Forsaken the Foreskin

metis · Jun 17, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
You're talking about people who are so lustful that they are out of control.

I was not in any way referencing them, making it clear that "lust" is a very natural biological impulse that's innate to being an adult human.

metis · Jun 17, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
The anti-sex stuff was a development in the late 19th century due to Victorian morals.

Actually it was much older in origin than that since there was a Christian theology that it was a manifestation of "original sin", thus "sins of the flesh" that Paul condemned, but then lamented that it can be allowed after it became apparent that Jesus was not maybe going to return "in this generation".

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 17, 2014

metis said:
There are 30 times in the Tanakh whereas "circumcised" is used, and that doesn't include references to it using different terms: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Also, a reminder that Jesus and Paul, along with the apostles, were assumingly all circumcised, and yet none of them appear to condemn the act. Paul states that it is unnecessary for gentiles to be circumcised in order to join the Way, however. Matter of fact Acts 16 [3]: "Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

Paul had Timothy circumcised because Timothy had a Jewish mother and was to accompany Paul on his travels. It was basically a way to not cause scandal to the Jews they would be preaching to, since Jews looked down on those who were not circumcised.

Paul made it clear that one does not have to be circumcised in order to be a follower of Christ because Paul made it clear that we are living under the new Covenant of Christ which is through grace and not by the Law of Moses. Paul was pretty harsh towards those Jewish Christians who said that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be Christians.

2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. 7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who called you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross[a] has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves! (Galations 2-12)

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. (See also the cross references on that page.)

Also: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=RSVCE

As for Peter: Acts 10 RSVCE - Peter and Cornelius - At Caesare (God gives Peter the vision of the unclean animals and tells him to kill and eat them. Peter refuses at first until God says that what He has made clean, you must not make unclean. Later in the chapter, Gentiles, who are uncircumcised receive the Holy Spirit and the Jewish Christians are amazed.)

As for Jesus, His ministry was primarily to the Jews so circumcision wasn't something He really focused on. However, some Gentiles did believe in Him and not once did He tell them to get circumcised (such as the case with the Roman centurion who requested that Christ heal his servant).

Desert Snake · Jun 17, 2014

metis said:
Actually it was much older in origin than that since there was a Christian theology that it was a manifestation of "original sin", thus "sins of the flesh" that Paul condemned, but then lamented that it can be allowed after it became apparent that Jesus was not maybe going to return "in this generation".

Going slightly off-topic, original sin is not really a 'Christian' theology, it's just 'Biblical' in general.

metis · Jun 18, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
Paul had Timothy circumcised because Timothy had a Jewish mother and was to accompany Paul on his travels. It was basically a way to not cause scandal to the Jews they would be preaching to, since Jews looked down on those who were not circumcised.

Paul made it clear that one does not have to be circumcised in order to be a follower of Christ because Paul made it clear that we are living under the new Covenant of Christ which is through grace and not by the Law of Moses. Paul was pretty harsh towards those Jewish Christians who said that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be Christians.

2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. 7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who called you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross[a] has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves! (Galations 2-12)

Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. (See also the cross references on that page.)

Also: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=RSVCE

As for Peter: Acts 10 RSVCE - Peter and Cornelius - At Caesare (God gives Peter the vision of the unclean animals and tells him to kill and eat them. Peter refuses at first until God says that what He has made clean, you must not make unclean. Later in the chapter, Gentiles, who are uncircumcised receive the Holy Spirit and the Jewish Christians are amazed.)

As for Jesus, His ministry was primarily to the Jews so circumcision wasn't something He really focused on. However, some Gentiles did believe in Him and not once did He tell them to get circumcised (such as the case with the Roman centurion who requested that Christ heal his servant).

But what you are failing to acknowledge is the simple fact that circumcision for Jews was not only never condemned by Jesus and his followers, but that Jesus and the apostles also were circumcised, and don't say or imply anything that would seemingly suggest that this was wrong. Since this is clearly the case, do you think they would agree with you that circumcision was not mandated by God?

As a gentile, there's no compulsion for you to be circumcised, but for us Jews there is. What you are suggesting is that we ignore the Torah mandate, and do you honestly feel we should do that? Are you willing to do the same with the Christian mandates as found in your scriptures as well?

metis · Jun 18, 2014

disciple said:
Going slightly off-topic, original sin is not really a 'Christian' theology, it's just 'Biblical' in general.

Actually it is Christian in origin as there's nothing in Torah found whereas we are assumed to be guilty of sin when borne. The idea of the "sins of the father" being passed on through generations has been interpreted as meaning that there are both familial and societal effects when we sin. And this stands to logic: should we execute you if your grandfather murdered someone?

See: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jayhawker Soule · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
Actually it is Christian in origin as there's nothing in Torah found whereas we are assumed to be guilty of sin when borne.

Exactly correct.

Desert Snake · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
See: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept is Biblical. A person can read the Bible as a Christian, or as a Jew, or with no belief, and the 'concept' is there, no idea what you're trying to 'tell' me there, it doesn't make sense. It really doesn't matter who believes what about the idea, but it is not "part" of Christianity besides a Scriptural idea.

We're clearly not on the same page here when it comes to these Biblical ideas/topics, may as well just leave that there.

The Adept · Jun 18, 2014

How stable was Abraham?

Self-harm - Causes - NHS Choices

'Psychological causes

In some cases, there may be a psychological reason for the self-harming. For example:

you may hear voices telling you to self-harm
you may have repeated thoughts about self-harming and feel like you have to do it
you may disassociate (lose touch with yourself and your surroundings) and self-harm without realising you are doing it
it can be a symptom of borderline personality disorder (a condition that causes instability in how a person thinks, feels and behaves)'

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
But what you are failing to acknowledge is the simple fact that circumcision for Jews was not only never condemned by Jesus and his followers, but that Jesus and the apostles also were circumcised, and don't say or imply anything that would seemingly suggest that this was wrong. Since this is clearly the case, do you think they would agree with you that circumcision was not mandated by God?

As a gentile, there's no compulsion for you to be circumcised, but for us Jews there is. What you are suggesting is that we ignore the Torah mandate, and do you honestly feel we should do that? Are you willing to do the same with the Christian mandates as found in your scriptures as well?

The Jews rejected Jesus. That wasn't viewed as a good thing. Obviously Paul thought that circumcision was useless if you were going to come to faith in Christ. Are you saying that Jesus would be okay with circumcision being practiced by Jews who don't believe in Him in the first place? That's like saying that Jesus is happy with people not accepting Him as Messiah, period.

Then you're asking me if I support Jews basically still rejecting Christ and apparently want me to say "yes, go ahead and still practice things that I see as irrelevant according to my religious beliefs". I don't personally support Judaism as a religion, same for Islam. But I think you have the right to practice it since I believe in freedom of religion. So you go ahead and do that. You can believe and do as you please. That is your right as a human being. But that doesn't mean that I agree with it. :shrug:

metis · Jun 18, 2014

disciple said:
The concept is Biblical. A person can read the Bible as a Christian, or as a Jew, or with no belief, and the 'concept' is there, no idea what you're trying to 'tell' me there, it doesn't make sense. It really doesn't matter who believes what about the idea, but it is not "part" of Christianity besides a Scriptural idea.

We're clearly not on the same page here when it comes to these Biblical ideas/topics, may as well just leave that there.

Actually the concept of "original sin" has been a mainstay with both Protestant and Catholic denominations. The Catholic Church, for example, eventually made infant baptism more their norm because of the fear of children dying prior to baptism as this concern had reached panic proportions during one of the early plagues.

Jews by and large do not believe in "original sin" as defined by most Christian denominations, and for what we believe are some very good reasons. If you disagree with how we look at it, that's OK.

Sleeppy · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
Actually the concept of "original sin" has been a mainstay with both Protestant and Catholic denominations. The Catholic Church, for example, eventually made infant baptism more their norm because of the fear of children dying prior to baptism as this concern had reached panic proportions during one of the early plagues.

Jews by and large do not believe in "original sin" as defined by most Christian denominations, and for what we believe are some very good reasons. If you disagree with how we look at it, that's OK.

I've seen at least 1 or 2 Jews on this forum who at least believe in something similar.. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Doesn't the curse on Jeconiah prove that original sin(s) exist?

Jayhawker Soule · Jun 18, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
The Jews rejected Jesus. That wasn't viewed as a good thing. Obviously Paul thought that circumcision was useless if you were going to come to faith in Christ. Are you saying that Jesus would be okay with circumcision being practiced by Jews who don't believe in Him in the first place?

Unless Jesus is a complete fabrication, he would be insistent upon any Jew being appropriately observant. What Paul might have thought is entirely irrelevant.

metis · Jun 18, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
The Jews rejected Jesus. That wasn't viewed as a good thing. Obviously Paul thought that circumcision was useless if you were going to come to faith in Christ. Are you saying that Jesus would be okay with circumcision being practiced by Jews who don't believe in Him in the first place? That's like saying that Jesus is happy with people not accepting Him as Messiah, period.

Then you're asking me if I support Jews basically still rejecting Christ and apparently want me to say "yes, go ahead and still practice things that I see as irrelevant according to my religious beliefs". I don't personally support Judaism as a religion, same for Islam. But I think you have the right to practice it since I believe in freedom of religion. So you go ahead and do that. You can believe and do as you please. That is your right as a human being. But that doesn't mean that I agree with it.

That's quite OK with me, and I don't mean that sarcastically. As for me, I support all religions that honestly try to deal with Truth and Love. As you may know, I go to mass pretty much every weekend with my wife, took Catholic theology classes in college, and even taught it. If anyone believes that somehow I'm just a partisan Jew, they couldn't be any more wrong.

shalom

metis · Jun 18, 2014

Sleeppy said:
I've seen at least 1 or 2 Jews on this forum who at least believe in something similar.. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Doesn't the curse on Jeconiah prove that original sin(s) exist?

Not really. A curse is something out of the ordinary even in the scriptures, so it can't logically be applied across the board to all.

Sleeppy · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
Not really. A curse is something out of the ordinary even in the scriptures, so it can't logically be applied across the board to all.

Applied to all? Could you elaborate the difference(s) to the best of your ability?

-- Or Jayhawker

Saint Frankenstein · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
That's quite OK with me, and I don't mean that sarcastically. As for me, I support all religions that honestly try to deal with Truth and Love. As you may know, I go to mass pretty much every weekend with my wife, took Catholic theology classes in college, and even taught it. If anyone believes that somehow I'm just a partisan Jew, they couldn't be any more wrong.

shalom

That's fair. I don't mean to anger you. We're just coming from two different places on this so we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

metis · Jun 18, 2014

Jayhawker Soule said:
Unless Jesus is a complete fabrication, he would be insistent upon any Jew being appropriately observant. What Paul might have thought is entirely irrelevant.

To go along with what you're saying, if Jesus used pick-and-choose methodology in regards to the Law, that would make him a "false prophet" if he told others to ignore any of the Law-- and circumcision is and was definitely part of that Law.

metis · Jun 18, 2014

saint_frankenstein said:
That's fair. I don't mean to anger you. We're just coming from two different places on this so we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

Thanks for this. Take care.

Sleeppy · Jun 18, 2014

metis said:
To go along with what you're saying, if Jesus used pick-and-choose methodology in regards to the Law, that would make him a "false prophet" if he told others to ignore any of the Law-- and circumcision is and was definitely part of that Law.

But unless you're like CMike, believing everything is perfect from God-- wouldn't 75% of the Jews be in the same boat as the false prophets?

Forsaken the Foreskin

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Wanderer From Afar

Veteran Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

Member

Wanderer From Afar

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

-- untitled --

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

Wanderer From Afar

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.