ECT MAD fails on the gift and age of the Spirit

Danoh

New member
John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
...

Carefully consider the following...

My apology in advance for any offense it might set off in your perception of my words to you here.

You concluded that what you thought that passage appeared to be talking about was what it was actually talking about.

About Gentiles.

From there; you then sought out passages that appeared to you to be confirming what you concluded.

But that is not how these things are studied out.

First, seek to identify through other passages where very similar wording is found describing things just like how that passage itself describes them.

Only after settling that, should you allow yourself to form a conclusion.

What that passage is actually talking about is described practically word for word, in Ezekiel, chapters 34 and 37.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself - read those two chapters.

The actual sense of that passage is "other sheep not of this house."

As Israel had ended up divided; and was no longer one house or sheepfold.

Again, just read those two chapters in Ezekiel.

And once you see you were off; don't stop there.

Do something I have often done that has allowed me the unexpected blessing of an understanding of many things even more so than others and in many areas at the same time.

Do what?

After you see that you were off on the above; ask yourself the question 'if I was off on that; what else might I be off on? How did I end up off; how might have I avoided that kind of mistake - so that I can keep it in mind as a possible study principle from here on out?'

And then watch your understanding really begin to take off over the next few weeks.

Of course; should you allow yourself to be offended that the above was pointed out to you; not only will you do yourself the great diservice of having passed up on some important principles for getting at the actually intended sense of any word or phrase; but you will further entrench yourself in what can only hold you back in both your service to, and your witness of - the Lord.

For you will hold back His grace from being your strength when you need it most - when you need to be weak; that you might be strong in Him.

The best towards you in the above...

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Acts 11
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them...

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Notice the note of shock, confusion and even indignation here. The brethren considered what Peter did to be SCANDALOUS.

Why?

Inexplicable behavior for a bunch of Spirit filled believers, including Peter, who according to you preached the same No Distinction good news as Paul.

Perhaps you'll explain it for us now.
 

Interplanner

New member
Carefully consider the following...

My apology in advance for any offense it might set off in your perception of my words to you here.

You concluded that what you thought that passage appeared to be talking about was what it was actually talking about.

About Gentiles.

From there; you then sought out passages that appeared to you to be confirming what you concluded.

But that is not how these things are studied out.

First, seek to identify through other passages where very similar wording is found describing things just like how that passage itself describes them.

Only after settling that, should you allow yourself to form a conclusion.

What that passage is actually talking about is described practically word for word, in Ezekiel, chapters 34 and 37.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself - read those two chapters.

The actual sense of that passage is "other sheep not of this house."

As Israel had ended up divided; and was no longer one house or sheepfold.

Again, just read those two chapters in Ezekiel.

And once you see you were off; don't stop there.

Do something I have often done that has allowed me the unexpected blessing of an understanding of many things even more so than others and in many areas at the same time.

Do what?

After you see that you were off on the above; ask yourself the question 'if I was off on that; what else might I be off on? How did I end up off; how might have I avoided that kind of mistake - so that I can keep it in mind as a possible study principle from here on out?'

And then watch your understanding really begin to take off over the next few weeks.

Of course; should you allow yourself to be offended that the above was pointed out to you; not only will you do yourself the great diservice of having passed up on some important principles for getting at the actually intended sense of any word or phrase; but you will further entrench yourself in what can only hold you back in both your service to, and your witness of - the Lord.

For you will hold back His grace from being your strength when you need it most - when you need to be weak; that you might be strong in Him.

The best towards you in the above...

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.



Once again, 2P2P pries its way into things. What if the apostles already talked about 'those far away' etc? And why would a topic (Judah) that is no where in the NT, suddenly be crystal clear in Christ's sayings when he never explains it as such there or anywhere else? Bing: it's because 2P2P wants to be true. Because Ryrie wants it to be true.

Why does Ryrie want it to be true? To reinforce the Bible.

The Bible was totally gutted by higher criticism scholars.

Why were HC scholars of the last century able to do this? Because both the fundamental preacher and the HC left the historic roots of Christ's sayings about the DofJ, which make the NT so directly and practically true that it is still painful.

The conception of the NT being vitally involved in the DofJ would ruin any chance of 2P2P.

Much better, thought Ryrie, that the assault on the Bible be solved by an elusive 'other' program for Israel, which, hey, just showed up in 1948, even though all the key players were scoffers and the UN and sometimes terrorists. But they got a "literal" Bible out of it, thank you very much!

That's how the confusion about the fact that D'ism is warmed-over Judaism got started. Because the real reason for modern Israel began a couple centuries earlier when they were a bit tired of the trouble in Europe and also thought that if they were really going to practice Judaism they needed a temple. Bing: all of sudden "evangelical" Christians were validating them (and ignoring the letter Hebrews) and rocketing Mt 24 off to the distant future. What a wave to surf!
 

Interplanner

New member
Carefully consider the following...

My apology in advance for any offense it might set off in your perception of my words to you here.

You concluded that what you thought that passage appeared to be talking about was what it was actually talking about.

About Gentiles.

From there; you then sought out passages that appeared to you to be confirming what you concluded.

But that is not how these things are studied out.

First, seek to identify through other passages where very similar wording is found describing things just like how that passage itself describes them.

Only after settling that, should you allow yourself to form a conclusion.

What that passage is actually talking about is described practically word for word, in Ezekiel, chapters 34 and 37.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself - read those two chapters.

The actual sense of that passage is "other sheep not of this house."

As Israel had ended up divided; and was no longer one house or sheepfold.

Again, just read those two chapters in Ezekiel.

And once you see you were off; don't stop there.

Do something I have often done that has allowed me the unexpected blessing of an understanding of many things even more so than others and in many areas at the same time.

Do what?

After you see that you were off on the above; ask yourself the question 'if I was off on that; what else might I be off on? How did I end up off; how might have I avoided that kind of mistake - so that I can keep it in mind as a possible study principle from here on out?'

And then watch your understanding really begin to take off over the next few weeks.

Of course; should you allow yourself to be offended that the above was pointed out to you; not only will you do yourself the great diservice of having passed up on some important principles for getting at the actually intended sense of any word or phrase; but you will further entrench yourself in what can only hold you back in both your service to, and your witness of - the Lord.

For you will hold back His grace from being your strength when you need it most - when you need to be weak; that you might be strong in Him.

The best towards you in the above...

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.



What Master Danoh did not notice is that the textual reference is first to Isaiah 56.

How can the great theme of unity (cp Eph or Gal 3--that 'banned' chapter) get so messed up as to suddenly just mean Judah? If he was going to talk about that it would have been in Jn 4 when Samaritans was the topic. No, its just another horrible proof-text thing out of nowwhere from 2P2P.

I wonder how a 'death of Christ' solves a tribal dispute within Israel dating back to 900 BC? Wow that's totally clear. I'm not surre but I thought there was some other reason for the death of Christ...I'll keep that one on the back burner; I'm sure it will come.

Oh, back to Is 56: it's one of the great passages saying that a mission is coming that will allow the nations to come into Israel. It's all explained in Eph 2B-3A and all confused by 2P2P and MAD and 'kingdom gospel offers' and other modern nonsense which grinds the Bible down every day into a tortured and confusing assemblage.
 

Interplanner

New member
You can post that 10K times, but that will not make any thing right. There are no reasons, and the ones I've found from you guys are pretty vulnerable. I have yet to find something substantial where you would say 'yeah that really sounds like the situation there during Christ's or the apostle's time.'
 

Interplanner

New member
Sorry, but I'm as excited about the Gospel as I've ever been and it is nothing like the clunking brain-dead stuff I read called MAD. It is thrilling to see how God put the mission into motion just when Israel was in its darkest and 'fin-de-cycle' shape (at a historical dead-end). Tragically, too few joined the mission.
 

Interplanner

New member
It is a tortured understanding that takes the 'other fold' of Jn 10 and says its about Judah, when it was actually building off of the Isaiah 56 theme that the nations would be included in the new Israel and when Jesus nor any other NT passage ever mentions Judah, not even Jn 4 when dealing with Samaritans. Man, how Christ needed MADs to keep the Bible clear, phew!
 

TweetyBird

New member
Carefully consider the following...

My apology in advance for any offense it might set off in your perception of my words to you here.

You concluded that what you thought that passage appeared to be talking about was what it was actually talking about.

About Gentiles.

From there; you then sought out passages that appeared to you to be confirming what you concluded.

But that is not how these things are studied out.

First, seek to identify through other passages where very similar wording is found describing things just like how that passage itself describes them.

Only after settling that, should you allow yourself to form a conclusion.

What that passage is actually talking about is described practically word for word, in Ezekiel, chapters 34 and 37.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself - read those two chapters.

The actual sense of that passage is "other sheep not of this house."

As Israel had ended up divided; and was no longer one house or sheepfold.

Again, just read those two chapters in Ezekiel.

And once you see you were off; don't stop there.

Do something I have often done that has allowed me the unexpected blessing of an understanding of many things even more so than others and in many areas at the same time.

Do what?

After you see that you were off on the above; ask yourself the question 'if I was off on that; what else might I be off on? How did I end up off; how might have I avoided that kind of mistake - so that I can keep it in mind as a possible study principle from here on out?'

And then watch your understanding really begin to take off over the next few weeks.

Of course; should you allow yourself to be offended that the above was pointed out to you; not only will you do yourself the great diservice of having passed up on some important principles for getting at the actually intended sense of any word or phrase; but you will further entrench yourself in what can only hold you back in both your service to, and your witness of - the Lord.

For you will hold back His grace from being your strength when you need it most - when you need to be weak; that you might be strong in Him.

The best towards you in the above...

Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Israel was not divided when Jesus said "other sheep have I". Israel united as one nation for the last time in Nehemiah and Ezra. A remnant from all the tribes joined with Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. From then on they were known as the Nation of Israel. The House of Israel, as noted in the NT, are all 12 tribes.
 

TweetyBird

New member
Notice the note of shock, confusion and even indignation here. The brethren considered what Peter did to be SCANDALOUS.

Why?

Inexplicable behavior for a bunch of Spirit filled believers, including Peter, who according to you preached the same No Distinction good news as Paul.

Perhaps you'll explain it for us now.

I used the passage to show that the Jews thought of the Gentiles as unclean, in reference to Jesus' analogy of "dogs" with the Syrophenician woman.
 

Interplanner

New member
Notice the note of shock, confusion and even indignation here. The brethren considered what Peter did to be SCANDALOUS.

Why?

Inexplicable behavior for a bunch of Spirit filled believers, including Peter, who according to you preached the same No Distinction good news as Paul.

Perhaps you'll explain it for us now.



The real issues move very slowly. Just look at MADs here realizing their mistakes.


But back to the text: what is even more interesting is that Peter HAD THE PERCEPTION that he was reaching out to the Gentiles when recounting this in Acts 15...because he knew that was where it was all going, and was meant to go!

15:7

The one gospel was supposed to hit the Jews first to leverage their background as missionaries to all nations. That is completely different from saying they had another gospel for themselves at first, and of course, a restored theocracy is completely out of the picture.
 

Danoh

New member
Israel was not divided when Jesus said "other sheep have I". Israel united as one nation for the last time in Nehemiah and Ezra. A remnant from all the tribes joined with Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. From then on they were known as the Nation of Israel. The House of Israel, as noted in the NT, are all 12 tribes.

Not true.

You and yours only think your practice of reading into a thing and then running with it is what Mads are doing...

What you and yours fail to consider is the truth of Genesis 11; Romans 1; and Ephesians 2 on the spiritual condition of the Gentiles when the Lord said "other sheep I have which are not of this fold" (house).

That the Gentiles were not His sheep.

The phrase is one having to do with those that were then His - the nation Israel - both near and far off; see Daniel 9's prayer for the sense of said "near and far off..."

And obviously, you ignored Ezekiel 34 and 37.

The following is only a tip of the iceberg of that which is written...

The other tribes were "in Judaea, and in Samaria, and..." in "...the uttermost parts of the world..."

Case in point; the Samaritan woman...

John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 4:8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Case in point; those of Israel scattered abroad...

John 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Case in point, those of Israel scattered abroad who had come from all over that vast Roman Empire on Pentecost...

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Their various citizenships where each had been scattered abroad to...outside of Israel, including their proselytes....

Acts 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Acts 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:

Acts 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.

Acts 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.

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus.

Hebrews 11:13 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.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

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

1 Peter 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.

Peter 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

3 John 1:7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.
 

Danoh

New member
The real issues move very slowly. Just look at MADs here realizing their mistakes.


But back to the text: what is even more interesting is that Peter HAD THE PERCEPTION that he was reaching out to the Gentiles when recounting this in Acts 15...because he knew that was where it was all going, and was meant to go!

15:7

The one gospel was supposed to hit the Jews first to leverage their background as missionaries to all nations. That is completely different from saying they had another gospel for themselves at first, and of course, a restored theocracy is completely out of the picture.

Absolute incompetence on your part.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I used the passage to show that the Jews thought of the Gentiles as unclean, in reference to Jesus' analogy of "dogs" with the Syrophenician woman.

Christ Himself said He was sent to NONE BUT the lost sheep of the house of Israel and told the disciples (first) go not in the way of the Gentiles, then (later) to not go to them UNTIL they'd gone through all of Israel first.

That is why no Gentile was addressed at Pentecost.

That is why Peter was reluctant to God's vision telling him to go see Cornelius--it was out of the order he was told by Christ to expect.

That is why the believing Jews called him to explain what he thought he was doing even going to see Cornelius.

That's why Jews leaving town in Acts 11 preached Christ ONLY to other Jews.

That is why later Peter still caved and refused to eat with saved Gentiles, justifying Paul's rebuke.

It's tiresome pointing this out to you only because you clearly don't want to deal with it, as you haven't yet. There was plainly an order to things during the four Gospels and Acts -- ISRAEL FIRST. To reject acknowledging this order is to be disorderly.
 

TweetyBird

New member
Christ Himself said He was sent to NONE BUT the lost sheep of the house of Israel and told the disciples (first) go not in the way of the Gentiles, then (later) to not go to them UNTIL they'd gone through all of Israel first.

That is why no Gentile was addressed at Pentecost.

That is why Peter was reluctant to God's vision telling him to go see Cornelius--it was out of the order he was told by Christ to expect.

That is why the believing Jews called him to explain what he thought he was doing even going to see Cornelius.

That's why Jews leaving town in Acts 11 preached Christ ONLY to other Jews.

That is why later Peter still caved and refused to eat with saved Gentiles, justifying Paul's rebuke.

It's tiresome pointing this out to you only because you clearly don't want to deal with it, as you haven't yet. There was plainly an order to things during the four Gospels and Acts -- ISRAEL FIRST. To reject acknowledging this order is to be disorderly.

I never ever said that God did not inform the Jews first. I think you are not reading what I posted.

However, Jesus preached to and healed Gentiles all the while going to the Jews first.
 

Danoh

New member
Christ Himself said He was sent to NONE BUT the lost sheep of the house of Israel and told the disciples (first) go not in the way of the Gentiles, then (later) to not go to them UNTIL they'd gone through all of Israel first.

That is why no Gentile was addressed at Pentecost.

That is why Peter was reluctant to God's vision telling him to go see Cornelius--it was out of the order he was told by Christ to expect.

That is why the believing Jews called him to explain what he thought he was doing even going to see Cornelius.

That's why Jews leaving town in Acts 11 preached Christ ONLY to other Jews.

That is why later Peter still caved and refused to eat with saved Gentiles, justifying Paul's rebuke.

It's tiresome pointing this out to you only because you clearly don't want to deal with it, as you haven't yet. There was plainly an order to things during the four Gospels and Acts -- ISRAEL FIRST. To reject acknowledging this order is to be disorderly.

Perfect post!

:thumb:
 

musterion

Well-known member
I never ever said that God did not inform the Jews first.

You're not good at being slippery. The issue isn't simply that the Jews were to be informed first. That is true. The issue, more precisely, is that they were the ONLY ones being informed at that time, to the EXCLUSION of everyone else. The children came first.

And guess what?

It was all according to plan, just as Christ said.

However, Jesus preached to and healed Gentiles all the while going to the Jews first.

List them please. Let's examine them one at a time.
 
Top