Am I saved from the Christian point of view?

[Rhema]

Not during his earthly ministry He didn't.

Not once did Jesus utter the word "grace" during His life on earth.

My apologies for the late reply, but I'm sure you realize that a word search in English is rather useless.

The NT was written in Greek, was it not?

And even a cursory search shows that this word "grace" is G5485 χάρις (charis).

So did Jesus ever utter the word χάρις ??

(Luke 6:32 KJV) For if ye love them which love you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.​

(Luke 6:33 KJV) And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

(Luke 6:34 KJV) And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.​

(Luke 17:9 YLT) Hath he χάρις (GRACE) to that servant because he did the things directed? I think not.​

Jesus did seem intent to know what grace you have....

Rhema

Please show me where in the Bible that He did.

The above does just that. Thank you.

 

[Right Divider]

My apologies for the late reply, but I'm sure you realize that a word search in English is rather useless.

The NT was written in Greek, was it not?

And even a cursory search shows that this word "grace" is G5485 χάρις (charis).

So did Jesus ever utter the word χάρις ??

(Luke 6:32 KJV) For if ye love them which love you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.​

(Luke 6:33 KJV) And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

(Luke 6:34 KJV) And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.​

(Luke 17:9 YLT) Hath he χάρις (GRACE) to that servant because he did the things directed? I think not.​

Jesus did seem intent to know what grace you have....

Rhema

The above does just that. Thank you.

Even is you take this tact, none of those are Jesus preaching the gospel of the grace of God.

There is a reason why those instances are not translated as "grace".

Why is χάρις completely missing from Matthew and Mark?

Hint: Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom during His earthly ministry to Israel and NOT the gospel of the grace of God.

 

[Clete]

My apologies for the late reply, but I'm sure you realize that a word search in English is rather useless.

The NT was written in Greek, was it not?

And even a cursory search shows that this word "grace" is G5485 χάρις (charis).

So did Jesus ever utter the word χάρις ??

(Luke 6:32 KJV) For if ye love them which love you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.​

(Luke 6:33 KJV) And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

(Luke 6:34 KJV) And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.​

(Luke 17:9 YLT) Hath he χάρις (GRACE) to that servant because he did the things directed? I think not.​

Jesus did seem intent to know what grace you have....

Rhema


The above does just that. Thank you.

So, your point is that you know how to translate New Testament Greek better than those who translated every known English bible in existence?

Is that really the point you want to try to make?

Let me just tell you, no, you do not know New Testament Greek sufficiently to make any such argument. The better tactic for you would be to state that while the gospels do not record Jesus uttering the word "grace" during His Earthly ministry, this is, at most, an argument from silence. The gospels are not an exhaustive record of Jesus' teachings and the lack of such a record doesn't prove that He didn't use the word.

Another, stronger tactic would be for you to make some effort to demonstrate the Jesus taught the concept of grace as understood by the modern church, even if He didn't use the actual word. Words are, after all, just sounds we make to represent ideas, and if Jesus conveyed the idea with different words then Right Divider's point is little more than bible trivia.

Don't worry, Right Divider won't mind me handing you a stronger argument. He can handle it.

 

[Rhema]

"Twelve" is a number directly associated in Scripture with the nation of Israel, as shown here:

Sorry, I rarely read linked essays... am I to argue with the unreachable author? I trow not.

But I am aware of the numerology and the bent of superstition that many people have for it.

And on the other hand I am also aware of the metaphor that can be found within numbers.

In case you haven't picked up on it yet, we've been saying that the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel was preached all the way up until Paul's conversion (and a bit afterwards) in Acts 9.

I am somewhat aware of a group of people who claim that there are two separate gospel messages of salvation in the NT, but from what I've read, then, this would mean that one needs to reject the very words of Jesus before men.

It would also mean that Peter was clueless when saying this:

(Acts 15:11 NKJV) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."​

​

(Acts 15:11 RV) But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.​

The above verse puts no difference between Jew and Gentile in the manner by which they are saved. (But it is likely that you and I may differ on what this "manner" might be, given that you have made the very words of the Messiah irrelevant for salvation.)

He didn't do that, because it wasn't null and void (and has never been).

So again, I see you saying that there are two gospels (method/ manner) by which people can be saved, and yet Peter said the opposite, well into Paul's ministry.

And while Paul may have not directly used the word gospel in the passage I'm about to quote, he certainly did say that salvation is through faith, yes?

(Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

I see Paul saying that there is one faith (by which one is saved), yet you seem to say that there are two. Those are literally Paul's words, "one faith."

I put my faith in the gospel that Jesus taught. I'm trying to understand why some would not.

Kindly,
Rhema

A great general is preparing to invade the enemy controlled territory, so he tells his troops to dig a trench along the border of this area, and they start digging. A few weeks pass while supply stocks are built up, and eventually the day of the invasion arrives, so the general gives the command to stop digging the trench, and to charge into enemy territory!

You're like a soldier in that army who refuses the order to charge into enemy territory, because "the general gave the order to dig a trench, so I'm going to continue to dig the trench."

Wow... that's rather a stretch, and I find the metaphor convoluted. But you think Jesus told Paul to change the gospel and put the other one "on hold" ?? That's a lot of faith to put in Paul. And didn't Paul claim to have met Jesus in the desert?

 

[Rhema]

I've never made any attempt to get anyone banned. You're either stupid or a liar or both.

How wonderfully gracious of you.

 

[Clete]

How wonderfully gracious of you.

Like falsely accusing someone of trying to get you banned with no evidence whatsoever, is that the sort of graciousness you're looking for?

May God bless you, according to your actions.

 

[Rhema]

It's the one that explicitly states that such is the case - verbatim - which you could have found in ten seconds with a simple search of the phrase, "by revelation", which I had in quotes. It's the very passage that you yourself quote later on in this same post! How are people so blind to this passage that they can read it and not see what it plainly states!

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,...

As I had said, "I think I know...." but if I remove all the snark from your reply, thank you for kindly providing me your direct reference.

Unfortunately, it would seem that I don't read "κατα αποκαλυψιν" in the same manner as you. I realize that you understand this verse to mean that God somehow gave some kind of divine revelation instructing Paul to go to Jerusalem (no?), but κατα is joined to a noun written in the accusative case, and so indicates "direction towards an object or purpose" (Liddell Scott). In addition, ἀποκάλυψις means "uncovering" (ibid.).

Hence "κατα αποκαλυψιν" renders "for the purpose of clarity" (I went and communicated to them....).

Had you done such a search you might have also noticed the following passage...

Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.

Oh... I noticed that passage alright, but the mystery of Christ is "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs." It literally reads that way. And of course such a thing was "not made known to the sons of men in other ages," but it certainly was made known to Peter in a rather dramatic manner, and even commanded by Jesus to his disciples.

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (ἔθνος), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

If the "them" in "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever (JESUS) commanded" only referred to Jews, why did Jesus say ALL nations? I think it is rather gracious of the Father and Jesus to include the Gentiles as fellow heirs and partakers of His promise (i.e. the baptism of the Holy Spirit), don't you? Remember, this passage was before the ascension of Jesus, and there's no language here in Matthew stating one gospel for Gentiles and some other different gospel for Jews.

Now "mystery" (G3466 μυστήριον) in Greek doesn't convey the sense of something that by definition is unknowable, but rather something that is merely kept secret. I'm sure the events recorded in Acts 10 threw the church into apoplexy, given the Jewish predilection to see themselves as something "special" and superior to those "eth-noses."

And the mystery that Gentiles could be saved wasn't only MADE CLEAR (uncovered) to Paul alone, else the following passage would be misleading since it literally is plural.

(Ephesians 3:5 KJV) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed (made clear) unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

I wonder at times if the "hangup" is on this word "dispensation." It's almost used (by some) as a mechanism by which to dispense with the teachings of Jesus (what I call the Gospel, and what y'all seem to label the "Gospel of the Kingdom" for the purposes of rendering it moot somehow, allowing it to be viewed as some "other" gospel, some "different" gospel.)

Now I have run across this rather strange idea that "Dispensations" are time periods, but in no wise does οἰκονομία ever give that impression. It just means stewardship or responsibility. And I readily submit that Paul took his stewardship to evangelize the ethnos with great gravitas, whereby one gets the impression that the Jews in Jerusalem fumbled the ball and retreated into their "we're better" mindset, and that this can be readily seen especially in Acts 15.

Oh wow! You quoted one whole sentence of Paul's ministry!

Why would I need to quote more? It makes my point that Paul preached that the truth about the Forgiveness of Sin is found in the teachings of Jesus. It's the crux of Paul's sermon. It agrees with (teaches) this same "Kingdom" Gospel that Jesus preached. Surely you are able to read the entire sermon in Acts 13 and figure out what you believe.

Whether it does or not is irrelevant. It is NOT necessary to know one syllable of Greek to read the bible and understand it.

Yes. Yes it is necessary. If one does not "know one syllable of Greek" then how could one possibly determine whether the translation one uses is accurate or not? The JW puts his faith in the NWT, thinking his church leaders are honest. The Mormon puts his faith in Joseph Smith's version of the KJV, thinking his church leaders to be honest. (Are they?) Many fundamentalists put their faith in the KJV, not even knowing how many revisions it has undergone, and not even realizing it is a Catholic translation. (Need I actually explain that?)

The NIV ?? Who here knows that the NIV translation committee added in words that are not present in the initial texts in order that their translation supports their doctrine?

It's the tail wagging the dog, Clete, and I've not found one English translation to be adequately free from bias (though some are close). And Martin Luther? Did you know that Luther added in one word (in Romans) and removed one word (in Ephesians) in order to skew the German Bible to "prove" his doctrine?

Yet it would seem that people just don't care.

I find that puzzling.

Further, the only reason to say that you're "politely" asking is to suggest that you're actually not being so polite.

WOW... that actually sounds logical to you? I just cannot fathom what it must be like to be up in your brain, then. Truly. If this is how you actually think, then there is no possibility of you and I having a rational discussion.

God bless,
Rhema

 

[Clete]

As I had said, "I think I know...." but if I remove all the snark from your reply, thank you for kindly providing me your direct reference.

Unfortunately, it would seem that I don't read "κατα αποκαλυψιν" in the same manner as you. I realize that you understand this verse to mean that God somehow gave some kind of divine revelation instructing Paul to go to Jerusalem (no?), but κατα is joined to a noun written in the accusative case, and so indicates "direction towards an object or purpose" (Liddell Scott). In addition, ἀποκάλυψις means "uncovering" (ibid.).

Hence "κατα αποκαλυψιν" renders "for the purpose of clarity" (I went and communicated to them....).

All points made that suggest that you know how to translate the bible better than every person who has ever translated the bible into English since William Tyndale will be ignored.

Oh... I noticed that passage alright, but the mystery of Christ is "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs." It literally reads that way. And of course such a thing was "not made known to the sons of men in other ages," but it certainly was made known to Peter in a rather dramatic manner, and even commanded by Jesus to his disciples.

(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (ἔθνος), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

If the "them" in "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever (JESUS) commanded" only referred to Jews, why did Jesus say ALL nations? I think it is rather gracious of the Father and Jesus to include the Gentiles as fellow heirs and partakers of His promise (i.e. the baptism of the Holy Spirit), don't you? Remember, this passage was before the ascension of Jesus, and there's no language here in Matthew stating one gospel for Gentiles and some other different gospel for Jews.

This is unresponsive and attempts to redirect the issue by simply recasting it from within your paradigm. In short, it is a form of a begging the question fallacy. For example, Jesus said "all nations" because that was the plan. The Twelve were to go and evangelize the world converting people to Christianity under the Kingdom Gospel. They would do this for a short period and then Christ would return, which explains why they were willing to live in a commune during the early Acts period.

What you cannot explain is since Jesus said "all nations", why did they intentionally not do so! Where was the need for a thirteenth Apostle if the Twelve had already been given the ministry of going to the Gentiles? There wasn't any! Not if your doctrine is correct. If, on the other hand, something had changed, like God cutting off Israel, for example, then the ministry of the Twelve wouldn't make any sense other than to minister to those who had already come to faith in Christ under their Kingdom dispensation, while Paul, the singular Apostle for the Body of Christ, preached a new Gospel which Paul repeatedly calls "my gospel" which had been kept secret since the world began.

Romans 2:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to MY gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began...(emphasis added)​

​

Now "mystery" (G3466 μυστήριον) in Greek doesn't convey the sense of something that by definition is unknowable, but rather something that is merely kept secret. I'm sure the events recorded in Acts 10 threw the church into apoplexy, given the Jewish predilection to see themselves as something "special" and superior to those "eth-noses."

And the mystery that Gentiles could be saved wasn't only MADE CLEAR (uncovered) to Paul alone, else the following passage would be misleading since it literally is plural.

(Ephesians 3:5 KJV) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed (made clear) unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;​

I wonder at times if the "hangup" is on this word "dispensation." It's almost used (by some) as a mechanism by which to dispense with the teachings of Jesus (what I call the Gospel, and what y'all seem to label the "Gospel of the Kingdom" for the purposes of rendering it moot somehow, allowing it to be viewed as some "other" gospel, some "different" gospel.)

Straw man argument.

There isn't any desire to "dispense with the teachings of Jesus". On the contrary, it is precisely because we believe that Jesus gave Paul's the Gospel of Grace that we pay any attention to Paul at all! Paul's gospel IS NOT the same as Jesus' or that which the Twelve preached. It's quite different in a great many important ways. If Paul didn't get his gospel from Jesus, then he's the heretic of all heretics and should be shunned and ignored.

Yes. Yes it is necessary.

No, no it isn't!

If one does not "know one syllable of Greek" then how could one possibly determine whether the translation one uses is accurate or not?

Stupid question.

Literally, that is a stupid question.

Maybe study the concept of the division of labor and the effect it has had on society.

The JW puts his faith in the NWT, thinking his church leaders are honest. The Mormon puts his faith in Joseph Smith's version of the KJV, thinking his church leaders to be honest. (Are they?) Many fundamentalists put their faith in the KJV, not even knowing how many revisions it has undergone, and not even realizing it is a Catholic translation. (Need I actually explain that?)

You are literally an idiot if you think that this is the slightest bit rational.

I know next to nothing about the Greek language and SOMEHOW I managed not to be fooled into becoming a Mormon! How can that possibly happen! By some miracle I can read the Book of Mormon in ENGLISH and know that its a crackpot cult. Wow!

I don't know Chinese either and yet SOMEHOW I know that Taoism is a false religion! I don't read Hindi and yet by some miraculous happenstance, I somehow know that Hare Krishna is not the call to God that Hindus believe it to be. Amazing!

The NIV ?? Who here knows that the NIV translation committee added in words that are not present in the initial texts in order that their translation supports their doctrine?

It's the tail wagging the dog, Clete, and I've not found one English translation to be adequately free from bias (though some are close). And Martin Luther? Did you know that Luther added in one word (in Romans) and removed one word (in Ephesians) in order to skew the German Bible to "prove" his doctrine?

Yet it would seem that people just don't care.

I find that puzzling.

No you don't. You're bloviating. You're acting as if I said that there isn't any reason at all to learn Greek, which I didn't say. I said there is no NEED to know a syllable of Greek to read and understand the bible. No single word added or removed is going undo the bible. There's a reason God made it as long and complex as He did. It makes the bible sort of self-correcting and such manipulations ineffectual in the long term.

WOW... that actually sounds logical to you?

Did you really not understand the point?

Don't tell me you're being polite, just be polite. There's rarely any need to announce that you're not being rude and nine times out of ten its done in order to mask a person's rudeness. It's similar to saying "To be perfectly honest...." which tacitly implies that total honesty isn't one's normal mode. There's no need to say such things. Just be polite and just be honest.

I just cannot fathom what it must be like to be up in your brain, then. Truly. If this is how you actually think, then there is no possibility of you and I having a rational discussion.

God bless,
Rhema

You would need to start making some attempt to be rational and to respond to the actual points being made instead of redirection into an opportunity to try and impress everyone with your education.


Clete

 

[Jefferson]

Where was the need for a thirteenth Apostle if the Twelve had already been given the ministry of going to the Gentiles?

That's the one question I've never seen answered.

 

[Right Divider]

That's the one question I've never seen answered.

Some people do try to answer it. But the answer is always very, very lame. It is only those that rightly divide that have the correct answer... but that would require the type of paradigm shift that most cannot make. They are much too stubborn and clinging to their myths of mainstream Churchianity.

 

[Clete]

That's the one question I've never seen answered.

Well, except for the answer, "The ministry of the Twelve changed when Israel was cut off.", which is the only rationally consistent answer anyone could give.

I met a Baptist pastor one time that really did believe that Paul was the rightful replacement of Judas. His whole argument was to point out that after we read about the eleven adding Matthias to their number, "history never hears another peep from Matthias".
I was in my twenties and timid around authority figures at the time and so surely wouldn't have said anything even if I had the opportunity, but, if I could go back, I'd ask him whether he understood what an argument from silence was or whether he believed that Matthias just sat there watching while only the other eleven where filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

 

[Clete]

Some people do try to answer it. But the answer is always very, very lame. It is only those that rightly divide that have the correct answer... but that would require the type of paradigm shift that most cannot make. They are much too stubborn and clinging to their myths of mainstream Churchianity.

I've been fascinated by the whole topic of paradigm shifts for quite a while. It turns out that our brains are sort of wired to resist paradigm shifts and people who accept them usually aren't aware that they are on a course that will lead to such a shift until it actually happens. This is why its often described as experiencing a "light bulb moment" and why people talk about "having an epiphany" in terms that make it sound sudden and surprising. The reality is that it wasn't sudden it just feels sudden because their old paradigm made them blind to where they were being lead. This is so universal in people's experience of pardigm shifts that it may turn out that paradigm shifts cannot happen in any other way. Whether that's the case or not, it is certainly true that it helps immensly for a paradigm shift to be approached in a very methodical manner where each step toward the shift is taken one at a time and on purpose such that the whole course to that destination can be seen, understood and taken possession of, both intellectually and emotionally.

Also, people who have invested a lot into their current paradigm have a hill to climb that is very steep indeed. Most pastors are completely unreachable with anything that would move them much at all away from the doctrine that they've spent years and tens of thousands of dollars learning. Then, after they've graduated from seminary, every year they spend making a living based on spreading that paradigm to others just adds to the cost of abandoning it. It's hardly surprising then that when you realize just how gigantic a paradigm shift the combination of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism would be, that most pastors and other professional theologians just flat out are not going to be willing to accept it.

We aren't immune to it either, of course. I've now spent something close to thirty years not only believing in Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism but defending it, donating money to people that teach it and teaching it myself that, even if it were false, it would take a very great deal of time and really amazing argumentation to move me away from it. I really think that it would literally take an act of God. (I noticed when proof-reading this that I've referred to both Open Theism and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism with the singular "it" instead of the plural "them". I'm okay with that. They feel like one thing to me. It makes me want to find a third doctrine to make it a trinity of inter-related doctrines.)

There is, however, a significant difference between my (our) paradigm entrenchment and that of most others. That difference being, at least for those of us who were blessed by Bob Enyart's ministry, is that we not only understand what we believe and why we believe it but we understand what most every other Christian believes and why they believe it. In other words, our entrenchment isn't due to the paradigm blindness that most others suffer from. On the contrary, the very fact that we can see opposing paradigms and understand them is one of the strongest arguments in favor of our paradigm. Indeed, I can think of no other, more elegant, argument that could exist for anything, much less a system of doctrine.

Clete

 

[Rhema]

All points made that suggest that you know how to translate the bible better than every person who has ever translated the bible into English since William Tyndale will be ignored.

Only by the ignorant... (and you may ignore anything your little heart desires).

So, your point is that you know how to translate New Testament Greek better than those who translated every known English bible in existence?

Is that really the point you want to try to make?

William Tyndale didn't even know about Koine Greek.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann. Even though one or two perceptive scholars had noted the true character of NT Greek as early as the middle of the nineteenth century, their statements made no impression on general opinion. Deissmann, on a visit to a friend in Marburg, found a volume of Greek papyri from Egypt, and leafing through this publication, he was struck by the similarity to the Greek of the NT. He followed up this observation with continued study, and his publications of his findings finally led to general acceptance of the position that the peculiarities of the Greek NT were, for the most part, to be explained by reference to the nonliterary Greek, the popular colloquial language of the period. He first published his results in two volumes of Bible Studies (1895, 1897) and later on in the justly popular Life from the Ancient East (1908).”​

​

- The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 486.​

And if Tyndale was the Great ALL-Knowing Grand Poobah of languages, why did he himself continue to make constant revisions? Did his English language change? Or did his comprehension of Greek improve?

I proffer this link for your perusal: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html

"There are many differences between Classical Greek and Koiné in syntax. Koiné has shorter sentences, more parataxis and less hypotaxis, a sparing use of participles, and a growth in the use of prepositions (although some old ones have died out). Variations of nouns, adjectives, and verbs are often according to sense, and a neuter plural substantive may be used with either a singular or a plural verb. Koiné used personal pronouns in oblique cases much more often, whereas writers in Attic used them only when they were necessary for clarity." (etc.)​

Let me just tell you, no, you do not know New Testament Greek sufficiently to make any such argument.

Ahhh, Clete, you are just so cute when you puff up and try to be a prophet. So since you seem so comfortable to make judgements about my Greek proficiency... where did you learn Greek again?

Just in the past century, our knowledge of Koine has grown dramatically, as well as the corpus of Greek mss. I've debated other translators before, and no doubt I shall do so again, but such discussions are a waste of my time with someone who hasn't even taken an introduction course in the language. (And if you have, though unlikely, again... where?)

The better tactic for you would be to state that while the gospels do not record Jesus uttering the word "grace" during His Earthly ministry,

He did. I gave you the direct quotes.

The gospels are not an exhaustive record of Jesus' teachings and the lack of such a record doesn't prove that He didn't use the word.

But he did. I gave you the direct quotes.

make some effort to demonstrate the Jesus taught the concept of grace as understood by the modern church,

But Jesus didn't. The "modern" church is just as heretical as the "Catholic" church.

Grace can be found within the teachings of Jesus as unmerited Forgiveness by the Father when requested via Prayer (not sacrifice) as one also learns to forgive others.

Rhema

Don't worry, Right Divider won't mind me handing you a stronger argument. He can handle it.

I'm sure he won't mind, when you do.

 

[Rhema]

For example, Jesus said "all nations" because that was the plan.

So who could possibly thwart Jesus' plan?

And when did Jesus change his mind?

And if Jesus did change his mind, why not let his disciples know? The poor Twelve just didn't get the memo? Jesus spent the entirety of his ministry teaching and preparing his disciples, and even spent 40 days after his resurrection reinforcing what He taught as the Gospel for salvation.

But I keep running into people who claim somehow that the TRUE gospel was unknown until Paul had "direct revelation" of a different Gospel after Jesus (as an angel of Light) met Paul in the desert.

When Peter, directly AFTER the baptism of the Holy Spirit, rose and spoke, was Peter preaching a wrong gospel? Was Peter's gospel in Acts chapter two sufficient unto salvation?

Was Peter wrong in Acts 15 when saying that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner?

Is this verse wrong about the salvation of souls?

(Acts 2:47 KJV) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

The Twelve were to go and evangelize the world converting people to Christianity under the Kingdom Gospel.

And again, you add in this word "Kingdom" to try and impute there are two distinct Gospel messages. But you just said "converting people to Christianity," so the Kingdom Gospel is Christianity, and "people" include the ethnos.

They would do this for a short period

??? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Where did Jesus every say, "for a short period," and then... "watch for my new guy to take over and let you know what I really wanted preached"?

which explains why they were willing to live in a commune during the early Acts period.

Hmmm... They held to a communal economy, but there is no language suggesting that more than 3000 people up and moved into some convent (sorry, commune).

(Acts 2:46 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,​

And even Peter said himself that no one was obligated by any means to join this communal economy.

(Acts 5:4 KJV) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? ​

What you cannot explain is since Jesus said "all nations", why did they intentionally not do so!

That very question is what leads many (other) scholars to conclude that this verse was a scribal addition long after the fact, an addition that includes the "tripartite" formula for baptism.

From my perspective, the disciples were having a hard enough time speaking to the their Jewish brethren, let alone mounting a successful campaign to the pagans (even Paul became incensed with them, cf. Acts 13:46). But ultimately they did. THEY DID preach the gospel to the nations. Paul did not found the church in Rome. So who did? Paul did not found the church in Damascus. So who did? Now Saul went into the synagogues, but there's nothing stipulating that the church in Damascus, and elsewhere, didn't witness to anybody who would listen.

And Thomas went into Parthia (Persia), even down to India, and did not reject any ethnos who became saved.

Where was the need for a thirteenth Apostle if the Twelve had already been given the ministry of going to the Gentiles? There wasn't any! Not if your doctrine is correct.

And that should tell you something right there.

... if the Twelve had already been given the ministry of going to the Gentiles?

They were.

(Acts 15:7 KJV) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

Was Peter wrong?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[marke]

William Tyndale didn't even know about Koine Greek.

“One man is to be given the credit for the discovery of the Koine – a German pastor named Adolf Deissmann.​

And if Tyndale was the Great ALL-Knowing Grand Poobah of languages, why did he himself continue to make constant revisions? Did his English language change? Or did his comprehension of Greek improve?

Just in the past century, our knowledge of Koine has grown dramatically, as well as the corpus of Greek mss. I've debated other translators before, and no doubt I shall do so again, but such discussions are a waste of my time with someone who hasn't even taken an introduction course in the language. (And if you have, though unlikely, again... where?)

Koine Greek, like the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and other corruptions of God's word, should not be elevated to the status of acceptability among Christians.

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[Clete]

Only by the ignorant... (and you may ignore anything your little heart desires).

Well, you got that right! I certainly can and I will, which was the entire point of what I said.

William Tyndale didn't even know about Koine Greek.

Who cares? That wasn't the point! Are you really this stupid?

Let me explain the totally obvious point of mentioning Tyndale....

William Tyndale is widely credited with being the first guy to translate the bible into English using Greek sources. You think you're smarter than EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATOR that has ever translated the bible into English SINCE Tyndale did it!

Get it?

Tyndale was the first one, now you think you're the final answer or something and have come to TOL, of all places, to show off your Greek prowess. I didn't say a word about the quality of Tyndale's work but given that we still know who he was and what he did, I'd bet my house that he was at least as familiar with the Greek language as you, the guy who no one knows a thing about and who has the time to waste trying to show off to half a dozen people on an internet forum, ever will be.

Ahhh, Clete, you are just so cute when you puff up and try to be a prophet. So since you seem so comfortable to make judgements about my Greek proficiency... where did you learn Greek again?

I've already told you that I don't know hardly anything about Greek and, ONCE AGAIN, you seem incapable of following points that even fifth grade children could follow without effort. I don't need to know one single syllable of Greek to know that you are not qualified to translate New Testament Greek better than those who translated every known English bible in existence! That's genuinely ridiculous!

Just in the past century, our knowledge of Koine has grown dramatically, as well as the corpus of Greek mss. I've debated other translators before, and no doubt I shall do so again, but such discussions are a waste of my time with someone who hasn't even taken an introduction course in the language. (And if you have, though unlikely, again... where?)

Irrelevant.

He did. I gave you the direct quotes.

But he did. I gave you the direct quotes.

This was a lie.

Do you not understand that the whole thread is still here for the whole world to read, including your own posts?

But Jesus didn't. The "modern" church is just as heretical as the "Catholic" church.

So next you're going to tell me that you're a member of the World Wide Church of God, right?

(Please, Lord Jesus, don't let that turn out to be accidentally the truth!)

Grace can be found within the teachings of Jesus as unmerited Forgiveness by the Father when requested via Prayer (not sacrifice) as one also learns to forgive others.

You aren't even talking about the same thing. Maybe you should drop Greek and start trying to follow the normal English language that regular people use on this English speaking web forum.

I'm sure he won't mind, when you do.

You are, in fact, a fool. Pathetic.

 

[Clete]

So who could possibly thwart Jesus' plan?

God's plans have been thwarted many times! What are you even talking about? You don't get ten pages into the bible before that train leaves the station! Ever heard of Eden? Ever heard of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

And when did Jesus change his mind?

Well, it probably wasn't Jesus as much as it was the Father. That is, to whatever extent the Two aren't the same thing, anyway. And it wasn't just one thing. Jesus even had the Father wait an extra year longer than He would have otherwise, but the short answer is that the judgment was made final with the stoning of Stephen after he made his presentation to the leaders of Israel with "irresistible wisdom".

And if Jesus did change his mind, why not let his disciples know? The poor Twelve just didn't get the memo? Jesus spent the entirety of his ministry teaching and preparing his disciples, and even spent 40 days after his resurrection reinforcing what He taught as the Gospel for salvation.

You're too ignorant of the subject matter to make a meaningful discussion possible.
The change didn't happen until about a year after Pentecost. Prior to that, Israel's Kingdom gospel was still in effect and being preached by the twelve with help coming directly from the Holy Spirit.

But I keep running into people who claim somehow that the TRUE gospel was unknown until Paul had "direct revelation" of a different Gospel after Jesus (as an angel of Light) met Paul in the desert.

You have never run into any such person. I know of no one who would ever say such a thing.

When Peter, directly AFTER the baptism of the Holy Spirit, rose and spoke, was Peter preaching a wrong gospel?

Absolutely not!

Was Peter's gospel in Acts chapter two sufficient unto salvation?

For those who it was preached to, it was, yes. It is no longer.

Was Peter wrong in Acts 15 when saying that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner?

When Peter said that, the gospel of grace was in effect and so no, he was not wrong. In fact, Acts 15 makes no sense unless my doctrine is correct. There should never have been an Apostle Paul at all, much less any need for Paul to come to Jerusalem and explain what he repeatedly calls "my gospel" to the twelve apostles if your doctrine is correct.

Indeed, if it weren't for the book of Acts, Paul's epistles would be considered heresy and we'd all still be circumcising our children on the eighth day and practicing Chrisitianity in very much the same way the modern Messianic Jews do today.

Is this verse wrong about the salvation of souls?

(Acts 2:47 KJV) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

Definitely not!

What exactly is going on in your mind that would lead you to think that I would say otherwise or that my saying otherwise would even be consistent with anything else I've said?

That's a real question. I DO NOT understand where this is coming from other than what is surely a gross misunderstanding of what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is and what it teaches.

And again, you add in this word "Kingdom" to try and impute there are two distinct Gospel messages.

"Impute"? No. "Imply" is the correct English word. I don't have any idea what the correct Greek word would be but in English, "imply" is definitely what you were going for here.


I don't imply it, by the way. I state it outright. That's either the case or Paul is a heretic, the bible is hopelessly compromised, and, therefore, Christianity itself is falsified.

But you just said "converting people to Christianity," so the Kingdom Gospel is Christianity, and "people" include the ethnos.

I recall having a slight thought in the back of my mind that my use of the word Christianity would cause you confusion. I ignored it thinking that you had a much better understanding of the subject being discussed than you do. I won't make the same mistake again.

To clarify, those who came to faith under the previous dispensation can still accurately be called Christians because they were followers of Christ. The confusion, however, is understandable and it is the reason many (if not all) of us use more specific terms when talking about the two groups. Generally, Christians under the current dispensation are referred to as "The Body of Christ" whereas those under the previous dispensation are referred to as "Kingdom believers", "The Circumcision", or simply "Israel" depending on the context.

??? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Where did Jesus every say, "for a short period," and then... "watch for my new guy to take over and let you know what I really wanted preached"?

He didn't ever say any such thing. Thus the need for the Jerusalem council and it's quite correct conclusion that the twelve agreed with Paul that they would set aside the great commission and remain in Jerusalem and minister to the Circumcision while Paul went to the Gentiles.

Hmmm... They held to a communal economy, but there is no language suggesting that more than 3000 people up and moved into some convent (sorry, commune).

(Acts 2:46 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,​

And even Peter said himself that no one was obligated by any means to join this communal economy.

(Acts 5:4 KJV) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? ​

The plain reading of the text is clear enough for any third grader to understand. Many in the early church sold everything they had and lived in a commune where the apostles passed out provisions according to each person's need.

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.​

That very question is what leads many (other) scholars to conclude that this verse was a scribal addition long after the fact, an addition that includes the "tripartite" formula for baptism.

And there it is!

How much more of the bible do you explain away and ignore because it doesn't sit comfortably with your doctrine?

From my perspective, the disciples were having a hard enough time speaking to the their Jewish brethren, let alone mounting a successful campaign to the pagans (even Paul became incensed with them, cf. Acts 13:46). But ultimately they did. THEY DID preach the gospel to the nations.

To whatever degree any of the twelve preached to anyone outside their own converts, it was Paul's gospel that they preached. I very much doubt, however, that you could prove that they did even that. Their converts did not stay in Israel and there would have been a desire for them to travel and minister to those who had been scattered abroad (See James 1:1) and so there's no doubt that they would have done so but the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable and, since Israel had been cut off and the Kingdom Gospel was no longer in effect, their primary ministry would have remained as the leaders of the group of believers who came to faith under the Gospel of Circumcision which had been entrusted to them.

Paul did not found the church in Rome. So who did? Paul did not found the church in Damascus. So who did? Now Saul went into the synagogues, but there's nothing stipulating that the church in Damascus, and elsewhere, didn't witness to anybody who would listen.

Again, you need to take a course in philosophy such that you, at the very least, understand what an argument from silence is and why its a fallacy.

And Thomas went into Parthia (Persia), even down to India, and did not reject any ethnos who became saved.

This is Catholic teaching based on their "traditions". Didn't you just get through telling me that Catholics were heretics?

And that should tell you something right there.

It does! It tells me that your doctrine is false!

They were.

(Acts 15:7 KJV) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

Was Peter wrong?

I've already responded to this but you seem to be not getting the point here. I don't understand how you could be so obtuse as to have the point escape you but I'll be more blatantly clear...

I am NOT suggesting that the Twelve were NOT given a world wide ministry. I am NOT suggesting that the great commission wasn't exactly what it seems to have been. It totally was! The Twelve going to the whole world was exactly the plan!

Get it?

No?

Okay, so if that was the plan, which it 100% definitely was, then where is there ANY need for Paul?
Not only that, but if Paul and the Twelve were preaching the same thing then why was it was necessary for Paul to be sent, by revelation, to Jerusalem to explain "his gospel" to them several years later, the result of which was for the Twelve to remain in Israel while Paul went, basically by himself, to the whole rest of the world?
All of the Twelve agreed to stay in Israel! Doesn't that seem weird to you at all in light of the great commission? Wouldn't it have made more sense to send at least one, if not three or four or even more of the Twelve with Paul? Instead, tiny Israel gets all twelve Apostles while Paul gets sent to all of the Middle East with Barnabas who sort of turned out to be a big dud.

And that isn't the only question you have no answer for. There's just no end to the quagmire of confusion that emanates from a single premise, which hold! Drop that one premise and the answers to a whole litany of questions become intuitively clear and the whole New Testament comes together beautifully such that you can simply read any of it and take it all to mean just exactly what it seems to mean with no confusion. Just as you'd expect from a book that God wrote.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm sure you realize that a word search in English is rather useless.

It's not, though.

The NT was written in Greek, was it not?

And even a cursory search shows that this word "grace" is G5485 χάρις (charis).

So did Jesus ever utter the word χάρις ??

(Luke 6:32 KJV) For if ye love them which love you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.​

(Luke 6:33 KJV) And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

(Luke 6:34 KJV) And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what χάρις (GRACE) have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.​

(Luke 17:9 YLT) Hath he χάρις (GRACE) to that servant because he did the things directed? I think not.​

You're aware that words, especially in Greek, have a sphere of meaning to them, right?

You are also aware, are you not, that just because the same greek word is used in different places in scripture, that it doesn't mean that it's translated the same?

My Bible translates the word in Luke 6:32-34, as "credit," and the word in 17:9 as "thanks" (as in, being thankful).

Do you have any reason why it should be translated otherwise?

Jesus did seem intent to know what grace you have....

No idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, I rarely read linked essays...

Your loss.

am I to argue with the unreachable author?

You can discuss it here. That's what this forum is for.

Ignoring the evidence for your opponent's position seems rather unfair, to say the least.

I am somewhat aware of a group of people who claim that there are two separate gospel messages of salvation in the NT, but from what I've read, then, this would mean that one needs to reject the very words of Jesus before men.

Why would it mean that?

Be explicit.

Because it doesn't mean that at all.

It would also mean that Peter was clueless when saying this:

No, it wouldn't.

(Acts 15:11 NKJV) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."​

​

(Acts 15:11 RV) But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.​

The above verse puts no difference between Jew and Gentile in the manner by which they are saved. (But it is likely that you and I may differ on what this "manner" might be,

We are saved through Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, just as the Jews were to be saved.

"Like manner."

But the details of how are different.

given that you have made the very words of the Messiah irrelevant for salvation.)

Liar.

So again, I see you saying that there are two gospels (method/ manner) by which people can be saved, and yet Peter said the opposite, well into Paul's ministry.

No, he didn't. Unless you want to explain why God can't use the same event for two different purposes...?

And while Paul may have not directly used the word gospel in the passage I'm about to quote, he certainly did say that salvation is through faith, yes?

For Isreal, faith was part of the law of Moses.

For the Body of Christ, faith is standalone.

Big difference.

(Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

AMEN!

I see Paul saying that there is one faith (by which one is saved), yet you seem to say that there are two. Those are literally Paul's words, "one faith."

The problem here isn't that there aren't two gospels. It's that it's faith in the same God.

I put my faith in the gospel that Jesus taught.

I'm trying to understand why some would not.

I explained why:

A great general is preparing to invade the enemy controlled territory, so he tells his troops to dig a trench along the border of this area, and they start digging. A few weeks pass while supply stocks are built up, and eventually the day of the invasion arrives, so the general gives the command to stop digging the trench, and to charge into enemy territory!

You're like a soldier in that army who refuses the order to charge into enemy territory, because "the general gave the order to dig a trench, so I'm going to continue to dig the trench."

Wow... that's rather a stretch, and I find the metaphor convoluted.

It's neither.

But you think Jesus told Paul to change the gospel and put the other one "on hold"??

No.

I'm saying that Jesus, seeing that the circumstances had changed, making His plans for Israel to be a witness to all nations impossible at the time, switched plans entirely, revealing to Paul the mystery which had been hidden since the foundation of the earth.

Paul didn't change anything. Jesus did.

Paul didn't put anything on hold. Jesus did.

That's a lot of faith to put in Paul. And didn't Paul claim to have met Jesus in the desert?

Not just claimed. Actually met Him.

So who could possibly thwart Jesus' plan?

The answer is Jeremiah 18:7-10.

And when did Jesus change his mind?

At or shortly before Paul's journey to Damascus, in Acts 9. It's likely that the final straw was the murder of Stephen.

And if Jesus did change his mind, why not let his disciples know?

Cannot God cut off Israel, while still remaining hopeful that His nation would repent and turn to Him? Seems reasonable to me that God wanted the Twelve to keep preaching just in case Israel repents.

The poor Twelve just didn't get the memo?

I'm sure they knew something was up, post Paul's conversion. But Paul had very little interaction with them early in his ministry.

Jesus spent the entirety of his ministry teaching and preparing his disciples, and even spent 40 days after his resurrection reinforcing what He taught as the Gospel for salvation.

Salvation, in this case, being the coming Kingdom of Israel, an eternal kingdom on earth.

Salvation for the Body of Christ, however, is eternal life in Heaven.

Things that are different are not the same.

But I keep running into people who claim somehow that the TRUE gospel was unknown until Paul had "direct revelation" of a different Gospel after Jesus (as an angel of Light) met Paul in the desert.

That's nice.

But try addressing what we actually believe, rather than what some random person on the street says.

When Peter, directly AFTER the baptism of the Holy Spirit, rose and spoke, was Peter preaching a wrong gospel?

No.

Was Peter's gospel in Acts chapter two sufficient unto salvation?

Yes.

Was Peter wrong in Acts 15 when saying that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner?

No.

Is this verse wrong about the salvation of souls?

(Acts 2:47 KJV) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.​

It is about the coming Kingdom of Israel.

And again, you add in this word "Kingdom" to try and impute there are two distinct Gospel messages.

There's more than two.

But you just said "converting people to Christianity," so the Kingdom Gospel is Christianity, and "people" include the ethnos.

I'll let Clete address this himself.

??? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Jesus' words.

Are you not aware that Jesus said that He would return quickly?

Where did Jesus ever say, "for a short period," and then... "watch for my new guy to take over and let you know what I really wanted preached"?

He didn't, because that wasn't the original plan. Hence the need for the Jerusalem Council.

Hmmm... They held to a communal economy, but there is no language suggesting that more than 3000 people up and moved into some convent (sorry, commune).

(Acts 2:46 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,​

You missed it!

Go back two verses.

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.”Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. - Acts 2:40-47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:40-47&version=NKJV

If they sold all their posessions, that includes their homes.

What use would they have for a home, given the coming tribulation promised to them?

And even Peter said himself that no one was obligated by any means to join this communal economy.

(Acts 5:4 KJV) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? ​

And?

That very question is what leads many (other) scholars to conclude that this verse was a scribal addition long after the fact, an addition that includes the "tripartite" formula for baptism.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

From my perspective, the disciples were having a hard enough time speaking to the their Jewish brethren, let alone mounting a successful campaign to the pagans (even Paul became incensed with them, cf. Acts 13:46). But ultimately they did. THEY DID preach the gospel to the nations. Paul did not found the church in Rome. So who did? Paul did not found the church in Damascus. So who did? Now Saul went into the synagogues, but there's nothing stipulating that the church in Damascus, and elsewhere, didn't witness to anybody who would listen.

And Thomas went into Parthia (Persia), even down to India, and did not reject any ethnos who became saved.

I've addressed this before, but since you weren't there, I'll say it again.

The point is that Scripture intentionally does not record (other than in passing, usually in the books of Paul or the books that come after his in the NT) the Twelve going out into the world, and doing what Christ said to do.

Yet MORE THAN HALF of the New Testament is Paul's letters to the churches he established in other nations.

I'm not saying that they never went to other nations.

I (and Clete) are saying that Scripture leaves it out, because the Bible is telling a story, highlighting the important parts of history relevant to the message it's trying to get across.

And that should tell you something right there.

Supra.

They were.

(Acts 15:7 KJV) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

Was Peter wrong?

By that point in time, Peter was well aware of the differences between his and the rest of the Twelve's ministry and Paul's ministry. He's been made aware of the undergirding of grace that the Law is built upon.

Remember, the Jerusalem Council was 17 years after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, and 14 years after the previous time Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Lots of time for Peter to be made aware of and learn the differences of Paul's gospel.

I'm not sure if I replied to this before, but you have to add the three years to the fourteen.

Gal 1:17-19 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. (1:18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (1:19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Gal 2:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.

So Paul's first trip to Jerusalem was three years and the second trip was fourteen years after that, a total of seventeen years.

(By the way, @Clete, here's one recent instance where I've changed my mind, regarding your post in the other thread!)[/QUOTE]

 

[Rhema]

Koine Greek, like the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and other corruptions of God's word, should not be elevated to the status of acceptability among Christians.

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

I'm not sure how to even reply to that bizarre statement. Did not the translators of the KJV use Greek manuscripts themselves? (Obviously they did.) But if these are corrupt (since the mss. used by the KJV were written in Koine Greek, which you say is a corruption) then the KJV by definition is itself corrupt.

Rhema

Do I recall correctly that you are a KJV-only-ist? Is that the 1611 or some other version thereof?

And please tell me that you realize the KJV translation is a Catholic translation ??

Finally, it's unlikely I shall reply to you here, in that your post is rather off OP. And my apologies that I've not had the time to continue with your other thread (yet).

 

[Rhema]

That's the one question I've never seen answered.

Jefferson, Hi. How doest thou fare today?

I can answer your question, but would need you to answer a question first.

Was Barnabas an Apostle?

Thank you kindly,
Rhema