Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John123 · 12-21-2004, 09:10 AM

Please can you give your opinion on this quote

(A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. )

Quote:

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the glans, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. 12 We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually 'cut you . . . off from Christ'. But could any greater contrast be imagined between this belief and the traditional Jewish view that those who did not weild that knife delayed the coming of the Messiah?
(Ibid., p. 131)

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:

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)

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him further. Since we are aware of Paul's intense opposition to circumcision no matter what, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates his hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his life time. That he had deep and intense desires to take a penis in his mouth, so when an oppurtunity came along, he decided to avail it.

AAF I am convinced he was gay are you?

Toto · 12-21-2004, 11:32 AM

The Book of Acts has Paul circumcizing Timothy, but the letters of Paul do not mention this, and make it somewhat improbable, as you point out from your quotes.

I do not believe that there is any credible evidence that Paul circumcized Timothy; I think that part of Acts was added to bolster the story of Christian unity between the Pauline and Petrine factions of the early church, which was a pious hope at best. The circumcision is one of many unlikely or impossible events in Acts which lead many scholars to conclude that Acts is not history.

Certainly, if Paul wanted to engage in homosexual acts, given the culture of the time, I doubt that he would have needed to have resorted to such drastic measures.

Chris Weimer · 12-21-2004, 01:14 PM

Didn't he mention somewhere that he had a little problem?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2004, 11:32 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Book of Acts has Paul circumcizing Timothy, but the letters of Paul do not mention this, and make it somewhat improbable, as you point out from your quotes. I do not believe that there is any credible evidence that Paul circumcized Timothy; I think that part of Acts was added to bolster the story of Christian unity between the Pauline and Petrine factions of the early church, which was a pious hope at best. The circumcision is one of many unlikely or impossible events in Acts which lead many scholars to conclude that Acts is not history. Certainly, if Paul wanted to engage in homosexual acts, given the culture of the time, I doubt that he would have needed to have resorted to such drastic measures.

12-21-2004, 01:14 PM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Didn't he mention somewhere that he had a little problem?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.