• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus wasn't 'physically' circumcised...the Early Church teaching against physical circumcision

Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Anyways, the stories are clearly different, and I'm going to go with the Gospel of Matthew, on this. Comparing to the religion, the teachings, so forth, it seems clear that it coincides with the other text the best, the religious beliefs,
So, no circumcision, and a flight to egypt, as written.
Click to expand...


Not sure why such a ludicrous, inane thing would matter. What does it have to do with the message of Jesus at all? Are you simply bringing this up to distract from the important part of Jesus Life? I find such nonsense to be irritating. He was a Jew, and raised as such, so the priests likely did the whackerectomy that was "normal" for Jewish Males. Why can't you tumble to that?

I think it is obvious that he came to earth fully informed as to the desires of his Father. That is adequately indicated when he is teaching in the Temple. How much more plain does it have to be?
 
T

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Epic Beard Man said:
I find it funny some people are concerned with whether Jesus had a turtle neck...LOL
Click to expand...

And there are those who are not concerned as to whether Jesus had a hood or not, but are certainly concerned about what the scriptures have to say in relation to the circumcision or non circumcision of the baby Jesus.
 
74x12

74x12

Well-Known Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.☆ The Early Church, Biblical noting of non'circumcision is a clear reference that this teaching, belief, is true. The 'Christians' were following the tradition of Jesus, in other words. Now, as to how common this was, is another debate.


☆the motions or ceremonial part was undergone, hence the verse regarding circumcision, however physical circumcision was not performed.

Note that Matthew 2:13 differs from Luke 2:21, in the book of Matthew, there is no circumcision, and there is the flight to egypt; in the book of Luke, there is a circumcision. These differing events, occur at the same time, presumably, in each respective book.
Click to expand...
Paul claimed Jesus was a minister of the circumcision while He was here. It's through the death burial and resurrection that the Law is finished and so the new Covenant comes. I can explain it if you want.
 
Epic Beard Man

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The Anointed said:
And there are those who are not concerned as to whether Jesus had a hood or not, but are certainly concerned about what the scriptures have to say in relation to the circumcision or non circumcision of the baby Jesus.
Click to expand...

True. But I'm more concerned at what Jesus said about our greatest commandment, the Sh'ma that is the most important message to me not circumcision.
 
Rational Agnostic

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.☆ The Early Church, Biblical noting of non'circumcision is a clear reference that this teaching, belief, is true. The 'Christians' were following the tradition of Jesus, in other words. Now, as to how common this was, is another debate.


☆the motions or ceremonial part was undergone, hence the verse regarding circumcision, however physical circumcision was not performed.

Note that Matthew 2:13 differs from Luke 2:21, in the book of Matthew, there is no circumcision, and there is the flight to egypt; in the book of Luke, there is a circumcision. These differing events, occur at the same time, presumably, in each respective book.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a thread awhile back where the OP posited various questions about Jesus' "manhood," claiming to be a devout fundamentalist Christian and wondering if speculating about Jesus' sexual organs was a sin.
 
Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Hubert Farnsworth said:
This reminds me of a thread awhile back where the OP posited various questions about Jesus' "manhood," claiming to be a devout fundamentalist Christian and wondering if speculating about Jesus' sexual organs was a sin.
Click to expand...

Is that called Gutterlighting, rather than Gaslighting?
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.☆ The Early Church, Biblical noting of non'circumcision is a clear reference that this teaching, belief, is true. The 'Christians' were following the tradition of Jesus, in other words. Now, as to how common this was, is another debate.


☆the motions or ceremonial part was undergone, hence the verse regarding circumcision, however physical circumcision was not performed.

Note that Matthew 2:13 differs from Luke 2:21, in the book of Matthew, there is no circumcision, and there is the flight to egypt; in the book of Luke, there is a circumcision. These differing events, occur at the same time, presumably, in each respective book.
Click to expand...

I would find it difficult to believe that Jesus was not circumsized
Luke claims he was in 2:21
 
Epic Beard Man

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Disciple of Jesus said:
The most important "message" can't be circumcision, because

Romans 3:30
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
[KJV]
Romans 3:31
Click to expand...


"And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment."
 
Rational Agnostic

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Negative atheism sounds like "same faith". Close enough?:D
Click to expand...

"Same faith" as what? "Negative atheism" is a lack of theistic beliefs without making a positive assertion that God does not exist. I'm also agnostic of course, but changed my displayed religion to place the emphasis on what I lack belief in rather than what I quite obviously lack knowledge in.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Romans 2:24-25
Romans 2:27
Romans 2:28
For he is not a jew, which is one outwardly; neither is circumcision, which is outward in the flesh.
[KJV]
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. This is St Paul telling the Roman brethren that what counts is behaviour, not whether you have been snipped. It says nothing at all about Jesus. The "he" referred to is NOT Jesus. Read the context.

As others have pointed out, Jesus was a Jew and would definitely have been circumcised.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
There were times in the Jewish tradition where physical wasn't perfomed, for reasons, do your research.
Click to expand...
No, you are making the claim so it is up to you to support it with evidence. Quoting St Paul talking about something other than Jesus clearly won't do.

I am quite open to the idea that physical circumcision may sometimes have not been carried out at the time of Jesus, if you can provide some evidence. Can you post a link?
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.☆ The Early Church, Biblical noting of non'circumcision is a clear reference that this teaching, belief, is true. The 'Christians' were following the tradition of Jesus, in other words. Now, as to how common this was, is another debate.


☆the motions or ceremonial part was undergone, hence the verse regarding circumcision, however physical circumcision was not performed.

Note that Matthew 2:13 differs from Luke 2:21, in the book of Matthew, there is no circumcision, and there is the flight to egypt; in the book of Luke, there is a circumcision. These differing events, occur at the same time, presumably, in each respective book.
Click to expand...

Jesus was physically circumcised per scripture, however:

If being a Jew is about circumcision and being a Christian is about trusting God for salvation and loving God . . . label me "Christian", though I, like Jesus and Paul, am a Jew.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
No, you are making the claim so it is up to you to support it with evidence. Quoting St Paul talking about something other than Jesus clearly won't do.

I am quite open to the idea that physical circumcision may sometimes have not been carried out at the time of Jesus, if you can provide some evidence. Can you post a link?
Click to expand...
Actually, that 'claim', is a negative claim to the contrary. In other words, I defer to a different Gospel, which doesn't mention a circumcision, and, there is a early tradition that no physical circumcision occured. I don't have to 'make a claim', that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised , I don't have to consider it at all, actually.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Actually, that 'claim', is a negative claim to the contrary. In other words, I defer to a different Gospel, which doesn't mention a circumcision, and, there is a early tradition that no physical circumcision occured. I don't have to 'make a claim', that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised , I don't have to consider it at all, actually.
Click to expand...
What evidence can you show us of this "early tradition", or of circumcision practice at the time of Christ? You have not provided any so far.

Without any evidence to support what you say, you must not be surprised if people are highly sceptical. As indeed they are, judging by this thread.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
What evidence can you show us of this "early tradition", or of circumcision practice at the time of Christ? You have not provided any so far.

Without any evidence to support what you say, you must not be surprised if people are highly sceptical. As indeed they are, judging by this thread.
Click to expand...
Being highly skeptical of something you aren't aware of, is different from direct argument to the contrary, with no consideration otherwise.

Ultimately, I don't care if you think it occured, or not, I can believe it didn't, or rather not consider it did, necessarily, you can believe, it did.
Your type of argument can be used for many arguments, though. Being a Jew, can be used for arguments that Jesus did or did not do many things. I'm not sure you want me or others, to be using that argument, against your religious beliefs.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Disciple of Jesus said:
Being highly skeptical of something you aren't aware of, is different from direct argument to the contrary, with no consideration otherwise.

Ultimately, I don't care if you think it occured, or not, I can believe it didn't, or rather not consider it did, necessarily, you can believe, it did.
Your type of argument can be used for many arguments, though. Being a Jew, can be used for arguments that Jesus did or did not do many things. I'm not sure you want me or others, to be using that argument, against your religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
No, this is nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is to do with a claim of historical fact, about tradition at the time of Christ, which you made and which you are unable, apparently, to support. I have now asked you several times for evidence supporting your claim and you have dodged it each time.

Readers will be entitled to conclude you are speaking merely ex ano and are not serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top