A Distinction Between Tongues

[garee]

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.

You are basing doctrine on your signs as wonders ( false source of unseen faith) and not prophecy the true source of faith as it is written .

Miracles happen ever day all day .Why marvel?

When we accredit the unseen work or power of the gospel to the hands or presence of the apostles .Then it exposes the sign and wonders seekers, self edifiers . Making gods in the likeness of men (corrupted creatures) It is a sign the apostles would have nothing to do with .Blasphemy the abomination of desolation. Removing the unseen work of God that gave the person the faith to leap and declare he heard the voice of God working in him to both will and do the god pleasure of God.

Not the good pleasure of the apostles. Adding meaning to the word apostle clearly shows it destroyed the intent of the author .

And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of menAnd they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,Acts14:7-14

They did not say bow down to the perceived work of their hands as if God was served by human hands in any way shape or form to begin with ..it an evil generation that seeks after a sign .Believers seek after prophecy the one source of Christian faith .

 

[notuptome]

In your system of interpretation, can you show me a verse that shows when the latter rain starts?

When the 144,000 witnesses go to Israel. The bible is all about Christ and not all that big on gifts. Keep the proper focus.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[presidente]

You are basing doctrine on your signs as wonders ( false source of unseen faith) and not prophecy the true source of faith as it is written .

The thing is, I back up the doctrines I write about with specific scriptures that support them. You string religious-sounding phrases together and use phrases from scripture out of context. If your writings are comprehensible, it is often the case that they display that you misunderstand what a passage is saying. You have even gotten comments that demonstrate that fellow cessationists see this in your posts.

When we accredit the unseen work or power of the gospel to the hands or presence of the apostles .

On this forum, I think you are jousting against windmills. I do not see anything about the apostles having some personal power or holiness, at least not among the continuationists in this forum. Some cessationists seem to lean a bit in that direction. God's grace worked through the apostles to do miracles and such. And the Bible does use 'apostles' in a sense that does not include all believers. I know of no verse where it applies to all believers, though believers assigned a particular task, like delivering funds, could be apostles of the church that sent them as was the case in II Corinthians.

Then it exposes the sign and wonders seekers, self edifiers . Making gods in the likeness of men (corrupted creatures) It is a sign the apostles would have nothing to do with .Blasphemy the abomination of desolation.

Are you accusing me of idolatry, blasphemy, and the abomination of desolation because I believe the teaching of the apostles for the church in passage like I Corinthians 12 are still true and you do not (or do not understand them)?

Removing the unseen work of God that gave the person the faith to leap and declare he heard the voice of God working in him to both will and do the god pleasure of God.

The leap of faith concept comes from Kierkegaard as I recall. But those who see signs and wonders still have to believe the word just like those who don't have to. Seeing signs and wonders and then believing is not an unbiblical thing because there are many examples of it in the gospels and in Acts. Your jousting against something Biblical hear, throwing around Biblical phrases to argue against a Biblical concept.

Not the good pleasure of the apostles. Adding meaning to the word apostle clearly shows it destroyed the intent of the author .

We can see what apostles means from seeing how the term is used in scripture. I Corinthians does not teach that all are apostles.

I Corinthians 12
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

They say this can also be translated 'Not all are apostles, are they?' The implied answer is 'no.' And prophets and speakers in tongues are treated as different categories. Prophecy and speaking in tongues are treated as different gifts and contrasted with each other in I Corinthians 14:5

I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

But your interpretation seems to rest, based on the bits of meaning I can scrape from your post, on the idea that they are the same thing. Your interpretations are convoluted and confused. What does this chapter say about that?

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

You should humble yourself and realize you are not an expert on these things, pray and seek God for wisdom, in faith without doubting, so that you can understand the scriptures when you read.

And there they preached the

gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of menAnd they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,Acts14:7-14

They did not say bow down to the perceived work of their hands as if God was served by human hands in any way shape or form to begin with

If anyone tries to sacrifice to a Christian who operates in the gifts, he and/or other Christians present should correct them. Who is worshipping Christian miracle workers now?

..it an evil generation that seeks after a sign .Believers seek after prophecy the one source of Christian faith .

Let's get it right. Jesus said a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, but no sign shall be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. But He said to the disciples that ye are all clean, but not all of them, for He knew who would betray him.

His apostles asked Him for the sign of His coming and He answered them. They later prayed for God to stretch for His hand to do signs and wonders and God answered them as well.

In the passage you quote, the pagans were literally trying to sacrifice to the apostles and the apostles corrected them and managed to prevent it from happening. This is not a passage to be used as a weapon against those who believe in biblical miracles and gifts used in a Biblical way.

 

[presidente]

When the 144,000 witnesses go to Israel. The bible is all about Christ and not all that big on gifts. Keep the proper focus.

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.

 

[garee]

Are you accusing me of idolatry, blasphemy, and the abomination of desolation because I believe the teaching of the apostles for the church in passage like I Corinthians 12 are still true and you do not (or do not understand them)?

I don't accuse . That the work of the lord. Even Jesus refused to rebuke Satan But the father as Lord (one is in heaven) put his word in the mouth of the Son of man. The Lord said to Peter .Satan get behind me . Peter was forgiven .

You are trying to change the meaning giving it new meaning to the word apostles to give them some imaginary lord it over power .That a Catholic thing needed to complete the necromancy foundation that was handed down from the faithless Jews. A legion of gods in the likeness of men .

Jesus says its a evil generation that seek after what the eyes see,. Why make the apostles as gods in the likeness of men ? Apostleship is not lordship. Ruling ,again not lording it over another according to the written word is what apostles as those sent with the word of God.

They do not send of their own self or are they sent with words of thier own self. Only God know which way the winds of his doctrine go and when?

1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock

Matthew 8:27 But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

 

[presidente]

I don't accuse . That the work of the lord. Even Jesus refused to rebuke Satan But the father as Lord (one is in heaven) put his word in the mouth of the Son of man. The Lord said to Peter .Satan get behind me . Peter was forgiven .

Interesting you should bring up Satan because the Bible calls the Devil the accuser of the brethren.

You are trying to change the meaning giving it new meaning to the word apostles to give them some imaginary lord it over power .That a Catholic thing needed to complete the necromancy foundation that was handed down from the faithless Jews. A legion of gods in the likeness of men .

I pointed out that Paul indicated not all are apostles and not are all prophets. I quoted the scripture. I do not argue that apostles 'lord it over power.' Nor have I taught praying to apostles or necromancy. You should not make false accusations. Jesus said that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof on the day of judgment. The Bible also says, 'Thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbor.'

Jesus says its a evil generation that seek after what the eyes see,.

You reword it subtley. Jesus did not say that His disciples were evil or adulterous for asking Him for a sign. He rebuked the evil and adulterous generation who asked Him for a sign. My point here is not even to ask for a sign or to tell you to do so, but just to believe what the Bible teaches about spiritual gifts and other topics.

Why make the apostles as gods in the likeness of men ?

That is one of those unfair questions that assumes something false. I could ask you the same types of questions?

Why do you beat your wife? Why do you step on cats tails? Why do you boil milk to a scalding hot temperature and put it in the infant baby bottle and put it in the baby's mouth while you laugh at the child?

Those are unfair questions that (presumably) assume things that are not true.

If I have said anything akin to making the apostles into gods, quote it right now.

Apostleship is not lordship. Ruling ,again not lording it over another according to the written word is what apostles as those sent with the word of God.

I will respond to the comprehensible part at the beginning. I am not arguing that apostleship is lordship. You argued that all believers are apostles. I showed scripture that contradicted your point of view.

1 Peter 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock

This particular verse is addressed to elders, but not every believer is an elder, either.

 

[Guojing]

Paul said if anyone preach another gospel besides what he preached to the Galatians, let him be accursed. He was not cursing the twelve apostles. Of course the gospel was his gospel. Consider what gospel means? It is a message of good news. 'My gospel' means the gospel I preach.

Look at Ephesians 3
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Not only was the mystery made known to the apostles (plural) but also to prophets. So it wasn't just exclusively for Paul.

Are you one of those hyperdispensationalists who does not believe in water baptism?




Its only in the BUT NOW, meaning the salvation of Paul, that the mystery is finally unveiled through Paul.

[/QUOTE]

He wrote that in Galatians only after Acts 15 authorized his gospel of the uncircumision, and only to the Gentiles.

 

[Guojing]

There is no comparison between the Great Commission and God's command to Noah to build an Ark.

The Great Commission is the instruction of Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. To think Jesus' instructions were only meant for the original disciples to instruct the kingdom of Israel is foolish. Every living person that becomes a believer of Jesus and His message is a disciple. And as such are expected to obey the Great Commission in order to fulfill His mandate to reach all the nations of the world with God's truth.

You are probably worshiping in a church that is based on the GC, I understand your resistance.

 

[Guojing]

If Peter preached the Gospel to the Jews and Paul preached it to the Gentiles, that doesn't mean there were two gospels.

You should read the opening of the epistle to see what Paul thinks about other gospels.

Galatians 1

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
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.
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.

Paul wasn't saying Peter was preaching another Gospel and then cursing him. And Peter pointed out in Acts 15:7, "God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.". And in Acts 9, we read that Ananias heard the Lord speak the following about Paul's calling. "15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: " Their calling wasn't exclusive and their gospels were not different or contradictory.

See also his comments in Romans 10.
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

and he calls their preaching 'gospel' in this chapter.
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

You really have to repent and prioritize the word of God over the dispensationalism. The hyperdispensational stuff can be damaging. Look at the warning in Galatians 1. Do you really want to advocate for two gospels considering that?

Read Galatians 2:7-9 KJV properly, I cannot do that for you.

Paul was given the gospel of the uncircumcision and guardianship of the Gentiles.

Peter James and John were given the gospel of the circumcision and the guardianship of the Jews.

When Paul wrote the double curse in Galatians, he was referring to Gentiles. No one has the right to preach the gospel of the circumcision to Gentiles.

Think about Acts 21:20-25, if what you are saying above is true, Paul would have reminded James and the elders that they are cursed, but he did not, for the reasons I am stating above.

I understand you disagree with my view of Galatians 1-2, that is fine, but don't be so arrogant to assume that you are always correct. Learn from others.

 

[presidente]

He wrote that in Galatians only after Acts 15 authorized his gospel of the uncircumision, and only to the Gentiles.

No, that's based on bad scholarship, mainly because scholars in the 1800's did not realize that Galatians border extended to the southern coast to include the first missionary journey churches of Acts 14. This is a theory that some German liberals held to that included James and Paul being at odds with one another. It is very likely that Galatians was written before the the events of Acts 15. The letter would have settled the controversy Paul addressed in the epistle.

 

[Guojing]

No, that's based on bad scholarship, mainly because scholars in the 1800's did not realize that Galatians border extended to the southern coast to include the first missionary journey churches of Acts 14. This is a theory that some German liberals held to that included James and Paul being at odds with one another. It is very likely that Galatians was written before the the events of Acts 15. The letter would have settled the controversy Paul addressed in the epistle.

How can that be correct when Galatians 2 was Paul's reflection of the Jerusalem Council event in Acts 15.

Unless you actually disagree with that.

 

[presidente]

Read Galatians 2:7-9 KJV properly, I cannot do that for you.

Paul was given the gospel of the uncircumcision and guardianship of the Gentiles.

Peter James and John were given the gospel of the circumcision and the guardianship of the Jews.

When Paul wrote the double curse in Galatians, he was referring to Gentiles. No one has the right to preach the gospel of the circumcision to Gentiles.

Think about Acts 21:20-25, if what you are saying above is true, Paul would have reminded James and the elders that they are cursed, but he did not, for the reasons I am stating above.

I understand you disagree with my view of Galatians 1-2, that is fine, but don't be so arrogant to assume that you are always correct. Learn from others.

You should be humble and learn from others, also, especially if your conclusions are leading you to the idea that there are two gospels, something Paul considered to be accursed and something contrary to what he wrote in Romans 10.

Your depending on a certain translation. Most translators take this as referring to preaching the Gospel for the circumcision or to the circumcision. https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-7.htm

Peter also believed Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way:
Acts 15
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (NKJV)

 

[Guojing]

You should be humble and learn from others, also, especially if your conclusions are leading you to the idea that there are two gospels, something Paul considered to be accursed and something contrary to what he wrote in Romans 10.

Your depending on a certain translation. Most translators take this as referring to preaching the Gospel for the circumcision or to the circumcision. https://biblehub.com/galatians/2-7.htm

Peter also believed Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way:
Acts 15
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (NKJV)

I am, I did not ask you to repent in anyway, I read your view, and offer my own view, not telling you to accept it.

Okay, if you disagree with the KJV there, we can agree to disagree here.

As for your point about Peter in Acts 15, yes he believed that, but if you read vs 19 properly, James did not conclude the same way as him, so James view in Acts 21:20-25, as well as the incident between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2, confirmed that difference in views between Peter and James.

You have not addressed my point about Acts 21:20-25, which goes against what you are believing what Paul meant by the curse in Galatians 1.

 

[presidente]

How can that be correct when Galatians 2 was Paul's reflection of the Jerusalem Council event in Acts 15.

Unless you actually disagree with that.

No, Acts 9 tells us that Saul/Paul had met the apostles in Jerusalem. Galatians clarifies it was Peter, James, and John.

Acts 9
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

A summary of northern versus southern Galatian theories is here: http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...sets/files/1062/original/15-03.pdf?1417661592

Liberal German theologians in the 1800's held to the northern theory and some of them argued that Paul and James were loggerheads. This was depicted in a film where Anthony Hopkins played Paul, so some people may be familiar with that.

But later scholars found evidence that the Roman province in the first century included the first missionary journey churches. This makes sense. After sending them the letter of Galatians, he had a letter from all the remaining of the twelve apostles, himself, Barnabas, and the Jerusalem elders that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. It doesn't make sense to read Galatians with the north Galatian theory unless one doubts Acts. Why would Paul bring up all those apostles and not mention that they had decided against Gentile circumcision also? If you believe Acts is wrong and James was teaching something else and there is was a big doctrinal rift, then the north Galatian theory makes sense.

The south Galatians were probably not mostly Gauls, but if you search through the epistles, Paul fairly consistently refers to his readers by their city or the region in which they live. Calling residents of Galatia 'Galatians' is consistent with his usage in other epistles.

Also, the Roman province of Galatia got it's border moved further north one or two hundred years later and did not include the first missionary journeys anymore. Since the liberal German theologians of the 1800's were familiar with these borders, they were operating on inaccurate information. But their conspiracy theory is continued to this day. Maybe your version of dispensationalism fed off of ideas from this liberal theory a bit when it was created.

 

[Guojing]

No, Acts 9 tells us that Saul/Paul had met the apostles in Jerusalem. Galatians clarifies it was Peter, James, and John.

Acts 9
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

A summary of northern versus southern Galatian theories is here: http://cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com...sets/files/1062/original/15-03.pdf?1417661592

Liberal German theologians in the 1800's held to the northern theory and some of them argued that Paul and James were loggerheads. This was depicted in a film where Anthony Hopkins played Paul, so some people may be familiar with that.

But later scholars found evidence that the Roman province in the first century included the first missionary journey churches. This makes sense. After sending them the letter of Galatians, he had a letter from all the remaining of the twelve apostles, himself, Barnabas, and the Jerusalem elders that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised. It doesn't make sense to read Galatians with the north Galatian theory unless one doubts Acts. Why would Paul bring up all those apostles and not mention that they had decided against Gentile circumcision also? If you believe Acts is wrong and James was teaching something else and there is was a big doctrinal rift, then the north Galatian theory makes sense.

The south Galatians were probably not mostly Gauls, but if you search through the epistles, Paul fairly consistently refers to his readers by their city or the region in which they live. Calling residents of Galatia 'Galatians' is consistent with his usage in other epistles.

Also, the Roman province of Galatia got it's border moved further north one or two hundred years later and did not include the first missionary journeys anymore. Since the liberal German theologians of the 1800's were familiar with these borders, they were operating on inaccurate information. But their conspiracy theory is continued to this day. Maybe your version of dispensationalism fed off of ideas from this liberal theory a bit when it was created.

Ahh, you are also one of those that believes that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are not about the same event er?

I see, no wonder you hold that view, okay then.

 

[presidente]

As for your point about Peter in Acts 15, yes he believed that,

but if you read vs 19 properly, James did not conclude the same way as him, so James view in Acts 21:20-25, as well as the incident between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2, confirmed that difference in views between Peter and James.

What James said in those passages is not contradictory to Paul's view. It is not his argument in Galatians, but the two perspectives are compatable, not loggerheads with each other. Paul was opposing Gentile circumcision. The letter was written from the apostles and elders, and he was an apostle. He delivered the letters, which shows implicit agreement. He followed James and the elders' advice went into the temple to pay the vows to show that he was not teaching against Jewish believers circumcising their babies. After all, he circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother, but was glad that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

Peter stopped eating with Gentiles when certain Jews come from James. We should be careful not to read into the passage things that it does not say. It does not say that James told the men to tell Peter not to eat with the Gentiles. It does not say that the men from James told Peter not to eat with Gentiles.

It is likely the Shammai-school led Sanhedrin had forbidden Jews from eating with Gentiles in their 18 edicts related to Gentiles. The edicts did not survive, but it is possible that this was one of them and that this is what Peter meant when he said that his visit was 'unlawful' in Acts 10. It wasn't against the Old Testament, but it may have been against first century Halacha. Peter may have felt uncomfortable violating this when religious Judean Jews came up to Antioch, where the Hellenistic Jews who lived among Gentiles were likely looser about such things. Peter did not blame James or the men sent from James. Interpreting them as the men who preached Gentile circumcision at the beginning of Acts 15 does not make sense, since Paul says the men were sent from James, and Acts 15 says the church had not sent those teachers. And Paul does not accuse Peter or anyone else of verbally teaching Gentile circumcision. Peter's actions communicated the wrong message, and Paul pointed it out.

You have not addressed my point about Acts 21:20-25, which goes against what you are believing what Paul meant by the curse in Galatians 1.

Jews circumcising their babies is not the gospel.

 

[Guojing]

What James said in those passages is not contradictory to Paul's view. It is not his argument in Galatians, but the two perspectives are compatable, not loggerheads with each other. Paul was opposing Gentile circumcision. The letter was written from the apostles and elders, and he was an apostle. He delivered the letters, which shows implicit agreement. He followed James and the elders' advice went into the temple to pay the vows to show that he was not teaching against Jewish believers circumcising their babies. After all, he circumcised Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother, but was glad that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.

Peter stopped eating with Gentiles when certain Jews come from James. We should be careful not to read into the passage things that it does not say. It does not say that James told the men to tell Peter not to eat with the Gentiles. It does not say that the men from James told Peter not to eat with Gentiles.

It is likely the Shammai-school led Sanhedrin had forbidden Jews from eating with Gentiles in their 18 edicts related to Gentiles. The edicts did not survive, but it is possible that this was one of them and that this is what Peter meant when he said that his visit was 'unlawful' in Acts 10. It wasn't against the Old Testament, but it may have been against first century Halacha. Peter may have felt uncomfortable violating this when religious Judean Jews came up to Antioch, where the Hellenistic Jews who lived among Gentiles were likely looser about such things. Peter did not blame James or the men sent from James. Interpreting them as the men who preached Gentile circumcision at the beginning of Acts 15 does not make sense, since Paul says the men were sent from James, and Acts 15 says the church had not sent those teachers. And Paul does not accuse Peter or anyone else of verbally teaching Gentile circumcision. Peter's actions communicated the wrong message, and Paul pointed it out.


Jews circumcising their babies is not the gospel.

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.

 

[garee]

I pointed out that Paul indicated not all are apostles and not are all prophets. I quoted the scripture. I do not argue that apostles 'lord it over power.' Nor have I taught praying to apostles or necromancy. You should not make false accusations. Jesus said that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof on the day of judgment. The Bible also says, 'Thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbor.'

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

Are you accusing me of idolatry, blasphemy, and the abomination of desolation because I believe the teaching of the apostles for the church in passage like I Corinthians 12 are still true and you do not (or do not understand them)?

There is no teaching of or from the apostles.There is teaching that informs us of their role, sent one. It is not their interpretation that can move us to believe.. But as it is written, the interpretation of God not seen

The teaching is of the Holy Spirit. In that way we are to call no man teacher on earth Are you accusing me of idolatry, blasphemy, and the abomination of desolation because I believe the teaching of the apostles for the church in passage like I Corinthians 12 are still true and you do not (or do not understand them)?

Again teaching about the apostles as to there role. Moved ones. But no teaching coming from them One is our teaching master in heaven call no man on earth teacher

There is no teaching of the apostles. It is not there interpretation. But as it is written the interpretation of God not seen

The teaching is of the Holy Spirit. In that way we are to call no man teacher on earth

 

[garee]

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 neither had authority over the Gentile or Jew. The authority to believe God is not of men. God is not a man as us.

When two or three gather together under the authority of name as it written he is there working in them to both will and perform His good pleasure.

 

[Guojing]

Paul neither had authority over the Gentile or Jew. The authority to believe God is not of men. God is not a man as us.

When two or three gather together under the authority of name as it written he is there working in them to both will and perform His good pleasure.

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.