Galatian Conundrums

[RickStudies]

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.”

Do you trust the book of Acts and the events recorded in it?

Do you trust the epistles of Peter?

 

[Guojing]

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.

Ahh that must be the book destined to reign. Jp is an acts 2 dispensationalist. Understandable that you would reject that book

 

[Absolutely]

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.

Paul,a jew,ate unclean foods.
Peter most likely did also.
In fact paul instructed believers to eat ANYTHING clean or unclean, placed before them.
He also instructed that the sabboth obsrving was optional,and circumcision had no value.
One of the things paul was persecuted over was breaking the commandments of moses.

 

[Guojing]

Paul,a jew,ate unclean foods.
Peter most likely did also.
In fact paul instructed believers to eat ANYTHING clean or unclean, placed before them.
He also instructed that the sabboth obsrving was optional,and circumcision had no value.
One of the things paul was persecuted over was breaking the commandments of moses.

As the OP went, Paul was given the exclusive guardianship of all Gentile believers so yes, he preach to them, as stated in 1 Cor that all food can be eaten, and circumcision/sabbath keeping is of no value.

The problem, as Acts 21 went, was that Jews who happen to be around that preaching started to believe that they could be exempted too. That made James and the elders upset with Paul. Only Gentiles were exempted from those laws, as Acts 21:25 stated.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

As the OP went, Paul was given the exclusive guardianship of all Gentile believers so yes, he preach to them, as stated in 1 Cor that all food can be eaten, and circumcision/sabbath keeping is of no value.

The problem, as Acts 21 went, was that Jews who happen to be around that preaching started to believe that they could be exempted too. That made James and the elders upset with Paul. Only Gentiles were exempted from those laws, as Acts 21:25 stated.

Scripture please

 

[Guojing]

Scripture please

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.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

what was the issue? That Jews MUST follow the law. Or that they were worried about how the people would react?

PS. I see no anger here.

 

[Guojing]

what was the issue? That Jews MUST follow the law. Or that they were worried about how the people would react?

PS. I see no anger here.

How about if I were to use term "unhappy" rather than "upset"? Luke's account is quite vague but there are Bible commentaries that mention the tenseness of that meeting.

People have warned Paul not to make the trip to Jerusalem, the HS also warned him thru a prophet, Paul himself was expecting a very hostile reception in Jerusalem, as v13 indicated, as well as the end of Romans. The fact that neither James nor the elders even bothered to come and defend Paul when he was in the trial of his life in Acts 22 and 23.

All these point towards a very frosty reception Paul had. I even believed James and the elders refused to accept the money Paul raised for the HQ.

But its okay, if you think James and the elders welcome Paul with open arms while he was there, you are free to think so.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How about if I were to use term "unhappy" rather than "upset"? Luke's account is quite vague but there are Bible commentaries that mention the tenseness of that meeting.

People have warned Paul not to make the trip to Jerusalem, the HS also warned him thru a prophet, Paul himself was expecting a very hostile reception in Jerusalem, as v13 indicated. The fact that neither James nor the elders even bothered to come and defend Paul when he was in the trial of his life in Acts 22 and 23.

All these point towards a very frosty reception Paul had. I even believed James and the elders refused to accept the money Paul raised for the HQ.

But its okay, if you think James and the elders welcome Paul with open arms while he was there, you are free to think so.

again

are the worried about what the PEOPLE will do. or about what he is doing himself?

and no I do not think they were unhappy either.

 

[Guojing]

again

are the worried about what the PEOPLE will do. or about what he is doing himself?

and no I do not think they were unhappy either.

The Jews were under the guardianship of James Peter and John, and James was clear that the believing Jews had to follow the Law. Peter's famous incident with Paul in Gal 2:12 was a prime example.

When James heard there were Jews that justify themselves not following the Law because of what they overheard from Paul's preaching to the Gentiles, he cannot be happy.

I am fine if you do not think so.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The Jews were under the guardianship of James Peter and John, and James was clear that the believing Jews had to follow the Law. Peter's famous incident with Paul in Gal 2:12 was a prime example.

When James heard there were Jews that justify themselves not following the Law because of what they overheard from Paul's preaching to the Gentiles, he cannot be happy.

I am fine if you do not think so.

there is no talking with you, I should have known

Nothing in the passage says James was mad, Thats your adding to the word

Good day.

 

[Guojing]

there is no talking with you, I should have known

Nothing in the passage says James was mad, Thats your adding to the word

Good day.

Both of us are arguing from silence here. I agree Luke did not explicitly described what happened.

I believed it was a frosty reception between them in acts 21.

What do you think happened during the meeting?

 

[posthuman]

the degree of understanding of any one person at any particular time doesn't change the truth.

there's only one gospel, and there only ever has been one. the Bible isn't silent about that. Whose kingdom do y'all figure it is anyhow lol

 

[Absolutely]

the degree of understanding of any one person at any particular time doesn't change the truth.

there's only one gospel, and there only ever has been one. the Bible isn't silent about that. Whose kingdom do y'all figure it is anyhow lol

You have to play along. You have to start with the IDEA of 2 gospels. Then find verses to build on THAT CONCEPT.
That is what we witness in the pauline adherents.
Their own bible is unreliable in that the gospel of Jesus is no longer valid.

I can promise you that all the Pauline adherents are cessationists.

 

[RickStudies]

You have to play along. You have to start with the IDEA of 2 gospels. Then find verses to build on THAT CONCEPT.
That is what we witness in the pauline adherents.
Their own bible is unreliable in that the gospel of Jesus is no longer valid.

I can promise you that all the Pauline adherents are cessationists.

I`m not a cessationist. Your opinion is incorrect as usual.

 

[Guojing]

You have to play along. You have to start with the IDEA of 2 gospels. Then find verses to build on THAT CONCEPT.
That is what we witness in the pauline adherents.
Their own bible is unreliable in that the gospel of Jesus is no longer valid.

I can promise you that all the Pauline adherents are cessationists.

I understand where EG and you are coming from.

Since both of you don't accept the distinction between GOK and GOG, obviously your belief would be that James agrees completely with Paul that the Law is dead for the Jews at the start of the book of Acts.

This is despite the literal reading of what went down on Acts 15. The Jerusalem council event in Acts 15, if you read it literally, is only discussing the issue on whether Gentiles who believe in Jesus needed to follow the Law of Moses.

There was ZERO discussion about whether Jews also needed to follow. As Acts 21 proved it, it is taken for granted by James et al in Acts 15 that the Jews who believe have to be zealous for the Law.

Thus, the way both of you interpret Acts 21 would be very different. That is very understandable.

 

[RickStudies]

I understand where EG and you are coming from.

Since both of you don't accept the distinction between GOK and GOG, obviously your belief would be that James agrees completely with Paul that the Law is dead for the Jews at the start of the book of Acts.

This is despite the literal reading of what went down on Acts 15. The Jerusalem council event in Acts 15, if you read it literally, is only discussing the issue on whether Gentiles who believe in Jesus needed to follow the Law of Moses.

There was ZERO discussion about whether Jews also needed to follow. As Acts 21 proved it, it is taken for granted by James et al in Acts 15 that the Jews who believe have to be zealous for the Law.

Thus, the way both of you interpret Acts 21 would be very different. That is very understandable.

I dunno why but the mental picture, James digging into a BLT makes me smile. That takes a lot of imagination but I can do it.

 

[Absolutely]

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

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people


Now Paul eventually backslid and got into the false Gospel of Jesus;
Acts 20
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

...and spoiled the book of acts with his false gospel. The book of acts ends with paul all backslid preacing the Kingdom of God.
Acts 28
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

 

[Guojing]

I dunno why but the mental picture, James digging into a BLT makes me smile. That takes a lot of imagination but I can do it.

Once you adopt the dispensationalist method of adopting a literal reading of the Word as far as you can, taking context into account, it transforms the way you understand the Bible.

You are no longer worried about contradictory passages in the Bible. You can even understand James chapter 2, accept that James is saying that Jews who believed needed to have works together with their faith, with no problem.

 

[Guojing]

Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Matthew 9:35
And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people


Now Paul eventually backslid and got into the false Gospel of Jesus;
Acts 20
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

...and spoiled the book of acts with his false gospel. The book of acts ends with paul all backslid preacing the Kingdom of God.
Acts 28
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

I have answered you from my perspective to these same questions numerous times in a previous thread.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...mission-irrelevant-for-the-church-now.182210/

I get it, you don't agree with my answer. One thing I find it amusing is why you don't try to understand where others are coming from and understand why their viewpoint is different from yours.

Doing that does not mean you are agreeing with them, but it does make such discussions so much more cordial and affirming for both parties.