Who is the Remnant Church?

clefty

New member
Nothing silly about the truth. Who does David mean here Ps 17:15


As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

Is that only a likeness in what one looks like or does it include how one lives...a lifestyle...you know...claim to abide in Him...must live as He does...1 John 2:6

or indeed would Abel Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Elijah balk at water baptism or the Lord’s Prayer...or communion?
Or Sabbath, festivals, and clean meats?

“No no no...all that’s just for Jews...NOT DISPENSED TO ME”...

I am doubtful they would...

and that likeness man was created into extends into a lifestyle he was created for...before sin...Inclusive of seventh day Sabbath and NOT eating unclean meat...
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Nothing silly about the truth. Who does David mean here Ps 17:15


As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.

I would have included the entire chapter. The context is very important as it demonstrates what David meant by "likeness".
 

beloved57

Well-known member
I would have included the entire chapter. The context is very important as it demonstrates what David meant by "likeness".

I'm not you. I believe that the likeness meant is the image and likeness of his Savior and Head the Lord Jesus Christ Rom 8:29


copyChkboxOff.gif
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I would also add to my last post Psalm 51.

1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
19
Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Notice that David, in his repentance for killing Uriah and taking Bathsheba as his own wife, asks God for a new, clean, heart. This is the very essence of being born again. And remember Jesus quite clearly chided Nicodemus, a teacher in Israel, for not understanding what it meant to be born again. This means the concept of being born again should have been known to the Jews of Jesus' day. Otherwise there was no foundation to Jesus' chiding of Nicodemus. In other words, if the concept of the new birth was not taught in the OT Jesus was lying by chiding Nicodemus for not understanding it. And we know Jesus never sinned.

David includes the concept of the Holy Spirit and it's importance in the role of obedience to God. You know, like Paul's statement: for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure. And he says that the presence of the Holy Spirit in his life is the foundation for him to be able to teach others about God. Especially notice the last 4 verses in which David shows how the Isrealites understood true repentance. It was a broken spirit and a contrite heart that God accepts as repentance. And then David links that to the sacrificial system of burnt offerings to demonstrate their true meaning.

Remember also that David lived 1500 years before Jesus. This was the long time understanding of the sinner's position before God and what was meant by repentance in the teachings of the Bible. It's no wonder Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees for not understanding the Bible. They had moved a long ways away from a relational understanding of salvation to the legalistic ideas they held in Jesus' time. Jesus was not revealing anything new. He was cleaning away the rubbish that was hiding the truth during His days on earth.

So those who point to the Pharisees as holding a Biblical position on salvation, law keeping, the new birth, righteousness, etc... are dead wrong. The Jewish leadership during Jesus' day had pretty much everything wrong. That's why they hated Jesus. He showed how corrupt and wrongheaded they were. And they hated that. There was no attitude of repentance and asking for a change of heart within them. They were satisfied with who they were without God in their lives. That is self-righteousness, and the Bible teaches that is a belief that leads to death starting with the writings of Moses. In other words, from the very beginning of the Bible.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
I'm not you. I believe that the likeness meant is the image and likeness of his Savior and Head the Lord Jesus Christ Rom 8:29


copyChkboxOff.gif
Rom 8:29 - For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

It's clear you have no idea as to what I meant. That entire chapter is speaking about being conformed into the image of God.
 

Rondonmonson

New member
End Times Remnant Church

The remnant church is something that many Christians don't think about, because most professing Christians trust that their belief alone in Jesus makes them part of the true church of God, whether or not they are truly walking with the Lord. But is this right, or does God have a true remnant people during these end times? Who is the remnant church talked about in the Bible? Throughout His Word, God has declared that He would keep a people for Himself, a true people who would obey Him and not wander from His truth. Take a look at the following verses:
Isaiah 1:9
Isaiah 10:20
Jeremiah 23:3
Jeremiah 31:7
Joel 2:32
Romans 9:27

Please don't think that by saying "Israel", that the Bible just means the literal nation of Israel. Because the literal nation of Israel are not longer God's chosen people. Christians have now taken on the name Israel in a spiritual sense.
Did you catch what Paul said above in Romans? Even though the number of the children of Israel is as the sand of the sea, in other words, a HUGE number, only a remnant will be saved. Now we all know what the word remnant means - a small amount left. This applies to the Christian world today. Although there are millions upon millions of professing Christians, only a few in comparison will actually be saved. Now that may shock you, I don't know, but it's the truth. Jesus confirmed in Matthew 7:14.
Only a few will walk down the narrow path. There are so many professing Christians who are walking down the broad path to destruction, because they believe they can have Jesus in one hand and the world in the other hand. But to be a part of the true remnant church we need to surrender ALL to Christ.

There is a remnant people in these end times who satan is making war with. And what makes them stand out to satan as the true remnant church of God?
Revelation 12:17
So they are a commandment keeping people (including the seventh day Sabbath) and they also have the testimony of Jesus. But what is the testimony of Jesus?
Revelation 19:10
So the true remnant church of God obey Him and keep His Commandments, and they have the spirit of prophecy. In other words, they have a special understanding of Bible prophecy.
And when you have a remnant piece of material, how does it compare to the ORIGINAL? It is exactly the same right.? So the end time remnant people will be living their faith in the exact same way as the New Testament church. They "look" the same.

ARE WE ONE OF THEM?

All the first verses you cite are about a Remnant of Israel. They are the 1/3 who repent just before the Day of the Lord (Zechariah 13:8-9) who repent when Elijah is sent back just before the DOTL as Malachi 4:5-6 says.

But, the Rev. 12:17 verse can not be Jews by its very definition. It is the Remnant Church who becomes saved after the Rapture. We know it can not be the Jews because its in the very verses we read in Rev. 12. You see, the Dragon turns from the Woman (Israel) because he can't get at her, and goes after the Remnant. So the 1/3 who repent can't be the remnant the Dragon sends the Anti-Christs army after to hurt, because it says in the verses, he can't get at her and thus gets angry. We know it can't be the 2/3 of the Jews who do not repent because the Remnant is said to have the ......IMPORTANT......Testimony of Jesus Christ, well, we know that doesn't fit the 2/3 which Zechariah says will perish. So, that SPECIFIC REMNANT can only be the Remnant Church, the same ones seen under the Altar at the 5th Seal, which by the way stands for all 42 months of Martyrs by the Beast. Thus the Bride is Raptured and all those Gentiles who come to Christ Jesus afterwards are te Remnant [Church]. A small part that is left.

Those living in Israel today are the WHOLE HOUSE of Israel, there were never any lost tribes. ONE SEED from any tribe meant the tribe survived, there was never a time that all the seeds of Israel did not abide in Jerusalem until 70 AD, so when Israel was dispersed, they were seen as Jews, but they were dispersed as ONE STICK (Ezekiel 37) and one nation like the 2 Sticks become one stick prophecy prophesied they would be. And they came back as Jews, but they are all 12 tribes of Israel in reality.
 
Last edited:

beloved57

Well-known member
It's clear you have no idea as to what I meant. That entire chapter is speaking about being conformed into the image of God.

Evidently you have no idea what I meant, I'm speaking of the one speaking in that particular verse. I believe it refers to the ot saint being Glorified and conforming to the image of Christ.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
beloved57 and Nanja.

That's about it.

Oh wrong friend, let's read Rev 7:9-10


9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.


,
 

clefty

New member
Evidently you have no idea what I meant, I'm speaking of the one speaking in that particular verse. I believe it refers to the ot saint being Glorified and conforming to the image of Christ.

As to a saint being glorified and conforming to the image of Christ I asked you:
would Abel Enoch Noah Abraham Moses Elijah balk at water baptism or the Lord’s Prayer...or communion?
Or Sabbath, festivals, and clean meats?

I mean "copy me as I copy Christ" is the image of Christ which Paul was encouraging yes? Establish the Law? Is why he kept Sabbaths and festivals...

Any claims to be IN HIM is to LIVE AS HE DID...said John...that would be conforming to the image of Christ yes?

His lifestyle...His Way...His keeping of His Father's commandments...you know those in the OT...
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
AGREED...so when does this root begin? Creation yes? I mean He was there? Maybe not known as Jesus Christ but certainly there yes?

Yes, Jesus is the Creator.

Also ALREADY with two followers following Him as He was the Head or? And they were following...on condition...

No, not the Head of.

Adam and Eve were, indeed, fellowshipping with God, on the condition that they do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is a symbol of the Law (the concept of law, not any specific law or group of laws)

He was ALSO there at Sinai when THIS ekklesia was in the OT wilderness as Stephen claimed...Acts 7:38

Yes, Christ was there at Sinai with the Church of Israel.

He was ALSO then already the Head yes?

No. Christ was not the Head of anything.

The Head which His body followed?

Question begging two things here:

1) that Christ was the "Head" of something.
2) that Israel was "His Body."

You're eisegeting, not exegeting.

The Rock they ALL drank the SAME spiritual drink from yes? 1 Cor 10:4

Agreed.

I mean His body

Israel is not referred to as His body, but as a house, a nation.

was ALREADY THEN full of those NOT OF JACOB...

Yes.

and they ALL drank from Him

Yes.

the Head...

Question begging.

and Paul was here describing to the gentile Corinthians he was writing that ALL THAT became OUR example...and their failures became WARNINGS that WE NOT follow them...”nor let us tempt Christ AS SOME OF THEM ALSO TEMPTED and were destroyed”...

See? Paul concludes these examples “are OUR admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come” 1 Cor 10:11

Same promise to the same group by the SAME LAW...

Except it's not, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, because your posts are so convoluted.

the HEAD...*

Question begging, and addressed already.

There is the continuation from the OT wilderness when they drank from Him * . . . until NOW the ends of the ages...

"Now" is not the ends of the ages.

Paul warns US not to fail

Cite?

as THIS BODY

Supra.

DID THEN tempting Christ as they did...it remains ONE LAW for those of Jacob and those NOT of Jacob...

The phrase, "those of Jacob and those not of Jacob" indicates a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

In the Body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

and ALREADY then full of those NOT OF JACOB...

In other words, a distinction...

and inheriting the Promise in whatever tribe they resided in...not just Judah...Ezekiel 47:21-23

21You are to divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners who dwell among you and who have children. You are to treat them as native-born Israelites; along with you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23In whatever tribe a foreigner dwells, you are to assign his inheritance there, declares the Lord GOD.”…

Which is talking about Israel and her covenant with God, and is NOT talking about the Body of Christ, which did not and would not exist for another 600 years.

And He was the Head...

Saying it doesn't make it so.

He wished to be their King...

Agreed.

But "King" implies a nation, not an organism like the Body of Christ.

they rejected Him...wanted their own to be like the other nations...

Yes.

He did NOT WANT a Temple...David insisted...

Cite?

and ALREADY when THIS ekklesia was in the OT wilderness...grafted INTO a Sabbath keeping root...IS WHY strangers within our gates ALSO remembered to keep the Sabbath...Ex 20:10 the ONLY commandment specifically including them...the irony

All talking about Israel. Nothing to do with the BoC.

And in the New Covenant which received His Laws...in their circumcised hearts and "inner Jew" Christ minds...NOT a NEW Law or revised Law...

Again, the New Covenant was for Israel.

Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8

or Paul’s alleged “NOT FOR ME” another gospel...

Paul's gospel WAS a separate dispensation, no distinction between Jew and Gentile, whereas the New Covenant made such a distinction.

Things that are different are not the same.

They the wild branches bore the SAME FRUIT...OLIVES...and NO DISTINCTION between US Jews or them believing Gentiles was made by Yah...claimed Peter Acts 15:9

Duh.

You seem to be confused on something, maybe this will resolve the issue:

Prior to Paul's conversion, there were still two olive trees, one wild, the Gentiles, and one natural, the nation of Israel.

Acts 9, Paul is converted, and God simultaneously cuts off the unbelieving Jews, the branches on the natural tree that bore no fruit, and grafts in the wild branches. (Consider for a moment that today, we can graft in branches from cultivated plants onto other cultivated plants, even if they aren't the same species. But what we cannot do is graft branches from wild plants onto cultivated plants. God is amazing, isn't He?)

Again, the grafting in of the Gentiles occurred in Acts 9 at Paul's conversion.

Peter, in verse 7, is referring to his interactions with the Gentiles, but whether before or after Paul's conversion is not specified, and perhaps he could be talking about both, but in verse 8 he clearly switches to talking about from Paul's conversion onward.

Is WHY the council was being CALLED...

The council was called because there was a conflict between what Paul was teaching (don't circumcise (according to the custom of Moses) to be saved) and what was taught by the twelve in Jerusalem. Note what was said at the beginning of verse 7: "And when there had been much dispute..."

Things that are different...

Then the Pharisees jump in and demand that the Gentiles (Paul's converts) should circumcise.

these WILD BRANCHES were NOT meeting on another day eating HAM sandwiches...

No one said they were...

You would do better to steel man my and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's position than to straw man it.

but crowding synagogues ON SABBATHS and bringing clean meat for pot luck afterwards...but defiled if offered to idols first or still with blood or not properly killed...ALL OT requirements ALREADY FOR THOSE NOT OF JACOB which were STRANGERS WITHIN THY GATES...

Um, no, they weren't, as far as I'm aware, unless you would be so kind as to provide citation... in which case I would be more than happy to address it.

Again, the Acts 15 council was called because of a conflict on circumcision, not specifically the Sabbath.

when they were following the Head in the OT wilderness...

What does the Old Testament (not talking about the covenant) have to do with this?

So these wild branches bore the SAME FRUIT as the Sabbath keeping root and clean meat eating trunk...and MATCHED THE FRUIT of the branches THAT WERE NOT CUT OFF FOR UNBELIEF...you know NO DISTINCTION between the OLIVES

I have literally no idea where your train of thought went to here...

just like in biology a successful graft must come from the SAME FAMILY...

Are you saying that God cannot graft something in from a different family?

yup first He put away His bride for adultery...

Agreed.

and then...well she KILLED her bridegroom and ALL marriage covenants to her were "until death do us part" and His MURDER certainly did them part...

Except that God divorced Israel several centuries before Christ. That's why the book of Lamentations is sometimes called God's certificate of divorce to Israel.

Israel killing her Messiah isn't ever described as the woman killing her Husband... so I'm not sure why you would use that analogy...

Also, while God intended marriage to be "until death parts us", God, being merciful, allows divorce because man is sinful (hence the certificate of divorce, Lamentations).

that crime certainly merits a pruning of the unbelievers...

Except that they weren't cut off at the point they rejected their Messiah, because God is merciful. Also, as Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," since God had used their blindness and deafness to accomplish His will, that Christ would lay down His life for the sin of the world. In other words, what Christ asked for of His Father was that He forgive them for being blind and deaf to the Gospel, because it was the means He used to bring about His crucifixion.

and a search for a NEW BRIDE...

You seem to have missed or forgotten what both God and Paul said, that God WILL take Israel back if she repents! God is MERCIFUL!

the resurrected Groom has the same taste of woman...one faithful loyal obedient to Him His ways...His SAME LAW...

Which is what He is hoping Israel will become once again, but which will not happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

halleluYah...but ALSO ON CONDITION...you know...to bear fruit of NO DISTINCTION...

No idea what you're talking about here, as such a phrase isn't used in the Bible, as far as I'm aware, not even indirectly.

as if new citizens to a commonwealth follow OTHER LAWS

Which is why Israel has her "house rules," and the Body of Christ has it's "house rules,"

Oh, by the way, "House rules" in Greek?

oikonomia
oikos = house
nomos = rules

That's where we get the word "economy" from, and is is translated as "dispensation."

or the old ones they once were foreign with UNKNOWN BY YAH...

Could you rewrite that sentence so I can actually understand what you're saying?

In any case: The Body of Christ is not a nation, and doesn't have "citizens," per se, but members. We (BoC) are "citizens" of heaven, so to speak, but not because Heaven is a nation to be a citizen of, but rather that we are citizens of the overarching Household of God, Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:17, 20.

new citizens adopted by a NEW COUNTRY certainly are NOT MAD and claim the new laws are “NOT FOR ME!"

You're conflating the "household of Israel" with the "household of God."

The former is part of the latter, but does not include all of the latter. The Body of Christ is part of the latter, but not the former.

Peter clarifies “But in EVERY nation WHOEVER fears Yah and works righteousness is accepted by Him” Acts 10:35

Speaking of the latter, above, not the former. Remember, Acts 10 comes AFTER Acts 9.

The SAME “whosoever believeth in Him” John 3:16...ONE LAW for those of Jacob and those NOT of Jacob...

Referring to the New Covenant, which was meant for the former, above, but not the latter.

when they are made jealous by our love...and wish to rejoin His Body

The word "body" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.

through Him its Head...

The word "head" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.

saved “same as we are”...by faith in Him...then to works befitting repentance says Paul Acts 26:20

Here Paul is talking about unbelieving Israel returning to her Creator, not as members of the Body, but as a nation as a whole, the Household of Israel.

As myraids of Jews believed and were still zealous for the Law...

Under their New Covenant...

NOT two different plants here...BOTH PRODUCE OLIVES...hope you notice that...

Denying the difference between the wild and natural olive trees is the main reason for your confusion.

Yes, both produce olives, but they're still two different plants!

But does imply the similarity in the new branches with those NOT cut off for their unbelief...

When you only look at the similarities between two things, you start to get tunnel vision, and it causes you to think they're the same thing.

Start looking at the differences also, and maybe you'll start to see that they're different.

they are supported from the Sabbath keeping root since from the beginning at creation...

The wild branches grafted in were not supported "from the beginning at creation."

to the clean meat and festival keeping trunk to the still believing branches with NO DISTINCTION...in HIM...Jew and Gentile JOINED...both citizens of Israel...a new man...bearing the SAME FRUIT...olives...

Yes, that describes the Body of Christ, not Israel.

Maybe this will help:

Remember how above I said that the household of Israel is only part of the overarching household of God?

To link that analogy with the wild and natural olive trees analogy, the natural olive tree is the household of Israel, the Gentiles are the wild olive trees in the world, but the new olive tree God made by grafting in the wild branches to the natural root describes the overarching household of God.

I mentioned Acts 15 council as EVIDENCE to this similarity

Again, if you only look at the similarities, you'll become convinced it's the same. Take off your blinders, and look at the differences also.

and used James’ confirmation that grafted branches bear the SAME fruit not differing...NOT olive from fig and fig from grape vines...

Cite?

Acts 15 council concluded 5 OT regulations for those NOT OF JACOB and ALREADY IN THE OT...3 of which regarding dietary...the other sexual immorality...and Sabbath keeping to hear Moses read and preached in every city...Acts 15:21

First: Except that's not what it concluded.

Read it again:

Spoiler
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.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.Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.​
- Acts 15:22-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts15:22-29&version=NKJV


Did you catch what was said in verse 24?

Spoiler
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law—to whom we gave no such commandment— - Acts 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts15:24&version=NKJV


In other words: The Twelve did not tell anyone go go out and tell the Gentiles to "circumcize and keep the law."

Meaning? They never wanted any of the Gentiles to do so.

Second: The following verses are NOT absolute commands, but, as stated in verse 31, an encouragement to those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Spoiler
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. - Acts 15:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts15:28-29&version=NKJV


In other words, the Twelve were not saying "You must keep these following laws," but rather, "We encourage you to not cause the bretheren to stumble," as Paul pointed out that there's nothing inherently wrong with eating things sacrificed to idols or drinking blood, and even goes so far as to reprimand some of his converts for partaking in sexual immorality, yet without giving them a law to follow.

can that which is defiled be made Holy?

Yes. God does so when a person believes.

Unless what you meant to say is, "can that which is defiled be CALLED holy," in which case the answer is no.

Can man make Holy what He did NOT?

No. God's authority is above man's.

He sets the standards as to what is and is NOT Holy...

Well no, not quite.

God is holy. It's an aspect of His nature.

Therefore anything that is holy is so because it aligns with who God is, not because He declared it to be so.

Now, God CAN arbitrarily assign something that has no moral value to be clean or unclean, with how that relates to holiness, and in that context, I would agree with you.

But God does not "set" the standard for holiness, He IS the standard.

Throughout the OT starting with Adam and Eve their covering with fig leaves...

Which was a result of violating the condition God had set for them to be able to fellowship with Him directly... not a standard of holiness.

salvation by works NOT ordained by Him was the cause of IDOLATRY...Israel too thought it could make New things Holy and fell into idolatry...NEW man made law does that...

No idea what you're talking about.

And the ORIGIN of idolatrous thinking is that His Law is “NOT DISPENSED TO ME”

False.

The origin of idolatrous thinking comes from the lust to be "god" in one's life.

yup new comers CHANGE NOTHING about what is supporting them...

Again, new fig tree is not Israel, but overarching household of God.

IMAGINE A NEW BRANCH GRAFTED IN CLAIMING “BEAR FRUIT? NAAAAW NOT FOR ME...THATS FOR THE OTHER BRANCHES ONLY"...LOL

Go read Romans again, please.

Spoiler
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.For he who has died has been freed from sin.Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:1-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans6:1-23&version=NKJV


==========

As for the rest of your post, your post was too long for me to reply to in one post. I will respond to the rest when I have time. I did the best I could at keeping my response in this post here as short as I could, but it's still very long because of how long yours was.

Please learn to shorten your posts a bit, and try to compose your posts better, rather than just leaving it in the form of a stream of thoughts that come from your mind (which is a good way to put thoughts into words, but terrible for reading).
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Spoiler
New International Version;
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

New Living Translation
We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”

English Standard Version
But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

Berean Study Bible
On the contrary, we believe it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Berean Literal Bible
But we believe ourselves to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they also are."

New American Standard Bible
"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

New King James Version
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

King James Bible
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Christian Standard Bible
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are."

Contemporary English Version
But we believe that we will be saved by the gift of undeserved grace from our Lord Jesus Christ, just as the Gentiles are.

Good News Translation
No! We believe and are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
On the contrary, we believe we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are."

International Standard Version
We certainly believe that it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, that we are saved, just as they are."

NET Bible
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are."

New Heart English Bible
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But by the grace of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah, we believe in order to receive life, as they do”.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
We certainly believe that the Lord Jesus saves us the same way that he saves them-through his kindness."

New American Standard 1977
“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

King James 2000 Bible
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

American King James Version
But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

American Standard Version
But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.

Darby Bible Translation
But we believe that we shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same manner as they also.

English Revised Version
But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.

Webster's Bible Translation
But we believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they.

Weymouth New Testament
On the contrary, we believe that it is by the grace of the Lord Jesus that we, as well as they, shall be saved."

World English Bible
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are."

Young's Literal Translation
but, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, even as also they.'


So what if King Jimmy translates it like a commandment? As if those are only predictions? “Thou shalt...”

Look at the greek?

Spoiler
On the contrary,
ἀλλὰ (alla)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 235: But, except, however. Neuter plural of allos; properly, other things, i.e. contrariwise.

we believe
πιστεύομεν (pisteuomen)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 1st Person Plural
Strong's Greek 4100: From pistis; to have faith, i.e. Credit; by implication, to entrust.

[it is] through
διὰ (dia)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1223: A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through.

the
τῆς (tēs)
Article - Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong's Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

grace
χάριτος (charitos)
Noun - Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong's Greek 5485: From chairo; graciousness, of manner or act.

of
τοῦ (tou)
Article - Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

[the] Lord
Κυρίου (Kyriou)
Noun - Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 2962: Lord, master, sir; the Lord. From kuros; supreme in authority, i.e. controller; by implication, Master.

Jesus
Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou)
Noun - Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 2424: Of Hebrew origin; Jesus, the name of our Lord and two other Israelites.

[that] we are saved,
σωθῆναι (sōthēnai)
Verb - Aorist Infinitive Passive
Strong's Greek 4982: To save, heal, preserve, rescue. From a primary sos; to save, i.e. Deliver or protect.

just as
τρόπον (tropon)
Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 5158: From the same as trope; a turn, i.e. mode or style; figuratively, deportment or character.

they [are].”
κἀκεῖνοι (kakeinoi)
Demonstrative Pronoun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 2548: And he, she, it, and that. From kai and ekeinos; likewise that.


You really mean to say that Peter et al are yet to be saved? In a the future? It says ARE SAVED...excepting king Jimmy’s version

Saved unto what?

Saved means different things in different contexts, Clefty!

Under the New Covenant, salvation is when Christ returns, but under the "covenant of grace" given to Paul, salvation was provided at Christ's resurrection.

Last I checked, Christ hasn't returned yet, but He HAS been raised from the dead...

Peter also knows ALL are yet to RECEIVE salvation literally at the second coming...

Which hasn't happened yet...

when He returned with it...

Which He hasn't done yet.

When ALL of His will receive it literally...finally and in glorified bodies...and then ALL will worship New Moon to New Moon

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't say new moon as well... but I understand your figure of speech.

Sabbath to Sabbath...

Perhaps for those in Israel. But certainly not those in the Body of Christ.

you know as when this ekklesia was in the OT wilderness with Him as its Head...

More question begging. See my previous post.

ummm...”are BEING saved” NOT already saved...as the condition remains...is why all the “persevere, overcome, until the end” even the New King Jimmy says so

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 1:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:18&version=NKJV

Think about it for a moment, Clefty.

If I have a lemonade stand, and I'm selling one glass per person, people who come to the stand are being refreshed, no?

Does that mean that they're constantly drinking lemonade for the rest of the day? NO! It means once they've drank the lemonade, they're refreshed!

In the same way, people were being saved at that time, but their being saved is a one time thing.

Ergo, the "are being saved" here is still referring to a saving that has been completed, especially now that they're long dead.

again..."are saved, if you hold fast that word"...not already saved...BUT ON CONDITION

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. - 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:1-2&version=NKJV

Do the Corinthians in that verse already stand in the gospel which Paul preached to them? They who were dead in their sins, but raised in Christ Jesus?

yup again...being saved...not already saved

Supra.

right...Paul does NOT place these wild branches AHEAD of the BRANCHES WHICH REMAIN IN THE FAITH...those saved and those being saved...

is why the calls to remain faithful until the end...

Which isn't a command or law that one should remain faithful.

and warnings of WOLVES coming with another gospel another christ who would seperate His kingdom

Again, God's overarching kingdom includes the household of Israel, which has different house rules than does the Body of Christ.

between Natural branches that DO vs Wild branches who claim “NOT FOR ME”

Paul wrote Romans 6, Mid-Acts dispensationalists did not. Go read it again, please.

Notice too that Peter completely flips the council on its head as these Jews met to decide what to do with the Gentiles

And?

crowding INTO synagogues every Sabbath...

Cite?

by stating “we are saved JUST AS they are”...

Incorrect. Peter stated the following (transliterated Greek):

"But by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we believe to be saved, in the same manner as they also."

I'd like to clarify something I said before, by using this verse to do it.

Peter here is saying that "we, Israel," here as of Acts 15, are saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, and that goes back as far as Acts 9.

PRIOR to Acts 9, however, the New Covenant was in effect, and those under it remain under it even after Acts 9.

In other words: Those who became believers under the New Covenant remained under the New Covenant, while those who became believers under Paul's covenant of grace were never under under the New Covenant.

I'm going to respond to the rest of your post in another post, as I'm having trouble with my keyboard since there's so much text in this post already.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
of course these Gentiles were circumcised of the heart and obedient to Him

Why? Because they were in the Body of Christ, Romans 7.

IS WHY NO DISTINCTION FROM JEWS ALSO BELIEVING AND OBEDIENT...

"In the Body of Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile."

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Acts 15 is AFTER Acts 9, in which the Body of Christ began with Paul, and anyone who believed after Paul did is in the Body of Christ under the covenant of grace...

were these gentiles NOT obedient to Him His ways after faith

Why were they obedient? Because it was a requirement for their salvation? or was it a result of them placing their faith in Christ?

but continued with Ham eating or Sunday/every day worship and NOT Sabbath keeping THAT WOULD BE A DISTINCTION

What was Paul NOT teaching the Gentiles that the men from Judea wanted the Gentiles do do?

Circumcize and keep the law.

That includes the dietary commandments and the sabbath and the clothing laws...

Paul wasn't teaching any of it. In fact, he was teaching to NOT keep the law or to circumcize!

You seem to be concluding that "no distinction between Jew and Gentile" must mean that there is no distinction between what Paul taught and what Peter and Twelve taught, and that's just not what the text says!

Peter also rubs it in that Yah went FIRST TO THE GENTILES...James confirms this Act 15:14 “Simon has declared how Yah has AT FIRST visited the gentiles to take out fo them a people for His Name.”

What could that be BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST...?

How about visiting Abram, who, at the time, was a Gentile, and making Him into the father of many nations, one of which He made into a people for His name... Isra-EL...

In other words, no, NOT the Body of Christ.

Heb 11 charts that origin...Abel Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob Moses...ALL NOT JEWS

So? The qualification was "a people for His name," not "a Jew" or "Jewish"...

oh my...

So the pattern of Yah's patience and longsuffering with Paul is twisted

No, not "twisted."

This is what I mean by straw man vs steel man.

You're straw manning my argument.

into a NEW “manner and purpose”

Are you referring to 2 Timothy 3:10?

Because that's the only place in the Bible where "manner" and "purpose" are found in the same verse...

If not, to what are you referring?

and as “a special plan”

Again, to what are you referring?

a NEW PROGRAM

Yes, a new program, one kept secret since before the creation of the world. Paul calls it a mystery kept secret.

apart from the Sabbath keeping believers Israel...

The remnant of Israel were the Sabbath keeping believers. What Paul's gospel was separate from was the New Covenant, which was made with the same two parties as the Old Covenant, God and Israel.

you know the very BODY

Question begging.

He showed NO longsuffering patience with?...no manner of purpose?...LOL

No idea what you're talking about, since "manner of purpose" isn't in the Bible.

And yet Paul this first member of the NEW PROGRAM kept the Sabbath

Cite?

AND festivals

Cite?

and agreed to the Acts 15 dietary restrictions?

Cite?

Even claimed to worship according to sect known as "the Way" the God of his fathers and zealous for the Law...

Cite?

Just like the myraids of other Jews zealous of the Law...

Again, cite?


What?

how the Acts 15 Jerusalem council was NOT AWARE of a NEW PROGRAM

The REASON FOR the Acts 15 council was BECAUSE of the new program given to Paul.

Things that differ, ya know?

for those gentiles crowding synagogues every Sabbath to hear of One resurrected and Moses

Your point?

Paul was there when believing wild branches were instructed to bring CLEAN FOOD to potlucks as per OT dietary restrictions...

Cite?

Paul kept silence

Cite?

because there was NO NEW program...

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Paul was clear through Yahushua is the forgiveness of sins...and by Him EVERYONE is justified...not just Jews...is WHY the gentiles begged to hear more the next Sabbath...not a NEW PROGRAM DAY...

Question begging. Take the blinders off, Clefty.

Under both the Old and New Covenants, a Gentile was free to enter into a relationship with God, but He had to become a proselyte to do so.

Under the covenant of Grace, a Gentile no longer has to become a proselyte.

Things that are different are not the same...

oh good...you do realize that...

Of course I do!

they were circumcised...most were not but "just strangers within thy gates" still fearing Yah and devout to Him but NOT to their OLD WAYS...as if Ruth continued to worship her former god or New God with former ways...

Right, they (the Gentiles) became proselytes.

Yet, in the Body of Christ, a Gentile does not have to become a proselyte Jew, he just has to trust in Christ.

Things that are different...

hmmm...a believing body following its Head...Who IS Christ...if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...how many more evidences to you need?

Question begging won't help your argument, Clefty.

NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE is Israel referred to as a body or as having a head.

ONLY THE BODY OF CHRIST!

Things that are different...

NOPE...did NOT even have to be circumcised

Uh, yes, he did.

This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” - Genesis 17:10-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis17:10-14&version=NKJV

And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it.A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones.All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.” - Exodus 12:43-49 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus12:43-49&version=NKJV

certainly NOT have to join ONLY the tribe of Judah...and yet as the Sabbath commandment proves...which you do NOT remember...it was ONE LAW for even the strangers within their gates...ALREADY WILD BRANCHES GRAFTED IN...

Yes, under the Old Covenant.

Not the covenant of grace given to Paul, which has no such requirement.

NT Jews had forgotten/ignored/rejected their purpose to be a Light to the WORLD...

Agreed.

ALL nations were to worship at His House of Prayer...instead Jews monopolized the PROMISE in their enmity for the unclean goyim...

Rather, it was in their trust in the law, as opposed to their faith in God.

What did Paul say?

Romans 9:31-10:4

JUST AS THEY HAD DIVIDED ISRAEL by charging worship TAX to the other 10 tribes coming to Jerusalem to worship...

Cite?

nope again...ONE LAW was ALREADY joining them in the OT...

Yes, under the Old Covenant.

Not under Paul's covenant of Grace.

even giving them LAND in whatever tribe they settled in Ezekiel 47:23 now THAT is a joining...

Check the context, please.

again...Remember the seventh day Sabbath?...and to the stranger within thy gates...the ONLY commandment to SPECIFICALLY include them...yup the irony

Which was under the Old Covenant God had with Israel, which included the Sabbath...

Not under Paul's covenant of grace.

right because AFTER GRACE and FAITH the NOW CIRCUMCISED OF HEART and INNER JEW CHRIST MINDED gentiles

More question begging.

Stop it.

Read the following passage carefully.

Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. - Romans 2:17-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans2:17-29&version=NKJV

Who is Paul talking to?

ESTABLISHED

No, not "established," but rather "establish."

The law is a tutor. The unbeliever rejects God and so rejects His law, so a believer, when witnessing, should establish the law, to show that the unbeliever is condemned and in need of a Savior.

THE LAW...Romans 3:31

Who is Paul speaking to?

(Hint: It's not the same group as in the latter part of chapter 2 of Romans.)

and there IS NO DISTINCTION between them

False.

Don't take things out of the context they are in.

There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ.

However, when comparing the Body of Christ to the believers in the New Covenant, the former is made up of Jew and Gentile, whereas the latter is made up of only Jews and Proselyte Jews.

and the BRANCHES THAT REMAIN...

Which were Jews and proselytes... No Gentiles...

Even a BLIND PAGAN could determine which group did NOT eat unclean and which ate bacon...LOL

What's your point?

and you want me to believe Yah did NOT notice the distinction between those that did want to follow Him His ways VS. those that claimed all that was for Jews only and NOT DISPENSED TO THEM...LOL

I want you to believe what the Bible says.

The Bible says that YHWH made a covenant with Israel, then said He would make a New Covenant with Israel, and then it says that because unbelieving Israel would not believe, He cut them off and grafted in the Gentiles with a new covenant called grace, and Paul called it a mystery kept secret.

even Satan believes

Believes what?

Also...

Comparing Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who are believers, to Satan now?

Shame on you.

yet claims His Ways are “NOT FOR ME” and went to make another gospel another christ...

Paul, not Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, says we are not under the law, but under grace.

Why do you kick against the goad?

I noted you left unaddressed that ALL are given the Promise

Define "all."

All in the New Covenant?

All believers ever?

All humans?

The former I would agree with, but the latter two you would be hard pressed to assert.

and those that believe are adopted IN...

Did you notice that adoption is only mentioned by Paul in the New Testament?

Never by any of the circumcision authors.

Things that are different...

by the SAME LAW which secures their rights...

How can it be the same if adoption isn't mentioned by any of the Twelve, let alone the circumcision authors?

ON CONDITION as is WHOSOEVER BELIEVES

The condition for adoption is belief.

... In the Body of Christ...

Things that are different...
 

clefty

New member
Yes, Jesus is the Creator.
so technically Head of all creation or? I mean I understand your need to resist this description...but it is a better one than High Priest or pope right?...



No, not the Head of.

Adam and Eve were, indeed, fellowshipping with God, on the condition that they do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is a symbol of the Law (the concept of law, not any specific law or group of laws)
oh ok so NOT the Head established the Laws standards and conditions? Who then?

Is it the word "Head", maybe? How about Ruler? Judge? King Creator? but certainly Leader...you know like a shepherd his flock...leader of a group...also known as chief...boss...HEAD of state?...

But I understand your reluctance to admit He is the Head of a Body of believers so soon...yes yes NOT known as Christ...that is the mystery revealed later...



Yes, Christ was there at Sinai with the Church of Israel.
ok good...so you are familiar with poor Stephen's definition of ekklesia in the OT wilderness...congregation, church body yes?...but with NO HEAD? But Christ was there at Sinai...

Please help with these terms and descriptions...I have it as ANY who have faith and obey are His...and more than one is a group, fellowship, congregation, body...following well...its Head





No. Christ was not the Head of anything.
so NOT in the pillar of fire by night and shade casting cloud during the day? They were NOT His people?

I mean Abel Enoch Abraham Isaac Jacob Moses followed Who? Not the Head? Yes yes...certainly not known as "Jesus"



Question begging two things here:

1) that Christ was the "Head" of something.
2) that Israel was "His Body."

You're eisegeting, not exegeting.
just following poor Stephen's lead..."ekklesia" being congregation, assembly, church of believers, body...and Stephen claimed He was there...now I dont suppose He followed Moses right?

OT writers also have Israel as a Wife, a Servant...which necessarily means there is a household with a head or?



ok



Israel is not referred to as His body, but as a house, a nation.
yes yes...no head of households there though right? No head of the nation? Again, Israel is referred to as Wife and Servant...Whore as well...but that is later...

Trust me, I understand your resistance to accepting Him as Head of a Body...but Stephen did NOT and readily called Him there when the assembly was in the OT wilderness...and as its Leader



ok so we'll stick to "church of Israel" as you called it...and agree He was there at Sinai...(just NOT as Head) and so we also agree it was ALREADY THEN IN THE OT WILDERNESS and ALREADY full of those NOT OF JACOB...



ok right and they gentiles ALSO partook belonged and were saved from Egypt and lived the SAME LIFESTYLE by the SAME LAWS...ONE LAW for native and foreigner alike...

even later? "your people shall be my people...your God shall be my God..." does NOT have Ruth worship other gods or other ways right?



Question begging.
well less so...I mean it is a body of believers yes? and necessarily needs a head...you really are reluctant with that phrase...LOL but again understandable...



Except it's not, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, because your posts are so convoluted.

convoluted? Paul was here in 1 Cor 10 describing to the gentile Corinthians he was writing that ALL THAT WHICH OCCURED IN THE OT became OUR example...and their failures became WARNINGS that WE NOT follow them their disobedience...”nor let us tempt Christ AS SOME OF THEM ALSO TEMPTED and were destroyed”...

See? Paul concludes these examples “are OUR admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come” 1 Cor 10:11

Same promise to the same group by the SAME LAW...as it was clear in the OT ONE LAW for native and foreigner the strangers within your gates as demonstrated in the Sabbath commandment...

hope that clarified the “convolution”



Question begging, and addressed already.
well...except that you admit it being a church of Israel and well...and churches do have a Head yes? I mean I do understand your need for Him NOT to be its Leader known as the Head and of the BODY of Christ...already back then...as Stephen described it...



"Now" is not the ends of the ages.
they all ALREADY THEN felt pretty apocalyptic in their teaching and epistle writings...and NOW even more so or? I mean rapture is coming and stuff right?



1 Cor 10:6 "Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did."

12 "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!"

Most of chapter 10 actually...a warning NOT to do as the ekklesia did in the OT...I mean Paul was writing the Corinthian synagogue full of gentiles right?



yes yes...I understand anything but "body" or "head" as they necessitate each other...but as you said this "church of Israel" needs a head, chief, boss, shepherd...pope, pastor, high priest?



The phrase, "those of Jacob and those not of Jacob" indicates a distinction between Jew and Gentile.
yes. Agreed. However BOTH were under ONE LAW in the "church of Israel"

In the Body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile.
right AGAIN and since the OT Wilderness...ONE LAW...as in what you call the BOC they are NOT TO SIN...or? and by the SAME STANDARD? or?

makes sense there is a continuation though...as a HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND...



In other words, a distinction...
NOPE...all those within this body are under the SAME LAW...I mean two groups one keeping the Law and the other claiming "not for me" would be distinguishing...Peter was clear Yah made NO DISTINCTION Acts 15:9 BECAUSE the gentiles were keeping the Law...with hearts circumcised...faith and OBEY...SAME LAW



Which is talking about Israel and her covenant with God, and is NOT talking about the Body of Christ, which did not and would not exist for another 600 years.
right...and already a good foreshadowing as to the PROMISE IN HIM being FOR ALL...on condition...you know ONE LAW...His...as in the Sabbath made for MAN...ALL MAN...not just for Jews...



Saying it doesn't make it so.
resistance noted...ok but by now we can agree it is an issue of wording and descriptions...I mean a shepherd is the head of his sheep remains a good analogy? or Bridegroom Head of His House and Bride yes? King head of the state...etc...



and even more than their King...

But "King" implies a nation, not an organism like the Body of Christ.
organism? LOL...you mean organization? I mean the church is not normally understood as an organism...especially a biological organism...and yet you wish to argue it is and with a body NOT doing as its head...that would be an odd biological organism...




and much more besides changing much to make new laws and further idolatry to match the world its ways...and NOT follow Him His Ways...as He was their Leader, God, King, Chief, Head of State...



for what the temple being PLAN B? or C? Even the tabernacle was already a model of what was in Heaven...you know...pure...Holy...a place of Law and order and heirarchy...and authority...again of Law

"I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?"'2 Samuel 7:4-7

LOL...Yah getting ornery...

So apparently it is true...He needs NO temple made by human hands...but people love all that pomp and circumstances and power

trust me...I know I know...hard for Zionists to fathom that...and for those MAD at the Sabbath supporting them with their another gospel of the divided kingdom...temporal POWER



All talking about Israel. Nothing to do with the BoC.
yes IS WHY I noted it...all of it in the OT a foreshadowing as to how this Sabbath keeping clean meat eating root and trunk body continues to grow...and into the New Covenant with branches now grafted into it producing the SAME FRUIT...your BoC is from silence or would have been understood BEFORE Jesuit Scofield and Darby 19th century commentaries...



Again, the New Covenant was for Israel.

Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8
understood...JUST SAID THAT...for ANY AND ALL Whosoever believe and OBEY...His SAME LAW He NOW put NOT into a temple but into circumcised hearts and "inner Jew" Christ like minds...His LIFESTYLE demonstrating the NT way PRIOR His death..."if you claim to abide in Him you must live as He did"...but which you and yours claim is "NOT FOR ME"



Paul's gospel WAS a separate dispensation,
you are hoping to convince yourself and others...but so far an argument from silence...twisting scripture to squeeze something that resembles “Grace ALONE...no obedience necessary...certainly NOT OT laws” Paul’s CERTAINLY NOT was about NOT living in sin...which is KEEPING His Law...

no distinction between Jew and Gentile,
AS BOTH WERE KEEPING THE SAME LAW... the Romans even getting upset that Paul was "advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice." Acts 16:21 you think Paul was teaching Romans Sabbath is NO LONGER binding on them and eat PIG? LOL

Peter insists the Holy Spirit is to ALL that OBEY Acts 5:32

You keep rejecting that Paul was teaching the PRACTICE of the LAWS...that WE ESTABLISH THE LAW Romans 3:31 "Let no one judge you"....

Paul followed and worshipped as a member of "the Way" zealous for the Law...NO EVIDENCE he taught or practiced otherwise presented at ANY of his trials...

whereas the New Covenant made such a distinction.
NOPE NONE MADE Peter taught Acts 15:9...would be quite easy to distinguish groups meeting different days or eating different menus...

Things that are different are not the same.
oh they are different all right...much different than before He abolished the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and abolished the Jew's enmity towards "unclean" goyim

and you claim a difference without evidence...despite Jew and GENTILE NOW IN HIM BOTH citizens of Israel...both JOINED into one temple building...as it was already when this ekklesia was in the OT wilderness...

Gentiles grafted into Sabbath keeping root and kosher trunk...bearing the SAME FRUIT...is WHY Acts 15 helped to clarify exactly HOW to keep clean meat CLEAN...and NOT defile it...


right...both believing Jews and believing Greeks BORE the SAME FRUIT...not olives from fig branch...as James says can not happen...

You seem to be confused on something, maybe this will resolve the issue:

Prior to Paul's conversion, there were still two olive trees, one wild, the Gentiles, and one natural, the nation of Israel.
oh my...according to who? Two olive trees from where? Zechariah and Revelation who are the anointed ones Moses and Eliyah?

...believing Gentiles were already IN THE NATURAL TREE...during the WHOLE OT wilderness thingy...and after...long after...even 4 gentile ancestors of Yahushua actually...

Acts 9, Paul is converted, and God simultaneously cuts off the unbelieving Jews, the branches on the natural tree that bore no fruit, and grafts in the wild branches.
...all this in chapter 9? I see not a hint of this...

Paul immediately teaches at synagogues in Damascus and Jerusalem and DISPUTED AGAINST the Hellenists...good time to mention A NEW PROGRAM for A NEW BODY....but NOTHING...

actually chapter 9 ends with PETER raises a gentile to life...STILL NOTHING about a suspension of Israel and a WHOLE NEW BODY established...a the Head Christ but His way "NOT FOR ME"


(Consider for a moment that today, we can graft in branches from cultivated plants onto other cultivated plants, even if they aren't the same species.
WHAT? you can NOT graft an apple tree with orange branches no matter how cultivated they are...biological grafts have to be same of the SAME family

But what we cannot do is graft branches from wild plants onto cultivated plants. God is amazing, isn't He?)
of course you can...take a wild apple branch from the woods and graft it into ANY apple tree in the orchard and it will produce...apples

but yes Yah is amazing...to think He went to the gentiles FIRST...and included them SINCE THE BEGINNING...and needs NO TEMPLE...well except a faithful obedient ekklesia ASSEMBLY congregation...to Him and His Way...yup a BODY of believers...which He joined from Jew and Greek...despite the Jews best efforts to monopolize the Promise since...well a long long time...

Again, the grafting in of the Gentiles occurred in Acts 9 at Paul's conversion.
Cite. (Ha that is fun)

Peter, in verse 7, is referring to his interactions with the Gentiles, but whether before or after Paul's conversion is not specified, and perhaps he could be talking about both,
Peter already at Pentecost referenced Joel 2:32 “WHOEVER calls on the name...shall be saved...”...and taught Yah raised Christ to His throne...a throne of ALL nations not just David’s...

but in verse 8 he clearly switches to talking about from Paul's conversion onward.
Peter already in his second sermon Acts 3:25-26 confirms gentiles were to be blessed...AND ”to you FIRST” necessarily implies there is a second...and not “to you Jews ONLY”

The council was called because there was a conflict between what Paul was teaching (don't circumcise (according to the custom of Moses) to be saved) and what was taught by the twelve in Jerusalem. Note what was said at the beginning of verse 7: "And when there had been much dispute..."
yes of course much dispute as IT WAS NEVER TAUGHT IN THE OT that 1) circumcision SAVED and B) gentiles HAD to be cut in order to live amongst and fellowship within their gates...3) oh AND the 12 were NOT teaching circumcision because of 1 and B

Oh yes and that “on the 8th day” thingy...

but certain Jews from Jerusalem who came to spy DID...

Things that are different...
even still in chapter 21 it is rumored that Paul teaches this error and he takes a vow to prove he does NOT...but walks uprightly and keeps the law Acts 21:24

Jews tried the SAME FALSE WITNESS with Stephen Acts 6:13-14 claiming he taught "Jesus changed the customs Moses delivered" Luke was clear this was FALSE WITNESS as Stephen DID NOT teach that...and Yahushua DID NOT do that...

would have been a VERY OPPORTUNE time to discuss your MADness about a NEW WAY...another gospel...but NOTHING

either from Stephen OR Paul but slandering Jewish false witnesses claiming EXACTLY as YOUR MADness DOES...changes occured...things different...no more Sabbath something something....

Then the Pharisees jump in and demand that the Gentiles (Paul's converts) should circumcise.
in the custom of Moses...where adult men become 8 day old infants again? LOL again throughout the OT ONE LAW for native and strangers alike...ONLY PASSOVER required circumcision but the other festivals did NOT...

the burden was the decision to circumcise and NOT ONE JEW there had to bear that burden of deciding whether or not to be cut as their parents decided for them...that is the burden they did NOT lift...is exactly WHY it never saved...others did it to you...is why we no longer sprinkle infants...

Yahushua spoke against placing burdens on people the Pharisees did NOT lift themselves...TWICE



No one said they were...

You would do better to steel man my and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's position than to straw man it.
it certainly is implied that Paul taught the Law for the BOC is “NOT FOR ME”...you know a new way as Israel was suspended...yada yada yada...oh and other days of worship were kept and Ham sandwiches all around...you know "things are different"

Steel man? LOL...All that MAD stubble will be burnt...as if His kingdom is divided...


Um, no, they weren't, as far as I'm aware, unless you would be so kind as to provide citation... in which case I would be more than happy to address it.
Acts 13:44 such crowds as to provoke Jews' jealousy...BTW Paul’s epistles went to synagogues not churches...and synagogues full of gentiles...

Again, the Acts 15 council was called because of a conflict on circumcision, not specifically the Sabbath.
true...primarily about circumcision and Paul STILL CIRCUMCISED...Timothy LET him...

but yes the Sabbath was NEVER on the list of “what is NO LONGER REQUIRED” is WHY James concludes gentiles will continue to hear Moses read and taught on every Sabbath in every city Acts 15:21

The 4 other things listed were CLARIFICATION as gentiles were unfamiliar with the nuances of the Torah as how clean meat can be made UNCLEAN to eat...

But yes Sabbath was NOT on the “WHAT DO WE DO” list as it was UNDERSTOOD TO STILL BE KEPT...hence the LET NO ONE JUDGE YOU...we establish law...copy me as I copy Christ...et al



What does the Old Testament (not talking about the covenant) have to do with this?
namely everything...the OT already showed what those NOT OF JACOB were to OBEY as to be strangers within thy gates of THOSE OF JACOB...this council referenced these 5 things the OT ALREADY required of THOSE NOT OF JACOB to follow

The Sabbath, clarification on sexual immorality, and 3 dietary laws...

is why for centuries this Body of Christ also known as "the Way" was seen by Rome as a superstitious Jewish sect...and NOT a new religion...

I have literally no idea where your train of thought went to here...
understandable you are NOT able to see that these NEW BRANCHES being grafted INTO the root and trunk MATCHED the FRUIT of branches ALREADY growing there and NOT cut off for unbelief...

You are so MAD it blinds you to the Sabbath and other OT instructions for those NOT OF JACOB PRACTICED TO fellowship in this ekklesia ALREADY found in the OT wilderness...when already back then it too was full of those NOT OF JACOB

There is NO DISTINCTION between the OLIVES from branches NOT cut off for unbelief and those grafted INTO the family...BECAUSE THEY BOTH KEEP THE OT LAW


Are you saying that God cannot graft something in from a different family?
oh He prolly can...that tree in the Rev bears 12 different fruit for the Nations...oh and ALSO NOT JUST FOR JEWS...btw

But what I am saying is that HE DID NOT graft different branches with differing fruit...that would divide His body house kingdom church etc...ONE LAW for Native and Foreigner just like in the OT...remember the Sabbath? Strangers within thy gates? IRONIC the ONLY commandment that inclusive...



good and because that bride did NOT follow her husband...you know...the Head of her household...she was put away



Except that God divorced Israel several centuries before Christ. That's why the book of Lamentations is sometimes called God's certificate of divorce to Israel.
and?

Israel killing her Messiah isn't ever described as the woman killing her Husband... so I'm not sure why you would use that analogy...
because that is exactly what happened...that bride which was put away finally killed her groom when He came to call her back...and death did PART them...

Also, while God intended marriage to be "until death parts us", God, being merciful, allows divorce because man is sinful (hence the certificate of divorce, Lamentations).
right being merciful means to ALLOW CHOICE and they chose...to MURDER Him and suspended all covenants...He seeks a NEW BRIDE much like the first...faithful and obedient...to Him

is what was taught for centuries until modern Zionism developed...thanks jesuit Darby and Scofeild their counterfeit abomination...well except already by 2nd century the church CHANGED His ways to their own...you know like Israel did in the OT...making NEW laws leading to idolatry



Except that they weren't cut off at the point they rejected their Messiah, because God is merciful.
He is merciful yes...but His are distinct and obedient and complicit...being forgiven does NOT repent them...repenting they JOIN HIS...not have their own way in...I AM THE WAY...

And those that do re join are NO LONGER Jews...and no longer NEED a temple...

Also, as Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," since God had used their blindness and deafness to accomplish His will, that Christ would lay down His life for the sin of the world. In other words, what Christ asked for of His Father was that He forgive them for being blind and deaf to the Gospel, because it was the means He used to bring about His crucifixion.
Ahhh yes Judas...



You seem to have missed or forgotten what both God and Paul said, that God WILL take Israel back if she repents! God is MERCIFUL!
so there are TWO brides? You would think the trouble Abram went through would have taught Him something...LOL

Which is what He is hoping Israel will become once again,
those TEMPORAL covenants are done away with...His death parted them...only Spiritual remains...

and please clarify...do Jews accept Yahushua and join the BOC (forced of course as 2/3 are killed) or do they remain their own kingdom with their own way....the MADness never clarifies itself when I ask specifics

but which will not happen until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.
is happening...when Jews come to Him however they NO LONGER SEEK TEMPORAL POWER...they are IN HIM...


No idea what you're talking about here, as such a phrase isn't used in the Bible, as far as I'm aware, not even indirectly.
and your MADNESS IS? LOL...His covenants with Israel are ALL CONDITIONAL...they failed as a blood nation having KILLED the TESTATOR...

But the NT covenant is to ALL with the SAME FRUIT...NO DISTINCTION from the OT...in sum “if you abide IN HIM you must live as He did” but yes yes...you reject that as “NOT FOR ME”

as you ADDED...to the word...as Eve did in the garden...



Which is why Israel has her "house rules," and the Body of Christ has it's "house rules,"
so you divide His house...nice...and call your indolence grace...

Oh, by the way, "House rules" in Greek?

oikonomia
oikos = house
nomos = rules

That's where we get the word "economy" from, and is is translated as "dispensation."
right your economy has counterfeited His coin...idolatry at its finest...quite close to the real but NOT a currency issued by Him...

Citizens joined into the commonwealth of Israel follow the laws of Israel...its Laws are NOT changed by the new immigrants

but in a day and age when immigrants reject host nation laws and even the natives want LESS POLICING...your stance is completely evident...and demonstrated...celebrated...

The demonic spirit of the times...has so many claim that rules are “NOT FOR ME”...demanding entitled promises without the condition of obedience...the irony...

yup...NO WONDER our country is fallen...decades of MADness have taught cheap GRACE ALONE and disdain for any Law...

Could you rewrite that sentence so I can actually understand what you're saying?

Paul described the Celts in Galatians as former strangers and foreigners following their own customs and man made traditions...UNKNOWN by YAH...but NOW knowing Him they KEEP HIS WAYS and are “rather KNOWN by YAH”

You know He knows His own...as they are ONE GROUP...not segregated or seperated as He KNOWS His OWN are NOT in an APARTHEID STATE.

In any case: The Body of Christ is not a nation, and doesn't have "citizens," per se, but members. We (BoC) are "citizens" of heaven, so to speak, but not because Heaven is a nation to be a citizen of, but rather that we are citizens of the overarching Household of God, Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:17, 20.
so you as citizen of heaven DO NOT keep His Commandments? LOL

See? It is Member vs Citizen is all in the optics of this...and yours are so MAD you desperately attempt to counterfeit and produce your own...believing but NOT obeying...as the first chief of your sect did claiming “I would be like the Most High” and leads the spirit to change both times and law...



You're conflating the "household of Israel" with the "household of God."

The former is part of the latter, but does not include all of the latter. The Body of Christ is part of the latter, but not the former.
right...how much more progressive can this get? How much more diverse and multiculti Marxist does this become?

The body NOT in harmony with the Head...LOL

NOT doing AS HE DID claiming His Ways “NOT FOR ME” exactly like the original dissenter who was also kicked out of heaven...



Speaking of the latter, above, not the former. Remember, Acts 10 comes AFTER Acts 9.
and yet Cornelius was devout to what? his former customs and ways? Feared his former gods? Gave alms to the pagans?

Paul in 9 went to the synagogues...not gentiles...you WISH to insert here what has ALWAYS BEEN...His House remains for ALL NATIONS...on condition...OBEDIENCE to the SAME law as the natives...

but NOOOO yours claim a new program suspending Israel yada yada yada...



Referring to the New Covenant, which was meant for the former, above, but not the latter.
you force a distinction where there is NONE...as if the NEW COVENANT was NOT for gentiles...as if the OLD COVENANT was NOT for gentiles...your MADness NEEDS to blind you

Sabbath was made for MAN...not just Jews...was His teaching...but you insist “NOT TO ME”



The word "body" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.
I will stand with poor Stephen who understood this congregation this assembly has been around A LONG LONG TIME...certainly since the OT wilderness...

Your NECESSARY word game is abominable...counterfeiting what ALWAYS was: His going to the gentile to seek out a people for His NAME...



The word "head" is not found in Acts 26:20, or anywhere in Acts 26, for that matter.
right because you rather read into this that A NEW PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED HERE SUSPENDING ISREAL rather than ALL are to turn to Yah...you know the Boss...Chief...Head Honcho oops sorry that word again...Head

and you would rather read INTO His Word that His WAYS are "NOT FOR ME" and reject that Christ was the FIRST to resurrect from the dead to proclaim to ALL...not just Jews...

Your MADness at Him His Ways causes this rebellion...as it did another who believes but does NOT obey...and seeks another kingdom here on earth...LOL



Here Paul is talking about unbelieving Israel returning to her Creator, not as members of the Body, but as a nation as a whole, the Household of Israel.
LOL...

Happily Paul clarified he was NOT MAD like you...but wished ALL who heard him that day to be as he was a citizen of Israel...

But even the Jews believing and NON believing Jews heard him that day (hmmmm...now it is awkward for you and yours as Jews are another class right?)

But Paul wished that day they ALL were as he was...except for the chains...

exactly what he wrote...”copy me as I copy Christ”...written to the gentiles crowding synagogues in Corinth...and its Jews



Under their New Covenant...
right...the same He modelled and taught FOR ALL...and like in the OT gentiles are adopted IN...as it was for them too...

remember the Sabbath?...made FOR MAN...even the strangers within thy gates...and NOT just JEWS...

that ALONE should have you rethink...but NOPE...your rebellion continues its "NOT FOR ME"



Denying the difference between the wild and natural olive trees is the main reason for your confusion.

Yes, both produce olives, but they're still two different plants!
two different plants? but NOW BRANCHES FROM ONE ARE GRAFTED INTO THE OTHER and YES PRODUCING OLIVES...not claiming "NOT FOR ME"



When you only look at the similarities between two things, you start to get tunnel vision, and it causes you to think they're the same thing.

Start looking at the differences also, and maybe you'll start to see that they're different.
don't distract from the fact that the branches which REMAIN for their BELIEF bear the SAME FRUIT...NO DISTINCTION...and DO NOT MAKE an entirely NEW category of "oh these new grafted in branches are just for show...another group for which bearing fruit is NOT FOR THEM"



The wild branches grafted in were not supported "from the beginning at creation."
LOL...of course they were and given the Sabbath...and out of the gentiles He chose to make a people for His Name...



Yes, that describes the Body of Christ, not Israel.
yes IN HIM the middle wall of separation was destroyed gentiles could COME IN...and the enmity of Jews towards unclean gentiles was ABOLISHED in His flesh...so these wild branches COULD BE GRAFTED INTO AND BEAR FRUIT WITH NO DISTINCTION

Maybe this will help:

Remember how above I said that the household of Israel is only part of the overarching household of God?

To link that analogy with the wild and natural olive trees analogy, the natural olive tree is the household of Israel, the Gentiles are the wild olive trees in the world, but the new olive tree God made by grafting in the wild branches to the natural root describes the overarching household of God.
BRAVO...and now this THIRD tree it bears FIGS? the grafted olive branches having caused the roots and branches to change fruit? LOL

of course NOT...there is NO NEW TREE...the NEW branches match the remaining OLD BRANCHES and produce THE SAME FRUIT...OLIVES...

just like when this tree was in the OT WILDERNESS and those NOT OF JACOB were ALREADY within thy gates...and given the SABBATH...et al...ONE PEOPLE...and ONE LAND...not two classes...even the foreigners received LAND and KEPT THE SAME LAW...imagine Ruth eating Ham and insisting working on Sabbaths to make extra money...LOL


Again, if you only look at the similarities, you'll become convinced it's the same. Take off your blinders, and look at the differences also.
LOL trust me they ALL wanted to eat after worship services and EVERYWHERE different menus... is why the Jerusalem council...so "LET's EAT!" But DIFFERENT recipes...IS WHY the clarifications as to what is clean were needed...

Other differences included differing holy days...again “Let NO ONE JUDGE BUT THE BOC”



what? that James 3:12My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

James even pushes it further that ONE SOURCE HAS ONE TYPE OF WATER...As if out of Yah's mouth there are TWO messages...two ways...two dispensations...LOL



First: Except that's not what it concluded.

Read it again:

Spoiler
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.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.Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.​







- Acts 15:22-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV


Did you catch what was said in verse 24?

Spoiler
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “ You must be circumcised and keep the law—to whom we gave no such commandment— - Acts 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV


In other words: The Twelve did not tell anyone go go out and tell the Gentiles to "circumcize and keep the law."

Meaning? They never wanted any of the Gentiles to do so.
oh my...

King Jimmy was already preparing the way for your “NOT FOR ME” rebellion by adding "circumcize and keep the law"

notice it is missing in the Greek originals:

It has come to our attention
Ἐπειδὴ (Epeidē)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 1894: Of time: when, now, after that; of cause: seeing that, forasmuch as. From epei and de; since now, i.e. when, or whereas.

that
ὅτι (hoti)
Conjunction
Strong's Greek 3754: Neuter of hostis as conjunction; demonstrative, that; causative, because.

some
τινὲς (tines)
Interrogative / Indefinite Pronoun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 5100: Any one, some one, a certain one or thing. An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object.

went out
ἐξελθόντες (exelthontes)
Verb - Aorist Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 1831: To go out, come out. From ek and erchomai; to issue.

from
ἐξ (ex)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1537: From out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards. A primary preposition denoting origin, from, out.

us
ἡμῶν (hēmōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Plural
Strong's Greek 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.

without our authorization
διεστειλάμεθα (diesteilametha)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Middle - 1st Person Plural
Strong's Greek 1291: To give a commission (instructions), order; To admonish, prohibit.

[and] unsettled
ἀνασκευάζοντες (anaskeuazontes)
Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 384: From ana and a derivative of skeuos; properly, to pack up, i.e. to upset.

your
ὑμῶν (hymōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 2nd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 4771: You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou.

minds
ψυχὰς (psychas)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Plural
Strong's Greek 5590: From psucho; breath, i.e. spirit, abstractly or concretely.

by what [they] said.
λόγοις (logois)
Noun - Dative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 3056: From lego; something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, the Divine Expression.

so let me guess...you are KJV ONLY right? LOL

remember we are NOT TO ADD to the word right? king Jimmy forgot...but it is useful to you here...

circumcision WAS NEVER DEMANDED...and WAS NEVER SALVIFIC...and I guess you think they concluded that the rest of the 10 are "NOT FOR ME" LOL


Second: The following verses are NOT absolute commands, but, as stated in verse 31, an encouragement to those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Spoiler
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell. - Acts 15:28-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV


In other words, the Twelve were not saying "You must keep these following laws," but rather, "We encourage you to not cause the bretheren to stumble," as Paul pointed out that there's nothing inherently wrong with eating things sacrificed to idols or drinking blood, and even goes so far as to reprimand some of his converts for partaking in sexual immorality, yet without giving them a law to follow.
encouraged? LOL..."Might we suggest you do as Yah suggests?”...causing another to stumble was weighted heavier than now...sadly...alas...modern age...

earlier you mentioned a LIST of contentions this Jerusalem council was dealing with ...well actually one thing...circumcision...

are you really saying that the gentiles DID NOT HAVE TO KEEP 8 of the other 10 laws?...adultery is listed and a Sabbath keeping continuance already concluded by James Acts 15:21

so gentiles COULD

worship another god
make idols just not eat food offered to them
blashpeme His name
dishonor parents
kill
steal
lie
covet?

WOW...just WOW

3 of the 4 required dealt with dietary laws ALREADY FOR THOSE NOT OF JACOB in the OT...

Now seriously you really think they concluded gentiles can eat swine as long as it was NOT offered to idols...

or you can eat dog meat as long as it is drained from its blood

or rat which was not strangled?

WOW...seriously...as if the gentiles could bring "clean" SWINE to fellowship potluck after hearing MOSES taught in every city EVERY SABBATH Acts 15:21

Yes. God does so when a person believes.[/quote} well He does...but I was talking about mortal fallen man...

Unless what you meant to say is, "can that which is defiled be CALLED holy," in which case the answer is no.
ironically that is EXACTLY what Jews thought and did calling goyim "the defiled unclean" and it took Peter’s vision and instruction to teach them to call them Holy again...




No. God's authority is above man's.
phew...that is of comfort...Is WHY Peter was a good candidate to take it to the "unclean" gentiles...He had just reminded them it went to them first...Abraham being NOT a JEW...

and man continues to "make Holy" as new golden calves are produced in the name of NEW UNDERSTANDING or REVELATION or MYSTERIES REVEALED...alas they did NOT heed the warnings when this congregation was in the OT wilderness...He their Chief...LOL



Well no, not quite.

God is holy. It's an aspect of His nature.

Therefore anything that is holy is so because it aligns with who God is, not because He declared it to be so.

Now, God CAN arbitrarily assign something that has no moral value to be clean or unclean, with how that relates to holiness, and in that context, I would agree with you.

But God does not "set" the standard for holiness, He IS the standard.
ok...so Sabbath remains holy...but NOT FOR YOU? Pig remains unclean...but NOT FOR YOU...got it...His STANDARD is NOT FOR YOU...



Which was a result of violating the condition God had set for them to be able to fellowship with Him directly... not a standard of holiness.
what they did to violate resulted in their being naked...sub Standard

What they did to minimize the infraction compounded the problem...and NOT repenting sealed their fate...



No idea what you're talking about.
salvation by works...covering with leaves...as if NOTHING HAPPENED...is cause for IDOLATRY

Israel TOO thought it could make NEW THINGS HOLY...golden calf...other idolatries...

NEW LAWS that are after Man's tradition and NOT His causes idolatry...the Pharisees their NEW LAWS for Sabbath had Yahushua picking fights with them all the time...ok ok NOT ALL the time...

The church changed many things claiming authority to do so...your MADness is only the latest of a long line of progressive revelation to NEW INTERPRETATIONS...made by man of course...change for compromise and power...

False.

The origin of idolatrous thinking comes from the lust to be "god" in one's life.
ummmm...right! from defiled uncircumcised hearts and NOT "inner jew" Christ Mindedess comes the rejection of HIM as your Head...which plays out in one's coming up with NEW LAWS and another gospel another way another christ...even claiming His Ways are "NOT FOR ME"...

new golden calves creating new worship occur all the time...you know...idolatry...NOT Him His ways...rejecting what He taught and DEMONSTRATED before He signed with His blood and sealed with His death the NEW COVENANT lifestyle...FOR ALL who believe...

but instead making changes AFTER the Testator dies...



Again, new fig tree is not Israel, but overarching household of God.
yes...and your MADness is the NOT BEARING HIS FRUIT section of the tree...LOL

oh and...I thought it was olive tree...but you change SO MUCH...ironic example...LOL



Go read Romans again, please.
How about you show me what you wish to ADD to Romans 6 as I only see an appeal to not sin anymore and to become slaves to righteousness...you know...as the ekklesia was to be in the OT wilderness when ALREADY He was making a body for Himself to Head...

and I am NOT sure if you accept that for your BOC...His Standard

Spoiler
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.For he who has died has been freed from sin.Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life.For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:1-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV


==========

As for the rest of your post, your post was too long for me to reply to in one post. I will respond to the rest when I have time. I did the best I could at keeping my response in this post here as short as I could, but it's still very long because of how long yours was.

Please learn to shorten your posts a bit, and try to compose your posts better, rather than just leaving it in the form of a stream of thoughts that come from your mind (which is a good way to put thoughts into words, but terrible for reading).

LOL...yes ok...should slow down and write more pretty...often busy at work etc...

actually surprised you responded...usually just talking to myself here in TOL...but thanks for the time and attempt to clarify your points...

this topic of rejecting Him His Way...Sabbath particularly has being debated for millenniums already and now add your MADness and we have much to talk about...

but feel free to suggest how else I might clarify as it seems it is MY fault...and NOT your ADDING and inserting into that which we both read...
 
Top