That is not what Jesus said. He said in Matthew that he did not come to abolish the Torah or the prophets. So, what part of he did not come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets is so hard to understand? He said he came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets. In a first century Jewish context the term to fulfill means to make full and give meaning - not to bring to completion or an end. Heaven forbid. That would be in complete antithesis to everything the Bible established up to that point as eternal. God's word does not contradict itself and what is eternal does not change. Jesus also followed up the statement about not coming to abolish the Torah or the Prophets with stating that anyone that violates the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom. Those that keep the commandments and teach others to do the same will be called greatest in the Kingdom. The choice is ours.
Jesus did not do away with any of God's commandments - not one jot or tittle. Prophecies concerning the Messiah were not completely fulfilled with his first coming - he still has much left to do in the Kingdom. What confuses people is that the commandments are not the same for Gentiles as they are for Jews. Even with the Torah there are different commandments that apply differently to men, women, priests, high priests, foreigners, etc. The commandments of the Torah are not necessarily applied equally and with equal responsibility. There is no commandment for Gentiles to be circumcised - unless they were converting. Paul vigorously defended the right of Gentiles to remain as Gentiles and not be required to convert to be a part of the Kingdom. Any convert is brought under the full weight of the covenant to obey the Torah as a Jew. Paul did want to have Gentiles or Jews think that obtaining Jewish status was something more important than a believers faith in Messiah. He told the Gentile believers that becoming Jewish would not add anything to them. Faith in Jesus was enough to inherit eternal life. But to be clear, for someone that is already Jewish, belief in the Master does not suddenly abrogate their responsibility as a Jew.
If Gentiles want to circumcise as an act towards some kind of religious solidarity, then they need to understand circumcision within the context of Judaism since that is where it was birthed. Any other rationale they find must be acceptable to them whether they do it for health, personal conviction, etc. But as an act of faith, to remove circumcision from its Jewish moorings and claim it as some kind of religious obedience misses the point of the commandment and should not be done.
Whatever it was, it isn't now... Unless what it is now is what it always was.
This site has plenty of bread concerning the elitists blood cults, and we know celebrities are their mockingbirds. Foreskins, and placentas, are being sold by hospitals to the pharmaceutical and beauty industries for their stem cells and fibroblasts. Rich old ladies are rubbing pulverized foreskin on their faces.. There's the ritual the unaware are advocating for. Not too far from adrenochrome in my opinion.
Q told us we're fighting against a 6000 year old blood cult.. Making baby boys bleed by cutting off the most sensitive parts of their penises was either hijacked and distorted into what it is today, or this is what it always was.
If a parent wants to advocate for circumcision, fine, but they should be the cutter, so at least they know Oprah isn't going to make a profit selling foreskin facial creams to Sandra Bullock.
You misunderstand and I agree with your points. It has been turned into a sick business. My comment was not meant to be taken as an approval of a practice that has very significant religious significance to Jews. Jewish circumcision is not done in hospital. It is a religious ritual that is performed by a person specifically trained for this rite and is done either in synagogue or in a home. The medical community or any of their blood cult sick financial interests are no where to be seen. My point was that whatever reasons people use to circumcise their children, unless they are Jewish it should not have any religious significance placed upon it to somehow give it some validity.
No problem fren. There is so much misunderstanding about this topic. I spend a great deal of time trying to educate Christians on what they think their Bibles say versus what it actually does say within its appropriate historical and cultural context. I had to spend many years of study and learn the languages just to find out for myself what it actually says. Most people are actually pretty pissed when they find out about the level of misinterpretation that has been spun throughout the centuries for geopolitical and cultural control. These texts don't exactly translate in English well - or another other language for that matter. Lots of translation bias for sure. Thanks for the discourse.
In Messiah Yeshua there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male not female, slave nor free. This doesn’t mean churches should have unisex bathrooms. Even the most basic Gentile Christian understands that husbands have different Biblical commands to follow than their wives, and children have separate commands to parents. Church elders, deacons and teachers have different/stricter commands to follow as well.
We are all chosen but we don’t all have the same roles/callings.
Jew, Gentile, male, female, short, tall, eye, ear, nose, mouth, foot - we are all members of One Body - different roles but all connected to the same Head, our King Mashiach. And God forbid any of us should say that God has done away with any of His promises or changed His mind regarding His eternal covenants.
That is not what Jesus said. He said in Matthew that he did not come to abolish the Torah or the prophets. So, what part of he did not come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets is so hard to understand? He said he came to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets. In a first century Jewish context the term to fulfill means to make full and give meaning - not to bring to completion or an end. Heaven forbid. That would be in complete antithesis to everything the Bible established up to that point as eternal. God's word does not contradict itself and what is eternal does not change. Jesus also followed up the statement about not coming to abolish the Torah or the Prophets with stating that anyone that violates the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom. Those that keep the commandments and teach others to do the same will be called greatest in the Kingdom. The choice is ours.
Jesus did not do away with any of God's commandments - not one jot or tittle. Prophecies concerning the Messiah were not completely fulfilled with his first coming - he still has much left to do in the Kingdom. What confuses people is that the commandments are not the same for Gentiles as they are for Jews. Even with the Torah there are different commandments that apply differently to men, women, priests, high priests, foreigners, etc. The commandments of the Torah are not necessarily applied equally and with equal responsibility. There is no commandment for Gentiles to be circumcised - unless they were converting. Paul vigorously defended the right of Gentiles to remain as Gentiles and not be required to convert to be a part of the Kingdom. Any convert is brought under the full weight of the covenant to obey the Torah as a Jew. Paul did want to have Gentiles or Jews think that obtaining Jewish status was something more important than a believers faith in Messiah. He told the Gentile believers that becoming Jewish would not add anything to them. Faith in Jesus was enough to inherit eternal life. But to be clear, for someone that is already Jewish, belief in the Master does not suddenly abrogate their responsibility as a Jew.
If Gentiles want to circumcise as an act towards some kind of religious solidarity, then they need to understand circumcision within the context of Judaism since that is where it was birthed. Any other rationale they find must be acceptable to them whether they do it for health, personal conviction, etc. But as an act of faith, to remove circumcision from its Jewish moorings and claim it as some kind of religious obedience misses the point of the commandment and should not be done.
Whatever it was, it isn't now... Unless what it is now is what it always was.
This site has plenty of bread concerning the elitists blood cults, and we know celebrities are their mockingbirds. Foreskins, and placentas, are being sold by hospitals to the pharmaceutical and beauty industries for their stem cells and fibroblasts. Rich old ladies are rubbing pulverized foreskin on their faces.. There's the ritual the unaware are advocating for. Not too far from adrenochrome in my opinion.
Q told us we're fighting against a 6000 year old blood cult.. Making baby boys bleed by cutting off the most sensitive parts of their penises was either hijacked and distorted into what it is today, or this is what it always was.
If a parent wants to advocate for circumcision, fine, but they should be the cutter, so at least they know Oprah isn't going to make a profit selling foreskin facial creams to Sandra Bullock.
You misunderstand and I agree with your points. It has been turned into a sick business. My comment was not meant to be taken as an approval of a practice that has very significant religious significance to Jews. Jewish circumcision is not done in hospital. It is a religious ritual that is performed by a person specifically trained for this rite and is done either in synagogue or in a home. The medical community or any of their blood cult sick financial interests are no where to be seen. My point was that whatever reasons people use to circumcise their children, unless they are Jewish it should not have any religious significance placed upon it to somehow give it some validity.
I liked the line about Oprah and Bullock.
Yup, I did misunderstand, apologies.
And I also agree with you about the medical vs religious ritual. It's a great point to bring up for Christians to think about.
No problem fren. There is so much misunderstanding about this topic. I spend a great deal of time trying to educate Christians on what they think their Bibles say versus what it actually does say within its appropriate historical and cultural context. I had to spend many years of study and learn the languages just to find out for myself what it actually says. Most people are actually pretty pissed when they find out about the level of misinterpretation that has been spun throughout the centuries for geopolitical and cultural control. These texts don't exactly translate in English well - or another other language for that matter. Lots of translation bias for sure. Thanks for the discourse.
Everything you typed is 100% backed by Scripture.
In Messiah Yeshua there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male not female, slave nor free. This doesn’t mean churches should have unisex bathrooms. Even the most basic Gentile Christian understands that husbands have different Biblical commands to follow than their wives, and children have separate commands to parents. Church elders, deacons and teachers have different/stricter commands to follow as well.
We are all chosen but we don’t all have the same roles/callings.
Jew, Gentile, male, female, short, tall, eye, ear, nose, mouth, foot - we are all members of One Body - different roles but all connected to the same Head, our King Mashiach. And God forbid any of us should say that God has done away with any of His promises or changed His mind regarding His eternal covenants.
Amen b'shem Yeshua.