What happened to the foreskin of Jesus?
594612
The abbey of Charroux claimed to possess the Holy Foreskin during the Middle Ages. It was said to have been presented to the monks by Charlemagne, who in turn is said to have claimed that it had been brought to him by an angel (although another version of the story says it was a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irene). In the early 12th century, it was taken in procession to Rome where it was presented before Pope Innocent III, who was asked to rule on its authenticity. The Pope declined the opportunity. At some point, however, the relic went missing, and remained lost until 1856 when a workman repairing the abbey claimed to have found a reliquary hidden inside a wall, containing the missing foreskin.\n\nThe abbey church of Coulombs in the diocese of Chartres, France was another medieval claimant. One story says that when Catherine of Valois was pregnant in 1421, her husband, King Henry V of England, sent for the Holy Prepuce. It was believed that the sweet scent that the relic was supposed to give off would ensure an easy and safe childbirth. According to this legend, it did its job so well that Henry was reluctant to return it after the birth of the child (the future King Henry VI of England).\n\nAs well as the Holy Foreskin claimed by the Lateran basilica in Rome, other claimants in history have included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay, Santiago de Compostela, the city of Antwerp, and churches in Besançon, Metz, Hildesheim, and Calcata
974236
Jesus did not directly speak on it, that I know of.... Lest someone correct me and I be wrong.....\n\nBut, what you are looking for is found in Romans.....  Chapter 1:21-32\n\n\n24   Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: \n\n 25   Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. \n\n 26   For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: \n\n 27   And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. \n \nPLEASE NOTE:  I do not write this to condemn any but to reference a very valuable writting on the subject......\n\n\nYour sister,\nGinger
644456
Actually, the uncircumcised foreskin shields the tip of the penis from everyday friction with clothing, etc, which tends to desensitise it.\nThus, the uncircumcised penis is often a lot more sensitive, making sex a rather more intense experience.\nSome men find the stimulation is actually too much, leading to discomfort or premature ejaculation, though this is not the case for the majority.
151194
removal of the foreskin, from the penis
79850
No and No.\n\nJesus gave it willingly as a sacrifice for sin.\nJohn 10:18\n"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”\n\nBut if you want to blame anyone, blame me, Schneb. It was for MY sins that Jesus had to die.
548864
It is a small surgery to remove forskin of your penis.\nIt will heal in about a week.
772388
Details!!!\n\nAssuming that you're a non-circumcised male, you might have an infection under your foreskin.
604793
14. B \n\n15. Obviously, Jesus obeyed the traditions that were expected of any Jew, or He would never have gone to the Temple as a baby to be circumcised. "Moses seat" is a tradition, because it is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. So its A and B.
1006360
His earthly human existence died, not Him Himself.\nHe was resurrected and is still alive today but not in His human form.
1023668
Circumcision is the removal of the end portion of the foreskin. It is usually done to young infants. It exposes the head of the penis.\n\nIn the Bible circumcision was used as a sign for the Hebrews to show they were/are God's chosen people. It was done on the eighth day after birth because the blood coagulated fastest on this day.\n\nToday parents often have their children circumcised for cleanliness of the penis.
866162
I dont think owning guns is unchristian or sinful... if we remember, Peter cut off the Roman Soldier's ear with a sword (they didnt have guns back then) I doubt it was a little sword that Peter had hidden, he had it for protection. Jesus did repremand him for cutting the soldier but only because Jesus knew He had to go with them. But Jesus obviously didnt condemn the bearing of arms unless Peter carved it secretly while Jesus was off praying.
66596
Woo hoo!!  A Jesus and tattoo question, all in one! And it's not even my birthday!  I love this question, Yes in Leviticus it says what the make no marks of the dead or tattoo any marks on your body.  But that's not what it says, the original word in Hebrew that is commonly translated as tattoo is not exactly tattoo, the word is "to put", So in the original Hebrew it says you shall not make cuttings in your flesh or put on marks of the dead, what is a mark of the dead that He is speaking of here?  The demonic ritual cutting and marking of the gods of all the other nations that the Israelites were living around.  \n\nIsaiah 49:16 the Lord says behold I have inscribed your name upon the palms of my hand, and the meaning in Hebrew for the word translated as inscribed is "to cut out or engrave", God was speaking of a common practice to engrave or make marks on hands of things to remember.  \nGod also speaks of earings and nose piercing as ornaments of beauty in Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 16.\nIn Revelation 19 it says that on Jesus' thigh is written a name that no one knows, cool huh!?\nBut, tattoos done out of anger or rebellion, as well as done in demonic or obscene matters(666, pentagrams, pornography)that is sacrilegious.\nAllelujah and Amen.
566921
on this |\non a long pole. not a cross. \nand many problemas with the "cruxifiction" pictures today is that in the pictures Jesus had the nails through his hands, which would have ripped open due to the weight of his whole body on his hands. The nails are suppost to be in between\nthe hand and wrist, same story with his feet. Many people believe it was on a cross because that it was what they have been taught.
338085
1. They didn't have expert barbers 2000 years ago, and Jesus was poor anyway and wouldn't have been able to afford a haircut.\n\n2. Jesus was Jewish, from the lineage of David.
501042
It happened to long ago for blood samples.\n\nJesus was put in another mans tomb.  This was done so that he could be burried for the holiday.  The man that owned the tomd was one of the jews that had him killed.  With that understanding we would have reason to belive that he would have had the body moved to a criminal grave site as soon as they could.  Now we need to look at how long it took his followers to request to see the body.  It took 70 days before the made a request to see the body.  A body was produced for them but they denied it was jesus.  \n\n^That is history.  Not some superstition made up by Paul.
1039832
Interesting question and link to a good article. After reading the following from my source, it appears that there's a sufficient FREE supply to meet the demand:\n\n'Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis. It is OFTEN performed in healthy boys for cultural or religious reasons. In the U.S., circumcision of a newborn boy is usually done before he leaves the hospital. Among the Jewish population, circumcision is done on the eighth day.'
327586
It is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Much More at my source.