Why is there controversy in Christianity?

[tucker58]

"Is there anyone else incredibly frustrated with the DEEP differences between believers?"

Grafted In started a topic with two parts in it, the other part is in the Chat with the Staff forum, and this topic is an attempt, if it is ok and anybody is interested, to continue the discussion on the other part, "DEEP differences between believers".

To me the advent of Lord Jesus our Lord and Savior radically changed our relationship with Heaven (the powerful Divine) along with creating the ability for us as non Jewish folk to establish a relationship with the God of the chosen people the Father of our Lord and Savior. I spent most of my life being DEEPLY frustrated with the DEEP differences between believers. So much so that I went to my closet to pray for forty years with thousands of hours of meditate prayer spent durring that time. And now I am here hanging our with my Christian brothers and sisters exploring these deep differences.

Why are there these deep differences? I believe the basic requirement beliefs of Protestant Christianity and to me the minor differences between the denominations are not deal breakers. Some do believe they are and some do not, but I do not. From there anyone who claims that they are a Christian that has an interpretation of Christian Holy Scripture that says that they are a Christian and they are not a physical threat to the Community of Humankind, are Christian. Yes I do not want to fellowship with or even be around a lot of those folks , but for me it is not for me to judge them as not Christian.

Now why do I say this? Because I just spent a bunch of years day in and day out on an atheist dominated message board where defending the possiblity that any kind of a God can possibly exist, let alone the Father of Lord Jesus, is an extreme challenge. You reach a point where you so happy to meet a person that believes that the existance of God is possible and just over joyed when you meet a person that claims to be a Christian ! We are a brother or sister in the middle of the world of Satan with minor beliefs just not being important! But when you reenter back into a Christian social environment these differences become important again. And I also now find myself defending the basic Protestant beliefs against those Christians that believe that Protestant Christians are not Christian. Humm ? I consider them Christian (they are just Christian with different beliefs than I have). But they, do not consider "me" Christian. From there I have to defend my Protestant beliefs even though my Protestant brothers and sisters, as denominations, are in a squable over what those beliefs truly are .

Well I have already gone to my closet for forty years to pray because of frustration and now I am here because of interest, and having to defend my basic Protestant beliefs (I am pretty open minded about things, but only up to a point ) I guess is just another interesting challenge. And lets face it at least on this message board I do not have to defend the "possiblity" that God exists or the existance of Christ Jesus. So for me I am in a better place.

 

[Heissonear]

Grafted In started a topic with two parts in it, the other part is in the Chat with the Staff forum, and this topic is an attempt, if it is ok and anybody is interested, to continue the discussion on the other part, "DEEP differences between believers".

To me the advent of Lord Jesus our Lord and Savior radically changed our relationship with Heaven (the powerful Divine) along with creating the ability for us as non Jewish folk to establish a relationship with the God of the chosen people the Father of our Lord and Savior. I spent most of my life being DEEPLY frustrated with the DEEP differences between believers. So much so that I went to my closet to pray for forty years with thousands of hours of meditate prayer spent durring that time. And now I am here hanging our with my Christian brothers and sisters exploring these deep differences.

Why are there these deep differences? I believe the basic requirement beliefs of Protestant Christianity and to me the minor differences between the denominations are not deal breakers. Some do believe they are and some do not, but I do not. From there anyone who claims that they are a Christian that has an interpretation of Christian Holy Scripture that says that they are a Christian and they are not a physical threat to the Community of Humankind, are Christian. Yes I do not want to fellowship with or even be around a lot of those folks , but for me it is not for me to judge them as not Christian.

Now why do I say this? Because I just spent a bunch of years day in and day out on an atheist dominated message board where defending the possiblity that any kind of a God can possibly exist, let alone the Father of Lord Jesus, is an extreme challenge. You reach a point where you so happy to meet a person that believes that the existance of God is possible and just over joyed when you meet a person that claims to be a Christian ! We are a brother or sister in the middle of the world of Satan with minor beliefs just not being important! But when you reenter back into a Christian social environment these differences become important again. And I also now find myself defending the basic Protestant beliefs against those Christians that believe that Protestant Christians are not Christian. Humm ? I consider them Christian (they are just Christian with different beliefs than I have). But they, do not consider "me" Christian. From there I have to defend my Protestant beliefs even though my Protestant brothers and sisters, as denominations, are in a squable over what those beliefs truly are .

Well I have already gone to my closet for forty years to pray because of frustration and now I am here because of interest, and having to defend my basic Protestant beliefs (I am pretty open minded about things, but only up to a point ) I guess is just another interesting challenge. And lets face it at least on this message board I do not have to defend the "possiblity" that God exists or the existance of Christ Jesus. So for me I am in a better place.

A big question and yes a challenge!

A lot of divisions have come about over time through different Bible interpretations. It is unfortunate.

If possible I look for the bond of peace through the Spirit, then common beliefs.

But as always, it is the Lord Jesus that I have turn to, and Him in others if I can detect.

 

[SkyWriting]

Grafted In started a topic with two parts in it, the other part is in the Chat with the Staff forum, and this topic is an attempt, if it is ok and anybody is interested, to continue the discussion on the other part, "DEEP differences between believers".

To me the advent of Lord Jesus our Lord and Savior radically changed our relationship with Heaven (the powerful Divine) along with creating the ability for us as non Jewish folk to establish a relationship with the God of the chosen people the Father of our Lord and Savior. I spent most of my life being DEEPLY frustrated with the DEEP differences between believers. So much so that I went to my closet to pray for forty years with thousands of hours of meditate prayer spent durring that time. And now I am here hanging our with my Christian brothers and sisters exploring these deep differences.

Why are there these deep differences? I believe the basic requirement beliefs of Protestant Christianity and to me the minor differences between the denominations are not deal breakers. Some do believe they are and some do not, but I do not. From there anyone who claims that they are a Christian that has an interpretation of Christian Holy Scripture that says that they are a Christian and they are not a physical threat to the Community of Humankind, are Christian. Yes I do not want to fellowship with or even be around a lot of those folks , but for me it is not for me to judge them as not Christian.

Now why do I say this? Because I just spent a bunch of years day in and day out on an atheist dominated message board where defending the possiblity that any kind of a God can possibly exist, let alone the Father of Lord Jesus, is an extreme challenge. You reach a point where you so happy to meet a person that believes that the existance of God is possible and just over joyed when you meet a person that claims to be a Christian ! We are a brother or sister in the middle of the world of Satan with minor beliefs just not being important! But when you reenter back into a Christian social environment these differences become important again. And I also now find myself defending the basic Protestant beliefs against those Christians that believe that Protestant Christians are not Christian. Humm ? I consider them Christian (they are just Christian with different beliefs than I have). But they, do not consider "me" Christian. From there I have to defend my Protestant beliefs even though my Protestant brothers and sisters, as denominations, are in a squable over what those beliefs truly are .

Well I have already gone to my closet for forty years to pray because of frustration and now I am here because of interest, and having to defend my basic Protestant beliefs (I am pretty open minded about things, but only up to a point ) I guess is just another interesting challenge. And lets face it at least on this message board I do not have to defend the "possibility" that God exists or the existence of Christ Jesus. So for me I am in a better place.

Here is an exercise better than 40 years of prayer.
You can have it done in 20 minutes or so.
Please rewrite the Opening Post without "Me", "My", or "I"
and not refer to yourself or your experiences at all.
This will be a good start.

 

[Mudinyeri]

I like it @SkyWriting !

We (humans) have created the divides and differences.

 

[Hillsage]

Tucker, I hear you. It is just sad as to how divided Christianity is over so many different peripheral and non essential issues. For me it all boils down to what is the very minimum that one has to believe to be 'IN'....whatever that means. To me, 'IN' means, to be a 'born again' brother or sister in Christ. So maybe we could just start there, what do WE believe is the bare minimum to be considered initially saved? And I reiterate that "Less is More" concerning this litmus.

Let me start with; I believe Jesus is the son of God who came to earth and died for my sins and was resurrected. I repented by believing in my heart and confessing with my mouth guiltiness for my sins and accepting His sacrifice. Is that too much, or not enough to start with?

 

[Hillsage]

Here is an exercise better than 40 years of prayer.
Please rewrite this post without "Me", "My", or "I"
and not refer to yourself or your experiences at all.
This will be a good start.

I know I had a "Me", "My" and "I" in that post, but without admitting 'them' and the 'common' experience, there is no "US" to agree upon either IMO.

 

[Job8]

Why is there controversy in Christianity?

The reason why there is controversy in Christianity is because the Bible is NOT a textbook on systematic theology. Rather it is a progressive revelation of God's heart and mind, and requires guidance from the Holy Spirit to be properly understood. Over the centuries, the teachings of men have been overlaid on the teachings of Scripture, and that adds to the divergence of views. Add to that the very real existence of Satan and his evil angels, whose sole motivation is to deceive human beings and damn their souls to Hell. They use false teachers, false apostles, and false prophets to confuse and divide Christians. Because there is an ongoing conflict between the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Light, we see differences and divisions where none should ideally exist.

 

[SkyWriting]

I know I had a "Me", "My" and "I" in that post, but without admitting 'them' and the 'common' experience, there is no "US" to agree upon either IMO.

"US" don't need to agree on anything.
You need to accept
God, and
that's all that
counts.

There is no disagreement if you keep your opinions out of it.

 

[Hillsage]

The reason why there is controversy in Christianity is because the Bible is NOT a textbook on systematic theology. Rather it is a progressive revelation of God's heart and mind, and requires guidance from the Holy Spirit to be properly understood. Over the centuries,

Then it is a 'progressive revelation' that systematic theologians stopped and put two covers upon what had been revealed and declared 'this is it and no more'. Hmmm.

the teachings of men have been overlaid on the teachings of Scripture, and that adds to the divergence of views.

Not to mention that men indoctrinated with those teachings became translators who rewrote from their indoctrinated POV skewed translations to further support their views.

Add to that the very real existence of Satan and his evil angels, whose sole motivation is to deceive human beings and damn their souls to Hell. They use false teachers, false apostles, and false prophets to confuse and divide Christians. Because there is an ongoing conflict between the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Light, we see differences and divisions where none should ideally exist.

It always goes back to differences then doesn't it. Here's my verses disagreeing, where's yours?

1CO 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1TI 1:20 among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

EDIT No, don't give me your verses, that's just going to be another rabbit trail that's probably off topic and really doesn't matter.

 

[Hillsage]

"US" don't need to agree on anything.
You need to accept
God, and
that's all that
counts.

There is no disagreement if you keep your opinions out of it.

You mean, but still allowing 'you' your opinions? Read what you 'mis-wrote'. Shouldn't you have said keep OUR opinions out of it...right? And that's how it starts.

Plus your opinion sounds idealistic. You might need to tell Peter and Paul how simple this really is.

GAL 2:11 But when Cephas/Peter came to Antioch I/Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

But I'm more inclined to think there's simply just too many "ignorant and unstable" believers who are 'thinking more highly of themselves than they ought'....really.

2PE 3:16 speaking of this as he/Paul does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

EDIT SkyWriting, I've reread this and hope you don't think that I'm even insinuating that 'you' are "ignorant/unstable or thinking more highly of yourself". I wasn't and just want to make sure that's understood. And even though I liked your opinion, I really do think it's 'idealistic' and probably unattainable...but still believe God can bring it about if it's in His plan.

 

[tucker58]

Here is an exercise better than 40 years of prayer.
You can have it done in 20 minutes or so.
Please rewrite the Opening Post without "Me", "My", or "I"
and not refer to yourself or your experiences at all.
This will be a good start.

It was ment to be a testimonal type format, but because I have read your advice many times on this message board I do think of you and your advice to others every time I use a personal pronoun . Humility and the presence of Lord Jesus when one is in the presence of the Father is the key. And some times it takes forty years of prayer to understand the why of your advice . Thank you Skywriting, your wisdom on this message board is personally appreciated.

 

[tucker58]

Tucker, I hear you. It is just sad as to how divided Christianity is over so many different peripheral and non essential issues. For me it all boils down to what is the very minimum that one has to believe to be 'IN'....whatever that means. To me, 'IN' means, to be a 'born again' brother or sister in Christ. So maybe we could just start there, what do WE believe is the bare minimum to be considered initially saved? And I reiterate that "Less is More" concerning this litmus.

Let me start with; I believe Jesus is the son of God who came to earth and died for my sins and was resurrected. I repented by believing in my heart and confessing with my mouth guiltiness for my sins and accepting His sacrifice. Is that too much, or not enough to start with?

And again Hillsage you hit the nail on the head . Is that to much or not enough to start with? And again you hit the nail on the head, in my opinion! I guess the question of, "What is minimal?" is where everything starts. I was a Christian after my first prayer to God in the name of Jesus Christ at five years old because of what I experienced. No other reason because I didn't know about anything else. But after that first prayer I was a believer and was a believer for the rest of my life. So I guess for me that first prayer was the minimal . As I got older I was introduced to Christianity and the concept of I believe because I met Him became not enough as a minimal to be considered a Christian by other Christians . From there everything went sideways. It went from the beauty of love and forgiveness to the letter of the Law and Holy Scripture was the Law. And most everybody had a different version of what the Law said and they were very judgemental about it. There are loving Christians, it is just that I didn't meet any durring my formative years. Everything became very confusing because the message that I experienced with that first prayer was a different message than what Christians were promoting. Their message was believe like we do or you are not a Christian and were headed to some place hot, and they were very judgemental about it. From there I was very angry about it all for about half of a century . But I have never been angry at Lord Jesus about anything. He is just too beautiful and loving to ever be angry at. I expected the world to be like Him and it was not, it was a very not nice place.

So what do I think is the minimal? I don't know . The minimal is whatever the Christians that you are around think is the minimal .

 

[Soyeong]

Grafted In started a topic with two parts in it, the other part is in the Chat with the Staff forum, and this topic is an attempt, if it is ok and anybody is interested, to continue the discussion on the other part, "DEEP differences between believers".

To me the advent of Lord Jesus our Lord and Savior radically changed our relationship with Heaven (the powerful Divine) along with creating the ability for us as non Jewish folk to establish a relationship with the God of the chosen people the Father of our Lord and Savior. I spent most of my life being DEEPLY frustrated with the DEEP differences between believers. So much so that I went to my closet to pray for forty years with thousands of hours of meditate prayer spent durring that time. And now I am here hanging our with my Christian brothers and sisters exploring these deep differences.

Why are there these deep differences? I believe the basic requirement beliefs of Protestant Christianity and to me the minor differences between the denominations are not deal breakers. Some do believe they are and some do not, but I do not. From there anyone who claims that they are a Christian that has an interpretation of Christian Holy Scripture that says that they are a Christian and they are not a physical threat to the Community of Humankind, are Christian. Yes I do not want to fellowship with or even be around a lot of those folks , but for me it is not for me to judge them as not Christian.

Now why do I say this? Because I just spent a bunch of years day in and day out on an atheist dominated message board where defending the possiblity that any kind of a God can possibly exist, let alone the Father of Lord Jesus, is an extreme challenge. You reach a point where you so happy to meet a person that believes that the existance of God is possible and just over joyed when you meet a person that claims to be a Christian ! We are a brother or sister in the middle of the world of Satan with minor beliefs just not being important! But when you reenter back into a Christian social environment these differences become important again. And I also now find myself defending the basic Protestant beliefs against those Christians that believe that Protestant Christians are not Christian. Humm ? I consider them Christian (they are just Christian with different beliefs than I have). But they, do not consider "me" Christian. From there I have to defend my Protestant beliefs even though my Protestant brothers and sisters, as denominations, are in a squable over what those beliefs truly are .

Well I have already gone to my closet for forty years to pray because of frustration and now I am here because of interest, and having to defend my basic Protestant beliefs (I am pretty open minded about things, but only up to a point ) I guess is just another interesting challenge. And lets face it at least on this message board I do not have to defend the "possiblity" that God exists or the existance of Christ Jesus. So for me I am in a better place.

Someone who sacrifices unity for truth will be a very lonely person, but someone who sacrifices truth for unity will be a very misled person, so there is a balance between truth and unity, where we need to get along with people we don't agree with on every topic, yet at the same time hold some truths to be important enough not to concede for the sake of unity. My mom just finished going through a multi-denominational Bible study on Revelation because it is good to exchange ideas with people that you disagree with and it is good to get out of our denominational rut. On the other hand, before I joined my current congregation, they were having problems with people talking negatively about what my rabbi was teaching, spreading controversial ideas, forming cliques, and causing division. Visitors were hearing different things about what we believed depending who they sat next to. The congregation had grown stagnant, so my rabbi went through a series about what we believe and why we believe it and then required all regular attenders to sign a statement of faith so that we would all be on the same page, which caused the people who were causing division to leave. Since then, my congregation has been flourishing again, and my rabbi maintains that it was one of the best leadership decisions he has ever made.

One of the most controversial things that I don't think should be controversial is that as followers of God we should follow God's law, and as followers of Christ we should follow his example, obey his commands, and walk as he walked. He set an example to follow of how to obey God's law, he was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, and he walked in perfect obedience to the law, so we ought to do the same (1 John 2:4-6).

 

[Hillsage]

"What is minimal?" is where everything starts. I was a Christian after my first prayer to God in the name of Jesus Christ at five years old because of what I experienced.

Hey that works for me BROTHER!

No other reason because I didn't know about anything else. But after that first prayer I was a believer and was a believer for the rest of my life.

But hasn't some 'theologian' told you that 'the prayer for salvation' isn't even biblical???? And I have to agree biblically speaking, so how did it 'work' for you? How did you get a spiritual 'reality' with a dead religious 'ritual'? Wait, I know, I know..."IN THE BEGINNING GOD"! And you/me/all have been 'working on our salvation with fear and trembling' ever since.

So I guess for me that first prayer was the minimal . As I got older I was introduced to Christianity

I'm afraid we're in 'some' disagreement now. You were introduced to 'churchianity', a 'religious spirit' as well as 'the truth' in Christianity. For each of us has been dealt a 'mixture' in our own personal experiences....IMO. 'The truth' of Christianity is good, that other stuff just isn't.

So what do I think is the minimal? I don't know . The minimal is whatever the Christians that you are around think is the minimal .

Sad but true...and "the heart" of all the -isms "is deceived and desperately wicked" in many ways. And yet God still uses 'imperfect us' and the 'imperfect church', ever working on the hearts of both.

 

[Hillsage]

One of the most controversial things that I don't think should be controversial is that as followers of God we should follow God's law, and as followers of Christ we should follow his example, obey his commands, and walk as he walked. He set an example to follow of how to obey God's law, he was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, and he walked in perfect obedience to the law, so we ought to do the same (1 John 2:4-6).

And, therein the controversy begins. Are we really supposed to be "followers of Christ" who was fulfilling the law and its "commands" right up to the day he died on the cross. He lived in the transitional period between the OT and the NT which began after His resurrection. He did things He had to do, but does that mean we are too? I don't think so, and I believe that Jesus knew His disciples couldn't easily transition from the -ism they'd known all their life either. And he basically told them that 'truth' near the end.

JOH 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

JOH 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes (AFTER PENTECOST), he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit knew that "stiff necked" Jews would have difficulty making the leap from "many things" in the OT covenant of LAW compared to the NT covenant of LIBERTY. That's why Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem were given the "gospel OF the circumcision" and Paul, through the spirit of revelation being taught for three years by the Holy Spirit for 3+ years in Arabia before he came back with the "gospel of the uncircumcision". They were two different gospels. This is one reason why Paul and Peter had their issue in Gal 2:11, mentioned in post #10. Translators today do not understand this truth and have twisted the gospel of truth to one of doctrinal orthodoxy. But, King James has it right unlike most modern translations.

KJV 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;

Most 'modern' translations don't understand this truth and therefore change the word "OF" to "TO". I say all this to say, if Jesus was walking among us today I personally don't think he'd be doing a lot of 'Messianic Christian' things that he did in order to "fulfill the law". But I still accept Messianics as brethren because of our 'minimalist' agreements. And what your "rabbi" did, really did unify you all in doctrine, even though it divided the spiritual body of Christ IMO. Which is what this thread is all about.

Anyway, that's just my thinking and rambling....brothers and sisters.

 

[Soyeong]

And, therein the controversy begins. Are we really supposed to be "followers of Christ" who was fulfilling the law and its "commands" right up to the day he died on the cross. He lived in the transitional period between the OT and the NT which began after His resurrection. He did things He had to do, but does that mean we are too? I don't think so, and I believe that Jesus knew His disciples couldn't easily transition from the -ism they'd known all their life either. And he basically told them that 'truth' near the end.

JOH 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is based on His character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not transition between any of God's covenants just as God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness did not change. We should still act in line with God's character even if God has made no covenants with us and given no law to Moses.

According to Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire law, so everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the law, which means fulfilling the law was unique to Jesus did. In fact, it was something other rabbis did every Sabbath in the synagogues when they took the Torah scroll to Moses' seat and explained how to understand. Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, so love fulfills the law because that is what the law is essentially about. Saying that Jesus fulfilled the law so that we do have to obey it is like saying that Jesus loved others so that we don't have to. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus contrasted fulfilling the law with abolishing it, said not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (both of which have not happened yet), warned that those who relaxed the least part of the law or taught others to do so would be called least in the kingdom, and then went on to fulfill the law six times by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it.

We are to follow Messiah's example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), to walk in the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), to be his disciple (Matthew 23:8), to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1), to be like him (Philippians 2:5), to bear much good fruit (John 15:8-10), and to refrain from sin (Romans 6:15), so absolutely we are to obey God's law as he did. I don't see any support for your hidden agenda hypothesis where we are not actually to follow Christ's example.

JOH 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes

(AFTER PENTECOST), he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Psalms 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

The Spirit had the role to lead us into all truth, the Spirit has the role to lead us in obedience to God's law, and God's law is truth. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit knew that "stiff necked" Jews would have difficulty making the leap from "many things" in the OT covenant of LAW compared to the NT covenant of LIBERTY.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul.

Psalms 119:145 And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.

James 1:25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

God's law is perfect and is a law of liberty. We we slaves to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so the liberty that we have in Christ is the liberty to obey God's law, not the liberty to sin in transgression of God's law. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of the law, so our salvation is from transgressing the law for the purpose of coming into obedience to it. We have been saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10), and OT Scriptures, which primarily includes God's law, are God-breathed and profitable for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This is one reason why Paul and Peter had their issue in Gal 2:11, mentioned in post #10.

The issue in Galatians 2 was that there was a group that was telling Gentiles that they needed to become circumcised and obey their customs in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). One of their customs was that Jews were not to associate with or visit Gentile (Acts 10:28). Peter had been telling the Gentiles that they were saved by grace through faith, so when he felt pressured to obey their customs his actions were essentially telling their Gentiles that they weren't saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are saved by grace through faith. This had nothing to do with separate Gospels. Let's look at the other verses quoted in post #10:

2 Peter 3:16-17 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

In other words, Paul is difficult to understand, but those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of lawlessness. So if you think Paul was against following God's law, then you have fallen into error.

That's why Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem were given the "gospel OF the circumcision" and Paul, through the spirit of revelation being taught for three years by the Holy Spirit for 3+ years in Arabia before he came back with the "gospel of the uncircumcision". Translators today do not understand this truth and have twisted the gospel of truth to one of doctrinal orthodoxy. But, King James has it right unlike most modern translations.

KJV 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;

Most 'modern' translations don't understand this truth and therefore change the word "OF" to "TO". I say all this to say, if Jesus was walking among us today I personally don't think he'd be doing a lot of 'Messianic Christian' things that he did in order to "fulfill the law". But I still accept Messianics as brethren because of our 'minimalist' agreements. And what your "rabbi" did, really did unify you all in doctrine, even though it divided the spiritual body of Christ IMO. Which is what this thread is all about.

Anyway, that's just my thinking and rambling....brothers and sisters.

The Gentiles weren't members of the Old Covenant, so if there is any difference between the gospel of the uncircumcision and of the circumcision, it would be that Israel has a New Covenant while Gentiles can be grafted into Israel through faith in Messiah. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if God said to do something and man says that you don't have to do that, then you should obey God rather than man, but I don't think it comes down to that because they continued to teach obedience to God's law and against sinning in transgression of God's law.

 

[Hillsage]

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so He has always had such a conduct, and His law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) because it is based on His character and it is His instructions for how to have such a conduct. So the way to have such a conduct existed from the beginning, exists independently of any covenant, and did not transition between any of God's covenants just as God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness did not change. We should still act in line with God's character even if God has made no covenants with us and given no law to Moses.

According to Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire law, so everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the law, which means fulfilling the law was unique to Jesus did. In fact, it was something other rabbis did every Sabbath in the synagogues when they took the Torah scroll to Moses' seat and explained how to understand. Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, so love fulfills the law because that is what the law is essentially about. Saying that Jesus fulfilled the law so that we do have to obey it is like saying that Jesus loved others so that we don't have to. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus contrasted fulfilling the law with abolishing it, said not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (both of which have not happened yet), warned that those who relaxed the least part of the law or taught others to do so would be called least in the kingdom, and then went on to fulfill the law six times by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it.

We are to follow Messiah's example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), to walk in the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), to be his disciple (Matthew 23:8), to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1), to be like him (Philippians 2:5), to bear much good fruit (John 15:8-10), and to refrain from sin (Romans 6:15), so absolutely we are to obey God's law as he did. I don't see any support for your hidden agenda hypothesis where we are not actually to follow Christ's example.



Psalms 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

The Spirit had the role to lead us into all truth, the Spirit has the role to lead us in obedience to God's law, and God's law is truth. This seems pretty straightforward to me.



Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul.

Psalms 119:145 And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.

James 1:25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

God's law is perfect and is a law of liberty. We we slaves to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so the liberty that we have in Christ is the liberty to obey God's law, not the liberty to sin in transgression of God's law. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of the law, so our salvation is from transgressing the law for the purpose of coming into obedience to it. We have been saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10), and OT Scriptures, which primarily includes God's law, are God-breathed and profitable for equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).



The issue in Galatians 2 was that there was a group that was telling Gentiles that they needed to become circumcised and obey their customs in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). One of their customs was that Jews were not to associate with or visit Gentile (Acts 10:28). Peter had been telling the Gentiles that they were saved by grace through faith, so when he felt pressured to obey their customs his actions were essentially telling their Gentiles that they weren't saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are saved by grace through faith. This had nothing to do with separate Gospels. Let's look at the other verses quoted in post #10:

2 Peter 3:16-17 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

In other words, Paul is difficult to understand, but those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of lawlessness. So if you think Paul was against following God's law, then you have fallen into error.



The Gentiles weren't members of the Old Covenant, so if there is any difference between the gospel of the uncircumcision and of the circumcision, it would be that Israel has a New Covenant while Gentiles can be grafted into Israel through faith in Messiah. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if God said to do something and man says that you don't have to do that, then you should obey God rather than man, but I don't think it comes down to that because they continued to teach obedience to God's law and against sinning in transgression of God's law.

I actually agreed with much of your post and all of the scriptures you quoted, but not all your exegesis of them. All of that which promotes your Messianic -isms POV is only the part I don't embrace. I do believe we are to be followers of Christ absolutely, just not in those things that he had to do to fulfill the law which he was under. Things which would still be hanging around 63 AD and still "becoming obsolete" because Jewish Christians had a legalistic mixture of law and liberty under the gospel of the circumcision.

HEB 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And some of those, are the things which I'm of the persuasion that Messianic Christian -ism still wants us to hold to today. So I'm just clarifying that this was the part of your last post that was connected to my comment concerning us to not be 'followers of Christ'. I know you disagree, and that's why this thread exists. Be a Messianic if you feel so led, I don't feel led to and I came to that place after spending time with them and reading their favorite book meant to 'convince' me...but it didn't.

 

[Soyeong]

I actually agreed with much of your post and all of the scriptures you quoted, but not all your exegesis of them. All of that which promotes your Messianic -isms POV is only the part I don't embrace. I do believe we are to be followers of Christ absolutely, just not in those things that he had to do to fulfill the law which he was under. Things which would still be hanging around 63 AD and still "becoming obsolete" because Jewish Christians had a legalistic mixture of law and liberty under the gospel of the circumcision.

Do you agree that we should walk in the way that Jesus walked and that he walked in obedience to the law? Or do you agree that we should follow his example and that he gave a perfect example of how to obey the law?

Do you agree that anyone who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law? And do you not see how you understanding of Jesus fulfilling the law conflicts with that as well as how fulfilling the law is used in other Jewish literature?

HEB 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I am in complete agreement that the Old Covenant is obsolete, but God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness have not become obsolete, nor has the way to act in accordance with that, as is revealed in His law. In other words, there is a distinction between the way to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, and a covenant agreement to have such a conduct. The Old Covenant can become obsolete, but that doesn't mean that were aren't still to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct as part of the New Covenant, and in fact that is precisely what we are told to do (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10). For example:

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

We are told to have a holy conduct, but how can we know how to do that unless God has given us instructions for how to do so? Indeed, God has given instruction for how to have a holy conduct in His law and then verse 16 quotes from the law where God gave those instructions, so the inference seems pretty clear to me. It should also be pretty straightforward that keeping God's holy days is part of how to have a holy conduct.

 

[tucker58]

Hey that works for me BROTHER!


But hasn't some 'theologian' told you that 'the prayer for salvation' isn't even biblical???? And I have to agree biblically speaking, so how did it 'work' for you? How did you get a spiritual 'reality' with a dead religious 'ritual'? Wait, I know, I know..."IN THE BEGINNING GOD"! And you/me/all have been 'working on our salvation with fear and trembling' ever since.


I'm afraid we're in 'some' disagreement now. You were introduced to 'churchianity', a 'religious spirit' as well as 'the truth' in Christianity. For each of us has been dealt a 'mixture' in our own personal experiences....IMO. 'The truth' of Christianity is good, that other stuff just isn't.

Sad but true...and "the heart" of all the -isms "is deceived and desperately wicked" in many ways. And yet God still uses 'imperfect us' and the 'imperfect church', ever working on the hearts of both.

Hillsage, mine was not a prayer for salvation, I didn't even know that there was such a thing. I didn't even know that there was God and Jesus . All I knew was that my mother shut my bedroom door and that without the hall light I was in the dark and I threw a fit about it. She came back told me to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ and God will take away my fear of the dark. She then laughed and closed the door and left. I to this day think that she was being mean because I know that she didn't really believe what she said because she was angry at God for allowing her mother to die when she was a young girl and she stayed angry her whole life. But I did not know that at the time so I did as she said to do. What I experienced with that first prayer made me a believer in God and Jesus Christ for the rest of my life and to this day I am not afraid of the dark .

I do not know Hillsage, the whole thing is hard to explain, to rational people anyway . When I got a little older I found out that there were other people that were Christians and that they went to church. I asked my mother if I could go to church, she said sure, and when I came home from church she would debrief me. We moved around a bit when I was younger and so I ended up going to different churches as we moved and that was when I discovered that Christians do not consider other Christians saved unless those Christians believe exactly as they do. So everytime we moved and I went to a different church I had to learn a new set of beliefs and agree to them so that I could belong to that Church (I have been baptized three different times). And because my mother was judgemental I thought that others being judgemental was normal. And everytime I got excited about dedicating my life to Christ and spreading the gospel of the church that I was going to at the time my mother would debrief me. By the time I hit my early teens I had just given up and quit going to church. But not on a relationship with Christ Jesus. In my early twenties I started spending a lot of time in meditative prayer which I continued to do for forty years ("go to your closet and pray," and, "the Holy Spirit will teach you," I guess, were the scriptures that started that).

And now I am old, way less judgemental, and here, back to hanging out with my Christian brothers and sisters after being on non Christian message boards day in and day out for over twenty years. And my wife and I have a church picked out to go to once we get settled into our new place. Salvation? I don't know but I do love Lord Jesus and that love is based on experience and He is number one in my world.

 

[Hillsage]

Do you agree that we should walk in the way that Jesus walked and that he walked in obedience to the law? Or do you agree that we should follow his example and that he gave a perfect example of how to obey the law?

I think I've answered most of the questions you just asked, which indicates to me that your 'agenda' or -ism is still in control of where you want to go regarding our quest as to 'Why is there controversy in the church'.

As to your question I do agree we should walk as Jesus walked in as much as it aligns with the New Covenant and 'law of liberty'. And I also think Jesus gave a perfect example of how to BREAK the TORAH law which you want to endorse too rigidly for me.

LEVITICUS 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

JOH 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
JOH 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

It should also be pretty straightforward that keeping God's holy days is part of how to have a holy conduct.

IMO you Messianics want to maintain the OT shadow concerning 'holy days' and call it NT "holy conduct". My upbringing as a Catholic wanted me to ascribe the same 'religious -ism standard' to 'the Mass' on Sunday. But I just feel called to walk in the spiritual reality of those shadows. Your interest in holding, what to me is a 'legalistic Christian Jew' standard, is simply confirmed with all your signature lines. That's the part which separates Messianic Christians from Christians like myself. There shouldn't be anything else to discuss on this thread in that regard IMO. If we are brothers in Christ then let's fellowship on our commonality of that basis. Don't try to hold you -ism against my -ism and say you're right and I'm wrong. If I'm wrong it isn't because I haven't studied and determined that your 'branch' of Christianity just isn't the one I'm sitting on.