Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Salsa last won the day on September 23 2013

Salsa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About Salsa

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Uppsala, Sweden
  1. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Teejay, I have no pleasure in leaving this site with ill feelings either. But the fact is that I have found many problems with your not only your theology, but with your "I know I am right" attitude. As you probably are familiar with knowledge "puffs up", and "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know". I don't care how much you have studied the Bible. Human effort counts for nothing, so why should I feel that your 30 years of study should dictate for me what truth is? I also don't know why you think your "doctrinal disputes" challenge settles anything either. Here they are: 1. Believers can/cannot lose their salvation? 2. Baptism is/is not required? 3. Believers should/should not speak in tongues? 4. God will answer/not answer prayers of faith?" 5. Miracles and healing are/are not assured? 6. There is/is not a pre-Tribulation rapture? 7. Believers must/must not keep the law to be saved? 8. Salvation by grace requires works/no works? 9. Believers must/must not keep the Sabbath? 10. Unclean foods are/are not prohibited? Each of them is a DEBATE in themselves, and most of them need greater clarification that you have provided here. What I would like to know is which of these disputes cannot be resolved by a OG view? And what is the basis for establishing whether or not one's view is valid? Is one verse enough? Two verses? Or do we harmonize, look at context, and so on. It is just a long rabbit trail that I doubt that anyone wants to waste hours and hours of their time running down just to get nowhere. This thread concerns whether or not there are two gospels, not who has the best "theory about everything". But again, if you think the TG view has an explanation of something that the OG view does not then you are free to present it, rather than insinuate that those with a OG view are all cowering around the corner afraid to meet your challenge. I didn't ask you whether or not Paul was against good works or if the works we do are motivated by law. The scripture I posted indicates that we are not under the law IF we are led by the Spirit. Now are you saying that we are not under the law whether or not we are led by the Spirit, or what is your point? Finally, you and Fred seem to think that the Greek translation of Galatians 2:7 settles the whole matter, despite the fact that, just as I pointed out, there is nothing in that verse cannot be explained by the fact that the gospel message was simply split into two separate fields of administration. That is true no matter which preposition one uses, because it is common for us to say "the gospel to the circumcized" as "the gospel for the circumcized". But perhaps there is something else in the Greek that you think determines this issue that I have missed? Here is your chance to make that verse as unambiguous as Fred seems to think it is. I on my part have claimed that this issue concerns the core truth of the gospel, and not the administration or the many differences that you would expect when dealing with two separate cultures and so on. I gave both you and Fred the support for my position which I think is TOTALLY unambiguous, whether or not you use Greek, English or Swedish. Now listen to this and pay careful attention! The core truth of the Gospel and the verse that we most present as the way to attain salvation is this: "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:10) Notice that immediately following that verse is something that neither you nor Fred seem to want to accept: As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." (verse 11) And who is "anyone"? For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (verse 12,13) That settles it for me.
  2. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Teejay, I am not sure if you noticed it or not, but I decided to finish debating this issue with you and Fred, but if you want to keep on with this then OK. Fred, for some reason which I cannot fathom, seems to be impressed by your theory, something which you haven't been slow to exploit here. Go ahead both of you. I am tired of the playing the kind of games that one would only expect of Youtube atheists. You and Fred can continue handing out cheap cigars to each other all you want. This might as well be my last stand here. You can both hurl all you want at me. I have dealt with both your questions and Fred's - ALL of them! But you can continue pretending that I haven't all you want. Your point about works is utterly worthless unless you can demonstrate clearly that being led by the Spirit conforms to what Paul considered to be "works" rather than a product of faith. Until you do that you can keep your smug comments about what is "logical" to yourself. We are NOT under the law IF we are led by the Spirit! Fred, your quesiton about the supremecy of the covenants can be answered - easily! I just wanted you to point out what the significance of the diffences has to do with this topic before I waste time pointing out what they are (which I pointed out with MY unanswered question) . Now, afterwards, you seem to be implying that I am STUMPED by your question and need "time to think". Please don't flatter yourself! I have already pointed out why the old covenant is inferior to the new, you just don't seem to have picked it up. But here it is again - the OC was given due to disobedience. The new was not based on disobedience, but on "better promises". So go ahead and show me how that proves there are two gospels! So, both of you, is being led by the Spirit "works" according to you, or not?
  3. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Fred, I'm not sure what you think you see in the dictionary or in 2 Peter 3:9 that disagrees with Ephesians 3:6, which again is not what I am saying, but the apostle Paul. And since I addressed Ephesians 3:7 in my previous post I don't know why you are claiming I "left it out". You also haven't given any other reason why the inclusion of the Gentiles in the inheritance is any more "unrealistic" than the idea that it is the gospel, than your own opinion - which is obviously based on the side you have taken in this thread. I at least backed up my position with relevant scriptures, rather than a reference to the dictionary and a verse from the new testament, so why don't you refute my points and let's see what we have left to deal with. As I said Fred, my "assumption" was in response to yours where you claim that Paul "went out of his way to do works as a sign of respect". I see no indication at all that Paul does that, so why am I guilty of "adding to scripture" whereas you are not? I have addressed Galatians 2:7, and in doing so have made an effort to harmonize it with the rest of scripture. If you want to rest your entire argument on such an ambiguous veres then do so. It's your choice Fred. I prefer to base my doctrine on verses that are NOT ambiguous, such as the following: "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Since you seem to be getting more and more desparate in your responses Fred, that is all I have left to say to you... except maybe for this: English is NOT my second language. Perhaps you should get your facts straight first. All you have to do is ask.
  4. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Thanks for your support Dig, but even though we agree on some points, as you know I disagree with your conclusion about Paul's relationship to the law. As you well know, he taught Timothy that the law was good IF it is used properly. One way to interpret that is to suggest the the "proper" way to use the law is to "combine it with faith" and then obey it. But there are many, many problems with that view. To start with, there is nothing in scripture that makes that suggestion. Some might argue that Hebrews 4:2 teaches us this, but what it actually points out that it was the gospel that the Jews did not combine with faith, not the law. It was only after their failure to obey the gospel that the law was given. Some might argue that the law contains elements of the gospel, and I don't have a problem agreeing with that, but there certainly isn't any one-to-one relationship between the law and the gospel. Paul said that the law was a "shadow" pointing towards the good things that would come, and Peter said that we should pay attention to the word of the prophets as to a light shining in a "dark place", but neither of them suggest that we should return to it after finding Christ. Using the law properly is doing so with the understanding that although it was not made for us (1 Tim 1:9), we can gain insight from it. This is the reason why although Paul often quotes the law, he does so in a new light. For example 1 Cor 9:9: "For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned?" Obviously here Paul is not trying to teach anyone to obey the ordinances of the mosaic law in a literal sense. The same thing applies to things such as circumcision and observing the sabbath. They were shadows of the realities in Chist.
  5. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Thanks Teejay, I can appreciate your point. Given the view that you have, you interpret this verse as if it was saying "if you are under the law then stay under the law". But despite the fact that it would have been much easier and clearer for Paul to say something like that, he does not. Why? Because if you study the surrounding context then you will notice that this is not what Paul is talking about. The whole chapter starts off by discusing moral issues concerning marriage. People were suddenly being converted from sinful relationships and they were confused about how to deal with the new situation they suddenly found themselves in. Do they remain in the relationships they are in, or do they abandom them. What were they supposed to do about children, and so on. He then gives them some advice. Depending on the circumstances he advises them to either remain in the situation they are in, or to separate. As a general rule he says: "Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." (1 Cor 7:17) In other words, you don't need to jump out of your relationships and do anything drastic, but continue to work within the field to which you were assigned. He then continues on his discourse with how the issue of circumcision shoud be dealt with, because obviously, his letters were even being read by the circumcized! Otherwise all he would have had to say was don't get circumcized. And in verse 19 he explains why someone who is circumsized should not get uncircumcised, and visa versa: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." Nowhere does he say that they should become "uncircumcized" in order to keep the "second gospel". He basically said that (since the time was short, which is what he believed at that time) then it doesn't matter! And why should it? Those who have been saved are under a completely new situation having been freed from the law and reborn into the body of Christ. Oh come on Teejay, you have got to be joking! The hardest group by far would have been the Jews. No other group so vehemently opposed the gospel than them. That is why the apostles had to go to such lenghts in order to appease them that Paul even had Timothy circumcized "because of the Jews". Paul tried his best to preach his message to them first, but abandoned that attemp in total frustration (Acts 18:6). To the great annoyance of the KJV-only crowd I will go with the NIV: "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (And why did you chop off the end of the verse?)
  6. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Again Fred, it is not "Salsa" who is making claims about what the mystery is, but the apostle Paul, just as it is his claim that it was hidden. You posted an amusing picture where opponents of the TG theory are bending over backwards playing a game of Twister supposedly trying to get their theology to fit. And yet, rather than admitting that what Paul wrote was true - that the mystery IS that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel - you are looking for some kind of work-around. I'm not sure to what lenghts you are willing to go to wedge in this work-around Fred, but it really surprises me that you don't have any problems ignoring the fact that there is explicit evidence that the gospel was preached to the old testament Jews, whereas the verses you submitted say nothing at all about the fact that the Gentiles shared in the inheritance. Genesis 17:4 and 22:16 merely say that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that all the nations would be blessed. Where in that verse is there any mention of an inheritance? We know NOW that it has a certain significance, but what did the Jews know before Paul's revelation? I don't even know why you mentioned Psalms 2:8. There is absolutely nothing there that says that the Gentiles would be co-heirs with Israel, but rather it is the other way around. And of course the same thing can be said about Isaiah 42:1 - not a word about the Gentiles being co-heirs with Israel. These are clues Fred, I don't have any problem admitting that, but it would really be a stretch to claim that these kinds of verses indicate that the mystery Paul spoke about was something that the Jews even remotely realized. I have no idea why you think that either of these verses presents a problem for me. If the mystery Paul speaks about concerns the Gentiles, rather than the gospel of grace, then you would expect each verse that mentions the mystery to contains some kind of reference to the Gentiles, right? Well let's look at what we've got so far: Eph 3:6: "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Pretty clear, isn't it? The gospel gets a mention, but only as means of channeling the mystery. Romans 16:25: "Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past," The gospel is mentioned, sure, but this verse only teaches us that the gospel is "according to" the mystery, not that it IS the mystery, and what does the next verse say? Romans 16:26: "but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him." Again, it's right there in front of you. The fact that it was made through the "prophetic writings" indicates that the clues were there, exactly as we would expect, but so were the clues pointing towards who the Messaiah was. Did the Jews recognize the Messaiah? No, their eyes were blinded, just as their eyes were blinded from understanding the mystery that Paul mentioned. Then we have Colossians 1:25-27: I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. No mention of the gospel being the mystery, but just as we would expect, a reference to the Gentiles. Sure Fred, no problem, I can admit that it is an assumption. We all have these. My assumption was based on the comment that the apostles made to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law." But strike that from the record if you want. To me it is no big deal and it only serves to illustrate how difficult it is to base doctrine on historical accounts. You read it your way, and I read it mine. I suggested the scenario I did, not to dogmatically suggest that my interpretation was right, but in response to your comment, which is just as much an assertion as mine was: "Paul does not chastise James for adhering to the law, in fact he goes out of his way to do works as likely a sign of respect. This passage makes little sense if only one gospel of grace only, no works is in play." There is nothing in the text that suggest that Paul was doing anything to appease James. The dilemma they were facing and the suggested solution follows directly after verse 21: "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." So obviously, it was the Jews that Paul was trying to appease, not James. Judging from what we know about Paul he was not the kind of person to compromise his gospel in order to please the other apostles. What he was willing to do on the other hand was to "become like a Jew to win the Jews". There is only one view that accommodates these verses, that the mystery = "the gift of the grace of God". I don't see how you reach such a conclusion from these verses. Paul says that the mystery is that the Gentiles would be co-heirs. He then says that the mystery came through the gospel. And finishes off by saying that he was given grace to become a minister of that gospel. How you possibly interpret that the way you do is beyond me, and yet you claim there is "only one view that accomodates it". If they are saved by the blood of Jesus then why would they still need animal blood? This is where the 2G view get's really messy Fred. We know by studying Hebrews 10 that the sacrifice for sins was made by Jesus "once for all" and that "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy". Those verses MUST apply to Jews, because it wasn't gentiles who were carrying out the Levitical sacrifies mentioned in that chapter. We know that there is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ, and that those who are in Christ died to the law. With that in mind, all the conflicts and contradictions that you think exist just dissappear. There is no error Fred. If you go through Hebrews 3:7-19 and Hebrews 4 you can read about the events that led up to the rebellion in the desert, when the mosaic covenant was established. The gospel at that time was in the form of the promise of rest in the land that they were to inherit. Since they rebelled against the gospel of rest it "remained" to be passed on to another generation. They themselves fell under the yoke of the law, because God swore that they would "never enter his rest". That is why they were given a law of "works". You can also see in Jeremiah 31:32 where he not only speaks about the coming of the new covenant, but also gives the reason why the old covenant was established: "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " Now notice that Jeremiah says that the old covenant was given "because they broke my covenant". That cannot be the old covenant because they could hardly have broken the same covenant that they were being given. Obviously, the previous covenant to the old covenant was the Abrahamic covenant of faith. In other words, the gospel. If you are getting the sound of crickets from me Fred it is simply because I'm not really sure I understand the question. You will have to explain to me what the new covenant being better than the old has to do with there being either one or two gospels. Which translation are you trying to say does not have the support of "Greek experts"? But even with the KJV I don't see what your point is. As I said before, this discussion is not whether or not the messages that Paul gave to the Gentiles was a carbon copy of how the other apostles presented the gospel. It concerns the core spiritual truths of the gospel - that we are saved by grace, not by the works of the mosaic law, but that we are still under the obligation to obey the law of Christ, just as Paul declared that he was (1 Cor 9:21).
  7. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Thanks for admitting that it is your POV Fred, but I can't see anything in the Greek that makes my view a stretch, but you are welcome to clarify what you mean. Isaiah 49:6 - Indeed He says,β€˜It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’” Also see Genesis 17:4; 22:18; Psalms 2:8; Isaiah 42:1, 6 Your claim that the mystery was that the Gentiles get to share in salvation is simply not valid, it would have been no mystery at all to any Jew sufficiently educated in scripture. Why is this suddenly "my claim", and not Paul's? I am not saying anything that goes beyond the scripture I quoted, so I have to ask you Fred, are you arguing against me, or scripture? I am also not saying that there is nothing in the old covenant that does not give away the "mystery" (if one looks for it afterwards). Whatever way you look at this there weren't any mysteries in the OT that didn't have any clues. Obviously the reason that the Jews didn't see them was because they were blinded, whereas the "apostles and prophets" that Paul was referring to (Eph 3:4,5) received the revelation of the mystery. I've been "preaching" lately that my standard is to grade how one view fits vs another view. Often times both views can accommodate a passage, but for me there were too many times where One Gospel (in the 1st century) either flimsy accommodates the other view, or in some case flat out not at all. The "scorecard" got to be too much to overcome. Here is how I would summarize this, my TOP 10 list: I actually see it the other way around. You try to paint a colorful picture where your see your opponents struggling with some huge conundrum where they have to do backflips to defend their view. I however have never had any problem harmonizing the entire doctrine of the NT. In order to support his theory Teejay is forced to go beyond what is written, which is a big no no, according to Paul. He seems to think that the people that Jesus called "friends" are now cut off from Christ and burning in hell. He creates scenarios where Paul is slapping James across the face. What a way to resolve doctrinal disputes! Who said that circumcision has been revoked? Not me that's for sure. In fact, nothing in the old covenant has been revoked! However: "A man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." In other words, those who are under the old covenant are those who identify themselves as Jews physically, not spiritually. If someone is "in Christ" then he is a "new creation" - the old has gone, the new has come. Someone who is in Christ has died to the law. He has been resurrected with Christ and his identity is not in the flesh, but in the spirit. It's not a great point at all. Just as I pointed out to TJ Jesus' earthly mission was not to lead his followers into "all truth". Only after he died was the Holy Spirit poured out on the disciples and the fullness of the gospel was starting to dawn on them, and then and only then were they receiving revelation about things that totally demolishes Teejays theory. For example the fact that Peter was shown that all foods were clean. According to Teejays method of interpreting scripture, Peter was ALSO given a different gospel than Jesus. As I explained to Teejay, basing doctrine on historical accounts, rather than on clear doctrine is asking for trouble. First you look at what doctrine says, and THEN you consider such accounts in the light of doctrine - not the other way around! You need to take extra care to consider the context, as well as make every attemt to harmonize it with the rest of the gospel. Acts 21 deals with the sensitive issues that the apostles were facing when confronting the Jews. Many of the Jews that had recently been converted were also "zealous for the law", which the apostles probably considered to be a great victory. So think about the situation they were facing. Rumors were floating around that Paul was speaking "against the law" and here we have newly converted Jews that were zealous for the law. What to do, what to do... Think about it Fred. Paul, by his own admission "became like a Jew to win the Jews" and "became like one under the law to win those under the law". That was his major priority. He even had Timothy circumcised, which went against everything he taught. But he did so in order to aviod having the gospel derailed by the Jews who were already rioting and vehemently opposing him. Another thing that stands in contradiction to TJs position is the fact that Paul went first to the Jews with his gospel. If the Jews were under a different gospel - one previously established by Jesus - then why did Paul bother going to them with the wrong gospel? This too, is similar to point 5. And you can even read in Acts 15 how Peter point out that the requirements of the law was "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear". Does this mean that he was rebelling against the works gospel that he was supposedly preaching?? I have no problem with the Book of James whatsoever. The round holes that you suggest are in his book can only be created by isolating verses and ignoring context. The red thread in James book is not observing the mosiac law, which many seem to believe based on a missunderstanding of chapter 2, but obeying the law of Christ - to love one's neighbor as oneself. Fred, all I can see is that the mystery was administered in Paul's gospel, not that the gospel itself was a mystery, but feel free to point it out if I have missed it. Until then I will stick with what Paul says in Eph 3:6. "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Now are you actually claiming that the mystery is NOT what Paul clearly says that it is? Again, this is an argument made from the standpoint that differences alone prove that there are two gospels. My positions is not that what Paul wrote to the Gentiles is exactly the same as what the other apostles wrote to the Jews. There were bound to be differences and these are as easy as pie to point out. What concerns me is the belief that the core truth of the gospel is divided - that the Jews must keep the law whereas the Gentiles do nothing whatsoever. Paul warns us time and time again not to make the same mistake as the Jews did because, as he points out "God does not show favoritism". The Jews rejected the gospel even before the old covenant was given. In fact, the old covenant was given BECAUSE the jews rejected the gospel. There examples of "disobedience" (Hebrews 4:11) were written down so that we would not make the same mistakes as they did. They had the gospel preached to them just as we did (Hebrews 4:2). "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did." (1 Cor 10:3-6) Now did God reject these people because they did not believe that Jesus was God's son, was it because he "endured their conduct for about forty years in the desert" (Acts 13:18). These warnings, that were given to us, are all being nullified by the doctrines of men, who cherry pick isolated verses and use them to blot out the warnings. I think that point is missdirected Fred, I have never claimed anything other that it is the new covenant we need to follow. I don't think so Fred. As I pointed out to TJ, I don't think it is wise to build up conclusions drawn from circumstancial evidence and then use them to nullify clear doctrine. It was by agreement that Paul was sent to the Gentiles whereas the others were sent to the Jews. Galatians 2:7 can easily be explained by the fact that the administration of the gospel was separated into two mission fields, rather than the thinly supported assumption that the gospel itself had been separated into two conflicting truths. Where otherwise is there anything doctrinal that directly discusses the existence of two gospels? It just isn't there! In view of the vast amount of scripture we have access to in the New Testament, you would expect that at least one of the authors had mentioned it, but all we have are verses that speak of a unity in Christ composed of both groups.
  8. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    I never said that we were "grafted" into Israel. I quoted Ephesians 3:6, that's all. So instead of you asking me where I "get this from" I think I need to ask you the same. Paul actually never says "faith plus nothing". That is actually a distortion of what he said. What he did say is "faith apart from works" where the works he is referring to are obviously things that someone does in order to attain salvation. But does that mean faith plus "nothing"? No! Just as you pointed out earlier on we are under the obligation to repent and confess our sins. In fact Paul himself explained to King Agrippa that in obedience to the vision he received from heaven, he preached to both the Jews and the Gentiles that they should "repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds" (Acts 26:20). Questions: "Was Israel cut off for unbelief?" Yes "If Israel was cut off, and we are grafted in to Israel, are we cut off also?" We weren't grafted into Israel. We are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus "Is it clear here that Paul claims that the dispensation of the grace gospel was given to him?" Yes "Is it clear to you that Paul claims this dispensation was a mystery never before revealed?" No Teejay. The mystery is explained in verse 6, which you jumped over. You also jumped over verses 4 and 5: In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. Seems to me that the mystery was revealed to more people than Paul. "Did not Paul write that in the Body of Christ, there is no Jew (or Gentile)?" Yes. "If there is no Jew, how can we be fellow heirs with Jews?" That's a silly question Teejay. If there are no Jews or Gentiles, according to logic of this trick question then what is there? Obviously there will be those who formerly were Jews, just as there will be those who formerly were Gentiles. "Before Israel was cut off, what or Who were they cut off from? Jesus?" That sounds reasonable. "If Israel was cut off from he Root or Vine, or Tree (Jesus) then we were grafted into Jesus. Right?" Sure, but the fact that Israel as a nation was cut off does not mean that there were no (former) Jews who were still in the vine. There is always a remnant who are faithful to God.
  9. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Teejay, do you really think a question like that is going to stump me? I mean, really? Sometimes I wonder what goes through your head. The Bible is full of types and shadows. Israel, the promised land, is and was a shadow of salvation. I have already given you scripture that clearly shows that both Jews and Gentiles together share in the inheritance, body and the promises we have in Christ. So why are you even asking me a question like this? Why would God demand that the Jews be physically circumcized when circumcision is of the heart? We have neither been physically circumsized nor ingrafted into physical Israel! You claim that you are "rightly dividing" the word of truth and yet you don't even seem to understand these things. So you disagree with Paul now? "Sound doctrine" is that which conforms with the gospel (1 Tim 1:10-11), not things you just make up in order to win a forum debate. As I pointed out to you, we who are in Christ are "heirs together with Israel", so unless you are going to try to reinterpret what Israel is, you are directly contradicting scripture. The promises that were given to Israel will eventually be fulfilled. Yes they were cut off for a time, but what does Paul say: "God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." (Romans 11:2) "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!" Are you now trying to assert that the Jews were cut off "beyond recovery"? Teejay, unless you are deliberately trying to missrepresent me then I have to ask you to use quotes so that everyone here can see what I actually asked, instead of the above. Here is my question, with the part you left out bolded: "Where does scripture teach us that Peter wrote his letter to Jews who were not members of the body of Christ?" So my question has gone unanswered. What knee-jerk reaction are you talking about Teejay? I disagree with you, I search the scriptures to see if what you say is true, and I post my findings here on this forum. Is disagreeing with you a knee-jerk reaction in your books? You are claiming things here that scripture does not say, which I find very worrying. We are not at liberty to go beyond what is written, so unsubstantiated opinions without scriptural evidence are not something I should need to deal with. Does scripture say whether or not Peter was not saved? No. Does scripture say that the body of Christ did not exist until Paul? No. Does scripture say that Peter was not a part of the body of Christ? Again, no! In fact I think you should read the following verse and have a long, hard think: 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? (1 Corinthians 1:12" This verse obviously shows that Peter WAS a part of the body of Christ, so that is another scripture that you directly contradict by your teaching. Teejay, that just shows how superficial your arguments really are. The bulk of Christian doctrine was written by Paul. That makes it incredibly easy to find things that Paul wrote about that the others did not mention. Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel to "seek and to save what was lost". Are you saying that he failed? His mission was limited and his ministry cut short, but he promised his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. The other apostles obviously had access to Pauls writings and most likely didn't feel the need to cover things that Paul had already deal with. Despite this you want me to find Paul's words coming out of the mouths of the other apostles! Even if you can find one that seems to say that, you then have to explain the perpetual laws that Israel were under. This you can't do with a straight forward reading of the Word. You quote me John 5:24 and completely disregard all the verses I list where Jesus Himself taught law, law, law, law, circumcision, circumcision, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, observance of feasts. Are you aware you're doing that? I have already dealt with that Teejay and you know it. Through Christ we died to the law so that we can serve God in a new way. Since you are ignoring my points I am going to jump over the rest. It is tiresome for me to continually have to read through arguments that I have already dealt with and sift through your long posts looking to see if there is anything new. If you want to have a meaningful discussing then don't just keep posting the same arguments over and over again without first dealing with my counter-arguments, preferably using scripture.
  10. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Teejay, I am not interesting in exchanging rhetorical provocations with you. Partly because it only bloats the discussion, and partly because it is not fitting for a servant of Christ to get involved in silly quarrels, something that Paul described as a sign of worldliness. "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." (2 Tim 2:24) I am only interested in what scripture says and what it doesn't say. You claim to be rightly dividing the word of truth. OK, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but perhaps you can keep it to yourself and stick to doctrinal issues only. So let's concentrate on scripture. So with that in mind, where does scripture teach us that Peter wrote his letter to Jews who were not members of the body of Christ? And where do you get the idea that Peter himself found Paul's writings hard to understand? If someone teaching quantum mechanics to young students tells them that this is a subject that is difficult to understand, does that mean that he doesn't understand it himself? Of course not! Nowhere does Peter say that he did not understand Paul's writings. Can you admit that? "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." (John 6:56) Why would I need to do that? Firstly, the "circumcision" apostles had no idea that the Gentiles could recieve the gospel until the 10th chapter of Acts! That the Gentiles were in on the deal was a mystery that was revealed to Paul: "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." (Eph 3:6) Notice! Throught the gospel (not one of the gospels) the Gentiles were co-heirs, co-members and sharers with Israel of the promise in Christ. Secondly, I have no problem with the idea that Paul and the other apostles agreed to divide the task of preaching the gospel betweeen the two groups - Paul going to the Gentiles and James, Peter and John to the Jews. It wasn't the gospel that was divided, but the fields the workers were sent to. I could only find four or five verses in the entire new testament that satisfy those demands, and one of them was spoken by Peter: "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:11) Note that "we" in this verse are the Jews and "they" are the Gentiles, so I don't really know what you are trying to prove here. Why would I need to do that? I have already pointed out that the truth of the gospel would come later on with the outpouring of the Spirit. Jesus could have told Peter that the Gentiles were to be co-heirs with the Jews, but he didn't. Jesus could have told Peter that all food was clean, but he didn't. These things were revealed later on, AFTER the day of pentacost. Before that time their minds were most likely too dull to understand these things. "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24) No to both questions, because according to Paul: "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code." (Romans 2:29) Now can you provide one verse where the "circumcision" apostles say anything that contradicts Romans 2:29? No. If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. There is no Jew nor Gentile.
  11. Oh now I get it... I thought Teejay had some kind of new challenge in the cliche thread he mentioned, but there was nothing new there at all. So why does Teejay suddenly bring it up here? Oh, I don't suppose Teejay, in frustration over the fact that I disagree with him, and not being able to respond adequately, is now trying a different tactic - to pit me against Fred. But surely he isn't that petty... Why don't you fight your own battles Teejay? Now I haven't read the entire thread, but as far as I can see, and judging from the title it deals with the "cliche" that we should "Always Forgive". So why do you think that is a problem for me Teejay? Have I ever, in any of my posts made the claim that we must always forgive? Go back and reread my response to you concerning that and see whether or not that is true, but for now let's try to keep this thread on topic!
  12. Teejay, why such a terse response? Can you admit that you are oversimplifying and ignoring context? In one of your posts you push the idea that Paul's teachings are "difficult to understand" and now you are calling it a "simple truth". Perhaps you should make up your mind.. I haven't read your "challenge" in Fred's threads yet, but what does it have to do with this thread? What was your intention in bringing it up here?
  13. That's right Adam. The Jews were not missing out because they were given a different gospel, but because their eyes had been blinded. The "jealousy" verse must be understood in its context. In the previous chapter (Romans 10) Paul specifies the basics of the gospel and then points out that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." So if there is no difference, why weren't the Jews receiving the gospel as eagerly as the Gentiles were? That is what Paul was clarifying in the verses that follow. "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." The jealousy was obviously intended to wake them up from their stupor.
  14. Salsa

    Two Gospels Revisited...

    Teejay, since we are under the obligation to not go "beyond what is written" I think it needs to be pointed out that Peter never said that he did not understand what Paul wrote. Paul's writings were being missunderstood and distorted and his theology was being slandered (Romans 3:8), so it makes sense that the other apostles were aware of that and corrected some of those misconceptions.
  15. Thanks Dig! I'm trying hard not to unnecessarily provoke TJ, but between you and me I understand what you mean. Shabbat Shalom to you too!

Important Information

Our Terms