Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
See post #570.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.
I asked;Your unfamiliarity with the NT is showing, which unfamiliarity leaves us with no basis for discussion.
And your response is:How so?
I've been reading it for 50 years and preaching it for 20; which bits am I unfamiliar with?
See post #565, last response.
In other words, you have deemed that I have inferior Bible knowledge, so I'm not worth replying to.See post #570.
Just as you won't find a verse with the word "sovereign" in it, which demonstrates nothing but failure to understand Scripture.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.
Well you clearly can't see that arrogance is not a fruit of the Spirit.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.
Yet you're not kind enough to respond to my request to show me where I am lacking in Bible knowledge.If you are truly interested in Biblical understanding, please do me the kindness of repeating those questions.
Are you saying it is not the pastor's role to teach the assembly?Yet you're not kind enough to respond to my request to show me where I am lacking in Bible knowledge.
There is only one gospel, but it has many facets, like a finely cut diamond.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!
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.
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.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!
Hi GoujingDo 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.
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?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.
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.
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.If you are saying you think the KJV is in error, then we have to agree to disagree here
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.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)
If what you said is correct, then James would have been in error at Acts 21:18-24.
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 .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.
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.
So this event in Acts doesn't necessarily mean that James or the Jerusalem church thought circumcision was still required for salvation.
We are now saved due to the fall of Israel (Romans 11:11), so in that sense, you are correct, but you reasoned wrongly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?