Facts about the book of James

[Sparkey]

Since you can not see that there WAS two gospels in the book of Acts, one that fadded away, and since I do, we are too far apart to come to any same conclusions. By the way, I find it amazing that you want everyone to just accept the ideas of man and not search the scriptures to see if those ideas are correct. You just want us to accept man's doctrines deveoloped by man and keep quite. You speak of the 12 Apostles as if they were the ones sent to the Gentiles. You fail to see that the 12 made an agreement with Paul that they would just go to the Jews and Paul would go to the Gentiles. When you come to that scripture you just close your eyes and refuse to accept that it exists. You insist that the Great Commission is the commission of the grace church. Jesus commissioned Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and you want to treat him as a lessor Apostle.

I don't need your sermon about James. I can read the scripture for my self. What I see in Acts 21 is that James and the elders in that Jewish church you spoke of were still teaching that the Jews had to keep the law and were upset that Paul was not teaching the same thing. But your eyes and understanding will not let you see it.

First off - I don't like the tone you are taking with me and do not deserve to be spoken to in that fashion. Stop it.

Having said that, let me go on to reply to your last comment in a more moderated tone myself. Yes, I am aware of the many difficulties shown by the writings of the Holy Spirit through Luke in what is called our "Book of Acts [of the Apostles]", at the time of the beginnings of Christianity.

There was a revelation by God and then (as you also note) a dispute that actually began when Peter understood what the Holy Spirit was doing and tried to communicate it to those in Jerusalem. This was before the Apostles of the Lamb had understood what was meant by, "I have another flock," and other such sayings both of their Lord and Savior and as found in the Holy Scriptures they had at the time. But although they understood the Move of God, they (the Apostles of the Lamb) were wrong in that they did not follow through in their actions - and still considered Jew and Gentile as different and separate (perhaps as you do?). They (the Apostles of the Lamb) were corrected by Paul. That means they came into unity and continued to serve God together. It does not mean that there were now two ways, two paths, two doors and too walks authored by One savior. Jesus (who called himself the Son of Man, was, is, and will always be the Way, the only Way to His Father.

The understanding that Peter brought, that they sould not prevent baptism of water to those whom he had seen baptized in the Spirit, was the first step. The next step that the Holy Spirit led them to regarded things that foreshadowed Jesus - the rituals of cleansing and sacrifice and their customs and much of their law. How they should NEVER be allowed to divide the body of Christ. Paul addressed the practice of refusing to eat with non-Jews and other things as well, but he NEVER declared that there were now two gospels. Quote needed if you wish to continue to say that yourself, or in lieu of being able to directly quote the bible I would ask you to clearly say, "this is my opinion only, and not from the Lord."

Paul was uniquely qualified to correct them and bring us both them and us into the unity of the faith. The word you've used, "gospel", by the way, means "good news" and I remain confused by the many twists in your reasoning. What 'good news' are you specifically in reference to when you say, that there are two gospels? I believe that the good news is specifically about the reconciliation of God and Man through the fact that Jesus had become both LORD and CHRIST as first declared by Peter on the Day of Pentecost, then known as the Jewish harvest festival of Shavuot, which commemorates God giving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai fifty days after the Exodus and signifies the in-gathering of the harvest.

You've taken the liberty of telling me what I think or "seem to think". In response, may I ask why you think that the Apostles of the Lamb and their followers were NOT Christians? How could this be?

The only Gospel that I know of is the Gospel of Christ, spoken of by many, myself included. And this by the Holy Spirit, not of myself.

~Cordially Sparrow


ADDENDUM:

The Object of Belief

The best-known summary of the gospel is a verse that most Christians have committed to memory.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

On the authority of this and many similar verses, all evangelical Christians agree that to be saved, a man must believe in Jesus. But what does it mean to believe in Him? Consider the following texts:

But as many as received him [Jesus], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

He that believeth on him [Jesus] is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

______________

See also Matthew 12:21 and Acts 3:16. These texts clarify what it means to believe in Jesus by affirming that to be saved, a man must believe in His name. No one should imagine that Jesus' name is just a label distinguishing Him from other beings. His name represents everything that He is. What precisely is His name?

Before Pentecost, Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth to His enemies, as Master or Rabbi to His disciples. But on Pentecost, the day marking the beginning of the Church Age, Peter announced that

. . . God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


The True Gospel: Believing in Jesus' Name

 

[smaller]

yeah, the TWO GOSPEL sideshow is brought to us courtesy of FULL PRETERISM, another lichen that has grown on the rocks of theology in more recent times.

In full blown preterism they say there are TWO GOSPELS, one for JEWS and one for GENTILES and they have to because they don't study to find HARMONY very well. They take simplistic views of LAW and GRACE and are UNable to remedy the FACTS that LAW and GRACE are fully compatible.

Paul showed HOW LAW and GRACE are FULLY COMPATIBLE in Romans 13:8-10.

Bible students who try to make A PHONY ARGUMENT that THE LAW is anything else other than WHAT PAUL TAUGHT, and JAMES TAUGHT and JOHN TAUGHT, all of these being ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL and IN ACCORDANCE with Romans 13:8-10 have a big fat theological STRAWMAN of their own making on their hands.

In full blown PRETERISM in order to justify the TWO GOSPEL theory they THROW OUT James, Peter(s), Acts, Hebrews completely OFF THE TABLE for GOYS, er, that would be GENTILE believers.

They basically get there because they start with a FLAWED understanding of THE FULL SPIRITUAL INTENT OF THE LAW...which Paul put to rest not only in Romans 13:8-10, but in many other similar statements revolving around LOVING our neighbors as ourselves.

But Richard prolly just hasn't gotten that far yet. Who knows?

s

 

[Sparkey]

...in order to justify the TWO GOSPEL theory they THROW OUT James, Peter(s), Acts, Hebrews completely OFF THE TABLE for GOYS, er, that would be GENTILE believers.[/SIZE]

They basically get there because they start with a FLAWED understanding of THE FULL SPIRITUAL INTENT OF THE LAW...which Paul put to rest not only in Romans 13:8-10, but in many other similar statements revolving around LOVING our neighbors as ourselves.

But Richard prolly just hasn't gotten that far yet. Who knows?

s

ing Ahhh... the plural of Goy is Goyim not "Goys".

Is this area of the Forum always like this? I don't think I like the tone that is permitted here - probably a good thing I'm not a moderator, I'll mind my own business, but when you get a chance, pray for me, please. I want to continue to strive to find peace (as able) and need constant help in this area. :nod - thanks

 

[smaller]

ing Ahhh... the plural of Goy is Goyim not "Goys".

steet slang deployment....didn't run my exactatudeness checker...

Is this area of the Forum always like this? I don't think I like the tone that is permitted here - probably a good thing I'm not a moderator, I'll mind my own business, but when you get a chance, pray for me, please. I want to continue to strive to find peace (as able) and need constant help in this area. :nod - thanks

Hope you aren't saying my observation of what's at the base of the two gospel theory isn't factual. Didn't mean factual to not be peaceful.

thx.

s

 

[RichardBurger]

First off - I don't like the tone you are taking with me and do not deserve to be spoken to in that fashion. Stop it.

Having said that, let me go on to reply to your last comment in a more moderated tone myself. Yes, I am aware of the many difficulties shown by the writings of the Holy Spirit through Luke in what is called our "Book of Acts [of the Apostles]", at the time of the beginnings of Christianity.

You've taken the liberty of telling me what I think or "seem to think". In response, may I ask why you think that the Apostles of the Lamb and their followers were NOT Christians? How could this be?

The only Gospel that I know of is the Gospel of Christ, spoken of by many, myself included. And this by the Holy Spirit, not of myself.

~Cordially Sparrow[/B]

I have shown you but you refuse to see it. If you add works to grace you ARE NOT teaching the gospel of grace that was given to Paul.

You say you don't like my TONE. Well get over it, I don't care for yours either. The forum has cautioned that it get heated at times.

The Apostles can be called Christians if you wish but they never taught the gospel of grace that Paul taught. I have shown you that in the scriptures and you refuse to see it. Here, I will offer more proof but I know you will, again, refuse to see it.

A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews? (See Galatians 5:3-6 below)

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Galatians 5:3-6
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “â€wereâ€â€ James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.

But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.

 

[Sparkey]

The Apostles can be called Christians if you wish

If "they" can be called "Christian" and if "we" can also be called Christian, what is the difference?? Your concession that "they can be called 'Christian' - misses the point. We could agree that anybody could be called Christian - but only Christ Followers whose names are written the the Book of life actually qualify.

Jesus was/is/always will be Christian, He was/is/always will be Jewish too - The Holy Spirit makes careful note of this fact. He was sent to and spoke to Jews (who were alive during his ministry) for three years. Does that mean that His words were spoken to the Jews ONLY? Are the words of his disciples also spoken to the JEWS who were alive at that time ONLY? Were the words spoken through David in Psalms or the words spoken through Moses? What about the words that the Holy Spirit spoke to ME - in the book of Genesis? Oh, I must be in error of that, if your method be true.

Do you expect me to now go through the entire bible and parse it according to the target audience? :shocked!

With this in mind the full natural conclusion would be that I only need pay attention to those parts of the Bible that specifically mention "Sparrowhawke", If Jesus was speaking to a Samaritan woman - well, that leaves me out - She was a woman and a Samaritan. If He was talking (at the moment) to a member of one of the Tribes of Israel? Okay, I can cut that part out too, right? It doesn't apply to me.

What about Peter? When he spoke to Jews did he not say something like "even as many as the Lord our God shall call" ???

Hmmm... let me go fetch that one, so we can try that one on for size...

Act 2:39 KJV - For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

If I understand the parse method you propose for reading the Bible, the Holy Word of God - we would have to render that to be something like this, "For the promise is unto Jews, and the the children of Jews, and to the Jews that are afar off, [even] as many Jews as the Lord, the God of the Jews, shall call."

Am I getting it now? I've tried to listen to you, although you seem to have ignored the intent of my first post. God speaks to all, my friend - and he admonishes us to be like Him - to remove ourselves and sever our relationships with sinners - to turn from our sin and to accept the payment that Jesus offered in our stead. From that point of view (Heavenly) - we, as gentiles have been grafted into the One True Tree, Jesus - the Tree of Life. Now then, if we are indeed grafted in - and if we know that the LORD had laid the ax to the root and then - appealed to his Father in his Spirit - saying, "Let me dung it about for 3 years - and if it still cumbereth the ground - then Yes - my ax shall strike," how much more so should we, not being the natural tree take care???

That by the action of the rejection of the King was the gift of SALVATION offered to all nations.

Huh?

 

[RichardBurger]

If "they" can be called "Christian" and if "we" can also be called Christian, what is the difference?? Your concession that "they can be called 'Christian' - misses the point. We could agree that anybody could be called Christian - but only Christ Followers whose names are written the the Book of life actually qualify.

Jesus was/is/always will be Christian, He was/is/always will be Jewish too - The Holy Spirit makes careful note of this fact. He was sent to and spoke to Jews (who were alive during his ministry) for three years. Does that mean that His words were spoken to the Jews ONLY? Are the words of his disciples also spoken to the JEWS who were alive at that time ONLY? Were the words spoken through David in Psalms or the words spoken through Moses? What about the words that the Holy Spirit spoke to ME - in the book of Genesis? Oh, I must be in error of that, if your method be true.

Do you expect me to now go through the entire bible and parse it according to the target audience? :shocked!

I would expect that those that say they believe the word of God would actually mean it. Since your theology relies on your idea that Jesus' words were to all, how do you get around what Jesus said.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

The scripture makes it clear that the message sent by Jesus was specifically to the Jews. It is clear, to me, that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles. The above scriptures support what I believe.

 

[smaller]

Yep. The GOSPELS and all the Words of God in Christ MUST be thrown away as inapplicable to Gentile believers in FULL PRETERISM land as well as the entirety of the Old Testament.

All you get is Paul. Of course Paul didn't subscribe to full preterist theories, thankfully.

 

[RichardBurger]

Yep. The GOSPELS and all the Words of God in Christ MUST be thrown away as inapplicable to Gentile believers in FULL PRETERISM land as well as the entirety of the Old Testament.

All you get is Paul. Of course Paul didn't subscribe to full preterist theories, thankfully.

I bet you don't believe Paul was sent to the Gentiles by Jesus either. I am not sure I want to thank God that I have to do as Jesus taught. Jesus taught the Law of Moses and I will admit that I can't keep it. I thank God for His gospel of grace that He kept hidden from the world and then sent to me by the teachings of Paul.

 

[RichardBurger]

Am I getting it now? I've tried to listen to you, although you seem to have ignored the intent of my first post. God speaks to all, my friend - and he admonishes us to be like Him - to remove ourselves and sever our relationships with sinners - to turn from our sin and to accept the payment that Jesus offered in our stead. From that point of view (Heavenly) - we, as gentiles have been grafted into the One True Tree, Jesus - the Tree of Life. Now then, if we are indeed grafted in - and if we know that the LORD had laid the ax to the root and then - appealed to his Father in his Spirit - saying, "Let me dung it about for 3 years - and if it still cumbereth the ground - then Yes - my ax shall strike," how much more so should we, not being the natural tree take care???

That by the action of the rejection of the King was the gift of SALVATION offered to all nations.

Huh?

The Jews were to be a witness to the world but they did like you say, they separated themselves from the world.

Seems that I remember what Satan told Eve, that God knew if she ate the fruit they would be like God.

I will never, while living in sinful flesh, be like God. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God. I don't see that we are BEING grafted in. We already are.

You said "That by the action of the rejection of the King was the gift of SALVATION offered to all nations." How can you say this since you say the gospel never changed? If it wasn't offered to all nations before Christ then it being offered NOW is a change.

Oh, and about the fig tree I have a better discription.

From Acts 1 until Acts 7 (or perhaps 70 AD) the Jewish nation could have repented and accepted Jesus as their savior. He would have returned for His second coming and set up His kingdom rule from Jerusalem and all Gentile nations would be blessed through Israel. Read Luke 13:6-9 and realize that Jesus told this story as an indication of what would happen if Israel (the fig tree) rejected Jesus. The Jews had a time period in which they could have repented. (Acts 2:37-38)

Luke 13:6-9 (The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree)
6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"
NKJV

However, just as the nation of Israel rejected God when they said they wanted a human king to rule over them, (1 Samuel 8:19 and 10:19) they also rejected the Son of God when they said they "had no king but Caesar," (John 19:15) and, finally, they rejected the Holy Spirit when they stoned Stephens, Acts 7. They had rejected all three in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who was speaking through Stephens, and their doom was sealed. The "kingdom of heaven" on this earth was put on hold until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Luke 21:24.

IMPORTANT NOTE: -- This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. But that purpose was “hidden in God” and revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. (Eph 3:9)

 

[Sparkey]

I bet you don't believe Paul was sent to the Gentiles by Jesus either. I am not sure I want to thank God that I have to do as Jesus taught. Jesus taught the Law of Moses and I will admit that I can't keep it. I thank God for His gospel of grace that He kept hidden from the world and then sent to me by the teachings of Paul.

You'd lose that bet.

I also thank God that I am also required to do as Jesus taught. May I ask now a rather poignant question? It's about Peter and what he said, not about the stuff Paul wrote about. Why do you think Peter warned us when speaking of people who quoted Paul? What do you think the Holy Spirit through PETER meant? Huh?

What is your take on Peter's admonition regarding twisting (KJV word == wrest) Paul's writings? Do you think he warns that some actually try to twist ALL scripture and not just the writings of Paul? How do you respond to that statement made by the man of Faith known as Peter, may I ask?

The word "strebloō" metaphorically means: to pervert, it is used of one who wrests or tortures language in a false sense

As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here then, something you may or may not be familiar with - something given freely - the entire chapter, written by the Holy Spirit, through the pen of Peter (according to the HNV of the Bible):

This is now, beloved, the second letter that I have written to you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by reminding you;
that you should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the mitzvot of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior:

Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers will come, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an eretz formed out of water and amid water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens that now are, and the eretz, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But don't forget this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness; but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat, and the eretz and the works that are in it will be burned up.

Therefore since all these things are thus to be destroyed, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire will be dissolved, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new eretz, in which dwells righteousness.

Therefore, beloved, seeing that you look for these things, be diligent to be found in shalom, without blemish and blameless in his sight. Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Yeshua the Messiah. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amein.

 

[smaller]

I bet you don't believe Paul was sent to the Gentiles by Jesus either. I am not sure I want to thank God that I have to do as Jesus taught. Jesus taught the Law of Moses and I will admit that I can't keep it. I thank God for His gospel of grace that He kept hidden from the world and then sent to me by the teachings of Paul.

No, you simply have cast out a vast amounts, nearly the ENTIRETY of Gods Words without any real requirement to do so other than to support the false premises of full preterism.

The problem is NOT with Gods Words, but as you so state, the guy readin' same and the resulting voided theories that come forth from non-understandings.

Paul advised us CLEARLY how ANY COMMAND in the entirety of the B-I-B-L-E is to be comprehened AND PERFORMED by us in Romans 13:8-10.

Rather than take THE CLUE FROM PAUL, your own supposed ally, about how that works, you rather just TOSS out GODS WORDS?

Is that supposed to make sense?

Maybe to you.

 

[RichardBurger]

No, you simply have cast out a vast amounts, nearly the ENTIRETY of Gods Words without any real requirement to do so other than to support the false premises of full preterism.

The problem is NOT with Gods Words, but as you so state, the guy readin' same and the resulting voided theories that come forth from non-understandings.

Paul advised us CLEARLY how ANY COMMAND in the entirety of the B-I-B-L-E is to be comprehened AND PERFORMED by us in Romans 13:8-10.

Rather than take THE CLUE FROM PAUL, your own supposed ally, about how that works, you rather just TOSS out GODS WORDS?

Is that supposed to make sense?

Maybe to you.

See reply #47. I get tired of having to repeat myself. If you believe the word of God you would believe what Jesus said about who he was sent to. But you seem to believe He didn't really mean it.

 

[RichardBurger]

I have finished on this thread. No one here will really believes what the scriptures say. They modify them to fit their religious doctrines.

The OP was proof that James used Gen. 22 for his writing and Paul used Gen 15. This fact has not been refuted. I have shown that James writing was to the Jews who were under the Law of Moses. I have shown that James and the edlers were still teaching the Law of Moses to the Jews and that Paul was not (Acts 21).

But most refuse to see this so I am leaving this thread. Why should I spend my time on it any longer.

 

[smaller]

See reply #47. I get tired of having to repeat myself. If you believe the word of God you would believe what Jesus said about who he was sent to. But you seem to believe He didn't really mean it.

The record of the Gospels on these matters are clear enough, which same you have simply TOSSED along with the majority of the text and ALL of Gods Words to boot. So what else is new in full preterism?

John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

If you want to funnel that down to Israel only yer prolly wasting your time with Christianity anyway.

 

[dadof10]

I have shown you but you refuse to see it. If you add works to grace you ARE NOT teaching the gospel of grace that was given to Paul.

You say you don't like my TONE. Well get over it, I don't care for yours either. The forum has cautioned that it get heated at times.

The Apostles can be called Christians if you wish but they never taught the gospel of grace that Paul taught. I have shown you that in the scriptures and you refuse to see it. Here, I will offer more proof but I know you will, again, refuse to see it.

A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews? (See Galatians 5:3-6 below)

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Galatians 5:3-6
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.

But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.

Wow, are you misreading this. You can't pluck a couple of verses out of context and ignore the rest. You will come to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion as the text.

And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. (Acts (RSV) 21)

The Jewish converts "have been told" that Paul was teaching them to "forsake Moses and not to circumcise their children or observe the customs".

So the question is, is what they "have been told" TRUE? The rest of the chapter answers this question.

"What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. (Acts (RSV) 21)

He then went and did what he had been told (take a Vow) to PROVE the gossip WRONG. To prove the EXACT OPPOSITE of your contention here.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Paul had nothing against the proper use of the Law, as long as it wasn't OBLIGATORY. How else do you explain him KEEPING a Jewish VOW here, which is what he did?

I have finished on this thread. No one here will really believes what the scriptures say. They modify them to fit their religious doctrines.

The OP was proof that James used Gen. 22 for his writing and Paul used Gen 15. This fact has not been refuted. I have shown that James writing was to the Jews who were under the Law of Moses. I have shown that James and the edlers were still teaching the Law of Moses to the Jews and that Paul was not (Acts 21).

But most refuse to see this so I am leaving this thread. Why should I spend my time on it any longer.

I have just proved you wrong using your own verses. Will you still take your ball and go home?

 

[RichardBurger]

No, you simply have cast out a vast amounts, nearly the ENTIRETY of Gods Words without any real requirement to do so other than to support the false premises of full preterism.

The problem is NOT with Gods Words, but as you so state, the guy readin' same and the resulting voided theories that come forth from non-understandings.

Paul advised us CLEARLY how ANY COMMAND in the entirety of the B-I-B-L-E is to be comprehened AND PERFORMED by us in Romans 13:8-10.

Rather than take THE CLUE FROM PAUL, your own supposed ally, about how that works, you rather just TOSS out GODS WORDS?

Is that supposed to make sense?

Maybe to you.

Casting them out is your idea, not mine. I accept the words of God as meaning what they say. All the scriptures are written FOR US but not all of them are written TO US but you can't see it.

I wanted to respond to your false charge against me. I am not the one that tries to rewrite the scriptures to make them mean something that they don't.

 

[RichardBurger]

Wow, are you misreading this. You can't pluck a couple of verses out of context and ignore the rest. You will come to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion as the text.

And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. (Acts (RSV) 21)

The Jewish converts "have been told" that Paul was teaching them to "forsake Moses and not to circumcise their children or observe the customs".

So the question is, is what they "have been told" TRUE? The rest of the chapter answers this question.

"What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. (Acts (RSV) 21)

He then went and did what he had been told (take a Vow) to PROVE the gossip WRONG. To prove the EXACT OPPOSITE of your contention here.



Paul had nothing against the proper use of the Law, as long as it wasn't OBLIGATORY. How else do you explain him KEEPING a Jewish VOW here, which is what he did?

I have just proved you wrong using your own verses. Will you still take your ball and go home?

Yes.

 

[smaller]

Casting them out is your idea, not mine. I accept the words of God as meaning what they say.

Yeah, that's why you don't have to listen to Jesus, right? 'Cause He was sent only to Israel?

All the scriptures are written FOR US but not all of them are written TO US but you can't see it.

hmmm? For us/to us? So when Jesus quoted the old testament scripture to Satan in the desert temptation that Man will live by EVERY WORD of God, Jesus should have inserted "as long as it is contextually applicable?"

I wanted to respond to your false charge against me. I am not the one that tries to rewrite the scriptures to make them mean something that they don't.

Hey, everyone IS going to have their own reflections on these matters and are entitled to same. That working is unavoidable. As to 'false charge' I have no idea what you refer to. Sorry.

It is no mystery that full preterism writes off a good majority of the text as contextually inapplicable and have devised two gospels in the process using their methodologies. At the heart of that matter is their INability to 'HARMONIZE' Law and Grace, even though there is adequate scriptural ground to do so.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Article found in the Jerusalem Post

The maligned Apostle
By DWIGHT A. PRYOR
09/12/2010 13:14

As a devout Pharisee by his own testimony, Paul/Saul felt zeal for the Torah, and was confident of his righteous standing with respect to it (Philippians 3:5-6). Even after his encounter with the risen Jesus, he continued to identify himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). He went out of his way to celebrate the Feasts (20:16), and insisted the Torah was “spiritual†and the commandments, “holy, just and good,†and that in which he delighted (Romans 7:12, 14, 22).

Follow the link for the whole article if interested.