The Mystery of the Church Age

Guojing · Apr 28, 2021

Clare73 said:
Convinced of what? That Jesus lied? That Paul lied?

I want to know on what authority do you overturn the teachings of Jesus and Paul, quoted in my post in the above post, for the sake of your own contra-Biblical notions.

You don't want to be convinced that your interpretation is just one way of understanding scripture.

Clare73 · Apr 29, 2021

Clare73 said:
The issue is your notion of the church not being the body of Christ contradicts explicit NT teaching, below.
The issue is your notion that the gospels are separate from the (Gentile) church, and are for the Jews only, is everywhere contradicted by Jesus in the NT, below.

On what authority do you seek to unseat this clear and unequivocal NT teaching where
your notion is in complete disagreement with Jesus who says that

-he was sent to the world, not just to the Jews (John 17:18),
-his gospel was taken away from the Jews and given to a nation/people (Gentiles) who will produce its fruit (Matthew 21:43),
-his disciples were to take his gospel to all nations, not just to the Jews, making disciples of them (Matthew 28:19),
-the Temple was to be a house of prayer for the nations, not just for the Jews (Mark 11:17),
-his gospel was to be preached to all nations, not just to the Jews (Mark 13:10),
-repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all nations, not just to the Jews (Luke 24:47),
-his gospel is to be preached throughout the whole world, not just to the Jews (Matthew 26:13),
-he tells his gospel to the world, not just to the Jews (John 8:26),
-he was a light to the world, not just to the Jews (John 12:46),
-he was an example of love and obedience to the Father for the world, not just for the Jews (John 14:31),
-the unity of the apostles was to be a witness to the world, not just to the Jews, that he was sent by God (John 17:21, 23)
-he came into the world to testify to the truth, and everyone, on the side of truth, not just the Jews, listens to him (John 18:37).

Jesus everywhere rejects your notion that his gospel is only for/to the Jews, and thereby makes his gospel for/to the whole world, which gospel Peter, James and John took to the Jews, and Paul took to the Gentiles.

Christ's body is the church -- Colossians 1:24
the Church which is his body, the fullness of him -- Ephesians 1:22-23
Christ is the head of the body, the church -- Colossians 1:18
Christ is the head of the church -- Ephesians 5:23
you are the body of Christ -- 1 Corinthians 12:27
the head of every man is Christ -- 1 Corinthians 11:3

Both your notions, the church is not the body of Christ and the gospels are only for the Jews, are completely contrary to the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

Guojing said:
You don't want to be convinced

Straw man. . .

Right. . .I'm not up for making liars of Jesus and Paul in the above.

that your interpretation is just one way of understanding scripture.

Interpretation? . . .same old sop.

How much "interpreting" does "Thou shalt not murder" require?

That's what language and definitions are for, to determine meaning.
Without warrant to do otherwise, their meaning is the meaning of the words used.
Whatever meaning you choose to ascribe must be supported in the whole counsel of God.

I await such demonstration of your two contra-Biblical notions.

Non-responsive. . .again.

Nova2216 · Apr 29, 2021

Guojing said:
Yes, Jesus is the head of the Body of Christ, I agree with that.

I am saying that there are also churches before the Body of Christ (Matthew 16:18), and these 2 terms are not equivalent

As for your claim that

we can agree to disagree. There would be no need for the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, and Galatians, if you claim was true.

So you contend the Holy Spirit led Peter in one truth and Paul in a different truth!

Wouldn't that mean the Holy Spirit opposed God the father and Christ? (Jn 14:26) (1Cor. 1:10) (Phil. 3:16-19)

Guojing · Apr 29, 2021

Nova2216 said:
So you contend the Holy Spirit led Peter in one truth and Paul in a different truth!

Wouldn't that mean the Holy Spirit opposed God the father and Christ? (Jn 14:26) (1Cor. 1:10) (Phil. 3:16-19)

To be accurate, it was the ascended Christ himself that revealed the mystery to Paul (Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:9)

Why do you think the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 was about?

And your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Clare73 · Apr 30, 2021

Guojing said:
To be accurate, it was the ascended Christ himself that revealed the mystery to Paul (Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:9)

All of Paul's revelation came from Christ.

And "incidentally," the very mystery of the church under discussion contradicts your notion
of the separation of believig Jews and believing Gentiles in the NT, for

the NT church is the mystery of the Gentiles now being included in the one olive tree of God's people,
both OT and NT; i.e., the church (ekklesia, Acts 7:38), whose roots are the OT patriarchs (Ephesians 3:3-6).

Why do you think the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 was about?

Acts 15 is about Antioch, where there were a large number of Jewish Christians, as well as Gentile Christians,
and the Gentile practices of eating meat that had not been strangled, or eating food that had been sacrificed to idols or
indulging in some of the Gentile weaknesses were particularly repulsive to the Christian Jews.
So an accommodation was made for the Christian Jews during this time of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant,
whereby the Gentiles would refrain from these practices for the sake of harmony and fellowship between them.
These restrictions were not for the whole church, nor were they permanent for Antioch,
for we find them later on emphatically rejected by Paul for the New Covenant.

And your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

That remains for you to demonstrate.

And you still have not Biblically demonstated your two contra-Biblical notions:
1) the church is not the body of Christ,
2) the gospels are not for the church, the body of Christ.

Non-responsive. . .again.

Guojing · Apr 30, 2021

Clare73 said:
All of Paul's revelation came from Christ.

And "incidentally," the very mystery of the church under discussion contradicts your notion
of the separation of believig Jews and believing Gentiles in the NT, for

the NT church is the mystery of the Gentiles now being included in the one olive tree of God's people,
both OT and NT; i.e., the church (ekklesia, Acts 7:38), whose roots are the OT patriarchs (Ephesians 3:3-6).
Acts 15 is about Antioch, where there were a large number of Jewish Christians, as well as Gentile Christians,
and the Gentile practices of eating meat that had not been strangled, or eating food that had been sacrificed to idols or
indulging in some of the Gentile weaknesses were particularly repulsive to the Christian Jews.
So an accommodation was made for the Christian Jews during this time of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant,
whereby the Gentiles would refrain from these practices for the sake of harmony and fellowship between them.
These restrictions were not for the whole church, nor were they permanent for Antioch,
for we find them later on emphatically rejected by Paul for the New Covenant.

That remains for you to demonstrate.

And you still have not Biblically demonstated your two contra-Biblical notions:
1) the church is not the body of Christ,
2) the gospels are not for the church, the body of Christ.

Non-responsive. . .again.

If you feel I am non responsive to your questions, you don't have to come in when I discuss bible doctrine with others, as what you are doing now.

Clare73 · May 1, 2021

Clare73 said:
The issue is your notion of the church not being the body of Christ contradicts explicit NT teaching, below.
The issue is your notion that the gospels are separate from the (Gentile) church, and are for the Jews only, is everywhere contradicted by Jesus in the NT, below.

On what authority do you seek to unseat this clear and unequivocal NT teaching where
your notion is in complete disagreement with Jesus who says that

-he was sent to the world, not just to the Jews (John 17:18),
-his gospel was taken away from the Jews and given to a nation/people (Gentiles) who will produce its fruit (Matthew 21:43),
-his disciples were to take his gospel to all nations, not just to the Jews, making disciples of them (Matthew 28:19),
-the Temple was to be a house of prayer for the nations, not just for the Jews (Mark 11:17),
-his gospel was to be preached to all nations, not just to the Jews (Mark 13:10),
-repentance and forgiveness of sins would be preached in his name to all nations, not just to the Jews (Luke 24:47),
-his gospel is to be preached throughout the whole world, not just to the Jews (Matthew 26:13),
-he tells his gospel to the world, not just to the Jews (John 8:26),
-he was a light to the world, not just to the Jews (John 12:46),
-he was an example of love and obedience to the Father for the world, not just for the Jews (John 14:31),
-the unity of the apostles was to be a witness to the world, not just to the Jews, that he was sent by God (John 17:21, 23)
-he came into the world to testify to the truth, and everyone, on the side of truth, not just the Jews, listens to him (John 18:37).

Jesus everywhere rejects your notion that his gospel is only for/to the Jews, and thereby makes his gospel for/to the whole world, which gospel Peter, James and John took to the Jews, and Paul took to the Gentiles.
Likewise, the NT rejects your notion that the church is not the body of Christ:

Christ's body is the church -- Colossians 1:24
the Church which is his body, the fullness of him -- Ephesians 1:22-23
Christ is the head of the body, the church -- Colossians 1:18
Christ is the head of the church -- Ephesians 5:23
you are the body of Christ -- 1 Corinthians 12:27
the head of every man is Christ -- 1 Corinthians 11:3

Both your notions, the church is not the body of Christ and the gospels are only for the Jews, are completely contrary to the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

Guojing said:
If you feel I am non responsive to your questions, you don't have to come in when I discuss bible doctrine with others, as what you are doing now.

Then you have no Biblical demonstrations for your two contra-Bilbical notions:
1) the church is not the boby of Christ,
2) the gospels are not for the church, the body of Christ, but are only for the Jews.

3) Likewise, you are unable to address the Scriptures presented showing your notions to be contra-Biblical.

4) And then the most glaring of all--your contra-Biblical mystery of the Church age as Jews being separated from Gentiles, is precisely
the very mystery which the NT reveals; i.e., the NT church is the mystery of the Gentiles now being fellow members of the body of Christ (Ephesians 3:3-6), and included in the one olive tree of God's people, both OT and NT; i.e., the church (ekklesia, Acts 7:38), whose roots are the OT patriarchs (Romans 11:17-23).

Q.E.D.

Nova2216 · May 1, 2021

Guojing said:
To be accurate, it was the ascended Christ himself that revealed the mystery to Paul (Galatians 1:11-12, Ephesians 3:9)

Why do you think the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 was about?

And your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

Notice (1Cor. 1:10) and (Phil. 3:16-19).

These scriptures teach of speaking the same doctrine and walking by the same rule. This applied to all men. When men strayed from this rule they were to be corrected (Gal. 6:1,2) (Luke 17:34) (Mt. 18:15-17), etc.

One new law for all men began in (Acts 2) according to (Jer.31:31-34) (Luke 24:44-49) (Acts 1:5,8) (Acts 2:1-4) (Mark 9:1).

Notice this lesson below.

Was Paul given a different dispensation from the other apostles? – La Vista Church of Christ

Guojing · May 1, 2021

Nova2216 said:
Notice (1Cor. 1:10) and (Phil. 3:16-19).

These scriptures teach of speaking the same doctrine and walking by the same rule. This applied to all men. When men strayed from this rule they were to be corrected (Gal. 6:12) (Luke 17:34) (Mt. 18:15-17), etc.

One new law for all men began in (Acts 2) according to (Jer.31:31-34) (Luke 24:44-49) (Acts 1:5,8) (Acts 2:1-4) (Mark 9:1).

Notice this lesson below.

Was Paul given a different dispensation from the other apostles? – La Vista Church of Christ

I see, if you are from the Church of Christ or you are believing in their doctrine, I can certainly understand why you would disagree with my doctrine.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the Jerusalem Council was for, since you have not addressed that in your reply?

If Peter and Paul was preaching the exact same gospel, why is there still a need for the Council?

All the Jewish believers would have heard from Peter that the Law was no longer required for anyone Jew or Gentile, since Paul was preaching that the handwritten Law was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14)

Clare73 · May 1, 2021

Nova2216 said:
Notice (1Cor. 1:10) and (Phil. 3:16-19).
These scriptures teach of speaking the same doctrine and walking by the same rule. This applied to all men. When men strayed from this rule they were to be corrected (Gal. 6:12) (Luke 17:34) (Mt. 18:15-17), etc.
One new law for all men began in (Acts 2) according to (Jer.31:31-34) (Luke 24:44-49) (Acts 1:5,8) (Acts 2:1-4) (Mark 9:1).
Notice this lesson below.
Was Paul given a different dispensation from the other apostles? – La Vista Church of Christ

Great link!

Nova2216 · May 2, 2021

Guojing said:
I see, if you are from the Church of Christ or you are believing in their doctrine, I can certainly understand why you would disagree with my doctrine.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the Jerusalem Council was for, since you have not addressed that in your reply?

If Peter and Paul was preaching the exact same gospel, why is there still a need for the Council?

All the Jewish believers would have heard from Peter that the Law was no longer required for anyone Jew or Gentile, since Paul was preaching that the handwritten Law was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14)

I think (Acts 15) speaks clearly on the matter.

(Jer. 31:31-34) (Luke 24:44-49) (Acts 1:5,8) and (Acts 2:1-4) proves a new law (or new covenant) began in (Acts 2).

Notice (Heb. 7:12).

(Heb. 7:12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Notice (Heb. 10:9,10).

(Heb. 10:9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Notice (Gal. 5:3,4)

Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Notice (Eph. 2:14-16)

Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Notice - (Gal. 4:22-31) (Heb. 8:6-13)

If these scriptures do not convince someone the OT Law was ABOLISHED and a NT Law was established in (Acts 2) for all men, nothing will.

Guojing · May 2, 2021

Nova2216 said:
I think (Acts 15) speaks clearly on the matter.

(Jer. 31:31-34) (Luke 24:44-49) (Acts 1:5,8) and (Acts 2:1-4) proves a new law (or new covenant) began in (Acts 2).

Notice (Heb. 7:12).

(Heb. 7:12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Notice (Heb. 10:9,10).

(Heb. 10:9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Notice (Gal. 5:3,4)

Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Notice (Eph. 2:14-16)

Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Notice - (Gal. 4:22-31) (Heb. 8:6-13)

If these scriptures do not convince someone the OT Law was ABOLISHED and a NT Law was established in (Acts 2) for all men, nothing will.

If your conclusion is correct, that EVERYONE was convinced that the OT law was abolished in Acts 2, then why was there a need for a Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

You are not addressing the question.

Clare73 · May 2, 2021

Guojing said:
If your conclusion is correct, the OT law was abolished in Acts 2, then why was there a need for a Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

You are not addressing the question.

There was a need for the Jerusalem council because of the situation in Antioch, where there were a large number of Chritian Jews, and they were particularly offended by Gentile practices of eating meat that had not been strangled and eating food that had heen sacrificed to idols, as well as some failures in their moral habits. Temporary concessions were made for the Jews by the Gentles in this time of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. However, these concessions neither applied to the whole church, nor were permanent, because we see Paul later on soundly rejecting them for the New Covenant.

Guojing · May 2, 2021

Clare73 said:
There was a need for the Jerusalem council because of the situation in Antioch, where there were a large number of Chritian Jews, and they were particularly offended by Gentile practices of eating meat that had not been strangled and eating food that had heen sacrificed to idols, as well as some failures in their moral habits. Temporary concessions were made for the Jews by the Gentles in this time of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. However, these concessions neither applied to the whole church, nor were permanent, because we see Paul later on soundly rejecting them for the New Covenant.

Are you reading the same bible as me? Acts 15:1 tells you the key issue, in the very first verse, and it is regarding salvation, not those food habits.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Clare73 · May 2, 2021

Guojing said:
Are you reading the same bible as me? Acts 15:1 tells you the key issue, in the very first verse, and it is regarding salvation, not those food habits.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Well, then peraps you should read the letter it sent out.
Note: it did not require circumcision of the Gentiles.

Guojing · May 2, 2021

Clare73 said:
Well, then peraps you should read the letter it sent out.
Note: it did not require circumcision of the Gentiles.

That was the conclusion reached at the end of the council.

But it was debated fiercely during the council itself (Acts 15:7), before that conclusion was reached that gentile believers are to be exempted from physical circumcision.

My point was, until Acts 15 at least, the gospel preached by Peter and the others cannot be the same as Paul. One was the gospel of the circumcision, the other was the gospel of the uncircumcision (Galatians 2:7 KJV)

Otherwise, there would have been no need for the council in the first place. That's all.

Clare73 · May 3, 2021

Guojing said:
That was the conclusion reached at the end of the council.
But it was debated fiercely during the council itself (Acts 15:7), before that conclusion was reached that gentile believers are to be exempted from physical circumcision.
My point was, until Acts 15 at least, the gospel preached by Peter and the others cannot be the same as Paul. One was the gospel of the circumcision, the other was the gospel of the uncircumcision (Galatians 2:7 KJV)

Who made that rule?

Otherwise, there would have been no need for the council in the first place. That's all.

The assertion of "the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5) was not the gospel of Peter, or James, or John.

The issue was not between apostles, it was between an heretical Judaizing faction and the church,
which faction was ruled against by the Council--no requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles.

There is no Biblical support in Acts 15 for two different gospels.

Guojing · May 3, 2021

Clare73 said:
Who made that rule?
The assertion of "the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5) was not the gospel of Peter, or James, or John.

The issue was not between apostles, it was between an heretical Judaizing faction and the church,
which faction was ruled against by the Council--no requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles.

There is no Biblical support in Acts 15 for two different gospels.

Read Acts 15's conclusion and Galatians 2, which was Paul's account, carefully.

James only exempted gentile believers from physical circumcision and from obeying the Law of Moses. He wanted them to just respect 4 requirements.

Jews who believed continue to follow the Law of Moses and Genesis 17:14 rule regarding physical circumcision, nothing has changed for them after Acts 15, as confirmed by what James reminded Paul in Acts 21:18-25.

Nova2216 · May 4, 2021

Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERY ONE that believeth.

Guojing · May 4, 2021

Nova2216 said:
Ga 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERY ONE that believeth.

So you think someone should have reminded James to read Galatians and Romans, before he advised Paul what he should do in Acts 21:18-25?

Imagine if Paul reply to James in Acts 21, "James, you should have read what I wrote in Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERY ONE that believeth, and remind those thousands of Jews what I said there!"

The Mystery of the Church Age

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

If truth is discounted then lies become normal.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads