ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Interplanner]

James is not talking about sanctification (i.e. that which come as a result of being saved), that's your doctrine but it isn't what James was discussing.


You'd have made a great Jew.


Saying it doesn't make it so.

You have your doctrine, I have the bible...

Galatians 2:12 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
​

Note two gospels. One committed to Paul, the other Peter.
And two groups: The gentile and the Circumcised.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, I have reported 100x on the grammar of Gal 2. There is no more 2 gospels there than there is 2 gods in the next verse, and the two verses basically diagram identically.

this is over with. there is no Greek grammar commentary you can find in agreement with what you are saying. And why, anyway, would you try this, a mere 10 verses from Paul calling on the highest curse there is on anyone with another Gospel?

I can't 'be a great Jew' in D'ist thinking without the DNA. Perhaps you meant 'believer' which stands or falls by faith, Rom 11. Which I am, no thanks to you.

James was talking about justification, and faith cannot be lifeless. It never is. I would not have made a great Jew of one of those kind James is speaking to, because I believe it must be alive.

You are stuck in some really flawed doctrines and you need to dump them.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes sir. I see the apostles as a whole as the authority and I believe that is what scripture supports.)
Eph. 2:20 Eph. 3:5[/QUOTE


Then in Acts 15:6 KJV if they considered of this matter(that Paul and Barnabas was arguing) then who was teaching it first the ones who were considering it or the ones who had no small disputation about it?

Christians who had formerly been pharisees were trying to teach circ in a way that was mistaken.

 

[Interplanner]

I attend a Baptist church. It wasn't an insult, just an observation. I could have picked any one of at least half a dozen different groups. The point isn't the group, the point is that you pick one group of scriptures (problem texts) and interpret them in light of some other group of scriptures (proof texts). In this case, you do it the way the Baptists do. Another group has the same two groups of scriptures they just swap them around, your problem texts become their proof texts and your proof texts become their problem texts. It's just two sides of the same errant coin. The error being the failure to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The error isn't which group of texts you choose as proof texts, its that you have to choose at all.

Clete

Did you know the concept of rightly dividing is mistaken? It was written about what to tell various needy groups in a church about what kind of benevolent help to expect. Antiquated D'ism, being anti-intellectual, thinks it is a 'system' for knowing the Bible. Which was developed by a guy who thought the Bible did not make sense until he came. A 19th century guy.

 

[Interplanner]

Here's the thing:

Circumcision is not inherently wrong, nor is it prohibited by Paul... Except for religious reasons.

Circumcising your child for cultural or medical reasons is not prohibited. However, Paul is warning against circumcising for religious reasons, ie, becoming a Jew, because when you circumcise for religious reasons, you are placing yourself under the law, and are then a debtor to keep the whole law, such as all the feasts, the Sabbath, etc.

Why?

Because circumcision is a symbol for the Jews to separate them from the rest of the world, and only the Jews would circumcise to indicate their status as "God's people". And God's people were required to follow certain laws which God himself put in place (not talking about the moral laws here), to remind them to trust in Him.

The twelve never stopped teaching "be circumcised" (aka keep the law) because they never went to anyone other than the Jews. Paul on the other hand taught don't be circumcised, because then you'll be required to keep the whole law, which conflicts with "you are not under law, but under grace."

But Peter's recollection of things in Acts 15 is that God sent him to the Gentiles...

 

[JudgeRightly]

I agree for the most part except for the 12 teaching "keep the law". We can assume and draw conclusions but I'm not aware of it. I don't see anywhere in scripture, after Pentecost, where they do.

I'm of the opinion that since they were in Jerusalem they continued in the traditions to win the Jews just as Paul circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews so that they would listening to the gospel.

When Peter did convert a Gentile, circumcision is not mentioned in scripture.

Read Galatians 2 straight through.

Clete, I have reported 100x on the grammar of Gal 2. There is no more 2 gospels there than there is 2 gods in the next verse, and the two verses basically diagram identically.

this is over with. there is no Greek grammar commentary you can find in agreement with what you are saying. And why, anyway, would you try this, a mere 10 verses from Paul calling on the highest curse there is on anyone with another Gospel?

I can't 'be a great Jew' in D'ist thinking without the DNA. Perhaps you meant 'believer' which stands or falls by faith, Rom 11. Which I am, no thanks to you.

James was talking about justification, and faith cannot be lifeless. It never is. I would not have made a great Jew of one of those kind James is speaking to, because I believe it must be alive.

You are stuck in some really flawed doctrines and you need to dump them.

"The father and the husband went to the store."

"The father and husband went to the store."

How many people in the first sentence? How many in the second?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Further, Peter and the Twelve were believers and Paul explicitly stated that God had not cut them when He cut off Israel as a nation

Yes, you got that right, Clete. And Paul tells us exactly what happened to the believing Jews when Israel was temporarily set aside:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph.2:13-16).​

The miidle wall of partition between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers was broken down and both groups were reconciled unto God in one Body, the Body of Christ.

But according to your ideas the Twelve and all those who received the Hebrew epistles were not reconciled unto God in the Body of Christ and the middle wall of partition still separated the Gentile believers from the Jewish believers.

Your ideas are a perfect example of wrongly dividing the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

Read Galatians 2 straight through.



"The father and the husband went to the store."

"The father and husband went to the store."

How many people in the first sentence? How many in the second?

Why all this interest in grammar except when it is the Greek grammar of the text? So you can keep believing D'ist nonsense, that's why.

There is one verb in v7 'preach the gospel' because there is one gospel. OTHERWISE THE TEXT WOULD HAVE SAID PETER COULD PREACH 'HIS GOSPEL' TO JEWS. IT DOES NOT. There is one god in the next verse--except in D'ism, where who knows what might happen.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, you got that right, Clete. And Paul tells us exactly what happened to the believing Jews when Israel was temporarily set aside:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph.2:13-16).​

The miidle wall of partition between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers was broken down and both groups were reconciled unto God in one Body, the Body of Christ.

But according to your ideas the Twelve and all those who received the Hebrew epistles were not reconciled unto God in the Body of Christ and the middle wall of partition still separated the Gentile believers from the Jewish believers.

Your ideas are a perfect example of wrongly dividing the Bible.

Everyone who does not have faith is 'set aside.' Rom 11.

 

[Interplanner]

Read Galatians 2 straight through.



"The father and the husband went to the store."

"The father and husband went to the store."

How many people in the first sentence? How many in the second?

"read Galatians 2 straight through" is a non-answer with a non-position. You have to stick to exact details, like the one Gospel in v7 and the one God in v8.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why all this interest in grammar except when it is the Greek grammar of the text? So you can keep believing D'ist nonsense, that's why.

There is one verb in v7 'preach the gospel' because there is one gospel. OTHERWISE THE TEXT WOULD HAVE SAID PETER COULD PREACH 'HIS GOSPEL' TO JEWS. IT DOES NOT. There is one god in the next verse--except in D'ism, where who knows what might happen.

Sounds like you can't answer the question, IP.

Here's the answer.

In the first sentence, there are two people. In the second there is only one person.

Do you know why that is?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"read Galatians 2 straight through" is a non-answer with a non-position. You have to stick to exact details, like the one Gospel in v7 and the one God in v8.

Ignoring the context of a post isn't a very good idea. My answer is in accordance with my position, which I have previously given to Turbo.

The only reason you can't see how what I said is an answer to his question is because you don't seem to understand the idea of "context."

Same with how you read the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"read Galatians 2 straight through" is a non-answer with a non-position. You have to stick to exact details, like the one Gospel in v7 and the one God in v8.

Also, the word "God" is not in Gal 2:8. Instead, the word ὁ is used for "the[one]."

Which also ties in to what I said two posts above.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Everyone who does not have faith is 'set aside.' Rom 11.

Set aside from what?

The nation of Israel was a special people unto the Lord because they were to be a light to the other nations. But when that nation rejected their promised Messiah the Lord set them aside as His agent to be a light unto the nations.

Then He appointed Paul to be the apostle of the Gentiles.

Can you not see that a big change in the LORD's plan toward Israel when that nation refused to believe that the Lord Jesus is their promised Messiah?

 

[Interplanner]

Set aside from what?

The nation of Israel was a special people unto the Lord because they were to be a light to the other nations. But when that nation rejected their promised Messiah the Lord set them aside as His agent to be a light unto the nations.

Then He appointed Paul to be the apostle of the Gentiles.

Can you not see that a big change in the LORD's plan toward Israel when that nation refused to believe that the Lord Jesus is their promised Messiah?

No it was not a big change because he still accomplished it but they missed out. Or to put it the way Acts 13 does 'you do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life.' Any of them who believed and were missionaries were "in", any who did neither were "out." There is no more dealings as a nation.

This is why, when addressing your very question, Paul says 'it is not as though the word of God has failed.' Or 10:18. What is the resolution? 11:7 Israel did not obtain it but the elect did. Nothing can be done about the hardened portion, unless they do it themselves. Meanwhile, because God is not running two programs, it is those who believe who are blessed and the combination of Jews and Gentiles who believe are the 'all' or 'complete Israel' of 11:26 who are already enjoying the Redeemer from Zion and his covenant, the same as Dan 9.

 

[Interplanner]

Sounds like you can't answer the question, IP.

Here's the answer.

In the first sentence, there are two people. In the second there is only one person.

Do you know why that is?

I could care less about a grammatical analogy from a person who is unwilling or incompetent in grammar about a specific text, namely, 2:7, 8.

There was one gospel preached by both, two audiences. There is no other grammatical conclusion. in v8, there is one God empowering both efforts. The sentences are structured the same.

Why on earth would you pick this passage for proof when it is 10 verses away from Paul cursing a 2nd gospel?

 

[Interplanner]

Ignoring the context of a post isn't a very good idea. My answer is in accordance with my position, which I have previously given to Turbo.

The only reason you can't see how what I said is an answer to his question is because you don't seem to understand the idea of "context."

Same with how you read the Bible.

Hey guess what? You don't need to tell us that your answers are your position! We kind of knew!

It's like saying "Choice is a decision!" Wow, what insight.

The D'ist view of Gal 2 is a detonation of the context, of the very incident they think they know. There is fundamental dishonesty here, and my mission is to help them see that. You have screwed over the context of Gal 2.

 

[Interplanner]

Also, the word "God" is not in Gal 2:8. Instead, the word ὁ is used for "the[one]."

Which also ties in to what I said two posts above.

Idiotic. You know he meant God. But I guess the "One" at work in two gospels was Ryrie or Darby or Scofield; that's how D'ists think.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I could care less about a grammatical analogy from a person who is unwilling or incompetent in grammar about a specific text, namely, 2:7, 8.

There was one gospel preached by both, two audiences. There is no other grammatical conclusion. in v8, there is one God empowering both efforts. The sentences are structured the same.

Why on earth would you pick this passage for proof when it is 10 verses away from Paul cursing a 2nd gospel?

IP, do you know that it's easier to walk before running?

I want to see if you understand basic grammar before moving on to Greek, and KOINE greek at that.

The fact that you don't care about english grammar tells me that you'd rather just push your beliefs on what scripture says rather than understanding what it actually says.

So again, IP, as we learn walk before we learn to run, why is it that the first sentence (which can be found above), that says "the father and the husband," is talking about two people, whereas the second sentence, that says "the father and husband," is only talking about one person?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There is no more dealings as a nation.

So you actually see a change because in the OT the LORD was indeed dealing with Israel as a nation!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Idiotic.

Says the one who is unwilling to discuss simple matters.

You know he meant God.

:duh:

Of course.

But that's not my point.

My point is that God is only (indirectly) mentioned ONCE in that verse.

this ties into what I'm saying, so don't forget it.

But I guess the "One" at work in two gospels was Ryrie or Darby or Scofield; that's how D'ists think.

As someone who doesn't even know who those people are (though admittedly I've heard of their names before in passing), I find in interesting that you have to always take swings at people who are simply trying to understand the Bible better when you're in a discussion about the Bible.