ECT How is Paul's message different?

[turbosixx]

In Acts 21:25 KJV the Gentiles,"they observe no such thing",,why is one suppose to observe it and the others not?

I suggest you're making an assumption here. Can you prove "suppose to observe" by providing a verse showing instruction so we do not have to speculate they were "suppose to"?
Did Paul refuse "so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved"?

 

[whitestone]

I suggest you're making an assumption here. Can you prove "suppose to observe" by providing a verse showing instruction so we do not have to speculate they were "suppose to"?
Did Paul refuse "so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved"?

lol, It's best I think to just follow along with the dialogue in Acts 21 and examine the words of James in that he is the one saying "that they observe no such thing..." so the thing James is saying before that is the thing James says they should not follow,, it's what James says that they had concluded and written(Acts 15) in verse Acts 21:25 KJV

 

[turbosixx]

lol, It's best I think to just follow along with the dialogue in Acts 21 and examine the words of James in that he is the one saying "that they observe no such thing..." so the thing James is saying before that is the thing James says they should not follow,, it's what James says that they had concluded and written(Acts 15) in verse Acts 21:25 KJV

"that they observe no such thing..." is not proof they he says anyone is "suppose to observe".

Is observing the law sin? Why did Paul circumcise Timothy?

 

[Right Divider]

"that they observe no such thing..." is not proof they he says anyone is "suppose to observe".

Your logic is illogical. This is one of the main reasons that you're so confused and cannot see differences.

Is observing the law sin?

Are you seriously asking this question?

Why did Paul circumcise Timothy?

Are you seriously asking this question?

 

[whitestone]

"that they observe no such thing..." is not proof they he says anyone is "suppose to observe".

Is observing the law sin? Why did Paul circumcise Timothy?

lol, Acts 21:24 KJV "that thou walkest orderly and keepest the law..." same one from Acts 15 Should they be circumcised and keep the law? The Gentiles though are they under the same thing to observe or something different?

 

[Tambora]

Is observing the law sin?

Nah.
IF you use it lawfully.
For if you break any little point of the whole law, you are guilty of the whole law.
And as Jesus told us, He did not come to destroy any of the law or the prophets, and that not one little jot or tittle will be eliminated from the whole law until all of the law and prophets has been fulfilled.
If you don't keep every single little jot and tittle of the whole law, then you have missed the mark.
And if that law had not included the substitutionary death of the perfect and spotless sacrifice in your stead, you would be toast.

For it is only by the righteousness and obedience of that perfect spotless substitute that can save you.

Pay attention to how many have the correct righteousness and obedience.

Romans 5 KJV
(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Will the Rapture occur and if so, will it be before, during or after the Tribulation?

Only those in the Body of Christ will be raptured before the tribulation. The rapture is described as being "imminent" by Paul:

"For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body...The Lord is at hand (eggus)" (Phil.3:20-21;4:5).​

The Greek word eggus means "of times imminent and soon to come to pass" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Now let us look at the following verse from the Hebrew epistles where the same coming of the Lord is described as being near:

"You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near" (James 5:8).

The Greek word translated "is near" at James 5:8 is eggizo and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).

In an article found on the "Pre-Trib Research Center" web site Dr. Renald E. Showers writes:

"In light of James' statements C. Leslie Mitton wrote, 'James clearly believed, as others of his time did, that the coming of Christ was imminent.' On the basis of James' statements we can conclude that Christ's coming was imminent in New Testament times and continues to be so today, and that this fact should make a difference in the way Christians live" [emphasis added] (Showers, The Imminent Coming of Christ).​

Paul Sadler, past President of the Berean Bible Society, wrote the following:

"The 'secret' resurrection that will take place at the Rapture should never be confused with the 'first' resurrection at the Second Coming of Christ. Those who rightly divide the Word of truth now see that only the members of the Body of Christ will be raised at the Rapture" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, Exploring the Unsearchable Riches of Christ [Stephens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1993], 167).​

Since only members of the Body of Christ will be raised at the rapture we can know, beyond any doubt, that those who originally received the Hebrew epistles were members of the Body of Christ. In the first century, as well as today, there is only one coming of the Lord Jesus which can be described as being "imminent" and that is His coming which will happen at the rapture.

Clete, you are wrong when you assert that those who received the Hebrew epistles are not members of the Body of Christ.

 

[john w]

D'ism is crap that was invented by a guy 200 years ago who said the Bible didn't make sense until he came. Kind of like Brigham Young but far more insidious.

Translated: When you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact,objective truth. Thus, Basil Simon is:

1. A closet Roman Catholic, and ..

2. A "flat earth" proponent.


Thanks for checkin' in.

 

[turbosixx]

lol, Acts 21:24 KJV "that thou walkest orderly and keepest the law..." same one from Acts 15 Should they be circumcised and keep the law? The Gentiles though are they under the same thing to observe or something different?

They are under that same thing. The Jews are not even under the law. Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. That is what James was doing in Jerusalem, appeasing the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. Paul did not oppose the idea of looking like a Jew who observed the law. Why not? Because it doesn't go against the gospel. If it did, he would have stood against it. Those who observe the law are weak. The weak must be dealt with carefully.

Rom. 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

When does the bible tell us the two groups (Jew and Gentile) became one body?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When does the bible tell us the two groups (Jew and Gentile) became one body?

It doesn't tell us exactly when it happened. But it couldn't have happened until Israel was temporarily cast aside and I believe that happened at Acts 7 with the stoning Stephen at Acts 7.

 

[lifeisgood]

Baptism wasn't part of Paul's old job and I'm constantly reminded that Jesus didn't send Paul to baptize. So where did he learn it and why did he do it?

c'mon turbosixx.
He learned it from the law.

 

[turbosixx]

c'mon turbosixx.
He learned it from the law.

You'll have to show me this in the law. Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[lifeisgood]

You'll have to show me this in the law. Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

What does this have to do with your question about where Paul learn about water baptism?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The question I have about the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" is:

Are a person's sins taken away when he submits to that baptism today?

 

[whitestone]

They are under that same thing. The Jews are not even under the law. Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. That is what James was doing in Jerusalem, appeasing the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. Paul did not oppose the idea of looking like a Jew who observed the law. Why not? Because it doesn't go against the gospel. If it did, he would have stood against it. Those who observe the law are weak. The weak must be dealt with carefully.

Rom. 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

When does the bible tell us the two groups (Jew and Gentile) became one body?

Thats a far cry from just sticking to what it says in Acts 21(never mentions N.C.) but then that would still mean the Gentiles should observe "no such thing",vrs,25 and there is a Gospel unto the circumcision and another to the uncircumcised. Which is it seems the same thing James states in Acts 21.

In Acts 21:20 KJV these Jews who "believe" and are all zealous of the law if they already believe(in Christ?) why do you say they are weak and how do you see James and Paul following the law in front of them as helping them in their weakness? If you think about it, it would confirm that they (should) not help them see (not to do so). On the other hand if the Temple had by then been polluted(AOB) then they would have already left right? Thats the thing about it in that you want to see the NC when everything we spoke of says "be circumcised,follow the law ect." it's always talking about the old law.

 

[turbosixx]

What does this have to do with your question about where Paul learn about water baptism?

Jesus instructed the 12 to make disciples by baptizing them in his name. Peter baptized believers in the name of Jesus. If Paul received the gospel from Jesus and not man, where did he get baptizing believers "in the name of" Jesus?

 

[Right Divider]

They are under that same thing. The Jews are not even under the law. Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. That is what James was doing in Jerusalem, appeasing the Jews so that the gospel would not be hindered. Paul did not oppose the idea of looking like a Jew who observed the law. Why not? Because it doesn't go against the gospel. If it did, he would have stood against it. Those who observe the law are weak. The weak must be dealt with carefully.

Rom. 14:14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

When does the bible tell us the two groups (Jew and Gentile) became one body?

In the new covenant they (believing Israel) will keep the law by the power of God's Spirit.

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ​

This same thing is declared by Ezekiel.

Ezek 36:21-28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(36:21) ¶ But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. (36:22) Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. (36:23) And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. (36:24) For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. (36:25) ¶ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. (36:26) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. (36:27) And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. (36:28) And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
​

This time will come because God says so. Praise the LORD for His patience and His mercy.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus instructed the 12 to make disciples by baptizing them in his name. Peter baptized believers in the name of Jesus. If Paul received the gospel from Jesus and not man, where did he get baptizing believers "in the name of" Jesus?

The question I have about the "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" is:

Are a person's sins taken away when he submits to that baptism today?

 

[Right Divider]

You'll have to show me this in the law. Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

"In the name of" simply means "by the authority of". I'm amazed by all the things that you do not understand.

 

[turbosixx]

Thats a far cry from just sticking to what it says in Acts 21(never mentions N.C.) but then that would still mean the Gentiles should observe "no such thing",vrs,25 and there is a Gospel unto the circumcision and another to the uncircumcised. Which is it seems the same thing James states in Acts 21.

In Acts 21:20 KJV these Jews who "believe" and are all zealous of the law if they already believe(in Christ?) why do you say they are weak and how do you see James and Paul following the law in front of them as helping them in their weakness? If you think about it, it would confirm that they (should) not help them see (not to do so). On the other hand if the Temple had by then been polluted(AOB) then they would have already left right? Thats the thing about it in that you want to see the NC when everything we spoke of says "be circumcised,follow the law ect." it's always talking about the old law.

I agree it's talking about the old law. I believe they appear as following the law to appease the Jews just as Paul did with Timothy. Paul has always agreed to what James has said, 15 & 21. If "do not follow" the law is what they needed to hear, why didn't Paul stand up and say it? He had every chance to do so. I believe the reason he didn't was so that they wouldn't shut their ears and that in time they will come to understand.

When did the Jews and Gentiles become on body so as to be under the same law?