Theology Club: The Actual Origin of Mid-Acts

[Totton Linnet]

The reference is to the "nation" of Israel previously being the Lord's special people. That generation of Jews as a "nation" fell from their previous position of a people above all people on the face of the earth but yet "individual" Jews could still be saved.

That won't do...Saul was a rejector he was not passive in the matter of Stephen's martyrdom, so if that were the unpardonable sin then Saul could not have been pardoned.

...how could the slaying of Stephen be more heinious than the slaying of the Prince of glory.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi and I believe you are mis-understanding , what will happen at the DEPARTUTE /what others call thre RAPTURE , and that is when there will not be MALE nor FEMALE , think a little BIT MORE Jerry !!

In case you forgot the subject was not in regard to the future at the rapture. After all, Paul does not use the "future" tense when he writes that there is no bond nor free in the Body of Christ but instead the "present" tense.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).​

All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That won't do...Saul was a rejector he was not passive in the matter of Stephen's martyrdom, so if that were the unpardonable sin then Saul could not have been pardoned.

...how could the slaying of Stephen be more heinious than the slaying of the Prince of glory.

To "consent" to something is not the same as actively participating in that same thing.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Sure it is


He held their coats so that they could better lob their stones.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sure it is

He held their coats so that they could better lob their stones.

Where in the Bible do we read that?

 

[DAN P]

In case you forgot the subject was not in regard to the future at the rapture. After all, Paul does not use the "future" tense when he writes that there is no bond nor free in the Body of Christ but instead the "present" tense.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal3:28).​

All Paul is saying is that "in Christ" all believers are on the same level, no longer some being free men and some being their bond servants.

Hi and there are just 4 verbs in Gal 3:28 and all are in the Greek PRESENT TENSE so we agree on that but can not agree that there is a there is a Greek for RAPTURE as it is a Latin word !!

When the Lord comes for as recorded in 2 Thess 2:1 the Greek word for " COMING /is PAROUIA and in 2 Thess 2:3 is DEPARTURE / APOSTASIA !!

At the DEPARTURE /PAROUIA there are no MALES nor FEMALES as Gal 3:28 is written !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Darby:

"Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they" (Darby, The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations).

Jerry, good to see you back in action!

A thought...

Darby's words "And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all" appear to imply that Peter's Acts 10 vision, etc., had been because Peter had been in error.

If so, Darby's is Classic Acts 2 Dispensational Thought there.

Per Matthew 23 and Matthew 28, etc., Peter was following THEIR Christ given marching orders in Acts 10.

It appears Darby was reading Mystery into Prophecy.

Peter was off in the latter part of Galatians 2 (re: his behavior at Antioch).

At the same time, also per a Galatians 2, he was not off-base in Acts 10, he had in fact been following his "Apostleship of the circumcision" in Acts 10, just as he had been instructed to.

Anyway, again; glad to see you pulled through!