debosky: You're contradicting yourself - how can the second 'finish' what the first started if they didn't have the same intent behind them?

Suffice it to say that there was no contradiction at all. I may intend to get to New York from Lagos, but set up my movement in two laps, one in a car which will take me only to the airport and the rest in a flight that takes me the rest of the way. The car contributes toward my purpose indeed, but the specific intent for which I use it is to get to the airport in Lagos.

It is the flight that I take with the intent to arrive in New York. That is what I have said. The car was never intended to get to New York, it was meant to get me to the airport where a flight would take over and finish what it started.

Now, if you're saying that both the car and the flight are taken in order to ultimately get me to New York, we are agreed. But if you're saying that the car was meant to get me to New York but failed for which reason I took the flight, we are not.

However, from your first post, it's been the former that you insisted on.

But we can proceed to something else now. Your contention was that conformance with the New Covenant does not mean conformance with the requirements of the Old Covenant. But then, anyone who read my opening posts would see that I have pretty much said the same thing.

The two Covenants are different. One demands that man act in a certain way so that God would act in a certain way, the other demands that man trust God so that God can make him the type of man that can behave in certain ways etc. Conforming to the first is not the same as conforming to the second.

However, where I know that we have been differing is in the fact that God's Demands did not and do not change. The kind of man that God demanded that Adam's children be in the Old Covenant is still the kind He wants in the New. The only thing that's changed is that in the New He does not make that demand of Adam's children themselves, rather He has assumed the responsibility for it upon Himself and only demands that they trust Him with the task of making them that kind of man.

Now, that kind of man would be able to do what God was demanding in the Old Covenant, demands that, as I have said, do not change. Thus, in conforming to the New Covenant, a man would find himself more and more satisfying the demands that God expressed in the Old Covenant. That is not the same as saying that he is brought back under the Old Covenant, no, for he does not do these things out of obligation, out of fear or out of need. Also, he is no longer ill-disposed to God's Ways so the allowances and provisions that the Old Covenant made for that former native disposition to rebellion against God are no longer necessary and are thrown out with it.

In the New, God gets His kind of man and is free to pour out all His Blessing without restraint and without having to "bribe" man with it. And man gets to be the kind of man that he was meant to be.

shdemidemi:

You seem to pride in yourself my friend, I have called your attention to an error you made but you have refused to admit the error nor correct it. The first error we can wave away for now,but, please don't wave the other error.

You have to rightly divide this word of truth if you desire to teach. We must take note that there were two gospels after the ressurection of Christ- one to the jews which was entrusted to Peter and the other to Paul which is to the heathens/uncircumcised/gentiles. Mixing Peter or any other apostle's ministry or legalism to the gospel of Apostle Paul is an error.

Please and please ponder on this.

You see, the reason I ask so many questions is to keep me and the people I discuss with on the same page. I don't remember seeing any error that you pointed out to me. I have been hearing your disagreements, but no errors. Or is it your normal way of thinking to consider everything you disagree with an error?

Now, is the error the fact that I said that the Old Covenant is now obsolete? If it is, how is it an error?

About this issue of parts of the Bible being meant for this set of people and not that, Scriptures are crystal and incontrovertible. They say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the MAN OF GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The emphases are mine. Now, perhaps you think, like Zikkyy, that "profitable" there does not mean "necessary" or "vital". But then that will only mean that I'd be wasting my time trying to get anything in the Scriptures through to you. My friend, every bit of Scripture is meant for, profitable to, useful to, necessary to, vital to, important to every believer, every bit of it! And in the Family of God, we're all of us Jews, the Israel of God, there are no separating lines. Do you also need the Scriptures on those? Oh, never mind, I'll give them anyway.

Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Deuteronomy 10:16
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Galatians 6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Galatians 3:26-29
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Chrisf Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups oneand has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy templein the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Scriptures say that in the mouths of two ans three witnesses, every word shall be established. You've more than that in all the above. If they are not clear enough in themselves or they are not authoritative enough in themselves, I really cannot help you anymore.

debosky:

You have misinterpreted what he said - there is only one gospel - that is THE glorious gospel of the blessed God.

Any other gospel is false - there is only one gospel for Christians.

Yes I agree, there is only one gospel to christians. That 1 gospel was entrusted to Paul, so the man can say-
1 Corinthians 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Don't forget God deals with the Jews as a nation and not as individuals. This opportunity to come under the gospel of Paul is opened to jewish individuals but as a nation they will suffer tribulations and all that has been written in the book of revelation.

Apostle Paul would now tell his adopted son

2 Timothy 2:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

Ihedinobi:
Zikkyy, what you think is your prerogative, I do not deign to control your thoughts. I have explained how a contract is separate from the demands and needs that it attempts to satisfy. If you disagree, you can detail why. But I'm done with discussing the issue with you. I hope you won't mind too much.

No wahala.

Ihedinobi:
As for "applying" to all men, I hear you and I agree. However, I used "apply" (if I did, don't remember right now and I can't check at the moment) to mean "meant" (which is the word I feel more confident that I have been using). God's Covenants have always been meant for all the world. That's why He starts from one and builds up toward all saying things like, "through you all nations of the earth shall be blessed".

Even if you use the word 'meant', i maintain that the mosaic covenant was not meant for all men. The view that it was meant for all men cannot be supported using the bible.

Ihedinobi:
Did you consider that even the Gospel came first to the Jews and per Jesus's instructions was to circulate among the Jews and the Samaritans first before going out to the rest of the world? That one nation was picked first and the covenant given to it has not ever meant that God was restricting Himself to them alone, rather it has always been because He uses them as a springboard to reach everybody else.

We know there was a plan to involve the gentiles in the gospel, but we are not aware of any plan to involve all men in the mosaic covenant.

Ihedinobi:
Regarding the issue of other tribes and nations defaulting, they'd have to sign up first to default and Israel had the responsibility of extending God's invitation to them, pretty much like we Christians do too. But they did have His invitation to become part of His Covenant with Israel.

Don't know about the invitation, based on the Deuteronomy reference i can say some could be accommodated.

@Goshen, you no dey sleep? abi you don change location?

Ihedinobi: Now, if you're saying that both the car and the flight are taken in order to ultimately get me to New York, we are agreed. But if you're saying that the car was meant to get me to New York but failed for which reason I took the flight, we are not.

The bold is indeed what I am trying to say.

However, from your first post, it's been the former that you insisted on.

Not at all - which is why I clarified in my second post that my thoughts were not well expressed initially - I have edited my first post to reflect this. The intent behind setting off in the car is ultimately to get to New York. Or put differently, you wouldn’t get in the car if you didn’t intend to get to New York.

But we can proceed to something else now. Your contention was that conformance with the New Covenant does not mean conformance with the requirements of the Old Covenant. But then, anyone who read my opening posts would see that I have pretty much said the same thing.

My intent was to amplify what you said really, and then drill down to the detail which is where we may understand things differently.

Conforming to the first is not the same as conforming to the second.

We are in agreement on this.

However, where I know that we have been differing is in the fact that God's Demands did not and do not change. The kind of man that God demanded that Adam's children be in the Old Covenant is still the kind He wants in the New. The only thing that's changed is that in the New He does not make that demand of Adam's children themselves, rather He has assumed the responsibility for it upon Himself and only demands that they trust Him with the task of making them that kind of man.

I don’t think we disagree in this sense - what we actually differ on is what you consider as God’s Demands.

Now, that kind of man would be able to do what God was demanding in the Old Covenant, demands that, as I have said, do not change. Thus, in conforming to the New Covenant, a man would find himself more and more satisfying the demands that God expressed in the Old Covenant. That is not the same as saying that he is brought back under the Old Covenant, no, for he does not do these things out of obligation, out of fear or out of need. Also, he is no longer ill-disposed to God's Ways so the allowances and provisions that the Old Covenant made for that former native disposition to rebellion against God are no longer necessary and are thrown out with it.

The nub of the issue here is the how these demands are perceived from the Old Covenant. Are these Demands equivalent the literal requirements of the Law (e.g. physical circumcision, not wearing clothes made of wool and linen woven together, tithing of agric. produce to the Levitical Priesthood, etc.) ? Or is the Law a foreshadow which includes elements that have been set aside?

Ihedinobi: Let's talk a little about the Old Covenant, shall we?

It's sometimes called "the Law of Moses". Sometimes it is merely called Moses. But what in fact is it?

No, it is not the Ten Commandments or the numerous requirements drawn from them and all manner of regulations and things. A covenant is a contract. A law is a demand. In a covenant, demands are made in return for which some benefit is offered. Thus, a covenant can be built around a demand and still not itself be the demand that is made such that the cancelling of the contract may not eliminate the demand. More of this a little later though.

Our God is not one of confusion. His Ways are definite. There are things that He wants and things that He doesn't, things that suit Him and things that do not. He is known for His Purposes. He always has some objective for which He does things. Therefore, He had an objective for creating man.

Because of His Reason or Purpose for creating man, He has expectations of him. These expectations are the demands that He makes of Him.

When did God first make a demand of man? When He created him. Some of what He said at that time is called blessing, viz., that man should be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over all of the physical creation, however, He also told him in no uncertain terms that he should abstain from eating from a particular tree in the Garden or else he would die. Not counting the blessing (which can also be defined as a demand), this was God's first law to man.

Now, I'm sure that we can see that there is no contract or covenant surrounding this law. God did not say to Adam, "if you obey me and do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I will do such and such for you in return. But, if you do not, I will do such and such against you instead."

His warning of the consequences of disobedience do not fit the provisions of a contract. It was more the clarification of the power in the edict of a King.

TBC

on this topic we can easily get it Straight by asking Jesus christ himself, what did he say about the law. In the new testament he said nothing should be left out in the law till eternity

shdemidemi: ...there were two gospels after the ressurection of Christ- one to the jews which was entrusted to Peter and the other to Paul which is to the heathens/uncircumcised/gentiles...

About the above specifically, indeed Peter went to the Jews while Paul went to the Gentiles, but it is a great stretch to say that because they did, they went with two gospels. To prove that, I ask you: can you state what these two Gospels were?

^^ Dude is contradicting himself. He said the following just a short while ago:

shdemidemi:
Yes I agree, there is only one gospel to christians. That 1 gospel was entrusted to Paul

You need to explain your comment below for people to understand you.

Ihedinobi:
However, where I know that we have been differing is in the fact that God's Demands did not and do not change. The kind of man that God demanded that Adam's children be in the Old Covenant is still the kind He wants in the New. The only thing that's changed is that in the New He does not make that demand of Adam's children themselves, rather He has assumed the responsibility for it upon Himself and only demands that they trust Him with the task of making them that kind of man.

Now, that kind of man would be able to do what God was demanding in the Old Covenant, demands that, as I have said, do not change. Thus, in conforming to the New Covenant, a man would find himself more and more satisfying the demands that God expressed in the Old Covenant.

@bolded, the kind of man that God want today is not one that should do the demand in the old covenant, what he wants is one that will live to his (God's) standard/nature, and that standard is not the demand in the old covenant. The demand in the old covenant (the moral aspect) were just a representation/reflection of God's standard/nature. When we trust God with the task of making us the kind of man he wants, it is not to offer burnt offerings. What God want is the man that will love Him and love his neighbor.

debosky:

I cannot but agree with this - scripture explicitly tells us so.



The above is a dangerous teaching to say the least, as it seeks to create a distinction - not between Jews/Old Testament adherents and Christians, but between Christians.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Since the scripture tells us there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek in Christ, we cannot make distinctions between what messages are applicable to either group - we are one in Christ Jesus.

Thank you, debosky. If I'd seen this earlier (the poor network and length of time I took to make my responding post prevented me), I wouldn't have spent as much energy as I did responding to our brother shdemidemi. The Spirit is one indeed.

debosky: ^^ Dude is contradicting himself. He said the following just a short while ago:

I did not contradict myself....I said there is one gospel to the believer. This gospel was entrusted to one man called Paul and this same Paul defined the power that backs his gospel,he says-

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


Remember Christ told the Jews in Mathew 21:32 that harlots,tax collectors(heathens) will enter the kingdom of God before them. Rapture comes before tribulation,the believers would be judged at rapture while the Jewish nation will go through tribulation and be judged by works.

James and Peter will then say faith without works is dead but apostle Paul would say the righteous shall live by faith. Many think the bible contradicts when they read this part without checking to know the messages are for different audience.

Psalm 32 (King James Version)

32 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

32 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose [b]spirit [/b]there is no guile.

I hope you would check these things properly. One gospel to the gentile believer and another to the Jewish believer albeit to the Jews first,but they rejected it. They killed the martyr called Stephen, they received the gospel first but refused it hence the gentile nation enjoy this gospel of grace.

shdemidemi: I did not contradict myself....I said there is one gospel to the believer. This gospel was entrusted to one man called Paul and this same Paul defined the power that backs his gospel,he says-

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


Remember Christ told the Jews in Mathew 21:32 that harlots,tax collectors(heathens) will enter the kingdom of God before them. Rapture comes before tribulation,the believers would be judged at rapture while the Jewish nation will go through tribulation and be judged by works.

James and Peter will then say faith without works is dead but apostle Paul would say the righteous shall live by faith. Many think the bible contradicts when they read this part without checking to know the messages are for different audience.

Psalm 32 (King James Version)

32 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

32 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose [b]spirit [/b]there is no guile.

I hope you would check these things properly. One gospel to the gentile believer and another to the Jewish believer albeit to the Jews first,but they rejected it. They killed the martyr called Stephen, they received the gospel first but refused it hence the gentile nation enjoy this gospel of grace.

Here goes the wishfull thinker again

Did peter not accept the gospel and was he not a jew?

And all the apostles also?

How say ye the jews rejected the gospel

Ihedinobi:


You see, the reason I ask so many questions is to keep me and the people I discuss with on the same page. I don't remember seeing any error that you pointed out to me. I have been hearing your disagreements, but no errors. Or is it your normal way of thinking to consider everything you disagree with an error?

you said

Ihedinobi:
Jesus said that in His Father's House there are many mansions. One thing that can tell us Christians is that there is enough space within God to accommodate our "differences". We can all be Christians and differ on the meaning of Christ in particular situations.

I said mansion as used by Christ has been wrongly used to merge differences within the body of Christ. I hope you are clear with that error.

Ihedinobi: About this issue of parts of the Bible being meant for this set of people and not that, Scriptures are crystal and incontrovertible. They say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the MAN OF GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This scripture further buttress my point..scriptures are profitable for different purposes-doctrine, reproof, correction,instruction. Therefore we should not treat all as if they are doctrinal

Ihedinobi:
Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Apostle Paul was talking to the Jews who think being Jew is an advantage to them, He used the Jew in this context as a Just man/an elect and to dismiss the ego of the Jew men.

An average Jew man believes so much in his circumcision. Paul was explaining to them or being jew or being circumsised by flesh does not account to righteousness.

Ihedinobi:
Galatians 3:26-29
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Chrisf Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The apostle was clearly writing to the church and not the Jews-
Galatians 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Ihedinobi:
Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups oneand has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy templein the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

But its clear to you that this gospel was for the jew first, it had to be but they rejected this gospel of grace as written that they would. The bible says they would not see neither would the hear and Christ said the gentile nation will get to the kingdom of God before them.

MostHigh:

Here goes the wishfull thinker again

Did peter not accept the gospel and was he not a jew?

And all the apostles also?

How say ye the jews rejected the gospel

As a nation, not as individuals. The nation of Israel killed their king, that is not to mean some didnt believe him. example If Nigeria wins nations cup, were we all on the pitch?No. But the few on the pitch carry the expectations,destiny and pride of every citizen

shdemidemi: I did not contradict myself....I said there is one gospel to the believer. This gospel was entrusted to one man called Paul and this same Paul defined the power that backs his gospel,he says-

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The verse above says it is the SAME gospel that went to the Jews FIRST, then to the Gentiles - there is only ONE gospel!

I hope you would check these things properly. One gospel to the gentile believer and another to the Jewish believer albeit to the Jews first,but they rejected it. They killed the martyr called Stephen, they received the gospel first but refused it hence the gentile nation enjoy this gospel of grace.

No - it is the same gospel to both the Jews and Gentiles, received first by the Jews then later by the Gentiles. Go re-read the verse you posted above that I quoted.

Furthermore, the Gentiles did not receive the gospel simply because the Jewish Nation as a whole did not accept it. It was always intended for ALL MEN. Jesus sent the apostles into ALL THE EARTH.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

In this New Covenant, each individual must choose to believe - whether he is a Jew or a Greek - before he can be saved. It is no more on the basis of which nation or ethnic group you originate from, it is about faith in Christ. This is the One Gospel to ALL MEN.

You are making a distinction that is not necessary - contextually, each letter in the NT was written to a specific audience, but the message therein is applicable to ALL Believers. No exceptions.

Zikkyy:

@bolded, the kind of man that God want today is not one that should do the demand in the old covenant, what he wants is one that will live to his (God's) standard/nature, and that standard is not the demand in the old covenant.The demand in the old covenant (the moral aspect) were just a representation/reflection of God's standard/nature. When we trust God with the task of making us the kind of man he wants, it is not to offer burnt offerings. What God want is the man that will love Him and love his neighbor.

God did not give the laws to make us fulfill it but to bring man on his knees before himself(God). It is never in man to be righteous, man has a sin nature within him which he inherited through Adam. He is wired to be bad,wicked. The bible says 'the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked'. We are not wired to be good, God knows this but the law was brought to prove this fact to man.Therefore, even when we do the contents of the law, it is never a stir way to heaven.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law is totally of no relevance to a believer.

@debosky,
I will ask you a few questions 1 after another.

James and Peter say faith without works is dead but apostle Paul would say the righteous shall live by faith. Note Paul never thought works but a doctrine of imputation of righteousness.

Explain the difference and knowing in hind-sight that the holy spirit inspired both statements.

debosky:

The verse above says it is the SAME gospel that went to the Jews FIRST, then to the Gentiles - there is only ONE gospel!

The gospel of Christ in Mathew,Mark,Luke and John was strictly for the Jews with exceptions. They rejected it thus we get a chance to form the mystical body of Christ. Although Paul had to preach his gospel to the Jews first before taking it to the gentiles. They refused Paul's gospel once again and it was made obvious in the book of Acts and Galatians.

debosky:
No - it is the same gospel to both the Jews and Gentiles, received first by the Jews then later by the Gentiles. Go re-read the verse you posted above that I quoted.

Furthermore, the Gentiles did not receive the gospel simply because the Jewish Nation as a whole did not accept it. It was always intended for ALL MEN. Jesus sent the apostles into ALL THE EARTH.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Ask yourself if they understood what Christ was saying, even after they were dispersed, check what happened

19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

The disciples were with Christ but they did not understand the transformation, they were bothered about the kingdom of Israel.
Acts 1:6
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Christ said times and seasons is in God's control. Peter asked a legitimate question because the Israelite had been promised that a king would come rule over them. But at this point Christ had moved to the gentiles. Paul was picked up because the disciples were too caught up with their Jewish beliefs. Notice Paul did not learn from thes disciples neither did he learn from Christ but directly through the Holy Spirit.

shdemidemi: @debosky,
I will ask you a few questions 1 after another.

James and Peter say faith without works is dead but apostle Paul would say the righteous shall live by faith. Note Paul never thought works but a doctrine of imputation of righteousness.

Explain the difference and knowing in hind-sight that the holy spirit inspired both statements.

First of all - my explaining or not explaining the ‘difference’ (if there is indeed any difference) does not alter the fact that there is only ONE Gospel.

Secondly, what do you mean by Paul never thought of works?

Paul taught the following: Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

How do you display the fruit of kindness? Is it not by what your actions (aka work)?

How is this any different from what James said when he said the following: James 2:15-16 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

Does Paul not teach us to put into practice what we have learned? Does James not teach the exact same thing?

There is no difference in the essence both messages - faith alone is required for justification, and the fruit of the Spirit (call it works if you want) are the natural product of faith. The emphasis or focus may be different, but the message is the same.

shdemidemi:
The gospel of Christ in Mathew,Mark,Luke and John was strictly for the Jews with exceptions. They rejected it thus we get a chance to form the mystical body of Christ. Although Paul had to preach his gospel to the Jews first before taking it to the gentiles. They refused Paul's gospel once again and it was made obvious in the book of Acts and Galatians.

Why did Jesus say this in Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Jesus said EVERY CREATURE - or is that only Jews?

Ask yourself if they understood what Christ was saying, even after they were dispersed, check what happened

19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

The disciples were with Christ but they did not understand the transformation, they were bothered about the kingdom of Israel.

Acts 1:6
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

The disciples' (temporary) lack of understanding is not the same as two gospels!

Christ said times and seasons is in God's control. Peter asked a legitimate question because the Israelite had been promised that a king would come rule over them. But at this point Christ had moved to the gentiles. Paul was picked up because the disciples were too caught up with their Jewish beliefs.

Even though Paul did not learn from the disciples, he remained a Jew - as much a Jew as any disciple, a Pharisee of Pharisees.

Notice Paul did not learn from thes disciples [b]neither did he learn from Christ [/b]but directly through the Holy Spirit.

This is incorrect Galatians 1:12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Both the disciples and Paul learned from Christ - and they learned the ONE gospel.

debosky:

First of all - my explaining or not explaining the ‘difference’ (if there is indeed any difference) does not alter the fact that there is only ONE Gospel.

Secondly, what do you mean by Paul never thought of works?

Paul taught the following: Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

How do you display the fruit of kindness? Is it not by what your actions (aka work)?

How is this any different from what James said when he said the following: James 2:15-16 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

Does Paul not teach us to put into practice what we have learned? Does James not teach the exact same thing?

There is no difference in the essence both messages - faith alone is required for justification, and the fruit of the Spirit (call it works if you want) are the natural product of faith. The emphasis or focus may be different, but the message is the same.

As a believer Paul does not say you should not work, but your work or lack of it does not justify you. On the other hand James is saying only faith without works means you are condemned.

Lets take romans 1 again-
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It says to everyone who believe and not to those who love or work as the case may be.

shdemidemi:
As a believer Paul does not say you should not work, but your work or lack of it does not justify you. On the other hand James is saying only faith without works means you are condemned.

James does not say you are condemned without work, he is saying, your faith will be seen through your good deeds.

debosky:

Why did Jesus say this in Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Jesus said EVERY CREATURE - or is that only Jews?

Jesus talked in parables, the disciples did not understand it. If God didnt arrest Paul to go to the gentiles, we might never be saved. If the disciples were doing what they were meant to do, there would be no need for Christ to call Paul.

debosky:
Even though Paul did not learn from the disciples, he remained a Jew - as much a Jew as any disciple, a Pharisee of Pharisees.

Go and check that scripture very well, Paul says I speak as a fool. Being a pharisee or a Jew is not the issue there. Go and check how dumb and how carnal the corinth church was, Paul was forced to speak to the as babies in the faith. They are similar to our contemporary chuches.

debosky:
This is incorrect Galatians 1:12 I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.

Both the disciples and Paul learned from Christ - and they learned the ONE gospel.

When I say he did not learn it from Christ, i mean he did not learn like the other apostles did. He didnt sit down with Christ one on one all through his earthly ministry. Ofcousre Christ is God the father and Spirit.

debosky:

James does not say you are condemned without work, he is saying, your faith will be seen through your good deeds.

We are saying the same thing here. Paul is saying even without works you are saved, James is saying without work you are dead.

shdemidemi:
Jesus talked in parables, the disciples did not understand it. If God didnt arrest Paul to go to the gentiles, we might never be saved. If the disciples were doing what they were meant to do, there would be no need for Christ to call Paul.

This last line, with due respect, is a baseless assertion and simply human opinion.

If it isn't, show me where the scripture tells us that Paul was called because the apostles failed to do what they were meant to do.

debosky:

This last line, with due respect, is a baseless assertion and simply human opinion.

If it isn't, show me where the scripture tells us that Paul was called because the apostles failed to do what they were meant to do.

I never said the bible said that, that was an inference based on all the facts in the scriptures.None of the disciples could do the job cos the major ones like Peter,James and John did not get the message. God had to call someone else.

shdemidemi:

I never said the bible said that, that was an inference based on all the facts in the scriptures.None of the disciples could do the job cos the major ones like Peter,James and John did not get the message. God had to call someone else.

Then, you agree it is a baseless human opinion. This is a digression anyway - there is only one gospel preached by Peter, James and Paul - the same gospel they all received from Jesus Christ.

I advise demi and debosky to open a new thread for this latter debate

I do not expect U both to turn against each other like this. The point of contention that is NEEDFUL here is to stop the mouths of these Judaizers and not for two people who support the gospel of grace to begin a debate on an inconsequential issue as whether there are one or two gospels.

Regardless of the no. the gospel is mighty to save and it is what we are trying to keep intact from being altered by the Judaizers.

Pls let's know our priority here.

debosky:

Then, you agree it is a baseless human opinion. This is a digression anyway - there is only one gospel preached by Peter, James and Paul - the same gospel they all received from Jesus Christ.

Brother, I am not arguing with you or trying to win an argument. If you had seen it that way, accept my apologies. Check these things am saying, read it, it might not make sense now but might after you study it. See this part again and think deep about it--

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

How else do you want to see there are two different things(gospels) been delivered and two different audience. If the gospel is 1, then 1 of them as to be wrong. But none is wrong cos they were both inspired by the Holy Spirit s verse 8 points out.

How can it be two different things when Paul says 'the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles'?

It was not two different things - it was at best division of labour - two messengers to deliver the same gospel to Jews and Gentiles.

Paul and Peter had different apostleships but preached the same gospel.

debosky: How can it be two different things when Paul says 'the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles'?

It was not two different things - it was at best division of labour - two messengers to deliver the same gospel to Jews and Gentiles.

Paul and Peter had different apostleships but preached the same gospel.

Wrong, they have the same source but two distinct messages

Pauls message was to the body of Christ which ends at rapture, Peters message was to the kingdom of Israel which will be very much applicable at tribulation.