Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision

helmut said:

First, they tell him about the myriads of law-abiding Jewish believers, and that there is a rumor (lit.: "teaching, instruction") that Paul teaches the Jews to apostate from the law. They make a proposal how this rumor could be proven wrong, and finally point to the decision in Acts 15.

Click to expand...

But Paul did taught in Galatians 5:2 that

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

So if you believe James, Peter, John et al in Galatians 2:7-9 were preaching the exact same gospel to the Jews, as Paul taught the Gentiles, shouldn't James instead remind those Jewish believers that Paul was indeed correct to say that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for them?

helmut said:

Rm 11:11 denies a fall of Israel. They were cut off because of unbelief, i.e. when they did not believe in Jesus. A process which began in John 6:66 and was still under way in Acts 28. But they will be re-inserted when they turn to the Lord.

Click to expand...

No wonder you have a different understanding of Romans 11:11. I prefer to read it literally and believe the KJV when it stated

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

The fall of Israel resulted in salvation coming to gentiles, "gentiles" included all the Jews, since Jews are now seen as uncircumcised as any gentile, as I have earlier stated.

helmut said:

First, they tell him about the myriads of law-abiding Jewish believers, and that there is a rumor (lit.: "teaching, instruction") that Paul teaches the Jews to apostate from the law. They make a proposal how this rumor could be proven wrong, and finally point to the decision in Acts 15.

Click to expand...

This is my understanding of what went down in Acts 21:19-25

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

They rejoiced at what God was doing among the Gentiles, and they reaffirmed in Acts 21:25 that Gentiles do not have to follow physical circumcision and the Law of Moses, as determined in Acts 15 as you have also stated.

What they were unhappy about is that there are Jews who were listening in to Paul preaching to the Gentiles, Galatians 5:2

Galatians 5:2, KJV: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

and some of these Jews were also following that same teaching (Acts 21:21), even though Acts 15 only exempted Gentiles, nothing was said by James, about whether Israel also needed to follow the Law, the latter was not even on the agenda.

Guojing said:

But Paul did taught in Galatians 5:2 that

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

Click to expand...

This is about Gentiles that come to Christ, not about Jews that already have been circumcised.

Guojing said:

So if you believe James, Peter, John et al in Galatians 2:7-9 were preaching the exact same gospel to the Jews, as Paul taught the Gentiles, shouldn't James instead remind those Jewish believers that Paul was indeed correct to say that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for them?

Click to expand...

The Law was given to Israel, not to another nation, and the law was not abolished (Mt 5:18).

There is also the question whether James was on the right pass. In Acts 20 he boasts of myriads of believers, and when Paul is arr4sted, what does he do? According to Acts: Nothing. Is Luke hiding something from the reader, or does that mean that James refrained from supporting Paul? Throws Ph 1:17 some light on his?

Notice: I don't question Scripture, so the letter of James is inspired like the letters of Paul, but as Peter was not free from misbehavior (Gal 2:11ff), we cannot take from granted that James was right in what he did (and did not) in the last chapter of Acts.

Guojing said:

No wonder you have a different understanding of Romans 11:11. I prefer to read it literally

Click to expand...

LOL, I looked into the Greek text. So if you think I misunderstood it: Show me that the KJV is literally in this point.

From the foreword of an Greek-English interlinear I know that some persons do believe the KJV is "literal" - and there was also the example of Mt 27:44 "cast the same in its teeth", with no single word of this expression being in the Greek text! I looked into a text-critical edition and checked for variant readings: There is no variant noted in the final words ("they reproached him"), so it is the choice of the KJV translators to use that vivid language instead of translating literal ...

Guojing said:

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Click to expand...

In he KJV, there are two words "fall" in this verse, one verb (they should fall), one noun (their fall). In Greek, the two words rendered thus are nor etymologically related, but totally unrelated. Therefore I read the second word "fall"
(rendered as "trespass, offense, sin" in Strong's dictionary) as a correction to the notion evoked by the (rhetorical) question.

Guojing said:

The fall of Israel resulted in salvation coming to gentiles, "gentiles" included all the Jews, since Jews are now seen as uncircumcised as any gentile, as I have earlier stated.

Click to expand...

Even if I suppose the KJV as base, there is no indication to that in Rm 11:11.

EDIT: minor addition, typos

Guojing said:

What they were unhappy about is that there are Jews who were listening in to Paul preaching to the Gentiles, Galatians 5:2
Galatians 5:2, KJV: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."
and some of these Jews were also following that same teaching (Acts 21:21)

Click to expand...

This was told to them (and the way James and his elders speak about that indicates they don't want to say this was true).

Guojing said:

even though Acts 15 only exempted Gentiles, nothing was said by James, about whether Israel also needed to follow the Law, the latter was not even on the agenda.

Click to expand...

It seems the difference is not in what is said in Acts 21, but how what Paul writes relates to what James writes.

helmut said:

In other words, in the time "after the fall of Israel" circumcision was still something which "profiteth", as the KJV says.

Doesn't souns like what you are trying to teach us.

Click to expand...

Try the second part of the verse concerning "thy circumcision is made uncircumcision".

Not trying to teach anyone but figure out what others are actually trying to teach and I give up
Just following proverbs 14:7

.

helmut said:

This is about Gentiles that come to Christ, not about Jews that already have been circumcised.

The Law was given to Israel, not to another nation, and the law was not abolished (Mt 5:18).

Click to expand...

So you do agree with me that Jews who believed in Jesus still needed to be zealous for the Law, which includes circumcising their future children, while gentile believers do not have to, as stated in Acts 21:25?

helmut said:

This was told to them (and the way James and his elders speak about that indicates they don't want to say this was true).

Click to expand...

My personal opinion of what James and the elders really meant in acts 21 is an analogy of how some workplaces can be so toxic in modern life.

Someone don’t like you and what you are doing, but they don’t want to tell you directly.

Instead they tell you “other colleagues are unhappy with you so you should do this and that to please them”

But the truth could be that it’s only you who are unhappy. You are projecting your views to others to make you look better.

No wonder so many people warned Paul to abandon his desire to visit Jerusalem for the final time, including the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:36-38, Acts 21:10-13). It must have been very toxic for him.

2BeholdHisGlory said:

Try the second part of the verse concerning "thy circumcision is made uncircumcision".

Not trying to teach anyone but figure out what others are actually trying to teach and I give up
Just following proverbs 14:7

Click to expand...

A better advice to follow is from your apostle Paul, in Romans 14:5.

It helps to keep the mood cordial around bible discussions.

Guojing said:

So you do agree with me that Jews who believed in Jesus still needed to be zealous for the Law, which includes circumcising their future children, while gentile believers do not have to, as stated in Acts 21:25?

Click to expand...

Frankly: I'm no Jew, so I don't have to know about this issue. I Know that "messianic Jews" have different views in that matter.

helmut said:

Frankly: I'm no Jew, so I don't have to know about this issue. I Know that "messianic Jews" have different views in that matter.

Click to expand...

Ever since the temple is destroyed at AD 70, it has become impossible for any of them to fully keep the Law of Moses.

Guojing said:

Acts 21:19-25 is an example of the difference.

Paul went along with their suggestion, even though he did preached that the body of Christ is dead to the law, because he did not want to stir a controversy.

Click to expand...

Believing on the Promise (Gospel) by Faith is what The Gospel is, not the keeping of the law. The Jews there that ALSO believed on Jesus Christ, The Gospel, was irregardless of their tradition of keeping God's law.

James and the elders speaking to Paul...

Acts 21:25
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
KJV

Do not confuse the Judaizers that Paul contended with, like in Galatians and in Acts 15, that demanded the believing Gentile to be circumcised. Those are not the same ones as James and the elders there in Acts 21 that said they had already written and concluded the Gentiles are not required to observe like the Jews, but only in those 4 things above (which are in God's law by the way).


And furthermore, The Holy Spirit will work upon the Gentile regarding writing God's laws in their hearts and minds just like The Holy Spirit works among God's chosen...

Heb 8:10
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
KJV

The believing Gentiles are included in that above, because it is about The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Proof of this was given by Apostle Paul in Romans 9 when he quoted from Hosea 1:10 to believing Gentiles as being "the sons of the living God." What Paul then taught was that the Promises to Israel involve the Church as both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles as one body under Christ.

Guojing said:

After the fall of Israel , everyone is an uncircumcised gentile in the eyes of God. (Acts 7:51)

Click to expand...

Not what Acts 7:51 is about.

Those you're listening to have not heeded all their Bible (i.e., mainly the Old Testament histories). Many of the Jewish leaders by the time of Jesus' 1st coming were not of bloodline Israel, but were Nethinim foreigners that crept into the priesthood. And the scribes of Israel then were the Kenites of the land of Canaan (1 Chronicles 2:55; Genesis 15:19). This is what Jesus' parable of the "tares" is about, i.e., the false ones who crept in among Judah and began to call themselves Jews. Lord Jesus pointed this out in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, calling those the "synagogue of Satan". That did not apply to all Jews, but to the main instigators against Him, like those in John 8 that said they (their ancestors) had never been in bondage. It's about the crept in unawares of Jude 1.

Many do not understand this because they concentrate their Bible study in The New Testament Books, and mostly disregard study in The Old Testament Books. Per Judges 2 & 3, God said a long time ago that He would leave the leftover Canaanites to dwell among Israel to test Israel with, because Israel did not obey Him. So throughout OT history, those Canaanites crept in among Israel. They were made bondservants to Israel, cutters of wood and drawers of water as temple servants (Nethinims). Eventually, some of them crept into the Levitical priesthood (Ezra 2; Ezra 8; Ezra 9). This is why the last verse of Zechariah 14, which is about Christ's future Millennial reign, it is written that then there will be no more the Canaanite in the House of God. Those... are actually the ones the prophet Stephen was rebuking, because they had become the leaders over Israel, and they misled the Jewish people (and still are doing it today among the unbelieving Jews). This is why Lord Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:" (Matthew 23:2).

Guojing said:

Romans was written way after the events in Acts 7.

The Holy Spirit was speaking thru Stephen to the leaders of Israel in Acts 7, and Acts 7 mark the time when Israel fell as a nation.

Israel the nation always rise and fall by their leaders (1 Kings 14:16).

Now you understand better why Saul was saved by Jesus Christ himself immediately after that event, to reach to us gentiles?

Click to expand...

It's silly to think that God cast His chosen away, especially when Apostle Paul told you different in Romans 11...

Rom 11:1-5
11 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

3 "Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life."

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
KJV


What you've obviously been wrongly taught to do, is to think that God has cast away His chosen Israel, when He has not done so, even as Apostle Paul is witness above.

Davy said:

It's silly to think that God cast His chosen away, especially when Apostle Paul told you different in Romans 11...

Rom 11:1-5
11 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

3 "Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life."

4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
KJV


What you've obviously been wrongly taught to do, is to think that God has cast away His chosen Israel, when He has not done so, even as Apostle Paul is witness above.

Click to expand...

Please quote where I stated that Israel has been cast away permanently.

Guojing said:

You don't agree that Israel as a nation fell after Stephen was killed by them?

Once they fell, the gospel of the kingdom was over for Israel, there is no more promise of Christ returning to usher the nation into their promised kingdom after that.

We knew this because we had the benefit of history of course. Paul, James and the others don't have the same advantage, so I don't see anything wrong with any of them trying to preach to Jews, after Acts 7

Click to expand...

God's Plan for His chosen of Israel is obviously something you have not come to know about, yet.

The ten tribes of the northern "kingdom of Israel" were removed to Assyria and the land of the Medes first, the Jews of the "house of Judah" only were left in the holy land at that time. Do you know about that?

The Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.) said in his day the ten tribes were still scattered beyond Euphrates, and were a great number of people. Others (like Prof. Leroy Waterman, a linguist, further traced the ten tribes from their Assyrian captivity, linking them with the ancient Cimmerian tribes that migrated into Asia Minor and Europe. These Caucasian peoples would later become the main European nations that first accepted Jesus Christ on national scales, making up the traditional western Christian nations.)

So when Apostle Paul preached in Asia Minor and Europe, he was not preaching only to Gentiles, but also to ten lost tribe Israelites who had been scattered to the West, having lost their heritage as part of old Israel. These lost became 'as'... Gentiles, living as... Gentiles. But they were Israelites who lost knowledge of their Israelite heritage. And yet some among them well knew their Israelite heritage, as God promised there would be a remnant that would know. Even in the Scottish Declaration of Independence they declared knowledge of their Israelite heritage.

The "house of Israel" is the Old Testament label for the ten northern tribe kingdom only, after Solomon's days when God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms (1 Kings 11). So the following is about the return of the TEN TRIBES...

Amos 9:8-9
8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord GOD are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the LORD.

9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
KJV

Guojing said:

Please quote where I stated that Israel has been cast away permanently.

Click to expand...

When you wrongly assume Paul was preaching only... to Gentiles, that is when you inadvertently cast God's chosen Israelites away. I'm even thinking with what you heed, you probably think all Israelites born of the 12 tribes are all Jews.

Davy said:

When you wrongly assume Paul was preaching only... to Gentiles, that is when you inadvertently cast God's chosen Israelites away. I'm even thinking with what you heed, you probably think all Israelites born of the 12 tribes are all Jews.

Click to expand...

I never said Paul only preached to gentiles, I stated he is the apostle to the gentiles (Romans 11:13).

There is a difference between the 2 statements.

Davy said:

Believing on the Promise (Gospel) by Faith is what The Gospel is, not the keeping of the law. The Jews there that ALSO believed on Jesus Christ, The Gospel, was irregardless of their tradition of keeping God's law.

James and the elders speaking to Paul...

Acts 21:25
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
KJV

Do not confuse the Judaizers that Paul contended with, like in Galatians and in Acts 15, that demanded the believing Gentile to be circumcised. Those are not the same ones as James and the elders there in Acts 21 that said they had already written and concluded the Gentiles are not required to observe like the Jews, but only in those 4 things above (which are in God's law by the way).
.

Click to expand...

If you believe James, Peter, John et al in Galatians 2:7-9 were preaching the exact same gospel to the Jews, as Paul taught the Gentiles, shouldn't James instead remind those Jewish believers that Paul was indeed correct to say that physical circumcision was no longer necessary for them?