Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Everlasting Covenant: Circumcision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    No.

    Right. You stated that the covenant of circumcision is literally eternal (in the Greek sense).
    No, I am much more comfortable applying a fuller Hebrew sense. Without going into a detailed exegesis of the relevant texts of Genesis, I would just say that it is an all encompassing covenant, not merely eternal in a temporal sense, but all consuming of Abraham's faith, requiring him to step out in faith, following God, literally not knowing ahead of time where he is going or what it will cost, being called upon, he thought, even to sacrifice his own son. (In the New Testament, we learn that it was just as all encompassing for God, who did indeed sacrifice his own son.) Such an all encompassing covenant of complete faithfulness and trust should not be interpreted in a merely temporal, atemporal, or legalistic fashion. It is much more profound than that, and, hence, remains to this day a potent symbolic metaphor that Paul and James and other New Testament writers can appeal to as a model for our own Christian faith in the New Covenant of Jesus.

    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    I am referring to Paul, but I use the term "Apostle's" because I view their teaching as one and the same.
    Perhaps we could find a grammatically correct way of expressing your intended meaning. Not that it is so important to be grammatically correct, but it may be possible to clarify your intended meaning.

    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    Yes. You stated: "Even at the time of Abraham, circumcision was a 'sign' of the covenant (א֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית), just as the rainbow was a 'sign' of the eternal covenant made with Noah. I do not believe these eternal covenants were ever rendered invalid."
    I am curious how you can believe that under the auspices of the new covenant, circumcision is no longer a requirement even for Jews, yet simultaneously believe that the command by God to circumcise Jewish males throughout their generations is an everlasting command. Paul stated that circumcision was "nothing" (1Cor. 7:19). Did Paul nullify a command that God intended to be literally everlasting, in your view?
    There is an interesting 'thought experiment' debated by Pauline exegetes as to whether or not Paul would have circumcized his own son(s), if he ever had any. Thoughtful and competent exegetes have come down on both sides of this question, hence I do not think we know the answer with certainty. Thus, I would not say definitively that circumcision is no longer a requirement even for Jews. I think there's room for disagreement here among Jewish Christians. Paul himself also says that circumcision has value. I think we can only say with certainty what Paul's attitude was with respect to circumcision for Gentile Christians. Personally, I am pretty sure where he would come down in a discussion of circumcision with Jewish Christians, but better exegetes than me disagree. If I am right, I would make it a matter of discussion of commandments, the value of the sign in various contexts, and not a discussion of whether or not the eternal covenant and promises of God to Abraham have been invalidated. In Jewish contexts, there is ample room for vigorous discussion, debate, and diametrically opposing opinions of halakhic matters without questioning the faithfulness of God to his covenant and promises. See, for examlpe, the disagreement between the schools of Shammai and Hillel regarding divorce, which in my opinion is a much more important moral matter than a ceremonial and social sign such as circumcision. A few Jewish sources say that Moses himself, as well as others, were born circumcised. Thus did God (or Moses' parents) violate God's own eternal covenant with Abraham?

    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    Right. So either way, under the new covenant, circumcision is not a command of obedience for Jews or Gentiles. Yet you believe the covenant of circumcision is an everlasting requirement and command for Jews?
    Again, I do not elevate differing opinions about the value of the sign of circumcision in various Jewish contexts to the level of whether or not God is faithful to his eternal covenant or promises.

    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    Yup. I agree.
    Are you sure you agree?
    Last edited by robrecht; 01-14-2017, 05:37 PM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      No, I am much more comfortable applying a fuller Hebrew sense.
      Or you could analyze the term olam and how it is used for items that are clearly not eternal in the sense of forever and ever, as per the article linked to by Celebrian.

      Without going into a detailed exegesis of the relevant texts of Genesis, I would just say that it is an all encompassing covenant, not merely eternal in a temporal sense, but all consuming of Abraham's faith, requiring him to step out in faith, following God, literally not knowing ahead of time where he is going or what it will cost, being called upon, he thought, even to sacrifice his own son. (In the New Testament, we learn that it was just as all encompassing for God, who did indeed sacrifice his own son.) Such an all encompassing covenant of complete faithfulness and trust should not be interpreted in a merely temporal, atemporal, or legalistic fashion. It is much more profound than that, and, hence, remains to this day a potent symbolic metaphor that Paul and James and other New Testament writers can appeal to as a model for our own Christian faith in the New Covenant of Jesus.
      The faith of Abraham, apart from any works whatsoever, including circumcision, is what Paul points to when he commends Abraham. Indeed, Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.."(Rom. 4:11). The advantages that Jews had are rendered impotent in the face of sin, much like the physical act of circumcision, which is why Paul can refer to such an act as "nothing".

      Perhaps we could find a grammatically correct way of expressing your intended meaning. Not that it is so important to be grammatically correct, but it may be possible to clarify your intended meaning.
      Ha-ha.

      There is an interesting 'thought experiment' debated by Pauline exegetes as to whether or not Paul would have circumcized his own son(s), if he ever had any. Thoughtful and competent exegetes have come down on both sides of this question, hence I do not think we know the answer with certainty. Thus, I would not say definitively that circumcision is no longer a requirement even for Jews. I think there's room for disagreement here among Jewish Christians
      The fact that Paul makes a radical proclamation that circumcision is "nothing" cannot be swept aside. How can an apostle make such a pronouncement if you view the conventional obligation of circumcision as an everlasting commandment?

      Paul himself also says that circumcision has value.
      I briefly dealt with this above.

      I think we can only say with certainty what Paul's attitude was with respect to circumcision for Gentile Christians. Personally, I am pretty sure where he would come down in a discussion of circumcision with Jewish Christians, but better exegetes than me disagree. If I am right, I would make it a matter of discussion of commandments, the value of the sign in various contexts, and not a discussion of whether or not the eternal covenant and promises of God to Abraham have been invalidated. In Jewish contexts, there is ample room for vigorous discussion, debate, and diametrically opposing opinions of halakhic matters without questioning the faithfulness of God to his covenant and promises. See, for examlpe, the disagreement between the schools of Shammai and Hillel regarding divorce, which in my opinion is a much more important moral matter than a ceremonial and social sign such as circumcision. A few Jewish sources say that Moses himself, as well as others, were born circumcised. Thus did God (or Moses' parents) violate God's own eternal covenant with Abraham?
      I am still interested as to why you interpret olam as you do. It seems you can avoid a lot of mental gymnastics if you view olam as something less than eternal, in a Greek sense.

      Again, I do not elevate differing opinions about the value of the sign of circumcision in various Jewish contexts to the level of whether or not God is faithful to his eternal covenant or promises.
      Well, you still have the issue of God commanding circumcision for Jewish males throughout their generations as a fixed (due to your definition of 'olam'), everlasting command and then have Paul stating that circumcision is "nothing" - for Jew and Gentile.

      Comment


      • #33
        Circumcision is nothing for those in Christ. For those still under the Law, it's still everlasting. Jesus didn't abolish the Law when he fulfilled it. It's still kicking. Those who have not accepted Christ will still be judged by the Law. Christ is the shortcut, since only he was able to fulfill it perfectly.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          Or you could analyze the term olam and how it is used for items that are clearly not eternal in the sense of forever and ever, as per the article linked to by Celebrian.
          I can only get to one post at a time, but in the meantime I much prefer the scriptures themselves over Internet articles. Nonetheless, I just took a quick look at Celebrian's link, and it does not seem to address the interpretation of Gen 17 in its original context or by Paul or other New Testament authors. Do you think I have misunderstood Genesis 17 or Paul or other New Testament authors? If so, how exactly?

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          The faith of Abraham, apart from any works whatsoever, including circumcision, is what Paul points to when he commends Abraham. Indeed, Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.."(Rom. 4:11). The advantages that Jews had are rendered impotent in the face of sin, much like the physical act of circumcision, which is why Paul can refer to such an act as "nothing".
          But James certainly does point to Abraham's works so be careful how you understand the faithfulness of Abraham as interpreted by Paul. You may also be misunderstanding Paul's view of circumcision and, as I suspected, agreeing with me too quickly when I pointed out to you that Paul also clearly sees a value to circumcision.

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          Ha-ha.
          Ha ha ha.

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          The fact that Paul makes a radical proclamation that circumcision is "nothing" cannot be swept aside. How can an apostle make such a pronouncement if you view the conventional obligation of circumcision as an everlasting commandment?
          I have not swept it aside. You should also read such a statement in context and also try to understand what Paul means when he speaks of the value of circumcision.

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          I briefly dealt with this above.
          Not sufficiently well, in my humble opinion. All you said is that "the advantages that Jews had are rendered impotent in the face of sin, much like the physical act of circumcision, which is why Paul can refer to such an act as 'nothing'." I do not think this sufficiently explains the value of circumcision in Paul's eyes or those of other Jewish Christians, nor the lack of importance it has for Gentile Christians, nor as a potential source of division between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          I am still interested as to why you interpret olam as you do. It seems you can avoid a lot of mental gymnastics if you view olam as something less than eternal, in a Greek sense.
          No mental gymnastics at all. Just trying to understand its most basic sense in its Hebrew context (it is a Hebrew word, right?), and as it was understood by Paul and other New Testament authors.

          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          Well, you still have the issue of God commanding circumcision for Jewish males throughout their generations as a fixed (due to your definition of 'olam'), everlasting command and then have Paul stating that circumcision is "nothing" - for Jew and Gentile.
          It seems you have not understood what I said. I do interpret the covenant as eternal and more than that, as requiring a commitment of one's entire self, but not necessarily the commandment. Read my post again.
          Last edited by robrecht; 01-14-2017, 06:53 PM.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I can only get to one post at a time, but in the meantime I much prefer the scriptures themselves over Internet articles. Nonetheless, I just took a quick look at Celebrian's link, and it does not seem to address the interpretation of Gen 17 in its original context or by Paul or other New Testament authors. Do you think I have misunderstood Genesis 17 or Paul or other New Testament authors? If so, how exactly?
            I think your mistake is reading 'olam' as 'eternal' in a Greek sense and applying it to a convental command that was never meant to be eternal in nature.

            But James certainly does point to Abraham's works so be careful how you understand the faithfulness of Abraham as interpreted by Paul. You may also be misunderstanding Paul's view of circumcision and, as I suspected, agreeing with me too quickly when I pointed out to you that Paul also clearly sees a value to circumcision.
            I think you are misreading James. Jame's contrasts a living faith that produces and therefore accompanies works - a Christian faith. As opposed to a dead, demonic faith devoid of works - mere intellectual assent - not genuine Christian faith.

            Ha ha ha.
            Ha ha ha ha

            I have not swept it aside. You should also read such a statement in context and also try to understand what Paul means when he speaks of the value of circumcision.
            Paul viewed his people as the chosen people to be entrusted with the covenants and oracles of God - what value indeed. Unfortunately the power of sin leveled the playing field and the Jews ultimately find themselves mired in the same state of sin as the Gentiles - falling woefully short of the glory of God.

            Not sufficiently well, in my humble opinion. All you said is that "the advantages that Jews had are rendered impotent in the face of sin, much like the physical act of circumcision, which is why Paul can refer to such an act as 'nothing'." I do not think this sufficiently explains the value of circumcision in Paul's eyes or those of other Jewish Christians, nor the lack of importance it has for Gentile Christians, nor as a potential source of division between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
            Of course much more can be said.

            No mental gymnastics at all. Just trying to understand its most basic sense in its Hebrew context (it is a Hebrew word, right?), and as it was understood by Paul and other New Testament authors.
            Good. You might benefit from section 3 in the article that may help you to realize that the everlasting covenant of circumcision was never meant to be for an eternal period of time due to the semantic range of 'olam'.

            It seems you have not understood what I said. I do interpret the covenant as eternal and more than that, as requiring a commitment of one's entire self, but not necessarily the commandment. Read my post again.
            I do see that, but I don't see how you can maintain the existence of a covenant yet play fast and loose with the covenantal commands.
            Last edited by Scrawly; 01-14-2017, 09:25 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Circumcision is nothing for those in Christ. For those still under the Law, it's still everlasting. Jesus didn't abolish the Law when he fulfilled it. It's still kicking. Those who have not accepted Christ will still be judged by the Law. Christ is the shortcut, since only he was able to fulfill it perfectly.
              Good point Adrift. I'm sure, however, that the question would arise as to why the law no longer has a binding affect on the Christian? Why does the content of the law radically change from the written code just because Christ fulfilled it?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                Good point Adrift. I'm sure, however, that the question would arise as to why the law no longer has a binding affect on the Christian? Why does the content of the law radically change from the written code just because Christ fulfilled it?
                The content of the law doesn't radically change from the written code. It remains exactly the same. In fulfilling the requirements of the Law, Christ acts in the stead of those who accept him. He is our proxy.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  I think your mistake is reading 'olam' as 'eternal' in a Greek sense and applying it to a convental command that was never meant to be eternal in nature.
                  But that is not how I read it. Once again, I do not apply it to a command.

                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  I think you are misreading James. Jame's contrasts a living faith that produces and therefore accompanies works - a Christian faith. As opposed to a dead, demonic faith devoid of works - mere intellectual assent - not genuine Christian faith.
                  True enough, but you have not pointed out specifically how I have misread James. Look at exactly what I said of James and look at exactly what James says--have I misstated anything at all?

                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  Ha ha ha ha
                  Well at least you dropped the hyphens.

                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  Paul viewed his people as the chosen people to be entrusted with the covenants and oracles of God - what value indeed. Unfortunately the power of sin leveled the playing field and the Jews ultimately find themselves mired in the same state of sin as the Gentiles - falling woefully short of the glory of God.
                  It seems like you are trying to approach this from a purely individual soteriological perspective. I am speaking rather of the value of circumcision as a sign of the eternal covenant with Abraham and the proper honor with which the Jewish people should be held, both for their role in salvation history and for their ultimate destiny.
                  I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. ...

                  For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob." "And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins." As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  Of course much more can be said.

                  Good. You might benefit from section 3 in the article that may help you to realize that the everlasting covenant of circumcision was never meant to be for an eternal period of time due to the semantic range of 'olam'.
                  Please, what specifically is it that you think I misunderstand about the semantic range of 'olam'???

                  Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                  I do see that, but I don't see how you can maintain the existence of a covenant yet play fast and loose with the covenantal commands.
                  I don't think I am playing any more fast and loose with these commandments than did Jesus or Paul, and many other Christian theologians after them, and, as I've already mentioned, many Jewish theologians before and after them. Halakhah is emminently debatable, especially ceremonial and symbolic identity.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    The content of the law doesn't radically change from the written code. It remains exactly the same. In fulfilling the requirements of the Law, Christ acts in the stead of those who accept him. He is our proxy.
                    Right, but why do the foods laws and circumcision, for example, no longer apply for the Christian? The practical implications of fulfillment seem to go well beyond the written code.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                      Right, but why do the foods laws and circumcision, for example, no longer apply for the Christian? The practical implications of fulfillment seem to go well beyond the written code.
                      The food laws and circumcision were given to the Jews, not to the other nations.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        The food laws and circumcision were given to the Jews, not to the other nations.
                        Why then do the foods laws and circumcision, for example, no longer apply for the Jewish Christian? They are optional for the Jewish Christian. Romans 14, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          Why then do the foods laws and circumcision, for example, no longer apply for the Jewish Christian? They are optional for the Jewish Christian. Romans 14, etc.
                          That is indeed a matter of debate and a matter of conscience and a matter of not passing judgment on others who have differing convictions. I think it is essentially the same with circumcision for for Jewish Christians.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Because it was the OLD Covenant. The hebrews broke that one themselves over and over. A covenant is only as good as the people who are in it. It is a contract. You can say a contract is forever and it could last forever.... as long as both parties keep the agreement. Even an everlasting covenant can end if one party breaks it. God kept his word and never broke it. The hebrews did. Then God replaced the old broken covenant with a new one.
                            I suspect you’re thinking of a Mosaic covenant and not the eternal covenant between God and Abraham, including the promises God made to Abraham regarding his descendants and all nations. Wouldn’t you say that these promises have been fulfilled, rather than replaced? Note that when Paul speaks of the OLD covenant, it is decidedly not to annul it or replace it, but rather to point out that the Torah of Moses needs to be read and understood properly in the light of the unfading glory and freedom of the Spirit of the Lord, and in the face of Jesus, the Messiah, unlike the fading glory of Moses’ face (2 Cor 3-4). There is nothing here or elsewhere about God’s eternal covenant with Abraham being old and broken, is there?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              ...

                              I am referring to Paul, but I use the term "Apostle's" because I view their teaching as one and the same.
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Perhaps we could find a grammatically correct way of expressing your intended meaning. Not that it is so important to be grammatically correct, but it may be possible to clarify your intended meaning.
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              Ha-ha.
                              Rather than being a smart-ass, why not just say, "Sorry, I don't understand grammar. Please explain your point."

                              Specifically: Your spelling leaves ambiguity as to whether you mean only Paul, singular ("Apostle's") or all of them collectively, plural (Apostles').
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Federalist.

                              Nationalist Christian.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                              Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                              Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                              Justice for Matthew Perna!

                              Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                                Rather than being a smart-ass
                                Quite the charge, however based on your post here it appears you might be guilty of precisely that which you accuse me of.

                                why not just say, "Sorry, I don't understand grammar. Please explain your point."
                                Well, I do understand grammar. The circumstances and conditions in which I was having that discussion were far from ideal. This is why it is a good idea to ask questions before dishing out such harsh criticism.

                                Specifically: Your spelling leaves ambiguity as to whether you mean only Paul, singular ("Apostle's") or all of them collectively, plural (Apostles').
                                Thanks for the little lesson here. I'm glad you have the time to do such things. In any event, I hope you have a good day - but something tells me you're not off to a good start.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X