A Distinction Between Tongues

Yes but Jesus granted the 12 disciples that "whatever they bound on earth will be bound in heaven".

So whatever was decided by them in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 became binding.

Can't separate apostles from prophets. Apostles, prophesy declaring the word of God's prophecy .You are clearly trying to establish some power coming from a apostle as some sort of hagiarchy government by saints or holy person. The government of God is after no man

But according to your view, Paul already stated clearly that for BOTH Jews and Gentiles, Galatians 5:2
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

So why didn't he tell James and the elders that in Acts 21? After all, didn't you believe that the term you in Galatians 5:2 refers to BOTH Jews and Gentiles?

I am trying to point out to you that your view on Acts 15 and Paul's intended audience in Galatians 2 cannot be correct. Paul cannot be addressing both Jews and Gentiles in his letters, he had no authority over the Jewish believers throughout the period in Acts, no matter how he really felt.

Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision was restricted only to the Gentiles who believe, as James emphasize in Acts 15:19, as well as Galatians 2:7-9. The Jews who believe are to follow the gospel of the circumcision, which requires strict obedience to the Law of Moses.

But if you cannot see the contradiction in your beliefs, I cannot make you see it.

Paul was circumcised. James was circumcised. The elders were circumcised. What more do you think he would have asked them to cut. Paul was not telling Galatians who were already circumcised as 8-day-old boys not to be circumcised, because they already were.

We can read Acts and see that on the first missionary journey and going forward throughout Paul's ministry, he went into a city, evangelized in the synagogue, preaching to Jews, proselytes and Gentile God-fearers. Typically they would kick him out and a church made up of those groups would form. The gospel would go out from there to others, like the former pagans of I Corinthians 12, though that could describe the God-fearing Gentile group as well.

Paul's words to the Galatians would have been read by Jew and Gentile, but that statement did not apply to the already circumcised. Paul wrote in Corinthians for the circumcised not to seek to become uncircumcised.



Paul and his coworkers had a 'measure of rule'-- as one translation puts it-- that extended to the church in Corinth. There were Jews in the church in Corinth as we see in Acts, too-- Crispus is mentioned by name.



The gospel is for the circumcised and the uncircumcised. The circumcised who already (try to) keep the law of Moses who believe the Gospel and continue keeping the law are to believe the same Gospel as the Gentiles. Being circumcised and not eating pork is the gospel. Both Jew and Gentile are to believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Jews are to be baptized. The nations are to be bapized.

What contradictions are there in my beliefs?

When James and the elders said in Acts 21

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

I am saying, by Galatians 5:2, according to your view that Paul was addressing Jews and Gentiles, these accusations ARE true.

If Christ will profit the Jewish children nothing if their fathers were to circumcise their children, he is telling the Jews they are not to circumcise their children.

You really cannot see the implication of your doctrine that Paul intended Galatians to apply to both Jews and Gentiles is it?

I take this passage in Galatians as Paul's commentary toward his audience regarding Gentile circumcision, not about Jewish people circumcising their infants. There are more specific scriptures that clarify the less specific ones. Acts 21:21 focuses on a more specific issue.

I take this passage in Galatians as Paul's commentary toward his audience regarding Gentile circumcision, not about Jewish people circumcising their infants. There are more specific scriptures that clarify the less specific ones. Acts 21:21 focuses on a more specific issue.

Why do you think the prayer of faith still heals the sick if Paul left someone sick on Miletus? Why wouldn't your line of reasoning apply to prayer as much as it does to miracles?

Why would you think II Timothy was written after the latter chapters of Acts where Paul healed all who were sick on an island anyway?

I have demonstrated that Paul had an illness early in his ministry and then did great miracles afterward, which disproves your underlying assumption.

You are basing doctrine on your theories. The Bible does not teach that miracles faded away over time. That's a theory you try to eisegete into the Bible, but it does not fit when we look at the whole of scripture. If i had some theory that onions were evil, I could try to find scriptures to build around my theory-- the Israelites wanting to go back to Egypt for the onions. But the Bible doesn't actually teach that onions are evil. I'd be trying to slap verses on my theory, which is what you are doing with the idea of signs and wonders ending over time.

And there is no evidence at all for cessationism or that miracles were limited to them that heard the Lord in these verses.

Matthew shows us that up to 9013 Jews plus women and children are fish (5000+4000 +12 apostles+the Lord) ate fish.

I could use your reasoning to argue that no Gentiles ate fish. That is akin to your line of reasoning here.

Show me where the Bible teaches that the latter rain starts when the 144,000 goes to Israel.


I don't understand the attraction of doctrines based on the guesswork that comes from 'connecting the dots' with one's theory at the expense of believing literal, direct, didactic teaching of scripture-- for example I Corinthians 12. Revelation 14 and other apocalyptic literature is inspired, too, but when the doctrine is based on the guesswork about what the verses do not say, that's problematic, especially if used to argue against actual scripture. Conjecture versus revealed scripture.

Perhaps your study should focus on the word of God and not so much on tongues which cannot be understood? Understanding requires knowledge which is attained through reading Gods word.

Expecting God to give you knowledge without study is not going to happen. 1 Cor 13:8 reveals that simple truth.

If Jewish children below 8 days old are not circumcised, just as the Gentiles, you are saying Galatians 5:2 applies to one type of circumcision but not the other?

That is really changing the meaning of words to fit your your doctrine.

No miracles today. Show some if there are.

I have spent a lot of time in study and memorization of scripture. But I notice you dodged the question. I suppose it was easier to do that.

FYI a perverted generation seeks sign and there will be none given them.
This is why you are immature in your thinking. You assume those who believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the sign and wonders are for today need them to believe, that is your error.

You need signs to believe because you ask for them. Jesus said blessed is the one who believes without seeing.
The contrast is this, those who see that the gifts have not ceased today is because Jesus said that sign would follow those who believe.
SO when Jesus said a perverted adulterous "Seek" a sign to believe, HE was not speaking about those who believe the Gifts and signs & wonders are for today, nope not at all. He Jesus was speaking to those who say "Do one" so I will believe.

there is the difference Sign and wonder follow those who believe confirming the word they preach what are the confrimations?

1. salvation
2. healing
3. restoration
4. marriages restored
5. deliverances
6. miracles & signs and wonders

What signs follow you that Jesus is working in you? Who have you won to the Lord? what families have you blessed? Or are you running around like Pharisees saying do me sign so I can believe? I think your own words answer that question. You can continue your attacks , mocking, scoffing, and lambasting of those who believe and have seen.

Well I had hoped for more evidence of study than what has been exhibited. You continue to be unable to receive the scriptures related to the subject so I must assume that you need to mature before you can receive them. The meat verses milk teaching of scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Nice cop out. You made an assertion. I asked you to back it up with scripture, and you sidestep with condescending personal attack.

I am saying those words in Galatians are addressed to a particular issue. We should look at Paul's writings holistically. But there were Jews in the churches started through Paul and his coworkers ministries.

It is interesting that Paul wrote that the gospel was to the Jew first and told Jews it was fitting that the gospel be preached to them first...even after the stoning of Stephen. That contradicts your theory doesn't it?