Right Division

[timf]

Dispensationalism usually consists of people who see a distinction between Israel and the church. Some feel this distinction happened at Acts 2, others at mid Acts, and some at Acts 28. What is called "right division" usually takes a mid Acts position and can see an overlap between the gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel and a revelation of the mystery of the age of grace offered to gentiles. The idea that there can be two gospels seems to be supported in Galatians.

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;

That the gospel of grace was called a "mystery" may be because if the nation of Israel had received the kingdom, the church would not be needed.

This perspective can aid in bible study in that many have had difficulty trying to apply some of what is written to Israel to Christians today. A book like Romans can be seen as written to mostly Jews trying to understand the gospel of grace. The first letter to the Corinthians can be understood as written to mostly former pagans who were still attempting to use their practices in a Christian context.

 

[Clare73]

The idea that there can be two gospels seems to be supported in Galatians.

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;

That notion is preposterous and emphatically denied in Gal 1:8-9 where more than one gospel is anathametized (eternally condemned).

That the gospel of grace was called a "mystery"

In the NT mystery (musterion) is something newly revealed (Ro 16:25-26), not something hard to understand.

may be because if the nation of Israel had received the kingdom, the church would not be needed.

No . .because the gospel had not been revealed before.

This perspective can aid in bible study

Actually, this perspective being in error, it can only distort the Bible, necessarily leading to error in understanding;

 

[eleos1954]

Dispensationalism usually consists of people who see a distinction between Israel and the church. Some feel this distinction happened at Acts 2, others at mid Acts, and some at Acts 28. What is called "right division" usually takes a mid Acts position and can see an overlap between the gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel and a revelation of the mystery of the age of grace offered to gentiles. The idea that there can be two gospels seems to be supported in Galatians.

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;

That the gospel of grace was called a "mystery" may be because if the nation of Israel had received the kingdom, the church would not be needed.

This perspective can aid in bible study in that many have had difficulty trying to apply some of what is written to Israel to Christians today. A book like Romans can be seen as written to mostly Jews trying to understand the gospel of grace. The first letter to the Corinthians can be understood as written to mostly former pagans who were still attempting to use their practices in a Christian context.

It's very clear ... it's not about Jews ... there aren't any Jews in the view of the Lord ... we are ALL one in Christ Jesus ... ALL covenants (promises) are fulfilled through Him.

Galatians 3:28-29 New Living Translation (NLT)There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you.

It is by the grace of God ... that we are ALL one in Christ Jesus.

Whatever happens or does not happen with the earthly Jews and/or their country does not change the above fact.

Everything is in Christ people .... everything !!!!

 

[Dan Perez]

It's very clear ... it's not about Jews ... there aren't any Jews in the view of the Lord ... we are ALL one in Christ Jesus ... ALL covenants (promises) are fulfilled through Him.

Galatians 3:28-29 New Living Translation (NLT)There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you.

It is by the grace of God ... that we are ALL one in Christ Jesus.

Whatever happens or does not happen with the earthly Jews and/or their country does not change the above fact.

Everything is in Christ people .... everything !!!!

And , there 3 positions held by many .

# 1 The so-called Acts 2 position , also called the CLASSICAL POSTION .

# 2 The MID-ACT position , where the Body of Christ began , Acts 9:5 and 6 , where MOST never know how Paul was saved

and why Paul is the PATTERN // HYPTYPOSIS of the ones coming to believe on Him unto everlasting life .

AND most do not KNOW what the PATTERN really IS ??

And many never understand 1 Tim 1:4 , reads , Nor to give attention to fables and Endless genealogies which cause questionings

rather than God's DISPENSATION // OIKONOMIA , the one by FAITH .

Which means to be in the FAITH , All Saved by grace have to be DISPENSATIONALIST . REALLY !!

dan p

 

[tdidymas]

Dispensationalism usually consists of people who see a distinction between Israel and the church. Some feel this distinction happened at Acts 2, others at mid Acts, and some at Acts 28. What is called "right division" usually takes a mid Acts position and can see an overlap between the gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel and a revelation of the mystery of the age of grace offered to gentiles. The idea that there can be two gospels seems to be supported in Galatians.

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;

That the gospel of grace was called a "mystery" may be because if the nation of Israel had received the kingdom, the church would not be needed.

This perspective can aid in bible study in that many have had difficulty trying to apply some of what is written to Israel to Christians today. A book like Romans can be seen as written to mostly Jews trying to understand the gospel of grace. The first letter to the Corinthians can be understood as written to mostly former pagans who were still attempting to use their practices in a Christian context.

You're using antiquated KJV language to formulate doctrine, which is a very bad idea. "gospel of the circumcision" means good news PREACHED TO JEWS by Peter as the foremost apostle. "Gospel of the uncircumcision" means good news PREACHED TO THE GENTILES by Paul as the foremost apostle in that category. It doesn't mean two different gospels. It merely means that the SAME ETERNAL GOSPEL was preached to two different recipients. In those days there were two kinds of people in the world, Jews and gentiles, in the view of the Jews, just as today there are 2 kinds of people in the world in the view of Christians, believers and non-believers.

It's hard enough to understand the Bible when translated into modern common language, because of the 2000 year gap in language and culture. But a 500 year old language is an extra barrier to cross. So it's a good idea to look at several translations, even 10 or 20 of them, to get a good idea from a host of translators what the passage of scripture really means. It almost always leads to error when only 1 translation is used, and doctrine is formulated based on a single word.

Detailed explanation: your doctrine of 2 different gospels is based on the single word "of", which in antiquated KJV language means "to." It's the same as "the faith of Jesus Christ" in the KJV doesn't mean Jesus' faith, but rather means the Christian's faith IN Jesus. It means the faith concerning Jesus. The KJV is good to use, as long as you understand that you have to overcome the 500 years of language and culture changes, or 250 years if you're using the 1769 revision.

 

[ralliann]

That notion is preposterous and emphatically denied in Gal 1:8-9 where more than one gospel is anathametized (eternally condemned).

In the NT mystery (musterion) is something newly revealed (Ro 16:25-26), not something hard to understand.

No . .because the gospel had not been revealed before.

Actually, this perspective being in error, it can only distort the Bible, necessarily leading to error in understanding;

I think those who think like this do not look at Israel as scripture speaks of it, both old and new.
Romans, "not all Israel is Israel" and Galatians 2 covenants.
In scripture we see Heirs of two classes, or sorts..
All Jew's (the circumcision in the flesh) are heirs of (covenant) promise.
But.....not all are "firstborn" heirs...of (covenant) promise of heir apparent, that has an inheritance above their brethren ( aka double portion).
One inheritance (kingdom) this world and this life Gen 15.
But....the portion of inheritance above and beyond their brethren in the covenant made in Genesis 17, a covenant of Kings....
Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. {in … : or, among all }
Heb 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The birthright is not equal to all Jew's, nor in the new covenant even exclusive to Jews outwardly...

 

[Dan Perez]

You're using antiquated KJV language to formulate doctrine, which is a very bad idea. "gospel of the circumcision" means good news PREACHED TO JEWS by Peter as the foremost apostle. "Gospel of the uncircumcision" means good news PREACHED TO THE GENTILES by Paul as the foremost apostle in that category. It doesn't mean two different gospels. It merely means that the SAME ETERNAL GOSPEL was preached to two different recipients. In those days there were two kinds of people in the world, Jews and gentiles, in the view of the Jews, just as today there are 2 kinds of people in the world in the view of Christians, believers and non-believers.

It's hard enough to understand the Bible when translated into modern common language, because of the 2000 year gap in language and culture. But a 500 year old language is an extra barrier to cross. So it's a good idea to look at several translations, even 10 or 20 of them, to get a good idea from a host of translators what the passage of scripture really means. It almost always leads to error when only 1 translation is used, and doctrine is formulated based on a single word.

REALLY ?

I have wondered why anyone NEVER see the difference in Gal 2:7 Where the Holy Spirit that Paul was entrusted

with the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMSISION , Please notice it GOSPEL of the Uncircumcision!!

Now notice what the Holy Spirit , had Paul finish that verse , Just as Pete was Of The CIRCUMCISION .


# 1 Paul's is CALLED A GOSPEL !!

#2 And what did the Holy Spirit call Peter's , OF THE CIRCUMCISION ??

# 3 WHY did HE NOT CALL IT A GOSPEL ??

# 4 Because Israel WAS going to be SET ASIDE in about several years , in Acts 28:25 - 28 , is just one verse as proof !!

dan p

 

[tdidymas]

REALLY ?

I have wondered why anyone NEVER see the difference in Gal 2:7 Where the Holy Spirit that Paul was entrusted

with the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMSISION , Please notice it GOSPEL of the Uncircumcision!!

Now notice what the Holy Spirit , had Paul finish that verse , Just as Pete was Of The CIRCUMCISION .


# 1 Paul's is CALLED A GOSPEL !!

#2 And what did the Holy Spirit call Peter's , OF THE CIRCUMCISION ??

# 3 WHY did HE NOT CALL IT A GOSPEL ??

# 4 Because Israel WAS going to be SET ASIDE in about several years , in Acts 28:25 - 28 , is just one verse as proof !!

dan p

Equally erroneous is to formulate a doctrine on a single statement of the Bible. Explanation: since the gospel is the subject matter of the statement, "gospel to the circumcision" is implied in the statement. This is the activity of common language, and so with the Koine Greek language. It's a conversation, not a technical manual. We're supposed to hold to the same idea throughout the whole argument. The same gospel of grace was preached to both audiences, Jews and Gentiles. The foremost apostle "to the gentiles" was Paul and "to the Jews" was Peter. As shown in both Acts 15 and Galatians and Ephesians (and implied in many other places), it was the same gospel of grace that was preached by all the apostles to both groups. Conclusion: Paul was calling Peter's ministry "to the circumcision" the same gospel.

 

[HarleyER]

Dispensationalism usually consists of people who see a distinction between Israel and the church. Some feel this distinction happened at Acts 2, others at mid Acts, and some at Acts 28. What is called "right division" usually takes a mid Acts position and can see an overlap between the gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel and a revelation of the mystery of the age of grace offered to gentiles. The idea that there can be two gospels seems to be supported in Galatians.

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;

That the gospel of grace was called a "mystery" may be because if the nation of Israel had received the kingdom, the church would not be needed.

This perspective can aid in bible study in that many have had difficulty trying to apply some of what is written to Israel to Christians today. A book like Romans can be seen as written to mostly Jews trying to understand the gospel of grace. The first letter to the Corinthians can be understood as written to mostly former pagans who were still attempting to use their practices in a Christian context.

I'm an Amillennialist while my wife is a Dispensationalist (yes, the two can live in harmony). I don't wish to get into a discussion of these two (and other) views because we'll be here until the cows come home with nothing solved. Revelation is complicated. Suffice it to say, both of us have studied and discussed different Revelation views extensively. No where do either of us see in any view multiple gospels (one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles). The same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2 is the same gospel Peter preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Just some friendly advice that may or may not apply. I had a friend who all he ever did was study Revelation, year after year after year. I don't know what ever happened to him because that is all he ever wanted to study. While the rest of us moved on, he couldn't get off the dime. He formed is own Bible study exclusively around Revelation and eventually faded away from fellowship.

Some very good and solid preachers seem to have a handle on Revelation. I respect PREACHERS for having a taking a view on Revelation because that is their job. But the truth is I don't think anyone really can understand it. There always is a "Yes, but..." I would simply read Revelation, say "Hmmm, that's very interesting" and then go on.

 

[tdidymas]

I'm an Amillennialist while my wife is a Dispensationalist (yes, the two can live in harmony). I don't wish to get into a discussion of these two (and other) views because we'll be here until the cows come home with nothing solved. Revelation is complicated. Suffice it to say, both of us have studied and discussed different Revelation views extensively. No where do either of us see in any view multiple gospels (one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles). The same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2 is the same gospel Peter preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Just some friendly advice that may or may not apply. I had a friend who all he ever did was study Revelation, year after year after year. I don't know what ever happened to him because that is all he ever wanted to study. While the rest of us moved on, he couldn't get off the dime. He formed is own Bible study exclusively around Revelation and eventually faded away from fellowship.

Some very good and solid preachers seem to have a handle on Revelation. I respect PREACHERS for having a taking a view on Revelation because that is their job. But the truth is I don't think anyone really can understand it. There always is a "Yes, but..." I would simply read Revelation, say "Hmmm, that's very interesting" and then go on.

Yeah, I've said before "I think we can safely say that no one understands Revelation." If one could, there would not be such a wide range of interpretations, in addition to the most prolific controversy in all of Christian history. There is only one place that says "here is wisdom..." (in regard to identifying the antichrist), but in regard to the whole book, it merely says "blessed are those who read" it, and "cursed are those who add or take away the words" of it.

 

[Dan Perez]

Equally erroneous is to formulate a doctrine on a single statement of the Bible. Explanation: since the gospel is the subject matter of the statement, "gospel to the circumcision" is implied in the statement. This is the activity of common language, and so with the Koine Greek language. It's a conversation, not a technical manual. We're supposed to hold to the same idea throughout the whole argument. The same gospel of grace was preached to both audiences, Jews and Gentiles. The foremost apostle "to the gentiles" was Paul and "to the Jews" was Peter. As shown in both Acts 15 and Galatians and Ephesians (and implied in many other places), it was the same gospel of grace that was preached by all the apostles to both groups. Conclusion: Paul was calling Peter's ministry "to the circumcision" the same gospel.

Question , for YOU ??

# 1 How are people saved under the OLD COVENANT ?

# 2 How are people saved under the NEW COVENANT ?

# 3 How are people TODAY ??

Do you see any difference , as to when each will happen as to TIME element ?

Your thoughts ??

dan p

 

[tdidymas]

Question , for YOU ??

# 1 How are people saved under the OLD COVENANT ?

# 2 How are people saved under the NEW COVENANT ?

# 3 How are people TODAY ??

Do you see any difference , as to when each will happen as to TIME element ?

Your thoughts ??

dan p

There is one single eternal gospel mentioned in Rev. 14:6. Jesus atoning for sins was planned before creation (Eph. 1:4). Jesus' teaching on being born again to Nicodemus in John 3 is the context of a general principle, and Paul spoke of the gospel in the OT even though he called it a mystery. So OT saints looked forward to their coming Messiah for salvation to eternal life, as we look back on the historical Messiah today, since "it is those of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). The gospel is based on OT scripture, since they quote it often, and it is attested by all the writers of the NT, so the gospel spans all of man's history. Paul also spoke of the concept of grace apart from law as a general principle, and that law did not have the power to give life. Therefore, everyone from Adam to the end of Rev. are all saved by the grace of God.

Dispensations have to do with God's administration of that salvation, which is essentially a progressive revelation from Gen. 3:15 to 1 Cor. 2:10 and described throughout the NT. Paul mentions 2 of those dispensations in Gal. 3:24-25. That dispensation which was under the law was not a different way to salvation (which idea was the error of the Jewish religious leaders), but rather to teach the Israelites (and ultimately the gentiles) that righteous standing with God does not come by law, but by faith in the Messiah. And this teaching also applies to us who have the full revelation of the gospel in the NT (Gal. 3:21-22 with context).

"Old Covenant" simply means the covenant between God and the nation Israel which included the law and the physical offspring of Abraham and Jacob, which had its set of promises and blessings and consequences. "New Covenant" simply means the covenant between God and all mankind who have heard the gospel and believe in Christ. The Old Covenant was with physical/natural sons of Jacob, and the New Covenant is a spiritual covenant which promises eternal life to everyone who believes in Jesus. It also has its set of promises, blessings, and consequences (Heb. 8:7-13).

 

[Dan Perez]

There is one single eternal gospel mentioned in Rev. 14:6. Jesus atoning for sins was planned before creation (Eph. 1:4). Jesus' teaching on being born again to Nicodemus in John 3 is the context of a general principle, and Paul spoke of the gospel in the OT even though he called it a mystery. So OT saints looked forward to their coming Messiah for salvation to eternal life, as we look back on the historical Messiah today, since "it is those of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). The gospel is based on OT scripture, since they quote it often, and it is attested by all the writers of the NT, so the gospel spans all of man's history. Paul also spoke of the concept of grace apart from law as a general principle, and that law did not have the power to give life. Therefore, everyone from Adam to the end of Rev. are all saved by the grace of God.

Dispensations have to do with God's administration of that salvation, which is essentially a progressive revelation from Gen. 3:15 to 1 Cor. 2:10 and described throughout the NT. Paul mentions 2 of those dispensations in Gal. 3:24-25. That dispensation which was under the law was not a different way to salvation (which idea was the error of the Jewish religious leaders), but rather to teach the Israelites (and ultimately the gentiles) that righteous standing with God does not come by law, but by faith in the Messiah. And this teaching also applies to us who have the full revelation of the gospel in the NT (Gal. 3:21-22 with context).

"Old Covenant" simply means the covenant between God and the nation Israel which included the law and the physical offspring of Abraham and Jacob, which had its set of promises and blessings and consequences. "New Covenant" simply means the covenant between God and all mankind who have heard the gospel and believe in Christ. The Old Covenant was with physical/natural sons of Jacob, and the New Covenant is a spiritual covenant which promises eternal life to everyone who believes in Jesus. It also has its set of promises, blessings, and consequences (Heb. 8:7-13).

In Rev 14;6 says EVERLASTING // AINONOS , and not eternal as you wrote .

# 1 there the GOD'S GOSPEL in Rom 1:1 ,

# 2 There the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM

#3 There is the Gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION

# 4 There is the GOSPEL of the CIRCUMCISION

# 5 THERE A CALLED BY Paul , MY GOSPEL

Just to mention a FEW !!

dan p

 

[ralliann]

In Rev 14;6 says EVERLASTING // AINONOS , and not eternal as you wrote .

# 1 there the GOD'S GOSPEL in Rom 1:1 ,

# 2 There the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM

#3 There is the Gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION

# 4 There is the GOSPEL of the CIRCUMCISION

# 5 THERE A CALLED BY Paul , MY GOSPEL

Just to mention a FEW !!

dan p

Which are not "other gospels"....
6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
It is another COVENANT Which Gentiles are also heirs of PROMISE......
Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

[tdidymas]

In Rev 14;6 says EVERLASTING // AINONOS , and not eternal as you wrote .

Incredible response. It means the same thing.

# 1 there the GOD'S GOSPEL in Rom 1:1 ,

Which is the only gospel, the one about Jesus.

# 2 There the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM

Which is the same gospel. Many things in scripture are described with different words, but mean the same thing.

#3 There is the Gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION

same gospel.

# 4 There is the GOSPEL of the CIRCUMCISION

Same gospel.

# 5 THERE A CALLED BY Paul , MY GOSPEL

Same gospel. He calls it "my gospel" because he had direct revelation from Christ and didn't get it from the other apostles like everyone else did. He taught the same gospel, as shown in Acts 15, that all the apostles including Paul agreed on it - Gal. 2:2.

Just to mention a FEW !!

dan p

Your "few" gospels prejudice is an error that could make you an apostate. Time will tell, as there will be one day when all things are revealed, since we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. James 3:1 "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment."

 

[Guojing]

Incredible response. It means the same thing.

Which is the only gospel, the one about Jesus.

So what do you think is the message in the gospel preached by Peter and the 12 to Israel?

 

[timf]

So what do you think is the message in the gospel preached by Peter and the 12 to Israel?

Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mar_1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Luk_9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
- a taste of the kingdom -
Luk 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
Luk 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
Luk 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Jesus will not be able to establish his kingdom until the ruler (Satan) of this present age is overthrown.

The new covenant was for Israel.

Jer 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:

The disciples were expecting the kingdom for Israel

Luk_22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

The early assembly of kingdom believers had a taste of what the kingdom would be like.
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Paul was telling the Galatians that those who were trying to get them under the kingdom gospel (a different gospel) were to be rejected.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

The gospel of grace was overlapping but different. It was also based on faith in Christ not so much as the Messiah, but as having died for our sins and raised again (1Cor 15:1-4) This allows us to be placed into the body of Christ and receive eternal life now instead of having to endure to the end (kingdom)

 

[Clare73]

I'm an Amillennialist while my wife is a Dispensationalist (yes, the two can live in harmony). I don't wish to get into a discussion of these two (and other) views because we'll be here until the cows come home with nothing solved. Revelation is complicated. Suffice it to say, both of us have studied and discussed different Revelation views extensively. No where do either of us see in any view multiple gospels (one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles). The same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 2 is the same gospel Peter preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Just some friendly advice that may or may not apply. I had a friend who all he ever did was study Revelation, year after year after year. I don't know what ever happened to him because that is all he ever wanted to study. While the rest of us moved on, he couldn't get off the dime. He formed is own Bible study exclusively around Revelation and eventually faded away from fellowship.

Some very good and solid preachers seem to have a handle on Revelation. I respect PREACHERS for having a taking a view on Revelation because that is their job. But the truth is I don't think anyone really can understand it. There always is a "Yes, but..." I would simply read Revelation, say "Hmmm, that's very interesting" and then go on.

Agreed. . .prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.

But one thing we do know. . .all prophecy not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching, which is authoritative to the church, is in error,
for God does not contradict himself in his word written.

 

[ralliann]

So what do you think is the message in the gospel preached by Peter and the 12 to Israel?

Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
John preached the wrath of God coming on that nation, under the law. Christ was an escape from it for Jew's...

Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Ro 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[Dan Perez]

Equally erroneous is to formulate a doctrine on a single statement of the Bible. Explanation: since the gospel is the subject matter of the statement, "gospel to the circumcision" is implied in the statement. This is the activity of common language, and so with the Koine Greek language. It's a conversation, not a technical manual. We're supposed to hold to the same idea throughout the whole argument. The same gospel of grace was preached to both audiences, Jews and Gentiles. The foremost apostle "to the gentiles" was Paul and "to the Jews" was Peter. As shown in both Acts 15 and Galatians and Ephesians (and implied in many other places), it was the same gospel of grace that was preached by all the apostles to both groups. Conclusion: Paul was calling Peter's ministry "to the circumcision" the same gospel.

And how do you DEFINE , what THE GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION IS ?

And DEFINE what is CIRCUMCISION , then mans , your thoughts with verses ??

dan p