TLC

sorry... it's not that I don't agree that there was way far too much emphasis and focus put on greek... but I'll have to take exception to your blanket statement. (and yeah... I was a part of the research fellowship there for several years.)

Apparently you are confirming that a change (i.e., any changes) in the gospel would equate to a dispensational distinction.

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.

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.

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...

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/

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?

"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.

Who cares? I never heard of him before your mention of his name, as I never bothered to pay much attention to who's site it was after spending all of three or four minutes the other day plugging a few phrases into google and stumbling across that particular site. As if you are the authority on what constitutes a fact concerning what a reasonable person would or should conclude about what is or isn't part of the section of scripture in the first chapter of Philippians? phhhtt.... yeah, right. Think this Phil guy invented the idea? Nah... maybe you just think whatever dimwit did is pretty stupid or nuts, as is anyone else that might happen to agree (to any degree or extent) with them. 'Cause you've already researched what any and every scholars had to say about it... right? Really? Did you even bother doing any kind (whatsoever) of word study on it, or are you just pulling that out of your ear because it "sounds" plausible? Actually seems like your rather clueless on what I might know or was doing. Ever lay out, step-by-step, what the instructions were for salvation - according to scripture? No, I don't believe you have. Do "according to Peter" first. Then do "according to Paul." It just might surprise you. I have no idea who this Marine is, or why you so troubled yourself to dig up as much dirt (if that is what it is) to wallow in as you did, but I will say that it certainly seems rather hypocritical of someone that is so concerned about ad hominem attacks on their own self. Not taking sides on anything (as I didn't bother to click the link.) Just calling this for what it looks like, regardless of how "polite" it might sound. Maybe I could, or maybe I can't. But frankly, I'm just too tired of this and worn out here to give it much more thought. Why bother, when even if I did, I don't have the right credentials that would make a spit's worth of difference to you, or maybe not anyone else that would ever read this? Think whatever you want to think about it. Because if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of it is, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) find a way to it through what all might be written about it in scripture.

probably isn't that hard to post most of it again, though you obviously didn't like it... wrong. it's not in the who, the where, or the how of whether it was or wasn't done. It's in the changes in the message itself... which appears to be something most here don't have either the stomach, the aptitude, or the interest to discover.

Who made you the absolute authority on what Paul is or isn't discussing in Philippians? What unabashed and foolish arrogance! And because what I (and many others) have chosen to believe it is discussing, you (unwittingly) have the balls to call me dishonest and a liar (yeah, say you didn't... but you did)? And that you won't "put up with [my] $hit anymore"? Truth is, yours are the posts that reek of dishonesty (or ignorance, or arrogance... take your choice.) Not only did I link to another site that has the view that Phil.1:10 is referring to a difference between Paul's gospel and what the 12 taught (which I doubt you read), there are others, and much more (from others) that support such a belief. Furthermore, you don't even have the courtesy to admit you "might" have been mistaken when you claimed I quoted the wrong verse, or that there was anything about a difference, or a gospel there. Yet, I plainly pointed out the discussion was actually sandwiched in between an obvious discussion of Paul's gospel, and specifically asked you what you thought was being compared in verse 10... which you either ignored or refused to answer, other than to brashly assert that it didn't have any relation to what the 12 were teaching. No, you don't have to agree with what I'm inclined to believe is being compared in that verse. I don't expect that. But you have no right, and it is evil (and totally dishonest) to say that what I think about it is "a deliberate untruth." Who in there right mind can (or would) have any respect for such maliciousness?

And I'm calling your comment a manifestation of insanity. You say that's the same as calling you insane. Yet, you also say that you're not calling me a liar. You think and speak with forked tongue.

And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf? And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about? I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.) The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for: 1) their fellowship in it (verse 5) 2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace. 3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about? C'mon man... stop and think about it. Where was Paul? In prison. Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there? Paul was different. His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him. Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better. Better than what? Ah, well... it all gets back to that. Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this? 4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12) 5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14) 6) to preach Christ. (verse 15) 7) defense of the gospel (verse 17) Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...

Saying (or thinking) I lied about the relevance of a verse confirming that there were indeed differences that are better, is a manifestation of insanity.

More spin, Raf? Perhaps it's such a part of your nature at this point that you just don't know how (or can't) stop it. Contrary to your implication, I never said, implied, or otherwise alluded to any kind of distinction that regards one as being real and one as being a fraud. That's a fraudulent fabrication straight out of your own imagination. Maybe it's some sort of rationalization that you invented to cover over or draw attention away from your initial failure to see the relevance of Phil. 1:10 in my previous post. But shame on you for trying to (falsely) credit me with being either the first, or the only one, to ever see or think of it's usage here in Philippians 1:10 as being "different," in an improved sense. The nuance of it's usage just as strongly (probably more so) indicates that something is different (or changed) from whatever was previous as it indicates that said difference is an improvement. Furthermore, this is merely one little old verse among many others along the path leading to the FACT that the gospel that Paul received and took to the Gentiles was not the same gospel that the 12 had and (by and large) continued to adhere to. Of course, that concept is something that you have already determined to be invalid, and have completely closed yourself off from. Which in and of itself is fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the idiocy that you try to brand everyone else with that doesn't happen to agree with you.

Young's Literal Translation: 3I give thanks to my God upon all the remembrance of you, 4always, in every supplication of mine for you all, with joy making the supplication, 5for your contribution to the good news from the first day till now, 6having been confident of this very thing, that He who did begin in you a good work, will perform [it] till a day of Jesus Christ, 7according as it is righteous for me to think this in behalf of you all, because of my having you in the heart, both in my bonds, and [in] the defence and confirmation of the good news, all of you being fellow-partakers with me of grace. 8For God is my witness, how I long for you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 9and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, 10for your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless — to a day of Christ, 11being filled with the fruit of righteousness, that [is] through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Διαφέρω Now that you've so arrogantly opened mouth and inserted foot, how about an apology?

call it whatever you want. It won't change what I see it as, no matter how many times it's read. Might be how you see it. Which is okay. You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you want your opinion. Maybe you haven't done enough research on the matter. Can't say this will be the most or best help to start digging more into it, but I only spent a couple of minutes checking to see what might be easily found on the Internet about it: http://www.seekfirstwisdom.com/are-there-two-gospels/ Sure it does. You simply have to consider the context of it and connect the dots.

You obviously sidestepped the question and spun it in a completely different direction. Call it whatever you want, but I see that as twisting... as I am more inclined to agree that there was little change in the gospel that the 12 had and preached post-resurrection. What could or would save them before appears to be the same that could or would save them after. But what was given and said to save them was not the same gospel that was later given to Paul. Which is undoubtedly why he (Paul) very plainly and unmistakably referred to it (three times, that I can think of) as "my gospel." The gospel which Paul preached was not simply "more" than what the 12 had been given. While certain things may be similar, other things are different. And it's a difference that is important enough that it even appears to be called different (if the Greek were translated more consistently) by Paul in Philippians 1:10.

Why change the message (i.e., gospel) that was given to Paul?

You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.) There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.) Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter. And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.

I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is. flawed? ...because you don't care to (or can't) connect the dots? Or is it that you have some different view or better understanding of Ezek.37:21-28?

Allow me to correct that for you. My view of it is incompatible with your (apparently limited) scope and/or comprehension of scripture. Actually, the scripture that I cited in my response (see below) to your first attempt to answer the question was indeed relevant to the question. Hard to get much more relevant, imo. Because you're being such a ridiculous and utter twit about it, still trying (again) to twist and distort the truth of what I have and haven't said about it (when the discussion was plainly under the umbrella of "doctrinal.") Fact: This entire post of mine (below) was strictly a response to your posting a reference to Acts 1:7 I don't see that departs from the gospel (of the Kingdom) message that was preached previously. It simply elaborates on the fact that they would soon be equipped better for it, and where it could (or perhaps some day would) reach. Furthermore, I don't see that it automatically or necessarily includes any Gentiles, considering that (as a result of Israel's previous dispersion into all nations.) In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years? (see Acts 11:19, which was probably at least a good 10-11 years later.) Fact: If it wasn't clear enough for you that I gave no thought to Matthew 28:19 in that particular post, that should have been more than obvious in my next post (below.) If by that (I presume you might be referring to the use of that phrase in Matthew 24:14) you mean some day in the future (which I think is yet to come, after the gathering of the church of the body of Christ)... then, yes. Evidently you prefer to ignore this possibility, and think there is no scripture anywhere in the Bible that might lend any credence whatsoever to such a crazy idea as that. [that yes... it would and does include gentiles, if and/or when Israel becomes a "kingdom of priests." see Exodus 19:6.] However, might I suggest that you dig a little deeper in scripture, and/or talk to some of your Jewish buddies or scholars (whatever the case might be) that believe in (and are expecting the arrival of) a Messiah. Try learning a bit more about where or what role Israel expects to play out in the global picture. Maybe then you'll back off a little from such a pompous position. Or, maybe not. In any event, seems I'm done here under the "questioning faith" umbrella of what Paul said or did. In 2Tim. 2:4 he writes "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" ... and it so happens that I believe that he did. Others can choose to believe whatever they want to about him, or whatever is written about him.

Sure there is. But that would be off topic from what seems to be the originator's intent of this thread.

not in the slightest... even though after being admonished for it by another moderator, you continue wanting to make it personal. we see it differently, and long ago I gave my view of it. you can neither acknowledge or accept that. "your way" is the only right way and everyone else is wrong. there are words for that, but you certainly don't need any more help making this any more about you.