They make sense because Paul's defamation is based on falsehood, and the falsehood is that fear of the shining face of Moses (Exodus 34:30) is not the same as intent to mislead as implied by Paul (2 Corinthians 3:13).
This isn't an isolated case. Paul referred to circumcision as mutilation...
I can't really quote from Jesus or Moses since they're dead. All we have are statements from them written not by them, but by others.
Originally I thought you were questioning the interpretation I gave of Philippians3:2-3? I noted very different verbiage in the list of Bibles you gave. The...
One could see the reality of the above " Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah " from the following:
Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic...
Philippians3:2-3.
Philippians contains neither the teachings of Moses nor of Jesus-Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?
If yes, then kindly quote from Moses and or Yeshua, please.
Right?
Regards
A chok, isn't a tautology since whereas a tautology is a phrase that's grammatically elusive in that it seems to be saying something, for instance, "He descended down," when it's not, since the verb "descending" incorporates the concept "down," so that "down," is a tautological redundancy that...
Pointing out the tautological insignificance of the idea that those who circumcise are the circumcision ---and then implying that Jews simply don't have to worry about the lack of meaning to the sign of circumcision since they're Jews ----would, as strange as that sounds, in fact have a...
It is striking that in our verse the milah itself is called "brit," implying that the very act of circumcision constitutes fulfillment of the covenant. In the next verse, however, milah is called "sign brit," a sign of the covenant, implying that the fulfillment of the covenant entails more than...
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators of flesh. For we are the circumcision, we who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Philippians3:2-3.
Paul reveals that in the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 17, there are...
Circumcision is not simply an incision of the male sex organ; it is an inscription, a notation, a marking. This marking, in turn, is the semiological seal, as it were, that represents the divine imprint on the human body. . . The opening of circumcision, in the final analysis, is transformed in...
No, I didn't omit the Rabbi saying circumcision is only a benefit if you fufill the law. The Rabbi doesn't say that, and the quote you posted doesn't say that either. "Benefit" doesn't exist anywhere in the commentary on Genesis 17. In fact, the Rabbi says the opposite. If there was a...
Circumcision isn't mutilation. Mutilation involves loss of function, and given the growth of the population of the tribes of Israel, there was no loss of function.
BTW חק roughly means "to get the joke". In this case the joke is on Paul.
Let his posterity be cut off; [and] in the generation...
Oh, look, you omitted Rabbi Hirsch saying circumcision is only a benefit if you fulfill the law:
The inference is two-fold. On the one-hand, "Be a mensch, a decent human being, before you attempt to be a Jew." First acquire all the humane virtues; only then can you become a Jew.
Rabbi Hirsch...
Assuming the foregoing is factual, someone might ask what on earth would be the purpose, or the meaning, behind a conflation of the two words? Who's behind it? What's his or her purpose? And what would it mean if the truth of the matter became common knowledge? ------If the truth really does set...
Ramban says first that the statement in Genesis 17:14 "the uncircumcised male" makes us aware that the circumcision is at the location where gender is distinguished (the genital organ). So technically the exegesis should be over. The fact just noted should seal the deal: Genesis 17 is talking...
Why, after pointing out the tautological mutilation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 17:10-11, does Paul make the statement above? How does rejoicing in Christ Jesus, and having no confidence in the flesh, directly relate to, or better, signify, a correction of the error made by the Septuagint and...
To make the covenant and the sign of the covenant the same thing, creates a tautology by conflating the dualistic concept of the covenant and its sign, as though the sign is the covenant, and the covenant is the sign. But that makes the distinction between sign and signified superfluous.
This...
The title of the thread speaks of brit milah's tautological significance. And it's that particular significance that brackets Paul's brachylogical outburst in Philippians3:2-3. As a Hebrew exegete, speaking to Hebrew illiterates (for the most part), Paul has to transform the Hebrew element of...
It seems to me that he is warning Christians not to Judaize or be tempted by the Judaizers or religious Jews, for the only thing which counts with God is faith working through love. What do you see in it?