Interplanner
Well-known member
Believers? They were believers in Judaism when they arrived. They would not be Christians until after hearing the Christian gospel from Peter.
ECT Which Gospel?
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
Sounds like you are asserting that prior to this Acts 2 Christianity notion of yours, men were saved by believing in something other than the Cross.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nope, it goes back to Jer, Daniel, isaiah, genesis. What I'm saying about Acts 2 is that the visitors were already followers of Judaism. They were the very ones the miracle sign of tongues was for so that they knew for sure that God was now going to the nations with the Gospel. The Gentiles hear the Gospel (eventually) but those in Judaism need to witness the miracle and hear the Gospel in their language so they can take it themselves. In the correction of Peter , Acts 11, both happen. Peter was the one who had returned into Judaism.
A stunner. That's because of that 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV problem of yours, condescending one, resulting in 1 Cor. 2:14 KJV.
Get saved, and you will "see."
In the meantime, have a seat.
There are four different gospels in the New Testament--five if we include Paul's authentic letters.
I think we have to take them all seriously on their own merits. The fact that there are contradictions and discrepancies between and among them only points to the diversity in early Christian theology.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Aikido,
there is a distinction between one of the literary entities called a gospel and the ongoing message of the apostles. The message is the event of God being in Christ, taking the imputation of man's sin on himself and offering Christ's righteousness, whether this is written or oral. Mankind can be forgiven if a person accepts this offer. That's different from the fact of much of the life and ministry of Jesus being written out from four similar perspectives.
there is a distinction between one of the literary entities called a gospel and the ongoing message of the apostles. The message is the event of God being in Christ, taking the imputation of man's sin on himself and offering Christ's righteousness, whether this is written or oral. Mankind can be forgiven if a person accepts this offer. That's different from the fact of much of the life and ministry of Jesus being written out from four similar perspectives.
I agree. It's not just the gospel accounts, but it is the meaning and message we discover in them.
And we all see a different meaning and a different message, because we humans are "cherry-picking" creatures.
Your error is in your assuming there is no way to avoid the cherry picking just because you have concluded there is none.
Just a matter of key passages that give the sense of all else the writer is writing about.
You want to understand Matthew thru Early Acts, for example, then simply seek out and look to rely on key passages like Matthew 10:6; Matthew 10:23, Matthew 15:24, Mark 7:27; and Acts 3: 24, 25, 26, and other passages like them that give you the sense their overall narrative is to be understood from.
It is that simple to avoid cherry picking.
Interplanner
Well-known member
lol, that was for the 70 Danoh. It's part of "to the Jew first, and then the Gentile" because he wanted to train missionaries to be ready to go later. That does not help a person structure the NT or the Bible.
Rom 11 also has the emphasis on getting the Jews to work in the Gospel first, because of background and some innate abilities.
Same for Acts 3. Did you happen to notice that Acts 2 was a kickstart of the Christian mission in all those nations to whom the festival attendees returned?
And the same use of the father's promise and covenant that Paul uses is there in Peter (the guy with the other gospel...)
Why not use Act 13? 2 cor 3-5? Gal 3? Worried that something dear to you will not survive?
Rom 11 also has the emphasis on getting the Jews to work in the Gospel first, because of background and some innate abilities.
Same for Acts 3. Did you happen to notice that Acts 2 was a kickstart of the Christian mission in all those nations to whom the festival attendees returned?
And the same use of the father's promise and covenant that Paul uses is there in Peter (the guy with the other gospel...)
Why not use Act 13? 2 cor 3-5? Gal 3? Worried that something dear to you will not survive?
Shasta
Well-known member
The “Book” the Psalmist was reading from and speaking about was not the Spanish Bible, the Chinese Bible, the Latin Vulgate or the King James Version. It was the word of God as it was originally spoken and written down by Moses and the prophets in their own language which was Hebrew and Aramaic. Psalms 119, in which each verse had a synonym for scripture was not about the KJV but the Hebrew Bible. That is what Ezra who wrote Psalm 119 meant. Do what his words meant to him matter to us? I say it absolutely matters. Translations are just attempts to render the original inspired word in the vernacular of various peoples. It is a noble work and the best at it are those who reverently try to do that instead of infusing their own ideas into the text. Admittedly some do this better than others but on what basis do you dogmatically claim that the KJV renders the original more accurately than every other translation? How do you know that your premise is correct? By faith? Faith in what? The Bible contains no doctrine pertaining to the KJV or any version.
Translations have been produced since the earliest days of the Church. The only objective criteria to determine how accurate they or the King James or any modern translation is to compare them to the blueprint of the original text. Fortunately, we do not need to know the original languages in order to study the word. Nowadays we have many tools to assist us if we would only take the time to avail ourselves of them.
The meaning of many scriptures (like the ones you cite) is clear. However, it is a mistake to assume that this will always the case which is why the Bible says we must search for wisdom as for hidden treasure (Proverbs 2:4). Maybe a plot of land is so rich in valuable minerals that gems can be plucked right off the ground. This would indicate that there are more that lie under the surface which must be mined. Exegesis is equivalent to the work of mining.
At first I thought you believed that the men who created the King James were inspired to pick the best English terms to fit the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words. Apparently I was wrong, for when I brought up the objection that, no matter what it looked like to some people, their translation of Galatians 2:7 was not meant to convey the idea of two gospels, you replied, in effect, that it did not matter what they meant. You claimed you were able to find the real meaning of a text through meditating upon the words of “your King James.” It occurred to me then that what you meant by “your King James” was not the work written by translators and published in 1611 but rather, your impressions of what the words of that Bible mean. This approach being intuitive and subjective rather than objective is seriously flawed and vulnerable to error. This matters most where doctrinal issues become more refined.
The idea is developed, I will grant you that, but many doctrines that are supported by elaborate hermeneutical systems are totally incorrect. No one had a more elaborated system of theology than the Gnostics who believed they could see their imagined “pattern” all though the scriptures (the writings of Paul anyway) but that did not make them right.
A doctrinal system is only as sound as the interpretation of the individual passages on which the structure rests for support. In talking to proponents of the “dual gospel” doctrine I often find that, rather than answer my objections in a given passage, they want to draw my attention elsewhere in an effort to take me on a guided tour of scripture so that I will see what they think is the bigger picture. In an effort to grasp the whole they neglect the very specifics upon which the whole depends. A house, no matter how symmetrical and elegant, is only as stable as the quality of the individual stones of which it consists.
Deuteronomy 17:
18. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20. That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
Proverbs 25:
1. These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.
Yo, Mr. Objective - do your homework - in Scripture itself - and you'll find the writer of Proverbs was relying on copies; not on "the original."
While you and yours are off reading books supposedly "about" and or "based on the Bible" - to which you then add your own subjective notions also, some of us are actually studying Scripture.
As a result, all we need to rely on, is the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
In short, on "All Scripture" alone.
Odd concept, hunh - actually believing that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 over your traditions.
When will you guys come clean and actually trust the Book you waste so much time reading in your endless books "about."
:bang: :bang: :bang:
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's odd unless people who are just reading the Bible itself have no idea what 'right dividing' is, because they are just by themselves, or have no idea how much impact the books they mention have had on them.
In Paul's time it had to do with dividing between ceremonial and essential law. See I Tim 1:4. 6:3. 6:20. 2 Tim 2:23. Tit. 1:10, 14-16. 3:9-11.
In Paul's time it had to do with dividing between ceremonial and essential law. See I Tim 1:4. 6:3. 6:20. 2 Tim 2:23. Tit. 1:10, 14-16. 3:9-11.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:e4e:
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, rightly dividing includes such things as the difference between "Repent and be baptized" and "Believe unto righteousness". It's nice to pretend like it is limited to what you claim, but it is much more. It's all those things that are different between the time before the cross and what was revealed to Paul by the risen Lord. They simply are NOT the same.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Glory,
the reason those were chosen is because the three letters (Tims and Titus) were close together in origin. They are the context of making right distinctions: words, genealogy, ceremonial things. Your two examples are your issues. Dispensationalism uses this phrase as a banner for dividing up the Bible into dispensations.
I'm returning us to the kinds of things Paul knew that Tim and Titus had to deal with. Use the context properly.
the reason those were chosen is because the three letters (Tims and Titus) were close together in origin. They are the context of making right distinctions: words, genealogy, ceremonial things. Your two examples are your issues. Dispensationalism uses this phrase as a banner for dividing up the Bible into dispensations.
I'm returning us to the kinds of things Paul knew that Tim and Titus had to deal with. Use the context properly.
Shasta
Well-known member
All translations are made on the basis of copies. Did I give the impression that I think we still have the originals. Copies are compared and analyzed to determine their antiquity and the degree of certainty that they are like the originals. Why do we go to all that trouble? It is because we want the words as close to the original as possible. There is relatively little textual variance such that our certainty can be in the range of more than 90% that what we have today is identical to the what the authors wrote.
Surely you do not think that EVERY copy and translation of the prophets reflects the thought and intent of the prophet's words equally well. If they did there would be no difference between the translations and no arguments about which one was the best.
Translations have been in production since the First Century. We still have multitudes of those. Are they not as valid as the KJV and on what basis do you make your claim. The Bible itself says a lot about itself but nothing about the KJV so making a point about it is like the Supreme Court conjuring meanings out of the Constitution that are not there.
That being said, I like the KJV because the archaic language makes it easy to memorize. It also translates idioms literally which gives interesting insight into the original expressions. Also I have learned a lot of scriptures in Elizibethan English and old habits are hard to break. Generally I read the translations which are most literal checking what it written there with the Greek NT.
You assume a lot if you think I spend all my time reading books about the Bible rather than reading the Bible. For most of my Christian life I have avoided commentaries except those that have a linguistic basis. Those are tools to help me understand the original words (as they have been passed down)
No, I am not so certain of my objectivity as you suggest. I have been in error before. I have been in and exposed to cultish groups which distorted the word, yet no matter how unscriptural their views were they could not be convinced otherwise. It is precisely because I have seen such things that I try to interpret the word with care - which does not mean I am always right by any means.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Why you chose those verses isn't the issue. Your claim doesn't hold true for what I mentioned or the myriad of other issues. Would you care to address those?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you agree that what is said here applies to the Jews who lived under the Law?:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn.3:16).
glorydaz
Well-known member
Can one live under the law when Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe?