ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Jerry Shugart]

I love this. Every time I take a peak at something this dork has written it seems he always does this.

Does what?

I answer your points and you run and hide from mine. And then you have the nerve to call me a dork!

You just continue to ignore the fact that James makes it plain that the salvation of those he addressed were saved by faith and faith alone:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

You just refuse to believe that these words of James make it plain that a person receives the new birth by faith and faith alone! And of course you IGNORED Peter's words which say the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

You are ignorant of the fact even those who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Everybody who has ever been saved throughout history has been saved by grace apart from works. But according to your mistaken view the Jews could not be saved apart from works!

 

[turbosixx]

Bored and disappointed,
Clete

I'm disappointed too. Last time we had such a great discussion.

Try looking at it from my point of view of what you want me to accept.

Paul was given a different gospel, not from man but from Jesus himself. He then goes around the world preaching this gospel. When we compare what he calls the gospel and that of what Peter preached at Pentecost, it's the same. Then on top of that, he baptizes the believers just as Peter did. Where did that come from if it's not part of the gospel that he received from Jesus and Jesus didn't send him to do it?

It's the same and there is no reason it can't be the same and it works being the same.

When Paul later writes to Christians, it applies to all Christians. Look at what he says in 1 Cor. 1. He doesn't differentiate between who Peter converted verses him.
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

They were following those who baptized/converted them. If I understand you correctly, that is exactly what they should be doing but that's not what Paul says. Christ is not divided.

To charge Dispensationalism with taking things out of context is to simply say that you disagree with Dispensationalism and prefer to presume a different context for the New Testament. It means nothing and contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

I too believe in dispensationalism, I just don't draw the line where you do. I draw the line at Jesus's DBR.

Before Jesus' DBR the 12 were sent out preaching. How many people did they save with their preaching? None that I know of. After the DBR, on one day their message saved 3,000 souls. Something changed.

You accuse me of having filters. You might consider the filters you have as well.

Thanks, I do appreciate your time.

 

[musterion]

When we compare what he calls the gospel and that of what Peter preached at Pentecost, it's the same.

Except it isn't.

 

[turbosixx]

Except it isn't.

Your opinion isn't proof.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When we compare what he calls the gospel and that of what Peter preached at Pentecost, it's the same.

We have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. in that sermon there is not a word about God's "grace" and there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross.

On that day those who believed Peter's message were being saved. That means that Peter did preach a gospel that day and that gospel was not the "gospel of grace." We can know this because before anyone can be baptized with water they must first believe (Acts 8:36-37) and here we read that those who gladly received Peter's words were baptized:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41).​

From this we can know for sure that another gospel was preached on that day and it is not difficult to understand what that "good news" was. Peter used facts of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus to prove the deity of Jesus and the fact that he is the promised Messiah. Peter ended his sermon with the following words:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).​

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:

"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, 359).​

The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes the following in regard to Peter's words:

"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).

Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).

On the day of Pentecost those who believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were "born of God" and received "life" through His name:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

Charles Ryrie, professor emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary, says the following about the theme of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost"

"To us today it does not mean much to say that Jesus is Christ or Messiah. To a Jew of that day it was an assertion which required convincing proof, and it was the theme of Peter's sermon. Peter's proof is built along very simple lines. First he paints a picture of the Messiah from the Old Testament Scriptures. Then from contemporary facts he presents a picture of Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, he superimposes these two pictures on each other to prove conclusively that Jesus is Messiah" (Ryrie, "The Significance of Passover," Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1955, Vol.112, # 448, 335).​

There can be no doubt that on the day of Pentecost Peter did not preach the "gospel of grace" but instead he preached the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And all those who believed that gospel were saved.

 

[Clete]

I'm disappointed too. Last time we had such a great discussion.

Try looking at it from my point of view of what you want me to accept.

Paul was given a different gospel, not from man but from Jesus himself. He then goes around the world preaching this gospel. When we compare what he calls the gospel and that of what Peter preached at Pentecost, it's the same. Then on top of that, he baptizes the believers just as Peter did. Where did that come from if it's not part of the gospel that he received from Jesus and Jesus didn't send him to do it?

It's the same and there is no reason it can't be the same and it works being the same.

When Paul later writes to Christians, it applies to all Christians. Look at what he says in 1 Cor. 1. He doesn't differentiate between who Peter converted verses him.
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

They were following those who baptized/converted them. If I understand you correctly, that is exactly what they should be doing but that's not what Paul says. Christ is not divided.

You can just keep on repeating "It's the same. It's the same. It's the same." but it doens't make it so.

This is my fault really. I should never have allowed this discussion to turn into a debate about specific doctrines. When asking the question, "Why Paul?" had no effect on you, I should have stopped there.

I too believe in dispensationalism, I just don't draw the line where you do. I draw the line at Jesus's DBR.

Too bad that the Bible doesn't.

What could Pentecost be other than a straight line continuation of Israel prophesied Kingdom gospel that had been preached since at least Samuel?

If the Dispensation started in Mattew 27-28 then where's the need for Paul?

Before Jesus' DBR the 12 were sent out preaching. How many people did they save with their preaching? None that I know of. After the DBR, on one day their message saved 3,000 souls. Something changed.

The "None that I know of" part is called an argument from silence and is clearly false but regardless, I see the point you're making. There were actually several differences but the chief one is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Again, a prophesied straight line continuation of Israel's Kingdom gospel.

Further, and much more importantly, their effectiveness on the Day of Pentecost had seemingly no effect at all on the nation as a whole. Stephen was publicly executed by the very man that would become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Oh! And speaking of the man who would become the Apostle to the Gentiles, if things were going so swimmingly as you suggest, where's the need for Paul?

You accuse me of having filters. You might consider the filters you have as well.

Thanks, I do appreciate your time.

Everyone - EVERYONE - has filters. There are NO exceptions - period. It isn't an accusation, it's just a fact of life being a human in fallen flesh.

The endeavor here is to make certain that our filter is the correct one, which the filter itself makes quite difficult because it can make you see things that are not there and blind to things that are.

I have spent my entire adult life examining my filters. And I mean that specifically. I don't mean that I've spent my life studying my doctrine. I mean that I have spent my life thinking about WHY I think what I think and about the assumption and presuppositions that underlie what I've accepted as true.

Most people and I mean nearly everyone simply believes what they were taught as a child. If they're a Christian, it's because their parents where Christian. If they're a Baptist it's because they grew up going to a Baptist church, etc. I, on the other hand, am weird. I've never settled for what someone taught me. I'm not at all satisfied with knowing the facts. I want to know WHY something is the way it is. A pastor tells me that his doctrine is more correct than that of the church next door (like literally in the very next lot on the street) and, for him and most of the congregation, that's good enough. I, on the other hand, instantly think to myself, "The pastor next door probably just finished saying the exact same sentence. What makes one right and the other wrong?"

During my teens, this was just lurking around in the back of my mind but it really took root and sent me on my path in 1988 when I read "88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988". I got sucked in and believed every single syllable of that book. When it didn't happen, I went searching for why. It turns out that the author had gotten all 88 reasons wrong. That is an astounding feat, don't you think? How do you write such a book and get all 88 reasons wrong? How is that even possible?

Well, a BIG part of the problem was that he was a dispensationalist that believed the church age started at some point prior to Paul's conversion and believed that Paul preached the same thing that the rest of the New Testament authors preached. Had he made the proper distinctions he'd have known that no such prediction is possible because Israel's prophesied program is on pause and nothing about the Body of Christ was prophesied and so there's nothing to go by in order to make such a prediction. In other words, the error he made was to commingle truths that have only to do with Israel with truth that pertain only to the Body. What's really bad is that his total failure didn't convince him to stop. He published another book in 1989 and then others a few years later. All because his filters were/are faulty.

At any rate, that book started me down a path that, as I've described before, landed me firmly in the Mid-Acts Dispensational camp and for very good reason.

On that point, you should understand that its pretty clear at this point that this conversation is not going to convince you. There's just no way to do the topic justice on a web forum. It really does require a methodical, step by step, analysis of the biblical material where one can see each premise, understand each argument, follow each conclusion that leads to the next argument. It is the only way paradigms are ever changed.

Have you read Things That Differ?

You should.

The better book is The Plot but it isn't free and I've never convinced a soul to spend money studying this stuff so the free one will probably have to do.



So, the question for you then is this...

WHY PAUL? What's Paul got that the Twelve didn't?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

There can be no doubt that on the day of Pentecost Peter did not preach the "gospel of grace" but instead he preached the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And all those who believed that gospel were saved.





Yes there are huge doubts. You'd be making a 10,000 ft thick wall between the words forgiveness and grace, which is assinine.

He also preached that this event--the resurrection--was the coronation of Christ, exactly as did Paul.

I wouldn't show up anywhere quoting Ryrie. He is perpetuating an artifice.

 

[Interplanner]

Does what?

I answer your points and you run and hide from mine. And then you have the nerve to call me a dork!

You just continue to ignore the fact that James makes it plain that the salvation of those he addressed were saved by faith and faith alone:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

You just refuse to believe that these words of James make it plain that a person receives the new birth by faith and faith alone! And of course you IGNORED Peter's words which say the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

You are ignorant of the fact even those who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Everybody who has ever been saved throughout history has been saved by grace apart from works. But according to your mistaken view the Jews could not be saved apart from works![/QUOTE





Rahab was saved apart from works, believe me.

And Abraham nearly trafficked his sister--oops, wife! Works?

 

[Interplanner]

guys the proof that Paul and James are symphonic is the verb James chose to use about Rahab: logizomai. That means to be credited or regarded or considered IN SPITE OF ONES WORKS OR ACTS. So her assistance to the spies showed a faith in God, and that was credited as was Abraham's, so that their net 'gain' was justification from their sins. God 'logizomai's righteousness to those who are sinners and 'calls things that are not as though they were.'

Thus there is one gospel for patriarchs and prostitutes alike; that faith in Christ justifies us from our sins, and that faith must manifest, it must show, it must exhibit. It cannot be mental, cerebral.

 

[Interplanner]

You can just keep on repeating "It's the same. It's the same. It's the same." but it doens't make it so.

This is my fault really. I should never have allowed this discussion to turn into a debate about specific doctrines. When asking the question, "Why Paul?" had no effect on you, I should have stopped there.


Too bad that the Bible doesn't.

What could Pentecost be other than a straight line continuation of Israel prophesied Kingdom gospel that had been preached since at least Samuel?

If the Dispensation started in Mattew 27-28 then where's the need for Paul?


The "None that I know of" part is called an argument from silence and is clearly false but regardless, I see the point you're making. There were actually several differences but the chief one is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Again, a prophesied straight line continuation of Israel's Kingdom gospel.

Further, and much more importantly, their effectiveness on the Day of Pentecost had seemingly no effect at all on the nation as a whole. Stephen was publicly executed by the very man that would become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Oh! And speaking of the man who would become the Apostle to the Gentiles, if things were going so swimmingly as you suggest, where's the need for Paul?


Everyone - EVERYONE - has filters. There are NO exceptions - period. It isn't an accusation, it's just a fact of life being a human in fallen flesh.

The endeavor here is to make certain that our filter is the correct one, which the filter itself makes quite difficult because it can make you see things that are not there and blind to things that are.

I have spent my entire adult life examining my filters. And I mean that specifically. I don't mean that I've spent my life studying my doctrine. I mean that I have spent my life thinking about WHY I think what I think and about the assumption and presuppositions that underlie what I've accepted as true.

Most people and I mean nearly everyone simply believes what they were taught as a child. If they're a Christian, it's because their parents where Christian. If they're a Baptist it's because they grew up going to a Baptist church, etc. I, on the other hand, am weird. I've never settled for what someone taught me. I'm not at all satisfied with knowing the facts. I want to know WHY something is the way it is. A pastor tells me that his doctrine is more correct than that of the church next door (like literally in the very next lot on the street) and, for him and most of the congregation, that's good enough. I, on the other hand, instantly think to myself, "The pastor next door probably just finished saying the exact same sentence. What makes one right and the other wrong?"

During my teens, this was just lurking around in the back of my mind but it really took root and sent me on my path in 1988 when I read "88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988". I got sucked in and believed every single syllable of that book. When it didn't happen, I went searching for why. It turns out that the author had gotten all 88 reasons wrong. That is an astounding feat, don't you think? How do you write such a book and get all 88 reasons wrong? How is that even possible?

Well, a BIG part of the problem was that he was a dispensationalist that believed the church age started at some point prior to Paul's conversion and believed that Paul preached the same thing that the rest of the New Testament authors preached. Had he made the proper distinctions he'd have known that no such prediction is possible because Israel's prophesied program is on pause and nothing about the Body of Christ was prophesied and so there's nothing to go by in order to make such a prediction. In other words, the error he made was to commingle truths that have only to do with Israel with truth that pertain only to the Body. What's really bad is that his total failure didn't convince him to stop. He published another book in 1989 and then others a few years later. All because his filters were/are faulty.

At any rate, that book started me down a path that, as I've described before, landed me firmly in the Mid-Acts Dispensational camp and for very good reason.

On that point, you should understand that its pretty clear at this point that this conversation is not going to convince you. There's just no way to do the topic justice on a web forum. It really does require a methodical, step by step, analysis of the biblical material where one can see each premise, understand each argument, follow each conclusion that leads to the next argument. It is the only way paradigms are ever changed.

Have you read Things That Differ?

You should.

The better book is The Plot but it isn't free and I've never convinced a soul to spend money studying this stuff so the free one will probably have to do.



So, the question for you then is this...

WHY PAUL? What's Paul got that the Twelve didn't?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Or you could just follow the NT use of the OT, unlike JohnnyW, and be convinced of what they demonstrate. You D'ists crack me up: always complaining about others' books and then there it is--you 'need to get this book' and sound like you've never heard of the OT quotes in the NT.

Make sure the translation you use marks them clearly. Some of them will also tell you that there is a strong similarity or borrowed expressions at certain places.

 

[Interplanner]

Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
To charge Dispensationalism with taking things out of context is to simply say that you disagree with Dispensationalism and prefer to presume a different context for the New Testament. It means nothing and contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion.






The bible has a few dispensations, but not D'ism which is a belief that the Bible (but really the OT) does not make sense without the teachings of Darby, Nelson, Scofield, Ryrie, etc. D'ism is horrid on how the NT uses the OT, because it is trying to make sense of the OT the same way pre-Christian Judaism did.

It is also breaks the conclusion you must have about Mt24 etc, to make any sense there: that A is 1st century Judea (really the details of Dan 9) to v29, and then B is worldwide judgement which has been delayed by the Father. Any system that breaks with that conclusion will be incoherent.

 

[Interplanner]

You can just keep on repeating "It's the same. It's the same. It's the same." but it doens't make it so.

This is my fault really. I should never have allowed this discussion to turn into a debate about specific doctrines. When asking the question, "Why Paul?" had no effect on you, I should have stopped there.


Too bad that the Bible doesn't.

What could Pentecost be other than a straight line continuation of Israel prophesied Kingdom gospel that had been preached since at least Samuel?

If the Dispensation started in Mattew 27-28 then where's the need for Paul?


The "None that I know of" part is called an argument from silence and is clearly false but regardless, I see the point you're making. There were actually several differences but the chief one is the presence of the Holy Spirit. Again, a prophesied straight line continuation of Israel's Kingdom gospel.

Further, and much more importantly, their effectiveness on the Day of Pentecost had seemingly no effect at all on the nation as a whole. Stephen was publicly executed by the very man that would become the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Oh! And speaking of the man who would become the Apostle to the Gentiles, if things were going so swimmingly as you suggest, where's the need for Paul?


Everyone - EVERYONE - has filters. There are NO exceptions - period. It isn't an accusation, it's just a fact of life being a human in fallen flesh.

The endeavor here is to make certain that our filter is the correct one, which the filter itself makes quite difficult because it can make you see things that are not there and blind to things that are.

I have spent my entire adult life examining my filters. And I mean that specifically. I don't mean that I've spent my life studying my doctrine. I mean that I have spent my life thinking about WHY I think what I think and about the assumption and presuppositions that underlie what I've accepted as true.

Most people and I mean nearly everyone simply believes what they were taught as a child. If they're a Christian, it's because their parents where Christian. If they're a Baptist it's because they grew up going to a Baptist church, etc. I, on the other hand, am weird. I've never settled for what someone taught me. I'm not at all satisfied with knowing the facts. I want to know WHY something is the way it is. A pastor tells me that his doctrine is more correct than that of the church next door (like literally in the very next lot on the street) and, for him and most of the congregation, that's good enough. I, on the other hand, instantly think to myself, "The pastor next door probably just finished saying the exact same sentence. What makes one right and the other wrong?"

During my teens, this was just lurking around in the back of my mind but it really took root and sent me on my path in 1988 when I read "88 reasons Why The Rapture Will Be in 1988". I got sucked in and believed every single syllable of that book. When it didn't happen, I went searching for why. It turns out that the author had gotten all 88 reasons wrong. That is an astounding feat, don't you think? How do you write such a book and get all 88 reasons wrong? How is that even possible?

Well, a BIG part of the problem was that he was a dispensationalist that believed the church age started at some point prior to Paul's conversion and believed that Paul preached the same thing that the rest of the New Testament authors preached. Had he made the proper distinctions he'd have known that no such prediction is possible because Israel's prophesied program is on pause and nothing about the Body of Christ was prophesied and so there's nothing to go by in order to make such a prediction. In other words, the error he made was to commingle truths that have only to do with Israel with truth that pertain only to the Body. What's really bad is that his total failure didn't convince him to stop. He published another book in 1989 and then others a few years later. All because his filters were/are faulty.

At any rate, that book started me down a path that, as I've described before, landed me firmly in the Mid-Acts Dispensational camp and for very good reason.

On that point, you should understand that its pretty clear at this point that this conversation is not going to convince you. There's just no way to do the topic justice on a web forum. It really does require a methodical, step by step, analysis of the biblical material where one can see each premise, understand each argument, follow each conclusion that leads to the next argument. It is the only way paradigms are ever changed.

Have you read Things That Differ?

You should.

The better book is The Plot but it isn't free and I've never convinced a soul to spend money studying this stuff so the free one will probably have to do.



So, the question for you then is this...

WHY PAUL? What's Paul got that the Twelve didn't?


Resting in Him,
Clete

Paul had to 'prove' himself to be on the same page as the apostles. God did this supernaturally. That is why he sounds different from them in spots, but truly is not.

 

[Right Divider]

1, the myth of the exclusive nature of the letter as though for Jews only

The name of the book is HEBREWS... that actually MEANS something.

2, the nature of the new covenant we are now in, coordinating with all other NT references

No, we are NOT in the new covenant as specified IN THE BIBLE.

3, the belief that the land was what the ancient believers were seeking

The land was one of the MANY things that the "ancient believers" were seeking, as the were TOLD to do by the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.

4, the vital connection to the New Jerusalem as a geographic entity--even while the land of Israel was about to be fried.

You still reject the new heaven and the NEW earth. THAT is where the NEW Jerusalem will be located.

All comments on these things here at TOL by the D'ists are utterly mistaken

YOU are utterly mistaken, as usual.

Heb 8:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:8) 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: ​

Read it and believe it for a change instead of trying to turn it into your own personal fairy tale!

 

[Right Divider]

Guilty

I believe what the bible says and I do my best to understand what it's telling me.

Your best is not very good because you will not believe anything that does not agree with what you want it so say.

 

[john w]

Or you could just follow the NT use of the OT, unlike JohnnyW,

I told you, "gay, happy" Basill Sheldon, that your sodomite terms of endearment,"come on," "Johnny," you little wimp, do not work-I dig chicks.

What is your real name? Basil? Good "happy" name, wimp.

guys the proof that....

And the little punk basil is posing as a "the Greek" expert, and he cannot even manage to start a "the English" sentence, by capitalizing the first word.


You clown,loser, fraud, poser, and warlock, sorcerer, attempting to use your magic tricks to make most of the bible's promises, to specific people, disappear.

As asked, Sheldon: Explain what these verses mean, instead of satanically, subtily(Genesis 3 KJV), craftily dismissing them, with your magic wand, sorcerer:

Isaiah 46:13 KJV

I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.


Zechariah 8:23 KJV

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.



Isaiah 2:3 KJV

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.


Micah 4:2 KJV

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.



The LORD God will bless all on-Jews through the nation of His own creation Israel. Israel is created as God’s chosen people, His "elect" for service(holy/sanctify=to be set aside, separated, "severed" for God's use/purpose). God created the nation Israel to have a privileged status before Him as a "peculiar", "different", separated("holy"=sanctified) people:

"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Exodus 11:7 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: ..." Exodus 19:5 KJV

"For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." Exodus 33:16 KJV

"But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people." Leviticus 20:24 KJV

"For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations." Numbers 23:9 KJV

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 7:6 KJV

"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Deuteronomy 10:15 KJV

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2 KJV

"Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments; And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken." Deuteronomy 26:17-19 KJV

"And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods." 2 Samuel 7:23 KJV/2 Chronicles 17:21 KJV

"And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant." 2 Kings 5:15 KJV

"For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure." Psalms 135:4 KJV

"He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Psalms 147:19-20 KJV

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." Amos 3:2 KJV



You won't, you biblical buffoon.

 

[Right Divider]

The books of Acts is all about the transition from the Peter and the Twelve (i.e. Israel) to Paul and the Gentiles. And I'd say that Peter's being made to eat unclean foods is a really good indication that something had changed. Something that wasn't intuitively understood by Peter, don't you agree?

Further, Peter and the Twelve were believers and Paul explicitly stated that God had not cut them when He cut off Israel as a nation, so where is the need for Paul? Where is the need to give Paul the gospel by revelation and send him (a Jew just like Peter and the Twelve) to the Gentiles if it was the same gospel?

Do you see my point?

turbosixx likes to ignore what is inconvenient to his story.

The fact that Peter is clearly the leader of the acts and events of Acts 1-8 could not be more clear.... AND the fact that Peter completely disappears from the book of Acts after chapter 15 SHOULD be a clear indication that something has changed. But it is ignored instead.

There is no need for Acts if Paul's message was the same. There's no need for Paul at all for that matter. He could just as easily (perhaps more easily) have been converted in a normal way and been a convert like all the other converts and still been a leader and an evangelist. There just no need for all the fireworks and drama.

turbosixx's convenient answer to "Why Paul?" is .... why not.

That cannot and did not preach the same thing!

Why do you keep asking me this? You don't get to just ignore the epistles.

turbosixx, like many others, like to stack the deck and expect us to acquiesce.

I don't think it is possible to establish such a thing without the epistles beyond what I just got through explaining.
Why would you want to do so? What possible motive could you have to want to avoid the epistles in asking such a question as "What is the gospel?"

The book of Acts is not about the gospel, at least not directly. It's purpose is not to present the gospel but to present a history of the transition away from the Twelve and Israel and to Paul and the gentiles. A history that is critical to the acceptance of Paul as a legitimate Apostle which only makes sense if Paul's message was substantially different than that of Peter and the Twelve.

Most anti-MAD folks try to turn the book of Acts into a doctrinal discourse, when it's actually a historical account about the fall of Israel.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I love this. Every time I take a peak at something this dork has written it seems he always does this.

I am sure you take a peek at all of my posts and when you see you can provide no intelligent answer you just ignore my points. But when you think you actually have an intelligent answer you do reply to my posts. But even though I answered your points about the second chapter of James you did not even attempt to answer back. And then you have the nerve to call me a dork!

You just continue to ignore the fact that James makes it plain that the salvation of those he addressed were saved by faith and faith alone:

"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (Jas.1:18).​

You just refuse to believe that these words of James make it plain that a person receives the new birth by faith and faith alone! And of course you IGNORED Peter's words which say the same thing:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever....And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet.1:23,25).​

You are ignorant of the fact even those who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

Everybody who has ever been saved throughout history has been saved by grace apart from works. But according to your mistaken view the Jews could not be saved apart from works!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The fact that Peter is clearly the leader of the acts and events of Acts 1-8 could not be more clear.... AND the fact that Peter completely disappears from the book of Acts after chapter 15 SHOULD be a clear indication that something has changed. But it is ignored instead.

Yes, and the next time we hear from Peter we can see that he is preaching the same gospel which was first revealed by Paul when repeatedly used the words "free" and "liberty" when referring to the fact that those in the Body of Christ have been set free from the law:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal.2:4).​

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

In fact, Paul charged the Galatians not to use the liberty as a base of operations for sin:

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another" (Gal.5:13).​

That practically mirrors the words of Peter found in his first epistle:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet.2:16).​

Free from the law!

 

[DAN P]

liberty[/B]; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another"[/I] (Gal.5:13).[/INDENT]

That practically mirrors the words of Peter found in his first epistle:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet.2:16).​

Free from the law!

Hi Jerry and why do you say that Gal 5:1 and that 1 Peter 2:16 are the same ??

Will you clarify ??

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry and why do you say that Gal 5:1 and that 1 Peter 2:16 are the same ??

Will you clarify ??

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Pet.2:16).​

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1).​

In both instances the subject is "liberty" and that can only mean liberty from the law or being set free from the law. I did not mean that they are actually the same but instead to point out that they both speak of the same thing, freedom from the law.

Dan, what do you think that Peter was referring to when he used the words "free" and 'liberty"?