Theology Club: both in one Body by the cross

Status
Not open for further replies.

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Totten, it says "by the Cross" not "at" the Cross.

In other words, the Cross has made possible Paul's preaching among the Gentiles.

And his preaching among the Gentiles did not begin until a point after Israel was concluded having continued in the uncircumcision of their fathers - against all three members of the Godhead now - Acts 4-7; Acts 9; Gal. 1, 1 Thess. 2.

Study out the Gentile assemblies that resulted in the area of Tarsus of Cilicia after Paul headed there in Acts 9.

This is why Barnabas went and brought Paul to Antioch in Acts 11 - because he was already the Apostle of the Gentiles with Gentile assemblies under him before Antioch - and all this was after Acts 7.

You see these assemblies in Acts 15.

None of that was "at" the Cross. Rather "by" it.

Ephesians 2 is Romans 1-3 just as Romans 15 is Ephesians 3.

All of which are AFTER Romans 3:21's " BUT NOW..."

This was made possible "by" the Cross, but did not begin until Romans 3:21's "But now..."

Have it your way. By the cross, not any time after. And the matter was revealed to the apostles and prophets when they gathered to question Peter for fellowshipping with Gentiles.

Paul was brought into by Barnabas to a Jew/Gentile church at Antioch.

I am the first to admit that the Jerusalem crowd were totally inept and incapable of carrying the church forward to the Gentiles.

Paul's call and ministry [dispensation] was vital. But that does not alter the fact we Gentiles are brought into the commonwealth of Israel, made fellow citizens with them, co-heirs of their promises, grafted into their olive tree.

If you lop off the Jews then with who are we fellow citizens with?...it is THEIR commonwealth, who are we co-heirs and partakers with? the promises belong to them, The olive into which we are grafted is theirs.

And this is just what we find for you say these books [containing the promises] are not for us....the Amillennialists say exactly the same, they also lop off the Jews.

The only things that are lopped off are the law of commandments and ordinances...THAT is why Paul is so crucial to us, that is why he is OUR apostle.

It was the separation that was made when Peter withdraw from the Gentiles that got Paul so incensed....but now YOU are separating from Peter, there must be no separation if the gospel is to be preserved IN IT'S FULNESS for us.

....only we are made FULL partakers without having to obey commandments
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Group One:

Acts 13
26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Jews and Gentiles who feared the one true God.



Group Two:

Acts 19
28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Pagan Gentiles.



What separated these two groups during Acts?:


Acts 15
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


Commandments contained in ordinances.




Very simple.

During Acts- Paul was sent to Jews/Gentiles in the promises.
Post Acts- Paul's message is sent even to Gentiles who were outside the promises.


:e4e:
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
During Acts, Paul went to the synagogue and reasoned with Jews and Greeks from the prophets.

He could show the God fearing Gentile that they were in line for a blessing, from the prophets.
He could show the pagan Gentile only that they were due a curse, from the prophets.

Post Acts, Gen 12:1-3 (KJV) is no longer in play, as Israel is cast away. This levels the field for everyone, including the pagan Gentile.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Yep. And that is your perogative until you see otherwise.

And seeing otherwise boils down to one's approach to studying a thing out.

It is obvious to me that you and yours study these things out differently than how I do, for example.

heir speaks her mind only to turn around and easily take offence when others do.

Some of you support this one sided directness nonsense on her part.

Fact is your approach is much like how the 28ers study a thing out.

THIS is why you hold to their being two groups within Paul's ministery.

But instead of remaining open to exploring the soundness of a thing, you ignore doing so, while she, on her part of this, gets irate as her reaction.

In this, you and yours behave towards anyone who does not hold this view of yours much like the cults that GM is always turning around and pointing his own guilty finger at.

So you and yours just go right ahead and get all irate in your duplicity.

Irate is what you guys live for - it is the only time this supposed Mid-Acts forum comes to life - because you have no respect for the rights of others to voice their difference in understanding.

Not one of you supported that video I posted about that young girl who had come to terms with the Mystery.

A child - you couldn't set aside your hypocrisy just for a moment that you might support a child in her new found freedom.

You are hypocrites through and through.

This exact history is in every thread on this forum for any one who is a bit honest to see the fact of.

Drop dead! The movement is better off without your kind.

In all things, charity?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is tolerating error, by showing charity toward those who err, really charity? Do we condone their error by maintaining our presence among them? I dunno...asking.
No, I don't believe one condones error by being charitable to an unbeliever.

The story of the good Samaritan would be an example of one showing charity (love) to another without making religious belief a condition to administer charity.
He saw a person in need, and he gave charity to that person in need without even delving into what religious or political views the stranger may have had.

If a person was lying at my door parched with thirst, I would give him drink whether he was a believer or Satan himself.
And if I drove up on a car wreck, I would offer my help without even asking what their religious or political view was.

Showing charity to an unbeliever does not mean that you condone their unbelief.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
No, I don't believe one condones error by being charitable to an unbeliever.

The story of the good Samaritan would be an example of one showing charity (love) to another without making religious belief a condition to administer charity.
He saw a person in need, and he gave charity to that person in need without even delving into what religious or political views the stranger may have had.

If a person was lying at my door parched with thirst, I would give him drink whether he was a believer or Satan himself.
And if I drove up on a car wreck, I would offer my help without even asking what their religious or political view was.

Showing charity to an unbeliever does not mean that you condone their unbelief.

That's right, very good
 

musterion

Well-known member
No, I don't believe one condones error by being charitable to an unbeliever.

The story of the good Samaritan would be an example of one showing charity (love) to another without making religious belief a condition to administer charity.
He saw a person in need, and he gave charity to that person in need without even delving into what religious or political views the stranger may have had.

If a person was lying at my door parched with thirst, I would give him drink whether he was a believer or Satan himself.
And if I drove up on a car wreck, I would offer my help without even asking what their religious or political view was.

Showing charity to an unbeliever does not mean that you condone their unbelief.


Sorry I wasn't clearer but I was speaking of other believers there. Feel free to chime in on that one too.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
You forget I said that to Jerry as well, may he be well.

I haven't forgotten. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Just means "talk to the hand" "get lost with that" "go try it on someone else."

Well, it must be my problem, then, because "drop dead" sounds like there is some venom in there.

Just means get lost. Besides, if you are right in this mind read of yours would I not be taking your words to me about this personally as well.

I think you ARE taking what I've said personally, but the "attack" you feel from me has only irked you a little.

I never have, and you know I have continued exchanging with you during our own few rough spots.

Good, because I'm only speaking up in the hopes you'll not take these things so personally. I enjoy your posts, for the most part, and have to stop short when this stuff creeps in.

But, if that is what you believe, well; you're still fine by me, so have at it, if that makes you happy. A favorite of mine you remain o set in your ways one.

Please, have the last word on me.

I'm not really that set in my ways, but that little "dig" sorta proves my point, doesn't it? :)



P.S. You're still fine with me, too, Danoh. I can see how frustrating it can be for all involved. When people start discussing the differences between "at" and "by" and what "fellowship" means in a particular verse, there is an "investment" that most people don't have. I'll leave it at that....
 

musterion

Well-known member
I haven't forgotten. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.



Well, it must be my problem, then, because "drop dead" sounds like there is some venom in there.



I think you ARE taking what I've said personally, but the "attack" you feel from me has only irked you a little.



Good, because I'm only speaking up in the hopes you'll not take these things so personally. I enjoy your posts, for the most part, and have to stop short when this stuff creeps in.



I'm not really that set in my ways, but that little "dig" sorta proves my point, doesn't it? :)



P.S. You're still fine with me, too, Danoh. I can see how frustrating it can be for all involved. When people start discussing the differences between "at" and "by" and what "fellowship" means in a particular verse, there is an "investment" that most people don't have. I'll leave it at that....

I just hope Danoh keeps this incident in mind (and the last one) the next time he's tempted to repeatedly call other believers "carnal" over doctrinal disagreements with him and label them as something he knows they're not.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Who do you understand the middle wall of partition was between and on what basis?

For the enmity between God and men was now with both Jew and Gentile, on man's part of the equation...

The middle wall of partition:


Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


It was between the Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent (Greeks) in the Acts period and Gentiles like the Ephesians (to whom Paul wrote the letter/Gentiles such as we) and Colossians to whom Paul was later sent.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
He is our peace who has made both [Jew and Gentiles] one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh [by the cross] the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.
still wrong.

It cannot be 1. Jews and 2. Gentiles as Paul was already going to the Jew first AND ALSO TO THE GREEK during his Acts ministry (Greeks are Gentiles). The first group are those to whom Paul was first sent (Acts 26:17), those who were being called at that time (Acts 13:26 KJV, 1 Cor. 1:24 KJV). The Jews AND Greeks are those who "first trusted in Christ" (the body of Christ beginning with the apostle Paul 1 Timothy 1:16 KJV). They are the "them that were nigh" (Ephesians 2:17 KJV). They were aligned with Israel. They HAD A HOPE as per Genesis 12:3 KJV!


It was not until Paul spilled the beans of something that he was holding back on before (2 Corinthians 12:1-6 KJV) and revealed that the Lord was going to send him far hence unto the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21 KJV) that he became a prisoner of Jesus Christ for YOU GENTILES (Ephesians 3:1 KJV).


It was not known that the grace of God that bringeth salvation would be to ALL MEN (1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV, Titus 2:11 KJV), including Gentiles like these Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter (people like you and me) who in time past were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. These were not the Gentiles that Paul was sent to during his Acts ministry. These Gentiles had NOTHING to do with Israel in time past! They had NO HOPE! That's what the scriptures say!
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Group One:

Acts 13
26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Jews and Gentiles who feared the one true God.



Group Two:

Acts 19
28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Pagan Gentiles.



What separated these two groups during Acts?:


Acts 15
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


Commandments contained in ordinances.




Very simple.

During Acts- Paul was sent to Jews/Gentiles in the promises.
Post Acts- Paul's message is sent even to Gentiles who were outside the promises.


:e4e:
Amen! Simple stuff, folks! Believe it!
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
During Acts, Paul went to the synagogue and reasoned with Jews and Greeks from the prophets.

He could show the God fearing Gentile that they were in line for a blessing, from the prophets.
He could show the pagan Gentile only that they were due a curse, from the prophets.

Post Acts, Gen 12:1-3 (KJV) is no longer in play, as Israel is cast away. This levels the field for everyone, including the pagan Gentile.
Yes!
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
I've never been anything but kind to Danoh...so I don't get it.

:idunno:
That first assertion is your assertion, based on your obvious, first impression reading of your modern North American (incorrectly informal at that) English sense of words into the KJV's 500 years old, Early Modern English sentence structures. Your view is off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top