Church of Christ guided by New Testament [Campbellite beliefs discussed in Q&A]

***Maybe the problem is in your understanding of Paul. You definitely should reconsider your stance that NT writers conflict with one another. ***

James taught this. Do you?

Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them,(pay for their sacrifices) 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.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written [and] concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from [things] offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Act 21:26 ¶ 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.

“No reference is made to grape juice.”
***What do you think ‘new wine’ is?***

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Act 2:14 ¶ But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is [but] the third hour of the day.

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

*** but it is too bad he is not familiar with this site http://www.traces-of-the-kingdom.org/
clearing indicates that the church was active prior to “the restoration movement”***

I have just been over on this web site. The man makes a claim that the Church of Christ came down through the Paulician heretics.

I was raised in an English/Irish version of the Restorationists, not associated in any way with the Campbellite version.
We were told our church began at Penticost but the requirements for preaching began when Christ sent out his diciples 2x2.
It was claimed tht this church came down through the Paulicians also. Nonsense.

It took me 45 years to find they were started by William Irvine and Edward Cooney in 1898, so well did they hide their beginnings.

The Paulicians were heretics that believed in dualist gods, an evil OT god and a good NT God, Jesus.
They practiced celebacy with women and homosexuality with men, hence the name “Bugger” or Bulgar, Bogomill, Cathar,Albigenesn,ect.

You are better off claiming Alex Campbell as your beginning. Distance yourself from this Paulician claim as it definitly besmirches your entire credibility.

"Tell me, what is the difference between THE GOSPEL OF THE CIRCUMCISION and the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMCISION?"

Paul explains it in Gal 2:8 that you posted. "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)"

Peter preached the gospel to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. The recipient is the difference - not the content of the gospel. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

The NAS of v7 helps: "But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised"

There certainly were NOT two gospels. That's kind of the whole point of Paul's message to the Galatians.

Gal 1:6-9 - "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Gal 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."

Here's some other evidence Paul didn't know of two gospels:

Rom 1:16 - "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."

To try to claim there were two gospels, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile, is proof positive that you are in over your head.

Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

Act 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.

Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

"James required obedience to the Law of Moses and sacrifices and continued temple worship.

Paul did not. Like it or not, here is the first doctrinal denominational difference in the Church."

Sorry, didn't see your post 201 which refers to Acts 21, not the book of James.

The reason is given why all the elders of Jerusalem - not just James - told Paul to assist with the Jewish Christians who had made a vow.

Nowhere is doctrinal differences mentioned, but rather an expediency to disprove the rumors that Paul was denigrating the Jewish customs.

In fact, Paul - the same Paul who harshly condemned those who commanded circumcision - had Timothy circumcised. Again it was an expediency so that Timothy would be accepted in Jewish circles.

Like brother Paul said, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing." And in another place, "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."

Again, no two gospels lurking here.

****The reason is given why all the elders of Jerusalem - not just James - told Paul to assist with the Jewish Christians who had made a vow.

Nowhere is doctrinal differences mentioned, but rather an expediency to disprove the rumors that Paul was denigrating the Jewish customs.***

Which included going to the Temple, offering sacrifices and paying for them (Be at charges with them)Paul never offered sacrifices for a Gentile why would James demand sacrifices for Jewish CHRISTIANS. I thought being Christian meant you left your Jewishness behind.

But another problem several years before...

Gal 2:11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain (men) came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

If the gospel message was the same why did Peter fear those Christians who came from James?

Could it be that there IS two different gospels at that time, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles?

Consider this with Cornelius...

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And this..
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Act 11:4 But Peter rehearsed [the matter] from the beginning, and expounded [it] by order unto them, saying,

As you can see there was a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers.

2Pe 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;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So if the doctrines taught were the same there would be nothing that is “hard to be understood”.

"If the gospel message was the same why did Peter fear those Christians who came from James?"

Peter was wrong. And if those from James felt the way Peter thought they did, so were they. That's why Paul withstood him.

"As you can see there was a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers.

Rather, Acts 11 recounts Peter's declaration before the Jerusalem church that in the eyes of the Lord, there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile believers.

"So if the doctrines taught were the same there would be nothing that is 'hard to be understood'."

Wrong. One doctrine with some parts hard to understand. Peter upholds Paul's teaching here - he doesn't disagree with it. Those that "wrest the scriptures" are the ones that disagre with Paul's doctrine.

Again, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Your argument is with Paul, not with me.

***Again, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Your argument is with Paul, not with me.***

You are the one that brought this old thread back to life.

There is still a difference between the worship of the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians at that time. You still cannot ignore it. We today would call it “Denominational-ism”.

Again, why would James tell any Christian to offer sacrifices in the temple when sacrifices were done away with or brag about all the thousands of Jewish Christians were “zealous of the Law”.

And if they had no differences why would Paul have to write to the Galatians who had fallen under the Law to show them the difference between Law and Grace.

And later, Paul’s lament that those of Asia had turned away from him.

Christian doctrine at that time was not monolithic.

"And later, Paul’s lament that those of Asia had turned away from him."

You're kind of proving my point for me. Why lament if they were just choosing another valid way?

He lamented because they lost their way. Left grace and returned to Law. As he told the Galatians who were turning to the Law, they were hindered in their race, bewitched. The "other gospel" was accursed - and anyone who preached it was cursed.

"There is still a difference between the worship of the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians at that time. You still cannot ignore it. "

I don't doubt that there were differences in the customs of Jewish and Gentile Christians. There probably still are. And there are differences between the customs of Gentile A and Gentile B Christians.

But still one gospel. One truth. As long as they didn't (a) violate the apostles' doctrine or (b) impose their opinions on others, they acted within their liberty.

Read Rom 14. One gospel. Different customs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.