Paul's contradiction about circumcision

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Paul was very much opposed to circumcision of the Gentiles although he himself having been born a Jew was circumcised.Here is what Paul writes in the His Gospel about circumcision:

2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
[font=Arial,Helvetica]3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.[/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica]6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.[/font]
(Gal 5:2-6 American Standard Version).

He was so much opposed to it yet he himself circumcised Timothy whose fahter was a Greek gentile:

1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
[font=Arial,Helvetica]2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
[font=Arial,Helvetica]3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.[/font]
(Acts 16:3 American Standard Version)

Why this double standard that when Timothy is in trouble with the Jews Paul circumcises him himself.Yet for all other gentiles i.e Christians he denies it's importance.So he did not care about the other gentiles and even his converts.
This is the first part of this question the best is yet to come.
Saiful-Islam-Khattab(the Lion,the legendary hero Of Islam)
[/font]

 

[xxdaggerxx]

i think you have misunderstood, paul preached to the gentiles that circumcision doesnt matter anymore, but he circumcised Timothy becasue if Timothy and paul needed to assosiate with jews they needed to be circumsised (basicly jews dont associate with gentiles,uncircumcised), because Timothy's father was a greek other jews would easily know he was'nt a jew so paul had him circumcised.

NOTE: i am not familiar with these jewish traditions maybe some one from this board can exlain it to you. but what i have said should have cleared any doubts.

if you have any more questions, feel free to post. try not to use the word 'contradiction'

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

i think you have misunderstood, paul preached to the gentiles that circumcision doesnt matter anymore, but he circumcised Timothy becasue if Timothy and paul needed to assosiate with jews they needed to be circumsised (basicly jews dont associate with gentiles,uncircumcised), because Timothy's father was a greek other jews would easily know he was'nt a jew so paul had him circumcised.

NOTE: i am not familiar with these jewish traditions maybe some one from this board can exlain it to you. but what i have said should have cleared any doubts.

if you have any more questions, feel free to post. try not to use the word 'contradiction'

Thanx for that,why did it have to matter for Timothy yet for the remainder of Christians it did not. Paul sits on the fence when he needs to:
2 corinthians:
20 (AV) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 (AV) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)that I might gain them that are without law.
22 (AV) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.(KJV)
I am saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[Montalban]

Paul was very much opposed to circumcision of the Gentiles although he himself having been born a Jew was circumcised.Here is what Paul writes in the His Gospel about circumcision:

2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love

Gal 5:2-6 American Standard Version
He was so much opposed to it yet he himself circumcised Timothy whose fahter was a Greek gentile:
1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Why this double standard that when Timothy is in trouble with the Jews Paul circumcises him himself.Yet for all other gentiles i.e Christians he denies it's importance.So he did not care about the other gentiles and even his converts.

"Another custom dating from antiquity and still universally observed by all Mohammedans, although not explicitly enjoined in the Koran, is circumcision. It is looked upon as a semi-religious practice, and its performance is preceded and accompanied by great festivities"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm

One idea is that the actual act of physical circumcision will not save you. This is clear from St.Paul's first statement quoted by yourself. However as that is, some people still thought it significant. St. Paul in effect does perform this because it is significant to others. In the same way that if I say I will do something, that is sufficient for me, as far as a guarantee. But you might feel better if I added "I promise". The "I promise" statement means nothing to me (in that my guarantee is already given), but it means something to you... therefore I will say it, to comfort you. It would help you believe me in what I say.

Timothy was, as far as I'm aware had a Greek father. St. Paul wants to take him preaching with him to the Jews. The Jews would not be conducive to listening to someone sermonise on religious matters who himself was not circumcised; because it meant something to them. St. Paul simply paves the way for Timothy to be accepted as a teacher to the Jews.

And St. Paul would have taught them too that the 'circ' would not save them.

 

[Montalban]

Thanx for that,why did it have to matter for Timothy yet for the remainder of Christians it did not. Paul sits on the fence when he needs to:

You missed the point entirely

If, for instance a Christian woman wants to enter a Muslims house (in some countries), she'd have to follow Islamic custom, such as wearing the head-covering. It matters not to her insofar as that act is not a sign that she's accepted Islam, but that she's attempting to still engage in a social discourse... by being polite and following your rules (insofar as they are compatible with her beliefs). If she didn't, you'd think it an insult.

2 Corinthians:
20 (AV) And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 (AV) To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)that I might gain them that are without law.
22 (AV) To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.(KJV)

You are almost suggesting that St. Paul has motives that are as expedient as Muhammad's! But it is a continuation of the same theme. If St. Paul visited a Jewish place, he'd perform whatever customs they require for him to do so. It's in fact one of the reasons Christianity is so able to 'adapt' to so many different cultures, because as it says in the Bible, what goes into the mouth is not important.

It also shows just how tolerant Christians are that they are willing to adapt to all these things; and still be able to preach the Saviour! Thanks for raising these fine examples of Christian tolerence of other cultures!

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

You missed the point entirely

If, for instance a Christian woman wants to enter a Muslims house (in some countries), she'd have to follow Islamic custom, such as wearing the head-covering. It matters not to her insofar as that act is not a sign that she's accepted Islam, but that she's attempting to still engage in a social discourse... by being polite and following your rules (insofar as they are compatible with her beliefs). If she didn't, you'd think it an insult.



You are almost suggesting that St. Paul has motives that are as expedient as Muhammad's! But it is a continuation of the same theme. If St. Paul visited a Jewish place, he'd perform whatever customs they require for him to do so. It's in fact one of the reasons Christianity is so able to 'adapt' to so many different cultures, because as it says in the Bible, what goes into the mouth is not important.

It also shows just how tolerant Christians are that they are willing to adapt to all these things; and still be able to preach the Saviour! Thanks for raising these fine examples of Christian tolerence of other cultures!

It shows then that what is good for Paul is good for Mohammed too then why defend Paul but discredit Mohammed(peace be upon him).
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

 

[Montalban]

It shows then that what is good for Paul is good for Mohammed too then why defend Paul but discredit Mohammed(peace be upon him).
Saiful-Islam-Khattab

Firstly, let's deal with your initial claim, before we get to what I said...

Are you going to acknowledge that your critique of St. Paul was flawed, in that he is not displaying a double-standard; he is still against the idea that such an act can lead to salvation.

Secondly, St. Paul is not my Saviour. Jesus is. A better comparison would be to compare Jesus to Muhammad. Even St. Paul realises he was not worthy. You claim something very different for Muhammad; that he was the best any man was. St. Paul, in the idea of Christian humility would not have made the same claim for himself (usually; but occasionally he did smirk at his own intelligence). In fact the humility is one of the reasons he was able to perform this act, because it was 'no big deal'. He was able to do so, because of this.

Your problem is also to do with degree. St. Paul doing something that is not against his beliefs, insofar as circumcision does not matter to Salvation, but performing it so Timothy can talk to Jews is in no way akin to Muhammad preaching one thing, and presiding over the murder of people who speak out against him. Or, of Muhammad having sex with a child, or of taking a woman against her will after she's just witnessed the death of her husband and all the male members of her tribe; at Muhammad's connivance. They are simply not in the same league. It probably seems that way to you, but then your model for what is ethical is based on this man of expediency... who suddenly gets revelations when he wants a woman for himself!

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Firstly, let's deal with your initial claim, before we get to what I said...

Are you going to acknowledge that your critique of St. Paul was flawed, in that he is not displaying a double-standard; he is still against the idea that such an act can lead to salvation.

Secondly, St. Paul is not my Saviour. Jesus is. A better comparison would be to compare Jesus to Muhammad. Even St. Paul realises he was not worthy. You claim something very different for Muhammad; that he was the best any man was. St. Paul, in the idea of Christian humility would not have made the same claim for himself (usually; but occasionally he did smirk at his own intelligence). In fact the humility is one of the reasons he was able to perform this act, because it was 'no big deal'. He was able to do so, because of this.

Your problem is also to do with degree. St. Paul doing something that is not against his beliefs, insofar as circumcision does not matter to Salvation, but performing it so Timothy can talk to Jews is in no way akin to Muhammad preaching one thing, and presiding over the murder of people who speak out against him. Or, of Muhammad having sex with a child, or of taking a woman against her will after she's just witnessed the death of her husband and all the male members of her tribe; at Muhammad's connivance. They are simply not in the same league. It probably seems that way to you, but then your model for what is ethical is based on this man of expediency... who suddenly gets revelations when he wants a woman for himself!

do you know the procedure that they had to go through to circumcise someone in those Days..
Saiful-Islam-khattab

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

You missed the point entirely

If, for instance a Christian woman wants to enter a Muslims house (in some countries), she'd have to follow Islamic custom, such as wearing the head-covering. It matters not to her insofar as that act is not a sign that she's accepted Islam, but that she's attempting to still engage in a social discourse... by being polite and following your rules (insofar as they are compatible with her beliefs). If she didn't, you'd think it an insult.



You are almost suggesting that St. Paul has motives that are as expedient as Muhammad's! But it is a continuation of the same theme. If St. Paul visited a Jewish place, he'd perform whatever customs they require for him to do so. It's in fact one of the reasons Christianity is so able to 'adapt' to so many different cultures, because as it says in the Bible, what goes into the mouth is not important.

It also shows just how tolerant Christians are that they are willing to adapt to all these things; and still be able to preach the Saviour! Thanks for raising these fine examples of Christian tolerence of other cultures!

There is no evidence that Timothy was the only one too,there could have been Loads.
Saiful-Islam-khattab

 

[Talmidah]

Thanx for that,why did it have to matter for Timothy yet for the remainder of Christians it did not.

I do not abide by the N.T. being a holy book. However, if the facts of that story are accurate, then Timothy was indeed a Jew, being born of a Jewish mother, and would of course have to be circumcized (why he wasn't circumcized at 8 days old, apart from the fact that his mother married a gentile, implies heavy assimiliation). As for the whole 'as a Jew when with the Jews, as a gentile when with the gentiles', that implies duplicity on the part of Paul.

 

[cweb255]

Why did God want to kill Moshe because he was uncircumcised? Was it that important?

Exodus 4:23

 

[Starcrystal]

Paul shows double standards in more than just circumcision. In some places he praises the women who were co-laborers with him, but then he says "I suffer not a woman to teach but to remain silent." He says sin entered the world through one MAN (male) Adam in Romans 5 (8 times no less) and to Timothy he says Adam wasn't the transgressor but Eve was! He throws around those "hair rules" in 1 Corinthians 11 talking about shame and being against nature for men to have long hair, then after a several verse rant he says if anyone is contentious that we (meaning him & the other apostles) have no such customs, neither do the churches of God. Amazingly Paul writes to the Ephesians about being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, yet he flip flops several times himself. Read Romans 7 - it's his blatant confession.

Interestingly Paul is never mentioned by Christ in the gospels, and when the disciples replaced Judas it was with someone who had continued with them since the baptism of John. Paul is not mentioned by any of the other epistle writer with the exception of Peter in his 2nd letter (3:15) and there he says Paul writes things hard to understand which get twisted unto people's own destruction!

"Be followers of me as I follow Christ" Paul wrote? I don't think so. I'll follow Christ who said "Follow me" - especially when this again shows another double standard because to the Corinthians Paul complained that people were saying "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" and said they should be of Christ. Then why did he later say to follow him?

 

[Bevlina]

Paul is meaning for people to follow Christ Jesus. Not Paul. It's very interesting to study The Theology of Paul.

 

[Starcrystal]

Bevlina,
Paul is meaning for people to follow Christ Jesus. Not Paul. It's very interesting to study The Theology of Paul.

I know he says so almost everywhere else, but he shouldn't have said "Follow ME as I follow Christ." It places the "me" before Christ as if he were walking perfectly before God, which he was not.
Yes, Pauls theology is interesting, it's just too bad some people will throw out Jesus teachings and embrace Pauls when they contradict. It mainly happens when male dominated churches want to suppress women and they rely exclusively on Paul and dismiss the gospels. They also dismiss the fact Paul himself worked with women and acknowledged Priscilla & Aquila's church. For those who want to try to make guys cut their hair short or forbid women to even trim their hair, they again rely on one passage again by Paul... and they reject what Paul wrote that they have no such customs!

 

[Bevlina]

I know he says so almost everywhere else, but he shouldn't have said "Follow ME as I follow Christ." It places the "me" before Christ as if he were walking perfectly before God, which he was not.
Yes, Pauls theology is interesting, it's just too bad some people will throw out Jesus teachings and embrace Pauls when they contradict. It mainly happens when male dominated churches want to suppress women and they rely exclusively on Paul and dismiss the gospels. They also dismiss the fact Paul himself worked with women and acknowledged Priscilla & Aquila's church. For those who want to try to make guys cut their hair short or forbid women to even trim their hair, they again rely on one passage again by Paul... and they reject what Paul wrote that they have no such customs!

I think he was using an example there when he said "follow me as I follow Christ". If we read it as, "be like me and follow Christ" we get a cleasrer concept don't you think Star?
Paul had many women friends who worked with him. It's to be remembered that Paul said "I" will not suffer a woman to preach. He did not say "Jesus" will not suffer a woman to preach. It puts a more personal attitude of Paul into context.
Back in those days, men who had long hair generally carried some sort of shame, and Jesus had no shame.
I really believe Paul is saying here that as far as women are concerned, he felt their hair is their crowning glory. We have to try to divide his personal likes and dislikes from his writings. It's like when he asked (was it Timothy?) to bring his cloak for him. And, the little bit of advice he gave to Timothy when he told him to drink a little wine to help his stomach problem.
The main heart of Paul's preaching is to follow what Jesus stated if it's analysed. What do you think?

 

[markie]

i think you have misunderstood, paul preached to the gentiles that circumcision doesnt matter anymore, but he circumcised Timothy becasue if Timothy and paul needed to assosiate with jews they needed to be circumsised (basicly jews dont associate with gentiles,uncircumcised), because Timothy's father was a greek other jews would easily know he was'nt a jew so paul had him circumcised.

NOTE: i am not familiar with these jewish traditions maybe some one from this board can exlain it to you. but what i have said should have cleared any doubts.

if you have any more questions, feel free to post. try not to use the word 'contradiction'

How would they know?

 

[markie]

I know he says so almost everywhere else, but he shouldn't have said "Follow ME as I follow Christ." It places the "me" before Christ as if he were walking perfectly before God, which he was not.
Yes, Pauls theology is interesting, it's just too bad some people will throw out Jesus teachings and embrace Pauls when they contradict. It mainly happens when male dominated churches want to suppress women and they rely exclusively on Paul and dismiss the gospels. They also dismiss the fact Paul himself worked with women and acknowledged Priscilla & Aquila's church. For those who want to try to make guys cut their hair short or forbid women to even trim their hair, they again rely on one passage again by Paul... and they reject what Paul wrote that they have no such customs!

It sounds like he's saying follow me if follow Christ, if I don't follow Christ don't follow me. I think he was making it conditional. He said follow me provided he's following Christ. It seems like some people take a passage of scripturre and build a whole theology around it.

 

[xxdaggerxx]

its just paul thought it would be easier to relate to the jews if thimoty and the others that were helping him were jews and thus easier to approch the the jews about the word. The jews on this board will probably know why paul did it.

 

[Starcrystal]

Bevlina,
Paul had many women friends who worked with him. It's to be remembered that Paul said "I" will not suffer a woman to preach. He did not say "Jesus" will not suffer a woman to preach. It puts a more personal attitude of Paul into context.

Exactly. I agree with this. A while back I was talking about Paul putting personal opinion into his letters. People later made doctrine out of them. It's very clear he says "I" don't suffer a woman to teach. It's also clear ge gives his own opinion about the hair and about marraige, even admitting he says some of the things in 1 Cor. 7 and not the Lord. But we must admit, he does degrade women when he writes to Timothy.

 

[saiful-Islam-Khattab]

Paul shows double standards in more than just circumcision. In some places he praises the women who were co-laborers with him, but then he says "I suffer not a woman to teach but to remain silent." He says sin entered the world through one MAN (male) Adam in Romans 5 (8 times no less) and to Timothy he says Adam wasn't the transgressor but Eve was! He throws around those "hair rules" in 1 Corinthians 11 talking about shame and being against nature for men to have long hair, then after a several verse rant he says if anyone is contentious that we (meaning him & the other apostles) have no such customs, neither do the churches of God. Amazingly Paul writes to the Ephesians about being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, yet he flip flops several times himself. Read Romans 7 - it's his blatant confession.

Interestingly Paul is never mentioned by Christ in the gospels, and when the disciples replaced Judas it was with someone who had continued with them since the baptism of John. Paul is not mentioned by any of the other epistle writer with the exception of Peter in his 2nd letter (3:15) and there he says Paul writes things hard to understand which get twisted unto people's own destruction!

"Be followers of me as I follow Christ" Paul wrote? I don't think so. I'll follow Christ who said "Follow me" - especially when this again shows another double standard because to the Corinthians Paul complained that people were saying "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" and said they should be of Christ. Then why did he later say to follow him?

I totally agree with you that those who claim to beleive and to be christians should follow Jesus and Not Paul.Christians of Today are not following the true teachings of Jesus,they have been sidetracked by what Paul wrote and attributed to Jesus.Take the Bible look in there whaT Jesus said and compare with what Paul said then you will see the differnce.
Bye
Saiful-Islam-Khattab