Clemens Answer: The ire and frustration clearly evident in your reply is further reinforced by errors in your post. For instance, It was not I who said the following, but you.
THE CORRECTION:
HOLT: ”You give this verse showing that the circumcision had some question about Paul's ministry. But you never gave the context. Here it is...
”2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING THE CONTEXT. IT PROVES MY POINT. PAUL DID WRITE TO THE CIRCUMCISION DIDN'T HE? THEY WERE DEFINITELY A PART OF THE KINGDOM PROGRAM FOR ISRAEL. AGAIN, LET'S START WITH THE VERY BASICS AND TAKE IT FROM THE TOP AGAIN. PAUL DID WRITE TO THE CIRCUMCISION FOR THEIR OWN PROGRAM. HE OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT WRITING THE MYSTERY TO CLARIFY IT FOR HIM, NOW DID HE?
Clemens Answer: You already posted the context in reply to my previous post. I was just quoting you exactly so as not to take what you said out of context. The original "point" was that Paul said things that were hard to be understood by Peter. Whether Paul wrote one, several, or numerous letters addressing "the circumcision," not everything he said therein was easily understood. Why? The point is that Peter, James, and John, never did fully understand what Paul was doing, or otherwise they would be "in Christ" as Paul is "in Christ." They are not "in Christ" the same was as Paul, never were, and never will be. They are "in Christ" along with the nation. Paul is not a part of their lot. Paul will not be sitting over a tribe in the future. Paul was a minister and witness of what he had seen [he had to know the protocol of their gospel and beliefs because he was killing those who followed it], and also a minister and witness of what was given to him by the Lord in appearances [one of which was there in Arabia where he got "his gospel"]. So, yes, Paul was very well equipped and qualified to deal with "the circumcision" as required under the varying circumstances he found himself in throughout Acts.
CLEMENS previous post: Please check your dictionary when you have the time to do so. “Salutations” come at the beginning of a letter, whereas “valedictions” come at the end of a letter. Paul did not say, “The salutations and valedictions of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.”
AGAIN, HERE WE COME TO THE BASIC ROOT OF THE MATTER. I DON'T FOLLOW "JUST" A DICTIONARY, I FOLLOW PAUL! PAUL DEFINED WHERE TO FIND HIS SALUTATION RIGHT IN THE CONTEXT! FYI, ALL SALUTATION MEANS IS A WORD OF GREETING. YES, I HAVE LOOKED IT UP BEFORE. *SIGH* GET THIS: IN OTHER LANGUAGES WHEN YOU SPEAK TO SOMEONE YOU OFTEN GIVE A SALUTATION WHEN YOU MEET A PERSON AND WHEN YOU LEAVE. THAT IS HOW THEY DO IT IN OTHER COUNTRIES...LIKE THE ONES THAT PAUL WROTE TO! GREECE DOES IT FOR A FACT! I KNOW BECAUSE I AM HALF GREEK-I UNDERSTAND THE MINDSET AND THE CULTURE. IF IT WERE JUST AT THE BEGINNING OF AN EPISTLE, THEN WHY IN THE WORLD DOES HE MENTION IT IN THE END AS A CLOSING REMARK? OH SURE, HE PUTS A SALUTATION IN THE BEGINNING, BUT THE ONE THAT HE ALWAYS SIGNED WAS IN THE END! THE ONLY WAY THAT A PERSON COULD MISS IT IS IF THEY HAD ULTERIOR MOTIVES.
Clemens Answer: Nobody is asking you to "follow" a dictionary, however, if you are going to read and understand something written in English, grammar and definitions of words ARE very important. I also realize that even if you did follow all the rules associated with the English language, without the Holy Spirit it is impossible for anyone to get an understanding of what he is reading. Your present explanation above does not nullify what you wrote in your second last post. You were emphatic about "salutations" coming at the "END" of Paul's epistles. Motive? The only surreptitious motive I see here is you trying to cover-up and correct your original blatant misunderstanding without being able to do a very good job of that, in my opinion.
1 Corinthians 16:21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.
Colossians 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. <<Written from Rome to Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.>>
2 Thessalonians 3:17-18 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. <<The second epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Athens.>>
NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE HIDDEN AGENDA THAT YOU HAVE. YOU COME ONTO OUR WEBSITE AND START OFF BY TRYING TO SWAY US WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT RIGHT DIVISION, WHICH WE TOLERATED, AND NOW YOU ESCALATE IT TO THIS. MAN, THAT WAS PRETTY BAD! YOUR CHARACTER MAKES IT SO THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST LETTER OF REFUTE THAT I WILL BOTHER WITH. CORRECT, HEBREWS DOES NOT START OFF WITH "PAUL". SO WHAT?!!?!??! SHOW US THE CARDINAL RULE THAT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO! IS THIS ANOTHER ONE OF PAUL'S PROGRESSIVE REVELATIONS THAT YOU JUST CAN'T SEEM TO FIND? LOL IT IS FUNNY HOW THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS COULD FIND THIS OUT, BUT YOU WON'T GIVE IT CREDIT. PAUL'S EPISTLES FALL INTO 2 PERFECT SETS OF 7.
Clemens Answer: Who's "We?" There is a discussion board on the rightlydividing.com wesite. That is accessible over the internet. If it is supposed to be a private posting board only, then I would suggest setting it up with password protection. On the other hand, if it is there for the purpose of discussion, as the name of the board suggests, then discussion of topics and issues that I have posted are legitimate, and helpful if you are into studying on your own. It is impossible to "sway" anyone who does not believe the Book, and/or takes the meaning of words and changes them to support their own hidden agenda. If you do not feel comfortable responding, and find it very unsettling personally, then why did you post a reply in the first place? It is obvious to me that you do not like it one bit when someone disagrees with you. You accused me of having a "bad attitude" in a personal e-mail, and do the same here again. I have re-read my posts in response to yours and find nothing that would support a "bad attitude," but rather at best nothing more than spirited debate on the issues. It is clear to me that what you are parroting is not a product of your own personal bible study, but that which has been spoon-fed to you. You are probably very comfortable in your church and religion, and never check out what you have accepted "hook, line, and sinker" through your own personal study. You are venting your anger at me as a result of your futile attempt to justify teachings that cannot be defended or supported by the text in scripture. Paul did not write Hebrews.
PAUL GOT NOTHING IN ARABIA THAT SEPERATED HIM FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB. NOTHING! HE WAS SEPERATED FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB WHEN HE WAS BORN. PAUL SAW GOD AS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS LIFE IN THIS WORLD, AND GOD WAS THE ONE THAT CALLED HIM BY HIS GRACE. STOP READING INTO THE TEXT.
Clemens Answer: Paul got nothing in Arabia? I think a re-read of Galatian 1:11-17 a few times, sooner or later will expose that he did get something there in Arabia directly from the Lord. It is not a matter of "reading into" the text, but rather reading and believing the text as written. Everyone is separated from his mother's womb at birth. Paul was born a Jew and born of flesh. Whether you take "his gospel" as separating him from the flesh, or from his Jewish religion, what he got there from the Lord was what did the separating. That could only be the gospel he got from the Lord that was powerful enough to do the separating from the flesh and/or religion.
CLEMENS: 2.) Also please pinpoint precisely what chapter(s) and verse(s) in the book of Acts correspond to the same chronological point in history with Paul there in Arabia, in Galatians 1:17?
I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE MY TIME ON THIS FOR YOU. YOU HAVE ENOUGH TRUTH TO COME AROUND AND REPENT. I DO KNOW IT, BUT I WON'T GIVE IT.
Clemens Answer: I understand from your response that you haven't the slightest idea of where it may be located, but you are not honest enough to admit that fact openly. Doesn't matter, and doesn't offend me at all in any way. The bible maps have been wrong for approximately 400 years, and most haven't the slightest clue, so I did not expect you to be any different from the masses. Repentance, if you study your text in Acts more closely, as preached by Paul, was only done so by him after he first accepted the circumcision gospel in Acts 18 that Peter, James, and John preached, which is further explained in Acts 22 and 26 [which information therein is contemporaneous with what happened to Paul in Acts 9], before he got "his gospel" in Arabia, simultaneous with Acts 10:10-15 time frame. The only other times in Acts where Paul preached repentance is where Paul resorted back to the gospel of the circumcision, for instance like there in Acts 18:8, in the synagogue where Crispus was the chief ruler. Otherwise, Paul did not preach repentance as part of the protocol under "his gospel." Repentance has nothing to do with getting saved today under Paul's gospel.
CLEMENS: 3.) As far as that meeting described in Galatians 2, please tell me if you think that corresponds with a meeting between those two in Acts 15, or Acts 11, or elsewhere according to your study?
NO, I AM NOT GOING TO TELL YOU. AGAIN, YOU HAVE ENOUGH TRUTH PRESENTED BY ME. YOU JUST NEED TO BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD AS IT STANDS.
YOUR ANSWERS ARE ONLY SHOWING YOUR UNBELIEF.
Clemens Answer: I would take issue with the accuracy of your last sentence. Unbelief has only been visibly demonstrated by yourself in this discussion thus far. If I don't know something, or if I am not sure of something, I am honest enough to admit such. So, you can keep your little "secrets" to yourself. The Book is very clear that the meeting in Galstians 2 was a meeting Paul had with Peter back in Acts 11:30. So many so-called "Christians" today think the Galatians 2 and Acts 15 records cover the same meeting details, but they don't.
Clemens Answer: The initial disclosure of the mystery to Paul took place in Arabia. What Paul writes in Romans is written from the perspective of all the information and experiences he gleaned from Acts 9 through Acts 28. I would suggest that you get started studying where and when Paul wrote each of his 13 epistles by using the text of scripture and not some time line put together by some "scholar" from secular sources. By knowing where and when Paul wrote each of his 13 epistles, it provides you with a much greater insight and understanding into what was going on with Paul from Acts 9 to Acts 28.
Clemens Answer: Since you are not going to write anymore [unless you have made a less-than-truthful statement above], I'll tell you what I have gleaned from your posts. Your understanding of what Paul was doing in Acts does not fit the text as written. The only way your beliefs can be justified is by changing the definition of words so that your doctrine appears to line up with scripture [as in your "salutations" versus "valedictions" diatribe]. You are only fooling yourself, rather, lying to yourself and anyone else you counsel. |
