ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Interplanner]

Confirms that he is a devil child, asserting that there is just one piece of good news in the book, and Basil James 2:3 KJV Interplanner, satanically asserts, again, on record, that his saint Judas preached the gospel of Christ, outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV:

"Hey, everyone!!!!! This is Judas!!!! Listen up!!!My Saviour, the Christ, is going to die for our sins...be buried....raised again for our justification!!!!! Believe this good news, to be saved!!!!! Gotta Go....My broker told me to buy some silver, as he is bullish on it.......I know where to get some!!!!"


Clown.

Your caricatures are too far-fetched to be worth looking at. Do you have something reasonable to say?

The Reformation doctrine about interpreting Scripture was, among other things:

the letters interpret the Gospels

That's how they avoided the non-sense that D'ism has become. The nonsensical and grammar smashing debates about two gospels in Gal 2 or anywhere else.

If you guys would learn some 'history of theology' you would be embarrassed at clunking wheels you are trying to keep rolling. No Reformation teacher in the two centuries after let the thought of an alternative gospel at first stand, because God raised up Paul not Ryrie or Scofield to assimilate and express the unity of Scripture and the Gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

That's NOT what Acts 10:35 says IP.

Acts 10:35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
​

Why does this evade your ability to understand? Are you so dumb as to not be able to add 2 plus 2?


You Bible blenders are an incredibly confused bunch.


Another childish DIVERSION. Just answer the question instead of attempting to EVADE it. You are ALL imagination!


You are way too fictional, like most of Churchianity and cultists.

Sit at My right hand is NOT Christ sitting on the THRONE OF HIS GLORY. It is Christ sitting with His Father on HIS (the Father's) throne.

Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​

Are you unable to know the difference between MY and HIS?

Your ignorance and arrogance are astounding!


I could care less about your opinions about others opinions.[/QUOTE






To work righteousness is not to 'do works.' It is to do things that God wants because God has provided his righteousness. Otherwise, Cornelius would have had a meltdown once he heard about the sacrifice of Christ.

You can't fool us with the D'ist myth of two gospels.

 

[Interplanner]

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
You have no 'corner' on when Mt 25 happened. You also have no imagination.

RD:
Another childish DIVERSION. Just answer the question instead of attempting to EVADE it. You are ALL imagination!

There is nothing definitive about this. it is future. I've said so many times showing that the end of the world was delayed. So don't jamb things together from Mt 24:19 etc that are not. Don't mix 1st century reality with the end of the world.

btw, there is also no proof that nations is other than the collective for all the individuals. He is not going to do something with Israel in the final judgement that is not done with individuals from any other. There are no nation-acts in the 10 NT passages on the 2nd coming that I have listed 1000x.

 

[Interplanner]

That's NOT what Acts 10:35 says IP.

Acts 10:35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
​

Why does this evade your ability to understand? Are you so dumb as to not be able to add 2 plus 2?


You Bible blenders are an incredibly confused bunch.


Another childish DIVERSION. Just answer the question instead of attempting to EVADE it. You are ALL imagination!


You are way too fictional, like most of Churchianity and cultists.

Sit at My right hand is NOT Christ sitting on the THRONE OF HIS GLORY. It is Christ sitting with His Father on HIS (the Father's) throne.

Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​

Are you unable to know the difference between MY and HIS?

Your ignorance and arrogance are astounding!


I could care less about your opinions about others opinions.

There is no sharp distinction between his glory and God's. You can't make your doctrine on one expression like that. It will be one again (Eph 1 and I Cor 15), otherwise you are making too many distinctions about the trinity, driven by the D'ist doctrine that israel and the church have to be kept separate. Which is not the case.

You care very much about what leaders of D'ism say. They started all this Israel-kingdom business because they said it made sense of the Bible. Not.

 

[Interplanner]

There is more than ONE type of zealotry dimwit. You are a zealot for your fairy tale version of the Bible.

It's good to be zealous for the truth, Gal 4:18.

Do you understand the social-religious situation on the ground in 1st century Judea that Jesus had to operate around from what I just described? Most people were eventually in mortal danger from zealots if they broke on sabbath or circumcision.

Hopefully you'll let some history into your dark mind. Sometimes it is in the Bible and sometimes in other sources, and that the neat thing about the Bible: it is cross-confirmed. Things in it are not just true because they are in it. They are true to reality.

 

[Interplanner]

Acts 19:21 When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there,

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

Clete, the Acts 19 is way, way after the Gal 2 situation. Get a grip.

 

[turbosixx]

Acts 19:21 When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there,

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

I would suggest to you the timeline and the subject would make this his trip in Acts 15. Also, if you look later in the chapter he says this.
Gal. 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

As far as I know, after his arrest he wasn't going anywhere he wanted to.

 

[Interplanner]

There is no other Biblical definition of Messiah but that he is the grace of God and a sacrifice. It is utterly mistaken to think otherwise. This is why there is conflict between 1st century Judaism and Christian faith: because the 'Christ' of Judaism was opposite on both points.

D'ists cannot know what they are talking about because of the flaw inherent in D'ism.

I wonder if these D'ist guys have ever noticed that after Paul is teaching justification by Christ (Acts 13) he also teaches that Jesus is the Christ (Acts 18). It is one, unified teaching.

THE NT IS NOT BROKEN LIKE THE D'ISTS SAY EVERY SINGLE POST HERE. BROKEN, DIVIDED, DOUBLE-MESSAGE, CONTRADICTING WITHOUT HOURS OF QUALIFICATIONS, ETC ETC.

 

[Danoh]

...


To work righteousness is not to 'do works.' It is to do things that God wants because God has provided his righteousness. Otherwise, Cornelius would have had a meltdown once he heard about the sacrifice of Christ.

You can't fool us with the D'ist myth of two gospels.

Lol - leave it to you to have the guy "saved" before its fact...

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Let's try that again...

Acts 15:7 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. 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Some expert you are, IP.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Clete]

This is what I'm trying to understand, their view of the kingdom. I am also a Dispensationalist.

Look, I'm sorry but I just don't trust this question.

What is there to not understand?

Yes, we are all in God's greater kingdom but I'm concerned with the kingdom that has been prophesied about, the one the Jews were/are looking for and the one Jesus said was at hand. I do not see Paul persuading people about the "greater" kingdom because those passages do not allude to that and also because of the overall narrative.

Then what was the purpose of Paul in the first place?

It will ALWAYS come back around to that question.

There is no need for Paul's ministry at all if what Jesus and the Twelve were talking about wasn't a literal kingdom with Jesus Christ sitting on a actual thrown in Jerusalem ruling the nations with an iron fist, which He absolutely did intend to do shortly after His ascension. That's what Jesus preached, that's what Peter preached in Acts 2 and that's what the whole of Jewish prophecy had been leading up to for centuries. But Israel did not respond to God (Jesus) with faith. Instead, they hated Jesus and stoned His followers to death. Therefore, in keeping with the warning God gave in Jeremiah 18, and as Paul explains in Romans 9, God did not bless them as He had promised but instead, cut them off.

I agree.

Wait a minute. How can you agree?

The Twelve just bragged to Paul about how their followers are all "zealous for the Law" and got him to preform a cleansing ritual in order to keep them from flipping out over the fact that Paul was teaching people not to follow the Law or observe the customs of Moses.

How is that not iron clad, absolute proof positive that Paul was not teaching the same thing that the Twelve were teaching? "Law" and "grace" are not synonyms!

I would suggest there is a lot of assuming going on here. I do not see a single verse where the 12 instructed believers to follow the law especially in order to be saved. These believers were zealous for the law but one has to assume to the 12 preached/taught observance of the law. If you could point me to a verse where they instructed it, I would appreciate it.

It’s apparent that observing the law is not sin. Paul did it on several occasions. Once without mention of a good reason, Acts 18:18.

Paul also preached repentance from the very beginning.
Acts 26: 19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

Could you please elaborate on this teaching of the 12?

I'm really having a difficult time believing that these are sincere inquiries.

I started to answer this by simply telling you to read the portion of the bible from Genesis 1:1 through John 21:25.

As admittedly snarky as that is, I still think that's as good an answer as any but practically any passage about salvation that wasn't written by Paul will do if you want something more specific. But just off the top of my head, the following things come to mind...


God opened up the Earth and sucked whole populations of Jews alive down into Hell because they rebelled against Moses.
Moses refuses to circumcise his son when they finally came out of the wilderness and God was on His way to kill him over it.
Perhaps the best example was when Jesus was asked, "What must I do to be saved?", He answered, "Obey the Law." When He was pressed to be more specific, He started listing the Ten Commandments.
Also, conditional blessing is a recurring theme throughout the gospels. "Forgive our sins - AS WE FORGIVE" and the Beatitudes are a whole list of conditional blessings and in Revelation Jesus says things like, "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."
Peter continues the conditional blessing theme in Acts 2 & 3 when he tells Israel to repent so that God can send Jesus back!(Acts 3:19-26)

Besides, just what else do you think the Twelve would have gone out to preach other than what Jesus taught them (Matt 28)? Paul's Gospel? If so, then why is it Paul's gospel? (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8) Who the crap is Paul and why in the world was he even in the picture if what he was given by direct divine revelation was the same thing that the Twelve were already preaching and why in the world would it have been necessary to send him, via divine revelation, at the eventual cost of his life no less, to explain the gospel he was preaching to the Twelve who had failed, for some reason, to obey the Great Commission and had instead stayed put in Jerusalem where they had forced every one of their followers, on pain of immediate death, to live in a commune of all things.

No one, anywhere in the whole bible suggests for a second that the law was optional or that circumcision wasn't mandatory except for one single person. Paul and only Paul ever taught that "circumcision is nothing" and that if you allow yourself to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

I've said it many times before, if not for Paul, you would be a practicing proselyte Jew, practicing your faith in essentially the same manner as modern Messianic Jews do today. You would observe the Sabbaths (all of them including the feast days), you'd perform cleansing rituals (including all sorts of different baptisms) as well as the whole rest of the law save those things that had to do with blood sacrifice and the administration of the nation of Israel. There is exactly ZILCH in the rest of the New Testament (i.e. The gospels and Hebrews thru Revelation) that would indicate that you should be doing anything else. If you think that you're saved by grace, you have one single person to blame for it - Paul. There's no record of Jesus ever uttering the word 'grace' during His Earthly ministry. How could that be possible if the gospel He was preaching was the same as what Paul preached? There is no way to utter the Paul's gospel without mentioning the word grace.

Anyway, I could ramble on like this for hours so let me just end by asking you some questions based on your having said that you're a dispensationalist...

1. What, in your view, is the difference between this dispensation and the previous one?
2. When did the last dispensation end and the current dispensation begin?
3. Why did it change?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I would suggest to you the timeline and the subject would make this his trip in Acts 15. Also, if you look later in the chapter he says this.
Gal. 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

As far as I know, after his arrest he wasn't going anywhere he wanted to.

He wasn't arrested until after the meeting.

And just how many divinely inspired meetings in Jerusalem where Paul explains his ministry to the Twelve does your doctrine need to create in order to hold together?

 

[turbosixx]

As admittedly snarky as that is, I still think that's as good an answer as any but practically any passage about salvation that wasn't written by Paul will do if you want something more specific. But just off the top of my head, the following things come to mind...


God opened up the Earth and sucked whole populations of Jews alive down into Hell because they rebelled against Moses.
Moses refuses to circumcise his son when they finally came out of the wilderness and God was on His way to kill him over it.
Perhaps the best example was when Jesus was asked, "What must I do to be saved?", He answered, "Obey the Law." When He was pressed to be more specific, He started listing the Ten Commandments.
Also, conditional blessing is a recurring theme throughout the gospels. "Forgive our sins - AS WE FORGIVE" and the Beatitudes are a whole list of conditional blessings and in Revelation Jesus says things like, "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life."

Yes but this is all before the DBR.

Peter continues the conditional blessing theme in Acts 2 & 3 when he tells Israel to repent so that God can send Jesus back!(Acts 3:19-26)

Now this is after the DBR. What does Peter mean by "be converted"?

Besides, just what else do you think the Twelve would have gone out to preach other than what Jesus taught them (Matt 28)?

Jesus just gave them a little of what they were to proclaim. They couldn’t handle it all.
Jn. 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Paul's Gospel?

I believe the 12 went out and proclaimed “the gospel”, the same one Paul later proclaims. When we compared what Peter and Paul preached, they were the same and they both baptized the believers. Just as Jesus said.

If so, then why is it Paul's gospel? (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8)

I would suggest ‘my gospel” is given more weight than it deserves. If we look at what Paul says, he gives us the big picture and says it was given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles.
Eph. 3: 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

Paul dealt with others coming in and confusing the believers.
Gal. 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Rom. 2:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
2 Tim. 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.
I believe that’s why sometimes he calls it “my gospel” meaning what he proclaimed is truth.

Who the crap is Paul and why in the world was he even in the picture if what he was given by direct divine revelation was the same thing that the Twelve were already preaching and why in the world would it have been necessary to send him, via divine revelation, at the eventual cost of his life no less, to explain the gospel he was preaching to the Twelve who had failed, for some reason, to obey the Great Commission and had instead stayed put in Jerusalem where they had forced every one of their followers, on pain of immediate death, to live in a commune of all things.

When we look at what the bible says about Paul being chosen and why, this is what I see.
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
If you have any other verse that explain why, I would be glad to consider them.

If we look at what that verse says, it says he is to carry Jesus’s name. That is also what the twelve are doing.
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.
If we look at what Paul proclaimed to make Christians, it wasn't much more than Jesus's name.
1 Cor. 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

I've said it many times before, if not for Paul, you would be a practicing proselyte Jew, practicing your faith in essentially the same manner as modern Messianic Jews do today.

Try to consider it from my point of view. Jesus chose Paul to complement the 12 and the Holy Spirit is using him to tell us those things.
Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

 

[turbosixx]

Anyway, I could ramble on like this for hours so let me just end by asking you some questions based on your having said that you're a dispensationalist...

1. What, in your view, is the difference between this dispensation and the previous one?

The law of Moses could not remove sin. Faith in Christ can forgive sins.
Gal. 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Before the DBR, the preaching of the 12 saved no one. After the DBR on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 souls were saved.

2. When did the last dispensation end and the current dispensation begin?

At the cross through the blood of Jesus. The law of Moses separated Jew from Gentile. No longer is there Jew and Gentile but now it's Christian or non-Christian.
Eph. 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

3. Why did it change?

Because man's sins could not be forgiven under the law of Moses. Since the law was based on the Levitical priesthood, Jesus could not be high priest so as to offer himself for our sins. There had to be a new law so he could be high priest.
Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

Christ entered the true tabernacle as high priest with his blood.
Heb. 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption

Now we can approach God by the new and living way through Jesus's blood.
Heb. 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,

 

[Danoh]

He wasn't arrested until after the meeting.

And just how many divinely inspired meetings in Jerusalem where Paul explains his ministry to the Twelve does your doctrine need to create in order to hold together?

Score one for turbo - finally, lol

Clete, what do you do with Paul's later, end of Galatians 2 encounter with Peter - at Antioch - it does not fit your "Acts 19 Jerusalem" timeline.

And that Jerusalem meeting is not only actually in chapter 21, not chapter 19, but Paul had twice been warned by the Spirit against his plans to go up to Jerusalem, even as he was headed towards it.

He did not go "up by revelation" (as in his earlier in Galatians 2 vist) rather, against "revelation."

Acts 21:3 Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

He continues to head towards Jerusalem anyway, ends up at Caesarea, on his way to Jerusalem, and is once more warned against doing so...

21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

But he goes anyway, and gets there, and repeats what he did in Acts in Acts 14 and again in Acts 15 - he relates the success of his ministry among the Gentiles...

Acts 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. 21:15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

He then ends up in chains...

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.

Lol, dear brother, you've made Galatians a prison Epistle.

But you did say you are rusty on these things.

It happens.



But better a little rust then turbo's thus far continued ocean of wet behind the ears.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[lifeisgood]

He wasn't arrested until after the meeting.

And just how many divinely inspired meetings in Jerusalem where Paul explains his ministry to the Twelve does your doctrine need to create in order to hold together?

As many as are necessary so that I, turbosixx, do not believe anything else but what I, turbosixx, say. :idunno:

 

[Interplanner]

Clete wrote:

Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
Peter continues the conditional blessing theme in Acts 2 & 3 when he tells Israel to repent so that God can send Jesus back!(Acts 3:19-26)





We have to remember that they believed the end of the world would be in that generation. You'll find this everywhere in the NT , especially in Paul, on many topics as unrelated as marriage and business, I Cor 7. There was an ALLOWANCE that the end would be delayed, but they weren't to know that yet, in the early 30s when Peter spoke this. So yes, Jesus would be sent but as part of the whole end of the world, the swift destruction of this world so that it would be replaced by the NHNE.

This, by analogy, was meant to match the 'generation that wandered in the desert' which gave way to 'those who entered' the land. Christ and the NHNE being the land. Hebrews for that.

The difference between the NT and the myths of D'ism is that every passage about the 2nd coming has no protracted or elaborate set of events that 'need' to involve Israel as a race/nation. This world is destroyed quickly, the judgement of mankind is quick and the NHNE are quickly in place afterwards.

 

[lifeisgood]

Yes but....

Another example, 'yes, Clete, I agree with what you say the Bible say, BUT...'

What does Peter mean by "be converted"?

I wonder what definition you, turbosixx, have given to "be converted".

 

[Interplanner]

Score one for turbo - finally, lol

Clete, what do you do with Paul's later, end of Galatians 2 encounter with Peter - at Antioch - it does not fit your "Acts 19 Jerusalem" timeline.

And that Jerusalem meeting is not only actually in chapter 21, not chapter 19, but Paul had twice been warned by the Spirit against his plans to go up to Jerusalem, even as he was headed towards it.

He did not go "up by revelation" (as in his earlier in Galatians 2 vist) rather, against "revelation."

Acts 21:3 Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

He continues to head towards Jerusalem anyway, ends up at Caesarea, on his way to Jerusalem, and is once more warned against doing so...

21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

But he goes anyway, and gets there, and repeats what he did in Acts in Acts 14 and again in Acts 15 - he relates the success of his ministry among the Gentiles...

Acts 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. 21:15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

He then ends up in chains...

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.

Lol, dear brother, you've made Galatians a prison Epistle.

But you did say you are rusty on these things.

It happens.



But better a little rust then turbo's thus far continued ocean of wet behind the ears.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Good string of passages Danoh; this is why I think Paul deliberately used the circumstance of zealot pressure to get himself into enough trouble to get a free trip to Rome.

I think there is a huge mistake made when thinking that events in the narrative of Acts are actually official apostolic doctrine.

 

[lifeisgood]

Try to consider it from my point of view.

And that it is again, if, I, turbosixx, can make you, Clete, see my point of view, I, turbosixx, have won and I, turbosixx, can proclaim that I, turbosixx, have the ability to change the Bible and what it so clearly says. Now, there....

 

[Interplanner]

Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
Who the crap is Paul and why in the world was he even in the picture if what he was given by direct divine revelation was the same thing that the Twelve were already preaching and why in the world would it have been necessary to send him, via divine revelation, at the eventual cost of his life no less, to explain the gospel he was preaching to the Twelve who had failed, for some reason, to obey the Great Commission and had instead stayed put in Jerusalem where they had forced every one of their followers, on pain of immediate death, to live in a commune of all things.




Clete,
among the valuable points of Reformation theology from 1600-1800 you will find a set of interpretive principles, states something like this:

*the NT interprets the OT
*the letters interpret the gospel narratives
*the didactic passages interpret the irregular narrative events and symbolic passages

I think God raised up Paul to confirm that the actual meaning of the OT was the mission of the Gospel to the nations. Otherwise there was going to be a neo-Judaistic understanding of Jesus that would have derailed it. This is why there is one Gospel in Galatians 1-2, not 2. But because so much theology (and of course the cults) of the 1800s+ abandoned the interpretive principles above, whole schools of thought came into existence saying there were actually two gospels in Gal 1-2, among other things. You've even shown how this has influenced you because you think you have found a Jesus who calling for works to be done upon which salvation (justification from sins) is conditioned. (The paradox is: there was another gospel that was hostile, not alternate, to Christ!, but these people don't seem to see that when they read Galatians. Conflict evaporates into a meaningless squelch.).

An example of this was RD yesterday saying that Cornelius thought that he had to work righteousness to be blessed by God. There are good works that save us--Christ's. So when Cornelius heard about that, he had no problem. Otherwise, if Cornelius truly believed he was gaining God's blessing himself, he would have rejected what he heard about Christ when it

But if we use the interpretive principles, we would not conclude those things. We would not keep seeing 2 programs in the Bible that 'never the twain meet'--Israel the nation/race and the Christian body. We would not put so many isolated and uninformed and irregular narrative events on the same level as Rom 4. In fact, we wouldn't even be concerned about a way to assimilate the two things that seem contradictory.

Once these interpretive principles are understood and kept, we won't have a conflict with James 2 about works, for ex. A body is not alive unless there is a spirit, and the Gospel does affect a person's spirit. But the effect is not the same as the cause.

I'm not where I can look up about a book, but I think B. Ramm's PROTESTANT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION was probably the last book written to spell out the principles above, about 1900.