Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#121 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:59 PM

The reason no one wants to debate you in your challenge is because it's more than apparent that you will do exactly what you have been doing in these two threads. And no one here wants to deal with it. So your challenge proves nothing, no one wants to debate you because of how you debate. When you start answering all the questions people ask of you, and address all the verses people present to you then and only then will you find someone to debate you. But because this was pointed out to you in the first thread on osas, and then you continued doing the same thing here, it's clear you cannot stop. So you can keep asking and we will keep ignoring you.


I think a formal debate would be good, because you can lay down some ground rules, structure, etc. For example, each round can include 5 questions that the other party is required to answer. The first one who answers a challenging verse with "God's ways are higher than our ways", loses the debate.

I will be sure to put priority in my schedule to moderate, and I will be fair to the best of my ability, and work to curtail any biases since I do favor TeeJay's position. We can set up a 'grandstands" thread for people to comment on the debate. Are there any takers, anyone willing to enter the fray? We will pin the thread for all of eternity.

Now I would prefer an oral debate at TeeJay's ranch, but in order that I don't get sued for wrongful death, I'll want a big supply of rattlesnake anti-venom. :gotcha:

#122 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:10 PM

So in other words, would you agree that you presently cannot defend your position from the original Greek? I am also not saying that two gospels is solely grounded in Gal 2:7, what I am saying is that this verse by itself falsifies your view, it's a slam dunk verse that has not equivocation in the original Greek. Your 8000 count is also a not a compelling argument, as my analogy to the global flood was meant to demonstrate. Should we reject a global flood because out of the 181,253 words in the Bible, it only appears twice?



This argument is also not at all convincing. I just did a search of the word "covenant", and it singularly appears probably at least 300 times (I don't have a word count program), and in only one instance is it mentioned in the plural. So by your logic, there can't be two covenants!

Here is another discourse by Paul, that in plain language clearly must be referring to two separate and distinct covenants, and just as Heb 8:13 showed, was fading away (but not gone yet!!!):

2 Cor 3:7-11 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.



This is a powerful verse that overwhelmingly supports a circumcision gospel! Let's consider the whole context (even though your context was more than sufficient!):

Acts 21:20-26 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; “but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. “What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. “Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. “Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from S@xual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

Question: Was James, a great man of the Bible and leader of the Christians in Jerusalem, wrong? If so, why didn't Paul blast him and his followers with similar language he used against the Gentiles at Galatia? God is not the author of confusion, there MUST be a circumcision gospel, or else we have to make excuses for James, AND Paul for not rebuking him.

Question: Which child of Abraham was the child of the covenant of circumcision (Old Testament covenant)?


I guess I have always known this, but not thought about this to the extent presented. I always thought that once Jesus's sacrifice was complete, the Jews were no longer under the law. Anyway, the way that I had thought of this was two covenants, not two gospels, but I guess if they were beholden to the Old Covenant eternally, and they were brought under the New Covenant, then it would make sense that this gospel were a temporary and different gospel than to those who were never under the Old Covenant.

I heard someone mention that the "New Covenant" was actually the first covenant made in genesis before the law was given and I agree, but then what should I call it so an not to cause confusion, so I still technically call it the New Covenant. Maybe Current Covenant would be better?

Also, if someone is circumcised today, then does this mean anything? You seem to suggest that although the people under the covenant of uncircumcision were potentially circumcised, they still belonged to the covenant of uncircumcision, having not been raised under the covenant of circumcision.

#123 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:11 PM

UD, there are two witnesses to what Paul writes: tongues and miracles. When Paul was commanded by God to go up to Jerusalem and explain to Peter and James the gospel he was preaching, Peter and James knew Paul was legit because God had put his stamp of approval on Pau by "initially" granting Paul ministry tongues and miracles.


Teejay, has it occured to you that you are irritating us (i.e not just me) with your evasive "answers"? Anyone can pull two witnesses out of a hat and say "tadaaa!". What do tongues and miracles have to do with verifying the fact that there are two gospels? What I have the right to demand is not that Paul was legit, but that there are two gospels with two clearly documented doctrines.

So far I haven't seen ANYTHING that clearly explains that circumcision + faith is one of the gospels of the NT.

Circumcision,, Sabbath law, feasts, etc. were perpetual for Israel. At the beginning of this debate, I got you to agree to this reluctantly on your part.


What??? Are you living in a complete fantasy??? Where did I reluctantly agree to anything? Look Teejay, you better get off your high horse and get your act together, because I am getting increasingly tired of your games.

I have challenged you repeatedly to provide evidence for you claims about what I have or haven't said, but you ignore them. ONCE AGAIN, I challenge you to show me where I have denied that these things are perpetual! You won't find them in my posts! ANYWHERE!

This is what we are getting so tired of!

Now if Israel was under perpetual laws of circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts, why are we in the Body of Christ not under these laws today. Please answer. And please don't now deny that these laws were perpetual. Please.


My position is clear, and has always been clear! So spare me the "pleases"! These things are a shadow of the realities in Christ. It is the realities that are perpetual, not the shadows!

After the Cross did Peter and James have to keep the Sabbath?


After the cross Peter entered the eternal Sabbath, as explained in Hebrews 4.

After the Cross did Peter and James have to circumcise?


After the cross they were eternally circumcized!

After the Cross did Peter and James have to keep any of the feasts?


Do you mean the shadows or the realities?

After the Cross did Peter and James have to worry about eating meat sacrificed to idols?


If it troubled their consciences, then yes.

After the Cross did Peter and James have to produce fruit?


Everyone must produce fruit!

Jesus sent them out to convince them that He was their Messiah--their risen Messiah after the Cross. I explained this to you and ME before but for some reason you won't except this simple truth.


You did? Please provide the post number where you "educated" us as well as the posts made by ME and I where we didn't accept this!

With the exception of Peter witnessing to Cornelius, there is no Biblical record of any circumcision apostle witnessing to one Gentile. You can't find it.


I don't have to find it. I have already gone throught this several times. But since you brought it up, what was the purpose of Peters witnessing to Cornelius? Was it a mistake?

Further the word "grace," in the sense of salvation, can't be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.


Please elaborate!

#124 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:12 PM

We don't have to guess. I can prove it with Scripture, but I having enough trouble convincing you of simple truth.


No you cannot prove it through scripture. All you can do is suggest what YOU think the "fading" is. Simply claiming that your explanation is better than mine on the grounds that you think it is, is not good enough, but since you boast of having proof then be my guest..

UD, do you read anything I write to you. I showed you with Scripture why God did that. He was showing Peter that He was changing the house rules. The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius WITHOUT THEM BEING CIRCUMCISED. For Peter this was a huge change. The Bible says that Peter was "astonished." Before this, any Gentile wanting to be proselytized a Jew and come to Israel's God had to be circumcised. God was telling Peter that He was getting ready to cut Israel off, bypass Israel, and go cirectly to the Gentiles. Paul did not go to the Gentiles as a Jew and a representative of Israel. Israel was no longer in the picture. You need to read the Jerusalem Council in Acts. Because of Peter's experience with Cornelius, Peter was able to stand up and defend Paul's gospel of grace to James and the elders. If Paul's gospel was the same, why would Paul and Peter have to defend it. You and ME are making me crazy


Teejay, that doesn't address the point. Explain to me why God revelation to Peter of this "huge change" involving gentiles was any different that Paul's revelation of a huge change involving gentiles. How many "changes" causes speciation in the gospel?

Look Teejay, the gospel has existed even before the cross! Do you think the cross caused a split in the gospel??? Was Jesus crucifiction a "huge change"? Why? Why not?

If you now admit that circumcision was a perpetual command for Israel, can you then agree that Paul telling his followers they did not have to circumcise was a different gospel?


Again, I have NEVER denied that circumcision was perpetual!

Did Peter have to circumcise?


No, not unless it was contrary to his conscience. If Peter was "in Christ", which I believe he was, then he was a new creation, which would mean that God's anger would not burn against him as it did against Moses for failing to circumcise Zipporah.

Did Paul have to circumcise?


No, not unless it was contrary to his conscience. If Paul was "in Christ", which I believe he was, then he as a new creation... etc...

The answer is simply Teejay, and it is also Biblical: "circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit".

I asked you to read Galatians.


And I responded by telling you that I have read Galatians.

Actually Paul went to Arabia (probably Mt Saini) to be deJudiazed. And yes, Paul did circumcise Timothy to avoid heartburn he would get from believing Jews saved under Peter. But you also should notice that when Paul went up to Jerusalem to explain the gospel he was preaching to Peter and James, he was elated that Titus dis not have to be circumcised. If Peter and James were not under a different gospel, why would Paul be concerned about circumcising Titua?


And what in the above gave you the FALSE notion that I haven't read Galatians?

Considering what Paul wrote about circumcision, why would he not be pleased when ANYONE did not get circumcised???? What's your point?

What you are saying here is that Paul decided on his own authority that he could dispense with circumcision,


I am? Where on earth did I say that?

This is what happens when you disregard what God says in His word and fictionalize what you think He should have said.


What did I "disregard" what God says and fictionalize what I think he should have said???

But Paul was telling Jews and Gentiles not to circumcise.


Well, I thought you were arguing that the Jews were to be circumcised. But now it seems you agree that they don't need to be circumcised... or???

Why would Peter and James be upset if they were under the same gospel as Paul? And why would Paul be teaching the opposite of Peter is he had the same gospel?


Because they were "clearly in the wrong" just as Paul pointed out in Galatians 2:11-21 (you have read Galatians, haven't you?)

#125 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 March 2012 - 11:12 PM

So in other words, would you agree that you presently cannot defend your position from the original Greek? I am also not saying that two gospels is solely grounded in Gal 2:7, what I am saying is that this verse by itself falsifies your view, it's a slam dunk verse that has not equivocation in the original Greek. Your 8000 count is also a not a compelling argument, as my analogy to the global flood was meant to demonstrate. Should we reject a global flood because out of the 181,253 words in the Bible, it only appears twice?


Fred, perhaps I am missunderstanding you here, because I don't get your point. What is "my position" according to you, and how does the original Greek falsify it?

And what does the global flood have to do with this? What I am looking for is biblical proof, (i.e., that satisfies the requirements of the biblical test), that there is more than one gospel. If the words "global flood" appear twice then at least they pass the test. But the idea that there exists a gospel that is a combination of legalism (i.e. following the written code) and grace does not.

This argument is also not at all convincing. I just did a search of the word "covenant", and it singularly appears probably at least 300 times (I don't have a word count program), and in only one instance is it mentioned in the plural. So by your logic, there can't be two covenants


Correct, but my argument was not that it was absolute proof. Only that it is a little remarkable that the existance of two gospels, parallell to each other only a few decades after the cross, has so little documented evidence. Paul discusses the Jews and the gentiles time and time again. He discusses the law and righteousness time and time again. But nowhere does he indicate that what he writes should be interpreted separately by these two groups, dispite the fact that his letters were being spread all over the place.

Here is another discourse by Paul, that in plain language clearly must be referring to two separate and distinct covenants, and just as Heb 8:13 showed, was fading away (but not gone yet:

2 Cor 3:7-11 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.


The difference is that both of these covenants are well-documented. There is no well-documented "gospel of circumcision" where we can clearly see any fading "works + grace" doctrine.

Acts 21:20-26 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; “but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. “What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. “Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. “Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from S@xual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

Question: Was James, a great man of the Bible and leader of the Christians in Jerusalem, wrong? If so, why didn't Paul blast him and his followers with similar language he used against the Gentiles at Galatia? God is not the author of confusion, there MUST be a circumcision gospel, or else we have to make excuses for James, AND Paul for not rebuking him.
Question: Was James, a great man of the Bible and leader of the Christians in Jerusalem, wrong?


Wrong about what? The context of this passage was not whether or not Jews should keep the law or not. It is not doctrine layed out by James, it is an historical account.

And what is it that this account is telling us?

“but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. “What then?

It is telling us that although it is good that these people are zealous for the law, there has been some concern that Paul was teaching people to forsake Moses. Paul's writing, as we well know, were not always easy to understand and were being distorted by some of the circumcision group.

The remaining context of this passage was what the answer to the question "What then?" would be. "Therefore do what we tell you" was not explaining doctrine, it was explaining what they would do to appease the zealoous Jews and show them that Paul was not against Moses (which he wasn't).

This concern about the delicacy of the issue of circumcision is probably why Paul when directly arriving in Jerusalem just "blast" everyone and tell them that they need to be circumcised. He had to stay alive a few more years!

Question: Which child of Abraham was the child of the covenant of circumcision (Old Testament covenant)?


Answer: Isaac.

Question: In 1 Cor 1:10 Paul shows his concern about divisions in the church:

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

Then in verses 11-13 he writes:

"My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you."

(sounds familiar ^_^ )

"What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided?"

Notice that both Cephas (Peter), and Paul himself, are mentioned in this list.

Now, instead of resolving these "divisions" by saying, "Jews on the left, gentiles on the right" or "forget about Cephas, he is preaching another gospel that doesn't concern you", he simply asks this simple question: Is Christ divided?

So my question is (you guessed it):

Is Christ divided?

#126 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 March 2012 - 02:41 AM

I think a formal debate would be good, because you can lay down some ground rules, structure, etc. For example, each round can include 5 questions that the other party is required to answer. The first one who answers a challenging verse with "God's ways are higher than our ways", loses the debate.

I will be sure to put priority in my schedule to moderate, and I will be fair to the best of my ability, and work to curtail any biases since I do favor TeeJay's position. We can set up a 'grandstands" thread for people to comment on the debate. Are there any takers, anyone willing to enter the fray? We will pin the thread for all of eternity.

Now I would prefer an oral debate at TeeJay's ranch, but in order that I don't get sued for wrongful death, I'll want a big supply of rattlesnake anti-venom. :gotcha:


Fred, I think as far as the "one gospel" side of the fence is concerned, I think I can confidently say that no one really wants to debate Teejay. Moderated or not. I'm not a spokesman for the others but I think we do so more out of necessity, than out of desire. We have already had quite enough of his Texas "venom".

I am not sure if you have bothered to read his posts and tried to picture them from our POV, but we are all incredibly frustrated by his tactics. If ME or Ike disagree with this then I will retract my statements, but somehow I don't think it's going to happen.

Let me ask you Fred, have you ever debated against Teejay? I know that you don't fully agree with him, but what I mean is meeting him head on in a discussion. I think if you did then you would understand all the "testosterone".

If you think my complaints against Teejay lack foundation then let me know. I can provide PLENTY of evidence of that! And of course you are at complete liberty to contrast that with any potential complaint that Teejay might have against me.

Now I'm probably not the one to get involved in a formal debate (haven't been involved in any so far so my experience is zero). I prefer short and sweet answers that are to the point, than the long-winded bulks of mostly irrelevant text that I have been exposed to so far in this thread. Both you and Teejay probably have 20 times the knowledge than I have both in regards to scriptures as to church history and so on. That doesn't concern me. I am not much a "student" of scripture, more someone like ME who understands the importance of relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth and to remind us of what the word says. If you want to interpret that as "God's ways are higher than our ways" then do so, but I think I can and have provided scriptural evidence for a great deal of my arguments.

I am quite happy continuing this debate with you Fred, because even though I disagree with you, you make reasonable arguments that are focused on responding to specific questions or arguments and not wrapped in a huge bulks of text that for the most part no one is contesting.

Also you are not disrespectful or condescending in your responses.

You also don't make hypocritical remarks like "you are just defending your worldview" or "you are just trying to wear me out" or any other garbage that doesn't belong in a discussion like this.

Unfortunately you have only submitted a few posts here, so, much of this discussion has been centered around putting up with Teejay and his arguments, some of which are totally bizarre.

I prefer continuing this discussion with you Fred, the way I thought it would be considering the fact that you were the one who opened this thread, but if you and Teejay want to play a game of chicken by challenging us to a formal debate then OK, I will debate you with the little knowledge that I have.

#127 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 March 2012 - 04:43 AM

I see that Ike has taken up the challenge, so I guess I was wrong.. this will be interesting in any case. I guess I will just have to buy some popcorn and take my seat on the grandstand. B)

#128 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:44 AM

I guess I have always known this, but not thought about this to the extent presented. I always thought that once Jesus's sacrifice was complete, the Jews were no longer under the law. Anyway, the way that I had thought of this was two covenants, not two gospels, but I guess if they were beholden to the Old Covenant eternally, and they were brought under the New Covenant, then it would make sense that this gospel were a temporary and different gospel than to those who were never under the Old Covenant.

I heard someone mention that the "New Covenant" was actually the first covenant made in genesis before the law was given and I agree, but then what should I call it so an not to cause confusion, so I still technically call it the New Covenant. Maybe Current Covenant would be better?

Also, if someone is circumcised today, then does this mean anything? You seem to suggest that although the people under the covenant of uncircumcision were potentially circumcised, they still belonged to the covenant of uncircumcision, having not been raised under the covenant of circumcision.

If you read this thread it will give you a better understanding of what Teejay is arguing and lead you to parts of Romans and Hebrews to sort this out. http://www.evolution...h=1

#129 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:58 AM

We have to be realistic. Today, we see Christians speaking gibberish (not new tongues). We see them "slayin' in the spirit" which is totally nonBiblical. This slayin' in the Spirit and the shakin' and screaming resembles a voodoo cermony from Hati rather than a Biblical account from the Bible. We do not see anyone today immune to poison snakes. We do not see anyone immume to poison. And the only people we see get healed by the laying on of hands is the phoney healers like Benny Hynn who heal lumbago and stiff joints. If you go to one of his healing crusades, and you are truly blind or crimpled, you will not get on stage. Only the stiff joints get on stage.

So let's see if I understand your argument. I see Benny Hynn and other people claiming that they have spiritual gifts and they are clearly not following the Bible's teachings. Therefore no one has spiritual gifts.

I think I have seen this argument before. Agnostic has come in contact with self-righteous professed Christians who don't act out of love. Therefore Christianity is not supported by God.

or perhaps the ones whom God has used to perform healings or pray in the Spirit don't blow their trumpets, so the ones you see are the hypocritical ones.

#130 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 March 2012 - 01:32 PM

To all,

ME in Post 105, wrote, "TeeJay's assertion that Peter wrote to circumcision followers... has been proven wrong." Who proved it wrong? Maybe I missed something? I will post my arguments again for all to read and additionally I will show that Revelation was written to Jews:



"John to the seven churches which are in Asia" (Rev.1:4). Why in the world do you think these are Gentile churches? In Jesus' letter to the church at Pergamos: "I have a few things against you beccause you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, to eat things sacrificed to idols..." (Ref. 2:14). Contrast this with Paul's teaching to the Gentiles in 1 Corinthians 8. Paul said we can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Who's right, Jesus or Paul. Both are. Jesus is talking to Jews under the gospel of circumcision. Paul is talking to Gentiles under the gospel of uncircumcision. And if you argue with me that Revelation is written to Jews, which you will because you can't help yourselves: "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich), and I know the blasphemy of those who say THEY ARE JEWS and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9)

“To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” {1 Pet. 1:1). For Peter to be writing to the Jews, the Pontusians, Galatians, Asians, and Bithynians would have to be pilgrims in their own countries. These were Jews who were dispersed because of persecution. Furher proof that these were Jews one must simply read 1 Pet. 11-12. One would have to be willfully stupid to interpret this as Peter writing to Gentiles.

ME, I expect you to retract your post and admit that Peter was writing to Jews. UD, I expect you to admit to two truths l) that Peter wrote to Jews who were scattered in countries other than Israel and 2) that Revelation is written to and for Jews. Just this humble admission would be helpful to further this debate.

Somebody wrote that I was going to debate Ike. Who's ike?


TeeJay

#131 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 March 2012 - 01:37 PM

[quote] name='Fred Williams' timestamp='1331949549' post='81834']
I think a formal debate would be good, because you can lay down some ground rules, structure, etc. For example, each round can include 5 questions that the other party is required to answer. The first one who answers a challenging verse with "God's ways are higher than our ways", loses the debate.

I will be sure to put priority in my schedule to moderate, and I will be fair to the best of my ability, and work to curtail any biases since I do favor TeeJay's position. We can set up a 'grandstands" thread for people to comment on the debate. Are there any takers, anyone willing to enter the fray? We will pin the thread for all of eternity.

Now I would prefer an oral debate at TeeJay's ranch, but in order that I don't get sued for wrongful death, I'll want a big supply of rattlesnake anti-venom. :gotcha:
[/quote]

Fred, in Texas, we also have Copperheads, Cottonmouths, scorporions, and Coral snakes. But we have a snake that also has red/yellow/black bands like the Coral snake. How do you tell the difference? Red on black is a friend of jack; but red on yellow can kill a fellow. Bur actually what gives us the most heartburn is these darn fire ants. These buggers will kill a young calf and eat it.

Ikester keeps accusing me of not answering his questions. I did answer not only his but UD's, ME's JS's et.al. I keep telling him to send me a question. I stand ready to answer.

UD said that Ike has taken up my challenge. Who's Ike?

TeeJay

#132 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 March 2012 - 04:05 PM

ME in Post 105, wrote, "TeeJay's assertion that Peter wrote to circumcision followers... has been proven wrong." Who proved it wrong? Maybe I missed something?

You have missed it at least twice. Peter and Paul wrote to the same people and Peter told them to listen to Paul.

#133 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 March 2012 - 04:15 PM

JS, I guesss I should first post how one gains entry into the Body of Christ. Most Christians don't know there is a Body of Christ. They think they are in the "kingdom." But the kingdom is for the Jews and it is future when Jesus comes back to Israel. As member of His Body, our citizenship is in heaven. Jews under the law will have an earthly kingdom with Jesus as King sitting on King David's throne in Jerusalem, and He will reign for 1,000 years.

I don't see how these scriptures fit into this.

Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.-- Romans 8:8-9, 16-17

Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.-- 1 Thessalonians 4:17

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.-- Galatians 3:28-29

Also, with this view, are the 144,000 on the earth and the Great Crowd in heaven?

#134 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 17 March 2012 - 04:35 PM

[quote] name='JayShel' timestamp='1331950257' post='81836']
I guess I have always known this, but not thought about this to the extent presented. I always thought that once Jesus's sacrifice was complete, the Jews were no longer under the law. Anyway, the way that I had thought of this was two covenants, not two gospels, but I guess if they were beholden to the Old Covenant eternally, and they were brought under the New Covenant, then it would make sense that this gospel were a temporary and different gospel than to those who were never under the Old Covenant.

I heard someone mention that the "New Covenant" was actually the first covenant made in genesis before the law was given and I agree, but then what should I call it so an not to cause confusion, so I still technically call it the New Covenant. Maybe Current Covenant would be better?

Also, if someone is circumcised today, then does this mean anything? You seem to suggest that although the people under the covenant of uncircumcision were potentially circumcised, they still belonged to the covenant of uncircumcision, having not been raised under the covenant of circumcision.
[/quote]

JS,

Most Christians, for some reason, think that once Jesus went to the Cross, the Twelve were no longer under the law. But this is untenable. Jesus, warning of the coming Tribulation, said, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath" (Mat. 24:20). Why would Jesus give this warning of an event after His crucifixion if they were not going to be under Sabbath law? Because circmcision, Sabbath law, and many feasts are PERPETUAL laws for Israel only. So if these laws are perpetual, then Israel could not be under Paul's gospel of grace where Paul forbids circumcision, Sabbath keeping, etc. Now for some reason, this goes over ME and UD's heads. They can't explain it so they ignore it.

I have offered to them proof that Israel will be keeping these laws during Israel's thousand year kingdom and in the new heaven and the new earth, but they seem uninterested. Would you like me to show this to you with Scripture?

TeeJay

#135 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

I deleted the last four posts because they were mostly tit-for-tat frustration between both parties involved, there was essentially no content to them. TeeJay, while I do think there is a distinction between "intellectually dishonest" and "dishonest", I do not think it's going a too far in ME's case. I was only introduced to this concept within the last couple years, its not easy for people to go against the grain of what they had been taught for decades. I do think everyone is being stubborn though, :), but that's now just my own bias shining through since I'm pretty sure there had to be two gospels at one time, it fits too many scripture, and Gal 2:7 is a falsification verse for those who claim its only one gospel (I'm still waiting for anyone to explain Gal 2:7 by appealing to the Greek, not to the NIV or other translation that appears to have ventured from the original).

I believe Ikester has accepted TeeJay's challenge? If so, here is an opening suggestion for the debate:

The debate is on the following topic: Did two distinct gospels exist in the first century after Christ rose form the dead?


Each person will have 7 posts total: An opening post, 5 rebuttal posts, and a closing post. Each person has 5 days to make their post.


Each person is permitted to ask 5 specific questions during each post (excluding the closing post), that requires a detailed response from their opponent.


Accusations of any kind are not permitted. Every argument and counter-argument presented must be based on scripture.


Any modifications, or additions?

Fred

#136 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:39 PM

I have posted a proposal for a formal debate on osas in the information section of this forum: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=5022

#137 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:34 PM

Fred, perhaps I am missunderstanding you here, because I don't get your point. What is "my position" according to you, and how does the original Greek falsify it?


No problem. Your position is that Gal 2:7 is not referring to two distinct gospels. My position is that those who are experts in the Greek beg to differ. No one here has yet provided a counter argument from an expert in Greek to show why we can view this verse as referring to the same gospel. I would again ask that the following exegesis be considered: http://www.biblicala...ans%202%207.pdf

Correct, but my argument was not that it was absolute proof. Only that it is a little remarkable that the existance of two gospels, parallell to each other only a few decades after the cross, has so little documented evidence. Paul discusses the Jews and the gentiles time and time again. He discusses the law and righteousness time and time again. But nowhere does he indicate that what he writes should be interpreted separately by these two groups, dispite the fact that his letters were being spread all over the place


But Paul does do this, not just in a rather lengthy discourse in Galatians, but also in the OT, 2 Cor 3, Hebrews 8:13, Acts 15, Acts 21, etc.

The difference is that both of these covenants are well-documented. There is no well-documented "gospel of circumcision" where we can clearly see any fading "works + grace" doctrine.


So what would you say is the difference between these two covenants, as far as salvation is concerned? Your answer below to my question goes a long way in showing why you should realize there is a different standard for salvation!

Question: Which child of Abraham was the child of the covenant of circumcision (Old Testament covenant)?

Answer: Isaac.


Wrong, Ishmael! I do pray this creates an opening of why we are defending, a separate, distinct (but fading) dispensation to the Jews! You have to ask yourself why your first reaction was "Isaac", could it be because you are conditioned against this idea of works-grace salvation before the gospel of grace?

Gal 4:21:31: Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar– for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children– but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.” Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

All this makes sense if Paul is talking of two dispensations, Peter preaches works+salvation to the last generation of Jews born under circumcision (unfortuntely what Ray Comfort does now), and Paul a gospel of grace only.

Regarding your question, is Christ divided, well, in a sense yes, it's why we have so dang many denominations! But you have to realize, this does nothing, zilch, to prove your point. I quarrel with Old Earthers and Calvinists all the time. I'm 100% I'm right that both those groups are out of their mind. They might think they're 100% right, and I'm one taco short of a happy meal (or is that one Big Mac short of a combination platter? LOL). So because there is a quarrel, does this help determine who is correct? You, ME, and Ikester are currently quarreling with me, TJ, and Stripe. I've heard your complaints against TJ, and while I can see some of your objections, I'm flabbergasted your side can't see the rhetoric coming from your trifecta. Now if I were to ask which side has used words like "nonsense", "unsound", "dishonest", would they be surprised that this has come from both sides?

Let's try to tone it down and see if any iron gets sharpened through the process. :) Yes, I have to say this partially with tongue in cheek, given I'm not the best at curbing my own rhetoric when I feel strongly about something.

Fred

#138 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 March 2012 - 11:08 PM

UD: It teaches us that human effort counts for nothing. That we can study our guts out and yet remain blind. That we can be always learning but never acknowledging the truth. That we can have a form of godliness and yet deny God's power.

I would rather be spoon-fed by the Holy Spirit any day than to rely on my own ability to understand scripture.

You are mistaken Teejay. Badly mistaken


TeeJay: Why would God tell us to study to show ourselves approved and then tell you not to rely on your own ability to understand scripture?
ME: Here ya go:

Proverbs 3:5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

2 Corinthians 3:15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 17Now the Lord is that Spirit:

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I wonder why I can find a scripture for everything? Must be because I ignore the Bible.


ME, how does your verses refute his statement, especially in the context it was given, against what UD had claimed? When you think of those who rely on their own understanding, why is it you immediately assume it's fervent student of the Bible, and not an unbeliever, or a lazy Christian? Why do you think 2 Cor 3 and 2 Tim 3:7 pertains to a fervent student of the Bible, and not an unbeliever (you can't even say a lazy Christian applies to these last two verses you cited, you took the badly out of context).

God wrote the Bible for us to understand, and NOT lean on other philosophies, or even other's interpretation of it (but we are also called to sharpen iron, to try learn from one another because we will stumble into various strange and dangerous beliefs, such as Calvinism; I had to get my dig in against that horrendous theology, I hand't mentioned it for two posts now!).

UD, don't sell yourself short. You are not one of those that ME's verses allude to, we are here because we are interested in God's word, and because of this we won't be blinded in the sense given in the verses above, we all instead need to be like the Bereans: Acts 17:11 "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. "

Its very important we rely on God's word, but we have to be careful we don't take our prayers too far in asking for understanding of the Bible. IN fact I really can't think of any verses right now where we are called to pray for this understanding, maybe there is, but I know far more verses similar to the one TeeJay mentioned, and ME in a prior post, that made for more sense than the claims stated here.

After all, its a very well known tactic of the Mormons (they try it every time they come to my door), to ask you to "pray" about whether or not the book of Mormon is true. Once a gullible person does this, Satan takes over and gives the person that little hair rise on the back of their head, and by golly they think the BoM is true!

I have lots of favorite verses in the Bible, the following two are probably in the top 10, maybe top 5 for me:

The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple. Psalms 119:130

All the words of my mouth are with righteousness;

Nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge. Prov 8:8-9



#139 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 18 March 2012 - 03:27 AM

Thanks for your response Fred. As in any debate, the most enjoyable ones are between those who are conscientious about what they write, are not dogmatic but open to a sense of reasoning that continually evaluates new arguments, and therefore have not totally welded their minds towards one stance or another.

Someone who has firmly decided that their doctrine "really makes sense" to them usually has great difficulty budging from their position, because what they have invested in reaching that position becomes valuable to them.

I have not reached that point. This subject is new to me, and although I am an obstinate person (as everyone is who indulges in forum debates), I am not beyond being shown the error of my convictions. But I do require a certain number of strong evidences indicating that what I believe is wrong, and that what my opponent believes is right. So far, I find the arguments for dual-gospels lack strength for several reasons - not only scripturally, but also in reasonability, given what we understand about works, the law, and righteousness. You will undoubtedly believe the same from you POV so there is no need for you to point that out. I understand.

All we can do is provide the reasons for our beliefs and hope that they are weighty enough to tip the scales one way or the other.

No problem. Your position is that Gal 2:7 is not referring to two distinct gospels. My position is that those who are experts in the Greek beg to differ.


The question here is what the expert in question differs about, and what he bases his opinions apon. Since I have never made any claim about which preposition should or shouldn't be used, I don't see how any expert opinion about it can be used to refute anything I have said.

Not many of us here are willing to subscribe to evolution simply on the basis of what "experts" believe. And even in this field, I don't simply swallow an experts opinions or conclusions simply because he is an expert in the there original Greek language. I require more than expert opinion. There are many experts, just as there are many opinions, and many conclusions extrapolated from expert opinions.

My point is that sometimes we use a different set of words to distinguish between differences, but what is a "difference", and what is a "dividing line"? I will cover that shortly.

No one here has yet provided a counter argument from an expert in Greek to show why we can view this verse as referring to the same gospel.


Fred, how is anyone supposed to use Greek to determine what we should consider to be "the same" as opposed to "different" gospels? You cannot claim that this is a strong argument since it's strenght is practically impossible to measure because we don't have a measuring-stick to evaluate its strength by.

What is one gospel?

What are two gospels?

The difficulty in determining where one gospel stops and the other starts is similar to the difficulty in defining the difference between "micro" and "macro"-evolution. what IS the dividing line that separates one from the other?

As far as I can tell there seems to be two factors that you and Teejay submit as evidence that there are two, rather that one gospel:

1. Separate requirements indicate separate gospels.

I.e, one gospel requiring circumcision cannot possibly be the same as another that does not require circumcision.

Without trying to be cheeky here, I think that you might as well claim that one gospel requires that you chop your arms off whereas the other doesn't.

The gospel, as far as I understand it, is the very reason we don't have to chop our arms off.

Why? Because of the grace that comes through faith. That is the gospel - good news for the sinners who understand that they cannot keep the law and bad news for the "righteous" who do not understand this.

I had always believed that the gospel originated during the lifetime of Jesus, but scripture teaches us that it existed long before that. Concerning the "rebellious nation" we can read in Hebrews 4:

"we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

In other words the gospel has existed in one form or the other ever since the ability to combine it with faith has been an option. The author talks about "we" and "them" but talks about the same gospel. And since this gospel is tied up with the concept of faith, then I would venture to claim that the gospel originated at least during the time of Abraham, since he was the father of faith.

That was before the law of circumcision came to be, because circumcision was established after Abraham passed the test of faith that was attributed to him Hebrews. And even though Isaac was later circumcised it does not nullify the fact that faith was established earlier than that.

After Abraham established the covenant of faith there has been an enormous number of requirements made on the "children of Abraham". How many different gospels would that indicate?

2. The division has to do with nationality.

I don't think I need to go into too much detail about this. All of us seem to agree that when "in Christ" there is no longer a dividing line between Jew and gentile. In fact there IS NO Jew or gentile.

But Paul does do this, not just in a rather lengthy discourse in Galatians, but also in the OT, 2 Cor 3, Hebrews 8:13, Acts 15, Acts 21, etc.


Paul acknowledges two covenants, not two gospels. A covenant is not synonymous with a gospel. The old covenant was not eternal, it was "fading" just as you pointed out. However "the gospel" is eternal:

"Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth" Rev 14:6.

The new covenant is not the gospel, it is the binding contract that one agrees to in order to gain access to the gospel.

So what would you say is the difference between these two covenants, as far as salvation is concerned? Your answer below to my question goes a long way in showing why you should realize there is a different standard for salvation


A covenant is an agreement. One of these coventants was eternal, the other was established as a "temporary schoolmaster" to turn people everywhere back to the original, eternal covenant. The original covenant, as far as I can see, is, and always has been, based on the gospel.

In other words, if you want to call the legalistic demands layed out in the OT a "gospel", then be my guest, but that is not the way I see it being described in scripture.

Wrong, Ishmael! I do pray this creates an opening of why we are defending, a separate, distinct (but fading) dispensation to the Jews! You have to ask yourself why your first reaction was "Isaac", could it be because you are conditioned against this idea of works-grace salvation before the gospel of grace?


I had the feeling that this would be a tricky, baited question, and quite honestly I haven't really given this much thought at all. I just answered from the top of my head since I know that Isaac was circumcised. On the other hand, my first reaction wasn't "Isaac" becuase of any "conditioning" and I kind of resent the implication coming from you Fred, because it runs along the same lines as Teejays completely false "worldview" insinuation.

You know very little about me Fred. As I said, this question is new to me, and as far as conditioning is concerned you picked the wrong person to try to pin that on. From the very begining I was strongly opposed to Christianity but converted primarily as a result of God speaking directly to me through his word rather than giving way to human arguments. Since I started out that way I have actually tried my best to aviod letting others influence my beliefs. This of course is practically impossible, but at least I have made an effort. Unless there is a particular reason for it, I do not read Christian literature. I don't even read Bible commentaries.

I have also tried to make an effort to avoid letting things cement too quickly in my mind. I consider different arguments for different stances and basically leave it at that and see what eventually results. I am undecided on many issues because of this. I am more than willing to wait things out rather than dig my heels in. So I find it a little irritating when someone tells me that I have a worldview or have been preconditioned to believe in something simply because I disagree.

Fred, if you want to argue the existence of two covenants, two dispensations, or anything else like that then you will get any counter-arguments from me. There is both Jew and gentile. There is both slave and free, the "bondwoman" and the "freewoman", male and female. However, in Christ, which is where the gospel is, these things do not exist.

Why do you think that Paul acknowledges both Jew and gentile in Romans:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;

Only to say later on in Romans that there is not Jew or gentile:

"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile"

It is because outside of Christ there IS Jew and gentile, whereas "in Christ" there is NO Jew or Gentile. And it is "in Christ" that this discussion is based apon. If you think there is a gospel that is not "in Christ" then let me know.

Finally, I want you to answer the following questions:

1. What happens to a "Christian" jew who fails to get circumcised? According to the doctrine of the "gospel of the circumcised"?

and

2. Why, if a Jew is born again and is therefore a new creation, does he have to carry a yoke around his neck?

Paul compares trying to follow the law to the bearing of a yoke:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

(Notice also that he says "burdened again" which I think is interesting!)

Again, why do you think that God would pay the ultimate price for freedom, and yet decide to keep the born-again Jews in captivity?
  • MamaElephant likes this

#140 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 March 2012 - 05:23 AM

We have to be realistic. Today, we see Christians speaking gibberish (not new tongues). We see them "slayin' in the spirit" which is totally nonBiblical. This slayin' in the Spirit and the shakin' and screaming resembles a voodoo cermony from Hati rather than a Biblical account from the Bible. We do not see anyone today immune to poison snakes. We do not see anyone immume to poison. And the only people we see get healed by the laying on of hands is the phoney healers like Benny Hynn who heal lumbago and stiff joints. If you go to one of his healing crusades, and you are truly blind or crimpled, you will not get on stage. Only the stiff joints get on stage.


I see for Satan's counterfeit So that you can use it like Satan wants you to, ti deny God's power.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Satan is able to "imitate" God to fool people in two ways:
1) To convince non-believers that he is as powerful as God.
2) To convince believers that Satan does this because a Satanic ritual produces the same thing so any and all of the acts are of Satan.

You bought number 2. And then using number 2 you deny God's power. So what would you say your story is now? That God does not heal anymore, that God cannot use us as vessels to do His will in these things? Then what you believe and teach here is un-biblical because God says: I am the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Which means what He can do yesterday He will do today whether you believe it or not.

But let's see what else you do making these claims that you cannot prove. Since it can be proven that this is your "personal" belief, all the actions that happen that are not Satanic but you label them as being such. You then accuse God of doing Satan's work. And then you convince others of the same thing, Which means what?

Can you list a verse in God's word that actually says:
1) God does not heal anyone anymore?
2) That God will not make anyone ever speak in tongues anymore?

You cannot provide these things because what you try to preach here is un-biblical. If not then provide the verses that support what you say and claim? But let's be honest shall we... You bought into this because someone you trust to teach you what the Bible says claimed it. So instead of confirming it or testing it like you are supposed to do you bought into the idea, right?

This clam you made also confirms what I suspected about you since we started debating the osas debate. You buy into ideas that people preach whether it can be backed up Biblically or not. As long as a certain person you trust says it you accept it. Does not matter what the Bible says on such matters and this is proven even more when you cannot provide verses to prove what you clearly imply about God not being able or willing to do what He has done in the past.

And your only defense is that some voodoo people can do the same thing? But let's take a biblical example just to prove what I'm telling you. In the story of Job, how did Satan kill Job's animals and family? He used supernatural powers to do this. When the one person who survived the killing of his sheep and workers came to Job to tell him,

Examples of Satan having supernatural powers in Job 1::12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
13 And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
14 And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:
15 And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
16 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
17 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels, and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

You see the Lord let Satan do these things. God did not say: Here's the power I give you go do these things. Satan already had them. So Satan can counterfeit God's power in instances God allows. And because the same power is there in Satanic worship who's power do you think that is? But if you deem that all power in this ability only falls into the hands of Satan, and use that logic to convince others of this. Then you truly deny God's power with a judgment power you do not possess. Making claims t you cannot prove with scripture which means you preach a different doctrine that is not of God's word.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users