ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Dialogos]

Peter is preaching to the 12 tribes of Israel...... He is a circumcision apostle. ONE of the 12 apostles that will judge the 12 tribes of Israel, just like Jesus told them.

Peter is QUOTING Exodus, which is a reference to ISRAEL:

Exo 19:6 KJV 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.
​

A couple of comments for your consideration.

First, I would agree with many biblical scholars that 1 and 2 Peter were both written to primarily gentile audiences and I would conclude as much based on three pretty compelling evidences.

(A) Peter himself did not evangelize these believers as 1 Peter 1:12 makes clear. Thus it is likely that Peter is referring to Paul Acts 13-14) when he talks of those who preached the gospel to them.

(B) Peter descriptions of his audience is clearly gentile.
1:14 speaks of their "former ignorance," 1:18 says their forefather's way was "futile" (hardly a description of OT traditions), 4:3-4 makes it clear that in times past they joined the gentiles in debauchery and now their gentile friends are surprised that they no longer join them.

(C) Peter says that Paul had previously authored a letter to them (2 Peter 3:15). The most likely candidate for the identity of that letter is the Letter to the Galatians and Galatians is clearly a book written to a gentile audience.

 

[Right Divider]

A couple of comments for your consideration.

First, I would agree with many biblical scholars that 1 and 2 Peter were both written to primarily gentile audiences and I would conclude as much based on three pretty compelling evidences.

I don't care what "many bible scholars" believe as most of them don't even believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

(A) Peter himself did not evangelize these believers as 1 Peter 1:12 makes clear. Thus it is likely that Peter is referring to Paul Acts 13-14) when he talks of those who preached the gospel to them.

No, this circumcision apostle (one of the 12 apostles for 12 tribes of Israel) was NOT writing to Gentiles, but to HIS people. The same ones that James was writing to.

1Pe 1:1 KJV Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Jas 1:1 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
​

How in the world do you think that THIS is written to Gentiles?:

1Pe 2:12 KJV Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
​

(B) Peter descriptions of his audience is clearly gentile.
1:14 speaks of their "former ignorance," 1:18 says their forefather's way was "futile" (hardly a description of OT traditions), 4:3-4 makes it clear that in times past they joined the gentiles in debauchery and now their gentile friends are surprised that they no longer join them.

Their forefathers rejected every prophet, including the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter is CLEARLY contrasting THEM FROM the Gentiles.

1Pe 4:3 KJV For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
​

When THEY were disobedience THEY walked LIKE the Gentiles.... etc. etc. etc.

(C) Peter says that Paul had previously authored a letter to them (2 Peter 3:15). The most likely candidate for the identity of that letter is the Letter to the Galatians and Galatians is clearly a book written to a gentile audience.

Nonsense. Pure wild speculation with no basis in fact.

SOOOOO many people assume this writing referred to in 2 Peter 3:15 HAS to be SCRIPTURE. It does NOT say that and there is NO reason to assume it.

Others claim that it's referring to the book to the HEBREWS because THEY realize that Peter is writing to the 12 tribes.

Your scholars need to go back to school.

 

[lifeisgood]

The Gospel is so big, so incredible, so wondrous that there is no way that God could in one swoop give the total information of His plan to humankind.

God has given His Gospel in small increments to humankind through the ones He has chosen throughout the ages.

The last piece of information of God's Gospel was given to Paul.

Now, we have all the pieces together and can see clearly that God's Gospel has always been grace through faith, not of works so no one can boast.

Hidden in the OT - Revealed in the NT.

 

[Right Divider]

The Gospel is so big, so incredible, so wondrous that there is no way that God could in one swoop give the total information of His plan to humankind.

God has given His Gospel in small increments to humankind through the ones He has chosen throughout the ages.

The last piece of information of God's Gospel was given to Paul.

Now, we have all the pieces together and can see clearly that God's Gospel has always been grace through faith, not of works so no one can boast.

Hidden in the OT - Revealed in the NT.

There is a lot more to God's plans than just OT/NT.

There were at least 2 thousand years of human history before the OT.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

There is a lot more to God's plans than just OT/NT.

There were at least 2 thousand years of human history before the OT.

The law was not the whole of the old testament.:think:

Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?

 

[heir]

The Gospel is so big, so incredible, so wondrous that there is no way that God could in one swoop give the total information of His plan to humankind.

God has given His Gospel in small increments to humankind through the ones He has chosen throughout the ages.

The last piece of information of God's Gospel was given to Paul.

:nono: That which was "mystery"/that "was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,..." (Romans 16:25-26 KJV) is not the same as that which was "spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21 KJV).

That which was not after man, neither taught it, neither received from man, but by direct revelation of the risen, ascended Lord Jesus Christ to Paul (Galatians 1:11-12 KJV) is not the same as, "so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Hebrews 2:3 KJV).

There's no profit in turning others away from the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery that we speak (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 KJV)!

 

[Cross Reference]

The law was not the whole of the old testament.:think:

Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?

He didn't say Adam. He said OT.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He didn't say Adam. He said OT.

Not the sharpest pencil in the box are yuh?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:nono: That which was "mystery"/that "was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,..." (Romans 16:25-26 KJV) is not the same as that which was "spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21 KJV).

That which was not after man, neither taught it, neither received from man, but by direct revelation of the risen, ascended Lord Jesus Christ to Paul (Galatians 1:11-12 KJV) is not the same as, "so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him" (Hebrews 2:3 KJV).

There's no profit in turning others away from the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery that we speak (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 KJV)!

You have no idea what the hidden wisdom of God is.

Nor do you have sense enough to ask for it.

 

[Clete]

Again I agree to a point. You previously said “We are under the "law" of love, which is no law at all.” Of course, I see it a little different and believe that we are under the law of love but it is law. If you love God sure there is no law against that but what does it mean to love God? How do we know that we love God?

We are given instructions in this Christian age. Here is one example:
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
Can we love God and live ungodly?
What if we don’t deny ungodliness and give in to fleshly desires, are we transgressing these instructions?

If you are denying ungodliness because you've been instructed to then Christ will profit you nothing.

Your desire to turn love into law is the desire of the flesh. It will not profit you anything. If you're following the rules you're doing yourself more harm than good.

The choice you have is essentially the same as Adam; you can choose the law (the knowledge of good and evil) or you can choose to love God. You cannot do both in the Dispensation of Grace. It doesn't work, it will not work, it cannot work. Indeed, the Holy Spirit Himself will see to it that you fail. God is not interested in helping you be righteous. The only righteousness that will be accredited to your account is that which Christ does through you. It is not you, but Christ. You have been crucified (lawfully executed) in Christ. The Law has NOTHING more to say to you! Stop attempting to resurrect the Law and simply recon yourself to be that which God says you are! You are already righteous and cannot be otherwise - believe it!

Looking at the New Jerusalem for understanding is something to possibly consider but I wouldn’t use it for a basis of understanding. When looking at the twelve tribes, are the twelves sons of Jacob named as the twelve tribes?

The tribes being named are only MORE evidence that the book of Revelation has to do with Israel. My point had to do with the fact that there aren't thirteen Apostles mentioned. Paul's name WILL NOT be one of the names printed on the foundation (or gates, I forget which) of the New Jerusalem. If your doctrine is correct, there should be thirteen not twelve.

James stating that believers were zealous for the law is not proof that any apostle taught observance of the law after the cross.

Of course it is! Paul had to get in Peter's face because he began separating himself from the Gentiles when the believers FROM JAMES came along. Further, the message of their books are consistent with a works based (law) gospel.

If they did teach observance of the law, it should be easy to quote book, chapter and verse. I only see them teaching Christ while working with the listener’s knowledge of OT and their paradigm.

I recommend you go back and reread our conversation! You're acting as if we haven't already been discussing this for over a month. What you see or don't see doesn't change what's there. Your paradigm is blinding you to the truth. I know because I have been exactly where you are now - exactly. The evidence is EVERYWHERE. You want chapter and verse, I give you entire books and then you ask for chapter and verse again. The power of paradigm is nearly insurmountable. The more you think you know about the Bible; the more you've invested in your paradigm, the harder your paradigm is to overcome.

1 Pt. 4:16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

In what way is this verse relevant to the point you're making?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[john w]

Not the sharpest pencil in the box are yuh?

"There is a lot more to God's plans than just OT/NT.

There were at least 2 thousand years of human history before the OT."-RD



"Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?"-you to RD

I cannot speak for RD, but his reference to "OT," is most probably a reference to the Old Covenant, which was not ratified until.....


Exodus 24:8 KJV

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

...perhaps 2000 years after Adam.

 

[heir]

You have no idea what the hidden wisdom of God is.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV

 

[john w]

You have no idea what the hidden wisdom of God is.

Nor do you have sense enough to ask for it.

=Assert, pound the podium, declare "victory," return to your talk show echo chamber, where everyone has an opinion, like elbows.

Thanks for checkin' in, and your contribution. And remember.....God loves you, and so does Jeff Spicoli, and the Easter Bunny.....Peace out...........

Can you dig it? Groovy...

 

[Right Divider]

The law was not the whole of the old testament.:think:

Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?

You're clueless as usual.

 

[Right Divider]

Not the sharpest pencil in the box are yuh?

Oh, the irony! :cigar:

 

[Right Divider]

"There is a lot more to God's plans than just OT/NT.

There were at least 2 thousand years of human history before the OT."-RD



"Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?"-you to RD

I cannot speak for RD, but his reference to "OT," is most probably a reference to the Old Covenant, which was not ratified until.....


Exodus 24:8 KJV

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

...perhaps 2000 years after Adam.

:thumb:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

"There is a lot more to God's plans than just OT/NT.

There were at least 2 thousand years of human history before the OT."-RD



"Where is this 2,000 years before Adam you speak of?"-you to RD

I cannot speak for RD, but his reference to "OT," is most probably a reference to the Old Covenant, which was not ratified until.....


Exodus 24:8 KJV

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

...perhaps 2000 years after Adam.

So you reckon the sprinkling of the blood of animals could ratify a covenant?

That blood had no more power to ratify a covenant than it did to atone for sins.

These things were done as an example.


And the next time Right Divider means covenant then I'd suggest that he say it.

You Dispy's are so obsessed with Israel you have no concept of the old testament or to where it pointed.

The old testament began in Genesis, not the giving of the law.

 

[john w]

So you reckon the sprinkling of the blood of animals could ratify a covenant?

That blood had no more power to ratify a covenant than it did to atone for sins.

These things were done as an example.

Made up. You, vs. the book-verse 19"-memorize "For"....:

Hebrews 9 KJV

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.


Contrasts, I reckon, pardner.


The "Mosaic" covenant was a blood covenant, requiring blood to be sprinkled on the tabernacle, “ sprinkled both the book, and all the people"(Hebrews 9:19-21 KJV). " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:22 KJV). In the Mosaic Covenant, the blood of animals served as a covering, "atonement," for the sins of the people. The animal’s life was given in place of the sinner’s life-"substitution...identification"

Per...
Hebrews 9 KJV
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.


....these things were only “copies,” or “shadows,” of the better covenant to come, with the lives of animals never removing sin, it not being a sufficient substitute for a human life, per

Hebrews 10 KJV
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


The blood of bulls and goats was thus a temporary remission of sins, a "stay of execution," a "passing over" of sins, until the final, ultimate blood covenant was made by the Lord Jesus Christ, as both God and man, the "ultimate mediator," representing both sides, per Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV, the NC ratified in His blood, per Luke 22:20 KJV. The NC will be enacted, with the believing remnant of the nation Israel, at "the second time."

You Dispy's are so obsessed with Israel you have no concept of the old testament or to where it pointed.

Oh. Thanks for the emotional mutterings. Quite "Days of Our Lives" of you.

The old testament began in Genesis, not the giving of the law.

The Old Covenant was ratified, by blood, in Exodus 24.

Now, have a seat, and learn, while we teach, Little Joe.

 

[Nick M]

Oh, the irony! :cigar:

That looks good. I need to light up.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The blood of bulls and goats was thus a temporary remission of sins, a "stay of execution," a "passing over" of sins, until the final, ultimate blood covenant was made by the Lord Jesus Christ, as both God and man, the "ultimate mediator," representing both sides, per Hebrews 9:24-28 KJV, the NC ratified in His blood, per Luke 22:20 KJV. The NC will be enacted, with the believing remnant of the nation Israel, at "the second time."




The Old Covenant was ratified, by blood, in Exodus 24.

Now, have a seat, and learn, while we teach, Little Joe.

Like I said, it pointed to Christ.

It is now obsolete and always will be.


7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


You best stop thinkin' about what class of human you belong to and start applying the words of Christ to yourself.

This second time you speak of is on it's way, but it aint what you think it is.

You will cry like a baby for that loud mouthed old Esau man of yourn.:chuckle: