>>719405
I don't know why circumcision was chosen as the sign of the covenant with Abraham. That's open to speculation. But do bear in mind that circumcision didn't begin with Abraham. It is an even older practice that predates the Hebrews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
So if you have the idea that God just made up some sick new form of torture that was unheard of before at the time, then that's not true. God was taking a practice that was already known in other cultures at the time, including cultures Abraham would have known like the Egyptians.
>I also recall a passage where an apostle was talking about how if anyone tells you to get circumcised, he isn't speaking for the lord.. implying that it wasn't truly gods/jesus wish.
I'm not sure which place in particular you're thinking of, but whatever it is I think you've misunderstood. The idea in the New Testament is not that circumcision is intrinsically wrong. Circumcision is not necessary for non-Jews to enter into the new covenant. But that doesn't mean that the Jews were wrong to circumcize themselces under the old covenant. Even Paul circumcized Timothy (recorded in Acts of the Apostles), at least for appearance's sake. So you're right that if someone tells you to get circumcized today out of religious necessity, that would be wrong, but that doesn't mean circumcision was never necessary for the Jews.
>But above all, the whole idea of Abraham being truly righteous just destroys the entire concept of jesus for me, I thought jesus was the only true perfect man free of sin and 100% righteous. Otherwise, using Abraham as an example, we can all become as good as jesus, and there was no reason for him to die for out sins because it is possible for man (Abraham) to be free of sin..
There's a lot that could be said here. But I'll just respond to the most immediate points. First, Abraham was not necessarily 100% righteous. There are even actions recorded in Genesis that are probably not sinless. On two separate occasions, Abraham out of fear pretends that his wife Sarah is his sister, almost leading to him getting cuckolded in both cases, which is only stopped by divine intervention. Abraham also took one of his wife's servants, Hagar, as a concubine in order to have children. Second, assuming you are referring to Paul's usage of Abraham in Romans, you've misunderstood his argument. He's arguing against the belief that non-Jews need to become circumcized and follow the Jewish law in order to be in right standing with God. So Paul takes the verse from Genesis that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and argues that this is said of Abraham beforw he was ever circumcized, so this shows that the Jewish law is not necessary for right standing with God. Hence he says that "man is justified by faith and not by the works of the [Jewish] law." Abraham is not an example of how we can be as good as Jesus and therefore do without grace. He's an example of how grace is not confined to the Jewish people.
Third, even if we suppose that someone never committed any sinful actions, all men are still conceived subject to original sin and still need to be freed from that (and in case someone will object with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in the case of the Virgin Mary, even though we believe she was free from sin from the moment of her conception, she still had to be preserved from original sin by God at the moment of her conception). In the state of original sin, even if our actions were not sinful, and we always did the right thing where possible, while we might not merit any punishments after death, that wouldn't mean that we are deserving of heaven. No amount of good works we do merit heaven by themselves strictly speaking. One element of grace is that it elevates us beyond our human nature and brings us into covenant relationship with God. And finally, to the extent that we do good and avoid evil, we are enabled to do good by God's help in the first place.