Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[Right Divider]

Israel would not accept the Gentiles.

That's a very vague statement.

They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

Are you saying that the gentiles attacked Israel because Israel would not accept them? It's not clear why you posted this scripture with your earlier statement.

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25).

Again, why this scripture? This one is completely unrelated to the first one that you posted.

 

[Derf]

Note that the "all things MUST BE fulfilled" demonstrates that some things remain as yet (at that time) unfulfilled.

I wasn't talking about "all things". Just "the law". If there are prophecies that remain to be fulfilled, whether from Moses or the prophets or Psalms, yet "the law" is fulfilled already, Jesus' statement is still valid.

Please show were the LAW was at issue in that passage. It was not.
The hypocrisy had nothing to do with keeping or not keeping the law.
He was trying to get the gentiles (that did not have the law) to live AS DO THE JEWS.

It’s later in the same chapter.

Again, why this passage and no complaint from scripture about it?
Notice that Paul did NOT tell them that they were not under the law there. Instead Paul went WITH them and took vow.

Like so many in Churchianity, you blur the mission of the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL with the mission of the ONE apostle of the gentiles for the ONE body of Christ.

So you seem to make the case that Paul was still under the law. If so, then the only thing different between the eleven and Paul is their target audience. But Paul always started by going to the Jews, then to the gentiles. Wasn’t he then stepping on the toes of those going to the circumcision, even though he was the apostle to the uncircumcision? The message/gospel was the same, but he started with Jews.

Now, if his message was the same as Peter’s, because it was as much for the Jews as gentiles, then the difference was purely in the target audience, and not in the message.
Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as for the circumcised to Peter

 

[Right Divider]

I wasn't talking about "all things". Just "the law". If there are prophecies that remain to be fulfilled, whether from Moses or the prophets or Psalms, yet "the law" is fulfilled already, Jesus' statement is still valid.

Every statement that the Lord Jesus Christ makes is valid. So that proves nothing.
So just exactly how did the Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill the law"?
He certainly kept the law flawlessly.

It’s later in the same chapter.

Please be more precise. I'm not going to try to guess what you're getting at.

So you seem to make the case that Paul was still under the law.

No, I made no such case. Paul was free from the law, but could "do the law" if he wanted to. There's a big difference.

If so, then the only thing different between the eleven and Paul is their target audience.

Not, so not.
The TWELVE were chosen AS TWELVE for a specific reason. They were/are ministers of Israel for God's earthly plans.
Paul is ONE also chosen for a specific reason that was clearly not the same as the TWELVE.
Believing Israel remained under the law, even as God revealed another plan that had been hidden "from ages and generations" (Col 1:26) under which people are not under the law.

But Paul always started by going to the Jews, then to the gentiles.

Yes, that was his manner (Acts 17:2). Don't forget that God had set aside Israel at the time of Paul's calling. Unbelieving Israelites were then basically considered gentiles (i.e., uncircumcised in heart and ears, Acts 7:51). God did NOT reject the believing remnant of the nation of Israel.

Wasn’t he then stepping on the toes of those going to the circumcision, even though he was the apostle to the uncircumcision? The message/gospel was the same, but he started with Jews.

There are many gospels in the Bible. Stop trying to force God to have only one.
No, Paul was going to UNBELIEVING Israel when he went "to the Jews". Don't forget the hand-shake agreement that they had to keep their ministries separate (Gal 2:9).

Now, if his message was the same as Peter’s,

It wasn't.

because it was as much for the Jews as gentiles,

Nope... Paul went to UNBELIEVING Jews only. Paul never tried to convert a believing Jew.

then the difference was purely in the target audience,

It's not.

and not in the message.

Nope. Paul was given a dispensation of the gospel that nobody had received before. Paul made that claim frequently (i.e., "my gospel"). That is a bold (probably more like ridiculous) claim if it was "just the same gospel".

Galatians 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as for the circumcised to Peter

That verse clearly shows two gospels right there. It's only by twisting the scripture that I can be "made into" one.

 

[Bradley D]

Are you saying that the gentiles attacked Israel because Israel would not accept them? It's not clear why you posted this scripture with your earlier statement.

God allowed them to do so because they refused Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

God allowed them to do so because they refused Christ.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

This "invasion of the gentiles" was going to happen regardless of the situation. It was a purging of the dross in Israel. This was to be Israel's "baptism of fire" that was prophesied and confirmed by Christ.

Mat 3:11-12 KJV I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

They had to endure to the end.

 

[Derf]

Every statement that the Lord Jesus Christ makes is valid. So that proves nothing.
So just exactly how did the Lord Jesus Christ "fulfill the law"?
He certainly kept the law flawlessly.

And, as a spotless lamb He was killed as a sacrifice, so that no other sacrifice was needed, ever again. The law was fulfilled, as there was no more need to do it.
Hebrews 10:12-14 (KJV) 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

the sacrifice offered accomplished the law, but His enemies still needed to be vanquished.

Please be more precise. I'm not going to try to guess what you're getting at.

The passage was talking about the law, as evidenced by the mention of the law 2 verses later:
Galatians 2:14-16 (KJV) 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

No, I made no such case. Paul was free from the law, but could "do the law" if he wanted to. There's a big difference.

Then you would agree Peter was also free from the law, being as much of the old covenant as Paul?

Nope... Paul went to UNBELIEVING Jews only. Paul never tried to convert a believing Jew.

Believing or unbelieving in what? Of course he didn’t need to convert a Jew who already believed the gospel, because his gospel was the same as what the jew already believed. You seem to have made my point for me.

That verse clearly shows two gospels right there. It's only by twisting the scripture that I can be "made into" one.

Acts 15:7 (KJV)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Remember that this was when Paul came to Jerusalem to confirm that Gentiles needn’t be circumcised when they believed the gospel. Peter describes the same thing Paul was trying to affirm of the church and agrees with Paul—gentiles hear and believe the gospel, and that’s it: no circumcision needed.

 

[Right Divider]

And, as a spotless lamb He was killed as a sacrifice, so that no other sacrifice was needed, ever again. The law was fulfilled, as there was no more need to do it.
Hebrews 10:12-14 (KJV) 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Yes, I understand that those sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice.
But just how does that "fulfill the law"? The law was far more than just the sacrificial system.

the sacrifice offered accomplished the law, but His enemies still needed to be vanquished.

The term "accomplished the law" does not make any sense whatsoever.

The passage was talking about the law, as evidenced by the mention of the law 2 verses later:
Galatians 2:14-16 (KJV) 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The Jews that Peter was trying to please were trying to require the gentiles to get circumcised. But James' pronouncement that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised only applied to the gentiles. There is no indication that circumcision was no longer required for a believing Israelite.

Then you would agree Peter was also free from the law, being as much of the old covenant as Paul?

No, I do not see the remnant of Israel being "not under the law". They continued exactly as Christ had told them. See Matthew 23:1-3 again.

Believing or unbelieving in what?

Peter and the others believed the gospel of the kingdom and that Jesus was the Christ.
They knew nothing about the gospel of the grace of God until it was revealed to and through the apostle Paul.

Of course he didn’t need to convert a Jew who already believed the gospel, because his gospel was the same as what the jew already believed. You seem to have made my point for me.

So you reject that Peter, James and John agreed not to go to the gentiles and Paul agree not to go to the circumcision? You think that Paul reneged on his agreement?

Acts 15:7 (KJV)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Remember that this was when Paul came to Jerusalem to confirm that Gentiles needn’t be circumcised when they believed the gospel.

WHICH GOSPEL? The gospel of the KINGDOM was not directed at GENTILES. It was directed at ISRAEL. When Jesus was preaching the gospel of the KINGDOM, He also made it clear that He was sent to the Jews only (Matthew 15:24).

Peter describes the same thing Paul was trying to affirm of the church and agrees with Paul—gentiles hear and believe the gospel, and that’s it: no circumcision needed.

Peter was ONE of TWELVE that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. Paul is the ONE apostle for the ONE body.

Stop trying to mash them into one and the same.

 

[Idolater]

I guess there's some question as to whether TItus carried off the ark, or just other temple accoutrements. But the temple was certainly destroyed, and with it the levitical sacrificial system stopped.

Yes. If there's any 'Israel's covenant' that's been put on hold, it's that one. And we're justified in asking why. If there is an answer to why this covenant, the 'old' covenant, has been 'put on hold', then we are justified in seeking it.

The notion that there are currently two 'Israel's covenants' 'on hold' right now, seems like a bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.

Though I question why you point to a liturgy in just 42 instead of the whole rest of the chapter:
[Act 2:44-46 KJV] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Because that's the first report of what today's liturgy looks like in the Church, at least the Mass. The part here about participating in the temple liturgy obviously is obsolete now that that liturgy is impossible to celebrate anymore, and that's consistent with the idea that the New Covenant basically resumes where the Old Covenant left off---of course all this is said understanding that the 'new' covenant preceded the 'old' covenant, which is sustained by Paul's words in Galatians, where the New Covenant's 'gospel' is said to have been preached to Abraham, the ancestor of Moses.

The New Covenant, the Church, what we call the New Covenant today, was God's answer to mankind, after He promised to not kill us all with flood again. The Old Covenant was required in order to distribute the New Covenant, as the loaves and fishes were distributed by the Lord, Who is the whole point of the Old Covenant.

 

[Derf]

Yes, I understand that those sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice.
But just how does that "fulfill the law"? The law was far more than just the sacrificial system.

If someone breaks one of our laws, and they are found guilty and punished, the law has been fulfilled in that instance, but there are continuing instances, so it isn’t totally accomplished. To accomplish the law, it has to do all that it is intended to do, at which point it can be abolished.

There are several aspects of the Jewish law, but the main thing it was to accomplish is to bring about the messiah, who would bring an end to sin.

The Jews that Peter was trying to please were trying to require the gentiles to get circumcised. But James' pronouncement that the gentiles did not need to be circumcised only applied to the gentiles. There is no indication that circumcision was no longer required for a believing Israelite.

I’m not sure, but I believe you include the gentiles converted by the 12 in those that needed to be circumcised.

But regarding Israelites, Timothy did not “need” to be circumcised, according to Paul. So there was friction between the James camp and the Paul camp. If you’re correct, then Paul isn’t.

No, I do not see the remnant of Israel being "not under the law". They continued exactly as Christ had told them. See Matthew 23:1-3 again.

Peter and the others believed the gospel of the kingdom and that Jesus was the Christ.
They knew nothing about the gospel of the grace of God until it was revealed to and through the apostle Paul.

Peter understood something (as opposed to nothing) of the gospel of grace after his interaction with Cornelius.

WHICH GOSPEL? The gospel of the KINGDOM was not directed at GENTILES. It was directed at ISRAEL. When Jesus was preaching the gospel of the KINGDOM, He also made it clear that He was sent to the Jews only (Matthew 15:24).

Well, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which includes more than Jews. Samaritans, for instance.

But for what purpose? That gets us back to the great commission—Jesus went to the Israelites to prepare them to evangelize the world.

Peter was ONE of TWELVE that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. Paul is the ONE apostle for the ONE body.

Then why was John the pastor of the church at Ephesus for a while?

 

[Derf]

If there is an answer to why this covenant, the 'old' covenant, has been 'put on hold', then we are justified in seeking it.

If it has something to do with us, then I would agree. I’m not sure it does.

The notion that there are currently two 'Israel's covenants' 'on hold' right now, seems like a bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.

Did someone suggest there are two? I might have missed it.

Because that's the first report of what today's liturgy looks like in the Church, at least the Mass. The part here about participating in the temple liturgy obviously is obsolete now that that liturgy is impossible to celebrate anymore, and that's consistent with the idea that the New Covenant basically resumes where the Old Covenant left off---of course all this is said understanding that the 'new' covenant preceded the 'old' covenant, which is sustained by Paul's words in Galatians, where the New Covenant's 'gospel' is said to have been preached to Abraham, the ancestor of Moses.

Part of the beauty of the new covenant was the removal of excess liturgy, in my mind. And I would agree it makes it more like Abraham’s liturgy.

The New Covenant, the Church, what we call the New Covenant today, was God's answer to mankind, after He promised to not kill us all with flood again. The Old Covenant was required in order to distribute the New Covenant, as the loaves and fishes were distributed by the Lord, Who is the whole point of the Old Covenant.

Destruction by fire seems to be God’s answer to mankind after He promised not to kill us with flood again. The New Covenant is His answer to mankind’s loss of eternal life in the garden.

 

[Right Divider]

If someone breaks one of our laws, and they are found guilty and punished, the law has been fulfilled in that instance, but there are continuing instances, so it isn’t totally accomplished. To accomplish the law, it has to do all that it is intended to do, at which point it can be abolished.

Using the term "accomplish the law" is wrong.

There are several aspects of the Jewish law, but the main thing it was to accomplish is to bring about the messiah, who would bring an end to sin.

Jesus did not "accomplish the law" when He died for our sins.

I’m not sure, but I believe you include the gentiles converted by the 12 in those that needed to be circumcised.

Per scripture, any gentile male joining with Israel was required to be circumcised. So, yes, that would be true. Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "converted". Paul's gospel does not require this, as it is not related to Israel and their program for the earth.

But regarding Israelites, Timothy did not “need” to be circumcised, according to Paul. So there was friction between the James camp and the Paul camp. If you’re correct, then Paul isn’t.

Paul isn't what?
Timothy was circumcised to remove an obstacle from the Jew's. It had nothing to do with the law, per se.

Peter understood something (as opposed to nothing) of the gospel of grace after his interaction with Cornelius.

Only what he learned from Paul.

Well, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which includes more than Jews. Samaritans, for instance.

Samaritan's are technically Jews.

But for what purpose? That gets us back to the great commission—Jesus went to the Israelites to prepare them to evangelize the world.

And they refused. That was when God revealed His OTHER PLAN that He had kept secret since the world began. God commissioned Paul with a dispensation of the gospel, not more kingdom ministry like the 12.

Again, the twelve apostle were chosen for the TWELVE tribes of Israel. They will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

Paul is that other, different apostle.

Then why was John the pastor of the church at Ephesus for a while?

Where did you get that information? From some tradition?
What makes you think that John would disregard his agreement with Paul?

 

[Derf]

Using the term "accomplish the law" is wrong.
Jesus did not "accomplish the law" when He died for our sins.

If you think "fulfill" is better, that's fine, but you complained about that term, too. Jesus did both.

Per scripture, any gentile male joining with Israel was required to be circumcised. So, yes, that would be true. Though I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "converted". Paul's gospel does not require this, as it is not related to Israel and their program for the earth.
Paul isn't what?
Timothy was circumcised to remove an obstacle from the Jew's. It had nothing to do with the law, per se.

Was Cornelius required to be circumcised?

Only what he learned from Paul.

Was Cornelius required to be circumcised before Peter learned from Paul?

Samaritan's are technically Jews.

No, "technically" they are not. Neither did the Jews think Samaritans were Jews. Jesus listed them separately in the Great Commission, indicating that the gospel was supposed to start in Jerusalem (Pentecost), proceed to Judea (Jews), then to Samaria (Samaritans), then to the ends of the earth (Gentiles). The 11 had similar troubles with accepting Samaritans as they did accepting Cornelius. In fact, it took deacons to go to the Samaritans, but then they called Peter and John to Samaria to help them.

And they refused. That was when God revealed His OTHER PLAN that He had kept secret since the world began. God commissioned Paul with a dispensation of the gospel, not more kingdom ministry like the 12.

Again, the twelve apostle were chosen for the TWELVE tribes of Israel. They will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

Paul is that other, different apostle.

It wasn't that big of a secret after He told the first woman.

And Paul has the church judging the world and angels. What's your point? Are you saying that a judge of Israel isn't allowed to share the gospel with a Gentile? What about Cornelius?

Where did you get that information? From some tradition?
What makes you think that John would disregard his agreement with Paul?

What makes you think Paul didn't want John to go to the Gentiles, when Jesus had told John to go to them? The only reason for John NOT to go to the Gentiles, if he really had the words of eternal life from Jesus, is if his message wasn't really good news for them. But it was. Paul and Peter preached the same gospel, even if the wording was a little different due to culture.

Tradition has John as leader of the church of Ephesus, but the Bible has him as an authority figure for the seven churches in Revelation. Are you arguing with Jesus telling John to write to the Gentile churches? Or were they all converted to Judaism by the time John wrote it?

 

[Clete]

What makes you think Paul didn't want John to go to the Gentiles, when Jesus had told John to go to them? The only reason for John NOT to go to the Gentiles, if he really had the words of eternal life from Jesus, is if his message wasn't really good news for them. But it was. Paul and Peter preached the same gospel, even if the wording was a little different due to culture.

Tradition has John as leader of the church of Ephesus, but the Bible has him as an authority figure for the seven churches in Revelation. Are you arguing with Jesus telling John to write to the Gentile churches? Or were they all converted to Judaism by the time John wrote it?

John (i.e. the John or wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation) was never the pastor of a Gentile church, in Ephesus or anywhere else and the churches he wrote to in Revelation were NOT gentile churches.

The paradigm from which you are interpreting scripture make any real progress on these topics all but impossible. Your every premise is tinted by things that are not only in dispute but that you cannot substantiate with any evidence. Worse than that, you don't want there to be evidence because you somehow believe that would remove faith from the equation. There is therefore nothing that could ever be said to persuade you because you believe these things a priori. You accept them as true because you've been told to do so. Not because they make sense or because they are consistent with God's word or even with themselves for that matter but purely and only because you've been taught to believe them.

I ask you! Tell me on what basis could you ever be persuaded to let go of ANY precept that currently exists in your dogma?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

If you think "fulfill" is better, that's fine, but you complained about that term, too. Jesus did both.

No, He did not, no matter how many time you repeat the idea.

Was Cornelius required to be circumcised?

Scripture does not say specifically, but if you read the whole of scripture, you would think so.

Was Cornelius required to be circumcised before Peter learned from Paul?

Please refer to scripture.

Exo 12:43-51 KJV And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: (44) But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. (45) A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. (46) In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. (47) All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. (48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (50) Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. (51) And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

If a gentile wanted to eat the passover with Israel, he needed to be circumcised.

No, "technically" they are not. Neither did the Jews think Samaritans were Jews. Jesus listed them separately in the Great Commission, indicating that the gospel was supposed to start in Jerusalem (Pentecost), proceed to Judea (Jews), then to Samaria (Samaritans), then to the ends of the earth (Gentiles).

Any NON-ISRAELITE is a gentile. Samaritans as listed separately from gentiles.

The 11 had similar troubles with accepting Samaritans as they did accepting Cornelius. In fact, it took deacons to go to the Samaritans, but then they called Peter and John to Samaria to help them.

If going to all gentiles was a normal part of their mission, why did Peter need SPECIAL revelation from God to go to Cornelius?

It wasn't that big of a secret after He told the first woman.

No clue what you're talking about. Paul makes it clear that is was NEVER KNOWN before.

Eph 3:7-9 KJV Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. (8) Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; (9) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

And Paul has the church judging the world and angels. What's your point?

My point is that God gave the TWELVE a responsibility to judge the TWELVE tribes of Israel.

Are you saying that a judge of Israel isn't allowed to share the gospel with a Gentile? What about Cornelius?

Which gospel?

What makes you think Paul didn't want John to go to the Gentiles, when Jesus had told John to go to them?

So you are going to continue to reject the plain scripture in Galatians?

The only reason for John NOT to go to the Gentiles, if he really had the words of eternal life from Jesus, is if his message wasn't really good news for them. But it was. Paul and Peter preached the same gospel, even if the wording was a little different due to culture.

No, not the same gospel no matter how many times you repeat the idea.

Tradition has John as leader of the church of Ephesus, ...

I reject false tradition.

but the Bible has him as an authority figure for the seven churches in Revelation.

Revelation is clearly Jewish to the max (Israelite).

Are you arguing with Jesus telling John to write to the Gentile churches?

Scripture?

Or were they all converted to Judaism by the time John wrote it?

Your false paradigm has you extremely confused.

 

[Right Divider]

I ask you! Tell me on what basis could you ever be persuaded to let go of ANY precept that currently exists in your dogma?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And Paul has the church judging the world and angels. What's your point?

The difference is that the twelve Apostles will be on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

12 (and multiples of it) is an important number for Israel. It is a significant number throughout the Bible, and it always relates to Israel in some way.

Are you saying that a judge of Israel isn't allowed to share the gospel with a Gentile?

What's being said is that the gospel of the kingdom for the nation of Israel is not the same as the gospel of grace for the whole world.

What is preached to the Jew (prior to Paul, mind you) is different than what is preached to the Gentile (after Paul's conversion).

What about Cornelius?

Cornelius was saved AFTER Paul's conversion. That makes him saved via the gospel of Grace, and was preached Jesus Christ as Lord of all (Acts 10:36), and how He was raised on the third day (Acts 10:40), and that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

Romans 10:9-13, or an early version of it, perhaps.

What makes you think Paul didn't want John to go to the Gentiles,

What we KNOW is that Paul, and Peter, James, and John, agreed to go to different groups:

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7-9&version=NKJV

when Jesus had told John to go to them? The only reason for John NOT to go to the Gentiles, if he really had the words of eternal life from Jesus, is if his message wasn't really good news for them.

Rather, the reason for John not to go to the Gentiles is that his message wasn't FOR the Gentiles, but only for Israel. Remember, Christ said that He would return soon. Which meant that those who were saved under the gospel of the Kingdom needed to be ready for His return.

But it was.

The Time of Jacob's Trouble is not good news for anyone but the nation of Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom includes the Great Tribulation.

Paul and Peter preached the same gospel,

No, they didn't. At least, not at first they didn't.

even if the wording was a little different due to culture.

What difference in culture?

Paul was a Jew just as much as Peter was.

Unless you mean Jews vs Gentiles, in which case I would like to point out that the gospel that was revealed to Paul wasn't done all at once, and it would have taken even Paul some time to sort things out, especially because He was the first one to preach it.

Tradition

I'm going to stop here, as RD seems to have addressed the rest sufficiently enough, though I caution you against appealing to tradition, which IS a logical fallacy.

 

[Idolater]

If it has something to do with us, then I would agree. I’m not sure it does.

Maybe just for historical value.

Did someone suggest there are two? I might have missed it.

This thread (OP) concerns something called an "everlasting covenant" that Dispensationalism believes has been 'put on hold'. My contention this whole thread has basically been that such a momentous event is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, and none has been forthcoming (because none exists).

Now the so-called "Old Covenant" is another matter. There is great physical evidence that this covenant has been---at least---'put on hold', although I say that tongue-in-cheek, since I believe that the book of Hebrews explains pretty clearly that it ended with "the death of the testator", but we also have as was noted, the utter destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which is where the liturgy of the Old Covenant was celebrated, that also sustains the claim that---at least---the Old Covenant is 'on hold'.

So my comment was that there are therefore not one but two of 'Israel's covenants' that are currently 'on hold', if Dispensationalism is correct.

Part of the beauty of the new covenant was the removal of excess liturgy, in my mind. And I would agree it makes it more like Abraham’s liturgy.

You can't get much more simple than Melchizedek's liturgy: "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God."

Destruction by fire seems to be God’s answer to mankind after He promised not to kill us with flood again. The New Covenant is His answer to mankind’s loss of eternal life in the garden.

And Melchizedek, and his order (cf. Psalm 110:4), appeared sometime after the flood, and before Abraham (and obviously therefore before Moses).

 

[Right Divider]

This thread (OP) concerns something called an "everlasting covenant" that Dispensationalism believes has been 'put on hold'.

I don't recall ANY dispensationalist here that has said that the "everlasting covenant" has been put on hold.
Perhaps you'd like to QUOTE someone saying that.

What I (and others that I know of) have said is that God's PROGRAM for the earth (with Israel as His people and His kingdom) was "put on hold". Paul makes that crystal clear in Romans 9-11.

Are you even aware that there is more than one "everlasting covenant"? Here's the first one mentioned in the Bible.

Gen 9:12-17 KJV And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: (13) I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. (14) And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: (15) And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (16) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (17) And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

 

[Idolater]

I don't recall ANY dispensationalist here that has said that the "everlasting covenant" has been put on hold.
Perhaps you'd like to QUOTE someone saying that.

Are you joking right now? Because on the first page literally JR, Clete and then even you yourself in post 12 said so.

What I (and others that I know of) have said is that God's PROGRAM for the earth (with Israel as His people and His kingdom) was "put on hold". Paul makes that crystal clear in Romans 9-11.

Are you even aware that there is more than one "everlasting covenant"? Here's the first one mentioned in the Bible.

That's a terrific example of an 'everlasting covenant' that has not been 'put on hold'. So at least we all are on the same page about what that looks like.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you joking right now? Because on the first page literally JR, Clete and then even you yourself in post 12 said so.

I was a little confused about exactly what you were referring to. So I RETRACT that comment. There are no "covenants on hold" and particularly no "everlasting covenant on hold". (I still don't know WHICH everlasting covenant that you are talking about, since you've never specified). There is a NOW a different dispensation that God is in progress with and it's NOT associated with the "gospel of the kingdom".

That's a terrific example of an 'everlasting covenant' that has not been 'put on hold'.

Yes, it is. There are a number of "everlasting covenants"... like circumcision.

So at least we all are on the same page about what that looks like.

God is no longer respecting Israel as He once was. They are "on hold" and there is a different program that God is currently implementing. Once God is done with this... He will resume with Israel per Paul in Romans 11.