Sorry Errant...I will take advice on duck hunting from this man:
Posted on 03/02/2014 3:59:10 PM PST by Errant
As the book of the Revelation comes to a close, we are left with some very important words. Keep his commandments, know his Torah, and make yourself ready to be the bride of the King. He is coming quickly. Join Michael Rood for the final episode in the series From Here to Eternity – Yeshua’s Famous Last Words: Amen, Emet, Truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I already did: [roamer_1:] "There is no requirement for circumcision of adult males in Torah. There were many 'righteous gentiles' living among the Israelis from the very beginning."
Circumcision was a covenant sign both for the Abrahamic covenant, but the Mosaic one. To whom is the above verse referring? Uncircumcised adult males, or uncircumcised infants?
After the initial circumcisions, only infants were left to be circumcised. Thus any Israeli would be circumcised as a matter of course on the 8th day. So any adult male circumcisions would be concerning gentiles.
After the initial circumcisions, the only mass circumcision of gentiles was performed as a ruse to disable their army, whereupon all were killed.
If there was no requirement for adult males to be circumcised, then why are they forbidden from participating in the passover?
Uncircumcised adult gentile proselytes were forbidden from the Passover unless they were circumcised - but their House could participate - providing their sons were circumcised, they too could participate. The only other prohibition was that uncircumcised males had to remain in the court of the Gentiles. With the exception of those two prohibitions, 'righteous gentiles' were to be treated as citizens, not as an underclass, which is the point of the following verse that you had pointed to.
The point to me, is a matter of coercion. After the initial circumcisions, necessarily coerced (demanded) by YHWH to set the pattern of circumcision, proselytes were not to be coerced, but rather, allowed to take an informed decision as to their commitment. Since the function of the circumcision is inter-generational rather than personal, the inter-generational function is fulfilled in the children born to the proselyte and properly circumcised. The circumcision of the proselyte himself does not serve that function - It is a personal commitment.
And it is the coercive nature against that personal decision which is on point in the controversy wrt Titus (and several other examples). The personal decision IS the circumcision of the heart - which is the better circumcision, and is *never* coerced. In as much as that personal decision is already taken in the circumcision of the heart, that it is transmitted into the circumcision of the flesh becomes a moot point.
For the Abrahamic covenant.
That was replaced with Sinai.
Presumably Paul, whom editor-surveyor recently claimed was the second most educated man in the world, would know this. Right? In that case, why did he make Titus' circumcision an issue concerning the Gospel, when it was no issue at all?
To whom is the above verse [Genesis 17:14] referring? Uncircumcised adult males, or uncircumcised infants?
After the initial circumcisions, only infants were left to be circumcised. Thus any Israeli would be circumcised as a matter of course on the 8th day. So any adult male circumcisions would be concerning gentiles.
You have already claimed that there is no requirement for adult males to be circumcised. That leaves infants. Are you seriously suggesting that the law about excommunicating uncircumcised covenant-breakers applies to infants only?
Uncircumcised adult gentile proselytes were forbidden from the Passover unless they were circumcised - but their House could participate - providing their sons were circumcised, they too could participate.
Are you arguing, then, that when Exodus 12:48 says, "But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it." it really means, "No uncircumcised person shall eat of it unless all his male relatives are circumcised, then it's OK"?
Can you please point out the passage to us that changes the significance of circumcision from "required for the Abrahamic covenant" to "required for the temple, but optional when there was no temple"? Thank you.
Amen!
Acts 2:
5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?”
Right after you get finished picking the undigested seeds out of your lunch.
LOL!
Answer my question. Can you please point out the passage to us that changes the significance of circumcision from "required for the Abrahamic covenant" to "required for the temple, but optional when there was no temple"? Thank you.
The Apostles already decided what portion of the law of Moses applied to the Gentiles who are disciples of Messiah.
My take away from the soldiers reaction was that a Hebrew speaking in Greek was unusual.
Sorry Errant...I will take advice on duck hunting from this man:
Um, no. If you read the next verse, you see that it was a case of mistaken identity on the part of the Roman tribune, who had assumed Paul was an Egyptian.
Raiders of the Lost Book - Ep 1 - By Michael Rood
Beginning of Nehemia Gordon's Presentation
What does it mean to obey the Pharisees
Principle #3: Irrational Interpretation
Principle #4 Sanctified Tradition
Principle #5: Commandments of Men
Summary of the 5 Principles of Phariseeism
Hebrew Version of Matthew Survived
Some of Shem-Tov's Manuscripts
Thousands of Manuscripts Left to be Examined
My Memorial from Generation to Generation
The Names of Other Gods You Shall Not Mention
Greek Vs. Hebrew Matthew on Vows
Greek IESOUS Vs. Hebrew Yeshua
Manuscripts Closest to Hebrew Original
There is More Than Nine Manuscripts
I taught him all he knows! ;)
Very good references.
PING. Thought you might want to opine on the languages spoken in the time of Christ and the apostles.
A good source to compare English (and Greek/Hebrew/Latin) Bible texts is:
blueletterbible.org
Once there you can type in a chapter or verse and you have the lexicon along with other information to include the actual Greek, Hebrew and in some cases the Latin translation as well. Easy to navigate too.
I see you keep polishing your 'white throne'. You should know better.
Agree, after reading further that is probably the case. However, reading even further my memory is becoming less fuzzy about the matter of what was mostly spoken:
Acts 21:39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”
40 After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:
I would question if instead of Aramaic, it was actually Hebrew he spoke to them in, as there seems to be a consistent effort to switch the words out, at least in the book of Matthew. View Gordon's presentation for details.
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.