ECT How is Paul's message different?

Shasta

Shasta

Well-known member
Nick M said:
Wrong. Just believe the text. If you were right, the Paul would be ok with putting gentiles under the law as long as Peter did the same.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Just so you know, there is a long time between Acts 9 and Acts 10.
Click to expand...

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not ACTING in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
(Galatians 1:14)

Paul says twice that the issue at hand was hypocrisy so I really do not have to prove it. Also nothing in the passage suggests that Peter preached a sermon that "Jews are clean and must remain separate from Gentiles who are unclean." Paul said the point of contention was how Peter was ACTING. Though he may not have said anything, Peter's example as a respected leader sent an unspoken message and that had to be addressed in public.

According to Paul, before this incident, Peter had not been living as an observant Jew but regularly ate and fellowshipped with Gentile believers. His habit of life then was consistent with the truth that the Gentiles were "clean" and part of the brotherhood along with believing Jews. This practice is inconsistent with the opinion that Peter followed some kind of chimeric "Jewish Gospel" that was part-law and part-grace.

Paul said that acting as if the Gentiles were unclean was "contrary to THE truth of THE gospel. He used the singular form of the nouns "truth" and "gospel" which shows he was talking about only ONE gospel. He could not have rebuked Peter had they not believed the same truth.
 
Shasta

Shasta

Well-known member
patrick jane said:
I agree with that, being a good person in which which works are done comes naturally. Good works are a natural result of being Christian. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I never say I am a good person. The only thing I have is the grace mercy He has given to me. In fact, I am surprised He is able to work through me at all but somehow He does. I agree that good works are a result of being a Christian. We cannot do anything to earn what Christ bought.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Shasta said:
I never say I am a good person. The only thing I have is the grace mercy He has given to me. In fact, I am surprised He is able to work through me at all but somehow He does. I agree that good works are a result of being a Christian. We cannot do anything to earn what Christ bought.
Click to expand...

That's right, shame on me for thinking some folks do good
 
Shasta

Shasta

Well-known member
Clete said:
Wrong question.

No one denies the existence of good works in the Christian life.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.​

The difference is in the Dispensation of Law the works were required and salvation came after, as a result, in part of those works. In the Dispensation of Grace, the works come after and as a result of salvation.

In the dispensation of grace, you are righteous therefore you do good works.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

I Corinthians 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

II Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3: 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

In the Dispensation of Law you are righteous IF you do righteousness.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

John15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

I John 2:4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 3:22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'll have to respond to your other posts later!
Click to expand...

Historically it is a well documented fact that John lived until the end of the First Century and that his letters were written in the last decade of his life. This was long after the deaths of Paul Peter and all the other Apostles. By then, John had moved to Ephesus and was a leader of the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor which Paul had planted some 40 years before. On what basis do you relegate John's writings to the "Law" or to some "Jewish Gospel?" Internal and external evidence is against you.
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Shasta said:
Historically it is a well documented fact that John lived until the end of the First Century and that his letters were written in the last decade of his life. This was long after the deaths of Paul Peter and all the other Apostles. By then, John had moved to Ephesus and was a leader of the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor which Paul had planted some 40 years before. On what basis do you relegate John's writings to the "Law" or to some "Jewish Gospel?" Internal and external evidence is against you.
Click to expand...


John wrote Revelation while Paul was in Arabia, before Paul and Barnabas established any church.
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Shasta said:
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not ACTING in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
(Galatians 1:14)

Paul says twice that the issue at hand was hypocrisy so I really do not have to prove it. Also nothing in the passage suggests that Peter preached a sermon that "Jews are clean and must remain separate from Gentiles who are unclean." Paul said the point of contention was how Peter was ACTING. Though he may not have said anything, Peter's example as a respected leader sent an unspoken message and that had to be addressed in public.

According to Paul, before this incident, Peter had not been living as an observant Jew but regularly ate and fellowshipped with Gentile believers. His habit of life then was consistent with the truth that the Gentiles were "clean" and part of the brotherhood along with believing Jews. This practice is inconsistent with the opinion that Peter followed some kind of chimeric "Jewish Gospel" that was part-law and part-grace.

Paul said that acting as if the Gentiles were unclean was "contrary to THE truth of THE gospel. He used the singular form of the nouns "truth" and "gospel" which shows he was talking about only ONE gospel. He could not have rebuked Peter had they not believed the same truth.
Click to expand...

:cheers:
Paul said that acting as if the Gentiles were unclean was "contrary to THE truth of THE gospel. He used the singular form of the nouns "truth" and "gospel" which shows he was talking about only ONE gospel. He could not have rebuked Peter had they not believed the same truth.
Click to expand...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
patrick jane said:
Nah, scholars say 95 AD
Click to expand...



No, there is no reason for it that late. It was written during the Jewish revolt so that the Jewish Christians would realize what was going on and that the 'harlot' was to be 'stoned' and that there would be a new wedding.

Notice that it does not mention the destruction of the temple.
 
L

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
All Christians are believers but not all believers are Christians.

(Christ in)

We have to rightly divide the word of God.

Not all things are to us but all things are for us:think:

LA
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
No, there is no reason for it that late. It was written during the Jewish revolt so that the Jewish Christians would realize what was going on and that the 'harlot' was to be 'stoned' and that there would be a new wedding.

Notice that it does not mention the destruction of the temple.
Click to expand...

I barely noticed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top