[b]WHICH GOSPEL? KINGDO OR GRACE?

[Dispy]

NO!!! Paul persecauted those of the Jewish Church that believed that Jesus was the Christ, the long promied Messian of the OT prophesies.

Hope it's OK to jump in here and ask a question. If the Jewish church believed that Jesus was the Christ and since they were so close to the event, that all of Jerusalem was a buzz about, of the DBR of Jesus. Then wouldn't DBR be included in their belief? Even if the DBR that Paul preached was not yet completly understood, it seems easy enough to strike this up to transition and not to two seperate churches.

Disp, thanks for the books.

Billy <><

Those Jews at Pentecost that formerly did not believe in Jesus, and now believed, surely believed in the DBR of Christ. However, they had no idea as to exactly what it ment.

In Acts 2:24 tells his listeners that Jesus was alive. Peter, in Acts 3, tells his listeners that they had murdered Jesus, and it was something to be repented of. They still worshipped in the snyogogue. However, the did not know the purpose of the Cross. It was revealed to Paul several years later.

Hope this is what your were refering to.

Glad to hear you got the books. Let me know what you think of them, even if you disagree with them.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

 

[lightninboy]

What is DBR?

 

[billychum]

What is DBR?

Death, Burial and Resurection.

Billy <><

 

[GLJCA]

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the stangers (sojourners of the dispersion)a scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Awia, and Bithynia."

These are the same believers that James, Cephas (Peter) and John agreed with Paul and Barnabas, in Gal. 2:9 that they would stay with.

Why do you keep differentiating between the believing Jews in 1&2 Peter and the rest of the Church?
If these Jews were not Christians then that would make everything that Paul said a lie. The book of Romans was written only a few months after the first book to the Corinthians yet Paul plainly says that the gospel of Christ saves both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


You know what is interesting is that the Jews to whom Peter was writing in 1Peter were probably given the gospel by the apostle Paul because these were the places that Paul visited on his missionary journeys.

Another thing that is even more interesting, is that Paul gave these people the gospel long after he received the heavenly vision which supposedly gave him this other gospel that the MAD people(no pun intended) say that they are following. Paul received this heavenly vision in Acts 9 yet in Acts 26:19-20 Paul describes to King Agrippa what the gospel was that he received.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
This is not the gospel that MAD says is Paul's gospel, yet scripture plainly shows that this is what Paul preached.

The first letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church was penned in Acts 19 from Ephesus. He writes in 1Cor 16:8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. Chapter 16 follows 15:1-2 where the MAD people get "Paul's gospel" that is supposedly different from the gospel the other apostles preached, yet they ignore all of the other verses where Paul preached the same gospel that Jesus gave to His disciples in Luke 24:46-47.

The people of MAD are deceived and are not only following false teaching but are propagating it to others, which is much worse. There is no scriptural evidence of any of the MAD views.

GLJCA

 

[Apollos1]

Dispy –


You wasted a lot of reply time repeating things you had already said but needed to EXPLAIN. I’ll just show you as we go along…

Your man-made definition is just that… MAN-MADE! You did not even attempt to defend it OR to tell us what book/chapter/verse you got it from. What verse defines the church the way you define it! Lol!

Acts 2 - the church started with Jews – the Gentiles came later – Acts 10. Your definition is errant and “time stamped” to YOUR specifications – not the Bible’s! At Jerusalem in Acts 2 you had penitent believers baptized into Christ.
Voila! - - - God “added to” the saved – the church came to be!

Dispy re-said: The word "church" simply means - "called out ones." They do not need to be a religeous organization.
You already said this. I said CONTEXT would clarify whether the scripture was speaking of “the church” or something else. I gave you the CHURCH as mentioned in ACTS 5,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,18, and 20.

In Acts 7:38, Israel is discribed as "a church in the wilderness.
I guess you miss the CONTEXT as being OT Israel “in the wilderness” – not at Jerusalem – lol!

Those at Pentecost consisted only of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2: 9-11). There was still a "middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile.
Paul disagrees with you and therefore scripture disagrees with you. Paul said that that “middle wall of partition” was broken down, REMOVED… at the cross!!!
Ephesians 2:13-17 covers this and tells us that the Gentiles were “brought nigh” along with the Jews, both were made one body, and peace was preached to both – made possible through the cross. Cf. Colossians 2:14.

This is precisely why I told you prior that “access” to God is the determining factor to being “called out” and the beginning of the church, and that this was made possible AT THE CROSS.
THUS, with the cross having happened, what happened in Acts 2 was the start of the church! – Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8, Acts 2.
You didn’t say much about any of this – did you?

For one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses.
PRIOR to the CROSS – yep. So what? ALL have access to God after the cross.

Israel was God's chosen people. See Exodus 19:5, Deut. 14:2, 26:18, Psalms 135:4.
PRIOR to the CROSS – yes. So what? Now all are ONE.

The church at Pentecost was a Jewish Church and it members worshipped in a synogogue.
PRIOR to the CROSS – yes. So what? After Peter preached the first gospel sermon – that ALL changed. “The church” of God came into existence. Acts 2.

That church [Acts 2] was governed by the scribes and Pharisees, which also included the Sadusees.
ODD – Luke in Acts 2 refers to them as “Jews”. In fact, Luke in writing Acts NEVER calls or refers to such Jews as a “church”. WHY do YOU? I guess YOU are trying to make appoint that doesn’t exist in Acts - by innuendo, huh??? Luke refers to them as Jews and in the synagogue – nothing more.

Do you think that those Jews that believed in Jesus started another Church? There is no Scriptural support for that idea.
No, the Jews did not start another “church” – those Jews were not in a “church”.
God started THE church when repentance and remission of sins started being preached at Jerusalem – Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:38. God “added” those to the saved – Acts 2:41 & 47 - and this began the church – the body.

At Pentecost there were only Jews and proselytes present. They were in Jerusalem to observe that Jewish feastday. Many in that group were zealous of the Law, but did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. However, with the disciplses speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, and the miraculous signs present, they believed that Jesus the Christ. They were added to that group that believed that Jesus was the Christ, their long promised Messiah.
“That group”?? “Group” of what? Then what happened with that "group"?? What did this “group” do then if anything? (You had better read all of Acts 2 before you answer…)

It wasn't until after God set the nation of Israel aside, temporarily, as He did the Gentiles back at the Tower of Babel, in Gen. 11, that He took the two believing "set aside peoples" (Jews and Gentiles) and made "the one new man" (new creation) of Ephesians 2:15. "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32).
This remark is certainly “babel”, as the context of the passages as well as the content do not support what you are claiming. What presumption!

THAT "ONE BODY" (THE BODY OF CHRIST) DID NOT EXIST AT PENTECOST. YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR YOU BELIEF THAT IT DID.
I have every bit of support. Denying your man-made definition, I have shown that Christ having died on the cross made “repentance and remission” of sins possible. With this a reality, ALL men were in a position to be “called out”.

Acts 2:41 states that all those that received that word were baptized and then added to those that were saved – the church began. The same “church” mentioned in all of those Acts verses listed above, with Acts 5:11 being the first mention of “the church” ! You can not deal with that because you do not know how. The Gentiles coming into the church at a later time does not change what “the church” is.
------------------------------------------------
Dispy replies:
Yes, God did have in mind the Chruch, the Body of Christ, but He kept it secret since the world began, and revealed it to Paul several years AFTER Pentecost. It did not exist at Pentecost.
The HS says “the church” DID exist at Pentecost! The HS shows the formation of “the church” in Acts 2. And the HS calls this same group “the church” in Acts 5:11, and Acts chapters 8 (twice), 9, 12 (twice),and 15 (twice)! The HS does not make the divisive distinction YOU do.

(End Part #1 of 2.)

 

[Apollos1]

Dispy replies:
They were added to the believers that believed that Jesus was the Christ, their long promised Messian. The Church, the Body of Christ is still future revelation.

You must be purposely ignoring that “repentance and remission of sins” was preached that day, along with that Jesus was the heir to God’s throne raised to sit upon it, as well as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus – Acts 2:23-36. Peter did not say “believe Jesus is the Messiah and be saved”. Your position here is ludricrous!

Those Jews were being “called out”. This group is referred to as “the church” by the HS throughout the book of Acts wherever they are mentioned!
What God “added” the saved to became the church on that day. Thus the saved were “added to” what was being formed by God… the church. And as so it continued……
---------------------------------------------------

Dispy replies:
Jer. 23:5 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment in the earth."
Matt. 6:10 "Thy kingdom come. They will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."
Christ doesn’t have to reign ON the earth to reign. He may place His throne wherever it please Him. Acts 2 and 3, as well as 1 Corinthians 15:25 tell us Christ will remain in heaven until He comes to gather His own – not to return for an earthly rule. Of course YOUR position has Christ reigining over NOTHING as of now… Christ is NOT King of Kings” according to your doctrine… and your doctrine makes liars out of the prophets (such as Daniel 2:44) and buffoons out of Diety who planned man’s salvation! Doesn’t it ??!!!

Jesus said –
John 18:36 – “My kingdom is not of this world…”
Mark 9:1 – “There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.

Dispy – YOU don’t believe Jesus because your theology won’t allow you to believe Him ! The “fixes” and “patches” your theology requires to “limp along” also requires denial of these actual words to appear plausible!
-----------------------------------------------
Apollos1:
Dispy said - Now you are telling me that the Gentiles were not added until Acts 10 - 11. Seems to me that you were trying to convince me that the Jew and Gentiles were "one body" at Pentecost. Make up you mind.

LOL! “Seems”…? I never said such and you know it. I see obfuscation from you! That the Gentiles did not become part of the church (the body) until Acts 10-11 does not change Bible facts of when the church started. It just shows you are still trying to jam the facts into your preconceived “dispy box” using that man-made definition of church you drag around.

Dispy replies:
You never said it in those words, but that is what I gathered from what you were saying. There were Jews only at Pentecost, and the Gentiles weren't added untl Acts 10-11? That is not "the one body" to me. How do you figure it?
What is you definition of "the Body of Christ?" What does it consist of?

I have covered this above, but it is worth repeating. Certain conditions had to be met in order for any man to be “called out”. Jesus created those conditions by dying on the cross. That is, Jesus made being “called out” possible. God chose the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, with the help of the 12 Apostles, to initiate the “calling out” and the establishing of the church.

The initiation of “calling out” is NOT race dependent! The conditions for the “calling” were created for ALL men at the cross and began at Jerusalem – which happened to have only Jews around at that time. The Gentiles got the “call” later as God planned it. The church is the body and the bod is the church. The “body” is used by Paul at a later time by way of metaphor – not to suggest group distinction.
------------------------------------------


Saul, prior to his conversion and name change, persecuted those that had FAITH the Jesus was the Christ, the long promised Messiah of the OT prophesies.

You are yet to prove that the only thing the Jews believed in was a “Messiah” only gospel. 1 Peter 1:9-12 shows me that the Jews expected MUCH MORE !!!
Can you prove this is all they believed. Scriptures say otherwise!

Paul, after his conversion and name change not had the same FAITH that Jesus was the Christ, the long promised Messiah of the OT prophesies. Yes, he did persecute those with the same FAITH that he had.

LOL ! This is nothing but conjecture! Prove the point above first – the “Messiah” only gospel and perhaps you might have something to prop up your failed theology! Can you?

But as of Paul’s writing in Galatians 1:13 (about 58AD) Paul wrote he had once persecuted the FAITH that he NOW believed ! There is not “second” faith distinction made in his writing. That distinction is forced by your theology and is but another “patch” to fix it!

 

[billychum]

Glad to hear you got the books. Let me know what you think of them, even if you disagree with them.

I have thumbed through them both and I hope to get to them soon but right now I'm reading a book by D.G. Dunn called "The Theology of Paul" Have you ever heard of it? And if so what do you think of Mr. Dunn's presentation of Paul's theology?

Billy <><

 

[yeshuasavedme]

[/SIZE]
Why do you keep differentiating between the believing Jews in 1&2 Peter and the rest of the Church?
If these Jews were not Christians then that would make everything that Paul said a lie. The book of Romans was written only a few months after the first book to the Corinthians yet Paul plainly says that the gospel of Christ saves both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


You know what is interesting is that the Jews to whom Peter was writing in 1Peter were probably given the gospel by the apostle Paul because these were the places that Paul visited on his missionary journeys.

Another thing that is even more interesting, is that Paul gave these people the gospel long after he received the heavenly vision which supposedly gave him this other gospel that the MAD people(no pun intended) say that they are following. Paul received this heavenly vision in Acts 9 yet in Acts 26:19-20 Paul describes to King Agrippa what the gospel was that he received.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
This is not the gospel that MAD says is Paul's gospel, yet scripture plainly shows that this is what Paul preached.

The first letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church was penned in Acts 19 from Ephesus. He writes in 1Cor 16:8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. Chapter 16 follows 15:1-2 where the MAD people get "Paul's gospel" that is supposedly different from the gospel the other apostles preached, yet they ignore all of the other verses where Paul preached the same gospel that Jesus gave to His disciples in Luke 24:46-47.

The people of MAD are deceived and are not only following false teaching but are propagating it to others, which is much worse. There is no scriptural evidence of any of the MAD views.

GLJCA

Now, on this we agree, GLJCA,


Paul wrote only born again water baptized Pentecostal Believers in his designated letters and preached no new anything to anyone at anytime. No one is saved by just picking up Paul's letters and reading them, for Paul did not lay the Foundation in the letters which he wrote to those who had already laid the foundation of the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Scriptures, which one is to go on, from, and not leave or lay again.

Paul never laid the foundation again in the letters He wrote, for those whom he addressed were already born again water baptized Pentecostal Believers of the first harvest, which is oracled in the Feasts of YHWH, which is called Pentecost.

When Pentecost is ingathered, into the "barn", then the second harvest will begin with the gathering in of the firstfruits of that second harvest, which is the fall harvest and is celebrated at the feast of Tabernacles.

And Jesus Christ wrote the last letter to the Ephesians, through John, and there is a complete contradiction to all MAD doctrine in that letter addressed to specific Churches in Asia, and Jesus told John to address all seven of them, from Him, and so; from that letter to the Ephesians -and the Laodicians, both whom Paul ministered to and wrote to- we can see MAD is not truth and the One Gospel is in effect until the end of the age.

 

[Dispy]

PART 1

Apollos1:
Dispy –


You wasted a lot of reply time repeating things you had already said but needed to EXPLAIN. I’ll just show you as we go along…

Dispy replies:
To this point you have shown me nothing to effectually change my mind.
--------------------------------
Apollos1:

Your man-made definition is just that… MAN-MADE! You did not even attempt to defend it OR to tell us what book/chapter/verse you got it from. What verse defines the church the way you define it! Lol!

Dispy replies:
The definition of the words "Trinity" and "rapture" are man-made words also, but that doesn't make them invalid. PLEASE define the what made up the church at Pentecost. FROM SCRIPTURE give me the definition of the word "church" at Pentecost.
--------------------------------------
Apollos1:
Acts 2 - the church started with Jews – the Gentiles came later – Acts 10. Your definition is errant and “time stamped” to YOUR specifications – not the Bible’s! At Jerusalem in Acts 2 you had penitent believers baptized into Christ.
Voila! - - - God “added to” the saved – the church came to be!

Dispy replies:
I am not the one that "time stamped" the definition of the church, the Body of Christ. The Bible does it. You cannot find the Church, the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law, at Pentecost. But yet you say it started there. God was still dealing with Israel as His favorite nation, and the kingdom was being offered in Acts 3. Only the nation of Israel is promised an earthly kingdom.
------------------------------------
Apollos1:
Dispy re-said: The word "church" simply means - "called out ones." They do not need to be a religeous organization.
You already said this. I said CONTEXT would clarify whether the scripture was speaking of “the church” or something else. I gave you the CHURCH as mentioned in ACTS 5,7,8,9,12,13,14,15,18, and 20.

Dispy replies:
When you are more specific about what verses you are speaking of in the above chapters, I will respond to them.[/b]
--------------------------------------
Dispy posted:

In Acts 7:38, Israel is discribed as "a church in the wilderness.

Apollos1: answered:
I guess you miss the CONTEXT as being OT Israel “in the wilderness” – not at Jerusalem – lol!


Dispy replies:
I am well aware of the context. I was just pointing out that Israel in the wilderness was a church, and could not be consider a church in the same manner as the Church, the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law. Also, the word "church" takes it meaning from the context which explains it.

Dispy posted:
Those at Pentecost consisted only of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2: 9-11). There was still a "middle wall of partition" between the Jew and Gentile.

Apollos1 answered:
Paul disagrees with you and therefore scripture disagrees with you. Paul said that that “middle wall of partition” was broken down, REMOVED… at the cross!!!
Ephesians 2:13-17 covers this and tells us that the Gentiles were “brought nigh” along with the Jews, both were made one body, and peace was preached to both – made possible through the cross. Cf. Colossians 2:14.


Dispy replies:
We do not learn that the middle wall of partition was broken down until AFTER the conversion of Saul/Paul in Acts 9. That was at least 7 years AFTER Pentecost. Peter was shown it in Acts 10 when God gave him the vision of the sheets. Vs 28 when God told him that he should no longer call those of another nation (Gentiles) common or unclean. How can something be made effective or practised prior to it being known??????????
------------------------------------
Apollos1:
This is precisely why I told you prior that “access” to God is the determining factor to being “called out” and the beginning of the church, and that this was made possible AT THE CROSS.
THUS, with the cross having happened, what happened in Acts 2 was the start of the church! – Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8, Acts 2.

You didn’t say much about any of this – did you?


Dispy replies:
I will now.

If you want me to believe you, then first of all you must show me from scripture that the Gentiles were on equal footing, and without distinction, and that Israel, as a nation, was in a set aside condition,PRIOR to the conversion of Saul/Paul.

Luke 24:47 is the so called "great commission." The order of that commission is stated in Acts 1:8. "...and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth."

If we go back to Genesis 12:1-3 we find that God promised Abram that through his physical seed the families (nations) of the earth would be blessed. Therefore, the leaders of the Jewish Church (see Matthew 23:1-3) had to first recognize that Jesus was the long promised Messiah befor this could happen. Then those of Judea (where the 2 southern tribes resided) had to accept Him. (This is where Jesus and the 12 primarily preached.) Then it was on to Samaria where the 10 northern "break-away" tribes resided. They are the "other sheep" of John 10:16 that had to be brought back into the "one fold." (It is the entire physical seed of Abram that is to be a blessing to the nations.)

It is only after all of Israel accepts Jesus Christ as their Messiah can the promise to Abram be fulfilled. That has not happened, as of this date, and will not happen until after the Church, the Body of Christ, has been raptured. Then "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written. Thre shall come out of Sion the Delieverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Romans 11:16-27).
------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
For one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Laws of Moses.

Apollos1 answered:
PRIOR to the CROSS – yep. So what? ALL have access to God after the cross.

Dispy replies:
The purpose of the Cross was not made know until the conversion of Saul/Paul in Acts 7. At least 7 years AFTER Pentecost.

Prior to Israel being set aside (which we don't know until after the conversion of Saul/Paul), salvation was still of the Jews, as Jesus said in John 4:22.
--------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
Israel was God's chosen people. See Exodus 19:5, Deut. 14:2, 26:18, Psalms 135:4.

Apollos1 answers:

PRIOR to the CROSS – yes. So what? Now all are ONE.

Dispy replies:
WE DON'T LEARN THAT UNTIL AFTER SAUL/PAUL IS CONVERTED IN ACT 9. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT IS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO IT BEING MADE KNOWN AND PRACTISED??????????????????.
---------------------------------------
to be continued:

 

[Dispy]

PART 2:
Dispy posted:
The church at Pentecost was a Jewish Church and it members worshipped in a synogogue.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Apollos 1 answers:
PRIOR to the CROSS &#8211; yes. So what? After Peter preached the first gospel sermon &#8211; that ALL changed. &#8220;The church&#8221; of God came into existence. Acts 2.


Dispy replies:
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE quote for me what Peter said in Acts 2 that changed all that. YOU CANNOT DO IT, OR WILL YOU DO IT.
----------------------------
Dispy posted:
That church [Acts 2] was governed by the scribes and Pharisees, which also included the Sadusees.

Apollos1 answered:
ODD &#8211; Luke in Acts 2 refers to them as &#8220;Jews&#8221;. In fact, Luke in writing Acts NEVER calls or refers to such Jews as a &#8220;church&#8221;. WHY do YOU? I guess YOU are trying to make appoint that doesn&#8217;t exist in Acts - by innuendo, huh??? Luke refers to them as Jews and in the synagogue &#8211; nothing more.


Dispy replies:
Were they not a "called out" group. Were they not there in Jerusalem for a specific purpose, i.e. to celebrate the feast of Pentecost? What is you definition of a "church."
--------------------------------
Dispy posted:
Do you think that those Jews that believed in Jesus started another Church? There is no Scriptural support for that idea.

Apollos1 answered:
No, the Jews did not start another &#8220;church&#8221; &#8211; those Jews were not in a &#8220;church&#8221;.
God started THE church when repentance and remission of sins started being preached at Jerusalem &#8211; Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8, Acts 2:38. God &#8220;added&#8221; those to the saved &#8211; Acts 2:41 & 47 - and this began the church &#8211; the body.

Dispy replies:
They started in Jerusalem because that is were they were commanded to start. I gave the order of the commission above.
---------------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
At Pentecost there were only Jews and proselytes present. They were in Jerusalem to observe that Jewish feastday. Many in that group were zealous of the Law, but did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. However, with the disciples speaking as the Spirit gave them utterance, and the miraculous signs present, they believed that Jesus the Christ. They were added to that group that believed that Jesus was the Christ, their long promised Messiah.

Apollos1 answered:
&#8220;That group&#8221;?? &#8220;Group&#8221; of what? Then what happened with that "group"?? What did this &#8220;group&#8221; do then if anything? (You had better read all of Acts 2 before you answer&#8230

Dispy replies:
The group that believed that Jesus was the Christ, the long promised Messiah of Israel. That is the group that Saul persecuted, prior to his conversion.

What did they do? They sold everything they had, and had all things common. (Read Acts 4:32-37) Where is this group now? Why did Paul have to take up collections "for the poor saints at Jerusalem?
----------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
It wasn't until after God set the nation of Israel aside, temporarily, as He did the Gentiles back at the Tower of Babel, in Gen. 11, that He took the two believing "set aside peoples" (Jews and Gentiles) and made "the one new man" (new creation) of Ephesians 2:15. "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32).


This remark is certainly &#8220;babel&#8221;, as the context of the passages as well as the content do not support what you are claiming. What presumption!

Are you saying that God did not set the Gentiles aside in Genesis 11, or that God did not set the nation of Israel aside temporarily (Romans 11:7-11)? Isn't Romans 11:32 referring to both Jews and Gentiles?

What you can't answer, you just call babel. That refutes nothing.
--------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
THAT "ONE BODY" (THE BODY OF CHRIST) DID NOT EXIST AT PENTECOST. YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR YOU BELIEF THAT IT DID.

Apollos1 answered:

I have every bit of support. Denying your man-made definition, I have shown that Christ having died on the cross made &#8220;repentance and remission&#8221; of sins possible. With this a reality, ALL men were in a position to be &#8220;called out&#8221;.

Dispy replies:
Didn't John the Baptist preach "repentance and remission" of sins before the Cross? Or wasn't that yet a reality?

Apollos1:

Acts 2:41 states that all those that received that word were baptized and then added to those that were saved &#8211; the church began. The same &#8220;church&#8221; mentioned in all of those Acts verses listed above, with Acts 5:11 being the first mention of &#8220;the church&#8221; ! You can not deal with that because you do not know how. The Gentiles coming into the church at a later time does not change what &#8220;the church&#8221; is.

Dispy replies:
If the word "church" has to be specifically mentioned in order for it to be recognized, then how can you say that the Chruch, the Body of Chrsit, started at Pentecost? I have dealt with what you have posted over and over.
------------------------------------------------
Dispy replies:
Yes, God did have in mind the Chruch, the Body of Christ, but He kept it secret since the world began, and revealed it to Paul several years AFTER Pentecost. It did not exist at Pentecost.

Apollos1:
The HS says &#8220;the church&#8221; DID exist at Pentecost! The HS shows the formation of &#8220;the church&#8221; in Acts 2. And the HS calls this same group &#8220;the church&#8221; in Acts 5:11, and Acts chapters 8 (twice), 9, 12 (twice),and 15 (twice)! The HS does not make the divisive distinction YOU do.

(End Part #1 of 2.)[/QUOTE]

Dispy replies:
I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT A CHURCH DID NOT EXIST AT PENTECOST. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST, JEW AND GENTILE ON EQUAL FOOTING, WITHOUT DISTINCTION, AND NOT UNDER THE LAW, WAS NON-EXISTANT AT THE TIME OF PENTECOST. IT WAS STRICTLY A JEWISH CHURCH WITH JEWISH MEMBERS THAT WERE STILL UNDER THE LAW.

Apollow 1, IF YOU, OR ANY OF YOUR LIKE MINDED BELIEVES, CAN SHOW ME THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST, JEW AND GENTILE ON EQUAL FOOTING, WITHOUT DISTINCTION, AND NOT UNDER THE LAW, AT PENTECOST, THEN PROMISE, PROMISE, PROMISE, THAT I WILL BELIEVE EVERY WORD THAT YOU/THEY WRITE FROM NOW ON.

 

[Dispy]

Apollos1posted:
Dispy replies:
They were added to the believers that believed that Jesus was the Christ, their long promised Messian. The Church, the Body of Christ is still future revelation.

Apollos1 answers:

You must be purposely ignoring that &#8220;repentance and remission of sins&#8221; was preached that day, along with that Jesus was the heir to God&#8217;s throne raised to sit upon it, as well as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus &#8211; Acts 2:23-36. Peter did not say &#8220;believe Jesus is the Messiah and be saved&#8221;. Your position here is ludricrous!

Dispy replies:
John the Baptist was preaching "repentance and remission of sins" even before Jesus began His earthly ministry.

Peter never said one word about salvation through the shed blood of Christ. He accused them of the murder of Jesus, and that it was something to be repented of (Acts 3:12-21).

Yes, Jesus and His diciples prached that they had to believe He (Jesus) was their Messiah, but that was well before the Cross. They never preached the purpose of the Cross. It was still unknown.
--------------------------------------------
Apollos1 continued:

Those Jews were being &#8220;called out&#8221;. This group is referred to as &#8220;the church&#8221; by the HS throughout the book of Acts wherever they are mentioned!
What God &#8220;added&#8221; the saved to became the church on that day. Thus the saved were &#8220;added to&#8221; what was being formed by God&#8230; the church. And as so it continued&#8230;&#8230;

Dispy replies:
Yes, they were added to the Church alright, but it was to the believing group that was already in the Jewish Church that existed at that time. It was not the Church, the Body of Christ. That was till future revelation to Saul/Paul.
---------------------------------------------------
Apollos1 posted:
There is no earthly kingdom &#8211; never gonna be. From before the world began God planned to save man through Christ&#8217;s death on the cross. Our (spiritual) souls are saved and our hope is spiritual and the kingdom is spiritual. Only carnal man looks for an earthly kingdom - misunderstanding scripture while looking for it. (But this is a full-blown discussion for another thread.) Colossians 1:5,13.

Dispy replies:
Jer. 23:5 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment in the earth."
Matt. 6:10 "Thy kingdom come. They will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

Apollos1: answers:
Christ doesn&#8217;t have to reign ON the earth to reign. He may place His throne wherever it please Him. Acts 2 and 3, as well as 1 Corinthians 15:25 tell us Christ will remain in heaven until He comes to gather His own &#8211; not to return for an earthly rule. Of course YOUR position has Christ reigining over NOTHING as of now&#8230; Christ is NOT King of Kings&#8221; according to your doctrine&#8230; and your doctrine makes liars out of the prophets (such as Daniel 2:44) and buffoons out of Diety who planned man&#8217;s salvation! Doesn&#8217;t it ??!!!


Dispy replies:
Read Acts 1:10 - 11; 3:20; Zac 14:4, Matt. 24:27-31. Sure looks to me that Jesus is coming back.

Where is Jesus now? Psalms 110:1 "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Will He return to fulfill OT prophesies? YES HE WILL!!! However, I will be in heaven "...to ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess.4:17) when that happens.

Jesus Christ today is the Head of the Body of Christ. But when He returns, Israel will recognize Him as the King f the Jews.

Much of what you say above is pure FALSEHOOD. Other then that, it doesn't deserve further comment. I'll just keep my thought to myself.
-----------------------------------
Apollos1 continues:
Jesus said &#8211;
John 18:36 &#8211; &#8220;My kingdom is not of this world&#8230;&#8221;

Dispy replies:
John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then whould my servants fight, that I should not be delievered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

In this passage, Jesus is explaining to Pilate that the authority of His kingdom is not by earthly men. If it were, then his servants (army) woul fight. In the future, His kingdom will be on earth.

Apollos1 continues:
Mark 9:1 &#8211; &#8220;There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.


Yes, that verse does state that Jesus will return. Also, that they saw him "transfigured." Confirmation/fulfillment of the above verse can be found in 1 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnessess of his majesty."
------------------------------
Apollos 1 continues:
Dispy &#8211; YOU don&#8217;t believe Jesus because your theology won&#8217;t allow you to believe Him ! The &#8220;fixes&#8221; and &#8220;patches&#8221; your theology requires to &#8220;limp along&#8221; also requires denial of these actual words to appear plausible!

Dispy replies:
Get real, and try to talk sense. You offer no proof of what you babel about.
-----------------------------------------------
Apollos1:
Dispy said - Now you are telling me that the Gentiles were not added until Acts 10 - 11. Seems to me that you were trying to convince me that the Jew and Gentiles were "one body" at Pentecost. Make up you mind.

LOL! &#8220;Seems&#8221;&#8230;? I never said such and you know it. I see obfuscation from you! That the Gentiles did not become part of the church (the body) until Acts 10-11 does not change Bible facts of when the church started. It just shows you are still trying to jam the facts into your preconceived &#8220;dispy box&#8221; using that man-made definition of church you drag around.

Dispy replies:
You never said it in those words, but that is what I gathered from what you were saying. There were Jews only at Pentecost, and the Gentiles weren't added untl Acts 10-11? That is not "the one body" to me. How do you figure it?
What is you definition of "the Body of Christ?" What does it consist of?


I have covered this above, but it is worth repeating. Certain conditions had to be met in order for any man to be &#8220;called out&#8221;. Jesus created those conditions by dying on the cross. That is, Jesus made being &#8220;called out&#8221; possible. God chose the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, with the help of the 12 Apostles, to initiate the &#8220;calling out&#8221; and the establishing of the church.

The initiation of &#8220;calling out&#8221; is NOT race dependent! The conditions for the &#8220;calling&#8221; were created for ALL men at the cross and began at Jerusalem &#8211; which happened to have only Jews around at that time. The Gentiles got the &#8220;call&#8221; later as God planned it. The church is the body and the bod is the church. The &#8220;body&#8221; is used by Paul at a later time by way of metaphor &#8211; not to suggest group distinction.

Dispy replies:
Prior to Israel being set aside, salvation was race dependant. For one that was a Gentile and wanted to serve the true and living God of Israel, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and submit themselves to the Laws of Moses.

Salvation TODAY is not race dependant, as all men now are on equal footing, and without distinction.

Salvation TODAY in not by becoming a Jew/proselyte, and placing one's self under the Laws of Moses, but by having one's FAITH in the Cross work (death, burial and resurrection) of Christ. This was unknown until it was revealed to Paul several years AFTER Pentecost. YOU CANNOT/WILL NOT SHOW IT TO ME ANY TIME PRIOR!!!
------------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
Saul, prior to his conversion and name change, persecuted those that had FAITH the Jesus was the Christ, the long promised Messiah of the OT prophesies.


Apollos1: answered:
You are yet to prove that the only thing the Jews believed in was a &#8220;Messiah&#8221; only gospel. 1 Peter 1:9-12 shows me that the Jews expected MUCH MORE !!!
Can you prove this is all they believed. Scriptures say otherwise!


Dispy replies:
The Jews, at that time had to believe that Jesus was the Christ, or there was no salvation for them. In addition, that had to do the deed/works of the Law by FAITH./b]
-------------------------------------------
Dispy posted:
Paul, after his conversion and name change not had the same FAITH that Jesus was the Christ, the long promised Messiah of the OT prophesies. Yes, he did persecute those with the same FAITH that he had.

Apollos1: answered:

LOL ! This is nothing but conjecture! Prove the point above first &#8211; the &#8220;Messiah&#8221; only gospel and perhaps you might have something to prop up your failed theology! Can you?

But as of Paul&#8217;s writing in Galatians 1:13 (about 58AD) Paul wrote he had once persecuted the FAITH that he NOW believed ! There is not &#8220;second&#8221; faith distinction made in his writing. That distinction is forced by your theology and is but another &#8220;patch&#8221; to fix it!

First of all, my statement above should not be read with the word "not" in it. Then one will get the correct reading. My bad.

Yes, Paul had FAITH that Jesus was the Christ, just as those in the Jewish Church had FAITH that Jesus wass the Christ. And yes, Paul did persecute the ones that had the same FAITH he now had. It is still the same FAITH

Unless you show a better attitude, and become more civil, don't look for any more responses from me. Give me Scriptural proof of my error, not just your unfriendly commentary.

 

[Apollos1]

Billy Chum said:
Hope it's OK to jump in here and ask a question. If the Jewish church believed that Jesus was the Christ and since they were so close to the event, that all of Jerusalem was a buzz about, of the DBR of Jesus. Then wouldn't DBR be included in their belief? Even if the DBR that Paul preached was not yet completly understood, it seems easy enough to strike this up to transition and not to two seperate churches.

I say THANKS for jumping in.

I agree with you. Any person should view the events, say, from Pentecost in Acts 2 through the next 30 years, as a period of transition. Afterall, the most important event in the history of the world had taken place just 50 days earlier. Was anything new taking place?

But none of these happenings necessitates different gospels or different churches. In fact, I believe the death of Christ on the cross necessitates only ONE gospel and ONE church! The one group of all men (the &#8220;called out&#8221 being saved via one message (the gospel) through one Saviour.

To anyone of extreme dispensational thinking and disposition, it is a theological necessity to parse and separate time, place, and teaching in order to perpetuate your beliefs.

For instance, earlier in this thread it was said the Jews did not know about &#8220;the purpose&#8221; of Jesus&#8217; death on the cross (ei. remission of sins). The claim was that only Paul mentions &#8220;the purpose&#8221; of that death, so therefore Paul must have had a different gospel. (Not only is this untrue, it is inductive reasoning.) I showed both by Jesus&#8217; teaching and by prophecy that &#8220;the purpose&#8221; was known before Paul.

This thought was then further parsed. The thought became that the disciples never taught &#8220;the purpose&#8221;. I reasoned that whether taught by the disciples or not, the purpose had been taught elsewhere.

Further parsing was then necessary, and this became that the disciples did not understand &#8220;the purpose&#8221;. I then reasoned that it did not matter whether &#8220;the purpose&#8221; of Jesus&#8221; death on the cross was understood by the disciples or not, as Jesus&#8217; death on the cross was a reality. And none this changes the basic claim above for why Paul was supposed to have a separate gospel&#8230;

Bottom line: Paul&#8217;s teaching of &#8220;the purpose&#8221; of Jesus&#8217; death on the cross does not make what Paul taught separate and distinct. Paul taught what was already known and taught BEFORE he taught such.

All of this parsing was performed not to seek the truth or reason. All of this parsing was made in an attempt to separate Paul&#8217;s teaching from all others so that it can be claimed Paul had a separate &#8220;gospel&#8221;. He didn&#8217;t, but Paul and the alledged second gospel are the "idols" of extreme dispensationalism! It is what they seek and serve.

Transition is not acceptable to such dispensationalists because it does not allow separation. Events are separate, distinct, and more often than not, unrelated. Such is required to perpetuate the error.

Recently the discussion has centered around &#8220;the church&#8221; in Jerusalem - who they were, and what they believed. WHY?
The attempt is to prove that the church in Jerusalem was different than the body/the church Paul mentions in his writings. And if it could be proven, this different church would also show Paul had a separate and distinct gospel. This is all attempted for the same reason I have given above. The first attempt uses doctrine while the seond attempt uses organization. Neither claim is valid!

Transition is not allowed. Bible study is conducted only with the presumption that Paul had his gospel (and church) and everyone else had their other gospel and church before him&#8230;
and they are going to &#8220;prove&#8221; it whether found in scripture or not! It is not found there!

 

[billychum]

Recently the discussion has centered around &#8220;the church&#8221; in Jerusalem - who they were, and what they believed. WHY?

Wondered the same thing myself.

Billy <><

 

[A Brother In Christ]

eph 2:8 saved by grace

2 peter 3:18 grow by grace

judged by grace ... future... Rapture

 

[Dispy]

1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the stangers (sojourners of the dispersion)a scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Awia, and Bithynia."

These are the same believers that James, Cephas (Peter) and John agreed with Paul and Barnabas, in Gal. 2:9 that they would stay with.

[/SIZE]
Why do you keep differentiating between the believing Jews in 1&2 Peter and the rest of the Church?
If these Jews were not Christians then that would make everything that Paul said a lie. The book of Romans was written only a few months after the first book to the Corinthians yet Paul plainly says that the gospel of Christ saves both Jew and Gentile.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.


You know what is interesting is that the Jews to whom Peter was writing in 1Peter were probably given the gospel by the apostle Paul because these were the places that Paul visited on his missionary journeys.

Another thing that is even more interesting, is that Paul gave these people the gospel long after he received the heavenly vision which supposedly gave him this other gospel that the MAD people(no pun intended) say that they are following. Paul received this heavenly vision in Acts 9 yet in Acts 26:19-20 Paul describes to King Agrippa what the gospel was that he received.
Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
This is not the gospel that MAD says is Paul's gospel, yet scripture plainly shows that this is what Paul preached.

The first letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthian church was penned in Acts 19 from Ephesus. He writes in 1Cor 16:8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. Chapter 16 follows 15:1-2 where the MAD people get "Paul's gospel" that is supposedly different from the gospel the other apostles preached, yet they ignore all of the other verses where Paul preached the same gospel that Jesus gave to His disciples in Luke 24:46-47.

The people of MAD are deceived and are not only following false teaching but are propagating it to others, which is much worse. There is no scriptural evidence of any of the MAD views.

GLJCA

The Jews that that Peter is writing to in 1&2 Peter were saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom." They have an earthly kingdom to look forward to.

Prior to Saul's conversion, and his name changed to Paul, he went about persecuting the church. That is why they were scattered.

Were these Jews saved through the preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God," or through the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom?" The preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God" is: "... the preaching preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25). Did Paul preach this gospel while he was persecuting the church? Do you really believe that these Jews that Peter is writing to were saved under Paul's ministry. A man that was not saved during his persecution of the Church? Give me a break.

The preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" is the fulfillment of OT promises that promises the Jewish nation a kingdom here upon the earth. Romans 15:8 says: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made to the fathers." There is nothing in the OT that promises Israel (Jewish believers) a hope/home in heaven."

Paul, immediately after his conversion, did not receive the full knowledge of the mystery. He states in 2 Cor. 12:1 "...I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." He says this at least 25 years after Pentecost.

After his conversion he first went to the Jewish synogogues to show them from OT Scritpure, that Jesus was the Christ. He more then any other NT writer used the OT to prove that Jesus was the Christ. The vast majority of those Jewish believers rejected his teaching.

GLJCA, PLEASE explain to me WHY God had to raise up Paul to go to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel? God had already raised up 12 to "Go ye into ALL the world..." Then James, Cephas (Peter) and John agreed with Paul and Barnabas that they should go to the heathen (Gentiles) and that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) (Gal. 2:9).

It just does not seem logical that God would commission just one man to go to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel, AFTER He had already commissioned 12 to do that. Not only that, we have 12 going to just a small group going to believing Jews. After Acts 15/Gal. 2 we do not find the 12 disciples going to the Gentiles. Are they out of the will of God, or were they "de-commissioned?PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

Really looking forward to your reply.

 

[lightninboy]

Well, we know that Peter was married....

 

[Dispy]

Any person should view the events, say, from Pentecost in Acts 2 through the next 30 years, as a period of transition.

Transition from what to what?

 

[billychum]

Were these Jews saved through the preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God," or through the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom?" The preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God" is: "... the preaching preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25). Did Paul preach this gospel while he was persecuting the church?

Dispy I'm sorry but I just can't see "revelation of the mystery" the same way as you do. I think it means Holy Spirit made available to all through the death of Christ, as Rom. 16:26 may indicate, and you think it means a message of Gods grace through Jesus Christ that only Paul was made aware of. (or at least that's what I think you mean) But to answer your question. No, Paul did not preach the same message while he was persecuting the church but it's very possible that as the pierod of transition developed so did his preaching.

It just does not seem logical that God would commission just one man to go to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel, AFTER He had already commissioned 12 to do that. Not only that, we have 12 going to just a small group going to believing Jews. After Acts 15/Gal. 2 we do not find the 12 disciples going to the Gentiles. Are they out of the will of God, or were they "de-commissioned?PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

Here again, it's possible that Paul was sent to further clarify "the mystery" as revelation was given but not to start all over with new revelation.

Billy <><

 

[Dispy]

Were these Jews saved through the preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God," or through the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom?" The preaching of "the gospel of the Grace of God" is: "... the preaching preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Romans 16:25). Did Paul preach this gospel while he was persecuting the church?

Dispy I'm sorry but I just can't see "revelation of the mystery" the same way as you do. I think it means Holy Spirit made available to all through the death of Christ, as Rom. 16:26 may indicate, and you think it means a message of Gods grace through Jesus Christ that only Paul was made aware of. (or at least that's what I think you mean) But to answer your question. No, Paul did not preach the same message while he was persecuting the church but it's very possible that as the pierod of transition developed so did his preaching.

Well then give me an example of what "...preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" would be.

It can't be found in the OT or Gospels. What was given to Paul that had to be kept secret SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN?

Come on now, you surely can do it can't you? Wasn't the filling of the HS prophesied in the OT? Seems to me that Joel spoke of it in Joel 2:28. Wasn't that what happening at Pentecost?

It just does not seem logical that God would commission just one man to go to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel, AFTER He had already commissioned 12 to do that. Not only that, we have 12 going to just a small group going to believing Jews. After Acts 15/Gal. 2 we do not find the 12 disciples going to the Gentiles. Are they out of the will of God, or were they "de-commissioned? PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

Here again, it's possible that Paul was sent to further clarify "the mystery" as revelation was given but not to start all over with new revelation.

Billy <><

What does "mystery" "secret" mean to you? Would you like to explain my above paragraph to me as to Why God had to raise up Saul/Paul?

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord.

 

[lightninboy]

Well, we know that the Apostle James was murdered....

http://www.visionwebhosting.net/catholic-web-hosting/Catholic-Hosting-Dates0143.htm