If the Abrahamic Covenant was entered into by

Originally Posted by U376977

Again, I think your premise is wrong. The talmed taught, I could look up the reference if you really were to challenge it, but I think you will take my word for it, that to recite the shema was to "take on the yoke of the kingdom of G-d." Jewish thought is purely racial, all Jews are "saved." Just because they are Jews.
Here is how I know this. I was concerned several years ago, about how they are saved? I reasoned that the sacrifice "rolled their sins forward for a year." If there is no sacrifice then there is no salvation, was my thought. Yours is if there is no circumcision then there is no salvation. Well I searched and searched and found the talmud quote. Then I had a conversation with a orthodox rabbi, he told me I was all wrong that sacrifice was an obediance and dedication that they would one day practice again, but their right to inherit the "world to come" was theirs by birth.

This argument is the same argument I use for water baptism and its essentiality. I preach that when a person is truly born again,, the proof will be in their obedience in water baptism..... the same applies here... when the Jew ish male is born he is cicumcised on the 8th day..... this identifies him in the Abrahamic COvenant...... should a parent choose not to circumcise the child then he was not truly Jewish Born

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Actually, if you were not circumcised you were not part of the Covenant...... this was a type of the cutting away of the flesh in sanctification.... it was indeed a type and shadow.... However, the question remains... could a Jewish woman only be saved by either embracing her Father or her Husband and coming into the Covenant through either of these men?

Are you implying that salvation was provided through the Old Covenant?

OT and NT saints are saved by grace through faith ...

OT saints looked forward to Christ ... the Anointed One to save His people.

Romans 3:21
21But now a righteousness from God (speaking of Christ's), apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.


How does the fact that most Jews consider their Jewishness to be matrilineal in nature play into whatever you point you are trying to make? (This is Jewish law.)

Most, if not all, Jewish rabbis agree that circumcision is indeed a sign/physical evidence/seal (whatever we want to call it) ....

but it does not a Jew make, Dr. Vaughn.

One Rabbi states:

Circumcision (Hebrew, Milah), as it is performed by Jews - the Jewish method differs somewhat from the surgical operation - is done in obedience to a divine command to Abraham and his physical and/or spiritual descendants after him:


This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and thy descendants after thee, every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised on the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations (Genesis 17:10-12).


The very fact that there was no need to tell Abraham what was entailed by circumcision, except to restrict the operation to males and to the male reproductive organ, indicates that the procedure was known to Abraham.
In the above passage, God first describes Milah as a covenant (Hebrew, Brith), as though to say that the mere performance of the act is the Jew's fulfilment of his part of the covenant. God goes on to call it 'the sign of the covenant', ie a symbol to represent the Brith. To this day Jews amongst themselves, speaking colloquially, refer to the Brith rather than the Milah.


Not performing the act is tantamount to breaking the covenant, as it says explicitly:

And an uncircumcised male whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; My covenant hath he invalidated (Genesis 17:14).

It was not the means to enter but refusing to do so was demonstration of not believing in the conenant ... and choosing to break it. In this we agree.

The crux of God's covenant w/ Abraham was that God was entering a relationship w/ him and promised ...he was going to make him the father of many nations ... and Sarah represented the embodiment of that promise.

The same Jewish Rabbi writes:

This sign of the covenant was expressly designed for the male Jew. In the English and Romance languages the derivation of the word 'male' and 'masculine' is derived from the Latin 'mas', a root meaning heavy or the strong one, whereas the Hebrew word for male is zachar, which has the same root letters as 'to remember'. In the Jewish tradition the male Jew has the obligation of remembering and reminding, of transmitting the tradition. '

The male Jew needs, because of the nature of all males, ever to be reminded by the sign of the covenant of the Abrahamic tradition.

The Jewess, on the other hand, IS the tradition. That is why Scripture follows the covenant of circumcision command to Abraham with a revelation to him that Sarai is in reality Sarah, the mother of the nation.

He may never have realized it, he might have regarded her as his princess. It took a Divine revelation (Genesis 17:15) to make him aware that Sarah was the very embodiment of the covenant, and that Sarah's issue and the issue of every Jewess to the end of time would be Jewish, whereas Abraham's issue and the issue of Jewish males by a Gentile woman would not be Jews.

Isaac the son of Abraham and Sarah was a Jew, his half-brother Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, was not.

To be a Jew it is not sufficient to have an 'Abraham' for a father unless one has a 'Sarah' for a mother. A Jewish woman is her husband's crown, say the Rabbis, he is distinguished through her, but she does not require him to receive the wreath of fame.

http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/suss...rcumcision.htm

By virtue of this sign being done on the male reproductive organ should tell us that it is a sign of the promise God had made and a reminder to the Jewish male that could only be a reality when he knows w/ his wife "biblically".

[Steve Epley]

Paul in Galatians 3:16-29 tells how women are circumcised in the New Covenant by being baptized into Christ. She doesn't need a man except Jesus the circumciser.

[SDG]

Does not Sarah's faith in God's promise in His covenant count for righteousness too ...

Hebrews 11

By faith even (AD)Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him (AE)faithful who had promised.

This is demonstrated not just in her faith in being able to concieve but in submitting to her husband and also believing in the God who now asked her to leave all and go to an unknown land.

The apostle Peter suggests such a description for her when he writes: "As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid..." (1 Peter 3:6).

[SDG]

Bump

[SDG]

bump for son of branham.