My wife just chimed in and said "no. She was not a judge like the other judges were."
This is her realm of study. Deborah was being a prophetess, outside the city under a tree. She wasn't in the city gates judging the populace as sinners were brought to them.
This is formally the first time my wife has ever written anything on PDW ------
Deborah was revealing and being a voice for Gods judgments on the people at that time. It was a time where the nation was not strong in following Gods will and order. Him raising her up as a woman was a rebuke to them for their lack or trust and belief in him. It did not go against the order he had already established with men and elders being the one making the civil judgements on people. She is also not the nations deliverer at that time. Baruk was raised up to be that. None of the language used to describe Israels deliverers is used to describe her. Jael was given the victory over Sisera because of Baruks cowardice, so the glory of victory went to her instead of him.
That was my wife writing. She is pretty aggressively anti-feminist.
Ha ha ha. I showed her your comment and then the gif took a long time to load. So I was thinking "be a good thumbs up and not something lewd" since she was sitting right there. And then it was an awesome thumbs up!
What God was saying in effect was "You men are a bunch of pussies. None of you are strong enough, morally or physically, to be useful to me. So I'll use a woman instead, just to show you."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Genesis 5:1-2
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Those who are JINA (Jews in name only, referred to as Jye-nuhs) love Talmud because they can have a fun time cherry picking. They are as spiritual as a Democrat...
Talmud is a massive encyclopedia of written opinion by human authors, commentaries, cookbooks, calendars, histories, etc. It isn't divinely inspired.
I have zero interest or reason to read Talmud. The only reason I would ever say anything positive about it is because it has historical records which are ancient.
The Torah are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
I believe that Torah is the opposite of Leftism, Marxism. I believe that if we can change the culture back to a Torah basis, that we can fix the country (and the world). I also don't think it is contrary to American values, either. Except secular humanist values which the Left have declared "American."
Those two things are completely separate (Pun intended)
Deuteronomy is Old Testament / Torah.
The Talmud - the compendium of ancient Jewish legal traditions (you should read it sometime, especially if you are a Christian - it's important to see how they thing they are fooling you) identifies 8 genders:
The Talmud, a huge and authoritative compendium of Jewish legal traditions, contains in fact no less than eight gender designations including:
Zachar, male.
Nekevah, female.
Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.
In fact, not only did the rabbis recognize six genders that were neither male nor female, they had a tradition that the first human being was both. Versions of this midrash are found throughout rabbinic literature, including in the Talmud
The above stuff is gay propaganda bullshit, but it's also technically accurate, in that the ancient Jews DID recognize multiple genders. They never said they were saying that based on the Old Testament.
Please don't get mad at me, I hate this too, but it's historical fact. Be mad at the people who wrote it.
That's like saying chocolate and vanilla aren't the only flavors of ice cream cones, there is also those who got a chocolate cone but then dropped it and then bought a new one and the new one is vanilla, or had it stolen and then got a new vanilla one, or a vanilla icecream that had chocolate syrup on it.
These are all just different circumstances describing different situations of the same 2 flavors. It's the same with gender. There is only male and/or female genders in each of those descriptions.
Saris adam in that description is just a biological male subjected to tranny hormones, which is male.
If you tattoo your arm to the point where literally no skin in showing, is that a third type of appendage? It's neither arm nor leg right? No it's still an arm it just looks different now.
This just reinforces, to me, that there really is only 2 genders and everything else is just a way of describing circumstances or variation therewithin. It's as legit as calling Tomboy a gender, when tomboys are 100% female despite having the world boy in there.
They did not recognize different genders. It is referring to people who have rare medical conditions born with either both genetilia or none ( still happens nowadays though very rare).
There are also people with internal testicle.
These are rare medical conditions. Not just people waking up and deciding to change their gender
We all know the left gets sex and gender confused, and similarly most people under the age of 70 use the terms sex and gender interchangeably, because it wasn't a consequential difference until about three years ago.
This entire post is tiresome. The article is propaganda, the tweet is a retarded non sequitur. My post provides context, and people are getting defensive for some reason.
u/snowflakejuice is saying that he believes that the list you have from the Talmud is breaking down terms and classifications for situations when gender reassignment at birth (because of hermaphrodite births) has gone wrong.
One of the homeless women I worked with closely for a few years had a lot of mental problems. She called herself by an animal name, and referred to herself in the third person. She was kinda non binary for real, in a way woke people who claim to be simply are not.
Eventually she started having weird physical pains down there. She explained in excruciated detail to me that she was born physically a male, or at least had both organs, and now a doctor had finally described to her that she was going to have her buried penis begin to burst out of her skin. It was painful but she was having erections under all the rest of whatever was down there.
It sounded crazy, but there IS somethibg very different about her. She wasn't jumping on a social bandwagon and she isn't woke. I believe she had a dick which was buried.
I see nothing wrong with naming that. If she is aylonit adam then I thank you for naming it for me. That doesn't change the fact that man was made in two genders, not do I assume based on this excerpt above that "the rabbis" (in this case whichever one guy named these categories) thinks that God created six actual genders.
All I am saying is that Ancient Judaism (not the old testament, but some of the Jews themselves, or their legal system - but apparently some people here don't understand that Jew is both religion and an ethnicity) did indeed recognize some variant of this phenomena, as per the Talmud, which is more of a legal thing than a strict religious one.
Quoting the bible does not refute the point made by the headline of the article, as the original image seems to think it does. The article probably goes on to try to justify some form of degeneracy, but that context is not really relevant to the original image post which was just dealing with the headline and a "gotcha" response to it. 🤷♂️
Its just a shame that a few people with legitimate medical issues have become swept up in this brainwashing... fetish.
For fucks sake the people on this site have been obnoxious lately.
I didn't say it contradicts. They didn't either. Stop being fucking retarded and making me defend people I hate just because you're too stupid to understand the difference between recognizing and endorsing.
They list it in the Talmud, ergo, they recognize that it exists. The same is true today. I RECOGNIZE that there are people that THINK they are transgender - that doesn't mean that I agree, but I'm not going to pretend that delusional people don't exist. I don't like pedos either, but I RECOGNIZE they exist.
Because you are incorrect. The Talmud was not referring to people with mental illness, it was specifically referring to people with medical conditions, intersex, hermaphrodites, hidden penis etc. These are all medical conditions, that while rare, do exist. It was not referring to mentally ill tranny's (the article was wrong).
Calling someone obnoxious, or losing your shit over a subject matter in which you have no knowledge isn't a good look
Fun fact, everybody else is referring to people with mental illness too.
Or are you forgetting that part?
Please, PLEASE, learn the difference between recognizing and endorsing. I understand that you feel a compulsive need to win an argument that nobody else is having, but it's really not necessary.
The Talmud isn't a book of instruction. The Talmud is a collected history with a lot of human opinions in it.
Jewish people don't sit around reading the Talmud like that. It's also political histories, cookbooks, it is a collection of op-eds.
I can't compare the number of gay or pedo rabbis in history to the number of gay or pedo Catholic priests. But when you see a Catholic pedophile you don't automatically think "well there's an example of a normal Catholic priest." And we know they have tried to normalize it.
And we pretty much all assume that Catholic priests are all gay, whereas that assumption isn't normal for rabbis. Probably because rabbis have spouses and families, they are living life by God's esys (in general).
The Talmud is a lot like Catholic missals in that respect.
Sounds like you're just trying to deflect to be anti-catholic. Only leftists and angry protestants "pretty much all assume" that Catholic priests are all gay, because it suits their agenda more than reality.
Re read the headline of the post, and then re read my comment.
They didn't say it was in the bible. I didn't say it was either. They said it was recognized by ancient Judaism. And I gave you the list from the ancient document that recognized it. Nobody says it was endorsed.
Rabbis suck the blood off freshly circumcised males so all rabbis are pedos. Wanna know what the biggest group of pedophiles are? Not Catholic priests but school teachers. They literally get a year to groom a fresh batch of kids year after year.
Yeah many cases of infant boys with herpes because of that in the Jewish community. The Jewish ceremony of circumcision includes the rabbi sucking the blood off the new circumcision.
No. The drinking of blood is against Torah law. A rabbi cannot "drink blood" and be Jewish.
Genesis 9:4 is right after Noah's ark rests. The first commandment after the Flood is to go forth and multiply. Immediately after comes the instruction to not drink blood.
Antisemites like to say that Jews drink blood. It's retarded but they're retarded.
"Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds."
One causes the other through inappropriate sexual contact with children. Throughout history many cultures have developed social norms as a way to avoid certain bad outcomes, even of those cultures don't even recall what the bad outcome was. There is a reason it's widespread to avoid inappropriate sexual contact with children in white countries... and that's because jews use it as a way to induce various flavors or degrees of queerness.
Some people might point out that certain cultures in history, such a Rome, did allow pedastry, but I'd also point out they were rife with jews and collapsed under the sheer weight of diversity and sexual deviancy. These are not unrelated things.
Some democrats were crowing with glee not too long ago that over 50% of kids these days identify as some flavor of queer. This is ultimately self correcting as we saw in Rome and Weimar, but it requires a great reset in order to correct.
Probably true, like all of it was part of the plan, convince the German people to follow along, only after the cultural degeneracy and economic failure was blamed on Europe, therefore Europe being conquered is moral and just.
While this commandment covered more formal dressing of men and women, less formal work clothes have always been somewhat sex neutral for very practical reasons.
Blue jeans and overalls are associated with farms for a very good reason. They are tough items of clothes suitable for heavy work being done by either sex. I do not believe this commandment was directed against this type of practical clothing.
Of course when men screw around dressing like women they always choose dresses and skirts because those items are intimately associated with women. You won't find them in overalls, even pink ones.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
No stupid (article writer). Those were temple prostitutes in pagan temples. Pagan temples by the way where any offspring produced by sex with the female temple prostitutes were sacrificed to Molech.
Cross-dressing is pagan. Satanic. It's why the Bible forbids it (this does not mean women cannot wear jeans, however).
Elliot Kukla is a rabbi who provides spiritual care to those who are grieving, dying, ill or disabled. He is working on a book about the power of rest in a time of planetary crisis.
It is very technical. But it utterly decimates the arguments being used by Progressive fake Christians to justify homosexual behavior. Very highly reommended.
They where. Why do you think they had to write it down in the Torah? As a warning for today? No it was written so they would have a justification for stoning the queers for being an abomination. Ancient Judea was a nasty place.
In my opinion, yes. Because His instructions don't change. (That is a view called "dispensationalism".)
There was a huge debate in the first 50 years after Christ about whether a believer needed to be circumsized to be considered to be of faith. Shaul was not against circumcision: he was a Torah-observant Jewish believer.
The problem arose in preaching the work of our Messiah who died for us. To be circumcized would be to observant, however to push it on new believers who were leaving the ways of the gentiles behind would confuse them about the salvific nature of faith.
Titus 1
KJV
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
NLT
10 For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation.
Shaul IS of the circumcision in practice, but not advocating pushing it on new believers and gentiles. It is not a salvific act. It is an act of obedience.
The problems they were having was that some people were saying things like "you don't need to have faith in the Messiah, you only need to be circumcized." And that was not only a conversion issue but untrue.
Just out of genuine curiosity, given your position that God still demands circumcision, what do you make of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
Paul states that "it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised. The important thing is to keep God's commandments."
This was in response to practicing Jewish converts to Christianity telling Gentiles their salvation was incomplete without circumcision, while Hellenistic Jews felt the visible mark of circumcision needed surgical operation to aesthetically reverse and therefore undo adherence to the Jewish faith upon taking up life with Christ. Paul states that God called each person where they were, and there is no expectation for them to change their circumstances besides obeying God and living sanctified.
I typed this whole thing out earlier and then lost the whole tab. Now I'll do it again and try to not make it as long!
Paul spends a lot of time talking about salvation versus sanctification.
He also uses the word "circumcision" in three ways.
being a part of the "in-crowd" of Jewish converts to Christ (they are the circumcision)
the process of converting to the religion of Judaism
surgically removing the foreskin from the penis
Paul frequently uses that word to say that in order to be saved, we do not need to be ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish.
He's also making the salvation v sanctification examples. Can we commit adultery and be saved? Yes. Can we steal and be saved? Yes. Can we be uncircumcised and be saved? Yes.
We follow the instructions we are given because we love our master and want to be obedient. Not because we get a reward for it (although I would argue that our works are not inconsequential in our final assessment). We aren't saved by works.
To follow Torah is a tree of life and creates abundance and a healthy society. We aren't saved through it, it isn't salvific. And, we are sinners and cannot actually do it fully, so if we needed to do so in order to be saved, then we would be screwed.
Only ONE man has ever been able to fully commit to and perfectly live that life, and He is the son of Yahweh, who has His name in Him.
Paul is almost always quoting the Old Testament. To understand him, we need to understand what he is referencing. Otherwise he appears to contradict even Jesus Himself frequently. In 1 Corinthians 7 he is referencing Jeremiah 9.
23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.
25 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.
Yahweh is dictating to Jeremiah a list of people who have positive things. Wisdom, might, riches, circumcision. These are fine and good but we should take no glory or refuge in them because they will not save us.
As a devil's advocate position, in Galatians 5 Paul appears to outright condemn circumcision. He's condemning the bondage of the fruits or results of sin. To be in sin is to be in bondage, we are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness.
In that chapter he is saying that if we're going to claim that following the Torah will save us, that we have to do it 100% perfectly from birth to be saved by our own effort and our own perfectness. Which is, of course, ridiculous. We cannot be saved through works. Only the Messiah could live that life. That doesn't mean we don't strive to live that way, because our goal in living is to try to be the most like Him that we can be.
Circumcision is like the well regulated in the 2nd amendment. A nick on the tip of the penis isn't the same thing as removing the entire foreskin. One was a spiritually symbolic mark, the other is genital mutilation.
It's like a ritual where you cut the back of your hand to bleed blood being taken to mean cutting off your whole hand.
The ancient Israelites did NOT support queer shit.
Dollars to doughnuts their argument involves the female judge.
Deborah? Do you mean Deborah?
My wife just chimed in and said "no. She was not a judge like the other judges were."
This is her realm of study. Deborah was being a prophetess, outside the city under a tree. She wasn't in the city gates judging the populace as sinners were brought to them.
This is formally the first time my wife has ever written anything on PDW ------
Deborah was revealing and being a voice for Gods judgments on the people at that time. It was a time where the nation was not strong in following Gods will and order. Him raising her up as a woman was a rebuke to them for their lack or trust and belief in him. It did not go against the order he had already established with men and elders being the one making the civil judgements on people. She is also not the nations deliverer at that time. Baruk was raised up to be that. None of the language used to describe Israels deliverers is used to describe her. Jael was given the victory over Sisera because of Baruks cowardice, so the glory of victory went to her instead of him.
That was my wife writing. She is pretty aggressively anti-feminist.
That's the one, also thumbs up to your wife for breaking down why it's still a shit argument for saying ancient Israel supported queer shit.
Ha ha ha. I showed her your comment and then the gif took a long time to load. So I was thinking "be a good thumbs up and not something lewd" since she was sitting right there. And then it was an awesome thumbs up!
What God was saying in effect was "You men are a bunch of pussies. None of you are strong enough, morally or physically, to be useful to me. So I'll use a woman instead, just to show you."
She just said "pretty much!"
I believe this is happening now as well. Some of the strongest fighters to rise after Trump have been women.
Sounds like she needs an account and put these mgtow faggots out to dry.
Mrs. B has spoken!
The 1930s and 2010s would like a word.....
Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA, was a gay man who promoted gay men into positions of power. It was a big circle-jerk.
He was Hitler's right-hand man for a long time.
Be gay, get to be a Nazi leader.
https://imgur.com/MVSTElm
the current ones don't either, this is not written about them, it's written for whites to read.
OTOH, the fact that they had to make this rule in the first place means people must've been doing it.
People have always done everything, since the beginning. "There is nothing new under the sun."
Not today Satan.
They recognized them all right, and then stoned them.
Right.
Islam is right about the jews.
That's a good way to get your head cut off...
When a random NYT writer says something you can be pretty sure it's not true.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
As a Jew, I reject Talmud
Those who are JINA (Jews in name only, referred to as Jye-nuhs) love Talmud because they can have a fun time cherry picking. They are as spiritual as a Democrat...
Dumb question, but what's the difference between the Talmud and the Torah?
Torah are the first 5 books of the Bible. Talmud is a collection of commentary. I'm a Karaite Jew. We shun Talmud. We stick to the Bible.
Talmud is a massive encyclopedia of written opinion by human authors, commentaries, cookbooks, calendars, histories, etc. It isn't divinely inspired.
I have zero interest or reason to read Talmud. The only reason I would ever say anything positive about it is because it has historical records which are ancient.
The Torah are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
I believe that Torah is the opposite of Leftism, Marxism. I believe that if we can change the culture back to a Torah basis, that we can fix the country (and the world). I also don't think it is contrary to American values, either. Except secular humanist values which the Left have declared "American."
I'm not Jewish, BTW.
Do you see Catholic missals as similar to Talmud? As an analogy I think it is appropriate.
I can't imagine anyone ever reading a Talmud. That's like, decades of reading to do.
All commentary falls into the same bin for me as an opinion. I wouldn't live my life or base my faith on them.
Your ignorance is showing.
This is why you laugh at them, they can't be taken seriously with shit this stupid.
Those two things are completely separate (Pun intended)
Deuteronomy is Old Testament / Torah.
The Talmud - the compendium of ancient Jewish legal traditions (you should read it sometime, especially if you are a Christian - it's important to see how they thing they are fooling you) identifies 8 genders:
The above stuff is gay propaganda bullshit, but it's also technically accurate, in that the ancient Jews DID recognize multiple genders. They never said they were saying that based on the Old Testament.
Please don't get mad at me, I hate this too, but it's historical fact. Be mad at the people who wrote it.
That's like saying chocolate and vanilla aren't the only flavors of ice cream cones, there is also those who got a chocolate cone but then dropped it and then bought a new one and the new one is vanilla, or had it stolen and then got a new vanilla one, or a vanilla icecream that had chocolate syrup on it.
These are all just different circumstances describing different situations of the same 2 flavors. It's the same with gender. There is only male and/or female genders in each of those descriptions.
Saris adam in that description is just a biological male subjected to tranny hormones, which is male.
If you tattoo your arm to the point where literally no skin in showing, is that a third type of appendage? It's neither arm nor leg right? No it's still an arm it just looks different now.
This just reinforces, to me, that there really is only 2 genders and everything else is just a way of describing circumstances or variation therewithin. It's as legit as calling Tomboy a gender, when tomboys are 100% female despite having the world boy in there.
They did not recognize different genders. It is referring to people who have rare medical conditions born with either both genetilia or none ( still happens nowadays though very rare).
There are also people with internal testicle.
These are rare medical conditions. Not just people waking up and deciding to change their gender
Okay?
We all know the left gets sex and gender confused, and similarly most people under the age of 70 use the terms sex and gender interchangeably, because it wasn't a consequential difference until about three years ago.
This entire post is tiresome. The article is propaganda, the tweet is a retarded non sequitur. My post provides context, and people are getting defensive for some reason.
u/snowflakejuice is saying that he believes that the list you have from the Talmud is breaking down terms and classifications for situations when gender reassignment at birth (because of hermaphrodite births) has gone wrong.
One of the homeless women I worked with closely for a few years had a lot of mental problems. She called herself by an animal name, and referred to herself in the third person. She was kinda non binary for real, in a way woke people who claim to be simply are not.
Eventually she started having weird physical pains down there. She explained in excruciated detail to me that she was born physically a male, or at least had both organs, and now a doctor had finally described to her that she was going to have her buried penis begin to burst out of her skin. It was painful but she was having erections under all the rest of whatever was down there.
It sounded crazy, but there IS somethibg very different about her. She wasn't jumping on a social bandwagon and she isn't woke. I believe she had a dick which was buried.
I see nothing wrong with naming that. If she is aylonit adam then I thank you for naming it for me. That doesn't change the fact that man was made in two genders, not do I assume based on this excerpt above that "the rabbis" (in this case whichever one guy named these categories) thinks that God created six actual genders.
I agree with you.
All I am saying is that Ancient Judaism (not the old testament, but some of the Jews themselves, or their legal system - but apparently some people here don't understand that Jew is both religion and an ethnicity) did indeed recognize some variant of this phenomena, as per the Talmud, which is more of a legal thing than a strict religious one.
Quoting the bible does not refute the point made by the headline of the article, as the original image seems to think it does. The article probably goes on to try to justify some form of degeneracy, but that context is not really relevant to the original image post which was just dealing with the headline and a "gotcha" response to it. 🤷♂️
Its just a shame that a few people with legitimate medical issues have become swept up in this brainwashing... fetish.
Those people with legitimate medical issues are simply pawns and will be ground underfoot when they are no longer useful to the Left.
Your post provides the wrong context. The Talmud does not contradict the Old Testament and has the same views regarding LGB.
For fucks sake the people on this site have been obnoxious lately.
I didn't say it contradicts. They didn't either. Stop being fucking retarded and making me defend people I hate just because you're too stupid to understand the difference between recognizing and endorsing.
They list it in the Talmud, ergo, they recognize that it exists. The same is true today. I RECOGNIZE that there are people that THINK they are transgender - that doesn't mean that I agree, but I'm not going to pretend that delusional people don't exist. I don't like pedos either, but I RECOGNIZE they exist.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Because you are incorrect. The Talmud was not referring to people with mental illness, it was specifically referring to people with medical conditions, intersex, hermaphrodites, hidden penis etc. These are all medical conditions, that while rare, do exist. It was not referring to mentally ill tranny's (the article was wrong).
Calling someone obnoxious, or losing your shit over a subject matter in which you have no knowledge isn't a good look
Fun fact, everybody else is referring to people with mental illness too.
Or are you forgetting that part?
Please, PLEASE, learn the difference between recognizing and endorsing. I understand that you feel a compulsive need to win an argument that nobody else is having, but it's really not necessary.
The Talmud isn't a book of instruction. The Talmud is a collected history with a lot of human opinions in it.
Jewish people don't sit around reading the Talmud like that. It's also political histories, cookbooks, it is a collection of op-eds.
I can't compare the number of gay or pedo rabbis in history to the number of gay or pedo Catholic priests. But when you see a Catholic pedophile you don't automatically think "well there's an example of a normal Catholic priest." And we know they have tried to normalize it.
And we pretty much all assume that Catholic priests are all gay, whereas that assumption isn't normal for rabbis. Probably because rabbis have spouses and families, they are living life by God's esys (in general).
The Talmud is a lot like Catholic missals in that respect.
Sounds like you're just trying to deflect to be anti-catholic. Only leftists and angry protestants "pretty much all assume" that Catholic priests are all gay, because it suits their agenda more than reality.
Re read the headline of the post, and then re read my comment.
They didn't say it was in the bible. I didn't say it was either. They said it was recognized by ancient Judaism. And I gave you the list from the ancient document that recognized it. Nobody says it was endorsed.
Rabbis suck the blood off freshly circumcised males so all rabbis are pedos. Wanna know what the biggest group of pedophiles are? Not Catholic priests but school teachers. They literally get a year to groom a fresh batch of kids year after year.
Do they really?
Yeah many cases of infant boys with herpes because of that in the Jewish community. The Jewish ceremony of circumcision includes the rabbi sucking the blood off the new circumcision.
No. The drinking of blood is against Torah law. A rabbi cannot "drink blood" and be Jewish.
Genesis 9:4 is right after Noah's ark rests. The first commandment after the Flood is to go forth and multiply. Immediately after comes the instruction to not drink blood.
Antisemites like to say that Jews drink blood. It's retarded but they're retarded.
Torah law forbids the drinking of any blood. That is the way of pagans.
"Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds."
You should see the San Jose Sharts "other cultures love alphabet peole" tweet
Two groups have been almost universally hated throughout history: gays and jews.
One causes the other through inappropriate sexual contact with children. Throughout history many cultures have developed social norms as a way to avoid certain bad outcomes, even of those cultures don't even recall what the bad outcome was. There is a reason it's widespread to avoid inappropriate sexual contact with children in white countries... and that's because jews use it as a way to induce various flavors or degrees of queerness.
Some people might point out that certain cultures in history, such a Rome, did allow pedastry, but I'd also point out they were rife with jews and collapsed under the sheer weight of diversity and sexual deviancy. These are not unrelated things.
Some democrats were crowing with glee not too long ago that over 50% of kids these days identify as some flavor of queer. This is ultimately self correcting as we saw in Rome and Weimar, but it requires a great reset in order to correct.
I don't think you know what "Jews" are. You seem to have created a fictional stereotype in your head.
1930's Germany got sick of Jew Faggotry, insane how history seems to repeat itself.
Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA, was a gay man who promoted gay men into positions of power. It was a big circle-jerk.
He was Hitler's right-hand man for a long time.
Be gay, get to be a Nazi leader.
https://imgur.com/MVSTElm
Probably true, like all of it was part of the plan, convince the German people to follow along, only after the cultural degeneracy and economic failure was blamed on Europe, therefore Europe being conquered is moral and just.
You don't say!! Wow look at that. No wonder the Jews aren't like. This is what they been pushing. This was always a Jewish agenda.
Always has been. Queer supremacy is really just jewish supremacy with a rainbow paint job.
As if you are any less susceptible to sinful temptations.
You really don't get it.
While this commandment covered more formal dressing of men and women, less formal work clothes have always been somewhat sex neutral for very practical reasons.
Blue jeans and overalls are associated with farms for a very good reason. They are tough items of clothes suitable for heavy work being done by either sex. I do not believe this commandment was directed against this type of practical clothing.
Of course when men screw around dressing like women they always choose dresses and skirts because those items are intimately associated with women. You won't find them in overalls, even pink ones.
I think it has to do with how we dress to be seen by the opposite sex. And to identify as the sex we were born as. I agree with you about jeans.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
No stupid (article writer). Those were temple prostitutes in pagan temples. Pagan temples by the way where any offspring produced by sex with the female temple prostitutes were sacrificed to Molech.
Cross-dressing is pagan. Satanic. It's why the Bible forbids it (this does not mean women cannot wear jeans, however).
A range of two.
Does that NYT writer have a name? Do a nose check.
I mean, we all knew it would be.
They call themselves jews and declare themselves Yahweh's chosen people but constantly reject His Torah.
I'm not surprised it's written by a rabbi. Not surprised at all.
Do you follow and observe Torah?
I am in the learning phase: food laws, Sabbaths, tzitzits, and learning how to keep the feasts.
It's a big topic and there are very few groups that really study it without actively looking for ways to get out of it.
For those of you who read, the definitive work on the subject of homosexual behavior is The Bible and Homosexual Practice, by Robert A. J. Gagnon https://www.christianbook.com/the-bible-and-homosexual-practice/robert-gagnon/9780687022793/pd/022797?event=ESRCN|M
It is very technical. But it utterly decimates the arguments being used by Progressive fake Christians to justify homosexual behavior. Very highly reommended.
of course they were.
Hew knew?
They where. Why do you think they had to write it down in the Torah? As a warning for today? No it was written so they would have a justification for stoning the queers for being an abomination. Ancient Judea was a nasty place.
Deuteronomy is a book of the Pentateuch...so!
Ancient Judaism also mutilated children's genitals for "reasons." And modern Judaism is still doing it, for "reasons." Don't be like Judaism.
Circumcision is a mark of obedience to God. He demanded it.
does he demand it still?
In my opinion, yes. Because His instructions don't change. (That is a view called "dispensationalism".)
There was a huge debate in the first 50 years after Christ about whether a believer needed to be circumsized to be considered to be of faith. Shaul was not against circumcision: he was a Torah-observant Jewish believer.
The problem arose in preaching the work of our Messiah who died for us. To be circumcized would be to observant, however to push it on new believers who were leaving the ways of the gentiles behind would confuse them about the salvific nature of faith.
Titus 1
KJV
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
NLT
10 For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation.
Shaul IS of the circumcision in practice, but not advocating pushing it on new believers and gentiles. It is not a salvific act. It is an act of obedience.
The problems they were having was that some people were saying things like "you don't need to have faith in the Messiah, you only need to be circumcized." And that was not only a conversion issue but untrue.
Just out of genuine curiosity, given your position that God still demands circumcision, what do you make of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
Paul states that "it makes no difference whether or not a man has been circumcised. The important thing is to keep God's commandments."
This was in response to practicing Jewish converts to Christianity telling Gentiles their salvation was incomplete without circumcision, while Hellenistic Jews felt the visible mark of circumcision needed surgical operation to aesthetically reverse and therefore undo adherence to the Jewish faith upon taking up life with Christ. Paul states that God called each person where they were, and there is no expectation for them to change their circumstances besides obeying God and living sanctified.
I typed this whole thing out earlier and then lost the whole tab. Now I'll do it again and try to not make it as long!
Paul spends a lot of time talking about salvation versus sanctification.
He also uses the word "circumcision" in three ways.
Paul frequently uses that word to say that in order to be saved, we do not need to be ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish.
He's also making the salvation v sanctification examples. Can we commit adultery and be saved? Yes. Can we steal and be saved? Yes. Can we be uncircumcised and be saved? Yes.
We follow the instructions we are given because we love our master and want to be obedient. Not because we get a reward for it (although I would argue that our works are not inconsequential in our final assessment). We aren't saved by works.
To follow Torah is a tree of life and creates abundance and a healthy society. We aren't saved through it, it isn't salvific. And, we are sinners and cannot actually do it fully, so if we needed to do so in order to be saved, then we would be screwed.
Only ONE man has ever been able to fully commit to and perfectly live that life, and He is the son of Yahweh, who has His name in Him.
Paul is almost always quoting the Old Testament. To understand him, we need to understand what he is referencing. Otherwise he appears to contradict even Jesus Himself frequently. In 1 Corinthians 7 he is referencing Jeremiah 9.
23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.
25 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.
Yahweh is dictating to Jeremiah a list of people who have positive things. Wisdom, might, riches, circumcision. These are fine and good but we should take no glory or refuge in them because they will not save us.
As a devil's advocate position, in Galatians 5 Paul appears to outright condemn circumcision. He's condemning the bondage of the fruits or results of sin. To be in sin is to be in bondage, we are either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness.
In that chapter he is saying that if we're going to claim that following the Torah will save us, that we have to do it 100% perfectly from birth to be saved by our own effort and our own perfectness. Which is, of course, ridiculous. We cannot be saved through works. Only the Messiah could live that life. That doesn't mean we don't strive to live that way, because our goal in living is to try to be the most like Him that we can be.
but his instructions do change or we would still stone people
I would argue that this also hasn't changed. The people who did the stoning though, they were not the people doing the judging.
Would the world be better or worse if pedophiles and murderers were taken out of society?
Circumcision is like the well regulated in the 2nd amendment. A nick on the tip of the penis isn't the same thing as removing the entire foreskin. One was a spiritually symbolic mark, the other is genital mutilation.
It's like a ritual where you cut the back of your hand to bleed blood being taken to mean cutting off your whole hand.
Thanks Muhammed 🐷