Jump to content


Photo

Two Gospels Revisited...


  • Please log in to reply
668 replies to this topic

#101 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:18 PM

To all,

Choose from among you one opponent. We can get Fred to moderate and make it a ten-rounder. If your position is true, you should easily defeat me with scripture. I sumbit that you can't do that because your doctrine is false. A lie can only be defended with more lies or a denial of what is true. It can't be defended with truth. I'll even take all of you on. You can collaborate on each post and I will tie half my brain behind my back just to make it fair.

TeeJay

#102 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 15 March 2012 - 05:37 PM

To all,

Choose from among you one opponent. We can get Fred to moderate and make it a ten-rounder. If your position is true, you should easily defeat me with scripture. I sumbit that you can't do that because your doctrine is false. A lie can only be defended with more lies or a denial of what is true. It can't be defended with truth. I'll even take all of you on. You can collaborate on each post and I will tie half my brain behind my back just to make it fair.

TeeJay

We are already doing this. We have already done this. Why are we rehashing and rehashing?

#103 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 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 15 March 2012 - 09:28 PM

Perhaps you haven't [found someone defend a single gospel form the Greek] but on the other hand I don't find this very strong evidence of two gospels, at least not when it concerns the core truth of the gospel.


Just as a quick reminder, we all apparently agree on one thing: there is one and only one gospel today, the gospel of grace. But were there two valid "gospels" at the time of Christ? Were people required to do any works at all in the OT? Why a New covenant never before revealed, a "secret", if the same exact mechanism for salvation existed in the OT and NT?

I want to first focus on Gal 2:7, since I think this is a falsification verse for anyone who believes there was only one gospel spoken of by Paul. A single gospel version cannot possibly, under any circumstances I have ever been shown, be defended when considering the original Greek of Gal 2:7. UD, it doesn't matter to me that you counted 7958 verses in the NT that do not refer to two gospels. You could have counted 10^20 verses and it still doesn't address the Greek in Gal 2:7. I would ask all those opposed to two gospels, to try to find a Greek source, someone who seems to know their Greek, who think its just one gospel, and post it here. Again, anytime I see a Greek expert examining the Greek, they are like "wow, this is clearly referring to two distinct gospels". Now there are either two gospels, or the Bible has a glaring error in it (or somewhere along the way a bad translation slipped in, but do we really believe that?). There are really only two definitive verses that proclaim a global flood, yet many of us here recognize that its more than enough to falsify the silly local flood nonsense. Why not the same standard with Gal 2:7?

Now, consider that all the verses you provided can easily be accommodated by Peter & Paul having two gospels. Challenge: can you explain how two gospels cannot be accommodated by any verse you provided? For example, you quoted Gal 2:15 as one of your heavy hitters! Let's take a look:

"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."

Can't you see that this verse is true for both the Paul and Peter gospels! We are not claiming that works alone saved in the circumcision gospel or OT "gospel". Faith is still accounted for righteousness. Its works + grace in the OT and circumcision gospel.

Someone preaching the gospel would obviously need to tailor his message differently to different audiences, especially if the audience was as familiar with the scriptures as the Jews were. Paul wrote:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." 1 Cor 9:20

Have you ever noticed the difference between witnessing to someone in a cult, who is well-versed in scripture, and someone who has never heard the message before? To witness to someone in a cult often requires sending someone who knows a little about the doctrinal flaws of the cult in question, and even with this knowledge it usually takes a long time to break down the thick walls of defence that surrounds the mind of someone who has been indocrinated. (I know, I used to be one).

So it seems reasonable to me that there would be two separate, and somewhat different, administrations of the same gospel.


Everything you said above is true, except for your conclusion. :) There are different ways to witness to people, but because this is a truism does not prove your point that there was only one gospel at the time of Christ.

This is a difficult verse, but my guess is that it was "becoming obsolete" as the gospel was advancing.


You don't need to guess if you come join us and recognize there must have been two gospels at play! :Bananasplits:
It really does solve a lot of problems, especially the book of James that ole Luther wanted tossed from the Canon because he couldn't explain it.

On the other hand, what is your explanation of these verses? Were the apostles going around handing out a fading gospel that already existed? It doesn't make sense... but perhaps I haven't really understood your position exactly.


Once the last of the Jews of that generation born under the law had passed away, then the gospel of circumcision was over. Now I think TeeJay postulates that it will resume in the end times. Not sure I agree with that, but I need to research that one further.

Finally, I thought TeeJay made a good point here: "God told Paul to go up to Jerusalem and explain to the Twelve the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2). I always ask, why would Paul have to explain his gospel to them if it was the same as theirs? Why did God tell Paul to do this?". I don't think anyone attempted to address this.


Thanks everyone for your patience.
Fred

#104 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 15 March 2012 - 09:30 PM

I understand that there was a period of transition while God revealed the dispensation of grace. I think that the fact that Peter told his followers to listen to Paul proves that Teejay's idea's are not correct. In addition:

Was Paul under the gospel of circumcision Teejay?

This is your answer. I had to work to find it! You do not speak plainly. You use a plethora of words.

If you are saved under Paul’s dispensation of grace, this is true. For a Jew under the Gospel of Circumcision or law, this was not true.

Paul wrote that if you get circumcised you are then required to keep the whole law. But Paul was under a different dispensation than Israel.

If you are saved by the Dispensation of Grace that was given to Paul. No so if you were a Jew under Peter’s ministry.

So Teejay answers No... Paul was not under the gospel of circumcision.

Israel was to be God's evangelical nation to the world. Under the gospel of circumcision, an evangelistic Jew in Africa say was going to be able to "lay hands on the sick and they would recover." They would be immune to snake bites and poison. If anyone thinks they are under the covenant of circumcision, I have some Texax Rattlers here on my ranch we can test that belief.

Paul was bitten by a snake and was immune! Acts 28:3-6 He also layed his hands on the sick and healed him. Acts 28:8

1. So Teejay's reasoning that only those under this so-called "gospel of circumcision" were granted these spiritual gifts is proven wrong.

And to recap:

2. Teejay's statement that Jesus intended to return in 7 years and establish an earthly kingdom with the apostles judging on earth has also been proven wrong.

3. Teejay's assertion that Peter wrote letters to circumcision followers and, in contrast, Paul wrote his letters to those under the gospel of grace has also been proven wrong.

#105 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 15 March 2012 - 10:19 PM

To all,

Choose from among you one opponent. We can get Fred to moderate and make it a ten-rounder. If your position is true, you should easily defeat me with scripture. I sumbit that you can't do that because your doctrine is false. A lie can only be defended with more lies or a denial of what is true. It can't be defended with truth. I'll even take all of you on. You can collaborate on each post and I will tie half my brain behind my back just to make it fair.

TeeJay


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.

#106 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 15 March 2012 - 10:33 PM

Here's how I go about it:

Throughout all of history, men have only ever been saved by the grace of God and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What has necessarily changed is the instructions to us on how we should express our faith in God and acceptance of Christ.
Obviously the most dramatic change was between before and after the fact of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

But where is it that God began teaching that faith in the risen saviour was all that was now required?

Similarly, before the law was given to Moses, faith and acceptance of Christ was expressed by righteousness before God. Then the law was introduced in order to teach the standards that righteousness had to reach.

After Christ's appearance to the disciples, there was no teaching that the law was not still in effect. Thus using the gospel accounts (and anything else not by Paul) to indicate faith should be expressed through something other than adherence to the law is to invent a change where none is specified.

As soon as Paul shows up, however, we have clear teaching. The old way was that our faith was expressed through adherence to the law. The new way is that our faith is to be expressed by faith in the risen Christ. At all times, all men have always been saved by grace. But today we have a greater understanding of how that has worked.

Stripe, Amen!

I'm glad that somebody sees this besides me.
Salvation by faith plus nothing can't be found anywhere except in Paul's writings. Paul even goes one step further and forbids circumcision. A Jew would never teach that you don't have to circmcise, Jesus said that anyone who breaks one of the LEAST of the His laws and teaches anyone to do so too, will be called least in the kingdom of God. Such is life under the gospel of circumcision.

TeeJay


Teejay claims to agree with Stripe here, but according to this post he clearly doesn't:

A person saved under the gospel of circumcision was not assured of his salvation until he met Jesus BECAUSE HIS SALVATION WAS CONTINGENT ON FAITH PLUS WORKS AND LAW KEEPING. Jesus could say, “Well done, good and faithful servant” or “I know you not; I will cast you out of His presence.” No matter how you look at it, life under the gospel of circumcision was not for the faint of heart. In Matthew 18, Jesus teaches that if God forgave you your sins, and then you refused to forgive your neighbor’s sin against you, God would put back on you all your sins that He had previously forgiven you. Yikes! Such is life under the gospel of circumcision.

Now please understand that circumcision believers the (Twelve) were not saved by grace alone as we are in the Body of Christ. Peter had to do good works, keep God’s law (symbolic and moral) plus have faith in Jesus. Works alone is not sufficient.


A believer saved under the Gospel of Circumcision or the Law could lose his or her salvation. Salvation hinged upon faith plus good works and keeping the law, (“the weightier, without leaving the lesser undone”). “Give it your best shot, and I will add a little grace,” promises God.

And Paul writes over and over again that the gospel of grace or gospel of uncircumcision was given to Paul only (Eph. 3:1-2, 6:19; Gal. 1:24-26; 1 Tim. 1:11; 1 Cor. 9:16-17).



#107 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:58 AM

UD, it doesn't matter to me that you counted 7958 verses in the NT that do not refer to two gospels.


Actually I think it should matter to you Fred. Not because of what I say, but because scripture provides us with a rule of thumb to use in establishing truth:

"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Cor 13:1)

With this in mind I don't think the use of "of" instead of "for" is such irrefutable proof of dual gospels that there is no way around it. All I can see is two labels for two separate administrations, and with the doctrine for the "circumcision gospel" conspicuously missing, I don't see much testimony of this in scripture at all.

Sure, sometimes small things such as prepositions can mean a lot, but it will take a whole lot more than that to convince me that for some reason that so far no one has explained, God decided to establish different standards for people who have been born again and therefore are new creations. This is veryfied by the fact that in Christ, there is no longer any Jew or gentile. "The old has gone, see, the new has come."

Now, continuing with the two or three witnesses theme. Don't you think it telling that out of almost 8000 verses (put that calculator down Fred!) the word "gospel", which occurs over 100 times, is never used in the plural form. Jesus spoke about "the gospel" or "this gospel" , not "one of the gospels" or anything else that might hint about the existence of more than one:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Notice that Jesus speaks of the "gospel of the kingdom", which is supposed to be synonymous with the "circumcision gospel", is being preached "to all nations". Now do you, as Teejay seems to think, that what Jesus meant by this was that this is referring to the "dispersion" Jews? Was the great commision to go out and tell the Jews, who were aready practicing circucision "Get circumcised, mow the lawn, do your best, and at the end of the day you might get saved.. if you have tried hard enough"... or whatever this "gospel" is supposed to be (I don't know, I can't seem to find it anywhere).

Once the last of the Jews of that generation born under the law had passed away, then the gospel of circumcision was over. Now I think TeeJay postulates that it will resume in the end times. Not sure I agree with that, but I need to research that one further.


So. your guess is better than mine? :lol: Well... I don't know Fred...

Finally, I thought TeeJay made a good point here: "God told Paul to go up to Jerusalem and explain to the Twelve the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2). I always ask, why would Paul have to explain his gospel to them if it was the same as theirs? Why did God tell Paul to do this?". I don't think anyone attempted to address this.


The gospel was developing as time progressed. The Jewish apostles, with the excpetion of Paul, were having difficulties adapting. Peter had to be shown a vision three times just to get him to eat with a gentile. This vision taught Peter that the things that were previously unclean, were now clean. Now, since this revelation was brought to Peter, does that mean that at that point there were suddenly two gospels? Of course not. And neither does Pauls' revelation indicate two gospels.

Circumcision was a big deal to the Jews. It was handed over to them as a perpetual statute for all generations, and here comes this guy saying that circumcision was not necessary! Can you imagine the HOT forum debates that would have raged over this that time?

Paul stayed out of Jerusalem for three years, had to be beamed up to heaven, and recieved such an abundance of revelations that he had to be chastised by satan so that he wouldn't get big-headed. How else would he possibly adapt to such a unspeakable and controversial idea! The reaction was so strong that even Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews were getting so violent about it.

Do you really think that any of the other apostles would have taught the things that Paul taught and endured the "buffeting" that Paul endured without first experiencing the things that Paul had experienced? It is evident that many of the "big names" among the apostles were starting to get nervous about this issue. And who could blame them?

I am totally convinced that Paul would never get anyone to circumcise themselves (except for tactical purposes). And by that I include the Jews, because what Paul taught us about the law were spiritual truths that applied to everyone.

Consider this verse in the passage you quoted in your first post:

"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Acts 21:21

Notice that it wasn't the circumcision of the gentiles that was the major issue here and that the Jews were upset about.

It was the children of the Jews!

#108 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:36 AM

[quote] name='ikester7579' timestamp='1331875173' post='81778']
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.
[/quote]

Ikester, I stand ready and willing to answer any questions you have. Shoot!

TeeJay

#109 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:46 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331876037' post='81779']
Teejay claims to agree with Stripe here, but according to this post he clearly doesn't:
[/quote]

ME, Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? I'm bewildered!

TeeJay

#110 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 16 March 2012 - 08:12 AM

Stripe says: Throughout all of history, men have only ever been saved by the grace of God and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

What has necessarily changed is the instructions to us on how we should express our faith
.

Teejay says: A person saved under the gospel of circumcision was not assured of his salvation until he met Jesus BECAUSE HIS SALVATION WAS CONTINGENT ON FAITH PLUS WORKS AND LAW KEEPING.

Now please understand that circumcision believers the (Twelve) were not saved by grace alone as we are in the Body of Christ.


Stripe says that throughout history, the means to salvation has not changed. Teejay says that the means to salvation has changed.

#111 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:40 AM

[quote] name='UppsalaDragby' timestamp='1331888317' post='81782']
Actually I think it should matter to you Fred. Not because of what I say, but because scripture provides us with a rule of thumb to use in establishing truth:

"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Cor 13:1)

With this in mind I don't think the use of "of" instead of "for" is such irrefutable proof of dual gospels that there is no way around it. All I can see is two labels for two separate administrations, and with the doctrine for the "circumcision gospel" conspicuously missing, I don't see much testimony of this in scripture at all.[/quote]

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.

[quote]Sure, sometimes small things such as prepositions can mean a lot, but it will take a whole lot more than that to convince me that for some reason that so far no one has explained, God decided to establish different standards for people who have been born again and therefore are new creations. This is veryfied by the fact that in Christ, there is no longer any Jew or gentile. "The old has gone, see, the new has come."[/quote]

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. 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.

[quote]Now, continuing with the two or three witnesses theme. Don't you think it telling that out of almost 8000 verses (put that calculator down Fred!) the word "gospel", which occurs over 100 times, is never used in the plural form. Jesus spoke about "the gospel" or "this gospel" , not "one of the gospels" or anything else that might hint about the existence of more than one:[/quote]

After the Cross did Peter and James have to keep the Sabbath?
After the Cross did Peter and James have to circumcise?
After the Cross did Peter and James have to keep any of the feasts?
After the Cross did Peter and James have to worry about eating meat sacrificed to idols?
After the Cross did Peter and James have to produce fruit?
Please answer.

[quote]And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.[/quote]

The gospel of the kingdom never left Israel and Israel does not have a kingdom.


[quote]Notice that Jesus speaks of the "gospel of the kingdom", which is supposed to be synonymous with the "circumcision gospel", is being preached "to all nations". Now do you, as Teejay seems to think, that what Jesus meant by this was that this is referring to the "dispersion" Jews? Was the great commision to go out and tell the Jews, who were aready practicing circucision "Get circumcised, mow the lawn, do your best, and at the end of the day you might get saved.. if you have tried hard enough"... or whatever this "gospel" is supposed to be (I don't know, I can't seem to find it anywhere).[/quote]

It's not :"supposed to be." It is synonymous. The Jews were the people of the circumcision or the law. UD, do you really think that Jesus sent his apostles out to convince them of circumcision. 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. 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. Further the word "grace," in the sense of salvation, can't be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.



[quote]So. your guess is better than mine? :lol: Well... I don't know Fred...[/quote]

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



[quote]The gospel was developing as time progressed. The Jewish apostles, with the excpetion of Paul, were having difficulties adapting. Peter had to be shown a vision three times just to get him to eat with a gentile. This vision taught Peter that the things that were previously unclean, were now clean. Now, since this revelation was brought to Peter, does that mean that at that point there were suddenly two gospels? Of course not. And neither does Pauls' revelation indicate two gospels.[/quote]

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!

[quote]Circumcision was a big deal to the Jews. It was handed over to them as a perpetual statute for all generations, and here comes this guy saying that circumcision was not necessary! Can you imagine the HOT forum debates that would have raged over this that time?[/quote]

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?

Did Peter have to circumcise?

Did Paul have to circumcise?

If Paul did not and peter did, can you admit that there are two different dispensations here?

[quote]Paul stayed out of Jerusalem for three years, had to be beamed up to heaven, and recieved such an abundance of revelations that he had to be chastised by satan so that he wouldn't get big-headed. How else would he possibly adapt to such a unspeakable and controversial idea! The reaction was so strong that even Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the Jews were getting so violent about it.[/quote]

I asked you to 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?

[quote]Do you really think that any of the other apostles would have taught the things that Paul taught and endured the "buffeting" that Paul endured without first experiencing the things that Paul had experienced? It is evident that many of the "big names" among the apostles were starting to get nervous about this issue. And who could blame them?

I am totally convinced that Paul would never get anyone to circumcise themselves (except for tactical purposes). And by that I include the Jews, because what Paul taught us about the law were spiritual truths that applied to everyone.[/quote]

What you are saying here is that Paul decided on his own authority that he could dispense with circumcision, Sabbaths, baptisms, feast keeping, eating meat sacrificed to idols, and keeping the law. Right? This is what happens when you disregard what God says in His word and fictionalize what you think He should have said.

[quote]Consider this verse in the passage you quoted in your first post:

"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." Acts 21:21

Notice that it wasn't the circumcision of the gentiles that was the major issue here and that the Jews were upset about.

It was the children of the Jews!
[/quote]

But Paul was telling Jews and Gentiles not to circumcise. 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?

TeeJay

#112 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:50 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331910756' post='81800'] Stripe says: Throughout all of history, men have only ever been saved by the grace of God and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. What has necessarily changed is the instructions to us on how we should express our faith. Teejay says: A person saved under the gospel of circumcision was not assured of his salvation until he met Jesus BECAUSE HIS SALVATION WAS CONTINGENT ON FAITH PLUS WORKS AND LAW KEEPING. Now please understand that circumcision believers the (Twelve) were not saved by grace alone as we are in the Body of Christ. Stripe says that throughout history, the means to salvation has not changed. Teejay says that the means to salvation has changed. [/quote]

ME, I posted this all before but you don't seem to read it. Of maybe you're reading it and don't comprehend?

Jesus said that no man had assended to the Father. If true, where did all the righteous go before Jesus sacrifice on the Cross? Answer is Sheol or Abraham's bosom. The reason they went there is Jesus had not yet went to the Cross, so they could not put their faith in HIs sacrifice for them. When Jesus' body lay in the grave for three days, Jesus in the Spirit went to Sheol and preached to those rithteous souls such as Moses, Abraham, et. al. The Bible says that He led captives free. Even though God says that Moses was faithful in all, he still had to accept Jesus. So if this is true, then grace can be added to works but under Paul's gospel of grace, Paul writes that you can't work for your salvation because it is a gift of love. If you try to work for it, it is no longer a gift.

Maybe if I use an example you can comprehend it. Let's say you husband works overtime all year to buy you a diamond ring that he was too poor to afford for you when you got married. On Christimas Eve, he takes all the money he worked so hard for all year and buys you the ring and gives it to you. Instead of repaying him with your womanhood and your love, you tell him that you will repay him by giving his $10 a week out of your egg money for the next 10 years. Your husband would be deeply hurt. You can only repay him his gift of love with your love.

TeeJay

#113 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:09 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331872218' post='81773'] I understand that there was a period of transition while God revealed the dispensation of grace.[/quote]

No there was not a transition period. God's gospel of uncircumcision was given to Paul after God cut off Israel.

[quote]I think that the fact that Peter told his followers to listen to Paul proves that Teejay's idea's are not correct.[/quote]

Thinking does not make it so. It would be nce if you elaborated a bit and showed how it proves me incorrect.

[quote]In addition: This is your answer. I had to work to find it! You do not speak plainly. You use a plethora of words. So Teejay answers No... Paul was not under the gospel of circumcision.[/quote]

ME, you're making me crazy! When did I ever argue that Paul was under the gospel of circumcision? That's what this whold debate is about. Please tell me that you are just joshing with this old man?

[quote]Paul was bitten by a snake and was immune! Acts 28:3-6 He also layed his hands on the sick and healed him. Acts 28:8 1. So Teejay's reasoning that only those under this so-called "gospel of circumcision" were granted these spiritual gifts is proven wrong. And to recap: 2.[/quote]

I wrote this before several times. Again, I don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem or you are not reading. God gave Paul temporary miracles and tongues as His stamp of approval on his ministry. When you read Paul's later epistles, he writes that one of his helpers "was sick near death" and Paul had to go on without him. And God did protect Paul during his ministry. One time he was stoned to death and God brought him back to life.

But when Jesu gave His followers the Great Commission, all of them would be able to step on snakes and drink poison and heal the sick. Is ME doing that today? Is UD doing that today? Is Ikester doing that today? If you want to test this, I have some Diamondbacks on my ranch we can test it.



[quote]Teejay's statement that Jesus intended to return in 7 years and establish an earthly kingdom with the apostles judging on earth has also been proven wrong.
3. Teejay's assertion that Peter wrote letters to circumcision followers and, in contrast, Paul wrote his letters to those under the gospel of grace has also been proven wrong. [/quote]

ME, can you show a post where anyone prove me wrong? You must be reading a different thread?

ME, try something for me. Permit me a little folly as Paul would say. Instead of doing contorsions and difficult backflips to avoid what Fred and I are trying to teach, try looking for some Scripture to support our position. See what happens?

TeeJay

#114 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 16 March 2012 - 09:13 AM

Either you agree with Stripe or you don't. Start answering things with one short sentence instead of talking around them for paragraphs upon paragraphs.

But when Jesu gave His followers the Great Commission, all of them would be able to step on snakes and drink poison and heal the sick. Is ME doing that today? Is UD doing that today? Is Ikester doing that today? If you want to test this, I have some Diamondbacks on my ranch we can test it.

Matthew 4:7

#115 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:20 AM

Fred, I can prove that when God returns to Israel He will take up where He left off with the law. In fact Israel will be circumcising, observing the Sabbath and feasts in the thousand year kingdom and in t he new heaven and the new earth. Sabbaths and circumcision are PERPETUAL covenants, everlasting, forever, as long as there is an Israel.

But, I would rather stay with the two gospel debate. I can only say good luck! Just getting these people to admit that Peter wrote his letter to Jews is like pulling wisdom teeth, and I still have not convinced ME. I gues she did not read my irrefragable proof I submitted to UD?

TeeJay

#116 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 16 March 2012 - 10:59 AM

I read this:1 Peter2: 9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

and this: 2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

The evidence shows that Peter is writing to the very same people Paul is writing to. You have the right to draw a different conclusion of course.

#117 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 16 March 2012 - 11:07 AM

This is completely off topic from whether you agree with Stripe or not... but I do appreciate the post. Thank you for proving my point.

Paul writes that you can't work for your salvation because it is a gift of love. If you try to work for it, it is no longer a gift.


"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."-- John 4:7 (said by Jesus before Paul was given his commission and written by an apostle other than Paul.)

#118 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 16 March 2012 - 11:25 AM

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

1 Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

1 Tim 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

1 Tim 5:25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

1 Tim 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Tit 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Titus 3:1 1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James was written to people who believed that they could act as they pleased and still claim salvation and Galatians was written to a people who were being deceived as to God's requirements for salvation, different recipients, themes and purposes. Taken as a whole, in context, I see no discrepancy between the writings of James and Paul.

#119 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:23 PM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1331914404' post='81804']
Either you agree with Stripe or you don't. Start answering things with one short sentence instead of talking around them for paragraphs upon paragraphs.

Matthew 4:7
[/quote]

ME, that's the first good comeback you've ever given me. Good Job! You got me. You're right. If you came down to my ranch and purposely stepped on a Diamondback to see if God would heal you, you would be tempting the Lord. I agree.

"And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will be no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover" (Mark 16:17-18). In fact Jesus Christ said to His circumcision apostles that they would do GREATER miracles than He did.

Now Jesus did not mean that anyone should go step on a Diamondback just to see if God would keep His promise. If Israel had accepted their risen Messiah, his disciples would encounter dangers in their missionary journey's just by accident. God promised to protect them, as he did Paul. Paul was bitten by accident when he was gathering wood.

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.

TeeJay

#120 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 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 - 06:50 PM

Actually I think it should matter to you Fred. Not because of what I say, but because scripture provides us with a rule of thumb to use in establishing truth:

"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Cor 13:1)

With this in mind I don't think the use of "of" instead of "for" is such irrefutable proof of dual gospels that there is no way around it. All I can see is two labels for two separate administrations, and with the doctrine for the "circumcision gospel" conspicuously missing, I don't see much testimony of this in scripture at all.


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?

Now, continuing with the two or three witnesses theme. Don't you think it telling that out of almost 8000 verses (put that calculator down Fred!) the word "gospel", which occurs over 100 times, is never used in the plural form. Jesus spoke about "the gospel" or "this gospel" , not "one of the gospels" or anything else that might hint about the existence of more than one:


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.

Consider this verse in the passage you quoted in your first post:

"They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcisetheir children or live according to our customs." Acts 21:21

Notice that it wasn't the circumcision of the gentiles that was the major issue here and that the Jews were upset about.

It was the children of the Jews!


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 sexual 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)?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users