ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Interplanner]

Says the one who is unwilling to discuss simple matters.



:duh:

Of course.

But that's not my point.

My point is that God is only (indirectly) mentioned ONCE in that verse.

this ties into what I'm saying, so don't forget it.



As someone who doesn't even know who those people are (though admittedly I've heard of their names before in passing), I find in interesting that you have to always take swings at people who are simply trying to understand the Bible better when you're in a discussion about the Bible.

Yes, God is only mentioned once just as there is only one Gospel in the previous identical structure.

Between that (the grammatical structure) and the anathema 10 verses away, you couldn't have picked a more stupid location for proof of what you are saying! Congrats!

 

[Interplanner]

The writers mentioned weren't simply trying to understand the Bible better. They really don't like the idea of Christ crucified being the centerpiece of the Bible, not when there is the delicious race of Israel kingdom to be implemented! I'm not sure of the extent of Jewish interests in the British East India Co., but they wanted to find a way to rehabitate the land with Jews. I don't have a problem with that, only with re-writing what the NT is actually saying in 10s of places.

 

[Clete]

Clete, I have reported 100x on the grammar of Gal 2. There is no more 2 gospels there than there is 2 gods in the next verse, and the two verses basically diagram identically.

Say what you want. I simply quoted the verses that specifically state that one gospel was committed to Paul while another was to Peter. You know there are two because they are called different things and where given to two different people and Paul had to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the Twelve, which we was told to do by God Himself. There is no other possible understanding of that passage. You can say anything you want to try and make it say the opposite of what everyone who reads it would think it means but it won't work on me. I can read for myself just fine.

So, once again, you have your doctrine, I have the plain reading of the text of scripture.

That's a pretty easy choice for me to make.

this is over with. there is no Greek grammar commentary you can find in agreement with what you are saying.

I don't get my doctrine from Greek commentaries, I get it from the Bible. Or is it that you are suggesting that the translators of pretty much any English bible you want to pick, didn't understand Greek well enough to keep this passage from sounding like it says the opposite of what it means?

Which other passages did they get backward? Let me guess! Just the ones that seem to say something contrary to your doctrine, right?

And why, anyway, would you try this, a mere 10 verses from Paul calling on the highest curse there is on anyone with another Gospel?

I'm not "trying" anything. I simply quoted the passage. You can quote the whole book if you like. It doesn't alter the plain reading of what I quoted.

And his curse was against anyone preaching a gospel other than what he (Paul) preached.

I can't 'be a great Jew' in D'ist thinking without the DNA.

This was a stupid thing to say.

Not only was it not necessary to be ethnically Jewish to be a religious Jew but even if that were so, my comment still stands.

Perhaps you meant 'believer' which stands or falls by faith, Rom 11. Which I am, no thanks to you.

I meant precisely what I said and you'd know nothing of Romans if not for Acts. If not for Acts, you'd reject Paul as a clear and obvious heretic because he does NOT teach the same things as Peter, James and John (or Jesus for that matter).

James was talking about justification, and faith cannot be lifeless. It never is. I would not have made a great Jew of one of those kind James is speaking to, because I believe it must be alive.

You are stuck in some really flawed doctrines and you need to dump them.

James is talking about what it takes to be saved and yes, you'd have made a good Jew because they too believed that faith must be accompanied by works to be effective, which is why James taught what he taught. James was a Jewish believer in Christ who wrote his book to the Jews scattered abroad.

In short, James taught that salvation results from faith mingled with works while Paul teaches that salvation comes to him who does not work and that works come as a result of salvation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

So you actually see a change because in the OT the LORD was indeed dealing with Israel as a nation!

That is the view of Judaism to which the apostles had to speak. But as the NT goes on, we find that there is no treatment of the nation as such by the apostles. They always meant the believers within the nation, such as in Heb 11. Gal 3:17 says that someone (guess who) replaced the Promise to all nations with the Law. And voided the Promise. The NT consists of correcting that replacement with what the passages were supposed to mean. The Seed was Christ not the many people, Even though it does not always look that way when reading in the OT and trying to figure out its future and hopes.

 

[Interplanner]

Say what you want. I simply quoted the verses that specifically state that one gospel was committed to Paul while another was to Peter. You know there are two because they are called different things and where given to two different people and Paul had to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the Twelve, which we was told to do by God Himself. There is no other possible understanding of that passage. You can say anything you want to try and make it say the opposite of what everyone who reads it would think it means but it won't work on me. I can read for myself just fine.

So, once again, you have your doctrine, I have the plain reading of the text of scripture.

That's a pretty easy choice for me to make.


I don't get my doctrine from Greek commentaries, I get it from the Bible. Or is it that you are suggesting that the transalator of pretty much any English bible you want to pick didn't understand Greek well enough to get this passage right?

Which other passages did they get wrong? Let me guess! Just the ones that seem to say something contrary to your doctrine, right?


I'm not "trying anything" I simply quoted the passage. You can quote the whole book if you like. It doesn't alter the plain reading of what I quoted.

And his curse was against anyone preaching a gospel other than what he (Paul) preached.


This was a stupid thing to say.

Not only was it not necessary to be ethnically Jewish to be a religious Jew but even if it were so, my comment still stands.


I meant precisely what I said and you'd know nothing of Romans if not for Acts. If not for Acts, you'd reject Paul as a clear and obvious heretic because he does NOT teach the same things as Peter, James and John (or Jesus for that matter).


James is talking about what it takes to be saved and yes, you'd have made a good Jew because they too believed that faith must be alive, which is why James taught what he taught. James was a Jewish believer in Christ who wrote his book to the Jews scattered abroad.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Obviously they did not believe that faith needed to be alive, because James wrote the warning to them! Like you said earlier, why write such a warning if it was not the situation? Ever heard of the deadness of Pharisee orthodoxy?

so again, you mean BELIEVER but you are writing JEW.

If you don't read Greek, and can't diagram it, and you want to have credibility on these things, you need to refer to Greek commentaries (as opposed to those by people who don't know Greek). I'm not saying it is the total solution in this passage, but it is in many others.

 

[Interplanner]

IP, do you know that it's easier to walk before running?

I want to see if you understand basic grammar before moving on to Greek, and KOINE greek at that.

The fact that you don't care about english grammar tells me that you'd rather just push your beliefs on what scripture says rather than understanding what it actually says.

So again, IP, as we learn walk before we learn to run, why is it that the first sentence (which can be found above), that says "the father and the husband," is talking about two people, whereas the second sentence, that says "the father and husband," is only talking about one person?

Your point is irrelevant to the grammar of 2:7,8. You are wrong and refuse to admit that the verb is single for both target groups, just as God is single for both men. You are flat wrong.

The pity is you stayed up all night trying to come up with a trap for IP.

 

[Interplanner]

Say what you want. I simply quoted the verses that specifically state that one gospel was committed to Paul while another was to Peter. You know there are two because they are called different things and where given to two different people and Paul had to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the Twelve, which we was told to do by God Himself. There is no other possible understanding of that passage. You can say anything you want to try and make it say the opposite of what everyone who reads it would think it means but it won't work on me. I can read for myself just fine.

So, once again, you have your doctrine, I have the plain reading of the text of scripture.

That's a pretty easy choice for me to make.


I don't get my doctrine from Greek commentaries, I get it from the Bible. Or is it that you are suggesting that the translators of pretty much any English bible you want to pick, didn't understand Greek well enough to keep this passage from sounding like it says the opposite of what it means?

Which other passages did they get backward? Let me guess! Just the ones that seem to say something contrary to your doctrine, right?


I'm not "trying" anything. I simply quoted the passage. You can quote the whole book if you like. It doesn't alter the plain reading of what I quoted.

And his curse was against anyone preaching a gospel other than what he (Paul) preached.


This was a stupid thing to say.

Not only was it not necessary to be ethnically Jewish to be a religious Jew but even if that were so, my comment still stands.


I meant precisely what I said and you'd know nothing of Romans if not for Acts. If not for Acts, you'd reject Paul as a clear and obvious heretic because he does NOT teach the same things as Peter, James and John (or Jesus for that matter).


James is talking about what it takes to be saved and yes, you'd have made a good Jew because they too believed that faith must be accompanied by works to be effective, which is why James taught what he taught. James was a Jewish believer in Christ who wrote his book to the Jews scattered abroad.

In short, James taught that salvation comes as a result of faith + works while Paul teaches that salvation comes to him who does not work and that works come as a result of salvation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But we don't know that "Jews" meant DNA Jews because the idea of the Israel in spirit was already in circulation. The same is true of the letter to Hebrews.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

James is talking about what it takes to be saved and yes, you'd have made a good Jew because they too believed that faith must be alive, which is why James taught what he taught. James was a Jewish believer in Christ who wrote his book to the Jews scattered abroad.

Here is EXACTLY what James said about how a person is saved and that salvation is totally apart from "works" of any kind:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

Peter says the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

 

[Interplanner]

And his curse was against anyone preaching a gospel other than what he (Paul) preached.[/]

Therefore, whatever Peter preached was cursed. Even though Paul just validated him in v7,8.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That is the view of Judaism to which the apostles had to speak.

It is a truth that the Scriptures reveal as well. In the OT the LORD was dealing with the nation of Israel but now He isn't!

So do you now admit that the LORD's plan toward Israel has changed from what it was in the OT to what is going on today?

And his curse was against anyone preaching a gospel other than what he (Paul) preached

That is not what Paul said!

 

[Clete]

Did you know the concept of rightly dividing is mistaken? It was written about what to tell various needy groups in a church about what kind of benevolent help to expect. Antiquated D'ism, being anti-intellectual, thinks it is a 'system' for knowing the Bible. Which was developed by a guy who thought the Bible did not make sense until he came. A 19th century guy.

Alrighty then!

You've just disqualified yourself from this conversation.

Come back when you have something less ignorant/irrational to say.

 

[Clete]

But we don't know that "Jews" meant DNA Jews because the idea of the Israel in spirit was already in circulation. The same is true of the letter to Hebrews.

Who cares about the DNA?!!!

What planet are you on?

Go away.

 

[Interplanner]

I meant precisely what I said and you'd know nothing of Romans if not for Acts. If not for Acts, you'd reject Paul as a clear and obvious heretic because he does NOT teach the same things as Peter, James and John (or Jesus for that matter).




One problem here about Paul vs Jesus is that Luke was transcribing what Paul taught in Luke. As you know Luke was not one of the 12, and wrote while traveling with Paul. therefore it's hard to say its a case of Paul vs Jesus. God raised up Paul to re-express what had just happened in history (God was in Christ reconciling the debt of sin) in new language and exprressions, but it was the same message. Or as Rom 3 says: all the prophets spoke of the coming of the righteousness of God.

 

[Clete]

Here is EXACTLY what James said about how a person is saved and that salvation is totally apart from "works" of any kind:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

Peter says the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

I love this. Every time I take a peak at something this dork has written it seems he always does this. He makes a claim and then quotes a passage that doesn't support the claim.

It's weird and sort of uncanny how it's always the posts that I happen to take a look at.

What James said about being saved is a clear as crystal...

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.​

Paul, on the other hand...

Romans 4: 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:​

Directly, undeniably, OBVIOUSLY opposite things. It cannot be any clearer - period. God HIMSELF is not capable of making the two statements any more obviously different.

The gospels that these two men preached are different. The question is only whether you accept Paul's gospel or not? It is the only one by which you can be saved.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Obviously they did not believe that faith needed to be alive, because James wrote the warning to them! Like you said earlier, why write such a warning if it was not the situation? Ever heard of the deadness of Pharisee orthodoxy?

Obviously there were enough that were making the error to justify him writing the letter but that wasn't my point.

In fact, I think you knew that it wasn't my point.

Why do you manufacture things to object too?

The point is that James was teaching normal Jewish doctrine. He wasn't teaching anything that was new.

so again, you mean BELIEVER but you are writing JEW.

NO I DO NOT MEAN BELEIVER!


Okay - that's it. I'm officially finished with you - period.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Directly, undeniably, OBVIOUSLY opposite things.

You try to make your case by just IGNORING what James said here:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

Can you not even understand that these words of James make it plain that a person receives the new birth by faith and faith alone? And of course you IGNORED Peter's words which say the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

You failed to address those verses and I can understand why. On the other hand I will address James' words in the second chapter, verses which you quoted in a failed attempt to try to prove what he said at James 1:18 cannot be believed.

Here is the clue to understanding exactly what James is referring to in that chapter:

"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (Jas.2:17).​

In his discourse in the second chapter James is speaking about what one person can know about another person's faith. The only way a person can know if another person has faith is to see good works. If no good works are seen then as far as others can see that kind of faith is a dead faith and will save no one.

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "Paul's Epistle (Romans) unfolds the mind and purposes of God, revealing His righteousness and wrath. The Epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground. The one deals with justification as between the sinner and God, the other as between man and man. In the one, therefore, the word is, 'To him that worketh not, but believeth'. In the other it is, 'What is the profit if a man say he hath faith, and have not works?' Not 'If a man have faith', but 'If a man say he hath faith' proving that, in the case supposed, the individual is not dealing with God, but arguing the matter with his brethren. God, who searches the heart, does not need to judge by works, which are but the outward manifestation of faith within; but man can judge only by appearances...He (Abraham) was justified by faith when judged by God, for God knows the heart. He was justified by works when judged by his fellow men, for man can only read the life " [emphasis added] (Sir Robert Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, [Kregel Publications, 1978], pp.160-161).

Clete, you do not even understand the most basic teaching of the Bible, that all people who are saved are saved by grace through faith apart from works:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Do you not know that "works" and "grace" are mutually exclusive?

Since I have addressed the verses which you cited from James please address his words at James 1:18 and what Peter said at 1 Peter 1:23-25.

 

[Tambora]

Keep up the good work [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] !


Galatians 1 KJV
(11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
(12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


Obviously, Paul was taught prophesy of scripture from an early age and had become very learned in prophesy.
He did not receive his revelation from Christ and THEN was taught prophesy, he already had learned it.
The revelation he received from Christ was a mystery that he had not been taught at any time previously.

 

[Interplanner]

Keep up the good work [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] !


Galatians 1 KJV
(11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
(12) For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.


Obviously, Paul was taught prophesy of scripture from an early age and had become very learned in prophesy.
He did not receive his revelation from Christ and THEN was taught prophesy, he already had learned it.
The revelation he received from Christ was a mystery that he had not been taught at any time previously.

He grew up in Judaism and God had to show him its view of the OT was veiled from seeing Christ. You might use his own description once in a while. 2 Cor 3.

 

[Interplanner]

Clete,
James is not saying anything different about faith and works than Paul says in Gal 5 that circ or uncirc means nothing but only faith at work through love. There is complete agreement between those two passages. Faith always results in good works.

 

[Interplanner]

Obviously there were enough that were making the error to justify him writing the letter but that wasn't my point.

In fact, I think you knew that it wasn't my point.

Why do you manufacture things to object too?

The point is that James was teaching normal Jewish doctrine. He wasn't teaching anything that was new.


NO I DO NOT MEAN BELEIVER!


Okay - that's it. I'm officially finished with you - period.

Welcome to my ignore list.

You can try to make the NT run a Jewish program, but it does not. Do you actually think believers today are irrational to try to apply what the letter of James says to their lives? If not, what is the point of your distinction?