You want answers from me before answering questions I posed to you first? I'm not sure how you generally deal with people but when you deal with me you don't get to unilaterally dictate the conversation. Answer my questions which I asked first the I'll answer yours.
I did answer your question, but perhaps not on the plane of your thoughts on this topic.
Simplistically, yes and yes.
Rationale:
Romans 11:13 — For
I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
1 Timothy 2:7 — Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and
an apostle, I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not,
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2 Timothy 1:11 — Whereunto
I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Notice Paul did not say "I among the twelve...," but that he was THE apostle to the Gentiles in verse 13 above. Some have argued that the article "the" was added by the translators and therefore is a biased input from them. The problem with the arm chair experts out there who only know a hand full of Greek words and even less about Greek constructs for grammatical absolutes, in this case being a difference between inclusiveness versus exclusionary, the article "the" has ample backing within the meaning in the phraseology grounded in the majority of the manuscripts.
Romans 2:16 — In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men
by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans 16:25 — Now to him that is of power to
stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
I could go on with quotes of this nature, showing Paul clearly took ownership of HIS gospel given to him by no man, but by revelation directly from Christ Jesus that was antithetical to works contrasted with that of James. Many are in the practice of overlooking the differences and corrupting the clear meaning in the texts to fit their personal beliefs, but it is in vain given the text is clear.
Galatians 1:11-12 KJV — But I
certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul was persecuting the Messianic Jews on the basis of what he had learned from men, which was before his encounter with Christ on the roadway to Damascus. What he preached after that encounter was NOT from what he learned from men, but only from Christ, and this is negated with mindless abandon by many who simply refuse to use their God-given senses of reason. The implications and ramifications sail over their heads without their notice.
I've said a number of times in here that it's not so much as matter of ignoring what Jesus and the Twelve taught, but rather recognizing the difference in audience and truths that have dispensational divisions. If truth didn't have divisions, then this would make no sense:
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV — Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Instead, some ignore the divisions while attempting to mesh it all together into a confusing pot of mush theology, making, for example, our salvation a matter of being rooted in the requirement for water baptism for the remission of our sins today, as was preached by Peter in Acts 2 to Israel, not to Gentiles.
Dividing truth from what? He wasn't speaking of truth from falsehoods. It's truth from truth given that he spoke only along the line of truth since it's based on the word.
So yes, we ignore those things, in the sense of obedience today, that contradict Paul's teachings in the manner of, again, applicability to us today, so we should read those other writings with a jaundiced eye as to it all applying to us today. The believing Jews were still living the Law of Moses, as Peter bragged about with not one word said in the negative for such. We today were not required to follow suit. Therefore yet another difference between them back then and us today.
Lecturing? No. I don't give a rip snort what you believe. If you choose to try and find salvation today from obedience to the Law coupled with faith, go for it and see later if that was sufficient. That other gospel is not what was preached by Paul. I'm not among the accursed for preaching another gospel that has no saving power for us today by way of works of which we may boast. When it comes to the Gospel for us today, yes, I will stick to what Laul taught on that front without running to some modern priest to be circumcised (imagematically speaking) unto the salvation offered by another gospel that is no longer valid for us today. The culture of boasters out there have a problem on their hands that I prefer to avoid.
Again, the answer offered in more detail. What about my question?
MM
