that will mean NOTHING to most of you. But I have to get it out...
In a post, you said " In other words, His blood was shed in place of the OT covenant of shedding blood to cut oneself off from sin (aka circumcision). In other words, Abraham was circumcised by his own shedding of blood, and we’re circumcised from sin by Messiah’s blood."
No. No no no no no no NO. Circumcision has NOTHING to do with sin, or the cutting off from. Circumcision is the outward sign of the covenant with Yah. IF it had to do with sin, then a) the Jews wouldn't NEED a Messiah, would they?; b) only men would be covered, so women would be out of luck; and c) why would the Temple run sacrifices all Bloody Day Long? (the pun was TOTALLY not intended, honest!) Also, if His Blood cuts us off from sin, why do we mere humans who believe in Him STILL sin? Even when we try our darndest not to?
Sin is disobedience to God, yes? Sin HAS to be covered BY BLOOD (hence the animal sacrifices) if you (the sinner) wants to be near to God. His Holiness won't allow it any other way. Yeshua's sacrifice REPLACED the animal sacrifices; His Blood washes sin away while animal blood simply covered it.
This is wrong thinking. Circumcision is about obedience, yes - NOT sin. IF it were about sin, then why did Paul say that new believers did NOT need to be circumcised (and yet he himself was)? Yeshua's sacrifice had *nothing* to do with marking one's flesh as a sign of accepting the covenant - it had everything to do with defeating sin and death.
:grumble: Back to your regularly scheduled day now.....
This entry was originally posted at http://fiberaddict.dreamwidth.org/805989.html. Please comment there using OpenID.