Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#661 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 June 2014 - 03:32 PM

First of all can anyone support the claim that some laws were symbolic and neither moral or immoral? Scripture please, because I was told that all of the laws of the Tanach were based on love.

(On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”)

Secondly, did Abraham turn his back on grace because he got circumcised? Did the Messiah profit him nothing because he got circumcised? Or was he the example of our faith?

(11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,)


Thirdly, you cannot appeal to the very thing that is being debated as support for your argument. You claim that there are two gospels and therefore your position is correct when in fact you need to support that there are two gospels in the first place. You will need to supply at least two or three Scriptures (witnesses), because I know of your high standards and you would not ask anything of others without fulfilling the same requirement.


Fourthly, you have not dealt with the scriptural support for there always being a remnant of Israel. Were they cut off completely? If they were not then all of your theories are mute.


Lastly, explain why being grafted into "their olive tree" does not mean what it says? (I think you misspoke on you reply)

Dig,

Answer my questions first.

TeeJay



#662 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 28 June 2014 - 06:16 PM

You mean this one?

"Here's a sure way to know: Give me a verse by a circumcision apostle (Peter, James, John, et. al.) who says that we don't have to keep the Sabbath, get circumcised, keep the Feast of Atonement, and not be concerned about eating meat sacrificed to idols? Just one?"


Do you mean the one above where you assume your position without any support and then ask others to argue against it? *see post below
First you must prove that there are two gospels with Scripture before I can answer. I do not assume that you are correct because I see a harmony of all of the scriptures and I only see one Gospel. Feel free to answer any of my questions though.


*"Thirdly, you cannot appeal to the very thing that is being debated as support for your argument. You claim that there are two gospels and therefore your position is correct when in fact you need to support that there are two gospels in the first place. You will need to supply at least two or three Scriptures (witnesses), because I know of your high standards and you would not ask anything of others without fulfilling the same requirement."

#663 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:07 AM

Can any two gospel people out there explain this verse?

Mat 24;14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

"This Gospel", the same one that Yeshua preached is for ALL nations in ALL the world! This doesn't sound like it would exclude Israel and it certainly doesn't sound like it only applies to Israel.

#664 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:10 AM

Dig,

Doing a kabuki dance will not solve your dilemma.  It is true that circumcision, Sabbath law, Feast of Atonement are perpetual, everlasting, forever for Israel then the Twelve were under these laws.  They were descendants of Abraham.  Now contrast this with Paul (Rom. 14:1-2; 1 Cor. 8:4, 9-10; 10:23-26, 27).  Paul is 180 degrees opposite the circumcision apostles.  Now if you want to refute this, just give me one verse of a circumcision apostle agreeing with Paul?

How could Paul write this if he were under the same gospel as Peter?  Please answer?

Here's worse dilemma for you.  Paul even disagrees with Jesus Christ:

Paul taught his converts that they could eat meat when invited to dinner by unbelievers and not be concerned if it was sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 10:27).  Paul, however, did admonish not to "let their liberty be a stumbling block to others" (Peter's converts saved under the gospel of circumcision). (If I am invited to eat pizza with Seventh Day Adventists, I do not order meat on my pizza or have a beer as that would offend their beliefs.)  So, in absolute opposition to Moses (Ex. 34:12-15; Num. 25:2-3), God permitted Paul to teach his converts they could "eat whatever is set before them."

Jesus Christ ministered through Peter, James, and John to Israel and through Paul to the Body.  Thus through John in the Book of Revelation, Christ directs His commands to Israel.  In stark contrast to Paul's teaching, Christ condemns those in Pergamos who ate meat sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14).  And a few verse later, Christ condemns another group for eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:20).

If God's laws of logic (law of non-contradiction) are absolute, then both Paul and Jesus' teaching can't both be true.  Why?  They contradict each other, and two contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time in the same way.  So, Dig, how can you reconcile the contrary teachings of Paul and Jesus?  Here are your choices:

1.  Exegesis.
2.  Ignore what I posted, not give any opposing argument and change subject.
3.  Call Jesus Christ wrong.
4.  Call Paul a false prophet.
5.  Not answer.
6.  Reconsider your OG position and humbly ask for further discussion.
7.  Seek refuge in Eastern logic where two contradictions can both be true at the same time in the same way.

8.  Come up with an ninth option.

TeeJay


 



#665 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 June 2014 - 07:20 AM

Can any two gospel people out there explain this verse?

Mat 24;14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

"This Gospel", the same one that Yeshua preached is for ALL nations in ALL the world! This doesn't sound like it would exclude Israel and it certainly doesn't sound like it only applies to Israel.

Dig,

Who was Jesus Christ speaking to?

Give me one Bible verse that proves that the Twelve witnessed to one Gentile other than Peter to the centurion Cornelius?  When Peter entered Cornelius' house, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles without them being circumcised.  In spite of this happening, Peter could never teach his converts under the gospel of circumcision to not circumcise.  There was no better way for God to tell Peter than He was instituting a new program:  "Gentiles (and Jews) can come to Me directly and not through Israel and their covenant of circumcision (or law).

Christ also told His followers that they could lay hands on the sick and they would recover; they could drink poison with immunity; and they could step on poisonous snakes and not be concerned if bitten.  Now, Dig, if you think this gospel is the one we are to preach today, please come to my ranch and I will let you step on a Texas Diamondback.  I also have a metal knee.  According to Jesus Christ, you should be able to lay hands on my knee and restore it.  Right?

 

TeeJay



#666 HammerOfGod

HammerOfGod

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morrisville, NC
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Morrisville, NC

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:42 PM

  Now, Dig, if you think this gospel is the one we are to preach today, please come to my ranch and I will let you step on a Texas Diamondback.  

 

Lol, good one TeeJay.  This would work to sort out false prophets as well.

 

 

HoG



#667 HammerOfGod

HammerOfGod

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morrisville, NC
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Morrisville, NC

Posted 22 July 2014 - 08:00 PM

 Because God cut off Israel and sent Paul directly to the Gentiles.  

 

TeeJay,

 

I'm not trying to re-start this thread and this is not a ruse to gain an advantage in some other debate, I really want to know your answer to this question because it's important to some other studies I'm doing.

 

When do you believe national Israel was cut off?  Was it at the stoning of Stephen?  Or was it later at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD?  Or somewhere in between?  (And of course why that date?)

 

Thanking you in advance for your answer,

 

 

HoG



#668 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 July 2014 - 09:40 PM

 

TeeJay,

 

I'm not trying to re-start this thread and this is not a ruse to gain an advantage in some other debate, I really want to know your answer to this question because it's important to some other studies I'm doing.

 

When do you believe national Israel was cut off?  Was it at the stoning of Stephen?  Or was it later at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD?  Or somewhere in between?  (And of course why that date?)

 

Thanking you in advance for your answer,

 

 

HoG

HoG,

We will never know for sure when, exactly, God cut off Israel.  But we can reasonably conclude that it was in Acts 9.  Why because God clearly says He is sending Paul to the Gentiles.  Notice that He does not say He is sending the Twelve to the Gentiles.  He sent the Twelve to Israel (Acts 1:8).  The Twelve's attempt to get Israel to accept their risen Messiah failed and the whole nation of Israel rejected their risen Christ.

 

But the clincher for me is that in the next chapter of Acts (Acts 10), God sends Peter to the Gentile Cornelius.  This the first and only incident of any circumcision apostle witnessing to any Gentile.  When Peter entered Cornelius' house, the Holy Spirit fell on all of the Gentiles without them being circumcised.  The text says that Peter and his party were "astonished."  Why would they be astonished?  Most Christians miss the real message of this incident.  Up until this point in the life of a Jew. any Gentile that wanted to approach Israel's God had to get circumcised and keep the law of Moses.  Circumcision was the gate to Israel's God under the covenant of circumcision.

There was no better way for God to tell Peter that He had cut off Israel and was bypassing Israel and going directly to the Gentiles using Paul. And further, God gave Paul the gospel of grace, were circumcision (synonym for law) was not necessary for salvation.  Challenge!  This will  shock you.  The Twelve did not fulfill their Great Commission.  They did not get out of Israel.  There is no Biblical record of one circumcision Jew witnessing to one Gentile other than Peter to Cornelius.  Not one.  In fact, Acts 11:19 clearly states that Peter's converts witnessed to "no one but Jews only."  

 

TeeJay



#669 HammerOfGod

HammerOfGod

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morrisville, NC
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Morrisville, NC

Posted 24 July 2014 - 02:57 PM

 We will never know for sure when, exactly, God cut off Israel.  But we can reasonably conclude that it was in Acts 9.  

 

TeeJay,

 

Thanks.  I've heard others suggest the cutting off of Israel occurred at the stoning of Stephen (but the Damascus road experience would have occurred within 6 months to a year and therefore in the same general time frame) because the stoning of Stephen clearly demonstrated Israel's corporate rejection of their Messiah.  So Acts 9 would make sense.

 

HoG






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users