• 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
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.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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]
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Jesus was circumcised 8 day after his birth, then 33 days later the time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification according to the law of Moses.

When Joseph and Mary had finished doing all that was required by the law of the Lord, they returned to their home in Nazareth, where some 12 months later, the wise men for Mesopotamia came to honour the child who was born to be King of the Jews.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Jesus was circumcised 8 day after his birth, then 33 days later the time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification according to the law of Moses.

When Joseph and Mary had finished doing all that was required by the law of the Lord, they returned to their home in Nazareth, where some 12 months later, the wise men for Mesopotamia came to honour the child who was born to be King of the Jews.
Did you read the premise? It's a traditional belief, and matches the Scriptural belief, as well.

Clearly the Early Church was following the teachings of Jesus, and this is reflected in the Scripture.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Whether Jesus Christ were circumcised or not, doesn't really matter to anybody other than Jesus Christ himself or anybody else that would have been interested in the amount of foreskin on the penis of Jesus Christ.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Did you read the premise? It's a traditional belief, and matches the Scriptural belief, as well.

Clearly the Early Church was following the teachings of Jesus, and this is reflected in the Scripture.

Jesus sent Paul to gather in the required number of uncircumcised Gentiles, and no demand was put on those gentiles to be circumcised.

Although Peter and James the brother of Jesus had a dispute with Paul over this issue, and it was eventually agreed the Gentiles need not be circumcised.

But the Jewish church of Jesus, continued the practice,

From “JESUS THE EVIDENCE” by Ian Wilson; “And of James the son of Alpheaus, who was the first to sit on the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem, we learn from Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus, that he was murdered in 62 AD, at the instigation of one of the same Sadducee sect that had his brother Jesus murdered, and that James the righteous was succeeded by Simeon --- of Cleophas/Alpheaus.

Simeon a half-brother to Jesus, was succeeded by 13 other Bishops of the circumcision, among who, several others, like Simeon and James, appear to have been blood relatives of Jesus. In 132 AD, with the second Jewish revolt, the line was extinguished. Epiphanius of Salamis, in his Panarion, mentions Judah Kyriakos, the great grandson of Jude, as the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem that lived beyond Bar Kokhba’s revolt.

It was not uncommon for men of Galilee in those days to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic.
Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramiac for twin, is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for twin, he is Thomas/twin, Didymus/twin, Jude, the half-brother of Jesus and the son of the carpenter. A local tradition of eastern Syria identifies the Apostle Jude with Jude Thomas who was called ‘The Twin’ also known as Thomas (Aramaic), Didymus (Greek), and Jude (Hebrew.)

Knowing that in ART, Thomas Didymus Jude, the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas, is depicted with a, carpenter’s rule and square. In "The Acts of Thomas, sometimes called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.”

But that belongs to another thread.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Presuming that Jesus not being physically circumcised is merely a 'church speculation', or incorrect teaching, or such, even then, the verses that Paul writes, himself a ex'Pharisee, regarding physical circumcision, are very concise and religious in nature. If circumcision were of no consequence as a argument, why was Paul arguing about the "correctness" of the practice, how it was viewed, so forth. Paul isn't providing merely a whimsical preference, and the ideas that Paul presents, are in context to "correct" religious perspective, not just cultural.
So, there is an argument about this, amongst some early disciples, so forth, however one, Pauls, is very concise, religious, and connected to ideas of the Covenant, [book of Galatians.
So, there is a logical way to approach this, textually, and, when we take all the Biblical evidence together, it seems to me, you have or could have, one 'cultural' perspective, those arguing for physical circumcision, or even religious, if we believe that it was considered Mosaic, and, Abrahamic Covenant, to Mosaic Covenant, connectedness, they considered it proper to physically circumcise. Now, reading the Bible, however, the 'religious' tone is of non'circumcision, and religiously, the Bible is connected to Jesus, Jesu.

The teaching that Jesus was not physically circumcised, becomes very logical.

Seeing that the scriptures reveal that Jesus was circumcised 8 days after his birth, the teaching that Jesus was not physically circumcised, is seen to be just so much rubbish.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
No...actually it is quite possible, that Jesus was not physically circumcised. Not everyone practiced it, in fact, if you read the nt, noting 'non'judaism', instances, they are all over. Acts of the Apostles, various people, not sharing the same religious beliefs.

Timothy likens the bad priests to worshippers of Molech, not even merely misguided. The apostles believed that they were adhering correctly to Moses , and the early christians mainly did not practice circumcision. Paul equates non'circumcision to Abraham, and to Isaac.

We aren't dealing with modern judaism, so forth,

But we are dealing with the scriptures, which state that Jesus was circumcised 8 days after his birth. RVS Luke 2: 21; "And at the end of 8 days when he was circumcised he was named Jesus."
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
Yes, the teaching is that the ceremony was performed without physicality. In other words, not actually a physical circumcision. Considering everything, this could very well be true. We do note that Jesus, as a Rabbi, had various followers, not just Jews [Josephus. This itself is unusual, and even a non'religious person must admit that Jesus certainly was not the usual teacher, and this might be part of that, somehow. Paul equates Abraham to non'circumcision, the 'gentiles', [english bible rendition, and equates, it seems, Jesus to this lineage. How could it be a different lineage? Paul is going unto the Gentiles, and equating the Abrahamic Covenant, to the faith, and thusly it must mean, to Jesus. Is there a parallel concerning circumcision, here? I believe there very well could be.

RSV Luke 2: 21; "And at the end of 8 days when he was circumcised he was named Jesus." His foreskin was separated from his penis. End of story. Not interested in non biblical ramblings.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
A circumcision not occuring, or occuring, differs by book.

Matthew 2:13
No circumcision, flight to Egypt.

Luke 2:21
Circumcision, no flight to Egypt.

Note the timing of the wise men, arrival & departure

If the book of Luke is correct, it differs from the book of Matthew, and likewise, if the book of Matthew is correct, it differs from the book of Luke
 
Last edited:

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
A circumcision not occuring, or occuring, differs by book.

Matthew 2:13
No circumcision, flight to Egypt.

Luke 2:21
Circumcision, no flight to Egypt.

Note the timing of the wise men, arrival & departure

If the book of Luke is correct, it differs from the book of Matthew, and likewise, if the book of Matthew is correct, it differs from the book of Luke

And the book of Matthew and Luke differ from the books of Mark and John.

Luke speaks of Jesus being circumcised 8 days after his birth, but Luke makes no mention of the wise men from Persia, who, according to Matthew arrived in Jerusalem almost two years after the birth and circumcision of Jesus, and it was on the same night that the Magi were warned to return to their own country, that Joseph was warned in a dream to get out of bed and take Mary and the child (Who had been circumcised nearly two years previously) and flee into Egypt.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
And the book of Matthew and Luke differ from the books of Mark and John.

Luke speaks of Jesus being circumcised 8 days after his birth, but Luke makes no mention of the wise men from Persia, who, according to Matthew arrived in Jerusalem almost two years after the birth and circumcision of Jesus, and it was on the same night that the Magi were warned to return to their own country, that Joseph was warned in a dream to get out of bed and take Mary and the child (Who had been circumcised nearly two years previously) and flee into Egypt.
False... your fictional version doesn't match either story, because there is no flight to egypt, in the book of Luke. Aside from the fact, that there is no circumcision that occurs in the book of Matthew.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
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.

Of course the four gospels are different. If all were the same, we would only need the one. If everything that occurred in the life of Jesus were recorded, we would need a complete library to house the books. Each author, recorded that which they saw as being important.

Because no other gospels record Luke's account of the child Jesus in the temple confounding the Jewish teachers, does that mean that it didn't happen?

Because no other Gospel records John's account of the raising of the dead Lazarus, does that mean that it didn't happen?

Because no other Gospel records the circumcision of the baby Jesus, does that mean that Luke lied?

Because no other Gospel other than Matthews, records the account of the visit of the wise men, does that mean that it didn't happen?

Matthew says that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised MESSIAH almost two years previously and it was according to this information that Herod chose the age of the children to be slaughtered as two years and below.

The Child Jesus, who had been born almost two years previous to the visit of the wise men, had his foreskin removed from his penis when he was eight days old, and was taken into Egypt after the wise men left in the year of 4 B.C., the year in which Herod the Great died..

You must first learn to read and comprehend that which the scriptures reveal, before attempting to debate the subject.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Matthew says that the wise men had seen the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of the promised MESSIAH almost two years previously and it was according to this information that Herod chose the age of the children to be slaughtered as two years and below.

The Child Jesus, who had been born almost two years previous to the visit of the wise men, had his foreskin removed from his penis when he was eight days old, and was taken into Egypt after the wise men left in the year of 4 B.C., the year in which Herod the Great died..

You must first learn to read and comprehend that which the scriptures reveal, before attempting to debate the subject.
I'm not interested in your cobbled together, fictional story.
 
Top