Paul and Gentiles or Being Born Again

If we stay with just Paul's letters is it possible to deduce anything like being born again, for Gentiles?

Some people believe that being born again in John 3 is just for Jews, or Israel.

I believe that to be born again is to be born your second time, this time of the Spirit of God rather than your natural physical birth when you were born from your mother's womb.

So, can we find verses in Paul's Writings that say anything about this, such as the Spirit of God dwelling in the believer by faith or something like that? How can we substantiate and increase or grow our faith?

Gentiles have Paul.

Some people don't even have Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Why should we look to the Apostles when Jesus, Himself, said this and explained it when asked?

Jesus told His disciples to teach the Jews first, then to teach the Gentiles. That doesn't imply an exclusion. We might ask why He gave that a priority. To my mind, there were several reasons. One of them is that the Gentiles weren't expecting a Revelator of God. The timing was critical.

At the time of Jesus, the Jewish faith had become very exclusive. Moses had never intended it to be that way. The clergy had members believing they were God's only people - His chosen people. Ergo, all of God's promises applied to them, nobody else.

Jesus taught a faith of love; it was open to everyone and their earthly rank made no difference. He converted old perceptions, demonstrating that true wealth was in submission to God.

For Christians, there are no Gentiles. There are only believers and nonbelievers.

Zanjan,

I was writing in reference to those who accept Paul, but for example do not accept Matthew. It seems that Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles is accepted and trusted, or revered.

Shalom.

Jacob

I see.

It doesn't make sense to me that someone would spurn any of the Apostles. I mean, as if they could do better! Since the Twelve were chosen by Jesus when He walked the earth, how can anyone say some weren't important?

As we know, during the time Paul struggled to gain the trust of the Christian community, all the Apostles supported him. That doesn't imply the Apostles made him their leader; they recognized him as an equal while respecting his knowledge of the laws as being greater.

Paul firmly instructed believers not to follow one or the other, not to play favorites among them. They were to follow only Christ.

History records that many Christians had some wierd notions about their religion. That's understandable, considering they were illiterate so didn't have a concrete reference to sort it out. Many were remotely located without a local clergyman. The Apostles were all posted to a single location, usually a city, but Paul was the only *traveling* Apostle; the other reason he got so much attention.

Paul didnt expressly teach Gentiles, even when he went to Africa. Scientists have discovered there was, and still is, a Jewish population there - the Black Jews, who claim to be the descendants of those who fled from the northern kingdom of Israel when it was conquered.

Zanjan,

That is all very interesting.

However, I must say that I feel you do not understand what is being said. If we work within the limitations that a person provides, perhaps we can reach them with the truth.

Two things:

One, the Apostles ministered to the circumcision, so not everyone accepts them.

Two, the person I have been talking with who accepts only Paul does not accept, for example, Luke.

To top it off, I have found a contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

I have no problem with John, but it is being said that it was not written to me. Such that I cannot be born again as I am a Gentile, even though my father is Jewish (that doesn't matter).

Sincerely,

Jacob

"the Apostles ministered to the circumcision"

Sorry, that phrase is unintelligible. As a verb, to minister means "attend to the needs". One ministers to the needs of the people.

The narrative tells how some of the converted Jews wanted to continue the practice of circumcision. Paul and the other Apostles debated this until they understood it doesn't need to be a LAW in the Christian Faith.

You need to know what type of law it is and why it's legislated. Circumcision was a social law, not a spiritual one. Social laws can and should be changed when the time is right. When the reasons are laid out on the table, one can determine if they're still applicable for the Age.

What do you mean by not accepting Luke - as being a Christian teacher, or authentic recorder?
You can't have individuals run off deciding what part of history they want to hear or don't. Luke's writings wouldn't have been allowed by the Apostles without prior approval.

I can't remark on what you think is a contradiction without the verses in question.

The word ministered can also be the word served. The circumcision means those who were of the circumcision. Circumcised Israelites. Jews.

Paul had Timothy circumcised. Titus did not get circumcised. It depends of the circumstances. Circumcision is not required to be a part of the family of God. But it is a commandment for the people and nation of Israel.

By not accepting Luke I mean he does not accept the writings of Luke, whether His gospel account or the Acts of the Apostles.

1 Corinthians 7:19 NASB20 - 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of God.

Galatians 6:15 NASB20 - 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Galatians 6:15 KJV - 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Matthew 1:16 NASB20 - 16 Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 NASB20 - 23 When He began [His ministry,] Jesus Himself was about thirty years old, being, as was commonly held, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Perhaps English isn't your first language? One can't "serve" circumcision. The Apostles didn't serve the Jews - they served God.

I wouldn't say the Biblical narratives are totally accurate. The Word of God IS because it was recorded verbatim; that was verifiable. However, stories passed on by men will always have variations and/or flaws, even if told by the original observer.

Although it's impossible to correct an error in ancient text, we can think about the plausibility by incorporating facts.

That Paul *physically* circumcised Timothy isn't a realistic scenario.

The law is to do it 8 days after birth; it was performed by a Mohel - a person specially trained to do the procedure correctly and according to law. Paul wouldn't have broken the law. He was neither a rabbi or a Mohel so had zero experience even with babies.

Fact: An adult circumcision would have been horrific and dangerous. Today, a Doctor couldn't do it in a clinic. The patient has to be hospitalized, wheeled into a sterile environment, and surgery performed under anesthesia.

Timothy's mother was Jewish - she didn't have a choice, she had to get her baby circumcised by law. Her Greek husband would have known that before they married.

Finally, no one will enter a region and whip about their penis in front of everyone to introduce themselves. No one will ask them either. Timothy was well thought of by the people already. Paul was taking Timothy along on a teaching trip - if they were teaching Jews, Paul's penis would have been suitable evidence he had once been a Jew. Did anyone ever ask Paul to 'expose' himself?

So, is there any way this story could redeem itself? I think if we ask what the purpose of the story is, we might get the idea.

Perhaps the Jews would think Timothy had been influenced more by his father's character and polytheistic views. Maybe this "circumcision" was actually a *consecration*? That would make sense to me. All it takes is to give new life to one word.

Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with the other verses.

Furthermore, I don't think your friend's rejection of Luke's writings will make any difference in his understanding of Christ's teachings. There's plenty of repetition throughout all the books.

I don't know that he has an understanding of Christ's teachings, only of the gospel with Paul.

That I minister is the same thing as that I serve. Do you remember about gifts and ministries?

There is nothing wrong with any of the verses. It is our understanding that must be different.

Romans 4:11 NASB20 - 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

Romans 2:27 NASB20 - 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter [of the Law] and circumcision are a violator of the Law?

Galatians 5:6 NASB20 - 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Acts 16:3 NASB20 - 3 Paul wanted this man to leave with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Romans 3:30 NASB20 - 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Romans 4:9-11 NASB20 - 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

1 Corinthians 7:18 NASB20 - 18 Was any man called [when he was already] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

Galatians 2:3, 7-9 NASB20 - 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. ... 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised 8 (for He who was at work for Peter in [his] apostleship to the circumcised was at work for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we [might] [go] to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Galatians 5:2-3 NASB20 - 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law.

" Do you remember about gifts and ministries?"

I'm not into tracts. Each religion has their own; I find them unhelpful and misleading. We don't converse in scripted language nor think in antiquated terms. If we're not using the same language, we're two ships passing in the night. In the fog.

"Corinthians 14:9 (NIV), Paul emphasizes the importance of clear communication:

"So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air."

Proper English usage is the way to discuss concepts. Let's define a few:

A "ministry" is a work or vocation. In religion, the work is to teach the faith. A missionary is a traveling teacher, who either opens the faith in a new region or helps a young group of believers in remote places. A minister is a member of the clergy.

The Apostles consulted together about their mission; they agreed what to do. Then each was posted to a region; as a pioneer of the Faith, they'd settle down to teach there, staying for life.

I've tended a garden all my life but I will always tend to the injured before I attend a holy day function. This is essentially what Jesus did.

Circumcision was a *very* ancient practice; the purpose was twofold: 1. for ease of sanitation and prevention of disease, and 2. as a reminder of dedication to the divine and detachment from things of the flesh.

Abraham applied it so this was nothing new to the followers of Moses. Understand that the conditions were different in antiquity, also the people. Also note, females were not circumcised. Via Progressive Revelation, humanity graduated from visual reminders of this trust to a personal understanding of the instant connection between physical and spiritual cleanliness.

Humanity had achieved that realization by the time Jesus appeared so there was no need to continue prescribing it by law. Like the call to prayer, we no longer need that control; we take responsibility ourselves. We know when and the onus is on us to do it at the right time.

The day I have to use posted notes to tell me when to say prayers, is the day I'll be confined to hospital in the Dementia ward.

I had 3 sons and got them all circumcised, not for religious but for practical reasons. I did that on the advice of my Dad, who had to get it done when he was 50 years old. He raved about it, saying it was the cat's pajamas - just do it. That's a very valid recommendation.

Years later, a scientific study was done on *cervical* cancer. It was practically non-existent in married women whose husbands had been circumcised.

Zanjan,

Shalom. It is good to hear from you again.

What is "the call to prayer"? I know about "the call to worship", in that I go to synagogue on Shabbat.

As for Spiritual gifts, they are included in the Bible in different places. One of the most common places to look is 1 Corinthians 12.

It may be obvious that there is a context for these verses, including what comes after.

1 Corinthians 12:4-7 NASB20 - 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all [persons.] 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

My understanding is that this has nothing to do with vocation. We don't get paid to share the love of God with people. It is a free gift.

Sincerely,

Jacob

The call to prayer ->
Ringing the church bells on the Sabbath and on Holy Days.
The Muezzin's chant from the turrets of the Mosque to let people know it was time to pray.

I have to say I miss the beautiful sounds of church bells; you rarely hear that anymore. I miss it for the beauty, not for its purpose. I love to hear the musical chanting of prayers anytime, anywhere by anyone.

The *ancient* Jews would begin by publically chanting readings from the Torah, just prior to Jewish services at least 3 days weekly, morning and evening They'd do this when there was a gathering of the congregation present.

But now, the politicians want to outlaw prayer in public places - such sourpusses!

Clergy are paid for their services. It's a profession.

In ancient times, they did more than give sermons and dream up new doctrines. Being the only literate people other than royalty, they helped individuals with legal documents, visited the sick and dying, officiated at weddings and funerals, naming ceremonies or christenings, coming of age events, baptizing, blessing objects, individuals and kings with oil, etc.

They paid for a secretary as well, to assist with church administration.

Anyone could freely teach the faith; and, historically, the women did most of that. They also made sure the religious days were organized and celebrated on schedule.

The gifts of the Spirit are the virtues - each has a power. The fruits of the Spirit are seen in the work of those labouring in the Cause of God.

I am not paid for anything.

Me neither.

Today, there's nothing a Priest/Minister can do that we ordinary folks can't. Some jobs have outlived their time. That means fund contributions can be redistributed to meaningful projects.

Of course, if one isn't a member of a congregation, it follows they won't be donating any labour or money. Practically speaking, it still takes some material means for an organization to function.

I'm old and no longer physically fit; how I detest it I can't do more! For now, my only consolation is that I had given my all when I was younger and had that chance. I knew the time was short. How grateful I am to God for helping me to realize that!

What is it like to be born again? Speaking from experience, it's a consuming love. He gathers us to Himself. At the end of our lives, nothing will matter to us except how we served God. In this sense, He is the All-Embracing.

I go to synagogue more so than church. Except we do have Bible Study.

I don't know much about donating time (labor) or money.

I am glad that you know what you can and cannot do.

There's nothing to know about volunteering - just ask if you can help. Someone will smile, welcome you, and hand you a task. After that, you won't have to ask again - they'll come to you.

Often, I'd thought I wasn't equipped to do what they'd asked me; then I realized they were able to see something in me I couldn't.

Other times, something needed to be done; there were plenty of people more capable than I but they weren't doing it. When the needs are very great, somebody has to step up. I did because it was better than nothing. I prayed for God's assistance and miracles happened.

I'm certain God plans it that way - He calls the weak, inexperienced nobodies to do important things because that's how people can see His power.

As for contributing money, who pays for the structure? In the Hereafter, I'll gaze at those monuments so I'd like to point and say 'I bought that door knob and that little window'. It may not sound like much but one can't do that in the Hereafter.

Interesting thought. I am not sure I could buy anyone a hereafter.

As for your gifts, maybe you are gifted in service and giving.

I on the other hand might have a word or a verse to contribute. Maybe you too.

We're not buying a hereafter for ourselves or anyone else. We're creating a legacy ON EARTH for generations to come. Not only should we leave this world in better shape than we'd found it, but understand that real change is enduring.

We study history so we can understand where we are today, not to learn where we're going. For that, we need a concrete plan.

Religion isn't for our own satisfaction or entertainment - it's a vehicle driven by faith, which is an expression of love for others. It needs to be moving toward a destination; otherwise, it's dead. Therefore, the living need to be making history.