ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Cross Reference]

A bit of mixing metaphors (vines in Jn 15 and olive trees in Rom 11) but more to the point: a person is part of the right tree by faith alone. You've missed that there is no more working with 'ethnes.' There is no re-grafting because that grafting-in is going on right now down through history. Rom 11:30 is very conclusive about this 'ethnes' stuff; that everything now transacts through Christ and the mercy of God in Him.

When you see that and work back through Rom 11, you will see that the quotes of Isaiah are historically fulfilled already, and that 'saved' is justification in Christ, not another phase of a theocracy for or of Israel.

Please spare us your head knowledge.

 

[Right Divider]

No, Jesus told them to keep the law. Until Jesus' DBR, that's what law they were under.

Where did Jesus tell them that they were no longer under the law?

Yes, Jesus told them to teach what he commanded, but where his commandments the law?
Old Law
Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery';
Jesus' law
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Under the old law you could lust after a women and not act on it and not be guilty of the law, but Jesus changed that. Jesus has taken the old law that delt with our actions and made it of the heart. Sound familiar? Heb.8:10

So they were still under the law, just a stricter law?

Heb 8:7-11 KJV For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.​

So YOU think that a covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah is what you see today? And the teaching part? Why are there so many "teaching" the new covenant when the Bible says that they will NOT need to do that?

This is the only thing from the old law I see taught after the cross and Paul is of one mind with it.
Acts 15:23 and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. 24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

LOL. With "interpretation" like this, I can see why you're having such trouble. The "of one mind" here simply means that they agreed on the subject.

• Did you ever wonder by James, who was not one of the 12, was presiding over this assembly?
  
• Did you ever notice that water baptism is missing from "these essentials" ('these necessary things' KJV) ?
  
• Did you ever notice that this is the last time we hear from Peter in the book of Acts?

 

[Right Divider]

The blood is there, why not the covenant?

Because it says nothing of a covenant. Why do insist on forcing it into the context when it's clearly not there.

What establishes a covenant? Acceptance by ALL the people?

That seems to be how the OC was accepted.

Exo 19:5-8 KJV Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (6) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. (8) And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
​

Why do you think that the NC should be any different?

By what blood were these Jews sins forgiven?
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If by Christ's blood, was it Jesus' blood and the old covenant?
Heb. 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

I don't see how it could work any other way than Jesus' DBR established the new covenant.

Because you believe in "Churchianity" instead of the Bible.

I guess that it's impossible for you and many others to believe that the blood that Jesus shed for the sins of the world could have TWO purposes. So instead of understanding this simple thing, you force everyone into the covenant that God said that He would make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Just understand it as it is written and you won't have to twist it to fit your mold.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, Gentiles joining with Israel, it's never the other way around.

Rom. 11:17 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,...21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Romans 11 is NOT about heathen Gentiles being joined with Israel.

Rom 11:11-12 KJV I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
​

So you want to be grafted in to FALLEN Israel? Can you NOT see from this that salvation has come to Gentiles APART from Israel? To provoke them to jealousy?

Also, can you not see that Israel will be restored?

Rom 11:13-15 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
​

What do you think that LIFE FROM THE DEAD (through the receiving of them) means here?

I would suggest to you that those in Jesus are true Israel without regard to national affiliation.

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.

It’s the children of promise through Christ that are true Israel, therefore that is how all Israel will be saved, through Jesus.

It's clear here that you don't need to be ANY ISRAEL to share in this promise. You need to read more carefully, because there are promises (Rom 9:4) and there is A promise (Rom 9:8). They are not the same.

 

[turbosixx]

Where did Jesus tell them that they were no longer under the law?

He didn't personally, he lived and died under the old law.

So they were still under the law, just a stricter law?

No, Jesus was teaching them how it was going to be after his DBR. Can man see into another man's heart so as to judge him?

Heb 8:7-11 KJV For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.​

So YOU think that a covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah is what you see today?

Yes

And the teaching part? Why are there so many "teaching" the new covenant when the Bible says that they will NOT need to do that?

Think about it from the perspective of a Jew. They are born a child of God, they must be taught the ways of God as they grow. That’s why Jesus told Jews, “you must be born again”. Their physical birth will not get them into Heaven. For a Christian, you must know God, know the gospel before you can become a Christian (child of God).

LOL. With "interpretation" like this, I can see why you're having such trouble. The "of one mind" here simply means that they agreed on the subject.

• Did you ever wonder by James, who was not one of the 12, was presiding over this assembly?
  

• What does it matter? He was obviously an elder.
  
  

  [*]Did you ever notice that water baptism is missing from "these essentials" ('these necessary things' KJV) ?
  

  Do you see believe or the gospel or anything else you know is a must?
  
  
  

  [*]Did you ever notice that this is the last time we hear from Peter in the book of Acts?

Does it matter?

 

[turbosixx]

Because it says nothing of a covenant. Why do insist on forcing it into the context when it's clearly not there.

Because I take scripture as a whole. If the pieces don't fit together, it is right?

Heb.9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

That seems to be how the OC was accepted.

Exo 19:5-8 KJV Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (6) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. (8) And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.
​

Why do you think that the NC should be any different?

Because from the passage above it has nothing to do with the people but Christ and his blood.

Because you believe in "Churchianity" instead of the Bible.

I guess that it's impossible for you and many others to believe that the blood that Jesus shed for the sins of the world could have TWO purposes. So instead of understanding this simple thing, you force everyone into the covenant that God said that He would make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Just understand it as it is written and you won't have to twist it to fit your mold.

Why can't it be one?

 

[Right Divider]

He didn't personally, he lived and died under the old law.

Then who told them impersonally?
Where are they told that they are not under the law?

No, Jesus was teaching them how it was going to be after his DBR. Can man see into another man's heart so as to judge him?

What is your point? You showed that Jesus gave them even stricter requirements of the law.

Yes

Figures.

Think about it from the perspective of a Jew. They are born a child of God, they must be taught the ways of God as they grow. That’s why Jesus told Jews, “you must be born again”. Their physical birth will not get them into Heaven. For a Christian, you must know God, know the gospel before you can become a Christian (child of God).

This has NOTHING to do with what I asked you. Don't try to dodge the question.

Hebrews shows that when the NC is in place they will NOT NEED to teach or be taught...

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.​

Why are so many "churches" TEACHING "know the Lord" if the NC is here now?

What does it matter? He was obviously an elder.

So what happened to the 12 apostles sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel? Just throw it out?

Do you see believe or the gospel or anything else you know is a must?

Don't answer a question with a question. So many here try to that tactic when they can't answer the question. Just answer it.

Does it matter?

Indeed, this shows just how little you understand the things written in the Word of God.

 

[Right Divider]

Because I take scripture as a whole. If the pieces don't fit together, it is right?

Heb.9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

Yes, the book to the Hebrews talks all about God and Christ's relationship with Israel. What a shocker.

He (Jesus Christ) is INDEED the mediator of the NC with Israel.

Because from the passage above it has nothing to do with the people but Christ and his blood.

Why can't it be one?

Because it's not. Another silly question instead of understanding. You a poor blind boy.

 

[turbosixx]

Romans 11 is NOT about heathen Gentiles being joined with Israel.

Rom 11:11-12 KJV I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
​

So you want to be grafted in to FALLEN Israel? Can you NOT see from this that salvation has come to Gentiles APART from Israel? To provoke them to jealousy?

This passage says they didn’t fall. “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:”

Also, can you not see that Israel will be restored?

Rom 11:13-15 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
​

What do you think that LIFE FROM THE DEAD (through the receiving of them) means here?

You are overlooking “might save some of them”. What do you think the kingdom will be like? It think it is like what God always wanted for his people, him ruling from Heaven. 1 Sam. 8. That's what we have today in Christ. He is ruling in Heaven. What does this verse mean to you?
Col. :13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

It's clear here that you don't need to be ANY ISRAEL to share in this promise. You need to read more carefully, because there are promises (Rom 9:4) and there is A promise (Rom 9:8). They are not the same.

I agree. It's not physical Israel but spiritual Israel, the promises were to the Jews but they can only be saved in Christ. The OT was a shadow of what we have today in Christ. In the OT God’s people were the Jews and everyone else Gentiles. Today it’s the same. Christians are God’s people and everyone else are not God's people. Paul said it himself, God has not rejected the Jews.

Rom. 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul shows us how Jews will be saved through his example. In Christ.

 

[turbosixx]

Why are so many "churches" TEACHING "know the Lord" if the NC is here now?

Can someone be in the church (BOC) and not "know the Lord"? Sitting in a pew doesn't make you a member of the church. God adds members to the church.

 

[Cross Reference]

Can someone be in the church (BOC) and not "know the Lord"?

Since most have a wrong understanding of that means or as they see it only applying to salvation, they have no further interest in digging in to what else might be there for them to grasp, salvation for them being the end all to their thinking.

 

[turbosixx]

He (Jesus Christ) is INDEED the mediator of the NC with Israel.

The NC is not with physical Israel.
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 it was presented to physical Israel as promised.
Rom.1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

[Cross Reference]

The NC is not with physical Israel.
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,

Correct. The NC is built upon the fact of redemption.

 

[Right Divider]

This passage says they didn’t fall. “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:”

This is EXACTLY your problem, you read ONLY the part that you WANT to read to support for foregone conclusion.

Indeed it says "God forbid" and then IMMEDIATELY thereafter says: "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."

So did they fall or not? The point of Paul's "God forbid" is that their fall is NOT permanent (as he explains in a number of ways in the following verses).

You are overlooking “might save some of them”.

LOL, I HIGHLIGHTED IT..so how do you think that I am overlooking it? Who are them?

Rom 11:13-14 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.​

He's talking about his "kinsmen" in the flesh (Rom 9:3).

What do you think the kingdom will be like? It think it is like what God always wanted for his people, him ruling from Heaven. 1 Sam. 8. That's what we have today in Christ. He is ruling in Heaven. What does this verse mean to you?
Col. :13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

I think that the kingdom will be on earth AND in heaven. Paul is not talking about the earthly kingdom here. Like I said before, you seem to think that words have single solitary meaning no matter how or where they are used.

These kingdoms will be joined in the dispensation of the fullness of times, just like Paul said.

Eph 1:9-12 KJV Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.​

I agree. It's not physical Israel but spiritual Israel, the promises were to the Jews but they can only be saved in Christ. The OT was a shadow of what we have today in Christ. In the OT God’s people were the Jews and everyone else Gentiles. Today it’s the same. Christians are God’s people and everyone else are not God's people. Paul said it himself, God has not rejected the Jews.

Rom. 11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul shows us how Jews will be saved through his example. In Christ.

Ah yes, "spiritual Israel".

And yet Paul said that Israel had FALLEN.

Your mind is a blur and you do not want to see anything else.

So be it.

 

[Interplanner]

This is EXACTLY your problem, you read ONLY the part that you WANT to read to support for foregone conclusion.

Indeed it says "God forbid" and then IMMEDIATELY thereafter says: "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."

So did they fall or not? The point of Paul's "God forbid" is that their fall is NOT permanent (as he explains in a number of ways in the following verses).


LOL, I HIGHLIGHTED IT..so how do you think that I am overlooking it? Who are them?

Rom 11:13-14 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.​

He's talking about his "kinsmen" in the flesh (Rom 9:3).


I think that the kingdom will be on earth AND in heaven. Paul is not talking about the earthly kingdom here. Like I said before, you seem to think that words have single solitary meaning no matter how or where they are used.

These kingdoms will be joined in the dispensation of the fullness of times, just like Paul said.

Eph 1:9-12 KJV Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.​

Ah yes, "spiritual Israel".

And yet Paul said that Israel had FALLEN.

Your mind is a blur and you do not want to see anything else.

So be it.

the thing is Rom 11 does not make sense if there is only one Israel. Have you ever thought through: how does 'all' Israel get saved at one snapshot in the future if some died in 400 AD and others in 1100 AD? So 'all' does not strictly mean 'all.' Likewise, the Israel that gets saved (which means justification by Christ in the surrounding context), is not all there ever was, nor all at one future snapshot. It's all of those who have faith, Jew or Gentile. v30 says God is no longer dealing in 'ethnes' but responds to faith.

btw, there never was a total fall. All of his OT examples show that there was always some remnant or elect. When 70 AD happened, not all of the ethne were destroyed; some were believers who had believed Christ and left the area.

 

[turbosixx]

This is EXACTLY your problem, you read ONLY the part that you WANT to read to support for foregone conclusion.

Agreed, but it's safe to say I'm not the only one.

Indeed it says "God forbid" and then IMMEDIATELY thereafter says: "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."

So did they fall or not? The point of Paul's "God forbid" is that their fall is NOT permanent (as he explains in a number of ways in the following verses).

Your right, it does say fall. I went back and looked at the Greek words and the same word is not used for each fall. The first one is like a trip and fall. The second one is beside-fall or offense. I think that fits more into how I understand it. They were presented with the truth but did not accept if at first but as you said will eventually.
God did not set them aside, they stepped aside.

Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

LOL, I HIGHLIGHTED IT..so how do you think that I am overlooking it?

Yep, I make mistakes.

Who are them?

Rom 11:13-14 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.​

He's talking about his "kinsmen" in the flesh (Rom 9:3).

Yes, he is talking about physical Jews but only some will be saved, the remnant.

I think that the kingdom will be on earth AND in heaven. Paul is not talking about the earthly kingdom here. Like I said before, you seem to think that words have single solitary meaning no matter how or where they are used.

I agree, on earht and in Heaven. Don't we have that now? For example, in the BOC there is neither male or female yet in the church men and women have different roles.

These kingdoms will be joined in the dispensation of the fullness of times, just like Paul said.

Eph 1:9-12 KJV Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: (12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.​

That's what we have now.

Your mind is a blur and you do not want to see anything else.

So be it.

It's not a blur because it's simple.
When someone (anyone) hears the gospel and they believe they are added to Christ. In Christ we are saved and we are all one. There is no other name by which we can be saved.

 

[Right Divider]

Agreed, but it's safe to say I'm not the only one.

No, you're not alone. There tons of other confused folks here that do it too. Like Tet, CR, LA, etc. etc.

Your right, it does say fall. I went back and looked at the Greek words and the same word is not used for each fall.

Oh boy... another Greek expert.

The first one is like a trip and fall. The second one is beside-fall or offense. I think that fits more into how I understand it. They were presented with the truth but did not accept if at first but as you said will eventually.
God did not set them aside, they stepped aside.

Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

Still.... this means that they were FALLEN. And yet you want to be joined with them?

Yep, I make mistakes.

Me too.

Yes, he is talking about physical Jews but only some will be saved, the remnant.

Yes, the remnant of Israel in the flesh. This is the history of Israel; the remnant is always small and most reject God.

I agree, on earht and in Heaven. Don't we have that now? For example, in the BOC there is neither male or female yet in the church men and women have different roles.

First, the body of Christ IS the CHURCH.

Col 1:18 KJV And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

Col 1:23-29 KJV If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (24) Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: (25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: (29) Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
​

If you cannot even get this one thing right, there is no hope of discussing anything else related TO the body of Christ.

Second, NO, the earthly kingdom has NOT yet come. When it does you will know. Because there will NOT be all of the SIN that is currently running rampant in the world. When Jesus Christ rules from His throne in Jerusalem, sin will be dealt with swiftly and with an IRON ROD. Like Acts 5 as an example.

That's what we have now.

I guess this is way we still have lying, thieving politicians running the governments of the world. Wars, bloodshed, stealing, lying, cheating... the list goes on and on.

This is NOT the earthly kingdom of Christ.

It's not a blur because it's simple.
When someone (anyone) hears the gospel and they believe they are added to Christ. In Christ we are saved and we are all one. There is no other name by which we can be saved.

Yes, this is true and YET you blindly ignore vast amounts of detail that God has placed in scripture for our learning.

 

[Interplanner]

No, you're not alone. There tons of other confused folks here that do it too. Like Tet, CR, LA, etc. etc.


Oh boy... another Greek expert.


Still.... this means that they were FALLEN. And yet you want to be joined with them?


Me too.


Yes, the remnant of Israel in the flesh. This is the history of Israel; the remnant is always small and most reject God.


First, the body of Christ IS the CHURCH.

Col 1:18 KJV And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

Col 1:23-29 KJV If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; (24) Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: (25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: (29) Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
​

If you cannot even get this one thing right, there is no hope of discussing anything else related TO the body of Christ.

Second, NO, the earthly kingdom has NOT yet come. When it does you will know. Because there will NOT be all of the SIN that is currently running rampant in the world. When Jesus Christ rules from His throne in Jerusalem, sin will be dealt with swiftly and with an IRON ROD. Like Acts 5 as an example.


I guess this is way we still have lying, thieving politicians running the governments of the world. Wars, bloodshed, stealing, lying, cheating... the list goes on and on.

This is NOT the earthly kingdom of Christ.


Yes, this is true and YET you blindly ignore vast amounts of detail that God has placed in scripture for our learning.

As far as paying attention to details goes, there is no NT location that says that there is going to be an Israel kingdom again and then that is lost, and then a NHNE. It is just a NHNE after the judgement of the world. Pay attention to those details!

 

[Lazy afternoon]

the thing is Rom 11 does not make sense if there is only one Israel. Have you ever thought through: how does 'all' Israel get saved at one snapshot in the future if some died in 400 AD and others in 1100 AD? So 'all' does not strictly mean 'all.' Likewise, the Israel that gets saved (which means justification by Christ in the surrounding context), is not all there ever was, nor all at one future snapshot. It's all of those who have faith, Jew or Gentile. v30 says God is no longer dealing in 'ethnes' but responds to faith.

btw, there never was a total fall. All of his OT examples show that there was always some remnant or elect. When 70 AD happened, not all of the ethne were destroyed; some were believers who had believed Christ and left the area.

Yes,

The believers of Israel became the first Christians.

So simple--

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

LA

 

[Right Divider]

As far as paying attention to details goes, there is no NT location that says that there is going to be an Israel kingdom again and then that is lost, and then a NHNE. It is just a NHNE after the judgement of the world. Pay attention to those details!

Once again, your opinions have no weight with me since you've consistently proven yourself wrong.

Paul makes it crystal clear in Romans 11 as does Jesus in Acts 1 by His response to the apostles question.

Rom 11:13-15 KJV For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
​

When they asked Jesus about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, He did NOT correct their understanding that the kingdom WOULD be restored. Jesus told them ONLY that it was not theirs to know WHEN.