GiGi's Genesis Chapter 17 comment on 12/21/2021, 10:53pm...
Dgjot, Paul spoke about this extensively in Galatians and elsewhere. At the council of Jerusalem that Paul attended with James, John, and Peter, the decision was made tat Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved. Paul said that it does not matter if one is or not. With that said, I don't really think that it was customary in the early centuries for gentile males to be circumcised. Whenever it came into practice in the Gentile world it had become custom. It has no spiritual significance. But it seemed to be recommended for sanitary purposes in less sanitary times than today. It would be easy for a male to get infections between the foreskin and shaft without good hygiene. In more modern times, I think most people had their male infants circumcised so they would resemble their fathers and other males they may view. That was our reason for circumcising our three sons. I know of people who didn't without any problems and some who did have problems with infection. It is a personal choice parents can make for their infant, but it may not be covered by insurance.
I suppose you could google the history of it and find out more. I just haven't felt a reason to do so, but you may find information that answers your question.
Dgjot's Genesis Chapter 17 comment on 12/21/2021, 6:23am...
In regards to Ishmael, he shouldn't have been. Sarah was faithless. Instead of waiting on God's promise that she would bear a child, she coerced Abraham into lying with Hagar the Egyptian. For the last 1400+ years, we have witnessed the long term effects of Sarah's faithlessness. Ishmael is the father of the idolatrous Islamic hordes.
View All Genesis Chapter 17 Discussion...
GiGi's Genesis Chapter 17 comment on 12/21/2021, 10:53pm...
Dgjot, Paul spoke about this extensively in Galatians and elsewhere. At the council of Jerusalem that Paul attended with James, John, and Peter, the decision was made tat Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved. Paul said that it does not matter if one is or not. With that said, I don't really think that it was customary in the early centuries for gentile males to be circumcised. Whenever it came into practice in the Gentile world it had become custom. It has no spiritual significance. But it seemed to be recommended for sanitary purposes in less sanitary times than today. It would be easy for a male to get infections between the foreskin and shaft without good hygiene. In more modern times, I think most people had their male infants circumcised so they would resemble their fathers and other males they may view. That was our reason for circumcising our three sons. I know of people who didn't without any problems and some who did have problems with infection. It is a personal choice parents can make for their infant, but it may not be covered by insurance.
I suppose you could google the history of it and find out more. I just haven't felt a reason to do so, but you may find information that answers your question.
Dgjot's Genesis Chapter 17 comment on 12/21/2021, 6:23am...
In regards to Ishmael, he shouldn't have been. Sarah was faithless. Instead of waiting on God's promise that she would bear a child, she coerced Abraham into lying with Hagar the Egyptian. For the last 1400+ years, we have witnessed the long term effects of Sarah's faithlessness. Ishmael is the father of the idolatrous Islamic hordes.
Add your comment