The original description of the Covenant (Genesis 15 in the Jahwist text) had no reference to #circumcision. That story was revised only after the Babylonian Captivity (& moved to Genesis 17) by priests who thereafter pretended the circumcision reference had always been there.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @RockerMan_198 and
. Except that there are multiple references to circumcision in the Torah &Prophets in different contexts, and your absurd statement has no basis whatsoever, why the hell would they do that? Know how many crackpot ideas all begin with the rabbis or priests changing &lying etc?pic.twitter.com/fwueznsJIN
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @RockerMan_198 and
The only references in the Torah to infant
#circumcision being a requirement are found in Genesis & Leviticus, and both of them were added by the priests only after the Babylonian Captivity. My statement is based on academic research into the drafting history of the Torah.3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
Why the priests so revised the Torah is a good question, since child
#circumcision on its face isn't something that could possibly have been decreed by a beneficent God. Likely they were cut themselves, & so thought all males should be, i.e., exactly what many cut men think today2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @RockerMan_198 and
. Circular reasoning I have to admit if God had not specified circumcision I wouldn't have come up with the idea myself It doesn't explain why cultures other than Jews circumcise Or why epidemiological evidence shows public health benefits of circumcision
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @RockerMan_198 and
In his book Marked in Your Flesh, anthropologist Leonard Glick explains (Chapter 1, footnote 6): "many Middle Eastern peoples, including the ancient Hebrews, genitally altered some boys or youths as a *custom*, [but] it was not until around 500 BC that the Judeans defined...
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @RockerMan_198 and
. How does he know that? Assume I'm not reading his book I assume there's zero evidence beyond such phrases as 'assuredly', 'without a doubt' I have read many such posturing bloviations
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @RockerMan_198 and
When your
#circumcision position depends entirely on your uncritically accepting an authority in which God is said to condone slavery & when you refuse to accept clear evidence said authority (Gen 1:1-3) is incorrect, you're in no position to ask epistemological questions.#i22 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
The Bible makes it clear it’s not the parent’s choice but I’ve not seen one of these circumcision defenders disavow parental choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Some of them do actually. Not many, but some of them are quite clear, even today, and even for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, that they think boys should be circumcised even if their parents object. #i2
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.