• 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

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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.
Likewise I am entitled to conclude that they are not serious, and intellectually lazy.:thumbsup:
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This thread makes me a believer in why the church didn't want the common person to read the Bible.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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.

What makes you think that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.

Seeing how Jesus was born under the law, Which means, Jesus had to be circumcised according to the law.

The law of circumcision didn't come to an end until Jesus was nailed on the cross.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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.

What makes you think that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.

Seeing how Jesus was born under the law, Which means, Jesus had to be circumcised according to the law.

The law of circumcision didn't come to an end until Jesus was nailed on the cross.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
What makes you think that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.

Seeing how Jesus was born under the law, Which means, Jesus had to be circumcised according to the law.

The law of circumcision didn't come to an end until Jesus was nailed on the cross.
I take certain writings & teachings, into serious consideration. In other words, I don't consider all teachings traditional teachings, to be the same, in probability, so forth. Now, I do this with religious writings, like the writings of Josephus, and so forth.

This teaching...now, for example, is a parallel, to the teaching, the fact, that a circumcision, isn't mentioned, generally, in all the Gospels? Perhaps there is a correlation, here, if an actual physical circumcision, did not take place, the author/s did not want to obfuscate this either, fact, or, as the teaching goes, ie a ceremonial non'physical circumcision, to confuse the reader, by writing "circumcision".

There are other reasons why I might consider this as fact, however, just generally, I do make that decision, of which teachings, I believe, or make sense to me, to believe.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
What makes you think that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.

Seeing how Jesus was born under the law, Which means, Jesus had to be circumcised according to the law.

The law of circumcision didn't come to an end until Jesus was nailed on the cross.
Bear in mind that this is a religious, traditional teaching. Like many, religious traditional teachings.

Do you question every church or traditional teaching, with as much certainty? Just curious.

My religious understanding, uses logic, religious faith, non biblical writings, so forth.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Speaking of which,
the teaching of the non'physical circumcision of Jesus is a Church teaching.

Just not your specific church.

There are other churches...
I don't have a church. But I meant the RCC which was the seat of Christianity for most of its existence, feared what would happen by letting the common person, meaning the uneducated laity, just read utter nonsense from it, and think they have found the true meaning, and run off and start whatever Yahoo version of faith their addled minds could come up with.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I don't have a church. But I meant the RCC which was the seat of Christianity for most of its existence, feared what would happen by letting the common person, meaning the uneducated laity, just read utter nonsense from it, and think they have found the true meaning, and run off and start whatever Yahoo version of faith their addled minds could come up with.
What does that have to do with this thread topic? Why would the thread topic make you correlate that idea, to it?

You also still seem confused by the fact that there are other, churches, and other 'places', languages, church traditions. It's interesting that you view them as complete nonsense.
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.

I'll never understand people's obsession with circumcision...
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What does that have to do with this thread topic? Why would the thread topic make you correlate that idea, to it?
Because for someone to read that Jesus, a Jew, born to Jewish parents, would not have been circumcised, is an example of why just any person picking up the Bible without a proper foundation in religious knowledge, would read something so utterly nonsensical from it.

You also still seem confused by the fact that there are other, churches, and other 'places', languages, church traditions. It's interesting that you view them as complete nonsense.
I didn't say complete nonsense, but there are examples that push the edge of being that, such as saying Jesus, a Jew, born to Jewish parents 2000 years ago, was not circumcised. You may as well say his parents ate pork, were from Spain, and openly worshipped Caesar as God. How is it possible his parents would not have had him circumcised?

Aside from the brutal reading of scripture I'm sure you have managed to paste together from the shredded tatters of scripture run through the gristmill of whatever odd group you've found to identify yourself with, the fact his parents were Jews, means they would have had him circumcised. No one would ever have considered him a Jewish Rabbi, had he not been. Common sense.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Because for someone to read that Jesus, a Jew, born to Jewish parents, would not have been circumcised, is an example of why just any person picking up the Bible without a proper foundation in religious knowledge, would read something so utterly nonsensical from it.


I didn't say complete nonsense, but there are examples that push the edge of being that, such as saying Jesus, a Jew, born to Jewish parents 2000 years ago, was not circumcised. You may as well say his parents ate pork, were from Spain, and openly worshipped Caesar as God. How is it possible his parents would not have had him circumcised?

Aside from the brutal reading of scripture I'm sure you have managed to paste together from the shredded tatters of scripture run through the gristmill of whatever odd group you've found to identify yourself with, the fact his parents were Jews, means they would have had him circumcised. No one would ever have considered him a Jewish Rabbi, had he not been. Common sense.
It's quite ironic that, while presenting your own bizarre, made up religion, presumably a 'heresy', by your own reckoning, you discount actual teachings of the Church.

Your argument necessitates an adherence to some teachings, which you may or may not believe, and, also immediately discounts other teachings, which, you feel you are not supposed to believe, even though, you are not representing the beliefs that you are theoretically supporting, in the first place.

In other words, your argument is nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
What makes you think that Jesus wasn't physically circumcised.

Seeing how Jesus was born under the law, Which means, Jesus had to be circumcised according to the law.

The law of circumcision didn't come to an end until Jesus was nailed on the cross.

Hebrews 7:28
Hebrews 7:14
Hebrews 7:15

Hebrews 7:16
Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh unto God.
[KJV]



Jesus was not in the manner of the law, you are either not reading your Bible, or, misinterpreting it.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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.
Colossians 2:11

The circumcision here isn't physical, and note 'also' non'physical circumcision , as it relates to Jesus. The 'circumcision of Christ', is non'physical, and the non'physical circumcision is called the 'circumcision of Christ'.

Why, would one interpret this non'physical circumcision, as a different type of circumcision, separate from the Christ Himself.

You may want to remove yourself from the persona of Jesus, directly, thusly, by your interpretation, however the other Scripture refutes that sort 'interpretation', of text. That interpretation is certainly non'literal, as the circumcision of Christ is actually called non'physical.
 
Last edited:
Top