Jesus had to be circumcised (physically) simply in order to fulfill the requirements of the "law" or "old covenant". The "new covenant" or "new testament" never actually took place until after Jesus' death. Anyone who disagrees with this statement should read the 9th chapter of Hebrews, or at least read what it says in the 16th verse:
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (KJV)
Anyway, there are quite a number of verses that talk about circumcision which I have listed below.
Romans 2:24-28
Romans 4:8-10
1st Corinthians 7:17-19
Galatians 5:5-7
Ephesians 2:10-12
Colossians 3:10-12
By the way, God counted Abraham as righteous BEFORE he was circumcised. He was deemed righteous on account of his faith, because he believed God. Physical circumcision is no different than physical baptism. Both are outward displays that mean absolutely nothing unless the person's heart is right with God. (It's kinda like wearing a name label that says "I believe God!". However, we all know that many people wear "cross necklaces" and so forth, even though some of them have never truly repented.) I've never been baptized "physically" because I really don't see what difference it makes, other than to show the people around me that I'm willing to be soaked from head to toe in a swimming pool as a sign of obedience to God. John baptized with water, but Jesus baptizes with the Spirit. By the way, I'm not trying to say that physical baptism is wrong, but I know that it doesn't count unless you have your heart right with God. If you're already indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then you've already been baptized as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, if a woman demands that I go jump in a swimming pool before marrying her, then so be it. (However, I'm not getting in the pool if the water is below 80 degrees.) Hehe :)
I asked where Jesus says circumcision should not be done anymore.
You reply stating that Jesus says it in 1 Cor. 7
:laugh:
I did not know that Jesus wrote this letter.....
Anyway, I think we are getting on the same page with this quote indeed.
I Cor. 7
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called
These verses accurately describe how meaningful and yet at the same time how unmeaningful circumcision is. Thank you for sharing and I enjoyed our brief but interesting interaction.
The New Testament on Paul's revelations from the Lord, which are relevant to circumcision, are more important - but some common sense stuff and knowledge of anatomy is relevant to this issue.
From the point of view of psychology, the zeal of many American women for routine circumcision of male babies is interesting. Their insistence on the practice is based mainly on opinion rather than on knowledge - because the literature on circumcision is complex, and, as is often the case, filled with the dialectic, the clash of oppositions.
The Iowa study, done by M. L.Williamson , and P. S. Williamson, asked 145 new Iowa mothers of sons whether they were for circumcision or uncircumcision. The researchers report that 83 percent of these American women preferred circumcision. This study showed that Iowa mothers of
newborn sons believed that circumcision has hygiene
benefits, and most of the mothers preferred circumcised men, but only
8.9 percent of the women admitted having experience with uncircumcised
men. The vast majority of the women in the study claimed that circumcision
should be done for hygiene purposes. But only a very few of the women had ever
had experience with uncircumcised men. Where did their negative attitude on uncircumcision come from?
This study does not deal with that interesting question.
Now, that many, even many in the lower middle class, have computers and know how to
use search engines, information on the anatomy and physiology of uncircumcised men can be
found. Even within the opposing sides on the Internet regarding circumcision, some facts can be obtained. The strong persistence of an opposition to uncircumcision by many American women, who
determine in most cases whether to circumcise their sons, is a part of the interesting thing
about women's attitude toward circumcision.
For example, one can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma, which on some topics is biased, and find out about smegma. "Parkash et al. found that smegma contains 26.6% fats and 13.3% proteins, which they judged to be consistent with necrotic epithelial debris.[7] Newly produced smegma has a smooth, moist texture. It is thought to be rich in squalene[8] and contain prostatic and seminal secretions, desquamated epithelial cells, and the mucin content of the urethral glands of Littr�.[6] Some state that it contains anti-bacterial enzymes such as lysozyme and hormones such as androsterone,[5][60"
I can't give the link to the next site because of censorship by CDFF. The link contains a no-no word, which is in Genesis 17: 11. And, a second thing interesting about American women's attitudes on circumcision is that the object of that medical procedure is somewhat taboo.
"Enzymes and immune components are secreted by the (censored) mucous membranes, fighting off pathogens and disease. According to a report on the Immunological functions of the human (censored), these immune components include:
cathepsin B
lysozyme
chymotrypsin
neutrophil elastase
cytokine
These components, like the secretions from (censored) mucosa in a female, are important for protecting the (censored) from infection."
In other words, like the women in the Iowa study who strongly believed that men should be circumcised for purposes of hygiene, but had never had experience with an uncircumcised guy, American women regard the male reproductive anatomy sort of as taboo, but still want parts of it cut off by the doctors.
Smegma is the secretion that is associated with uncleanness, but it has important functions which are lost when the part of the anatomy which secrets it is cut off. When a person takes a water bath regularly, there is no uncleanness in the secretion of smegma. Not taking bathes results in the entire body being unclean, not just the reproductive organs.
There is much more that can be learned even on the Internet about that part of the anatomy which the medical profession has waged war on since the late 19th century in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in the other English speaking nations, who happen to also have been influenced, in the the early days of this theology, to some extent by Christian Zionism or dispensationalism. The doctors couldn't have been wrong could they?
I asked where Jesus says circumcision should not be done anymore.
You reply stating that Jesus says it in 1 Cor. 7
I did not know that Jesus wrote this letter....."
You and Jude make the same mistake in this thread.
Do the words in your Bible need to be written in red for you to understand that they are written by God? Did not Jesus speak the words that he heard from the Father? Did not Paul write the words that were inspired by God? Where is your confusion?
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
I was going to give the reference to 2 Timothy 3:16, but you already beat me to it. I wish I had noticed before I went searching for it, but oh well. :laugh:
