 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > The Church Started with Paul? | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/21/2001 1:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | Merry Christmas, 1way!
.
Merry Christmas, Bob!
.
(P.S. to 1way....I guess you and I totally have different ideas about why Paul was "miffed" at Peter. But as you present as having thought it out, I won't be interested in trying to change your mind. I happened by, and wanted to convey the above greetings. -PoW) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  1way Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 299 | Posted 12/21/2001 3:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | | That’s all right, I expected no better from you and yours. Happy holidays. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/21/2001 5:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | Look at this:
quote: Galatians 2 1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 [This matter arose] because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel]/b], I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17 "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/21/2001 5:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | Galatians 2:6-8 "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  chance Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 157 | Posted 12/21/2001 6:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote: Galatians 2:6-8 "On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews."
That's a pretty horrible paraphrase of Gal 2:6-8 . Where did you get that at? Did you make it up yourself?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/22/2001 12:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | chance asked (wishing to display his Greek prowess; after having spent all those tuition dollars!!!): "That's a pretty horrible paraphrase of Gal 2:6-8 . Where did you get that at? Did you make it up yourself?"
Its beat on the NIV night at CVM... But that is not the only act billed. Here are some others. have fun, chance. (I'll just pitch batting practice. Show us what you have in mind.)
quote: Galatians 2:6-8 :: New International Version (NIV) 6 As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching THE GOSPEL, to the Gentiles, JUST AS Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
My point was that I read this refering to just ONE gospel. ONE TASK even, depending on how one expresses it. (You can say that selling umbrellas in two different towns is the same task, or different tasks, again, depending on how one expresses it.)
quote: Galatians 2:6-8 :: Revised Standard Version (RSV) 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with THE GOSPEL to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with THE GOSPEL to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
quote: Galatians 2:6-8 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB) 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with THE GOSPEL to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
BUT LET ME *COMPENSATE* DUE TO MY NOT KNOWING GREEK... 
quote: Galater 2:6-8 :: Elberfelder (ELB) 6 Von denen aber, die in Ansehen standen - was immer sie auch waren, das macht keinen Unterschied für mich, Gott sieht keines Menschen Person an -, die Angesehenen haben mir nämlich nichts zusätzlich auferlegt, 7 sondern im Gegenteil, als sie sahen, daß mir DAS EVANGELIUM für die Unbeschnittenen anvertraut war ebenso wie Petrus DAS für die Beschnittenen 8 - denn der, der in Petrus zum Apostelamt für die Beschnittenen wirksam war, war auch in mir für die Nationen wirksam -,
Paul's audience was not that of the "Beschnittenen" (Painful word!!!, especially auf Deutsch.), but his gospel, THAT GOSPEL was the same.
quote: Galater 2:6-8 :: Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH) 6 Von denen aber, die das Ansehen hatten, welcherlei sie weiland gewesen sind, da liegt mir nichts an; denn GOtt achtet das Ansehen der Menschen nicht. Mich aber haben die, so das Ansehen hatten, nichts anderes gelehret, 7 sondern wiederum, da sie sahen, daß mir vertrauet war das Evangelium an die Vorhaut, gleichwie Petrus das Evangelium an die Beschneidung 8 (denn der mit Petrus kräftig ist gewesen zum Apostelamt unter die Beschneidung, der ist mit mir auch kräftig gewesen unter die Heiden),
Er war mit dasselbe Evangelium vertrauen!!!
Show me your thoughts, chance. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  chance Registered Member
 Date Joined Jun 2001 Total Posts : 157 | Posted 12/22/2001 1:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | How do you justify translating a genitive using "to"? I believe the grammatical evidence points to gospel of the uncircumcision and gospel of the circumcision. One passage for your consideration is Acts 7:8 where it is translated (rightly I believe) "covenant OF circumcision". Your thoughts.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/22/2001 1:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | chance: How do you justify translating....
Well, chance, of course I didn't do a stitch of translating; except from German to English as I read.
But, my friend, you just took on the editorial comittees of the NIV, the RSV and the NASB! (Let me know when you get a job traslating for a publiahed version of the Bible.) You are out of your league.
In the translation that I CAN do, "für" is dative. (why you wanted to know, I don't know) quote: Elberfelder (ELB) Galater 2:7 sondern im Gegenteil, als sie sahen, daß mir DAS EVANGELIUM für die Unbeschnittenen anvertraut war ebenso wie Petrus DAS für die Beschnittenen
And I think that the "an" in the Luther's is nominative. (Boy that was a long while ago.)
quote: Galater 2:6-8 :: Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH) 6 Von denen aber, die das Ansehen hatten, welcherlei sie weiland gewesen sind, da liegt mir nichts an; denn GOtt achtet das Ansehen der Menschen nicht. Mich aber haben die, so das Ansehen hatten, nichts anderes gelehret, 7 sondern wiederum, da sie sahen, daß mir vertrauet war das Evangelium an die Vorhaut, gleichwie Petrus das Evangelium an die Beschneidung
I'm with the major translations. If you go off by yourself I'm not following.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/22/2001 06:57:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 12/22/2001 1:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | chance wrote: Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. (Acts 7:8)
I have a covenant with the bank for my house, and its a covenant of paper. but it is also something bigger.
I quoted Paul last night: Galatians 2: 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Same for Paul, Peter, and Abraham. Their justification, for ALL OF THEM, the same as it is for you and me, was the Resurrection of Christ -- died on the cross for our sins, and raised for our justification!!! (Romans 4:24-26 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/22/2001 06:55:22 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Bob Hill Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 98 | Posted 3/11/2002 8:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dear POW,
Why did all your major translations change the KJV?
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter KJV
Because their theology disagreed. I changed it back because a thorough study of the text and my theology agreed. I will post in the next post my analysis of this passage.
In Christ, Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Bob Hill Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 98 | Posted 3/11/2002 8:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | The Greek is Logos Greek font.
How should Galatians 2:7 be translated? What does it mean? As any beginning Greek student knows, the genitive case is translated by placing an of in front of the genitive noun. According to this principle, Galatians 2:7 should be translated, “seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter [has been entrusted with the gospel] of the circumcision.” However, from further study, we find out quickly that it isn’t so simple. In fact, the translation of the Greek genitive/ablative case form is quite complex. Brooks and Winbery (Brooks and Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, University Press of America, 1979, pp. 8-31.) list twenty-two uses, with many subheadings. In light of such complexity, what must we do to arrive at the correct translation? What do the grammarians say?
The modern grammarians agree that the function of the genitive is to describe and define. It acts very much like an adjective. Although it may be tedious, please read the following quotations to understand thoroughly the use of the genitive case. Robertson writes that the genitive is
quote:
the specifying case. It is this and no other. The idea of the genitive case is simple. It is the case of genus gevno" or kind . . . The genitive does indeed resemble the adjective . . . the function of the case is largely adjectival as in h&mevra paraskeuh'" [day of Preparation] - (Lu. 23:54), though the adjective and the genitive are not exactly parallel, for with two substantives each idea stands out with more sharpness . . . It is the specifying case, then, the case of appurtenance . . . one other remark is called for concerning the meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is that the case does not of itself mean all that one finds in translation. The case adheres to its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary greatly according as the root conception of the case is applied to different words and different contexts. But the varying element is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must not be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1:12 we have metoikesivan Babulw'no", “removal to Babylon.” Now the genitive does not mean “to,” but that is the correct translation of the total idea obtained by knowledge of the O.T. What the genitive says is that it is a “Babylon-removal.” That is all. So in Mt. 12:31, h& tou' pneuvmato" blasfhmiva, it is the “Spirit blasphemy.” From the context we know that it is blasphemy against the Spirit, though the genitive does not mean “against.” When a case has so many possible combinations in detail it is difficult to make a satisfactory grouping of the various resultant usages. A very simple and obvious one is here followed. But one must always bear in mind that these divisions are merely our modem conveniences and were not needed by the Greeks themselves. At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the explanation.
(Robertson, A.T., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, New York: Doran, 1923, pp. 493,494.)
Blass and Debrunner state, “The genitive with the function of an adjective is the commonest way in which the case is used.” (Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by Robert Funk, University of Chicago, 1961, p. 89.)
Nigel Turner in Moulton’s Grammar writes,
The adjectival is the commonest way the case is used . . . The relationship expressed by the gen. is so vague that it is only by means of the context and wider considerations that it can be made definite. For practical purposes perhaps the only real division among the genitives is that between subjective and objective (Zerwick §25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A noun in the gen. may be the object of the action implied in the noun on which it depends. There is much ambiguity here in NT interpretation. Often a gen. might equally well be subjective or objective: it is moreover important not to sacrifice fullness of interpretation to an over precise analysis of syntax. There is no reason why a gen. in the author’s mind may not have been both subjective and objective. The love of Christ constrains us is not to be so strictly analysed, [sic] if the author thought of Christ’s love to us and our love to him as a compelling force. But it is always an objective gen. which depends on gospel in the following instances: the good news about th'" basileiva" Mt 423 etc. (which is the same thing as the dir. obj. in Lk 81 eu*aggellivzesqai thVn basileivan), about *Ihsou' Cristou' Mk 11, about tou' Cristou' 1 Co 912 (= dir. obj. in Ac 542). It may be indirect object: Ga 27 toV eu*aggevlion th'" a*krobustiva", good news for the uncircumcised. [Notice in these examples it is the translation which the translator thinks is most reasonable in his view of the context. As I will show, it should be based on sound exegesis and the wider biblical context.] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genitive of relationship. . . . Indeed, so rich is Paul's compression of language with genitives that the attempt to define too narrowly the various types of genitive is vain; they all denote a relationship which is amplified by the context. We might even be tempted to borrow Paul’s own comprehensive way of speech and render dikaiosuvnh qeou' simply divine grace. . . . Genitive of quality. This is a feature of Biblical Greek which has been handed down to MGr, e.g. karavbia tou' polevmou battleship. With the help of Heb. influence the Bibl. Greek gen. often provides an attribute which normally would be supplied by an adj. (Moulton, James A., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, v. 3, Nigel Turner, T&T Clark, 1963, pp. 207-213) Goetchius, Brooks and Winbery, Dana and Mantey, Nunn and Zerwick all concur with similar statements.
Finally, Chamberlain makes a comprehensive summary of the genitive case in these words: The genitive case . . . is primarily the ‘describing’ case. Its function is adjectival. In fact, comparative grammar shows that this usage is older than the adjective. The name is misleading, for it means ‘generative’, ‘productive.’ A better name has been suggested, hJ genikhV ptw'si", i.e., the case which gives the genus or kind. Regardless of its name, it is the descriptive case. A thing may be described from many viewpoints, so the genitive case will have a variety of meanings: a. It may describe from the standpoint of ownership, then it is the case of tovn dou'lon tou' ajrcierevw" (Mt. 26:51), ‘the slave belonging to the high priest.’ This usage is about the only one left in popular English, so the notion is prevalent that possession is the primary meaning of the case. This is not true. It is the residuary usage in English, but only one of many in Greek. b. It may describe from the standpoint of value, then it is the genitive of price: OujciV duvo strouqiva ajssarivou pwlei'tai; (Mt. 10:29), ‘Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?’ Cf Lk. 12:6; Rev. 6:6. A similar genitive may express the penalty imposed: Mt. 26:66. c. It may describe from the standpoint of source, then it is called the genitive of source: trivca" kamhvlou (Mk. 1:6), ‘made of camel’s hair.’ d. It may describe from the standpoint of quality: toV sw'ma th'" aJmartiva" (Rom. 6:6), ‘the body of sin.’ This genitive of quality describes the body as characterized by or subject to sin. e. It may be used in apposition to another noun to further define it: toVn aJrrabw'na tou' pneuvmato" (II Cor. 1:22; 5:5). ‘The earnest which is the spirit’ is clearer than ‘the earnest of the spirit.’ Cf. II Cor. 5:1; II Pet. 2:6; Jn. 2:21; Rom. 4:11. f. There is also a ‘Hebraistic genitive’ which is primarily a genitive of definition. This construction is found in Sophocles, and also in papyri where no Hebrew influence can be found. But it is very common in the LXX and the New Testament. This is due, no doubt in large part, to translation of the Hebrew idiom, the construct state of the noun. Cf. Mk. 2:26, oiJ a[rtoi th'" proqevsew", ‘the loaves of the setting forth,’ ‘the shew bread’; Lk. 4:22, oiJ lovgoi th'" cavrito", ‘the words of grace.’ [diaqhvkhn peritomh'", ‘covenant of circumcision,’ Acts 7:8, and toV eu*aggevlion th'" a*krobustiva", ‘the gospel of the uncircumcision,’ Galatians 2:7, could be further examples of this.]
See also the many expressions using uiJov", or tevknon with a genitive as a substitute for an adjective: Mk. 2:19; 3:17; Mt. 23:15; Lk. 10:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h. The objective and the subjective genitive come in a special class. In these, the genitive case of one substantive is used with another substantive which expresses action. If the substantive in the genitive case is the agent of the action expressed by the other, it is called a subjective genitive. If the substantive in the genitive case is the recipient of the action, it is called an objective genitive.
Moulton states that the interpretation of this genitive [the objective and the subjective] is entirely a matter of exegesis and not of grammar. The immediate context and general usage must be called to decide the point. In II Cor. 5:14, h& a*gavph tou' Cristou' sunevcei h&ma'" (‘the love of Christ constrains us’) could mean ‘the love which Christ has for us’ or ‘the love which we have for Christ.’ The immediate context does not solve this problem here, but general New Testament usage (cf. Gal. 2:20) makes it quite clear that Paul is speaking of Christ’s love for him as the force which concentrates his energies on his task. This example, then, is a subjective genitive. In I Cor. 1:6, martuvrion tou' Cristou', ‘testimony concerning Christ,’ is objective genitive; while u&pomonh'" th'" e*lpivdo" (1 Th. 1:3), ‘the steadfastness which arises from hope,’ is subjective genitive. Decisions in such cases must be made by the exegete, not the grammarian. (Chamberlain, William D., An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan, 1941, pp. 29-31.)
Please closely examine part f. in Chamberlain’s fine explanation of the genitive case. The word “circumcision” has such strong underlying Hebrew influence that its use could very well fall into this category. It seems to be used this way in Acts 7:8, e!dwken au*tw'/ diaqhvkhn peritomh'", “He gave him the covenant of circumcision.”
Now what is the outcome of this lengthy and tedious investigation? The material cited above has established the answer to our first question. Since there is so much controversy about the two genitive phrases in Galatians 2:7, they should be translated “the uncircumcision gospel” and “the circumcision gospel” with a footnote. But, realistically, that will not happen. Consequently, how can we determine the meaning? According to Moulton, the interpretation must be left to the exegete. Therefore, we must use sound exegetical methods to determine the meanings. We will start with the historical setting.
The historical background of this epistle is easy to discover once we determine that the churches of Galatia addressed are Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch, the churches of the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia. Judaizers had followed after Paul when he made his second trip to Galatia and subverted these churches. Paul was amazed that his converts had turned so quickly from his gospel to a different (e{tero") one which was not in the same (a[llo") rank as his (Gal 1:6,7). He had preached a gospel which was not connected to circumcision and the Mosaic law (Acts 13:38,39; Gal 5:2-4). Although some able scholars believe it was written before, I believe the epistle was written after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. According to Acts 16:4, Paul and Silas delivered the council’s decrees not only to the churches in Syria and Cilicia but also to the Galatian churches. That they also warned them at this time about the potential troublemakers, may be inferred from Paul’s statement in Galatians one. “As we [Paul and Silas] have said before, even now I say again, if anyone preaches a gospel to you [different] from what you received, let him be accursed.” Therefore, we can conclude that the historical setting shows there is conflict between the Judaizers with their circumcision and law gospel and Paul and his gospel which he was commissioned to preach to the Gentiles, kings and Israel.
Judaizers is another name for those of the circumcision party. They were associated with James, but some took a more extreme position than James (Acts 15:24-29; 21:25). The uncircumcision gospel and the circumcision gospel contain common elements. Both affirm that salvation is by God’s grace, that Christ died, was buried, and was raised for justification. Both depend on the faithfulness of Christ and His blood as the means God uses to provide righteousness for those who believe. Both require faith on the part of the individual in order to receive the judicial edict of justification. The difference between the two gospels lies in the respective ways in which God requires the individual’s faith to be expressed. Paul’s gospel declared that a true belief in the Lord Jesus Christ was necessary (Acts 13:38,39; 16:31). The circumcision gospel declared a true belief in Him, baptism, circumcision, law keeping, and endurance were necessary (Mat 10:22; Acts 2:38; 21:20,21; Jam 2:8-24; John 15:6).
Before we go on, it is important to investigate the word circumcision. Stephen mentions a covenant of circumcision in his bold discourse before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:8). What does “covenant of circumcision” mean? Is it a covenant to the circumcision? Is it a covenant belonging to the circumcision? Or is it about circumcision, sealed by circumcision, or pertaining to circumcision? We can quickly rule out that it was to someone who was circumcised since Abraham was circumcised only as a result of the covenant (Gen 17:9-27). Therefore, we see that the covenant contains news about circumcision. In fact, circumcision was made a necessary condition for sharing in the covenant blessings. We may then conclude that the circumcision covenant was about blessings to Abraham and his descendants and the conditions his circumcised descendants would have to keep to be included in the blessings. If this is true, the circumcision gospel would be good news about the circumcision people and would be contrasted with the good news of those who were not circumcised.
Who were those “of the circumcision”? How should we view them? In Acts 10:45, they were the believing Jews who came with Peter. But in Acts 11:2 they were the ones who contended with Peter because he “went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” These were silenced only after Peter told them that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles. From both of these accounts we can see that the circumcision were Jews who held separatist beliefs because of the covenant of circumcision.
Paul declares Abraham a father in Romans 4. He is the father of the uncircumcised because he was justified by faith when he was uncircumcised. Then, after he was circumcised, he became the father of all who were not only circumcised but walked in the same kind of faith that Abraham had when he was uncircumcised. We can definitely say that he would not have been the father of circumcision if he himself had not been circumcised. But further, after he was circumcised, James used him as the prime example of the faith-works method required by God under the circumcision covenant for justification. James cited the incident of Genesis 22, which was after Abraham’s circumcision.
Jesus Christ himself was a minister of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, in order that He might confirm the promises of the fathers (Rom 15:8). He preached the gospel of the kingdom according to Matthew 4:17. Since He was a minister of the circumcision, the content of the gospel of the kingdom would concern the promises made to the fathers of Israel. The nouns “promise”, e*paggeliva, and gospel, eu*aggevlion, are derived from the same root. The confirmation of the ancient promises certainly was good news, eu*aggevlion, to the Jews. Therefore He was ministering the good, eu, news, aggelia, of circumcision. This “gospel of the circumcision” was an extension of the original promises and conditions of the “covenant of circumcision” for the age to come. Among other things, it contained the conditions the circumcision covenant people had to perform as mentioned by John in Matthew 3:1-11. It also promised a new covenant relationship with God and eschatological blessings for Israel.
Although Peter was the apostle to whom the gospel of circumcision was given (Gal 2:7), he was afraid of the circumcision believers. They were still separatists. Peter had been eating with “unclean” Gentiles. When they came to Antioch, “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision” (Gal 2:12). Why did he fear them? They taught circumcision and all its ramifications were necessary for salvation (Acts 15:24; 21:20,21) along with faith in Jesus as the Messiah. They truly taught a gospel of circumcision, a gospel including the requirements of circumcision and law keeping, just as those of the circumcision did in Acts 15:1.
According to Colossians 4:10,11, Mark and Jesus who is called Justus (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, Augsburg 1961, pp. 201,202.) were the only ones of the circumcision at that time who were fellow workers with Paul. In contrast to most who were of the circumcision, these believers of the circumcision were a comfort to Paul. Titus 1:10,11 shows us Paul’s evaluation of this group as a whole, “For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.” There may have been a few who comforted, but most outside of Jerusalem were subversive, against the uncircumcision gospel.
Therefore, we see that those “of the circumcision” can do good or evil. It depended on what they taught, whom they taught, and where they taught. If they taught their circumcision gospel in Antioch or Galatia (Acts 15:1; Gal 1:6-9; 3:1-5; 5:1-12; 6:12,13) they would be accursed. If they taught it to Jews in Jerusalem it was all right. When they were with Paul they had to conform to his gospel.
Galatians was written to turn them from the gospel associated with “law works” of the “flesh” (3:2-5) back to Paul’s gospel. This gospel was written to them explicitly in 2:16. Justification by faith is the central theme of the entire epistle. It showed that the “different gospel which is not another of the same rank” as Paul’s, was a message of circumcision and law keeping. Galatians 5:2-5 shows how seriously Paul viewed this circumcision and law gospel which they had received (1:8,9). He wonders aloud, “If I am still proclaiming circumcision why am I still being persecuted?” (5:11). Now let me ask you this: if he did proclaim circumcision as a requirement of salvation, would that be called the gospel of the circumcision? We would be hard pressed if we called it anything else. As all the grammarians have written, the genitive qualifies the other noun in an adjectival manner. So we would have to call such a gospel Paul would be proclaiming, the circumcision gospel, or the gospel of the circumcision. Finally, approaching the conclusion of the epistle, he reiterates once more that circumcision and uncircumcision are of no value in Christ Jesus. What matters is the uniqueness of the new creation in Christ. In Christ there is no distinction or prejudice. Paul explained this fundamental part of the mystery thoroughly in Ephesians 2 and 3.
Now we must consider our text in the light of its immediate historical context, the Jerusalem council. In Galatians 2, we see that Paul had taken uncircumcised Titus with him. He went to Jerusalem “by revelation.” We may infer that the purpose was to present to them the gospel which he proclaimed among the Gentiles. If his gospel was the same as the gospel they proclaimed, why did he feel compelled to present it to them? Why was he compelled to tell them what gospel he preached among the Gentiles “privately” so his ministry would not turn out to be empty? He wanted to be sure the truth of the gospel Christ gave him would remain with the Galatians (2:5).
In private, then in the council session, he was able to add to “those who seemed to be something” (Gal 2:6,7) while the Holy Spirit “revealed” (Eph 3:5) that it was true. What was set before them? What was added to (their knowledge)? They saw that Christ had committed to Paul a different gospel, not the same message that He had given Peter (Gal 2:7). Paul had an uncircumcision gospel; Peter had a circumcision gospel. We understand from our study that this is a completely valid rendering of the two genitives. What is meant by the uncircumcision gospel? According to Romans 4, a gospel was preached to Abraham while he was uncircumcised. All he had to do was believe, and his faith was imputed to him for righteousness (Gen 12:3; 15:6; Rom 4:1-12). Galatians 3:8 shows us that this gospel was preached to Abraham with Gentile salvation in mind. In the following chapters we will examine the basis for the circumcision gospel and the areas where it differs from Paul’s uncircumcision gospel.
We true believers in Jesus Christ as our Savior are all members of his body. That means we’re brothers in Christ. Therefore, in Christ, Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 3/12/2002 1:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | You are on your own, Bob.
I hope that you get the interaction you are looking for.
(I was mystified by: "Why did all your major translations change the KJV? " I'm not into that kind of translation ninja warfare.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/12/2002 4:47:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Bob Hill Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 98 | Posted 3/19/2002 8:43 PM (GMT -6) |   | Neither am I. I prefer to check the Greek and translate it according to the context keeping in mind the syntax and the lexical meaning of the words.
In Christ, Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 3/20/2002 1:02 AM (GMT -6) |   | No, Bob.
When I said, "You are on your own, Bob." I wasn't saying that you are alone in the position you hold. I was saying goodbye to this thread.
I regard "Acts Nine" to be a Calvinistic error, dependant on a juridical view of salvation (and sin), and "virtual reality." i aplaud your distancing yourself from Calvinism as far as you have. But I wonder why you still hang around its basic tenants.
Bye.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/20/2002 06:31:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Bob Hill Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 98 | Posted 3/21/2002 4:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dear POW,
I know you won't be back, but I have to make sure that it is clear that I hold to none of the points of Calvinism.
Even though I am strongly anti-Calvinistic, I still respect a majority of the Calvinists with whom I've discussed the Word of God.
For instance, I respect Hilston very much for the way he presents his case even though I disagree with him when he is presenting his differences from the Open View.
In Christ, Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 3/21/2002 5:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | Bob, I'm playing chess with you here!
As to where I said, "I regard "Acts Nine" to be a Calvinistic error, dependant on a juridical view of salvation (and sin), and "virtual reality." i aplaud your distancing yourself from Calvinism as far as you have. But I wonder why you still hang around its basic tenants." I was not refering to TULIP. Notice that I said what I was thinking directly.
Calvinism, seems to me, depends on Augustine's imputation of guilt ("original guilt") and imputation of righteousness. That's the "juridical view of salvation" mentioned above.
I can only imagine, that a system such as "Acts Nine" must depend too, itself, on such a "tenant" (as I called it). The reason I suspect this is that for God to work in such different ways with humans of such unified anthropology; such a thing is just so contrived that it seems to demand jurying! The Augustinian (Latin) tradition has its juridical view. Do you? Do you? The Calvinists do! The Greek Fathers don't!!! The Greek Fathers dig deep to the problem, and go then directly to the solution. They don't dance in circles along the way. Calvinism is also sometimes refered to as "virutal reality." It is will-based, decision-based. Not ontologically based. Salvation is so "then" oriented, that it can be very frustrating in the pew listening to Calvinistic sermons. In word they seem to know God's promises. But they seem content to not have much of their fulfillment, of the kingdom com, "on earth as it is in heaven." How they can be amillenial, and still do this... well, I don't know.
Well, what's your response?
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/21/2002 10:16:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Bob Hill Registered Member
 Date Joined Aug 2001 Total Posts : 98 | Posted 4/1/2002 8:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dear POW,
I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your question. Please ask me a precise biblical question. I will try to answer it until we understand each other.
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/2/2002 1:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'm sorry, Bob. I'll rephrase, and put it in the form of a question.
Is "Acts Nine" dependant on a juridical view of salvation (and sin), with "imputed righteousness"? | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Hilston Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 103 | Posted 4/5/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | Greetings PotOnWheel,
It is logically inconsistent for a Mid-Acts person to resist the 5 points, for a truly coherent and biblically sound Mid-Acts theology must necessarily be based upon a proper view of God's providence and atoning work for His elect. By their repudiation of God's meticulous sovereignty, they reduce God's nature and His direction of biblical history/eschatology to absurdity and unintelligibility, and thereby strip away from God's elect of each household its secured Hope and irrevocable calling of the Lord. Moreover, a proper and full view of the 5 points addresses each of three households of God's elect. So, in a sense, you might call me a fifteen-point Calvinistic Mid-Acts dispensationalist (You can go ahead and add "presuppositionalist" to the list if it's helpful). Here are some points regarding my view of justification/salvation/righteousness from a Mid-Acts perspective.
There are important distinctions regarding the full scope of justification as taught in the scriptures. Careful consideration of how justification by works vs. faith vs. the the effectual atonement relate reveals a unifying set of principles that cross dispensational lines, but have distinct dispensational ramifications. That is, despite the dramatic ineluctable distinctions between the Jewish/Kingdom (i.e. elect Jews and elect Gentiles) and the Pauline/Body dispensations (households), common principles regarding justification obtain.
Consider Ro 4:2 "If" is a condition of the first class, meaning "since". "For SINCE Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." From this verse, we can see that there are different kinds, or spheres, of justification:
(1) Justification before God (not by works) (2) Justification before others (by works)
The context further reveals yet another sphere of justification: Justification before oneself. This is the meaning of verse 3 "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." The antecedent of "unto him" is Abraham himself. "Reckoned," an oft mistranslated word, is not "impute," but rather simply "told," or "accounted." In other words, Abraham was INFORMED of his own righteousness by way of faith. So we can add a third kind of justification:
(3) Justification before oneself (by faith)
There is yet a fourth kind of justification, that which is decreed within the Godhead. That is, the righteous declaration of one's righteous standing and election within the triune counsel of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Eph 1:11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Key words in the text include "worketh (energeo)", used in reference to the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, "counsel" (boule), used in reference to the Son's decretrive role within the Godhead, and "will" (thelema), used in reference to the Father's desire to love and choose the elect. So we can add this fourth kind of justification to the list:
(4) Justification within the counsel of the Godhead (by desire, decree, and regeneration).
It should be noted that each sphere within this full scope of justification is qualified (above) in the positive, except for (1), and that is simply because the context of Ro 4 does not make a positive statement in this regard. However, this is abundantly stated elsewhere, and Paul assumes his audience would not have missed the point: Since we are not justified BEFORE GOD by works or by faith (which, again, is itself a work), how then comes this particular justification? By the atoning work of Christ ALONE, the shed blood of Christ, that is by Christ's work and Christ's faith (or faithfulness Ro 3:22 Gal 2:16) plus nothing: no works, no faith (which IS itself a work, by the way, Jn 6:29), His blood ALONE paid the ransom and secured our redemption, independent of our good works, independent of our faith, independent of our so-called "acceptance" or "appropriation" of that payment.
Summing up, including some references: (1) Justification before God (by the atonement alone, i.e, the faith of Christ, not by works, Lu 1:6* Lu 1:68 21:28 Ro 3:22-24 Gal 3:11) (2) Justification before others (by works, Lu 1:6* Ro 4:2 Jas 2:21-25) (3) Justification before oneself (by faith Ge 15:6 Ps 106:31 Ro 4:3 Ga 3:24) (4) Justification within the counsel of the Triune Godhead (by desire, decree, and regeneration Ex 33:19 Jer 31:31-34 Jn 6:37-39 Ro 9:16-19 Eph 1:11).
*Note that Lu 1:6 include two aspects of justification, before God and before others.
Applying these principles to each household of God's elect, we have: I. For the Elect of the Nations (Gentiles): Total depravity and inability to yield to God as Creator, redeemer. Unconditional redemption secured by the Redeemer-Creator. Limited (particular) atonement/redemption for Elect of the Nations, chosen from the foundation of the world. Irresistible grace for the Elect of the Nations. Perseverance/preservation of the Elect of the Nations to progress toward their Hope, which is to fill the earth, dwell in their lands, and worship and serve their Creator-Redeemer through their service to Elect Israel in eternity.
II. For the Elect of Israel: Total depravity and inability to yield to Jehovah Messiah of Israel. Unconditional redemption secured by the Messiah, Redeemer of the Nation of Israel. Limited (particular) atonement/redemption for Elect Israel, chosen from the foundation of the world. Irresistible grace for the Elect Israel. Perseverance/preservation of the Elect Israel to progress toward her Hope, which is to rule the earth from New Jerusalem, dwell in the Land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to worship and serve Jehovah-Messiah through righteously administrating and blessing the Elect of the Nations for eternity, while in turn, being righteously blessed and governed by the elect angels through eternity.
III. For the Body of Christ (neither Jew nor Gentile): Total depravity and inability to yield to Christ Jesus as Head of the Body. Unconditional redemption secured by the Christ Jesus, the Head of the Church. Limited (particular) atonement/redemption for the Body of Christ, chosen from before the foundation of the world. Irresistible grace for the members of the Body of Christ. Perseverance/preservation of the Elect of the Nations to progress toward their Hope, which is to be jointly seated with Christ in the third heaven on the Father's throne, righteously governing and blessing the elect angels as they in turn adminstrate over the affairs of elect Israel.
For further, please visit Trinity Grace Fellowship online (TGF Online) at www.tgfonline.org. In particular, consider the following studies: http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/bootcamp/pb02myst.htm
'Antio, James Hilston hilston1@aol.com www.tgfonline.org
PS: Bob, thanks for your kind remarks. While we certainly disagree on certain issues, I truly appreciate your gentlemanly demeanor and hard-work ethic toward Bible study. May we continue to challenge each other.
Edited by - hilston on 04/05/2002 7:59:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/5/2002 3:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | Bob and Hilston. Thanks for your willingness to share.
so, if you can inform me... Where do the United Bretheran, and Grace Seminary stand in all this? | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Hilston Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 103 | Posted 4/5/2002 5:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi PotOnWheel,
You write:quote: ... so, if you can inform me... Where do the United Bretheran, and Grace Seminary stand in all this?
If there are *any* mainline denominations that recognize these vital theological details, I'm not aware of them.
What is your take on these points? Do you think these are valid points being made?
'Antio, James Hilston hilston1@aol.com www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Hilston Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 103 | Posted 4/5/2002 5:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi PotOnWheel,
You write:quote: ... so, if you can inform me... Where do the United Bretheran, and Grace Seminary stand in all this?
If there are *any* mainline denominations that recognize these vital theological details, I'm not aware of them.
What is your take on these points? Do you think these are valid points being made?
'Antio, James Hilston hilston1@aol.com www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/5/2002 6:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | H: If there are *any* mainline denominations that recognize these vital theological details, I'm not aware of them.
PoW: "mainline denominations" are so easy to pick on...I won't go there. BUT, I'd like to ask YOU (or Bob) if there is any evidence of those in the early church actually doing what y'all assume they did? And--and this one gets to me--do any GREEK SPEAKING folks think this way. OR, is this an American invention?
H: What is your take on these points? Do you think these are valid points being made?
PoW: As to It is logically inconsistent for a Mid-Acts person to resist the 5 points, for a truly coherent and biblically sound Mid-Acts theology must necessarily be based upon a proper view of God's providence and atoning work for His elect., I was wondering how anyone could hold to such a division in our salvation unless it be firmly in the Augustinian/Anselm vein of "imputation" -- which some refer to as "virtual reality." (Some scathing critiques of the Augustian legacy is now on the Bonhoeffer thread, in quotes from John Romanadies--a Greek theology Professor from the University of Thessononiki.) As T. points out: "It goes without saying that the Anselmian tradition whereby the saved are those to whom Christ supposedly reconciled God is not an option . . . 2 Cor. 5:19, for example, St. John Chrysostom says that one must "be reconciled to God. Paul did not say, `Reconcile God to yourselves', for it is not He who hates, but we. For God never hates"."
What surprises me about this view of yours is that it seems to split up the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. WHY such an aversion to Water Baptism wherin the Holy Spirit works? I don't get the problem. Where is the allergy?
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Hilston Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2001 Total Posts : 103 | Posted 4/5/2002 8:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi PotOnWheel,
Thanks for this dialogue. My replies are inline below:
PoW writes:quote: BUT, I'd like to ask YOU (or Bob) if there is any evidence of those in the early church actually doing what y'all assume they did?
I'm not sure what you mean by "doing" in your question. We know that Paul repudiated religious ritual and ceremony (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23) and that he publicly rebuked Peter for observing symbolic food ordinances in the midst of Gentiles (Gal 2). Additionally, we later see Peter and the Holy Spirit sanctioning and imposing symbolic food ordinances upon Gentiles. I've yet to see any theological system deal with this apparent incongruity, whereas the Mid-Acts framework handles it nicely. Peter was indisputably sent to baptize (Mt 28:19,20) and to teach everything whatsoever Christ commanded them. These commands included Jesus's admonition to obey the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-3). Paul, however, states that he was NOT sent to baptize (1Co 1:17) and affirmed that those very same Jewish ordinances that Christ commanded of the Eleven were nailed to the cross in behalf of the Body of Christ (Col 2:14). It can be further shown that proper Jewish sacrifices continued after Christ's resurrection, which Paul himself performed to honor Israel's program and to affirm his dual ministry to both Kingdom believers and to Body of Christ believers.
PoW writes:quote: And--and this one gets to me--do any GREEK SPEAKING folks think this way. OR, is this an American invention?
You question is amusing, because if I thought the latter were true and correct, that would mean that I also somehow believe that God intended this "American invention," which is quite funny. I have some texts on Greek and Hebrew thought that we could explore if you'd like, but frankly I see nothing here that violates or surpasses any cognitive limitations on the part of Greek-speaking thinkers. I am actually more inclined to think in the other direction, i.e., that it is we who are cognitively challenged with respect to theological concepts and language. Of course, this concern should further affirm and underscore the paramount significance of employing sound logic and a coherent/consistent hermeneutic when translating the scripture.
PoW writes:quote: As to It is logically inconsistent for a Mid-Acts person to resist the 5 points, for a truly coherent and biblically sound Mid-Acts theology must necessarily be based upon a proper view of God's providence and atoning work for His elect., I was wondering how anyone could hold to such a division in our salvation ...
I'm do not follow you. Where do you see a "division in our salvation"?
PoW writes:quote: What surprises me about this view of yours is that it seems to split up the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
How so? Christ dies precisely for those whom the Father has given, and no more (Jn 6). The Holy Spirit regenerates precisely those for whom the Son died, and no more. There is perfect accord in the triune counsel of God (Eph 1:11). Where do you see a "split" in this?
PoW writes:quote: WHY such an aversion to Water Baptism wherin the Holy Spirit works? I don't get the problem. Where is the allergy?
As I cited above, Paul eschews and forbids religious ceremonies, be they Jewish or pagan. The reason is that religious ceremony invokes the ministry of the elect angels for Israel. The Body of Christ is not ministered by the angels, but rather sits administratively in a superior role to the angels (Eph 3:10 1Co 6:1-3). For members of the Body of Christ to participate in religious ceremony is tantamount to angel worship (Col. 2:18). We are not to put ourselves under angels (and in this dispensation, they would not be holy angels rising to the occasion). For Israel, there were many baptisms and many spirits (i.e., angels; see the link I provided in my earlier post), but for the Body of Christ, there is but ONE baptism, that of the One Spirit.
Please ask for any clarification that is needed.
Oyasuminasai, James Hilston hilston1@aol.com www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 4/6/2002 4:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hilston. Maybe you answered my question.
As to the majority view, BOTH baptism of us by the Holy Spirit into Christ's death and resurrection AND baptism of us by Christ in the Holy Spirit are the norm.
Your view gives the strong appearance that you have SPLIT these two involvements. How can they be disentangled? The Con and the Spirit are the "rirght and left hands of the Father." So, obviously your view is skewed. No matter the logic, and no matter whatever proof-texting; in the face of the sacraments themselves you have created something wierd. You did not mention any witness (outside of a VERY skewed reading ot the NT) as to the early Church's practices.
I won't begin to comment on how poor your proof-texting is in the paragraph you offered (below): quote: I'm not sure what you mean by "doing" in your question. We know that Paul repudiated religious ritual and ceremony (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23) and that he publicly rebuked Peter for observing symbolic food ordinances in the midst of Gentiles (Gal 2). Additionally, we later see Peter and the Holy Spirit sanctioning and imposing symbolic food ordinances upon Gentiles. I've yet to see any theological system deal with this apparent incongruity, whereas the Mid-Acts framework handles it nicely. Peter was indisputably sent to baptize (Mt 28:19,20) and to teach everything whatsoever Christ commanded them. These commands included Jesus's admonition to obey the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-3). Paul, however, states that he was NOT sent to baptize (1Co 1:17) and affirmed that those very same Jewish ordinances that Christ commanded of the Eleven were nailed to the cross in behalf of the Body of Christ (Col 2:14). It can be further shown that proper Jewish sacrifices continued after Christ's resurrection, which Paul himself performed to honor Israel's program and to affirm his dual ministry to both Kingdom believers and to Body of Christ believers.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR RESPONDING. BUT. . . THIS IS TOO FAR GONE.
PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
 | 155 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:40 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|