ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Right Divider]

Here is what we read of him on the Berean Bible Society site:

Pastor O’Hair was, without a doubt, the one person who, more than any other, was used of God to establish among believers what Paul, by inspiration calls, “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery.” He knew that he had the Scriptural solution to the current theological confusion and preached the Word with great power. His oral ministry (including radio) and his many books had a profound effect on thousands here and abroad. As a gospel preacher and soul winner he was without a peer just because he understood so clearly the truth of the unadulterated “gospel of the grace of God.” The Church, all over the world, owes him much.​

And here is what he thought of your idea that the doctrine contained in the Hebrew epistles is not doctrine for the Body of Christ:

"Peter and James and ten other apostles are going to sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:27 and 28). But I do not agree with Christians who say that the twelve apostles were not members of the Body of Christ...I make no such foolish statement...that these Epistles of Peter and James are not for this age...I use 1 Peter 3:18 in preaching the gospel of grace as frequently as I use any other verse" [emphasis mine] (O'Hair, The Accuser of the Brethren and the Brethren Concerning Bullingerism).​

Yes, the infallible J.C. O'Hair

In this case he is just extremely confused.

I'll go ahead and believe the Bible.

The circumcision apostles continued in THEIR calling and it is clear from what they wrote that this is true.

1Pet 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
​

Who are these strangers? (Hint: The same ones as James writes to in James 1:1).

1Pet 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:5) Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. ​

Why is their salvation yet future? Did not they receive salvation the moment that they believed? (Hint: there are different kinds of salvation in the Bible).

1Pet 1:6-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: (1:7) That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: ​

Why "heaviness"? What temptation could be a problem for someone saved by grace through faith? Shouldn't they be rejoicing in their salvation by grace through faith without works? What is this "trial by fire"? (Hint: Zechariah 13).

It goes on and on and on. Here's one more:

1Pet 2:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:11) Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; (2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. ​

Why is Peter writing to non-Gentiles (Israel)? You and they.... could not be more clear. Remember that Peter is one of the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel when the Lord returns to establish His kingdom. It's all very simple.

Peter is continuing all things prophetic and is NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, the infallible J.C. O'Hair

In this case he is just extremely confused.

I'll go ahead and believe the Bible.

The circumcision apostles continued in THEIR calling and it is clear from what they wrote that this is true.

1Pet 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
​

Who are these strangers? (Hint: The same ones as James writes to in James 1:1).

1Pet 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:5) Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. ​

Why is their salvation yet future? Did not they receive salvation the moment that they believed? (Hint: there are different kinds of salvation in the Bible).

1Pet 1:6-7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: (1:7) That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: ​

Why "heaviness"? What temptation could be a problem for someone saved by grace through faith? Shouldn't they be rejoicing in their salvation by grace through faith without works? What is this "trial by fire"? (Hint: Zechariah 13).

It goes on and on and on. Here's one more:

1Pet 2:11-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:11) Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; (2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. ​

Why is Peter writing to non-Gentiles (Israel)? You and they.... could not be more clear. Remember that Peter is one of the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel when the Lord returns to establish His kingdom. It's all very simple.

Peter is continuing all things prophetic and is NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God.

Rubbish. There are not two gospels, as we know from Paul confronting Peter about it in Gal 2. RD is like the person some years ago who said that when Peter quoted the OT in Acts 2 HE WAS MISTAKEN. In this case, RD is saying Peter was actually right in Gal 2! Some confrontation that is!

Oh those literalists and what they can do with the ordinary meaning of a passage.

All through I Peter is the grace of God is the substitutionary event of Christ. For ex., 3:18: Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous...

Literalism means 'change anything in the Bible you need to in order to preserve Judaism and its kingdom as a 2nd program within the Bible.'

 

[Right Divider]

You can always write Dan S., the caretaker/curator (if he's still there). He and I communicated several years ago about MJS' misunderstanding MAD on some points but he really wasn't in the mood to listen. He is also as Calvinistic as Stanford was.

I communicated with Dan S. many years ago (or at least I tried to) and he was a very rabid Acts 2 dispensationalist that did not want to hear anything at all about the problems with that position.

 

[Right Divider]

Rubbish. There are not two gospels, as we know from Paul confronting Peter about it in Gal 2. RD is like the person some years ago who said that when Peter quoted the OT in Acts 2 HE WAS MISTAKEN. In this case, RD is saying Peter was actually right in Gal 2! Some confrontation that is!

Oh those literalists and what they can do with the ordinary meaning of a passage.

All through I Peter is the grace of God is the substitutionary event of Christ. For ex., 3:18: Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous...

Literalism means 'change anything in the Bible you need to in order to preserve Judaism and its kingdom as a 2nd program within the Bible.'

I never cease to be amazed at your idiocy and inability to address what others say.

Oh those fairytalists like you!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Ah, the Shugart Straw Man is dragged out of the shed once again.

Straw man. Hill didn't use the word "saved" in that context. Once again you dishonestly ignore context by superimposing a word someone did not use, then attack him for what he didn't even say.

Agree or disagree with many of his teachings, Hill was a very sharp and very precise teacher. Had he meant to use "saved" there, he would have done so.

You are so uninformed that you do not even understand that when Bob Hill used the words about God "having His righteousness imputed" he was referring to salvation. He wrote:

The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping.​

The Apostle Paul used David, who lived under the law, as an example of those who received the imputed righteousness of God:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

David, who lived under the law, received the imputed righteousness of God WITHOUT WORKS!

But Bob Hill says that those who lived under the law received the imputed righteousness of God by "faith-law keeping."

Besides that, you are so ignorant that you do not even understand that a person's salvation happens when the righteousness which is of God is imputed to those who believe:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

You did not even understand that when Bob Hill used the words about the imputed righteousness which is of God he was ineed referring to salvation so I doubt if you have ever read the third and fourth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. And then you accuse me of being dishonest.

You need to spend more time reading the Bible and less time reading the commentaries of those who belong to the Neo-MAD camp for your information.

 

[john w]

Yes, the infallible J.C. O'Hair

In this case he is just extremely confused.

I'll go ahead and believe the Bible.

The circumcision apostles continued in THEIR calling and it is clear from what they wrote that this is true.

1Pet 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
​

Who are these strangers? (Hint: The same ones as James writes to in James 1:1).

1Pet 1:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

Survey the book...

Genesis 23
4 I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight.

Leviticus 25 KJV

23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.


Psalm 39 KJV

12 Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; hold not thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.

Hebrews 11 KJV
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

John 7 KJV
35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

1 Peter 2 KJV
11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why is their salvation yet future? Did not they receive salvation the moment that they believed?

The same reason that Paul spoke of the salvation of those belonging to the Body of Christ being future:

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed" (Ro.13:11).​

This is referring to the rapture when all the believers of the present dispensation will put on new, glorious bodies like the Lord Jesus' glorious body. And those who received the Hebrew epistles were also taught to be waiting for that same imminent appearance.

Besides that, do you really believe that those who received Peter's epistles were not yet saved even though Peter told them the following?:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.1:18-19).​

Do you really think that a person can be redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus but at the same time he is not saved?

 

[Right Divider]

The same reason that Paul spoke of the salvation of those belonging to the Body of Christ being future:

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed" (Ro.13:11).​

This is referring to the rapture when all the believers of the present dispensation will put on new, glorious bodies like the Lord Jesus' glorious body. And those who received the Hebrew epistles were also taught to be waiting for that same imminent appearance.

Besides that, do you really believe that those who received Peter's epistles were not yet saved even though Peter told them the following?:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.1:18-19).​

Do you really think that a person can be redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus but at the same time he is not saved?

And the body of Christ is also a royal priesthood and a holy nation?

No, the body of Christ is not the nation of Israel nor a priesthood on any kind as are those that Peter is writing to.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And the body of Christ is also a royal priesthood and a holy nation?

No, the body of Christ is not the nation of Israel nor a priesthood on any kind as are those that Peter is writing to.

First of all, when those words were written the nation of Israel had already been temporarily set aside so the reference cannot be in regard to the nation of Israel. Or are you willing to argue that they were serving as priests of a nation which had already been temporarily set aside?

You really need to study the "types" concerning the nation of Israel. Israel's priesthood was a "type" which illustrates the purpose of God in regard to those in the Body of Christ. The OT sacrifices were "types" which illustrated the guilt and need of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Those sacrifices were fulfilled in the "anti-type," the Lord Jesus.

Today believers no longer offer up animal sacrifices but instead "spiritual" sacrifices:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Pet.2:5-7).​

There we read of the Lord Jesus being the chief cornerstone of the spiritual house and the Lord Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the Body of Christ:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:13-22).​

Even though the Apostle Paul makes it plain that the middle wall of partition which separated the Jewish believers from the Gentile believers has been broken down you assert that it still stands because those who received the epistles of Peter are not in the Body of Christ.

According to your view the spiritual house of which Jesus is the chief cornerstone is Israel even though that nation has already been set aside and that house is an entirely different spiritual house which is the Body of Christ and which also has the Lord Jesus as the chief cornerstone!

 

[musterion]

First of all, when those words were written the nation of Israel had already been temporarily set aside so the reference cannot be in regard to the nation of Israel. Or are you willing to argue that they were serving as priests of a nation which had already been temporarily set aside?

You really need to study the "types" concerning the nation of Israel. Israel's priesthood was a "type" which illustrates the purpose of God in regard to those in the Body of Christ. The OT sacrifices were "types" which illustrated the guilt and need of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Those sacrifices were fulfilled in the "anti-type," the Lord Jesus.

Today believers no longer offer up animal sacrifices but instead "spiritual" sacrifices:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Pet.2:5-7).​

There we read of the Lord Jesus being the chief cornerstone of the spiritual house and the Lord Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the Body of Christ:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:13-22).​

Even though the Apostle Paul makes it plain that the middle wall of partition which separated the Jewish believers from the Gentile believers has been broken down you assert that it still stands because those who received the epistles of Peter are not in the Body of Christ.

According to your view the spiritual house of which Jesus is the chief cornerstone is Israel even though that nation has already been set aside and that house is an entirely different spiritual house which is the Body of Christ and which also has the Lord Jesus as the chief cornerstone!

Whose priest are you?

 

[musterion]

You are so uninformed that you do not even understand that when Bob Hill used the words about God "having His righteousness imputed" he was referring to salvation. He wrote:

The sixth one is The Dispensation of Law. Under this dispensation, God's method for having His righteousness imputed now includes faith-law-keeping.​

The Apostle Paul used David, who lived under the law, as an example of those who received the imputed righteousness of God:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

David, who lived under the law, received the imputed righteousness of God WITHOUT WORKS!

But Bob Hill says that those who lived under the law received the imputed righteousness of God by "faith-law keeping."

Besides that, you are so ignorant that you do not even understand that a person's salvation happens when the righteousness which is of God is imputed to those who believe:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:21-24).​

You did not even understand that when Bob Hill used the words about the imputed righteousness which is of God he was ineed referring to salvation so I doubt if you have ever read the third and fourth chapter of the epistle to the Romans. And then you accuse me of being dishonest.

You need to spend more time reading the Bible and less time reading the commentaries of those who belong to the Neo-MAD camp for your information.

There is nothing you will not blend, not even the words of a dead man who did not say what you say he said. Have you no shame?

 

[Right Divider]

First of all, when those words were written the nation of Israel had already been temporarily set aside so the reference cannot be in regard to the nation of Israel. Or are you willing to argue that they were serving as priests of a nation which had already been temporarily set aside?

Of course it's about the nation of Israel and THEIR priesthood. Just because they were TEMPORARILY set aside does not mean that those scriptures will fail.

I'm ashamed for you Jerry and your Bible blender nonsense.

You really need to study the "types" concerning the nation of Israel. Israel's priesthood was a "type" which illustrates the purpose of God in regard to those in the Body of Christ. The OT sacrifices were "types" which illustrated the guilt and need of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Those sacrifices were fulfilled in the "anti-type," the Lord Jesus.

I'm fully aware of the types and I'm also fully aware that those types are NOT illustrations for the purpose of God in regard to those in the body of Christ. You torture the scripture to make your fairy tale "true".

Today believers no longer offer up animal sacrifices but instead "spiritual" sacrifices:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Pet.2:5-7).​

Once again, you quote scripture to the twelve tribes of Israel.

The "trial by fire" that Peter makes reference to is CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY related to ISRAEL per Zechariah 13. There can be no doubt!

I finally realize that your are a replacementist!

 

[musterion]

I finally realize that your are a replacementist!

Dude, no joke, you read my mind. That word was in my head halfway through the post.

There is a hybrid of Acts 2/replacement theology. It doesn't show up too often...usually in mixed bag evangelical circles (blenderism) and such.

 

[turbosixx]

Seems like I've answered this.

Why would you think that the gospel he received from Christ by revelation was any different that what he preached and then subsequently wrote down?

I agree what he preached and what he later wrote is the same gospel. I believe some conclusions are being jumped to instead of really looking at what it takes to get there.

You quoted Romans 10 and said "That's all there is to getting into the Body of Christ but that's nowhere close to being the entire gospel of grace"
If you want to stick with that as to what it takes to get into the body fine, but wouldn't it be wise to go back to the beginning to what Paul actually preached on 3 journeys to unbelievers to really understand what it takes to get into the body?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Of course it's about the nation of Israel and THEIR priesthood. Just because they were TEMPORARILY set aside does not mean that those scriptures will fail.

These words were written at the time when Israel had been set aside:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Pet.2:5-7).​

According to your ridiculous ideas Peter was telling these people that the nation of Israel was a spiritual house at the same time when the nation of Israel had been set aside because of unbelief!

Also, can you tell me why you do not believe that the middle wall of partition has been broken down which stood between Jewish believers from the Gentile believers despite the fact that Paul said that it has?:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:13-22).​

Since the middle wall has been broken down then we know that the Jewish believers were reconciled unto God in "one body."

But you say that the Jews who received the Hebrew epistles were not reconciled unto God in one Body.

Why do you not believe Paul?

 

[turbosixx]

I'll try but bare in mind that if your mind is already made up that Paul is not saying anything different then you won't see what they were doing in Acts 15. That said Paul was separated out to do something,,,when he began to do so and it caused something to happen.

In Acts 15:6 KJV they met to look at the matter that came up. This is about 20 years after our Lord was crucified. In your mind Peter and the others had always taught something across those years that the scripture says they had to have a meeting over to figure out what was taking place and make a decision as to what to say about it.

So as to the question you want me to reword,,,can you see anyway possible for the 12 to have taught anything that they are trying to understand themselves in Acts 15:6 before this point in time(prior 20 years/approx.)? If not then what is being discussed in Acts 15 is different from what was taught by the 12 prior to that point and has just began to be taught.

Thanks for rewording the question! I do have my mind made up as do you but I do try my best to understand other peoples points from their perspective. I am human so it is hard but I do try.

It was a big problem for the Jews to forget what they had been taught since childhood and what they're ancestors had observed for almost two thousand years. Being added to the body doesn't come with amnesia. Paul dealt with this same problem in some of his letters to Christians who were former Jews.

I would suggest that what the 12, plus Paul and Barnabas, are trying to understand is not something they taught or instructed others to do. Here is my reasoning. 15:1 says But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” It says "some men" were teaching which if it were any of the apostles they would be named.

Further if we look at the content of the letter it would agree with that conclusion.
15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
These "persons" were teaching something the apostles gave "no instructions" to teach.

I personally do not know of anywhere in scripture of the 12 teaching or instructing believers to observe circumcision or the law of Moses after Jesus's DBR.

 

[musterion]

These words were written at the time when Israel had been set aside:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1 Pet.2:5-7).​

According to your ridiculous ideas Peter was telling these people that the nation of Israel was a spiritual house at the same time when the nation of Israel had been set aside because of unbelief!

Also, can you tell me why you do not believe that the middle wall of partition has been broken down which stood between Jewish believers from the Gentile believers despite the fact that Paul said that it has?:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:13-22).​

Since the middle wall has been broken down then we know that the Jewish believers were reconciled unto God in "one body."

But you say that the Jews who received the Hebrew epistles were not reconciled unto God in one Body.

Why do you not believe Paul?

Whose priest are you?

 

[whitestone]

Thanks for rewording the question! I do have my mind made up as do you but I do try my best to understand other peoples points from their perspective. I am human so it is hard but I do try.

It was a big problem for the Jews to forget what they had been taught since childhood and what they're ancestors had observed for almost two thousand years. Being added to the body doesn't come with amnesia. Paul dealt with this same problem in some of his letters to Christians who were former Jews.

I would suggest that what the 12, plus Paul and Barnabas, are trying to understand is not something they taught or instructed others to do. Here is my reasoning. 15:1 says But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” It says "some men" were teaching which if it were any of the apostles they would be named.

Further if we look at the content of the letter it would agree with that conclusion.
15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
These "persons" were teaching something the apostles gave "no instructions" to teach.

I personally do not know of anywhere in scripture of the 12 teaching or instructing believers to observe circumcision or the law of Moses after Jesus's DBR.

lol,Still I am asking you if the 12 taught what they were trying to understand in Acts 15:6 KJV before that point in time(A15). You spoke about it but never said yes they did or no they couldn't have(yes or no) and then you number the 12 along with Paul and Barnabas as if they never raised any objection to the matter. If you remember Acts 15:2 KJV and note that they did in fact dispute what was being said you will see the matter more clearly. Again though that would mean that the 12 could not have taught it prior to this and that Paul and Barnabas did,the scripture says so.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Whose priest are you?

"And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth" (Rev.5:9-10).​

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not sure if this was addressed or not, haven't gotten that far, and I know this is a very old comment, but I just want to address this, maybe it will sort out any confusion. I promise won't comment on too many more posts until I'm nearing the most recent posts, but this needs to be addressed.

You must have failed English class to come to that conclusion. Only one gospel in that verse.

You also haven't done your homework on why it was written this way.

HisServant, You may never see this comment, but if you do, I encourage you to look up something called the "Granville-Sharp rule."

"The father and the husband went to the store." "The father and husband went to the store."

In the first sentence above, how many people is it talking about? What about the second sentence?

If you answered two people in the first sentence and one in the second, you would be correct.

That's the GS rule in a nutshell. In the Greek, there is no word for the indefinite article "a" or "an", but there is a word for the definite article "the".

In Galatians 2:7, the word "the" is used twice, even in the original Greek text.

That's hard evidence that there are two gospels being spoken of.

The GS rule is also used in John 1:1, which affirms the deity of Christ.