Paul said he was given the g of the uncircumcision, while Peter was given the Gospel of circumcision

[helmut]

Yep I think people can tell you are not open to the possibility.

The 11 spent 40 days with the risen Christ being taught all matters pertaining the kingdom of God in acts 1.

When they ask him that question in acts 1:6, I would trust that they had first hand knowledge of what the ot prophecy said about it.

What they asked about is the kingdom Jesus will establish when He returns to earth with all the saints (i.e. the resurrected and living true Christians) in His wake. Jesus Himself said that He did not know when this will be, hence we understand why He did not say "wait about 2000 (or 3000?) years"

We are in the same situation as the disciples in Acts 1: We have reasons to believe that we will be alive when He returns, but we cannot know for sure, and may be wrong.

 

[helmut]

The apostles present no such restoration of Israel in their NT teachings.

What about Rev 20:4-7? That's not what Guojing says, but it seems to be the restoration of Israel, ruling over the nations (not just some nations as David did, but over all nations).

 

[Clare73]

The apostles present no such restoration of Israel in their NT teachings.

What about Rev 20:4-7? That's not what Guojing says, but it seems to be the restoration of Israel, ruling over the nations (not just some nations as David did, but over all nations).

Thanks. . .but prophecy is not authoritative teaching.

As you know, prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.

 

[helmut]

Thanks. . .but prophecy is not authoritative teaching.

You lost me.

Revelation is as inspired as the other books in the Bible, and so has the same authority.

As you know, prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.

If you have another interpretation, let me know. Maybe one of us can show a passage that allows to see which interpretation is more in accord with the whole message of the Bible.

In may end up with "we agree that we disagree, there is more than one legitimate interpretation". But we should not say this out of relativism, but only after weighting the evidence.

 

[Guojing]

What they asked about is the kingdom Jesus will establish when He returns to earth with all the saints (i.e. the resurrected and living true Christians) in His wake. Jesus Himself said that He did not know when this will be, hence we understand why He did not say "wait about 2000 (or 3000?) years"

We are in the same situation as the disciples in Acts 1: We have reasons to believe that we will be alive when He returns, but we cannot know for sure, and may be wrong.

My point was that, had Israel repented at Peter's preaching in early Acts, Acts 3:19-21, the 70th week of Daniel would have begun and Jesus would return after that to usher them into that promised Kingdom.

That is the times of refreshing that OT prophets spoke about.

 

[Guojing]

Israel is God's bride, the church is God's bride.

Can I conclude from your question that you think God is practizing "spiritual polygamy" with two brides?

If you follow scripture literally, Israel is considered the first born son of God (Exodus 4:22)

 

[Guojing]

The reason why Jesus rejected to become earthly king in Mt 4:10 is that he was rejected by His people? Don't you see what you confidently affirm?

I don't understand this point you are making here

His people were resisting him, had Jesus not spoke in parables from then on, it would have been the sin of willful rejection, which is subjected to a greater punishment.

But by speaking in parables, Jesus could put the entire nation under the sin of ignorance, which under the Law of Moses, could be forgiven by God. That is why Jesus said on the cross to the Father to forgive them, for they know not what they do

 

[Guojing]

And it was preached before the resurrection. After resurrection Peter preached the same Gospel as Paul.


Some do not exist, but appear to exist if you read from words not in the original languages. Other differences do not exist at all, as I have shown in my post. Other are the difference between the Gospel before/after the passion and resurrection.

The picture I used had scripture summing up the various differences.

Of course, if one wants to "go back to the Greek or Hebrew" to try to make all of them say the same thing, its always possible, so yes I agree with you.

 

[Guojing]

Not according to the NT record.

Jesus said Israel was blinded during his ministry (Matthew 13:11-13).

Your view is based on denial of the NT record, as well as denial of authoritative NT teaching, such as Romans 11:17-24.

His people were resisting him, had Jesus not spoke in parables from then on, it would have been the sin of willful rejection, which is subjected to a greater punishment.

But by speaking in parables, Jesus could put the entire nation under the sin of ignorance, which under the Law of Moses, could be forgiven by God. That is why Jesus said on the cross to the Father to forgive them, for they know not what they do

After he ascended to heaven, Israel had one more year to accept him as their Messiah, Luke 13:6-9, so when Peter was preaching to them in Acts 2 and 3, he could legitimately now offer them the physical return of Christ.

Christ has already risen from the dead, Israel had no more excuse to stay ignorant.

So no, Israel was not blinded/fallen until Acts 7.

Again don't anticipate revelation. Romans was written AFTER Israel has fallen. You should not use Romans 11 to understand the state of Israel, before their fall in Acts 7.

 

[Clare73]

His people were resisting him, had Jesus not spoke in parables from then on, it would have been the sin of willful rejection, which is subjected to a greater punishment.

That is exactly what it was, the sin of willful rejection, as shown in the reason given by the text,
which is "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:12).
That's purposeful judicial hardening for the sake of condemnation, not "ignorance" for the sake of "forgiveness."

But by speaking in parables, Jesus could put the entire nation under the sin of ignorance, which under the Law of Moses, could be forgiven by God.

Not according to Jesus, who declared them guilty when he declared them not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil because they sought to kill him (John 8:38-47).
He also declared them guilty, and condemned them to hell, when he declared that the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias was on their heads (Matthew 23:29-36), because in seeking to murder him, "the prophet who was to come" (Deuteronomy 18:17-19; John 1:21, John 6:14), and subsequently to murder his apostles (Matthew 23:33-34), they were endorsing all such murders committed by their forefathers (Matthew 23:30-32) and would suffer the penalty for all those murders.
Scripture shows that Jesus held them guilty of his death.

That is why Jesus said on the cross to the Father to forgive them, for they know not what they do

That was the Roman soldiers who crucified him that "know not what they do," the Jewish religious leaders did not crucify him and were not there nailing him to the cross, which was what Jesus asked to be forgiven.
Jesus was very clear about his condemnation of the Jewish religious leaders.

That's some "creative" cobbling together of contra-Biblical assignations for the sake of mitigating and justifying the murderers whom Jesus clearly condemned.

 

[Clare73]

You lost me.

Revelation is as inspired as the other books in the Bible, and so has the same authority.

Indeed, it has the same authority for truth, but that truth is subject to interpretation, it is not didactive (Webster: fitted or intended to teach; instructive), it is prophetical and can be (and is) interpreted more than one way, which way being correct, if any, not known until its fulfillment.

If you have another interpretation, let me know.

Revelation is figurative, but interpretation of prophecy must be in agreement with authoritative NT teaching, or Scripture is in contradiction of itself. And God does not contradict himself.

The number 1,000 is one of the numbers of completion, as in 7, 12, 144, 1,000.
So the thousand years could be figurative for the completed fullness of time for the church age, from Christ's ascension to his second coming.
The first resurrection could be of the redeemed from spiritual death to eternal life (John 3:3, 5) at their new birth, which would the church.
We know what the second death is--eternal death; i.e., eternal separation from God, and it has no power over the redeemed, the church.
The saints reign (Revelation 20:6) with Christ now in the church age (Ephesians 2:6).

I don't see Israel there, in addition to apostolic teaching also not presenting any restoration of Israel.

That would be my interpretation, in agreement with authoritative NT teaching (didactics).

 

[Clare73]

Israel was never promised a physical kingdom.
Jesus came to Israel, not to the Gentiles, and he refused the earthly physical kingdom the people sought to give him (John 6:15).
His kingdom is not of this world, earthly (John 18:36), his kingdom is spiritual, hidden and within (Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

That is because, by the middle of his ministry, Israel had rejected him as the Christ already

The people sought to give it to him, and he rejected their earthly kingdom. If he came to restore the kingdom of Israel, he could have become king in John 6.

The people were going to try to make him king by force. To keep them from doing so, Jesus withdrew to a mountain by himself (John 6:15), to pray (Matthew 14:23).

Jesus did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel.

 

[Guojing]

That is exactly what it was, the sin of willful rejection, as shown in the reason given by the text,
which is "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" (Mark 4:12).
That's purposeful judicial hardening for the sake of condemnation, not "ignorance" for the sake of "forgiveness."


Not according to Jesus, who declared them guilty when he declared them not children of God, nor of Abraham, but children of the devil because they sought to kill him (John 8:38-47).
He also declared them guilty, and condemned them to hell, when he declared that the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias was on their heads (Matthew 23:29-36), because in seeking to murder him, "the prophet who was to come" (Deuteronomy 18:17-19; John 1:21, John 6:14), and subsequently to murder his apostles (Matthew 23:33-34), they were endorsing all such murders committed by their forefathers (Matthew 23:30-32) and would suffer the penalty for all those murders.
Scripture shows that Jesus held them guilty of his death.
That was the Roman soldiers who crucified him that "know not what they do," the Jews did not crucify him and were not there nailing him to the cross, which was what Jesus asked to be forgiven.
Jesus was very clear about his condemnation of the Jews.

That's some "creative" cobbling together of contra-Biblical assignations for the sake of mitigating and justifying the murderers whom Jesus clearly condemned.

Are you saying Peter should not have offered the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21?

 

[helmut]

My point was that, had Israel repented at Peter's preaching in early Acts, Acts 3:19-21, the 70th week of Daniel would have begun and Jesus would return after that to usher them into that promised Kingdom.

That seems to be a weird interpretation of prophecy.

The mystery of the church was not known to OT prophets, Eph 3:5-6, so no prophecy in the OT covers the time of the church. Daniel has a double fulfillment: Some of what he says points to the time of the Maccabees (e.g. the 1150 days, or "2300 eves and mornings" when no daily sacrifice was offered), others to Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem in the wake of that. Sometimes the same verse has this double fulfillment, e.g. the abomination of destruction (the statue of Zeus in the temple of Jerusalem in the times of the Maccabees, and the headquarter of one faction of Zealots - fighting against other factions - in the Holiest of the Holy in the temple).

Do you really believe there will be another 70 weeks in the end of time? This comes close to "I know that Jesus will not come back now, we have some time ...". No. We don't know the time (chronos) and we don't know the situation (kairos) when He returns.

 

[helmut]

If you follow scripture literally, Israel is considered the first born son of God (Exodus 4:22)

This is another picture. We are children of God, and the church is the bride, but Israel is also called the bride of God (Hos 2:19-20). Israel and the church is a single bride, it will be complete when Israel repents, like an olive tree will be complete when the twigs cut off will be re-implemented.

 

[helmut]

The picture I used had scripture summing up the various differences.
View attachment 297355

Did you forget that I had posted #14 where I showed that it is not as your picture says? Your picture is misleading!

Of course, if one wants to "go back to the Greek or Hebrew" to try to make all of them say the same thing, its always possible, so yes I agree with you.

No, it is not always possible. But the same word, one time interpreted as "should", another time as "will" is no real difference. It is not possible to draw the distinction you do.

EDIT: Wrong formatting, text did not appear.

 

[helmut]

Jesus was very clear about his condemnation of the Jews.

That's some "creative" cobbling together of contra-Biblical assignations for the sake of mitigating and justifying the murderers whom Jesus clearly condemned.

But what about
Acts 3:17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Did Peter misunderstand Jesus, when he declared the Israelites ignorant of hat they had done?

We should also be cautious with our wording. The accusation "You have killed Jesus"" is directed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (in several speeches in Acts 2-7). This is not said to the Jews in Antioch at Pisidia (Acts 13), nor to the inhabitants of Jerusalem one generation later (Acts 22). So we should not speak of "the" Jews as if every Jew was condemned. Rom 9-11 shows this is not the case.

 

[helmut]

The number 1,000 is one of the numbers of completion, as in 7, 12, 144, 1,000.
So the thousand years could be figurative

Agreed. I don't insist on literal 1000 years.

So the thousand years could be figurative for the completed fullness of time for the church age, from Christ's ascension to his second coming.

Definitely not. The Church is not ruling the people, the kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. Any attempt by the church to rule the nations would end up in becoming a harlot that goes into bed with every mighty one (see Rev 17 for a figurative description). We have seen church leaders being associated to emperors, to dictators (including Hitler and Stalin), or just recently to Trump the liar. But the normal state of the true church is persecution by the rich ones (James 2:6).

I don't see Israel there, in addition to apostolic teaching also not presenting any restoration of Israel.

The apostolic teaching includes a literal ruling (1.Cor 6:2), and teaches the ruling of Christ between the return of Jesus and the very end (1.Cor 15:23-26), and the same time line we can see in Rev 19-22. So it is in accordance to apostolic teaching to interpret Rev 20:4-6 as a literal ruling over the nations after the return of Jesus. And the context (Satan being bound and unable to seduce the nations - the usual word for Gentiles!) makes it impossible for me to find a figurative interpretation that fits the context and makes sense.

 

[helmut]

Are you saying Peter should not have offered the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21?

Did Peter really do that?

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying Peter should not have offered the kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21?

I'm saying that Peter did not offer an earthly kingdom to Israel in Acts 3:19-21, he offered them the kingdom Jesus' set up while he was on earth, his spiritual kingdom of heaven (Matthew 4:17), invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21), a kingdom not of this world (Jn 18:36), which he rejected by removing himself from them when the people were going to take him and make him king by force (John 6:15).