Pastor Scott Markle

And yet, Brother West, you said the following in your above article: 1. You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed. It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. 2. You further indicated that ONLY "the King James Bible" could establish these "advance revelations" about which you speak. It seems then that you are advocating concerning the New Testament apostles and prophets of the first century, upon which our Lord Jesus Christ founded His church (as per Ephesians 2:20), He Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, that those New Testament apostle and prophets could not have known these "advance revelations" of truth, since they would not exist for another 1500 years after their time when the King James translation came forth. Indeed, it seems that you are advocating that no New Testament believer throughout the first 1600 years of the church age could have known these "advance revelations" of truth, until the Lord our God brought them forth for English speaking peoples through the King James translation, since they ONLY can be established by the "King James Bible" (as per your teaching). Now, I myself have clearly and emphatically declared this to be a FALSE DOCTRINE. Indeed, I myself have declared it to be a false doctrine worthy of SEPARATION. Thus I present my previous posting again:

Brother West, Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture. If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter). For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

Agreed. And such diligent study not only is necessary for the definition of words, but also for the grammatical usage of words and phrases. Mishandling a passage because of a misunderstanding of grammar is sadly too common - and by this I am talking about a misunderstanding of ENGLISH grammar (not to mention how many go to the Hebrew and/or Greek without really understanding Hebrew and/or Greek grammar). Words not only have definitions, but also have grammatical usage. What they mean is significant, but how they are used in a sentence or context is equally significant.

If what you mean by that which I have emboldened in your quotation above is that the King James translation somehow provides an "added revelation" of "new doctrine" that was not previously in the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek - then I am compelled to express an emphatic disagreement. I would stand in agreement rather with that which Brother Jerry presented: To consider your example: This appears to be a reference unto Revelation 17:9-10. Being able myself to look up and read the Greek of Revelation 17:9-10, I would present that the Greek reads just as the English in these verses. The Greek reads just as the English that the seven heads of the beast upon which the whore rides are seven mountains. The Greek reads just as the English that the woman/whore sits upon these seven mountains. The Greek reads just as the English that there are seven kings, that five of those kings have fallen, that one of those kings is, and that the seventh king is not yet come. The Greek reads just as the English that the final king, when he comes, will continue for a short space of time. There is nothing different between the Greek and the English; there is no added revelation or doctrine in the English.

Brother Hugh, I thank you for expressing this, and I may need to express an apology to you. When I first began my posting above, and throughout the majority of my typing thereof, I misunderstood and thought that I was responding to a post from Brother West. It was not until I was at the end of typing out my response that I realized my mistake, that I was responding, not to a post from Brother West, but to a post from you. Thus my response may have been a little more forceful toward you than it needed to be. Even so, I do NOT withdraw or apologize for the position that I presented in my above posting; but I do apologize if I came across too forcefully in my presentation thereof. Being an English reader myself, who is VERY particular about English grammar in my studies of Scripture, I can certainly appreciate your concern in this matter. I would NOT teach that a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is necessary to be a godly student of God's truth. Indeed, I WOULD teach that an English student of God's Holy Word can be completely confident to know the wisdom and will of God through a diligent study of the King James translation. However, the doctrine of God's Holy Word (in particular the doctrine of divine inspiration and the doctrine of divine preservation) compels me to acknowledge that the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek IS God's very Word for ALL of mankind and must be the ULTIMATE foundation for ALL translational work into ANY language of mankind. The Lord our God by His Holy Spirit did not GIVE His Word to mankind in English. Rather, He gave His Word to mankind in Hebrew and Greek. I myself trust the infinite wisdom of the Lord my God to do so in this fashion. Nor did the Lord our God promise to preserve His Holy Word in English. Rather, He promised to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Word as originally given in Hebrew and Greek. I myself trust the almighty power of the Lord my God to do just as He promised. Even so, upon this foundation the Lord my God has also providentially provided a wonderful and accurate TRANSLATION of His Holy Word from the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek in the King James translation (even as He has providentially provided similar translations in various other languages of the world). For English readers I would hold forth the King James translation with complete confidence as the authoritative Word of God in English. Indeed. For English readers - the King James translation can be taken with complete confidence to study it diligently, to learn it whole heartedly, to meditate on it consistently, to live by it submissively, and to teach it confidently. Indeed, to the extent that an individual understands more of English grammar than of Hebrew or Greek grammar, that individual will likely glean more from the King James English translation than from the Hebrew and Greek. However, to the extent that the Lord our God allows an individual to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, to that extent a study of God's very Word in Hebrew and Greek can be useful for that individual to learn and grow. Necessary - not at all; useful - indeed.

Indeed. And that whole system of textual "criticism" (which actually started somewhat before Westcott and Hort made it so popular) is a bunch of bologna (unless perchance you think that bologna is good, then you will want to insert some other negative descriptive). That whole system is (in my opinion) the devil's attempt to defeat God's divine work of preservation. The devil certainly cannot win that battle, because he simply cannot defeat the divine work of God; but he sure can deceive many throughout the course of the engagement.

The Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek. No, this comes down to a correct understanding of Biblical doctrine concerning Holy Spirit inspiration and the promise of divine preservation. However, to consider your parenthetical question - (Doesn't this come then down to personal opinion and private interpretation) - from the perspective in which you intended it, I would ask a set of return questions -- Which edition of the King James translation have you chosen as your final authority, of which there are five (for as some have said elsewhere in this forum concerning this subject, things that are different are not the same); and then would not your making such a choice equally come down to "personal opinion and private interpretation"? Furthermore, the King James translation is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. So, from which Hebrew and Greek did the King James translators choose; and why? Would this then come down to the "personal opinion and private interpretation" of the King James translators? In fact, by claiming the King James translation as your FINAL authority, even above the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, you would actually be making the King James translators to be your final authority. No, I am quite comfortable holding that the King James translation carries inspirational authority for English speaking peoples (and I will NOT use ANY other translation). However, I will NOT concede in any fashion that the King James English translation is "advanced revelation" from God the Holy Spirit. It is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek, which the Lord our God providentially provided for English speaking peoples. Indeed, I agree that the original penmen of the Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) by God the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I would agree that the Lord our God promised to preserve those original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures/Writings (not the original manuscripts, but the original writings from those original manuscripts) in a "jot and tittle" manner unto EVERY generation of His own people. Thus I would hold that unto 1611 and even unto this very day the original writings of Hebrew and Greek from the original manuscripts (although NOT the original manuscripts themselves) STILL exist among the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that have been passed down from generation to generation. (NOTE: I DO acknowledge and contend heartily that our adversary the devil has also been busy throughout that time developing corrupted and false "scriptures" by which to deceive from the truth of God.) Due to the precision of the Hebrew scribes and Masoretes, I would hold to the Masoretic textual family (not altered by the Septuagint) for the Old Testament Scriptures. Due to the proliferation of the Greek New Testament manuscripts for the Received textual family from generation to generation of this New Testament church age, I would hold to the Received textual family for the New Testament Scriptures. (In fact, this is the same position that the King James translators took for the Hebrew and Greek texts from which they translated the King James translation.) Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were already inspired. Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were divinely preserved (and remain so unto this very day). Yes, translation does not take away the authority of divine inspiration, that is -- to the extent that the translation remains accurate to the originally inspired and divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek. Even so, I am very, VERY confident in the accuracy and authority of the King James translation. Yet I recognize that it still is a TRANSLATION. As such, it CANNOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated - UNLESS it actually is "advanced revelation" by the additional direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit upon the King James translators. However, I am compelled to deny any such doctrinal position because the Holy Scriptures NEVER promote, prophesy, promise, or proclaim any such teaching concerning the King James translation itself.

Brother Jerry, I myself agree that Acts 20:7 is a reference to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, as per the contextual reason that you provided. However, I recognize that others may view this "breaking of bread" reference simply as a matter of eating a meal. As for myself, I hold that contextually Acts 20:7 & 11 are speaking about the same matter, that Acts 20:7 speaks about this matter as the reason for which the disciples gathered, and that Acts 20:11 speaks about the actual engagement of the matter. Indeed, IF the "breaking of bread" in this passage IS a reference to the Lord's Supper, then it DOES provide a Biblical event wherein a non-member of a local church celebrated in the Lord's Supper with that local church. In fact, IF this is the case, then it is interesting that Acts 20:11 seems to present the apostle Paul as the one who administered the Lord's Supper. (Note: My answer above would then reveal that I myself do NOT hold to the "closed communion" position.)

The emboldened portion of the quotation above is a foundational false doctrine that I view as a separational offence. God the Holy Spirit did NOT directly inspire (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) the translators of the King James translation and did NOT provide "advance revelations" through the King James translation. Even so, the King James translation does NOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit DID directly inspire for all mankind and that God has promised to preserve forever.

The answer to this question would be based upon how an individual might define the "breaking of bread" as referenced in Acts 20:7 & 11.

Hmmmm. I am starting to wonder which is the main theme of this thread discussion -- Is it the theme (subject) for which Brother Jerry originally started this thread? Or is it the theme (agenda) that Brother West is seeking to push through this thread? (Note: I myself do not have much conflict with the theme that Brother Jerry has been presenting herein, but I DO have a bit of conflict with the agenda the Brother West seems to be pushing herein. Indeed, I have a number of questions and responses in regard to that which appears to be Brother West's agenda; however, I do NOT wish to sidetrack Brother Jerry's thread discussion from his original purpose.)

My opinion - Demas was saved. Depending on the extent of his "forsaking," he might end up like the man of 1 Corinthians 3:15 - suffering loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ; but he himself still being saved, "yet so as by fire."

It is indeed grievous that a pastor's poor marriage relationship can hinder or ruin his ministry (and this DOES happen far too often). Yet the Lord our God in His Word did indeed inform us that a pastor's good marriage relationship is a necessary qualification for his pastoral ministry. To ignore this Biblical qualification is a path for spiritual destruction, not only for the pastor and his family, but also for the church body as a whole.

1. Peter did NOT say that all of the signs and wonders in the heavens were being fulfilled at that time, or that they would be fulfilled within a very short time of that moment. He quoted Joel's prophecy from Joel 2:28-32a indeed. However, he ONLY pointed to one element of that prophecy as being fulfilled (at least partially) in that moment. 2. What Peter said was, "But THIS is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." In order to understand the specific element of Joel's prophecy about which Peter was expressing a fulfilment, we must understand what is the contextual antecedent for the pronoun "this." In Acts 2:4 we observe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost - "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Then in Acts 2:6 this filling with the Holy Ghost and speaking with other tongues is refenced by the pronoun "this" - "Now when THIS was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." Again in Acts 2:12-13 this filling with the Holy Ghost and speaking with other tongues is referenced by the pronoun "this" - "And they were all amazed and were in doubt, saying, What meaneth THIS? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." Even so, in Acts 2:14-16 Peter responded to the question of some, "What meaneth THIS," and to the accusation by others that they were drunken - "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: for these are NOT drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But THIS is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Thus when Peter quoted Joel's prophecy from Joel 2:28-32a, he was ONLY seeking to answer the question, "What meaneth THIS?" He very clearly answered, "THIS is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." Indeed, Peter was only seeking to answer the meaning of the filling with the Holy Ghost and the speaking with other tongues, which was answered through his quotation of Joel 2:28-29. The rest of the prophetic events in Joel's prophecy were not relevant to Peter's point. He was ONLY speaking about a specific "THIS," and that specific "THIS" was the filling with the Holy Ghost and the speaking with other tongues. 3. After quoting Joel's prophecy from Joel 2:28-32a, Peter proceeded with his message to the people in Acts 2:22-36. Throughout that message Peter touched upon a sequence of truths concerning Jesus: (1) Jesus of Nazareth was approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs (v. 22) (2) Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and slain by their wicked hands (v. 23) (3) Jesus of Nazareth was raised up from the dead by God (vs. 24-32) (4) Jesus of Nazareth was exalted by God to God's own right hand (v. 33-35) (5) Jesus of Nazareth received the promise of the Holy Ghost from God to shed forth (v. 33b) (6) Jesus of Nazareth is indeed Lord and Christ. (v. 36) Now, when Peter presented the truth in Acts 2:33 that Jesus had received the promise of the Holy Ghost from God to shed forth, Peter again employed the pronoun "this" in relation to the filling with the Holy Ghost and the speaking with other tongues - "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth THIS, which ye now see and hear." Nowhere in his message did Peter make any reference at all to the other prophetic events from Joel 2:28-32a. The reason that he made no reference to these other prophetic events is because they had no relevance to his message or to that time. The ONLY part of Joel's prophecy that had relevance was that which Peter referenced with the pronoun "this," that is - the part concerning the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. In fact, Peter himself never once said that the rest of the prophecy was being fulfilled at the time and would be fulfilled within a short time. 4. Yet this raises a legitimate question - If Peter only sought to reference the outpouring of the Holy Ghost from Joel's prophecy, why did he not simply stop after quoting Joel 2:28-29; why did he continue to verse 32a? In order to answer this question, it is worthy for us to notice the specific place wherein Peter concluded his quotation of Joel's prophecy. Peter did NOT quote to the end of Joel's prophetic utterance. Joel's prophecy continued from verse 28 to the end of verse 32. Yet Peter ended his quotation in the middle of verse 32. Peter did not include the ending portion of Joel 2:32. So, Peter included 4.5 of Joel's 5 verse prophecy. If the prophetic portion of Joel 2:30-32a was not relevant to Peter's message, then why include it in his quotation, but then drop off the second half of verse 32? I would contend that Peter did this because although the prophetic portion of Joel 2:30-31 was not relevant to his message, the promise of Joel 2:32a most certainly WAS relevant to his message. What promise was that? It was the promise with which Peter concluded his quotation in Acts 2:21 - "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." This was the reason that Peter continued his quotation through prophecies that were not relevant to his message - in order that he might include the promise of Joel 2:32a concerning those who would call upon the name of the Lord.

Indeed, the law was given from the Lord God by Moses; but "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," as per John 1:17 - a truth that I hold with absolute conviction, and a truth that I did not deny above -- However, although we New Testament believers do not spiritually get to the promised land (which is NOT actually a type of heaven, but a type of the abundant Christian life) through the law, but by "the grace and truth" of Jesus Christ, Joshua (the one of the book of Joshua) did NOT bring in "grace and truth" for the children of Israel as a replacement for the law of Moses, but actually led the children of Israel to possess the Promised Land in direct accord with the law of Moses. Again I say - your attempt at a numerology type is skewed. _________________________________ I also noticed from your latest posting in discussion with me that you no longer made reference to the type of the book of Ruth as the seventh book of the Bible. At this point I shall assume that you have accepted your error in that regard, even if you have not expressed an acknowledgement of that error.

Actually, using such a manner of "numerology" is a little bit skewed. You make the first five books of the Bible, the books of Moses, equivalent to the Law. Then you make the sixth book of the Bible, Joshua, equivalent to Jesus (since Joshua's name is simply the Hebrew pronunciation for the name "Jesus"). And then you make the seventh book of the Bible, which you claim is Ruth, to be equivalent to the Bride. HOWEVER, Ruth is NOT actually the seventh book of the Bible. It is the EIGHTH book of the Bible. Rather, JUDGES is the seventh book of the Bible, that is -- the book of the Bible wherein "every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Seems to mess up the whole numerology idea concerning seven as the number of perfection in relation to the first seven books of the Bible. Oops!!! Furthermore, concerning the book of Joshua as representing the Law as a failure to bring anyone into the Promised Land - Have you considered the Lord God's first instruction to Joshua in the opening chapter of the book: Joshua 1:6-9 -- "Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." Seems as if the Law, which God's own servant Moses had commanded, was really, really, REALLY important for Joshua and the children of Israel to have divine success in possessing the Promised Land. Now, do not misunderstand - For I fully agree that the Law has NO power whatsoever for our eternal salvation, or even for our daily sanctification, and that the Lord Jesus Christ, through faith in Him, is the ONLY means for both eternal salvation and daily sanctification. However, I am confronting your attempt at "numerology" - It simply is not Biblically accurate to your point.

Indeed, "the words of the LORD ARE pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of the earth, purified seven times." And those "words of the LORD" which are so very pure were given by the Lord our God Himself in the Hebrew and Greek languages. In fact, when David penned those words in Psalm 12:6 under the direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, David was writing in the Hebrew language, and was writing about the Hebrew language Bible. Indeed, as per Psalm 12:7 the Lord our God promised to keep and preserve those very words, which were in Hebrew, from the generation of David unto forever. At the time that David penned under direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit the truth and promise of Psalm 12:6-7, the English language itself did not even exist; and the 1611 King James translation would not exist for thousands of years yet to come. Thus David under the direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit was speaking about the Hebrew Bible that he had in his hands in his day. THAT was the pure Word and words of the Lord, and that was what the Lord God promised to preserve. As for myself, I will NOT dishonor that which the Lord our God has directly given to us and that which the Lord our God has directly preserved for us. You can disrespect, disparage, and disregard the Hebrew and Greek Word of God that the Lord our God by HIs own Holy Spirit directly inspired for mankind; but I WILL NOT! You can disrespect, disparage, and disregard the Hebrew and Greek Word of God that the Lord our God has divinely promised to preserve forever and has providentially continued to preserve according to His own promise; but I WILL NOT! Indeed, I myself will even view your disrespect, disparagement, and disregard for that which the Lord our God directly inspired and continually preserves for us as a separational offense before the Lord our God. You see, you CANNOT disrespect, disparage, and disregard the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures without committing offense against the VERY Word of God, because they ARE the VERY Word of God.

Why should we not consider the Hebrew of the passage, considering that it is the very "jots and tittles" about which our Lord Jesus Christ promised would be (and has been) preserved for us unto this very day (and unto the end of the world)? Indeed, the Hebrew IS that which the Lord our God originally gave and that which He has continued to preserve since that giving. To disparage it or disregard it is dishonor to the preserved Word of God. Ah, the wonders of our Lord God's promise to precisely preserve His very Word throughout the ages of the world. (Note: A "jot" is a HEBREW letter, and a "tittle" is a small mark that distinguishes one HEBREW letter from another.)

No, I would not agree with the above. 1. The Lord our God, the all holy, all righteous God, is clearly presented throughout Scripture as possessing BOTH anger and wrath. Thus there does exist morally a righteous anger AND a righteous wrath. 2. The Lord Jesus Christ became angry, as per Mark 3:5. 3. The Lord our God has purposed for government to execute wrath upon criminals, as per Romans 13:4. 4. Ephesians 4:26 states, "Be ye angry, and sin not." This seems to imply that it is possible to be angry without actually committing sin thereby. 5. Ephesians 4:26 further states, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Within this context this seems to place the anger at the beginning of the verse in union with the wrath at the end of the verse. As such, if the anger at the beginning of the verse is not automatically and inherently sinful, then the wrath at the end of the verse would not be automatically and inherently sinful either. 6. James 1:19-20 states, "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." It is worthy to notice that James 1:19 does not instruct NEVER to wrath, but only SLOW to wrath (seeming to imply that there is a "measured" wrath that is possibly not automatically and inherently sinful). On the other hand, James 1:20 clearly declares that "the wrath OF MAN" (which I understand as self-centered wrath) cannot ever work "the righteousness of God" (and thus would certainly be sinful in its very nature). Without doing a completely thorough study of every usage in Scripture for both "anger" and "wrath," but through general familiarity thereof, I would initially present that anger and wrath are very closely related, that anger is nuanced a little more toward the matter of attitude, and that wrath is nuanced a little more toward the matter of activity and/or judgment.

I suppose the evidence could be discerned by observing what God's Word reveals about Jonathan's faith in and relationship with the Lord God: 1 Samuel 14:6 -- "And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few." 1 Samuel 14:10 -- "But if they say thus, Come up unto us; then we will go up: for the LORD hath delivered them into our hand: and this shall be a sign unto us." 1 Samuel 14:12 -- "And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armourbearer, and said, Come up to us, and we will shew you a thing. And Jonathan said unto his armourbearer, Come up after me: for the LORD hath delivered them into the hand of Israel." 1 Samuel 14:45 -- "And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not." 1 Samuel 23:16-18 -- "And Jonathan Saul’s son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God. And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth. And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house." It appears to me that Jonathan was a definite believer in the Lord God, and that Jonathan walked in the righteousness of the Lord toward David (in spite of his father Saul's unrighteous attitude toward David). Not really sure what possible evidence an individual could bring against Jonathan's faith in the Lord (and thus against his salvation thereby).

Yet, although the Gospel of John may have been written later than that of Matthew, Mark, or Luke, every message of the Lord Jesus Christ that it presents was communicated by the Lord Jesus Christ to Israelite individuals DURING the Lord Jesus' earthly ministry (a bit BEFORE God's inspired revelation unto Paul). Even so, if you acknowledge that the Gospel of John as a whole presents the gospel for all the Gentile world throughout the age of the church, then it would be consistent to acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself preached and taught that very gospel to Israelites DURING His ministry on the earth.

I find myself compelled to express STRONG disagreement with Brother SureWord's statement above.

Yeah. I have thought again and again to make comment here in answer to your original posting; but have not had (taken) the time to organize my thoughts in the writing thereof. Nevertheless, I DO have thoughts on the matter (and have expressed them somewhat on this very site some time back, although I cannot remember where specifically).

This question seems to be based on the apostle Paul's statement in Galatians 1:18-19. You may not agree with me here, but I do not think that Paul was directly referencing "James the Lord's brother" as one of the apostles. I view the flow of thought in these verses as follows: 1. Paul abode with Peter (the apostle) for fifteen days. 2. Paul did not meet with any of the other apostles. 3. On the other hand, Paul did meet with James the Lord's brother (NOT James the apostle). (Note: Yes, I recognize that the wording in English seems to communicate the possibility that James was one of the apostles; but I do not believe that is the actual intention of the passage. I do not believe that the word "except" is intended to focus upon an exception to meeting with one of the apostles, but is intended to focus upon an exception to meeting with any other person. I hope I am expressing myself clearly enough, and that it is helpful.)

Agreed.