Different Gospels

[Musicmaster]

I suppose that was the best you could come up with to avoid answering the question

No, correcting your misconceptions was my aim, but you don't seem interested in an intellectual discussion, so it's moot.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

No, correcting your misconceptions was my aim, but you don't seem interested in an intellectual discussion, so it's moot.

MM

Your philosophical intellectualism cannot address the point made, hence you have to deflect
What is written in Heb10:15-18 is now fully reflected in the lives of gentile converts, as you appear to agree.
So, why is what is written in those verses not for gentiles today, only Israelites in the future?

 

[Musicmaster]

Your philosophical intellectualism cannot address the point made, hence you have to deflect

Not at all. I was still wanting clarifications to the primary questions asked of you that you continue to refuse answering so that THEN we can move on to those other rabbit holes.

What is written in Heb10:15-18 is now fully reflected in the lives of gentile converts, as you appear to agree.

Yes, but only because of the parallelism of those items, not because of the writing of Hebrews itself.

So, why is what is written in those verses not for gentiles today, only Israelites in the future?

Again, you're sitting back onto the haunches of falsehood because I already stated to you twice now that those items are indeed parallel with Paul's teaching, but you won't take yes for an answer. That speaks to a slithery agenda game that I'm simply not going to play. Your bent upon false accusation is itself the simplistic tool in your arsenal that the enemy has been using for centuries, and he does it much more masterfully.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Not at all. I was still wanting clarifications to the primary questions asked of you that you continue to refuse answering so that THEN we can move on to those other rabbit holes.



Yes, but only because of the parallelism of those items, not because of the writing of Hebrews itself.



Again, you're sitting back onto the haunches of falsehood because I already stated to you twice now that those items are indeed parallel with Paul's teaching, but you won't take yes for an answer. That speaks to a slithery agenda game that I'm simply not going to play. Your bent upon false accusation is itself the simplistic tool in your arsenal that the enemy has been using for centuries, and he does it much more masterfully.

MM

Parreleism?
The fact remains, what is written in those verses is practically speaking fully reflected in the lives of gentile converts today
Your bluster is only to try and avoid the obvious consequences of that

 

[Musicmaster]

Parreleism?
The fact remains, what is written in those verses is practically speaking fully reflected in the lives of gentile converts today
Your bluster is only to try and avoid the obvious consequences of that

Actually, no.

Here's the case in point you brought up:

Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

These passages, although somewhat paralleled in Hebrews below that make no mention of Gentiles at all, are NOT saying the same thing because it's two different groups of people, but modern deceptions have some believing the Law itself is written in the heart of Gentiles today to whom the Law was never given. Notice above that the WORK of the Law is in the hearts of most Gentiles. It doesn't say the Law itself is written therein today, but you seem to be reading that into the text that which isn't even there.

Compare this with what was written to Israel and Israel alone:

Hebrews 10:15-18
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Notice this didn't say anything about the WROK of the Law, but the Law itself...in the future, in THOSE days, THEN it will be written into the hearts of Israel. Where there is somewhat a parallel with Gentiles in that the WORK of the Law is in their hearts, the Law itself is not stated to be written therein in relation to the Gentile masses of believers, for the Law has VASTLY more to it than just the ten to which most Gentiles appeal.

The deception in all this is like a fountain springing forth from the well of replacement theologies and a failure to read it for what it says, making note carefully of the key words written, thus you inventing something that's not there for reasons that only you could know as to your agenda.

Now, please stop deflecting and answer what I have asked you.

MM

 

[BartholomewB]

The difference between testament and covenant is much bigger than what most within Westernized religions understand these days.

Not only "these days." Back in the seventeenth century, the translators of the KJV evidently found it a tricky question to deal with. In 1 Cor 11:25, as in thirty-something other places in the NT, the Greek word διαθήκη (diathéké) is usually translated as “covenant”. The KJV, however, sometimes prefers “testament”:

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-25.htm

 

[Thaddeus]

It doesn't say the Law itself is written therein today, but you seem to be reading that into the text that which isn't even there.

You're the only one deflecting

Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20
Therefore, anything that a believer could do that would give them heartfelt consciousness of sin if they did it, is law placed in their hearts

 

[Thaddeus]

These passages, although somewhat paralleled in Hebrews below that make no mention of Gentiles at all, are NOT saying the same thing because it's two different groups of people, but modern deceptions have some believing the Law itself is written in the heart of Gentiles today to whom the Law was never given.

It appears you do not understand the message
Through the law we become conscious of sin
Are you saying, gentile believers have no heartfelt consciousness of sin?

 

[Musicmaster]

Not only "these days." Back in the seventeenth century, the translators of the KJV evidently found it a tricky question to deal with. In 1 Cor 11:25, as in thirty-something other places in the NT, the Greek word διαθήκη (diathéké) is usually translated as “covenant”. The KJV, however, sometimes prefers “testament”:

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-25.htm

Good point. That's why the old adage of "context is king" is the foundational rule maker by which translators know which English word to use. In Greek, the context is the means by which the singular word translated two different ways is understood by the Greek-speaking peoples.

Case in point: CLEAVE

In English, that word has polar opposite meanings. The context is the means by which we in the English speaking world understand which definition applies. It can mean either to, for example, cut cleave down the middle, and it can mean to cleave together, to put two things together.

Does that make sense?

Therefore the differences between covenant and testament. Covenants are not reliant upon the death of one party, where testament is, therefore the reason for the cup Jesus passed was the cup of the new testament, not covenant. Jesus had to die in order for that testament in His blood for our salvation to become a reality and in force. Covenants are between two living parties not at all dependent upon the death of one.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

It appears you do not understand the message
Through the law we become conscious of sin
Are you saying, gentile believers have no heartfelt consciousness of sin?

See? You continue to deflect away from answering what I asked of you, AND the rules of grammar clearly defy your presentation about those verses. The OBJECT of what's written in the hearts of Gentiles is the WORK of the Law, not the Law itself.

Please learn to read scripture for what it says.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

See? You continue to deflect away from answering what I asked of you, AND the rules of grammar clearly defy your presentation about those verses. The OBJECT of what's written in the hearts of Gentiles is the WORK of the Law, not the Law itself.

Please learn to read scripture for what it says.

MM

You are desperate aren't you
You can only be conscious of sin through the law.
Therefore, if believers have heartfelt consciousness of sin they have law in their hearts!!!
Your rules of grammer are lacking
Works of the law is observing the law

 

[Thaddeus]

Therefore by the deeds/works of the law/obeying the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin Rom3:20

 

[Thaddeus]

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law/obeying the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law/obeying the law: for by the works of the law/obeying the law shall no flesh be justified.

 

[Thaddeus]

Did Paul say you are conscious of sin through the works of the law, or just the law?

People will reason anything to try and defend their errant views

 

[Thaddeus]

You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2Cor3:3

 

[Thaddeus]

Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness(not full stop) for everyone who believeth Rom10:4

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom3:31

 

[Thaddeus]

How could Paul reprove people for sin if they did not have what was written in the law?
My oh my

 

[Jon777]

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve:

Mark 16:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The Gospel of Grace given to Paul directly from that same Jesus after His acension:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

When an honestly mistaken man sees the truth presented in black-n-white, such as what can be seen above, one of three things happens:

(1) he will either cease to be mistaken, or
(2) he will cease to be honest, or
(3) he will argue endlessly as his way of a continued refusal against what's written above to try and cover over his dishonesty.

In the end, however, he will either accept the truth or he will reject it, some going so far as to try and pit the word of God against itself on the basis of some modern, English translations that lead some down the pathways of what those translations claim are the "best texts."

If he accepts the truth of what's said in passages above, and remains consistent with proper hermeneutics by accepting the clear language of what's stated in the verses above, he's no longer mistaken.

If he rejects it, he's no longer honest with himself nor with others.

It's as simple as that.

There can't be, therefore, such a thing as an "honestly mistaken man" who, once seeing the truth presented to him from the scriptures, continues to reject by re-interpreting key passages and/or contexts that credibly fail to support his false position.

The masses of Gentiles who think they're adhering to the Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus to His disciples and the twelve to Israel, none today are able to do the things Israel was promised they would be able to do following that Gospel, all while thinking we're under that Gospel today.

Interestingly, avoidance of being seen as foolish, they either never talk about their inability to do these things described in the verses above or they do the awkward slight-of-hand magic disappearance trick by making use of verses popular among the cessationists, feebly using those as an explanation for their failure in showing that Gospel as being operative today, which it is not.

The emphatic declaration by Jesus that those who had faith and were baptized, therefore absolutely able to do ALL those things, here we are with clinics, hospitals and care homes filled with people almost never visited, and therefore never healed, by these Gentiles who claim they believe what Jesus taught as allegedly applying to us today.

Is this failure on their part a demonstration for a severe lack of faith on their part or are they failing to love, care and express a heart-felt compassion for the sick and infirmed people, or is it a perpetual demonstration for a lack of saving faith on their part?

The reason they don't go about healing and being healed by those who claim they're followers of Christ and His instructions in His Kingdom Gospel message is because that Kingdom Gospel message was unique to Israel alone under the Kingdom Gospel dispensation not meant for us today given the fall of Israel. That is the uncomfortable truth at play here.

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Slapping, with warped glee, the seemingly negative sounding labels on the truth of dispensations as their practiced manipulation upon the weaker minds of others (those who routinely fail to "prove all things" by putting on their critical thinking caps long since taken from them by public and private primary and secondary schools), and those of a more liberal leaning buffoonery that permeates so much of modern education, this practice is an old trick empowered by the princes of this world and is still effectively at play today.

The most popular hang-up is the snideness applied in support of a manipulative crusade promotion of a more negative sentiment about the descriptor "dispensationalism," a term that fits Paul perfectly, given that he used the term underlying term "dispensations" a number of times in his epistles:

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Collossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

So, when I see the snideness directed against the proper and honest teaching for dispensations within scripture, of which we are instructed to rightly divide within the word of God, especially the snideness perpetrated by people who themselves hypocritically practice dispensational differentiations given that they don't perform animal sacrifices in their back yards for their sins, along with many other of the 613 Mosaic Law requirements, their negativity against what was given to Paul for us today, they're indeed failing to remain honest with themselves and with others.

What about you? Do you see the differences here?

MM

When I read this OP, the following came to my mind, as expressed by Robert L. Dabney in his Systematic Theology -

“The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic.”

The OP is nothing but a confusion! When I see arguments in presentations that take all the verbiage as in this presentation, I know it is probably teaching profound error. I’ve found in attempting to answer such confusion, one becomes confused himself trying to give a response.

I saw at the beginning of this OP, seemingly an attempt to say only Old Covenant(?) Jews were given the power of miracles in Mark 16. Well, the list given to the twelve in Matthew includes one special power:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. (Matt 10:5-8, NRSV)

If I see anyone claiming the gifts as Pentecostals and Charismatics do, I want to see them raise the dead! Then I will listen to their claims, not until they do so.

 

[Musicmaster]

You can only be conscious of sin through the law.

Yes, and the text didn't say anything about the study of the Law, but only what's written in the heart of Gentiles versus that of Israel. You initially were not talking only about consciousness of the Law, but about what was written where, and your assumption was that the Law itself is written in the hearts of Gentiles who are without the Law. Deflections like this will not change the facts, my friend.

Therefore, if believers have heartfelt consciousness of sin they have law in their hearts!!!

Says who? You? I hope you don't mind that I'm going to stick with the text.

Your rules of grammer are lacking
Works of the law is observing the law

Says who? You? I hope you don't mind that I'm going to stick with what's written in the text.

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Says who? You? I hope you don't mind that I'm going to stick with the text.

Sin is the transgression of the law 1John3:4
Therefore:
Through the law we become conscious of sin Rom3:20
Therefore, you can only have heartfelt consciousness of sin if law is in your heart

Be better if you believe what Paul wrote, it is one of the core tenets of scripture.