Talk:Holy Prepuce

message: Where is the evidence even for the existence of this supposed relic?  All I see mentioned are quotes from old anti-Catholic sources, who had an interest in invoking spurious but laughable relics as a way to mock what they saw as the absurdity of Catholicism.  None of the Catholic sources referred to mention the "Holy Prepuce" at all.  And on the web, the only references to this relic are quotes from this very article!  What about the supposed theft of such a relic in 1983?  Where is the news article referring to that?  Not, apparently, available. --Randomcritic.
:If you search a little deeper on the net, you'll find some neutral and even pro catholic sites mentioning the holy prepuce. It would seem that the Vatican has moved away from veneration of Holy Relics. Also this particular relic may lead people to thoughts about Jesus which are not exactly spiritual. Hence it is not really surprising that something which was venerated a few hundred years ago, is now mostly forgotten. Also please sign your name after a comment, otherwise no one knows who is writing. Thanks. --Dumbo1 23:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell me to search deeper on the net -- I already did a considerable amount of searching, but that's not the point.  This is a reference project!  It should be one-stop shopping for sources -- not "oh, there's more out there, just look around".  If you've found some reliable sources on the topic, stick 'em in the body of the article. And the higher you can get up the citation tree the better.  And if you can find a contemporary article on the 1983 theft, best of all.  --Randomcritic.
this all used to be at newadvent.org a couple years ago, even some of the same wording (specifically that bit about how "The Pope declined the opportunity" to investigate a foreskin brought for his inspection). i emailed it to myself when i found it, because it's hilarious. but now they seem to have taken it all off the site. --dan 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability?

message: The article makes several references to churches which claim to "own" the HP.   It sounds very odd to me to talk about owning part of Jesus; I know that UK law until recently held that you couldn't own parts of a human body.   I'd be happier with "possess", unless someone knows better about church/continental law on the point. Markalexander100 07:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - 'possess' is the term used in the Relic article. -- Solipsist 08:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: One point of criticism concerning this article: I'd like to see when the first mention of this relic is recorded. All humor aside, the matter of celibacy was important to the early Christian Church (Clementine literature is one example of this). Some acknowledgement of this aspect would help improve this article's NPOV quality. -- llywrch 02:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest Record? 

message: And I obviously doubt very much the "pope ... declared it to be a true relic". Please do not joke with religious beliefs. Pfortuny 11:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny there are no sources 

message: One of the links points to a pretty opinionated external link on Circumcision calling it an "ugly" "genital mutilation" and three is no indication it is not written in NPOV.
I am replacing it with the Wikipedia link Circumcision as it does a better job of addressing the topic.129.42.208.182 21:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: When Jesus body ascended to heaven, didn't the foreskin followed it? 
Manco 22:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there was one theory that the holy foreskin did indeed ascend, and became the rings of Saturn.PurpleChez (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ascension 

message: "A related theological issue questions whether Jesus' foreskin was restored to him in his resurrected body. The act of circumcision was a ritual of profound religious significance to Jews, and marked their membership in the covenant community. The New Testament contains extensive discussions about whether circumcision was needed for Gentile converts, and concludes that it was not; the position settled upon is that Jesus' crucifixion established a new covenant for Christians for which the rite was not necessary." Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus is God come to earth and has fulfilled the law, would we be right to mention Colossians 2:9-15? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: My girlfriend, who has taken master's-level courses on religious history in Europe, says that although Catherine of Siena was indeed allegorically married to Jesus, the foreskin-as-wedding-ring concept is from an anti-Catholic parody written centuries later. DS 17:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding Ring? 

message: Well I think this article won't even make good article nowadays so unless anyone objects, I'll soon list it. Incredibly short, few sources. Skinnyweed 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARC? 

message: Since Vatican II, the emphasis placed on relics by the Catholic Church has declined markedly, with many relics with long traditions being relegated to "pious legend" by the Vatican. Interest in the Holy Foreskin has been specifically downplayed, with the observation that this particular relic encouraged 'irreverent curiosity'.
No refrence attached, and this statement smelled false to me.  I've been to many churches, in Europe and the USA, and there was an abundance of relics, with people venerating them and the like.  At any rate, it needs a source. Lostcaesar 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Text 

message: I've removed this paragraph, as well as the corresponding one from the Leo Allatius article:
"During the late 17th century, Catholic scholar and theologian Leo Allatius in  De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba ("Discussion concerning the Prepuce of our Lord Jesus Christ") speculated that the Holy Foreskin may have ascended into Heaven at the same time as Jesus himself and might have become the rings of Saturn, then only recently observed by telescope."
Neither of the external links for Allatius mention such a theory, and I have a feeling it could be a hoax. It's mentioned on various blogs, but they're probably sourced from Wikipedia.--Nydas(Talk) 09:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure it's a hoax, I had a discussion with my professors about Allatius' idea nearly a decade ago, before Wikipedia started. InfernoXV 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax was probably too strong a word on my part. It could still use a reference, though.--Nydas(Talk) 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Allatius write an essay about the Holy Prepuce? Yes: it is definitely listed in Fabricius's bibliography as an unpublished work. Did the essay argue that the rings of Saturn are Jesus Christ's foreskin? Unfortunately we can't check that because it was never published and the manuscript is currently unaccounted for. The Saturn story seems to date back no earlier than a work published in 1887 by two British atheists who didn't state their sources. I've updated the article accordingly with references. Muzilon (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rings of Saturn - hoax?

message: The article currently reads "Jesus' circumcision is not mentioned in the canonic gospels, though it can be inferred from his Jewish ethnicity." But what about Luke 2:21 (King James Version): "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb."? Ewlyahoocom (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jesus' circumcision is not mentioned in the canonic gospels..." 

message: I have added  tags to two statements in the article, those about Vatican decrees on Excommunication.  The sole source for these allegations appears to be the Slate magazine article, which itself gives no sources.  This violates Wikipedia's rule on Verifiability, and I recommend they be either sourced or deleted.Kmerian (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability?

message: During the middle ages, where did the alleged owners of the holy prepuce get all those foreskins?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.133.238 (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably from penises? DS (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have to wonder... 

message: I'm querying the existence of a Holy Foreskin in Stoke on Trent. Now that's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing... but be that as it may: I've chased the links, and nowhere is SoT mentioned. Everywhere else in the list seems to check out OK in the Slate article and elsewhere; however, Googling reveals only the WP article and fairly obvious derivatives thereof.
I'm not denying that there may well be relics in SoT, but something about this reference is pinging my sneaky-vandalism detector. I may be wrong - in fact, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong - but I'd like a reputable citation before I'll believe it. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto for Newport, too. I missed it the first time around, vaguely thinking that it was one of those French places with English names left over from when England owned chunks of northern France, and didn't click the link to check - sorry for that. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoke on Trent 

message: I've created Circumcision of Jesus which is designed to cover the historical, art historical, and theological aspects of the circumcision of Jesus. I think I'm going to move some of the content of this article there, and leave this article to describe the actual relics. Raul654 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: Most of the article appears to be taken from articles by David Farley, a journalist who published a book on the subject. Most sources found elsewhere were anti-catholic websites, needless to say non of those qualify as RS. I suspect much of this article's content linked to Catholic oppression of this tradition to be modern urban legends.--Rafy talk 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic references 

message: Jesus is a mythical creation. Jesus was not historical so his foreskin could not have existed. 
Furthermore,the Mohel traditionally saves the foreskins and is buried with them upon his death.
:You should sign what you write. Most likely, all these relics are fake. For example, the shroud of Turin is not the right shape, it is not as described in the Bible and is dated to the 13 or 14 th century. There were multiple shrouds long ago. It is a way for an artist to make money. The Jesus in the bible is not real but probably there were a bunch of jews trying to save Israel from the Roman empire and they failed. Also, this isn't the best place to debate. You have to talk about how to improve the article. Vmelkon (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical record of the life of the Lord Jesus is not mythical literature.  He is not presented as having lived in Narnia or Middle Earth.  The primary historical sources include Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, the author of Hebrews, Josephus, and Tacitus.  The topic is not "a bunch of Jews," but one particular Jew. And the resurrection puts the lie to the word "failure."  (PeacePeace (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus was not historical so his foreskin could not have existed. 

message: Article states: "The foreskin was reported stolen by a local priest in 1983.[6]"
However, I took a look at the citation & did not see that claim; neither does the source a reliable secondary source on this topic. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that the related issue that the words in the text fail to clarify what happened - did the local priest report the theft, or did the local priest commit the theft? Jmg38 (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did a priest steal the foreskin? 

message: This supposed relic have been and, to an extent, still be the object of a very many spurious rumors.
One rumor which can still be found in certain places where the 'relic' is mentioned, at least on the internet, is that it was at least somewhat known for the 'authenticity' of one claimant of this supposed relic to be tested by a "trained physician", charged by the particular church, to actually chew on the object in question to identify it.
Among the rumours, this appears to be among the most utterly heinous.  Among the scant few instances of this rumour being spread which mention a source, the book "A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis" is one such source referenced, and this in turn cites a chapter by one Marc Shell in the work "Jews and Other Differences: The New Jewish Cultural Studies".
I have been unable to find an available digital copy of this book, nor a copy listed as available in any of the larger libraries near me.  
Among the most reputable pages online describing the history of this supposed relic, I have found no mention of this rumour;  And among the basically unreputable, this appears to be the closest to the original source that can be found online as of now.  It would be extremely interesting to see if the chapter cites any source for the rumour itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusty001 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jews and Other Differences" - Chapter by Marc Shell