User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

  1. #16
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    MAD claims that there were two gospels between 30AD and 70AD. MAD claims that after the cross Peter and the 12 preached a "kingdom" gospel before a secret gospel was given to Paul years later.

    One of MAD's so called "proofs" of this is the claim by MADists that the kingdom believers adhered to the Mosaic Law after the cross. Acts 3:1, along with Paul's vow are considered proof texts by MADists that these kingdom believers kept the law despite the belief by most of Christendom that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross, and that the church started on Pentecost with the giving of the Holy Spirit.
    I disagree with this characterization. First, it is an eisegetic assumption that Christ's fulfillment of the law equals the cessation or abrogation of the law. There is no logical or scriptural proof for this. Quite the opposite: The Mosaic Law continued to be taught and followed long after Christ's fulfillment of it (Acts 15:21, Acts 24:18, Hebrews 8:3).

    Furthermore, it is a historical assumption that "most of Christendumb" believed that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross to the intent of abrogating its practice, and that "most of Christendumb" believed that the church started on Pentecost. Paul, and his apostles, and the audiences to whom he wrote certainly didn't agree with any of that. They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit. They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20). What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    My point about David's tent was to show that there was only one time in all of the history of the OC where God dwelt in one place (David's tent), while the High Priest carried out all the requirements of the Mosaic Law at another place (Moses' Tabernacle)

    This unusual event occurred for only 44 years. James quoted Joel's prophecy about rebuilding David's tent in Acts 15:16. James quoted Joel to show that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right there and then.

    We know there wasn't a literal tent during these 40 years. So, the question becomes: Where or what was David's tent in the first century?

    I assume you will disagree with this because MADists believe that the restoring of David's tent is a future event.

    However, a further study into what occurred in David's tent during the reign of King David shows that Joel's prophecy of the rebuilt tent of David did in fact take place from 30AD to 70AD.
    Let's assume this is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    This explains why Peter and John went to the temple in Acts 3:1, ...
    How so? How does this explain Peter and John in Acts 3:1?

    Does it also explain Paul's animal sacrifices in Acts 24:18? How does it explain the Hebrews writer speaking of animal sacrifices in the present tense? And how does it explain Ezekiel's descriptions of future animal sacrifices in the Millennium? How does it explain the food restrictions imposed on the believing kingdom Gentile proselytes in Acts 15?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    ... but at the same time shows that Peter and John were saved believers in the BOC just like Paul was.
    How does it show that? Please elaborate.

    Hilston
    Last edited by Hilston; January 30th, 2012 at 09:26 AM. Reason: To clarify some sentences (edits in bold)

  2. #17
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,866
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 377 Times in 345 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    319377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    I disagree with this characterization. First, it is an eisegetic assumption that Christ's fulfillment of the law equals the cessation or abrogation of the law.
    What does "fulfillment of the law" mean?

    If the law hasn't been fulfilled, then you are in big trouble since you haven't been keeping the feasts, tithing, keeping Sabbath, etc.

    Jesus said unless the Heavens and earth have passed away the law is still in place (Matt 5:18)

    There is no logical or scriptural proof for this. Quite the opposite: The Mosaic Law continued to be taught and followed long after Christ's fulfillment of it (Acts 15:21, Acts 24:18, Hebrews 8:3).
    The only people teaching and following the ceremonial and civil parts of the Mosaic Law after the cross were Jews who rejected Christ and adhered to Judaism.

    There were many initial converts to Christianity who still observed the Mosaic Law after the cross because they had not yet understood that they didn't have to keep following the Mosaic Law.

    The verses you give as your proof that the Mosaic Law was still being taught and followed do not show what you claim.

    Peter, Paul, and others did things that look like they were observing the Mosaic Law, but they were only doing this to not upset the Jews they were tying to convert to Christ.

    Example: I once worked on an Islamic Mosque. We had to take our shoes off when we went inside. Using your logic, if I were to go into a Mosque to witness about Christ, but took my shoes off before I went in, then I was following and teaching the Koran and Islam.

    Furthermore, it is a historical assumption that "most of Christendumb" believed that Christ fulfilled the law on the cross to the intent of abrogating its practice, and that "most of Christendumb" believed that the church started on Pentecost.
    This is in fact what the vast majority of Christendom believes, and has believed.

    Paul, and his apostles, and the audiences to whom he wrote certainly didn't agree with any of that.
    Here is what Paul said:

    (Rom 16:7) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

    As we see above, Paul said that there were people "In Christ" before he was. This could only mean that the believers (who you call kingdom believers) were in the one Body before Paul was.


    They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit.
    Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?

    They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20).
    The law was given for sinners.

    It was given as a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24)

    It is a law of sin and death

    Here is what Jesus said about the law:

    (Matt 22:40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).
    All of your above passages are from before the cross.

    Let's assume this is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?
    It negates MAD on two fronts.

    First, it negates MAD's "two gospel - two people" theory that MAD claims happened in the first century.

    Secondly, it throws a big monkey wrench into the eschatology of MAD.

    Let's look at the latter:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD claims there is going to be a "rapture" that takes all the "Body" believers away, followed by a 7 year tribulation period that has 3.5 years of peace and 3.5 years of great tribulation which concludes with Jesus coming a third time with the "Body" believers and defeating some guy called the anti-christ who has 666 on his forehead or something.

    Then satan is bound and chained and thrown into prison, Christ and God get in the DeLorean set the date for 33AD, go to Jerusalem, rebuild a third temple (unless it was built during the trib), bring all the OT saints and "kingdom" believers up from out of the center of the earth, set up a throne for Christ, and the millennial reign lasts exactly 1,000 years.

    Here's the problem for you:

    (Acts 9:11) “In that day
    I will restore David’s fallen shelter
    I will repair its broken walls
    and restore its ruins—
    and will rebuild it as it used to be,


    James quotes the above in Acts 15.

    Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD teaches that the restoration/rebuilding of David's tent is a yet future event?

    As I said in my previous post, David's tent existed for only 44 years.

    Here's the question for you:

    When is David's tent restored according to your's and MAD's eschatology?

    Most MADists claim that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the future 3rd temple that will be built in either your future 7 year trib, or your future 1,000 year millennium.

    There are drastic differences between the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 and the tent of David that stood during the days of David.

    For example, the only piece of furniture or object that was in David's tent was the Ark of the Covenant (minus the manna and Aaron's rod). Ezekiel's temple has all kinds of stuff in it; tables, utensils, hooks, carved cherubims, palm trees, garments, a great alter, lottery box, blood gutters, kitchens, sleeping rooms, gates, doors, windows, etc.

    There are lots of animal sacrifices and offerings that go on in Ezekiel's temple. In 44 years at David's tent there was never an animal sacrifice (except the first day), or any burnt offerings.

    People have to be circumcised to enter Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 44:9), anyone could enter David's tent 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

    Isaiah also spoke of David's tent being restored in the future:

    (Isaiah 16:5) And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

    So when does David's tabernacle happen James?

    And how does it explain Ezekiel's descriptions of future animal sacrifices in the Millennium?
    Ezekiel's future is not our future.

    Ezekiel wrote about a future temple while captive in Babylon. Ezekiel's prophecy was for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, NOT for a third temple to be built 3,000 years later.

    In the past you have claimed that the supposed future animal sacrifices as described in Ezekiel will be for "memorial" purposes, correct?

    If so, then one verse destroys that theory:

    (Ezk 45:15) And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD.

    Animal sacrifices can't be for reconciliation and for a memorial at the same time.

    For now, you have a bigger problem explaining how MAD can explain where and when David's tent is reconstructed.

    thanks,

  3. #18
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    What does "fulfillment of the law" mean?
    ”Fulfillment of the law” means to fill-to-the-full the requirements of the law, or of a particular law; to bring the law, i.e., execute the law to completion; to bring prophecy to pass as expressed in law, to bring into realization that which was prophesied, as expressed in law.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    If the law hasn't been fulfilled, then you are in big trouble since you haven't been keeping the feasts, tithing, keeping Sabbath, etc.
    First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed. This is abundantly proven throughout Scripture. For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause. Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.

    So whence comes the idea that fulfillment equals cessation?

    Second, you seem to forget whom you’re debating. It is my claim that Paul’s gospel for the Body of Christ perfectly explains the reason why religious ceremonies, rituals, symbols, holy days, etc. are not to be observed and practiced by the members thereof: to wit, because the Body of Christ has not an earthly Hope, but a heavenly one, seated administratively above the angelic realm, which is to say, the Body of Christ is not under the angelic ministry, and therefore not subject to the laws and ordinances delivered and administered by them.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus said unless the Heavens and earth have passed away the law is still in place (Matt 5:18)
    Exactly! Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).

    Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The only people teaching and following the ceremonial and civil parts of the Mosaic Law after the cross were Jews who rejected Christ and adhered to Judaism.
    That’s not true. Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There were many initial converts to Christianity who still observed the Mosaic Law after the cross because they had not yet understood that they didn't have to keep following the Mosaic Law.
    Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The verses you give as your proof that the Mosaic Law was still being taught and followed do not show what you claim.

    Peter, Paul, and others did things that look like they were observing the Mosaic Law, but they were only doing this to not upset the Jews they were tying to convert to Christ.
    I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Example: I once worked on an Islamic Mosque. We had to take our shoes off when we went inside. Using your logic, if I were to go into a Mosque to witness about Christ, but took my shoes off before I went in, then I was following and teaching the Koran and Islam.
    That’s not my logic at all. The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).

    Your faulty logic is further belied by the fact that nowhere does the Infinite God ever say to follow Muhammad or the Qur’an. But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture. Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    This is in fact what the vast majority of Christendom believes, and has believed.
    Do you realize that, if believers had followed your logic 476 years ago, we might all be papists? Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:

    Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty.
    (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).

    Don't you see that you're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin more than 4 centuries ago. At that time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 15 centuries of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with less than 5 centuries of church history?

    I don’t intend this to be as harsh as it may sound, but your words indicate that you are a respecter of men over God. You should Google this phrase: “Three men make a tiger.” Consensus is an unbiblical way to approach the pursuit of truth. It is illogical as well (argumentum ad populum fallacy). As I cited above, in Gal. 1:10, Paul writes, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” In 1 Thess 2:4, Paul says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.” Furthermore, in Acts 4:19, Peter said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.” And later in Acts 5:29, Peter declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

    As noted earlier, Calvin faced the same charges from the papists that you are launching at me, namely, that “the vast majority of Christendom” disagrees with me. The point was not relevant then, and it’s not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists, not to mention the teaching of Scripture and sound logic. And such an approach is exactly what you’re suggesting.

    Seriously, what if my response were instead: “You’re telling me that the vast majority of Christendom doesn’t agree with my current view. Then, by all means, tell me what they believe, because I prefer to side with the majority.” Who was considered to be of more noble character? The ones who accepted Paul’s words uncritically, or those who examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? (Acts 17:11)

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Here is what Paul said:

    (Rom 16:7) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

    As we see above, Paul said that there were people "In Christ" before he was. This could only mean that the believers (who you call kingdom believers) were in the one Body before Paul was.
    Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    They all understood that Pentecost was the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures concerning the angelic empowerment they (elect Israel) would receive from the Holy Spirit.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?
    Joel 2:28-32.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    They all understood that Mosaic Law was never abrogated, and that Jesus, after His resurrection, commanded His disciples (elect Israel) to obey everything whatsoever He commanded them (Mt. 28:19,20).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The law was given for sinners.

    It was given as a schoolmaster (Gal 3:24)

    It is a law of sin and death

    Here is what Jesus said about the law:

    (Matt 22:40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
    Agreed. What point are you making?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    What did Jesus command them? To follow Moses (Mt 8:4 Luke 5:14). To do everything the scribes and Pharisees (who wield Moses' authority) commanded them to do (Mt 23:2,3).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    All of your above passages are from before the cross.
    Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles. Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He taught about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Let's assume [your point about David’s tabernacle] is correct, for argument's sake. Why would this negate the Mid-Acts view?
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It negates MAD on two fronts.

    First, it negates MAD's "two gospel - two people" theory that MAD claims happened in the first century.
    Actually, there are three gospels (the Mosaic, the Noahide and the Mystery), and three divisions of God’s elect (elect Israel, the elect of the nations, and the Body of Christ). But how does that negate the mid-Acts view? If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Secondly, it throws a big monkey wrench into the eschatology of MAD.

    Let's look at the latter:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD claims there is going to be a "rapture" that takes all the "Body" believers away, followed by a 7 year tribulation period that has 3.5 years of peace and 3.5 years of great tribulation which concludes with Jesus coming a third time with the "Body" believers and defeating some guy called the anti-christ who has 666 on his forehead or something.

    Then satan is bound and chained and thrown into prison, Christ and God get in the DeLorean set the date for 33AD, go to Jerusalem, rebuild a third temple (unless it was built during the trib), bring all the OT saints and "kingdom" believers up from out of the center of the earth, set up a throne for Christ, and the millennial reign lasts exactly 1,000 years.
    Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Here's the problem for you:

    (Acts 9:11) [sic; should be Amos 9:11]
    “In that day
    I will restore David’s fallen shelter
    I will repair its broken walls
    and restore its ruins—
    and will rebuild it as it used to be,


    James quotes the above in Acts 15.

    Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but MAD teaches that the restoration/rebuilding of David's tent is a yet future event?
    Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    As I said in my previous post, David's tent existed for only 44 years.

    Here's the question for you:

    When is David's tent restored according to your's and MAD's eschatology?

    Most MADists claim that the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 is the future 3rd temple that will be built in either your future 7 year trib, or your future 1,000 year millennium.
    Right. Let’s go with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There are drastic differences between the temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 and the tent of David that stood during the days of David.
    Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    For example, the only piece of furniture or object that was in David's tent was the Ark of the Covenant (minus the manna and Aaron's rod). Ezekiel's temple has all kinds of stuff in it; tables, utensils, hooks, carved cherubims, palm trees, garments, a great alter, lottery box, blood gutters, kitchens, sleeping rooms, gates, doors, windows, etc.
    Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There are lots of animal sacrifices and offerings that go on in Ezekiel's temple. In 44 years at David's tent there was never an animal sacrifice (except the first day), or any burnt offerings.
    Do you have a reference that indicates that no animal sacrifices or burnt offerings were made after the tabernacle’s dedication?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    People have to be circumcised to enter Ezekiel's temple (Ezk 44:9), anyone could enter David's tent 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
    That seems to line up with Joel 3:17 “So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.” Also, I’m pretty sure Ezekiel was referring to the Holy Place, and not entire temple compound.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Isaiah also spoke of David's tent being restored in the future:

    (Isaiah 16:5) And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

    So when does David's tabernacle happen James?
    In the Millennium, as answered above.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Ezekiel's future is not our future.
    Of course not. Have you again forgotten whom you are debating? I don’t believe the Body of Christ will dwell on earth after the Rapture (i.e., the “Crapture,” as preterists like to call it). Ezekiel’s temple is an earthly temple, and only Kingdom people will have access to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Ezekiel wrote about a future temple while captive in Babylon. Ezekiel's prophecy was for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, NOT for a third temple to be built 3,000 years later.
    I’m familiar with that assumption. But it is impossible, given the language and details of the prophecy, which even anti-dispensational commentators reluctantly admit.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    In the past you have claimed that the supposed future animal sacrifices as described in Ezekiel will be for "memorial" purposes, correct?
    Yes, just as they were throughout Israel’s history (they were, in a sense, “pre-memorial”).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    If so, then one verse destroys that theory:

    (Ezk 45:15) And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD.

    Animal sacrifices can't be for reconciliation and for a memorial at the same time.
    Why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    For now, you have a bigger problem explaining how MAD can explain where and when David's tent is reconstructed.
    Where: In Jerusalem. When: In the Millennium. That really wasn’t that hard. It seems to me that you have much bigger problem(s), judging by your lack of understanding of the view you’re attempting to disprove.

    Hilston
    Last edited by Hilston; February 16th, 2012 at 12:42 AM. Reason: Corrected some math ...

  4. #19
    LIFETIME MEMBER tetelestai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    11,866
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 377 Times in 345 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    319377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston View Post
    First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed.
    You guys (MADists) claim that the law has been put on hold. I believe that the law has been done away with forever. It is you that is asserting premises that you have not and cannot prove. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the law being put on hold, or the OC being put on hold, or the NC being put on hold.

    Nowhere does the Apostle Paul tell us that one day in the future the Mosaic Law will be put in place again. In fact, Paul says the complete opposite (Eph 2:15, Gal 3:23-25)

    For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause.
    A prophecy can only be fulfilled once.

    The prophecy from Psalm 35 that Jesus spoke about in John 15:25 was fulfilled during the Incarnation of Christ.

    The prophecy was specific to the life of Christ in the first century.

    Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.
    There are two laws, the Mosaic Law and the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

    (Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

    Because of the cross we are no longer under the law of sin and death (Mosaic Law), we are now under the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

    So whence comes the idea that fulfillment equals cessation?
    See above, there can't be two laws.

    Second, you seem to forget whom you’re debating. It is my claim that Paul’s gospel for the Body of Christ perfectly explains the reason why religious ceremonies, rituals, symbols, holy days, etc. are not to be observed and practiced by the members thereof: to wit, because the Body of Christ has not an earthly Hope, but a heavenly one, seated administratively above the angelic realm, which is to say, the Body of Christ is not under the angelic ministry, and therefore not subject to the laws and ordinances delivered and administered by them.
    We are in agreement with how the Mosaic law applies to believers today. Where we disagree is your theory that one day the Mosaic Law will be put in place again, along with your earthly kingdom.


    Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).
    No contradiction.

    The law and prophets did not fully end until 70AD. It is why the writer of Hebrews stated that the OC was fading away, and soon to be obsolete because the NC was in place.

    Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.
    I understand what MAD tries to do. However, MAD falls apart when MAD's two gospel, two peoples, two places in eternity, etc are more closely examined.

    That’s not true. Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
    I disagree.

    You're trying to claim something that just isn't there. Paul states that he brought gifts to "my people". Again, this is no different than me not taking my shoes off to enter a Mosque.

    (Act 24:17) “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.

    Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.
    Huh?

    Romans 14 is a contrast between weak and strong believers.

    Are you claiming that Romans 14 is addressing "kingdom believers"?

    I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”
    If Paul observed the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law in order to witness to the Jews, it does not mean that Paul was trying to please men. It means that Paul knew he wouldn't get very far by offending the Jews.

    The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).
    Ok, this shows that Paul was not observing the Mosaic Law.

    But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture.
    God told Peter to go to Cornelius' house.

    (Acts 10:28) He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

    Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.
    See above

    I don’t intend this to be as harsh as it may sound, but your words indicate that you are a respecter of men over God. You should Google this phrase: “Three men make a tiger.” Consensus is an unbiblical way to approach the pursuit of truth. It is illogical as well (argumentum ad populum fallacy). As I cited above, in Gal. 1:10, Paul writes, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” In 1 Thess 2:4, Paul says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.” Furthermore, in Acts 4:19, Peter said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.” And later in Acts 5:29, Peter declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

    As noted earlier, Calvin faced the same charges from the papists that you are launching at me, namely, that “the vast majority of Christendom” disagrees with me. The point was not relevant then, and it’s not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists, not to mention the teaching of Scripture and sound logic. And such an approach is exactly what you’re suggesting.

    Seriously, what if my response were instead: “You’re telling me that the vast majority of Christendom doesn’t agree with my current view. Then, by all means, tell me what they believe, because I prefer to side with the majority.” Who was considered to be of more noble character? The ones who accepted Paul’s words uncritically, or those who examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? (Acts 17:11)
    Um....I was agreeing with you.

    Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.
    Paul says there were others "In Christ" before he was.

    Paul also tells us what it means to be "In Christ":

    (2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    Does the above sound like a description for a "kingdom" believer?

    Answer: NO

    You want us to believe that Paul would throw around the term "In Christ" sometimes to the BOC and sometimes to the "kingdom" believers.

    Since Paul makes it clear that other believers were "In Christ" before he was, and tells us what it means to be "in Christ", it is just one of the many huge problems for MAD.

    Joel 2:28-32.
    C'mon James.

    This is prophecy about the Holy Spirit, not angels.


    Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles. Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He taught about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.
    Jesus didn't teach them the Mosaic Law, they already knew it before He came.

    But how does that negate the mid-Acts view? If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.
    Because the existence of David's tabernacle explains the apparent contradictions that occurred between 30AD - 70AD, and shows that MAD is not the answer to the "apparent contradictions"

    Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.
    Because sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people claim there are going to be animal sacrifices in the future.

    I know you sincerely believe this, it's just hard for me to imagine how people can believe it.

    Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.
    "Partial fulfillment"?

    How can a prophecy be "partially fulfilled"?

    Right. Let’s go with that.
    You didn't answer the question.

    I asked when David's tent is going to be restored?

    Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.
    My point is that Ezekiel's temple and David's tent are two very different things.

    Yet, dispensationalism conflates the two, and claims that both will exist in the future, all the while not realizing how different the two are.

    Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.
    Dispensationalists use OT passages to justify their theory of a future temple with animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 40-48 is used by most dispies to justify the future temple and future animal sacrifices.

    Again, my point is the stark contrast between David's tent and Ezekiel's temple.

    Do you have a reference that indicates that no animal sacrifices or burnt offerings were made after the tabernacle’s dedication?
    1 Chronicles 16:37-42 shows that David sent the priests to Moses' tabernacle on Mt. Gibeon to make sacrifices there, and not at his tent.

    The following is a commentary from Matthew Henry (bold my emphases)

    "The worship of God ought to be the work of every day. David put it into order. At Jerusalem, where the ark was, Asaph and his brethren were to minister before the ark continually, with songs of praise. No sacrifices were offered there, nor incense burnt, because the altars were not there; but David's prayers were directed as incense, and the lifting up of his hands as the evening sacrifice. So early did spiritual worship take place of ceremonial. Yet the ceremonial worship, being of Divine institution, must by no means be omitted; therefore at Gibeon, at the altars, the priests attended; for their work was to sacrifice and burn incense; and that they did continually, morning and evening, according to the law of Moses. - Commentary Volume One, pg. 443

    Again, since dispies claim that David's tent is yet future, and that Ezekiel's temple is yet future, how do you explain the contrast of the tent and the temple?

    That seems to line up with Joel 3:17 “So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more.” Also, I’m pretty sure Ezekiel was referring to the Holy Place, and not entire temple compound.
    Which proves my point that David's tent was rebuilt in the first century right after the cross just like James said.

    In the Millennium, as answered above.
    Before, during, or after your third temple?

    Of course not. Have you again forgotten whom you are debating? I don’t believe the Body of Christ will dwell on earth after the Rapture (i.e., the “Crapture,” as preterists like to call it). Ezekiel’s temple is an earthly temple, and only Kingdom people will have access to it.
    Again, if Ezekiel's temple is an earthly temple as you claim, then when and where is David's tent restored?

    I’m familiar with that assumption. But it is impossible, given the language and details of the prophecy, which even anti-dispensational commentators reluctantly admit.
    Think about what you are saying James.

    You want us to believe that while Ezekiel and the Jews were captive in Babylon, that Ezekiel would prophecy about a rebuilt temple, but not about the rebuilt temple the Jews built when they left Babylon and actually rebuilt the temple.

    And, not once in any Jewish writings from 516BC to 70AD (almost 600 years), is there any mention of this third temple someday being built.

    Yes, just as they were throughout Israel’s history (they were, in a sense, “pre-memorial”).
    The animal sacrifices only took place until Christ made the one time sacrifice.

    There is NOTHING in the Bible about "memorial" sacrifices.

    Why not?
    Because you contradict yourself.

    You can't say the animal sacrifices are for reconciliation and at the same time say they are for "memorial" purposes.

    Where: In Jerusalem. When: In the Millennium. That really wasn’t that hard. It seems to me that you have much bigger problem(s), judging by your lack of understanding of the view you’re attempting to disprove.
    Again, before, during, or after Ezekiel's temple.

  5. #20
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    First, you’re continuing to assert premises that you haven’t proven and with which I do not agree. Namely, that fulfillment somehow equals cessation. It does NOT. Just because a law is fulfilled, doesn’t mean the law is abnegated, abrogated, nullified, or removed.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You guys (MADists) claim that the law has been put on hold.
    Perhaps you should be asking more questions, because you continue to make statements about my view that are untrue. I do NOT believe or claim that the law has been put on hold. Unlike the so-called MADists, the mid-Acts view I espouse recognizes three sets of laws ordained by God: 1) The Noahide Laws for the nations, 2) the Mosaic Laws for Israel, and 3) the Paulline Laws for the Body of Christ. Since the Kingdom program (i.e., Israel and the nations) is currently in abeyance, then, by extension, their laws have been put on hold, but not the law as it pertains to the Body of Christ. Pauline Law is presently the only law ordained by God that obtains today and ever since the death of the last Kingdom believer because the Body of Christ is the only people of God currently in existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I believe that the law has been done away with forever.
    What does that mean? Do you mean the law no longer applies? Or do you mean there is no longer a standard of righteousness? What exactly do you mean by “the law has been done away with forever”?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It is you that is asserting premises that you have not and cannot prove.
    Why are you so quick to assert what I “cannot prove”? This discussion isn’t over, yet you’ve already decided that there is nothing you can learn from me. Where does this intransigence and arrogance come from? I came into this discussion with a desire to learn. I recognize that your view differs from others I’ve already encountered on this site and I’m genuinely interested in learning from you. My hope and goal coming into this was that, in the course of defending my view and answering your allegedly unanswerable questions, I would learn a few things. What is your goal, Tetelestai? To find a reason to dismiss me? To insult and ridicule me? It seems to me that you’ve been unduly influenced by the less charitable personalities on TOL. You won’t get that kind of treatment from me. I respect the people who respect the debate and hold the process of apologetics in high regard. Some of your remarks are causing me to question whether you are that type of person.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the law being put on hold, or the OC being put on hold, or the NC being put on hold.
    Of course not; that’s because Kingdom believers were still living at the time the Greek scriptures were being written. In fact, we see quite the opposite in Scripture: the affirmation and continuation of Mosaic practices after the death of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Nowhere does the Apostle Paul tell us that one day in the future the Mosaic Law will be put in place again. …
    Why is it up to Paul to affirm Israel’s future kingdom and law? The Hebrew scriptures and the non-Pauline writings do this just fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    In fact, Paul says the complete opposite (Eph 2:15, Gal 3:23-25)
    Ephesian 2:15 is a reference to the Mosaic law as it pertains to the Body of Christ. In the Colossian epistle, Paul is even more explicit, affirming that the Mosaic Law was contrary to the Body of Christ and that Christ took it out of the way, nailing it to his execution pole (Col 2:14). He even goes on to say that the removal of the Mosaic Law with respect to the Body of Christ also removed the angelic/demonic power over humanity that existed in the pre-Body period (“... having spoiled the principalities and powers …”), which is why Paul says that the Body of Christ will govern the angels (1Cor. 6:3). And from that, it logically follows that Paul would exhort them to abstain from religious dietary restrictions, holydays, new moon observances and sabbaths, all of which involved the angelic program. Only for the Body of Christ is the wall of partition, the wall that separated Israelite from Gentile, broken down. Only in the Body of Christ do Israelites and Gentiles lose their ethnicity and become one new man (i.e., one body).

    The context of the Galatians reference you cited regards the letter of the law in general, not the Mosaic Law specifically. For the non-Kingdom reader, particularly a Gentile, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to say that the Mosaic Law was a schoolmaster that brought them to Christ. Rather, it is a general observation that laws of morality expose and reveal one’s guilt and need for the Savior. When it is realized that one’s sins have been paid for, one is no longer under the weight of guilt that comes from the letter of the law, and can then obey the law in the spirit of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    For example, Jesus said that certain things would happen in order to fulfil the prophecy that He would be hated without cause (John 15:25). Those things happened, yet Christ continues to be hated without cause.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    A prophecy can only be fulfilled once.
    You’re missing the point, which is that fulfillment does not equal cessation. Just because a prophecy is fulfilled, doesn’t mean that behavior related to that prophecy must cease.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The prophecy from Psalm 35 that Jesus spoke about in John 15:25 was fulfilled during the Incarnation of Christ.

    The prophecy was specific to the life of Christ in the first century.
    Right, just as part of the Joel prophecy was fulfilled concerning the empowerment of the Holy Spirit via the angels in Acts 2. Yet they continued to experience that empowerment even after the partial fulfillment of that prophecy.

    I gave further examples of fulfillment that did not result in cessation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Paul wrote that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom. 8:4). That righteousness was fulfilled, yet believers continue to walk after the spirit. Paul told the Galatians that they are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Believers do continue to bear one another’s burdens, even though they’ve fulfilled the law of Christ in so doing. Jesus told John the baptizer that His baptism by John would fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). Yet baptisms continued after that fulfillment.
    Remember, these are examples showing that fulfillment does not equal cessation. But instead of addressing the point I am making, you change the subject:[/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    There are two laws, the Mosaic Law and the law of the Spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.
    Why did you do that, Tetelestai? Why did you change the subject and not address the argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    We are in agreement with how the Mosaic law applies to believers today.
    We are? Do you repudiate religious holy days? Do you eschew water baptism? Do you reject tithing to the church instead of deacons and bishops providing for their own ministries? How do you see us as agreeing regarding the Mosaic law?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Where we disagree is your theory that one day the Mosaic Law will be put in place again, along with your earthly kingdom.
    It’s not my kingdom. It’s that of Israel and the elect nations. The prophecies are numerous.

    For example, as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:37ff). This is a reference to the Nephilim, the hybrid race spawned by the copulation of humans (the daughters of men) and angels (the sons of God, Gen. 6:1ff). This cannot happen while the Body of Christ is on earth because of the superiority of the Body of Christ over angels that I referenced above. Only Israel and the nations, apart from the Body program were (and will again be) vulnerable to such an angelic incursion. After the Body of Christ is removed, the Kingdom program will begin again, and at some point all the trouble that began in Genesis 6 will reoccur.

    Another example: Isaiah prophecsies that the House of Israel will someday possess the Gentiles, who will subject themselves to Israel as servants and handmaids. He says that Israel will rule over their oppressors (Isa 14:2) and that the Gentiles will build Israel’s wall and the kings of the Gentiles will minister to Israel. The nations and kingdoms that do not serve Israel will perish and be utterly wasted (Isa 60:9-12). These prophecies have not been fulfilled and are yet future.

    The hierarchy of angels over humanity and of Israel over the nations only makes sense in the context of the Kingdom program, with the Mosaic Law in place for Israel, and the Noahide Law in place for the nations. There are plenty of other examples, Tetelestai, but a pattern is emerging of you ignoring my examples and changing the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Do you see how your view makes the Scriptures contradict itself? Jesus said the law is still in place, and commissioned the disciples to teach obedience to everything whatsoever He taught them, which was the observance and practice of the Mosaic Law which spoke of Him (Mt. 28:20, Luke 24:44). How can Jesus say, after the cross, that the law of Moses was still in place, while Paul says it was blotted out, taken out of the way and nailed to Christ’ execution pole (Col. 2:14), having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments (Eph 2:15). The answer is in the words that follow: “... for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Eph 2:15,16). The “one new man” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. For the Body of Christ, the enmity (the law of Moses) has been slain. This is why Paul said that his apostleship did not require him to baptize members of the Body of Christ, which directly contradicts the apostleship of the Twelve (Mt. 28:19,20).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    No contradiction.
    There is no contradiction for the Mid-Acts view, because an entirely different group of God’s elect is in view, one that is not subject to the laws of Moses. When Paul says, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” what do you take that to mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The law and prophets did not fully end until 70AD. It is why the writer of Hebrews stated that the OC was fading away, and soon to be obsolete because the NC was in place.
    You continue to make this assertion without biblical support and without answering the argument I’ve put to you concerning this. As I’ve demonstrated previously, there is no difference in content between the old covenant and the new covenant. The difference lies in the terms of it. The old covenant was bilateral, and depended upon the obedience of man, men honoring the covenant between man and God. The new covenant is unilateral, depending only on the faithfulness of Messiah. That is what Jeremiah prophesied (Jer 31:31ff, cf. Heb 8:8ff), not the removal of Mosaic Law, but the righteous fulfillment of the Mosaic Law by Messiah in behalf of the elect of Israel. It does not apply to the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Only the mid-Acts view makes sense of these apparent contradictions without assaulting language and logic. Your view, taken to its logical conclusion, means either Jesus was wrong (or lying), or Paul was wrong (or lying). The mid-Acts view, however, perfectly reconciles these differences.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I understand what MAD tries to do. However, MAD falls apart when MAD's two gospel, two peoples, two places in eternity, etc are more closely examined.
    Bald assertion. You not only have thus far failed to prove this Biblically or logically, but the more closely we examine my view against yours, the more my view aligns with the logic and language of Scripture, and the more your view appears inane and unsupported. I’m not dismissively claiming that your view is without support, just that you have not yet presented a logical case that aligns with Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Paul himself observes the sacrifices and ceremonies required by Moses, and is described in Scripture as bringing his alms and offerings, and being found “purified in the Temple” (Acts 24:17,18), which meant that he had offered the proper sacrifices. Had he been merely placating the Jewish leaders, he would have been contradicting himself, having said In Gal. 1:10, “do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I disagree.

    You're trying to claim something that just isn't there. Paul states that he brought gifts to "my people". Again, this is no different than me not taking my shoes off to enter a Mosque.
    It would only be “no different” if God actually had commanded Muslims to remove their shoes to enter a mosque. Since God never gave that command to Muslims, your example is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai;2973569, quoting Acts 24:17
    (Act 24:17) “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings.
    As I’ve explained repeatedly, Paul had a dual ministry -- one to the Body of Christ, and one to the Kingdom believers of Israel and of the nations -- during the period of transition between the Kingdom and Body programs. Paul still recognized his roots and heritage as an Israelite, and he ministered to them as such, as “my people.” Paul also had a ministry to the proselytes of the nations, to which he was commissioned in Acts 15. And of course, Paul’s primary purpose was his ministry to the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Paul explained that Kingdom converts were required to keep Moses as long as their consciences required it (“One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:5). Romans 14 does not apply today because there are no living Kingdom believers today. Romans 14 stopped being applicable the moment the last Kingdom believer died.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Huh?

    Romans 14 is a contrast between weak and strong believers.
    No, the context and cognate passages demonstrate that those who had difficulty with the freedom of Body believers were the Kingdom believers. Some were able to adapt to the liberties of the Body assemblies, some were not. Some Israelites were still very sensitive to the idea of eating ceremonially unclean meat (Rom 14:2,3 1Cor 8) and not observing holy days and sabbaths (Rom 14:5,6). The Roman and Corinthian assemblies had significant contingents of Kingdom believers and it was a very sensitive issue that Paul had to address.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Are you claiming that Romans 14 is addressing "kingdom believers"?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    I understand that this is a common view. But as I noted above, this contradicts Paul’s own words in 1 Thess 2:4, where he says, “We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts.”
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    If Paul observed the ceremonial part of the Mosaic Law in order to witness to the Jews, it does not mean that Paul was trying to please men.
    If the Mosaic Law was no longer valid, then Paul was disobeying his own teaching (to wit, not to observe religious holy days and rituals), making Paul into a man pleaser. But if Paul was duly observing that which Mosaic Law still required, then he was rightfully honoring Kingdom law in its proper Kingdom context.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    It means that Paul knew he wouldn't get very far by offending the Jews.
    By your logic, Paul should have visited pagan-temple prostitutes in order to witness to the pagans without offending them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    The Bible provides a better example than yours. When Naaman assisted with the king of Syria in bowing to his idol in the House of Rimmon -- and bowed with him before the idol -- Naaman, in so doing, was not guilty of idolatry, according to Elisha’s pronouncement (2 Kings 5:18,19).
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Ok, this shows that Paul was not observing the Mosaic Law.
    No, it only shows that you have biblical support for taking your shoes off in a mosque. Paul was not merely attending a circumcision; he made provision for it, sponsored and participated in the ritual, and even fulfilled the Mosaic sacrifices for ritual purification for himself. Naaman was concerned that he would be guilty of sin for what he did. Paul had no cause for concern, because the Mosaic Law still applied to Kingdom believers. Just as the Noahide Law still applied to Gentile proselytes in Acts 15.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    But He did command the believing Israelites to follow Moses, and He never repealed that command. I’ve looked. It’s not there, anywhere in Scripture.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    God told Peter to go to Cornelius' house.

    (Acts 10:28) He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
    There’s a better example in Matthew 8, well before Christ’s death. Jesus not only heals a leper, but He touches him (Mt. 8:1-4), and later, He offers to come to the house of a gentile in order to heal his servant (Mt. 8:5-13). So one of three things must be true: (1) The Mosaic Law was repealed prior to the events of Matthew 8, which is absurd; (2) Jesus sinned against the Mosaic Law, which is equally absurd; or (3) the Mosaic Law concerning gentiles was not rightly applied by those who sat in Moses’ seat, the pharisees, who went beyond recognizing the dispensational distinctions between Israel and the nations, and instead saw it as an opportunity to shun gentiles entirely.

    Peter had a deep-seated prejudice that God had to specially address. It was not the Mosaic Law that was being repealed or mitigated in Acts 10, but rather Peter’s prejudices against gentiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Moreover, Christ Himself reaffirmed the keeping of the Mosaic Law after the cross (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3, 23:23). It seems most noteworthy, in my opinion, that one of the most important things in the life of a believing Israelite -- the Law of Moses -- could be presumably altered, yet without a single word to that effect by Christ or anyone else in Scripture.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    See above
    As we saw above, your proof-text does not prove your case. Again, think about it. You’re saying that one of the most important components of the Hebrew scriptures, namely, the Law of Moses, was actually repealed without any explicit statement to that effect. So far, the best you’ve given me is a passage out of Acts that neither states, nor proves, nor supports this claim. It is quite remarkable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Where do you get the notion that being “in Christ” is reserved for members of the Body? Anyone who is regenerated, whether Kingdom believer or Body of Christ member is “in Christ.” Everyone “in Christ” (i.e., regenerated) prior to Paul conversion was a Kingdom believer.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Paul says there were others "In Christ" before he was.

    Paul also tells us what it means to be "In Christ":

    (2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    Does the above sound like a description for a "kingdom" believer?

    Answer: NO
    You’re really reaching here, Tetelestai. Christ Himself described believers as being “in Him.”

    John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

    John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

    John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. … 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

    Why are you insisting on a distinction that I do not espouse and one that doesn’t even fit your own position?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You want us to believe that Paul would throw around the term "In Christ" sometimes to the BOC and sometimes to the "kingdom" believers.
    Of course. Just as Paul “throws around” a lot of other terms that are not dispensationally exclusive (like “salvation” and “kingdom” and “obey”).

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Since Paul makes it clear that other believers were "In Christ" before he was, and tells us what it means to be "in Christ", it is just one of the many huge problems for MAD.
    I just proved to you that it wasn’t. You seem desperate to insist that this is some chink in the Mid-Acts armor. For that to be the case, you have to prove to me something that you do not even agree with, that “in Christ” refers only to the Body of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetelestai, previously
    Where in the OT is there a prophecy about "angelic empowerment"?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Joel 2:28-32.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    C'mon James. This is prophecy about the Holy Spirit, not angels.
    Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, God’s describes His spirit, and even His own presence in various cases, when He is actually referring to the angelic host. God’s “foot,” for example, is actually the angelic host, the cloud of glory, the Shekinah, which was a cloud of angels, a manifestation of God's presence, and Israel understood this. We are told that God’s word, prior to the Body of Christ, was given through the mediation of angels (which would include the giving of the law to Moses). See Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, The affirmation of this is found in the events and descriptions in Acts 2 that refer back to Joel’s prophecy. The Spirit of God was manifested via the empowerment of angels, evidenced by the supernatural flames that sat upon the believers (see Hebrews 1:7).

    Quote Originally Posted by hilston, previously
    Not the command in Mt. 28:19,20, which is what I’m describing and which included the Law of Moses (everything whatsoever I have commanded you) in Jesus’ commission to the apostles.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Jesus didn't teach them the Mosaic Law, they already knew it before He came.
    Oh brother. Really? Is this how you want to play? Ok. Jesus didn’t teach them the Mosaic Law. Now, getting back to the original point: Jesus’ sacrifice did not abnegate everything He affirmed about the Law prior to His death. If that’s your claim, let’s see the proof.

    I’m wondering what you’ll pick on next in order to avoid answering the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by hilston, previously
    If I grant that James’ citation of Joel affirms the establishment of David’s tabernacle, that does not preclude the existence of a distinct Body of Christ and the Mystery. It only means that Christ’s establishment of the Kingdom coexisted with Christ’s establishment of the Body of Christ.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Because the existence of David's tabernacle explains the apparent contradictions that occurred between 30AD - 70AD, and shows that MAD is not the answer to the "apparent contradictions"
    Do I understand you correctly? The existence of David’s tabernacle means that the Mosaic Law was repealed? Is that your argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by hilston, previously
    Why the condescension? I’m trying to have a respectful and clear discussion with you, and you’ve chosen to pepper your comments with ridicule and derision. If you want to go down that path, I’m happy to oblige you. But you might first want to have a look at what’s happened to others who have previously walked through that gate.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Because sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people claim there are going to be animal sacrifices in the future.

    I know you sincerely believe this, it's just hard for me to imagine how people can believe it.
    Why is it so difficult and emotional for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by hilston, previously
    Sure; “In that day” (yet future) is the operative phrase. James was describing the partial fulfillment of Amos 9 at the time of the Acts.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    "Partial fulfillment"?

    How can a prophecy be "partially fulfilled"?
    Let’s say we have a prophecy. It contains parts A, B and C. Part A is fulfilled, but parts B and C are not, and remain to be fulfilled at some later time.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    I asked when David's tent is going to be restored?
    In the Millennium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Are you saying that Ezekiel’s temple must be identical to David’s tabernacle in order for Ezekiel’s prophecy to be a literal temple in the Millennium? Why? Please cite the source of this principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    My point is that Ezekiel's temple and David's tent are two very different things.
    My view is that David’s tabernacle is a synecdoche for Israel’s earthly kingdom and rule over the nations. It’s similar to referring to David’s “crown” or David’s “sceptre.” It refers to the rule of Christ in the Millennial Kingdom.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Yet, dispensationalism conflates the two, and claims that both will exist in the future, all the while not realizing how different the two are.
    It isn’t a conflation. Ezekiel’s temple is described in meticulous detail. It is the physical temple. David’s tabernacle refers to the theocratic rule of Israel over the nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
    Again, are you saying that the furnishings must be identical in order for Ezekiel’s temple to be yet future? Again, I’d like to see your sources for this thesis.
    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Dispensationalists use OT passages to justify their theory of a future temple with animal sacrifices. Ezekiel 40-48 is used by most dispies to justify the future temple and future animal sacrifices.
    Agreed. Especially with the word “justify.” The mid-Acts view is justified on the basis of those prophecies.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Again, my point is the stark contrast between David's tent and Ezekiel's temple. … Again, since dispies claim that David's tent is yet future, and that Ezekiel's temple is yet future, how do you explain the contrast of the tent and the temple? … Before, during, or after your third temple? … Again, if Ezekiel's temple is an earthly temple as you claim, then when and where is David's tent restored? … Again, before, during, or after Ezekiel's temple.
    Ezekiel’s temple refers to the physical millennial temple, and David’s Tabernacle is a synecdoche that refers to Christ’s future earthly Kingdom. It’s like the difference between the White House and the Obama Administration. One refers to the physical location and edifice; the other refers to the administrative office. Of course “the White House” can also be used as a synecdoche, as journalists often do, as anything really can. That’s the utility of the figure, and why context is so important.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    Think about what you are saying James.

    You want us to believe that while Ezekiel and the Jews were captive in Babylon, that Ezekiel would prophecy about a rebuilt temple, but not about the rebuilt temple the Jews built when they left Babylon and actually rebuilt the temple.
    Right. Lots of prophecies are that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    And, not once in any Jewish writings from 516BC to 70AD (almost 600 years), is there any mention of this third temple someday being built.
    Why should this be a problem for my view?

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    The animal sacrifices only took place until Christ made the one time sacrifice.
    This is the second time (at least) that you’ve claimed this, and you’ve yet to refute to proofs I’ve offered. Nowhere in Scriptures anywhere is the command to abrogate the blood offerings of Mosaic Law. In fact, we see the lawful and proper continuation of sacrifices after the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah:

    In Acts 3:1, Peter and John go to the temple at the ninth hour, which is the hour of the daily sacrifice.

    In Acts 21:6, Paul lawfully and properly attended the ritual cleansing of some men, purifying himself in the process. Blood sacrifices were part of this process.

    Acts 24:18 recounts this episode as well.

    Ezekiel's prophecy underscores the future millennial kingdom and the blood sacrifices that will be offered therein. It is most noteworthy that Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Ezekiel, an undoubtedly anti-dispensational work, begrudgingly affirms the literal language and context of Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the blood sacrifices.

    The claim that the prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 never happened as a result of the disobedience of Jews that returned to Jerusalem is an untenable assumption, nowhere found in Scripture. If there were any merit to this claim, certainly Keil and Delitzsch would have seized upon it. However, to their credit, they flatly admitted that
    "... we cannot find any conclusive argument against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation of the vision in question [in Ezekiel xl-xlviii]"(Keil and Delitzsch, Vol. IX, p.388 {emphases added})"

    Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
    You can't say the animal sacrifices are for reconciliation and at the same time say they are for "memorial" purposes.
    Why not?

    Hilston
    Last edited by Hilston; March 21st, 2012 at 11:30 PM. Reason: Clarified comments regarding law being put on hold. (See italics in the third paragraph above).

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Hilston For Your Post:

    musterion (May 22nd, 2016)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us