Especially since it says in acts that paul preached the gospel of the kingdom. Says it twice.
Pauline rabbit trail.
Galatian Conundrums
- Thread starter RickStudies
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Pauline rabbit trail.
Many things the paulines say are true.
But their skewed assumptions require many twists.
You and i see the bible heaven written.
They see the bible as paul written.
Paul above Jesus.
The rest of it ,the bible,to them is a failure.
QUOTE IT HERE. PUT IT HERE. That'll end this whole debate in a matter of SECONDS. SHUT IT DOWN FOLKS
I believe...
--"the kingdom OF THE heavenS" (wherever referenced) pertains to "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom"
--"the kingdom of God" is wider-encompassing (and is not limited to that ^ )
Some say they are entirely "equivalent," but I disagree. Some things can be said about both (and be true), but not everything that can be said about the one, can be said of the other (if that makes sense).
[need my morning coffee first, yet...
]
That gimmick again.I believe...
--"the kingdom OF THE heavenS" (wherever referenced) pertains to "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom"
--"the kingdom of God" is wider-encompassing (and is not limited to that ^ )
Some say they are entirely "equivalent," but I disagree. Some things can be said about both (and be true), but not everything that can be said about the one, can be said of the other (if that makes sense).
[need my morning coffee first, yet...
This is already debunked, nobody in church history thought they were different and this is the reason why:
Matthew 19:23-24 New International Version (NIV)
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Used interchangeably.
I just got done saying that in many cases what can be said of one, can be said of the other (i.e. interchangeable).
But in other places, what is said of one CANNOT be said of the other (because they are not exactly EQUIVALENT).
____________
John 21 -
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him [/Peter], If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Even Peter got something wrong (about what Jesus had ACTUALLY said) following Jesus' resurrection... and church history is not exactly "scripture"
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?
at that time the Jews at one step to do the Gentiles did not because the Gentiles had not rejected Christ. That would become a worldwide phenomona as time continued. When it is a Gentile like the Jailer who asked what must i do to be saved the answer is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But to the Jew of that day it was repent! and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. the Lord had only been sent to the lost house of Israel at this point in time.
We understand why Paul spoke in tongues more than others because he was going out to those who spoke in many languages and needed to speak to them in those languages.
the Shepherds now had the sheep pens they were to go to. The circumcision were those who were under Law and not Grace these could be Jews as well as converted Gentiles.
Hi, good stuff. splits the church big time and there is no need for it. Let me begin this way, As you know the Abrahamic Covenant predates the Mosaic by 430 years and was ratified by Blood. Scripture says that alone rules out combining the 2 covenants. As we seen the war rage on we know they are still fighting to combine or stop the combining. The Law was never designed to save anyone. So lets look at the two covenants briefly, Abrahams covenant was and is eternal. The written Law was temporal. The Abrahamic Covenant was like a train engine on a railroad track taking those under it to Christ. Four hundred thirty years later the Law was "ADDED" to the Abrahamic Covenant. Please don't get excited on either side of the debate yet. it helps to know what a word means. The word added does not mean addition this added means placed alongside of but still separate. These two covenants were on two different tracks both heading to the cross of Christ but on two different tracks always yo be separated. But there are those who have taken the Law off its separate track and forced it into some frankenstein like monster. Only one covenant was meant to go beyond bring men to Christ and Christ crucified the eternal covenant of Abraham. Having brought men to the Lord the Law was at an end (Titus 2: 11-15) Grace was now what was to lead us, teach us how to say no and give us the power to live that life. Law has a slightly different power 1 Cor. 15: 33- 58. Law has the power sin needs not to be controlled or avoided it has the power sin takes to become utterly sinful. Paul spoke of how the Law came and produced every for of covetousness in him. That was the same sin Eve was in before anti-Christ reminded her of the one Law and like Paul Eve had every form and went from coveting to theft. I know this is getting long but here is what should scare the heck out of anyone so foolish to be saved by Grace living by Law. In Col. e we have the invisible curtain of eternity lifted that we might see and learn. There at the cross the greatest battle that has ever taken place between a Lamb and a beast. The Lamb is about to have His heel bruised while crushing the serpents head. But what is taking place where only they redeemed may see it and learn. They are nailing the Lord to the cross but look the Carpenter has something in His hand and He is nailing it to the cross. It is the written Law. Why did the Lord, the Lawgiver, take that Law and nail it to the place of death? Because the powers of darkness had armed themselves with the Law and Christ disarmed them and made a spectacle of them. Every time someone goes to Christ cross and pulls off that nailed on Law they rearm the anti-Christ and the powers of darkness with the very thing He died to disarm them, the Law. Much more on this if anybody interested. Thanks
well lets go back to Satan arming himself with the Law it took place in the Garden. Eve it would appear got somewhat of a bad rap for her time there Adam made out much better to hear people tell the story. This being who entered the sheep pen but not bu the Door, Christ, was anti-Christ. Somehow the word identifying him could be translated either Serpent or Bride and shining one, Nachash, used to speak of angels. Eve has no excuse for eating but if we see anti-Christ as he was we might have a littl more grace towards her. In Ez. 28 we meet the King of Tyre but soon becomes appearant this no man. He was the Garden Cherub in the Garden where evil was first found in him. Dressed in gold and having a breastplate and clothing like the High Priest. I believe he was meant to lead the worship of the Lord God. So Satan came looking for some to devour and found her. We have seen how angels have come and men sought to worship them until told not to so I can see how he might of beguiled her in this get up.
TThere was nothing he could do as long as they remained under His Grace so he needed to get them to forsake it. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was offered when all Adam and Eve knew at this time was good. So she ate and she saw her nakedness, uncovered sin and Adam followed her in eating and the same condemnation of the Law caused them to flee from God not to God. There is only one way for men to know what sin is and that is for the Law to define it and the knowledge of good and evil did what it must do to men if men use it correctly. They were lost and desd. But the Good Shepherd came seeking His sheep called them, they heard His voice and came to Him.. Now was going to be the first Passover but not idenyified as that yet. The Innocent is slain for the guilty and His blood covers them we are told the passed over from death to life and they did what Israel would do many years later exodus.
But they hung around because they had learned a few things. They knew when the offering was to be made. They knew where to make the opffering on the eastside of Eden where what would become the Mercy Seat stood with a flashing sword the Shekinah Glory blocked the way to the Tree of Life. Most impostantly we know the story is told every year and we can be pretty sure they told Cain and Abel each year when they went probably to the same place Abraham was going to offer Isac, the temple mount. Yes I believe the Garden of Eden was the original land granted to Abraham. Their two boys had reached the age to offer their own offering. Cain went to the Garden and brought things from the cursed earth. While Abel brought the Lamb. Abel maybe was a better guesser, The Way of Cain is alwat=ys the willful rejection of the Lamb.
If you would care to hear more the next portion deals with how the Lord sought His lost sheep Cain. Cain;s rejection and the wortd as we know it. thanks
Interesting interpretation of what went down there.
But you forgot to add that God himself gave them the Law, "Do not eat from this tree". So Adam and Eve could not remain under his Grace, there was a law they had to keep. But if they kept the Law, they would have not have died spiritually.
But you are correct that Satan used that Law to tempt and deceive Eve.
Yes, and thanks for bringing that out. You ought to here the rest of it
Your statement "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was offered when all Adam and Eve knew at this time was good." can be confusing.
Not knowing what bad was left them vulnerable. Why we need to walk by faith and not by sight. I would think knowing what good was contributed to their choice it must be wonderful too. Kind of like sin get in it you think oh this drug, drink affair is best thing ever happen spray in it and you find your stuck in mirey clay. My grandson is experiencing this with heroin right now. Thought it was great fun now he has sunk into the mirey clay and get get out. It is absolutely heartbreaking to deal with a junkie. Sorry
Intereting, are you saying they don’t know eating from that tree is bad, even after God told them they would surely die if they were to do so?
Sure this being is an angel dressed in gold like the high priest. They don’t know any evil until after the eat because unless the law defines sin it is impossible to know evil. Scripture us that before Law was in the world men were dying but had no idea why.
The bold sentence is an argument where the premise does not lead to your desired conclusion.
Before they ate from the tree, God gave them a law "If you eat from this tree, you will surely die". That you agree.
It define what is sin already for the both of them. Eating from one particular tree is a sin, and is evil.
They don't need to have to eat from the tree, before they know what is a sin.
Here, you are using what Paul said in Romans 5:12-19 I believe.
One of the mystery that was first revealed to Paul by the ascended Christ, was that every descendant of Adam died even when no Law was given after mankind was banished from the garden, until Moses.
Even though God did not give any additional commandments after the "Do not eat from the tree", man (pre Moses) still died, even though their individual sins were not imputed to them. Romans 5:13
Why did they die? They died because of Adam's disobedience. Adam's disobedience was imputed to all of them.
actually they died ftom their own sin. We don't for someone elses sins.
What I said about them in the highlighted verse is right on the money. Ubtil Law came men dird but no one knew why. The Law made the reason known but only when they broke the Law. If they had been running hiding and working to cover there nakedness that would have indicate a Law was broken some where, To fail at one part of the Law is to fail at the entire Law but the failure doesn/t happen until the Law is breached at one point.
Between the expulsion from the garden to the law of Moses, God did not place a law on anything else.
sin is not imputed when there is no law romans 5:13
So how can anyone die during that time due to their individual sins committed?