Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Without re-reading the chapter, I thought that the relaxation was
    that non Jews didn't have to convert. If Paul wanted Timothy to
    be accepted as a Jew who was also a Christian the circumcision
    would be logical. If Timothy's mother had been Greek and his father
    Jewish he would not have been a Jew and one assumes the circumcision
    would have been skipped.

    			Alfred

    .1
    
    Pardon me Alfred, but did you state that last sentence correctly? 
    Because Timothy's mother married outside her faith, the children were
    considered unclean... correct?
    
    It wouldn't matter who was the Jew or who was the Greek... it doesn't
    wash for the circumcision.
    
    I don't know why Paul asked such a thing, other then perhaps for
    Timothy's acceptance with Jewish people as a Christian.  
    
    It's the father who carries the bloodline, so if Timothy's mother had
    been Greek and his father Jewish, wouldn't that make Timothy a Jew?
    

re .2

It was stated correctly.

You are a Jew if your mother is a Jew.  You are not a Jew if your mother
is not a Jew, even if your father is a Jew.

/john

    John:
    
    Where did this teaching come from?  Only asking because my sister n law
    is not a Jew but her husband is.  The synagogue recognizes their
    children as Jewish and the oldest son is being bamitzvahed (sp?) this
    summer.
    
    Also, since the lineage of Joseph is in Matthew, it would seem that the
    blood line of the father is very important.
    
    -Jack

    
    the Halakhah is the source of this "teaching"..really the
    interpretation of the Law.
    
    your sister-in-law and her husband no doubt belong to a
    Reform congregation..since neither the Orthodox nor
    the Conservative branches recognize as Jews children
    born of Jewish fathers
    
    peter

    That myst be the case because in reality, none of them have any concept 
    of the Jewish law nor do they really care.  They are only going through
    the motions.
    
    -Jack

                           
    The statement that 'if your mother is Jewish, you're Jewish'...I 
    heard or read somewhere that this is not really any longer the 
    case, though it was for a long time.  (Wish I could remember 
    where I read/heard this.)  My first time hearing this was back 
    in high school when a Jewish friend explained it this way.  Then, 
    many years later, I came upon the change in this idea.
    
    Nancy, it's interesting that the 'bloodlines' are traced typically
    through the males, but if you think about it, the only true way 
    that it can the bloodline can be 100% guaranteed, is when a woman
    bears a child (leaving out in-vitro and genetic testing, etc.).  
    The man, in theory, can be anyone.  I don't know if this is the 
    thinking behind this, but it is interesting.  There are several 
    cultures that hold the woman's position in higher esteem than the 
    one we currently live in, and therefore the lineage is equally -
    if not more - important.
    
    Cindy

    In early days, before DNA testing, proving who the father was was not
    an exact science. Proving who the mother was was somewhat easier. :-)

    			Alfred

    It has been said, "Calling a man Father is an act of faith."
    
    ;-}
    
    Richard
    

    It says in Acts that Timothy's mother was also a Christian.  Evidently
    Jewish converts were subject to regulations that differed from gentile
    converts.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, the only thing I can even *logically* conjure is perhaps because
    Jesus' lineage is traced through the women in the Bible... Mary being
    his mother????

    RE: .11 That's pretty much what I said in .1. :-)
    
    			Alfred

[Information provided by a friend who is an observant Orthodox Jew:]

Because of the increase in intermarriage and declining attendance, the Reform
movement has decided to accept patrilineal as well as matrilineal descent.
This has caused quite an uproar.  The head of the U.S. Reform movement,
Alexander Schindler, has also advocated active proselytization of non-Jews,
whether or not they are married to Jews.

It's possible that some Conservative congregations allow children of a
Jewish man and non-Jewish woman to be Bar Mitzvah, perhaps with a token
conversion of some sort.

Patrilineal descent does apply for halachically legal marriages.  There
are three classes of Jews, Kohanim ("priests"), Leviim ("Levites"), and
Yisraelim (everybody else).  They are allowed to intermarry, and the class
follows the father.

The source is the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin.

    Funny that Timothy wasn't circumcised as a child, according to
    custom.
    
    Frankly, if I was Timothy, I think I might have said to Paul,
    "I love the Lord Jesus.  Nevertheless, my friend, you can't touch
    this!"
    
    I guess I'm too particular about who does.
    
    Richard
    

    Hey...I'm sure it was no added bonus for Paul either!!!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Can you imagine having to pass inspection in those times?
    
    Okay, buddy, whip it out!  We want to make sure about you!
    
    Richard
    

    Yeah...bad deal..:-) :-) :-)

    I believe that part of the purpose of the book of acts is to show
    harmony between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.  The suggestion is
    if there are discrepencies between Acts and the authentic letters to
    rely on the authentic letters?  I do not believe the letters say
    anything about the circumcism of Timothy.
    
    Patricia

Re:  .19

There's a discrepency?  in the Bible?

Surely you jest.  :-)

Where is the discrepency that you see?

Collis

    I wonder how likely it would be that Timothy, with a Jewish Christian
    mother and a Greek father, would require circumcision were Paul and
    Timothy around today.
    
    I wonder how many would insist on seeing Timothy's "credentials."
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    

    I will study the question.  Paul in all of his letters was adament that
    for a Gentile to accept circumcism would be a denial in the adequacy of
    Faith for salvation.  It is a basic premise he fought for all of his
    life.  From what I know I do not believe that Paul would circumsize
    anyone including Timothy.  I believe acts is non factual in this point.
    
    Patricia

re: .22

>    From what I know I do not believe that Paul would circumsize
>    anyone including Timothy.  I believe acts is non factual in this point.

The Bible is the primary vehicle God has for getting ideas across to us -
ideas that we need to hear in order to be more like Jesus.  It is to our
harm to throw out pieces - especially ones that hit us funny.

Back to the question.  I had some thoughts on it, but went and checked
my commentary after to sanity-check it.  In a nutshell, it follows Paul's
statement along the lines of "I have become all things to all people so
that some may be saved" (can't find the reference now...)

From "Matthew Henry's Commentary":

"That Paul took him and circumcised him.  This was strange.  Had not Paul
opposed with all his might those that were for imposing circumcision
upon the Gentile converts?  He had, and yet circumcised Timothy, not to
oblige him to keep the ceremonial law, but only to render his ministry
acceptable among the Jews that abounded in those quarters.  Therefore,
that they might not shun him as one unclean, because uncircumcised, he took
him and circumcised him.  He was against those who made circumcision
necessary to salvation.  Though he went not in this instance according to
the letter of the decree, he went according to the spirit of it, which
was a spirit of tenderness towards the Jews.  Paul made no difficulty of
taking Timothy to be his companion, though he was uncircumcised; but the
Jews would not hear him if he were, and therefore Paul will humor them
herein."

Praise God for his mercy and compassion toward us.

-Steve

    RE: .23
    
    So, Timothy was circumcised so that he would be more effective as
    a teacher amoung the Jews. Makes sense......
    
    Marc H.

What I want to know is....

How did people know if a teacher was circumcised or not?

Did Timothy have to "show his credentials"?

Curious,

Jim

    RE: .25
    
    My quess would be, that "showing" the goods was used.
    
    Marc H.

    Clothing, bathing, and taking care of biological functions have
    been more casual in the past. And still are in some parts of the
    world. While a "show me" may or may not have been called for it
    is possible that there would have been circumstances that may have
    resulted in "the goods" being visible to someone. In such cases,
    difficult questions from Jews were avoided in advance by the
    circumcision. Just a case of preventing other side issues from getting
    in the way of the message.

    			Alfred

re: Note 884.27 by Alfred "Mud season has arrived" 

Hmmm, makes some sense to me.  THanks.

Marc,  .-) .-)

Peace,

Jim

re Note 884.27 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     is possible that there would have been circumstances that may have
>     resulted in "the goods" being visible to someone. 

        Reminds me of a scene from "Europa, Europa".

        Bob

    Paul made a major point in Galatians that those who decided to be
    circumsized to be more pleasing to the Jews were then bound to the
    whole law and making the message of Christ invalid.  Galatians is the
    book where Paul is most adament about circumcisn.  I do not believe the
    two contradictory accounts can be reconciled.  

    
    May not be completely relevant, however I know also that Muslims
    perform circumcision, while Hindus do not.
    
    Cindy

    Ever heard of female circumcision?  I've heard of it, but don't know a
    thing about it.

    .32  Yes, and it has been talked about in this conference before.
    
    Female circumcision is practiced in African cultures and perhaps
    elsewhere.  It is usually done by a woman with as much medical
    expertise and surgical savvy as Paul of Tarsus had.
    
    It is awful thing to inflict on a young girl.  The negative effects
    of female circumcision can last a lifetime, but the pressure is great
    to have it done.
    
    Cindy Painter has additional knowledge in this area.
    
    Richard

re: .30

>    Paul made a major point in Galatians that those who decided to be
>    circumsized to be more pleasing to the Jews were then bound to the
>    whole law and making the message of Christ invalid.

The Galatians were not considering circumcision to be more pleasing to the
Jews - they are considering (or doing) turning away from justification
by faith in Christ and turning to a new "gospel" of the law.  Consider
Paul's harsh words to this in 1:6-10, 3:1-5.  It is not the circumcision,
per se, that he's angry with - it's the turning to a new faith, and away
from Jesus.  "Neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything; what
counts is a new creation.  Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule,
even to the Israel of God." 6:15-16

In Timothy's case, his faith is solid, and his circumcision has nothing
to do with his faith or justification - it's just credentials so he can
preach to the Jews more effectively.

Thoughts?

-Steve

    That is exactly what Paul rants about in Galatians.  The only
    credentials that a Christian need is Faith in Christ.  If the Christian
    needs circumcism to be more acceptable to the Jews than Faith in Christ
    is not enough and therefore Christ's death and ressurection are
    invalidated.
    
    There was a major flare up going on between the Jewish Christians and
    the Gentile Christians at this time.  A big enough flare up that Paul
    suggests that James and Peter if they are demanding circumcisn should
    castrate themselves.  One of the major purposes of the book of Acts
    written after Paul's death, is to smooth over the disagreements and
    present a unified church.  Paul circumsizing Timothy in the book of
    acts is diametrically opposed to the position that the actual real life
    Paul took in the book of Galatians.  My deduction is Acts is
    historically inaccurate.
    
    Patricia
    

    .35  Patricia,
    
    	There's another possibility, one which ought to displease
    practically everyone.  That is, it's possible that Paul, conceivably
    not even aware of it, compromised.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I suppose it is possible.
    
    
    
    Patricia

re: .35

>    That is exactly what Paul rants about in Galatians.  The only
>    credentials that a Christian need is Faith in Christ.

Exactly.  However, the Galatians were changing the basis for their faith,
their "credentials" before God, if you will.  This is what Paul ranted about.

Timothy was not changing the basis for his faith - his faith was solidly in
Christ alone, as indicated in many places in Paul's letters.

A parallel from my daily work life... I'm a consultant.  If I am working
at my home office, I can work in bathrobe and slippers if I want to.  My
work stands for what it is, regardless of my clothing.  But, if I need to
do a presentation to VPs, interview, etc. I wear a suit.  If I am in
Digital's office doing normal work with other engineers I wear nice pants
and a shirt.  None of these things affect my ability to write software and
consult on same.  But, if I wore my bathrobe and slippers to see the VPs
they wouldn't take me very seriously.

Timothy just needed a "change in clothes" to go preach to Jews - he was not
seeking their approval exactly - he just needed an "in".


-Steve

    RE: .38
    
    That's one tough suit to wear for Tim!!!!!
    
    
    Marc H.

    Steve,
    
    I hear your argument but I don't buy it.  I respect your write to your
    opinion.  Having reviewed my sources last night I am convinced that
    Paul  did not circumsize Timothy.  Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. 
    Timothy was his chief leiutenant.  Not circumsizing Titus was an
    important point at the Jerusalem Counsel.  It is our differing Faith
    assumptions about fthe authority of the Bible that prevent us from
    reaching the same conclusions.
    
    Patricia

    I am intrigued in this string to realize that I am the only person who
    has taken the position that Acts is not Historically accurate.  It
    doesn't seem like anyone else even takes serious the possibility that
    acts is not factual.
    
    I understand why those who believe in the Bible as the innerant word of
    God would not entertain that possibility?
    
    I am curious why others have not publically considered that
    possibility?  Would recognizing the account in Acts as not factual
    somehow invalidate the value of the book?
    
    

    RE; .41
    
    I think that there are a lot of people, beside yourself, who are trying
    to understand Acts and the Letters, too.
    
    I'm one of them.
    
    Marc H.

    Questioning something is worthwhile to the person who is in charge, I
    dare say that folks coming from the inerrant camp are going to dive
    into this challange with much sincerity.... unless there was hard core
    facts and not speculation... so I agree with your assessment of us
    inerrantists.
    
    For the errantists... heck maybe its just not high on the list of
    importance in their lives.  This kind of research requires time and
    effort.  The fact that it is mentioned brings about the question of its
    errancy, which errantists already believe the book is errant anyway.
    
    I'm not surprised.
    
    BTW, Patricia, just on the side, the way you felt about my *repeating*
    a comment someone *else* made about Hillary Clinton, well, imagine for
    just a moment, how hearing defamatory remarks about the Bible is to a
    person who believes that it is the Word of God, his revelation to us
    all and inerrant...  I dare say the emotional impact is the same.
    
    This is not to start an argument, but hopefully allow a deeper
    understanding of different reactions to different things.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    RE: .43
    
    There is an important aspect here, Nancy, that needs to be said. Many
    people, myself included, are "questioning" the Bible not because
    we don't believe, but rather because we haven't formed an opinion
    yet. Very important difference.
    
    Another thing to consider, engineers (like myself), are by nature
    people that need "data" and information to form an opinion.
    I use this file to gain info, as such, I would love to see you enter
    your comments around passages ...i.e. provide me more data.
    
    Marc H.

    .44
    
    You are absolutely right Marc... but to be honest with you, I get
    tired, very tired and don't have as much time to spend on this as I
    would like.  Remember, when I go home where my reference books are, I'm
    a single parent. :-)  I rarely log on for more then 15 minutes at home,
    just to check out the conference I moderate.  
    
    And the times I have put the effort into it, it *appears* as though
    I've just spun my wheels.... Sorry but I get discouraged too.

Note 884.41
    
>    I am curious why others have not publically considered that
>    possibility?  Would recognizing the account in Acts as not factual
>    somehow invalidate the value of the book?
    
Patricia,

	Silence doesn't always mean agreement or disagreement, especially
in Notes.  I know that can feel unnerving and isolating, because I've
been there.

	Since I'm the one who posed the question, I guess you might say
that Paul feeling the necessity to circumsize Timothy seemed pretty curious
to me.

	My guess is that Paul's ideas around circumcision evolved over time.
I figure there was 10 to 20 years between the time Paul began his missionary
work and the apostolic convention.  My guess is that Paul did the thing to
Timothy's doodoo before he had become resolute about the matter.

	I'm just guessing at this point.  But I know such things have happened
in my life.

Shalom,
Richard

                 
    Re.32
    
    Nancy,
    
    It's more commonly referred to as FGM - female genital mutilation.
    
    It is a horrible practice, and one that should be stopped.  In general,
    the external parts of the female genital are cut away in some form or
    another - some just cut the clitoris, and others cut all the labia.  A 
    lot of the time this is done under unsanitary circumstances, with crude
    instruments, and without anesthesia, and many die from this.  If they 
    live, they usually have many problems (infections, pain, etc.) in their 
    later life stemming from it.
    
    There are girls that are now running away to other countries to escape
    this horrific practice.  It's right up there with the practice of
    foot-binding.
    
    I don't know if you get Readers Digest, however there was an article
    that included a lot of this a few months ago entitled "All In The Name
    Of Islam".  Pure Islam does not condone this practice...it is one of
    those false interpretations, combined with the patriarchial society in
    general.   
    
    Cindy

re: .40 - Patricia

>    I hear your argument but I don't buy it.  I respect your write to your
>    opinion.  Having reviewed my sources last night I am convinced that
>    Paul  did not circumsize Timothy.
[snip]   (hmmm, maybe a bad textual convention to use in this note ;-)
>    It is our differing Faith
>    assumptions about fthe authority of the Bible that prevent us from
>    reaching the same conclusions.

Ok.  See you on the next issue ;-)

-Steve

    .47  If I may piggyback on your note, in African cultures where
    FGM/female circumcison is performed they've had Islamic leaders
    go to the people and explain that their religion does not require it.
    Yet, the tradition is so strong, women take their daughters to
    have it done anyway.  There is a stigma attached to not having it
    done.
    
    Speaking of foot-binding, it seems to be for the same purpose --
    to make them more attractive to men.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    My reaction is now from the perspective of a person who is again
    calling herself a non Christian, so it is a reaction from outside of
    Christianity.  It appears that conservative Christians are much more
    clear on what the Bible is and what they believe about the Bible. 
    Conservatives appear much more confident in saying "Of course Paul
    circumsized Timothy, the Bible says so"  Not hearing people say
    "Perhaps Paul did not circumsize Timothy" leads me to believe that all
    Christians believe in the Historic accuracy of the Bible.  To people
    outside of Christianity the term "Christianity" is often synonomous
    with Fundemental Christianity.  I need to hear how non Fundemental
    Christians find authority and inspiration in an imperfect Bible.
    
    Patricia

    >I understand why those who believe in the Bible as the innerant word of
    >God would not entertain that possibility?

Leaving inerrancy aside, I find your argument very unconvincing.

You are claiming that the same person who said:

   "Everything is permissable" - but not everything is beneficial.
    ...  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all
    for the glory of God - even as I try to please everybody in
    every way.  For I am not seeking my own good but the good of
    many so that they may be saved.  I Cor 10:23a, 31-33

would not possibly have circumcised Timothy because "to accept
circumcism would be a denial in the adequacy of Faith for
salvation (.22)".

I have a lot harder time reconciling your belief as stated in .22
with Paul's claim in I Cor than I do in reconciling any of Paul's
many claims.

As I understand Paul (and others have said this, perhaps somewhat
differently), it is not the *acceptance* of circumsion that was the
stumbling block, but the *requirement* of circumsion.  I can see
why this could be confusing at first.  I am somewhat surprised that
you have not agreed that Paul was adamant about
not requiring something in addition to faith, but perfectly willing
to allow any number of things in addition to faith if it would help
keep other people from stumbling (Romans 14 says the same thing).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Now I never claimed that Paul was consistent in everything he said.
    
    He was very consistent though on the topic of circumcism.  Very
    insistent too.  It is not possible to reconcile Galatians and Acts
    regarding Timothy's Circumcism.

    Patricia,
    
    Would you comment on Paul's distinction between the necessity
    of performing an act (to insure salvation) vs. performing an
    act (or refraining from performing an act) so as to help those
    who are weaker in their faith?
    
    This is the distinction that I and many others see.  In fact, I
    see this distinction so clearly, that (as I noted in .51) I'm
    surprised you don't see this - and see that this principle is
    perfectly applicable to Paul's actions in Acts.
    
    Since you are so convinced about what Paul did not do and why,
    perhaps you can post the relevant verses and your understanding
    of them which forces you to this conclusion.  A well-presented,
    reasoned argument would go a long way in helping me to understand
    why you insist on this particular interpretation (and subsequent
    denial of the historicity on this part of Acts).
    
    Thanks,
    
    Collis

    Collis,
    
    I am not ignoring your question, I am just preparing for a midterm and
    my paper.  A long answer would compare the account of Paul in Acts
    against the self description of Paul in his undisputed letters,
    particularly Galatians and 2 Corinthians where he does talk about
    himself.  
    
    Scholars find many differences beginning with the question, did Paul
    really study under Gameliel, was he really present at the stoning of
    Stephen, What really happened at the Council of Jerusalem etc.  Based
    on my understanding of inconsistencies, the purpose of Acts to show
    harmony between the Gentile and Jewish church, and my reading of
    Galatian 5, It seems impossible to me that Paul would have circumsized
    Timothy.
    
    It is a fascinating subject but, I must get pragmatic and study those
    things that will be on my final.  Perhaps we can debate acts and Paul's
    letters at a later time.
    
    patricia