A forum to discuss Bible Translations

stuck on circumcision...

Any topic about anything Scripture wise
Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:33 pm

I think though some say it IS necessary, hence the Ezekiel 45 quotation

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:02 pm

Well then deliverance from separation from Yahuweh is earned, and so the Shabbat doesn't speak of anything worthwhile
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:24 pm

not sure if that is kinda a sticking point - people kinda say if you love Yah you will do it anyway so it dosn't matter because you will get it done etc etc.

I think people need to think about WHO He is asking really, and does that then relate to them.

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Matthew » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:10 am

Does anyone know why Ezekiel 44:6-8 is always quoted by the "Gentiles should be circumcised anyway" crowd?

And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Yisra'el, "Thus says 'Edonay Yahuweh, 'O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations, in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of my set-apart things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.' "
What if they were circumcised in heart but not flesh? Still not allowed?

Does it say anywhere in the Torah that uncircumcised foreigners may not enter the temple grounds at all? I'm battling to find it; therefore if not, then it could possibly be revealing something deep here. That in order to get into God's eternal presence one needs to be circumcised of the heart, whereas in the flesh we really are still considered unclean.

Is circumcision regarding foreigners only related to Passover? What about offering a burnt offering for example?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:06 am

That's another weird thing: A foreigner is only required, according to Exodus 12:48, to be circumcised if he desires to "partake in the Passover", but not just him, he has to circumcise all the other males in his family as well.

But then, why is a foreigner not required to be circumcised if he wants to celebrate Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Reconcilliations, and Tabernacles? And why does his whole family have to be circumcised if just he's to partake in the Passover?

What's so significant about Passover, that it's the only feast that has a strict requirement: those who ant to "partake" in it, must be circumcised?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

BlessYahowah

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby BlessYahowah » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:17 pm

deleted
Last edited by BlessYahowah on Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:47 pm

Concerning the exclusion of all who aren't priests, doesn't Kefa tell us that we are all priests? And don't those around the throne echo that in the Revelation? "For You [Yahushua] have made us to be a kingdom of priests..." So then, if the requirement for circumcision applies only to priests, and all of us who trust in and rely on Yahuwah have been made priests by His Son, then as priests we who are male are required to be circumcised.
Well, to quote a popular phrase "Peter isn't Scripture". :)

And 1st Petros, which you're referring to, was actually only written to Jews, not to Gentiles. This is explicit when Petros declares at the start of the letter that his letter is "to the elect foreigners of The Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Diaspora being a common Jewish term only used to refer to their Yisra'elite Brethren scattered among the Gentile nations. (See pages 82, 86-88 of The Great Galatians debate for a fuller explanation of Diaspora, and actually pages 82-88 for a full exegesis of this verse :))

And the verse in question, 1 Peter 2:9, says that the Jews are "A Royal Priesthood", which is actually a quote from Exodus 19:6 (verbatim from the Septuagint translation of the verse). Are all the Yisra'elites priests? Not in the sense that the Leviytes are priests, the only Yisra'elites who are actually to only serve as priests.

However, being a priest and being circumcised aren't ever put together in the Torah. As has been pointed out by previous posters, what's being discussed in Ezekiel 44 isn't the fact that the Leviytes allowed foreigners into the Temple and Sanctuary, but the fact that they had let them take over their, the leviytes only job, completely destroying the picture that Yahuweh was trying to paint. They had surrendered their job to people who weren't supposed to be doing it. They didn't even give it over to fellow Yisra'elites, but went to the "outside".

This is also made clear further on in Ezekiel 44, where Yahuweh actually excludes certain Leviytes from coming near Yahuweh: Ezekiel 44:10, 12-13: But the Levites who went far from me, going astray from me after their idols when Yisra'el went astray, shall bear their punishment ... Because they ministered to them before their idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Yisra'el, therefore I have sworn concerning them, declares the Upright Yahuweh, and they shall bear their punishment. They shall not come near to me, to serve me as priest, nor come near any of my Set-Apart things and the things that are most Set-Apart, but they shall bear their shame and the abominations that they have committed.
I am very grateful that my parents had me circumcised as a baby. But if they had not, I would still do my dead-level best to get circumcised so that I could be in compliance with our Father's wishes.
It's fine for someone who's already been circumcised to say that if they were in the same position with those of us who aren't circumcised, that they'd get circumcised. Whether being circumcised is required or not is not so much a big deal for people in such a position - as you're fine either way. If it's required - Great! Already done. If it's not required - Great! It doesn't matter.

But for what reason were you circumcised by your parents (big point to make here - your parents had you circumcised - you didn't choose to get circumcised yourself)? Do people in America even know why you're the only Western country to have wide-spread circumcision?

It has nothing to do with following Yahuweh's Torah - http://tinyurl.com/yv6msw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For if sin is the transgression of the Torah (and it is exactly that, according to Yahuchanon), then for me to refuse circumcision is to willfully transgress the Torah, which is by definition sin. Because the soul that sins shall die, I would think it obvious what I should do if I would see life.
That depends on how you view the Covenant of Circumcision though. As has been discussed at length in this thread, physical circumcision and having a possession in the physical land of Yisra'el go hand in hand - something only offered to Abraham and his physical descendants who go through Yitschaq and Ya'qob - for the Yisra'elites. Why do you think the Muslims are so rampant with their circumcision as well? Because they claim to be the "True descendants of Abraham" and want to replace the Jews as "God's chosen people" and steal the land of Yisra'el for themselves. It's Replacement Theology at its peak - capitulated in the desire of non-Yisra'elites to become circumcised.
The same holds true for observing the Sabbath and for refraining from doing the things He forbids us to do. It has nothing to do with works-based salvation. It has to do with obedience and fidelity. Would I overlook my wife's adultery just because I don't want her to think she has to earn my love? Nonsense! One has nothing at all to do with the other.
Observing the Sabbath and circumcision really aren't related. Up until 5 years ago, I constantly broke the Sabbath law, and according to Exodus 31:14, I have already been "cut off" for doing so.
And I personally don't care what Paul had to say about anything because I do not believe that he ever met the Master Yahushua. I have only his word on the matter, which I do not accept.
Sorry Richard, but no one has even quoted a single word of Paul's yet in this thread. All that's been quoted is the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

I also posed a question earlier that appears to have been overlooked somewhat:
This also came to my mind today, that those who say "circumcision isn't necessary for salvation, but Gentiles should do it anyway", aren't they, like Paul whom they hate so much, also disagreeing with the Brethren Pharisees who are recorded in Acts 15:1 as saying, But certain men came down from Yahuwdea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moshe, you cannot be saved.”?

Either they these men were right, and it is necessary for salvation, or Paul was correct to combat their false teaching. There's no middle ground on this part of the question: it's either necessary, or it isn't
So, here's the question: is circumcision required for salvation, or not?

I'd really like to get to the bottom of this issue rather than later, as it's certainly important. However, I have yet to see something in Scripture that doesn't equate physical circumcision and being a possessor in the physical land of Yisra'el.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:27 pm

I would like to see some thought going into this to be honest. There seems to be a lot of quotes from scripture being taken out of context to prove a hasty point. This is something I hoped we were past.

The Ezekiel Passage is a prime example - you don't even need to look at the oldest sources to read that and understand what's going on.

There have been a lot of very good points brought up in this thread that I feel need addressing.

Nige
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Nige » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:58 pm

Aside from the 'should you shouldn't you' chat I feel strongly that the intent behind a circumcision must count for more than most give it - as Swalchy mentioned in his reply above.

Abraham followed Yahuweh's instruction that he should circumcise himself, his family etc as a sign of the covenant that Yahuweh was entering into with him. This sign (of being in such a covenant) was to be continued amongst his descendants to show that they were fulfilling their side of the bargain, in the knowledge that obviously Yahweh would obviously fulfill His.

I wonder how I would feel about being circumcised if it was done for ANY reason other than to fulfill my side of the bargain and thus benefit from the covenant.

In fact, I am yet to find a person who was done for the 'right' reason. I know plenty who own up to having a 'non-covenant' circumcision.
Someone posted a reply to me somewhere else that "my dilemma (of being uncircumcised) was an unfortunate consequence of having parents that did not care about Yahweh's instructions"
I think this quote works both ways.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:12 pm

That is a good point there Nige.

Those that have been circumcised, really haven't been done so for the right reasons.

And the bit about our parents doing it is very important in light of Leviticus 12:1-8:

Yahuweh spoke to Moshe, saying, “Speak to the people of Yisra'el, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day she shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything Set-Apart, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days. And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before Yahuweh and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:17 pm

Thing is I can't see my mum doing it do me now, I mean firstly she disagree's with my stance as it is - asking her to snip me would be ridiculous - plus she couldn't even cut my hair right as a kid...

Now people did come into live among and become part of Israel through circumcision - but I don't think that was done by the dudes mothers. Plus we know Joshua making the biggest pile of Hoola Hoops knows to man just outside the Promised Land, I don't think it was the mothers that did it then to.

I am sure at birth though it is important - if we think of the picture as well - Set Apart Spirit, feminine - giving life - circumcising our hearts.

I think getting snipped as an adult has more value than being snipped for medical reasons as a baby - it's actually probably as useful as your parents handing you over to the priest for you to get water dripped on your head. Unless the parents are partaking in the sign of the covenant - then it's just not...

I know one person who has been snipped for the right reason, and he is of Jewish blood.

Just some thoughts I was having...

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Matthew » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:07 am

In regards to Leviticus 12: someone might argue that since there is no temple then circumcision according to the Torah cannot be performed, so trying to not keep Torah in the areas one cannot is technically keeping Torah. I see the logic in this but if our parents did not have us circumcised in honour of Yahweh then we cannot really claim our circumcisions to be "kosher." If our parents, being Trinity believing Christians, circumcised us in honour of Jesus and we reject Christianity (our parents beliefs) then we cannot claim our circumcisions are in honour of Yahweh. To try and say our circumcisions are in honour of Yahweh we would be required to say the beliefs of our parents are in honour of Yahweh too. And who wants to admit that?

Question is: will God accept our circumcision if our circumcision was not done in honour of Him?

We are told circumcision is for physical descendants of Abraham and for those purchased with money by Abraham's physical descendants to work for them. The other option is if a foreigner, on his own accord, wishes to partake of the Passover. However, the Passover cannot literally be performed without a temple present (see Deuteronomy 16:2). So again, there is no need to be circumcised if one cannot partake of it. Again, some might argue that we are bought by the blood, by Yahshua's sacrifice, by the spiritual money transaction of Genesis 17:12-13. That's all good and proper, but if that part is to be taken spiritually then circumcision of a native Israelite must be taken spiritually as well, i.e. of the heart.

To partake of Jewish life, for example offering a burnt offering as prescribed in Leviticus 22:17-33, we can assume one must become native-like, in order words circumcised. But, once agan there is no temple.

The author of Questioning Paul has no doubt mistranslated Acts 15 on purpose. Acts 10:44-48 speaks of uncircumcised Gentiles receiving God's Spirit. When Peter was challenged by Pharisees (claiming to be believers) that Gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved he debunked that claim by referring to what happened in Acts 10. He answered (mind my quick NIV paste): "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” The vision Peter had in Acts 10 confirms that God considers us Gentiles clean if our hearts have been purified.

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:43 am

I am not sure the argument from most people is that circumcision is a salvation issue, just that if we love Yah and want to do as much of Torah as possible then circumcision should be part of our obedience because of our love for Him. Like not eating pork etc.

My POV is that circumcision isn't for ya standard Gentile, but if you want to live in Israel and in that becoming part of Israel, then you can get circumcised - as it does seem to be the signature on the dotted line of the deed for the land, but also makes you a sign barer.

From that I think getting circumcised physically is a very big deal. What you are doing is putting yourself up for huge responsibility, because as soon as you are circumcised for the covenant, physically, you become a physical sign barer and part owner of the land.

walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby walt » Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:18 pm

The author of Questioning Paul has no doubt mistranslated Acts 15 on purpose.
What basis that there is NO DOUBT that he mistranslated ON PURPOSE?
How should it be translated?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:50 pm

http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/translat ... #chapter15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact that CW gives no reason at all to state that "Paul interrupted Peter" (his words are actually "But then, according to the text, Paul stood up and interrupted Peter. We know this because Shim’own wouldn’t consider "trying to trap God." "), other than CW's opinion of what Peter "wouldn't" say. This isn't a reason, and to state it as such is false.

Secondly:

1. Paul isn't mentioned by name at all.
2. The text continues straight on, going from verse 9 to verse 10. No break in meaning or the person speaking. If Peter is the one speaking in verse 8-9, it's also him who is speaking in 10-11.
3. If Luke wanted to let us know that Peter is interrupted by Paul, he knows the way to do so as proved by Acts 26:24:

However (δε), as he [Paul] (αυτου) is speaking in defence (απολογουμενου) of these things (ταυτα), Phestus (ο Φηστος) affirms (φημι) in a great (μεγαλη) voice (τη φωνη), "You are insane (μαινη), Paul (Παυλε)! The (τα) extent (πολλα) of your (σε) education (γραμματα) is twisted (περιτρεπει) into (εις) insanity (μανιαν)!

The whole of Acts 15 is actually Peter agreeing with Paul's stance on circumcising Goyim. This is twisted in QP to make it say the exact opposite.

The same thing is done with 2 Peter 3:14-16.

And I know what Matt said was quite bold, but can we all calm down, and not start using capital letters for the whole of words. On the internet that's pretty much the equivalent of shouting, and I'd really like to keep this place as tranquil and harmonious as possible :)

Thanks to all of you. This is quite the interesting thread, and I wouldn't want to start spoiling it :)
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby walt » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:11 pm

http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/translat ... #chapter15

The fact that CW gives no reason at all to state that "Paul interrupted Peter" (his words are actually "But then, according to the text, Paul stood up and interrupted Peter. We know this because Shim’own wouldn’t consider "trying to trap God." "), other than CW's opinion of what Peter "wouldn't" say. This isn't a reason, and to state it as such is false.

Secondly:

1. Paul isn't mentioned by name at all.
2. The text continues straight on, going from verse 9 to verse 10. No break in meaning or the person speaking. If Peter is the one speaking in verse 8-9, it's also him who is speaking in 10-11.
3. If Luke wanted to let us know that Peter is interrupted by Paul, he knows the way to do so as proved by Acts 26:24:

However (δε), as he [Paul] (αυτου) is speaking in defence (απολογουμενου) of these things (ταυτα), Phestus (ο Φηστος) affirms (φημι) in a great (μεγαλη) voice (τη φωνη), "You are insane (μαινη), Paul (Παυλε)! The (τα) extent (πολλα) of your (σε) education (γραμματα) is twisted (περιτρεπει) into (εις) insanity (μανιαν)!

The whole of Acts 15 is actually Peter agreeing with Paul's stance on circumcising Goyim. This is twisted in QP to make it say the exact opposite.

The same thing is done with 2 Peter 3:14-16.

And I know what Matt said was quite bold, but can we all calm down, and not start using capital letters for the whole of words. On the internet that's pretty much the equivalent of shouting, and I'd really like to keep this place as tranquil and harmonious as possible :)

Thanks to all of you. This is quite the interesting thread, and I wouldn't want to start spoiling it :)
My purpose with the caps is to place emphasis on the certain parts - I guess bold would be the "more virtual correct" method huh.
I'm not about winning arguments - I want to seek and know

My point is it's one thing to say one is wrong in their view - another to say they are purposeful to deceive
People seem to be soo good at judging others hearts & intents
But I will "calm down" and stay quiet at digs - I get the point, it's a one way street

Seems like all sides act the same (with rare exceptions) - void
Last edited by walt on Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Swalchy » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:23 pm

Unfortunately, there's no other words to describe what is done to Acts 15 in QP. It is thoroughly mistranslated and twisted to take another unwavering dig at Paul. There really is no way someone could've come to the conclusion that CW does in Acts 15 if all he was doing was translating the meaning of the words.

And I don't want people to "stay quiet at digs" - question everything that is said; but we don't need to start getting frustrated and angry, and post whilst being in such a mood.

I did this, and got kicked off of YN. I don't want this place to start going down the same road.
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Rob » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:24 pm

Yea text is a bit ambiguous when it's just typed out - to some people it means one thing to others it means something else... it's the reason British humour fails on the interweb lol

Matt's and I think Swalchy's point was that you can't just state something as fact because you claim to have some knowledge that you can't possibly have. I get that wrong enough in normal life with people I know - let alone people we hardly know anything about from 2000 years ago.

EDIT: Just to be clear - this isn't a one way street - it's an every direction super highway. Just because one persons point on a subject are brought to question dosen't mean we disagree with all of their views it just means we are asking questions about the validity of their point - which is what we are supposed to do... isn't it?

The only reason anyone would say that Paul interrupted Peter is because you want to defend what Peter said and incriminate Paul. But the problem is - there is no evidence of anything happening like that. So saying it happened is, well, ridiculous - and it is manipulative taking into consideration that it is posted as fact in a document designed to incriminate. If Peter agree's with Paul then the argument for Paul being the point from which evil flows is mute, so in this case there has to be another reason...

That is an illogical point that is disregarding evidence to promote and agenda. If anyone else had done it - most people and CW would have been on them in a heartbeat, but for some reason people can not see that QP is purely speculation, opinion and conjecture stated as solid evidence.

Maybe it's because people hold CW in high regard, maybe no one is actually checking what he says - maybe everyone is too deep in to this to see it. Who knows.

The fact still remains - Paul didn't interrupt Peter - but CW want's you to believe he did... what do we call that?

Hope you are doing ok Walt! How is your wife? Are you settled after the move?

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:39 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby Matthew » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:54 pm

Walt, your post made me think. It was a low blow of me to accuse Craig Winn of purposefully mistranslating the text. I have stooped to a new low because it is entirely reasonable to think that Craig's intention was good. When he commenced his work on Prophet of Doom and Yada Yahweh his intentions were good, and his work insightful.

So let us say his intention was to provide an accurate translation of the Acts 15 passage. Firstly note: this passage is crucial even if Craig suggests it is a moot point, and I quote his response to me: "So to debate something in Acts, written by someone who was not a disciple, regarding a debate between a Disciple and a false apostle, is a waste of time." You can read his response to me here. His translation of Acts 15 found in chapters 3 and 4 of Questioning Paul lays serious groundwork into his work, therefore it is an important thing for us to consider. His work on Acts pins Peter against Paul, a Peter in favour of "believing" Pharisees and circumcision for salvation; whereas, from our point of view, Peter was in agreement with Paul and his words confirming the account of Acts 10. So it is a serious point to consider. We should also bear in mind that Questioning Paul does not take into consideration Peter's vision and encounter with the Gentiles at Cornelius's house.

On Swalchy's suggestion I consulted a highly respected expert in ancient Greek linguistics by the name of Carl Conrad. He confirmed to me by the use of words that the passage is the same speaker in verses 7 through 11. Craig's "Paul interrupted Peter" is unjustifiable since, as Swalchy said, Acts 26:24 shows a clear example of what the author would do in the event of an interruption.

Craig's argument is that Acts is not Scripture and unreliable, hence the debate being a moot point; but yet he uses it as a means to pin Peter and against Paul when the passages in question really do not suggest it.

Also, in regards to Matthew 5:17-20 we need to consider the whole Sermon on the Mount. It speaks of one's inner attitude and character that please God, and speaks out against outer appearances.
Last edited by Swalchy on Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Just a quick change to lower-case :) - Swalchy

danshelper
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: stuck on circumcision...

Postby danshelper » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:32 am

I think this is a well-written and scripturally accurate article on the subject.

Circumcision
Addresses the issue as to whether fleshly circumcision is part of the Abrahamic Covenants of Promise and required in order to be saved.

http://www.yahweh.org/publications/arti ... cision.pdf


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron