Wrong dude. That was Abraham in Genesis.
If Jesus is God and God told Abraham then i guess it’s technically the right dude.
only jesus said there is a new covenant with him, which nearly all denominations interpret to mean the rite of circumcision is a thing of the past
… Unless you’re in Protestant dominated USAmerica, where male genital mutilation remains a widespread, common practice.
Roughly 80% of American boys/men are circumcized, almost all at birth.
I can provide either statistics or pics as proof, your choice.
EDIT: There’s also a whole history of basically junk/fraudulent science in the US being used as a validation of this practice, much of which basically claims that having your whole hood intact makes you more vulnerable to skin infections and STDs.
This is false, but Americans are quite good at doing motivated reasoning and convincing themselves it is objective critical analysis.
Jesus hadn’t been created yet. God is eternal, but Jesus was God made mortal.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made."
is generally interpreted to mean that Jesus was there from the beginning. Or, to quote the Nicene Creed,
begotten and not made, consubstantial with the Father
Circumcision is not a Christian practice.
It’s popular in America because some 19th Century RFK jr style health freaks convinced everybody that masturbation caused disease.
Jesus was in fact the one to say “yeah all this old rules don’t matter, just focus on these two: don’t be a dick and don’t be a fucking dick, god damn”
And that is why they crucified him, The Old Testament Repeatedly says “Be a dick against gays, infidels and non-virgin women who are not your wife. And whoever comes to say otherwise, be the most absolute dick against him”.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17
The law of the prophets was a costly covenant between old-testament god and humanity. Or, you know, whatever subgroup was in charge of translations at the time.
The “fulfillment” mentioned is a single lump sum of holy lamb blood in place of the never-actually-complete exchange of not wearing blended fabrics, not getting tattoos, and sacrificing your firstborn on a rock in the mountains. And slaughtering prisoners of war who you tricked into getting circumcised as a condition of their surrender so that they would be vulnerable.
Genital mutilation for all your babies! Use myths and lies to explain why it’s necessary!
Actually there was a huge debate among early Christians whether circumcision was still required because Jesus never spoke on the issue (or if he did, there was no verifiable record of it).
To crudely summarize:
The earliest Christians were primarily Jews, so they were already circumcized as required by Judaism so it was a non-issue. However unlike Judaism where you’re almost always born into the religion, Christianity actively encourages adult conversion, so as more non-Jews (e.g. Greeks) began to identify as Christians, the circumcision issue became a conundrum. Some felt Christianity was a branch of Judaism and as such Jewish practices like circumcision were still required, whereas others objected because they saw Christianity as a new approach to Judaism, or even as a separate religion altogether (circumcision specifically was hotly debated due to such issues as adult circumcision being more, shall we say, unappealing than infant circumcision, plus getting circumcized would “out” non-Jews in nude spaces like bath houses, which was at best awkward and at worst deadly).
The earliest followers of Jesus thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetimes, so these types of issues were not discussed (or at least not resolved) by the original founders and proselytizers (researchers have determined the Gospels weren’t even composed until well after everyone involved was dead), but as generations passed it became clear that the Second Coming actually may not happen anytime soon, so practical issues of “how to establish a new religion (is it even a new religion or just a Jewish sect???)” turned into gigantic internal debates for the community. That’s what much of the New Testament is: letters back and forth trying to interpret the words of Jesus to resolve doctrinal conflict. In other words, the New Testament is basically four different versions of the story of Jesus (Mark, Matthew and Luke which were based on Mark and a lost “Gospel X”, and John), followed by a curated back-and-forth commentary section debating issues of the day such as circumcision and women’s role in the church, and controversially capped off by the (theorized) hallucinations of a hermit tripping balls off donated moldy bread.
The history of the New Testament (how it was written and later compiled, early texts that were lost or discarded, and all the doctrinal conflicts that boiled over into variously incidents of geopolitical chaos) is fascinating and seriously worth exploring.
That’s fascinating. Can you recommend any books on the subject? The easier to read the better!
I don’t know if I’d call it “easy” reading, but this is a well-regarded college textbook that’s popular in “Christianity 101” religion classes (so at least it’s entry-level and doesn’t assume prior knowledge on the topic):
For something much lighter, Extra Credits did a video series on early Christian schisms that mentions the circumcision debate:
I’m far from a religious scholar (just someone who enjoys history from time to time), so I’d be curious if other folks have additional recommendations.
Christianity actively encourages adult conversion
That’s why 99% of christians were baptized before they learned to shit and piss properly.
I can’t tell if you’re being humorous here, but historically babies were baptized shortly after birth out of fear that anyone who died without being baptized would be unable to get into heaven.
In the middle ages* in Europe, baptism was usually scheduled a few days after birth, and often the historical record includes baptism dates and death dates for individuals, so historians estimate birth dates to be a few days prior to the baptism date. Babies that died pre-baptism were thought to go to purgatory instead of heaven, and considering the high infant mortality rate pre-modern medicine, there was a bit of a rush to get your offspring baptized pronto to save their itty bitty souls. Generally this is no longer believed, at least not by most mainstream Protestant sects, and many Christians nowadays opt to wait until their children are old enough to “appreciate” the event more.
*Not sure exactly when, and maybe this was mostly a Catholic thing? Again, this is not my area of expertise.
Catholics still do infant baptism, as do several Protestant groups.
I think adult baptism popped up in a few heresies/other groups - like maybe the Cathars did it and iirc a few early heresies - but really became a thing post Protestant reformation with groups like the Anabaptists. (Like, Baptists are called such because they specifically reject infant baptism.)
