A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21

[H. Richard]

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews?

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Galatians 5:3-6
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, -- I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.

But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.

The Plot to Appease the believing Jews:
We also see that the plot to have Paul participate in Jewish rituals was not allowed to be completed by God since it all came to naught. God was not going to let Paul go back under the Law and be a hypocrite.

Acts 21:26-27
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
27 And when the seven days were “””almost ended,”” the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,
(NKJ) --------------- almost ended is not is not the same as ended.

Since the Jews rejected the gospel of the Kingdom in which Jesus was to sit on the throne of David, why would anyone want to say we are to be saved under that same gospel? None of the Jewish covenants were made to the Gentiles.

Peter and Paul both preached Jesus. However, Peter preached Jesus after His prophetic revelation, and Paul preached Jesus according to His mystery revelation. Both preached Jesus crucified.

----- However, Peter preached it as a curse, and something to be repented of (Acts 3:13-19)
----- But Paul gloried in the cross (Gal.6:14).

Both Peter and Paul preached Christ resurrected. Both preached salvation by faith, but Peter preached faith plus (+) works ("and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him") (Acts 10:34); James 2:21,22. ------ But Paul preached FAITH ALONE. --- Peter preached "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38), where as Paul preached, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved..." (Acts 16:29).

Peter in the Gospels preached "the kingdom at hand," whereas Paul preached "the gospel of the grace of God," according to the revelation of the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began. Peter's preaching was circumcision - Law, Paul's preaching was un-circumcision - grace (no law); two opposing doctrines, and both commissioned by Jesus. Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they (the disciples) saw that the gospel of the un-circumcision (grace) was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision (law) was unto Peter."
The twelve were commissioned "...to go to all the world..." (Mark 16:15), however in Galatians 2:9 they agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision. Why, when their commission was "to all the world"?

To those that study the scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint, there is a difference in the gospel of the Kingdom, as taught by Jesus and the 12, and what Paul taught. ----

The gospel of the kingdom did not rescind the Law of Moses. It fulfilled it. However the Jews, to whom the covenant was made, rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. They rejected Him as their king along with His Jewish church.

Some call this the "two gospel" idea. But it is a fact that in Acts 21:20-21 we see James (the brother of Jesus) and the elders, in Jerusalem, are still teaching the gospel of the kingdom, which included the Law of Moses. They are not teaching the gospel of God's grace as Paul taught it. As a matter of fact in James 2:24, James is still saying that we are JUSTIFIED by our works as well as our faith. He is not saying the same thing Paul said; that we are justified (saved) by faith without works.

I write this as food for thought.

 

[OzSpen]

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews?

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Galatians 5:3-6
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, -- I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.

Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.

But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.

The Plot to Appease the believing Jews:
We also see that the plot to have Paul participate in Jewish rituals was not allowed to be completed by God since it all came to naught. God was not going to let Paul go back under the Law and be a hypocrite.

Acts 21:26-27
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
27 And when the seven days were “””almost ended,”” the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,
(NKJ) --------------- almost ended is not is not the same as ended.

Since the Jews rejected the gospel of the Kingdom in which Jesus was to sit on the throne of David, why would anyone want to say we are to be saved under that same gospel? None of the Jewish covenants were made to the Gentiles.

Peter and Paul both preached Jesus. However, Peter preached Jesus after His prophetic revelation, and Paul preached Jesus according to His mystery revelation. Both preached Jesus crucified.

----- However, Peter preached it as a curse, and something to be repented of (Acts 3:13-19)
----- But Paul gloried in the cross (Gal.6:14).

Both Peter and Paul preached Christ resurrected. Both preached salvation by faith, but Peter preached faith plus (+) works ("and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him") (Acts 10:34); James 2:21,22. ------ But Paul preached FAITH ALONE. --- Peter preached "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38), where as Paul preached, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved..." (Acts 16:29).

Peter in the Gospels preached "the kingdom at hand," whereas Paul preached "the gospel of the grace of God," according to the revelation of the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began. Peter's preaching was circumcision - Law, Paul's preaching was un-circumcision - grace (no law); two opposing doctrines, and both commissioned by Jesus. Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they (the disciples) saw that the gospel of the un-circumcision (grace) was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision (law) was unto Peter."
The twelve were commissioned "...to go to all the world..." (Mark 16:15), however in Galatians 2:9 they agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision. Why, when their commission was "to all the world"?

To those that study the scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint, there is a difference in the gospel of the Kingdom, as taught by Jesus and the 12, and what Paul taught. ----

The gospel of the kingdom did not rescind the Law of Moses. It fulfilled it. However the Jews, to whom the covenant was made, rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. They rejected Him as their king along with His Jewish church.

Some call this the "two gospel" idea. But it is a fact that in Acts 21:20-21 we see James (the brother of Jesus) and the elders, in Jerusalem, are still teaching the gospel of the kingdom, which included the Law of Moses. They are not teaching the gospel of God's grace as Paul taught it. As a matter of fact in James 2:24, James is still saying that we are JUSTIFIED by our works as well as our faith. He is not saying the same thing Paul said; that we are justified (saved) by faith without works.

I write this as food for thought.

Richard,

Why don't you summarise your issue into 3 quick points - be brief - and pose the issues you want to raise. What you have written here is too complex and detailed for me.

If you want to engage me, I ask you to be brief in proposing a couple of points of content you want to pursue.

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Why don't you summarise your issue into 3 quick points - be brief - and pose the issues you want to raise. What you have written here is too complex and detailed for me.

If you want to engage me, I ask you to be brief in proposing a couple of points of content you want to pursue.

Oz

This is my thread. I am not forcing anyone to read it or to comment on it. I introduced it as a study. The study would be incomplete unless it was taken as a whole.

Are you an administrator? I see other posts that are just as long. You have criticized my writings before. What makes you do that? I haven't criticized yours.

 

[OzSpen]

This is my thread. I am not forcing anyone to read it or to comment on it. I introduced it as a study. The study would be incomplete unless it was taken as a whole.

Are you an administrator? I see other posts that are just as long. You have criticized my writings before. What makes you do that? I haven't criticized yours.

Richard,

I was simply making a suggestion about better communication. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need to get defensive like this about what I said. I was simply asking you to provide simpler communication to this old fellow. That's all.

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

I was simply making a suggestion about better communication. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need to get defensive like this about what I said. I was simply asking you to provide simpler communication to this old fellow. That's all.

Oz

So you have just expressed an opinion to help me. I have found that those that do it are trying to elevate themselves above others. Perhaps I have been on forums too long. What I notice is that you want to help me but you had nothing to say about what I wrote to start the thread.

I will return the favor by saying openly criticizing someone on a forum is not the way to win friends.

 

[FHII]

H Richard,

I don't think Oz was looking to criticize you at all. I agree with your post, but the structure is a bit unwieldy. The main point is sandwiched between your scriptural evidence. Not wrong, just difficult to sort out.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying James and Paul weren't on the same page. I agree.

 

[OzSpen]

So you have just expressed an opinion to help me. I have found that those that do it are trying to elevate themselves above others. Perhaps I have been on forums too long. What I notice is that you want to help me but you had nothing to say about what I wrote to start the thread.

I will return the favor by saying openly criticizing someone on a forum is not the way to win friends.

Richard,

This is a false allegation against me. I am not trying to elevate myself. I have no reason or desire to do that. If that is what it seemed to be to you, would you please forgive me?

I also have been on forums for a long time. I have concluded it is a dangerous thing to judge another's motives without continuing concrete evidence.

I did say something about what you wrote in your OP. You'll find it in #2 and #4.

I am not openly criticising you on this forum. I have no basis for doing that and it would not be the way I go with communication. It was how the content was expressed that was of concern to me.

I was hoping this content would be made not so cumbersome. But I seem to be wishing for something that won't happen.

Were my expectations too high?

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

I was hoping this content would be made not so cumbersome. But I seem to be wishing for something that won't happen.

Were my expectations too high?

Oz

Yes. What you see as cumbersome is detailed comments on the scriptures posted.

You said >I did say something about what you wrote in your OP. You'll find it in #2 and #4.

Please reread what you wrote in #2 and #4. You did not reference any of the ideas of the thread. You only referenced your displeasure in how I wrote the OP.

I do not intend to make this thread a thread on our personalities and personal defects. I will focus on the ideas submitted ONLY. Please do the same and we can be friends.

 

[Barrd]

I don't think I will ever understand this.
Everyone of us knows, (I hope), that grace is undeserved favor...it is granted to us through the love of Jesus Christ, Who bought this precious gift for us at a very great cost.
And yet we speak of it as some kind of note from the teacher, excusing us from having to follow the rules.


Paul never taught such a notion. In fact, Paul, himself, kept the law:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.


Paul taught that the doers of the law would be justified:

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Paul tells us that when we break the law, we dishonor God and blaspheme his name.


Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.


Paul tells us that we would not have known what sin was, if God had not clued us in through the law:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

The popular pov seems to be that our faith makes the law null and void. But is this what Paul taught? Definitely not!

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Did Paul teach that being "under grace" means that we don't have to worry about whether we sin or not? I don't think so.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?


Do you know that Paul taught that the law is holy, just, and good?

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.


I've heard some here say that the law is "of the flesh". But Paul taught the opposite:

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.


I could continue...there is much more in Paul's letters. It saddens me that this man has been accused for so long of teaching people that they need not bother themselves about keeping the law of God, when he did no such thing. Paul kept the law himself, and he taught other people to keep the law.
Grace...ahh, sweet grace...the precious gift that our Lord Jesus Christ paid for with His Own blood...is not some kind of free pass, giving us permission to ignore the law. Those who teach that we are "under grace" and therefore no longer need concern ourselves with keeping the law are trampling the precious blood of Jesus Christ under their feet. It is tantamount to spitting on His cross.

I really wish y'all would just stop and think....

 

[mjrhealth]

Funny thing is you just wrote about Grace, whcih one is Bard, Law or garce , the old wine or the new wine,

Mat 9:14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
Mat 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
Mat 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

See at pentecost the discilpes received teh new wine, the Holy Gost,

Act 2:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Rom_6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Gal_5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

In all His love

 

[FHII]

Barrd,

Paul did not keep the law, and neither did Peter, nor anyone in history. Jesus himself technically broke the law, yet he gave justication.

As one who fully believes in grace and one who tries not to judge folks in the flesh, I do study the law and do my best to live up to it, cause it is good!

Yet, I know I fall short and by no means ever account it as faith. My unseen good works of giving, praying, fasting, loving the saints is Jesus working in me. That is the only thing I can look at.

When we look at the law, its all logical and good stuff! But none have ever kept it. Its good to try, but its 100% or nothing.

Grace through faith is the only way. We are fiven grace so we can concentrate in building the inward man, and don't have to worry about an impissible law.

James even acknowledged the royal law. Follow that. James also acknowledged that it you break one point of the law, you break all of it.

So anyone who tries to keep the law, I don't blame them. But don't count it as your righteousness. When you do, you've switched plans from grace to self righteousness.

 

[H. Richard]

H Richard,

I don't think Oz was looking to criticize you at all. I agree with your post, but the structure is a bit unwieldy. The main point is sandwiched between your scriptural evidence. Not wrong, just difficult to sort out.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying James and Paul weren't on the same page. I agree.

The "sandwiched in" part is what I, personally, see the given scriptures to indicate. The study shows that James and the other Jewish believers were certainly not teaching salvation by grace ""ALONE"". They included the Law. Paul excluded the Law. This fact is what the study was meant to prove.

I had hoped that responders on this thread would make comments on the scriptures given in the study. But the thread has de-generated into a works discussion. I had hoped the study might have raised some doubts as to the question, "was the 12 and Paul teaching the same gospel". Most people think that they did. I am not one of them.

According to the scriptures trusting in Paul's gospel of God's grace is the only gospel that will bring salvation in this age. A person can not trust in Jesus' work on the cross AND in their own works to save themselves. To do so, in my opinion, is spiritual adultery. Paul spent a lot of time in his writings trying to get his converts to "NOT GO UNDER THE LAW". I am doing the same because I do not wish that others spend eternity in the "Lake of Fire." This fact should drive the children of God to preach the gospel of grace and to stay away from the gospel of good works.

 

[FHII]

I absolutely agree with you H. Richard. Paul brought something new to the table (though Jesus ortistrated it) and I see Peter and John both supporting it.

My point was that you need to loosen up. Not on the TRUTH. But rather on the people on this board.

I can put it plainer if you like.

 

[justaname]

I do not see different gospels, rather progressive revelation. As practicing Jews it was natural to be zealous for the Law. Coming to Messiah only fulfills the faith of Judiaism. One can have faith in Christ's imputed righteousness and desire to serve God by keeping the Law to the best of their ability. I would argue this was the case for most early Christians who were Jewish. The issue rests when those who were not Jews thought, or were taught wrongly, that faith plus the Law was the path of salvation. Paul being commissioned to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles had keen insight and special revelation concerning this and correcting this. So much so that Paul confronted Peter for his hypocritical dining habits as recounted in Acts. Yet again this is not that Paul had a different Gospel, rather a more fine tuned focus of the same Gospel through the progressive revelation given by God in the Holy Spirit.

Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected and justification through belief. Yet never does Paul advocate or condone sin. Through our faith we are justified, our actions prove out our faith. Paul teaches nothing matters but faith working through love. Thus as James says faith without works is dead agreeing with Paul. With love being the standard the Law was elevated rather than abolished. No longer is it a letter or command given on stone tablets we live by but rather a Living Spirit that makes His abode in us.

 

[H. Richard]

I absolutely agree with you H. Richard. Paul brought something new to the table (though Jesus ortistrated it) and I see Peter and John both supporting it.

My point was that you need to loosen up. Not on the TRUTH. But rather on the people on this board.

I can put it plainer if you like.

I can't see how my trying to comment on the scriptures is doing anything to the people on this forum. It certainly isn't ""ON" Anyone. However I do comment on those that wish to comment about me and criticize me. My being on this forum does not make those on this forum my father, mother, or teacher.

I have not criticized anyone on how they write what they do. You seem to want to do that. I don't do it to others and I don't see Christian love in those that do it. Especially on an open forum.

I think you and I see many of the same things in the scriptures and I don't want to be unfriendly with you. You said you can make it plainer. No!!!! I do not want any advice from you. I have read what you write and see no difference in how you and others write and how I write. ---- Please, please, please, please, stop with discussion about me, personally. If that is not understood then maybe I can say it this way, When writing in response to a post by me, make a general comment and leave out the word YOU.

 

[Barrd]

Whoa, guys....
This is not the way Christians ought to behave.

 

[FHII]

Whoa, guys....
This is not the way Christians ought to behave.

As far as I'm concerned, its all good. H. Richard IMO should lighten up a bit, thats all. Others have said they are having a hard time getting through his posts. Theres nothing wrong with asking him to elaborate. If he doesn't want to obligue, fine. If he wants to be sensitive and Moody about people commenting on him, fine. I'd love to see hin in a debate with stan, then!

 

[H. Richard]

As far as I'm concerned, its all good. H. Richard IMO should lighten up a bit, thats all. Others have said they are having a hard time getting through his posts. Theres nothing wrong with asking him to elaborate. If he doesn't want to obligue, fine. If he wants to be sensitive and Moody about people commenting on him, fine. I'd love to see hin in a debate with stan, then!

Perhaps you should lighten up a bit and let it go. I will be glad to elaborate on the points made in my posts if asked. As for my being sensitive you would be too if what you got in a reply on a forum is all about you and what you are personally doing wrong and they continue to harp on it. That is not keeping the replies based on the ideas in a post. It is personal. I do not comment on others about their writing short comings, I have said nothing about how a person writes as you have. Why would I focus on the personal short comings of another when I have my own just as you do? Now you are accusing me of being ""sensitive and Moody about people commenting on him."" Do you see it??? you are now criticizing me of other things and I am just suppose to take it without a whimper..

Now I say, let it drop, or my posting here is done. I am certainly finding it a drain.