DID PAUL HAVE GAY URGES?

Was Paul a homosexual for sucking the blood out of Timothy's penis?


In the Book of Acts we are informed that Paul had Timothy circumcised:

1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3: Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:3 American Standard Version)

Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more troubles Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy's father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not - so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant - that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham's penis when, at God's insistence, he circumcised himself - heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant...even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised....

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision....Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to 'become Jews' without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship 'impeded the arrival of the Messiah'. While 'semi-converts' were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts....
(A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, Pimlico. 1998. ISBN 0-7126-6663-X p. 128)

So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone? This is explained in detail by A. N. Wilson who writes:

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the glans, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator - the mohel, the professional circumciser - with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. 12 We can easily imagine why Paul's Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually 'cut you . . . off from Christ'. But could any greater contrast be imagined between this belief and the traditional Jewish view that those who did not weild that knife delayed the coming of the Messiah?
(Ibid., p. 131)

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:

2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3: Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.
(Gal 5:2-6 American Standard Version)

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him further. Since we are aware of Paul's intense opposition to circumcision no matter what, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates his hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his life time. That he had deep and intense desires to take a penis in his mouth, so when an oppurtunity came along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now had a good excuse to take a penis in his mouth and no one could object to that. We can suppose that Timothy, a grown man, had an erection within Paul's mouth and eventually ejaculated therein. One cannot claim that someone other than Paul circumcised Timothy because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who circumcised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to circumcise Timothy if indeed he was opposed to the practice as staunchly as related in Galatians. But that he did go along and conducted the circumcision gives us a reason to pause as it suggests he had gay urges.

Now it is our turn to say, Whatever interpretation Christians may have given to Paul's action later on (correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and disgusting to say the least.