Not much time for editing this one. Forgive any typos!
I never said God swapped Dan for no reason. If Dan had been the only tribe to worship idols and other gods, I could agree with your point. As you pointed out, all of Israel worshiped idols. I honestly don’t know why He chose to swap Dan.
Yes you did! You absolutely did say that and you just now said it again!
Your entire premise isn't that you don't know why God did it, it's that he just did it!
That HAS TO BE your point or else your argument makes no sense whatsoever because we know that the Twelve Apostles didn't commit idolatry or rebel against God in any other significant way and would have given God no reason whatsoever to boot them out and replace them with Paul. Your point is, at the very least, that the tribe of Dan was replaced for no reason that we can know of, which completely ignores the clear statement of scripture that the replaced tribes were specifically called out as having committed idolatry. A fact that you didn't even know before I told you and which you are now intentionally ignoring in order to preserve this asinine heresy that not one syllable of the bible supports in any way whatsoever.
God has in the past replaced an original with one who came later to keep the number at 12. It has been my OPINION that God might swap one of the apostles for Paul if He decided to. I’m not married to the idea.
No one cares what your opinions are unless you can support them with a biblical argument. The only reason that this is even your opinion in the first place is because the existence of a thirteenth apostle cannot be made to fit the rest of your doctrine.
The worst part of this ridiculous stance is that you don't believe that Paul ever actually replaced one of the Twelve! You think that there's thirteen! A number completely inconsistent with the PLAINLY clear New Testament prophecies concerning both the governing of the New Jerusalem as well as the foundations of the city itself, not to mention the number used in relation to Israel throughout scripture.
So what was God doing? Collecting Apostles just in case one of them went bad? Is that what you believe? Or is it that you actually believe that God could just arbitrarily drop one for no reason at all and that we don't have any idea which twelve apostles of the thirteen get to rule over Israel and have their names placed on the foundations of New Jerusalem? Maybe you think God is going to have them all draw straws and whichever gets the short straw gets "replaced".
That’s the way I understand it but when you use scripture and leave out a phrase in the middle, I can only surmise you do so because that phrase doesn't fit your doctrine. In between household of God and corner stone you left out built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The way I understand it, that phrase fits in just fine.
I left out nothing. I wasn't even intentionally quoting anything! I was using biblical language but had no specific verse or passage in mind.
Not only that but the comment was made in the context of the part you claim I was intentionally ignoring anyway!
Let me take a second to explain something to you because you just cannot know how close you are to being on my ignore list right now....
I have no hesitation at all in making the claim that I am, without a doubt, the most intellectually honest person you have ever encountered when it comes to discussing theology. That's not to say I'm any sort of saint or anywhere near perfect but simply that if you can demonstrate that I am wrong, I WILL change my doctrine and I will do it instantly and without looking back. I DO NOT ignore passages of scripture due to my doctrine or for any other reason for that matter. On the contrary, my doctrine is what it is precisely because I do not ignore passages that contradict what other's had taught me to believe as a child. My entire life - MY ENTIRE LIFE - has been spent in the pursuit of the truth and more specifically, doctrinal truth. I've studied, understood, wholy believed and then later rejected more doctrines than anyone I've ever met or even heard of. I'm quite familiar with what it's like to be shown that a doctrine is false and I'm not at all afraid of what the bible says nor what impact it will have on any particular doctrine. For you to suggest that I've ignored something because of my doctrine is more insulting than you can know. And what makes it worse is that you make such an accusation moments after defending a doctrine that has absolutely no biblical support whatsoever and which directly contradicts the clearest passages of scripture that anyone is capable of finding anywhere in the entire bible!
.Now, maybe you don't care about whether you're on my ignore list or not. Maybe you think I'm just a pompous jerk who thinks too highly of himself. That doesn't matter to me. My ignore list doesn't exist for the benefit of those on it. It exists for my benefit and mine alone. I do not suffer hypocrites well, T6 and so if you want to end any hopes of discussing anything with me ever again, never mind anything with this much substance and depth of importance, just make such a comment again. Just make even the slightest implication of anything similar to this again. That's all it will take and you won't ever have to worry about having to wiggle you way out of my arguments ever again.
Not physical members but spiritually. I see things spiritually. When Paul says were are circumcised and are Abrahams offspring, that's spiritual not physical. That is what made someone a member of God's house in the OT physically. We meet those requirements spiritually. We are now the circumcision.
3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
Paul says the Gentiles were separated from Christ. In the OT, Christ was with the Jews and they drank from the rock which was Christ. That’s why he says the Gentiles were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. The Jews were God’s household, not the Gentiles.
Heb. 3:2 who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house.
Your proof texting prowess knows no bounds! You, perhaps more than anyone I've ever seen, take single sentences out of Paul's writings and cause them to turn Paul's entire ministry totally on its head!
If what you are saying is true then where the need for Paul in the first place?
That's a question you'll never be able to answer, T6. Imagine that! You have a doctrine that is contradicted by the very existence of the Apostle Paul. The mere fact that he became an apostle in the first place is the hurtle your doctrine has to clear. That's pretty amazing.
Yes, in this dispensation they are saved the same. At the cross Jesus broke down the dividing wall and made Jew and Gentile into one new man. One body. At the cross. After the cross Jesus told the 12 to preach the gospel to all nations. Not just the Jews but to every creature. This gospel was for all but to the Jew first.
The problem for you is that the group of guys He told to go to every nation didn't do it! Not only did they agree with Paul to stay in Jersualem and minister to "the circumcision" while Paul went to the whole rest of the world, including practicing Jews, but every one of the books of the bible written by them are all addressed to Jews!
Not only that but, once again, if the Twelve went to the whole world then where in the world is there any need for Paul at all?
On Paul’s travels when he went to the synagogues and preached to the Jews, what gospel did he preach to them, “his” gospel or the same as the 12? If it was “his” gospel, why did these Jews get to hear the grace gospel and those the 12 were preaching to did not?
The Twelve were not evangelical but ministerial.
After Israel was cut off, salvation through the Kingdome Gospel was no longer available to anyone other than those who had already been saved under it.
Which is not to say that there wasn't likely a transitional period where the Twelve were still preaching and winning converts after Israel had been cut off but before they had been made to understand that this had happened. But such a period would have been quite short, no more than perhaps several years and certainly not past the Jerusalem council where the bible specifically states that the Twelve had been made to see the grace which had been given to Paul. After that council, any new converts would have had to come through Paul's gospel, regardless of who was doing the preaching.
You’ve done a great job and I’m sorry I haven’t returned in kind. I am doing my best. You’re definitely better at this than I.
I can tell that you are making an effort.
Like I said before, I'm not expecting a response from you that is similar in scope to mine. I'm a freak and no one should be expected to do this the way I do it. All I'm asking for is you to respond to the major points (or at least some of them) before trying to send the discussion off in a completely new direction.
I remember. If I remember my reply was that when I see people explain away problem text, I see them taking out words/phrases or adding words that aren't there or they will pull it out of context and say it stands alone.
Those are some of the ways problem texts are explained away but there are others. The Calvinists, for example, call anything God does that contradicts their doctrine an anthropomorphism or some other figure of speech which somehow causes the passage to mean the opposite of what it says. "Know I know" means "Of cours I knew all along"; "It never entered my mind" means "I predestined it before time began", etc.
That's the sort of thing you have to do when you believe that the living God is a static monolith of immutabity. But when you change your paradigm then all those problem texts disapear. I mean, the passages are still there but they aren't problem texts any more. They just mean what they say.
Similarly, when it comes to a whole list of doctrines that have divided the church for pretty much the entire history of the church, I simple do not have problem texts!
On the subject of whether one needs works to be saved or not, there are no passages that argue against my doctrine. NONE! Not in Paul's writings, nor in anyone else's, including James. Both Romans 4:5 AND James 2:24 argue MY doctine! They both mean PRECISELY what they seem to mean and they are both proof texts for my doctrine!
What possible argument could there be that would be even half as elegant that!
The thread I understand that holds it all together is Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Both Jew and Gentile, which was the whole world, were sinners and needed a savior.
This doesn't work. I mean, it's true, of course, that Jesus came into the world to save sinner, both Jew and Gentile, but it doesn't work to tie your doctrine together because God could have done that without cutting off Israel and without any need for Paul. In fact, that was precisely the plan and that's exactly what would have happened had Israel repented and eccepted Jesus as their risen Messiah. Indeed, everything was going exactly according to plan right through tbe Gospels and the first part of Acts. Jesus was fulfilling one Feast Day after another, right up through the Feast of Weeks in Acts 2 and He would have kept right on fulfilling them had Israel not officially rejected Jesus as their King when they rejected Stephen's words of "irresistable wisdon" and murdered him. It was at that point, and not before, that Jesus was seen, not sitting at the Father's right hand, but standing in judgment. When Stephen died, God cut Israel off and the next thing we see is Saul of the tribe of Benjamin being confronted on his way to Demascus. And just as a previous Saul the Benjamite was the first King of Isreal, this Saul the Benjamite was the first in the Body of Christ. A detail that Christian almost universally ignore, by the way.
Wow, I can’t imagine having your faith shaken like that. I don’t disagree with the power of a paradigm and the ability of those to back it up with proof-texting. The different views of scripture run the gamut and they believe they can back it by scripture. However, they all can’t be right and realistically very few are.
Exactly! Oh my goodness! You just don't realize how close you are to see the key here!
"They can't all be right!" That's the most important phrase you have ever uttered! (Well, one of the most, anyway).
Who is more likely to be right, you or a Lutheran or a Catholic or a Seventh Day Adventist or a Baptist or a Messianic Jew or a Branch Davidian or... (fill in the blank)?
Would you say that you are more likely to have gotten it right than they or less? Or do you think that any of them are equally as likely to be right as you are?
WHY?
Now, think about that question "WHY?" and how you might propose to answer it vs. how any of those others would answer it vs. how I would answer it.
You would have no choice but to answer it on the basis of proof texts which is the very same basis upon which any of those that I listed would also answer it, right? I mean, you would only be able to do effectively the same thing they do, the only difference being which passages are proof texts and which are problem texts. No matter how many of what you think are proof texts that you quote, it won't move any of them an inch and no matter what they quote you in response will move you either because everyone one of you have you own ways of turning problem texts upside down and backwards, causing them to mean something other than what they seem to say.
Mine is the only doctrinal system I've ever seen that permits the plain simple reading of pretty much any passge in the bible. Paul and James, for example, seem to be saying opposite things because they are saying opposite things. Paul teaches his followers not to follow the law, James says that his followers are all "zealous for the law". Paul teaches that you can't lose your salvation and Peter teaches that you can. Galatians 2 seems to be saying that there are two gospels because there are two gospels. Paul submitted to the law while in Jerusalem but got into Peter's face when Pater tried to follow the law around his gentile converts. It's all contradictory and opposite unless you understand that Israel had been cut off and that while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and preached that he would does not work but believes is saved, the Twelve Apostles to Israel were ministering to a seperate and distinct group of believers who had been saved under a different "oikonomia", a different set of rules where a man was justified by works, and not by faith only. Thus all the New Testament writers mean what they seem to say without any need to expain away any so called "problem texts", in fact, the problem texts become proof texts because if I were wrong, you'd not expect to find them saying different things in the first place. Ineed, you'd not expext Paul's ministry to exist at all, for that matter.
You make some good points. Reason along with scripture, I agree with that. The pieces must reasonably fit together. In the example of the Brand Dividians, there is plenty of scripture to refute David as being the Messiah. What that looks like to me is what Paul told Timothy, how people will find teachers that say what they want to hear. It’s on the hearers to be like the Bereans.
Even after all your points I still don’t see a problem with using scripture to refute error. Jesus Himself used scripture to bring to light the error of men. Also, Paul tells us that scripture is profitable for correction. I don’t believe God has given us a book that we cannot understand. It can at times be hard to understand but we can understand it if we try.
You still are not seeing the point.
I have made no argument against using scripture for correction and to refute error. If you think I have, then you are miles away from the point I'm making.
You rightly state that there is plenty of biblical material to refute tbe Branch Davidisns. Do you think that if you showed it to them that it would convince them?
It wouldn't!
Sure, there might be an exception here or there but even if you lucked out and found someone who would permit a bible passage to convince them, the exception proves the rule here. 99.999% of the time all the proof-texting in the world would only serve to cement them further into their own doctrine. That's especially true of Davidians because they've altered the meaning of words like "messiah" and anything you think might disprove their doctrine is going to ring in their ears as proof that you're the one who's got it all wrong. If you want to convince a Davidian that the bible teaches something contrary to their doctrine, you will be forced to first dismantle the validity of their paradigm. Otherewise, you will simply be chasing at windmills.
And this doesn't just apply to Davidians. They're just a group that is obviously wrong and so they make a good example. But you can substitute the Davidians with any believer of anything you want. Mormons, Christians Scientists, Scientologist, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Atheists, Budhists, Toaists, Pagans (wiches), or whatever else you can think of can be put in there and you'll get similar results, especially if the specific person you're talking to is any sort of "expert". If they're a teacher of their particular flavor of doctrine, you can quote the bible til you're blue in the face and it will very likely be only so many spit balls against a battle ship.
This is not slight against scripture but against human nature. People are stubborn and thick headed and most are content to simply believe what they believe without any need for it make rational sense and without feeling any desire to spend a lot of time and effort to make it all fit together in any coherent way amd so are mostly unmoved by the display of some contradictory aspect of their doctrine. But even those few are interested in having a consistent worldview usually are convinced that their worldview is consistent and will intuitively accept anything you might present as a contradiction as a trick and not the proof that their wrong that you present it to be (even if it actually is exactly that).
The question why would he baptize is a valid question. If Paul's commission was different it's not reasonable for Paul to baptize believers just as Jesus instructed the 12. Paul actions are exactly like the commission Jesus gave to the 12.
It wasn’t in this thread you “explained” it. If I remember correctly, you said, not explained, that baptism was like the spiritual gifts and would fade away. I totally disagree with that. The spiritual gifts had a purpose that is no longer necessary. The bible tells us the purpose of baptism, that purpose is still necessary today. In your understanding, what is the purpose of water baptism?
I've already been over this in detail with you. It would have been weird for Paul not to baptise (initially), not the other way around and it was a practice that ended up creating a good deal of confusion later on to the point that Paul had to state emphatically that he had not been sent to baptise.
Now, how could that ever happen? If what you are suggesting is true that baptism was and remains to this day a vital part of the gospel and Paul was a minister and even an apostle commission to spread that gospel then in what universe could it ever make sense for him to have said that he was not sent to baptise? In your ears that has to ring as "I was not sent to get anyone seved."!
If Paul did not preach the same sermon in Acts 13 that Peter did in Acts 2, how is it different?
I WILL NOT GET INTO A PROOF TEXTING CONTEST WITH YOU!!!!
It doesn't matter how many times you attempt to bait me into it, I will not do it, T6! And if you ever happen to succeed in tripping me up and managing to get me to slip into doing do (which isn't hard to do sometimes), I'll immediately stop as soon as I detect it.
You act as if the books of Romans through Philemon do not exist and that Acts 13 is the only thing we have of Paul's teaching. A teaching, by the way, that was being specifically aimed at and taylored for an audience of Jews who reject his message!
It’s my OPNINON that God chose the Jewish champion who was trying to destroy the rebellious sect to be the one to work with the Gentiles. Oh how that must have hurt the Jewish leaders. Also, it’s my OPINION that because he persecuted Christ he was to suffer for Christ.
An opinion without scriptural support of any kind and which is in direct conflict with John's prophesy and the whole rest of the Old Testament which repeatedly using the number twelve in association with the nation of Israel, not thirteen.
Where did the 12 get the gospel that they preached?
From Jesus during His Earthly ministry.
in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. Not the 12 possibly running in vain but Paul.
I'm resisting the impulse to believe that this was an intentional dodge on your part. I'm going to intentionally assume that you simply didn't understand the point of the question.
The point is that if Paul had been teaching the same thing as the Twelve, then there would not have been any need for the council. No one would have been confused about anything and expolanations would have been needed on either side.
Not only that but if they were all preaching that same thing then there would have been no agreement for them to have two separate ministries. The one would simply have been an extension of the other. There would have been no motive for the Twelve to stay in Jerusalem ministering to the Circumcision which is precisely what they agreed to do in direct contradiction to the Great Commission (and rightly so).
Peter was weak. Peter was being true to the gospel but fell back into his old habits. Doesn’t mean they were preaching different gospels.
See what I mean?
Proof texts bounce of doctrine like BB's off battle ships.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. That was something very hard for the Jews who had been God’s ONLY people for a couple thousand years to understand.
So Peter was preaching a gospel he didn't fully understand?
Is that really what you meant to imply here? Is that really what you believe?
It must be! You believe that Paul and Peter were preaching the same thing and that Peter had a hard time understanding what Paul preached. What other conclusion is there to draw?
Is it wrong to get circumcised? No, what they were doing was going back and trusting in the old law.
It is wrong to get circumcised as a religious rite. If it's some meaningless thing that American boys get done to them because everyone else has had it done then that's not even actually circumcision at all in the sense the bible discusses it. But if you get circumcised in the religious ritual sense of the word, Christ will profit you nothing, Paul says.
Sounds wrong to me!
Further, that doesn't answer the question anyway. Where besides Paul does anyone in the bible every say anything remotely similar to "If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."? (Gal. 5:2)
The answer is, "Nowhere does anyone other than Paul say anything remotely similar about circumcision."
That's the answer, T6. It's the only answer.
Paul’s writings are complementary to the other writers.
Altogether unresponsive to the question asked and a bald unsubstantiated claim at that.
The simple fact is that there is nothing to even suggest that Peter (or James or John or any other Apostle beside Paul) ever said anything similar to "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything"? (Gal. 5:6 & Gal. 6:15)
Did Paul’s followers NOT want to go back to the law in Galatians?
There is exactly ZERO indication that any of them were "zealous for the law" as James claims about his followers. Nor is there any indication that James' followers should not have been zealous for the law.
James was proud of the fact that his followers were zealous for the law and Paul reprimands his followers for even putting their big toe into an attempt to follow the law. So how could they possibly be preaching the same thing?
I take the middle ground. I see Paul as neither invalid nor as an apostle on his own.
You do so because your doctrine cannot rationally withstand Paul's very existence. The fact that you're having to sit on such a fence should be setting off some sort of alarm bells.
In your understanding, were the books of Peter, James, John and Hebrews written to Christians?
Of course!
Converts under the previous dispensation were Christians in the sense that any follower of Christ is, by definition, a Christian but they were not members of what Paul calls the Body of Christ. They were members of the Kingdom of Israel and were saved under the dispensation of circumcision. In fact, they were actually saved under two active covenants, one of grace and the other of law. The covenant of grace came first and the law was added later but neither was optional to those under them and both were active and in force when the Twelve and their converts believed and so they remained under those covenants until their physical death. (Romans 11:29)
Clete
