I dont get it....

[eph3Nine]

Ive read through a bunch of the threads in this forum,a nd dont reall get the major gist of what dispensationalists believe. Is it possible to get a dumbed down quick lesson?

He is getting some excellent tools in the mail this week that will answer all of his questions.

 

[RGL1]

Originally Posted by: biblebeliever123





1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first (paul speaking here) Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Now the context:
1 Tim 1:8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has (strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, (putting me into service,
13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
14and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
15It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
16Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.
17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul is using that phrase to show he is or was exceedingly sinful before God. He is not saying he is the first with the gospel from Christ. Or that he is the first one with the gospel message.

The pattern/example Paul is talking about is not about Paul himself, but God's pattern/example of patience toward sinners.

Notice his explanation of the use of the law. v. 8-11
Let's keep things in context.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

(Of course, New Covenant theology also holds to a distinction between Israel and the Church.)

New Covenant Theology holds that national or ethnic Israel has been forever disinherited by God and that "Spiritual Israel" and the church are the same. Its supersessionism, not a distinction.

One of the major weaknesses of New Covenant Theology writers is a shallow understanding of both dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Reisinger said: "Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart."

But this statement is not even true. Dispensationalists today certainly recognize overlap between Israel and the Church, and a number of Covenant Theologians recognize the end-time role played by national Israel.

New Covenant Theology rejects the covenant of grace of Covenant Theology and the progressive revelation of dispensationalism. With its rejection of OT law as having any salvific value - something which concerns CTers far more than dispensationalists - it resembles a Lutheran theological position far more than being a "middle position" between CT and dispensationalism.

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[Dispy]

It sure sounds like a FAQ is needed...which I'll get to work on.

All dispensationalists hold to a distinction between Israel and the church. What distinguishes dispensational beliefs from non-dispensationalist beliefs is that dispensationalists hold more closely to a higher priority of progressive revelation.

Dispensationalism can be subdivided into 4 basic views. Mainstream dispensationalists form the vast majority, and are either progressive dispensationalists or traditional dispensationalists. All of these mainstream dispensationalists hold that the church began in Acts 2, and consists of all believing Jews and believing Gentiles in this present age.

The other two views are minority views. Together they are commonly referred to as Hyperdispensationalism or Ultradispensationalism. The Mid-Acts dispensationalism, also called Pauline dispensationalism, holds that the church began somewhere between Acts 9-13...

I must admit that we mid-Acts dispies hold a minority view amongst dispensationalists. Being educated in the Christian Reformed Christian school, I too once believed the Church, the Body of Christ, began in Acts 2, and believed that the Church today was "spiritual Israel." Presently I totally reject these former beliefs.

For the past several years while participating in various forums I have defined the Chrurch, the Body of Christ, as Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law. To this date not one person has ever rejected this definition. Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost. The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

My contention is that it was not the Church, the Body of Christ that started at Pentecost, but it was the Tribulation, "the times of Jacobs's troubles" that started at Pentecost (Acts 2:5-20). (this is a different subject, and can be discussed later).

We find in Acts 7 that the Jewish leaders rejected God, the Holy Spirit with their stoning of Stephen. They, along with Israel as a nation, had previously rejected God the Father, and God the son.

With Israel's rejection of the Trinity, IMHO, God set the nation of Israel aside, raised up Saul/Paul in Acts 9, then informed Peter in Acts 10 that he no longer was to consider the the Gentile "unclean".

Prior to that we cannot find were Jesus or the disciples ever WENT to a Gentile. There was "a middle wall of partition" between them and the Gentiles were considered uncleam/heathen/dogs and outside the gate. Jesus commanded His dicples not to go to them (Matt.10:5-6). Jesus Himself referred the Syrophenisian women in Matth 15:26 as a dog.

When God told Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to call the Gentiles "unclean," He was telling Peter that the Jew and Gentile were now on equal footing, and without distinction.

The Gentiles were set aside at the Tower of Babel (Gen.11), and now we find the Jews in the very same "set aside boat." "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that we might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32).

It is believig "set aside" Jews and Gentiles that now form the Body of Christ (a new creation/the one new man)(Eph.2:11-18). This did not happen until after the setting aside if Israel, as a nation, and the raising up of Saul/Paul.


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

 

[RGL1]

Ive read through a bunch of the threads in this forum,a nd dont reall get the major gist of what dispensationalists believe. Is it possible to get a dumbed down quick lesson?

zerocipher,
How's that for a dumbed down lesson?

 

[Kimberlyann]

I hope anyone reading this thread will be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to find out if these teachings are true or not. Just don't take any one's word for it. Remember, its easy to take a verse out of context. Scripture must interpret Scripture. Always look for at least two Scriptural witnesses for proof. And ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. We are only human, we can be sincere but at the same time be sincerely wrong.

I suggest that if we are all in Jesus then we are one big happy family. And as in every family there are bound to be some things on which we disagree. But at the end of a heated debate we can all agree, that when Jesus comes He will interpret these things. And we can remain friends.

 

[RGL1]

I hope anyone reading this thread will be like the Bereans and search the Scriptures to find out if these teachings are true or not. Just don't take any one's word for it. Remember, its easy to take a verse out of context. Scripture must interpret Scripture. Always look for at least two Scriptural witnesses for proof. And ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. We are only human, we can be sincere but at the same time be sincerely wrong.

I suggest that if we are all in Jesus then we are one big happy family. And as in every family there are bound to be some things on which we disagree. But at the end of a heated debate we can all agree, that when Jesus comes He will interpret these things. And we can remain friends.

AMEN! Preach it sister!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Good points, Kimberlyann.

I would also add that family members need to respect one another - as we are urged to do in Scripture - and make an effort to understand those with whom we disagree.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[biblebeliever123]

BY all means, context ...

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
Paul an apostle BY THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD OUR SAVIOUR

1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Declaration of grace, mercy, and peace....Paul declares grace and peace in every one of his epistles. Not just a friendly hello greeting, this is what God has done in this dispensation..declared grace and peace through the ministry of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
Teach no other doctrine...this would be PAULINE DOCTRINE, the preaching of JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
1 Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
people who want to be lawkeepers...do they not hear the law as it says in galatians!

1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
SOUND DOCTRINE, pauline doctrine, that is what was being taught contrary to and it is rampant today as it was in paul's day...ignoring the present truth, the preaching of Jesus Christ HOW?? according to the revelation of the mystery.
1 Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
according to what? the GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF THE BLESSED GOD, which was what? COMMITTED TO who? PAUL!!

1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
What's exceeding abundant... THE GRACE of our Lord...what's that... GRACE in the dispensation of grace?!

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

In me (paul first) here is the pattern... see you have a pattern first... that's so simple. ( gal. 2;7, Eph. 3:2, Col. 1:25, Gal. 1:11, Gal. 1:15,16, Gal. 2:8, Acts 9:14, 1 Tim. 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11, Acts. 26;16,17, Rom. 11:13, Rom. 15:16)

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

 

[Apollos1]

Dispy –

You said - - - For the past several years while participating in various forums I have defined the Chrurch, the Body of Christ, as Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law.

As a definition the thought is flawed. The church certainly is the body, and can be Jew and Gentile together, under the law of Christ. But to have a “church” does not require Jew and Gentile – it could be just one or the other - - or both.
I assume your attempted point would be that the “church” could not exist without Gentiles physically in it? Could a “church” exist without Jews in it ?

You said - - - Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost.

The CHURCH did not exist before Acts 2. The church came INTO existence on Pentecost in Acts 2. It was to begin at Jerusalem. It had Jews only at the beginning only.

The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

The church had to begin somewhere. God chose Jerusalem from which “repentance and remission of sins” would go forward – Luke 24:46-49.

I wonder though, IF Gentiles had been converted first, would you be thinking that the church still had not started in Acts 2 ???
I ask this because your thinking seems to be that because there were no GENTILES as yet in the Jewish “group” that started in Acts 2, it could not be the church/body.

I repeat, the church had to start somewhere. The Jews got the first opportunity.
Just what do you think they were “added to” in Acts 2:41 and 47 ??????????????

You said - - - We find in Acts 7 that the Jewish leaders rejected God, the Holy Spirit with their stoning of Stephen. They, along with Israel as a nation, had previously rejected God the Father, and God the son.

This makes for great drama, but it is unsubstantiated by the passage!

HOW did “Israel as a nation” reject God ????????????????????????????????????

Did they hold an election? Did the “president” issue an executive order? Maybe they took a poll?

“Israel” as a nation did not exist – it still does NOT exist. Israel was carried away TWICE into captivity:

10 tribes lost into Assyrian captivity – they NEVER returned!
2 tribes carried away twice into Babylonian captivity – these returned, basically as slaves.

During the time of the NT, they were under Roman domination! There was NO nation! This is a foolish notion.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD – none of them know for certain which tribe they are from and will cease to exist in perpetuity. The end.

You have said this before and have failed to support then. What do you have to offer now?

You said - - -With Israel's rejection of the Trinity, IMHO, God set the nation of Israel aside…

Stop your “sliding” into error. L@@k at what you are doing…

First, you say it was the “Jewish leaders”, then you slide into “Israel as a nation”.
All the while you start by saying the “leaders” (now the “nation”) rejected God, then you slide into “the Trinity”. So your “leaders” became a “nation” and their rejection of what Stephen was saying became a rejection of God, and then the Trinity.

This “gear shifting” may work for your theology purposes, but it rips the substance out of any truth it may have contained. Be consistent! Keep context !!

Second, there was no “nation” – see above. Therefore any theories you promote based on this erroneous point of “national action” are moot – Romans 11 not withstanding!

You said - - - Prior to that [Acts 7] we cannot find were Jesus or the disciples ever WENT to a Gentile.

And your point is what? If there were no Gentiles around there was no church ?

You said - - -There was "a middle wall of partition" between them and the Gentiles were considered uncleam/heathen/dogs and outside the gate. Jesus commanded His dicples not to go to them (Matt.10:5-6). Jesus Himself referred the Syrophenisian women in Matth 15:26 as a dog.

To do such was a violation of “the Law” – Acts 10:28. BUT…

AFTER Christ died, and AFTER HIS testament (will) went into effect, which began in Acts 2, on that day of Pentecost, the prohibition to Jews of going to the Gentiles was removed. It would be God’s choice of time and person to begin the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10.

PETER, not Paul was the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles – Acts 10,11, 15:7. Some among the church “scattered abroad” mentioned in Acts 8:4, then picked up later by Luke in Acts 11:19, preached the gospel to the Gentiles BEFORE Saul.

You said - - -When God told Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to call the Gentiles "unclean," He was telling Peter that the Jew and Gentile were now on equal footing, and without distinction.

You got it! And no second gospel was needed to do this.

 

[eph3Nine]

Not a drop of water anywhere, and people still think that what Christ did was NOT enuff! Tsk Tsk Tsk.

 

[Kimberlyann]

Apollos,

Dispy –

You said - - - For the past several years while participating in various forums I have defined the Chrurch, the Body of Christ, as Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law.

As a definition the thought is flawed. The church certainly is the body, and can be Jew and Gentile together, under the law of Christ. But to have a “church” does not require Jew and Gentile – it could be just one or the other - - or both.
I assume your attempted point would be that the “church” could not exist without Gentiles physically in it? Could a “church” exist without Jews in it ?

You said - - - Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost.

The CHURCH did not exist before Acts 2. The church came INTO existence on Pentecost in Acts 2. It was to begin at Jerusalem. It had Jews only at the beginning only.

The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

The church had to begin somewhere. God chose Jerusalem from which “repentance and remission of sins” would go forward – Luke 24:46-49.

I wonder though, IF Gentiles had been converted first, would you be thinking that the church still had not started in Acts 2 ???
I ask this because your thinking seems to be that because there were no GENTILES as yet in the Jewish “group” that started in Acts 2, it could not be the church/body.

I repeat, the church had to start somewhere. The Jews got the first opportunity.
Just what do you think they were “added to” in Acts 2:41 and 47 ??????????????

You said - - - We find in Acts 7 that the Jewish leaders rejected God, the Holy Spirit with their stoning of Stephen. They, along with Israel as a nation, had previously rejected God the Father, and God the son.

This makes for great drama, but it is unsubstantiated by the passage!

HOW did “Israel as a nation” reject God ????????????????????????????????????

Did they hold an election? Did the “president” issue an executive order? Maybe they took a poll?

“Israel” as a nation did not exist – it still does NOT exist. Israel was carried away TWICE into captivity:

10 tribes lost into Assyrian captivity – they NEVER returned!
2 tribes carried away twice into Babylonian captivity – these returned, basically as slaves.

During the time of the NT, they were under Roman domination! There was NO nation! This is a foolish notion.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD – none of them know for certain which tribe they are from and will cease to exist in perpetuity. The end.

You have said this before and have failed to support then. What do you have to offer now?

You said - - -With Israel's rejection of the Trinity, IMHO, God set the nation of Israel aside…

Stop your “sliding” into error. L@@k at what you are doing…

First, you say it was the “Jewish leaders”, then you slide into “Israel as a nation”.
All the while you start by saying the “leaders” (now the “nation&#8221 rejected God, then you slide into “the Trinity”. So your “leaders” became a “nation” and their rejection of what Stephen was saying became a rejection of God, and then the Trinity.

This “gear shifting” may work for your theology purposes, but it rips the substance out of any truth it may have contained. Be consistent! Keep context !!

Second, there was no “nation” – see above. Therefore any theories you promote based on this erroneous point of “national action” are moot – Romans 11 not withstanding!

You said - - - Prior to that [Acts 7] we cannot find were Jesus or the disciples ever WENT to a Gentile.

And your point is what? If there were no Gentiles around there was no church ?

You said - - -There was "a middle wall of partition" between them and the Gentiles were considered uncleam/heathen/dogs and outside the gate. Jesus commanded His dicples not to go to them (Matt.10:5-6). Jesus Himself referred the Syrophenisian women in Matth 15:26 as a dog.

To do such was a violation of “the Law” – Acts 10:28. BUT…

AFTER Christ died, and AFTER HIS testament (will) went into effect, which began in Acts 2, on that day of Pentecost, the prohibition to Jews of going to the Gentiles was removed. It would be God’s choice of time and person to begin the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10.

PETER, not Paul was the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles – Acts 10,11, 15:7. Some among the church “scattered abroad” mentioned in Acts 8:4, then picked up later by Luke in Acts 11:19, preached the gospel to the Gentiles BEFORE Saul.

You said - - -When God told Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to call the Gentiles "unclean," He was telling Peter that the Jew and Gentile were now on equal footing, and without distinction.

You got it! And no second gospel was needed to do this.

Excellent post.

 

[eph3Nine]

When we ADD anything to the sufficiency of the Cross of Christ, we make the Cross of NONE EFFECT!

 

[RGL1]

When we ADD anything to the sufficiency of the Cross of Christ, we make the Cross of NONE EFFECT!

Who involved in this thread added to the sufficiency of the cross? And how was that done?

 

[RGL1]

Dispy –

You said - - - For the past several years while participating in various forums I have defined the Chrurch, the Body of Christ, as Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law.

As a definition the thought is flawed. The church certainly is the body, and can be Jew and Gentile together, under the law of Christ. But to have a “church” does not require Jew and Gentile – it could be just one or the other - - or both.
I assume your attempted point would be that the “church” could not exist without Gentiles physically in it? Could a “church” exist without Jews in it ?

You said - - - Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost.

The CHURCH did not exist before Acts 2. The church came INTO existence on Pentecost in Acts 2. It was to begin at Jerusalem. It had Jews only at the beginning only.

The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

The church had to begin somewhere. God chose Jerusalem from which “repentance and remission of sins” would go forward – Luke 24:46-49.

I wonder though, IF Gentiles had been converted first, would you be thinking that the church still had not started in Acts 2 ???
I ask this because your thinking seems to be that because there were no GENTILES as yet in the Jewish “group” that started in Acts 2, it could not be the church/body.

I repeat, the church had to start somewhere. The Jews got the first opportunity.
Just what do you think they were “added to” in Acts 2:41 and 47 ??????????????

You said - - - We find in Acts 7 that the Jewish leaders rejected God, the Holy Spirit with their stoning of Stephen. They, along with Israel as a nation, had previously rejected God the Father, and God the son.

This makes for great drama, but it is unsubstantiated by the passage!

HOW did “Israel as a nation” reject God ????????????????????????????????????

Did they hold an election? Did the “president” issue an executive order? Maybe they took a poll?

“Israel” as a nation did not exist – it still does NOT exist. Israel was carried away TWICE into captivity:

10 tribes lost into Assyrian captivity – they NEVER returned!
2 tribes carried away twice into Babylonian captivity – these returned, basically as slaves.

During the time of the NT, they were under Roman domination! There was NO nation! This is a foolish notion.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD – none of them know for certain which tribe they are from and will cease to exist in perpetuity. The end.

You have said this before and have failed to support then. What do you have to offer now?

You said - - -With Israel's rejection of the Trinity, IMHO, God set the nation of Israel aside…

Stop your “sliding” into error. L@@k at what you are doing…

First, you say it was the “Jewish leaders”, then you slide into “Israel as a nation”.
All the while you start by saying the “leaders” (now the “nation&#8221 rejected God, then you slide into “the Trinity”. So your “leaders” became a “nation” and their rejection of what Stephen was saying became a rejection of God, and then the Trinity.

This “gear shifting” may work for your theology purposes, but it rips the substance out of any truth it may have contained. Be consistent! Keep context !!

Second, there was no “nation” – see above. Therefore any theories you promote based on this erroneous point of “national action” are moot – Romans 11 not withstanding!

You said - - - Prior to that [Acts 7] we cannot find were Jesus or the disciples ever WENT to a Gentile.

And your point is what? If there were no Gentiles around there was no church ?

You said - - -There was "a middle wall of partition" between them and the Gentiles were considered uncleam/heathen/dogs and outside the gate. Jesus commanded His dicples not to go to them (Matt.10:5-6). Jesus Himself referred the Syrophenisian women in Matth 15:26 as a dog.

To do such was a violation of “the Law” – Acts 10:28. BUT…

AFTER Christ died, and AFTER HIS testament (will) went into effect, which began in Acts 2, on that day of Pentecost, the prohibition to Jews of going to the Gentiles was removed. It would be God’s choice of time and person to begin the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10.

PETER, not Paul was the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles – Acts 10,11, 15:7. Some among the church “scattered abroad” mentioned in Acts 8:4, then picked up later by Luke in Acts 11:19, preached the gospel to the Gentiles BEFORE Saul.

You said - - -When God told Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to call the Gentiles "unclean," He was telling Peter that the Jew and Gentile were now on equal footing, and without distinction.

You got it! And no second gospel was needed to do this.

Apollos1,
Nice post, very well done.

 

[Kimberlyann]

When we ADD anything to the sufficiency of the Cross of Christ, we make the Cross of NONE EFFECT!

Where did you get that?

I don't recall ever reading anyone say anything about us having to add anything to what Christ did on the cross in this forum.

 

[eph3Nine]

Ask yourself this question.

What am I adding to the Crosswork of Christ that HE says is finished???

 

[RGL1]

eph3,

Can you answer Kim's and my question? (#54 & #56)

 

[Dispy]

I must admit that we mid-Acts dispies hold a minority view amongst dispensationalists. Being educated in the Christian Reformed Christian school, I too once believed the Church, the Body of Christ, began in Acts 2, and believed that the Church today was "spiritual Israel." Presently I totally reject these former beliefs.

For the past several years while participating in various forums I have defined the Chrurch, the Body of Christ, as Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction, and not under the Law. To this date not one person has ever rejected this definition. Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost. The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

As a definition the thought is flawed. The church certainly is the body, and can be Jew and Gentile together, under the law of Christ. But to have a “church” does not require Jew and Gentile – it could be just one or the other - - or both.
I assume your attempted point would be that the “church” could not exist without Gentiles physically in it? Could a “church” exist without Jews in it ?

You probably didn't notice that the definition of the Church was a specific Church, i.e. the Body of Christ. The definition of a church can be any assembly, and does not have to be a religious group. That Church, the Body of Christ, Jew an Gentile on equal footing, withou distinction, and not under the Law, cannot be found at Pentecost, did not exist at Pentecost. At Pentecose the group of People that was present was a gropup of religious Jews, and proselytes, who came to Jerusalem to celebrate a Jewish feasst day, Therefore, they were a Jewish Church (assembly).

Never said, or implied, that a church had to consist of Jews and Gentiles. Your assumption is totally false.

Also, there is no Scriptural support that shows that this Church existed at Pentecost. The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

The CHURCH did not exist before Acts 2. The church came INTO existence on Pentecost in Acts 2. It was to begin at Jerusalem. It had Jews only at the beginning only.

A Jewish assembly (Church) did exist at Pentecost. it was made up of Jews and proselytes. Are you trying to tell me that the group (assembly/church) of religious Jews that assembled in Jerusalem, in Acts 2, was not a Church? I'll even go so far as to say that group worshiped in a synagogue (church).

The assembly (church) at Pentecost consisted entirely of Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:6-11).

The church had to begin somewhere. God chose Jerusalem from which “repentance and remission of sins” would go forward – Luke 24:46-49.

I wonder though, IF Gentiles had been converted first, would you be thinking that the church still had not started in Acts 2 ???
I ask this because your thinking seems to be that because there were no GENTILES as yet in the Jewish “group” that started in Acts 2, it could not be the church/body.

I repeat, the church had to start somewhere. The Jews got the first opportunity.
Just what do you think they were “added to” in Acts 2:41 and 47 ??????????????

Are you trying to tell me there were no Jewish Churches (assemblies/synogogues) prior to Pentecost? The ancestors of those at Pentecost can be found in the "church in the wilderness" way back in the Old Testament. To say that there was no Church prior to Pentecost is utterly rediculous.

We find in Acts 7 that the Jewish leaders rejected God, the Holy Spirit with their stoning of Stephen. They, along with Israel as a nation, had previously rejected God the Father, and God the son.

This makes for great drama, but it is unsubstantiated by the passage!

HOW did “Israel as a nation” reject God ????????????????????????????????????

Did they hold an election? Did the “president” issue an executive order? Maybe they took a poll?

“Israel” as a nation did not exist – it still does NOT exist. Israel was carried away TWICE into captivity:

10 tribes lost into Assyrian captivity – they NEVER returned!
2 tribes carried away twice into Babylonian captivity – these returned, basically as slaves.

During the time of the NT, they were under Roman domination! There was NO nation! This is a foolish notion.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD – none of them know for certain which tribe they are from and will cease to exist in perpetuity. The end.

You have said this before and have failed to support then. What do you have to offer now?

Israel, as a nation, rejected God the Father when the leaders, and children if Israel in general, rejected the council of God, and refused to be baptizsed of John (Luke 7:30). "For they (Israel) being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness" (Romans 10:3) Further, they allowed John the Baptist to be killed.

They rejected God the Son when they cried "crucify Him" (Mark 15:13).

They rejected God the Holy Spirit when in Acts 7 they stoned Stephen, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father.

Two tribes of Israel resided in Judeah. Ten tribes of Israel resided in Samaria. Was Jesus lying to the Syrophenician women when he said He was not sent but to the Lost sheep of the house (nation) of Israel? Were not the leaders of Israel headquartered in Jerusalem? Israel, as a nation was under Roman rule, but still maintained its own Identity.

Israel, as a nation, is presently in a set aside condition, However, Israel again will be restored as God's chosen people. If God is able to know the number of hairs on each persons head, I"m sure He has a way of keeping track of every Jews ancesstory, as to what tribe they belong to, and make it known to every one of Jewish blood.

With Israel's rejection of the Trinity, IMHO, God set the nation of Israel aside, raised up Saul/Paul in Acts 9, then informed Peter in Acts 10 that he no longer was to consider the the Gentile "unclean".

Stop your “sliding” into error. L@@k at what you are doing…

First, you say it was the “Jewish leaders”, then you slide into “Israel as a nation”.
All the while you start by saying the “leaders” (now the “nation&#8221 rejected God, then you slide into “the Trinity”. So your “leaders” became a “nation” and their rejection of what Stephen was saying became a rejection of God, and then the Trinity.

This “gear shifting” may work for your theology purposes, but it rips the substance out of any truth it may have contained. Be consistent! Keep context !!

Second, there was no “nation” – see above. Therefore any theories you promote based on this erroneous point of “national action” are moot – Romans 11 not withstanding!

Both the leaders of Israel and the children of Israel,in General rejected the Trinity. However there were still believer/followeres of Jesus, but they were in the minority.

Dont believe I am "gear shifting. Dont think that you can show me from scripture where the leaders of Israel, or the majority of Israelites, did not reject God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Why else would God put the nation of Israel in her "set aside" condition.

Prior to that we cannot find were Jesus or the disciples ever WENT to a Gentile.

And your point is what? If there were no Gentiles around there was no church ?

Never said that, or implied it. My point is that Jesus never went to a Gentile, but Gentiles did come to Him, and He never sent them away without a blessing. God never turned away a Gentile that truly sought after Him.

There was "a middle wall of partition" between them and the Gentiles were considered uncleam/heathen/dogs and outside the gate. Jesus commanded His dicples not to go to them (Matt.10:5-6). Jesus Himself referred the Syrophenisian women in Matth 15:26 as a dog.

To do such was a violation of “the Law” – Acts 10:28. BUT…

AFTER Christ died, and AFTER HIS testament (will) went into effect, which began in Acts 2, on that day of Pentecost, the prohibition to Jews of going to the Gentiles was removed. It would be God’s choice of time and person to begin the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10.

PETER, not Paul was the first to take the gospel to the Gentiles – Acts 10,11, 15:7. Some among the church “scattered abroad” mentioned in Acts 8:4, then picked up later by Luke in Acts 11:19, preached the gospel to the Gentiles BEFORE Saul.

Yes, Peter was the first to minister to Gentiles, but he dod not go to them under the "so called" gdreat commission. God had to instruct him to go. How come we never find the 12 ging to any Gentiles under the "so called" great commission after Acts 15?

WHERE Prior to the conversion of Saul/Paul do you find that it was now lawfull for one that was a Jew to go to one of another nation? Where, before the conversion of Saul/Paul, do we learn that the Law was no longer in effect? Are you trying to tell me that the Jews were no longer under the Law after Pentecost? Chapter and verse prior to the raising up of Saul/Paul please!!! So, How could there be Jews and Gentiles on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law, at Pentecost?[/QUOTE]

When God told Peter, in Acts 10, that he was no longer to call the Gentiles "unclean," He was telling Peter that the Jew and Gentile were now on equal footing, and without distinction.

You got it! And no second gospel was needed to do this.

You had better believe I do.

The Gentiles were set aside at the Tower of Babel (Gen.11), and now we find the Jews in the very same "set aside boat." "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that we might have mercy upon all" (Romans 11:32).

It is believig "set aside" Jews and Gentiles that now form the Body of Christ (a new creation/the one new man)(Eph.2:11-18). This did not happen until after the setting aside if Israel, as a nation, and the raising up of Saul/Paul.

WHY NO RESPONSE TO THIS? Paul is telling us of the formation of the Body of Christ that didn't exist at Pentecost.

 

[RGL1]

WHY NO RESPONSE TO THIS? Paul is telling us of the formation of the Body of Christ that didn't exist at Pentecost.

No, Paul is not telling us this, you are. Thanks for the commentary.