Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Except when it's different based on the context.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
This sentence has the form 'A is A'.
To argue that in some cases; A is not A, is prima facie false and contradictory.
If you argue that I'm committing the fallacy of equivocation, and your claim is sustained, then that would mean that the first 'A' is not equal to the second 'A', that I'm guilty of using two homonyms as if they are the same word or phrase.
Prove it, if that's your claim.
Right Divider
Body part
Genius... absolute GENIUS!
The TERM "kingdom of God" does NOT have an absolute SINGULAR meaning. Therefore, we must understand it in the CONTEXT in which it is used (which is true with TONS of other TERMS).
Are you aware that the TERM "kingdom of God" does not even show up in the Bible until the book of Matthew?
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed it does.
And guess what.... THAT is the kingdom that the gospel of the kingdom refers to. The kingdom of Israel with Christ as king on the earth. When the TWELVE apostles will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.
Paul NEVER preached THAT kingdom (and its gospel) to gentiles. That kingdom belongs to ISRAEL. Gentiles will be blessed in the future (as they were also in the past) by blessing Israel. And the nation and kingdom of Israel will be a blessing to gentile when they keep His statutes by receiving His spirit.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Romans 14:17
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
1st Corinthians 4:20
For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Colossians 4:11
And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.
2nd Thessalonians 1:3
We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; 4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: 5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
Right Divider
Body part
This is EXACTLY my point. That is NOT the "kingdom of God" that Christ was preaching with the gospel of the kingdom. When Christ sent the twelve out to preach the gospel of the kingdom to Israel only, they did not even know that Christ had to die.
Right Divider
Body part
Your stubborn ignorance is sad.
You are deaf, dumb and blind.
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
THAT is the kingdom of God that Christ was talking about.
THAT is NOT the kingdom of God that Paul preached to gentiles.
Derf
Well-known member
But the good news Peter offered to Cornelius was the same good news Paul offered to the Gentiles, right? If so, then Peter was preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision, which you said he had agreed not to do. If not, then Peter was preaching the gospel of the circumcision to a Gentile, which you say you never said (I assume that means you don't believe that's what Peter was doing).
However, your proof text is wanting. It explicitly explains that the "gospel of the uncircumcision" is the gospel directed "toward the Gentiles", but not a different gospel.
[Gal 2:7-8 KJV] 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)
You can see this if you consult any other translation than the KJV or one derived from the KJV. Even NKJV translates it thus: "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."
So while there may be "many gospels", the one Peter taught to Cornelius was the same one Paul taught to the Philippian jailer and other Gentiles, which was about the fact that they could be saved from death.
What I'm suggesting is that you have only offered yourself two choices: 1. that I'm wrong, and 2. that you're right. Your should broaden your options a bit.
How closely did you read what He told them to do?
[Mat 28:20 KJV] 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
There's an implied ending of that phrase "whatsoever I have commanded you". You have chosen to end it with "to do", but an equally or even more viable ending is "to teach them", since the sentence starts with "teaching them"
Right Divider
Body part
Nope. Peter preached the gospel of the kingdom, just like Christ told him to do.
Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God, just like Christ told him to do.
He was NOT preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Peter and James and John agreed not to go "to the heathen" (i.e., uncircumcised gentiles). That is NOT "me saying it"... the BIBLE says it. I just believe what the Bible says.
Peter had NO IDEA why God was sending him to a gentile. You can see that from the text.
You are just about as confused as can be.
The classic lame excuse... again... if it's the SAME GOSPEL that Paul was preaching wherein there is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK... why the division of the ministries?
Why are there gospels FOR two classes of people? In Paul's gospel, there is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK.
Attempting to play work games will get you nowhere.
The gospel of the kingdom is about Israel.
The gospel of the grace of God is about everyone without distinction.
I am right and you are wrong. I'll stick with that option.
What is one of the things that Christ told them to do: Keep the law. Matthew 23:1-3
More ridiculous word parsing.... the "to do" is clearly implied.
Teaching them WHAT?.... TO DO things.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
So why was the gospel of the kingdom good news for Cornelius, who wasn't part of the kingdom? How would he benefit from hearing the gospel of the kingdom?
Not yet...keep talking.
That's what I was asking you. Why would Peter offer anything to Cornelius except the best good news he had for him--which was Paul's gospel, in your vernacular. The kingdom gospel wasn't good news to a Gentile.
But the words Peter gave to Cornelius had none of the kingdom gospel in it, but only grace gospel. You certainly can't find Peter declaring to Cornelius all the things Jesus commanded His disciples to do.
Nope, not clearly at all. It's only "clear" when you've already decided what it's supposed to say. Jesus was telling His disciples to teach new disciples to believe. We can see that in Mark's version of the commission:
[Mar 16:15-16 KJV] 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Right Divider
Body part
Again... Cornelius was a SPECIAL CASE. Peter not preaching the gospel of the kingdom directly to a gentile. The gospel of the kingdom is defined in scripture as.... wait for it... the KINGDOM AT HAND.
John the baptizer also preached this same kingdom:
Note that John the baptizer did NOT baptize gentiles either... Israel had to confess THEIR sins.
Remember that John is one of the TATWSOTTJTTTOI (Twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel).
Here is the clear and concise definition of the gospel of the kingdom:
Yes, yet.... you are conflating and mashing things.
That is correct. I'm sorry if I did not make it clear that Peter was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, but NOT to Cornelius. Peter was giving Cornelius historical facts that we all agree upon. Note that Paul confirmed what came before... that does NOT mean that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom to anyone and especially not heathen gentiles.
Neither really. Please demonstrate CLEARLY where you think that Peter preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS.
Peter did not try to teach the whole Bible to Cornelius and especially not things that applied only to the nation of Israel.
Yep... water baptism as a requirement. Something that Paul does NOT preach and actually preaches the exact opposite.
Last edited:
There is no evidence supporting the idea that John ever pastored any church at all much less a gentile one and so the burden there is on you, not me.
As for the letters to the churches found in Revelation, all one need do is read them. That are plainly "Jewish" churches. That is, there were churches made up of Jewish converts to Christ. They are shot through with discussion about works and about "removing your lampstand - unless you repent" and "And I will give to each one of you according to your works>" all very law oriented stuff (i.e. salvation under Paul's gospel is by grace not works).
And then there are comments made by Christ in these letters like, "I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." (Rev 2:9) and "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. (Rev. 2:14 Sere also verse 24) (Note that we (i.e. we gentiles) are taught explicitly by Paul that is perfectly fine to eat meat sacrificed to idols). Then, in chapter 3, Christ talks about the New Jerusalem (verse 12).
Very very oriented toward Jewish followers of Christ that were (are) members of the Kingdom of Israel and who were saved under the Kingdom Gospel as preached by Christ and the Twelve Apostles who agreed with Paul that they would stay in Jerusalem and minister to "the circumcision" while Paul went to the Gentiles. (Galatians 2:9)
What? This doesn't seem to fit anything I said. Did you really not understand what I was saying? Maybe you should reread my post. It was a serious question. I'm not trying to play some sort of game here.
Do you understand what the term "unfalsifiable" means? Do you understand why its an important concept in the realm of theology (or any other branch of philosophy)?
If you allow yourself to hold as true and unfalsifiable claim, then on what basis do you forbid me (or anyone) from doing the same? What is the difference between your belief that John pastored Gentile churches and someone else's belief that reincarnation is real, that crystals have magic powers or that polka dotted unicorns live on the fourth planet orbiting Alpha Centari?
Clete
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Beg to differ.
1st Corinthians 10
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Galatians 4
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Confer:
Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Right Divider
Body part
Derf
Well-known member
Paul said he was preaching the same gospel:
[1Co 15:9, 11 NET] 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ... 11 Whether then it was I or they [the other apostles], this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed.
That gospel included a kingdom message:
[Act 20:25 NKJV] 25 "And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.
And it included repentance:
[Act 20:21 NKJV] 21 "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you agree that Peter was sent to Cornelius to tell him stuff? I don't really care whether you call that "preaching" or "teaching" or anything else. Peter told Cornelius stuff. Why? For what purpose was Peter supposed to talk to Cornelius?
At the end of it, Peter water-baptized Cornelius, because the Holy Spirit had already baptized him and others there. So if the Holy Spirit led Peter to go talk to Cornelius, then what Peter said to Cornelius must have been important for Cornelius to hear, and not just for Peter to say. He wasn't just giving him a history lesson. And after he heard it, he was filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, according to Paul, is given as a down-payment regarding what is to come.
[Eph 1:13-14 NET] 13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation) - when you believed in Christ - you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of his glory.
Baptism as a requirement is not something I care to argue about, but Paul does NOT preach the opposite of water baptism. Rather, as I showed with the Philippian jailer, and you can look yourself to see that Paul had baptized Lydia in the same city just a little while before, and just a couple chapters later, there he is baptizing more folks (or perhaps Silas and Timothy were doing most of the baptizing), Paul baptized with water and preached baptism with water.
[Act 18:8 NKJV] 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Paul baptized some with water, but that was not his main purpose--his purpose was to preach the gospel, just as Jesus' main purpose was not to baptize. And Jesus was credited with baptizing people even when He didn't personally baptize them:
[Jhn 4:1-2 NET] 1 Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were)
So Paul's note about not baptizing was in regard to people thinking they were special for being baptized by Paul, himself, not about avoiding baptism altogether.
The whole baptism issue illustrates where you seem to have set up a construct that is demonstrably false, but you're unwilling to let it go. That's not a good position to be in. Just ask @Clete.