Circumcised = Not a Christian?

Apparently, according to Paul in the verses below, if you are circumcised you cannot be a Christian. He seems to be even a little intense about it!

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Is this true?

If so, should they not warn people about this and teach this truth in church? If false, shouldn't someone, perhaps, declare Paul to be a false prophet?

Just wondering.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems strange, if Jesus were Jewish, wouldn't he be circumcised?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What would god need a penis for?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God doesn't have an asshole either that's why he's so full of shit!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It tends to reflect the Christian obsession with sexuality and genitalia. Much of which originated with Paul's unenlightened and biggotted view of sexuality and especially of women.

Circumcision certainly in ancient times and even largely today is a practical choice to assist with hygeine. That it became a differentiator of religious belief is quite bizarre. The implication here is that Christians are fundamantally more unhygenic than others. Why the heck would a god be in favor of such a condition?

 

Yes, I would think so, and so would almost every other male He preached to, even His own disciples. That would, perhaps, leave only the women as candidates for salvation. Virtually all of the men would have to keep the Law or be damned, which according to Paul is impossible, so they would all be damned to hell I guess.

Somebody better make something up quick!

 

So are Christians circumcised as a general rule? I know Jews are.

 

The whole circumcision thing is political for the Christians. I'll have to dig around, but among early Christian writings there are some bizarre assertions, including one that Christians are "circumcised in their hearts". My guess is that, since the Romans found religious circumcision just a bit strange, the Christians added this Jewish practice to their list of anti-identifications. The whole point was to convince Roman authorities to not worry about Christians because "we're not Jews!". Something like that. Some of those early writings are just hilarious. I think it was Ignatius of Antioch, though I'm not sure, who wrote that, essentially, "God must exist, else I am feeding myself to the lions for nothing." It never occurred to him that, yes, he was allowing himself to be executed for no good reason at all. Strange, indeed, what promises of an afterlife will do to a greedy soul.

 

*************
M*W: Tiassa:

Glad I read your post before I answered. I agree with your political decision by the Romans. That really makes sense.

S.A.M.

According to the bible, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day when M&J presented him to the temple. It's even a catholic holy day (reread Tiassa's post for clarification).

I shall offer another meaning (astro-theological, of course), and I think it's weird, so I don't blame any of you for thinking this is way out there:

The "covenant" with Abraham (let's say for 'a-t' purposes that Abraham represents the Sign of Aries, the first sign of the zodiac, and god (the sun) ordered Aries to 'circumcise' (make an 'round' incision to remove the foreskin) as representation of the cyclic zodiac. If this were possibly true, and it could be the true part of the myth, then no man should be circumcised. However, it does prove to be hygienically realistic. I've always tried to figure out the real meaning of the 'covenant' and the making of the myth.

 

I think the context is referring to someone who lets himself be circumcised in order to obey the Law of Moses. Since Christians are supposedly under a "new law" (which still retails some basic Mosaic ideas, such as love your neighbor as yourself), I guess "Paul" is saying that one shouldn't do anything to obey the law of Moses for righteousness. I'm not sure "Paul" was condemning all circumcision here, but rather condemning people who get circumcized in order to obey the Law of Moses. I could see it being interpreted as a blanket condemnation of circumcision though.

 

Ok but are Christians circumcised?

 

Yes, I would say that most of them indeed are, usually just after birth, and without their consent. At least in the U.S. they are.

That is from my own experience anyway.

 

Then perhaps true Christians should go out and commit adultery whenever they want? Don't want to be legalistic about following the Law of Moses, Right?

This is not what I think; I am just trying, in vane, to make some sense out of this mess.

 

what is the whole law?

Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

I think that means, just to be circumcised isn't enough. You must obey everything (the whole law) or it all means nothing.

 

Yay! I can still become a Christian.. oh wait.. :bugeye:

 

Circumcised cerebral cortex = religious

 

:bugeye:

 

It's not hard to count the places where the New Testament contradicts itself. The point is that there was a division in the early church---some Jews thought that Jesus' teachings were meant solely for them, and Gentiles should be excluded. This was clearly not the case, because Jesus spent a long time preaching specifically to Gentiles.

If you read Acts (in stead of quoting random scriptures from places outside of their historical context), you'll see the debate about this in the early church.

 

I will take a look! Thanks!