Circumcision

[Der Alte]

Surely you don't place the opinions of JewishEncyclopedia.com over scripture?...

Show me where anything I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia contradicts scripture?

 

[Strong in Him]

I've sort of lost interest in this thread now.
But a question: God may well have said that the covenant between them was forever, and on his part, he would have meant it. But Israel broke the covenant; not just once, continually and repeatedly.
So what happens to a covenant where both parties, initially, say forever, and then one party breaks that promise? What happens to a marriage where both promise to be faithful "till death do us part" and then one of the couple sleeps around/has affairs?
Israel were unable to keep God's covenant. Peter even asked why the Gentiles should have to bear a yoke that even the Jews had not been able to bear - the keeping of the law, Acts of the Apostles 15:10.

Given that the Israelites repeatedly broke their covenant, so that, in time, God made a new covenant with them; why are some Christians trying to subject others to that first, broken, obsolete, Hebrews 8:13, covenant?

 

[ClementofA]

[10]Ecc 3:14
(14) I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: [ עולם] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “nothing can be added or taken away from it [God’s acts.]” “age(s),“ a finite period, does not equate to “nothing can be added or taken away from God acts,” “eternal” does.

So according to you one of "God's acts" was parting the Red Sea & that means the act lasted "for ever", eh?

The next verse states:

Eccl.3:15a That which is, it already was, And what is to come already has been...

And you think we should take everything this author says as the "gospel truth"?

"Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error":

"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture...This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people,..."

Message: Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error (Ecclesiastes)

Eccl.3:14 I know that all the One, Elohim, is doing, It shall be for the eon; Onto it there can be nothing to add, And from it there can be nothing to subtract; The One, Elohim, He does it that they may fear before Him. (CLV)

Nothing here states that each individual act of God lasts forever. Rather the idea seems to be that they are all perfect.

[11]Isa 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “shall not be abolished”, “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be abolished,” “eternal” does.

So if an airline pilot announces "We will be landing in New York City, folks, and we will be entering the USA shortly", according to you NYC = USA, eh? Just because NYC & USA are paired together they must be equal, eh?

A more literal translation gives a different perspective:

Young's Literal Translation
Isa.51:6 Lift ye up to the heavens your eyes, And look attentively unto the earth beneath, For the heavens as smoke have vanished, And the earth as a garment weareth out, And its inhabitants as gnats do die, And My salvation is to the age, And My righteousness is not broken.

Of course "age", from the Hebrew OLAM, need not be "eternal" there. The reference could be to a future age such as the millennium or new earth/lake of fire ages before Love Omnipotent becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28).

[12]Isa 51:8
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my salvation from generation to generation.

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “generation to generation,”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “generation to generation,” “eternal” does.

The assumption there is that if two things are paired together they are the same. Does that apply to a paired couple of the opposite sex? Are they both the same, both females? No.

Another unwarranted assumption there is that "generation to generation" means "eternal".

Some translations render it "generation of generations", such as:

Isa.51:7 Hearken to Me, knowers of righteousness, My people with My law in their heart. You must not fear the reproach of a mortal, and by their taunts you must not be dismayed." 8 For, as if a garment, eating them is the moth, and, as if wool, eating them is the roach. Yet My righteousness for the eon shall come, and My salvation for the generation of generations. (CLV)

[13]Dan 4:34
(34) And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, [ עולם] whose dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:

In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “from generation to generation,”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “from generation to generation,” “eternal” does.

The assumption there is that if two things are paired together they are the same. Does that apply to a paired couple of the opposite sex? Are they both the same, both females? No.

Another unwarranted assumption there is that "from generation to generation" means "eternal".

Dan.4:34 And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to the heavens, and my knowledge is returning to me. Then I blessed the Supreme, and I lauded and honored Him Who is living for the eon, seeing that His jurisdiction is an eonian jurisdiction, and His kingdom is with generation after generation. (CLV)

Those are King Nebs words, not the words of God. If King Neb wanted to speak of God's life or kingdom having no end he could have used the words "no end", as in Luke 1:33, that are applied to the kingdom. Likewise with His living or His jurisdiction. In Daniel 4:34 he merely states that God "is living for the eon" which is unlike men who do not live for such a long period & die relatively quickly. Likewise kings such as Neb have a jurisdiction that ends relatively quickly compared to God's which is "eonian". Ultimately, however, when God becomes "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) there will be no need for rulers, for all will love God from their hearts:

God as "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28) has nothing to do with authority, but God "in" every being who ever lived. "To say that "all in all" signifies "the manifestation of God's supremacy"...is very far indeed from the truth...When we say "Christ is my all," what do we mean? That He is our Lord? Yes, and our Saviour and Friend and our Lover, our Wisdom and our Righteousness, and our Holiness--He is everything to us!...And that is just what God wishes to be and what He will be!...Will He be this only in some? No! He will be All in all!...we have said that when the last enemy [death] is abolished, then the Son abdicates and God becomes All in all. If there were still enmity we might imagine God being over all, but with all enmity gone, it is easy to see how He can become All in all...The "kingdom" is given up to the Father, after all sovereignty and authority and power have been abrogated. What kind of a "supremacy" will God "fully manifest" which has no power, no authority, no sovereignty? Thank God, all these elements, which characterized government during the eons, will be utterly unnecessary when the Son of God is finished with His "mediatorial" work. Instead of God's supremacy being fully manifested at that time, it will be entirely absent, and God, as Father, will guide His family by the sweet constraint of love."

[14]Dan 4:3
(3) How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal [ עולם] kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation.


In this vs. “olam” is paired with “from generation to generation,”age(s),” does not equate to “from generation to generation,” “eternal” does.

The previous comments on Daniel 4:34 apply here as well. A more literal version says:

Dan.4:3 His signs how immense, and His amazing deeds how mighty! His kingdom is an eonian kingdom, and His jurisdiction is with generation after generation. (CLV)

[15]Dan 7:14
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will not pass away” and “never be destroyed,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not pass away, never be destroyed”, “eternal” does.

Again the issue is related to translation. Compare:

Dan.7:14 to Him is granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, and all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction, as an eonian jurisdiction, will not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined.

1 Cor.15:24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power." 25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy is being abolished: death. 27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.

 

[ClementofA]

[16]Jer 23:40
(40) I will bring on you everlasting disgrace [ עולם] —everlasting shame [ עולם] that will not be forgotten."

In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “will not be forgotten,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,””eternal” does.

Isaiah 54:4 LXX refers to aionion shame that is finite:

4 You should not fear that you were disgraced, nor should you feel ashamed that you were berated. For shame everlasting(aionios) you shall forget; and the scorn of your widowhood in no way shall you remember any longer (Apostolic Bible Polygot, LXX)

The same phrase, and Greek words, for "shame everlasting"(aionios) in Isa.54:4 occur again at Dan.12:2 LXX, which i have higlighted within the brackets:

Dan.12:2 καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι ἐξεγερθήσονται οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς [αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον]

Isa.54:4 μὴ φοβοῦ ὅτι κατῃσχύνθης μηδὲ ἐντραπῇς ὅτι ὠνειδίσθης ὅτι [αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον] ἐπιλήσῃ καὶ ὄνειδος τῆς χηρείας σου οὐ μὴ μνησθήσῃ

Kata Biblon Wiki Lexicon - αἰσχύνη - shame/disgrace/dishonor (n.)

Strong's Greek: 152. αἰσχύνη (aischuné) -- shame

In Isa.54:4 aionios/eonian is finite: "For shame everlasting[eonian] you shall forget"

In that light we might consider that the exact same phrase from the LXX scholars, "shame everlasting [eonian]" in Dan.12:2, may also be finite.

Dozens of examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek:

Two Questions

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

Jesus didn't use such words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment.

100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind
100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind

[16]Jer 23:40
(40) I will bring on you everlasting disgrace [ עולם] —everlasting shame [ עולם] that will not be forgotten."

In this vs. “olam,” twice, is paired with “will not be forgotten,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,””eternal” does.

Further re that verse:

There is no "will not be forgotten" in any of these more literal translations of Jer.23:40:

39 Therefore, lo, I--I have taken you utterly away, And I have sent you out, And the city that I gave to you, And to your fathers, from before My face,
40 And I have put on you reproach eonian, And shame eonian that is not forgotten!" (CLV)

39 Therefore, lo, I—I have taken you utterly away, And I have sent you out, And the city that I gave to you, And to your fathers, from before My face,
40 And I have put on you reproach age-during, And shame age-during that is not forgotten! (YLT)

Even John Gill suggests olam in Jer.23:40 may be finite:

"contempt, and that for ever, or at least a long time, even for a series of ages; which has been their case ever since their destruction by the Romans, and still is;
for this cannot be restrained to the short captivity of seventy years in Babylon; though this reproach began then, and they never recovered their former honour and glory;"
[Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible]

Furthermore:

"No one can doubt that this passage speaks of the Jews, and predicts a punishment which God was to inflict upon them as a nation....not to be cast into hell or endless misery, but to be cast out of Judea, and from God's worship and service, and dispersed among the heathen or gentile nations."

"....and to this day the ruins of Jerusalem, and the dispersed Jews afford evidence of its truth...as their fathers were, when God cast them out from His presence in their
seventy years' captivity in Babylon" and the destruction of the temple & Jerusalem in 70 AD. [p.163-164 @ The Universalist Preacher, Volumes 1-2]

The Universalist Preacher.

156ff at An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Import of the Words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus ...
By Walter Balfour

An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Import of the Words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna

Jeremiah 24:9
I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places where I shall drive them.

Jer 23:40 Cross References (9 Verses)
http://stjohnstmarymagdalene.org/rf/bible/refverse/JER:23:40/2
Reproach (124 Occurrences)

And yet Israel shall be saved:

Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.

Rom.11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Isa.45:21Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall mencome; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

[17]Jer 50:5
(5) They will ask the way to Zion and turn their faces toward it. They will come and bind themselves to the LORD in an everlasting [ עולם] covenant that will not be forgotten.

In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will not be forgotten,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not be forgotten,” ”eternal” does.

Jer.50:5 [To] Zion they ask the way, Thitherward [are] their faces:Come in, and we are joined unto Yahweh, A covenant eonian--not forgotten. (CLV)

There's no "will not be" in that more literal version. So it can be taken in the present tense which makes invalid the Der Alte argument.

Moreover, it does not necessarily follow logically that if something "will not be forgotten" that the thing itself is "eternal". A memorable trip that "will not be forgotten" does not mean the trip itself was "eternal". So Der Alte employed faullty reasoning there. Again the argument is invalidated.

[18]Hab 1:12
(12) LORD, are you not from everlasting? [ עולם] My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.
In this vs. “olam” is paired with “will never die,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will never die,” ”eternal” does.

This verse is speaking about Love Omnipotent in the past tense. The Hebrew word, OLAM, is equivalent to the Greek AION/IOS of the New Testament (NT). In the NT it speaks of "before times aionios" (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim.1:9). That proves that those "times aionios"(=olam) had a beginning. Therefore it is impossible for olam in Hab.1:12 to mean "everlasting" as in the above misleading Bible version posted by Der Alte.


Hab.1:12 Are You not from aforetime, Yahweh? My Eloah, my Holy One, You shalt not die. Yahweh, for judgment do You place him, and, O Rock, for correction, You do found him (CLV)

NET Bible
LORD, you have been active from ancient times; my sovereign God, you are immortal. LORD, you have made them your instrument of judgment. Protector, you have appointed them as your instrument of punishment.

 

[Der Alte]

...

So according to you one of "God's acts" was parting the Red Sea & that means the act lasted "for ever", eh?
The next verse states:

A brave but futile attempt. It does not say that every act of God is eternal. Can any man ever take away from or add anything to God's acts? If not I was right. Next verse is irrelevant.

And you think we should take everything this author says as the "gospel truth"?

There is an old maxim about interpretation. "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense."

"Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error":
"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture...This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people,..."
Eccl.3:14 I know that all the One, Elohim, is doing, It shall be for the eon; Onto it there can be nothing to add, And from it there can be nothing to subtract; The One, Elohim, He does it that they may fear before Him. (CLV)
Nothing here states that each individual act of God lasts forever. Rather the idea seems to be that they are all perfect.

You are partly right. I did not say or imply that every act of God was eternal. No man can ever add to or subtract anything from any act of God.

So if an airline pilot announces "We will be landing in New York City, folks, and we will be entering the USA shortly", according to you NYC = USA, eh? Just because NYC & USA are paired together they must be equal, eh?

Is this supposed to make any sense? What does an airline pilot or any other ridiculous example you care to provide from this life have to do with what God has spoken in the Bible? Let's look at one of my examples.

Isaiah 51:8
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my salvation from generation to generation​

I did not refer to random words in a sentence. I referred to words which in some way described the subject. Do you understand the difference between a random word that occurs in a sentence and words like "generation to generation" which refer to God's righteousness and salvation? Let me know when all the generations of Israel cease to exist.

A more literal translation gives a different perspective:

You can take all your biased so-called "literal versions" and throw them in the trash. If you want to talk literal to me use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the O.T. and the Eastern Orthodox Greek N.T. both available online. Both versions were translated by native speakers of Hebrew and Greek. Anything else is biased nonsense.
I don't have the time or inclination to read through and refute all the other vain attempts to refute my post.

 

[Der Alte]

...

Isaiah 54:4 LXX refers to aionion shame that is finite:
4 You should not fear that you were disgraced, nor should you feel ashamed that you were berated. For shame everlasting(aionios) you shall forget; and the scorn of your widowhood in no way shall you remember any longer (Apostolic Bible Polygot, LXX)
The same phrase, and Greek words, for "shame everlasting"(aionios) in Isa.54:4 occur again at Dan.12:2 LXX, which i have higlighted within the brackets:

JPS Isaiah 54:4
4 Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed. Neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and the reproach of thy widowhood shalt thou remember no more.​

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

I do not know anyone who is endowed with infinite knowledge with the ability to determine which words Jesus should or should not have used in any given situation.

 

[ClementofA]

A brave but futile attempt. It does not say that every act of God is eternal.

Your version said: "whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever". That looks like every individual act.

There is an old maxim about interpretation. "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to seek any other sense."

How does Eccl. 3:14 or 3:15 make any sense. Period. Please explain them, if you can make - any - sense out of them.

Eccl.3:15a That which is, it already was, And what is to come already has been...

And you think we should take everything this author says as the "gospel truth"?

"Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error":

"The book of Ecclesiastes, or "the Preacher," is unique in scripture...This book is filled with error. And yet it is wholly inspired. This may confuse some people,..."

Message: Ecclesiastes: The Inspired Book of Error (Ecclesiastes)

Isaiah 51:8
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my salvation from generation to generation
​

I did not refer to random words in a sentence. I referred to words which in some way described the subject. Do you understand the difference between a random word that occurs in a sentence and words like "generation to generation" which refer to God's righteousness and salvation? Let me know when all the generations of Israel cease to exist.

The assumption there is that if two things are paired together they are the same. Does that apply to a paired couple of the opposite sex? Are they both the same, both females? No.

Another unwarranted assumption there is that "generation to generation" means "eternal".

Some translations render it "generation of generations", such as:

Isa.51:7 Hearken to Me, knowers of righteousness, My people with My law in their heart. You must not fear the reproach of a mortal, and by their taunts you must not be dismayed." 8 For, as if a garment, eating them is the moth, and, as if wool, eating them is the roach. Yet My righteousness for the eon shall come, and My salvation for the generation of generations. (CLV)

The contrast there is between a "mortal" (v.7) who dies relatively quickly & God's righteousness "for the eon" which has not arrived yet, but which "shall come". The brief life of a "mortal" is set against the much longer period of an "eon".

What "eon" is it that "shall come" with "righteousness" in it? The millenial 1000 year eon? The eon in the new earth with the lake of fire with a consummation in God becoming "all in all" (1 Cor.15:28)?

You can take all your biased so-called "literal versions" and throw them in the trash. If you want to talk literal to me use the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the O.T. and the Eastern Orthodox Greek N.T. both available online. Both versions were translated by native speakers of Hebrew and Greek. Anything else is biased nonsense.

"Anything else is biased nonsense". So your beloved NIV & NET versions too.

Could most modern translations be in error?

 

[Thera]

That only means that 9 people voted "to keep the law".
How many have viewed the thread?
How many didn't want to vote, or felt they couldn't vote on the limited options given?

And how many who did vote did so on a loose interpretation of the question? At least one (me).
"Why must we be circumcised?" became "Why might males be circumcised?"

Circumcision was a requirement for males in the OT law, so to my thinking "To keep the law" was the least incorrect answer, although, ultimately, no one except Jesus could keep the entirety of the law. Circumcision was probably the easiest law to keep, as it was done once, and (usually) by someone else.

As the OP didn't want to allow other voting options, I created my own poll with more options.
Is circumcision always a good thing, or can it be a sin?

So far, for the statement "It is acceptable for Christians to circumcise their males", the only two options out of nine without any votes are "for salvation (ours and/or theirs)" and "to give them a chance at keeping the law". Lol. It shows what Christians really think.

 

[Strong in Him]

And how many who did vote did so on a loose interpretation of the question? At least one (me).

I didn't vote, because the question is why MUST we be circumcised, and there are only 2 options allowed. "We don't have to be circumcised", or "I don't know" aren't options.

Circumcision was a requirement for males in the OT law, so to my thinking "To keep the law"

I'm not sure Jewish men are even circumcised to keep the law. Wasn't circumcision given as the sign of the covenant between Abraham, and his descendants and God, Genesis 17:1-14? Yes, God told them to do it - it was a reminder to them that he had made a covenant with Abram, and them. But the law, as such, had not come into effect then.

As the OP didn't want to allow other voting options, I created my own poll with more options.
Is circumcision always a good thing, or can it be a sin?

I'll have a look at that.

So far, for the statement "It is acceptable for Christians to circumcise their males", the only two options out of nine without any votes are "for salvation (ours and/or theirs)" and "to give them a chance at keeping the law". Lol. It shows what Christians really think.

As there have been over 280 replies in this thread, nearly 3000 people have viewed it and only 9 have voted, I guess so.

 

[Thera]

I didn't vote, because the question is why MUST we be circumcised, and there are only 2 options allowed. "We don't have to be circumcised", or "I don't know" aren't options.

Yeah, I agree. I probably should have been more careful before voting, and I can only change my vote now, not take it back.

I'm not sure Jewish men are even circumcised to keep the law. Wasn't circumcision given as the sign of the covenant between Abraham, and his descendants and God, Genesis 17:1-14? Yes, God told them to do it - it was a reminder to them that he had made a covenant with Abram, and them. But the law, as such, had not come into effect then.

While I think this is right, the penalty for uncircumcision was still death. God nearly killed Moses in Exodus 4 for not circumcising his son, but Zipporah saved him. I think circumcision was still a law later on. In Exodus, circumcision is required to celebrate Passover (which is required), and Leviticus 12 or 13 commands parents that male children be circumcised. But until then, I think it was only a covenant, rather than part of the Law.

I'll have a look at that.

As there have been over 280 replies in this thread, nearly 3000 people have viewed it and only 9 have voted, I guess so.

I think the answer to this thread was determined more than 2000 years ago. But I guess old habits die hard...

 

[ClementofA]

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

How Scripture expresses endless duration (not aion/ios) (paradise, hell, punishment) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

I do not know anyone who is endowed with infinite knowledge with the ability to determine which words Jesus should or should not have used in any given situation.

Irrelevant. Usage determines meaning. Aionios is often proven to be finite by many examples. Seldom, if ever, in Koine Greek does it indicate endlessness. Therefore it is a poor choice of a word if Jesus intended to use it to express endless punishment. He had multiple other clear & unambiguous words & expressions He could have used if it was His intention to warn about a future endless punishment.

If Jesus wished to express endless punishment, then He would have used expressions such as "endless", "no end" & "never be saved" as per:

How Scripture expresses endless duration (not aion/ios) (paradise, hell, punishment) - Christianity - - City-Data Forum

Jesus didn't use the best words & expressions to describe endlessness in regards to punishment, because He didn't believe in endless punishment.

ENDLESSNESS not applied to eschatological PUNISHMENT in Scripture:

could an 'eternal punishment' simply mean that once instituted it will not change?

Nonsense! Unless you have a graduate degree in Greek you are not qualified to even speculate which word would or would not have been better in any situation.

No, usage determines meaning. Aionios is often proven to be finite by many examples. Seldom, if ever, in Koine Greek does it indicate endlessness. Therefore it is a poor choice of a word if Jesus intended to use it to express endless punishment. He had multiple other clear & unambiguous words & expressions He could have used if it was His intention to warn about a future endless punishment.

Furthermore, we see here how your own quotes support that:

● ④οὐ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. μή, οὐ μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (Kühner-G. II 221–23; Schwyzer II 317; Mlt. 187–92 [a thorough treatment of NT usage]; B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7; Just., D. 141, 2). οὐ μή is the most decisive way of negativing something in the future.[1]
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000)A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature.(3rd Ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

If it's the "most decisive way of negating something in the future", why didn't God use it to say something like "unbelievers will never (ou me) be saved? You shot your own doctrine in the foot with that one.

● The combinations with οὐ μή also be noticed as, ουδεν οὐ μή (Lu. 10:19); οὐ μή se σε άνο ουδ ου σε εγκαταιπο (Heb. 13:5); ουκετι οὐ μή (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn "I'll never, no never, no never forsake."
Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research
By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., Ll.D., Litt.D. p.1165.

Powerful negatives never used of the damnation of the lost.

I rest my case.


Savior of the World, or Eternal Failure?

 

[Strong in Him]

Yeah, I agree. I probably should have been more careful before voting, and I can only change my vote now, not take it back.

That's a shame. But I wouldn't worry; the numbers who have voted in the poll compared with those who have viewed, or commented in, the thread, should tell the OP something - wherever he's gone.

While I think this is right, the penalty for uncircumcision was still death. God nearly killed Moses in Exodus 4 for not circumcising his son, but Zipporah saved him. I think circumcision was still a law later on.

That's true.
Thank you.

 

[Jan001]

The Jerusalem Council

There are two sides to this debate. I want to say right out of the gate, that you can't come back, 2000 years later, and add a third side to this debate.

The first group are non believers. they follow the traditions of men, the Talmud. They don't even keep the Torah.

(CLV) Ac 15:1
And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren that, "If you should not be circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can not be saved."

Their argument is that you cannot be saved unless you show the outward sign. This is not what Torah teaches. Was Abraham saved before or after he showed the sign?

Abraham wasn't circumcised until he was 99.

(CLV) Gn 17:24
Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.


Are disciples of Yahshua saved before or after Baptism?

Here is the other side of the Argument. These men are believers:


(CLV) Ac 15:5
Yet some from the sect of the Pharisees who have believed rise up, saying that they must be circumcised, besides charging them to keep the law of Moses.

This group argues that you must be circumcised to keep the law.

These are the only two arguments that are being made.

One is that you must be circumcised to keep the law of Moses. This is the law that Yahshua preached throughout his ministry unto death; as he called us to follow his example.

The other is that you must be circumcised to be saved. These are the only two sides to this debate.

You can't come in 2000 years later and add your own argument.

Here is the ruling:

(CLV) Ac 15:20
but to write an epistle to them to be abstaining from ceremonial pollution with idols, and prostitution, and what is strangled, and blood.

This is of the bare minimum that newcomers must respect to even share table fellowship with believers.

Why? (and this part seems to be ignored by those who have contempt for the law that Yahshua preached throughout is ministry unto death):

(CLV) Ac 15:21
For (because) Moses, from ancient generations, city by city, has those who are heralding him, being read on every sabbath in the synagogues."


Now shortly after Paul left this meeting; he circumcised Timothy himself.

(CLV) 1Co 11:1
Become imitators of me, according as I also am of Christ.

Messiah followed the Torah, not the Talmud.

Genesis 17 (CLV)

9 And saying is the Elohim to Abraham, "And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed after you for their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and you and your seed after you for their generations: Circumcise to yourselves every male. 11 And circumcised shall you be in the flesh of your foreskin. And it comes to be for a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 And a son of eight days shall be circumcised by you, every male of your generations, homeborn or acquired with money from any foreigner, he who is not of your seed. 13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian (FOREVER)

A covenant lasts until it is fulfilled.

A marriage covenant lasts until the death of one of the spouses. The death of one of the spouses fulfills/finishes/completes the marriage covenant between the two spouses. The remaining spouse is then free to make a new marriage covenant with a new spouse.

The Law of Moses Covenant was fulfilled/finished/completed by the bloody sacrificial death on the cross of the Israelite/Jew Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:13-21
But now in Christ Jesus you (Gentiles) who once were far off have been brought near (to the Jews) in the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our (Jew and Gentile) peace, who has made us (Jew and Gentile) both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility**, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law (of Moses) of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man (all the people of the household of God united by their Christian faith) in place of the two (Jew and Gentile), so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

**The "dividing wall of hostility" is a metaphor taken from the wall that divided the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites in the temple in Jerusalem.


The Abrahamic circumcision covenant was fulfilled/finished/completed by the perfect bloody sacrificial death on the cross of his biological descendant Jesus Christ. Please see Galatians 3.

Under Jesus Christ's new covenant which unites all of Abraham's children of faith from all the nations of the world into one people of God, faith and baptism are what is necessary to be saved and to continue to be saved. There is no division or separation between Israelite/Jew and Greek/Gentile under Jesus Christ's new covenant. All who are baptized into Christ are now the people/household of God.

1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Romans 3:21-23
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.

After an uncircumcised man becomes a Christian, a Jewish Ritual Circumcision will separate this Christian man from God's grace and if he does not repent of his sin before he dies, he will not inherit eternal life.

Galatians 5:3-5
I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law (of Moses). 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.

Hebrews 10:29-31
How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What happens to men who choose to be circumcised according to Jewish Ritual Circumcision after they were already baptized into Christianity? These evil men can look forward to God's justice.

 

[DamianWarS]

Wrong.

There were no Jews nor Jewish nation in the days of Abraham.

Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?

 

[Hawkins]

From the perspective of a Jewish covenant, circumcision is for a male to be identified as being covered by the covenant. A convert also needs to be circumcised in order to be a convert under a Jewish covenant.

Lawfully when Jesus declared that Law and Prophets are proclaimed up to the point of John the Baptist, it simultaneously means no more convert will be accepted (circumcised or not). However the Jews by bloodline can still be considered as a valid candidate of a Jewish covenant if he's circumcised. That's why Paul asked Timothy to circumcise (if I recall correctly), because Timothy's mother is a Jew.

 

[Thera]

Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?

He is, but that's clearly a heresy.

There might be a number of good reasons for circumcision, but to obey Christ is not one of them (and can be eternally dangerous).

 

[DamianWarS]

He is, but that's clearly a heresy.

There might be a number of good reasons for circumcision, but to obey Christ is not one of them (and can be eternally dangerous).

I'm pressing him on this issue, and I have a number of times; he has yet to respond. His last response to me regarding circumcision is he said he didn't want to talk about it and directed me to this thread. Since the NT is abundantly clear regarding circumcision yet it is also referred to as an "everlasting covenant" that needs to be performed in the flesh from Gen 17 there is a collision of worlds that cannot be reconciled while maintaining the old covenant law. From what I can infer Hark! is ignoring it because he can't reconcile the two so it's best not talked about.

 

[HARK!]

Are you saying if you are a male follower of Christ you require physical circumcision to obey Christ?

How did you surmise that?

Are you attempting to present a strawman argument?

 

[HARK!]

He is

You wouldn't bear false witness against a brother; would you?

 

[HARK!]

I'm pressing him on this issue

No. You're presenting a strawman argument.

His last response to me regarding circumcision is he said he didn't want to talk about it and directed me to this thread.

That's because you were off topic, and derailing my thread.

Since the NT is abundantly clear regarding circumcision yet it is also referred to as an "everlasting covenant"

The NT is abundantly clear regarding circumcision AND it is also referred to as an "everlasting covenant"

that needs to be performed in the flesh from Gen 17 there is a collision of worlds that cannot be reconciled while maintaining the old covenant law. From what I can infer Hark! is ignoring it because he can't reconcile the two so it's best not talked about.

That law is given to those who are born into Israel. Was that law given to Pagans who have come to belief?

Such as Baptism, belief precedes the outward sign. Abraham was 99 years old before he showed the outward sign of his belief.