|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 24, 2005 14:58:34 GMT -5
Verse: Galatians 2:2. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
General Outline of Verse: I. And I went up by revelation II. And communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles III. But privately to them which were of reputation IV. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain
Key Words: Revelation, Communicated, Preach, Reputation, Run, Vain
Strong’s Definitions and Greek Words: 1. Revelation: apokalupsis: verb: disclosure.
2. Communicated: anatithemai: verb: To set forth (for oneself) i.e. Propound
3. Preach: Kerusso: verb: To herald as a public crier. especially divine truth (the gospel)
4. Reputation: dokeo: adverb: of the same meaning ; to think; by implication to seem (truthful or uncertainly)
5. Run: trecho: verb: to run or walk hastily (literally or figuratively)
6. Vain: kenos: adverb: empty (literally or figuratively)
Explanation and Application: I. And I went up by revelation…. Simply means that Paul went up to Jerusalem by revelation or by the disclosure of the Holy Spirit. We to should be led by the Spirit in everyone of life’s decisions.
II. And communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles… The gospel that Paul preached is Christ and him crucified. (1 Cor. 2:2) Meaning it is only our faith in Christ and what he did on the Cross for us that will save our souls and give us freedom and victory over sin. We can add or take away nothing from this gospel. To add or take away anything is saying that Christ wasn’t enough. That we must still follow the law, when the law was given to show us that we are sinners and we cant fulfill the law. This is why Christ died, to fulfill the law so that we can experience life and life more abundantly.
III. But privately to them which were of reputation… The idea is that Paul met privately with the other apostles and gave them a private explanation of the new covenant as had been given to him by the lord. The point on which Paul seems to have made this private explanation was not whether the gospel should be preached to the gentiles, for on that the had no doubt after the Revelation to Peter (Acts Chp. 10) but whether the rites and ceremonies of the Jews were to be imposed on the gentile converts. Paul explained his views and his practice on that point, which were, that he did not impose those rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that men might be without their observance; and that they were not necessary for salvation. (pg. 74 Swaggert)
IV. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Paul had to go privately to the apostle and explain to them the gospel of grace and justification by faith, because if they had not received his instruction it would have been clear and very noticeable. Paul already had trouble with people accepting him as an original Apostle so the people would’ve sided with the other apostles if they had not received his instruction. If they had not received it al of Paul’s works would have then been for nothing. It would’ve all been in vain and empty.
|
|
|
Post by Steven Lareau on Mar 24, 2005 16:34:24 GMT -5
what inspired this
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 24, 2005 16:40:01 GMT -5
Ryan,
You are so funny! I couldn't help but respond. I see your posts haven't gotten many hits or responses, so I thought I'd help ya out ;-)
RT - To add or take away anything is saying that Christ wasn’t enough. WM - Yet you say that Luther was right in editing the bible by adding the word "alone" and by removing books. So which is it? Were you right then or now?
RT - (Swaggert) WM - Puhlease! Now you are going to put Swaggert on the level of the Apostles? Send me the money!
RT - Paul had to go privately to the apostle and explain to them the gospel of grace and justification by faith, because if they had not received his instruction it would have been clear and very noticeable. Paul already had trouble with people accepting him as an original Apostle so the people would’ve sided with the other apostles if they had not received his instruction. WM - OK, let me get this straight, The apostles - who spent time with Jesus in the flesh, changed their ways after speaking to Paul (who was great for spreading the Word of God and awesome after his conversion), who had never met Jesus but had a vision after then assension of Jesus? Come on.
I think it is great that you are doing your homework and learning all that you can. I truly wish that I was as diligent with my studies as you. Unfortunately, I think that you may need to realize that your teachers may not always be right. I am not looking or willing to get into another war of words with you. Just wanted to offer another point of view.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 24, 2005 17:08:08 GMT -5
Bill, The reason i put these studies up is to get others opinoins. And just incase anyone is interested in what i have learned. Whther people want to read them or not. Thanks for your encourageing words. Your such an edifying brother. I dont need pity. Paul wasnt trying to change anything of the apostles. Only to explain the message of the cross. Paul having been the most qualified as a teacher of the law, because he sat under the teaching of gamileal (sp), he was most qualified for Christ to send to teach how the cross and the law relate to one another. Especially after his conversion which gave Christ all the glory for changing his life. Are you saying Paul was inferior to the apostles? Of course i understand your veiw as you believe Peter was the Pope. Im not putting Swaggert on any pedistool. five fold ministry according to the word of God: Eph 4:11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; I dont see in this passage of scripture anything about a Pope Swaggert is an Evangelist Steven, as much as it is killing me im trying to be less controversial. So i have to (choose to) post less controversial things. Simply educational of the scripture. of course we will always have those who dont like to hear the truth of the word of god because it rebukes and exposes and breaks the yoke of spiritual religiousity.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 24, 2005 17:40:35 GMT -5
Oh my Ryan...strike a nerve did I? You are right though, I do try to encourage most. This one just struck me funny. I don't pity you. I am not sure where you got that idea.
RT - Are you saying Paul was inferior to the apostles? WM - Nope, not at all. He was probably the best and most faithful of them all.
RT - Of course i understand your veiw as you believe Peter was the Pope. WM - Not my view. Christianity view. Of course now only recognised by Catholics, but that's another story :-)
RT - I dont see in this passage of scripture anything about a Pope WM - Correct, not in this passage. Research primacy of Peter.
Somehow you managed to miss this part: RT - To add or take away anything is saying that Christ wasn’t enough. WM - Yet you say that Luther was right in editing the bible by adding the word "alone" and by removing books. So which is it? Were you right then or now?
Like I said before, I really do admire your hardwork and research. But if you are going to post, expect replies or discussion. Isn't that what you were looking for?
Bill
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 24, 2005 18:02:57 GMT -5
Yes Bill Luther didnt do anything but translate the bible more accuratly than the latin. The only nerve striking you did was what seemed like an insult to me.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 24, 2005 18:21:23 GMT -5
Not looking to insult. Just discussing.
But this part does not hold true then: RT - To add or take away anything is saying that Christ wasn’t enough. You said it yourself. Then, that says that Luther must not have felt that Christ was enough. Nice try on the more accurate translation, but no. It wasn't more accurate it was altering. Name it whatever you want, that's what it was.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 24, 2005 18:32:19 GMT -5
So do you say Christ wasnt enough?
What you think was Pauls message to the people?
To add or take away is a reference to the gospel of Christ and him crucified. The gospel of Justification by faith.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 24, 2005 19:06:46 GMT -5
Christ was plenty...
RT - What you think was Pauls message to the people? WM - Pauls work is well documented. No need for me to hash it all here.
Hehe, again...nice try.
I am curious if I just found out about your armwrestling as well as your <discussing>: Are you better when offensive as opposed to defending?
|
|
|
Post by Steven Lareau on Mar 25, 2005 0:31:39 GMT -5
This thread confuses me
|
|
|
Post by Murray Bowles on Mar 25, 2005 7:12:23 GMT -5
Luther didnt do anything but translate the bible more accuratly than the latin.
No, in a way he did much much more. Before the Luther Bible, there were dozens of German dialects. After, there was one German language. And, Luther was arguably the best writer who ever contributed to a Bible translation.
(But adding "alone", as if Paul was not being Pauline enough, was a bit much...)
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 25, 2005 8:51:49 GMT -5
He also removed 6 books because they did not support his point of view.
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Mar 25, 2005 10:31:00 GMT -5
Many people "translated " the bible....HMMMM....Funny how people can translate the thing from aramaic and hebrew ( RIGHT? ) and do it so accurately. They must have been genuises.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 25, 2005 12:28:03 GMT -5
Christian you do have to be pretty intellegent. When Luther added "Alone" in his translation it did not contradict or take away or add anything from the scriptures. It enforced what paul was teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 25, 2005 12:57:50 GMT -5
Ryan,
RT - To add or take away anything is saying that Christ wasn’t enough. RT - When Luther added "Alone" in his translation it did not contradict or take away or add anything from the scriptures. It enforced what paul was teaching. WM - That is the possibly the most rediculous thing you have said. Let's see, he changed it, but it did not add or take away anythng. Hmmm, what was the point of changing it then?
Do you even realize when you contradict yourself? No one likes to admit when they are wrong, but you should start learning that you can't have it both ways.
BTW, they were the teachings of Christ, not Paul and the Apostles.
|
|