ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Lazy afternoon]

Yes, there is: the new nature.

You got me there bozo.

LA

 

[turbosixx]

That doesn't change anything about when the New Covenant was to take place. And as you can plainly read, it hadn't taken place at Pentecost. The author was not there, he was told by others (the 12) and believes.

It changes everything.
Heb. 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.


Jesus is Lord and Savior. Jesus is the gospel. Jesus is grace.

Before Acts 9:
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.....38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

After Acts 9:
Acts 16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Same message, same response before and after acts 9.

 

[Nick M]

It changes everything.

In the future. The only way to claim the New Covenant is to claim Preterism and 70 AD destruction was the second coming. Israel is not resurrected (Ezekiel 37 John 3) living where God put them.

 

[turbosixx]

I'm clearly quoting the verse to make a sort of play on words and turn the M.A.D. label that people here have stuck us with into a compliment rather than a pejorative.

So, while I was being light hearted with my quote, I'm pretty sure that you were alluding to the same meaning of "mad" that Paul uses in the verse. I can assure you that we are very definitely not mad and that this doctrine is born directly out of a very stringent adherence to sound reason and the plain reading of Scripture. A point I don't think you doubt really. Otherwise, you'd make no attempt to see it. Whether you'll accept it once you do (I have faith that you will) is another issue but you'd not even make the effort to see it if you really thought it was an exercise in insanity.

God bless! I'll respond to your other posts as soon as time allows.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I was just having fun with your play on words.

I’m here to challenge my thinking and others. I want to know the truth but we all have filters in place and I do my best to look past them but it’s hard. I see holes in the m.a.d. thinking and until I can justify them, I will not be switching.

I look forward to your replies.

 

[lifeisgood]

All I can say is that if we do not understand the OT, the NT makes no sense at all.

If a person picks only a NT copy and starts reading there are things that will be confusing because the NT has so much of the OT ingrained in it that that person needs to know the OT also for the NT. For example, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Mat. 1:23). What? Where does that come from? Who said it? When? How?

If there is no OT understanding, this example makes no sense at all to me.

 

[Cross Reference]

Some here, one in particular claims we just follow two people I never heard of before he mentioned them. That was the point I was making. I came to the conclusions I did by reading the Bible, specifically Paul and wondering why that was always skipped in Catholic mass and Assembly of God services.

Good works are not evidence of a Christian life. Lets save that for another thread.

Good works evidence "a" Christian's life. Words mean something, even little ones.

 

[turbosixx]

In the future. The only way to claim the New Covenant is to claim Preterism and 70 AD destruction was the second coming. Israel is not resurrected (Ezekiel 37 John 3) living where God put them.

I would suggest forget about theology and let's look at the scriptures without bias.

The Jews begin with Abraham and what we see is that the promises made to Abraham were not made for Israel the nation but for Christ and those that would be born again in Him.
Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Christians are the children of promise just like Isaac. Isaac was the child of promise and Ishmael was the child of the flesh, same for Jews and Christians.
Gal. 4: 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. …… 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Again he says in Romans, it’s not the children of the flesh that are Israel but the children of promise.
Rom. 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Christians are Abrahams descendants according to the promise.
Gal. 3:29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

I could point out a lot more that show that fleshly Jews are no longer God’s people but Christians are but didn't want the post to be too long.

 

[Cross Reference]

The Jews begin with Abraham and what we see is that the promises made to Abraham were not made for Israel the nation but for Christ and those that would be born again in Him.
Gal. 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Gee, I wonder why, if you wanted to buy some farm animals to breed like sheep wouldn't ask, "how many sheeps" do you have to sell, from one who sells them?

 

[Wick Stick]

Jarrod,

I've heard a lot of people express this same sort of sentiment. The problem is that the text clearly shows two things.

1. That all authority had been given to Peter to act in Jesus' absence extending even to the forgiveness of sins. It was Peter who presided over the deliberation of choosing of Matthias in Acts 1:15-26

A regent or satrap can rule the kingdom on behalf of the king, but he can't appoint others to the same position as himself. It just doesn't work that way.

An apostle is a delegate who has been sent. Therefore, the first qualification to be an apostle, is that one must have met Jesus face to face and received that commission.

2. That the God endorsed the choosing of Mathias in Acts 2.

Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they [the Twelve] were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.​

From what I read, there were more people there than just the 12. We wouldn't call all of them apostles, would we? Pentecost and the happenings there was about way more than Mathias promotion.

Jarrod

 

[Cross Reference]

A regent or satrap can rule the kingdom on behalf of the king, but he can't appoint others to the same position as himself. It just doesn't work that way.

An apostle is a delegate who has been sent. Therefore, the first qualification to be an apostle, is that one must have met Jesus face to face and received that commission.

From what I read, there were more people there than just the 12. We wouldn't call all of them apostles, would we? Pentecost and the happenings there was about way more than Mathias promotion.

Jarrod

How many missionaries today can say that; fit the bill?

Missionary = Apostle. How many left/leave Jerusalem [today] without receiving the "unction to function"?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

A regent or satrap can rule the kingdom on behalf of the king, but he can't appoint others to the same position as himself. It just doesn't work that way.

An apostle is a delegate who has been sent. Therefore, the first qualification to be an apostle, is that one must have met Jesus face to face and received that commission.

From what I read, there were more people there than just the 12. We wouldn't call all of them apostles, would we? Pentecost and the happenings there was about way more than Mathias promotion.

Jarrod

His inserting THE TWELVE would be okay if the context would support it.

However it will not.


Acts 1:14 KJV


14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

That doesn't change anything about when the New Covenant was to take place. And as you can plainly read, it hadn't taken place at Pentecost. The author was not there, he was told by others (the 12) and believes.

Sorry Nick, but I really have to ask this.

Are you dispy's so used to ignoring the words of Jesus that you don't realize Luke had to have been with Jesus for him to have written his gospel?

After the Comforter has come he will bring to your remembrance all the things I said to you.

Luke was there.:think:

 

[Cross Reference]

The new covenant was initiated the instant Jesus died of the cross. . . . "It is finished"!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The new covenant was initiated the instant Jesus died of the cross. . . . "It is finished"!

Yup!

 

[DAN P]

A regent or satrap can rule the kingdom on behalf of the king, but he can't appoint others to the same position as himself. It just doesn't work that way.

An apostle is a delegate who has been sent. Therefore, the first qualification to be an apostle, is that one must have met Jesus face to face and received that commission.

From what I read, there were more people there than just the 12. We wouldn't call all of them apostles, would we? Pentecost and the happenings there was about way more than Mathias promotion.

Jarrod

Hi , and Jesus ONLY picked 12 as there will only be 12 sitting ON 12 THRONES !!

Ans Christ picked Paul and not man as the apostle of Grace !!

dan p

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Paul warned against teaching anything that contradicted with the words of Jesus. Obviously he would not do it. There is one cleansing sacrafice, One body of Christ, One Spirit, One kingdom. Anything else taught is heresy meant to deceive and confuse.

"IF ANYONE TEACHES A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE AND DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE SOUND WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THE TEACHING THAT ACCORDS WITH GODLINESS, HE IS PUFFED WITH CONCEIT AND UNDERSTANDS NOTHING." 1 Timothy 6:3-4

Sorry for the caps, but this is of huge importance.

 

[DAN P]

Paul warned against teaching anything that contradicted with the words of Jesus.

Hi and where is that taught , and where did I miss it ?

dan p

 

[Bright Raven]

Hi and where is that taught , and where did I miss it ?

dan p

There is some reference to it in the 1 Timothy passage he quoted.

 

[patrick jane]

Sorry Nick, but I really have to ask this.

Are you dispy's so used to ignoring the words of Jesus that you don't realize Luke had to have been with Jesus for him to have written his gospel?

After the Comforter has come he will bring to your remembrance all the things I said to you.

Luke was there.:think:

yeah, we know that dispy ! You're a dispy ! and dipsy

 

[Nick M]

Good works evidence "a" Christian's life. Words mean something, even little ones.

I didn't know Ghandi was a Christian. Or the catholic nuns. How interesting. Quit changing the subject.