ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

The new covenant was initiated the instant Jesus died of the cross. . . . "It is finished"!

I you sure it wasn't initiated two chapters earlier then????

John 17:4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.​

You guys really need to dig a little deeper and to start insisting that theological arguments meet a little higher standard than the one you currently permit your minds to be persuaded by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Historically it is a well documented fact that John lived until the end of the First Century and that his letters were written in the last decade of his life. This was long after the deaths of Paul Peter and all the other Apostles. By then, John had moved to Ephesus and was a leader of the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor which Paul had planted some 40 years before. On what basis do you relegate John's writings to the "Law" or to some "Jewish Gospel?" Internal and external evidence is against you.

This entire thread has been about the evidence I base it on, including the post you were responding to when you wrote this.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I you sure it wasn't initiated two chapters earlier then????

John 17:4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.​

You guys really need to dig a little deeper and to start insisting that theological arguments meet a little higher standard than the one you currently permit your minds to be persuaded by.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jesus was the mediator, God cut the covenant.



Isaiah 53:10 KJV


10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief : when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

 

[Clete]

I think this is the root of my hang up, and a key to our misunderstanding so I wanted to address it again. In you last post you didn't understand my question so here it is with your response.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

By what covenant did they receive the forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit?



I can't agree with this and I believe it's fundamental to understand.

Acts 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Paul makes it clear that it's through Christ we receive the forgiveness of sins which was not possible through the law of Moses.

Christ's death was all entirely part of the same covenant. You are taking this passage past what it is saying. First of all there was provision for the forgiveness of sins in the Law of Moses. (Leviticus chapter 4,5 & 19; Numbers chapter 15; Psalms 32; and Jesus forgave sin all over the place prior to the cross).
All forgiveness is through Christ, no matter what dispensation you're talking about. Before the first century God looked forward to the cross and now He looks back to it. This would be the case with or without the Body of Christ (i.e. the Dispensation of Grace). Thus it has never been your works that save you, its has ALWAYS been the blood of propitiation, the blood of animals only being a symbol and shadow of that which was to come, namely Jesus, God's only perfect lamb. Everything in the whole Old Testament was about Christ. From the clothing God fashioned for Adam to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac to Moses striking the rock (the first time) to etc, etc, etc.

There's plenty more that could be said here. For instance, John the Baptist baptized people "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) but if that isn't enough to refute your position here I'm not sure what could.

Anytime God establishes a covenant with man there must be a death or blood based on what I understand from this passage.

Heb. 9:16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.


Jesus sacrifice isn't part of the old law or an addendum to the old law but replaces the old law.

Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

Of course! No one is suggesting that where no changes for Kingdom believers. The law clearly changed because now, after Calvary, all of the sacrificial rituals and related aspects of the law had been fulfilled and thus no longer had any effect. This is a major theme in the book of Hebrews, which was written to the Hebrews by the way.

The Body of Christ does not have any need for a priest at all, in the order of Melchizedek or any other, for we are IN CHRIST Himself! Does Christ need a priest? No! We are His body, we have been hidden in Him. We were crucified in Him and it is no longer we who live! (Gal. 2:20) Does a dead man need a priest? Certainly not!

Yes, these events happened on Jewish feast days but that was to help them understand things concerning Christ.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

What, NO! it wasn't to help them understand anything. It HAD to happen on those days because that's what those does had always been about! The Feasts would never have been established in the first place had God not intended them to foreshadow Calvary. That was their primary purpose. Even down to details like the sacrificial lamb must not have any blemishes or broken bones was fulfilled by Jesus on the exact day of the feast. There can be no denying that Calvary was a direct fulfillment of dozens and dozens of both direct and indirect prophecies that were part and parcel of the law!

Those on Pentecost received forgiveness of sins through Christ and the new covenant not the old. The sacrifice of Christ is the beginning of a dispensation. Pentecost is the first time in the history of man that he heard his sin could be forgiven.

Luke 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Note what your cited passage says, "Thus it is written...".

Written where? (In the law!)

The fact that it (Calvary and Pentecost) happened according to Old Testament prophecies is direct evidence that it is not a new dispensation but merely the continuation of one. Nothing was new here except that now instead of looking forward to the sacrifice of God's Son, they looked back. That's really the only difference. Everything else was entirely centered on Israel and their Kingdom. The plan, as I stated before, was for God to send Jesus back and for Israel to get their kingdom and for the whole world to be evangelized through Israel. (There is strong evidence that God had plans for a Body of Christ even with Israel still around but that's a topic for another thread.)

Note that Paul's message was not prophesied...

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I see a troll is in the thread who pretends like he doesn't know of the 12 apostles to rule over the 12 tribes. Moving on....

John 17:20 KJV


20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Clete,

If nothing changed then why this--

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God; Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.


Have you entered.

LA

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Christ's death was all entirely part of the same covenant. You are taking this passage past what it is saying. First of all there was provision for the forgiveness of sins in the Law of Moses. (Leviticus chapter 4,5 & 19; Numbers chapter 15; Psalms 32; and Jesus forgave sin all over the place prior to the cross).
All forgiveness is through Christ, no matter what dispensation you're talking about. Before the fist century God looked forward to the cross and now He looks back to it. This would be the case with or without the Body of Christ (i.e. the Dispensation of Grace). what could be. Thus it has never been your works that save you, its has ALWAYS been the blood of propitiation, the blood of animals only being a symbol and shadow of that which was to come, namely Jesus, God's only perfect lamb. Everything in the whole Old Testament was about Christ. From the clothing God fashioned for Adam to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac to Moses striking the rock (the first time) to etc, etc, etc.

There's plenty more that could be said here. For instance, John the Baptist baptized people "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) but if that isn't enough to refute your position here I'm not sure what could.


Of course! No one is suggesting that where no changes for Kingdom believers. The law clearly changed because now, after Calvary, all of the sacrificial rituals and related aspects of the law had been fulfilled and thus no longer had any effect. This is a major theme in the book of Hebrews, which was written to the Hebrews by the way.

The Body of Christ does not have any need for a priest at all, in the order of Melchizedek or any other, for we are IN CHRIST Himself! Does Christ need a priest? No! We are His body, we have been hidden in Him. We were crucified in Him and it is no longer we who live! (Gal. 2:20) Does a dead man need a priest? Certainly not!



What, NO! it wasn't to help them understand anything. It HAD to happen on those days because that's what those does had always been about! The Feasts would never have been established in the first place had God not intended them to foreshadow Calvary. That was their primary purpose. Even down to details like the sacrificial lamb must not have any blemishes or broken bones was fulfilled by Jesus on the exact day of the feast. There can be no denying that Calvary was a direct fulfillment of dozens and dozens of both direct and indirect prophecies that were part and parcel of the law!


Note what your cited passage says, "Thus it is written...".

Written where? (In the law!)

The fact that it (Calvary and Pentecost) happened according to Old Testament prophecies is direct evidence that it is not a new dispensation but merely the continuation of one. Nothing was new here except that now instead of looking forward to the sacrifice of God's Son, they looked back. That's really the only difference. Everything else was entirely centered on Israel and their Kingdom. The plan, as I stated before, was for God to send Jesus back and for Israel to get their kingdom and for the whole world to be evangelized through Israel. (There is strong evidence that God had plans for a Body of Christ even with Israel still around but that's a topic for another thread.)

Note that Paul's message was not prophesied...

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

The beauty of being on ignore is that it exposes ignorant babbling for what it is.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Clete,

If nothing changed then why this--

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God; Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.


Have you entered.

LA

They can't get past the flesh. (veil)

 

[turbosixx]

Thanks for the reply. We're in agreement on some things.

Christ's death was all entirely part of the same covenant. You are taking this passage past what it is saying. First of all there was provision for the forgiveness of sins in the Law of Moses. (Leviticus chapter 4,5 & 19; Numbers chapter 15; Psalms 32; and Jesus forgave sin all over the place prior to the cross).

As you say in the quote below, all forgiveness is through Christ. When the law said “forgiveness of sins” it was looking forward to Christ but the law itself had no provision for forgiveness of sins.
Heb.10: 1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

I think good evidence for that fact is people believed in Jesus before his sacrifice but how many does the bible say had their sins forgiven or were saved? We see thousands after.

Yes, Jesus forgave sins before his sacrifice but he had that authority.
Mark 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-He said to the paralytic

All forgiveness is through Christ, no matter what dispensation you're talking about. Before the fist century God looked forward to the cross and now He looks back to it. This would be the case with or without the Body of Christ (i.e. the Dispensation of Grace). what could be. Thus it has never been your works that save you, its has ALWAYS been the blood of propitiation, the blood of animals only being a symbol and shadow of that which was to come, namely Jesus, God's only perfect lamb. Everything in the whole Old Testament was about Christ. From the clothing God fashioned for Adam to Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac to Moses striking the rock (the first time) to etc, etc, etc.

Agreed

There's plenty more that could be said here. For instance, John the Baptist baptized people "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4) but if that isn't enough to refute your position here I'm not sure what could.

I disagree. It was for repentance, not forgiveness and it wasn’t in the name of Jesus.
Acts 19:4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

What, NO! it wasn't to help them understand anything. It HAD to happen on those days because that's what those does had always been about! The Feasts would never have been established in the first place had God not intended them to foreshadow Calvary. That was their primary purpose. Even down to details like the sacrificial lamb must not have any blemishes or broken bones was fulfilled by Jesus on the exact day of the feast. There can be no denying that Calvary was a direct fulfillment of dozens and dozens of both direct and indirect prophecies that were part and parcel of the law!

I agree.


I separated the last part because I wanted to focus on it by itself.

 

[Shasta]

John wrote Revelation while Paul was in Arabia, before Paul and Barnabas established any church.

The consensus of the evidence both internal and external is against this hypothesis. To begin with there is internal evidence.

John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 1:9)

1. Patmos is an island in the Mediterranean” off the West coast of Asia Minor. When Paul was in Arabia John and the Apostles had still not broken out of the borders of Israel to take the gospel to the nations. They were still trying to reach the Jews in the Land. Paul is the one that initiated the mission to the Gentiles

2. Also, John says he was exiled because of persecution. There were a three persecutions in the First Century. The first was instigated by the Jewish leaders and political authorities (such as Pilot and Herod) but these were localized to the land of Israel. Persecution on a broader scale did not begin until Nero

3. However, banishment was not an Imperial policy until the reign of Domitian and his persecution of Christians did not begin until 81 A.D. The island of Patmos was a favorite spot to banish people during that time period.

5. Even if John had been exiled at the very beginning of the persecution, The Revelation could not have been written before 98 AD long after the demise of the Apostle Paul in 68 A.D under Nero. Paul's trip to Arabia recorded by Paul himself took place towards the beginning of his ministry before the Churches of Asia Minor were evangelized.

 

[turbosixx]

Note what your cited passage says, "Thus it is written...".

Written where? (In the law!)

The fact that it (Calvary and Pentecost) happened according to Old Testament prophecies is direct evidence that it is not a new dispensation but merely the continuation of one.

I don't see how it happened as the OT prophesied makes it a continuation. If that’s the case then Paul is preaching a continuation as well because he uses them to prove the kingdom and Christ.
Acts 28:23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

I haven’t heard a good response to why Paul would be preaching the kingdom at all.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The consensus of the evidence both internal and external is against this hypothesis. To begin with there is internal evidence.

John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 1:9)

1. Patmos is an island in the Mediterranean” off the West coast of Asia Minor. When Paul was in Arabia John and the Apostles had still not broken out of the borders of Israel to take the gospel to the nations. They were still trying to reach the Jews in the Land. Paul is the one that initiated the mission to the Gentiles

John was given a command that he would yet prophecy to many peoples and kings.

Which also speaks of an earlier writing, as this command would not have been issued to a man over 100 years old.

2. Also, John says he was exiled because of persecution. There were a three persecutions in the First Century. The first was instigated by the Jewish leaders and political authorities (such as Pilot and Herod) but these were localized to the land of Israel. Persecution on a broader scale did not begin until Nero

Yes, Herod stretched forth his hand to vex the church.

He killed John's brother James.

When he saw that pleased the Jews he sought to take and kill Peter also.

He could not please the Jews by killing John.

It would have been taboo to cutoff Zebedee's name.

So John was most likely banished at this time to Patmos.

I find it interesting that even Satan in his urantia book knew the importance to his cause to fabricate a third younger brother for James and John.:think:

3. However, banishment was not an Imperial policy until the reign of Domitian and his persecution of Christians did not begin until 81 A.D. The island of Patmos was a favorite spot to banish people during that time period.

This is totally false.

The isle of Patmos was established as a prison isle of Rome over 100 years before Jesus was born.

Banishment instead of death was not a later concept.

Caligula banished Herod Antipas.

5. Even if John had been exiled at the very beginning of the persecution, The Revelation could not have been written before 98 AD long after the demise of the Apostle Paul in 68 A.D under Nero. Paul's trip to Arabia recorded by Paul himself took place towards the beginning of his ministry before the Churches of Asia Minor were evangelized.

Actually we cannot prove when the churches of Asia were evangelized.

I would say upon the persecution by Paul when the church was scattered.

It was Paul's custom to go where the Gospel had not been preached.

He was not allowed to go there at first.:think:

 

[Nick M]

They reject what the Bible clearly says. Shake the dust from your sandals.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

They reject what the Bible clearly says. Shake the dust from your sandals.

Already did, I'm going from memory when I refuted in that thread over a year ago.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

John was given a command that he would yet prophecy to many peoples and kings.

Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Rev 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

It is speaking of the prophets at the end of the age before the nations are judged.

as also were the nations under the Romans at the first after the Christians shed a lot of blood.



Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Rev 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
Rev 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Rev 11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

LA

 

[Interplanner]

I don't see how because it happened as the OT prophesied makes it a continuation. If that’s the case then Paul is preaching a continuation as well because he uses them to prove the kingdom and Christ.
Acts 28:23 When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening.

I haven’t heard a good response to why Paul would be preaching the kingdom at all.

??? It came in Christ. It is the power of the Gospel. It compels people to do right in a way that the Law cannot. It means the 'reign' and Paul even wanted civic leaders to subsume to it, Acts 26.

 

[Shasta]

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

1+1=2

Do you think the translators of the KJB intended to convey the idea of two gospels in this verse?

 

[Shasta]

No, there is no reason for it that late. It was written during the Jewish revolt so that the Jewish Christians would realize what was going on and that the 'harlot' was to be 'stoned' and that there would be a new wedding.

Notice that it does not mention the destruction of the temple.

Patrick is correct about this. The temple was a non-issue because it had been destroyed long before.

 

[Shasta]

This entire thread has been about the evidence I base it on, including the post you were responding to when you wrote this.

I see where you have tried to make Paul's and John's gospels seem different. If that is your evidence then I find it unconvincing. I presented you with external historical evidence as to why MAD cannot be right about the writings of John. I have pointed out that he could not have been writing a "Jewish Gospel" to Jews when he was writing to Gentile believers who had been a part of the Churches Paul started in Asia Minor. As for internal evidence, none of John's writings are addressed to Jews. In fact, his writings are every bit as general and universal as anything Paul wrote. Paul talked far more about the Jews and Judaism than John but it was a different time. The Gentiles not the Jews were then the majority in the Church.

The issues addressed in John's letters are not "Jewish." For instance, John says nothing about the the practices of the law or of the dangers of the Judaizers. His epistles were written to combat Gnosticism which had a big following late in the First Century and especially in the Second. You do not see Paul addressing Gnostic beliefs because it had not yet gained power in the Church.

Your reasoning is faulty because you first assume that the two Apostle's taught fundamentally different doctrines and then you use their different terminology and manner of expression as evidence of it. This is circular reasoning. The differences in their writings can be easily understood as emanating from their different styles, vocabulary and backgrounds. John had grown up as a Jew in the Land. Paul had grown up in the diaspora among Hellenistic Jews. While Paul was educated, John was educated. Whereas Paul used terms from Roman law such as "justify" (dikaioo) Jesus and John used the simpler word "forgiveness" (aphesis). In essence though, when one is "forgiven" they are cleansed, pardoned and become therefore righteous as if they had never sinned. John puts the idea of forgiveness, cleansing and being made righteous together in 1 John 1:9. Because Jesus did not tend to use the word "grace" are we to assume He did not teach it? John said Jesus was full of grace and truth. Grace came out of everything He said and did. Jesus and John, instead of grace used the word "love."

Like others you apparently believe Paul taught a "free grace" that is really antinomianism. However, although some taught that in Paul's Churches, when John addressed the idea had come from outside Christianity from the Gnostics. The Early Church Fathers rejected the whole idea of antinomianism as Gnostic and anti-Christian. From the First Century on they taught that salvation was conditional not unconditional. Unfortunately I think many people who believe MAD mistakenly think Paul taught antinominanism as well when he did not.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

They can't get past the flesh. (veil)

MADists here do not enter the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus.

LA