|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2014 1:06:12 GMT -5
Tell me where it says in Acts that the 12 apostles were NOT following Jesus gospel. If the 12 had been preaching the gospel of Grace/Christ ALONE! without the act of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses then Paul and Barnabas wouldn't have come to Jerusalem in Acts 15. Acts 12 doesn't say why Paul went to Jerusalem. Apparently he had a mission -- it doesn't say the mission was to straighten out the 12 apostles. My thought is that the workers would tell you it was the other way around -- it was to learn from the apostles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 1:33:39 GMT -5
its in acts 15 i think where paul goes to jerusalem...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2014 3:19:22 GMT -5
Acts 12 doesn't say why Paul went to Jerusalem. Apparently he had a mission -- it doesn't say the mission was to straighten out the 12 apostles. My thought is that the workers would tell you it was the other way around -- it was to learn from the apostles. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem Acts 15:1-2 because Conflict over Circumcision
~~~ Well, it seemed Acts 15 solution didn't last long at all. It looked like Peter, Barnabas, and others in Jerusalem didn't really follow through with what they preached/taught!
That's what I have been saying all along -- Paul made no impression on any of them -- as you say, they didn't follow through. In fact, what Paul says here rather backs up the claim that what Paul was referring to as false gospel was indeed the 12 apostles' gospel.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2014 3:21:56 GMT -5
its in acts 15 i think where paul goes to jerusalem... Yes, but he didn't convert the 12 apostles to his doctrine. In fact, Paul did some pretending in order to be accepted by THEM, but like Nathan said, Paul didn't follow through either. End of their supposed "unity".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2014 11:06:44 GMT -5
Yes, but he didn't convert the 12 apostles to his doctrine. In fact, Paul did some pretending in order to be accepted by THEM, but like Nathan said, Paul didn't follow through either. End of their supposed "unity". Paul followed through what he preached No circumcision, Saved by grace of Christ alone. Jerusalem leaders wanted Titus, a Greek apostle to circumcise but Paul didn't do it. When Peter, and fellow Jews came to Antioch Paul confronted them face to face of their hyprocrisy! I don't believe any Jew believer or Christian today keep the law of Moses, and the requirement of circumcision to be SAVED. So, Paul has won after all... SAVED by the grace of God/Christ alone.He may have won, but did he go against what Jesus believed? He says so, but the 11 didn't agree and they were the ones that knew Jesus. Paul didn't.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2014 21:36:16 GMT -5
Yes, but he didn't convert the 12 apostles to his doctrine. In fact, Paul did some pretending in order to be accepted by THEM, but like Nathan said, Paul didn't follow through either. End of their supposed "unity". Paul followed through what he preached No circumcision, Saved by grace of Christ alone. Jerusalem leaders wanted Titus, a Greek apostle to circumcise but Paul didn't do it. When Peter, and fellow Jews came to Antioch Paul confronted them face to face of their hyprocrisy! I don't believe any Jew believer or Christian today keep the law of Moses, and the requirement of circumcision to be SAVED. So, Paul has won after all... SAVED by the grace of God/Christ alone.I know, Nathan. Paul won because he kept preaching what he wanted. That's interesting, because I win a medal every morning when I go to the kitchen and eat exactly what I think I should eat. But I have to give the medal to myself because I haven't yet convinced my wife that she needs to eat what I eat. I confronted her face to face about this, and no budge. But then, I guess just getting out of the argument alive might be considered winning. And yes, Nathan, there are Jewish believers today and they keep the Old Law -- but they most certainly will not call themselves Christians, not on your life. They are "Messianic", not "Christian". There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2014 22:19:21 GMT -5
I know, Nathan. Paul won because he kept preaching what he wanted. That's interesting, because I win a medal every morning when I go to the kitchen and eat exactly what I think I should eat. But I have to give the medal to myself because I haven't yet convinced my wife that she needs to eat what I eat. I confronted her face to face about this, and no budge. But then, I guess just getting out of the argument alive might be considered winning. And yes, Nathan, there are Jewish believers today and they keep the Old Law -- but they most certainly will not call themselves Christians, not on your life. They are "Messianic", not "Christian". There is a difference. Messianic Jews! Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] It blends evangelical Christian theology with elements of religious Jewish practice and terminology.[14] Messianic Judaism generally holds that Jesus is both the Jewish Messiah and "God the Son" (one person of the Trinity),[18] though some within the movement do not hold to Trinitarian beliefs.[19] With few exceptions, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are believed to be authoritative and divinely inspired scripture. Salvation in most forms of Messianic Judaism is achieved only through acceptance of Jesus as one's savior.[20] It is believed that all sin has been atoned for by Jesus' death and resurrection. Any Jewish laws or customs that are followed are cultural and do not contribute to salvation.[10] Belief in the messiah-ship and divinity of Jesus, which Messianic Judaism generally shares, is viewed by many Christian denominations[21] and Jewish religious movements[22] as a defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.[28] Mainstream Christian groups usually accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity.[21] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_JudaismI have been many times to a Messianic Synagogue very near where I live. I did a paper on them for one of my college courses. And no, they are not a denomination that has lasted from the time of Jesus. And contrary to what Christians THINK they are, they have no problem telling people that Christians are Pagans. The fact that Jesus is some kind of deliverer to them does not make him a Christ, and don't dare try feeding them at Paul's Pagan table.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 1:19:28 GMT -5
A Messiah
A messiah is a saviour or liberator of a group of people, most commonly in the Abrahamic religions. In the Hebrew Bible, a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[1] However, messiahs were not only Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah[2] for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. The Jewish messiah is a leader anointed by God, physically descended from the Davidic line, who will rule the united tribes of Israel[3] and herald the Messianic Age[4] of global peace also known as the World to Come.
The translation of the Hebrew word Mašíaḥ as Χριστός (Khristós) in the Greek Septuagint[5] became the accepted Christian designation and title of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians believe that prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (especially Isaiah) refer to a spiritual savior and believe Jesus to be that Messiah.
Islamic tradition holds that Jesus, the son of Mary, was the promised Prophet and Masîḥ (مسيح) (Messiah) sent to the Israelites, and that he will again return to Earth at the end of times, along with the Mahdi, and they will defeat Masih ad-Dajjal, the "false Messiah" or Antichrist.[6]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah Yes, Nathan. I know all that. If you read carefully you will see that what the word meant to the Hebrews was changed to fit a Greek meaning when the Greeks began to use it. It does NOT say that the Hebrews thought it meant savior in any Christian sense of the word. The Hebrews recognize MANY messiahs, none of them "Christs". And believe it or not, you're scratching at a matter that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to provide the answers. Wikipedia is not the place where serious scholars file all their findings. Wikipedia is not a legitimate bibliographical source for a college paper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 1:26:34 GMT -5
wikipedia, cursed if they do and cursed if they don't...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 4:00:40 GMT -5
wikipedia, cursed if they do and cursed if they don't... Why do you say that? Wikipedia does a fine job at what it is intended to do.
|
|