So after some recent discussion on voat about circumcision I brought it up for some further discussion. It didn't last long. The points were too concreted and there was not much counter argument.
We decided to not use any reference material first, including the bible. Use common knowledge. Here is what we got:
In the old testament, the key point of the act was obedience and as a sign of the chosen people. God demanded that his people be separate to the rest. Those who integrated into God's society were forced to be circumcised as a sign and they were forced to follow in God's law. Those who were not circumcised, did not follow God or have allegiance to God's people. They were excluded. Oddly enough, this lines up with the last discussion.
Which I did list some details on voat already:
https://voat.co/v/LawBearersOfChrist/2206766
In the new testament, it is clear that Jesus determines that the law has become obsolete and its no longer about physical obedience, but spiritual obedience. You can not be saved by your traditional notions, but by where you stand with Jesus. It is clearly said, circumcision is pointless and you must be circumcised in a mental and spiritual capacity.
Seemed simple enough.
We figured this topic would have been covered to death already, so we just did some quick internet searching. One web site seemed to provide all the commentary that was needed.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/
While our core understanding was correct, there is additional information of interest that was not considered.
Is the foreskin a mistake of nature? No. The Bible says that God pronounced creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).
Jesus was circumcised. Does this make it right? Jesus was also wrapped in swaddling clothes and put in a manger (Luke 2: 7). This doesn't mean we have to wrap babies tightly in cloth and put them in animal feeding troughs or circumcise them. Jesus also had a crown of thorns forced onto his head and was crucified. (John 19). We don't do that to our children, either. It is better to take to heart what Jesus taught about circumcision and circumcisers.
We find this section a bit pointless. The information portrayed is irrelevant. But the question is still valid. It is important to note that Jesus' full covenant did not exist until after he died and returned. Until this point in time, the old law of the Torah was still in effect. People can argue that if that was the case, Jesus should have done everything that the Jews at the time complained about. Unfortunately, you can not argue this point due to the fact that Jesus was in himself an event of the old testament. He was the messiah and he was fulfilling exactly at is demanded. In short, the old testament closes with his rebirth and at that point the new testament technical starts (or the new covenant starts).
Paul circumcised a man, but later he called circumcisers mutilators. Why? Paul turned against circumcision. At first he gave in to pressure to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16: 1-4). (Timothy's mother was Jewish, so Timothy was Jewish by Jewish law.) However, Paul absolutely refused to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3) and opposed those false believers with fury. He wished they would castrate themselves, accusing them of wanting to make 'a good showing in the flesh' and 'glorying in the flesh' (Galatians 6: 12-15, RSV). In Philippians he warned believers to beware those who mutilate the flesh (Philippians 3: 2). Finally, in Titus he says that 'those of the circumcision' (from Crete) were 'upsetting' or 'ruining' whole families and were in it for the money (Titus 1: 10-12). What he had found out about circumcisers changed his mind.
Even the most godly of men continue to be educated.
Also the bible says nothing about any health advantages.
