"the scriptures tell us that Paul was preaching the EXACT same gospel which he had previously destroyed! You can show scripture passages like this to those who believe them, and yet they will still hold fast to their false and demonic teachings like stubborn donkeys"
Wierwille said many bitter, nasty things about people who disagreed with him. And people who disagreed with him said many nasty, bitter things about Wierwille.
Accuracy is not determined by the quality of a researcher's name-calling acumen
no chit, Sherlock. it wasn't the only thing he was right about...
(But because it disagrees with your theology, or lack thereof, you apparently think that branding axiomatically makes them wrong and you right about any and everything you choose to finger.)
23 hours ago, Raf said:
Wierwille said many bitter, nasty things about people who disagreed with him. And people who disagreed with him said many nasty, bitter things about Wierwille.
Accuracy is not determined by the quality of a researcher's name-calling acumen
So is TWI where you picked it up, or was it merely a matter of honing some natural, genetically gifted, talent?
Not all Christians accept hyperdispensationalism, and it's really a pity that you have to go against the Bible's clear teaching, denying that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom as noted numerous times in Acts, to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived notion.
Hyperdispensationalism holds that there is a new adminstration/dispensation that begins in the middle of Acts. The Bible doesn't support this. Paul, according to Acts, preaches the gospel of the kingdom, the precise gospel that the 12 taught.
In any event, Mr. O'Hair's namecalling does not validate his exegesis. In fact, it seems a pretty desperate attempt to call attention away from the weakness of his position.
7 hours ago, TLC said:
So is TWI where you picked it up, or was it merely a matter of honing some natural, genetically gifted, talent?
Over and over again, I am trying to return to the issues we are discussing. Over and over again, you are taking shots at me and not at the points I'm raising. I trust this is the last time I will have to tell you to keep our conversation about the topic and not about the posters.
(But because it disagrees with your theology, or lack thereof, you apparently think that branding axiomatically makes them wrong and you right about any and everything you choose to finger.)
Regardless, I find it interesting that you don't post O'Hair's analysis or his findings. Just his namecalling. It's the kind of behavior I would expect from someone who lacked confidence in his position and so wants to cut the other side down with insults. Surely you have a better argument than a long dead namecaller whose position has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.
Not all Christians accept hyperdispensationalism, and it's really a pity that you have to go against the Bible's clear teaching, denying that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom as noted numerous times in Acts, to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived notion.
Hyperdispensationalism holds that there is a new adminstration/dispensation that begins in the middle of Acts. The Bible doesn't support this. Paul, according to Acts, preaches the gospel of the kingdom, the precise gospel that the 12 taught.
You are not a bible scholar, nor the hot shot expert, nor the authority, nor whatever other scriptural or "biblical" pundit it is that you purport yourself to be with your blusterous claim "the Bible doesn't support this." The fact (which you rather intentionally omit) is that some number of very real biblical scholars do accept it, and offer plenty of scriptural support for it.
19 hours ago, Raf said:
Regardless, I find it interesting that you don't post O'Hair's analysis or his findings.
It is neither my job nor duty to present, inform, or otherwise try to educate you on what others have or haven't said on the matter. To repeat something just stated in a recent post, think whatever you want to think about it. I am confident that if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of what dispensations are or mean in scripture, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) eventually arrive at a better understanding of them, and of the differences (i.e., betterments) inherent within the gospel that was first given to Paul.
Furthermore, I don't see (scripturally) that it was the "majority" that were ever right about the things of God, at any time throughout all of history. So, why (or since when) do "the vast majority" of any church or intellectuals ever add any great credence or credibility to what the truth of scripture is?
However, for any that are interested in learning more or reading a fairly scholarly approach to this issue of dispensations, I'll offer the following book (not that I necessarily agree 100% with it) and what appears to be a reasonably decent review of it.
still haven't demonstrated that Jesus didn't tell the 12 to preach to the gentiles (because he did) or that Paul preached a gospel different from the 12 (because he didn't).
There were differences between what Paul taught and what the 12 taught, but according to the Bible those differences were not the gospel.
You asked a specific question
It was answered according to the Bible and ever since you have been twisting the Bible to conform to your preconception rather than just admit your preconception was incorrect.
Feel free to continue in your stubborn refusal to admit the Bible specifically says what you claim it dies not. I think I've embarrassed you enough.
For an hour the young man pestered Zane about when the church began, water baptism, the primacy of Paul’s epistles, and many issues that were important to him. Though he asked many questions, he would always rebut whatever answer Zane gave. He appeared to be there to try to persuade Zane. Not to learn. At the end of the hour the young man said, “So when can we meet again?” I learned much from Zane’s answer, “We won’t meet again. You are not teachable. You are not open to the truth of God’s Word. It would be a waste of timeto meet with you further.”
The above quote is cited to establish that I am not tiring of the stupid argument that's being presented because I am atheist -- faithful Christians likewise find themselves unable to deal with the stubborn silliness of ultradispensationalists.
If you would like me to refute the stupidity of ultradispensationalism from a skeptical atheistic perspective say the word. Until now I have been content to show that faithful Christians think it's stupid.
still haven't demonstrated that Jesus didn't tell the 12 to preach to the gentiles
you know, after my second or third post addressing this, any dweeb that would have stopped long enough to take the wax out of their ears (or the blinders off their eyes), probably would have realized the point originally intended in that comment was to delineate the initial focus (and directive) for the 12 as being (foremost) to all Israel.
Matter of fact, if that were not so, then why oh why is it so plainly written in Acts that it was to go to them first? Or that Paul thought it "necessary"?
Acts 3:26 Unto you first...
Acts 13:46 ...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you
But, whatever... do or think whatever you want. Anything to continue disrupting or distracting from the real issue(s) at hand...
Acts 13 does not say Jesus ordered the 12 to speak to Israel first. It is literally talking about Paul and Barnabas. You literally said the opposite. They said they needed to speak to the Jews first. Why? It wasn't because that was Jesus' command. Jesus' command was disciple all nations. Why did they speak to Israel first? Because that's what the 12 actually did. Paul is not here saying JESUS told him to go to Israel first.
Biblically, Paul could say he was obliged to go to Israel first, but it does not appear he can say that was the Lord's instruction. Rather, he is quoting Isaiah 49:6, which has nothing to do with a different gospel being preached to Israel than to the Gentiles. Rather, even in Isaiah, it is the same grace of God that He extends to Israel that he promises to extend to the Gentiles as well.
Paul and Barnabas are not proclaiming ultradispensationalism here. They are not proclaiming a new instruction. They felt is necessary to go to the Jews first because that's what every Christian before them has done. But unlike every Christian before them, they were determined to go to the Gentiles too, as Christ instructed at least three times between the resurrection and the ascension, which anyone without wax in his ears can tell just from reading the gospels and acts as long as they don't force their preconceived theology into the text.
you know, after my second or third post addressing this, any dweeb that would have stopped long enough to take the wax out of their ears (or the blinders off their eyes), probably would have realized the point originally intended in that comment was to delineate the initial focus (and directive) for the 12 as being (foremost) to all Israel.
Matter of fact, if that were not so, then why oh why is it so plainly written in Acts that it was to go to them first? Or that Paul thought it "necessary"?
Acts 3:26 Unto you first...
Acts 13:46 ...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you
But, whatever... do or think whatever you want. Anything to continue disrupting or distracting from the real issue(s) at hand...
There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?
There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?
You really want to go there, Rocky? Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said. Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it.
Did you ever bother to go back and read the original post that Raf is still insatiably obsessed with spinning into something it never said or meant? Probably not.
Here... I'll save you the effort (as it was a bit difficult even for me to find, after realizing he was went back three pages and took it out of the context of a previous discussion.)
___________
Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period.
(If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.)
___________
Now, maybe you interpret words differently, but no where in there is there any mention of any Gentiles. However, the context of that post referred to what authority Paul did or didn't have, and I had (in the paragraphs prior to the above sentences) just finished stating that Paul's message was different from what the 12 had been given.
So, if I then go on to talk about what the 12 had (in comparison to Paul's message, logically, as the context of the discussion dictates) and say what they were teaching and doing (for the circumcision) never really changed... what the heck difference does it make whether they do or don't take a message that is designed first and foremost for Israel to the rest of the world? The simple fact remains that "the message itself" that they had (to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, etc.) didn't change, that I can find, anywhere in scripture. Argue over words if you want, but they're not all that much different from Matt. 28:19, nor verse 20, which says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you."
Not only does Raf misconstrue and then redirect the issue towards what may, in my opinion, only be an issue of timing, he ignores and/or obfuscates any subsequent effort on my part to clarify what should be a "non-issue," and so much as calls me (oh... not me... what I say) dishonest and a liar.
Well then, bullpuckey to y'all, if that's your only thought of it. Have at it. Evidently there's no interest or desire to discuss the real issues, so I'm as done with this incessant stupidity as done gets.
But the directive to the 12 changed and you're acting like it never did.
It makes zero sense for Jesus to change the audience of the gospel, which he explicitly did, without changing anything that accommodated its expansion (which he implicitly did: he was with them 40 days) makes no sense. To suggest he was talking during those 40 days about something other than what they needed to know to accomplish what he just ordered them to do strains credibility.
You can accuse me of taking the scripture out of context all you want, but you can't do it honestly. You asked a specific question with a specific scriptural answer. Seems your problem is not with ME, but with the Bible's answer to your question.
You really want to go there, Rocky? Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said. Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it.
Some people? I'd say that social science suggests that ALL people only see what they want to see.
1) That doesn't supercede the concept of communication whereby you are responsible for ensuring your message is clear to your audience. (that doesn't change the reality of the concept of communication)
2) You can't see into the heart (intentions) of those who would argue contrary to your position. Do you need chapter and verse for that one? (I can find it if so)
Discuss the topic all you want, but attacking other poster’s character or motives will NOT be tolerated. Further posts in that vein will not be edited, they will be deleted in their entirety. If part of those posts are on topic, that part will be gone too. It is your responsibility to stay on topic and not violate our rules, not mine.
Discuss, object, disagree in the thread all you want. The key is to not make it personal or about another member. Got it?
TLC- you earlier objected to an entire post being removed and falsely assumed Raf's feelings were hurt as the reason it was removed. I remind you now of what I wrote in the quote above. It is not Moderator's job to edit what you or anyone posts. Occasionally we will take the time to do so as a courtesy, but it is not our regular procedure. It is too time consuming.
Stick to the topic, argue the topic, but stop attacking other posters.
The challenge in approaching scripture honestly is allowing the documents to speak for themselves rather than forcing them into some imaginary framework that raises more questions than it answers.
Dispensationalism raises more questions than it answers. Requiring Paul's gospel to be different from the gospel of the 12 requires you to redefine the gospel, scripturally, and ignore the plain language of scripture.
If you assume that the mission of Paul was distinct from the mission given to the 12 then you have to force Jesus to say things other than what the Bible says he said.
The unbeliever has an alternate explanation, but it is not relevant to what scripture teaches.
According to the Bible, Jesus, after his resurrection, gave the 12 instructions they did not follow. When Paul, despite originally preaching to Israel, recognized the scripture in Isaiah as authority to go to the Gentiles, he did so. And when he did, Jesus was able to reveal to Paul even more than he had before to the 12.
That is what the Bible says. It is not an interpretation. It is a recitation. Acts repeatedly says Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. Differences in their approach can be accounted for in the difference in their audience, but the destination, Biblically, remains the same: the gospel of the kingdom. The same gospel Jesus preached pre-crucifixion, the same gospel the 12 preached post resurrection, the same gospel Paul preached through the very last verse of Acts.
Now, the skeptical view on this is not the same, but I've been holding that back. I do not need to rely on unbelief as a preconceived notion. Unbelief is a conclusion, not a preconception. The Bible teaches what it teaches, regardless of whether anyone believes it. It doesn't teach ultradispensationalism unless you decide beforehand that it does, and then you have to to ignore multiple scriptures to maintain your position.
The skeptic's view of Paul is indeed different from the Bible's, but the Bible's is not the ultradispensationalist''s.
Anyone who attempts to interpret plain this [Matthew 10:5-10] commission, which forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles, and the commission that commands the same group to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) either (1) gives up in confusion or (2) resorts to spiritualizing one of the passages or (3) recognizes a dispensational distinction.
A distinction, yes. A dispensational distinction? No. One instruction is pre crucifixion. The other is post resurrection. You don't need to inject anything to draw that scriptural distinction.
Jesus explicitly told the 12, post resurrection, to preach to the Gentiles. They didn't.
Paul wasn't uniquely sent to the Gentiles by Jesus. They were ALL sent to the Gentiles. Paul is the only one who took it to heart.
Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom.
So did the 12.
So did Paul.
Their audiences and timing were different. Their instructions were different. But the gospel was the same.
Nobody reads Matthew 10 and follows it with Matthew 28 and then "gives up in confusion." People are smart enough to see the difference between pre crucifixion and post resurrection without resorting to the unbiblical position that the GOSPEL changed. You've employed a straw man argument with points 1 and 2 and falsely present 3 as the only logical alternative. Your premises are false and your conclusion is falsely presented as the only viable alternative.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Jul 16
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
Raf
ooh look, another one ,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
ooh look, another one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I gotta be honest: I'm including this BARRRIMMMSTONE article because it made me giggle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
"No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures…”
– J.C. O’Hair. Unsearchable Riches of Christ. p 131.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"the scriptures tell us that Paul was preaching the EXACT same gospel which he had previously destroyed! You can show scripture passages like this to those who believe them, and yet they will still hold fast to their false and demonic teachings like stubborn donkeys"
--some dude on the Internet who made me giggle.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
O'Hair was a hyperdispensationalist.
Wierwille said many bitter, nasty things about people who disagreed with him. And people who disagreed with him said many nasty, bitter things about Wierwille.
Accuracy is not determined by the quality of a researcher's name-calling acumen
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
no chit, Sherlock. it wasn't the only thing he was right about...
(But because it disagrees with your theology, or lack thereof, you apparently think that branding axiomatically makes them wrong and you right about any and everything you choose to finger.)
So is TWI where you picked it up, or was it merely a matter of honing some natural, genetically gifted, talent?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That topic belong somewhere else.
edit: regarding dispensations/ dispensationalism.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not all Christians accept hyperdispensationalism, and it's really a pity that you have to go against the Bible's clear teaching, denying that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom as noted numerous times in Acts, to force the Bible to conform to your preconceived notion.
Hyperdispensationalism holds that there is a new adminstration/dispensation that begins in the middle of Acts. The Bible doesn't support this. Paul, according to Acts, preaches the gospel of the kingdom, the precise gospel that the 12 taught.
In any event, Mr. O'Hair's namecalling does not validate his exegesis. In fact, it seems a pretty desperate attempt to call attention away from the weakness of his position.
Over and over again, I am trying to return to the issues we are discussing. Over and over again, you are taking shots at me and not at the points I'm raising. I trust this is the last time I will have to tell you to keep our conversation about the topic and not about the posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, my point in bringing that up was to note that the vast majority of Christians believe hyperdispensationalism is inaccurate and ungodly. You have to question the legitimacy of an interpretational framework that eluded all Christianity from 70 AD until the 1800s. Dispensationalism, and especially hyperdispensationalism, cannot be supported Biblically unless you bend over backwards to force the Bible to say things it just doesn't say. Things like "Jesus never told the 12 to go to the Gentiles" when he did exactly that.
Regardless, I find it interesting that you don't post O'Hair's analysis or his findings. Just his namecalling. It's the kind of behavior I would expect from someone who lacked confidence in his position and so wants to cut the other side down with insults. Surely you have a better argument than a long dead namecaller whose position has been rejected by mainstream Christianity.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You are not a bible scholar, nor the hot shot expert, nor the authority, nor whatever other scriptural or "biblical" pundit it is that you purport yourself to be with your blusterous claim "the Bible doesn't support this." The fact (which you rather intentionally omit) is that some number of very real biblical scholars do accept it, and offer plenty of scriptural support for it.
It is neither my job nor duty to present, inform, or otherwise try to educate you on what others have or haven't said on the matter. To repeat something just stated in a recent post, think whatever you want to think about it. I am confident that if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of what dispensations are or mean in scripture, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) eventually arrive at a better understanding of them, and of the differences (i.e., betterments) inherent within the gospel that was first given to Paul.
Furthermore, I don't see (scripturally) that it was the "majority" that were ever right about the things of God, at any time throughout all of history. So, why (or since when) do "the vast majority" of any church or intellectuals ever add any great credence or credibility to what the truth of scripture is?
However, for any that are interested in learning more or reading a fairly scholarly approach to this issue of dispensations, I'll offer the following book (not that I necessarily agree 100% with it) and what appears to be a reasonably decent review of it.
Dispensationalism, by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie
https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/a-review-of-dispensationalism-by-charles-c-ryrie/
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
still haven't demonstrated that Jesus didn't tell the 12 to preach to the gentiles (because he did) or that Paul preached a gospel different from the 12 (because he didn't).
There were differences between what Paul taught and what the 12 taught, but according to the Bible those differences were not the gospel.
You asked a specific question
It was answered according to the Bible and ever since you have been twisting the Bible to conform to your preconception rather than just admit your preconception was incorrect.
Feel free to continue in your stubborn refusal to admit the Bible specifically says what you claim it dies not. I think I've embarrassed you enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The above quote is cited to establish that I am not tiring of the stupid argument that's being presented because I am atheist -- faithful Christians likewise find themselves unable to deal with the stubborn silliness of ultradispensationalists.
If you would like me to refute the stupidity of ultradispensationalism from a skeptical atheistic perspective say the word. Until now I have been content to show that faithful Christians think it's stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
you know, after my second or third post addressing this, any dweeb that would have stopped long enough to take the wax out of their ears (or the blinders off their eyes), probably would have realized the point originally intended in that comment was to delineate the initial focus (and directive) for the 12 as being (foremost) to all Israel.
Matter of fact, if that were not so, then why oh why is it so plainly written in Acts that it was to go to them first? Or that Paul thought it "necessary"?
Acts 3:26 Unto you first...
Acts 13:46 ...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you
But, whatever... do or think whatever you want. Anything to continue disrupting or distracting from the real issue(s) at hand...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Acts 3 is not a reference to the gospel.
Acts 13 does not say Jesus ordered the 12 to speak to Israel first. It is literally talking about Paul and Barnabas. You literally said the opposite. They said they needed to speak to the Jews first. Why? It wasn't because that was Jesus' command. Jesus' command was disciple all nations. Why did they speak to Israel first? Because that's what the 12 actually did. Paul is not here saying JESUS told him to go to Israel first.
Biblically, Paul could say he was obliged to go to Israel first, but it does not appear he can say that was the Lord's instruction. Rather, he is quoting Isaiah 49:6, which has nothing to do with a different gospel being preached to Israel than to the Gentiles. Rather, even in Isaiah, it is the same grace of God that He extends to Israel that he promises to extend to the Gentiles as well.
Paul and Barnabas are not proclaiming ultradispensationalism here. They are not proclaiming a new instruction. They felt is necessary to go to the Jews first because that's what every Christian before them has done. But unlike every Christian before them, they were determined to go to the Gentiles too, as Christ instructed at least three times between the resurrection and the ascension, which anyone without wax in his ears can tell just from reading the gospels and acts as long as they don't force their preconceived theology into the text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You really want to go there, Rocky? Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said. Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it.
Did you ever bother to go back and read the original post that Raf is still insatiably obsessed with spinning into something it never said or meant? Probably not.
Here... I'll save you the effort (as it was a bit difficult even for me to find, after realizing he was went back three pages and took it out of the context of a previous discussion.)
___________
Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period.
(If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.)
___________
Now, maybe you interpret words differently, but no where in there is there any mention of any Gentiles. However, the context of that post referred to what authority Paul did or didn't have, and I had (in the paragraphs prior to the above sentences) just finished stating that Paul's message was different from what the 12 had been given.
So, if I then go on to talk about what the 12 had (in comparison to Paul's message, logically, as the context of the discussion dictates) and say what they were teaching and doing (for the circumcision) never really changed... what the heck difference does it make whether they do or don't take a message that is designed first and foremost for Israel to the rest of the world? The simple fact remains that "the message itself" that they had (to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, etc.) didn't change, that I can find, anywhere in scripture. Argue over words if you want, but they're not all that much different from Matt. 28:19, nor verse 20, which says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you."
Not only does Raf misconstrue and then redirect the issue towards what may, in my opinion, only be an issue of timing, he ignores and/or obfuscates any subsequent effort on my part to clarify what should be a "non-issue," and so much as calls me (oh... not me... what I say) dishonest and a liar.
Well then, bullpuckey to y'all, if that's your only thought of it. Have at it. Evidently there's no interest or desire to discuss the real issues, so I'm as done with this incessant stupidity as done gets.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But the directive to the 12 changed and you're acting like it never did.
It makes zero sense for Jesus to change the audience of the gospel, which he explicitly did, without changing anything that accommodated its expansion (which he implicitly did: he was with them 40 days) makes no sense. To suggest he was talking during those 40 days about something other than what they needed to know to accomplish what he just ordered them to do strains credibility.
You can accuse me of taking the scripture out of context all you want, but you can't do it honestly. You asked a specific question with a specific scriptural answer. Seems your problem is not with ME, but with the Bible's answer to your question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Some people? I'd say that social science suggests that ALL people only see what they want to see.
1) That doesn't supercede the concept of communication whereby you are responsible for ensuring your message is clear to your audience. (that doesn't change the reality of the concept of communication)
2) You can't see into the heart (intentions) of those who would argue contrary to your position. Do you need chapter and verse for that one? (I can find it if so)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Modgellan
TLC- you earlier objected to an entire post being removed and falsely assumed Raf's feelings were hurt as the reason it was removed. I remind you now of what I wrote in the quote above. It is not Moderator's job to edit what you or anyone posts. Occasionally we will take the time to do so as a courtesy, but it is not our regular procedure. It is too time consuming.
Stick to the topic, argue the topic, but stop attacking other posters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The challenge in approaching scripture honestly is allowing the documents to speak for themselves rather than forcing them into some imaginary framework that raises more questions than it answers.
Dispensationalism raises more questions than it answers. Requiring Paul's gospel to be different from the gospel of the 12 requires you to redefine the gospel, scripturally, and ignore the plain language of scripture.
If you assume that the mission of Paul was distinct from the mission given to the 12 then you have to force Jesus to say things other than what the Bible says he said.
The unbeliever has an alternate explanation, but it is not relevant to what scripture teaches.
According to the Bible, Jesus, after his resurrection, gave the 12 instructions they did not follow. When Paul, despite originally preaching to Israel, recognized the scripture in Isaiah as authority to go to the Gentiles, he did so. And when he did, Jesus was able to reveal to Paul even more than he had before to the 12.
That is what the Bible says. It is not an interpretation. It is a recitation. Acts repeatedly says Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom. So did the 12. Differences in their approach can be accounted for in the difference in their audience, but the destination, Biblically, remains the same: the gospel of the kingdom. The same gospel Jesus preached pre-crucifixion, the same gospel the 12 preached post resurrection, the same gospel Paul preached through the very last verse of Acts.
Now, the skeptical view on this is not the same, but I've been holding that back. I do not need to rely on unbelief as a preconceived notion. Unbelief is a conclusion, not a preconception. The Bible teaches what it teaches, regardless of whether anyone believes it. It doesn't teach ultradispensationalism unless you decide beforehand that it does, and then you have to to ignore multiple scriptures to maintain your position.
The skeptic's view of Paul is indeed different from the Bible's, but the Bible's is not the ultradispensationalist''s.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Anyone who attempts to interpret plain this [Matthew 10:5-10] commission, which forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles, and the commission that commands the same group to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) either (1) gives up in confusion or (2) resorts to spiritualizing one of the passages or (3) recognizes a dispensational distinction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A distinction, yes. A dispensational distinction? No. One instruction is pre crucifixion. The other is post resurrection. You don't need to inject anything to draw that scriptural distinction.
Jesus explicitly told the 12, post resurrection, to preach to the Gentiles. They didn't.
Paul wasn't uniquely sent to the Gentiles by Jesus. They were ALL sent to the Gentiles. Paul is the only one who took it to heart.
Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom.
So did the 12.
So did Paul.
Their audiences and timing were different. Their instructions were different. But the gospel was the same.
Nobody reads Matthew 10 and follows it with Matthew 28 and then "gives up in confusion." People are smart enough to see the difference between pre crucifixion and post resurrection without resorting to the unbiblical position that the GOSPEL changed. You've employed a straw man argument with points 1 and 2 and falsely present 3 as the only logical alternative. Your premises are false and your conclusion is falsely presented as the only viable alternative.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.