Galatian Conundrums

[Guojing]

I have never changed my position.
Neither has God or his word. The Gospel has always been the same.

It is interesting how you will not want to read the Bible literally and tell people what the scripture actually says.

Covenant Theologians and dispensationalists are really fundamentally different in the way they read and interpret Scripture. I learned a lot from this exchange with you.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It is interesting how you will not want to read the Bible literally and tell people what the scripture actually says.

Covenant Theologians and dispensationalists are really fundamentally different in the way they read and interpret Scripture. I learned a lot from this exchange with you.

You have formed an opinion filtered through your obscured paradigm.
I don't know what camp that you think I am in with your little comparison, rest assured that you have misjudged.
Covenantist Vs Dispensationalists the prospect would laughable if it weren't so tragic. Oh well, being human means just as Paul so eloquently put it, "we see in a glass dimly."

When encountering factions I always remember a thing that a friend once told me, there is a ditch on both sides of the road, even the wrong road.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

The 12 were even given the authority from Jesus himself to forgive sins (John 20:21–23 ), so yes, they had far more authority than us now, simply because they were the ones with Jesus in the flesh.

My point, in case you have not realized, is to show you the implication of having the belief that Peter was sent to ALL people. If it was true, and Peter understood that as you have believed in, the events in Acts 10 would not be recorded as what it did:

• Peter would have no issue going to Cornelius house at all, without having to be prompted by the Holy Spirit thrice.
• Peter would not have to tell Cornelius and the Gentiles there that it was against the law for him to be there.
• Peter would not have been astonished at all that the Holy Spirit was being poured to the Gentiles, even without circumcision nor water baptism.

Unfortunately, you chose to interpret my reply to you as "putting words into your mouth". But that is not surprising, as I have said to 7sear, we read things and interpret other people's actions "as we are", instead of "as they are".

But we were talking about making laws not fogiving sins... (if you look at my post thats what I said, I dont believe men can make laws basically)

SO just because Peter needs to be told twice it cancells out the fact? No I disagree.

How many times do I have to post it?

Jesus sent all His disciples to all nations:

Matthew 28:19-20, " 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Do you reject the words of the Savior?

Tell me is it true when Jesus said "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"

Also Peter himself saying he was sent to gentiles:

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

 

[Guojing]

You have formed an opinion filtered through your obscured paradigm.
I don't know what camp that you think I am in with your little comparison, rest assured that you have misjudged.
Covenantist Vs Dispensationalists the prospect would laughable if it weren't so tragic. Oh well, being human means just as Paul so eloquently put it, "we see in a glass dimly."

When encountering factions I always remember a thing that a friend once told me, there is a ditch on both sides of the road, even the wrong road.

So to sum up your view, you believe that even though

• Jesus has not died, not buried, not resurrected yet.
• Peter did not understand why Jesus had to die
• Peter rebuked Jesus for telling them he had to die.
• Peter thought someone stole the body on resurrection day

Peter still continue to somehow preach Jesus's death burial and resurrection throughout the 4 Gospels, to all the unbelieving Jews.

That is because you firmly hold on to that doctrine that "The good news has never changed in its content throughout both the OT and the NT"?

Fascinating discovery I have to say. Okay, as I have said many times, all of us are still Christians even if we hold different views about this. I suspect you might not agree but that is fine.

 

[Guojing]

But we were talking about making laws not fogiving sins... (if you look at my post thats what I said, I dont believe men can make laws basically)

SO just because Peter needs to be told twice it cancells out the fact? No I disagree.

How many times do I have to post it?

Jesus sent all His disciples to all nations:

Matthew 28:19-20, " 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Do you reject the words of the Savior?

Tell me is it true when Jesus said "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"

Also Peter himself saying he was sent to gentiles:

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

Have you realized perhaps an easier explanation is that Peter, who spent about 40 days with the post resurrected Christ, whom taught them everything pertaining the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), understood Matt 28:19-20 very differently from how you would understand it in the English language?

As I have stated to 7seas elsewhere in this thread:

One point I would like to raise where the Bible translates the Greek into this term "all nations". May I suggest that the meaning is not exactly the same when we understood it in English.

Let me give you an example from Luke 2:1 KJV

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Young's version goes

And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled

I am presenting a view that when we read "all the nations" in the Matthew version of the GC, it may not mean exactly what we think it means in the English. It could point towards "all the known Jews in the Roman Empire".

Of course, you could be correct, I am not denying that possibility. I am saying there could be another possible explanation, that every Jew at that time have a different idea from you about what preaching to "all nations" really meant.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Have you realized perhaps an easier explanation is that Peter, who spent about 40 days with the post resurrected Christ, whom taught them everything pertaining the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), understood Matt 28:19-20 very differently from how you would understand it in the English language?

As I have stated to 7seas elsewhere in this thread:

One point I would like to raise where the Bible translates the Greek into this term "all nations". May I suggest that the meaning is not exactly the same when we understood it in English.

Let me give you an example from Luke 2:1 KJV

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Young's version goes

And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled

I am presenting a view that when we read "all the nations" in the Matthew version of the GC, it may not mean exactly what we think it means in the English. It could point towards "all the known Jews in the Roman Empire".

Of course, you could be correct, I am not denying that possibility. I am saying there could be another possible explanation, that every Jew at that time have a different idea from you about what preaching to "all nations" really meant.

You still seem to be ignoring Peter himself saying he was sent to gentiles, this in iteself disproves that he was not sent to gentiles:

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

And what you are saying makes no logical sense because Mat 28:19 uses a differnt greek word than Luke 2:1

Matthew 28:19-20, " 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (1484. ethnos), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

1484. ethnos
ethnos: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)
Original Word: ἔθνος, ους, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: ethnos
Phonetic Spelling: (eth'-nos)
Definition: a race, a nation, the nations (as distinct from Israel)
Usage: a race, people, nation; the nations, heathen world, Gentiles.

You will see word #G1484. ethnos does not appear anywhere in Luke 2:1

Luke 2: 1 And it came to be in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for all the world to be registered.

3956 [e] πᾶσαν
pasan all Adj-AFS

3588 [e] τὴν
tēn the Art-AFS

3625 [e] οἰκουμένην.
oikoumenēn world. N-AFS

Mat 28 literally says "gentiles" that is non-Israelites. So for anyone to claim Peter and the 12 were not sent to gentiles is 100% directly in oppisition to the words of Jesus.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

.

Also I want to say, none of us are perfect and we are all seeking truth, not knowing all, but continually seeking. In my walk I have learned more and more why God said what He did about Jesus through Moses (Deut 18:18-19) and Peter (Acts 3:22-23), and why Jesus Himself said:

John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

His worksm His way, His teachings, His guidance. Him. Never let anyone trick you into not following the One and only Shepherd.

 

[Guojing]

You still seem to be ignoring Peter himself saying he was sent to gentiles, this in iteself disproves that he was not sent to gentiles:

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

And what you are saying makes no logical sense because Mat 28:19 uses a differnt greek word than Luke 2:1

Matthew 28:19-20, " 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (1484. ethnos), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

1484. ethnos
ethnos: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)
Original Word: ἔθνος, ους, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: ethnos
Phonetic Spelling: (eth'-nos)
Definition: a race, a nation, the nations (as distinct from Israel)
Usage: a race, people, nation; the nations, heathen world, Gentiles.

You will see word #G1484. ethnos does not appear anywhere in Luke 2:1

Luke 2: 1 And it came to be in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for all the world to be registered.

3956 [e] πᾶσαν
pasan all Adj-AFS

3588 [e] τὴν
tēn the Art-AFS

3625 [e] οἰκουμένην.
oikoumenēn world. N-AFS

Mat 28 literally says "gentiles" that is non-Israelites. So for anyone to claim Peter and the 12 were not sent to gentiles is 100% directly in oppisition to the words of Jesus.

Okay, we can agree to disagree there, no problem. I have already stated that Peter would not have reacted in Acts 10 if he truly believed that Matt 28 is calling him to reach out to gentiles too.

Furthermore, there are other passages that showed that the 12 continued to stay in Jerusalem despite the persecution that broke out after Stephen died (Acts 8:1), and those that scattered, most of them preached to the Jews only (Acts 11:19)

All these passages, together with how Peter reacted in Acts 10, have convinced me that the GC was originally intended only for Jews to preach to Jews. But I understand that other people would believe differently and that is fine.

I have discussed this more in another thread that you can read thru if you are keen.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...mission-irrelevant-for-the-church-now.182210/

 

[Magenta]

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Jude 1:3‭-‬4‭, ‬24‭-‬25 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/jud.1.3-25.NASB

Jude 24-25

 

[Locoponydirtman]

So to sum up your view, you believe that even though

• Jesus has not died, not buried, not resurrected yet.
• Peter did not understand why Jesus had to die
• Peter rebuked Jesus for telling them he had to die.
• Peter thought someone stole the body on resurrection day

Peter still continue to somehow preach Jesus's death burial and resurrection throughout the 4 Gospels, to all the unbelieving Jews.

That is because you firmly hold on to that doctrine that "The good news has never changed in its content throughout both the OT and the NT"?

Fascinating discovery I have to say. Okay, as I have said many times, all of us are still Christians even if we hold different views about this. I suspect you might not agree but that is fine.

It's common for Christian to hold various views and ideas, as long as those disagreements do not contradict essentially doctrines, then there is room for debate. So, as long as we agree that salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus; the living son of God being one with God; Having died on the cross, also resurrected. Then by all means let's debate and fellowship.

 

[Guojing]

It's common for Christian to hold various views and ideas, as long as those disagreements do not contradict essentially doctrines, then there is room for debate. So, as long as we agree that salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus; the living son of God being one with God; Having died on the cross, also resurrected. Then by all means let's debate and fellowship.

Do you consider yourself as a covenant theologian?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Also I want to say, none of us are perfect and we are all seeking truth, not knowing all, but continually seeking. In my walk I have learned more and more why God said what He did about Jesus through Moses (Deut 18:18-19) and Peter (Acts 3:22-23), and why Jesus Himself said:

John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

His worksm His way, His teachings, His guidance. Him. Never let anyone trick you into not following the One and only Shepherd.

the problem is many THINK they are following God. when they really are not.

The jews had this major issue, thinking they followed the God of Abraham, when they were in reality not following him.

We have the same issue today, People can quote scripture all day long, but they really (like the jews) do not understand the scripture they post.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You have formed an opinion filtered through your obscured paradigm.
I don't know what camp that you think I am in with your little comparison, rest assured that you have misjudged.
Covenantist Vs Dispensationalists the prospect would laughable if it weren't so tragic. Oh well, being human means just as Paul so eloquently put it, "we see in a glass dimly."

When encountering factions I always remember a thing that a friend once told me, there is a ditch on both sides of the road, even the wrong road.

people want to put us all in a nice little file cabinet according to what they THINK we believe, then can not fathom the fact they have no comprehension of what we really believe, then get mad when we try to tell them such.

I mean, I guess they think they know us better than we know ourselves.. lol

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Do you consider yourself as a covenant theologian?

No, why would God make deals with man? He owes us nothing, and gives according to his kindness and Grace.
This does not change that he has shared with us what the plan of salvation is, and has not changed or deviated from what he has always been doing.

 

[Guojing]

No, why would God make deals with man? He owes us nothing, and gives according to his kindness and Grace.
This does not change that he has shared with us what the plan of salvation is, and has not changed or deviated from what he has always been doing.

Didn’t God made a covenant with Abraham? Why do you think he did that?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Didn’t God made a covenant with Abraham? Why do you think he did that?

Because he wanted to.
Besides that if you look at how the covenant was implemented, God was the only one to pass through the sacrifices, so while Abraham became beneficiary of the covenant, (because God's grace) it was God making a covenant with himself, while demonstrating his grace toward Abraham.

 

[Guojing]

Because he wanted to.
Besides that if you look at how the covenant was implemented, God was the only one to pass through the sacrifices, so while Abraham became beneficiary of the covenant, (because God's grace) it was God making a covenant with himself, while demonstrating his grace toward Abraham.

Yes it was an unconditional covenant which is the same covenant all of us are under now, as Paul explained in romans.

 

[Absolutely]

So you do agree that Peter was not preaching the "death burial and resurrection of Jesus" correct?

He was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is based on the identity of Jesus. (John 20:31).

Look, if you want to insist that these 2 gospels are the same, that is your prerogative. You are still a Christian even if you do.

Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom.
You do not know what peter preached.
You are not on solid ground with a doctrine based on an unknown,namely ,what is the gospel of the kingdom that paul preached.

The main red flag to the 2 gospel deal is disenfranchisement of the nt that was not written by paul.
The 2 gospel adherents have in their hands,a bible that is sketchy.
(Gospels are not for the church)
Nor is 1&2 peter or James

 

[Absolutely]

Have you realized perhaps an easier explanation is that Peter, who spent about 40 days with the post resurrected Christ, whom taught them everything pertaining the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), understood Matt 28:19-20 very differently from how you would understand it in the English language?

As I have stated to 7seas elsewhere in this thread:

One point I would like to raise where the Bible translates the Greek into this term "all nations". May I suggest that the meaning is not exactly the same when we understood it in English.

Let me give you an example from Luke 2:1 KJV

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Young's version goes

And it came to pass in those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world be enrolled

I am presenting a view that when we read "all the nations" in the Matthew version of the GC, it may not mean exactly what we think it means in the English. It could point towards "all the known Jews in the Roman Empire".

Of course, you could be correct, I am not denying that possibility. I am saying there could be another possible explanation, that every Jew at that time have a different idea from you about what preaching to "all nations" really meant.

Your deal is shaky.
Peter had many failures.
If you base your beliefs on mans infallibility you will end up not believing in anything.

Peter had the revelation that Jesus was the messiah. Then peter denied him.

Does that mean he never had the revelation?

You are on EXTREMELY shaky ground jumping to unprovable conclusions.
Your doctrine is built on unknowns.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Okay, we can agree to disagree there, no problem. I have already stated that Peter would not have reacted in Acts 10 if he truly believed that Matt 28 is calling him to reach out to gentiles too.

Furthermore, there are other passages that showed that the 12 continued to stay in Jerusalem despite the persecution that broke out after Stephen died (Acts 8:1), and those that scattered, most of them preached to the Jews only (Acts 11:19)

All these passages, together with how Peter reacted in Acts 10, have convinced me that the GC was originally intended only for Jews to preach to Jews. But I understand that other people would believe differently and that is fine.

I have discussed this more in another thread that you can read thru if you are keen.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...mission-irrelevant-for-the-church-now.182210/

So even though I showed in the word it's gentiles in the greek still no? OK.

We don't know everything they did and the book of Acts is a short period of time, it does not detail their entire lives.

Also, and I say this respectfully, no you are not going to convince me that they were only supposed to preach to Jews when the word clearly says differently;

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

Matthew 28:19-20, " 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (1484. ethnos), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

1484. ethnos: a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.)