Ultra Dispensationalism and Right Division

Dan Perez · Saturday at 4:56 PM

Maria Billingsley said:
I would like to address the issue of claiming that there are " two Gospels" . This scripture as proof text was provided:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

By no means does this passage teach two distinct Gospels. It is about circumcision. Additionally, what would be the difference between the two Gospels?

Thanks for clarifying.

Be blessed

And Gal 2: 7 does say Gospel twice and does teach Two Gospels / Evangelion . in the Accusative Case

in the SLINGULAR with to differnent Gospels and in the Singular and in the Neuter , meaning Male and Female .

And there are many different Gospels in the bible !

dan p

Guojing · Saturday at 7:10 PM

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
The narrative in Acts only states that there were many Jewish believers who were zealous for the law. It never gives approval of that concept. If you disagree with that assertion, can you point me to where you think the Acts narrative signals that they rightly were zealous for the law?

I already gave you James 2:24, for you to understand what James was thinking about the Law of Moses for the 12 tribes of Israel during that time.

That same James in Acts 21 is the head of true Israel during that time. Both James are referring to the same person.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
Also, the fact that James and the elders with him gave bad advice is proven by the outcome... the arrest and eventual death of Paul in prison. Do you see anything in the passage that indicates their advice was good advice?

Are you trying to reason that, had James and the elders said nothing, or had Paul not followed their advice and continue to ignore the Law, he would not have been "arrest and eventual death of Paul in prison"?

What kind of reasoning is that?

Jews in Israel were gunning for Paul, when he returned to Jerusalem, as prophesied by Agabus (Acts 21:10-13), no matter what he does.

Guojing · Saturday at 7:13 PM

Maria Billingsley said:
I would like to address the issue of claiming that there are " two Gospels" . This scripture as proof text was provided:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

By no means does this passage teach two distinct Gospels. It is about circumcision.

Galatians 2:27 was made after the conclusion of the Acts 15 council

Maria Billingsley said:
Additionally, what would be the difference between the two Gospels?

Thanks for clarifying.

Be blessed

See Acts 21:18-25 to understand what Acts 15 conclusion at the council was all about.

In the Law of Moses, being willing to undergo physical circumcision, so as not to get cut off from God, aka Genesis 17:14, is probably the most difficult part of the covenant.

If one is willing to do that as an adult, its a sign that he is also willing to observe the entire Law of Moses.

Basically, if one is required to undergo physical circumcision to follow a gospel, they will be willing to follow the entire Law of Moses.

Dan Perez · Saturday at 9:23 PM

AND their is a difference between Uncircumsion and Circumsion and do you SEE the two letters , UN ?

AND Jews get Circumsion , and Gentiles are Uncircusied !!

dan p

NewLifeInChristJesus · Sunday at 8:20 AM

Dan Perez said:
And in OP 56 , you said that that Spiritual Israel is the Church and just to let you know the Greek

EKKLESIA does not mean Church , it means Assembly .

dan p

That was not me. It was someone else.

Louw-Nida offers the following symantic domains for the Greek word ἐκκλησία. It is almost always translated, "church", even in the King James version. What might you be saying, that there is no such thing as "church" in the NT?

ἐκκλησία, ας f

a congregation: 11.32

b church: 11.33

c assembly: 11.78

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 2, p. 77). United Bible Societies.

11.32 ἐκκλησίαa, ας f: a congregation of Christians, implying interacting membership—‘congregation, church.’ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ‘to the church of God which is in Corinth’ 1 Cor 1:2; ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘all the churches of Christ greet you’ Ro 16:16.

Though some persons have tried to see in the term ἐκκλησία a more or less literal meaning of ‘called-out ones,’ this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning of ἐκκλησία in NT times or even by its earlier usage. The term ἐκκλησία was in common usage for several hundred years before the Christian era and was used to refer to an assembly of persons constituted by well- defined membership. In general Greek usage it was normally a socio-political entity based upon citizenship in a city-state (see ἐκκλησίαc, 11.78) and in this sense is parallel to δῆμος (11.78). For the NT, however, it is important to understand the meaning of ἐκκλησίαa as ‘an assembly of God’s people.’

In the rendering of ἐκκλησίαa a translator must beware of using a term which refers primarily to a building rather than to a congregation of believers. In many contexts ἐκκλησίαa may be readily rendered as ‘gathering of believers’ or ‘group of those who trust in Christ.’ Sometimes, as in 1 Cor 1:2, it is possible to translate ‘Paul writes to the believers in Christ who live in Corinth.’ Such a translation does, however, omit a significant element in the term ἐκκλησίαa, in that the sense of corporate unity is not specified.

11.33 ἐκκλησίαb, ας f: the totality of congregations of Christians—‘church.’ σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ‘you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church’ Mt 16:18.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, pp. 125–126). United Bible Societies.

11.78 ἐκκλησίαc, ας f; δῆμος, ου m: a group of citizens assembled for socio-political activities—‘assembly, gathering.’

ἐκκλησίαc: ἐν τῇ ἐννόμῳ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπιλυθήσεται ‘it will have to be settled in the legal assembly’ Ac 19:39.

δῆμος: ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος … ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ ‘but Alexander … wanted to make a speech before the assembly of the citizens’ Ac 19:33.

It is possible that in ἐκκλησίαc there is somewhat more focus upon the people being together as a legal assembly, while in the case of δῆμος the emphasis is merely upon a meeting of citizens. But in the NT one cannot distinguish clearly between the meanings of these two words.

ἐκκλησίαc and δῆμος may be rendered in some languages as ‘a meeting of the people who belonged to that place’ or ‘… who were inhabitants of that town’ or ‘… whose homes were in that town.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). In Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 132). United Bible Societies.

NewLifeInChristJesus · Sunday at 8:43 AM

Guojing said:
I already gave you James 2:24, for you to understand what James was thinking about the Law of Moses for the 12 tribes of Israel during that time.

That same James in Acts 21 is the head of true Israel during that time. Both James are referring to the same person.

I agree with you that there are many within Christendom, both in past time and in present time, that see two gospels; one of grace and another of works. Most of them, however, attempt to marry the two together. Typically, they do this by making faith and works the same thing by saying faith leads a person to obey the law. But typically, we do not see your approach being offered, which is salvation through obedience to the law. I think it is pretty clear that this approach died on the cross with Christ, and those who attempt to resurrect it will never succeed. Otherwise, Christ died in vain.

Guojing said:
Are you trying to reason that, had James and the elders said nothing, or had Paul not followed their advice and continue to ignore the Law, he would not have been "arrest and eventual death of Paul in prison"?

What kind of reasoning is that?

Jews in Israel were gunning for Paul, when he returned to Jerusalem, as prophesied by Agabus (Acts 21:10-13), no matter what he does.

My argument is that Paul should not have gone to Jerusalem because he was warned by the Holy Spirit to not go. But He wanted to do it anyway. And James' and the elders' advice was a futile effort to placate those who were lying in wait. It had no chance of working, and Paul should have known better. This whole episode points out the futility of trying to marry the gospel of grace with the gospel of works. There is only one path to eternal life, and that path goes through the cross. Nobody will make it to heaven on their own merits.

You keep on saying there are two gospels. But there is only one that works. The other has curses for disobedience. And nobody will be justified by their works. You know that, right?

Guojing · Sunday at 6:32 PM

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
I agree with you that there are many within Christendom, both in past time and in present time, that see two gospels; one of grace and another of works. Most of them, however, attempt to marry the two together. Typically, they do this by making faith and works the same thing by saying faith leads a person to obey the law. But typically, we do not see your approach being offered, which is salvation through obedience to the law. I think it is pretty clear that this approach died on the cross with Christ, and those who attempt to resurrect it will never succeed. Otherwise, Christ died in vain.

If its pretty clear, why would the resurrected Christ instructed the 12 to teach Israel in Matthew 28:20 to "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you"? Christ taught them to obey the Law in many places, for example Matthew 5:17-19.

You mean the resurrected Christ forgot to tell them that "this approach died on the cross" but gave instructions that is a direct contradiction to that?

How is that pretty clear?

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
My argument is that Paul should not have gone to Jerusalem because he was warned by the Holy Spirit to not go. But He wanted to do it anyway. And James' and the elders' advice was a futile effort to placate those who were lying in wait. It had no chance of working, and Paul should have known better. This whole episode points out the futility of trying to marry the gospel of grace with the gospel of works. There is only one path to eternal life, and that path goes through the cross. Nobody will make it to heaven on their own merits.

At least do you agree that it was silly reasoning to reason that the outcome of "Paul being arrested and put to death", proved that that advice was wrong?

Its a simple correlation implies causation fallacy. I hope you can at least see that.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:
You keep on saying there are two gospels. But there is only one that works. The other has curses for disobedience. And nobody will be justified by their works. You know that, right?

Of course I know that. We are gentiles so I agree with you, we are not under the gospel of the kingdom.

My point again is that the gospel of the kingdom always required obedience to the Law, and James and the other 11 apostles behavior during Acts is consistent with that.

Because you cannot see 2 gospels, you keep insisting that James and the rest were wrong in Acts 21:18-25, as well as in James 2, but there is no need to reason like that.

YeshuaFan · Monday at 9:17 AM

Dan Perez said:
And just asking , where you say we are under he New Covenant and have not seen a verse where

how anyone hs been saved by the New Covenan ?

dan p

Saved by the Cross and resurrection of Christ, and saved under and into New Covenant

YeshuaFan · Monday at 9:18 AM

Guojing said:
If its pretty clear, why would the resurrected Christ instructed the 12 to teach Israel in Matthew 28:20 to "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you"? Christ taught them to obey the Law in many places, for example Matthew 5:17-19.

You mean the resurrected Christ forgot to tell them that "this approach died on the cross" but gave instructions that is a direct contradiction to that?

How is that pretty clear?

At least do you agree that it was silly reasoning to reason that the outcome of "Paul being arrested and put to death", proved that that advice was wrong?

Its a simple correlation implies causation fallacy. I hope you can at least see that.

Of course I know that. We are gentiles so I agree with you, we are not under the gospel of the kingdom.

My point again is that the gospel of the kingdom always required obedience to the Law, and James and the other 11 apostles behavior during Acts is consistent with that.

Because you cannot see 2 gospels, you keep insisting that James and the rest were wrong in Acts 21:18-25, as well as in James 2, but there is no need to reason like that.

There is only One Gospel, as taught and held by all of the Apostles of Christ

NewLifeInChristJesus · Monday at 10:52 AM

Guojing said:
If its pretty clear, why would the resurrected Christ instructed the 12 to teach Israel in Matthew 28:20 to "teach them to obey everything I have commanded you"? Christ taught them to obey the Law in many places, for example Matthew 5:17-19.

You mean the resurrected Christ forgot to tell them that "this approach died on the cross" but gave instructions that is a direct contradiction to that?

How is that pretty clear?

His teaching on the law was that it allowed for no disobedience. He specifically said, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Mt 5:48) This is in line with what the law teaches us, "You shall be holy; for I am holy" (Le 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:7; 20:26; and 21:8).

When one reflects on this teaching, he must come to some conclusion about his own shortcomings in living up to these requirements. Some people deal with this by softening the requirements so that they can consider themselves to have fulfilled them. We have plenty of accounts of Jesus confronting this reaction and clarifying that the law applies to the thoughts and intents of the heart as well as to all actions towards others. He was clear that the guilty would be held accountable for their sins.

But we also see that Jesus taught that He Himself came down from heaven to deliver us from God's wrath. He knew and taught that He must suffer on the cross, bearing our sins, so that through faith in Him we might not perrish in our sins but instead have everlasting life.

When I say the other gospel died on the cross with Christ, it was a figure of speech. The other gospel, which is "life through obedience to the law" (Ga 3:12), never worked for anyone, and never could have worked for anyone. And the reason for this is that the law cannot take away sin. It can only point out that we are all sinners. And it was given to drive us to Christ for salvation. And having found Chist through faith, the law's path to eternal life no longer has appeal... "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Ro 10:4).

Guojing said:
At least do you agree that it was silly reasoning to reason that the outcome of "Paul being arrested and put to death", proved that that advice was wrong?

Its a simple correlation implies causation fallacy. I hope you can at least see that.

Well, I'm not looking at the outcome itself as the proof that their advice was wrong. I am saying that the ideas in their minds that those who preach salvation through faith in Christ for forgiveness of sins can be reconciled with those who preach salvation through obedience to the law are flawed ideas. And thinking that some sort of religious ceremonies could placate the masses in the hotbed of hostility to Christ and Christianity (i.e., in the Temple at Jerusalem) is foolish thinking. And Paul should have known better, not only because it was foolish advice, but because the Holy Spirit had warned Him. Even if the outcome wasn't imprisonment and death for Paul, it was still a foolish thing to attempt.

Guojing said:
Of course I know that. We are gentiles so I agree with you, we are not under the gospel of the kingdom.

My point again is that the gospel of the kingdom always required obedience to the Law, and James and the other 11 apostles behavior during Acts is consistent with that.

Because you cannot see 2 gospels

I see two gospels (one practical and one theoretical).

Guojing said:
, you keep insisting that James and the rest were wrong in Acts 21:18-25, as well as in James 2, but there is no need to reason like that.

Yeah, they were wrong in Acts 21, but I havn't really addresses James 2. In that regard, I think most get James' comments wrong. Their POV is not reconcilable with these statement which introduce "faith without works is dead":

25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. (Jas 1:25)
12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (Jas 2:12–13)

Dan Perez · Monday at 12:49 PM

YeshuaFan said:
Saved by the Cross and resurrection of Christ, and saved under and into New Covenant

And you are going to give me a verse , please as I have never seen a verse like that ?

dan p

Guojing · Monday at 9:30 PM

YeshuaFan said:
There is only One Gospel, as taught and held by all of the Apostles of Christ

Where the Law of Moses must be followed, as in Matthew 28:20 and Matthew 5:19?

YeshuaFan · Tuesday at 8:29 AM

Guojing said:
Where the Law of Moses must be followed, as in Matthew 28:20 and Matthew 5:19?

Law of Moses was for the Old Covenant, but gospel of grace under the new One

Aristarkos · Tuesday at 11:42 AM

YeshuaFan said:
Law of Moses was for the Old Covenant, but gospel of grace under the new One

It keeps amazing me people actually do not read, what says Jeremiah in chapter 31..?

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Gentiles are not the covenant people, Israel is says the Lord.

Aristarkos

Dan Perez · Tuesday at 12:09 PM

YeshuaFan said:
Saved by the Cross and resurrection of Christ, and saved under and into New Covenant

And just where did the New Covenant begin and and where is there salvation under the New Covenant , with a verse

and what about Rom 10:9 not for today ?

dan p

YeshuaFan · Tuesday at 12:25 PM

Aristarkos said:
It keeps amazing me people actually do not read, what says Jeremiah in chapter 31..?

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Gentiles are not the covenant people, Israel is says the Lord.

Aristarkos

That passage refers to spiritual Israel the Church now, and national israel at second coming event

YeshuaFan · Tuesday at 12:26 PM

Dan Perez said:
And just where did the New Covenant begin and and where is there salvation under the New Covenant , with a verse

and what about Rom 10:9 not for today ?

dan p

New Covenant began at time of death of Christ, when the Father torn the diving curtain in Temple

Guojing · Tuesday at 5:53 PM

YeshuaFan said:
Law of Moses was for the Old Covenant, but gospel of grace under the new One

When did the new one began?

If you believe it began with the cross, then why did the resurrected Christ continue to instruct obedience to the Law in Matthew 28:20?

Dan Perez · Tuesday at 6:12 PM

YeshuaFan said:
New Covenant began at time of death of Christ, when the Father torn the diving curtain in Temple

And I have seen that some believe that the New Covenan is for today and have never once had it explained

how anyone can be saved under that New Covenant with a verse and hope that you have verse how ?

And there are 8 components to the New Covenant , called

# 1 SPRINKILING

# 2 WATER

# 3 SAVED

# 4 STICKS

# 5 BONES

# 6 FLESH

# 7 MADE TO LIVE AGAIN

# 8 BORN AGAIN

# AND Israel and Judah again one nation

This what the New Covenant means !!!

dan p

YeshuaFan · Wednesday at 9:32 AM

Dan Perez said:
And I have seen that some believe that the New Covenan is for today and have never once had it explained

how anyone can be saved under that New Covenant with a verse and hope that you have verse how ?

And there are 8 components to the New Covenant , called

# 1 SPRINKILING

# 2 WATER

# 3 SAVED

# 4 STICKS

# 5 BONES

# 6 FLESH

# 7 MADE TO LIVE AGAIN

# 8 BORN AGAIN

# AND Israel and Judah again one nation

This what the New Covenant means !!!

dan p

New Covenant is new relationship to Yahweh for all saved Jews and Gentiles, as are all now in 1 Body called the Church

Ultra Dispensationalism and Right Division

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Servant of the Lord

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads