I already did: [roamer_1:] "There is no requirement for circumcision of adult males in Torah. There were many 'righteous gentiles' living among the Israelis from the very beginning."
Circumcision was a covenant sign both for the Abrahamic covenant, but the Mosaic one. To whom is the above verse referring? Uncircumcised adult males, or uncircumcised infants?
After the initial circumcisions, only infants were left to be circumcised. Thus any Israeli would be circumcised as a matter of course on the 8th day. So any adult male circumcisions would be concerning gentiles.
After the initial circumcisions, the only mass circumcision of gentiles was performed as a ruse to disable their army, whereupon all were killed.
If there was no requirement for adult males to be circumcised, then why are they forbidden from participating in the passover?
Uncircumcised adult gentile proselytes were forbidden from the Passover unless they were circumcised - but their House could participate - providing their sons were circumcised, they too could participate. The only other prohibition was that uncircumcised males had to remain in the court of the Gentiles. With the exception of those two prohibitions, 'righteous gentiles' were to be treated as citizens, not as an underclass, which is the point of the following verse that you had pointed to.
The point to me, is a matter of coercion. After the initial circumcisions, necessarily coerced (demanded) by YHWH to set the pattern of circumcision, proselytes were not to be coerced, but rather, allowed to take an informed decision as to their commitment. Since the function of the circumcision is inter-generational rather than personal, the inter-generational function is fulfilled in the children born to the proselyte and properly circumcised. The circumcision of the proselyte himself does not serve that function - It is a personal commitment.
And it is the coercive nature against that personal decision which is on point in the controversy wrt Titus (and several other examples). The personal decision IS the circumcision of the heart - which is the better circumcision, and is *never* coerced. In as much as that personal decision is already taken in the circumcision of the heart, that it is transmitted into the circumcision of the flesh becomes a moot point.
Presumably Paul, whom editor-surveyor recently claimed was the second most educated man in the world, would know this. Right? In that case, why did he make Titus' circumcision an issue concerning the Gospel, when it was no issue at all?
To whom is the above verse [Genesis 17:14] referring? Uncircumcised adult males, or uncircumcised infants?
After the initial circumcisions, only infants were left to be circumcised. Thus any Israeli would be circumcised as a matter of course on the 8th day. So any adult male circumcisions would be concerning gentiles.
You have already claimed that there is no requirement for adult males to be circumcised. That leaves infants. Are you seriously suggesting that the law about excommunicating uncircumcised covenant-breakers applies to infants only?
Uncircumcised adult gentile proselytes were forbidden from the Passover unless they were circumcised - but their House could participate - providing their sons were circumcised, they too could participate.
Are you arguing, then, that when Exodus 12:48 says, "But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it." it really means, "No uncircumcised person shall eat of it unless all his male relatives are circumcised, then it's OK"?