ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

Yes but this is all before the DBR.

So what?

Now this is after the DBR. What does Peter mean by "be converted"?

Look, you have got to stop with the leading questions. I'm not answering them any more.

Make the argument.

Jesus just gave them a little of what they were to proclaim. They couldn’t handle it all.
Jn. 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

This is proof texting 101. This is your doctrine, not the bible. Jesus told them specifically to go and "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you".

THEY DID NOT DO IT!

Instead they sent Paul to all the nations while they ministered to the Jews in Israel.

I believe the 12 went out and proclaimed “the gospel”, the same one Paul later proclaims.

Okay, that's it. You just reached the end of my patience.

I will not read one single syllable more of anything you have to say unless and until you directly and substantive make a BIBLICAL ARGUMENT that answers the questions posed immediately after I said "Paul's gospel?" You will address why it is even called Paul's gospel. You will address the need to even bring Paul into it at all since, according to you, the Twelve had been filled with the Holy Spirit and made to understand and preach the same thing he preached. You will address why it was necessary for Paul to explain himself to the Twelve. And you will address what was the motive for the Twelve to force all of their converts, on pain of instant death, to sell everything they owned and hand the proceeds over to the Apostles.

There are probably at least half a dozen other things that your doctrine can't explain and, in my experience, almost totally ignores. I strongly suspect that you have no explanation nor anything that resembles an actual biblical argument to back up anything you might come up with. That's the reason its almost totally ignored. But regardless, I'm not getting sucked into these circular discussions where you do not respond to my arguments and periodically hit the reset button on the whole discussion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

Actually Rev 3:21 shows that the throne is one and the same, and Christ is saying that about it.

 

[Interplanner]

Clete wrote:
THEY DID NOT DO IT!

Instead they sent Paul to all the nations while they ministered to the Jews in Israel.





Hmmm, you must not have heard of Acts 8-9 about Peter, and then Acts 15 about James recalling that God sent Peter to the Gentiles, 15:14, and that that move (God's move more than Peters!) was what Amos 9 was about. That it was the rebuilding of David's fallen tent.

Then there's the Ethiopian contact.

And don't forget that all the people who went home from Pentecost all over the empire would now be able to speak about what happened in their own language back home, not just in Aramaic for synagogue.

 

[Right Divider]

There is no other Biblical definition of Messiah but that he is the grace of God and a sacrifice. It is utterly mistaken to think otherwise. This is why there is conflict between 1st century Judaism and Christian faith: because the 'Christ' of Judaism was opposite on both points.

D'ists cannot know what they are talking about because of the flaw inherent in D'ism.

Spoken like the true know-nothing that you are.

THAT Jesus IS the CHRIST is NOT THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.... no matter how much you want to push your confusion on everyone else.

 

[Clete]

Score one for turbo - finally, lol

Clete, what do you do with Paul's later, end of Galatians 2 encounter with Peter - at Antioch - it does not fit your "Acts 19 Jerusalem" timeline.

And that Jerusalem meeting is not only actually in chapter 21, not chapter 19, but Paul had twice been warned by the Spirit against his plans to go up to Jerusalem, even as he was headed towards it.

He did not go "up by revelation" (as in his earlier in Galatians 2 vist) rather, against "revelation."

Acts 21:3 Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden. 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.

He continues to head towards Jerusalem anyway, ends up at Caesarea, on his way to Jerusalem, and is once more warned against doing so...

21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.

But he goes anyway, and gets there, and repeats what he did in Acts in Acts 14 and again in Acts 15 - he relates the success of his ministry among the Gentiles...

Acts 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. 21:15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 21:16 There went with us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge. 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

He then ends up in chains...

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 21:29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done.

Lol, dear brother, you've made Galatians a prison Epistle.

But you did say you are rusty on these things.

It happens.



But better a little rust then turbo's thus far continued ocean of wet behind the ears.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

Yes, quite right! I was confusing the events of Acts 19 with that of Acts 15. Boy! I'm more rusty that I realized!

Interesting how the overall point I was making stands in spite of the error.

 

[Right Divider]

It's good to be zealous for the truth, Gal 4:18.

Indeed, but you are zealous for a fairy tale.

Do you understand the social-religious situation on the ground in 1st century Judea that Jesus had to operate around from what I just described? Most people were eventually in mortal danger from zealots if they broke on sabbath or circumcision.

Woopee

Hopefully you'll let some history into your dark mind. Sometimes it is in the Bible and sometimes in other sources, and that the neat thing about the Bible: it is cross-confirmed. Things in it are not just true because they are in it. They are true to reality.

Your false interp of the Bible requires you to over-emphasize external sources.

 

[Right Divider]

There is no sharp distinction between his glory and God's. You can't make your doctrine on one expression like that. It will be one again (Eph 1 and I Cor 15), otherwise you are making too many distinctions about the trinity, driven by the D'ist doctrine that israel and the church have to be kept separate. Which is not the case.

You care very much about what leaders of D'ism say. They started all this Israel-kingdom business because they said it made sense of the Bible. Not.

More opinions from the fairy tale teller.

Try actually believing the Bible instead.

 

[john w]

Your caricatures are too far-fetched to be worth looking at. Do you have something reasonable to say?

The Reformation doctrine about interpreting Scripture was, among other things:

the letters interpret the Gospels

That's how they avoided the non-sense that D'ism has become. The nonsensical and grammar smashing debates about two gospels in Gal 2 or anywhere else.

If you guys would learn some 'history of theology' you would be embarrassed at clunking wheels you are trying to keep rolling. No Reformation teacher in the two centuries after let the thought of an alternative gospel at first stand, because God raised up Paul not Ryrie or Scofield to assimilate and express the unity of Scripture and the Gospel.

Did our hero address his own "argument," of "It is the one Gospel"=only one piece of good news in the book, and thus Judas preached the good news of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV....?:.

"Hey, everyone!!!!! This is Judas!!!! Listen up!!!My Saviour, the Christ, is going to die for our sins...be buried....raised again for our justification!!!!! Believe this good news, to be saved!!!!! Gotta Go....My broker told me to buy some silver, as he is bullish on it.......I know where to get some!!!!"


Nope....More irrelevant misdirection, slop, bobbing and weaving, doing the Hokey Pokey, and turning all about, spinning like a drunken top...


So, I will make this easier for you, Butch: Did Judas preach the 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV good news, in light of you, ON RECORD, asserting...

It is the one Gospel...

Yes, or no-we are all busy men/women, Butch.

 

[john w]

Actually Rev 3:21 shows that the throne is one and the same, and Christ is saying that about it.

Catch that deception from this alleged "the Greek" scholar, Humpty Dumpty, who cannot even read 6th grade English...Same throne?


Revelation 3
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


my throne...vs. his throne


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Thanks for checkin' in, clown Humpty.

 

[turbosixx]

Okay, that's it. You just reached the end of my patience.

I will not read one single syllable more of anything you have to say unless and until you directly and substantive make a BIBLICAL ARGUMENT that answers the questions posed immediately after I said "Paul's gospel?"

Resting in Him,
Clete

Here is my biblical argument for "Paul's gospel".

1 Cor. 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It's Christ's gospel.
12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord,

1 Cor. 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

 

[turbosixx]

This is proof texting 101. This is your doctrine, not the bible. Jesus told them specifically to go and "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you".

THEY DID NOT DO IT!

So that nullifies what Jesus said? This is what I don't understand about MAD. Instead of trying to understand what Jesus says is true, they look for reasons to make it false.

Is this true or false?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[turbosixx]

Look, you have got to stop with the leading questions. I'm not answering them any more.

If you don't answer the questions to me that is 100% fine. My intention is to get you to think.

For example, what did Peter mean by be converted? You don't have to answer me but do you have an answer for yourself.

 

[Right Divider]

If you don't answer the questions to me that is 100% fine. My intention is to get you to think.

For example, what did Peter mean by be converted? You don't have to answer me but do you have an answer for yourself.

In the CONTEXT of Peter's speech, he was talking to his people.... ISRAEL.

Acts 2:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: ​

The only ones there were JEWS and PROSELYTES.

Acts 2:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, ​

The Bible is very easy to understand if you keep everything IN CONTEXT.

 

[Danoh]

If you don't answer the questions to me that is 100% fine. My intention is to get you to think.

For example, what did Peter mean by be converted? You don't have to answer me but do you have an answer for yourself.

It does not mean what you think it means, that's for sure...

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

In other words - when you come to your senses, realize what you have done and turn from it, back to me...

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

He is to turn the guy who turned away from the truth, back to said truth.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Scripture often repeats what it says in a same passage, but with a different word.

Exactly the case, in Acts 3, there...

There, it is another way of saying repent, as a means of over emphasis - and both words are referring to the need to change one's mind, or prior position on a thing, and turn to the position one is being called to turn to.

In other words, in Acts 3, Peter is calling Israel to change their minds (about who they had concluded Christ was when they had Him crucified) and turn back to the God of their fathers by believing that Jesus had been their prophesied Christ.

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

While, I'm at it...

Another common error is concluding that Peter is saying that if Israel will repent, or turn back to the God of their fathers by believing that Jesus had been who there forefathers had spoken of, see the end of John 5, then God will send Christ back.

But the actual sense of that is that "WHEN the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;...he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

That last passage I cited there, also makes it obvious they did not know the when...

Further, the Lord had already repeated once more in Acts 1:7, that it was not for them to know when that would be.

Also, they were still functioning within Daniel's 70 weeks - and Daniel had also been told, it is not Israel's to know when Daniel 9's times of refreshing would be, see Daniel 12.

Acts 17:11, 12.

 

[Interplanner]

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
Do you understand the social-religious situation on the ground in 1st century Judea that Jesus had to operate around from what I just described? Most people were eventually in mortal danger from zealots if they broke on sabbath or circumcision.

RD:
Woopee



That's idiotic. Good bye.

 

[Interplanner]

Did our hero address his own "argument," of "It is the one Gospel"=only one piece of good news in the book, and thus Judas preached the good news of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV....?:.

"Hey, everyone!!!!! This is Judas!!!! Listen up!!!My Saviour, the Christ, is going to die for our sins...be buried....raised again for our justification!!!!! Believe this good news, to be saved!!!!! Gotta Go....My broker told me to buy some silver, as he is bullish on it.......I know where to get some!!!!"


Nope....More irrelevant misdirection, slop, bobbing and weaving, doing the Hokey Pokey, and turning all about, spinning like a drunken top...


So, I will make this easier for you, Butch: Did Judas preach the 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV good news, in light of you, ON RECORD, asserting...




Yes, or no-we are all busy men/women, Butch.

Uhhh, he was dead later. When he was alive, I'm sure he got disenfranchised with the Gospel of Christ's death because it isn't really something a zealot can use.

The one gospel is that the Lamb had come who would be slain to take aways sins. (In D'ism, you put the word NOT between 'would' and 'be' TO MAKE SENSE of the Bible, get it? They are NOT-heads.)

 

[Interplanner]

The D'ists have tons of people who practice put downs rather than do serious research. How to fix this problem?

 

[Right Divider]

The D'ists have tons of people who practice put downs rather than do serious research. How to fix this problem?

You get replies that you don't like because your ideas are idiotic.

NONE of the apostles were preaching Christ's death for sin while they were out preaching the gospel of the kingdom, like in Luke 9. That is CLEAR and INCONTROVERTIBLE based on the BIBLE.

 

[Clete]

Here is my biblical argument for "Paul's gospel".

1 Cor. 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It's Christ's gospel.
12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord,

1 Cor. 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?
5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

That is not a biblical argument, it's proof texting.

Do you seriously not know the difference?

 

[Clete]

So that nullifies what Jesus said? This is what I don't understand about MAD. Instead of trying to understand what Jesus says is true, they look for reasons to make it false.

Is this true or false?
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

What?

Which words of Jesus did I make false?

Nothing about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does any such thing and I think you know that. The only reason to even think such things, never mind say them or allow yourself to be persuaded by them, would be if you had no real argument against Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, nor any real rebuttal to the arguments they make.

Have you completely abandoned attempting to see around your paradigm? If so, this is a waste of both of us.