Circumcision controversy in early Christianity
According to the Hebrew Bible, circumcision was enjoined upon the biblical patriarch Abraham, his descendants and their slaves as "a token of the covenant" concluded with him by God for all generations, as an "everlasting covenant". The Council of Jerusalem during the Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity did not include religious male circumcision as a requirement for new gentile converts. This became known as the "Apostolic Decree": "But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law  of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. ... By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists ()." It may be one of the first acts differentiating early Christianity from Judaism. Circumcision has played an important role in Christian history and theology; the circumcision of Jesus is celebrated as a feast day in the liturgical calendar of many  Christian denominations, while Paul's teaching that physical circumcision was unnecessary for membership in the new covenant was instrumental in the separation of Christianity from Judaism. In some Eastern Christian denominations male circumcision is an established practice, and males are generally required to be circumcised shortly after birth as part of a rite of passage. Circumcision is widely practiced in many Christian countries and communities. Background. There are numerous references in the Hebrew Bible to the obligation for circumcision and the uncircumcised are to be cut off from the people in Genesis 17:14. During the 1st century BC there was  a controversy in Judaism relating to whether or not a proselyte who was already circumcised needed to be ritually re-circumcised. This is done via a pinprick creating a drop of blood and is still practiced to this day. 1st and 2nd century AD Judaism. Jewish sources vary on whether or not circumcision of proselytes was a universal practice in tannaitic times. The disagreement centers on the correctness of contradictory passages in the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud and which passage is older. "B. Yevamot 46a" is summarized as follows: "P. Kiddushin 3:12" (3:14, 64d) is summarized as follows: During  tannaitic times uncircumcised semi-converts also existed, see God-fearer and Ger toshav. Circumcision of Jesus. According to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, in accordance with Mosaic Law. Mosaic Law in Early Christianity. Similar differences and disputes existed within Early Christianity, but disputes within Christianity extended also to the place of Mosaic Law or Old Covenant in general in Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. Alister McGrath, an intellectual historian and proponent of paleo-orthodoxy, claims that many of the Jewish Christians  were fully faithful religious Jews, only differing in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. As such, they tended to be of the view that circumcision and other requirements of the Mosaic Law were required for salvation. Those in the Christian community who insisted that biblical law, including laws on circumcision, continued to apply to Christians were pejoratively labeled Judaizers by their opponents and criticized as being elitist and legalistic. Council of Jerusalem. The Council of Jerusalem of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new  community. Specifically, it had to consider whether gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it was conscious that the issue had wider implications, since circumcision is the "everlasting" sign of the covenant of the pieces. Jewish culture was still trying to find its place in the more dominant Hellenistic culture which found circumcision to be repulsive. The decision of the Council, called the Apostolic Decree, was that most Mosaic Law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for gentile converts. The Council did retain the prohibitions against  eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship". There is a view that 'strangled' and 'blood' in the texts refer to foreskin conditions - paraphimosis and ruptured frenulum, respectively. Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Leviticus 17 as the basis. The Decree is one of the first acts differentiating the Church from its Jewish roots, though a similar dispute was taking place at the same time within Judaism, but which came to  a contrary conclusion. Teaching of Paul. While the issue was theoretically resolved, it continued to be a recurring issue among Christians. After the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. There was a burgeoning movement of Judaizers in the area that advocated adherence to traditional Mosaic laws, including circumcision. According to McGrath, Paul identified James the Just as the motivating force behind the movement. Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3 . Paul, who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles", attacked the practice, although not consistently. In the case of Timothy, whose mother was a Jewish Christian but whose father was Greek, he personally circumcised him "because of the Jews" that were in town. He also appeared to praise its value in Romans 3:1-2.<ref>