138 replies to this topic

[ikester7579]

Teejay, your entire post is a gigantic strawman.

I told you quite clearly that what we were discussing here is the existance of multiple gospels.

What we weren't discussing, and consequently what I have never denied, is the fact that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, whereas the other apostles focused their attention on the Jews.

Now since you maintain that there were two separate gospels, don't you think it strange that Paul's letters were being sent to the Jews?

I also noticed that you completely ignored the last part of my previous post, which I think demands a response, since it completely destroys the idea that there was a separate "gospel of circumcision" for the Jews. So let me repeat what I said, in case you missed it.

Here again is what Paul wrote in Galatians 2:15,16:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 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."

This tells us clearly that:

1) legalism is wrong.

and

2) Even Jews know that it is wrong.

And my even my final question was left unanswered:

Which "gospel" applied to Paul?

Is it not ironic that you are having the same problems I am? Yet the person who does this blames it all on us. Well Teejay that's 2 of us that notice your skipping of our questions yet you require us to answer yours.

[Salsa]

When you admit that Peter wrote his letters to Jews we will continue. I will not play games.

Teejay as far as I can see you are the one playing games. I have never said, or even hinted, that Peter did not write his letter to the Jews, so I suggest that you follow your own (and Fred's) advice and read my posts more carefully.

Now I pointed out how Peter in his 2nd letter indicates that even Pauls writings were also being sent to the Jews. This you haven't commented on.

You also (still) havn't responded to the last part of my post which totally invalidates a grace+works gospel for the jews. Here it is again:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 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."

This tells us clearly that:

1) legalism is wrong.

and

2) Even Jews know that it is wrong.

And a couple of questions that I think you should answer instead of constantly being evasive:

1) Which "gospel" applied to Paul?

2) When Israel is saved again after being cut off, what gospel will they have to obey? One of works or one of grace?

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" Rom 11:25,26

Now please answer these questions without all the side-stepping.

[ikester7579]

When you admit that Peter wrote his letters to Jews we will continue. I will not play games.

TeeJay

I find that remark ironic since you ignore us yet expect us not to ignore you.

[Salsa]

Is it not ironic that you are having the same problems I am? Yet the person who does this blames it all on us. Well Teejay that's 2 of us that notice your skipping of our questions yet you require us to answer yours.

Yeah, I know. It's almost embarrasing. And not only that, I have had the same problems debating Teejay before and recognize the same pattern being used repeatedly. As soon as he realizes he cannot defend his stance he simply pretends that he has "already answered" and sends you on a wild goose chase re-reading everything he has posted. But I know that the most important questions in our discussion here have not been answered in this thread.

These are dishonest debating tactics that Teejay uses to weasel out of a situation where he knows he has been proven wrong.

[Teejay]

ki[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331532459' post='81500']
Teejay as far as I can see you are the one playing games. I have never said, or even hinted, that Peter did not write his letter to the Jews, so I suggest that you follow your own (and Fred's) advice and read my posts more carefully.[/quote]

UD,

In Post 100, you asked me: "To whom do you think Peter was writing in his epistles? To Jews or Gentiles?" I mistakenly answered Ikester thinking that he had asked the question. (I admitted I was wrong and confused for doing that.) But I answered that Peter wrote to the "pilgrims" of the "disperson" and I gave a good answer as to whom it was written which was not Gentiles.

In Post 104 you wrote: "What does 'pilgrims' or 'dispersion' have to do with it? Were they Jews or Gentiles?"

In Post 108, I showed irrefragably, with Scripture, that Peter wrote to Jews.

In Post 111, you asked me again to whom Peter wrote his epistles.

In Post 116, I repeated my Post of 108 and expanded my argument. I did so, because I could only conclude that you had not read my Post 108?

Your Post 118: You posted to me, after all my answers to you with Scripture: "Your entire post is a gigantic strawman," and then you changed the subject! UD, I can't possibly dialogue with you. You ask me to whom Peter wrote his letters and when I answer, you accuse me of creating a strawman. If you did not want to know to whom Peter wrote his letters, then why in the world did you ask me?????????????????????????

To all: The OSAS can't be proved one way or the other unless, and this is a big UNLESS we rightly divide Israel from the Body. The main reason why the Body of Christ is fractured today is Christians think, for some strange reason, that Jesus came to the world. He did not . He came only to the House of Israel. He was born under the law, kept the law, and taught His apostles to keep the law, "the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone." He never told His followers to go to the Gentiles. He told them to go to Israel, Judea, and Samaria (half Jews) first. For Israel kto be His evangelical nation to the world, Israel would first have to accept Jesus as their Messiah.

When Jesus rose from the dead, He taught His apostles the whole of the OT "concerning Him," and He told them to "obey all that I have taught you." Jesus did not teach them that they were saved by grace and were no longer under the law or good works requirements. You can't find this in the Book or Acts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or any circumcision epistle. Why? Because the gospel of uncircumcison was not given to circumcision converts.

Jesus promised His apostles to get ready to go into the Tribulation, but not to dispair for He was coming back in 7 years: "Some of you shall not die, until you see Me coming..." Jesus gave His apostles 12 signs of the coming Tribulation. Most of those twelve signs were fulfilled in Acts. I can prove it if anyone wants to listen. The Twelve did not preach to any Gentile (except Peter to Cornelius) and DID NOT FULFILL THEIR GREAT COMMISSION to go to the world (Gentiles). In fact they preached to "no one but the Jews only." A careful reading of Acts about the Jerusalem Council reveals why God sent Peter to Cornelius: It was to show Peter that Israel was cut off, the mantle was passed to Paul, and there were new marching orders. The new marching orders were that the Gentiles did not have to get circumcised and keep Israel law to approach Israel's God, for Israel had now been cut off. "The casting away of Israel" is the reconcilling of the world," Paul wrote. Before the Peter/Cornelius incident, any proselyte Jew that Peter may have encountered had to get circumcised and was automatically placed under the Abrahamic Covenent of Circumcision where he had to keep the 'PERPETUAL" LAWS FOR ISRAEL, such as circumcision, Sabbath keeping, feasts, etc. Breaking any of these laws was a death penalty, even though they were symbolic. But when Peter went to Cornelius, "the Holy Spirit" fell on the Gentiles without them being circumcised." Scripture reads that Peter was "astonished." Why? Because Peter realized that God had changed the house rules. If you are going to play billiards at someone's house for money, you had better learn what are the house rules. Christians ignore the fact that God did this, as if it did not matter? This is why they are confused.

Jesus return to Israel and they getting their kingdom, and the judging of the sheep and the goats, was contingent on Israel rejecting their risen Messiah. They did not. They stoned Stephen. God cut off Israel and their circumcision program or taking the law, miracles, and Jesus to the world. God decided to bypass Israel and go directly to the Gentiles with one apostle Paul with the gospel of grace (Gal. 2:7-9).ce

Now a shocker: Brace yourselves. The gospel of grace (no works or law) was not prophesied anywhere in the Bible. Neither was the establishment of the Body of Christ. Both "were kept secret" and "never before revealed" and a "mystery."

TeeJay

[Teejay]

To all:

I will be glad to have a one on one debate with any opponent you choose. Fred can be the moderator. We can have a five, ten round debate? If you choose UD, I must ask that the moderator ensure that my opponent and me as well admit to truth when it is self-evident that a matter is established by Scripture (not opinion). If A is self-evident and I argue if A then B and my opponent won't admit A is true, then we argue for naught. Unless we enforce this rule, then we can't reach any truth; rather we simply deny truth and we are argung just to be arguing. At the end of each post, an opponent can ask questions that will require mandatory answers. The moderator will ensure that opponents do not avoid answering or side-stepping the questions.

My argument will be: Jesus came in the flesh only to Israel. He was born under the law,kept the law perfectly, and taught His followers to keep the law. Israel rejected they Messiah when He walked among them. God gave Israel one extra year to accept their risen Messiah. The Twelve were still under the law after the Cross and that God never gave them a gospel of grace where law keeping and good works were not required for salvation. Israel rejected the preaching of the Twelve and refused to accept their risen Messiah. God cut off Israel for unbelief. God bypassed Israel and took Paul directly to the Gentiles, bypassing Israel, and gave Paul the Gospel of Grace where no law or good works are required for salvation.

TeeJay

[Salsa]

In Post 100, you asked me: "To whom do you think Peter was writing in his epistles? To Jews or Gentiles? I mistakenly answered Ikester thinking that he had asked the question. (I admitted I was wrong and confused for doing that.) But I answered that Peter wrote to the "pilgrims" or the "disperson" and I gave a good answer as to whom it was written which was not Gentiles.

Sure, but not only did you mistakenly confuse who asked the question, you also seem to be totally confused about why I posed the question. Now, once again I am forced to remind you to read carefully my posts instead of quickly jumping to conclusions. The question is posed was no attempt by me to assert that Peter wrote to the gentiles. I KNOW that he wrote to the Jews! Do you understand that?

The reason I asked you to whom Peter's epistles were addressed was because of the fact that he indicates clearly that Paul's letters were ALSO being circulated among the Jews, which is rather peculiar if the so-called "gospel of circumcision" as you call it was to be held separate from the gospel of grace which I maintain is the one and only gospel!

In Post 104 you wrote: "What does 'pilgrims' or 'dispersion' have to do with it? Were they Jews or Gentiles?"
In Post 108, I showed irrefragably, with Scripture, that Peter wrote to Jews.

Yes you did, but the original question was posed in posted in post 100. All you had to do was answer "Jews" or "gentiles" (or both but that would have defeated your argument I guess). But instead your response was:

"Peter wrote to the pilgrims of the dispersion or Jews."

Which I found a little confusing. You also never gave me an answer as to what "pilgrims" or "dispersion" had to do with the question I posed.

But OK, after all the irrelevancies surrouding this particular question you finally admitted that Peter wrote to the Jews. But as I said, it doesn't matter which answer you choose, it proves that you are incorrct about the existence of multiple gospels. If Peter wrote to the gentiles then that would prove you wrong. If Peter wrote to a mixture of Jews and gentiles then that would prove you wrong. And finally if, as you correctly maintain, Peter wrote to the Jews, then why does he not only indicate that Paul's letters were being curculated among the Jews, but also supports them by saying:

"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

In other words he is verifying to the Jews that Paul's writings are on the same level as scripture! He makes no mention of the fact that Paul's gospel did not apply to them, and neither does Paul indicate in any of his writings that the gospel truths that were revealed to him were only applicable to gentiles.

Your Post 118: You posted to me, after all my answers to you with Scripture: "Your entire post is a gigantic strawman," and then you changed the subject

No Teejay I did NOT change the subject! In fact I tried to re-establish the subject in that very post:

"I told you quite clearly that what we were discussing here is the existance of multiple gospels."

If you did not want to know to whom Peter wrote his letters, then why in the world did you ask me?????????????????????????

I asked you because I was trying to get some kind of admission from you, because I have had enough of your dodging. I want you to understand how ridiculous your position is, and I cannot do so unless you clearly tell me what YOU believe about Peter's letters. I most certainly didn't ask you the question because I was trying to get some condescending answer from you as to whom I though he was writing.

Now, you have gone into some detail about the question you (after a certain amount of equivocation) finally answered. But what about the questions that you didn't answer? Are you thowing out smokescreens in order to avoid them???

I can't possibly dialogue with you.

I find this TOTALY amazing. You claim that you "cannot dialogue with me". And in the very next post you suggest ME, of all people, as some kind of opponent in a debate that would undoubtedly be spiced with evasive and totally frustrating tactics that I think should never be used by anyone claiming to be a Christian!

I haven't even mentioned the OSAS debate! I have only touched on the subject of multiple gospels and after quite a number of posts I can't even get you to answer a few questions and admit that you are wrong.

What would anyone hope to get out of a debate with you concerning something as complex and slippery as is the OSAS debate?

You need to change your attitude, show some respect towards those who are debating you, and loose the dishonest tactics.

[ikester7579]

Just to show how this subject reaches people, here is an e-mail I received:

Excellent content on your site yecheadquarters.org about OSAS.

Being raised Southern Baptist, I was also a devout OSAS proclaimer. But like you, after hours and hours of research and studying (Finis Jennings Dake and others on this subject) and after seeing the thread of this message run throughout the whole Bible, I became convinced to that OSAS doctrine is perhaps the most damning doctrine in Christianity today. I personally believe that perhaps millions are in hell today because they were duped into believing that salvation was unconditional and therefore, they could do what they pleased and still get in "by the skin of their teeth."

I have a lot of articles on my website: "Omitted for privacy" from various teachings regarding OSAS. With your permission I would like to add a few articles of yours on there as well. They would be posted in their entirety with a link at the end of each article to the original article on your website and you will be listed as the author. Please let me know if I have your permission.

Last thing. As a web developer: "website omitted for privacy", I just wanted to offer a suggestion that white text on a dark background is much harder to read. If the page is fairly long, you may be losing people before they read the entire article. If you ever decide to change the look, please consider using a light colored background and black text with more leading (or spacing) between the lines of text. Just a suggestion from one brother to another that wants to get this message out.

Thank you for all you are doing for the Kingdom of God, the time and dedication you are putting forth, and the opposition you are enduring to get the truth out.

God Bless!

Reggie "last name omitted for privacy". End of e-mail.

Teejay, I'm not trying to discourage you because you can believe what you like. We all have that choice. But people are seeing right through this and it ends up being part of what you do that helps them be convinced that osas is wrong.

What I find that makes most osas believers not even want to consider no-osas is what the osas side tries to tell them that no-osas is all about. And because they want the osas believer to be afraid of even considering no-osas they add some scare to it by claiming things that are not even true. So I think maybe you should list here your problems with no-osas, and what you have been told so that the misconceptions can be corrected.

Here is one I often here from osas which is wrong about no-osas.

You lose your salvation every time you sin... Wrong. Salvation is a condition of the heart and it is God's grace that covers us until we ask for forgiveness and repent.

There is more but I will see what Teejay posts.

[ikester7579]

To all:

I will be glad to have a one on one debate with any opponent you choose. Fred can be the moderator. We can have a five, ten round debate? If you choose UD, I must ask that the moderator ensure that my opponent and me as well admit to truth when it is self-evident that a matter is established by Scripture (not opinion). If A is self-evident and I argue if A then B and my opponent won't admit A is true, then we argue for naught. Unless we enforce this rule, then we can't reach any truth; rather we simply deny truth and we are argung just to be arguing. At the end of each post, an opponent can ask questions that will require mandatory answers. The moderator will ensure that opponents do not avoid answering or side-stepping the questions.

My argument will be: Jesus came in the flesh only to Israel. He was born under the law,kept the law perfectly, and taught His followers to keep the law. Israel rejected they Messiah when He walked among them. God gave Israel one extra year to accept their risen Messiah. The Twelve were still under the law after the Cross and that God never gave them a gospel of grace where law keeping and good works were not required for salvation. Israel rejected the preaching of the Twelve and refused to accept their risen Messiah. God cut off Israel for unbelief. God bypassed Israel and took Paul directly to the Gentiles, bypassing Israel, and gave Paul the Gospel of Grace where no law or good works are required for salvation.

TeeJay

You know how I gauge whether someone has truth? It's because real Biblical truth humbles. Non-biblical truth makes a person have pride in what they believe and therefore do prideful things to defend it.

What is of the flesh and appeals to the flesh will bring up attitudes that will always point to pride.
What is of the spirit appeals to the spirit and will humble you and always point to God and His word.

[Fred Williams]

Guys, each of us thinks the other is wrong, has pride, all these things. I think the one area of common ground we can agree upon is that we all fall way short, and none of us is immune to our testosterone! So let's keep battling it out but try to keep that in mind. I honesty see myself on both sides of this, in other words, you're all idiots and I'm an idiot! LOL.

I would actually love to see a debate on the two gospels concept, and I have to admit I am biased toward TeeJay's position. I happen to have found over the last couple years that it was not easy for me to reject two gospels outright, and only recently I pretty much am now of a mind to accept it! I will start a separate thread on the topic, and would love to hear why (seriously) that I'm wrong and a raging idiot, heathen, lahhhooo, zaheerr (that's loser.).

[Remnant of The Abyss]

Guys, each of us thinks the other is wrong, has pride, all these things. I think the one area of common ground we can agree upon is that we all fall way short, and none of us is immune to our testosterone! So let's keep battling it out but try to keep that in mind. I honesty see myself on both sides of this, in other words, you're all idiots and I'm an idiot! LOL.

I would actually love to see a debate on the two gospels concept, and I have to admit I am biased toward TeeJay's position. I happen to have found over the last couple years that it was not easy for me to reject two gospels outright, and only recently I pretty much am now of a mind to accept it! I will start a separate thread on the topic, and would love to hear why (seriously) that I'm wrong and a raging idiot, heathen, lahhhooo, zaheerr (that's loser.).

No man fully understands all of God's Word, so I agree with this, only not the part about you being [insert your humble words here]. Thanks for trying to set a good tone for this and future debates. Sibling rivalry has gotten a bit out of hand and we all need to check our pride at the door.

[Fred Williams]

New thread on two gospels is here.

[MamaElephant]

Jesus Himself forbid the Twelve from going to any Gentiles, but told them to go only to Israel and Samaria (half Jews) first (Acts 1:8).

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.--Matthew 10:5-6

So at the same time Jesus sent the apostles to Israel and did not include Samaritans as a part of Israel....
He told the Samaritan woman: “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” John 4:10

[Teejay]

[quote] name='ikester7579' timestamp='1331594169' post='81536']
You know how I gauge whether someone has truth? It's because real Biblical truth humbles. Non-biblical truth makes a person have pride in what they believe and therefore do prideful things to defend it.

What is of the flesh and appeals to the flesh will bring up attitudes that will always point to pride.
What is of the spirit appeals to the spirit and will humble you and always point to God and His word.
[/quote]

Ikester,

I must remind you that you posted previously that we should not judge. But here you judge me to be "prideful." So, have you changed your mind and you believe that it is now okay to judge? i'm just curious?

Actually, it's okay to judge. Jesus told us HOW to judge rather than forbidding us to judge. And He said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Ikester, you did not attack anything I had written; rather you attacked me. The Pharisees did the same thing. They could not attack Jesus message, because it was the truth: "Who is this man? Isn't He Mary's son...?" Why did they attack Jesus rather than His message? Because truth is hard to refute. I stand ready to defend anything I wrote that you think is not true. Who can make any accusations against me?

TeeJay

[Teejay]

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331610981' post='81549']
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.--Matthew 10:5-6

So at the same time Jesus sent the apostles to Israel and did not include Samaritans as a part of Israel....
He told the Samaritan woman: “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” John 4:10
[/quote]

ME, a careful reading of this event with this woman also reveals that His disciples were very surprised that He was even talking with a Samaritan. He included Samaria in the first chapter of Acts.

And, in the first chapter of the Book of Acts, when Jesus told His apostles to go to Samaria, He did not tell them to preach the gospel of grace or the gospel of uncircumcision. The Twelve were not given the gospel of uncircumcision. The establishment of the Body of Christ and the gospel of grace was future and was contingent on whether or not Israel, as a nation, would accept or reject their risen Messiah. Had Israel accepted their risen Messiah, God would have sent Jesus back at the end of seven years. Jesus would have set up His earthly kingdom in Israel with Jesus Christ sitting on King David's throne in Jerusalem. And every person living on Planet Earth would have had to approach Jesus Christ through the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision through Israel.

TeeJay

[ikester7579]

Ikester,

I must remind you that you posted previously that we should not judge. But here you judge me to be "prideful." So, have you changed your mind and you believe that it is now okay to judge? i'm just curious?

Do you deny that there is pride in your posts?

Actually, it's okay to judge. Jesus told us HOW to judge rather than forbidding us to judge. And He said, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

And that's what I did.

Ikester, you did not attack anything I had written; rather you attacked me. The Pharisees did the same thing. They could not attack Jesus message, because it was the truth: "Who is this man? Isn't He Mary's son...?" Why did they attack Jesus rather than His message? Because truth is hard to refute. I stand ready to defend anything I wrote that you think is not true. Who can make any accusations against me?

TeeJay

LOL, nice try on pushing my buttons. not going to work. I have figured out that you like to start things then blame the results on everyone else. So keep posting, dig a bigger hole for yourself.

[ikester7579]

Teejay, I have decided to start praying for instead of debate you, that truth will be revealed to you. Because it's more than clear that there is nothing anyone can say or show that would ever make you release that bulldog grip you have on osas.

[SomchaiA]

I do not accept OSAS. My pastor said he was saved, fell away and fought Christianity, then returned. This seems not possible if OSAS is true.

[MamaElephant]

That's bad logic. How many ways can I kill myself and it still be suicide? Your logic to discredit this does not work.

When Christ was accused of blasphemy, what did He do to get that accusation?

The reason I don;t get it is because you are using a definition of blaspheming I have never heard. Which gives me the impression it's being redefined to make osas work.

Making your own rules for this? I have yet to see scripture on this that says any sin can only be forgiven prior to their last breathe,

I have no problem understanding it. Having been a osas believer myself I have never heard what you are trying to preach.

What was it that Christ did to be accused of blasphemy?

Oh wow! I know what blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is now and I know who has done this. (It was a JW who wrote their baptism questions, not anyone on this forum, wow, how we misunderstand things!)