Neither Jew nor Greek....

[Right Divider]

I agree, what Paul tells us does not invalidate what Jesus taught. I agree, the mystery that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs was not made know while Jesus walked the earth. It was to be revealed latter but its revelation isn't the basis for the change. A law doesn't go into effect when it's made public, it goes into effect as soon as it's signed.

Paul tells us when the dividing wall came down, at the cross.

16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross,

That's cute sixxxx. But it doesn't change the fact that Peter did NOT preach it in Acts, as you've now readily admitted. It was revealed to Paul LATER.

Thanks for coming clean on that one.

 

[Interplanner]

That's cute sixxxx. But it doesn't change the fact that Peter did NOT preach it in Acts, as you've now readily admitted. It was revealed to Paul LATER.

Thanks for coming clean on that one.

He sure did. The promise was for all who were near and all who were far away. He knew all those people going home all around the empire would contact Gentiles.

Since Peter knew the promises were for all the nations, it is tragic that he capitulated and had to be rebuked by Paul.

Have you forgotten that Paul had to correct Peter? There would be no story without Peter 'rebuilding' what Christ had taken down--with Peter's knowledge.

 

[Right Divider]

He sure did. The promise was for all who were near and all who were far away. He knew all those people going home all around the empire would contact Gentiles.

Speculative your honor..... OVERRULED!

These sorts of PURE speculation and opinion bare no weight.

Since Peter knew the promises were for all the nations, it is tragic that he capitulated and had to be rebuked by Paul.

The promise of God was that all nations would be blessed THROUGH Israel and NOT by their FALL. That was something revealed to Paul.

Have you forgotten that Paul had to correct Peter? There would be no story without Peter 'rebuilding' what Christ had taken down--with Peter's knowledge.

Why would I "forget" this? And I don't know what the remainder of your comment is getting at.

 

[Interplanner]

Speculative your honor..... OVERRULED!

These sorts of PURE speculation and opinion bare no weight.


The promise of God was that all nations would be blessed THROUGH Israel and NOT by their FALL. That was something revealed to Paul.


Why would I "forget" this? And I don't know what the remainder of your comment is getting at.

You don't understand the NT because you have 'church' pitted against 'Israel' and you are protecting the latter because you want the Bible to make plain sense and because of so many passages that seem to 'need' fulfillment.

The NT says the things promised to Israel (and the nations) are fulfilled in the event of Christ. So it is neither through Israel (doing well) nor its fall. The forgiveness of sins is what Peter was talking about.

I now know that you truly do not understand the dynamics of the NT background that is in Acts and Galatians. Ie, the correction of Peter. Peter did know what was right but was pressured by some of the Jerusalem leaders to ignore the world-wide promises, even though he had preached it in his first messages. He had to be corrected by two parties, so he was really having trouble! Both God and Paul.

There is no secret language in the apostles sermons that is meant to keep separate promises for Israel for separate reasons intact. 'whatever God promised to the fathers has been fulfilled for you their children in the resurrection of Christ' Acts 13.

It sounds like you need to immerse yourself in the sermon there until it makes sense and until the reactions by the opposition makes sense too. You just said two days ago that Paul's use of Isaiah about David's promises and their transfer was a novelty I was engaging in. Afraid not. If that is not there, the sermon makes no sense.

It is the one sample, official, unhurried apostolic sermon that has no 'issue' to deal with at hand.

The reason the resurrection of Christ has the astounding place and value given it in this sermon is that it proves that the promises are available to all. His indestructible righteousness is offered to all mankind for their debt of sin, and God raised him in approval of his work for that.

Then you need to come to terms with 13:47 using Is 49. This is the classic example of how the NT uses Isaiah to refer to Christ not Israel, or only to Israel insofar as they enter into Christ's mission. They are light to the nations if they are in His light, and the purpose is to get the message of salvation to the ends of the earth. It is the mission of the Gospel. Once again there is nothing about the territory or theocracy of Israel. it has no purpose anymore and there is no reference anywhere in the NT to it because of the mission.

 

[Right Divider]

You don't understand the NT because you have 'church' pitted against 'Israel' and you are protecting the latter because you want the Bible to make plain sense and because of so many passages that seem to 'need' fulfillment.

• I do not "pit" the church against Israel
• The Bible DOES make plain sense
• There are some passages that need fulfillment

The NT says the things promised to Israel (and the nations) are fulfilled in the event of Christ. So it is neither through Israel (doing well) nor its fall. The forgiveness of sins is what Peter was talking about.

Instead of throwing out vague generalities (like more people to here), why don't you specifically describe some?

I now know that you truly do not understand the dynamics of the NT background that is in Acts and Galatians. Ie, the correction of Peter. Peter did know what was right but was pressured by some of the Jerusalem leaders to ignore the world-wide promises, even though he had preached it in his first messages. He had to be corrected by two parties, so he was really having trouble! Both God and Paul.

I have no problems understanding these things.

There is no secret language in the apostles sermons that is meant to keep separate promises for Israel for separate reasons intact. 'whatever God promised to the fathers has been fulfilled for you their children in the resurrection of Christ' Acts 13.

Who said there was "secret language"? Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

I guess you're one of those that think that the Lord Jesus Christ is "the land".

It sounds like you need to immerse yourself in the sermon there until it makes sense and until the reactions by the opposition makes sense too. You just said two days ago that Paul's use of Isaiah about David's promises and their transfer was a novelty I was engaging in. Afraid not. If that is not there, the sermon makes no sense.

You seem to be obsessed with Acts 13.

Please QUOTE the post, as I do not know what you're talking about.

It is the one sample, official, unhurried apostolic sermon that has no 'issue' to deal with at hand.

The "one sample, official, unhurried apostolic sermon"? What is the world does that mean?

The reason the resurrection of Christ has the astounding place and value given it in this sermon is that it proves that the promises are available to all. His indestructible righteousness is offered to all mankind for their debt of sin, and God raised him in approval of his work for that.

Yes, that is wonderful.

Then you need to come to terms with 13:47 using Is 49. This is the classic example of how the NT uses Isaiah to refer to Christ not Israel, or only to Israel insofar as they enter into Christ's mission. They are light to the nations if they are in His light, and the purpose is to get the message of salvation to the ends of the earth. It is the mission of the Gospel. Once again there is nothing about the territory or theocracy of Israel. it has no purpose anymore and there is no reference anywhere in the NT to it because of the mission.

A lot of fluffy stuff there. It matters not at all to me that you think that Israel is "no longer needed". But God made promises to them that are yet to be fulfilled and God is NOT a liar. They will be fulfilled not matter what twist you try to put on it.