Who is smarter, man or God?

  • 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.
Sep 15, 2019
70
22
8
#62
in Hebrew thought is was believed that the 'heart' was the seat of intellect, so in today's thought, we would say, 'circumcise your mind'...
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.

While spiritual circumcision would mean, cutting away our sensitivity to the temptations and temporary satisfactions of worldly ways.
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.

When God created Adam in HIS own image and likeness Adam had foreskin. When God later looked upon all that He created and saw that it was good, and we later are told God created everything to be as it appears, that would include the natural man's member uncircumcised.
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).

We need remember also that the brit milah was and remains a Jewish tradition performed on Jewish male children by a Mohel and according to what God commanded on the eighth day.
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.

I think that is man's doing being God after creating all things created rested on the seventh day. That then falls under the Law of Moses, which was nailed to the cross when Jesus died to save the world from ceremonial practices intended to cover sin not redeem sin. Being that would be the case, circumcision is no longer to be practiced.
However, that the Jews do not believe Jesus was Messiah, they continue to live under the law of Moses. We however, do not.
Amen!

I 100 percent agree in not blaming them, but isn't He now speaking of the heart, so it still remains forever, right?
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).

Speaking as female, the hood of the clitoris protects the rest. Don't want to get too graphic here. As for men, it is commonly known that the foreskin brings great pleasure too.
I would be arguing from ignorance if I continued on this point, so will concede here. :)

And yet the conundrum of whether the order was physical or spiritual remains given God's decree in Genesis and the scripture given to Saint Apostle Paul in the Book of 1st Corinthians. (Already posted)
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".

Actually, from what I've read it is healthier to have it than to not. And as I've known such males who openly discuss this in Bible study circles, there is also no issue with hygiene as they are taught early on how to properly wash. God made it, why would He then say to snip it off so as to be in a covenant with one's maker?
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?
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
2,216
1,054
113
www.christiancourier.com
#63
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.
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. :giggle:
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.


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).
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.

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.
Sure, I agree. We were speaking of both kinds of circumcision.
(y)

I would be arguing from ignorance if I continued on this point, so will concede here. :)
Works for me. :)

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".
Sure, it could be both.

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?
A hill full? There's a visual. o_O:giggle:

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.
 
Sep 15, 2019
70
22
8
#64
A hill full? There's a visual. o_O:giggle:
I know! Talk about making a mountain out of a mohel. :cool:

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.
A misery or a mystery? :)

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 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.
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
2,216
1,054
113
www.christiancourier.com
#65
I know! Talk about making a mountain out of a mohel. :cool:
That's a good one.
A misery or a mystery? :)
I've attended a circumcision ceremony. My vote is, misery. My gratitude is, yay! I'm female. :D

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.
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.


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.
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.
 
Sep 15, 2019
70
22
8
#66
I've attended a circumcision ceremony. My vote is, misery. My gratitude is, yay! I'm female. :D
Lol. Whereas males are probably thinking "I'm glad I don't remember that!"

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.
I agree.

The foreskin protects the members , shall we say, opening. Just as women have protection over their most sensitive part.
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.

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.
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.
Lol. Very true! :)
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
2,216
1,054
113
www.christiancourier.com
#67
Lol. Whereas males are probably thinking "I'm glad I don't remember that!"
No doubt.

:)
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.
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.


Which can also be a good thing. Sometimes, one can be so caught up in the physical that one forgets the spiritual.
Very true indeed. Especially the part about being caught up. Sometimes worldly concerns can be very distracting.

Lol. Very true! :)
A fellow fan! ;)
 
Sep 15, 2019
70
22
8
#68
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?
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?

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.
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.

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.
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.

Very true indeed. Especially the part about being caught up. Sometimes worldly concerns can be very distracting.
Yup!

How could anyone not be? :)
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,747
1,075
113
Texas
#69
I have been poked fun at because I study scripture with people who are deeply involved with the OT and ancient Hebrew history. I am told I am too absorbed by the OT, it is mixing me up. One scholarly Christian told me it was foolishness. They have a label for it, they call it the roots movement. Anyone who speaks too much of OT is told they believe in going back to the sacrificial system scripture tells us we are not to use. The roots people, so intent on accepting the Lord on the Lord’s terms are accused of not accepting scripture. The roots people are scolded for their study, they are told we must stay in the NT even with our study. They are told the new covenant is accepted, we must not learn about the old covenant for it is not accepted.

One of the things these new covenant people take God to task for is some of the OT rituals God gave man. They say that it was not right for God to have used the sacrifice of animals as a symbol of the sacrifice of Christ. Also, the Lord is laughed at for saying not to mix fibers for example, the Lord is taken to task often for what is in the OT. The idea is that man has so much greater wisdom than God. But that has not always proven to be true.

Our food is restructured by man. As an example, man cuts our grains apart and takes out the part of them that are the most nutritious. How our animals used for food are fed makes their diet unnatural. So, our food does not nourish us properly. Over and over we have finally learned that God’s way is best. Learning the thoughts of the Lord always brings wisdom, in every way God is superior to man. It is not right for man to take God to task, ever.

I have found that every time man sets himself up as wiser than God it is either through misunderstanding God or that that person is wrong.

People can scoff all they want, I study the way of God, including the way of God before Christ. I find great wisdom there just as there is great wisdom in Christ.
I have never heard any Christian make any of the assertions that you are claiming, not ever in my life. I don't know what circles you run in nor have I been to Oregon, so I'm not saying it don't happen. I have just never heard of it.