Who is smarter, man or God?
- Thread starter Blik
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
But isn't it our hearts that guide our actions? The mind informs the heart, but it is the heart that chooses to follow, or no. I would still argue the covenant must be written on our hearts, for it to be written on our minds. If we love God, we will trust Him, even when we do not understand.
But isn't it the opposite? A circumcised heart is one that is more sensitive to God's will, as the rocky hardness (i.e. foreskin) of pride has been taken away.
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
But when sin entered the world, things changed. God gave Adam and Eve clothes to cover their nakedness (presumably due to lust). Animals were given as food after the flood (presumably because a plant diet would no longer sustain man). Some believe that circumcision may provide health benefits (which may not have been of value in the perfect world of Eden).
Brit milah is not just exclusive to mohels. Remember Zipporah? Mohelets also carry out this tradition, as even though only the males are circumcised, the true circumcision - that of the heart - is for everyone.
Amen!
I thought as the Old Covenant (including circumcision) was fulfilled in Christ, and as He remains forever, so too our New Covenant in His blood remains forever, by the circumcising of our hearts (covenanting ourselves into Christ).
I would be arguing from ignorance if I continued on this point, so will concede here.
But surely it was both? If only spiritual, Zipporah wouldn't have needed to become the first mohelet to save Moses. And if only physical, Moses wouldn't have demanded that the men of Israel circumcise the "foreskins of their hearts".
I guess there are arguments both ways, it is true. But if (foreskin is) so important, why did God demand all the Israelite males be circumcised, such that at one time (in Joshua 5), there was an entire hill of foreskins from all the Israelite men, at the renewal of the covenant with God?
But isn't it the opposite? A circumcised heart is one that is more sensitive to God's will, as the rocky hardness (i.e. foreskin) of pride has been taken away.
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
But when sin entered the world, things changed. God gave Adam and Eve clothes to cover their nakedness (presumably due to lust). Animals were given as food after the flood (presumably because a plant diet would no longer sustain man). Some believe that circumcision may provide health benefits (which may not have been of value in the perfect world of Eden).
Brit milah is not just exclusive to mohels. Remember Zipporah? Mohelets also carry out this tradition, as even though only the males are circumcised, the true circumcision - that of the heart - is for everyone.
Amen!
I thought as the Old Covenant (including circumcision) was fulfilled in Christ, and as He remains forever, so too our New Covenant in His blood remains forever, by the circumcising of our hearts (covenanting ourselves into Christ).
I would be arguing from ignorance if I continued on this point, so will concede here.
But surely it was both? If only spiritual, Zipporah wouldn't have needed to become the first mohelet to save Moses. And if only physical, Moses wouldn't have demanded that the men of Israel circumcise the "foreskins of their hearts".
I guess there are arguments both ways, it is true. But if (foreskin is) so important, why did God demand all the Israelite males be circumcised, such that at one time (in Joshua 5), there was an entire hill of foreskins from all the Israelite men, at the renewal of the covenant with God?
-
1
- Show all
This is going to be fun trying to follow what you were responding to in my prior posts now that I'm responding to your response. But here goes.
I believe that is essentially what I said. Just in different terms as pertains to , when we cut away our sensitivity to the world we become more conscious of the spiritual because the worldly matters aren't as keen for our attention.
No, Adam and Eve set about to find a means of covering themselves. Because after they gained the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, they realized they were naked and became ashamed.
As relates to the diet matter, I think that's a personal issue for the individual. Some choose to go Vegan, all manner of Vegetarian, or they continue to eat meat.
As for physical circumcision of males, I tend to go with the scriptures wherein God made Adam with foreskin and after God looked upon all that He had made he called it good. And that other scripture wherein Paul, said God created everything to be what it is. I'm paraphrasing from memory because I've shared that actual passage here already.
Sure, I agree. We were speaking of both kinds of circumcision.
Works for me.
Sure, it could be both.
A hill full? There's a visual.
Maybe we can just say it is a misery given there is that scripture you refer to and then there are those others already mentioned. How God saw all that he'd made and judged it good. And how God created everything as it was meant to be. If that were true why the circumcision of the physical male member? We're told God does not change. However, He did change His mind in that circumstance having created males with foreskin first. Only to later require circumcisions.
I believe that is essentially what I said. Just in different terms as pertains to , when we cut away our sensitivity to the world we become more conscious of the spiritual because the worldly matters aren't as keen for our attention.
No, Adam and Eve set about to find a means of covering themselves. Because after they gained the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, they realized they were naked and became ashamed.
As relates to the diet matter, I think that's a personal issue for the individual. Some choose to go Vegan, all manner of Vegetarian, or they continue to eat meat.
As for physical circumcision of males, I tend to go with the scriptures wherein God made Adam with foreskin and after God looked upon all that He had made he called it good. And that other scripture wherein Paul, said God created everything to be what it is. I'm paraphrasing from memory because I've shared that actual passage here already.
Sure, I agree. We were speaking of both kinds of circumcision.
I would be arguing from ignorance if I continued on this point, so will concede here.
Sure, it could be both.
A hill full? There's a visual.
Maybe we can just say it is a misery given there is that scripture you refer to and then there are those others already mentioned. How God saw all that he'd made and judged it good. And how God created everything as it was meant to be. If that were true why the circumcision of the physical male member? We're told God does not change. However, He did change His mind in that circumstance having created males with foreskin first. Only to later require circumcisions.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
A hill full? There's a visual.
A misery or a mystery?
I don't think God changed His mind. What God made was very good, but then sin entered into the world. Circumcision's purpose wasn't to correct a defect, it was to symbolise the covenant He made with Abraham, as a symbol of what happens in our hearts.
But my thinking is that God would not have commanded circumcision were it so terrible, and I believe there may be health benefits to it, in the same way I believe there may be health benefits to a biblical diet.
-
1
- Show all
I know! Talk about making a mountain out of a mohel.
A misery or a mystery?
That is quite possibly so as well. However, the passage wherein God said everything was made as he intended is in the new testament.
The Book of 1st Corinthians chapter 12 verse 8 But as it is, God has arranged each one of the parts in the body just as he wanted.
I believe this is also an allusion to the Body of Christ, the faithful in Christ.
The foreskin protects the members , shall we say, opening. Just as women have protection over their most sensitive part.
There's arguments on both sides of the matter in the secular realm as well.
Some say that the foreskin being circumcised is a ritual that separates the male human from their base animal nature, or in Christian circles, their sinful nature.
I will agree a Biblical diet may benefit a person. I've not taken on the challenge to follow it however, I do know there are people who do. I was shopping the other day and saw that there's a bread manufacturer that creates a bread product they call, Bible bread. Its ingredients are supposedly in keeping with the Bibles recipe.
I know people who fast regularly through the year, weeks at a time, and then prior to the turn of a new year they are then able to fast for a full 40 days, as Jesus did.
I'm sorry I would doubt I could accomplish that. After all, God created Eclairs for a good reason you know.
-
1
- Show all
I've attended a circumcision ceremony. My vote is, misery. My gratitude is, yay! I'm female.
I agree.
Some also say that circumcisions performed today are generally more complete than those done in bible times. So if in bible times, only the tip of the skin was removed (I suppose leaving some for protection), that's more severe than most of those done today. This also makes 1 Corinithians 7:18 make more sense.
1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Which can also be a good thing. Sometimes, one can be so caught up in the physical that one forgets the spiritual.
I know people who fast regularly through the year, weeks at a time, and then prior to the turn of a new year they are then able to fast for a full 40 days, as Jesus did.
I'm sorry I would doubt I could accomplish that. After all, God created Eclairs for a good reason you know.
I'm sorry I would doubt I could accomplish that. After all, God created Eclairs for a good reason you know.
No doubt.
I had to look for a commentary far more learned than myself to grasp that one. On its face just reading the passage it doesn't make sense as pertains to circumcision. If a man is so he cannot become uncircumcised. Nothing grows back, ya know?
Here's what I found.
Adam Clarke Commentary
Is any man called being circumcised? - Is any man who was formerly a Jew converted to Christianity?
Let him not become circumcised - Let him not endeavor to abolish the sign of the old covenant, which he bears in his flesh. The Greek words μη επισπασθω, let him not draw over, are evidently an elliptical expression: the word την ακροβυστιαν, the fore-skin, being understood; which, indeed, is added by the Armenian and the Itala, and several of the Latin fathers. It is a fact that it was possible by the assistance of art to do this; and Celsus himself prescribes the mode, De Medic. vii. 25. By frequent stretching, the circumcised skin could be again so drawn over, as to prevent the ancient sign of circumcision from appearing. Some in their zeal against Judaism endeavored to abolish this sign of it in their flesh: it is most evidently against this that the apostle speaks. Many false Jews made use of this practice, that they might pass through heathen countries unobserved; otherwise, in frequenting the baths they would have been detected.
Let him not be circumcised - Let no man who, being a Gentile, has been converted to the Christian faith, submit to circumcision as something necessary to his salvation.
Very true indeed. Especially the part about being caught up. Sometimes worldly concerns can be very distracting.
A fellow fan!
I had to look for a commentary far more learned than myself to grasp that one. On its face just reading the passage it doesn't make sense as pertains to circumcision. If a man is so he cannot become uncircumcised. Nothing grows back, ya know?
Here's what I found.
Adam Clarke Commentary
Is any man called being circumcised? - Is any man who was formerly a Jew converted to Christianity?
Let him not become circumcised - Let him not endeavor to abolish the sign of the old covenant, which he bears in his flesh. The Greek words μη επισπασθω, let him not draw over, are evidently an elliptical expression: the word την ακροβυστιαν, the fore-skin, being understood; which, indeed, is added by the Armenian and the Itala, and several of the Latin fathers. It is a fact that it was possible by the assistance of art to do this; and Celsus himself prescribes the mode, De Medic. vii. 25. By frequent stretching, the circumcised skin could be again so drawn over, as to prevent the ancient sign of circumcision from appearing. Some in their zeal against Judaism endeavored to abolish this sign of it in their flesh: it is most evidently against this that the apostle speaks. Many false Jews made use of this practice, that they might pass through heathen countries unobserved; otherwise, in frequenting the baths they would have been detected.
Let him not be circumcised - Let no man who, being a Gentile, has been converted to the Christian faith, submit to circumcision as something necessary to his salvation.
Very true indeed. Especially the part about being caught up. Sometimes worldly concerns can be very distracting.
Lol. Very true!
-
1
- Show all
Lol! Didn't you know that's why guys have several appointments with a barber each year, but only one appointment with the mohel/obstetrician?
The part in red doesn't make sense to me. The circumcised (cut around) skin around is useless (except in those jokes about mohels) and therefore is disposed of after circumcision, so I doubt it was this that was stretched. If it was the uncircumcised skin remaining that was stretched, this supports the argument that the Jews subsequently increased the amount of skin circumcised in brit milah, such that no uncircumcised skin remained (and therefore the Jewish convert could no longer abolish his sign). Hence the belief (by some at least) that the bible circumcision was different to circumcisions as performed today.
It's incredible that some still claim this false doctrine of salvation or merit by ritual and works, given that the book of Galatians was written on the very subject.
Yup!
How could anyone not be?
The part in red doesn't make sense to me. The circumcised (cut around) skin around is useless (except in those jokes about mohels) and therefore is disposed of after circumcision, so I doubt it was this that was stretched. If it was the uncircumcised skin remaining that was stretched, this supports the argument that the Jews subsequently increased the amount of skin circumcised in brit milah, such that no uncircumcised skin remained (and therefore the Jewish convert could no longer abolish his sign). Hence the belief (by some at least) that the bible circumcision was different to circumcisions as performed today.
It's incredible that some still claim this false doctrine of salvation or merit by ritual and works, given that the book of Galatians was written on the very subject.
Yup!
A fellow fan!