ellauri163.html on line 642: Marisa Coulter on kylmän kaunis, manipuloiva Lyran äiti ja lordi Asrielin entinen rakastajatar. Hän palvelee kirkkoa kidnappaamalla lapsia tutkimaan Pölyn luonnetta, jonka aikana hän erottaa heidät esinahastaan - menettely, jota kutsutaan circumcisioniksi. Hänellä on mustat hiukset, hoikka rakenne ja hän näyttää nuoremmalta kuin hän on. Aluksi vihamielinen Lyralle, hän ymmärtää rakastavansa tytärtään ja pyrkii suojelemaan häntä kirkon agenteilta, jotka haluavat tappaa Lyran. Hänen demo on kultainen apina, jolla on julma juova perseessä.
ellauri171.html on line 561: They seems unaware or unconcerned that they are demeaning the Covenant, and the significance of circumcision. They say that if the men of the city will agree to circumcision they will agree to the marriage, and will go so far as to settle there.
ellauri171.html on line 567: They know this is the opportune time, since the third day after circumcision is the most painful, and is also the time when a fever is likely. The men of the city will be unable to retaliate. Simeon and Levi kill every able-bodied man in the city, including Shechem and his father Hamor.
ellauri171.html on line 808: Ahabin dynastia omridit eli kuningas Omrin porukat oli jotain kananiittejä. Israel Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed presents a very different picture of the Omrides than the circumcision handbook, making them responsible for the great empire, magnificent palaces, wealth, and peace in Israel and Judah that the Bible credits to the much earlier kings David and Solomon. According to Finkelstein, the reason for this discrepancy is the religious bias of the Biblical authors against the Omrides for their polytheism, and in particular their support for elements of the Canaanite religion.
ellauri180.html on line 167: Many historical accounts of circumcision have been written and most authors have used their survey to form an opinion as to whether the neonatal procedure is justified. The weak medical arguments are tempered by the importance of cultural and religious factors. Opponents of the ritual draw attention to the `rights' of the new-born to the skin on their little penises, which, they argue, must be upheld. Others contest that humans are social animals and cannot survive alone; they require their parents, community and culture to thrive, and, as such, `rights' belong to the group, not to the individual. If there is an inherent survival advantage to a group of humans who chose to maim their young, then this is presumably evidenced by their continued survival as a race. In short, to conclude any historical reflection with a reasoned `right' or `wrong', would be like claiming to have fathomed God's will. Consider this; mankind has developed this strange surgical signature that is so pervasive, that in the last five minutes alone, another 120 boys throughout the world have been circumcised. Mikä jättimäinen esinahkakukkula siitä tulisi! Israelista voisi tulla tulevien talvikisojen isäntämaa..
ellauri180.html on line 171: There has been little written from a statistical standpoint to confirm or deny the popular medical belief that the circumcised are less prone to contract venereal disease. This paper will present a statistical study of the incidence of circumcision in a group free from venereal disease as compared with that of groups with various forms of venereal disease, to determine the influence of circumcision on venereal disease.
ellauri180.html on line 174: OBJECTIVES: Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons. However, controversy surrounds the procedure, and its benefits and risks to health. We review current knowledge of the health benefits and risks associated with male circumcision. METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses. CONCLUSION: Further analyses of the utility and cost effectiveness of male circumcision as a preventive health measure should, in the light of this information, be research and policy priorities. A decision as to whether to recommend male circumcision in a given society should be based upon an assessment of the risk for and occurrence of the diseases which are associated with the presence of the foreskin, versus the risk of the complications of the procedure. In order for individuals and their families to make an informed decision, they should be provided with the best available evidence regarding the known benefits and risks. And they should also know what God thinks of it.
ellauri180.html on line 179: Despite an estimated one-sixth of the world's men having been circumcised, it has long been forgotten where or why this most intriguing operation began. The procedure has been performed for religious, cultural and medical reasons, although the last has only become fashionable since the rise of modern surgery in the 19th century. Accordingly, the indications for surgery have surfaced, submerged and altered with the trends of the day. In this review we explore the origins of circumcision, and discuss the techniques and controversies that have evolved since the event has become medicalized.
ellauri180.html on line 181: Anthropologists do not agree on the origins of circumcision. The English egyptologist, Sir Graham Elliot Smith, suggested that it is one of the features of a heliolithic' culture which, over some 15 000 years ago, spread over much of the world. Others believe that it may have originated independently within several different cultures; certainly, many of the natives that Columbus found inhabiting the New World' were circumcised. However, it is known that circumcision had been practised in the Near East, patchily throughout tribal Africa, among the Moslem peoples of India and of south-east Asia, as well as by Australian Aborgines, for as long as we can tell. The earliest Egyptian mummies (1300 BCE) were circumcised and wall paintings in Egypt show that it was customary several thousand years earlier than that.
ellauri180.html on line 183: In some African tribes, circumcision is performed at birth. In Judaic societies, the ritual is performed on the eighth day after birth, but for Moslems and many of the tribal cultures it is performed in early adult life as a rite of passage', e.g. puberty or marriage. Why the practice evolved is not clear and many theories have been proposed. Nineteenth century historians suggested that the ritual is an ancient form of social control. They conceive that the slitting of a man's penis to cause bleeding and pain is to remind him of the power of the Church, i.e. We have control over your distinction to be a man, your pleasure and your right to reproduce'. The ritual is a warning and the timing dictates who is warned; for the new-born it is the parents who accede to the Church: We mark your son, who belongs to us, not to you'. For the young adolescent, the warning accompanies the aggrandisement of puberty; the time when growing strength give independence, and the rebellion of youth.
ellauri180.html on line 187: Others believe that circumcision arose as a mark of defilement or slavery (fig. 1). In ancient Egypt captured warriors were often mutilated before being condemned to the slavery. Amputation of digits and castration was common, but the morbidity was high and their resultant value as slaves was reduced. However, circumcision was just as degrading and evolved as a sufficiently humiliating compromise. Eventually, all male descendents of these slaves were circumcised. The Phoenicians, and later the Jews who were largely enslaved, adopted and ritualized circumcision. In time, circumcision was incorporated into Judaic religious practice and viewed as an outward sign of a covenant between God and man (Genesis XVI, Fig. 2).
ellauri180.html on line 189: There are many other reasons why circumcision may have evolved. Some have suggested that it is a mark of cultural identity, akin to a tattoo or a body piercing. Alternatively, there are reasons to believe that the ritual evolved as a fertility rite. For example, that some tribal cultures apportion seasons' for both the male and female operation, supports the view that circumcision developed as a sacrifice to the gods, an offering in exchange for a good harvest, etc. This would seem reasonable as the penis is clearly inhabited by powers that produce life. Indeed, evidence of a connection with darvests is also found in Nicaragua, where blood from the operations is mixed with maize to be eaten during the ceremony. (Fig. 3). Although the true origins of circumcision will never be known, it is likely that the truth lies in part with all of the theories described.
ellauri180.html on line 193: However, it is likely that doctors did not perform circumcision until the latter half of the 19th century.
ellauri180.html on line 195: Abernathy (1928) who was a reluctant surgeon) does report the use of the bistoury (knife) to achieve circumcision in men with gonoccocal phimosis'. He also states that the bleeding should be stanched with iodoform and boric', possibly indicating that sutures were not applied.
ellauri180.html on line 197: Baillie (1833) also describes gonococcal phimosis and recommends that the initial treatment is nugatory' (inoperative) involving the washing of the penis (and under the prepuce with soap and tepid water, followed by the application of calomel ointment. Abernathy also warns against immediate circumcision in the face of a morbidly sensitive surface' (and declares that Sir Edward Home agrees with him!). He advocates that the posthitis (inflamed foreskin) should be allowed to soothe and allay' before surgical intervention. We can assume that the complications recognized by both Abernathy and Baillie were re-phimosis, re-stricture or suppuration; what is clear is that circumcision was not a procedure taken lightly at that time. Interestingly, neither author mentions circumcision in the neonate, suggesting that it had not yet significantly entered the domain of English surgeons.
ellauri180.html on line 198: By the middle of the 19th century, anaesthesia and antisepsis were rapidly changing surgical practice. The first reported circumcision in the surgical accounts of St Bartholomew's Hospital was in 1865; although this comprised only one of the 417 operations performed that year, it was clearly becoming a more common procedure. Indeed, this was a time when surgical cures were being explored for all ails and in 1878 Curling described circumcision as a cure for impotence in men who also had as associated phimosis. Many other surgeons reported circumcision as being beneficial for a diverse range of sexual problems. Walsham (1903) re-iterates the putative association of phimosis with impotence and suggests that it may also predispose to sterility, priapism, excess masturbation and even venereal disease. Warren (1915) adds epilepsy, nocturnal enuresis, night terrors and precocious sexual unrest' to the list of dangers, and this accepted catalogue of phimotic ills' is extended in American textbooks to include other aspects of sexual erethisms' such as homosexuality.
ellauri180.html on line 201: Neonatal circumcision techniques have evolved in parallel. It is clear from most surgical texts that circumcision of the new-born had become a regular request for the surgeon by the later part of the 19th century. For instance, Jacobsen (1893) warns of the importance of establishing a familial bleeding tendency from the mother before circumcision. He describes the case of four Jewish infants, each descended from a different grandchild of a common ancestress, all of whom died from haemorrhage after circumcision.
ellauri180.html on line 203: By the 1930s, many circumcision clamps were available for use in the new-born. Indeed, the use of such clamps prompted Thomson-Walker to painstakingly warn of the dangers of injury to the glans when such clamps were used, and not surprisingly, more sophiticated tools were introduced to protect the penis.
ellauri180.html on line 204: More than 2000 years of Jewish persecution has led to the development of alternative surgical procedures. Indeed, `uncircumcision as a measure to offset the oppression of Jews is cited in the Old Testament (I Maccabees 1:14-15) and surgical attempts to restore the prepuce have been well documented throughout history
ellauri180.html on line 218: Notwithstanding the relative disinterest over the function of the prepuce, no other operation has been surrounded by controversy so much as circumcision. Should it be done, then when, why, how and by whom? Religious and cultural influences are pervasive, parental confusion is widespread and medical indications shift with the trends of the day. Doctors divide into camps driven by self-interest, self-righteousness and self-defence. It is not surprising that some of the most colourful pages in the medical literature are devoted to the debate.
ellauri180.html on line 224: Literary assaults such as these have served to fuel the debates and even a Medline® search today reveals that in the last year alone, 155 reviews or letters have been published arguing for or against routine circumcision. However, studying the evolution of the medical indications provides us with a pleasing demonstration of how controversy drives scientific enquiry. We have already described how the surgeons of 100 years ago advocated circumcision for a wide variety of conditions, such as impotence, nocturnal enuresis, sterility, excess masturbation, night terrors, epilepsy, etc. There can be no doubt that a large element of surgical self-interest drove these claims. However, most of the contemporary textbooks also included epithelioma (carcinoma) of the penis amidst the morass of complications of phimosis. Although rare, once this observation had been made, it presumably filtered down through the textbooks by rote, rather than scientific study. A few reports had appeared in the early 20th century indicating that carcinoma of the penis was rare in circumcised men, but not until the debate over neonatal circumcision erupted in the medical press in the 1930s that this surgical `mantra' was put to the test. In 1932, the editor of the Lancet challenged Abraham Wolbarst, a New York urologist, to prove his contention (in a previous Lancet editorial), that circumcision prevented penile carcinoma. Wolbarst responded by surveying every skin, cancer and Jewish hospital in the USA, along with 1250 of the largest general hospitals throughout the Union. With this survey, he was able to show that penile cancer virtually never occurred in circumcised men and that the risk related to the timing of the circumcision. Over the years this association has been reaffirmed by many research workers, although general hygiene, demographic and other factors such as human papilloma virus and smoking status are probably just as important. However, Wolbarst established that association through formal scientific enquiry and proponents of the procedure continue to use this as a compelling argument for circumcision at birth.
ellauri180.html on line 226: Almost as an extension to the lack of penile cancer in Jews, Handley reported on the infrequency of carcinoma of the cervix in Jewish women. He suggested that this related to the fact that Jewish men were circumcised. Not surprisingly, this spawned a mass of contradictory studies and over the next 50 years the champions of both camps have sought to establish the importance or irrelevance of circumcision in relation to penile cancer. The pendulum has swung both ways and the current evidence suggests that other factors are probably more important. A similar debate has raged for 50 years over concerns for the risks of urinary tract infections in young boys and currently, any decreased risk associated with circumcision remains tentative but not proven.
ellauri180.html on line 228: However, during the two World Wars, governments became increasingly interested in reducing the risk of venereal disease amongst their soldiers. Clearly, such pathology can have a profound effect on the efficiency of fighting armis. Indeed, in 1947 the Canadian Army found that whereas 52% of their soldiers had foreskins intact, 77% of those treated for venereal disease were uncircumcised. Persuasive arguments to circumcise all conscripts were proposed. Furthermore, it was an age-old observation, and indigenous African healers had promoted circumcision to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted disease for centuries. As might be expected, the evidence did not withstand further scientific scrutiny and numerous contradictions were provided. However, there has recently been startling evidence that HIV infection is significantly associated with the uncircumcised status. Indeed, one author has recently suggested routine neonatal circumcision on a world-wide scale as a long-term strategy for the control of AIDS: a whole new chapter opens in this ancient debate!
ellauri180.html on line 230: Finally, controversy has arisen over who should perform the procedure. Once circumcision had been medicalized' in the 19th century, many surgeons were keen to take paying customers away from the religious men. As such, doctors were often quick to highlight the unforseen risks attendant on a non-medical procedure. For instance, Cabot (1924) described tuberculosis of the penis occurring when Rabbis with infected sputum sucked on the baby's penis to stop the bleeding. However, it has often been claimed that the incidence of complications in Jewish children is very low and that the final result is usually better than any hospital doctor can produce.
ellauri180.html on line 231: Irrespective, the circumcision of young boys has become a thriving business for all parties.
ellauri180.html on line 233: However, with a healthcare budget of $140 million per year in the USA (1990), insurance companies eventually forced closer scrutiny. Following such pressure, the first Task Force of Neonatal Circumcision from the American Academy of Pediatrics (1n 1975) concluded that there was no valid medical indication for this procedure. However, the pro-circumcision lobby was strong and the task force was forced to re-evaluate. In 1989, they conceded that there may be certain advantages to neonatal circumcision, although their recommendations did stop short of advising routine operation. Similar pressures in the UK have now resulted in only certain Health Authorities being prepared to pay for the procedure. These tend to be in regions with large ethnic minorities who otherwise may suffer form back street' circumcisions.
ellauri180.html on line 235: Thus it is clear that medical trends are now being driven by financial constraints. Perhaps this is reflected by the dramatic decline in the number of non-religious circumcisions performed over the last half century; in the USA an estimated 80% of boys were circumcised in 1976 but by 1981 this had fallew to 61%, and recent estimates suggest that this decrease continues. In the UK the decline has been even more dramatic: originally more common in the upper classes, circumcision rates fell from 30% in 1939 to 20% in 1949 and 10% by 1963. By 1975 only 6% of British schoolboys were circumcised and this may well have declined further.
ellauri180.html on line 237: Tuoreimmat kuulumiset esinahkarintamalta: Male circumcision (MC) status and genital infection risk are interlinked and MC is now part of HIV prevention programs worldwide. Ympärileikattujen osuus maailmanmitassa on noussut 30 prosentista 40 prosenttiin. Eikä vähiten koska abramiitit lisääntyvät äkäisimmin. Niitä ei esinahka jarruta, liukkaasti luistaa suxi alas häpykukkulaa. Ja sitten tampaten ylös Joosuan esinahkakukkulaa!
ellauri184.html on line 512: Male circumcision has often been, and remains, the subject of controversy on a number of grounds—religious, ethical, sexual, and medical and the ethics of circumcision of males are controversial.
ellauri184.html on line 514: During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the primary justification for circumcision was to prevent masturbation (???) and intentionally reduce male sexual pleasure, which was believed to cause a wide range of medical problems. Modern proponents say that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases, and confers sexual benefits (???). By contrast, some opponents, particularly of routine neonatal circumcision, question its utility and effectiveness in preventing such diseases, and object to subjecting newborn males, without their consent, to a procedure they consider to have dubious and nonessential benefits, significant risks, and a potentially negative impact on general health and later sexual enjoyment, as well as violating their human rights.
ellauri184.html on line 516: In Classical and Hellenistic civilization, Ancient Greeks and Romans posed great value on the beauty of nature, physical integrity, aesthetics, harmonious bodies and nudity, including the foreskin (see also Ancient Greek art), and were opposed to all forms of genital mutilation, including circumcision—an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West and East that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Frederick Hodges. Traditional branches of Judaism, Islam, Coptic Christianity, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church still advocate male circumcision as a religious obligation.
ellauri184.html on line 518: The Book of Genesis explains circumcision as a covenant with God given to Abraham,[Gen 17:10] In Judaism it "symbolizes the promise of lineage and fruitfulness of a great (???) nation," the "seal of ownership (???) and the guarantee of relationship between peoples and their god." Some scholars look elsewhere for the origin of Jewish circumcision. One explanation, dating from Herodotus, is that the custom was acquired from the Egyptians, possibly during the period of enslavement. An additional hypothesis, based on linguistic/ethnographic work begun in the 19th century, suggests circumcision was a common tribal custom among Semitic tribes (Jews, Arabs, and Phoenicians).
ellauri184.html on line 520: The Jewish and Islamic traditions both see circumcision as a way to distinguish a group from its neighbours. The Bible records "uncircumcised" being used as a derogatory reference for opponents[1Sam 17:26] and Jewish victory in battle that culminated in mass post-mortem circumcision, to provide an account of the number of enemy casualties.[1Sam 18:27] Just count he prepuces, or measure the size of the foreskin hillock. Jews were also required to circumcise all household members, including slaves[Gen 17:12-14] – a practice that would later put them into collision with Roman and Christian law (see below).
ellauri184.html on line 524: In 167 BCE Judea was part of the Seleucid Empire. Its ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–165 BCE), smarting from a defeat in a war against Ptolemaic Egypt, banned traditional Jewish religious practices, and attempted to forcibly let the Jews accept Hellenistic culture. Throughout the country Jews were ordered, with the threat of execution, to sacrifice pigs to Greek gods (the normal practice in the Ancient Greek religion), desecrate the Shabbat, eat unkosher animals (especially pork), and relinquish their Jewish scriptures. Antiochus´ decree also outlawed Jewish circumcision, and parents who violated his order were hanged along with their infants.[1Mac 1:46-67] According to Tacitus, as quoted by Hodges, Antiochus "endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization."
ellauri184.html on line 528: Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman culture found circumcision to be cruel and repulsive. In the Roman Empire, circumcision was regarded as a barbaric and disgusting custom. The consul Titus Flavius Clemens was condemned to death by the Roman Senate in 95 CE for, according to the Talmud, circumcising himself and converting to Judaism. The Emperor Hadrian (117–138) forbade circumcision. Overall, the rite of circumcision was especially execrable in Classical civilization, also because it was the custom to spend an hour a day or so exercising nude in the gymnasium and in Roman baths, therefore Jewish men did not want to be seen in public deprived of their foreskins.
ellauri184.html on line 530: Hadrian´s policy after the rebellion reflected an attempt to root out Judaism: he enacted a ban on circumcision, all Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem upon pain of death, and the city was renamed Aelia Capitolina, while Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina. Around 140, his successor Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE) exempted Jews from the decree against circumcision, allowing them to circumcise their sons, although they were forbidden to do the same on their slaves and proselytes. Jewish nationalists´ (Pharisees and Zealots) response to the decrees also took a more moderate form: circumcisions were secretly performed, even on dead Jews.
ellauri184.html on line 534: The Apostle Paul referred to these practices in his letters, saying: "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised."[1Cor 7:18] But he also explicitly denounced the forcing of circumcision upon non-Jews, rejecting and condemning those Judaizers who stipulated the ritual to Gentile Christians, labelling such advocates as "false brothers"[Gal 2:4] (see below). In the mid-2nd century Rabbinical Jewish leaders, due to increasing cases of foreskin restorations in Roman Empire, introduced a radical method of circumcision, the periah, that left the glans totally uncovered and sew the remaining skin. The new method became immediately the only valid circumcision procedure, to ensure that a born Jew will remain circumcised and avoiding risk of restoring the foreskin. Operations became mostly irreversible.
ellauri184.html on line 536: Under the first Christian emperor, Constantine, the two rescripts of Antoninus on circumcision were re-enacted and again in the 6th century under Justinian. These restrictions on circumcision made their way into both secular and Canon law and "at least through the Middle Ages, preserved and enhanced laws banning Hebrews from circumcising non-Hebrews and banning Christians or slaves of any religious affiliation from undergoing circumcision for any reason." Hyvä pojat!
ellauri217.html on line 702: The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council was held in Jerusalem around AD 50. It is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the fasts, and other specific rituals, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree or Jerusalem Quadrilateral. The purpose and origin of these four prohibitions is debated.
ellauri217.html on line 706: The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD, roughly 15 to 25 years after the crucifixion of Jesus (between 26 and 36 AD). Acts 15 and Galatians 2 both suggest that the meeting was called to debate whether or not male Gentiles who were converting to become followers of Jesus were required to become circumcised; the rite of circumcision was considered execrable and repulsive during the period of Hellenization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and was especially adversed in Classical civilization both from ancient Greeks and Romans, which instead valued the foreskin positively.
ellauri217.html on line 707: The meeting was called to decide whether circumcision for gentile converts was requisite for community membership since certain individuals were teaching that "[u]nless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved". No foreskins can penetrate heaven. Tero ensin, mutta Esa jää ulkopuolelle, kassit myös.
ellauri217.html on line 709: The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve a disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than just circumcision, since circumcision is the "everlasting" sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9–14). Some of the Pharisees who had become believers insisted that it was "needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" (KJV).
ellauri217.html on line 711: The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other important matters arose as well, as the Apostolic Decree indicates. The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by Jeeves The Just (eikä melkein), who believed, following his interpretation of the Great Commission, that the church must observe the Torah, i.e. the rules of traditional Judaism, and Paul the Apostle, who believed there was no such necessity. The main concern for the Apostle Paul, which he subsequently expressed in greater detail with his letters directed to the early Christian communities in Asia Minor, was the inclusion of Gentiles into God´s newest Covenant, sending the message that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation. (See also Supersessionism, New Covenant, Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Paul the Apostle and Judaism).
ellauri217.html on line 727: The main outcome of Jeeves´s "Apostolic Decree" was that the requirement of circumcision for males was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement. However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against Gentile converts eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain. It also retained the prohibitions against "fornication" (to be detailed later) and "idol worship". The Decree may have been a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots. Idol worship has since gone way out of bounds among the gentiles with the Idols contest and suchlike.
ellauri217.html on line 731: For great as was the success of Barnabas and Paul in the heathen world, the authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as the condition of admission of members into the Church, until, on the initiative of Peter, and of James, the head of the Jerusalem church, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noachian Laws—namely, regarding avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal—should be demanded of the heathen desirous of entering the Church.
ellauri249.html on line 111: By extension, verpus as a masculine adjective or noun, referred to a man whose glans was exposed by erection or by circumcision; thus Juvenal (14.100) has
ellauri300.html on line 638: Titus’ background is not explained, other than the fact he was Gentile and apparently never circumcised (Paul had checked, Galatians 2:4). This is an interesting point, since Timothy was half-Greek, and not circumcised either! Still, Paul chose to circumcise Timothy to honor the Jews in an area that the two of them were ministering in (Acts 16:1-5). Paul repeatedly mentions in his letters that circumcision is not necessary under the new covenant (though great fun), and even tells Titus to silence Christians who try to promote it (Titus 1:10-14). So, Paul’s choice to circumcise Timothy would suggest that he had a pragmatic thorn in his side. He did not require his disciples to be circumcised, but if the situation called for working among Jews and it made things easier, he would gladly do it. Whether Titus ever ministered to Jewish believers is not stated, and both he and Titus worked at churches in Gentile areas (Timothy in Ephesus, Titus in Crete, and Corinth and Dalmatia).
ellauri300.html on line 649: The futility of heresy (Titus 1:10-16, 3:9-11). Foolish people at the Cretan church fool others with “useless talk” about circumcision.
ellauri377.html on line 285: 3. and not to observe circumcision;

xxx/ellauri187.html on line 639: Orthodox Jews do rituals around the eighth day that involve terminating the growth of their children. According to Jewish law, all boys should have been born with their ears and noses intact. An alcoholic mohel then eats a mouthful of wine while performing the circumcision ritual on the boy immediately following the procedure. Lähde: Chicago Jewishness
50