutely necessary for understanding what is being said. It also conflates “Jews” with all other Hebrews.

What could possibly be misunderstood about Romans 2:13? It is almost word for word what James also wrote in his epistle. It is the very anchor of every epistle in the New Testament. Without accepting that clear statement, you cannot understand any other epistle.

The “works of the law” has absolutely nothing to do with Torah.


31 posted on 05/20/2014 4:04:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
They were living under a false “Law” created by the pharisees, and that law was what Paul was deriding in Romans 3.

How do we know Paul was addressing man-made Jewish law? Does he say something to indicate that?

Jeremiah was declaring a time when all of Yehova’s people would live with Torah “written on the fleshly tables of their hearts.”

I believe you're mistaken. We know what the "new covenant" is which Jeremiah prophesied. God tells us what it is in Hebrews 8. I'd quote it, but that might be "posting short portions of a chapter, torn from the context of the chapter, and destroy the meaning." ;-)

By the way, you're welcome to read the entire chapter and book when I cite a verse. I'd encourage you to do so. And I'd also encourage you to cite any part of the context you believe corrects my misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the Scriptures.

My intent is not to "cherry-pick" verses which support my belief, but merely to cite the Scriptures which apply to the question at hand. And I believe that to be your intent as well.

With that in mind, let me expand the earlier citation from Romans 3.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God:

20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.

21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction;


I won't post all of Romans 1-4, but Paul makes the case again and again that the only way a man can be judged righteous UNDER LAW - whether the Law of Moses or any other law - is to be guiltless. Abraham was counted righteous not because he was guiltless, but because he believed God. (Rom. 4:3, 22) He sought a righteousness that is available not through law, but through faith.

Likewise we are to seek a righteousness that comes from faith (1:16-17, 4:24) and not from works of law (4:4-5)

Now it's obvious Paul is using "works" here to refer to something different from what James means. When Paul says "works", he means works which will EARN justification: perfect obedience, in other words; works which merit a "not guilty" verdict from the Judge. That's not at all what James means when he uses the word.

Sorry for the length of this reply, so I'll stop there.
32 posted on 05/20/2014 4:53:00 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

>> “How do we know Paul was addressing man-made Jewish law? Does he say something to indicate that?” <<

.
Yes, as I already posted to you, Romans chapter 2 makes it quite clear that ONLY doers of the law can be justified.

You need serious objective Bible study! (minus the easy-believer foolishness)


33 posted on 05/20/2014 8:27:27 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GailA

Swaziland is less than 1% Muslim.


34 posted on 05/21/2014 4:59:42 AM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Romans chapter 2 makes it quite clear that ONLY doers of the law can be justified.

Yes indeed, under a law-based system, only doers of the law can be justified. As Paul puts it:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:" (2:12-13)

On the one hand are those who obey the law (doers), and on the other hand are those who sin under the law. Jesus would be an example of one who would be justified by His perfect record under the law. He did not sin, but obeyed the law perfectly. A judge would have to find Him "not guilty".

The rest of us are in one of the other categories: either those who sinned without law, or those who sinned under the law. In either case, we would be found "guilty". Hence:

"for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin" (3:9)

"for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (3:23)

That's the bad news. Now here's the good news:

"But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe" (3:21-22)

So although you and I have sinned, and although the only verdict that can be handed down under law is "guilty!", the Judge has allowed our sentence to be paid by Another, and thus provided the means for a verdict of "not guilty".

And I praise Him for that! Because if I have to live under law rather than under the gospel, if I have to keep the law perfectly as Jesus did, I'll never receive any verdict except "guilty!". But...

"We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

The word "gospel" in Greek means "good news". And it most certainly is! :-)
35 posted on 05/21/2014 6:23:12 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

No, not under anything but the requirements of the Kingdom of Yehova.

You cannot accept what the scriptures say? Your every reply modifies the scriptures to meet your man made requirements.

Belief in Yeshua must be total belief of all that he commanded and taught, not just select clauses out of select sentences torn out of context.

Belief that isn’t total cannot ultimately lead to salvation on that day when salvation must occur.

Churchianity is not related to Yeshua’s Way.
.


36 posted on 05/21/2014 8:50:12 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You might want to consider the differences between the old covenant and the new.

For instance, Jesus could not be a priest under the Law of Moses. He was from the wrong tribe. The Jews should've recognized this, since the Messiah was prophesied to come from Judah and not Levi, and His priesthood would be from the order of Melchizedek and not Aaron.

His priesthood is also superior to the Levitical one, as the new covenant is superior to the old one:

"But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second." (Hebrews 8:6-7)

"In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." (8:16)

All of this agrees perfectly with Paul's elaboration of the gospel in Romans. For instance:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9:15)

And further on the inadequacy of the Law of Moses:

"For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10:1-4)

If you're familiar with the Law of Moses, a study of Hebrews will be very profitable, since you'll quickly understand the "inferior vs. superior" comparisons with which the author makes his case to stop clinging to the old covenant and embrace the new.
37 posted on 05/21/2014 1:09:11 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

The boilerplate discussion that you inject has nothing to do with the original point: Torah remains the total framework of the Kingdom of Yehova. It will remain as such until all things are accomplished.

Yeshua’s perfect sacrifice is what has perfected Torah.

Now all of those that are his have Torah written on their hearts. Read John’s first epistle and see if you can find anything but Torah within it. Then read Peter’s first epistle and see when salvation will be had by all of his elect at once. Then read Yeshua’s words in Matthew 24:13, and 29-31.

The only difference between the old covenant and the renewed covenant is the perfection of the sacrifice.


38 posted on 05/21/2014 4:21:11 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The position you espouse is not new.

"And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1)

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." (15:5)

Peter withstood them without equivocation:

"Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they." (15:10-11)

Paul, harrassed and persecuted by those who held the same position as you, replied to them thusly:

"We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2:15-16)

"For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God." (v. 19)

"And further I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought." (v. 21)

You're standing on false ground, my friend.

"So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor." (4:24-25)

And not only false, but dangerous ground:

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.

Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.

For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love."
(5:2-6)

Heed Paul's solemn warning, and turn from teaching this false doctrine:

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:8-9)
39 posted on 05/21/2014 6:28:09 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

You know, you’re full of nonsense and ignorance. It isn’t even close to the totally scriptural position that I, the apostles, and Yeshua all espouse.

The specific issue there in acts 15 was the Pharisees pushing their own personal power trip, just as it is the case in every other instance.

It serves to prove my point. It is the false commandments of the pharisees that the apostles denounce, and the ignorant of scripture like yourself attempt to equate it with Torah.

Restoring Torah was Yeshua’s life work. Removing Judaism and instituting Torah.

The Pharisees and their Judaism were the “yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.”

I don’t know how you can read the NT without coming to that understanding.

You’re creating false ground.


40 posted on 05/21/2014 7:10:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Accusing another Freeper of ignorance is mind reading. It is "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

41 posted on 05/21/2014 7:26:43 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Not questioning your right to moderate as you see best, but FWIW I wasn’t bothered by those remarks.


42 posted on 05/22/2014 11:47:46 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

That is why I think Paul circumcised Timothy, Paul stated that Christ does not disannull the promise.


43 posted on 05/22/2014 9:51:55 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: the_daug
I believe you misread verse 17: There Paul says the law does not disannul the covenant (God's promise to Abraham).

And what is that promise?

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed." (3:8)

Gentiles would be justified by faith, not law. And Jews likewise, just as Abraham was justified by faith, 430 years before the Law of Moses. According to v. 7, "they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham."

The law, which came 430 later, could not void the promise. Those who want to bind the law on people as the only way to receive that promise are trying to annul God's promise. As you quoted:

"For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise." (3:18)

Paul encountered - and opposed - this false doctrine nearly everywhere he preached.
44 posted on 05/23/2014 6:48:53 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

At what point in time did the Law of Moses become obsolete? When did G-d’s ETERNAL word become null and void?

G-d’s Word as found in Torah are PERFECT and ETERNAL and are NEVER to be changed.

What part of PERFECT, ETERNAL and NEVER TO BE CHANGED are not understood?


45 posted on 06/10/2014 10:49:23 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Well......Bye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

FALSE!


46 posted on 06/10/2014 10:52:52 PM PDT by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Well......Bye.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tzvi INN.com

The problem is, of course, unlike in Judaism, when the government gets involved, it’s never, ever just the tip.


47 posted on 06/10/2014 11:01:14 PM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN

Did God say He would make a new covenant with Israel or not?


48 posted on 06/11/2014 6:51:33 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

When my pal in Australia comments on this situation, it’s “Cavalier” versus “Roundhead”.


49 posted on 06/11/2014 6:54:22 AM PDT by ErnBatavia (It ain't a "hashtag"....it's a damn pound sign. ###)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: POWERSBOOTHEFAN

Yes, you are always false; nothing new.


50 posted on 06/11/2014 1:19:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson