PDA

View Full Version : circumcision for Christians



seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 07:33 PM
My wife is having a son in about 2 months. We are debating whether we should circumcise him. I have heard arguments ranging from it is a personal matter to it is a sin because it is amputating a part the body, which is seen as disregarding the integrity of one's body, (often without anethesia) for no theraputic purpose.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Bethany67
Sep 6th 2008, 07:38 PM
Sometimes it's done medically for hygiene and medical purposes; it can provide partial protection against STDs, according to the World Heath Organization (2007).

What are your reasons for considering it?

Ayala
Sep 6th 2008, 07:45 PM
We are not bound by Old Testament law. This subject is brought up multiple times in the Pauline epistles. Timothy was circumcised, only so that he might be able to better reach unsaved Jews. Therefore, I would say it's ultimately your decision. However, from a health perspective, I would personally suggest it.

livingwaters
Sep 6th 2008, 07:52 PM
Here's a link you can check out:Circumcision Resource Center (http://www.circumcision.org/):)

dispen4ever
Sep 6th 2008, 08:13 PM
It is not a requirement for anyone.
It is a decision made by you and
your wife. Ask your doctor about
it. I personally do not advocate it.

Ta-An
Sep 6th 2008, 08:17 PM
It is important for a boy to look like his daddy..... :idea:

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 10:41 PM
It is important for a boy to look like his daddy..... :idea:

Why? Conformity to what could be sinful only begets more sin.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 11:07 PM
It is a health issue, not a sin issue.

holyrokker
Sep 6th 2008, 11:25 PM
It is not a spiritual issue. Your doctor is the best person to ask.

stillforgiven
Sep 6th 2008, 11:35 PM
My wife is having a son in about 2 months. We are debating whether we should circumcise him. I have heard arguments ranging from it is a personal matter to it is a sin because it is amputating a part the body, which is seen as disregarding the integrity of one's body, (often without anesthesia) for no therapeutic purpose.

What are your thoughts on the matter?


Here's a link you can check out:Circumcision Resource Center (http://www.circumcision.org/):)

That is a good site, actually discussing the reasons not to circumcise, which is still an unpopular view here in the states.

If I was having a son, I wouldn't have him cut.

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 11:55 PM
It is a health issue, not a sin issue.


What if it were determined that circumcision's effect on health and cleanliness were neutral - it was neither heathy or unhealthy nor assisted in being clean or not clean.

How would you feel about it?

manichunter
Sep 7th 2008, 12:30 AM
It is a personal matter, that should not be done for legalistic reasons.....

Tanya~
Sep 7th 2008, 01:14 AM
Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

Spiritually speaking, circumcision makes no difference. God's covenant with Abraham that required circumcision shows us that it was and is not an evil or harmful practice.

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 02:42 AM
What if it were determined that circumcision's effect on health and cleanliness were neutral - it was neither heathy or unhealthy nor assisted in being clean or not clean.

How would you feel about it?

Unnecessary.......

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:22 AM
Unnecessary.......

If it is unnecessary then would you give creedance to the argument that a circumcision - which would be essentially an amputation of a body part for an unnecessary reason - is to intentionally harm the body and disregard the integrity of the body and therefore sinful?

If no, how is this needless amputation any different than the "personal decision" to amputate a finger, a toe, an arm?

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:23 AM
Gal 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

Spiritually speaking, circumcision makes no difference. God's covenant with Abraham that required circumcision shows us that it was and is not an evil or harmful practice.

The circumcision of the Old Testiment - where only the tip of the foreskin is removed - is different from modern American circumcision where the foreskin is completely amputated. American circumcision is much more extensive and barbaric.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 03:30 AM
The circumcision of the Old Testiment - where only the tip of the foreskin is removed - is different from modern American circumcision where the foreskin is completely amputated. American circumcision is much more extensive and barbaric.


It is so babaric that I have known more than one person in their 40s who had circumcision by doctors orders. Those barbaric doctors.

Laish
Sep 7th 2008, 03:33 AM
Hi seamus414
You are going to fined a monumental amounts of info an opinion pro or con circumcision . To me it is a toss up an I can not find any info that would put me in to any camp for or against circumcision. My concern would be if I were circumcise ( which I am ) I would circumcise my son . I am of the opinion that kids want to be like there parents an if they found out they were different it could affect them profoundly , especially concerning such a sensitive matter . I hope this helps
Your brother in Christ
Bill

amazzin
Sep 7th 2008, 03:33 AM
It is so babaric that I have known more than one person in their 40s who had circumcision by doctors orders. Those barbaric doctors.

There are medical reasons for the full removal of the foreskin. It is not a barbaric procedure. Conditions such a Philmosis requires the removal of all dead foreskin.

8PoundBabyJesus
Sep 7th 2008, 04:38 AM
The only considerations you should take into account on whether you want to circucise your son, are health considerations. It's not 1000 B.C anymore.



Anyway, I was uncircumcised, until 11 years old. I was lazy and didn't want to take the proper care of it, and it ended up closing up until it was hard to pee.

Going through the healing process at age 11, was pretty bad I must say.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 05:48 AM
The only considerations you should take into account on whether you want to circucise your son, are health considerations. It's not 1000 B.C anymore.

I am not sure why one would not want to have the "seal of the righteousness of faith." Sure, it doesn't justify or save you, but what blessing to be able to live our lives in the seal of Abraham our Father, not only by our faith, but also our actions.


Rom 4:9-11 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Bethany67
Sep 7th 2008, 05:54 AM
A friend of mine had to be circumcised at 20 because of a retraction problem, and said it was incredibly painful for weeks afterwards. He was in tears and the hospital expected him to immediately drive himself home but he couldn't.

Setting aside health reasons and dodgy theology which tells someone it's a salvational/obedience matter, what possible reason would there be for considering it? Family tradition? I read yesterday that it's still commonly done in the US; I don't think that's the case over here in the UK. Would a little boy feel awkward or possibly even get bullied if he was circumcised but his classmates weren't, or vice versa? This is where I think the 'being the same as Daddy' argument holds some sway.

If you decide it's unnecessary mutilation but do it anyway, then yes it's probably sin - for you - because you're acting against your conscience; in the same way that it would be sin for you to have your young daughter's ears pierced if your conscience is against it. Do you and your wife have differing opinions on the matter? Is that what you're trying to thrash out? Or are you both neutral on the subject?

All things being equal, I wouldn't have had it done to a son of mine unless there was a clear medical reason for it.

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 09:08 AM
If it is unnecessary then would you give creedance to the argument that a circumcision - which would be essentially an amputation of a body part for an unnecessary reason - is to intentionally harm the body and disregard the integrity of the body and therefore sinful?

If no, how is this needless amputation any different than the "personal decision" to amputate a finger, a toe, an arm?

Question one: If done for sound health reasons, it is not unnecessary.

Question two : amputation of a body part would also be done, I assume, for health reasons, and would therefore be necessary.

Ta-An
Sep 7th 2008, 10:45 AM
It is important for a boy to look like his daddy..... :idea:
Why? Conformity to what could be sinful only begets more sin.
Your son is going to see you naked at some time or another..... and if you look different to him, it can cause identity problems.... he might ask:" If I am a boy, and my daddy is a boy, why do we look different?" :hmm:

Sons identify with their fathers....

A father is also an example of G_d to his children... (not related to this question, but while I have the podium, let me preach :idea: )

Ta-An
Sep 7th 2008, 11:05 AM
Just another thought :idea:

Would G_d create the human body with parts that does not have a purpose?? The purpose was to be for a sign of a covenant .... the Jews still practice that covenant circumcision.. but as a Christian, he does not need to be circumcised.... unless you are ;)

J LANCE
Sep 7th 2008, 01:10 PM
My grandfather had to be circumcised in his 80's due to problems with urination. Not exactly sure what was going on. A friend of mine's father-in-law went thru it in his 80's also. This procedure is more painful for an adult than an infant. It might be worth considering to do now and spare future problems and pain. Just my opinion.

Pray about it earnestly.
May the Lord direct you to His will.

jamesand57
Sep 7th 2008, 01:29 PM
It is so babaric that I have known more than one person in their 40s who had circumcision by doctors orders. Those barbaric doctors.


Aparantly you have never talked to a man who due to improper hygene got a infection there. The Doctor will circumcise at that point and treat the infection.

I am mostly aware of it being done in boys, 5-13 as generally the young have the most issues in proper cleaning, once infected though, its incredibly painful for the individual.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 02:52 PM
Aparantly you have never talked to a man who due to improper hygene got a infection there. The Doctor will circumcise at that point and treat the infection.

I am mostly aware of it being done in boys, 5-13 as generally the young have the most issues in proper cleaning, once infected though, its incredibly painful for the individual.


apparently you did not read the post I was making light of

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 10:58 PM
I am not sure why one would not want to have the "seal of the righteousness of faith." Sure, it doesn't justify or save you, but what blessing to be able to live our lives in the seal of Abraham our Father, not only by our faith, but also our actions.


Rom 4:9-11 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


Because it is obsolete and not applicable to Christians.

Sold Out
Sep 7th 2008, 11:12 PM
What if it were determined that circumcision's effect on health and cleanliness were neutral - it was neither heathy or unhealthy nor assisted in being clean or not clean.

How would you feel about it?

I have two boys, 18 & 10. They were both circumcized. Believe me, it's not that big of a deal! Either do it or don't do it.

Van Lewis
Sep 9th 2008, 07:30 AM
I hope you will both actually read the New Testament on circumcision.

Modern science is now finally catching up with Jesus and the early church in rejecting what Jesus says in John 7 comes from man (not God) and St. Paul in Titus 1 calls a "Jewish myth". It is only U.S. Christians in recent times who have been misled into circumcising for mistaken "religious" reasons. Most all Christians throughout Christian history have accepted, and most Christians throughout the world today still accept

1) Paul's blunt warnings not to accept circumcision of the body (read some of Paul's words below),

2) the "long discussion" and the wise, Holy Spirit-led decision of the first council of the Christian church, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), called for the specific purpose of settling the intense circumcision fight then going on in the early church, and most importantly

3) Jesus' words on the subject in John 7 and in the interesting Gospel of Thomas, discovered and translated from the Red Sea scrolls in the 20th century. You will have ready access to John 7 so I won't add that here. The King James version is eloquent. The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus talking about circumcision with these simple words:

Saying 53, Circumcision of the Spirit

53. His students said to him, “Is circumcision of benefit to us or not?” He said to them, “If it were of benefit, their father would have them born from their mother already circumcised. Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit that is worth something.”

Apparently Jesus knew that God's design for the penis should be trusted more than man's, and accepted. Are we surprised?

Holy Scripture guides all Christians back to God's design, not man's, for the human penis. It really is that simple and that important. God really is - SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - a better designer and creator of human bodies and sex organs than 19th, 20th and 21st century English and American doctors who mistakenly adopted circumcision as prevention of and treatment for normal male sexuality, masturbation and literally hundreds of diseases. The circumcisers may THINK they are smarter than God, they certainly ACT like they do, but they are badly mistaken.

Christianity settled the circumcision fight at the beginning (Acts 15), with Jesus' apostles and the Holy Spirit present and voting. The decision was unanimous. I have a lot more to say about all this if you are interested in "Christianity and Circumcision: A Call to Christian Action" at http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/lewis1

Paul minced no words about circumcision:

Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!
Philippians 3:2

I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves.
Galatians 5:12

(WOW!, I say.)

Paul goes on ...

*** 13For you have been called to live in freedom--not freedom to satisfy your sinful nature, but freedom to serve one another in love. 14For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15But if instead of showing love among yourselves you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.
Galatians 5: 13-15

Circumcising is literally biting and devouring the flesh of the baby. Circumcising has killed, and can and still does kill babies, even babies circumcised in hospitals. Killing babies destroys them, in the flesh, at the beginning of their God-given lives. Is this what God has given them to us for, to injure unnecessarily with every circumcision and sometimes kill them by chopping off what God made and we don't understand? Of course not.

... and on!

Living by the Spirits Power
***16So I advise you to live according to your new life in the Holy Spirit. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17The old sinful nature loves to do evil, which is just opposite from what the Holy Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are opposite from what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, and your choices are never free from this conflict. 18But when you are directed by the Holy Spirit, you are no longer subject to the law.
Galatians 5:16-18

The icing on the cake! Torah law says for Jews to circumcise, but Jews (Jesus' Apostles) and the Holy Spirit led Christianity out of bondage to Jewish circumcising at the very beginning. Christianity split with Judaism over this central issue: Are Christians to remain in bondage to human interpretation of the Law? Or are we to be freed to love each other by Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Judaism chose bondage to human interpretation including misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. Christianity chose freedom in Christ to love and serve one another through the indwelling of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and courageously rejected outright circumcising and bondage to human (mis)interpretation of the rest of Jewish law, at the start.

You are free to leave your son as God made him. A boy should look like his father, yes, his HEAVENLY father. The boy was made by God in God's image, not his earthly father's image. Leave him that way, don't force him to look like his man-mutilated father in the flesh. Leave him as God made him. Let love cast out fear. All circumcising is fear-based. Fear circumcises: Love protects.

Let's let our introduction of our precious children and grandchildren to God's love begin with leaving them all of the love organs God in His wisdom gave them. God knows better than we do how to design and make human bodies. Let's trust in that reality and live that trust out in our lives.

END OF SERMON! Which you may not need in the first place, but get me started on God's love and I don't know where to stop!

God's love and mine to you all!

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 12:52 PM
I hope you will both actually read the New Testament on circumcision.

Modern science is now finally catching up with Jesus and the early church in rejecting what Jesus says in John 7 comes from man (not God) and St. Paul in Titus 1 calls a "Jewish myth". It is only U.S. Christians in recent times who have been misled into circumcising for mistaken "religious" reasons. Most all Christians throughout Christian history have accepted, and most Christians throughout the world today still accept

1) Paul's blunt warnings not to accept circumcision of the body (read some of Paul's words below),

2) the "long discussion" and the wise, Holy Spirit-led decision of the first council of the Christian church, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), called for the specific purpose of settling the intense circumcision fight then going on in the early church, and most importantly

3) Jesus' words on the subject in John 7 and in the interesting Gospel of Thomas, discovered and translated from the Red Sea scrolls in the 20th century. You will have ready access to John 7 so I won't add that here. The King James version is eloquent. The Gospel of Thomas has Jesus talking about circumcision with these simple words:

Saying 53, Circumcision of the Spirit

53. His students said to him, “Is circumcision of benefit to us or not?” He said to them, “If it were of benefit, their father would have them born from their mother already circumcised. Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit that is worth something.”

Apparently Jesus knew that God's design for the penis should be trusted more than man's, and accepted. Are we surprised?

Holy Scripture guides all Christians back to God's design, not man's, for the human penis. It really is that simple and that important. God really is - SURPRISE! SURPRISE! - a better designer and creator of human bodies and sex organs than 19th, 20th and 21st century English and American doctors who mistakenly adopted circumcision as prevention of and treatment for normal male sexuality, masturbation and literally hundreds of diseases. The circumcisers may THINK they are smarter than God, they certainly ACT like they do, but they are badly mistaken.

Christianity settled the circumcision fight at the beginning (Acts 15), with Jesus' apostles and the Holy Spirit present and voting. The decision was unanimous. I have a lot more to say about all this if you are interested in "Christianity and Circumcision: A Call to Christian Action" at http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/lewis1

Paul minced no words about circumcision:

Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!
Philippians 3:2

I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves.
Galatians 5:12

(WOW!, I say.)

Paul goes on ...

*** 13For you have been called to live in freedom--not freedom to satisfy your sinful nature, but freedom to serve one another in love. 14For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15But if instead of showing love among yourselves you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.
Galatians 5: 13-15

Circumcising is literally biting and devouring the flesh of the baby. Circumcising has killed, and can and still does kill babies, even babies circumcised in hospitals. Killing babies destroys them, in the flesh, at the beginning of their God-given lives. Is this what God has given them to us for, to injure unnecessarily with every circumcision and sometimes kill them by chopping off what God made and we don't understand? Of course not.

... and on!

Living by the Spirits Power
***16So I advise you to live according to your new life in the Holy Spirit. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17The old sinful nature loves to do evil, which is just opposite from what the Holy Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are opposite from what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, and your choices are never free from this conflict. 18But when you are directed by the Holy Spirit, you are no longer subject to the law.
Galatians 5:16-18

The icing on the cake! Torah law says for Jews to circumcise, but Jews (Jesus' Apostles) and the Holy Spirit led Christianity out of bondage to Jewish circumcising at the very beginning. Christianity split with Judaism over this central issue: Are Christians to remain in bondage to human interpretation of the Law? Or are we to be freed to love each other by Christ and the Holy Spirit?

Judaism chose bondage to human interpretation including misinterpretation of Holy Scripture. Christianity chose freedom in Christ to love and serve one another through the indwelling of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and courageously rejected outright circumcising and bondage to human (mis)interpretation of the rest of Jewish law, at the start.

You are free to leave your son as God made him. A boy should look like his father, yes, his HEAVENLY father. The boy was made by God in God's image, not his earthly father's image. Leave him that way, don't force him to look like his man-mutilated father in the flesh. Leave him as God made him. Let love cast out fear. All circumcising is fear-based. Fear circumcises: Love protects.

Let's let our introduction of our precious children and grandchildren to God's love begin with leaving them all of the love organs God in His wisdom gave them. God knows better than we do how to design and make human bodies. Let's trust in that reality and live that trust out in our lives.

END OF SERMON! Which you may not need in the first place, but get me started on God's love and I don't know where to stop!

God's love and mine to you all!


Is your whole theology based on false interpretations, mistranslations, and the gospel of thomas?

Why did Paul call circumcision "the seal of faith?"

HisLeast
Sep 9th 2008, 01:30 PM
Big time conundrum.

threebigrocks
Sep 9th 2008, 02:39 PM
The only considerations you should take into account on whether you want to circucise your son, are health considerations. It's not 1000 B.C anymore.



Anyway, I was uncircumcised, until 11 years old. I was lazy and didn't want to take the proper care of it, and it ended up closing up until it was hard to pee.

Going through the healing process at age 11, was pretty bad I must say.

My brother dealt with this at about the same age you did. We chose circumcision for our son when he was born because we didn't want him to ever deal with that for any reason. Take care of it now, never will be an issue. My sister in law did the same with her sons, and they slept through the entire thing.

There is reason to do it for practical and health reasons. To do so for religious reasons for a Christian is not scriptural.

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 03:10 PM
Because it is obsolete and not applicable to Christians.


The covenant of Abraham is obsolete? Silly Paul.

HisLeast
Sep 9th 2008, 03:15 PM
The covenant of Abraham is obsolete? Silly Paul.
Obsolete... no. Not wholly applied to Gentiles? Maybe(?)

All I know is that I'm uncircumcised, wear mixed fiber shirts, and had pork chops earlier in the week.

drew
Sep 9th 2008, 03:18 PM
There is reason to do it for practical and health reasons. To do so for religious reasons for a Christian is not scriptural.
I would double check this. I recently heard some information that suggested that there was no health benefit to circumcision, despite a prevailing view to the contrary.

But do not take my word, or those of any other posters (none of us are doctors, I assume). Check with credible medical sources re the "health" side of this issue.

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 03:27 PM
I would double check this. I recently heard some information that suggested that there was no health benefit to circumcision, despite a prevailing view to the contrary.

But do not take my word, or those of any other posters (none of us are doctors, I assume). Check with credible medical sources re the "health" side of this issue.


All I can say is that my Brother in Law had one two months ago, for doctor proscribed health reasons. (that doctor was one o dem MDs)

threebigrocks
Sep 9th 2008, 04:02 PM
I would double check this. I recently heard some information that suggested that there was no health benefit to circumcision, despite a prevailing view to the contrary.

But do not take my word, or those of any other posters (none of us are doctors, I assume). Check with credible medical sources re the "health" side of this issue.

Well - I saw my brother suffer. That was enough. ;)

HisLeast
Sep 9th 2008, 04:14 PM
Listening to the arguments given by women and circumcised men over the spiritual significance of being uncircumcised is the only problem my foreskin has ever given me.

Steve M
Sep 9th 2008, 04:19 PM
The only problem my foreskin has ever given me is witnessing arguments women and the already circumcised have over what it means for me spiritually.
Decoding that sentence was the hardest task I've faced yet today. I applaud you for the strength of the grammar, while crying inwardly. A little bit.

Anyhow.

My foreskin never gave me any troubles.

My brother went through excruciating pain and wished mom and dad had done the deed when he was eight days... instead of eleven years.

I've heard the arguing that goes on over whether there's any health benefit, whether it kills some feeling down there, and whether it ought to be done. Wade through it long enough, and you notice that there are some folks on both sides who have an agenda in it; and subsequently, the waters are muddy.

HisLeast
Sep 9th 2008, 04:35 PM
Decoding that sentence was the hardest task I've faced yet today. I applaud you for the strength of the grammar, while crying inwardly. A little bit.
It wasn't the most graceful thing I've ever written. One more reason to circumcise I guess: better grammar.
I've edited the post. I hope it has a little more clarity now.


My foreskin never gave me any troubles.
"Scarf" club is in the house and representin'! :thumbsup:

Van Lewis
Sep 9th 2008, 06:58 PM
Is your whole theology based on false interpretations, mistranslations, and the gospel of thomas?

Why did Paul call circumcision "the seal of faith?"

In answer to your first question, no. If you would like an expansion of my views on this, I have already given you access to it in my original post and you have repeated that url, perhaps without reading what I wrote. If you had read it you would have seen that most of my scriptural sources are New Testament chapters and verses, including John 7, Acts 15, 1 Corinthians, Galatians 2, 5, and 6, Philippians 3, Titus 1, and others in a number of broadly accepted translations, King James and others.

In answer to your second question, Paul was talking about the first covenant, with Abraham, for Jews, not the New Covenant, through Christ, for Christians. He said that God blessed Abraham for his faith prior to Abraham's circumcision. Neither Abraham nor anyone else was or is or will be dependent on circumcision of the body for getting right with God. All people are invited to be Christians. Circumcising is not required. Christianity and the New Testament, including Jesus' own words, clearly say that circumcising is nothing for Christians, spiritually. Nothing. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are everything. Circumcising is at best nothing, and at worst an impediment.

For example, why did Paul call circumcisers "... dogs, ... evil workers, ... mutilators of the flesh"? Do you have a translation you prefer to that translation? Do you have some exculpatory interpretation that you prefer?

Why did Paul say, "But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose." (1 Corinthians 12:18) He did not say "each one except for the male foreskin, and God depends on human hands to cut that terrible mistake of His off". He said, "... each one of them". My interpretation is that "each one" includes the foreskin. What is yours?

There is no "extra credit" mentioned anywhere in the New Testament for joining the ".. dogs, ... evil workers, ... mutilators of the flesh", as Paul called them, none for chopping off other people's foreskins or one's own. None. Quite the contrary. The New Testament says in many places that God makes no difference - none - between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. It's not what's on the penis that counts, it's what's in the heart. That's Scripture on the subject (as I hear it. But don't believe me. Read the New Testament for yourself. Listen directly to God yourself.)

For instance, Peter, in Acts 15, says that God "cleansed their lives through faith," [the lives of the uncircumcised] "just as he did ours" [the circumcised]. 10 "And now are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles with a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? 11 Don't you believe that all are saved the same way, by the free gift of the Lord Jesus?"

Peter says here that circumcision is less than nothing, a burdensome "yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." And that Jesus frees us freely from this and all other bondage to evil. We are saved by Jesus alone, not by genital mutilation. Jesus does not discriminate against the circumcised or the genitally intact. All are free to love Jesus and be saved by Jesus, no matter what their genital or any other status.

Peter's testimony at the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, is what ended the circumcision fight in Christianity for all time. (But don't believe me. You can read it yourself in Acts 15.)

Also, Jesus, in John 7, in the Temple in Jerusalem, contrasts his ministry of making men "... every whit whole ..." (King James version) with the circumcisers' actions of rendering men partial. Who is the sinner here, Jesus, or the circumcisers? Jesus then instructs us to judge circumcising rightly: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7:24

What is righteous judgement of circumcising? Jesus' judgment is righteous judgment. In order to align our judgment with Jesus', we need to read Jesus' and his disciples' words on the subject in the New Testament, and we need to open our hearts to Jesus and the Holy Spirit on the subject as Jesus' disciples did, we need to pray to our Lord and Savior on the subject, we need to knock on the door to Jesus' heart. If we do, he will open it to us. That is his promise. He told us he did not lie to us. I believe him.

As for Old Testament quotes, why did Jeremiah (8:8) say,

"How can you say, 'We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie."

The truth is that no human interpretation of any passage in the Bible is authoritative, certainly not mine. God's, Jesus', the Holy Spirit's interpretation, the Trinity's interpretation is the only authoritative one. It is the Trinity's interpretation that counts. That is why you must not rely on mine or anyone else's. I have only been reading and thinking and feeling and praying about this difficult (were it not for clear New Testament guidance) matter for half-a-century or so. You must do your own deep reading and thinking and feeling and praying about it if you want to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the subject. I can try to tell you what Scripture and the Holy Trinity have led me to about circumcising and circumcision - I have gone to some considerable trouble to do that at http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/lewis1 - but whatever you do, don't take my words there or anywhere else as Gospel. Read the New Testament for the Good News about circumcising. You must not believe me. You can listen to me, you can learn how I hear and see and feel the heart of God on the matter, but that is not authoritative for you. Only the Holy Trinity is authoritative for you. Only Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Rely on Jesus, not on me or on any other human being, Christian or non-Christian. Jesus is the truth. Read Jesus. Learn Jesus. Love Jesus. And love your children as Jesus does. That is his loving commandment.

Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus shown circumcising a child.

Praise the Lord!

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 07:39 PM
In answer to your first question, no. If you would like an expansion of my views on this, I have already given you access to it in my original post and you have repeated that url, perhaps without reading what I wrote. If you had read it you would have seen that most of my scriptural sources are New Testament chapters and verses, including John 7, Acts 15, 1 Corinthians, Galatians 2, 5, and 6, Philippians 3, Titus 1, and others in a number of broadly accepted translations, King James and others.

In answer to your second question, Paul was talking about the first covenant, with Abraham, for Jews, not the New Covenant, through Christ, for Christians. He said that God blessed Abraham for his faith prior to Abraham's circumcision. Neither Abraham nor anyone else was or is or will be dependent on circumcision of the body for getting right with God. All people are invited to be Christians. Circumcising is not required. Christianity and the New Testament, including Jesus' own words, clearly say that circumcising is nothing for Christians, spiritually. Nothing. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are everything. Circumcising is at best nothing, and at worst an impediment.

For example, why did Paul call circumcisers "... dogs, ... evil workers, ... mutilators of the flesh"? Do you have a translation you prefer to that translation? Do you have some exculpatory interpretation that you prefer?

Why did Paul say, "But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose." (1 Corinthians 12:18) He did not say "each one except for the male foreskin, and God depends on human hands to cut that terrible mistake of His off". He said, "... each one of them". My interpretation is that "each one" includes the foreskin. What is yours?

There is no "extra credit" mentioned anywhere in the New Testament for joining the ".. dogs, ... evil workers, ... mutilators of the flesh", as Paul called them, none for chopping off other people's foreskins or one's own. None. Quite the contrary. The New Testament says in many places that God makes no difference - none - between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. It's not what's on the penis that counts, it's what's in the heart. That's Scripture on the subject (as I hear it. But don't believe me. Read the New Testament for yourself. Listen directly to God yourself.)

For instance, Peter, in Acts 15, says that God "cleansed their lives through faith," [the lives of the uncircumcised] "just as he did ours" [the circumcised]. 10 "And now are you going to correct God by burdening the Gentiles with a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? 11 Don't you believe that all are saved the same way, by the free gift of the Lord Jesus?"

Peter says here that circumcision is less than nothing, a burdensome "yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear." And that Jesus frees us freely from this and all other bondage to evil. We are saved by Jesus alone, not by genital mutilation. Jesus does not discriminate against the circumcised or the genitally intact. All are free to love Jesus and be saved by Jesus, no matter what their genital or any other status.

Peter's testimony at the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, is what ended the circumcision fight in Christianity for all time. (But don't believe me. You can read it yourself in Acts 15.)

Also, Jesus, in John 7, in the Temple in Jerusalem, contrasts his ministry of making men "... every whit whole ..." (King James version) with the circumcisers' actions of rendering men partial. Who is the sinner here, Jesus, or the circumcisers? Jesus then instructs us to judge circumcising rightly: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7:24

What is righteous judgement of circumcising? Jesus' judgment is righteous judgment. In order to align our judgment with Jesus', we need to read Jesus' and his disciples' words on the subject in the New Testament, and we need to open our hearts to Jesus and the Holy Spirit on the subject as Jesus' disciples did, we need to pray to our Lord and Savior on the subject, we need to knock on the door to Jesus' heart. If we do, he will open it to us. That is his promise. He told us he did not lie to us. I believe him.

As for Old Testament quotes, why did Jeremiah (8:8) say,

"How can you say, 'We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie."

The truth is that no human interpretation of any passage in the Bible is authoritative, certainly not mine. God's, Jesus', the Holy Spirit's interpretation, the Trinity's interpretation is the only authoritative one. It is the Trinity's interpretation that counts. That is why you must not rely on mine or anyone else's. I have only been reading and thinking and feeling and praying about this difficult (were it not for clear New Testament guidance) matter for half-a-century or so. You must do your own deep reading and thinking and feeling and praying about it if you want to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the subject. I can try to tell you what Scripture and the Holy Trinity have led me to about circumcising and circumcision - I have gone to some considerable trouble to do that at http://cirp.org/pages/cultural/lewis1 - but whatever you do, don't take my words there or anywhere else as Gospel. Read the New Testament for the Good News about circumcising. You must not believe me. You can listen to me, you can learn how I hear and see and feel the heart of God on the matter, but that is not authoritative for you. Only the Holy Trinity is authoritative for you. Only Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Rely on Jesus, not on me or on any other human being, Christian or non-Christian. Jesus is the truth. Read Jesus. Learn Jesus. Love Jesus. And love your children as Jesus does. That is his loving commandment.

Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus shown circumcising a child.

Praise the Lord!

Why did Paul have Timothy circumsized?

threebigrocks
Sep 9th 2008, 07:58 PM
Guys especially - remember this is BC and let's not make it "goofy" so that nobody wants to post. Save the details and such for a thread in the Porch. ;) Let's keep it scriptural.

Van Lewis
Sep 10th 2008, 06:59 AM
Why did Paul have Timothy circumsized?

That is a very interesting question. Certainly not because Paul thought it was necessary to Timothy's salvation or would earn Timothy any favor at all with God. Paul knew better, as revealed by many of his other words on circumcision. He knew that Timothy was already saved through his faith in Jesus Christ. Why do you think Paul had Timothy circumcised?

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 01:31 PM
That is a very interesting question. Certainly not because Paul thought it was necessary to Timothy's salvation or would earn Timothy any favor at all with God. Paul knew better, as revealed by many of his other words on circumcision. He knew that Timothy was already saved through his faith in Jesus Christ. Why do you think Paul had Timothy circumcised?


It did have nothing to do with Salvation, we can certainly agree with that. I would say it is because it is a command in Torah. Perhaps Timothy wanted to be circumsized? If it was Paul's decision then he would have contradicted himself. Perhaps Paul did not have a problem with the act of circumcision? Perhaps he had a problem with what it represented to many self righteous leaders?

RoadWarrior
Sep 10th 2008, 02:04 PM
Why did Paul have Timothy circumsized?


Hi Emanate,

A question like this is more easily answered when you provide the scripture that applies.

Thanks.

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 02:22 PM
Acts 16:3 - Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Timothy was considered to be ethnically Jewish through his mother Lois. It seems that Paul had Timothy circumcised because of his mixed parentage, and it implies that his father never converted to Judaism and specifically prevented Lois from having Timothy circumcised as a Jewish mother would naturally do. If Paul hadn't had Timothy circumcised, it would have caused an uproar amongst the Jews and have at that time hindered the preaching of the gospel (which was Paul's mission). I don't see it as a prescriptive way for believers to follow. It was presumably a public or semi-public circumcision, because I can't imagine the alternative - that someone within the Jewish community had the job of checking. I see it as a practical example of 1 Cor 9:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Paul had no problem later in Acts 21 in joining the 4 men in their purification rights and paying their expenses so they could be released from their Jewish vows. He did this knowing that the public assumption would be that he lived under the Jewish law. He didn't see this as a compromise of his message.

The issue with Galatians was that they weren't ethnic Jews, they were predominantly a Celtic people converted from Paganism to Christ (Gal 4:8 - Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods). It was at Lystra, a Galatian city, that the Romano-Celtic inhabitants wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas because they thought they were gods - Acts 14:8-23. They thought Paul and Barnabas were Zeus and Hermes because Paul healed a man crippled from birth, and even the priest of Zeus in the city wanted to offer sacrifices in his enthusiasm that his 'god' was visiting. It was a deeply-held belief and they didn't take too kindly to Paul and Barnabas refusing, so they stoned Paul.

The Galatians were being influenced by Jewish Christians who told them they HAD to follow the Law in order to be saved. This was in direct opposition to the Gospel and so Paul confronted it.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 03:50 PM
Acts 16:3 - Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Timothy was considered to be ethnically Jewish through his mother Lois. It seems that Paul had Timothy circumcised because of his mixed parentage, and it implies that his father never converted to Judaism and specifically prevented Lois from having Timothy circumcised as a Jewish mother would naturally do. If Paul hadn't had Timothy circumcised, it would have caused an uproar amongst the Jews and have at that time hindered the preaching of the gospel (which was Paul's mission). I don't see it as a prescriptive way for believers to follow. It was presumably a public or semi-public circumcision, because I can't imagine the alternative - that someone within the Jewish community had the job of checking.

I believe you have something here. However, on face value this completely violates what it seems that Saul had been teaching, unless it had been requested by Tomothy. He before stated that circumsized or uncircumsized each should stay true to that calling.

When Saul mentions circumcision he is not speaking of the physical act of circumcision in most cases. Saul is speaking of the act of conversion to Judaism. The Jewish people could care less if a Gentile is circumsized or not, unless it was the final step of conversion. Saul is very clear that we need not convert to Judaism, now or ever. Now we former (gentiles/heathens) are grafted into Israel, partakers of the covenant, one new man.

This scripture is a great example of how a believer can still choose to follow Torah, understanding that it brings us no closer to God.

Bethany67
Sep 10th 2008, 05:00 PM
I believe you have something here. However, on face value this completely violates what it seems that Saul had been teaching, unless it had been requested by Tomothy. He before stated that circumsized or uncircumsized each should stay true to that calling.

You may be right that Timothy requested it - we just don't know. I'd question the timing of his teaching BEFORE though (and the possible implication that circumcising Timothy was going against his own writing of 'remain in the state'). The order of books in the New Testament doesn't correspond to the chronology of events. I presume you're referring to 1 Cor 7?

Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

1 Corinthians is believed to have been written from Ephesus in the period AD 53-57 (Paul's 2nd missionary journey) and ties in with Acts 19. I would say Timothy's circumcision happened some time earlier - Acts 16, before Paul spent time in Corinth and later wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus. We have this suggested chronology of Paul's views and activities on circumcision:

1. Visits Antioch Acts 14 where he disputes with the Jews.
2. Visits Jerusalem Acts 15/James does not endorse Jewish Law as required for Gentiles - Apostolic Decree.
3. Timothy circumcised Acts 16.
4. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 'remain in the state' while Acts 19 - 2 years in Ephesus + decision to visit Jerusalem again via Macedonia and Achaia.
5. James asks Paul to assent to the Jewish purification rites Acts 21.

As an aside to where the Galatians epistle fits into the chronology, there are 3 theories:

A. Between points 3 and 4 above ie. after Timothy's circumcision and after the Jerusalem visit of Acts 15. Written after his second visit to Galatia during his 3rd missionary journey in Acts 18. The mention of visiting Jerusalem (Gal 2) implies Acts 15, as it is spoken of as being in the past. Suggested time of writing: same time as 'Romans' during his stay in Corinth Acts 20, in AD 57-58.

B. Somewhere after point 2 above but before point 4 - slightly different to theory A and not fixed with reference to Timothy's circumcision. Written after his first visit to Jerusalem Acts 15 to churches in Galatia planted during his visit in Acts 9. This is the theory which makes the most sense to me; it accounts for the James decree and adds weight to Paul's arguments in Galatians that circumcision is not required or desirable for Gentiles, for which he has the endorsement of the Jerusalem church.

C. Pre-point 1 above. The earliest of Paul's epistles; Gal 2:1-10 corresponds to Paul going to Antioch in Acts 11:30, written before the Council of Jerusalem was convened.

So what are the implications with reference to the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15 in AD 50? It was there that James and the Jerusalem believers accepted him and his mission to the uncircumcised. He says in Gal 2 that the Council did not have an issue with him or his teaching. He had gone to talk to the Jerusalem church BECAUSE of the Judaizers who were influencing at Antioch and he wanted to clear up the matter. Thus the Jerusalem church was aware of his disputes with the Judaizers and did not endorse the requirement for Gentiles to be circumcised; James gave his Apostolic Decree to the Gentiles to steer clear of idols, fornication, things strangled and blood - Acts 15:19-21.

So my view is that Timothy was circumcised BEFORE the 1 Cor 7 passage, but whether Paul wrote Galatians before Timothy was circumcised is up for discussion really. I'm working on a chronology trying to work out how the NT writings fit into and around the events of Acts.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 06:21 PM
So what are the implications with reference to the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15 in AD 50? It was there that James and the Jerusalem believers accepted him and his mission to the uncircumcised. He says in Gal 2 that the Council did not have an issue with him or his teaching. He had gone to talk to the Jerusalem church BECAUSE of the Judaizers who were influencing at Antioch and he wanted to clear up the matter. Thus the Jerusalem church was aware of his disputes with the Judaizers and did not endorse the requirement for Gentiles to be circumcised; James gave his Apostolic Decree to the Gentiles to steer clear of idols, fornication, things strangled and blood - Acts 15:19-21.

Do not forget the part that we have long since forsaken. Having Moses taught to us every Sabbath in the synagogue.

And in Acts 21 we see that Saul proudly took the chance to show that he did not teach anything contrary to the Law of Moses. In fact, It was the Pharisees charge that Saul was teaching contrary to Torah. The Elders in Jersualem, along with Saul, wanted to prove that this was a false charge. Interesting.

groovemongrel
Sep 12th 2008, 01:27 PM
Here's a link you can check out:Circumcision Resource Center (http://www.circumcision.org/):)

Having somebody walk by my office as see my browing that site would be more than a little embarrassing.

Van Lewis
Sep 14th 2008, 06:00 PM
It did have nothing to do with Salvation, we can certainly agree with that. I would say it is because it is a command in Torah. Perhaps Timothy wanted to be circumsized? If it was Paul's decision then he would have contradicted himself. Perhaps Paul did not have a problem with the act of circumcision? Perhaps he had a problem with what it represented to many self righteous leaders?

Paul called circumcising a "Jewish myth" in Titus 1. He certainly didn't advocate slavishly following the hundreds of strange commands in Torah, especially not circumcision. Perhaps Paul learned more about circumcision from his involvement with Timothy's circumcision. It seems to me that he may have become more and more opposed to it as time went on, and ended up being adamantly opposed to it: "Beware the dogs, beware the evil workers, beware the mutilators of the flesh!" etc. This is certainly the pattern that many other people follow. The more you actually learn about it in the real world - God's world - as opposed to the hundreds of human mental rationalizations and justifications for circumcising that men have invented, the worse it seems.

The bottom line? Whose design for the human body is the right one? Man's? (Jesus says in John 7 that circumcision comes from man.) Or God's?

Is that really a hard choice for Christians, who were freed from circumcision of the flesh by Jesus' apostles and the Holy Spirit at the Council of Jerusalem?

"... God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose."
1 Corinthians 12:18

It seems to me that we need to learn to respect God's design for our bodies more than our own sometimes mistaken human preferences.

Emanate
Sep 15th 2008, 02:19 AM
Paul called circumcising a "Jewish myth" in Titus 1.


Genesis 17:9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.


Acts 7:7And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place. 8And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

Romans4:11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

You are suggesting that the jewish leaders made all these scriptures up?

You seriously know nothing about Judaism if this fits into your category of "jewish myths". You should check it out some time. It will make your head spin.

SIG
Sep 15th 2008, 03:34 AM
I would certainly not include the command to have Jewish babies circumcised with "Jewish myths." Paul is referring in that area to Jewish Christians who wanted Gentiles circumcised.

Part of a David Guzik commentary on Titus 1:

c. Especially those of the circumcision: Paul was particularly concerned with the effect of some Christians from a Jewish background, who thought the key to acceptance before God was keeping the Law of Moses.

i. The words insubordinate and of the circumcision taken together show that these were Christians from a Jewish background, or at least they were Christians in name. “We cannot call those persons unruly on whose obedience we have no claim.” (White)

ii. “They tried to persuade them that the simple story of Jesus and the Cross was not sufficient, but that, to be really wise, they needed all the subtle stories and the long genealogies and the elaborate allegories of the Rabbis. Further, they tried to teach them that grace was not enough, but that, to be really good, they needed to take upon themselves all the rules and regulations about foods and washings which were so characteristic of Judaism.” (Barclay)

iii. We can understand why it might be more difficult for Christians who came from Judaism and why they might tend to be more of a source of trouble in the early churches. Christians from pagan backgrounds immediately knew that they had to reject everything about their prior understanding about the gods. Yet Christians from Judaism had to take some things and leave others, and this is often more difficult.

Van Lewis
Sep 18th 2008, 07:01 AM
Genesis 17:9 ...
Acts 7:7 ...
Romans4:11 ...

You are suggesting that the jewish leaders made all these scriptures up?

You seriously know nothing about Judaism if this fits into your category of "jewish myths". You should check it out some time. It will make your head spin.

It is not I, but modern Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship that reveals that the earliest versions of Genesis, from around 950-900 B.C., did not have the circumcision tale in them. It was only the later versions, from around 550 B.C., 1000 years after Abraham, where this despicable circumcision lie about God and Abraham appeared in the Bible.

The Bible LIES? About GOD? Well, the Bible SAYS the Bible lies: Jeremiah 8:8. So when the Bible says the Bible lies, is the Bible telling the truth, or lying? In either case, the Bible lies. That is the logic of it. I believe Jeremiah was telling the truth: The Bible, through the "false pen of the scribes", lies. The Jewish leaders didn't know God as well as Jesus did. Jesus said they didn't know God at all, that they were following the devil. Paul said their circumcising actions proved it. (Titus 1).

JESUS is the Truth, not human misinterpretation of Scripture. JESUS is the one who doesn't lie.

Who do you think wrote the scriptures you cite if not Jewish leaders?

Again, it is not I who wrote that circumcising is a "Jewish myth". It was the Jewish leader, Saul of Tarsus who did so, later called Paul, later still St. Paul, in his letter to Titus, Chapter 1 verse 14. Your argument is not with me, it is against Paul, but the Council of Jerusalem found in Paul's favor and against the Judaizers and circumcising the flesh.

I have checked it out. My head is not spinning. Jesus and his Apostles and the Holy Spirit are the ones who stopped the circumcision spin. Read John 7. It is the Evil one who through myths and lies continues "ruining whole families" (Titus 1) with circumcising and attempted justifications of this evil sin, firmly rejected at the beginning of Christianity. I believe that is clear in the New Testament.

It is not our own (mis)interpretations of Scripture that save us. It is the Truth that saves us, that sets us free of the Evil one's lies. Jesus Christ is the Truth. Jesus Christ is our Savior. Jesus Christ - not (our [mis]interpretations of) the Bible - is the one and only inerrant Word of God. We are to worship no one and nothing else, not even (our favored [mis]interpretations of) the Bible. Doing so is idolatry, a violation of the first commandment, a sin.

"Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul aka St. Paul in his letter to the Philippians 3:2

Emanate
Sep 18th 2008, 04:16 PM
It is not I, but modern Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship that reveals that the earliest versions of Genesis, from around 950-900 B.C., did not have the circumcision tale in them. It was only the later versions, from around 550 B.C., 1000 years after Abraham, where this despicable circumcision lie about God and Abraham appeared in the Bible.


So Acts and Romans were not written until around 550 bc? Uh, really?

Show me where Saul calls circumcision a Jewish Myth.

Van Lewis
Sep 18th 2008, 06:11 PM
(This post sent in error. See following post for correct version.)

Van Lewis
Sep 18th 2008, 07:43 PM
So Acts and Romans were not written until around 550 bc? Uh, really?

Show me where Saul calls circumcision a Jewish Myth.

Acts and Romans were written after 33 AD. The earliest versions of Genesis we have come from the 900s B.C. Those early versions do not contain the tale that God told Abraham to mutilate male sex organs. The loving God revealed to us by Jesus Christ would never command us to do such an evil thing. It is only the later versions of Genesis, from around 550 B.C., that contain the despicable lie that God told Abraham to mutilate male sex organs. It is one of the obvious Biblical lies that I believe Jeremiah refers to when he says,

"How can you say, 'We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us,'
when in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie?"
Jeremiah 8:8

Jesus says that circumcising came from men, not God. (John 7). Jesus would know, wouldn't he? Better than Paul, even. Better than anyone. Right?

To answer your second question, Paul calls circumcision a "Jewish myth" in Titus 1:

"10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good."
Titus 1:10-16

That isn't clear enough for you? How about this?

"Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
St. Paul in Philippians 3:2

Still not convinced? How about this?

"1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Still not clear enough? How about this?

"I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves."
St. Paul, Galatians 5:12

What else could he say?

Circumcision is a despicable lie of the devil imposed on the Jewish people long before the time of Christ. Christ came to the sick, he told us, to the lost sheep; first, to the Jews, lost sheep, sick people vainly circumcising in the name of God. Jesus came to make them and us whole again, "every whit whole", he tells us in John 7. "Every whit" includes the foreskin, and the heart. Part of becoming a whole-hearted Christian is learning to reject medically unnecessary mutilation of the flesh. God's plan for Christians, not man's! That is New Testament Gospel truth.

"I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." None.

So what is more important to Christians? Christ? Or circumcising? We have to choose. We can't have both, says Paul.

And what happens if you not only let yourself be circumcised, but impose this evil sex crime on others?

Here's what the Christian Church said about that at the Council of Florence in 1442:

"Therefore it [the Christian Church] denounces all who after that time [the promulgation of the gospel] observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

My translation: Practicing circumcision - circumcising others, mutilating others - will send you straight to Hell, unless you repent. The Christian Church - except the Coptics in Egypt and misled Christians in America in recent times - has always firmly rejected circumcision of the body. Circumcising others is a mortal sin. We must relearn this Gospel truth about it, and repent, turn around, and go the other way, Christ's way, the way of wholeness and salvation, not the way of mutilative child sacrifice at the command of destructive myths and lies, "laws" made by Satan and men and falsely attributed to God. Christ's love, God's love, frees us from these despicable falsehoods and lies.

Thus says the Gospel, as I hear it and understand it or misunderstand it, but you must listen to it and understand it or misunderstand it for yourself.

Love is your best guide. As far as I'm concerned, love never mutilates other people's normal, healthy sex or any other organs. Fear does. Hatred does. But love casts out fear and hatred.

Love. That is God's command.

Emanate
Sep 18th 2008, 09:32 PM
Acts and Romans were written after 33 AD. The earliest versions of Genesis we have come from the 900s B.C. Those early versions do not contain the tale that God told Abraham to mutilate male sex organs. The loving God revealed to us by Jesus Christ would never command us to do such an evil thing. It is only the later versions of Genesis, from around 550 B.C., that contain the despicable lie that God told Abraham to mutilate male sex organs. It is one of the obvious Biblical lies that I believe Jeremiah refers to when he says,

"How can you say, 'We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us,'
when in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie?"
Jeremiah 8:8

Jesus says that circumcising came from men, not God. (John 7). Jesus would know, wouldn't he? Better than Paul, even. Better than anyone. Right?

To answer your second question, Paul calls circumcision a "Jewish myth" in Titus 1:

"10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good."
Titus 1:10-16

That isn't clear enough for you? How about this?

"Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
St. Paul in Philippians 3:2

Still not convinced? How about this?

"1It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Still not clear enough? How about this?

"I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves."
St. Paul, Galatians 5:12

What else could he say?

Circumcision is a despicable lie of the devil imposed on the Jewish people long before the time of Christ. Christ came to the sick, he told us, to the lost sheep; first, to the Jews, lost sheep, sick people vainly circumcising in the name of God. Jesus came to make them and us whole again, "every whit whole", he tells us in John 7. "Every whit" includes the foreskin, and the heart. Part of becoming a whole-hearted Christian is learning to reject medically unnecessary mutilation of the flesh. God's plan for Christians, not man's! That is New Testament Gospel truth.

"I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." None.

So what is more important to Christians? Christ? Or circumcising? We have to choose. We can't have both, says Paul.

And what happens if you not only let yourself be circumcised, but impose this evil sex crime on others?

Here's what the Christian Church said about that at the Council of Florence in 1442:

"Therefore it [the Christian Church] denounces all who after that time [the promulgation of the gospel] observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

My translation: Practicing circumcision - circumcising others, mutilating others - will send you straight to Hell, unless you repent. The Christian Church - except the Coptics in Egypt and misled Christians in America in recent times - has always firmly rejected circumcision of the body. Circumcising others is a mortal sin. We must relearn this Gospel truth about it, and repent, turn around, and go the other way, Christ's way, the way of wholeness and salvation, not the way of mutilative child sacrifice at the command of destructive myths and lies, "laws" made by Satan and men and falsely attributed to God. Christ's love, God's love, frees us from these despicable falsehoods and lies.

Thus says the Gospel, as I hear it and understand it or misunderstand it, but you must listen to it and understand it or misunderstand it for yourself.

Love is your best guide. As far as I'm concerned, love never mutilates other people's normal, healthy sex or any other organs. Fear does. Hatred does. But love casts out fear and hatred.

Love. That is God's command.

I am still wondering why Saul said that Abraham's circumcision was the seal of the covenant of faith. And no, Titus makes ne mention of circumcision being a Jewish myth. And what of David making mention of "uncircumcised Philistines?"

Also, if circumcision is a "jewish myth" then that would make the "circumcision of the heart" of ridiculous statement. Why would one need to put a "Jewish myth" on their heart?

Are you aware that the term circumcision as spoken in the NT referred to more than just the act of cutting. It also implied conversion to Judaism, as it was the final step in full conversion.

Is circumcision necessary? Not in any way. However, it is nothing to fear. I do not recall in Scripture laying the focus of salvation upon circumcision, for or against. I would say that salvation is based on Messiah alone.

I have no problem with your interpretation on the lying pen of the scribes. In fact I am delighted that I am not the only one that has seen that.

SIG
Sep 18th 2008, 10:37 PM
Van Lewis: "It is not I, but modern Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship that reveals that the earliest versions of Genesis, from around 950-900 B.C., did not have the circumcision tale in them. It was only the later versions, from around 550 B.C., 1000 years after Abraham, where this despicable circumcision lie about God and Abraham appeared in the Bible."

SIG: Could you cite your source for this info?

The earliest complete Hebrew manuscripts of the OT date from the 9th Century AD...

As for the Septuagint, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, they date around 150 B.C., from the Dead Sea scrolls, and are fragments.

Where did you ever read that Genesis was altered?

BadDog
Sep 20th 2008, 01:31 AM
My wife is having a son in about 2 months. We are debating whether we should circumcise him. I have heard arguments ranging from it is a personal matter to it is a sin because it is amputating a part the body, which is seen as disregarding the integrity of one's body, (often without anethesia) for no theraputic purpose.

What are your thoughts on the matter?Well, I had my two sons done, but if I had it to do over, out of concern that people might be encouraged to think legalistically, I would probably not do so. Paul fought hard against this one.

OTOH, circumcision is often done, as it was posted, for therapeutic purposes... if this is actually true, and I'd ask a doctor or two on this, then since it is not a big issue anymore, just go with whatever you think is best for the baby. (In the early church, it was a big issue... it isn't at all anymore.)

I've heard that it gives more sensitivity during sex... don't know about that either - again, ask a doctor.

BD

Van Lewis
Sep 24th 2008, 05:45 PM
Well, I had my two sons done, but if I had it to do over, out of concern that people might be encouraged to think legalistically, I would probably not do so. Paul fought hard against this one.

OTOH, circumcision is often done, as it was posted, for therapeutic purposes... if this is actually true, and I'd ask a doctor or two on this, then since it is not a big issue anymore, just go with whatever you think is best for the baby. (In the early church, it was a big issue... it isn't at all anymore.)

I've heard that it gives more sensitivity during sex... don't know about that either - again, ask a doctor.

BD

Congratulations on your decision not to circumcise your sons, even if you have come to it too late to benefit them directly. You and they must now consider your children's children, and theirs, and theirs ... It is never to late to change one's mind, to repent, to ask forgiveness, and to enter the new and better life Jesus has in mind for us.

Therapeutic circumcision: Circumcision is NOT often done for therapeutic reasons. It is very RARELY done for therapeutic reasons. Therapy is what doctors do to treat actual, present time, existing disease, injury, or abnormality that requires correction. Medical problems actually requiring circumcision are vanishingly rare, and nonexistent in newborns. Thirty seven years ago, in 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in its very first position paper on circumcision, declared, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." That medical fact is still true today. It is impossible to perform therapeutic actions in the absence of disease, injury or abnormality. That is why the American Medical Association declares that circumcising healthy people is "nontherapeutic". When medical excuses are given for circumcising healthy people, they are - according to the AAP - medically unjustified attempts to justify circumcising for PROPHYLACTIC - NOT therapeutic - reasons, to try to PREVENT POTENTIAL but UNLIKELY FUTURE medical problems from occurring. It is irrational and harmful and a violation of human rights to amputate important, normal, healthy body parts because they MAY some day - but probably WON'T - get sick. The first rule of medicine is, "First, do no harm." In other words, "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." Almost all unlikely potential medical problems with the penis have effective modern medical treatments available that are far less invasive than amputation. The standard of care for infection is antibiotics, not amputation, even when infection IS present. Amputating to PREVENT NONEXISTENT, potential but UNLIKELY infection is medically insane. We don't cut out babies hearts to prevent them from having heart attacks.

It is incorrect to say that it isn't a big issue any more. It has always been a big issue and will remain one as long as adults continue to actively and unnecessarily harm and recklessly endanger and sometimes end the lives of perfectly normal, healthy babies and children by chopping important, perfectly normal, healthy body parts off of them, especially sensory and sexual organs designed and created for them by God. This was an important issue in the early church and in the present church and in the church from the beginning all the way to now. Many in the US church now don't realize that it is and always has been a big issue, but our ignorance of the fact doesn't change the fact. We don't know our church history. That doesn't mean our church doesn't HAVE history. It does.

Sensitivity: Cutting off the foreskin cuts off the most sensitive part of the penis. Most doctors don't know this yet and can't tell you about it, but you can learn about it here and tell them:

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis because it contains the primary sense organ in the penis. The greatest density and largest number of nerve endings yet discovered in the penis are found in a highly complex, highly specialized, God-designed sense organ new to science in the early 1990s, located in the inner foreskin. It's like an eye, and ear, a nose, a tongue. It's a specialized sense organ designed by God to do a particular job for us. Again, most doctors don't know. That doesn't mean you have to stay ignorant about it, just because they are. Read about it here in the British Journal of Urology:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
http://research.cirp.org

US medical journals won't publish this science because US medicine is still too deeply into circumcising. British doctors quit circumcising children almost 60 years ago, in 1950. This science threatens US circumciser's and broader US medicine's financial stability and social acceptability. Circumcisers have enormous potential liability for medically unnecessary and medically unjustified damages to millions of men. They may end up losing a lot of money over their refusal to learn these realities. What did they know about penises and when did they know it? They seem to feel they must pretend to be ignorant, even if they aren't. The dollars at stake are just too many. In any case, ignorance of the anatomical facts is no excuse for medical professionals charged with the responsibility for knowing the anatomical facts and behaving accordingly.

This God-intended and God-created sense organ encircles the entire penis, at the business end. During erection the foreskin everts - turns inside out - exposing this sense organ to contact with the skin of the vagina, providing male and female with intimate sensory contact and experience of each other during sexual intercourse. This was all designed by God. It is part of his intended creation. He did it for us. Circumcising desensitizes the penis by cutting off its primary sense organ. (Would cutting out a child's normal, healthy eyes adversely affect his or her ability to see? Would it be acceptable to do this to a child in order to try to prevent pink eye or eye cancer or for any other imaginable excuse?) Circumcising abnormalizes. Circumcising degrades. Abnormalizing and degrading sex organs abnormalizes and degrades sexual function and sexual experience, depriving male and female of normal, God-intended sex lives. Deliberately abnormalizing and degrading sex organs and sex lives is not the brightest idea human minds ever came up with. Abnormalizing and degrading sex organs and sex lives is a crime against nature, not to mention a sex crime against the human beings who have to live the rest of their lives artificially sexually abnormalized and degraded, and needlessly deprived of normal sexual experience and function by ignorant if usually well-intended people. Circumcising is sin. Known as such or unknown, it is still sin. Missing the mark. Making a mistake. Jesus knew this (of course) and taught his Jewish disciples and everyone else who would listen to him. John 7. His Jewish disciples, anyway, listened to him. This is why they knew, when the time came at the Council of Jerusalem, to reject circumcision of the body and to replace it with nonviolent Baptism with water, and circumcision of the heart, spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision.

It's real simple. It's not your body. Don't chop up other people's bodies. What God has given and joined together let no one put asunder.

"Take your fingers off it, don't you dare touch it, you know it don't belong to you."
Memphis Jug Band

I know that's not Holy Scripture, but Holy Scripture says pretty much the same thing. I've quoted a lot of it already.

Van Lewis
Sep 24th 2008, 05:51 PM
Van Lewis: "It is not I, but modern Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship that reveals that the earliest versions of Genesis, from around 950-900 B.C., did not have the circumcision tale in them. It was only the later versions, from around 550 B.C., 1000 years after Abraham, where this despicable circumcision lie about God and Abraham appeared in the Bible."

SIG: Could you cite your source for this info?

The earliest complete Hebrew manuscripts of the OT date from the 9th Century AD...

As for the Septuagint, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, they date around 150 B.C., from the Dead Sea scrolls, and are fragments.

Where did you ever read that Genesis was altered?

Read COVENANT OF BLOOD by Rabbi Laurence Hoffman and THE BOOK OF J by Harold Bloom. Those will then take you on into the Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship involved.

threebigrocks
Sep 24th 2008, 06:26 PM
Congratulations on your decision not to circumcise your sons, even if you have come to it too late to benefit them directly. You and they must now consider your children's children, and theirs, and theirs ... It is never to late to change one's mind, to repent, to ask forgiveness, and to enter the new and better life Jesus has in mind for us.

Therapeutic circumcision: Circumcision is NOT often done for therapeutic reasons. It is very RARELY done for therapeutic reasons. Therapy is what doctors do to treat actual, present time, existing disease, injury, or abnormality that requires correction. Medical problems actually requiring circumcision are vanishingly rare, and nonexistent in newborns. Thirty seven years ago, in 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in its very first position paper on circumcision, declared, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." That medical fact is still true today. It is impossible to perform therapeutic actions in the absence of disease, injury or abnormality. That is why the American Medical Association declares that circumcising healthy people is "nontherapeutic". When medical excuses are given for circumcising healthy people, they are - according to the AAP - medically unjustified attempts to justify circumcising for PROPHYLACTIC - NOT therapeutic - reasons, to try to PREVENT POTENTIAL but UNLIKELY FUTURE medical problems from occurring. It is irrational and harmful and a violation of human rights to amputate important, normal, healthy body parts because they MAY some day - but probably WON'T - get sick. The first rule of medicine is, "First, do no harm." In other words, "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it." Almost all unlikely potential medical problems with the penis have effective modern medical treatments available that are far less invasive than amputation. The standard of care for infection is antibiotics, not amputation, even when infection IS present. Amputating to PREVENT NONEXISTENT, potential but UNLIKELY infection is medically insane. We don't cut out babies hearts to prevent them from having heart attacks.

It is incorrect to say that it isn't a big issue any more. It has always been a big issue and will remain one as long as adults continue to actively and unnecessarily harm and recklessly endanger and sometimes end the lives of perfectly normal, healthy babies and children by chopping important, perfectly normal, healthy body parts off of them, especially sensory and sexual organs designed and created for them by God. This was an important issue in the early church and in the present church and in the church from the beginning all the way to now. Many in the US church now don't realize that it is and always has been a big issue, but our ignorance of the fact doesn't change the fact. We don't know our church history. That doesn't mean our church doesn't HAVE history. It does.

Sensitivity: Cutting off the foreskin cuts off the most sensitive part of the penis. Most doctors don't know this yet and can't tell you about it, but you can learn about it here and tell them:

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis because it contains the primary sense organ in the penis. The greatest density and largest number of nerve endings yet discovered in the penis are found in a highly complex, highly specialized, God-designed sense organ new to science in the early 1990s, located in the inner foreskin. It's like an eye, and ear, a nose, a tongue. It's a specialized sense organ designed by God to do a particular job for us. Again, most doctors don't know. That doesn't mean you have to stay ignorant about it, just because they are. Read about it here in the British Journal of Urology:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
http://research.cirp.org

US medical journals won't publish this science because US medicine is still too deeply into circumcising. British doctors quit circumcising children almost 60 years ago, in 1950. This science threatens US circumciser's and broader US medicine's financial stability and social acceptability. Circumcisers have enormous potential liability for medically unnecessary and medically unjustified damages to millions of men. They may end up losing a lot of money over their refusal to learn these realities. What did they know about penises and when did they know it? They seem to feel they must pretend to be ignorant, even if they aren't. The dollars at stake are just too many. In any case, ignorance of the anatomical facts is no excuse for medical professionals charged with the responsibility for knowing the anatomical facts and behaving accordingly.

This God-intended and God-created sense organ encircles the entire penis, at the business end. During erection the foreskin everts - turns inside out - exposing this sense organ to contact with the skin of the vagina, providing male and female with intimate sensory contact and experience of each other during sexual intercourse. This was all designed by God. It is part of his intended creation. He did it for us. Circumcising desensitizes the penis by cutting off its primary sense organ. (Would cutting out a child's normal, healthy eyes adversely affect his or her ability to see? Would it be acceptable to do this to a child in order to try to prevent pink eye or eye cancer or for any other imaginable excuse?) Circumcising abnormalizes. Circumcising degrades. Abnormalizing and degrading sex organs abnormalizes and degrades sexual function and sexual experience, depriving male and female of normal, God-intended sex lives. Deliberately abnormalizing and degrading sex organs and sex lives is not the brightest idea human minds ever came up with. Abnormalizing and degrading sex organs and sex lives is a crime against nature, not to mention a sex crime against the human beings who have to live the rest of their lives artificially sexually abnormalized and degraded, and needlessly deprived of normal sexual experience and function by ignorant if usually well-intended people. Circumcising is sin. Known as such or unknown, it is still sin. Missing the mark. Making a mistake. Jesus knew this (of course) and taught his Jewish disciples and everyone else who would listen to him. John 7. His Jewish disciples, anyway, listened to him. This is why they knew, when the time came at the Council of Jerusalem, to reject circumcision of the body and to replace it with nonviolent Baptism with water, and circumcision of the heart, spiritual circumcision, not physical circumcision.

It's real simple. It's not your body. Don't chop up other people's bodies. What God has given and joined together let no one put asunder.

"Take your fingers off it, don't you dare touch it, you know it don't belong to you."
Memphis Jug Band

I know that's not Holy Scripture, but Holy Scripture says pretty much the same thing. I've quoted a lot of it already.

Then why need to die to self in the flesh if we have no control over our flesh and it doesn't belong to us? By the time any issue would arise of course the person isn't an infant any longer. Several here have said that it was trouble later on, and those I know of were born after 1971.

If you reread his post, he said he did have them circumcised.

Let's not let this thread continue as several of the others here have in regards to the law and it's various views. If it does - this too will be closed down. By all means discuss, but no beating each other up or running in circles.

Van Lewis
Sep 24th 2008, 06:41 PM
Emanate - "I am still wondering why Saul said that Abraham's circumcision was the seal of the covenant of faith."

He said that in the context of saying that Abraham's faith was what was important to God, not his circumcision. His faith preceded his circumcision.

Emanate - "And no, Titus makes ne mention of circumcision being a Jewish myth."

The language in Titus 1:10-16 is plain to me that Paul does. Let those with ears hear.

Emanate - "And what of David making mention of "uncircumcised Philistines?"

What of it?

Emanate - "Also, if circumcision is a "jewish myth" then that would make the "circumcision of the heart" of ridiculous statement."

To you.

Emanate - "Why would one need to put a "Jewish myth" on their heart?"

Both the Old and The New Testament talk about "circumcision of the heart" in the context of making the obvious point that mutilating the flesh confers no spiritual grace, that it is what happens in the mind and heart that counts with God, not whether parts of the sex organs are cut off.

Emanate - "Are you aware that the term circumcision as spoken in the NT referred to more than just the act of cutting."

Yes, and that it includes the act of cutting.

Emanate - "It also implied conversion to Judaism, as it was the final step in full conversion."

I have no problem with that interpretation.

Emanate - "Is circumcision necessary? Not in any way."

Correct. It is not "necessary" spiritually and medically and in every other way, as you say. Neither is a 45 slug through the head "necessary".

Emanate - "However, it is nothing to fear."

Correct, if you understand it and therefore reject it. However, ignorance and acceptance of it can and does kill. I have a long list of the names of babies and children killed by circumcising them. Is killing children for nothing something to fear?

Remember Paul's words in Galatians 5: "2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."

Is accepting something that will render Christ of no advantage to you something worth fearing?

"3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Reject circumcision of the flesh. Then you have nothing to fear from it.

Emanate - "I do not recall in Scripture laying the focus of salvation upon circumcision, for or against."

Circumcising and being circumcised cannot prevent salvation of the circumciser or the victim. God can save sinners, if the sinners repent and accept salvation. But circumcising and not repenting of the sin can prevent salvation. Read Paul again. Read John 7. Pray. The door will open.

Emanate - "I would say that salvation is based on Messiah alone."

Absolutely. And following his command to love AS HE LOVES. Not just in saying "Lord, Lord". In DOING the will of his Father. That's what HE said, anyway, and I believe he knew what he was talking about.

Emanate - "I have no problem with your interpretation on the lying pen of the scribes. In fact I am delighted that I am not the only one that has seen that."

Wonderful. Then you realize that we Christians are not to do every little thing commanded in Torah, including circumcise our children.

Circumcising them cannot keep us or them from salvation, unless we do not discover and repent our sin and ask their forgiveness and reject the sin of circumcising and help our children learn not to circumcise their children. It's all right there in Holy Scripture for us. All we need to do is read it and pray, and the door will open. We Christians are free from this always harmful and sometimes lethal Jewish error about God. Jesus Christ set us forever free from it 2000 years ago. Just as Abraham set us free from the error of religious child sacrifice when he brought Isaac back down the mountain still alive (God never told anybody to kill their children as a sacrifice to him), so Jesus set us free from the error of religious or other sacrifice of the child's most sexually sensitive and pleasurable body part (God also never told anyone to mutilate anyone else's sex organs). That's also an important part of the Good News. Read. Pray. Allow the door to open.

threebigrocks
Sep 24th 2008, 07:34 PM
Circumcising them cannot keep us or them from salvation, unless we do not discover and repent our sin and ask their forgiveness and reject the sin of circumcising and help our children learn not to circumcise their children. It's all right there in Holy Scripture for us. All we need to do is read it and pray, and the door will open. We Christians are free from this always harmful and sometimes lethal Jewish error about God. Jesus Christ set us forever free from it 2000 years ago. Just as Abraham set us free from the error of religious child sacrifice when he brought Isaac back down the mountain still alive (God never told anybody to kill their children as a sacrifice to him), so Jesus set us free from the error of religious or other sacrifice of the child's most sexually sensitive and pleasurable body part (God also never told anyone to mutilate anyone else's sex organs). That's also an important part of the Good News. Read. Pray. Allow the door to open.

Uh....yeah, no.

It was an act of obedience, not sacrifice. It was an outward symbol of what was in the heart. It was commanded by God to Abraham, who circumcised himself for goodness sakes. He was told to do so to himself, his son and anyone in his house - by God.

Child sacrafice was only a pagan thing. I don't see anywhere in scripture that God demanded child sacrifice. Stoning of children was commanded as punishment for disobedience, not sacrifice to God.

I've never heard of death from circumcision, unless you mean spiritual death from one placing themselves back under the weight of the law after having known grace.

Van Lewis
Sep 25th 2008, 04:26 AM
Uh....yeah, no.

It was an act of obedience, not sacrifice. It was an outward symbol of what was in the heart. It was commanded by God to Abraham, who circumcised himself for goodness sakes. He was told to do so to himself, his son and anyone in his house - by God.

Child sacrafice was only a pagan thing. I don't see anywhere in scripture that God demanded child sacrifice. Stoning of children was commanded as punishment for disobedience, not sacrifice to God.

I've never heard of death from circumcision, unless you mean spiritual death from one placing themselves back under the weight of the law after having known grace.

You are certainly free to believe that God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his children and slaves, and to believe that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. I don't. The God that Jesus reveals to us is not like that. Prior to Jesus, God was thought of as a very severe and dangerous and arbitrary and unjust force in the world, one who might well require religious child sacrifice and sexual mutilation. There was a lot of both going on in the middle east for a very long time. There still is a lot of sexual mutilation going on there. Abraham is revered in Judaism, Christianity and Islam mainly because he freed us from the child sacrifice part of the problem, or so the story goes, anyway. He came back down the mountain with Isaac still alive, and got away with it by changing his culture's notions about what God wanted. Judaism after Abraham came to prohibit child sacrifice in the most severe terms. Then Jesus came. Jesus tells us that God is our loving father, just and merciful as well. If it is even true that Abraham thought that God told him to circumcise all the males in his household and kill Isaac - and I don't believe it is, I think those were lies about God and Abraham inserted in Genesis by corrupt Hebrew priests around 550 BC, 1000 years after Abraham died - I believe that Abraham was mistaken in both instances about God. In either case, that is not the God that Jesus reveals. That is the "God" that pre-Christian sinners made up in their own corrupt, God-blind minds.

Have you ever noticed the similarity between the "God" who takes Abraham up the mountain and shows him the land as far as he can see in every direction and promises it to him and his descendants forever if he will be obedient to him, and the one to takes Jesus up on a high place and promises him all the kingdoms of the world if he will only be obedient to him? The land acquisition promise of this "God" to Abraham is still causing trouble in the middle east, no? But what did Jesus say? No thanks, Satan. I worship only the true God, my father in heaven, not you, you troublemaker. And that was the end of it. Christians don't kill people over land. Right? Christians don't mutilate the sex organs of their own children. Right?

Abraham is reported in Genesis to have believed that God told him to take Isaac up on the mountain and kill him. Abraham is reported as having been willing to obey what he thought was God's command to sacrifice his child's life in obedience to what he thought God was commanding him to do. If that is not religious child sacrifice, what is?

Because you haven't heard of death by circumcision doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does. Your ignorance of it does not bring the dead back to life. Please educate yourself. Children's lives depend on it.

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

SIG
Sep 25th 2008, 04:28 AM
Re post #65:


Read COVENANT OF BLOOD by Rabbi Laurence Hoffman and THE BOOK OF J by Harold Bloom. Those will then take you on into the Jewish and Christian Biblical scholarship involved.

Well--I won't read these, for a number of reasons, but I did look at some summaries and reviews. This one should be of great interest to forum members:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDF1131F930A1575AC0A9669582 60

If this is your evidence of ancient redaction of Genesis, you are on thin ice indeed.

Van Lewis
Sep 25th 2008, 05:02 AM
Then why need to die to self in the flesh if we have no control over our flesh and it doesn't belong to us? By the time any issue would arise of course the person isn't an infant any longer. Several here have said that it was trouble later on, and those I know of were born after 1971.

If you reread his post, he said he did have them circumcised.

Let's not let this thread continue as several of the others here have in regards to the law and it's various views. If it does - this too will be closed down. By all means discuss, but no beating each other up or running in circles.

I'm sorry, I do not understand your first question, or your second sentence. If you would like me to respond to them please explain them more clearly for me.

Your third sentence says, if I understand it correctly, that there can be problems with the foreskin. This is true of every body part. Because problems can arise with body parts does not justify cutting them off beforehand, attempting to keep potential (but unlikely) problems from arising and thereby causing other problems that never would have arisen had the circumcision never take place. And what does being born after 1971 have to do with anything? I know that's the date of the AAP's acknowledgment that "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period", but I'm not sure why you bring the date up here.

I know BadDog said he did have his children circumcised, and he said that he probably would not do it again, given the choice. I intended to acknowledge both statements in my post back.

I am also uncertain about what your precise objections are to anything that has been said in this thread. Please explain this more carefully as well. If I have "beaten" anybody "up", please forgive me and show me where I did so. I believe in Christian nonviolence and try hard to practice it. Circumcising is violence. That is one of the reasons that I, following Paul and the nonviolent Jesus, I believe, object strongly to it:

"Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
St. Paul in Philippians 3:2

Van Lewis
Sep 25th 2008, 05:12 AM
Re post #65:



Well--I won't read these, for a number of reasons, but I did look at some summaries and reviews. This one should be of great interest to forum members:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFDF1131F930A1575AC0A9669582 60

If this is your evidence of ancient redaction of Genesis, you are on thin ice indeed.

I stand with God and Jesus as revealed in Scripture and by the Holy Spirit, and do not regard the Trinity as "thin ice". I, like every sinner, can make mistakes. That's why I need the Trinity. And I, like every sinner, can be saved from human error by God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture and the Christian church. I believe God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture, and the Christian church have saved me from the human error of circumcising, and I am eternally grateful to them all. Good News! I will never kill a child by circumcising him or her. Thank you, Lord!

SIG
Sep 25th 2008, 07:09 AM
I stand with God and Jesus as revealed in Scripture and by the Holy Spirit, and do not regard the Trinity as "thin ice". I, like every sinner, can make mistakes. That's why I need the Trinity. And I, like every sinner, can be saved from human error by God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture and the Christian church. I believe God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Holy Scripture, and the Christian church have saved me from the human error of circumcising, and I am eternally grateful to them all. Good News! I will never kill a child by circumcising him or her. Thank you, Lord!

Well and good--but what do you make of the review of the book you recommended?
Exactly who do you believe authored Scripture?

petepet
Sep 25th 2008, 09:28 AM
My wife is having a son in about 2 months. We are debating whether we should circumcise him. I have heard arguments ranging from it is a personal matter to it is a sin because it is amputating a part the body, which is seen as disregarding the integrity of one's body, (often without anethesia) for no theraputic purpose.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Hi What you should bear in mind is that you are considering altering your child's 'make up'. If he is circumcised your son will have had no choice in the matter and you will have forced on him for life something which he may later regret. Better by far to accept him as God gives him to you, and let him make up his own mind later whether he wishes to be circumcised.

Medical opinion is as usual divided, and things will be seen very differently medically when your son grows up. So unless there is compelling medical reasons for his needing to be circumcised by thought would be to leave well alone. It will not affect him spiritually..

BadDog
Sep 29th 2008, 02:21 AM
Congratulations on your decision not to circumcise your sons, even if you have come to it too late to benefit them directly. You and they must now consider your children's children, and theirs, and theirs ... It is never to late to change one's mind, to repent, to ask forgiveness, and to enter the new and better life Jesus has in mind for us.
Uh, are you serious?!?! It is NOT sin to have your children circumcised!! But it is sin to declare something to be sin which the Bible does not. So perhaps someone here needs to repent. But it is most definitely not me!

Uh, a bit presumptuous, are you not?


... Thirty-seven years ago, in 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in its very first position paper on circumcision, declared, "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." That medical fact is still true today. It is impossible to perform therapeutic actions in the absence of disease, injury or abnormality. That is why the American Medical Association declares that circumcising healthy people is "nontherapeutic". When medical excuses are given for circumcising healthy people, they are - according to the AAP - medically unjustified attempts to justify circumcising for PROPHYLACTIC - NOT therapeutic - reasons, to try to PREVENT POTENTIAL but UNLIKELY FUTURE medical problems from occurring.

BD: Uh, thx for the info.

We don't cut out babies hearts to prevent them from having heart attacks.

BD: Thx. A perfectly reasonable comparison.

It is incorrect to say that it isn't a big issue any more. It has always been a big issue and will remain one as long as adults continue to actively and unnecessarily harm and recklessly endanger and sometimes end the lives of perfectly normal, healthy babies and children by chopping important, perfectly normal, healthy body parts off of them, especially sensory and sexual organs designed and created for them by God.
Well, apparently it is a big issue with you - sorry to hear that. I don't think it is for many people at all. But I was speaking in a spiritual sense, and if you read my post very carefully you would have realized that and not posted as you did above... or perhaps it would have made no difference for you.

The issue with circumcision for Paul had absolutely nothing to do with therapeutic or medical reasons, but out of a concern for the church, which at the time was 90% Jewish. His concern was that new believers would feel an obligation to circumcise their children because they felt that we are still under the law.

I personally am one vehemently opposed to legalism. Hence my concern for circumcision.


Sensitivity: Cutting off the foreskin cuts off the most sensitive part of the penis. Most doctors don't know this yet and can't tell you about it, but you can learn about it here and tell them:

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php


The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis because it contains the primary sense organ in the penis. The greatest density and largest number of nerve endings yet discovered in the penis are found in a highly complex, highly specialized, God-designed sense organ new to science in the early 1990s, located in the inner foreskin. It's like an eye, and ear, a nose, a tongue. It's a specialized sense organ designed by God to do a particular job for us. Again, most doctors don't know. That doesn't mean you have to stay ignorant about it, just because they are. Read about it here in the British Journal of Urology:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
http://research.cirp.org
Thx for the links.

US medical journals won't publish this science because US medicine is still too deeply into circumcising. British doctors quit circumcising children almost 60 years ago, in 1950. This science threatens US circumciser's and broader US medicine's financial stability and social acceptability. Circumcisers have enormous potential liability for medically unnecessary and medically unjustified damages to millions of men.

They may end up losing a lot of money over their refusal to learn these realities. What did they know about penises and when did they know it? They seem to feel they must pretend to be ignorant, even if they aren't. The dollars at stake are just too many. In any case, ignorance of the anatomical facts is no excuse for medical professionals charged with the responsibility for knowing the anatomical facts and behaving accordingly.
Don't be ridiculous - that's not why circumcision is often performed in the US. It's simply because many parents still request it - and it is viewed from a religious perspective.


This God-intended and God-created sense organ encircles the entire penis, at the business end. During erection the foreskin everts - turns inside out - exposing this sense organ to contact with the skin of the vagina, providing male and female with intimate sensory contact and experience of each other during sexual intercourse. This was all designed by God. It is part of his intended creation. He did it for us. Circumcising desensitizes the penis by cutting off its primary sense organ.
Well, so God made a mistake in telling Abraham to circumcise his children then?

The following website speaks of a higher incident of sexually-transmitted diseases for uncircumcised males:

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page1.htm


Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.
Here were their conclusions:

Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance

* Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
* Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
* Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
* Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
* Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
* Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
* There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.


Just wanted to look at this from all sides. IMO, due to the higher risk of AIDS for uncircmucised, i think if I had it to do over again... I'd have my boys circumcised again.

BD

LauraLovesJesus2
Oct 15th 2008, 10:55 AM
I see this is an older thread and I know I'm new (and I don't want to step on any toes) but I thought I'd throw in my perspective as a nurse.
As a Christian, no, circumcision of the flesh is not required. I think that was pretty much covered on the 5 pages of responses but just in case...:D

I've seen infant circumcision and I've worked in a department that performed them. It wasn't anything at all that I wanted to put my children through. I don't think many parents give it much thought, or realize what all is involved with the procedure. If you've ever seen a Jewish bris, a hospital circumcision is nothing like that. Done in the hospital, it's much riskier and also involves more trauma to the said body part. I'll just leave it at that and the OP can google for more info if he's even still interested.
Circumcision is not medically "recommended" anymore. The doctors in the US just leave the decision up to the parents. But I will say this, doctors make money from performing them. As an expecting parent, I'd be leery of doing preventive surgery from the recommendation of someone who stands to profit from it.
Yes sure, there are a few men who need a circumcision for health reasons as they get older, but most men the world over retain the foreskin without any incident.
As far as the std/HIV thing goes...I'd expect everyone here would most likely teach their son abstinence so I'd think that would be a non-issue.

It boiled down to this...when I was expecting, my husband and I discussed circumcision because he is circumcised. We thought about the "looking different than daddy" scenario but quickly realized 1- they'll probably look different in many ways anyway (they do - different hair & eye color), and 2 - my husband has NO IDEA what his own father looks like down there, yet he was able to potty train and have a healthy relationship with his dad, so that idea didn't hold a lot of water for us.
Of course we prayed about it. I felt the Lord really put upon my heart the past circumcisions I'd witnessed. Someone said (page 3 maybe?) that she'd never heard of death due to circumcision. It does happen. It's rare, but complications do arise, it is a surgery after all. When we prayed I also believe God spoke to me to just love and accept my children the way they were born, whatever that might be.
In my faith and in my motherly instincts, I just can't believe that anything God created would be junk or disposable, including all body parts. So despite my husband being circumcised, my children are not. If that was a mistake I'll gladly accept judgment for it. But if I understand my Bible correctly, Jesus did away with all of that and my children are fine the way they are. My husband and I both feel at peace with our decision and the kids have never had any ill effects from maintaining their foreskin or noticing they were different than dad.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. It wasn't my intent. I didn't read all of the replies 100%, it seemed that the conversation was getting a bit heated and here I come bringing it up again. :blushsad:

I just wanted to offer my experience as a nurse and as a mom. I think whatever you decide will be okay. We have so many decisions to make as parents, it's so rough, but God's guidance will lead you to the right place.

Here's a link for Christian parents concerning circumcision I just googled. I haven't checked all the facts but maybe it'll lead you to some things to ponder. Best of luck to you and your little baby!

http://udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html

The site addresses Timothy's circumcision by saying this:
God would not have allowed Timothy to make this mark for his own personal reasons, but Timothy's motive was not personal, it was sacrificial. He wanted to enter the ministry of evangelism to the Jews and they would not go near him because he was an uncircumcised Jew. He chose to do what should have been done anyway to selflessly reach these lost people.(So this has nothing to do with Routine circumcision)

Blessings to your growing family,
Laura

Chimon
Oct 17th 2008, 06:35 AM
My wife is having a son in about 2 months. We are debating whether we should circumcise him. I have heard arguments ranging from it is a personal matter to it is a sin because it is amputating a part the body, which is seen as disregarding the integrity of one's body, (often without anethesia) for no theraputic purpose.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

"Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision." 1 Corinthians 7