In the TaNaKH it is very clear that the ritual of Circumcision (Heb: brit milah בְּרִית מִילָה ) was the SEAL of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-14) between God and community of believers (Abrahamic seeds: Heb: zera‘ זֶרַע ) we read in Genesis 17:10:
zoth beriti asher tishmeru beni uvenekhem uvein zar’a-kha acharei-kha himmol lakhem kal-zakar
This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you, and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
After that event God then mandated Abraham to perform the first ritual of Circumcision and subsequently to his seed (Heb: זֶרַע zera’ ) including Prophet Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The gospel of Luke 2:21 mentions Jesus’ circumcision and formal naming and from about the 6th century or so in the Western churches, 1 January was designated as the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus (eight days after 25 Dec), and over the centuries Jesus’ foreskin (prepuce), which many churches claimed to possess, was worshiped as the “Holy Grail” of Christian relics.
Interestingly however the circumcision is the least celebrated event the Christendom, since the medieval period, the date of Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus was treated as another feast dedicated to devotion to Jesus’ mother, Mary. This is an absolute contrast to the muslim world where the circumcision (Arabic: Khitan ختان) is celebrated as an Islamic culture by Muslims. It is accepted as established practice by all Islamic schools of jurisprudence as obligatory on all male Muslims.
The abandon of the practice of circumcision in the christendom is evident when one looks at much of church history where it appears to ignore the topic and even more evident in church art. If one goes through the many paintings of the nude infant Jesus in the christian paintings, he appears uncircumcised (like the one below by Pietro Perugino’s Madonna and Child). This glaring and obvious falsification of biblical history and abandonment of Abrahamic covenant proves that Christianity has deviated from the straight path of God.
Pietro Perugino’s Madonna and Child
Categories: Christianity, Jesus
Excellent.
I’m a gentile so I have a waiver, thank you very much.
You’re an uncircumcised Gentile. Your god rejects you on that basis. Ouch!
Salam brother Paul
Do you have the contact information for Dr. Ali Ataie? I Have some questions I would like to ask him.. Do you have an email address or anything for him?
Thanks!
Salam sorry no. I have never been in contact with him.
The only rite that is commanded in the gospel is the rite of baptism.
Thus circumcision is excluded.
Thats too bad you dont think Gen 17:10, is binding…
The problem for Ignoramus is that Ezekiel disagrees with him. After the battle of Gog and Magog, Ezekiel prophesied the rebuilding of the temple along with all the temple rites. That includes the ban on UNCIRCUMCISED Gentiles on the temple grounds.
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.” (Ezekiel, 44:9)
Greeting Faiz
If I may, I’d like to make a quick logical point about the potential implications of a conjunction (or conjunctive propositions).
A rule which prohibits entry to a person who is X & Y does not necessarily entail that entry will be barred to a person who is X and not-Y.
With that in mind, I imagine a believer in the New Testament might understand Ezekiel 44:9 in light of Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11.
Hi Denis. Nice to talk to you again.
Ezekiel (or whoever wrote the book) is very clear that a person who is X (a foreigner) who is NOT Y (not circumcised) in heart AND FLESH cannot enter God’s sanctuary. There is no way to reconcile Ezekiel 44 with Romans 2 or Colossians 2 for this reason. You are contradicting what the text very clearly says.
Greetings again, Faiz
In Ezekiel 44:9, the relevant son of an alien (or foreigner, stranger) who is barred entry is described as:
ערל לב וערל בשר
ᶜerel leb wᶜerel basar
We could translate ᶜerel as uncircumcised, “foreskinned,” sheathed or covered. Whatever the case, the verse is prohibiting entry to a person who is ᶜerel [in/of] heart and ᶜerel [in/of] flesh. Those were the two conjuncts I had in mind when I offered that simple logical structure. With that in mind, permit me to repeat this point (in a slightly altered form):
A rule prohibiting a person who is X & Y does not necessarily constitute a rule prohibiting a person who is not-X & Y.
The relevance of Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11 is that they collectively touch on the possibility of a person having an uncircumcised membrum and a circumcised heart, and vice versa.
Applying this to the logical point above, a rule barring entry to a person who is ᶜerel in heart and ᶜerel in flesh is not necessarily a rule barring entry to a person who is not-ᶜerel in heart yet ᶜerel in flesh.
“We could translate ᶜerel as uncircumcised, “foreskinned,” sheathed or covered. Whatever the case, the verse is prohibiting entry to a person who is ᶜerel [in/of] heart and ᶜerel [in/of] flesh. Those were the two conjuncts I had in mind when I offered that simple logical structure. With that in mind, permit me to repeat this point (in a slightly altered form):”
I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. Yes, the verse says “in/of heart AND in/of flesh”. In other words, that person must be both, not one or the other. Being circumcised in the flesh but not in heart would bar one from the sanctuary. So would being circumcised in the heart but not in the flesh. You can’t have it one way. It has to be both.
“A rule prohibiting a person who is X & Y does not necessarily constitute a rule prohibiting a person who is not-X & Y.”
Except that in Ezekiel’s case, it does. This rule was applied from the days of Abraham and was supposed to be an “everlasting covenant”.
“Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Gen. 17:13-14)
There is no ambiguity or room for additional eisegesis here.
“The relevance of Romans 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11 is that they collectively touch on the possibility of a person having an uncircumcised membrum and a circumcised heart, and vice versa.”
Which is irrelevant because Ezekiel says they have to be both.
“Applying this to the logical point above, a rule barring entry to a person who is ᶜerel in heart and ᶜerel in flesh is not necessarily a rule barring entry to a person who is not-ᶜerel in heart yet ᶜerel in flesh.”
This would an example of having your cake and eating it too. Ezekiel could have easily said that it could be one or the other, but he didn’t. That’s why it’s a contradiction. Paul’s excuse-making does not undo the clear statement in Ezekiel 44:9.