SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Only if words have no meaning.
Words like land, city from heaven, and the heavenlies.
ECT Two Bodies of Believers in the NT
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Only if words have no meaning.
Words like land, city from heaven, and the heavenlies.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is not an opinion that those who returned home from the first pentecost kickstarted the Gospel's spread. It is well documented: Christians are found from Spain to India in the first generation. They did not have to tell the account ver well; it still got through to the end-audience: that God was willing to forgive men's sins in Christ.
It is not an opinion that missionaries are those that have a mission. Duh.
The twelve tribes thing is not anything essential about the mission of the Gospel, which Paul wanted everyone to imitate himself about (Acts 26). It is an image about the new Israel that was forming. If it gets carnalized, it is divisive, as we see from the apostles' silly reactions to taking it literally.
A distinction in Paul's ministry? What's that?
You are far more simplistic than I ever realized.
Right Divider
Body part
These "missionaries" were scattered because of persecution and not to spread the gospel of the grace of God (which they did NOT even know).
The kingdom was to have its capital in Jerusalem and YET the people of Jerusalem refused and kicked the believers OUT of Jerusalem. Only the apostles remained (Acts 8:1).
Duh, your theory is a myth that most of "Christendom" teaches.
Do you have this "the kingdom is just spiritual" nonsense in your mind?
The dispensation of the grace of God was given to Paul. Maybe you should get a Bible and read about it.
And you are just plain confused.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
The LORD taught them for 40 days about the Kingdom, but he failed to get it through their thick skulls?
Right Divider
Body part
Yep, some people think that the LORD was a poor teacher.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Lord knew what Peter would do, didn't he? The living, growing body is too difficult to communicate beforehand given that they have been raised in Judaism. So they waited around the temple area and met there, but their teachers were the apostles--until, of course, they were driven out. 2:46, 5:12, 17, 42.
By this point it was now several thousand believers, and the main opposition was Judaism and its zealots (6:9). All those people who went home from the Pentecost were now speaking the Gospel where they were. In their synagogues first, and elsewhere as it came up.
This helps us understand 6:13, 14. Here you now have Judaizers who can't imagine a movement that no longer 'needs' the temple, the land, the customs, the law. But there it is and it is thriving. Notice that those Judaizers are not from the local area! They are from widely scattered areas, but they are Judaizers!
I don't think Jesus was a poor teacher; I just happen to think that there is hardly any way to explain how this would happen when you have such set traditions opposing you who are censorious.
Right Divider
Body part
That is irrelevant to the point at hand.
Here we go with your story telling again. Christ was NOT teaching them the BODY; He was teaching them the KINGDOM.
Acts 1:3-7 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (1:4) And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. (1:5) For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (1:7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
They clearly understood that the kingdom of Israel was to be restored and the Lord did NOT say otherwise.
Yes, they stayed in Jerusalem as the Lord had told them.
Acts 1:4-5 (KJV)
(1:4) And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me. (1:5) For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
There is clearly an ordering to the Lord plan, and it starts in Jerusalem.
Acts 1:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (1:9) And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
NOTE: The apostles were NOT "driven out" in Acts 2-5 according to the Bible.
(8:1) And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
So, once again, your story is refuted by the Bible.
This "explanation" if just another bit of fantasy on your part. You say that you "don't think that Jesus was a poor teacher" and YET you think that His students "didn't get it". You throw all kinds of false statements into the mix and think that you've "proved" something. You have only proven that you prefer your story to what the Bible actually teaches.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Do you mean they were not driven out or that they were driven out later? I don't think they were driven out until the verses mentioned in 8 either, so I don't know what the difference is. I was showing that by staying in the precincts of the temple, they still thought something permanent was going to happen there rather than all over the world. He was going to rebuild his temple right? But they hadn't recalculated that it was a living, growing temple like Eph 2 or elsewhere that 'hovers' just above earth.
But if you can't see the difference between still believing in the kingdom and having opposition like v13 (the Judaizers wanted Israel's 'kingdom' to happen), that's your problem.
The disciples were really dense. Their questions in Mt 24:1 show that because they were excited about the temple (and their positions in it) right after he had said the city would be desolated in ch 23, and told two parables of such destruction in 21 and 22. Really dense. Look at Peter telling him to stop talking about sacrificing. Look at Lk 18:34. There was no way in their upbringing in Judaism that this figured. In Mt right after this happens, we don't find the dense response listed but we do find them trying to figure out would be greatest in (what they thought was) the kingdom.
By the way, how do you as a follwer at that time, leave home, wife, brothers, parents, children for the kingdom of God unless it completely different from what they thought was coming in Judaism? Lk 18:29 And recieve 100x that much IN THIS AGE?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Or Lk 18:31 that everything written about him would be fulfilled in the death and resurrection? That is why Acts 13 says that the resurrection is everything Israel was looking for because Israel was to be looking for its mission in the Gospel, not a kingdom.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Or Jn 12:34, that the people thought that the Law said Messiah would reign forever when he came, but Christ says he is going to be 'lifted' on a cross, and says that that view is the LIGHT while they are in the darkness.
Why not lay out your understanding of Acts 13 in whole; rather than in soundbytes?
So that the whole of your view on it can be examined, and found wanting in whole, for once.
For full of holes your understanding of Acts 13 continues to be...
As full of holes, while I'm at it, as your understanding of the wrath described in 1 Thessalonians 2.
Ironic, that second one: because it is for your same reason as to that wrath, together with other supposedly supporting understandings, that Charles Welch, the "founder" of the Acts 28 Position (he then talked Bullinger out of Mid-Acts with) ended up erroneously concluding that Paul was given two different dispensations - one in Acts 13, another around the time of Acts 28.
Its interesting, this: at one point or another, all schools of thought end up sharing a similar understanding on one point or another.
At times where they are both off. At other times, where they are both sound.
Right Divider
Body part
So I guess that you think that the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM was NOT the gospel of the kingdom.
You are crazy and impossible to communicate with.
exminister
Well-known member
I don't see anything against OSAS in that link.
Seriously, someone who uses a phrase like "what was WROTE" was actually able to correctly discern the actually intended sense of what was WRITTEN."
Yo, JohnW, throw one of those "have a seat"s over here - I have a candidate for it - no, not that one - their name is WROTE on it, lol
Genuineoriginal, aright; no doubt about it. No need to WROTE the Mayor for verification...
Yo, JohnW, throw one of those "have a seat"s over here - I have a candidate for it - no, not that one - their name is WROTE on it, lol
Genuineoriginal, aright; no doubt about it. No need to WROTE the Mayor for verification...
exminister
Well-known member
Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. This means Jesus' kingdom is a spiritual entity and Paul knew that in a spiritual context there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Everyone is welcome to become a part of God's kingdom, including Jews.
The message of God's kingdom has come to the Gentiles.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Calm down and learn some Greek. A nominative preposition is different from a possessive preposition. It is the Gospel that belongs to the reign of God. It is not a (separate) Gospel (for Israel) about a kingdom (of Israel). He ALWAYS meant to reform the concept of Israel which is why Paul was divinely appointed to teach the exact same thing in the widest circulated original NT document: Ephesians.
The reign of God happens where it is proclaimed with authority, because someone hearing it (sometimes thousands) will be compelled to honor Christ and believe upon him. Whenever that happens the reign of God has expanded. It is not a kingdom as we know it; it is not the kind found all over the world. The Gospel is the power of God for saving people, meaning the kind of power that informs them who this world belongs to and what they should be in light of that. It is not hydroelectric power or physical forces.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I hate to say anything about Acts 13 because it is perfectly self-explanatory. With people (books) like those you just mentioned being 'clear' to you, it is hopeless to discuss theology with you.
The climax of Acts 13 is his saying that what was promised to the fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. That is what the Psalms and Isaiah are quoted for, and a resurrected person is proven to be righteous and accepted by God. That was Christ and he is accepted on our behalf. That is the climax of Israel's history. No land, theocracy, etc. It was a mission--automatically. As soon as this word is re-preached, repeated, spoken the age of the Spirit of God is moving on.
Paul and co. was the light mentioned in Isaiah 49, quoted in v47, only because he was preaching this same Christ, so that the ends of the earth would hear this message.
I don't know of any recent comment about wrath in I Th 2, but he was referring to (anticipatorily) the DofJ. Just look up 'heap up' in a Hebrew dictionary. It was the complete wrath on Israel. The end and judgement of the whole world was expected to be right after, but has been delayed.