cubanito
Well-Known Member
- Nov 16, 2005
- 2,680
- 222
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Dispy typed: When Paul was converted, he was commissioned to go to the Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel. So Paul was still carrying out what he was commissioned to do. He quit going to the Jews first because they were rejecting his message.Dispy said:
BUT
Dispy also typed later on …Peter and the 11 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." Paul was commissioned to preach "the gospel of the grace of God." These are two opposing gospels (doctrines). Therefore, Peter and the 11 stayed with those who were saved under the preaching of their gospel. Their later letters are addressed to those saved under the kingdom program and were scattered because of the persecution.
Ok so what is it, Paul to preach to everybody, only the Gentiles or was there some change at the council of Jerusalem? As far as I’m concerned Paul was to go to everybody, Jew and Gentile, and his predilection was to try the Jews first. However the 12 tended to stay in Jerusalem (until persecution finally drove them out) whereas Paul was mutually agreed to travel around.
More dispy: Paul "submitted" to the council at Jerusalem because he was told by God to go there. Gal.2:1 "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Banabas, and too Titus with me also.
2. And i went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel (indication it was a different gospel) which I preached among the Gentiles..."
I do not see where “that gospel” (translation: good news) means “a different gospel”. If I tell you that I just came from telling my neighbor that good news, the assumption would be that it was the same good news we had just been speaking about, not a different unknown one.
Dispy continues: Paul opposed the Judaizers because they didn't believe that Jesus was their long promised Messiah, and that they wanted Paul's converts to adhere to the Laws of Moses.
No, he opposed the Judaizers because they sought to add the Mosaic system (most specifically, circumcision) to the news that Jesus was the Messiah. Incidentally, Paul called Peter a hypocrite to his face for “falling in” with the Judaizers. Well then, that assumes that Peter’s gospel was the same as Paul’s, else how could Paul criticize Peter for preaching the need for circumcision? If indeed Peter was commissioned by God to preach a different gospel, then Peter would be quite correct in preaching differently to the Jews than Paul to the Gentiles. It aint so. The very fact of a Jerusalem council, presupposes that Paul viewed his preaching as in line with everyone else’s.
Dispy continues torturing his keyboard with: James, Chephas (Peter), and John, realizing that Paul had a commission that replaced their's, agree with Paul as Galatians 2:9 says: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (Gentiles) and they unto the circumcision (Jews).
Where exactly do you get “REPLACED” in the text? The way I read it, Peter had already amply proven the end of the Mosaic dietary system, and even the circumcision that preceded it very forcefully in the Cornelius incident. I agree that a new dispensation was ushered in, and that all manner of old covenant was abolished. After all, I AM a dispy. But even the most strident Covenental proponent would agree that a replacement occurred. We argue about WHEN that replacement occurred. IMO, it occurred during the passion or just days after (and frankly I think the moment was in fact the last supper, when Christ declared a New Covenant I give to you”
. You on the other hand seem to point to sometime well AFTER the incident with Cornelius, well AFTER the initial conversion of Saul to Paul. I am curious if you can pinpoint more exactly when exactly this Latest Covenant occurred between God and man. Covenants must involve the shedding of blood. They occur at a precise moment in time, with witnesses. Christ certainly met the timing, God, blood and witness part. When exactly did an even newer covenant get set up by Paul, replacing Peter’s? Remember again, Peter preached an end to the Mosaic system, and end to circumcision requirements while Saul was still persecuting the Church. That Peter backslid a bit later into a chummy attitude with the Judaizers is not out of character for the volatile Peter. Denial of Truth was well known of Peter (as was bold proclamation of it also).Dispy maintains that: t was required of Israel to celebrate the Passover. Now that Israel, as a nation, is in a set aside condition, we do not celebrate the Passover, however, we do practice the Lord's Supper; in accordance with 1Cor.11:25, as a memorial to His death, and what it accomplished.
OK, fine, but is that all you see in Passover? Is not Passover an exquisitively clear type of the final sacrifice of the Lamb of God? Is not in fact Christ the Paschal Lamb, the fulfillment of, the very last, Passover, costing the firstbegotten Son of God Himself?
Dispy upholds with fervor: At the Passover, Jesus is speaking of the New Testament (Covenant) in His Blood. He is not speaking of New Covenant with Israel mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31, or Hebrews 8:10.
Uh-huh, sure, because you say so. Look, I am getting confused, with you the terminology New Covenant is insufficient, as there were (if I understand you correctly) at least 3 covenants throughout Acts. The Old (which we can call Mosaic), the New for Israel, and the New for Gentiles. Abgbreviation time, If you’d agree w me, let’s make it OT, NI (standing for either New Israel or New Intermediate) and NG (or New for Gentiles). Otherwise give me a better explanation, because it seems we have multiple New Covenants that you propose.
The rest of what dispy wrote I agree to.
And as far as Eph, I’m sorry, I just think you’re over the top sis. Hermeneutical systems, like dispy/hyper-dispy/Covenental/Allegorical are tools to help us learn and communicate Truth. They are not the core of the Faith. That’s my last word to you, as I’ve no desire to engage in a screaming match over something I consider peripheral.
JR, moderate (progressive) dispy
Upvote
0
