Galatian Conundrums

prophetic symbolism, it`s the nature of symbolism that it must be interpreted, as such difference of opinion is almost inevitable.

i. e. the use of symbols to represent ideas or qualities.
"he has always believed in the importance of symbolism in garden art"

• symbolic meaning attributed to natural objects or facts.
  "the old-fashioned symbolism of flowers"

Where as literal interpretation means to interpret scripture solely on the basis of what words say and mean. Of course this leads to appparent contradiction that must be reconciled into a literal view that agrees with all the scriptures.

A good i. e. would be this 2 vs 1 gospel conflict. Truth is: it is beating at the air. There is no conflict just bad understanding.

And instead of dialogue we just have this obscene effort to shut down any real discussion of the facts in scripture.

The monster of being saved by grace and kept by law. Paul used the harshest possible ways to speak of those who through this was wreaking the Galatian church. The term translate “pervert” meaning someone not only stopping the good news but actual turning the doctrine backwards. Paul and no one other than Christ is God. Some how living life under the Royal Law of Love is a joke but it is the only way to live in a fallen world. To cite Christ living a life under Law isn’t fair as He was fulfilling the Law. There is going to be a difference between folks who believe this to be true and those who don’t why continue and not switch

Reminds me of the 3 stages of how truth is acknowledged

The process of acknowledging a truth is broken down into three stages:

1. The first stage is ridicule. When a new idea or concept is brought up, it’s so strange that it’s completely absurd. People cannot fathom this idea and how it fits into their lives, so they simply laugh at how impossible it seems.
2. The second stage is opposition. After a new concept made it past the first stage, people begin to worry that it’s here to stay. A few might support the concept, but most will resist because they see it as a threat to everything they’re familiar with.
3. The third stage is self-evident. There is increasing evidence that supports the idea, which goes from having a few early supporters to entering the mainstream. A majority of people support the fact and come to accept it as a given.

We hate stage 3 around this joint.

Rick why do you refuse to reply to my reply/question about your original post? I asked multiple times and never got an answer.

Galations 2:7 is very clear in the Contemporary English Version. Verses 4 to 6 warn of of false teachers.

(4) We went there because of those who pretended to be followers and had sneaked in among us as spies. They had come to take away the freedom that Christ Jesus had given us, and they were trying to make us their slaves.
(5) But we wanted you to have the true message. That's why we didn't give in to them, not even for a second.
(6) Some of them were supposed to be important leaders, but I didn't care who they were. God doesn't have any favorites! None of these so-called special leaders added anything to my message.
(7) They realized that God had sent me with the good news for Gentiles, and that he had sent Peter with the same message for Jews.
(8) God, who had sent Peter on a mission to the Jews, was now using me to preach to the Gentiles.

That is why u need the kjv when it comes to this passage

Gal 2:7-9 KJV
(7) But contrariwise, when they (the Judaizers) saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
(9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The same God and the same gospel message to both nations, but contrary to the wishes of the Judaizers we are warned against in verses 4 to 6 inclusive.

But you notice the kjv version of v7 is very different from the cev?

No difference.

(7) When they realized that God had sent me with the good news for Gentiles, and that he had sent Peter with the same message for Jews. (CEV)

(7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (KJV)

Poorly worded. Do you have any word study books like I believe his name is Robertson? He does word studies in the New Testament books. He was someone who had a huge knowledge of biblical Greek. They can be a lot of help. The word translated in chapter one as "pervert" actually mean to take the pointer as it wraps around the tree and not only stopping it but forcing it back in the wrong direction. That is what Paul said the Judaizers were doing when they added law forced the good news in the wrong direction. Amazing

By adding the word "same", the cev tells you both messages are the same. You don't want to see it, that is why you think there is no difference.

But when you read Acts 15 and Gal 2, you will know that James only declared the Gentile believers to be free from the Law of Moses, while the Jewish believers still have to follow the Law of Moses, along with circumcision.

This is how the KJV maintain that difference between the 2 gospels.

See my further exposition here. https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...oosing-and-binding.187425/page-3#post-4034682

Generally, when someone wants to understand the scripture, they should always double check with the KJV.

Whenever you use all those NIV, CEV, NLT, MSG, they may mislead you with all these modern translations.

Not both messages. There is only 1 message that was preached by both men. It is the SAME message.

If Jews want to follow the law that leads to destruction, that is their choice. Jesus changed that and neither myself or God want people to go to Hell. That is why God came into the world, so that all those who believe in Him shall be saved.

So you do agree that James did not pronounce the Jewish believers free from the Law of Moses at Acts 15.

The point remain that the message Paul were to bring to the Gentiles, after Acts 15, could not be the same message preached by Peter to the Jews.

If Peter dare to preach that the Jews are free from the Law of Moses, he would have been banished from Jerusalem HQ. It was tough for Peter, he wanted both to be free, as he stated in Acts 15:11, but James would have none of it.

Now you understand better why there was this clash between Paul and Peter, as described in the 2nd part of Galatians 2?

No Jew is free from the law until their heart is circumcised.

Col 2:6-15 KJV
(6) As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
(7) Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
(8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
(10) And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
(11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
(12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
(13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
(15) And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Yes, I agree.

Now if only James got onto the same ship. However, he made it clear to Paul in Acts 21:20-21 that he does not appreciate that some Jews overheard Paul's message to the Gentiles and got the idea that even the Jews are to be free from the Law.

Where does James tell Paul off?

I did not say he told him off.

How one interpret what went down between Paul and james and the elders will depend on how you understand what happened in acts 15.

It wasn't James, it was Jews who were zealots for the law. They were were willing to acknowledge Christ as the Messiah and indeed they had seen him risen from the dead; but they were unwilling to give up their privileges as a chosen race, so they clung to their Jewish law in case they should offend God. They made the condition that if they were going to accept the teaching of Paul, then he must take a Jewish vow, namely the Nazarite Vow, otherwise they would brand him as an apostate.

Despite everything they still would not give up the law and withdrew from the Christian Church. These are the Nazarenes and Ebionites. They rejected the authority and writings of Paul and branded him an apostate. Perhaps without knowing it, those who still cling to the law in the same way they did, while acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, belong to this same sect?

Hang on, I'm talking here about Act 21:17-26