"youve got mail"

  • 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.
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#41
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#41
chubbena said:
It's very interesting to know (in a positive way of course)!
But this letter was indeed written for Jews who also believed Christ - so they would not force circumcision on the gentiles.
Click to expand...
I did not know this at first,nor my wife(of her blood line),,my sir name is "Sangrejoven(in Spanish),,but my family emigrated to Amsterdam/Germany about 1260ad in Germany Jungbluth,in both launguages it means "new blood,green tree,blood of youth ect.",,some in the u.s. go by Youngblood(we never did) we took dna testing and found in the u.s. their is only the one line(purple/dna) that are Hebrew the others are German/Irish,,,my wife's "Nieto,Ponce',Naranjo" are the same but are from Italy,France,Spain but emigrated there form Judah(matched by d.n.a.testing).
 
C

chubbena

Guest
#42
#42
iamsoandso said:
which is my point,my skin has nothing to do with it,being circumcised in the heart you are no less Jew than I.
Click to expand...
It does, per Paul in Romans 3:1-2 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
 
C

chubbena

Guest
#43
#43
iamsoandso said:
I did not know this at first,nor my wife(of her blood line),,my sir name is "Sangrejoven(in Spanish),,but my family emigrated to Amsterdam/Germany about 1260ad in Germany Jungbluth,in both launguages it means "new blood,green tree,blood of youth ect.",,some in the u.s. go by Youngblood(we never did) we took dna testing and found in the u.s. their is only the one line(purple/dna) that are Hebrew the others are German/Irish,,,my wife's "Nieto,Ponce',Naranjo" are the same but are from Italy,France,Spain but emigrated there form Judah(matched by d.n.a.testing).
Click to expand...
Again you are driving me nuts :)
 
RedTent

RedTent

Banned
#44
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
#44
iamsoandso said:
How many synagogs were left standing by the Romans after the revolts(66ad-135)?,,,And why would a Jew(who denied Christ) let them read that letter aloud in their Gods synagog? At some point we need remember that they(the Jews) said to Christ he was "Beelzebub"(lord that flits,meaning the devil),,and so hence his apostles being the angels who fell who followed satin(why would they let this letter be read aloud in their synagog)?,,,
Click to expand...
In the histories I have read, the big divide between those who denied Christ and those who didn't happened gradually. At first they lived together peaceably. It was the revolt headed by Bar Kokhba who it was claimed was the messiah that was a big part of the split. Christian Jews could not join these Jews to help with the war, it made the Christ denying Jews angry they wouldn't help and was a factor in the split.

It seemed to take several hundred years, with it happening gradually, that Torah observant Jews and Christians who did not include any of those customs as part of their Christianity could not accept each other or go to the same church. The problem wasn't so much as whether the Jews could be Christian and Torah observant, but whether the gentiles could be Christian without being Torah observant.

There was never a question about being Torah observant in spirit led by the HS, but whether it was necessary to be led by the physical customs. Before the revolts, the Jews were in control and most powerful, after the revolts the gentiles were. The Jews didn't want the non observant gentiles accepted, and the now more powerful gentiles didn't want the observant Jews accepted. With these ideas, fewer Jews were Christian but more denied Christ.
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#45
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#45
chubbena said:
This letter was passed on from city to city amongst Christians in earlier times wasn't it?
The faith was considered a sect in the Jewish religion at the beginning like Paul said in his defend before Felix in Acts 24, wasn't it?
Synagogues were like CC here which all Jews (and believing gentiles) would go and debate on religious matters, weren't they?
Click to expand...
to the first "?",,yes from city to city Paul probably kept it(asking timothy to bring in 2tim,4;13,or one of them)

2nd ?,,is actually the 4th letter Luke quotes to Theophilus in (acts 23;26-30),,I left out the second letter he quotes to Theophilus word for word to keep from compounding the o.p. but he also quotes it.

3rd?,,the Christians didn't have the freedom to stone to death the Jews if they disagreed or take them before the law(Roman or Jewish) searching the www for Jewish synagogs after ad70 you will find that they could be counted on your hands that is the Romans dealt with the Jewish revolts savagely their were not many left standing at the end. We must ponder if we by faith consider the Jew to have been a planned majior factor in the education of the newly converted gentiles as to why god himself would permit the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the synagogs across the government of Rome. that is if it be so then the very thing we think is set up to teach the newly converted Gentiles has been permitted to be destroyed by God.
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#46
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#46
RedTent said:
In the histories I have read, the big divide between those who denied Christ and those who didn't happened gradually. At first they lived together peaceably. It was the revolt headed by Bar Kokhba who it was claimed was the messiah that was a big part of the split. Christian Jews could not join these Jews to help with the war, it made the Christ denying Jews angry they wouldn't help and was a factor in the split.

It seemed to take several hundred years, with it happening gradually, that Torah observant Jews and Christians who did not include any of those customs as part of their Christianity could not accept each other or go to the same church. The problem wasn't so much as whether the Jews could be Christian and Torah observant, but whether the gentiles could be Christian without being Torah observant.

There was never a question about being Torah observant in spirit led by the HS, but whether it was necessary to be led by the physical customs. Before the revolts, the Jews were in control and most powerful, after the revolts the gentiles were. The Jews didn't want the non observant gentiles accepted, and the now more powerful gentiles didn't want the observant Jews accepted. With these ideas, fewer Jews were Christian but more denied Christ.
Click to expand...
I agree at first some groups began to try to see eye to eye together(open minded) even in the letter(o.p.) it is pointed out prior to it (acts 15;5) "a certain sect of the Pharisees that believed",,(so they believed in Christ?),,but not all of the Pharisees only a "certain sect",,but in acts it says "that believed",so they were counted among the Christians!,,why because they believed in Christ. Then again there were Gentiles who believed and the many epistles reflect the fact that they also were being coached to same common line drawn in the sand. So it was defiantly a 2 way road on both sides(i say that to be fare to both sides),,,

there is a big red spot on the radar coming at my little town,lol,"thank you lord for the rain!",,,but I'm going to sighn off for a while and I'll be back tonight or in the morning,,,,I just wanted to start a discussion about the content of the letter and post it word for word,so enough for today we will see how others see it,,,god bless you all
 
RedTent

RedTent

Banned
#47
Oct 31, 2011
8,200
182
0
#47
iamsoandso said:
to the first "?",,yes from city to city Paul probably kept it(asking timothy to bring in 2tim,4;13,or one of them)

2nd ?,,is actually the 4th letter Luke quotes to Theophilus in (acts 23;26-30),,I left out the second letter he quotes to Theophilus word for word to keep from compounding the o.p. but he also quotes it.

3rd?,,the Christians didn't have the freedom to stone to death the Jews if they disagreed or take them before the law(Roman or Jewish) searching the www for Jewish synagogs after ad70 you will find that they could be counted on your hands that is the Romans dealt with the Jewish revolts savagely their were not many left standing at the end. We must ponder if we by faith consider the Jew to have been a planned majior factor in the education of the newly converted gentiles as to why god himself would permit the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the synagogs across the government of Rome. that is if it be so then the very thing we think is set up to teach the newly converted Gentiles has been permitted to be destroyed by God.
Click to expand...
This is such a good point.Why did God permit the destruction of the temple and synagogues?

When Christ gave up the ghost, the curtain in the temple was split, and one of the results was the saints woke from their sleep.The power of Christ to save was made perfect.Before, the Jewish race was separated from the gentiles, now we are all saved by Christ.Before, gentiles who knew God became Jews, like Ruth did.Now, the physical temple and synagogues were not needed any more, for Christ took over that function for us.We still have a temple, we still have a high priest, but now it is in spirit and truth.We have the blood of Christ not animal blood; we have Christ our high priest, not a man substitute.So God destroyed what was not to be used any more.
 
C

chubbena

Guest
#48
#48
iamsoandso said:
to the first "?",,yes from city to city Paul probably kept it(asking timothy to bring in 2tim,4;13,or one of them)

2nd ?,,is actually the 4th letter Luke quotes to Theophilus in (acts 23;26-30),,I left out the second letter he quotes to Theophilus word for word to keep from compounding the o.p. but he also quotes it.

3rd?,,the Christians didn't have the freedom to stone to death the Jews if they disagreed or take them before the law(Roman or Jewish) searching the www for Jewish synagogs after ad70 you will find that they could be counted on your hands that is the Romans dealt with the Jewish revolts savagely their were not many left standing at the end. We must ponder if we by faith consider the Jew to have been a planned majior factor in the education of the newly converted gentiles as to why god himself would permit the destruction of the temple and the destruction of the synagogs across the government of Rome. that is if it be so then the very thing we think is set up to teach the newly converted Gentiles has been permitted to be destroyed by God.
Click to expand...
But He has conserved the very much "obsoleted" "OT", hasn't He? So by His physical doing away with the temple and Synagogues, we know what's kept and what's not, don't we? :)


Note: and again someone (Red Tent) beat me to it! :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#49
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#49
iamsoandso said:
The Apostles and elders and brethren:

Greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria an Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard,that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words,subverting your souls,saying,be circumcised,and keep the law:to whom we gave no commandment:

It seemed good unto us,being assembled with one accord,to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have sent therefore Judas and Silas ,who shall also tell the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the holy Ghost,and to us,to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols,and from blood,and from things strangled,and from fornication:from which if ye keep yourselves,ye shall do well. fare ye well.
Click to expand...
And see this is the curious part to me,that is in the letter to the Gentiles the apostles,elders,brethren,(and the Holy Ghost) state in the last paragraph ,,"to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" and then list the four things mentioned. This is why I said in one of my former post in this thread that the problem is that we tend to think it should end "well but!",and continue to point out other things not in the letter to the Gentiles.

Well the letter as it seems stands captive to it's own self(meaning it is over the discussion of the "certain sect" of the Pharisees,"acts 15;5" so the tendency is to bring up the 10 commandments,sabbath ect.,,,This I note is only from one point of view. In the same as it states "these necessary things" it does not list among them baptism as one,nor repentance,nor receiving the Holy Ghost, Believing upon Jesus as the Messiah is not listed among the "necessary things" in the letter (but we all agree that these should be applied under the term,"well but"),,,

So if we look at it from the angle of the Catholics they would say,"well but,Mary the mother of Jesus she is blessed and so ect." and they would see to the addition of implied beliefs. Again the different denominations who adhere to the sabbath would say the same of the things concerning the 10 commandments and the 4th commandment. Another who is post or even the pre-theroist would apply the beliefs concerning their denominational stance to the letter. The list could go on and on over the reasoning as to the justification of the point of the addition of "well but",,

But considering the many denominations there are Baptist,Pentecostal,Episcopal,Nazarene,Jehovah witness ect.ect. and that they would all see reasoning this letter as not complete within it's content it would be precarious to accommodate every position without only reflecting those to whom the letter is addressing,namely the sect of the Pharisees mentioned the Gentiles the letter was sent to and the apostles,elders,brethren and the holy Ghost who wrote the letter.

I will send this(it is still raining and my wifi wont stay connected),,,lol
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#50
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#50
So in the end of the matter who had the letter and what did they do with it?
 
C

chubbena

Guest
#51
#51
You mean the original of this letter?
I believe it's long deteriorated like the originals of the epistles.
Nevertheless, it's preserved in the record of the Acts just as the epistles are preserved in the record of the section labelled New Testament in the Bible.
Nevertheless, it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on this letter just as it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on the epistles.
The way I see it is, this letter is only a very small part of a very big picture.
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#52
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#52
chubbena said:
You mean the original of this letter?
I believe it's long deteriorated like the originals of the epistles.
Nevertheless, it's preserved in the record of the Acts just as the epistles are preserved in the record of the section labelled New Testament in the Bible.
Nevertheless, it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on this letter just as it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on the epistles.
The way I see it is, this letter is only a very small part of a very big picture.
Click to expand...
In (acts 16;4) Like explains who(Paul) had the letter and where and what he did with it,In the former text he explains that Barnabas and John mark went to Cyprus(not to Syria or Cilicia),though they did go to Antioch as the letter decreed but then as they split company paul took the letter(decree) and continued.(Paul and Silas had the letter),,,
 
secularhermit

secularhermit

Banned
#53
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
#53
iamsoandso said:
And see this is the curious part to me,that is in the letter to the Gentiles the apostles,elders,brethren,(and the Holy Ghost) state in the last paragraph ,,"to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" and then list the four things mentioned. This is why I said in one of my former post in this thread that the problem is that we tend to think it should end "well but!",and continue to point out other things not in the letter to the Gentiles.

Well the letter as it seems stands captive to it's own self(meaning it is over the discussion of the "certain sect" of the Pharisees,"acts 15;5" so the tendency is to bring up the 10 commandments,sabbath ect.,,,This I note is only from one point of view. In the same as it states "these necessary things" it does not list among them baptism as one,nor repentance,nor receiving the Holy Ghost, Believing upon Jesus as the Messiah is not listed among the "necessary things" in the letter (but we all agree that these should be applied under the term,"well but"),,,

So if we look at it from the angle of the Catholics they would say,"well but,Mary the mother of Jesus she is blessed and so ect." and they would see to the addition of implied beliefs. Again the different denominations who adhere to the sabbath would say the same of the things concerning the 10 commandments and the 4th commandment. Another who is post or even the pre-theroist would apply the beliefs concerning their denominational stance to the letter. The list could go on and on over the reasoning as to the justification of the point of the addition of "well but",,

But considering the many denominations there are Baptist,Pentecostal,Episcopal,Nazarene,Jehovah witness ect.ect. and that they would all see reasoning this letter as not complete within it's content it would be precarious to accommodate every position without only reflecting those to whom the letter is addressing,namely the sect of the Pharisees mentioned the Gentiles the letter was sent to and the apostles,elders,brethren and the holy Ghost who wrote the letter.

I will send this(it is still raining and my wifi wont stay connected),,,lol
Click to expand...
At thi end you said: "To be continued". :p

Yes! Where´s the missing letter. It sounds good, but for anthing like poetry. :)
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#54
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#54
lol,,I typed "like",,but his name is spelt "Luke",,but I still like him,,lol
 
iamsoandso

iamsoandso

Senior Member
#55
Oct 6, 2011
8,048
1,609
113
#55
secularhermit said:
At thi end you said: "To be continued". :p

Yes! Where´s the missing letter. It sounds good, but for anthing like poetry. :)
Click to expand...
acts 16;4 paul and Silas has it,,,then compare to Galatians ch.2
 
secularhermit

secularhermit

Banned
#56
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
#56
chubbena said:
You mean the original of this letter?
I believe it's long deteriorated like the originals of the epistles.
Nevertheless, it's preserved in the record of the Acts just as the epistles are preserved in the record of the section labelled New Testament in the Bible.
Nevertheless, it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on this letter just as it's dangerous to base one's theological thoughts solely on the epistles.
The way I see it is, this letter is only a very small part of a very big picture.
Click to expand...
An yet is still being missed? :confused:
 
secularhermit

secularhermit

Banned
#60
May 3, 2013
8,719
75
0
#60
I think you are ar mailman:
Act 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.