The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

[Right Divider]

No you don't, you keep the church of Jews and the church of Gentiles separate.

Please stop lying. That is NOT what MAD says.

MAD has Peter, James, John, etc. in a separate church than Paul.

That is not a MAD doctrine ... that is what the BIBLE says!

There was a reason that they (Peter, James and John, as representatives of all twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL), separated their ministry from Paul's.

Gal 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Note the DIVISION there. Peter, James and John agreed NOT to go to the gentiles (i.e., the uncircumcision).

It is your anti-MAD doctrines that have issues with what the Bible clearly says.

 

[Tambora]

Again, as @Clete asked... why is this the ONLY reference to Christ standing instead of sitting?

The reason is ... Isaiah 3:13.

Christ was to judge Israel and the world and then establish His earthly kingdom.

Again, why can't it not be referring to Daniel 7 in which Stephen specifically refers to Jesus as Son of Man?

 

[Tambora]

Please stop lying. That is NOT what MAD says.

Yes it does.
It says Jews are saved apart from Gentiles as another church with another gospel.

That is not a MAD doctrine ... that is what the BIBLE says!

The prophets of the Bible say that Jews and Gentiles will both receive salvation and be the people of God.

 

[Right Divider]

Again, why can't it not be referring to Daniel 7 in which Stephen specifically refers to Jesus as Son of Man?

It can be BOTH.

The Son of Man is a reference to Christ's dominion on the earth. After Israel rejected Him, the next step in the prophetic calendar was the time of Jacob's trouble (i.e., judgment of Israel). That did not happen, but instead Christ called Paul and gave him a new dispensation of His grace.

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) 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.

There is NO prophecy about gentiles receiving salvation through the FALL of Israel. Prophecy says the opposite.

Isa 60:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)
(60:1) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. (60:2) For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. (60:3) And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it does.
It says Jews are saved apart from Gentiles as another church with another gospel.

Again, that is a LIE.

You are completely ignorant of MAD doctrine, as are most that say things like that.

The prophets of the Bible say that Jews and Gentiles will both receive salvation and be the people of God.

Yes, but not the way that you think. You claim that there was never a separation of Israel from the nations. The Bible says that there was and will be again when this dispensation is over.

Zech 8:22-23 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:22) Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD. (8:23) 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.

 

[Right Divider]

Again, why can't it not be referring to Daniel 7 in which Stephen specifically refers to Jesus as Son of Man?

Have you ever noticed that Paul never once refers to Jesus as the Son of Man?

 

[Right Divider]

Again, why can't it not be referring to Daniel 7 in which Stephen specifically refers to Jesus as Son of Man?

Like I said, it can be both. The next step, according to prophecy, was the time of Jacob's trouble... the judgement of Israel... the great tribulation.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes it does.
It says Jews are saved apart from Gentiles as another church with another gospel.

That is simply a LIE Tambora... Stop repeating lies.

The prophets of the Bible say that Jews and Gentiles will both receive salvation and be the people of God.

Once AGAIN, in a certain way this is true; in another way it is NOT.

According to you, there was never a separation of Israel from the gentiles. But the Bible says that there was.

Lev 20:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:24) 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.

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) 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.

How does your "it's always been the same" deal with those scriptures?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No you don't, you keep the church of Jews and the church of Gentiles separate.
MAD has Peter, James, John, etc. in a separate church than Paul.

You're misunderstanding something. Yes, Peter, James, John, etc. WERE in a separate church. But RD isn't talking about them. He's talking about members of the Body of Christ, SPECIFICALLY those who are saved by grace alone. He is not talking about those who believed under the New Covenant, which is what Peter, James, John, etc., and their converts were under.

Peter, et al, and the Jews who became believers under the dispensation of the New Covenant, were to remain under that covenant. It is under the New Covenant that Jews and Gentiles were to remain separate. Gentiles could be come proselytes, but they had to access God through His relationship with Israel.

Paul, and his converts, however, were saved under a different dispensation. In THAT dispensation, the dispensation of the grace of God, there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile, all are of one Body, that of Christ. If I had to put an end date on the New Covenant's "in effect" period, I'd put it at the death of John, the last Apostle to die.

Why would Paul say something like this, if there was no difference between what Paul taught and what Peter, et al, taught?

But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called. - 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:17-24&version=NKJV

BOTH dispensations were in effect SIMULTANEOUSLY. But eventually, the New Covenant was no longer in effect, and any new people who believed, were saved under Paul's dispensation of grace. This is the dispensation that exists TO THIS DAY, and which EVERY CHRISTIAN ALIVE and who has lived since Paul's conversion have been saved under (barring those who were saved under the New Covenant).

But you, and people like you who reject dispensationalism, in doing so, mash the two covenants together, and obfuscate the distinctions between the two dispensations, saying they're the same, and trying to make them fit together, when they do not.

 

[Nick M]

I can see why it would be a frightening prospect for anyone who was heavily invested into modern Christian doctrine. It just changes everything - or it certainly would feel that way.

Ray Comfort has an easier job with literal heathens than the mess that is the religion of Christianity.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ray Comfort has an easier job with literal heathens than the mess that is the religion of Christianity.

That's because they likely have no theological baggage that they need to dispose of first.

 

[Right Divider]

That's because they likely have no theological baggage that they need to dispose of first.

The proper paradigm shift is just too much for many people. They prefer to hang on to the myths of Churchianity.

 

[Rhema]

OH DEAR !!!

But I do feel I need to clarify that I did not say that Jesus was racist.
And I greatly apologize that I hadn't worded my post very well.

So I don't believe Jesus to be racist, and I had used the phrase "your Jesus" because I felt the poster to whom I was replying had presented a racist Jesus.

I shall attempt to do better when presenting my thoughts in the future,

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Clete]

No it wasn't.
To make the argument that standing at the right hand has to mean judgment is about to executed simply cannot be sustained by scripture.
Jesus can execute judgement whether He is sitting or standing.
You are simply reading that into the verse to suit your narrative.

Nope.

It is Luke's BOOK - not sentence.

As I've said repeatedly, there isn't any need to guess. The text of Acts itself tells you what's happening.

 

[Clete]

It's a discussion forum.

Call it what you like, as if it makes any difference.

Discussion, like debate, requires that both parties respond with substance to what the other has said rather than routinely ignoring any response and simply repeating your position as though nothing was said to counter it.d

It's obvious you do not want to discuss but just pound the podium.

You're a liar and a fool.

I have decades here to prove that debating....

WAIT! Debate is clearly too harsh a word to use for your delicate sensibilities. Let me rephrase....

I have decades here to prove that "discussing" these issues is the only thing I'm interested in doing here.

 

[Clete]

Again, as @Clete asked... why is this the ONLY reference to Christ standing instead of sitting?

The reason is ... Isaiah 3:13.

Christ was to judge Israel and the world and then establish His earthly kingdom.

Nice! I did not know that verse existed. I will be remembering that one.

Iron sharpening iron.

 

[Jefferson]

The reason is ... Isaiah 3:13.

"The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people."

 

[Idolater]

... There is one book that you need to read. There are others you could read but this the only book you'll ever need to read on the topic.


The Plot by Bob Enyart

Is this authoritative, standard, canonical Mid-Acts Dispensationalism? iow IF there's a problem in this book, does that mean there is logically necessarily a problem with MAD? Or are you just going to say, "Well Bob Enyart [of happy memory] was wrong on this or that point." I don't want to get involved in something that isn't authoritative, none of us has time to waste doing that.

So if you can commit to that, I'll read it, I promise. I mean generally, especially if two or more MAD's here can make that commitment, I'll read it.

And turnabout is fair play. I make the same commitment to you and everybody, about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That book contains authoritative, standard, canonical Catholicism. If there's a problem in there, there's a problem with Catholicism.

... It really only comes down to one or two ideas. If you accept them as true then it changes everything. ...

Correct me if I'm wrong: One of the ideas is to always know to whom every Scripture is written. (For example we didn't read Genesis and build ourselves an ark.)

What is the other idea?

 

[Clete]

This is my gripe about MAD, they want to separate believers rather than unite them as God wants.

Lie.

Intentional lie!

Tambora KNOWS for a fact that this idiotic claim is flatly false.

Those of you engaging her need to ask yourselves what her motives are.

MAD has to create 2 of everything in order for their narrative to hold water.

LIE!

Stupidity! This claim cannot possibly make sense even to Tambora!

MAD creates another gospel, another body of believers, another return of Jesus, another Gog/Magog invasion, etc.

LOL!

Another Gog/Magog invasion?!

What can that possibly mean?

As for another body of believers, even she believes in that.

And who is it that has ever talked about more than one return of Jesus?

It's simple nonsense. No way she thinks any of this is legitimate.

She's lying.

Stephen was referring to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 which was said to have a dominion/kingdom of which all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.

Daniel 7​

(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.​

(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.​

I responded to this already. She completely ignored it and thereby demonstrated that she isn't trying to discuss this stuff.
Even if it were accurate, which she has not established and doesn't have any idea how to even begin to establish it, it wouldn't accomplish whatever it is that she thinks it accomplishes.....

And that's exactly what we see happening at the time of Jesus' ministry in the flesh and after His resurrection ---- all people were coming to Him.
The apostles not only saw it happening but also recognized that it was prophesied to be so and stated so at the council at Jerusalem.

Acts 15​

(13) After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.​

(14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.​

(15) And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,​

(16) “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,​

(17) that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things​

(18) known from of old.’​

Simply laughable!

Acts 15:16-17 is a reference to Amos chapter 9.

Anyone want to bet money on whether Tambora knew that before I just told her? Anyone want to bet any additional money on whether Tambora has ever read the book of Amos? I wouldn't even be willing to bet that she knew that there was a book of Amos!

The bottom line is that Acts 15 is where James, who was presiding over the Jerusalem counsel (James was not an Apostle, by the way, which is another detail that Tambora didn't know until just now) and concludes that the Gentiles are not to be required to submit to the law, which is the very thing that James states plainly that his followers were "zealous" to do (Acts 21:20).

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them:​

​

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,​

​

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:​

​

Greetings.​

​

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, [h]saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one [i]accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who 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 necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual[j] immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.​

​

Farewell.​

Imagine that, the Jerusalem Counsel itself creating two groups of believers just five verses later in the very same chapter that Tambora quotes after having just chiding us about creating two of everything!

As I said, simply laughable.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Yes it does.
It says Jews are saved apart from Gentiles as another church with another gospel.

It says that they are are NOT saved apart from gentiles as another church with another gospel.

AND YOU KNOW IT!

Who are you trying to convince here with this? It makes no sense!

There is no longer any Jew or Gentile except as a matter of genetics or nationality. When it comes to getting saved and having a relationship with God, there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or freeman.

Seems like there was someone somewhere that said something along those line before!

Oh! Yeah!

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.​