Just me and Ken C, How do you understand Gal 3:2-5? (Others may also respond)

[just-me]

As you can see from the whole passage above, for most sins, a bull or a male goat was used. Yes, a famale goat or lamb were used for intentional sins. But really, gender has no place in this discussion at all. It was simply about the WORTH of the animal, compared to the sin. Hence, the high priest or the entire congregation sinning required a sacrifice worth more. In Lev. 5, it continues with offerings from the poor, including pigeons, doves or flour, depending upon what the person could afford. No gender at all - just the value of the sin offering, which was all the poor person could afford.

These sacrifices have NOTHING to do with being masculine or feminine. English does not have gender for the nouns, but most languages do. It has nothing to do with female "persuasion" or masculine, for that matter. It is something that the language has, which developed as the language evolved.

These sacrifices were SIN OFFERINGS! Nothing to do with false doctrine, whatsoever. False doctrine wasn't even an issue in Lev. where they were just learning what God required of the community and individuals for committing sins. You know, like disobeying God!

As for Proverbs, wisdom is a metaphor, (cast in the female) in a book written by a father to his son. It contrasts the harlot to wisdom and urges the son to seek wisdom, not to go astray - which can mean women, idolatry or any other sin.

No wonder your posts don't make sense most of the time. It's because you don't have a clue what the Old Testament is about, and I am sure that extends to the New Testament.

If the gender makes no difference, then the Bible wouldn't specify.

Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. Leviticus 4:28

And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. Leviticus 5:6

When looking into the spiritual attributes of the female goat in the sacrifices of the OT, we can liken it today to the church that propagates false doctrine, being of the feminine persuasion. The goat signifies a self-willed carnal nature, being antagonized to the point of destruction, by the sword of the Word, within the ranks of God’s children. This is what a holy convocation is supposed to be, likened unto what should be happening in our churches today.

After it is too late Proverbs 5:4 promises her to be reminded of what could have been, “But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword.”

 

[oldthennew]

The preaching of circumcision in the new covenant is not of the flesh, it is the circumcision of the heart.

To clean the inside of our hearts fleshly desires to live a new by the Spirit, this is the circumcision of the new covenant and the Spiritual meaning behind the old covenant circumcision of the flesh. It was a sign for God's people, as the sign of who is the Lord's is by our actions in the faith that shows in our change of heart to now walk by His righteousness (Spirit) instead by our own doing !!!

=============================================================

thank you Brother Kenneth, for your response.

my wife and I always consider what you have to contribute, because it is obvious that you have
been very dedicated in your apprentice in studying our Father's Words, and we like the fact that we can
communicate with you even if we may dis-agree or differ on certain points of scripture,
we greatly appreciate this, because, we have learned on this site, the 'being-right' is much more
important to many than being righteous.

the reason that I interpret Paul's the 'physical circumcision' in GAL.5:11, is that in the whole context
of the Book, the circumcision is always referring to the 'physical circumcision', (in order to be saved)
and also in EZE.44:9,
they use BOTH TERMS = CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART AND CIRCUMCISION OF THE FLESH 'two'
DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS.....

ROMANS 4:11.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

GAL.5:6.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un-circumcision avails anything, but FAITH working
through Love...

the physical act of circumcision or the taking of the Lord's Supper, or the Washing of Feet,
(or any NT or OT Ritual)...
by and in themselves mean 'absolutely nothing', if they are not coupled by Faith working through Love..
and Obedience.

1COR.11:27.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

here is an example of a Commanded Ritual not done in 'faith-love-obedience' in the 'proper-order' -
therefore it is an empty Ritual...and, these actually 'drink the cup of Judgment'.

 

[FreeNChrist]

If the Word is doing that, that's just fine with me.

That's the problem, it's not the Word doing it, it is you. And that is not just fine with the Word.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

the physical act of circumcision or the taking of the Lord's Supper, or the Washing of Feet,
(or any NT or OT Ritual)...
by and in themselves mean 'absolutely nothing', if they are not coupled by Faith working through Love..
and Obedience.

The opinion of man. That's not what scripture says. If Paul had meant what you say, he certainly had the capability to say so, and would have done so. But he didn't. He said circumcision was nothing. Period. And he said only faith and love amount to anything.

You're adding to scripture.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Usually, I agree. But it's Marc, who is kinder than most. And, as you can see, too many are going to pounce anyway. I really would like to see this just be between Marc and Ken.

It doesn't matter who it is, Lynn. Just because it's Marc has absolutely no bearing at all, on whether this thread should have been created to specifically call out just-me and KennethC.. I agree with elf3. It is TOTALLY inappropriate to single those two out the way Marc did. And I re-iterate my former post of saying this was a tacky way of getting their attention. :/ A series of pm's between those 3 would have been far more appropriate, then people like me, you, and elf3 wouldn't have to put in our two cents, and call this thread for what it is: rude, embarassing, and inappropriate..

 

[atwhatcost]

Sorry, Marc, but you could have done this in PM with just-me and Kenneth. IMO, it's rude, embarassing, and in tacky poor taste to start a thread specifically naming persons such as you did with those two. However, you're not the only one who does it. I've seen threads where people also called out others by name, apparently unaware that it's humiliating to the person being specifically called out. It is in much better taste and more appropriate, to take it into a PM with just-me and KennethC. That goes for EVERYONE. Utilize the PM feature if you have a problem with someone, or you want to know some info. Don't embarass them on a public forum and specifically call them out by name..

Doh! And this is where insomnia gets me in trouble. All this time I thought Marc meant just HIM and Ken.

But, seriously... this isn't a problem, (if I'm getting that right). This is Marc trying to find out what they believe.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Doh! And this is where insomnia gets me in trouble. All this time I thought Marc meant just HIM and Ken.

But, seriously... this isn't a problem, (if I'm getting that right). This is Marc trying to find out what they believe.


Which very well COULD AND SHOULD have been done via PM.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Which very well COULD AND SHOULD have been done via PM.

Why? ............

 

[blue_ladybug]

Why? ............

Please read my other posts on here. I'm not going to repeat myself a dozen times.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Please read my other posts on here. I'm not going to repeat myself a dozen times.

OK, well I'll put in my two cents. I don't thing the OP did anything wrong. He wants to have a PUBLIC discussion with two individuals who PUBLICLY teach things that the OP wants to address. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[Stephen63]

This is compliments the above passage:

As you received Christ Jesus the Lord [by faith], so walk in Him [by faith]. Colossians 2:6​

How exactly does one "walk in Christ" without any good works of righteousness? Just hoping you would illuminate that scripture a little more.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

How exactly does one "walk in Christ" without any good works of righteousness? Just hoping you would illuminate that scripture a little more.

Walking in Christ means walking in the spirit, which if a person does (s)he will love others. There is no greater work of righteousness.

 

[Stephen63]

Yep. What we are seeing by some here is what is known as psychological projection. Also known as blame shifting. Where people defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude will constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Yup. Call someone on the carpet, get an explanation from him, & then accuse him of projecting on everybody against him.

If I were the devil, that's the way I'd do it..... accuse him into the ground.

Seems to have "setup" written all over it.

 

[Stephen63]

Walking in Christ means walking in the spirit, which if a person does (s)he will love others. There is no greater work of righteousness.

Then I take it that you believe that the story of the Good Samaritan was teaching about walking in Christ?

 

[FreeNChrist]

Yup. Call someone on the carpet, get an explanation from him, & then accuse him of projecting on everybody against him.

If I were the devil, that's the way I'd do it..... accuse him into the ground.

Seems to have "setup" written all over it.

Exactly. So why dont ya'll cut it out already?

 

[just-me]

As the weeks and days have gone by, I have noticed less and less members coming to the Bible discussion forum. Ya think it might have something to do with the stalkers prowess in name calling and refutations of preconceived thoughts to divide the ranks?

 

[FreeNChrist]

As the weeks and days have gone by, I have noticed less and less members coming to the Bible discussion forum. Ya think it might have something to do with the stalkers prowess in name calling and refutations of preconceived thoughts to divide the ranks?

The irony obviously escapes you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Then I take it that you believe that the story of the Good Samaritan was teaching about walking in Christ?

it was more against legalism, and less about what we should do..

 

[blue_ladybug]

As the weeks and days have gone by, I have noticed less and less members coming to the Bible discussion forum. Ya think it might have something to do with the stalkers prowess in name calling and refutations of preconceived thoughts to divide the ranks?

People are scared of all the hate, contention, strife and arguments in this forum. Newbies and regulars alike come here for fellowship, guidance and learning. Instead they get slammed with name-calling, hypocrits and prove-a-points. Some of the regulars even warn newbies to either avoid the Bicker and Debate forum, lol, or to have on a tough suit of armor if they do. :/ The ONLY thread I like in this forum is oldhermit's speak your mind thread. There is no debating, arguing and namecalling allowed in there, and it's strictly enforced by oldhermit and the other posters who respect his rule. If EVERY thread in the BAD (BICKER AND DEBATE) forum, could be as peaceful, quiet and nice as the speak your mind thread, this site would be a much better place for people to enjoy, and not be scared to enter into. But nooo.. it's the pharisees, and holier-than-thou's that ruin it for EVERYBODY with their name-calling, judgments, and prove-a-point baloney.. :/

 

[Stephen63]

Exactly. So why dont ya'll cut it out already?

Spoken by a true psychological projector..... lol. So, what side are you on again?