ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston
That presumed irrelevance, in itself, should be a concern. Paul thought it was relevant. Why shouldn't we?.
Why? Didn't you say it was "irrelevant whether Paul is an abortion or not"?

It is relevant for me to know what Paul is saying. I investigate all scripture for the benefit of the Gospel. However How I interpret scripture doesn’t change if Paul is an abortion (miscarriage), for I don’t use a ‘dispensational system’ to understand scripture.

No one is saying it's "exclusively" used to denote abortion. Nor does it have to be. The context makes it clear whether or not to apply that meaning. Even contemporary secular usage concurs:

"... thn men Tahsin barean ousan ek ton plhgon avton exetrosen ..." ("... to Taesis who was pregnant they occasioned by their violence the miscarriage of her child.") [Moulton/Milligan, Vocab. of the Greek New Testament].

Consider it usage in the LXX:
Job 3:16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

Eccl 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.

I think we agree (for the most part) that context can help show meaning. You, of course, also know the OT passages are not using the Greek word ektroma. I understand that untimely birth is used elsewhere in scripture...as is 'cut off', etc...

STONE writes:
... and all explanations relating abortion in 1cor 15:8 varied significantly and seemed quite fumbling.

Hilston: Of course! That's because having a correct framework brings clarity. Having an incorrect framework (preterism, covenantalism, dominionism, kingdomism) brings ambiguity and "fumbling." That's why Keil and Delitszch admit to having such a huge difficulties with the last chapters of Ezekiel.

I would say all "isms" including dispensational'ism' bring fumbling.
The scripture is not to be interpreted by systems and 'isms' but only in the Spirit, and by the Spirit.

STONE writes:
Further, I see no evidence that Paul was referring to himself instead of Jesus. The greek text reads literally "And last of all as the 'ektroma' appeared also to me."

Hilston: That's not true. The Greek text literally says "last yet of-all, as to-the abortion He-was-viewed", or more idiomatically, "last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared also to me." There is no question grammatically whom "abortion" referred to.

You don’t need to go idiomatic. It could be ‘to’, ‘the’, ‘with-the’; which one depends on context. I don't see where you are finding your context here.

STONE writes:
Consider that Paul is contexually referencing Jesus appearing on the road to Damascus "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."

STONE writes:
Paul along with the rest of the pharasses are more the aborter or the persecuter than the abortion in context.

Hilston: Messiah was not aborted! Good grief, think about the implications of what you're suggesting, Stone!

I am suggesting that God’s purpose and His kingdom is yet to be completed on earth; this is (from one point of view) because he was “cut off from the land of the living” being rejected by his people.

STONE writes:
I am not condemning you Hilston, but am concerned that through dispensational logic you have abandoned Jesus' teachings. This is why I hate dispensationalism.

Hilston: I understand and appreciate your concern, but let me assure you: Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings for the Body of Christ, the Mystery, which was held in silence from the foundation of the world. We are to obey Jesus Christ and follow Him as Paul followed Him (1Co 11:1,2), not as Peter did. The verse you quote was given to Peter and elect Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

All nations Hilston...not places.

Note the part you underlined:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

That includes the following:

Mt 23: 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mt 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lu 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Not to mention the food restrictions, ceremonial washings, spice tithing, etc. And you can't claim these things were abrogated at the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because the verse you quoted and underlined above was given AFTER His resurrection. Also, we see the disciples in their continuation of Mosaic ceremonial law after the resurrection.

And don’t forget “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Understand Hilston, the Gospel is not about legalism, but Christ’s doctrine of e[stablishing the Father’s will in our lives. However, this does not mean the law has no purpose for mankind. Those who exemplify and teach the law do so not to become righteous by it, but to testify to man that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and the new measuring stick of righteousness, which no man can meet in himself. Or as Paul put it:
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into 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.”
Peter didn’t continue partaking in the Law because he was justified by it, but because it was part of Israeli heritage, and they already understood the law. For the Jews which believed, Jesus became the fulfillment of the Law and the door to the New Covenant of His teachings through His blood and the Holy Spirit.

Also consider this passage:
“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

 

[STONE]

I am going to go out on a limb here Hilston, and try to meet you half way. Though I attest there is only one full Gospel which include the Direct teachings of our Lord and the teachings of the Apostles including Paul, I realize that Paul focused more on the redemption aspect of the Gospel, but not that he taught a different Gospel.
In truth this is because Paul's primary focus is evangelism, spreading the Gospel as far and wide as possible, whereas Peter's primary focus is discipleship, establishing the body.

"Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs."

 

[Elaine]

Re: ...but who's counting?

Re: ...but who's counting?

Originally posted by Gerlad

For the record, let's make it 3!

I can tell you that that I don't celebrate it or any other religious holidays because Paul prohibits such behavior.

There were a few others that answered "No" on the poll, but I obviously can't account for their reasons.


JB

I guess I might as well jump in here and mention that I will also identify with you three. Of course, this is no suprise to anyone who knows that Christine is my sister. :up:

 

[Hilston]

STONE writes:
However How I interpret scripture doesn’t change if Paul is an abortion (miscarriage), for I don’t use a ‘dispensational system’ to understand scripture.

Interesting. The system you use to understand scripture has no use for the meaning Paul intends. Mine does. Isn't that a curious thing?

STONE writes:
You, of course, also know the OT passages are not using the Greek word ektroma.

Not true, Stone. Where are you getting this stuff? Did you check it yourself, or are you taking someone else's word for it? Job 3:16 and Eccl 6:3 use the word. I'm looking right at the verses. Here they are:

Job 3:16 'H osper ektroma ekporeuomenon ek metras metros, h osper nhpioi, oi ouk eidon phos.

Eccl 6:3 uper avtov to ektroma .

There is no doubt that the LXX uses the word, Stone, and to describe the same idea.

STONE writes:
I understand that untimely birth is used elsewhere in scripture...as is 'cut off', etc...

Not true. An entirely different Greek word is used in the LXX to describe being "cut off."

STONE writes:I would say all "isms" including dispensational'ism' bring fumbling.

Does that include Biblical Inerrantism?

STONE writes:
You don’t need to go idiomatic.

No one said otherwise. To Englishize the Greek is helpful for those who aren't use to the Yoda-sounding Greek syntax.

STONE writes:
It could be ‘to’, ‘the’, ‘with-the’; which one depends on context. I don't see where you are finding your context here.

Look at the verse. Does it make sense that Jesus would appear to Jesus, or does it makes sense that Jesus would appear to Paul?

STONE writes:
Consider that Paul is contexually referencing Jesus appearing on the road to Damascus "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." ... Paul along with the rest of the pharasses are more the aborter or the persecuter than the abortion in context.

Hilston replied: Messiah was not aborted! Good grief, think about the implications of what you're suggesting, Stone!

STONE writes:
I am suggesting that God’s purpose and His kingdom is yet to be completed on earth; this is (from one point of view) because he was “cut off from the land of the living” being rejected by his people.

The idea of being "cut off" is well established in the Hebrew scriptures. It meant to be rejected and ostracized from one's people, not "aborted". Consider: Ge 17:14 Ex 9:15 30:33,38 31:14 Le 7:20,21,25,27 17:4,9 18:29 19:8 20:17,18 23:29 Nu 9:13 15:30 Jos 3:16 1Sa 31:9 2Sa 20:22 1Ki 9:7 2Ch 26:21 Job 36:20 Isa 53:8 Jer 50:16 Eze 17:9 Da 9:26 Am 1:5 Zep 1:11 Zec 14:2

STONE writes:
I am not condemning you Hilston, but am concerned that through dispensational logic you have abandoned Jesus' teachings. This is why I hate dispensationalism.

Hilston: I understand and appreciate your concern, but let me assure you: Paul's teachings ARE Jesus' teachings for the Body of Christ, the Mystery, which was held in silence from the foundation of the world. We are to obey Jesus Christ and follow Him as Paul followed Him (1Co 11:1,2), not as Peter did. The verse you quote was given to Peter and elect Israel, not to the Body of Christ.

All nations Hilston ... not places.

The commission to go to "all nations" was with respect to Christ's gospel through Israel, the gospel taught by Moses and the prophets. Christ's gospel through Paul was neither Jewish nor Greek, that is to say, no ethnic distinctions, which follows the non-ceremonial, non-ritualistic, non-symbolic, non-holiday character of the Body of Christ (no symbolic circumcision, no symbolic water rites).

Ro 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Ga 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.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Hilston wrote: Note the part you underlined:

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

That includes the following:

Mt 23: 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mt 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lu 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Not to mention the food restrictions, ceremonial washings, spice tithing, etc. And you can't claim these things were abrogated at the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because the verse you quoted and underlined above was given AFTER His resurrection. Also, we see the disciples in their continuation of Mosaic ceremonial law after the resurrection.

STONE writes:
And don’t forget “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Of course, and if we were Jews of the nation of Israel, that warning regarding the kingdom of Israel would apply. Since we are members of the Body of Christ that sits above the angelic realm and the nation of Israel to whom the angels minister, it doesn't apply.

STONE writes:
Understand Hilston, the Gospel is not about legalism, but Christ’s doctrine of e[stablishing the Father’s will in our lives.

Of course. The question is: Which doctrine of Christ do you want established in your life? Christ's doctrine of ethnic distinction and religious ceremony that pertained to Israel's kingdom? Or Christ's doctrine of the Mystery that was held in silence from Israel and the nations, revealed via Paul and pertaining to the non-ethnic, non-ceremonial, non-symbolic, non-holiday Body of Christ that is seated above the angelic realm and the earthly kingdom?

STONE writes:
Peter didn’t continue partaking in the Law because he was justified by it, but because it was part of Israeli heritage, and they already understood the law.

No one was justified by the law before God, ever. Peter did indeed continue partaking of the Law because in his regeneration, he found perfect liberty in obedience. He kept the food laws, the festal calendar, the Sabbaths, etc. because Israel's gospel commanded him to do so, because Jesus in Mt. 28:19,20 commanded him to do so.

STONE writes:
For the Jews which believed, Jesus became the fulfillment of the Law and the door to the New Covenant of His teachings through His blood and the Holy Spirit.

I agree, but fulfillment of the law does not equal cessation of the law. After the fulfillment, Jesus commanded the disciples to continue teaching and practicing the law.

STONE writes:
Also consider this passage:
“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

This has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. This has everything to do with Israel, in particular, the Jewish feast of Pentecost which, contrary to popular assumption, did not mark the birth of the Body of Christ, but rather marked the Holy-Spirit empowerment of the elect of Israel, bringing partial fulfillment of the prophet Joel.

STONE writes:
I am going to go out on a limb here Hilston, and try to meet you half way. Though I attest there is only one full Gospel which include the Direct teachings of our Lord and the teachings of the Apostles including Paul, I realize that Paul focused more on the redemption aspect of the Gospel, but not that he taught a different Gospel.

This is false. See Gal 2:7 and its surrounding context. Paul's gospel was different from Peter's in its teachings, purpose, laws, etc. See also the following link for more detail: Galatians 2: Two Gospels or Two Audiences?

STONE writes:
In truth this is because Paul's primary focus is evangelism, spreading the Gospel as far and wide as possible, whereas Peter's primary focus is discipleship, establishing the body.

I don't know where you get this idea, Stone. Paul speaks very, very little of evangelism. Search and see. Paul's focus is the establishment and maturity of the Body of Christ. Peter's focus is on the affirmation of the future glory of Israel to surviving kingdom saints.

STONE writes:
"Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"

This verse speaks of Paul's ministry to kingdom believers only (those of Israel and those among the Gentile nations). The Body of Christ is not included in this verse. It was spoken to Ananias prior to the full revelation of the Mystery to Paul in the Arabian wilderness (Gal 1, 2Co 12).

STONE writes:
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs."

This verse pertains only to the elect of the nation of Israel.

 

[STONE]

Hilston,

An Abortion:
Regarding ektroma :
There is use for the meaning Paul intends.
You are insisting on a Greek translation of the Hebrew in Job and Ecclesiastes as your other instances for ektroma. I was not saying the term miscarriage is used nowhere in scripture, just that one cannot define Paul's usage of ektroma as abortion contextually without stretching to make sense of it.
Can you show anywhere in scripture where someone describes them self or another person as an abortion? No. Better I was dead...better if I was aborted, yes. But nowhere essentially "I am an abortion" or "I am like an abortion" as you suggest Paul is saying.
No one is saying Jesus appeared to Jesus, but that Jesus appeared as one "cut off" or persecuted. I used your interpreted word, and was suggesting Christ was 'cut off'. This is more in context than Paul being an abortion

I am simply challenging the position that Paul is an abortion, not saying you are definitely wrong. If we disagree, OK.

‘ISMS’:
I think you're perceptive enough to know in context I was referring to systems of understanding scripture, not every biblical or theological principle.

Different Gospel:
This is the topic I am concerned with.

You should be cautious to dismiss the words of the Lord and pushing them off on an invented dispensation.
There is a New Covenant Hilston, the Law was overcome and a New and better Covenant was established for all believers. The purpose of the Law (as Paul explained it) has not changed.
The teachings of Jesus were to be followed by all believers as His teachings are the New Covenant. Peter followed them for this reason, not because "he found liberty in obedience"(to the Law) as you are suggesting.
In John 13:23-26 Jesus' words here reveal the workings of the Holy Spirit, teaching and establishing Jesus' words in the lives of believers.
You seem to be hinging your belief in different Gospels on Gal 2:7? One cannot and should not rationally conclude from that passage there are different Gospels.
Paul's primary mission focus was evangelism, spreading the Gospel as far and wide as possible. I am not saying the focus of Paul’s letters are evangelistic, of course the epistles to his converts would be edifying, no doubt.
Peter's primary focus is discipleship, establishing the body. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

One can twist the scripture in any direction and hold to ones beliefs, going round and round; “that’s false!” and “where do you get this stuff from?” will get us nowhere. Rather, please establish your point by “quoting” direct comparative scriptural differences in Peter and Jesus’ Gospel vs. Paul’s “different” Gospel. I will be glad to attempt to resolve them for you.

 

[Hilston]

Stone writes:
An Abortion:
Regarding ektroma :
There is use for the meaning Paul intends.
You are insisting on a Greek translation of the Hebrew in Job and Ecclesiastes as your other instances for ektroma.

I'm simply talking about usage, Stone. It doesn't matter whether or not the LXX gave an accurate translation or not. What matters is how the translators understood the word. I take a sola scriptura approach to Bible interpretation, which means that the Holy Spirit, via regeneration, drives the believer to seek out the original intent of the author/Author by getting inside the head of the original audience. Sometimes studying extrabiblical word usage helps me get closer to that end.

Stone writes:
I was not saying the term miscarriage is used nowhere in scripture, just that one cannot define Paul's usage of ektroma as abortion contextually without stretching to make sense of it.

If you're hung up on the "A" word, then let's call it a miscarriage.

Stone writes:
Can you show anywhere in scripture where someone describes them self or another person as an abortion? No.

Yes. 1Co 15:8. Paul is utterly unique in that regard. He was given direct revelation from the risen Christ regarding the Mystery, that which was held in silence from the foundation of the world. He was given this gospel amid the apostolic period of post-Messianic Israel. Paul is expressing the tension that exists between his gospel and Israel's because of the overlap, because he was, in a sense, born too early for there to be a clean delineation.

Stone writes:
Better I was dead...better if I was aborted, yes. But nowhere essentially "I am an abortion" or "I am like an abortion" as you suggest Paul is saying.

It's seems you're so desperate to deny this that you just refuse to accept a unique word about a unique person used in a unique context. Fine. Let's go with your phrase "better if I were aborted." If you don't like the "A" word, let's use "better if I were miscarried." The Paul's point is no less clear or emphatic.

Stone writes:
No one is saying Jesus appeared to Jesus, but that Jesus appeared as one "cut off" or persecuted. I used your interpreted word, and was suggesting Christ was 'cut off'. This is more in context than Paul being an abortion.

Let's use your interpretation and consider it. Paul uses the phrase "eschaton de panton", i.e. last of all. Please consider the following paragraph and whether or not you agree with the way I've summarized the context:

The context states that Paul declares the same gospel via epistle that he preached to them in person (v. 1). Paul describes the content of the resurrection message he delivered to them (vv. 3-4). Then he begins to describe those to whom Christ appeared: "seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ... seen of 500+ brethen simultaneously ... seen of James ... then of all the sent-ones (vv. 5-7) ... and last of all Jesus appeared as one "cut off or persecuted."

Please tell me if you agree with this summary. If you do not, please modify it so I have an accurate grasp of your claim concerning this passage.

Stone writes:
I am simply challenging the position that Paul is an abortion, not saying you are definitely wrong. If we disagree, OK.

Christ says we are to be of the same mind. That doesn't mean to be clones of one another. It means to agree in doctrine. My view is supported by scripture, contextually, logically, exegetically. Yours is not. It's not "OK" to disagree concerning matters of biblical doctrine.

Stone writes:
‘ISMS’:
I think you're perceptive enough to know in context I was referring to systems of understanding scripture, not every biblical or theological principle.

Your statement was naive. To remind you, you said:

"I would say all "isms" including dispensational'ism' bring fumbling. The scripture is not to be interpreted by systems and 'isms' but only in the Spirit, and by the Spirit."

There is no way to make coherent sense of anything without a system of understanding. When you're challenged to defend your interpretation, do you just say, "the Holy Spirit told me this was the interpretation"? You MUST have a system and you must be forthright concerning it, else your doctrine will be suspect at best and dismissed at worst. Besides, your anti-"ism" is just another "ism," Stone. The scriptures instruct us to be systematic about our approach to its proper understanding. For you to decry "isms" is tantamount to dismissing language as a "fumbling" point.

Stone writes:
Different Gospel:
This is the topic I am concerned with.

You should be cautious to dismiss the words of the Lord and pushing them off on an invented dispensation.

GASP! Is THAT what I'm doing? Holy cow! I thought my beliefs were based on scripture! Now you tell me they're invented! What will I do? Where will I go? Who can help me?

Stone writes:
There is a New Covenant Hilston, the Law was overcome and a New and better Covenant was established for all believers.

The New Covenant belongs to Israel, not to the Body of Christ. See Jer 31:31-34. Christ-via-Paul states this unequivocally in Ro 9:4,5:

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Christ-via-Paul reiterates this distinction, describing their pre-conversion alienation in Eph 2:12

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:"

But does Christ-via-Paul say the members of the Body of Christ are now part of that "new covenant," having received Christ? No. Christ-via-Paul says that the sacrifice of Christ blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was contrary to the Body of Christ (Col 2:14). That is not true of elect Israel. Christ says through Paul that the Body of Christ was brought near by Christ having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances (Eph 2:13,14). This is not true of elect Israel. The law of commandments in ordinances stand for elect Israel, past and future. Jeremiah stated this when he described the new covenant:

Jer 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Stone writes:
The purpose of the Law (as Paul explained it) has not changed.

The purpose of law is always the same, whether we're talking about the Laws of Noah or the Laws of Moses or the Laws of Paul. They are a schoolmaster that lead us to Christ. But the content of those laws differ. That's the point of the word "oikonomia".

Stone writes:
The teachings of Jesus were to be followed by all believers as His teachings are the New Covenant.

Jesus' earthly teaching was the Law of Moses. "Everything whatsoever I have commanded you" includes every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law, including circumcision, blood sacrifices, spice tithes, water baptism, festal observances, religious ceremony, symbolism and holidays. The heavenly teaching of the risen/glorified Jesus through Paul to the Body of Christ is not the Law of Moses. That is why Paul says to follow Christ as he follows Christ, not as Peter and the Eleven followed Christ. Not as Cornelius and the proselytes of the Gate followed Christ.

Stone writes:
You seem to be hinging your belief in different Gospels on Gal 2:7? One cannot and should not rationally conclude from that passage there are different Gospels.

Read the study I linked to and expose its flaws. I've only mentioned this passage once, so only someone desperate to dismiss my view would so fatuously think that my belief "hinges" on a single verse of scripture.

Stone writes:
Paul's primary mission focus was evangelism, spreading the Gospel as far and wide as possible. I am not saying the focus of Paul’s letters are evangelistic, of course the epistles to his converts would be edifying, no doubt.

For all dispensations, the goal is to spread their respective gospels as far and as wide as possible. For you to distinguish between Peter and Paul on the basis of "scope of mission" doesn't even come close to explaining the multifarious contradictions in their messages.

Stone writes:
Peter's primary focus is discipleship, establishing the body. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Peter isn't even part of the Body of Christ. He is an apostle and judge of elect Israel. I don't know where you're getting your information, Stone, but it isn't the scriptures. Peter will sit on one of twelves thrones in the Holy City governing the kingdom of Israel. The Body of Christ will be seated in the heavenlies with Christ governing the angelic realm as they minister to the nation of Israel. You can't be in two places at once, Stone.

Stone writes:
One can twist the scripture in any direction and hold to ones beliefs, going round and round; “that’s false!” and “where do you get this stuff from?” will get us nowhere.

That's false. Where do you get this from? If I say something is false, you prove otherwise. If I question where you got something, produce the source, whether it be scripture or otherwise, or else go away. There is no use for obfuscation or obscurantism in this discussion.

Stone writes:
Rather, please establish your point by “quoting” direct comparative scriptural differences in Peter and Jesus’ Gospel vs. Paul’s “different” Gospel. I will be glad to attempt to resolve them for you.

There are a point-for-point comparisons available here: The "Invention" From Which Stone Will Rescue Hilston.

Here is a handy chart that might be helpful as well:
Summary of Hopes

In the meantime, consider this: If you fail to legitimately and rationally conflate Christ's message through Peter with Christ's message through Paul, then you must face the indictment that your observances of religious ceremony, sacrament, ritual, symbolism and holidays are in grave violation of the gospel that Christ died to secure for His Body.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Knight

Do you have a copy of the Plot?

He will very soon.

 

[Hilston]

Turbo,

I have The Plot and have read it. Some portions I've read several times. On pg. 316, Enyart compares Kingdom baptism to Body Baptism. He decries the division and denominational splits that have occurred over an act which "takes only a brief moment in an entire lifetime" and "accounts for a tiny percentage of the Bible's text." While the reasoning is flawed, since neither of these facts makes this issue unimportant, I have a more pertinent question I'd like to ask:

According to your and/or Bob Enyart's view, is it wrong to water baptize? Why or why not?

I may have missed it, but I don't see an explicit statement regarding this anywhere in The Plot.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I will have to catch up with this thread. Hopefully later tonight.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Turbo,

I have The Plot and have read it. Some portions I've read several times. On pg. 316, Enyart compares Kingdom baptism to Body Baptism. He decries the division and denominational splits that have occurred over an act which "takes only a brief moment in an entire lifetime" and "accounts for a tiny percentage of the Bible's text." While the reasoning is flawed, since neither of these facts makes this issue unimportant, I have a more pertinent question I'd like to ask:

According to your and/or Bob Enyart's view, is it wrong to water baptize? Why or why not?

I may have missed it, but I don't see an explicit statement regarding this anywhere in The Plot.

I am personally very interested in how Turbo will answer this question but while we are waiting for that I'd volunteer that as asked, the answer is that it is wrong to get water baptized. When asked point blank like that, one must assume that the baptism is being done for the normal reasons that Christians today practice the ritual, and so with that assumption in mind the answer, again is that it is wrong. It is legalism. This applies to at least 99% of the baptisms that get performed in the church today.
However, getting wet is not wrong and if you are simply going through the motions of some ritual for some reason other than getting saved or obeying some God given command then it only has as much meaning as you have given it in your heart.
For example, if it is your desire to minister in some way to a group of people who won't allow you to do so without having seen you go under water for about a half a second then I would say, get wet. Baptism is nothing and non-baptism is nothing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston asked: Would you say that's what the Galatians and the Colossians were thinking? That they were making themselves righteous by their works?

The text doesn't support that idea, Knight. Neither the Galatians nor the Colossians were suddenly forgetting their salvation by grace. Just as Peter was not forgetting that he was saved by grace through faith. Paul's rebuke of Peter, the Galatians, or the Colossians was not out of fear that they somehow forgot the means and Source of their salvation.

I am really not sure the distinction you are trying to make here. I just don't see how this subtle difference makes any difference in the topic at hand.

So... I asked this earlier and now I am even more curious.

What are the "laws of grace" or "laws of the mystery"? You have stated that there are specific laws for this dispensation and I would like to know what you think they are. We already know that you think that celebrating holidays are forbidden. What are some of the other laws of this dispensation according you?

Thanks!

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
... the answer is that it is wrong to get water baptized.

Why?

Clete writes:
When asked point blank like that, one must assume that the baptism is being done for the normal reasons that Christians today practice the ritual, and so with that assumption in mind the answer, again is that it is wrong. It is legalism. This applies to at least 99% of the baptisms that get performed in the church today.

Do you say that because 99% of the baptizers believe in baptismal salvation? If that's the case, you're wrong. Google it. The vast majority of water baptizers openly and emphatically state that baptism does not save, that it is merely an outward symbol of one's inward identification with Christ. I've studied dozens of by-laws of all the major protestant denominations in this country. Not one of espouses baptismal salvation/regeneration. Without taking my word for it, let's just say, hypothetically, that this is correct. Would you then say it's OK for these people in these churches to practice water baptism?

Clete writes:
However, getting wet is not wrong and if you are simply going through the motions of some ritual for some reason other than getting saved or obeying some God given command then it only has as much meaning as you have given it in your heart.

Is it wrong to abstain from blood sacrifices if one thinks such abstinence saves him?

Clete writes:
For example, if it is your desire to minister in some way to a group of people who won't allow you to do so without having seen you go under water for about a half a second then I would say, get wet. Baptism is nothing and non-baptism is nothing.

Let's say it is your desire to minister in some way to a group of people who won't allow you to do so without having seen you offer a blood sacrifice. Would you say "A blood sacrifice is nothing and non-blood-sacrifice is nothing."

Would you agree that obeying God concerning food laws is no different than obeying God in any other area. Whatever the issue, whatever the command, the believer should obey God. Agree?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Why?

I explained why.

Do you say that because 99% of the baptizers believe in baptismal salvation? If that's the case, you're wrong. Google it. The vast majority of water baptizers openly and emphatically state that baptism does not save, that it is merely an outward symbol of one's inward identification with Christ. I've studied dozens of by-laws of all the major protestant denominations in this country. Not one of espouses baptismal salvation/regeneration. Without taking my word for it, let's just say, hypothetically, that this is correct. Would you then say it's OK for these people in these churches to practice water baptism?

I agree that most churches do not teach baptismal regeneration and no it's not okay for the same reason I gave above, that reason being, it is legalism.

Is it wrong to abstain from blood sacrifices if one thinks such abstinence saves him?

This is a rediculous question. We are talking about Christian practices here. No one who thinks such a thing could concievably call themselves a Christian.
However...
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

Let's say it is your desire to minister in some way to a group of people who won't allow you to do so without having seen you offer a blood sacrifice. Would you say "A blood sacrifice is nothing and non-blood-sacrifice is nothing."

It would never happen. I have no intention of identifying myself with a body of nonbelievers.

Would you agree that obeying God concerning food laws is no different than obeying God in any other area. Whatever the issue, whatever the command, the believer should obey God. Agree?

We should obey God, yes.

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

This single verse sums up the entire ministry message of the apostle Paul. In effect the only rule we in the Body of Christ must follow is the following...

DO NOT PLACE YOURSELF UNDER THE LAW.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I intend to get caught up with my responses to you by tomorrow evening. Although our private discussion covered a lot of it already, there is still some that needs said so I will make every effort to get to it asap.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston asked
Why [is it wrong to water baptize]?

Clete writes:
I explained why.

Why would I ask you "why" if I already know? Either I've forgotten or I misread what you wrote. Please refresh my memory.

Hilston wrote:
Do you say that because 99% of the baptizers believe in baptismal salvation? If that's the case, you're wrong. Google it. The vast majority of water baptizers openly and emphatically state that baptism does not save, that it is merely an outward symbol of one's inward identification with Christ. I've studied dozens of by-laws of all the major protestant denominations in this country. Not one of espouses baptismal salvation/regeneration. Without taking my word for it, let's just say, hypothetically, that this is correct. Would you then say it's OK for these people in these churches to practice water baptism?

Clete writes:
I agree that most churches do not teach baptismal regeneration and no it's not okay for the same reason I gave above, that reason being, it is legalism.

What if they all decide to be water baptized in order to be acceptable to other Christians who believe baptism is important? Is it OK then?

Hilston asked:
Is it wrong to abstain from blood sacrifices if one thinks such abstinence saves him?

Clete writes:
This is a rediculous question. We are talking about Christian practices here. No one who thinks such a thing could concievably call themselves a Christian.

That's not true, Clete. Peter, James and John made blood sacrifices. So did Barnabas and Paul when they were in Jerusalem. The question isn't ridiculous. There conceivably could be those who thought abstinence from these things was a salvation issue, just as some people think that water baptism is a salvation issue.

Clete writes:
However...
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

So if I think Xmas is unclean, it is unclean?

Hilston wrote:
Let's say it is your desire to minister in some way to a group of people who won't allow you to do so without having seen you offer a blood sacrifice. Would you say "A blood sacrifice is nothing and non-blood-sacrifice is nothing."

Clete writes:
It would never happen. I have no intention of identifying myself with a body of nonbelievers.

It happened to Paul, Clete.

Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. ... 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

We know that Paul completed the sacrifices and was ceremonially purified based on his description of this event later:

Ac 24:18 Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.

Hilston asked:
Would you agree that obeying God concerning food laws is no different than obeying God in any other area. Whatever the issue, whatever the command, the believer should obey God. Agree?

Clete writes:
We should obey God, yes.

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Can you obey God's command without being under the law?

Clete writes:
This single verse sums up the entire ministry message of the apostle Paul. In effect the only rule we in the Body of Christ must follow is the following...

DO NOT PLACE YOURSELF UNDER THE LAW.

Of course. But we can obey Paul's laws without putting ourselves under them. Do you realize that? Otherwise, Paul contradicts himself in all those verses I quoted in my next post to Knight.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote:
The text doesn't support that idea, Knight. Neither the Galatians nor the Colossians were suddenly forgetting their salvation by grace. Just as Peter was not forgetting that he was saved by grace through faith. Paul's rebuke of Peter, the Galatians, or the Colossians was not out of fear that they somehow forgot the means and Source of their salvation.

Knight writes:
I am really not sure the distinction you are trying to make here. I just don't see how this subtle difference makes any difference in the topic at hand.

It's not subtle. You're saying that Paul was writing to warn the Galatians and Colossians about thinking that dietary laws would save them. I'm saying that Paul was rebuking them for submitting to angels.

Knight writes:
So... I asked this earlier and now I am even more curious.

What are the "laws of grace" or "laws of the mystery"?

They are the house rules, Knight. Rules are laws, commandments. That is what oikonomia means. Do you agree that "God gave to Paul the dispensation (house rules) for the Gentiles"? Do you agree that "He gave to Paul the new rules for the Gentiles (and Jews without distinction) in the Body of Christ"?

Paul wrote:
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

How do you follow Paul's example if his life is not exemplary with regard to his own ordinances? How do you obey Paul's command to keep the ordinances?

Paul wrote:
1Co 4: 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Paul wrote:
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Paul taught the Thessalonian saints how to walk and to please God according to commandments of grace and the Mystery. If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. ... Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition [ordinances] which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

The passage is full of commands to obey Mystery Law, Paul's Law. And that Law is that the Body of Christ does not have a ceremonial priesthood and is not to support those who presume to be ministers for Christ according to the Jewish model. The Body model requires pastors to support their own ministries and to not rely upon the generosity or charity of the church.

Knight writes:
You have stated that there are specific laws for this dispensation and I would like to know what you think they are. We already know that you think that celebrating holidays are forbidden. What are some of the other laws of this dispensation according you?

Anything that involves subjugation to angels is forbidden for the Body of Christ. That includes everything and anything that would associate a Body saint with religious symbolism, ceremony, ritual, and holidays.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
They are the house rules, Knight. Rules are laws, commandments. That is what oikonomia means. Do you agree that "God gave to Paul the dispensation (house rules) for the Gentiles"? Do you agree that "He gave to Paul the new rules for the Gentiles (and Jews without distinction) in the Body of Christ"?

Yes, I agree.

You continue...

If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Which is why Paul had to distinguish that this new dispensation was not built on following a set of rules yet that didn't mean Christians should live as sinners...

1Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me (Even celebrating Christmas!!! ), but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

You continue....

Anything that involves subjugation to angels is forbidden for the Body of Christ. That includes everything and anything that would associate a Body saint with religious symbolism, ceremony, ritual, and holidays.

So can't you just list them out for me?

Give me a list with verse references so I can see what your trying to say.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote:
They are the house rules, Knight. Rules are laws, commandments. That is what oikonomia means. Do you agree that "God gave to Paul the dispensation (house rules) for the Gentiles"? Do you agree that "He gave to Paul the new rules for the Gentiles (and Jews without distinction) in the Body of Christ"?

Knight writes:
Yes, I agree.

Since you agree, what in your view are those rules? Give me a list and verse references so I can see what you're trying to say.

Hilston wrote:
If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Knight writes:
Which is why Paul had to distinguish that this new dispensation was not built on following a set of rules yet that didn't mean Christians should live as sinners ...

So what example were they to follow? Give me a list with verse references so I can see what you're trying to say.

Knight writes:
1Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me (Even celebrating Christmas!!! ), but I will not be brought under the power of any.

If you want to invoke this verse, Knight, then you also have to invoke Romans 14 and 1Corinthians 8 and the end of 1Corinthians 10. I thought we agreed concerning these passages. Apparently not. Regarding your addition "Even celebrating Christmas", the logic would require Paul (and you, if you follow his example) to not celebrate Christmas if it caused a weaker brother to stumble.

Knight writes:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Grace and works are not mutually exclusive, Knight. How else can Paul give ordinances and command obedience, as the many verses I quoted indicate?

Hilston wrote:
Anything that involves subjugation to angels is forbidden for the Body of Christ. That includes everything and anything that would associate a Body saint with religious symbolism, ceremony, ritual, and holidays.

Knight writes:
So can't you just list them out for me? Give me a list with verse references so I can see what your trying to say.

Sure. But I was wondering if you might answer some questions about some verses while I round up some links?:

Paul wrote:
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

How do you follow Paul's example if his life is not exemplary with regard to his own ordinances? How do you obey Paul's command to keep the ordinances?

Paul wrote:
1Co 4: 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

Paul wrote:
1Th 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Paul taught the Thessalonian saints how to walk and to please God according to commandments of grace and the Mystery. If Paul's life was not characterized by obedience to his own ordinances, what example were they to follow?

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. ... Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition [ordinances] which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

The passage is full of commands to obey Mystery Law, Paul's Law. And that Law is that the Body of Christ does not have a ceremonial priesthood and is not to support those who presume to be ministers for Christ according to the Jewish model. The Body model requires pastors to support their own ministries and to not rely upon the generosity or charity of the church. Do you agree with Paul's commands here? Do you agree that we must heed them in order to walk obediently and to please God?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Jim.... just curious, what Bible translation do you use?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am running short on time, with the holidays coming up and some family is in town, not to mention my wife is about to have a baby! So let me respond to this one point.....

Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston wrote:
They are the house rules, Knight. Rules are laws, commandments. That is what oikonomia means. Do you agree that "God gave to Paul the dispensation (house rules) for the Gentiles"? Do you agree that "He gave to Paul the new rules for the Gentiles (and Jews without distinction) in the Body of Christ"?

Since you agree, what in your view are those rules? Give me a list and verse references so I can see what you're trying to say.

The rules are... there are no rules!

Those in the Body are sealed until the day of redemption.

And that's it!

No rules... not a single one!

In the dispensation of uncircumcision all you need to do is turn your life over to Christ. With a pure heart accept that His work on the cross is payment for your sin... your past sin... your present sin and your future sin. And if you do this Christ will not forsake you....ever!

 

[Hilston]

I use the KJV for reading and cross-referencing. I use the Textus Receptus, UBS3, and various Byzantine family texts for New Testament study. And I depend heavily on Hebrew reference aids for Old Testament study.