Galatian Conundrums

[Absolutely]

The nerve of Jesus still giving them that kingdom stuff even after his resurrection.
Acts 1
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Then Jesus doesn't even know that only Paul would go to the gentiles.
Wow if only the paulines could have wrote the correct words for Jesus to say.
Acts 1
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Wow,now that is confusing. Only paul would go to the gentiles,but we see Jesus commanding the disciples to go to the gentiles.

So ,under pauline rules of exclusion,we must conclude Paul was not to go to the gentiles.

Either that bible is confused or those paulines got them a rabbit trail going on.

 

[RickStudies]

Once you adopt the dispensationalist method of adopting a literal reading of the Word as far as you can, taking context into account, it transforms the way you understand the Bible.

You are no longer worried about contradictory passages in the Bible. You can even understand James chapter 2, accept that James is saying that Jews who believed needed to have works together with their faith, with no problem.

To me, James and Paul taught same thing about works. It`s apparant if you put their pro works verses side by side.

 

[Guojing]

I dunno why but the mental picture, James digging into a BLT makes me smile. That takes a lot of imagination but I can do it.

My personal opinion of what went down in acts 21 is like how some workplaces can be so toxic.

Someone don’t like you and what you are doing but they don’t want to tell you directly.

Instead they tell you “other colleagues are unhappy with you so you should do this and that to please them”

But the truth could be that it’s only you who is unhappy. You are projecting your views to others to make you look better.

No wonder so many people warned Paul to abandon his desire to visit Jerusalem for the final time, including the Holy Spirit. It must have been very toxic to him.

Nevertheless Luke is silent there so no one will know for sure. One of the first things I will ask Luke about in heaven will be about this 🤣

 

[RickStudies]

My personal opinion of what went down in acts 21 is like how some workplaces can be so toxic.

Someone don’t like you and what you are doing but they don’t want to tell you directly.

Instead they tell you “other colleagues are unhappy with you so you should do this and that to please them”

But the truth could be that it’s only you who is unhappy. You are projecting your views to others to make you look better.

No wonder so many people warned Paul to abandon his desire to visit Jerusalem for the final time, including the Holy Spirit. It must have been very toxic to him.

Nevertheless Luke is silent there so no one will know for sure. One of the first things I will ask Luke about in heaven will be about this 🤣

I think some would have agreed with Peter, some not. James always seemed stern to me. When I was young I didn`t like the book of James

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Do you trust the book of Acts and the events recorded in it?

Do you trust the epistles of Peter?

The beginning of acts is written by Peter and the rest is recorded by Luke. Yes ACts and Peter's writings have nothing anti-word in them.

What I was talkng about is people writing books, not the word. I dont read books by there guys like Joseph Pince, C.Dollar, K.Copeland, J.Osteen and those guys you mentioned, there might be good stuff in their books IDK, but Im not interested in reading them for understanding.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Ahh that must be the book destined to reign. Jp is an acts 2 dispensationalist. Understandable that you would reject that book

Well It contradicted the word in the 1st 10 pages so I knew it was not for me.

 

[Guojing]

I think some would have agreed with Peter, some not. James always seemed stern to me. When I was young I didn`t like the book of James

Not surprising, James is known as James the Just. Most commentaries that I have read about him testified to his utmost zealousness for the Law throughout his life.

 

[Guojing]

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people


Now Paul eventually backslid and got into the false Gospel of Jesus;
Acts 20
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

...and spoiled the book of acts with his false gospel. The book of acts ends with paul all backslid preacing the Kingdom of God.
Acts 28
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Because of the axiom you began with, that there is only one gospel, you interpret the term "kingdom" to be the same, whenever you come across that term.

In the Bible, the same English word can have different meanings depending on the context.

The classic word is the word "heaven"

Gen 1:20 heaven is where birds fly, that is the sky we see above us, the first heaven.

Isaiah 13:10 talks about the stars of heaven, so there is where the Sun is located, outer space, the 2nd heaven.

And of course, the one that many dispensationalists would know of, Paul talks about being caught up in the 3rd heaven (2 Cor 12:2-4). That is where the throne of God is, beyond outer space

Thus, when Paul talks about the kingdom, please don't assume it has the same meaning as the kingdom that Peter was eagerly anticipating in Acts 1:6.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

the degree of understanding of any one person at any particular time doesn't change the truth.

there's only one gospel, and there only ever has been one. the Bible isn't silent about that. Whose kingdom do y'all figure it is anyhow lol

I mean what do they think the gospel actually is?

some kind of smorgasborg?

I'll have 2 swedish meatballs with a side of mashup please

 

[7seasrekeyed]

You have to play along. You have to start with the IDEA of 2 gospels. Then find verses to build on THAT CONCEPT.
That is what we witness in the pauline adherents.
Their own bible is unreliable in that the gospel of Jesus is no longer valid.

I can promise you that all the Pauline adherents are cessationists.

 

[RickStudies]

The nerve of Jesus still giving them that kingdom stuff even after his resurrection.
Acts 1
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Then Jesus doesn't even know that only Paul would go to the gentiles.
Wow if only the paulines could have wrote the correct words for Jesus to say.
Acts 1
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Wow,now that is confusing. Only paul would go to the gentiles,but we see Jesus commanding the disciples to go to the gentiles.

So ,under pauline rules of exclusion,we must conclude Paul was not to go to the gentiles.

Either that bible is confused or those paulines got them a rabbit trail going on.

I`m not much for Christian movies but for some here I can see where they might be useful. You should watch some and learn a little history. The apostles went to the Jews because they had to convert Israel before they could fulfill the task of converting the world.
They never finished the job, it`s history, denial of the facts is irrational.

 

[RickStudies]

I mean what do they think the gospel actually is?

some kind of smorgasborg?

I'll have 2 swedish meatballs with a side of mashup please

Great post, learning a lot from it.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 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.


This is from 2nd Peter and he is speaking some years after Paul`s death. Notice, he attributes a wisdom given to Paul that wasn`t given to the other Apostles and states that on some points Paul`s teaching is hard to understand. The circumcision believers including the apostles had to learn Paul`s gospel.

At the end of this verse Peter mentions early abusers of grace doctrine calling them unstable, unlearned and stating that they wrest Paul`s doctrine to their own destruction.

 

[Guojing]

Great post, learning a lot from it.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 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.


This is from 2nd Peter and he is speaking some years after Paul`s death. Notice, he attributes a wisdom given to Paul that wasn`t given to the other Apostles and states that on some points Paul`s teaching is hard to understand. The circumcision believers including the apostles had to learn Paul`s gospel.

At the end of this verse Peter mentions early abusers of grace doctrine calling them unstable, unlearned and stating that they wrest Paul`s doctrine to their own destruction.

I think this link provided in another thread explains it well why we have this long debate here.

https://www.the-highway.com/dispensationalism_Duncan.html

Now, this isn’t just out of accord with Covenant Theology, but this is the area where Dispensationalism has been most out of accord with Protestant theology. This is out of accord with all Calvinism, all Lutheranism, and even mainstream Anabaptist thought at the Reformation, who all taught that Old Testament believers were justified by faith in the coming Messiah as sin-bearer.

These Old Testament believers all heard the Gospel, the Reformers argued. How? Through the prophecies and types. Therefore, the essential content of their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the NT. So though the New Covenant believer may have a firmer grasp on the Gospel, because the events of the Gospel are now retrospective for the New Covenant, yet the Gospel was set forth in shadows and in types to the Old Covenant believer. So that justifying faith in the Old Testament was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work of Christ, the Messiah.

That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to take issue with it.

 

[RickStudies]

I think this link provided in another thread explains it well why we have this long debate here.

https://www.the-highway.com/dispensationalism_Duncan.html

Now, this isn’t just out of accord with Covenant Theology, but this is the area where Dispensationalism has been most out of accord with Protestant theology. This is out of accord with all Calvinism, all Lutheranism, and even mainstream Anabaptist thought at the Reformation, who all taught that Old Testament believers were justified by faith in the coming Messiah as sin-bearer.

These Old Testament believers all heard the Gospel, the Reformers argued. How? Through the prophecies and types. Therefore, the essential content of their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the NT. So though the New Covenant believer may have a firmer grasp on the Gospel, because the events of the Gospel are now retrospective for the New Covenant, yet the Gospel was set forth in shadows and in types to the Old Covenant believer. So that justifying faith in the Old Testament was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work of Christ, the Messiah.

That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to take issue with it.

I haven

I think this link provided in another thread explains it well why we have this long debate here.

https://www.the-highway.com/dispensationalism_Duncan.html

Now, this isn’t just out of accord with Covenant Theology, but this is the area where Dispensationalism has been most out of accord with Protestant theology. This is out of accord with all Calvinism, all Lutheranism, and even mainstream Anabaptist thought at the Reformation, who all taught that Old Testament believers were justified by faith in the coming Messiah as sin-bearer.

These Old Testament believers all heard the Gospel, the Reformers argued. How? Through the prophecies and types. Therefore, the essential content of their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the NT. So though the New Covenant believer may have a firmer grasp on the Gospel, because the events of the Gospel are now retrospective for the New Covenant, yet the Gospel was set forth in shadows and in types to the Old Covenant believer. So that justifying faith in the Old Testament was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work of Christ, the Messiah.

That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to take issue with it.

I have limited experience with written dispensationalist commentaries so not sure what to think about this here. My online experience with them has led me to believe there is significant varience in their beliefs. In my case, I`m a facts guy and for that reason I end up agreeing with many of the facts a dispensationalist will point to but have in the past found myself disagreeing with their opinions on what some of those facts mean. Some assumptions are made that go beyond what the scriptures actually states, that is where I begin to have issue with it.

 

[RickStudies]

The beginning of acts is written by Peter and the rest is recorded by Luke. Yes ACts and Peter's writings have nothing anti-word in them.

What I was talkng about is people writing books, not the word. I dont read books by there guys like Joseph Pince, C.Dollar, K.Copeland, J.Osteen and those guys you mentioned, there might be good stuff in their books IDK, but Im not interested in reading them for understanding.

The reason I asked you about Acts and Peter is that those books give Paul's epistles credibility and the weight of scripture. If you really believe in Acts and Peter then you should believe in Paul`s writings as well.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Revelation 14:12-13, " 12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

The reason I asked you about Acts and Peter is that those books give Paul's epistles credibility and the weight of scripture. If you really believe in Acts and Peter then you should believe in Paul`s writings as well.

I think many people, just as 2 Peter wars, read Paul and think the law is "done away" and are ccording to 2 Peter "carried away with the error of lawless"

2 Peter 3:15-17, " 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

and bottom line Jesus is the one and only shepherd, the issue I have is when people tell me Jesus words are done away and Paul standins in His place, not saying you said that, but people here have told me that.

Also I think you missed my post to you:

Galatian 2

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.


Who knows what is going on in this passage?

Wait...

Why does Paul say "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" Umm, they are pillars of the faith, they don't "seem" to be...

Revelation 21: 14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

James, Cephas, and Johns names are on the foundation of the kindom, they are pillars...

 

[RickStudies]

I think many people, just as 2 Peter wars, read Paul and think the law is "done away" and are ccording to 2 Peter "carried away with the error of lawless"

2 Peter 3:15-17, " 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

and bottom line Jesus is the one and only shepherd, the issue I have is when people tell me Jesus words are done away and Paul standins in His place, not saying you said that, but people here have told me that.

Also I think you missed my post to you:

None of this pertains to my comment about Acts and Peter. Once again I find you being evasive.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

None of this pertains to my comment about Acts and Peter. Once again I find you being evasive.

You asked about how I view Paul, I replied:

I think many people, just as 2 Peter warns, read Paul and think the law is "done away" and according to 2 Peter "carried away with the error of lawless"

I think Paul just like every other man is fallible, Jesus is not, Jesus is perfect. I think people read Paul's writings and toss Jesus out, think Paul is telling them the law is abolished and just as Peter warns they are "carried away with the error of lawless" Peter 2 says this right after mentioning Paul's writing are hard to understand and many people twist them...

Can you find one writer outside of Paul (establish everything in the mouth of 2 or 3 witensses) that even hint at the law being abolished?

If you can not is it possible that when people think the law is abolished they are doing exactly what 2 Peter warns of? Being "carried away with the error of lawless" from reading Paul.

 

[RickStudies]

You asked about how I view Paul, I replied:

I think many people, just as 2 Peter warns, read Paul and think the law is "done away" and according to 2 Peter "carried away with the error of lawless"

I think Paul just like every other man is fallible, Jesus is not, Jesus is perfect. I think people read Paul's writings and toss Jesus out, think Paul is telling them the law is abolished and just as Peter warns they are "carried away with the error of lawless" Peter 2 says this right after mentioning Paul's writing are hard to understand and many people twist them...

Can you find one writer outside of Paul (establish everything in the mouth of 2 or 3 witensses) that even hint at the law being abolished?

If you can not is it possible that when people think the law is abolished they are doing exactly what 2 Peter warns of? Being "carried away with the error of lawless" from reading Paul.

I didn`t ask how you view Paul. I`ve debated Hebrew Roots in the past so I already know.

I said you should believe what Paul said because he is affirmed by Acts and the epistles of Peter which you say you believe in.