That is correct. There are 613 commandments, for Israelites. It's Jewish law. It has nothing to do with gentiles.

In fact the Torah specifically lists a set of seven laws, the Noahide laws, for all humanity (or at least for those tribes whose patriarchs descended from Noah). Why would the Torah list two sets of laws, one general and one specific, if the specific set is meant for all humanity anyway?

Well, bought with "silver" ("kesef)", not "money" (also "kesef"). Coins were not invented until a few hundred years after Exodus.

It's a symbol of the covenant, hence the word "bris" (meaning "pact").

Did I ever tell you I liked my mohel so much... I left him a tip.

No papyrus in the mountains of Sinai?

Seems like a strange thing for God to ask. Why that? Why is it so important?

Hm...

It makes cleaning easier, it is a good protection against STDs (because everything dries faster), and, in spite of what many claim, it can be done without loss of functionality in any way.

I don't think it's strange. Quite the opposite, it's positively brilliant. Sell the people a useful operation as a symbol for a pact with G-d. It's brilliant.

Well, I don't equate "strange" with "stupid." I guess he asked it because it's permanent.

Couldn't that be considered mutilation? Doesn't it contradict the "thy body is a temple" thing?

Weren't women included in the covenant?

Ok.

I wouldn't say so. Not more so than removing the appendix is mutilation (and less so, actually).

Isn't that in Corinthians?

They were. But when the Israelites committed idolatry with the golden calf, women did not participate in the idolatry. According to Jewish understanding, as I understand it, women are less likely to violate the pact and hence do not need a reminder or a symbol. (Also consider that they actually have the reminder and the symbol since a woman's man comes with it and they form a unit.)

On a more practical level there is nothing comparable you can cut away on a woman's body. Neither is there an equivalent advantage of doing anything like it.

The so-called "female circumcision" really is mutilation, torture, and completely unecessary. It has never been practices by Israelites although it was and is common among Egyptians. It has also not been practices among Arabs. It's one of those backwards African "customs" that thank G-d imperialism has stopped in many countries but not in all.

It remains very common in very backwards countries like Egypt, Sudan, and Somalia including Somaliland. But it has nothing to do with G-d, with a covenant with G-d, with Judaism, with Islam, or with Christianity.

I know you didn't imply that it did or that it had anything to do with the subject, but I wanted to make the above abundantly clear to avoid confusion.

It's not so strange, actually. It's a custom that was also followed by Yishmaelites (i.e. the tribes descended from Yitzaq's brother, Abraham's older son). I understand Yishmael was 13 when Abraham learned of the pact and its symbol and was thus circumcised at 13. Even today many Muslim traditions who see Islam as a continuation of Yishmael's religion circumcise their sons at 13.

However, this might not be a brilliant idea. At 8 days, a baby's map of the body is not complete yet but the organism already works. Hence circumcising at 8 days causes less pain than at 13 years. The specific age given by the Bible is 8 days.

Sometimes following traditions can be positively contrary to the traditions' actual meaning.

Either way, circumcision was (probably) practices by Israelites, Moabites, and Yishmaelites and possibly  anumber of other nations and tribes.

Where's KFC when you need her? We are getting into Biblical family trees and KFC is the authority on that on JU. I might get relations and ages wrong.

Yes, I know female circumcision is cultural, not religious.

No, I'm not making any assumptions as to the beginning of the CC. Scripture describes a Church (not churches) built upon St.Peter as its first earthly head and history bears this out. There has been a documented, continuous chain of St.Peter's successors...Pope Benedict XVI being the 265th.  St.Peter didn't start Christianity, Christ did in the New and Eternal Covenant of His Blood. The Church was born on the First Penecost Day in 33AD when the Holy Spirit came down upon those in the Upper Room..Acts records this most important event.

lula posts:

I realize that the Episcopal Chruch and other churches as well may observe these commands. However, they do not have Christ's authority for that was given only to the Apostles and from them to their lawful successors by the Sacrament of "the laying on of hands" (now called Holy Orders) as found in the Book of Acts. Only lawfully ordained priests can consecrate the Holy Eucharist and they are found only in the CC.

There is only one Chruch that is described in the New Testament and that Church is the Catholic Church first established by Christ upon St.Peter in 33AD. All the other churches were established by some one after 1517 and the Protestant revolution.

How can the scripture describe something that had never existed before?   The word church was not in existance.  There must have been another hebrew word used that was translated into "church".  A word that doesn't necessarily mean church, but has been translated into it in order to give the infant CC the authority it needed.  For many years after Jesus's death the only rememberance of his life was celebrated in the homes of indiviudals and in the communities where there was a commonality in belief and thought and those that led the others in rememberance and prayer were for the most part not men, but women.  No organized church Lulapilgrim.  That came later.  There is also no evidence that Peter himself founded the CC other than the word of the CC.   Since the CC doesn't have such a great track record at telling the truth the word of the church regarding it's founder and it's beginnings is dubious at best. 

Authority?  Now that's an interesting concept.  You say that Jesus gave authority only to his apostles, and to their lawful successors.  Yet most catholics when they speak of scripture like yourself constantly quote St. Paul.  A man that was never an apostle.  Yes I do know that St. Paul persecuted Jesus's followers, and all of a sudden had a vision that no one but himself saw or heard, causing a drastic change of heart so he says.  Anything can be faked, and what better way to subvert the word of Jesus than to give oneself the authority over his followers.  A change of behaviour is no indication of a change of heart.  It can be simply a change of tactics.  In other words if you can't beat them join them and then beat them from within.

I don't see any evidence that Jesus started the CC, nor is there any.  The CC was started long after his death.

Who says that only the CC has the authority besides the CC?  Jesus never said any such thing.

How can the scripture describe something that had never existed before?   The word church was not in existance.  There must have been another hebrew word used that was translated into "church".  A word that doesn't necessarily mean church, but has been translated into it in order to give the infant CC the authority it needed.  For many years after Jesus's death the only rememberance of his life was celebrated in the homes of indiviudals and in the communities where there was a commonality in belief and thought and those that led the others in rememberance and prayer were for the most part not men, but women.  No organized church Lulapilgrim.  That came later.  There is also no evidence that Peter himself founded the CC other than the word of the CC.   Since the CC doesn't have such a great track record at telling the truth the word of the church regarding it's founder and it's beginnings is dubious at best. 

Authority?  Now that's an interesting concept.  You say that Jesus gave authority only to his apostles, and to their lawful successors.  Yet most catholics when they speak of scripture like yourself constantly quote St. Paul.  A man that was never an apostle.  Yes I do know that St. Paul persecuted Jesus's followers, and all of a sudden had a vision that no one but himself saw or heard, causing a drastic change of heart so he says.  Anything can be faked, and what better way to subvert the word of Jesus than to give oneself the authority over his followers.  A change of behaviour is no indication of a change of heart.  It can be simply a change of tactics.  In other words if you can't beat them join them and then beat them from within.

So sorry, I don't know why this posted twice, and the edit button is not working or I'd have erased the other.

"Priestcraft"

Religious people believe that God and Satan are in an eternal battle for people's souls, and that the reason the battle is so intense and long is that God and Satan are equal. But Satan is an angel. How can an angel be equal with God?