Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Derf]

I knew Derf could not reply with anything intelligent.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that your normal responses to my posts lack intelligence.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that your normal responses to my posts lack intelligence.

I knew Derf could not reply with anything intelligent.

 

[Nick M]

Of course there were 2 groups, but the middle wall of partition between them was broken down, making them no longer two, but one.

In terms of access to God. There is an earthly kingdom for Israel, according to scripture.

 

[Derf]

In terms of access to God. There is an earthly kingdom for Israel, according to scripture.

I think you are right, and it seems like the resurrected saints will rule and reign with Him during the millennial kingdom. If that includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians, including the 12 apostles, I dont think there's anything to argue about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course there were 2 groups,

That would receive eternal life?

There was only ever one group like that, until Paul came around, and that was Israel.

Then Acts 7-9 happened, and suddenly a new group appeared.

but the middle wall of partition between them was broken down, making them no longer two, but one.

Ephesians 2:12-14 KJV — That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye (Gentiles) who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both (Jews and Gentiles) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ( "us" being Paul representing Jews and the Ephesians representing Gentiles)

This is what happens when one mashes Scriptures that aren't talking about the same thing together.

Stay focused.

I asked a question.

Why did Paul's converts not have to circumcise, yet Israel kept circumcising?

If there's no "wall of partition," then the house rules should be applied equally across the board, yes?

Yet Acts 15, and Galatians 2, tells us that they are not, with different house rules for both Israel, and for Paul's converts.

The need for circumcision is likely past,

You don't seem to sure about that.

I can tell you that for believers under Paul's dispensation of the grace of God, it would profit you NOTHING to circumcise, if it is done for spiritual reasons.

Yet the Jews, to this very day, circumcise their children, in spite of their rebellion against God.

along with other things in the law, like food restrictions,

Which Paul says are left up to the individual, and not required by a law that is applied equally across the board.... but only for those who are in the Body of Christ. Israel still had to keep those laws, still did, and still does.

So why, if there is no "wall of partition," do the Gentiles get to do their own thing, while Israel is still required to keep the law?

because of the culmination of the salvation plan with the death and resurrection of Christ already accomplished.

To reiterate, none of what you've said explains away the internal conflict of your position.

Either the Gentiles AND the Jews no longer have to keep the law, OR the Gentiles and the Jews DO have to keep the law, OR there are two dispensations, one for Israel, and one for the Body of Christ, that have different house rules for those under them.

The first two are the only two logical conclusions of what you've said in the post I'm replying to, yet BOTH contradict scripture.

The third (the essence of the MADist position) is the only one that resolves the issue, by simply letting scripture say what it says.

 

[Nick M]

I think you are right, and it seems like the resurrected saints will rule and reign with Him during the millennial kingdom. If that includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians, including the 12 apostles, I dont think there's anything to argue about.

Only the apostle Paul says we will die and go to heaven. All the Hebrew prophets say they will be resurrected and placed in their land. Yet we belong to the same foundation.

 

[Nick M]

I think you are right, and it seems like the resurrected saints will rule and reign with Him

Resurrection is mentioned in the "Old Testament" Nicodemus was supposed to know this, being a teacher of Israel.

From Daniel.
24 “Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

25 “Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem

From Ezekiel.
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

 

[Right Divider]

Even though your post is off-topic, I'd like to address it.

I think you are right, and it seems like the resurrected saints will rule and reign with Him during the millennial kingdom.

The millennial kingdom is the kingdom of Israel. Why do you think that gentiles will be rulers in it?

Paul, quoting Isaiah, says:

Rom 15:12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(15:12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.​

​

This also refers to "the kingdom":

Luke 22:29-30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

Note that is still about Israel.

Even after the millennial kingdom, when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven, there will be the kingdom of Israel and the kingdoms/nations of the gentiles.

Rev 21:23-26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. (21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.​

If that includes both Jewish and Gentile Christians, including the 12 apostles, I dont think there's anything to argue about.

Paul says that WE (i.e., the body of Christ) will meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air (1 Thess 4:17). Our place is not in an earthly kingdom as we are already seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6).

 

[Derf]

Only the apostle Paul says we will die and go to heaven.

He does? Here's one thing he says, that those who have died in Christ will be with Christ after the resurrection:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 KJV — For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

All the Hebrew prophets say they will be resurrected and placed in their land.

That wasn't a common thing for them to say. Are you sure they ALL said that?

Yet we belong to the same foundation.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Derf]

Even though your post is off-topic, I'd like to address it.

I appreciate that, but I wasn't the one that brought that topic up. We can move this to another thread, if you prefer.

The millennial kingdom is the kingdom of Israel. Why do you think that gentiles will be rulers in it?

Paul talks about the Resurrection occurring for the believers (Christians) who have died:
[1Th 4:13 KJV] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
He says they will rise again, like Jesus did:
[1Th 4:14 KJV] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
Those who are alive when Christ comes will not precede those who have died:
[1Th 4:15 KJV] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
But the dead will rise (resurrect) first, before our ascension:
[1Th 4:16 KJV] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
And we all will be caught up together, and in that way ("so"), we shall ever be with the Lord.
[1Th 4:17 KJV] Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Paul, quoting Isaiah, says:

Rom 15:12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(15:12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.​

Ok

​

This also refers to "the kingdom":

Luke 22:29-30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

Note that is still about Israel.

Not the first one (Rom 15:12), which is talking about Christ reigning over the Gentiles.

Even after the millennial kingdom, when the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven, there will be the kingdom of Israel and the kingdoms/nations of the gentiles.

Rev 21:23-26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:23) And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. (21:24) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. (21:25) And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (21:26) And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.​

OK

Paul says that WE (i.e., the body of Christ) will meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air (1 Thess 4:17). Our place is not in an earthly kingdom as we are already seated in heavenly places (Eph 2:6).

It doesn't actually say which direction we go from the time we meet the Lord in the air. Do we go up (to heaven)? Or do we return to the earth with Him as His army?

When we look at Rev 20, it talks about a "first" resurrection:
Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. [Rev 20:6 KJV]

If this first resurrection does not include the resurrection you mention in 1 Thess 4:16 (just prior to your citation), then it isn't really the "first" resurrection, is it? If the body of Christ resurrects BEFORE the first resurrection, then the "first" resurrection is really the second one. But the description is pretty clear, that those who resurrect before the millennium, seem to be the ones who resurrect when Christ first comes, which is associated with the "trump of God".

If the Body of Christ participates in the first resurrection, because they surely won't be participating in the second (since then we will potentially be subject to the second death, and we would not want to be in THAT group), then Revelation 20 says we will live and reign with Christ for 1000 years.
[Rev 20:5 KJV] But the rest of the dead (the ones who are NOT resurrected in the first resurrection) lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
[Rev 20:6 KJV] Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

If this is really only about "Israel", then how can it be the first resurrection, without the body of Christ who also are resurrected near the beginning of the millennium?

 

[Derf]

That would receive eternal life?

Maybe there are two groups that receive eternal life. Maybe more. For instance, infants who die are not "believers", yet I think we both would say they receive eternal life.

There was only ever one group like that, until Paul came around, and that was Israel.

Then Acts 7-9 happened, and suddenly a new group appeared.

Did it? or did one group, that didn't have eternal life promises gain access to the eternal life of the other group?

This is what happens when one mashes Scriptures that aren't talking about the same thing together.

Stay focused.

I asked a question.

Why did Paul's converts not have to circumcise, yet Israel kept circumcising?

Timothy did. He was a convert of Paul.

If there's no "wall of partition," then the house rules should be applied equally across the board, yes?

Yes. That's why Galatians 2 talks about Peter and Barnabas (definitely Barnabas was in agreement with Paul's gospel, right?)

Yet Acts 15, and Galatians 2, tells us that they are not, with different house rules for both Israel, and for Paul's converts.

Who had different rules for them? Christ? or the leaders? Were the leaders correct? Paul says no.
[Gal 2:12 KJV] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[Gal 2:13 KJV] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

You don't seem to sure about that.

There are many things I'm unsure about. I don't understand the full purpose of the dietary laws. I don't understand all the ways Christ is foreshadowed in the sacrifices. I don't understand why Gentiles were not part of Israel without circumcision, nor why cutting part of one's body off would cause you to be a better candidate for eternal life than someone who did not cut part of one's body off.

I can tell you that for believers under Paul's dispensation of the grace of God, it would profit you NOTHING to circumcise, if it is done for spiritual reasons.

And it profited those under the previous dispensation nothing either, according to Jeremiah:
[Jer 4:4 KJV] Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

Yet the Jews, to this very day, circumcise their children, in spite of their rebellion against God.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to convince me of. Maybe it is even PART of their rebellion against God, just as continuing the sacrifices of Moses would be rebellion against God if Jesus is the fulfillment of their shadows.

Which Paul says are left up to the individual, and not required by a law that is applied equally across the board.... but only for those who are in the Body of Christ. Israel still had to keep those laws, still did, and still does.

But in rebellion, as you stated. So why do you suggest that Israel is doing what is righteous when you say they are in rebellion?

So why, if there is no "wall of partition," do the Gentiles get to do their own thing, while Israel is still required to keep the law?

Required? by whom?

To reiterate, none of what you've said explains away the internal conflict of your position.

Either the Gentiles AND the Jews no longer have to keep the law, OR the Gentiles and the Jews DO have to keep the law, OR there are two dispensations, one for Israel, and one for the Body of Christ, that have different house rules for those under them.

Except that keeping all of the laws but failing to believe in the promised Messiah is in no way effectual for them. And, if they believe in the promised Messiah, and stop keeping the law of Moses, they suddenly are in the Body of Christ, and then it IS effectual for them. Therefore, if the only effectual thing is to believe in Christ, making one part of the body of Christ, the law doesn't play any part in their salvation.

The first two are the only two logical conclusions of what you've said in the post I'm replying to, yet BOTH contradict scripture.

The third (the essence of the MADist position) is the only one that resolves the issue, by simply letting scripture say what it says.

Only it doesn't resolve the issue, because it suggests that even in the midst of the new dispensation, the old dispensation is still effectual. Yet none of us believe that some can be saved by keeping the law, including Peter, since he said:
[Act 15:10 KJV] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

In fact, Peter said they were saved by faith through the grace of God, not by works.
[Act 15:9 KJV] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
[Act 15:11 KJV] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

 

[Derf]

Why?

There are many Christians who willingly accept Hebrews as applicable to themselves, without having their theology threatened. It seems like only the MADists are so eager to keep it as only for Israel, despite the obvious connection to Paul even if it wasn't written by Paul. And I don't understand why, since the text doesn't seem to exclude Gentile Christians by its content. Certainly it contains much material from the Old Testament, but that kind of stuff was also taught to Gentile Christians. Paul regularly quoted OT passages to Gentile Christians.

 

[Clete]

There are many Christians who willingly accept Hebrews as applicable to themselves, without having their theology threatened. It seems like only the MADists are so eager to keep it as only for Israel, despite the obvious connection to Paul even if it wasn't written by Paul. And I don't understand why, since the text doesn't seem to exclude Gentile Christians by its content. Certainly it contains much material from the Old Testament, but that kind of stuff was also taught to Gentile Christians. Paul regularly quoted OT passages to Gentile Christians.

I wonder what it's like going through one's life intentionally hitting the reset button on your mind so as not to have to deal with clear arguments and sound reason and to lie TO YOURSELF so you can go on believing whatever it is you desire to believe in spite of being shown that its very clearly false?

I could not live like that.

 

[Clete]

While this will not make you Mid Acts, it will help you grasp appreciatively the point(s) of difference. Most 2nd Acts reject Mid Acts outright. In my 2nd Acts seminary, we didn't even get to study them because they were 'way off base.' Of course a 2nd Acts college would uphold 2nd Acts and eschew all contenders as is in keeping with the doctrinal statement and professors in good 2nd Acts standing. I really wish they'd have at least spent a week on Mid Acts, however. Am I Mid Acts? Many would say so. Some might not, but I think I'm pretty close. <-- Good thread for your consideration concerning my theology.

Paul's existence as an Apostles doesn't even make sense from anything other than a Mid-Acts Dispensational perspective. Jesus already had twelve apostles that He Himself personally trained and commissioned to go to the whole world, which they DID NOT DO.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul's existence as an Apostles doesn't even make sense from anything other than a Mid-Acts Dispensational perspective. Jesus already had twelve apostles that He Himself personally trained and commissioned to go to the whole world, which they DID NOT DO.

This is why Derf tries so hard (and idiotically) to make Paul the replacement for Judas Iscariot. It's clear that Paul is NOT one of the twelve. But if Paul is that ONE different apostle, then his theory that they are "all the same" and teaching "all the same" fails apart.