tell me about Jesus' circ.

[Peppermint]

OK, I am talking with some "friends" and they happen to be fellow Catholics, and their line of thinking is, "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my kid." So, tell me, what was Jesus' circ. like? Was it like circ. today? I thought I read somewhere that circ. in that time was more of a nick to the foreskin, not a removal .

[Nathan1097]

Originally Posted by jess7396

OK, I am talking with some "friends" and they happen to be fellow Catholics, and their line of thinking is, "If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my kid." So, tell me, what was Jesus' circ. like? Was it like circ. today? I thought I read somewhere that circ. in that time was more of a nick to the foreskin, not a removal .

Jesus had a bris as he was Jewish. At the time, they didn't remove all of the foreskin- just the overhang- or so I've read. Definitely nothing that exposed the entire head, or anything to do with Gomco or Plastibel, etc.

Check out this site: http://www.acts15.org/

[Peppermint]

Thanks Nathan! That's just what I was looking for .

[Tinijocaro]

Jesus was a Jew, and was commanded by the Old Testament to becirc'd. Catholics are not Jewish, and are not commanded to circ in the New Testament.

Jackie

[Frankly Speaking]

Jess:

It's not important that Jesus was circumcised. That was done by the hand of man. What is important is what Jesus said about circumcision. Here is what he said as recorded in the Gospel of Thomas (53): "His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

Also read about the Feast of Tabernacles where he asked "Why do you want to kill me when I speak against circumcision?" and then read about the Council of Jerusalem where the disciples met to discuss this very issue and to construct a clear message against circumcision as Jesus had taught.

Yes, Jesus was circumcised. He was born as a Jew and he was circumcised in the Jewish tradition but as you can see, he clearly stated that circumcision is not for Christians.




Frank

[hotmamacita]

I agree, we are free from the law of penis circ. b/c of Christ.

I don't want to get this thread moved to Spirituality so I won't cite specific Scripture...

But we are to circumcize our HEARTS. In other words, cut the dead flesh that keeps us from loving others and God. This is not meaning you perform a physical surgery on oneself but to do the word of keeping your heart pure and loving towards others.

just my .02

[~Megan~]

Frank where does one find the Gospel of Thomas, is that only in the Catolic bible? Its not in my bible or any that I've ever seen.

[PurpleBasil]

Originally Posted by hotmamacita

But we are to circumcize our HEARTS. In other words, cut the dead flesh that keeps us from loving others and God. This is not meaning you perform a physical surgery on oneself but to do the word of keeping your heart pure and loving towards others.

Whoa.

Where, in the anatomy of the intact penis, is the 'dead flesh' that you are using as a spiritual metaphor? Is that what you think is circumcision? 'cut the dead flesh'?

Please PM me the Scripture supporting this idea about spiritual circumcision of one's heart. Thank you. It isn't urgent but I would like to read this for myself.

[kama'aina mama]

The Gospel of Thomas is non-cannonical... which is to that while it was written in the same time frame as the four Gospels in the modern Christian cannon it was not included for various reasons by the early Catholic Church nor was it adopted by other Christian sects when they chose their cannon. You can find it in bookstores.

[loving-my-babies]

I agree and have read that Jesus says circ'ing is not needed.. one more reason why I think this is so wrong.

[Frankly Speaking]

You can do a search for the Gospel of Thomas. In all, there were 113 Gospels. Many of them were repetitive and many only repeated the gospels included in the King James version and other modern versions of the Bible. There is a Yahoo site that is dedicated purely to the discussion of the Gospel of Thomas and it's meanings. While the other non-included gospels are repetitive, as you can see, often their words are valuable in seeing certain issues more clearly. I have a New International Version of The Bible that leaves the Feast of Tabernacles out. However, it is included in the King James Version. At the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus asked "Why do you want to kill me when I speak against circumcision?" That is the only time Jesus speaks about circumcision in the King James Version and that leaves some question about his true teachings about circumcision. However when connected with his words as recorded in The Gospel of Thomas, his intent is clear. If I had only read my NIV, I would have never known about Jesus speaking about circumcision at all.

Some people believe "circumcision of the heart" refers to the sexual damage of of circumcision and when Paul asked "Why should I put that yoke upon my shoulder?" that he was also speaking of the sexual damage of circumcsion. The belief is that circumcision was a way to keep the man more sexually insensitive so that he was not as controlled by lust or "sins of the heart." It is believed that "circumcision of the heart" referred to the man controlling his sexual desires in his heart, (mentally) and circumcision of the flesh was not necessary or beneficial if the man imposed this self imposed circumcision of the heart instead of the circumcision of the flesh imposed at birth. The writings of Moses Ben Maimoides also speak of the sexual damage of circumcision and how it benefits the man by controlling lust and to his wife by making him a more submissive mate.

The truth is that the sexual damage of circumcision has been known thousands of years and was used to control men. We just forgot that in the last 100 years. 130 years ago, it was instituted in America to control masturbation and by the turn of the century, the "health benefits" had taken over. However, well into the last half of the century, medical writers were still trumpeting the benefits to women and society of reducing men's sexuality. It's just that the general population didn't get to see that and the medical community sure wasn't going to tell us that part of the truth. that part of it could have ended circumcision 40 years and $40 Billion ago.




Frank

[loving-my-babies]

frank, ya know what? your posts always inspire me.... thanks! 's

[AllyRae]

I agree....I'm Catholic and my son is not circ'ed. Circing was a Jewish tradition....the Catholic church actually does not have a definitive stance on it, but it's against the instructions in the cathecism to mutilate the "temple" (body).

[TiredX2]

Here is an article titled "Respect for Bodily Integrity: A Catholic Perspective on Circumcision in Catholic Hospitals":

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/fadel2/

When responding to a Catholic, how about instead of:

"If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my kid."

"If being intact is good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for my kid." :LOL

[TiredX2]

Oh, just wanted to add:

You can look at the statue "David" to see what a circd male would have looked like. A lot of people incorrectly assume that Michelangelo "messed up" and sculpted an intact male, but in actuality circs used to remove much less skin.

Here is one picture if you would like to look:
http://www.tekline.co.uk/n-penis1.htm

[DaryLLL]

Rom 2:25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Rom 2:27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.
Rom 2:28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical.
Rom 2:29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.

Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

Paul, or some man who called himself Paul, wrote the above. (He also said those who insisted upon circing followers of the Christ, should go the rest of the way, and castrate themsleves.) Was Jesus accurately recorded in the canon, or in the gnostic gospels, or in various other apocrypha, on this or other subjects? No one knows. One can only speculate.

[crazy_eights]

Originally Posted by TiredX2

Oh, just wanted to add:

You can look at the statue "David" to see what a circd male would have looked like. A lot of people incorrectly assume that Michelangelo "messed up" and sculpted an intact male, but in actuality circs used to remove much less skin.

Here is one picture if you would like to look:
http://www.tekline.co.uk/n-penis1.htm

I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that Michelangelo had this info? This was in the 16th century when Jewish circ's were performed for millenia as they are today and the non-Jews weren't circ'ing. So I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion that Michelanglo was representing how he assumed David's penis to have looked. Not to mention that it looks as if nothing has been removed.

[Frankly Speaking]

Chava, I think I'm with you on this one.

According to the legend, the original bris only removed the part of the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. As the child matured, the distal third or half or so of the glans would be permanently exposed. This is the type of circumcision that David would have had. About 800 A.D., periah was instituted and the entire glans was denuded as circumcisions are done today.

I've seen both sides of the argument. One that David is shown circumcised but If you will look at the sculpture, it has a fairly long foreskin so this is not likely. The other argument is that Michaelangelo showed David as his contemporaries would expect the penis to appear. Even though David was circumcised, Michaelangelo suspected (and probably correctly) that his contemporaries would find the exposed glans offensive and showed him as would be acceptable in his culture, that is, intact. Not historically correct but politically correct instead. That makes more sense to me.





Frank

[kama'aina mama]

What Frank said. Art is not about historical accuracy... it's about art. And of course by that time European Christians were already deep in the interesting mental gymnastics that tend to render even "Old Testament" figures more Christian than Jewish in the minds of most Christians. Michaelangelo, if you want an idea of how concerned he was about physical accuracy, absolutely refused to work with female models. Which is why the very few female figures he created (Leda and the Swan is the only one I have seen personally) look like slender 16 or 17 y/o men with breasts slapped on.

[3 little birds]

Slightly OT
While the Isrealites wandered the desert for 40 years they were not circ'ed.
Just thought that was interesting.