The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

[Rhema]

MAD clearly and explicitly says that in the CURRENT dispensation, this separation is removed.

Then why wouldn't this be the correct moment?

(Matthew 27:51 KJV) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;​

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

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

The reason is ... Isaiah 3:13.

Nah, the reason is ... Deuteronomy 18:5

(Deuteronomy 18:5 KJV) For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.​

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's a LOT of conjecture being placed on one verse.

And just why wouldn't the following be the proper reference for Stephen in Acts 7?

(Deuteronomy 18:5 KJV) For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.​

Jesus was standing to minister in the name of the LORD to Stephen.

Expanding the body posture of Jesus to encompass some "judgment" on the entirety of all Jews is a bit, well.... rather too expansive.

Rhema

Try Jeremiah 18, instead.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then why wouldn't this be the correct moment?

(Matthew 27:51 KJV) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;​

Rhema

Because THAT was symbolic of the fact that now the Gentiles didn't have to go through the priesthood of Israel. They could enter the temple and go straight to God, because JESUS was the High Priest.

They still had to go through Israel, though. Under Paul's dispensation of Grace, Israel is just another nation, and ANYONE can come to God directly, no temple required.

 

[Rhema]

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).

Which is why Thomas said, heck to this crap, and stormed off into Parthia. You know, those gentiles over there?

But we have only ONE witness to this supposed authorization, and no witness of Peter, James, and John actually agreeing to this.

(Matthew 18:16 KJV) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.​

Indeed we have the opposite witness from the mouth of Peter.

(Acts 15:7 KJV) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.​

I can see why Peter said, heck to this crap and went to Rome.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

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



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

And as Peter said... in the same manner.

(Acts 15:11 YLT) but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.'​

​

(Acts 15:11 ASV) But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.​

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

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

And that should tell you something. (Not sure what, but even you consider this to be important somehow.)

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

But you, and people like you who reject dispensationalism, in doing so, mash the two covenants together,

Wait, what?

So there are THREE covenants now? Old, New, and Grace? With New and Grace "in effect simultaneously?"

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.

So then the New Covenant is dead, and the gospel that Jesus taught is no longer in effect (basically dispensed with, then).

Why would Jesus reveal this only to Paul, and not to his own disciples?

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wait, what?

So there are THREE covenants now? Old, New, and Grace? With New and Grace "in effect simultaneously?"

The "New Covenant" is made with the same two parties as the "Old Covenant."

The "covenant of Grace" (as it can be called) is a DIFFERENT covenant made with different parties.

So then the New Covenant is dead,

No. Only put on hold.

and the gospel that Jesus taught is no longer in effect (basically dispensed with, then).

"Dispense" in this context means "given to," not "thrown away."

Why would Jesus reveal this only to Paul, and not to his own disciples?

Indeed. Why Paul at all? Why was there a need for a thirteenth apostle, when God already had 12.

That question can ONLY be answered by Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

 

[Rhema]

Justice is not irrational.

Yet humans are.

 

[Rhema]

Just because YOU have a hard time understanding justice doesn't mean that humans cannot understand justice.

I don't.

But I do know that the Justice of God will seem unjust to men.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

MAD says that the gospel of the kingdom that Christ gave to the twelve is different from the gospel of the grace of God that God gave to Paul.

That is a fact.

And that should tell you something.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Try Jeremiah 18, instead.

LOVE it. It's quite clear there will be a New Covenant to replace the Old.

 

[Rhema]

Because THAT was symbolic of the fact that now the Gentiles didn't have to go through the priesthood of Israel.

They still had to go through Israel, though.

The above are contradictory statements. Let me know when you've made up my mind.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

The "New Covenant" is made with the same two parties as the "Old Covenant."

The "covenant of Grace" (as it can be called) is a DIFFERENT covenant made with different parties.

Yes. Three covenants.

Thank you.

 

[Rhema]

Indeed. Why Paul at all? Why was there a need for a thirteenth apostle, when God already had 12.

That question can ONLY be answered by Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Wasn't Barnabas an apostle?

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, that part can't be overlooked.
He didn't come in the flesh to build an earthly kingdom to fight earthly oppressors.
It wasn't the dispensation for that.
He came in the flesh to die in the flesh.

Matthew 1:21 right at the beginning. "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Not from the Romans, not from "their oppressors." From their sins. How's He going to do that? The cross.

 

[Right Divider]

Matthew 1:21 right at the beginning. "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Do you know who "his people" are? Apparently not.

Not from the Romans, not from "their oppressors." From their sins. How's He going to do that? The cross.

Only Paul was given the revelation that Christ's death was going to save all people without Israel.

Note the difference here:

Matt 20:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:28) Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

1Tim 2:6 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

I have no doubt that you will not understand this... so be it.

 

[Tambora]

MAD says that the gospel of the kingdom that Christ gave to the twelve is different from the gospel of the grace of God that God gave to Paul.

That is a fact.

I know.

And Paul poses a dilemma for those with that train of thought.

Galatians 1 LEB
(8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!

Only because it is.

The twelve were able to preach the gospel of the kingdom to Israel for YEARS without knowing anything about the death of Christ.

Can we preach the gospel of the grace of God without preaching Christ's death? NO!!

Certainly.
One can preach the grace of God from the OT.
That's why all the NT writers incorporate the OT into their preaching.

 

[Tambora]

Matthew 1:21 right at the beginning. "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Not from the Romans, not from "their oppressors." From their sins. How's He going to do that? The cross.

Right.
And "His people" are all believers from all of history.
He became a flesh man to be our (mankind) kinsman redeemer.