My Gospel by Paul

[Clare73]

So you've said.
Yet you won't tell me which parts of the NT I am supposed to be unfamiliar with or where my knowledge is, apparently, lacking.

See post #570.

 

[Strong in Him]

Your unfamiliarity with the NT is showing, which unfamiliarity leaves us with no basis for discussion.

I asked;

How so?
I've been reading it for 50 years and preaching it for 20; which bits am I unfamiliar with?

And your response is:

See post #565, last response.

See post #570.

In other words, you have deemed that I have inferior Bible knowledge, so I'm not worth replying to.
What a cop-out!

You can't answer my statement that Paul did not say that women should not be Pastors - which is true, by the way; you won't find a verse with those words in it. You obviously don't want to say "that's correct, but I believe this verse teaches that", so you imply that it's not worth talking to someone who's so ignorant.

I'm so glad Jesus said to his disciples; "you know/understand so little that it's not worth explaining to you," and I applaud you for doing likewise.

 

[Clare73]

You can't answer my statement that Paul did not say that women should not be Pastors - which is true, by the way;
you won't find a verse with those words in it.

Just as you won't find a verse with the word "sovereign" in it, which demonstrates nothing but failure to understand Scripture.

There are eyes that cannot see (1 Co 2:14) the plain meaning of the text; e.g., 1 Tim 2:12, and which said blindness is above my pay grade.

See post #581.

 

[Strong in Him]

Just as you won't find a verse with the word "sovereign" in it, which demonstrates nothing but failure to understand Scripture.

There are eyes that cannot see (1 Co 2:14) the plain meaning of the text; e.g., 1 Tim 2:12, and which said blindness is above my pay grade.

Well you clearly can't see that arrogance is not a fruit of the Spirit.
It was you who once said,

If you are truly interested in Biblical understanding, please do me the kindness of repeating those questions.

Yet you're not kind enough to respond to my request to show me where I am lacking in Bible knowledge.

I'll let you off the hook - I'm out of here so you don't need to admit that you don't know.

Bye.

 

[Clare73]

Yet you're not kind enough to respond to my request to show me where I am lacking in Bible knowledge.

Are you saying it is not the pastor's role to teach the assembly?

Are you saying that Paul did not state the following in his instructions to the assemblies?
"I do not permit a women to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." (1 Tim 2:12)

Are you saying that Paul did not ground this instruction in God's own created order (1 Tim 2:13)?
Are you saying that Paul likewise did not state that since the woman was deceived (and then led Adam astray),
she is not to be entrusted with the function of a teaching overseer (pastor) or elder (1 Tim 2:14)?

What part of the above are you not seeing that you need it shown to you?

Inability to see the above is beyond my pay grade (1 Co 2:14).

See post #583.

 

[OnePlanPeopleDestiny]

Twice Paul said my Gospel in Rom2v16 and 16v25.
This is our Gospel, of Grace by Faith, that we have had for the last 2000yrs. No one has been saved by the 1st Gospel of the Kingdom, found in Matt, Mark, Luke and John, since all those years ago.
This was because it was for the Jews only, as a Gospel of works, where by they have to endure to the end to be saved.
We don’t have works, just Grace by Faith, which is the free gift of God.
Unfortunately all denominations and non denominations are man made, dating back to Emperor Constantine, who to appease the Goths, Huns and Vandals, who were attacking Rome, allowed their paganism into the Church, and all subsequent churches and religions. They all mix the 2 Gospels together, making them void.
Church is ekklesia in the Greek, meaning called out ones, so for most going along with your particular brand of Christianity, along with adherence to all the rules, and rituals, think again!
His Grace is sufficient, nothing added. Eph2v8, God’s free gift to us.
The whole bible was written for us, but only Paul’s 13 Epistles were written to us!

There is only one gospel, but it has many facets, like a finely cut diamond.

Man has always been, and will always be, saved by God's grace through faith. God's grace was dispensed from the very beginning in the garden at the fall of man, and will be dispensed to the very last one saved, through faith. No one has ever been saved through the keeping of the law, but through faith. Faith produces obedience, but it is faith that is counted as righteousness.

Our Savior and Lord and King says: "If you love me, keep my commands." If you call yourself a child of God you will be obedient to the One that saved you from eternal condemnation.

Receiving God's grace does not give you a license to live as like the unsaved, lusting after the eyes, the flesh, and the pride of life. Grace is God's gift of empowerment that convicts us to live our lives for Him and according to His dictates. No one will be perfect in doing so, which is why when we fall short, we are exhorted to confess our sins to the Lord, who is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says: "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." We are not saved by works, but we are saved for works. Christ tells us to follow Him. When we are born again we are a new creature, and God is working in us to conform us to the image of Jesus, spiritually speaking.

When you are saved, you will want to be obedient to the commands of Christ. You will love God and neighbor, and you will want to share the love of Christ with others because we know without Christ there is no hope in salvation.

While we are no longer under the law of Moses, we are under the Law of Christ. Therefore live like Christ.

 

[Guojing]

In Galatians 2:8-9, the same word "ethnos" is translated as "Gentiles" in verse 8 and "heathen" in verse 9, which can be misleading. I don't think Paul considered unbelieving Jews as Gentiles, as this would imply that he was once an "ethne" (Gentile) before his encounter on the Damascus road. Moreover, Paul's argument in Galatians emphasizes that there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Greek/Gentile, but rather between believers and unbelievers in Christ's finished work regardless of nationality.

Do you recall what Stephen said to the leaders of Israel, under the Holy Spirit inspiration in Acts 7:51

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

In the Body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles precisely because every Jewish unbeliever since Paul was saved has become uncircumcised in God's eyes.

They are still Jews in the flesh, don't get me wrong, but they are no longer considered circumcised in God's eyes after Acts 7.

So after Paul was saved, no unbelieving Jew can be saved under the gospel of the circumcision. When James, Peter and John agreed to be the apostles to the circumcised, it must therefore refer to the circumcised little flock, Jews who already believed in Christ as their Messiah, before Acts 7.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

His Grace is sufficient, nothing added. Eph2v8, God’s free gift to us.
The whole bible was written for us, but only Paul’s 13 Epistles were written to us!

I'd suggest that the above is assuredly not what Jesus proclaimed. Man shall live by a few words of Paul? Unlikely would be too kind. Many preterists take the above position and it's a very weak position.

See Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4, and Deut 8:3 as examples before tossing a single jot or tittle of the Word of God to the side.

Putting a stake in the ground over the meaning of for us or to us is quite pointless.

I'd describe God's Words against the evil present within all of us as the second most crucial aspect of the entire text, aka primarily as "the law." Not that it can be kept. The opposite is true. It always resists regardless of the claims of compliance.

God being against evil would seem to be a crucial position. The only way God gets around it is the fact that He Is Greater than it, able to use and make evil for good. And yes, it's a hard lesson

 

[Rose_bud]

Do you recall what Stephen said to the leaders of Israel, under the Holy Spirit inspiration in Acts 7:51

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

In the Body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles precisely, that is because every Jewish unbeliever since Paul was saved has become uncircumcised in God's eyes.

They are still Jews in the flesh, don't get me wrong, but they are no longer considered circumcised in God's eyes after Acts 7.

So after Paul was saved, no unbelieving Jew can be saved under the gospel of the circumcision. When James, Peter and John agreed to be the apostles to the circumcised, it must therefore refer to the circumcised little flock, Jews who already believed in Christ as their Messiah, before Acts 7.

Hi Goujing

Hope you are good. Maybe it is me, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking? And what is your view of what you are asking.

 

[Guojing]

Hi Goujing

Hope you are good. Maybe it is me, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking? And what is your view of what you are asking.

I am not asking, I am making a claim, "The heathen that Paul was to minister to, in Galatians 2:9 KJV, are the unbelieving Jews and gentiles".

James, Peter and John, on the other hand, are to minister to the circumcised little flock, which refers to Jews who believed Christ is their Messiah, and continue to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20), aka, they believe in the gospel of the kingdom, which is also the gospel of the circumcision.

 

[Rose_bud]

I am not asking, I am making a claim, "The heathen that Paul was to minister to, in Galatians 2:9 KJV, are the unbelieving Jews and gentiles".

James, Peter and John, on the other hand, are to minister to the circumcised little flock, which refers to Jews who believed Christ is their Messiah, and continue to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20), aka, they believe in the gospel of the kingdom, which is also the gospel of the circumcision.

Thank you. I think I understand your view. Usually when one makes a claim, it should be defended by evidence from Scripture. See the previous post concerning the translation discrepancy in the KJV that impacts understanding. What support do you have contrary to this?

In addition context for the Scripture in Acts is important. The gospel/glad tidings of the kingdom is not the gospel/glad tidings of the circumcision. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news and announcement/proclamation of the True King who would reconcile all of His creation to Himself. A kingdom where He reigns Supreme in and over all of His creation. Angels, humanity and the rest of Creation.

 

[Rose_bud]

The physical circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and His people, it symbolized their commitment to follow Him and His ways. It was never intended to be the means of salvation itself.

It was always about faith in God and His promises. Circumcision was an outward sign of an inward commitment, a physical sign of being willing to pledge allegiance to God and become part of His covenant people.

God was progressively revealing who He is and His plan of redemption to all humanity through this chosen people.

Circumcision was not unique to the Israelites, as other ancient nations practiced it as well. But for Israel the significance of circumcision was in its connection of God's promise to Abraham specifically the promise of a Seed and the extention of the blessing to all nations, the salvation to all nations.

Isaac was only born after the circumcision, yet Abraxas credited with righteousness before the circumcision. The sign and the promise happened after. In a sense his actions followed what he already knew in his heart to be true.

Paul understood this (Romans 4), Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness before he was circumcised, emphasizing that true circumcision is of the heart, not just the flesh (Romans 2:29).

Also Moses understood this Deuteronomy 10:16, which is what Stephen is referring to in his speech to his accusers. They were stubborn in heart, refusing to yield to the will of God. Refusing to believe that God has fulfilled his promise of redemption. The Messiah is come.

The prophets also understood this Jeremiah 4:4, and Ezekiel 44:7,9 it was always both for Jews, spiritual and the physical sign. The former preceding the latter. The physical circumcision is no longer needed because the true Promised Son is already come.

 

[Guojing]

Thank you. I think I understand your view. Usually when one makes a claim, it should be defended by evidence from Scripture. See the previous post concerning the translation discrepancy in the KJV that impacts understanding. What support do you have contrary to this?

If you are saying you think the KJV is in error, then we have to agree to disagree here

In addition context for the Scripture in Acts is important. The gospel/glad tidings of the kingdom is not the gospel/glad tidings of the circumcision. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news and announcement/proclamation of the True King who would reconcile all of His creation to Himself. A kingdom where He reigns Supreme in and over all of His creation. Angels, humanity and the rest of Creation.

The gospel of the kingdom was always meant for Israel (Matthew 10:5).

Under the prophecy program, Gentiles were supposed to be saved after Israel rise up in their kingdom (Zechariah 8:23, Isaiah 60:1-3)

 

[Guojing]

The prophets also understood this Jeremiah 4:4, and Ezekiel 44:7,9 it was always both for Jews, spiritual and the physical sign. The former preceding the latter. The physical circumcision is no longer needed because the true Promised Son is already come.

If what you said is correct, then James would have been in error at Acts 21:18-24.

 

[Rose_bud]

If you are saying you think the KJV is in error, then we have to agree to disagree here

The KJV is a revered translation, but like all translations it is not perfect. In this instance it is inconsistent, yet rectified in the NKJV. But I respect your decision to digress.

The gospel of the kingdom was always meant for Israel (Matthew 10:5).

God's desire was always to bless all nations, as He promised Abraham in Genesis 18:18, long before Israel became a nation. And yes, salvation is of the Jews (John 21:22) as it originates from the Jews, who were entrusted with the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple service, the patriarchs and the promises and ultimately the Christ, the author of salvation (Romans 9:4-5) . When the time was right, Jesus, the Messiah and King, was born of a Jewish woman, born under the Law, to fulfill all its requirements (Galatians 4:4), to offer salvation to all.

Under the prophecy program, Gentiles were supposed to be saved after Israel rise up in their kingdom (Zechariah 8:23, Isaiah 60:1-3)

Gentiles were not saved because Israel the nation rose up in the Kingdom, but rather because the true Son of Israel, Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled the Law and Prophets, established His Kingdom - the very kingdom of God. Of which Jews were first, as He came to His own. And as the parable in Matthew 22:1-14 explains, the Jews rejected Jesus, where the invitation is extended to all the nations/Gentiles. It's a prophetc image of God's plan to include all people in His Kingdom.

 

[Rose_bud]

If what you said is correct, then James would have been in error at Acts 21:18-24.

Being mindful of the context, I do believe it is correct. James was not in error, he understood the bigger picture.

The church was in a state of transition, with unprecedented things happening all around them. Most of the believers were Jewish, and many were still holding on to their Jewish customs and traditions, yet at the same time, they were coming to accept Jesus as the fulfillment of their faith.

In Acts 21, James and the Jerusalem church tried to address the concerns of Jewish believers who were confused by Paul's teachings on circumcision and the Law. By having Paul participate in the Temple rituals and sponsor the purification rites for the men, James intended to show that Paul wasn't rejecting Jewish customs outright, but rather, wanted to include Gentiles in the faith without requiring them to become Jewish converts.

The temple was still standing, the sacrifices were still being offered. Not until later (AD 70) is the Temple system and worship at the temple destroyed. This was the end of the temple system and judgement on those who refused Him The inauguration of true worship empowered by the Spirit occurred at Pentecost.

Concerning the Temple, Jesus said, Not one stone will be left upon another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you. (Luke 19:44).

Concerning worship. Jesus said, Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... (John 4:21)

Salvation is of the Jews....

But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 23-24)

So this event in Acts doesn't necessarily mean that James or the Jerusalem church thought circumcision was still required for salvation. Rather, they were navigating a complex Jewish religious environment, their aim wad to ensure unity and avoid unnecessary controversy. They were already targeted by the religious leader that crucified their King. The time to give their lives for the testimony of Christ would come, but not yet. They were being as Jesus said, wise as serpent's and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).

Something Paul himself understood ( Corinthians 9:20-21) ...to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law ... to win those under the law.
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law.

Paul was clearly willing to adapt and accommodate Jewish customs and practices in certain contexts, yet at the same time maintaining his conviction that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through the Law or circumcision.

 

[Dan Perez]

I'm insisting that Scripture be taken in its context.

Goes to "context."

It is always the context that is important, is it a lasting principle that is in focus, or simply a practice that is in focus?

You are adding to the Scriptures and demonstrating loose handling of them, which betrays an inability to rightly divide the word (2 Pe 3:16) based on unfamiliarity with the context of the whole NT.

I would say what both the OT and the NT say.

Your unfamiliarity with the NT is showing, which unfamiliarity leaves us with no basis for discussion.

But 1 Tim 2:12 says , I SUFFER // EPITREPO , verb , IN The Greek PRESENT TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE , in the Indicative Mood , you better believe it , in the Singular , meaning it is only said on time .

NOT // OU , is a DISJUNCTIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE , meaning neverrrr . to the next Greek word .

A WOMAN // GYNE , a noun in the DATIVE CASE , meaning . Personal Interest

To TEACH // DIDASKO , a verb in the Present tense , meaning in the age of Grace , Active Voice , meaning that the subject

producing the Action .

TO USURP AUTHORITY // AUTHENTEO is in the Greek PRESENT TENSE , meaning right now in the Age of Grace , in the Active

Voice , and that means the subject is producing the action .

Over the Man // ANER , in the Genitive Case , of description .

But ) TO BE // EINAI , is in the Present , meaning in the AGE of Grace ..

IN ) SILENCE // in the DATIVE CASE , of personal interest , in the Singular

Read Gen 3:16 !!

dan p

 

[Guojing]

Gentiles were not saved because Israel the nation rose up in the Kingdom, but rather because the true Son of Israel, Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled the Law and Prophets, established His Kingdom - the very kingdom of God. Of which Jews were first, as He came to His own. And as the parable in Matthew 22:1-14 explains, the Jews rejected Jesus, where the invitation is extended to all the nations/Gentiles. It's a prophetc image of God's plan to include all people in His Kingdom.

We are now saved due to the fall of Israel (Romans 11:11), so in that sense, you are correct, but you reasoned wrongly.

 

[Guojing]

So this event in Acts doesn't necessarily mean that James or the Jerusalem church thought circumcision was still required for salvation.

So you do agree there was a time when physical circumcision was required.

As for what you think James was actually thinking about at Acts 21, I disagree, but you are free to form your own hypothesis.. I prefer to understand scripture literally there.

 

[Rose_bud]

We are now saved due to the fall of Israel (Romans 11:11), so in that sense, you are correct, but you reasoned wrongly.

So, you acknowledging that this is correct, but apparently my reasoning is incorrect.
Interesting. Yet you offer no explanation why?

I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by "the fall of Israel"? Are you suggesting a literal physical fall, like a trip or a stumble? Or is it a metaphorical fall, like a failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? And a rejection of Him as the true King? Which is how I interpret this. I want to make sure I understand your perspective.