Rotten Planks of X9 thought

[Hitch]

Acts 15
15:1
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh wait, these words are not in red, so we should disregard them...

Notice, they were teaching circumcision for salvation Hitch...

The above quote was recently used support a 'Mid Acts' DF outlook (X9). I cant figure how this is suppoposed to strenghten such a position. The chide directed toward me ' NOTICE THEY WERE TEACHING CIRCUMCISION FOR SALVATION HITCH'. , just ignores that this very error was directly addressed and corrected. Hardly the stuff to build a doctrine on , excepting the obvious, spelled out here for X9ers, circimscision is not required, nothing to support a 'dispensation' at all. Any more than we would build a doctrine on Pete's other failures. There never was a 'dispensation of dont eat with gentiles' or a 'dispensation of deny the Lord three times'.

What is telling here is that this mistake an the part of 'certain men', and a honest mitake considering their background, is used as a plank for X9 teaching while the very Words actually spoken by our Lord are put away as part of a different time. Riciculous.


Take care

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I am so glad you started this discussion. You have just affirmed that you fail to read the context of passages. Let's look at the context of Acts 15...The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:1
And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."I assume these are the "certain men" you say who are in error when you say,What is telling here is that this mistake an the part of 'certain men', and a honest mitake considering their background, is used as a plank for X9 teaching Unfortunately for you Hitch, these "certain men" from Judea are not the only ones teaching circumcision for salvation. If you would have just kept reading...Acts 15
15:2
Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
15:3
So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.
15:4
And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
15:5
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."We have believing Jews here Hitch. Remember, you said,Hardly the stuff to build a doctrine on , excepting the obvious, spelled out here for X9ers, circimscision is not required,They believe that the Gentiles who are turning to God need to be circumcised and need to keep the law for salavtion. Are they wrong too Hitch? Are they in error also? Since we're on the subject, let's continue this Acts 15 discussion. We see from Acts 15:2 that Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem to settle this dispute. Luke's account of the is event is recorded in Acts 15:1-5 (quoted above). Acts 15:4 tells us that Paul and Barnabas were "received by the church and the apostles and the elders" when they arrived. Now, let's look at Luke's account of what was actually said to the apostles and elders.15:4
And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.Luke's account is pretty vague. Let's see what Paul has top say about what actually happened.The New King James Version

Galatians 2
2:1
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.Paul tells us that he, "communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation..." Now let me ask Hitch, if the message that Paul was preaching was the same as the message that Peter and the other 11 are preaching, why did Paul need to "communicate privately that gospel he preaches among the Gentiles?" The answer is obvious... The circumcision believers (Acts 15:5) believed that circumcision and law works were necessary for salvation. Paul's gospel for the body of Christ, recently revealed to him (Eph 3:1-9), is now in effect. After he communicates it privately to those of reputation, James decrees how they will handle the distinctions between the two groups of believers...The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."Acts 21 is a direct result of this meeting in Acts 15. Who is the "we?" Isreal... Who is the "them" and "those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God?" The body of Christ. Let's look at Acts 21...The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:21
but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
21:22
What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.Paul even makes this same distinction in his later epistles.The New King James Version

Galatians 6
6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.The "them" is the body of Christ, and the "Israel of God," well, that's obvious. Next, we see that Paul refers to the church that is Israel as "the church of God" contrasted with the "body of Christ."The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 10
10:32
Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, Again, Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers (Israel & the body). Finally, Hitch, you say,Riciculous. I couldn't agree more...

[Hitch]

Yawn,,, and so the mistake was corrected.

I cant imagine why that is such a problem. If the results of the conference were opposite what is recorded you might have a case. Too bad.

They believe that the Gentiles who are turning to God need to be circumcised and need to keep the law for salavtion. Are they wrong too Hitch? Are they in error also?

Yes.
Is it really such a surprise to learn that some Pharisees would think this? Seems perfectly natural to me. But then I dont need to turn it upside down and try to build a seminary on it.



Are they wrong too Hitch

Thats the point of the passage. How could you miss it?


Now why didnt you respond wrt the Ninevehites?


take care

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You said,Is it really such a surprise to learn that some Pharisees would think this?You miss the point. They are paharsees who believe. Are you implying that they don't really believe? Secondly, I ask that you respond to Paul's communicating the gospel he preaches privately to those of reputation. Why did he need to do this?

Next you say,Now why didnt you respond wrt the Ninevehites?I checked and double checked, and never saw one reference from you concerning Jonah...

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

You said,You miss the point. They are paharsees who believe. Are you implying that they don't really believe? Secondly, I ask that you respond to Paul's communicating the gospel he preaches privately to those of reputation. Why did he need to do this?LOL Since when is 'believing' equal to innerrancy? Did Pete 'believe' when he didnt want to eat with the gentiles?

Thats what I mean by rotten plank. It s evident you 've gotten aufully used to the contrivences needed to bolster your claims, going ever further form the plain and obvious. And end up building on the mistakes of the early church rather than the solid foundations.


Why would Paul need to act in accordence with the powers as they were? Do you march into every church that is not X9 and loudly proclaim their errors,,first thing? Ya know I'll bet if you found yourself in that situation you would try to figure which ones might be receptive and start a whisper campaign.

Next you say,I checked and double checked, and never saw one reference from you concerning Jonah... [/QUOTE] Well thats because of your distaste form anything Jesus said. You have made a great deal over circumscision/salvation and you have ignored the simple fact that Christ (remember him?) taught that the men of Nineveh would stand in judgement againt the Pharisees of his day. now ths is strictly OT. So where is the command to the Ninevites to be circumscised? I'll tell you where to look. Its in the same place every other circumscisison commmand Jesus laid on gentile converts. Another rotten plank.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

So, basically what you're saying is, NT believers were so confused and teaching error, that God raised up the Apostle Paul to go to the Church in Jerusalem where James (the Lord's brother) was the head honcho, to set them all straight? Is that the reason God sent Paul up to Jerusalem? To set the church of the land of Judea straight? Unbelievable... Your logic continues to escape me...

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

So, basically what you're saying is, NT believers were so confused and teaching error, that God raised up the Apostle Paul to go to the Church in Jerusalem where James (the Lord's brother) was the head honcho, to set them all straight? Is that the reason God sent Paul up to Jerusalem? To set the church of the land of Judea straight? Unbelievable... Your logic continues to escape me... Thats no surprise you are demonstrably prone to confusion.

Tell me is is illogical in your world for problems and disagreements to exist in a new movement?

Did you think Paul was sent just to bring money? Was this the dispensation of cash?


Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct error?

Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct Pete?

If you have some school-girl notion of everything being perfect in the early church you've got real problems.

I reckon you're normal is most respects. But its interesting how dogma can turn so many poeple into pretzels.



Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

You say,Tell me is is illogical in your world for problems and disagreements to exist in a new movement?Are you now a mid-Acts dispensationalist? We are the ones who say this is a new church. Don't you believe that the true church that is in existence in Acts 15 is the same church that has been around since day one? How can there be problems with a church that is close to 4,000 years old at the time of Acts 15? (From your point of view) Unless of course you are a mid-Acts dispensationalist who rightly identifies that the body of Christ is now in effect, and there is much confusion at this time. Next you say,Did you think Paul was sent just to bring money? Was this the dispensation of cash?You lost me on that one... What does this have to do with anything? Did I ever say anything about Paul bringing money? You continue,Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct error?

Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct Pete?I would like to see you establish this using Scripture. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to your question, but would rather like to see you finally establish something from Scripture. You continue,If you have some school-girl notion of everything being perfect in the early church you've got real problems.Again, how can you refer to this same church that has never ever changed requirements for salvation as a "new" church? Unless of course, you are now mid-Acts. Nice to have you aboard Hitch! Reading Bob Hill's articles must have helped you tremendously...

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Act9_12Out:
Hitch,

You say,Are you now a mid-Acts dispensationalist? We are the ones who say this is a new church. Don't you believe that the true church that is in existence in Acts 15 is the same church that has been around since day one? How can there be problems with a church that is close to 4,000 years old at the time of Acts 15? (From your point of view) Unless of course you are a mid-Acts dispensationalist who rightly identifies that the body of Christ is now in effect, and there is much confusion at this time. Next you say,You lost me on that one... What does this have to do with anything? Did I ever say anything about Paul bringing money? You continue,I would like to see you establish this using Scripture. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to your question, but would rather like to see you finally establish something from Scripture. You continue,Again, how can you refer to this same church that has never ever changed requirements for salvation as a "new" church? Unless of course, you are now mid-Acts. Nice to have you aboard Hitch! Reading Bob Hill's articles must have helped you tremendously...

--Jeremy Are all X9 'Pastors' afraid to answer a few simple questions?

You should be ashamed of these childish rants.

Now answer the questions in the straight forward manner they were presented.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Are all X9 'Pastors' afraid to answer a few simple questions?

You should be ashamed of these childish rants.

Now answer the questions in the straight forward manner they were presented.

Hitch

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

I will answer your questions, and hope that you return the favor. You ask,Are all X9 'Pastors' afraid to answer a few simple questions?NoYou should be ashamed of these childish rants.Which "childish rants" are you referring to? It seems that you are doing the majority of the ranting.Now answer the questions in the straight forward manner they were presented.I have, over and over and over and over. When will you grace us with answers to specific questions you've been asked? I have checked and re-checked, and the only questions I have not answered were...Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct error?

Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct Pete?I responded with,I would like to see you establish this using Scripture. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to your question, but would rather like to see you finally establish something from Scripture.The point of this response was to have you give specific examples of what you're referring to. I could answer "yes" or "no to both questions. I can't read your mind... Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum. Thus far, it has been, Hitch asks questions, refuses to answer questions, and demands answers to his questions. Get with the program.

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

Which "childish rants" are you referring to? It seems that you are doing the majority of the ranting.

requirements for salvation as a "new" church? Unless of course, you are now mid-Acts. Nice to have you aboard Hitch!

Reading Bob Hill's articles must have helped you tremendously



You say,Are you now a mid-Acts dispensationalist?


This was your response to the questions below, not that your answer in any way shape or form relates to the questions.

Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct error?

Was Paul ever used by the HS to correct Pete?

I think 'childish' was overly kind.

Hitch

[Hitch]

responded with,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see you establish this using Scripture. I'm not saying "yes" or "no" to your question, but would rather like to see you finally establish something from Scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of this response was to have you give specific examples of what you're referring to. I could answer "yes" or "no to both questions. I can't read your mind... Last time I checked, this was a discussion forum. Thus far, it has been, Hitch asks questions, refuses to answer questions, and demands answers to his questions. Get with the program.


So when should this answer be expected and will it come with an explanation of why two one line questions were so hard for you to handle and why you have avoided answer wrt to the Ninevehites?

[Act9_12Out]

Hitch,

My answer will come right after you respond to my question. I have no problem answering your "two line question" and will answer "wrt the NInevehites." I ask you again, please show me one time where you actually quote a passage and give a complete exegesis of that passage. With the number of posts you have made, this should be easy for you. Fulfill this one desire, and I will respond to your irrelevant questions once again.

--Jeremy

[Hitch]

02-22-2003 @ 04:03 AM
Act9_12Out:

Hitch,

My answer will come right after you respond to my question. I have no problem answering your "two line question" and will answer "wrt the NInevehites." I ask you again, please show me one time where you actually quote a passage and give a complete exegesis of that passage. With the number of posts you have made, this should be easy for you. Fulfill this one desire, and I will respond to your irrelevant questions once again.

--Jeremy OK I cant think of one.. . Now I await your answer....