Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I view the garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem as the greatest seperation. One being physical on earth, the other being in Heaven.Where do we find the greatest book separation in the Bible? Tradition says Between Genesis-Malachi (OT) and Matthew-Revelation (NT)? But what says you? If its between NT and OT, where did the OT Start? Surely not Genesis due to the fact that the Old Testament or Covenant was not given to the Jews until the book of Exodus. So do we cut off Genesis? Where is the greatest serpeation found in the Bible?
So you believe the NC started at John? Does not a New Testament or Covenant need a shedding of blood? I'm confused with your answer?Hitch said:Jewsu said the Law and the Prophets were 'until John'.
The NC began with the death of Christ Jesus. As to whether we are now in the NC I will reserve judgement.TheScottsMen said:So you believe the NC started at John? Does not a New Testament or Covenant need a shedding of blood? I'm confused with your answer?But thats alright, I tend to be confused with a lot of peoples answers, so no worries
This is a good place.Hitch said:Jewsu said the Law and the Prophets were 'until John'.
Hitch >> Jewsu said the Law and the Prophets were 'until John'
Paul >> What did John do?
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16.
Hi Terral,Terral said:Hi Paul:
[/font][/size]
John the Baptist/Elijah (Matt. 1:13+14) marks the time that God began to fulfill OT Prophecy. And thus:
However the greatest division in Scripture is between Prophecy and the Mystery. The Prophets were given to see John the Baptist (Isa. 40:3, Mal. 3:1) and Israel as a Kingdom of Priests (Exodus 19:6, 1Pet. 2:9). None of them were given to see the revelation of the Mystery (Rom. 16:25). This is why we cannot start our Mystery church (Eph. 5:32) in Acts 2, because Joel could see those things of Prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). None of them saw the writer who with is companions wrote over half of our NT.
In Christ,
Terral
Paul >> I'm sure you are aware I do not believe the church began at Acts 2. Calling something a mystery simply means it was kept a secret to some extent; the body of Gentiles being called out in Acts was part of the prophetic plan of God - the full knowledge of which was not made known until the Apostle Paul was raised up.
Paul >> Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (Act 15:14-17 KJV)
Luke is demonstrating Pauls defense of himself for preaching the kingdom (Acts 20:25) before King Agrippa, and was sizing him up to ask this:Pauls quote >> Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
"King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do." Acts 26:27.
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col. 1:24-27.
Paul >> Again, it was no mystery that salvation would come to the Gentiles through Israel.
Paul quotes >> Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Terral said:Hi Paul:
We agree, but those prophetic plans were seen by the prophets, which means they are NOT part of the Mystery revealed to Paul. You are trying to connect things in Scripture that God has put asunder. And no, my understanding of what you do not believe is quite unclear.
No Sir, they are discussing whether of not Gentiles would need to be circumcised... Peter going to Cornelius open the door for the inclusion of Gentiles through Paul >> Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, not Paul.Peter is speaking about his adventure with Cornelius in Acts 10, as he was presenting the gospel of the kingdom. That has nothing to do with the Mystery of our church (Eph. 5:32), and the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12. You are claiming that our church did not start in Acts 2, but then appear to use Cornelius as an example of someone in our church today. He became a member of the same church (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:17) Peter was building in Acts 2. If you do not start our mystery church in Acts 2, then where do you start it?
I think you should go back and read Rom 16:25-27 again.Salvation was coming through Israel to the Gentiles in the offering of the gospel of the kingdom, which was according to Prophecy. Pauls my gospel was sent to the nations (Rom. 16:25-27) apart from Israel, and was given because of Israels transgression from your quote (Rom. 11:11+12). Israel is being hardened throughout this process (Rom. 11:25), which forbids salvation coming through them to the Gentiles for today. The gospel and the preacher (Rom. 10:14) has replaced any particular nation as the source of salvation for anybody. Believers were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26), after Paul and Barnabas taught there for a year; and not in Jerusalem.
Hi again all. If I remember correctly, Christ said salvation was of the "jews". We know He came from the House of Judah, but why wouldn't Christ say "of Israel"? Trust me when I say I am not antisemetic as you know I love scripture, God and everyone elseSalvation was coming through Israel to the Gentiles in the offering of the gospel of the kingdom, which was according to Prophecy. Pauls my gospel was sent to the nations (Rom. 16:25-27) apart from Israel, and was given because of Israels transgression from your quote (Rom. 11:11+12). Israel is being hardened throughout this process (Rom. 11:25), which forbids salvation coming through them to the Gentiles for today. The gospel and the preacher (Rom. 10:14) has replaced any particular nation as the source of salvation for anybody.
Whatever gave you an idea like that? That supposition is not even plausible. The Apostle Paul worked for the building of the bride and the body, as the whole purpose of God.Paul >> How about this... The Church which is HIS Body could not begin BEFORE Israel was set aside.
Both the kingdom and grace dispensations ran side by side during the time of Acts. The meeting in Jerusalem was between the members of bride [ James, Peter, John ] and the body [ Paul, Barnabas, Titus ]. There is no Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the Gentile dominant body was placed on hold, for the bride to be set aside. Paul refutes that idea completely in his testimony to the Galatians:"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God [ my gospel; Rom. 16:25 ] And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom [ gospel of the kingdom; Matt. 24:14 ], will no longer see my face. Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. Acts 20:24-27.
Then we compare this testimony with what is written in Acts regarding the first Christians:But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Gal. 1:15-17.
The first church with members to be called Christian was in Antioch under Paul and Barnabas. These are two of the characters Christ sent through a revelation to submit the gospel I preach among the Gentiles to Peter, John and James and the church in Jerusalem. Gal. 2:2. Pauls letters to the Thessalonians, Romans and Corinthians were all drafted before the end of Acts. Your hypothesis above makes little sense in light of all the Scriptural evidence to the contrary.But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch . . . And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:20-26.
No sir. The Kingdom church of Acts 2 had members long before this Day of Pentecost. John the Baptist and Christ have been gathering members to the bride (John 3:29) for the past three years. This is the same church of Matt. 16:16-19 and 18:17 that Christ was passing to Peter. The future tenses are used because Christ was still present and among the members of this assembly Himself. To say that this kingdom church started at Pentecost is to claim that John the Baptist and Christ Himself were incapable of convincing anybody to join their ranks. The opening of Acts speaks against you, because Matthias and Barsabbas (Acts 1:23) were chosen from a group of the 120 of the men who have accompanied us at the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with the baptism of John until the day He was taken up from us. Acts 1:21+22.Paul >> The Church of God began at Acts 2 and is a kingdom church preaching the kingdom gospel to which Gentiles were invited in to partake of the blessings of Abraham with no need of being circumcised (mystery #1) and that they (Jews) were to be saved the same as us (Gentiles) ---- another revealed mystery, which was part of the revealed plan of God.
Peters preaching to Cornelius has nothing whatsoever to do with Paul or the body of Christ. Peter only used that testimony at this one meeting for the purpose of debate and show that God was working with the Gentiles. James then used this evidence in handing down the decision:Terral Original >> Peter is speaking about his adventure with Cornelius in Acts 10, . . . If you do not start our mystery church in Acts 2, then where do you start it?
Pauls reply >> No Sir, they are discussing whether of not Gentiles would need to be circumcised... Peter going to Cornelius open the door for the inclusion of Gentiles through Paul. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, not Paul.
These Gentiles were not being added to the Kingdom church based in Jerusalem, but James realized that God was dealing separately with the body of Christ through the stewardship of the Apostle Paul. We know this because of what James wrote to the twelve tribes after this meeting:"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles. Acts 15:19
While the believers under James who were zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20) were bound to Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:18), these Gentiles were not to be troubled by the Kingdom church. After all, they were not under law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14, Col. 2:16+17, Gal. 5:1-5. If James had determined that the Gentiles were joining his Kingdom church, then they would have been placed under Mosaic Law also.For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. James 2:10.
To hold your interpretation of Acts, one must bury his head in the sand and ignore a ton of Biblical evidence. Keep in mind that Luke is writing the account from the Kingdom perspective, and the Holy Spirit is drafting a transitional book of Scripture. You are forgetting that the Thessalonian church letters are addressed a decade before the end of Acts. The earliest of the Corinthian Epistles predate the close of Acts by about five years, and Romans at least a few years.Paul quotes >> Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Pauls commentary >> There was not TWO Gospels running around during Acts; there may have been two bodies but it was still the gospel of the kingdom and the Jews were to be saved even as they (the Gentiles) It sounds like you believe there were two groups of Gentiles running around during Acts???
You can say that a thousand times if you like. The Biblical evidence is what proves the case.Paul >> As I said above, our calling could not start until Israel was set aside.
First, these three verses that end Romans are not part of all the manuscripts. The letter was first drafted by Paul, before the close of Acts, then he added the last three verses after the close to the already circulating Romans Epistles. The fact that our gospel was according to the revelation of the mystery was withheld, until after Acts 28:28. Your point above about provoking Israel to jealously, and connecting that to the Scriptures of the prophets is simply erroneous. Pauls reference here is to New Testament Scriptures of the prophets, and not to the Old Testament at all. These are the God-breathed New Testament documents like Romans, 1Corinthians, etc.. Our gospel and the body of Christ were being fashioned from early in Pauls ministry, as evidenced in Galatians 1:15-17 and Acts 11:20-26.Terral Original >> Salvation was coming through Israel. . . and not in Jerusalem.
Paul >> I think you should go back and read Rom 16:25-27 again. (quoted) Pauls my gospel as you put it was being revealed by the scriptures of the prophets and was only kept a secret since the world began That gospel was given to the gentiles to harden Israel but at the same time it was given to provoke Israel to jealousy!! See Rom. 11 . That provoking was according to plan and was seen by the Law.
Rom 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? . . . Stay tuned to the Acts study for the long version.
InChrist >> If I remember correctly, Christ said salvation was of the "jews". We know He came from the House of Judah, but why wouldn't Christ say "of Israel"? Trust me when I say I am not antisemetic as you know I love scripture, God and everyone else.
InChrist >> What part of Israel was hardened and blinded? That appears to be a "mystery" to some, but Paul and Jesus explains who the ones were that were hardened and blinded. So it appears there were 3 different dispensations, one to the jew, one to Israel and one to gentiles. I can feel the fur flying on this but I want to see how dispensationalists view this.
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them . . . Rom. 2:14+15.
Hi Terral, I never said any BODY was placed on hold, thats what you think would have to happen if what I was trying to explain was true Please quit putting words in my mouth .. As you closed your post: That happened in the middle of Acts, partner . . . .Terral said:Whatever gave you an idea like that? That supposition is not even plausible. The Apostle Paul worked for the building of the bride and the body, as the whole purpose of God.
Both the kingdom and grace dispensations ran side by side during the time of Acts. The meeting in Jerusalem was between the members of bride [ James, Peter, John ] and the body [ Paul, Barnabas, Titus ]. There is no Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the Gentile dominant body was placed on hold, for the bride to be set aside. Paul refutes that idea completely in his testimony to the Galatians:
I dont see what this has to do with anything The body began before but its name and purpose was not revealed until after Acts . Christian was a bad word and simply calling someone a Christian does not institute a new calling. < The body began before . It was the second stepThe first church with members to be called Christian was in Antioch under Paul and Barnabas. These are two of the characters Christ sent through a revelation to submit the gospel I preach among the Gentiles to Peter, John and James and the church in Jerusalem. Gal. 2:2. Pauls letters to the Thessalonians, Romans and Corinthians were all drafted before the end of Acts. Your hypothesis above makes little sense in light of all the Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
You it was a continuation .. But it was also the birth of something NEW. So I suppose we will agree to disagree Pentecost was the beginning of a NEW Nation; the little flock which was given the kingdom of heaven . Why else do you think the disciples of John were re-baptizedNo sir. The Kingdom church of Acts 2 had members long before this Day of Pentecost. John the Baptist and Christ have been gathering members to the bride (John 3:29) for the past three years. This is the same church of Matt. 16:16-19 and 18:17 that Christ was passing to Peter. The future tenses are used because Christ was still present and among the members of this assembly Himself. To say that this kingdom church started at Pentecost is to claim that John the Baptist and Christ Himself were incapable of convincing anybody to join their ranks. The opening of Acts speaks against you, because Matthias and Barsabbas (Acts 1:23) were chosen from a group of the 120 of the men who have accompanied us at the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with the baptism of John until the day He was taken up from us. Acts 1:21+22.
The preaching of the kingdom in Acts 2 was a continuation of what had been going on in Israel for the past three years. Peter preached the same water baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) that John the Baptist (Acts 1:5) preached from day one. Mark 1:4. The difference here is that the Holy Spirit was offering the kingdom, instead of the Father (through John the Baptist), or the Son of God. Lukes second letter to Theophilus is not about something new, but a continuation or sequel to the Gospel of Luke.
Yes, I understand that Pauls My Gospel was to the Gentiles. i.e. they did not need to keep the law or be circumcised neither did the Jews (being ealous does not mean they were bound to keep the law). The Gentiles were learning the Mosaic Law during Acts . No one is going to be placed under the law again, as believers we will want to obey Gods law.While the believers under James who were zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20) were bound to Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:18), these Gentiles were not to be troubled by the Kingdom church. After all, they were not under law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14, Col. 2:16+17, Gal. 5:1-5. If James had determined that the Gentiles were joining his Kingdom church, then they would have been placed under Mosaic Law also.
Ya, everyone always thinks the exact same thing when another disagrees of sees something another way than we do . Biblical Evidence is obviously relative.To hold your interpretation of Acts, one must bury his head in the sand and ignore a ton of Biblical evidence. Keep in mind that Luke is writing the account from the Kingdom perspective, and the Holy Spirit is drafting a transitional book of Scripture. You are forgetting that the Thessalonian church letters are addressed a decade before the end of Acts. The earliest of the Corinthian Epistles predate the close of Acts by about five years, and Romans at least a few years.
Thats what someone always says Its not in there because someone took it out!! (1) There is more than one mystery, Rom 16:25-27 is a reference to one made known by the scriptures of the PROPHETS. And just what new Testament scriptures would reveal the mystery?? Paul was the only one who wrote about it in the NT The rest of the NT writings pertain to Israel and their yet future kingdom. Obviously Paul is referring to the OT writings.First, these three verses that end Romans are not part of all the manuscripts. The letter was first drafted by Paul, before the close of Acts, then he added the last three verses after the close to the already circulating Romans Epistles. The fact that our gospel was according to the revelation of the mystery was withheld, until after Acts 28:28. Your point above about provoking Israel to jealously, and connecting that to the Scriptures of the prophets is simply erroneous. Pauls reference here is to New Testament Scriptures of the prophets, and not to the Old Testament at all. These are the God-breathed New Testament documents like Romans, 1Corinthians, etc.. Our gospel and the body of Christ were being fashioned from early in Pauls ministry, as evidenced in Galatians 1:15-17 and Acts 11:20-26.
You apparently did not understand or read my post The Body of Christ began in the middle of Acts, partner.Paul did make an indirect connection between the gospel and the mystery in 1Cor. 2:2-8, which was written before the close of Acts. He also connects our translation to the mystery in 1Cor. 15:51-53. The remainder of your points make no sense to me at all. If the body of Christ did not start until after Acts, then Paul had no members to write to until after 60 Ad.. Pop goes your theory. Paul's meeting in Jerusalem was to stop the bride church in Jeruslaem (Acts 15:29) from bothering the body churches. That happened in the middle of Acts, partner . . .
Paul did not set Israel aside, until Acts 28:28. Perhaps you did not mean what you said, but this is exactly what you said to open your post above.Paul >> I never said any BODY was placed on hold, thats what you think would have to happen if what I was trying to explain was true Please quit putting words in my mouth .. As you closed your post: That happened in the middle of Acts, partner . . . .
Paul above >> The Church which is HIS Body could not begin BEFORE Israel was set aside.
So? Paul was preaching the Kingdom to many during Acts, just like Peter (Acts 2) and Philip (Acts 8). Paul just preached the kingdom to the disciples in Acts 19, where we see him laying hands for the Holy Spirit and the signs of Acts 2:1-4. This is the same good news concerning the Kingdom of God being described in Acts 8:12-17. If you cannot see it, then you are not looking.Paul >> First off, that does not even say the gospel of the kingdom. It says preaching the kingdom of God
Believing any good news message is a key factor. Pauls gospel was not preached to Gentiles to include them as members into the church in Jerusalem, under Peter, John and James. Instead, they became part of the dispensation of Gods grace (Eph. 3:2) under Pauls stewardship. Pauls Epistles represent the steward dispensing grace doctrine to this newly formed body of Christ. Your salvation was always by faith is a meaningless point. Pauls gospel was sent to the Gentiles, because of Israels transgression. Rom. 11:11+12.Paul >> Second, Pauls My Gospel was to the Gentile and was the inclusion of the gentile into the covenant blessings of Abraham by Faith alone > apart from circumcision > by the grace of God alone. Salvation was always by Faith, there was IS and ever will be one way to be saved.
We agree. Christ says, You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. Matt. 13:13. The members of the bride are justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24. Hebrews, James, Peter and John are writing to the bride, while Paul is addressing the body.Paul >> Third, I believe you are also wrong in your belief about the Bride, but thats far to vast to cover, and were too different to begin discussing it In Short, The Bride consists of those who EARN it while the body consists of those who believe Simply believing in the gospel of the kingdom does not make one the Bride of the Lamb.
Thank God for that, because then we both would be in error. The dispensation of the Law began way back with Moses and Israel. John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve offered the gospel of the kingdom to Israel of the flesh and began gathering the members of the new Kingdom dispensation during the time of the Four Gospels. This is the church of Matt. 16:16-19, 18:17. Of this new dispensation under Peter, Paul writes,Paul >> You believe Pauls my gospel introduced a NEW dispensation, one that ran along side the dispensation of law I completely disagree
Those who were obedient to Peters gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 24:14) preaching in Acts 2 obtained the forgiveness of sins and received the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands. They were added to the church that had been growing throughout the Four Gospels, and would continue to grow for a short period. Paul is seen adding to this church in Acts 19:1-6 with the disciples who had already received the Baptism of John (Acts 19:3). They were counted among the chosen of Rom. 11:7. Those under Peter were under the new kingdom dispensation while those under Paul were part of this dispensation of Gods grace. The kingdom dispensation is now dormant, and shall begin again under Elijah (Matt. 17:10+11).What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened. Rom. 11:7.
Sure, some of us see it clearly, while others do not. Pauls Epistles pertain to those under the dispensation of Gods grace. Those zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20) are under Peter, James and the Kingdom church in Jerusalem. Quoting Paul to me over this point is meaningless. We already know you do not recognize the different dispensations of the NT. That must be awkward for one calling himself a dispensationalist.Paul >> No where do we see an example of two administrations of God running side by side. 1Co 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. .There is more than one mystery; we would do well to head Pauls words.
The New Testament prophets were given to see these things, but not the OT prophets. That simple aspect of the truth is clouding your vision on many things.Paul >> The Gospel of God was the offering of Gods grace through the work of Christ at Calvary, which was promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures. i.e. the prophets new about it.
These are your claims Paul, which make no Biblical sense at all. They are so ridiculous I see no reason to refute them.Paul >> It was no secret that God would shed His grace on the gentiles; that was the plan all along (since the world began). Its wrong to divide Gods administration in such a way; salvation has always been by grace through faith. Salvation does not = calling nor does it define a church or body or a bride . The calling in Acts was to an earthly kingdom; our purpose was not explained until after the events of Acts took place.
Paul >> There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that Paul preached TWO Gospels and was bouncing back and forth from two different administrations of God
Pauls gospel to the uncircumcised (Gal. 2:7) was carried to the Gentiles from the very beginning. Gal. 1:15-17. This misguided notion you have makes no sense to me at all. Why anyone should wish to forward that interpretation of Scripture is beyond me. When Paul was describing being sent through a revelation to submit his gospel to Peter (Gal. 2:2) what does he say?Paul >> He was doing what the nation of Israel should have done > take the gospel of God to the Gentile nations offering than the same hope that Israel had: salvation by faith and an earthly kingdom. i.e. He was not offering the gentiles all spiritual blessings and a heavenly calling far above all pertaining to the hidden purpose of God YET.
Paul had been preaching this gospel to the Gentiles for the past 14 years (Gal. 2:1). He confronts Peter about the truth of the gospel in Gal. 2:14. You are pretending that Paul and Peter are preaching the same gospel all this time, which is a completely erroneous supposition. If Peter and Paul preached the same gospel, then Paul had nothing to submit to Peter in the first place. This event occurs in the middle of Acts, and not anywhere near the end where Israel is set aside. If you will not believe Scripture, then you certainly will not be inclined to believe me. My post is written to the third party readers who have some opportunity of recognizing the truth of this matter.It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private . . . Gal. 2:2.
Terral Original >> The first church with members to be called Christian . . . Your hypothesis above makes little sense in light of all the Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
Heh. The churchs name and purpose . . .? Please . . . This statement contradicts what you said above in the thread.Paul >> I dont see what this has to do with anything The body began before but its name and purpose was not revealed until after Acts . Christian was a bad word and simply calling someone a Christian does not institute a new calling. < The body began before . It was the second step
Paul Above >> How about this... The Church which is HIS Body could not begin BEFORE Israel was set aside.
Either the church of Acts 2 is a continuation OR something new. The disciples of Acts 19:1-6 were not re-baptized, but received the second (Acts 19:5) and third (Acts 19:6) baptisms of the Kingdom, according to Christs commands in Matt. 28:19. Johns baptism is only the first of the three. The disciples were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus the moment they heard this. Acts 19:5. Only then could Paul lay hands on them for the Holy Spirit. This is the three kingdom baptisms of the kingdom, and not the one baptism (Eph. 4:5) for the members of the body of Christ. Eph. 4:12.Paul is very confused >> You it was a continuation .. But it was also the birth of something NEW. So I suppose we will agree to disagree Pentecost was the beginning of a NEW Nation; the little flock which was given the kingdom of heaven . Why else do you think the disciples of John were re-baptized See my post:
I understand that you are blind to many of these truths, Paul. Those zealous for the Law were indeed under Mosaic Law. Matt. 5:18, James 2:10. The members of the body are under grace and not under law. Rom. 6:14. Pauls my gospel was sent to Jew and Gentile. Rom. 1:16+17. Both the body and the bride have Jews and Gentiles membership. James is writing to the bride while Paul is addressing the body.Paul >> Yes, I understand that Pauls My Gospel was to the Gentiles. i.e. they did not need to keep the law or be circumcised neither did the Jews (being zealous does not mean they were bound to keep the law). The Gentiles were learning the Mosaic Law during Acts . No one is going to be placed under the law again, as believers we will want to obey Gods law. .again, I dont see what this had to do with anything that were talking about.
LOL, please.... I'm blind to the "truths" as you see them. So?Terral said:I understand that you are blind to many of these truths, Paul. Those zealous for the Law were indeed under Mosaic Law. Matt. 5:18, James 2:10. The members of the body are under grace and not under law. Rom. 6:14. Pauls my gospel was sent to Jew and Gentile. Rom. 1:16+17. Both the body and the bride have Jews and Gentiles membership. James is writing to the bride while Paul is addressing the body.
In Christ,
Terral
[/font]
No sir. The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24) is Pauls my gospel (Rom. 16:25), and Christ and Him crucified. 1Cor. 2:2. Part of the Mystery is that Israel is partially blind to these things, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Rom. 11:25. The Gospel and the preacher have replaced Israel as the chosen channel to carry salvation to the Gentiles. Elijah shall carry the gospel of the kingdom to Israel first, so that they can become the kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6). Then the Gentiles shall become part of the prophetic bride during the coming restored Kingdom of Israel on earth. That is the gospel of the kingdom that shall go to all the nations (Matt. 24:14) before the end will come.Paul >> The reason Paul preached to Israel FIRST the gospel of the kingdom was because Israel was still in the front of God's redemptive plan. They are the chosen channel to carry the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles _ I believe that will be completed after "Elijah" returns.
Paul >> Israel the nation WILL offer God's salvation by grace to the gentiles; what Paul began in Acts will have a complete fulfillment during the tribulation.
Paul >> Now, I said the "church which is His Body" could not begin before Israel was set aside and i believe it; regardless whether you understand it or not. . .
Paul first >> How about this... The Church which is HIS Body could not begin BEFORE Israel was set aside.
Paul second >> Hi Terral, I never said any BODY was placed on hold, thats what you think would have to happen if what I was trying to explain was true Please quit putting words in my mouth ..
Paul third >> >> Now, I said the "church which is His Body" could not begin before Israel was set aside and i believe it; regardless whether you understand it or not...
Paul >> I also said this "Body" began with the work of the Apostle Paul - Obviously you didn't take the time to understand what i was saying - so here you go... The Body in Acts was given the same HOPE Israel had. They were grafted in to Israel to share in her blessings to provoke her to jealousy according to the prophetic plan of God.
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree. Rom. 11:17.
Paul >> That Body was given his own calling, his own hope, his own inheritance and his own destiny in the heavenlies far above all; that was the remaining "secret" which could not be revealed until after Israel was set aside. Why?? Because God's purpose was still for an earthly calling, pertaining to earthly hopes and an earthly inheritance..
Paul >> You my friend are NOT grafted into Israel to partake of the "root and fatness" of the olive tree, you were given you're OWN tree.
Paul >> You're Mother is NOT a heavenly city.
Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. Gal. 4:26.
This is common knowledge, Paul. What on earth are you going on about? Of course our citizenship is in heaven. Phil. 3:20. We were still grafted in to the Rich Root Himself; Christ. Rom. 11:17. Pauls gospel to the uncircumcised (Gal. 2:7) was still being preached long before Israel was set aside. This thread is about the Greatest Division in the Bible, and the answer is still that the biggest division is between Prophecy and the Mystery. While the two churches ran side by side, one was seen by the Prophets and one was not seen. The kingdom church was still under Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:18, James 2:10), while the mystery His body church was under grace. Rom. 6:14. Are you confounded by the fact that the members of these two churches stood side by side in Scripture? Those being baptized into the kingdom during the Four Gospels also stood with those who remained outside the membership of the bride of Prophecy. Here they are mentioned in the same verse:Paul >> You will NOT be blessed with faithful Abraham according to his inheritance; you will be blessed with Christ Jesus - far above all - according to His inheritance in the saints (most holy THING)...
John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the sons of the bridal chamber cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. Mark 2:18+19.
When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John. Luke 7:29+30.
Since this thread is about simply answering the question about which division is greatest, then there is nothing else to consider here. Our points on when the mystery body originated in Scripture have been presented to my satisfaction. Why you wish to begin the mystery body after Israel is set aside is still beyond my ability to fathom.Paul >> I know we disagree on this. As I disagree with your understanding of the "revelation of the mystery". Can we at least agree on that and move on?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?