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

[Clare73]

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

NT apostolic teaching knows nothing of the restoration of Israel.

Restoration in the NT is always of the old creation in the new creation.
"Restoration" has been hijacked by proponents of a future earthly Jewish kingdom, nowhere taught in the NT, to mean a future restoration of Israel. It's the same false doctrine believed by the Jews in the time of Jesus.

Restoration throughout the NT is of the old creation in the new creation, it is never of Israel.

 

[Clare73]

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

Definitely not. The Church is not ruling the people,

There is nothing about "ruling people" in Revelation 20:4-7.

Authoritative apostolic teaching is that Jesus is reigning now (1 Corinthians 15:25), that the church is seated with him in the heavenly realms now (Ephesians 2:6), and none of it has to do with an earthly kingdom, all of it has to do with the kingdom Jesus set up while on earth, invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21), set up in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

And Revelation 20:4-7 corresponds quite well to that authoritative apostolic teaching.

The apostolic teaching includes a literal ruling (1.Cor 6:2), and teaches the ruling of Christ between the return of Jesus and the very end (1.Cor 15:23-26)

And return of Jesus is the very end (1 Corinthians 15:51-52):
"we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."
Time is over at the second coming.

1 Cor 15:23-26 is the reigning from the heavenly realms during the church age, presented above, and occurring now.

And Jesus must "remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything" (Acts 3:21), which is the new heavens and new earth, the home of righteousness he tells us about in 2 Peter 3:10-13; and which John tells us about in Revelation 21:1-4, where there is no death because it is eternity.
The NT teaches nothing between the second coming/resurrection and the final judgment.

Nor do any of the Church's early creeds present time between the second coming and the final judgment.

That is all personal interpretation of prophetic riddles with no basis in NT authoritative apostolic teaching.

 

[Clare73]

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

What do you think?

He was trying to win them to the gospel.

He did not say they were innocent (1 Corinthians 2:7-8).

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

The Jews in Jerusalem were the one who had Jesus killed.

Who thinks Jesus condemned all Jews? Do they know the Biblical record?

 

[Guojing]

Did Peter really do that?

You have to see the KJV version for clarity

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Times of refreshing is from Isaiah 28:12

To whom he said , This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest ; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear .

We may not realized the significance of the this term, but in OT prophecy, this refers to the time where Israel is finally at rest, when Jesus returns to usher them into the promised kingdom, which is the central message of the gospel of the kingdom, a promise first made to David in 2 Samuel 7.

Acts 3:20 is when the Holy Spirit, speaking thru Peter, made clear to Israel that should the nation repent of crucifying their Messiah, God the Father (he) will send Jesus back to them to usher the into that promised Kingdom.

Israel the nation was that close to 70th week, and the 2nd coming of Christ, but alas, they rejected the Holy Spirit again in Acts 3.

 

[Guojing]

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

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

Good recognition of what the Holy Spirit spoke thru Peter in Acts 3:17. Clare73 does not recognize that it was not Peter speaking, but the Holy Spirit who spoke thru him to the nation Israel.

The Holy Spirit confirmed that Israel was under the sin of ignorance when they crucified their Messiah, so under the Law of Moses, it could still be forgiven.

As I have earlier said

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

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

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

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

 

[Guojing]

There is nothing about "ruling people" in Revelation 20:4-7.

Authoritative apostolic teaching is that Jesus is reigning now (1 Corinthians 15:25), that the church is seated with him in the heavenly realms now (Ephesians 2:6), and none of it has to do with an earthly kingdom, all of it has to do with the kingdom Jesus set up while on earth, invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21), set up in the hearts of those where he reigns and rules.

Ahh I see that you are a amillennialist, no wonder your interpretation of scripture is so different.

 

[Nova2216]

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

What? How does this even make sense?

did Paul worship the same Jesus?

Peter taught - repent + baptism = Forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) (Mark 16:15,16) (Acts 8:5,12,13,26-40)

Paul was taught and obeyed - be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16)

Baptism saves (1Peter 3:20,21)

Jesus commanded his disciples to speak the same thing and walk by the same rule. (1Cor. 1:10) (Phil. 3:16)

...teach no other doctrine... (1Tim. 1:3)

It would be sin to teach different gospels. (1Jn 3:4)

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion,

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[Davy]

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

What? How does this even make sense?

did Paul worship the same Jesus?

Why do people leave out the next verse in parenthesis that goes with that?

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJV

By Paul's explanation in the 8th verse, we well know that he was NOT speaking of two separate gospels, but instead 'commissions', because the Greek word for "apostleship" means 'commission' (apostole: 651 & 649).

Yet men's leaven traditions, always ADDING to God's Word, create a whole denominational movement based on that false two gospels idea. It's called Hyper-Dispensationalism (E.W. Bullinger, Charles Welch, Vladimir Gelesnoff, Otis Sellers, C.R. Stam, J.C. O'Hair, Charles F. Baker, etc.)

E.W. Bullinger was an excellent 19th century Bible scholar, but in the 1880's he succumbed to John Darby's pre-trib rapture theory (1830's) in Great Britain. Thus Bullinger developed Darby's theory of dispensationalism into the Hyper-dispensationalist movement.

Their main theme has produced the false teaching that only Apostle Paul's Epistles are relevant to the Gentile Church.

Thus their ultra-dispensationalist followers even deny The Four Gospels as being for the Gentile Church, which is ludicrous.

 

[helmut]

What do you think?

He was trying to win them to the gospel.

And this allowed him to declare excuse the listeners with ignorance while Jesus did say (aacording to you!") they knew what they did?

He did not say they were innocent (1 Corinthians 2:7-8).

He called them ignorant, what you denied in post #70.

Who thinks Jesus condemned all Jews? Do they know the Biblical record?

Your wording seemed to suggest that.

 

[helmut]

You have to see the KJV version for clarity

I always becme scepical when someone refers to a special translöation and not the original (untranslated) version ...

We may not realized the significance of the this term, but in OT prophecy, this refers to the time where Israel is finally at rest, when Jesus returns to usher them into the promised kingdom, which is the central message of the gospel of the kingdom, a promise first made to David in 2 Samuel 7.

This sounds like circular reasoning: You interpret Is 28:12 in a frame you want to prove for Acts 3:19-21.

Israel the nation was that close to 70th week, and the 2nd coming of Christ, but alas, they rejected the Holy Spirit again in Acts 3.

Do you want to tell me that God planned to let Jesus return in about 35-40 AD, but Israel did not repent, so the original plan did not work as God has thought, and God had to take refuge to plan B? Or how do I have to understand your words?

You cannot tear the 70 weeks in Daniel into pieces, it is one span of time, without interruption.

 

[helmut]

Baptism saves (1Peter 3:20,21)

But only the Baptism that Peter mentions: The appeal to God for a clear conscience.

If you did not ask God for forgiveness when you were baptized, this is not a saving baptism.

 

[Guojing]

I always becme scepical when someone refers to a special translöation and not the original (untranslated) version ...


This sounds like circular reasoning: You interpret Is 28:12 in a frame you want to prove for Acts 3:19-21.


Do you want to tell me that God planned to let Jesus return in about 35-40 AD, but Israel did not repent, so the original plan did not work as God has thought, and God had to take refuge to plan B? Or how do I have to understand your words?

You cannot tear the 70 weeks in Daniel into pieces, it is one span of time, without interruption.

KJV is hardly what you call a "special translation" but if you don't want to accept the KJV, I am fine.

As for your last point, that is the mystery that was revealed to Paul after Israel has fallen, a mystery that was hidden in God since the world began (Ephesians 3:9).

God already knew Israel would not accept his Son even after his resurrection, but the point is that, from our perspective of time, Israel must be given a legitimate chance first, before God could reveal that mystery that he hid since time began, something that was not revealed in the OT.

 

[helmut]

E.W. Bullinger was an excellent 19th century Bible scholar, but in the 1880's he succumbed to John Darby's pre-trib rapture theory (1830's) in Great Britain. Thus Bullinger developed Darby's theory of dispensationalism into the Hyper-dispensationalist movement.

Pre-trib rapture is wrong from the start. In Rev 14, the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel are sealed, i.e. they will be preserved in the tribulation, and the multitude without number from the Gentiles is said to have come from the tribulation. So it is possible to interpret Scripture so that Israel will be spared from the tribulation (while Gentile believers will go through it), but this is almost the contrary to pre-trib theories that let Israel (and new believers) undergo tribulation, while we Gentile believers will be raptured away safe "in the air".

 

[helmut]

KJV is hardly what you call a "special translation"

Any translation is special. Maybe I should have said peculiar? (English is not my mother tongue)

As for your last point, that is the mystery that was revealed to Paul after Israel has fallen, a mystery that was hidden in God since the world began (Ephesians 3:9).

I don't believe that we can stretch this verse to cover a prophecy that did get no fulfillment forever.

God already knew Israel would not accept his Son even after his resurrection

... and therefore we should not interpret the OT as if God foretold it would accept Him and immediately receive the blessings from the resurrection.

The mystery not told is the time between the first and second coming of Christ. Therefore when Daniels tells the time of the first coming, he does not separate it from the second coming. But to put any part of the 70 weeks into the time between the first and second coming is a haphazard interpretation.

 

[Guojing]

Any translation is special. Maybe I should have said peculiar? (English is not my mother tongue)


I don't believe that we can stretch this verse to cover a prophecy that did get no fulfillment forever.


... and therefore we should not interpret the OT as if God foretold it would accept Him and immediately receive the blessings from the resurrection.

The mystery not told is the time between the first and second coming of Christ. Therefore when Daniels tells the time of the first coming, he does not separate it from the second coming. But to put any part of the 70 weeks into the time between the first and second coming is a haphazard interpretation.

Don't tell me you are an amillenist?

You believe Daniel's 70th week has passed and we are living in the millennium now?

 

[helmut]

Don't tell me you are an amillenist?

You believe Daniel's 70th week has passed and we are living in the millennium now?

Nope.

The millenium is in the future, after the return of Jesus.

The 70 weeks are past.

 

[Guojing]

Nope.

The millenium is in the future, after the return of Jesus.

The 70 weeks are past.

The 70th week represents the Tribulation.

Jesus is suppose to return for Israel after the Tribulation.

 

[Nova2216]

But only the Baptism that Peter mentions: The appeal to God for a clear conscience.

If you did not ask God for forgiveness when you were baptized, this is not a saving baptism.

Would you please give me the scripture (after the resurrection of Jesus) which tells the "alien sinner" to pray for forgiveness? Notice (Jn. 9:31)

The baptism which saves is mentioned in (Acts 2:38 ; 8:5,12,13,26-40 ; 16:30-34 ; 22:16) (Rom. 6:3-6, 16-18) and (Mark 16:16).

(1Peter 3:20,21)

 

[helmut]

The 70th week represents the Tribulation.

Not in Daniel. If you try to put the tribulation into the 70 weeks, it can only be the second half of the last week.

But there is no need to interpret the tribulation into the 70 weeks. And there is no need to turn the 70 weeks asunder.

 

[helmut]

Would you please give me the scripture (after the resurrection of Jesus) which tells the "alien sinner" to pray for forgiveness? Notice (Jn. 9:31)

1Peter 3:20,21
I showed that the verse which explicitly calls the baptism as saving defines it as a pledge for forgiveness. No less, no more.

And I don't understand what Jh 9:31 has to do with the time "after the resurrection of Jesus" ...

The baptism which saves is mentioned in (Acts 2:38 ; 8:5,12,13,26-40 ; 16:30-34 ; 22:16) (Rom. 6:3-6, 16-18) and (Mark 16:16).

Acts 2:38 - baptism connected to repentance.
Acts 8:5,12,13 - no saving baptism: the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit, and without that we don't belong to Jesus, are not saved.
Acts 8:26-40 - we have an earnest question, a biblical instruction by Philipp the "deacon", it is not said that it was the baptism that saved the "Ethiopian" (Sudanese in modern terminology).
Acts 16:30-34 - v.31.34 makes clear it was the faith that saved, not baptism.
Acts 22:16 - a baptism connected to a call to the name of Jesus the very name Paul had persecuted (the word "name" sometimes refers to what we call a person).

EDIT:
I forgot Mk 16:16: the denial (who does not believe will be condemned) shows that it is faith, not baptism that saves.
---

As you see - there is no saving baptism without faith or repentance.

Romans 6 has Romans 1-5 as background.