ECT MAD has no clue what "dispensation " means in scripture ! NONE

[whitestone]

The post Tam. resurrected,I forget his name,the one where he bailed. It was the subject about ministering angels vrs. who and how things work now that he choked on.

 

[Danoh]

Regarding your post in the Spoiler below, other than Proselytes; uncircumsized Gentiles like Cornelius, were not considered "nigh unto God" by Him until that point in Acts after God concluded the Nation Israel (including Paul himself) "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles, in Acts 7.

As with the Syrophenician women in Mark 7, Gentiles who had not converted to Judaism were not considered as one born of Israel, or "children."

Thus, they were considered not "nigh unto God" by Him and had to either acknowledge that God was with Israel and or bless that nation (see also, Luke 7) to receive any blessing from Him.

And only after the Nation Israel was concluded "uncircumcision" with the Gentiles, did God do away with the Circumcision / Uncircumcision Distinction that had symbolized who was and who was not considered "nigh unto God" by Him.

See also, the Lord's reminder of this conclusion and change after that, to Peter through Paul in Gal. 2; and the Lord's words to the Ephesians on this through Paul in Ephesians 2; all of which is in light of the Lord's words through Paul in Romans 1:18-3:31.

Spoiler

He did.

Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Act 2:25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
Act 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

LA

 

[whitestone]

Danoh, I don't read watch tower for a reason just like I do not study men who I know are not scriptural on their findings that they cannot support from scripture.

Do I need to read books on the occult to know they are wrong ? Nope.

So in post #218 is there enough scriptural evidence to support who exactly is confused and trying to figure out this grace thing and who was not?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Regarding your post in the Spoiler below, other than Proselytes; uncircumsized Gentiles like Cornelius, were not considered "nigh unto God" by Him until that point in Acts after God concluded the Nation Israel (including Paul himself) "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles, in Acts 7.

As with the Syrophenician women in Mark 7, Gentiles who had not converted to Judaism were not considered as one born of Israel, or "children."

Thus, they were considered not "nigh unto God" by Him and had to either acknowledge that God was with Israel and or bless that nation (see also, Luke 7) to receive any blessing from Him.

And only after the Nation Israel was concluded "uncircumcision" with the Gentiles, did God do away with the Circumcision / Uncircumcision Distinction that had symbolized who was and who was not considered "nigh unto God" by Him.

See also, the Lord's reminder of this conclusion and change after that, to Peter through Paul in Gal. 2; and the Lord's words to the Ephesians on this through Paul in Ephesians 2; all of which is in light of the Lord's words through Paul in Romans 1:18-3:31.

Spoiler

Christ's death concluded all being under sin.

not some time later than that.

LA

 

[Danoh]

Lazy Afternoon; regarding your post in the Spoiler below, other than Proselytes; uncircumsized Gentiles like Cornelius, were not considered "nigh unto God" by Him until that point in Acts after God concluded the Nation Israel (including Paul himself) "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles, in Acts 7.

As with the Syrophenician women in Mark 7, Gentiles who had not converted to Judaism were not considered as one born of Israel, or "children."

Thus "uncircumcised" Gentiles (who had not converted to Judaism; see Acts 11) were considered not "nigh unto God" by God (Eph. 2) and had to either acknowledge that God was with Israel; that Israel was favored above all the nations of the Earth by Him, and or bless Israel to receive any blessing from Him (see also, Luke 7).

And only after the Nation Israel was concluded "uncircumcision" with the Gentiles, did God do away with the Circumcision / Uncircumcision Distinction that had symbolized who was and who was not considered "nigh unto God" by Him.

See also, the Lord's reminder of this conclusion and change after that, to Peter through Paul in Gal. 2; and the Lord's words to the Ephesians on this through Paul in Ephesians 2; all of which is in light of the Lord's words through Paul in Romans 1:18-3:31.

Spoiler

 

[Danoh]

Christ's death concluded all being under sin.

not some time later than that.

LA

I knew you would misunderstand my use of that "under sin" phrase.

Fact is, God was still dealing with Israel as a Nation and towards their promise, until the Acts 7.

It was only after that that they were concluded "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles - after - the Law proved they were, at the end of Acts 7, per the end of Romans 2.

I'm talking about Israel's national status before God.

You are confusing that with their individual condition.

After Acts 7, their national status before God was that of just another "uncircumcision" nation.

Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17

 

[musterion]

I knew you would misunderstand my use of that "under sin" phrase.

Fact is, God was still dealing with Israel as a Nation and towards their promise, until the Acts 7.

It was only after that that they were concluded "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles - after - the Law proved they were, at the end of Acts 7, per the end of Romans 2.

I'm talking about Israel's national status before God.

You are confusing that with their individual condition.

After Acts 7, their national status before God was that of just another "uncircumcision" nation.

Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17

Back to Babel, in a sense.

 

[tetelestai]

the fact is that a Dispensation is not a period of time.

More denial from a Darby Follower.

You Darby Followers have the future time periods (Dispensations) already laid out for everyone.

You guys have the current time period ending with the rapture, then you have the next time period (The Great Trib) taking place, then you have the next time period (The millennial reign) taking place.

Moreover, you guys refer to the current time period as "the age of grace", "the church age", "the dispensation of grace", etc.

Quit pretending that you don't see dispensations as time periods.

 

[tetelestai]

After Acts 7, their national status before God was that of just another "uncircumcision" nation.

Once again, you prove how clueless you really are.

Prior to Acts 7, Israel hadn't been a nation for hundreds of years.

 

[dodge]

So in post #218 is there enough scriptural evidence to support who exactly is confused and trying to figure out this grace thing and who was not?

Seems everyone in MAD has forgotten that the OT prophets prophesied about the D.B.R. and the grace it would bring.Jesus reminded those when it was recorded in the Gospels when He said, "the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ". Seems MAD is late to understanding when GRACE started.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I knew you would misunderstand my use of that "under sin" phrase.

Fact is, God was still dealing with Israel as a Nation and towards their promise, until the Acts 7.

It was only after that that they were concluded "uncircumcision" or "under sin" with the Gentiles - after - the Law proved they were, at the end of Acts 7, per the end of Romans 2.

I'm talking about Israel's national status before God.

You are confusing that with their individual condition.

After Acts 7, their national status before God was that of just another "uncircumcision" nation.

Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17

All untrue.

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Mat 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

[whitestone]

Seems everyone in MAD has forgotten that the OT prophets prophesied about the D.B.R. and the grace it would bring.Jesus reminded those when it was recorded in the Gospels when He said, "the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ". Seems MAD is late to understanding when GRACE started.

well I don’t see your reasoning for holding such animosity toward M.A.D. but especially across the last few months I have noticed you begin one thread after another attempting to damage them in one way or another. Anyway I have been laid up so to speak with medical problems(seems all good now) and so for the most part I could do nothing more than just sit and read along.

I notice that you are quoting the scripture that you began with in your O.P.(John 1:17 KJV). I noticed that along the way some began to use it as if it were an type of proof that John had written this long before Paul so I pointed out that the gospel of John was not written until well after most of the other books in the bible.

Maybe it would be best if you don’t consider me M.A.D. for a minute. Just imagine in your mind that along the way I followed along with the things you wrote and I'm questioning just how I would explain away the six scriptures that are in post #218.

Lets begin with Acts 15:6 KJV , now a dispute arose in Acts 15:1 KJV over what the gentiles should do or not do and it was a bitter argument Acts 15:2 KJV .Bare in mind now from Jesus(ad33 approx.) to this point in scripture (Acts 15) is around 17 years later.

So for 17 years the 12 were teaching "something"(saying it simple) and then 17 years later they gathered together to "consider of this matter" Acts 15:6 KJV and there was much "disputing" Acts 15:7 KJV

Now back to the pretending part, how do you propose that it could be proven with scripture that between ad33 and ad50 the 12 taught something that according to scripture they gathered together 17 years later to consider?

If they this many years later are just now "considering of it" Acts 15:6 KJV then it would seem that they had not considered it across the 17 years prior to this point in time right? And so if they had not considered it for the 17 years prior to this point then it wouldn’t make any sense to think or say that they had been teaching something all across the 17 years right?

And so as in post #218 most all of the believing in Jesus believed that they were to be circumcised and obey the law. So to them it seems that they saw that it was to be maintained that an those who believed were to then to be converted to compliance to the law. But in Acts 15:11 KJV (I find it odd this is overlooked) Peter in his speech says just the opposite in that "they" the Jews were saved by grace even as "they" referring to the gentiles. Isn’t it odd that he didn’t say they(the gentiles) would be saved like the Jews but instead the other way around?

Now before this the issue was the opposite any who believed then followed the law. Any way though I don’t consider them to have been teaching something across those 17 years when the scriptures state that they met to consider it in about ad50. Maybe you could explain how they would have taught something that they reasoned out in ad50 prior to them understanding it themselves.

 

[Interplanner]

WhiteS wrote:
So for 17 years the 12 were teaching "something"(saying it simple) and then 17 years later they gathered together to "consider of this matter" Acts 15:6 KJV and there was much "disputing" Acts 15:7 KJV




But we know what was going on and it wasn't the 12. A sect of Pharisee-raised people who were now believers were trying to fuse the two. It was disturbing.

This is why D'ism and MAD are so insane. They spend all kinds of effort trying to find some other gospel. Well, there was another one IN THE TEXT OF THE NARRATIVE. It was disturbing. It was a load heavier than our fathers could carry. But that's not the one D'ism wants to find. They want to find one that validates a monarchy offer--a real offer, in which the suffering of Christ would never have happened.

Of course this is totally contra Lk 24, but hey, it's in the way of D'ism.

 

[whitestone]

WhiteS wrote:
So for 17 years the 12 were teaching "something"(saying it simple) and then 17 years later they gathered together to "consider of this matter" Acts 15:6 KJV and there was much "disputing" Acts 15:7 KJV




But we know what was going on and it wasn't the 12. A sect of Pharisee-raised people who were now believers were trying to fuse the two. It was disturbing.

This is why D'ism and MAD are so insane. They spend all kinds of effort trying to find some other gospel. Well, there was another one IN THE TEXT OF THE NARRATIVE. It was disturbing. It was a load heavier than our fathers could carry. But that's not the one D'ism wants to find. They want to find one that validates a monarchy offer--a real offer, in which the suffering of Christ would never have happened.

Of course this is totally contra Lk 24, but hey, it's in the way of D'ism.

lol,must have struck a nerve,lol

There are a whole lot more who were wrestling with it than just the sect of Pharisees in post #218 in fact in Galatians 2:13 KJV even Barnabas was carried away in it,but not by Acts 15:2 KJV by then he was standing firm. Which if you notice would place that event between Acts 10,11 and Acts 15.

 

[Interplanner]

lol,must have struck a nerve,lol

There are a whole lot more who were wrestling with it than just the sect of Pharisees in post #218 in fact in Galatians 2:13 KJV even Barnabas was carried away in it,but not by Acts 15:2 KJV by then he was standing firm. Which if you notice would place that event between Acts 10,11 and Acts 15.

OK, you are probably right...but I don't see where my question of D'ism's constant pursuit of some OTHER 2nd gospel was addressed. Like the phantom indications that monarchy was offered to Israel, precluding a suffering Christ, D'ism imagines another gospel (a VALID one) in behind the scenes of early Acts.

And then they know almost nothing of the ones the text/narrative actually battles (Gal 1-3, Acts 15).

 

[whitestone]

OK, you are probably right...but I don't see where my question of D'ism's constant pursuit of some OTHER 2nd gospel was addressed. Like the phantom indications that monarchy was offered to Israel, precluding a suffering Christ, D'ism imagines another gospel (a VALID one) in behind the scenes of early Acts.

And then they know almost nothing of the ones the text/narrative actually battles (Gal 1-3, Acts 15).

In Galatians 2:12 KJV They came "from James" and Peter was "afraid" to be seen intermingling with the gentiles which means James,Peter ect. thought and taught "not to do so".

In Acts 10-11 Peter says "not so Lord" and states he had not done this before that point in time. Barnabas is sent as far as Antioch Acts 11:22 KJV (so Barnabas) is there up to then.

This is what Paul is speaking about when he says he does not frustrate the GRACE of God in Galatians 2:21 KJV

They were not a sect of the Pharisees Paul says who they were Galatians 2:12 KJV

 

[Interplanner]

In Galatians 2:12 KJV They came "from James" and Peter was "afraid" to be seen intermingling with the gentiles which means James,Peter ect. thought and taught "not to do so".

In Acts 10-11 Peter says "not so Lord" and states he had not done this before that point in time. Barnabas is sent as far as Antioch Acts 11:22 KJV (so Barnabas) is there up to then.

This is what Paul is speaking about when he says he does not frustrate the GRACE of God in Galatians 2:21 KJV

They were not a sect of the Pharisees Paul says who they were Galatians 2:12 KJV

So they said the same thing at the same time and were debated at the same time, but they had nothing to do with each other. Actually Gal 2:12+ tells us Peter was affected but only that there were others who were 'from James' and 'the circumcision group' which happens to be what Acts 15:2 uses to identify them, right?

 

[dodge]

well I don’t see your reasoning for holding such animosity toward M.A.D. but especially across the last few months I have noticed you begin one thread after another attempting to damage them in one way or another. Anyway I have been laid up so to speak with medical problems(seems all good now) and so for the most part I could do nothing more than just sit and read along.

I notice that you are quoting the scripture that you began with in your O.P.(John 1:17 KJV). I noticed that along the way some began to use it as if it were an type of proof that John had written this long before Paul so I pointed out that the gospel of John was not written until well after most of the other books in the bible.

Maybe it would be best if you don’t consider me M.A.D. for a minute. Just imagine in your mind that along the way I followed along with the things you wrote and I'm questioning just how I would explain away the six scriptures that are in post #218.

Lets begin with Acts 15:6 KJV , now a dispute arose in Acts 15:1 KJV over what the gentiles should do or not do and it was a bitter argument Acts 15:2 KJV .Bare in mind now from Jesus(ad33 approx.) to this point in scripture (Acts 15) is around 17 years later.

So for 17 years the 12 were teaching "something"(saying it simple) and then 17 years later they gathered together to "consider of this matter" Acts 15:6 KJV and there was much "disputing" Acts 15:7 KJV

Now back to the pretending part, how do you propose that it could be proven with scripture that between ad33 and ad50 the 12 taught something that according to scripture they gathered together 17 years later to consider?

If they this many years later are just now "considering of it" Acts 15:6 KJV then it would seem that they had not considered it across the 17 years prior to this point in time right? And so if they had not considered it for the 17 years prior to this point then it wouldn’t make any sense to think or say that they had been teaching something all across the 17 years right?

And so as in post #218 most all of the believing in Jesus believed that they were to be circumcised and obey the law. So to them it seems that they saw that it was to be maintained that an those who believed were to then to be converted to compliance to the law. But in Acts 15:11 KJV (I find it odd this is overlooked) Peter in his speech says just the opposite in that "they" the Jews were saved by grace even as "they" referring to the gentiles. Isn’t it odd that he didn’t say they(the gentiles) would be saved like the Jews but instead the other way around?

Now before this the issue was the opposite any who believed then followed the law. Any way though I don’t consider them to have been teaching something across those 17 years when the scriptures state that they met to consider it in about ad50. Maybe you could explain how they would have taught something that they reasoned out in ad50 prior to them understanding it themselves.

We use different starting points.

Jhn 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Jesus was sent to a people whose only way in their mind to approach God was the law. Then when the Messiah actually came with a message of "grace" everything they thought they knew and understood was turned upside down. Many accepted the Messiah and many did not. Of course there would be a conflict between the law and the grace that Jesus brought and taught, which debate goes on even today.

Sorry to hear you have been ill. Good to see you are feeling better.

Keep the Son in your eyes.

 

[whitestone]

So they said the same thing at the same time and were debated at the same time, but they had nothing to do with each other. Actually Gal 2:12+ tells us Peter was affected but only that there were others who were 'from James' and 'the circumcision group' which happens to be what Acts 15:2 uses to identify them, right?

I think you meant Acts 15:1 KJV match it up with Acts 11:1 KJV and Galatians 2:12 KJV they are the same event.

 

[Interplanner]

I think you meant Acts 15:1 KJV match it up with Acts 11:1 KJV and Galatians 2:12 KJV they are the same event.

OK, right, but why does D'ism imagine a 2nd VALID gospel and hardly deal with this--which appears to be the one threat of another gospel? Whether you answer it in terms of exact chronological details or of theology does not matter--either will do.