Galatian Conundrums

[Guojing]

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.)

Another point about how Peter understood the Matthew's version of the GC that you might want to think about

Put yourself in the shoes of Peter during the time of Acts. When he was learning from Jesus, this was what Jesus commanded

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Then before Jesus ascended to heaven, he gave this instructions to him Matt 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

One of the commandments taught by Jesus is "Go not into the Gentiles". Put yourself in Peter's shoes, do you think he understood Jesus's instructions wrongly?

 

[Guojing]

Right, that`s why you wasted 8 hours posting libel about me yesterday.

If you have visited this forum before you joined, she is well known for making personal and sarcastic attacks if she disagrees with your Bible interpretation, and fail to persuade you.

Others have pointed out the same observations about her.

 

[RickStudies]

If you have visited this forum before you joined, she is well known for making personal and sarcastic attacks if she disagrees with your Bible interpretation, and fail to persuade you.

Others have pointed out the same observations about her.

I`m over it. I don`t care anymore. It`s last time I contribute a new topic and commentary to this site though. Just fun reactionary posts for me from now on.

 

[Guojing]

I`m over it. I don`t care anymore. It`s last time I contribute a new topic and commentary to this site though. Just fun reactionary posts for me from now on.

I think in every forum, there will always be people who cannot agree to disagree politely.

If you don't see things their way, they will go berserk on you and call you all kinds of names, including proclaiming publicly that they are ignoring you from then on, as if anyone cares.

You cannot control how they respond, you can only control your own.

 

[Guojing]

All these claims that the Jewish churches of the 12 didn`t continue in the Law of Moses is just unreasonable. If you were a Jew in those days you did the Moses thing, you lived in a Theocracy, you would be ostracized if not killed if you abandoned it.

The scriptures I posted should have been enough to settle the argument and I had plenty more because Paul had quite a bit to say about the circumcision crowd. But I have no reason to put them up since you guys would just rant some more.

It`s naive and it isn`t historical for you to think that you disproved what I was trying to tell you. The facts both Biblical and historical back me up not you.

I think she rejects the idea of "progressive revelation". She does not accept that Paul could only proclaim this double curse after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where the original apostles agreed to bind on earth that only Gentiles are to be exempted, but Jews must still continue the Law of Moses (Acts 21).

Thus, she does not accept that, in the transitional period of Acts, there were 2 separate gospels running concurrently. One for the Jews, the other for the Gentiles. That is because there are many people, seen in this discussion thread, who have been taught that "the message of the Gospel must be unchanging throughout". They don't want to read the bible literally.

If they don't want to see that, nothing anyone say will change their minds.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Yet people use the same bibl and can not agree what it means

It still has to be deeper

True, and I have in the past had ppl strongly disagree with me on this, but also there are 2 main brancing manuscript famlis of the NT and over 300 different variant manuscript readings. I noticed when using different translations that some had entire verses added, removed or reading differntly, and not just translated different. I set out to understand why, I found out what I said about the manuscripts. Some have verses that were added 1,100 years after it was written but still appreas in some translations. ONe verses is only found in 4 manuscripts out of 1,000s yet is on most translations today, and the earliest manuscript that it appears in the actual text is from the 1500s yet it's accepted as true and if it;s brought up many ppl shun you.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Another point about how Peter understood the Matthew's version of the GC that you might want to think about

Put yourself in the shoes of Peter during the time of Acts. When he was learning from Jesus, this was what Jesus commanded

Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Then before Jesus ascended to heaven, he gave this instructions to him Matt 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

One of the commandments taught by Jesus is "Go not into the Gentiles". Put yourself in Peter's shoes, do you think he understood Jesus's instructions wrongly?

This is a good point IMO. And possibly why it took Peter a min to get it right.

IMO it was to build up a base of disciple of Jesus in Israel before he sent them out.

As I have already stated, if peter understood as you did, he would not have reacted the way he did in acts 10. You are ignoring that point and sticking to your stand.

Thus Your interpretation of the great commission in Matt does not make sense in context.

You don’t see it? That is fine. People rarely change their minds over internet discussions with strangers anyway 😇

I think you are missing what I am saying. I said yeas it clearly took Peter a few times to get it right.

My main point, and I think I have not been clear enough is that it is of no consequence if Peter understood or not, Jesus DID send all the disciples to all people; inculding gentiels in Mat 28. Thus saying because Peter didnt understand right away so the 12 were not sent to gentiles is false, not saying you said that. But the fact is Jesus told them to go to gentiles. And eventually yes Peter did get the memo because 1 he went to Cornelius and b he said he was sent to gentiles:

Jesus commanss in Mat 28:

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.”

Peter does go to gentiles after spirit led vision in Acts 10

Peter says he is sent to gentiles in Acts 15

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]

This is a good point IMO. And possibly why it took Peter a min to get it right.

IMO it was to build up a base of disciple of Jesus in Israel before he sent them out.


I think you are missing what I am saying. I said yeas it clearly took Peter a few times to get it right.

My main point, and I think I have not been clear enough is that it is of no consequence if Peter understood or not, Jesus DID send all the disciples to all people; inculding gentiels in Mat 28. Thus saying because Peter didnt understand right away so the 12 were not sent to gentiles is false, not saying you said that. But the fact is Jesus told them to go to gentiles. And eventually yes Peter did get the memo because 1 he went to Cornelius and b he said he was sent to gentiles:

Jesus commanss in Mat 28:

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.”

Peter does go to gentiles after spirit led vision in Acts 10

Peter says he is sent to gentiles in Acts 15

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."

It did matter because the Matthew version of the gc required all to follow the law of Moses.

It was based on the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel, as I have mentioned to charlie renee, was explicitly forbidden to be preached to the gentiles.

It makes no sense to command the gentiles to follow everything Jesus commanded if the law of moses was never meant for them.

So peter reacted correctly in acts 10, based on what he knew then

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

It did matter because the Matthew version of the gc required all to follow the law of Moses.

It was based on the gospel of the kingdom. That gospel, as I have mentioned to charlie renee, was explicitly forbidden to be preached to the gentiles.

It makes no sense to command the gentiles to follow everything Jesus commanded if the law of moses was never meant for them.

So peter reacted correctly in acts 10, based on what he knew then

Can you provide Bible verse that says "that gospel of the kingdom message" was forbidden to be preached to gentiles?

Because that contradict what Jesus said: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"

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.”

If you can not proved evidence then I can not consider it. I need Biblical proof.

 

[Guojing]

Can you provide Bible verse that says "that gospel of the kingdom message" was forbidden to be preached to gentiles?

Because that contradict what Jesus said: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"

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.”

If you can not proved evidence then I can not consider it. I need Biblical proof.

Didn’t you respond to my earlier post when I quoted Matthew 10:5?

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Didn’t you respond to my earlier post when I quoted Matthew 10:5?

Here

IMO it was to build up a base of disciple of Jesus in Israel before he sent them out.

that is sent them out to gentiles, and said "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" not teach them a differnt doctrine.

This does not make what He said post-resurrection invalid. He said don't go to gentiles pre-resurrection, then post resurrection He sent them to gentiles. Again this does not void Matt 28, if anything Mat over rules Matt 10:5

Also I am still interested for a reply to this.

Can you provide Bible verse that says "that gospel of the kingdom message" was forbidden to be preached to gentiles?

Because that contradict what Jesus said: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you"

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.”

If you can not proved evidence then I can not consider it. I need Biblical proof.

If you are using Matt 10:5 how do you reconcile Mat 28?

 

[Guojing]

Also I am still interested for a reply

If you are using Matt 10:5 how do you reconcile Mat 28?

Already stated, the gc was for The 12 to preach to Jews only.

Then everything starts to make sense.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Already stated, the gc was for The 12 to preach to Jews only.

Then everything starts to make sense.

For me it makes perfect sense accepting what Matt 28 says.

Matthew 28:16-20, " 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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.”

He was going to ascend and wanted the gospel of the kingdom spread through the entire world.

ALl the living current disciples (Mattithias was not yet chosen) was who Jesus was talking to, He told them do make deciples of all nations (gentiles) teaching them all that He taught the disciples.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Guojing]

For me it makes perfect sense accepting what Matt 28 says.

Matthew 28:16-20, " 16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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.”

He was going to ascend and wanted the gospel of the kingdom spread through the entire world.

ALl the living current disciples (Mattithias was not yet chosen) was who Jesus was talking to, He told them do make deciples of all nations (gentiles) teaching them all that He taught the disciples.

Makes perfect sense to me.

That is very understandable.

As I was telling rick in another thread, I can tell you are a red letter Christian, so it would be unthinkable for you to accept what I am saying.

Francis Chan must be one of your favourite preachers I guess?

Cheers

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

That is very understandable.

As I was telling rick in another thread, I can tell you are a red letter Christian, so it would be unthinkable for you to accept what I am saying.

Francis Chan must be one of your favourite preachers I guess?

Cheers

Yes I proudly hang on every word of the King of Kings. It is a crazy day when I am on a Christian site, and two ppl are right now telling me not to follow Jesus words.

John 12:48-50, " 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

Acts 3:22-23, " 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

Luke 6:46-49, " 46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? 47 Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Francis Chan must be one of your favourite preachers I guess?

Cheers

No the Messiah is my favorite preacher, never even heard of Francis Chan.

 

[RickStudies]

I think she rejects the idea of "progressive revelation". She does not accept that Paul could only proclaim this double curse after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where the original apostles agreed to bind on earth that only Gentiles are to be exempted, but Jews must still continue the Law of Moses (Acts 21).

Thus, she does not accept that, in the transitional period of Acts, there were 2 separate gospels running concurrently. One for the Jews, the other for the Gentiles. That is because there are many people, seen in this discussion thread, who have been taught that "the message of the Gospel must be unchanging throughout". They don't want to read the bible literally.

If they don't want to see that, nothing anyone say will change their minds.

Any beliefs that don`t fit the opinions of the core group around here aren`t welcome. They zeroed in on the 2 gospel term because it was an easy target. I dismissed their Galatian argument because if they had taken into account the disclaimers I gave at the very beginning it wouldn`t have been an issue. I`m not interested in answering stupid questions that have nothing to do with learning something.

Like the guy asking me did Jesus come in the flesh Thought he was going to trip me up with what he apparently thinks is a trick question. I can`t answer questions like that, I just can`t do it. I used to participate in legit serious debates.

 

[Guojing]

No the Messiah is my favorite preacher, never even heard of Francis Chan.

He, together with others like David Platt, often go back to the 4 gospels and ask "What/How would Jesus respond", whenever he explains any doctrine.

And he often view the early Acts church as the ideal model in which all current churches should be aiming towards. His latest book I believe is called "Letters to the Church". Based on what I have seen of your beliefs, you will find that book very acceptable.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

He, together with others like David Platt, often go back to the 4 gospels and ask "What/How would Jesus respond", whenever he explains any doctrine.

And he often view the early Acts church as the ideal model in which all current churches should be aiming towards. His latest book I believe is called "Letters to the Church". Based on what I have seen of your beliefs, you will find that book very acceptable.

Maybe there is good stuff in there IDK, but I dont read books about Jesus or pther ppls teachings concerning Jesus, I go to the Savior. Let me post a verse then tell you about an experice I had pls;

John 10:14-16, " 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

So maybe about 9 years ago someone close to me was going to a church and they were big on Joseph Prince. Their "pastor" told them J.Prince was a good teacher, said person bought me a J.Prince book. I got to about page 7-8 or so and tossed it out. Why? Because things taught in this book directly contradicted what the word said, that is what Jesus and His disciples taught. As soon as I read it I felt it was wrong, I opened my Bible and found the verse that proved J.Prince was teaching flasely.... Why would I go to any man when I have the words of Jesus... I had already been deep into the word, guided by God on a life long journey, but that made it more certian.

Jesus is the way.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Also I want to add, there are a ton of ppl that have good teachings that are true, but I donlt look to any man for truth. If I come across truth though other ppl that is wonderful and I look into it to confirm it, but I dont "study" ppls teachings. Why would O when we have the word.

John 14:21, “he who possesses My commands and guards them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall love him and manifest Myself to him.”

John 10:9, “I am the door. Whoever enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out and find pasture.”

Matt 7:24-27, “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell, and great was its fall.”