Circumcision - Paul vs. Abraham

[paarsurrey]

At Zoom church on Sunday I’m doing a quick "teaching spot" about the non-practice of circumcision in Christianity in which I give a little talk on the subject

This is what I’ve got so far, in a very rough form:

So, in Genesis 17:10-14 God clearly asks that Abraham and his male decedents practice circumcision – in exchange for decedents, land, and blessings (Genesis 12:1-3)

Indeed he got Abraham to circumcise himself

Yet in Romans, Paul says it is not necessary and that being right with God is a matter of the heart and not of the penis – he said the practice was only an outward sign, not an inner disposition of holiness

He spoke of “circumcision of the heart” as a sign with being right with God, saying this was more important than being circumcised. By being circumcised of the heart he basically meant what modern Christinas call being "in-Christ"

He said that circumcision didn’t make a person a believer, but was only an outward sign of being a believer and thus not necessary to be a believer

Instead, having Jesus in your heart and accepting him as your Lord and Saviour made you right with God, rather than having a circumcised penis – and that it is through living as a Christian that one shows one has favour with God, as opposed to being circumcised

It was by rejecting circumcision that the early Christians broke away from Judaism and the Abrahamic covenant, and entered into a new relationship with God, through believing in Jesus Christ​

Is this correct? Any errors or misunderstandings?

Is there more that I could possibly add?

Also, if the early Christians walked away from the Abrahamic covenant then how come Christians still consider themselves Abraham’s spiritual descendants? This doesn’t make any sense to me, so either I don’t understand it or Christians stopped being Abraham’s spiritual descendants when Christianity broke away from Judaism

At church school I remember us singing this horrible, obnoxious, annoying and stupid song:

But how can those of us who are un-circumcised possibly claim to be his descendants? If we are not upholding our end of the covenant?

I fully agree with one.
I gave Genesis Chapter 17 in full in my post #20 and then noted some points. It becomes very clear by reading the above chapter, as I understood, that Paul took revenge from Jesus; when Jesus migrated out of Judea out the hands of both Jews and the Romans, Paul thought of a new plan against Jesus to character assassinate Jesus and mislead his followers. Right? Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please.
This is one such measures among many that Paul adopted and allured Jesus' followers to cut them off from the blessings of G-d they were entitled to receive from G-d as per the "Eternal Covenant" with Abraham for which circumcision was a visual sign, nevertheless very significant, please. Right? Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please.
I request my friends to read Genesis Chapter 17 in full again from my post #20, and get awakened from the slumber of 2000 years spent under the trance of Paul who cut them off from the "Eternal Covenant" with Abraham by G-d. Right? Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please.
If Jesus got himself circumcised, why can't his true and devoted followers, please?
If Abraham got himself circumcised at the age of 99 years and his elder son Ishmael at the age of 13 years to get the eternal blessings of G-d, why can't the Jesus'-Christians, please? Right? Kindly correct me if I am wrong, please.

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If Jesus got himself circumcised, why can't his true and devoted followers, please?

Jesus was a Jew, a descendant of Abraham via Isaac and Israel, thus inheriting that covenant. Virtually all Christians are non-Jews. They therefore have no obligation to circumcision at all. But if you want to, hey no one is stopping you. It's just not an obligation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as adoption goes, it can't be a one sided contract. You can't just show up on someone's doorstep and say, "Hi I'm your new adopted brother. Where's the fridge?" The adoption has to be approved by the adoptive family as well. Well, sir, we as the People of Israel do NOT approve of any adoption of Christians. I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.

It's generally the adoptive parents, not the siblings, whose agreement matters in adoption.

That aside, I understand from this argument that you believe an agreement requires the consent of all parties. How do you think this should apply to the circumcision of children too young to give that consent?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's generally the adoptive parents, not the siblings, whose agreement matters in adoption.

That aside, I understand from this argument that you believe an agreement requires the consent of all parties. How do you think this should apply to the circumcision of children too young to give that consent?

As you already know, it is different for born children. They are automatically members of the family they are born into. But you knew that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you already know, it is different for born children. They are automatically members of the family they are born into. But you knew that.

Just a few posts ago, you spoke of a "covenant." A covenant is an agreement.

So consent for an agreement isn't necessary when the agreement is for something you want?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just a few posts ago, you spoke of a "covenant." A covenant is an agreement.

So consent for an agreement isn't necessary when the agreement is for something you want?

The covenant is made with the People of Israel. The easiest way to be a part of the People of Israel is simply to be born into the family.

You may think it unfair that God made covenant with persons who were not present at the time. That's the breaks. When my mother dies, I will inherit all her property and stocks and bank accounts. I also inherit her debts. The whole kit and kaboodle. What she didn't pay off, I am required to pay out of the inheritance.

It's worth noting that Jews interpret the scriptures that ALL were there at Sinai, all meaning all Jews of all times, some only in spirit, but all accepted the covenant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The covenant is made with the People of Israel. The easiest way to be a part of the People of Israel is simply to be born into the family. You may think it unfair that God made covenant with persons who were not present at the time. That's the breaks.

No, that's not a covenant. That's an edict. Different things.

It's worth noting that Jews interpret the scriptures that ALL were there at Sinai, all meaning all Jews of all times, some only in spirit, but all accepted the covenant.

Any 8-day-old baby you might have occasion to circumcize was certainly not at Mount Sinai.

Edit: though the fact that you would suggest that consent was gained through some sort of magical time travel comes across as an acknowledgment on your part that consent is important.