baptism being "replaced" by circumcision

[Fides_et_Ratio]

^ ^



thanks for the help guys. I like it when my apologetics skills grow bigger and better for the next time I'm called to answer for my faith.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:24 AM']Colossians 2:11-12
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

The argument is that this passage speaks only of a "spiritual circumcision" and not of an actual snip, and that the "through faith" implies old enough to decide (I can take issue with that myself). However, admittedly I'm not enough of a Scripture buff to see how this passage is interpreted to be replacing circumcision with baptism because it doesn't seem to be talking about the actual Jewish practice of circumcision, but more of a spiritual circumcison (i.e., "of the heart" like Moses speaks of).
[right][snapback]646117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 18 2005, 01:49 PM']well, he's talking about baptism by referring to circumcision. the metaphor of a "spiritual circumcision" would mean nothing if he did not have the jewish practice in mind. what paul is doing here is combatting the notion that christians had to be circumcised. he's essentially saying, "no, we don't need your physical circumcision, for we have already been circumcised in the spirit."
[right][snapback]648087[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
I know St. Paul said we didn't need circumcision, but then I'm confused why we had it has a metaphor in the first place if it would no longer be necessary after Christ. I was just listening to a talk by Christopher West called "Women: God's Masterpiece" and in it he brings up circumcision and alluded that it was necessary for symbolic reasons: to help man understand that salvation requires the giving of flesh and the sacrifice of blood in his body like a woman's body already shows.

Childbirth and new life demand a eucharistic-like sacrifice of flesh and shedding of blood. Circumcision serves as a constant reminder to men in the Old Testament that humanity and life requires that sacrifice as well. So circumcision, serving as the sign of the covenant to Abraham, was to teach men through their bodies about salvation what women already knew through theirs.

Granted, in the talk, he talked about circumcision in context with the Old Testament, but why then does Paul's teaching replace/negate this if it still might be necessary symbolically? Why do men no longer need that physical reminder? [/color]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jul 18 2005, 02:28 PM'][color=purple]
I know St. Paul said we didn't need circumcision, but then I'm confused why we had it has a metaphor in the first place if it would no longer be necessary after Christ. I was just listening to a talk by Christopher West called "Women: God's Masterpiece" and in it he brings up circumcision and alluded that it was necessary for symbolic reasons: to help man understand that salvation requires the giving of flesh and the sacrifice of blood in his body like a woman's body already shows.

Childbirth and new life demand a eucharistic-like sacrifice of flesh and shedding of blood. Circumcision serves as a constant reminder to men in the Old Testament that humanity and life requires that sacrifice as well. So circumcision, serving as the sign of the covenant to Abraham, was to teach men through their bodies about salvation what women already knew through theirs.

Granted, in the talk, he talked about circumcision in context with the Old Testament, but why then does Paul's teaching replace/negate this if it still might be necessary symbolically? Why do men no longer need that physical reminder? [/color]
[right][snapback]648388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It was an imperfect sign, and it led to the "star bellied sneetch syndrome", which is focusing on an external too much coupled with elitism. And God instituted new signs that are more perfect. The signs of the Old Law (as well as the law itself) focused more on the external, whereas in the new dispensation the focus is on the interior, and the spirit; which is the indwelling of God. And all of the sacraments have a nuptial character. And they are sacramental which the old signs were not. The Eucharist is the highest symbol and Sacrament of what it means to be human. And it calls us to a more interior mode of being in relation to God. You can learn everything by contemplating the Eucharist.

That's what first came to mind anyway, I'm sure there are many more reasons.

Regards,