"Men from James"
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Thanks for the video.
He didn't try to dismiss anything that was written, or try to insert unwritten thoughts into his presentation...which was mostly just reading the scriptures in Acts 15.
It hasn't made me reconsider anything I have posted either, as my view is pretty much just as their's is.
I am trying to contact the source of it to further understand their base of knowledge.
I wonder why James was so dense that he wouldn't allow the Jews the same liberty he granted to the Gentiles.
I have always felt that the converted Pharisees/Sadducees/scribes etc. had way too much say in the early church, and think James may have over valued their views.
Why were not the Jews "dead to the Law" by the same way the Gentiles were made dead to it ?
Both were baptized into Christ and into His death, so both had their "old man" slain before being "raised with Christ to walk in newness of life".
Both are new creatures reborn of God's seed.
But why are there different requirements for one sect the other doesn't need ?
Truth is, the Jews are free from the Law and just didn't recognize it at the time of the "council".
Except for the part where it's not.
This begs the question that James "was so dense..."
James wasn't dense at all.
He was keeping the things Jesus had commanded him to do.
You missed it.
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts15:5&version=NKJV
These were believing Pharisees. Converts of the Twelve.
Because of the different dispensations.
The Jewish believers (and I use that term "Jewish" broadly here to refer to those who believed under the New Covenant, both Jew and Gentile, AKA Kingdom Believers) were required by the New Covenant to keep the law.
The entire reason for the Jerusalem Council was to determine whether Paul's converts, who were mostly Gentiles, were required to keep the law, and circumcise. The council decided after much discussion that Paul's converts did NOT have to circumcise.
That does not mean that the Jewish believers no longer had to keep the law.
For as Paul says:
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:17-24&version=NKJV
Mashing things up is not the way to do Bible study.
Wrong.
One is the remnant of a nation.
The other is a new creature.
Huge difference.
Sect?
There are different dispensations for different groups because that's the way God operates. If you were to build an ark today, you would be scripturally correct, but dispensationally wrong.
The house rules changed, because it's a different house (relatively speaking).
I refer you to the video I posted here, which talks about different house rules:
Can a Christian lose their salvation
Is it possible to loose your salvation once saved?
theologyonline.com
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The Jews under the New Covenant (aka, those who believed Jesus was the Messiah) were still under the law.
Unbelieving Israel, the portion that was cut off for their unbelief, was brought down to the level of the Gentile nations, and just as they are, "the whole world is under the law." For:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:19-25&version=NKJV
And:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:19-20&version=NKJV
The only group that is NOT under the law are those who are saved by grace through faith. For:
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:14-15&version=NKJV
Then why did Paul say what He said in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24?
"called while circumcised? do not become uncircumcised" Means if you were called while you were a keeper of the law, do not stop keeping the law.
Can you not see that you're having to twist what is being said to support your position? You have to assume they "just didn't recognize" [what Hoping believes] "at the time of the council."
It's called eisegesis, Hoping. It means you're reading your beliefs into the text to make them say what you want them to say in order to support your position, rather than letting the meaning flow from the text, exegesis.
Care to elaborate ?
Where did Jesus command anyone to get circumcised ?
Or obey dietary rules ?
As Paul saw the end of the Law so too should have James and the other eleven.
Those "believing Pharisees" got their "blinded eyes" opened at the council.
The Mosaic Law and customs had been undone.
Where is that written ?
Really, it does.
The segregation of believer from other believers had never been ordained by God.
Just as Paul, a Jew, could live like a Gentile, so too could all the other Jews.
Ignoring what had been written is no way to see the mind of God.
Jews were denied rebirth ?
I'ld hate to think I had been believing Paul the Jew's unregenerate writings for so many years.
You know, a separate entity ?
There are indeed different dispensations, but the changes were for everyone.
What you say makes Paul, the illustrator of the new dispensation, separate from his own teachings.
All are one in Christ.
The only ones "separate", are sinners.
Just as it shall be revealed on the day of judgement.
No thanks, as I have no way to establish the spirit of videos.
Thank God for that !
Including Paul ?
The only separation on earth is between the disobedient and the obedient to God.
There is nothing to twist.
You have added your own interpretation to Paul's words, which state only that men should be faithful in whatsoever state they are in at their conversion.
Are the circumcised unfaithful ?
Are the uncircumcised unfaithful ?
Are not the servant and the served both faithful, in Christ ?
Your doctrine would have men remain at "entry level" jobs instead of trying for "management".
You clearly did not watch the entire video.
Genesis 17:10; Deuteronomy 30; John 7:22-23.
Deuteronomy 30
This begs the question that the law had ended, when it clearly had not.
This is NOT to say that Christ is not the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
He is.
I'm simply saying that the law did not end with Paul.
Prove it from scripture, why does it necessarily follow that if Paul and those who come after him are freed from the law, that therefore James and the other eleven must also have been freed from it, ESPECIALLY when Paul himself says:
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:17-24&version=NKJV
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:10-14&version=NKJV
Scripture does not indicate this.
They were believing Pharisees. They already had the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2). Those who have the Spirit of God can understand the things of God (see 1 Corinthians 2).
You are once again judging based on appearances (the fact that they were Pharisees) rather than judging with righteous judgement (recognizing that they were believers, converts of the Twelve, who themselves were taught directly by Jesus for 40 days straight, AND that this was roughly 18 years after Christ's ascension.
Are you saying that for 18 years after His ascension, that the 12 were teaching falsehoods that God just didn't bother to correct?
Why do you assert that their eyes were not already opened, except because of your a priori beliefs?
Saying it doesn't make it so, and in fact, scripture says otherwise.
Matthew 28:19-20
No, it doesn't.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Paul was an unbeliever. He was the enemy of the gospel of the kingdom. He literally had such believers killed. Paul was NEVER under the New Covenant. He was given the dispensation of grace straight from God.
Good thing I'm not, then.
You, on the other hand, are.
Still doesn't give you an excuse to mash everything in the Bible together to try to make it fit your beliefs.
Straw man.
Rebirth, or rather, "born again" is a term related to Israel. Note that Paul never uses the term "born again." This is intentional.
Becoming a new creation is not related to Israel.
Note that "new creation" is not used by any other author than Paul (and Isaiah, but he's talking about a new heaven and new earth; 65:17, and has nothing to do with what Paul talks about).
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Saying it doesn't make it so, and as I've shown you from scripture, clearly not the case.
Why?
Saying it doesn't make it so. Demonstrate it.
Hence why I said "relatively speaking."
I'm not talking about the overarching Kingdom of God.
I'm talking about the difference between the House of Israel, and the "house" (figuratively speaking) of the Body of Christ.
The two have different house rules.
There you go again, mashing things together.
"Believing Israel" and "the Body of Christ" are NOT the same thing.
Your beliefs teach people that they cannot be sure of their salvation, where the Bible teaches that they can be sure.
That puts you against scripture.
What a lame excuse to not watch a video from the same source as the one you claim to have watched earlier, which makes me doubt that you even bothered to watch the whole thing, as if I didn't doubt it already.
Believing Israel.
Paul is not part of "believing Israel."
He was part of unbelieving Israel.
He was the FIRST member in the Body of Christ.
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:15&version=NKJV
Paul is not saying "I am the worst of sinners" here.
He's saying "I was the first sinner saved by Christ."
The word translated as "chief" here does not mean "chief." It means "first."
| Strong's g4413 - Lexical: πρῶτος - Transliteration: prótos - Part of Speech: Adjective - Phonetic Spelling: pro'-tos - Definition: first, before, principal, most important. - Origin: Contracted superlative of pro; foremost (in time, place, order or importance). - Usage: before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former. - Translated as (count): first (79), foremost (4), leading (3), the first (3), before (2), a first (1), at first (1), best (1), chief (1), chiefs (1), former things (1), leaders (1), principals (1), the foremost (1). |
This is currently true.
But about 1900-2000 years ago, this was not the case.
I'm talking about the latter, not about the present. You keep conflating the two.
You are twisting scripture to fit your beliefs.
That's not "nothing to twist."
No, I haven't.
I literally quoted what Paul said. He said:
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:17-24&version=NKJV
Who's adding their own interpretation to Paul's words again?
Because that's not what Paul said. Here, I'll quote the passage again for you.
Try to read slowly and fully comprehend what is being said. Try not to read anything into it.
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:17-24&version=NKJV
Whatever that's supposed to mean...
Of course not.
Better look again.
Jesus wasn't even Jesus until He was born of a woman, and the context of John 7 shows He is only using circumcision to teach the Pharisaic a lesson.
So much for mid Acts dispensationalism.
OK, and I will use Paul's words in Rom 7:4..."Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."
As the ways and means of that death were used by both Jew and Gentile, it should have made all men dead to the Law.
Why were they not "dead to the Law" ?
Though scripture never attests to their having been rebaptized, this time in the name of Jesus Christ, perhaps they were not dead with Christ.
I wrote earlier that living according to the Law isn't harmful, but it isn't helpful either.
I see no mention of circumcision, dietary rules, feast keeping, or tithing there.
He taught "love God with all your might, and love your neighbor as you love yourself".
Paul got into the NC when he was crucified with Christ and was sanctified by the Lord's blood.
The bible is one long story, to the glory of God.
I don't live "pages 108 through 479 only.
Live it all !
Paul's use of "the new man" is enough for the born again to know what he is writing about.
Especially 2 Cor 5:17..."Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
As Jesus said no man will see the kingdom of God without being born again, (John 3:3), you have just eliminated all the Gentiles from heaven
You are so bent on segregating believers that you will believe anything that seems to divide those in Christ.
So what ?
Paul was one of the Jews you say are not in Christ, not born again, held under the Law, and not dead to the Law.
More division, when there should be unity.
More division, when there should be unity.
It is written..."Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;" (Eph 2:11-14)
Ignore Paul's words if you want, but Jewish believers are the same as Gentile believers.
We can sure be assured of our conversion, as our acts declare it.
If a man can't illustrate from whom he is sent, I am not interested in hearing more wickedness.
I must have missed where he quit being Jewish.
He was an unbeliever before his repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of his past sins.
I disagree.
No, he is saying he is the worst sinner saved by Christ.
Using that logic, we can say that the "chief man of the island", in Acts 28, is the first inhabitant.
It doesn't wash.
The only real separation on earth, good and bad, will be true until Christ returns.
Paul alludes to changes in one's conditions in 2 Tim 2:5..."And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully."
Your POV is "Paul said not to change anything !".
Which Paul is wrong ?
Right Divider
Body part
Wow!!
Your true heretic colors are really starting to fly. Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Jesus says otherwise:
John 17:5 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Jesus was Jesus BEFORE God's creation of the world!
It is written..."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
The Word became Jesus when He took on flesh.
Jesus was the Word in the time He refers to.
Right Divider
Body part
The Word did not become Jesus.
Jesus is the Word.
Jesus was always the Word and will always be the Word.
You deny what Jesus said about Himself in John 17:5.
There's no "became" in that verse.
Jesus has ALWAYS been the LOGOS.
The LOGOS, the Son of God, has always been.
Taking on a new name doesn't mean He's a new Person.
He was the LOGOS, is the LOGOS, and will always be the LOGOS.
Not just that.
Of course you didn't.
So on top of being an idiot, you're also a liar.
Jesus has always been God.
God is the one who gave Moses the law.
Thus the passages I provided sufficiently answer your challenge, thus, you should reconsider your position.
But you won't.
You will continue to blindly hold to your belief, and not allow my arguments to sway you even a millimeter off your position.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
AMEN!
"Should have"?
So, you don't know, you're just assuming?
Your theology is flawed.
You need to go back to the basics. I cannot help you with that.
Because a "covenant" is a kind of law.
If you enter into a covenant with someone, you are obligated to keep the conditions of that covenant.
God made a New Covenant with Israel.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Bible Gateway passage: Jeremiah 31:31, Jeremiah 31:32, Jeremiah 31:33, Jeremiah 31:34 - New King James Version
A New Covenant - “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26:28 - New King James Version
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 8 - New King James Version
The New Priestly Service - Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high...
In addition to this New Covenant, there was a covenant that God made with Abraham that precedes both the Old AND New Covenants, and was never changed or annulled, it was, and is, as God said, an everlasting covenant.
No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:5, Genesis 17:4, Genesis 17:6, Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:8, Genesis 17:9, Genesis 17:10, Genesis 17:11, Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:14 - New King James Version
No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.
This covenant precedes those two covenants, and thus, takes priority over them. (Hence why God required children to be circumcised on the sabbath, when no work was to be done.)
The Pharisees who believed were still under that covenant with God, not just the New Covenant, but the one made with Abraham in his flesh, that everlasting covenant, because they were the physical descendants of Abraham.
Which is why it was such a HUGE DEAL for the men from James to come and demand that Paul's converts be circumcised and keep the law to be saved, because if they were supposed to, then not only would it mean that the Gentiles had never been in a relationship with God, or that they were saved, it would likely turn them, and probably others, away from converting, because let's be real here: Cutting off one's own flesh is painful enough, let alone cutting off one's own foreskin, and especially when one is an adult.
This is why it's so important to recognize the difference, to "rightly divide," as he puts it, between Paul's gospel, and the New Covenant between God and Israel.
Otherwise, nothing makes sense. For example why the need for Paul in the first place? If everything can just be mashed together because it's the same thing, then why not send the Twelve out to Rome, to Greece, to Asia Minor? They have the manpower. Why did the Twelve agree to go ONLY to the circumcision (Israel, the Remnant), while Paul went to the uncircumcised, the Gentiles?
Believing resulted in baptism of the Holy Spirit.
These were "Pharisees who believed."
Why would they need to be "rebaptized"?
Then you need to establish that. You can't just assume it.
Keeping the law is a curse.
That's not me saying it, that's Paul.
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." (Galatians 3)
Genesis 17.
Read it.
"Everlasting covenant."
Do you think God will simply break His covenant with Abraham?
Do you think Abraham's descendants have the right to break that covenant?
The law is not of faith, Hoping.
Living according to law, be it the Mosaic law or any other, is not living by faith.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and you're begging the question too.
Paul was never part of the New Covenant. His ministry has ALWAYS been separate from the Twelve's. Not against, but separate.
Yes it is. So what?
What does that have to do with what I said?
Does that mean that you're building a giant Ark in your backyard?
If you are, you're an idiot.
If you aren't, well, then you're not "living it all," are you?
This is definitely one of the more idiotic things you've said, lately, Hoping.
If were in the army, and your commanding officer told you to build a trench, because we're preparing to invade the enemy country, and then later, came back and told you to stop building the trench, and to attack, do you continue building the trench? or do you grab your gun and attack?
What you are claiming is that you continue building the trench, in spite of your commanding officers orders.
"New man" does not mean "reborn."
Again, if they were the same thing, then Paul could have easily used the same words. But he did not, because it's not the same thing, and the fact that "reborn" is not in Paul's letters, and "new creation" is not in any other books than Paul's, should be a pretty clear indication that they are not.
AMEN!
Still doesn't show that "new creature" has anything to do with "reborn."
Yes He did.
The Kingdom of God encompasses both the New Heaven and the New Earth.
Israel was promised land on Earth.
Jesus came to Israel. His message was meant for them, to bring them back into the fold.
The Body of Christ, their citizenship is in Heaven.
The Kingdom of Israel was going to be on the earth, not in Heaven.
No.
What I've done is recognized that there are two groups, both of whom are believers in God, and that one will live on the earth, and the other will live in heaven.
It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth," Hoping.
You should try it sometime.
False.
What do you mean, "so what"?
Scripture was written the way it was written for a reason, Hoping. Or do you think it's just a collection of texts from a bunch of different authors cobbled together to make a book?
I assure you, it's much more than that.
Not what I said.
Quit straw-manning my position.
What I said was that prior to his conversion, He was not in Christ, despite his being a Jew, and that AFTER his conversion, he was the first member of the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Correct.
Paul was a new creature. Something completely different.
Formerly, yes. Paul was a Pharisee, if you remember.
Those in the Body of Christ (NOT Israel) are dead to the law.
Israel is still under the covenant God made with Abraham, an everlasting covenant, the symbol of which is in the flesh.
You, on the other hand, don't even divide at all, which Paul says to do, and it shows.
So when it comes to whether we should divide or not, clearly one of us is in error, and it's not me.
Whether I'm dividing rightly, however, is another matter entirely.
AMEN!
I don't.
You do.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
But you, Hoping, apparently can't be assured of your salvation.
Which is what I was talking about.
I said we can be, and scripture declares as such.
How can I have assurance of my salvation? | GotQuestions.org
How can I have assurance of my salvation? How can I be absolutely assured that I am saved?
www.gotquestions.org
He's a police officer who goes to the same church as the man from the first video, which you claimed to agree with, but I guess that was a sham...
In other words, you're not interested in hearing anything that opposes your position. Got it.
Paul, ethnically, was a Jew.
But in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Correct.
Wrong.
Too bad.
Nope.
Again:
| Strong's g4413 - Lexical: πρῶτος - Transliteration: prótos - Part of Speech: Adjective - Phonetic Spelling: pro'-tos - Definition: first, before, principal, most important. - Origin: Contracted superlative of pro; foremost (in time, place, order or importance). - Usage: before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former. - Translated as (count): first (79), foremost (4), leading (3), the first (3), before (2), a first (1), at first (1), best (1), chief (1), chiefs (1), former things (1), leaders (1), principals (1), the foremost (1). |
The word does not mean "chief," despite it being translated that way.
Wrong.
Using the logic of the translators, rather....:
Yes, that's why "chief" doesn't work.
The issue here is not with the word Paul used, but with the word the translators translated the word Paul used into.
"Chief" is wrong.
The word means "first."
Read the passage again, using "first" instead of "chief."
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am [first]. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Tim.1.15,1Tim.1.16&version=NKJV (edit: me)
"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the first [that He saved]."
"That in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life."
Paul was nowhere near the worst of sinners, either before him or after him.
But he was the first sinner to be saved by Christ, as a pattern to all who would believe his gospel.
Supra.
Lawfully.
Not "by keeping the law."
There's no contradiction.
Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2:5 are for those in the Body of Christ.
Who are "called while uncircumcised."
Why do you assume a contradiction where there is none?
Paul went to the Jews "as a Jew."
Or did you forget that part?
Yes, the Word did; when He took on flesh and was born of a woman He became Jesus.
Jesus is the Word, but by taking on flesh and lowering Himself to taste death for all men, He put aside some of His former glory.
He will eventually be one with God the Father again, like He was before boing born of a woman.
As Paul wrote..."And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor 15:28)
Not at all.
If I didn't look at it, I wouldn't have said I looked at it.
Jesus has always been God.
God is the one who gave Moses the law.
Thus the passages I provided sufficiently answer your challenge, thus, you should reconsider your position.
But you won't.
You will continue to blindly hold to your belief, and not allow my arguments to sway you even a millimeter off your position.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
AMEN!
"Should have"?
So, you don't know, you're just assuming?
Your theology is flawed.
You need to go back to the basics. I cannot help you with that.
Because a "covenant" is a kind of law.
If you enter into a covenant with someone, you are obligated to keep the conditions of that covenant.
God made a New Covenant with Israel.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Bible Gateway passage: Jeremiah 31:31, Jeremiah 31:32, Jeremiah 31:33, Jeremiah 31:34 - New King James Version
A New Covenant - “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—www.biblegateway.com
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26:28 - New King James Version
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.www.biblegateway.com
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 8 - New King James Version
The New Priestly Service - Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high...www.biblegateway.com
In addition to this New Covenant, there was a covenant that God made with Abraham that precedes both the Old AND New Covenants, and was never changed or annulled, it was, and is, as God said, an everlasting covenant.
No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:5, Genesis 17:4, Genesis 17:6, Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:8, Genesis 17:9, Genesis 17:10, Genesis 17:11, Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:13, Genesis 17:14 - New King James Version
No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations.www.biblegateway.com
This covenant precedes those two covenants, and thus, takes priority over them. (Hence why God required children to be circumcised on the sabbath, when no work was to be done.)
The Pharisees who believed were still under that covenant with God, not just the New Covenant, but the one made with Abraham in his flesh, that everlasting covenant, because they were the physical descendants of Abraham.
Which is why it was such a HUGE DEAL for the men from James to come and demand that Paul's converts be circumcised and keep the law to be saved, because if they were supposed to, then not only would it mean that the Gentiles had never been in a relationship with God, or that they were saved, it would likely turn them, and probably others, away from converting, because let's be real here: Cutting off one's own flesh is painful enough, let alone cutting off one's own foreskin, and especially when one is an adult.
This is why it's so important to recognize the difference, to "rightly divide," as he puts it, between Paul's gospel, and the New Covenant between God and Israel.
Otherwise, nothing makes sense. For example why the need for Paul in the first place? If everything can just be mashed together because it's the same thing, then why not send the Twelve out to Rome, to Greece, to Asia Minor? They have the manpower. Why did the Twelve agree to go ONLY to the circumcision (Israel, the Remnant), while Paul went to the uncircumcised, the Gentiles?
Believing resulted in baptism of the Holy Spirit.
These were "Pharisees who believed."
Why would they need to be "rebaptized"?
Then you need to establish that. You can't just assume it.
Keeping the law is a curse.
That's not me saying it, that's Paul.
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." (Galatians 3)
Genesis 17.
Read it.
"Everlasting covenant."
Do you think God will simply break His covenant with Abraham?
Do you think Abraham's descendants have the right to break that covenant?
The law is not of faith, Hoping.
Living according to law, be it the Mosaic law or any other, is not living by faith.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and you're begging the question too.
Paul was never part of the New Covenant. His ministry has ALWAYS been separate from the Twelve's. Not against, but separate.
Yes it is. So what?
What does that have to do with what I said?
Does that mean that you're building a giant Ark in your backyard?
If you are, you're an idiot.
If you aren't, well, then you're not "living it all," are you?
This is definitely one of the more idiotic things you've said, lately, Hoping.
If were in the army, and your commanding officer told you to build a trench, because we're preparing to invade the enemy country, and then later, came back and told you to stop building the trench, and to attack, do you continue building the trench? or do you grab your gun and attack?
What you are claiming is that you continue building the trench, in spite of your commanding officers orders.
"New man" does not mean "reborn."
Again, if they were the same thing, then Paul could have easily used the same words. But he did not, because it's not the same thing, and the fact that "reborn" is not in Paul's letters, and "new creation" is not in any other books than Paul's, should be a pretty clear indication that they are not.
AMEN!
Still doesn't show that "new creature" has anything to do with "reborn."
Yes He did.
The Kingdom of God encompasses both the New Heaven and the New Earth.
Israel was promised land on Earth.
Jesus came to Israel. His message was meant for them, to bring them back into the fold.
The Body of Christ, their citizenship is in Heaven.
The Kingdom of Israel was going to be on the earth, not in Heaven.
No.
What I've done is recognized that there are two groups, both of whom are believers in God, and that one will live on the earth, and the other will live in heaven.
It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth," Hoping.
You should try it sometime.
False.
What do you mean, "so what"?
Scripture was written the way it was written for a reason, Hoping. Or do you think it's just a collection of texts from a bunch of different authors cobbled together to make a book?
I assure you, it's much more than that.
Not what I said.
Quit straw-manning my position.
What I said was that prior to his conversion, He was not in Christ, despite his being a Jew, and that AFTER his conversion, he was the first member of the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Correct.
Paul was a new creature. Something completely different.
Formerly, yes. Paul was a Pharisee, if you remember.
Those in the Body of Christ (NOT Israel) are dead to the law.
Israel is still under the covenant God made with Abraham, an everlasting covenant, the symbol of which is in the flesh.
You, on the other hand, don't even divide at all, which Paul says to do, and it shows.
So when it comes to whether we should divide or not, clearly one of us is in error, and it's not me.
Whether I'm dividing rightly, however, is another matter entirely.
AMEN!
I don't.
You do.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
But you, Hoping, apparently can't be assured of your salvation.
Which is what I was talking about.
I said we can be, and scripture declares as such.
How can I have assurance of my salvation? | GotQuestions.org
How can I have assurance of my salvation? How can I be absolutely assured that I am saved?www.gotquestions.org
He's a police officer who goes to the same church as the man from the first video, which you claimed to agree with, but I guess that was a sham...
In other words, you're not interested in hearing anything that opposes your position. Got it.
Paul, ethnically, was a Jew.
But in the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
Correct.
Wrong.
Too bad.
Nope.
Again:
Strong's g4413
- Lexical: πρῶτος
- Transliteration: prótos
- Part of Speech: Adjective
- Phonetic Spelling: pro'-tos
- Definition: first, before, principal, most important.
- Origin: Contracted superlative of pro; foremost (in time, place, order or importance).
- Usage: before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.
- Translated as (count): first (79), foremost (4), leading (3), the first (3), before (2), a first (1), at first (1), best (1), chief (1), chiefs (1), former things (1), leaders (1), principals (1), the foremost (1).
The word does not mean "chief," despite it being translated that way.
Wrong.
Using the logic of the translators, rather....:
Yes, that's why "chief" doesn't work.
The issue here is not with the word Paul used, but with the word the translators translated the word Paul used into.
"Chief" is wrong.
The word means "first."
Read the passage again, using "first" instead of "chief."
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am [first]. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Tim.1.15,1Tim.1.16&version=NKJV (edit: me)
"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the first [that He saved]."
"That in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life."
Paul was nowhere near the worst of sinners, either before him or after him.
But he was the first sinner to be saved by Christ, as a pattern to all who would believe his gospel.
Supra.
Lawfully.
Not "by keeping the law."
There's no contradiction.
Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2:5 are for those in the Body of Christ.
Who are "called while uncircumcised."
Why do you assume a contradiction where there is none?
Paul went to the Jews "as a Jew."
Or did you forget that part?
You didn't say "I looked at it."
You said:
As if to say that you watched the whole thing.
And then you wondered why I said:
Maybe, instead of playing dumb, you just watch the whole video, because the part of it that directly addresses what I quoted in the OP is later on in the video.
He's always been one of the Persons of the Trinity.
Right Divider
Body part
So again you deny John 17:5 and the statement by Jesus about Himself.
That is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Misdirection rejected!
Why do you think that He is not "one with the Father" right now?
Heb 13:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:8) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Again, more irrelevant misdirection.
Yes, all.