The myth of the "early church"

[JudgeRightly]

Was Jesus then talking about an old church that He was going to add to? (I lost track of this thread, so forgive me if I've asked that already.)

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God and Israel.

That did not change with Paul.

The cut-off branches are unbelieving Israel. They will be grafted back in again, upon the fullness of the Gentiles having come in.

The text allows for that, I think, when Jesus says He will "build my church", but I don't think it does when talks of building it on the foundation of Peter's confession (which is the same as building it on the foundation of Jesus Himself).

Sorry, what? That makes no sense.

Jesus said He will build His church on the Petra, which refers to Himself, not Petros, Peter.

Again, if 2 different churches, was one founded in the wilderness? or was that a third church? I understand you think Paul introduced a new church, but that doesn't jive with the Gentiles being grafted into the thing the Jews had been cut off from.

Yes, the first church was "founded" in the wilderness.

The grafting is done onto Christ.

Romans 11:16 NKJV - For if the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]; and if the root [is] holy, so [are] the branches.
Romans 11:17 NKJV - And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
(Is the olive tree one of those churches? If not, what is the olive tree? How are the Jews broken off from it, i.e., they were already part of it, then they became NOT a part of it?)

The Olive Tree in this analogy is Christ.

Romans 11:18 NKJV - do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, [remember that] you do not support the root, but the root [supports] you.
Romans 11:19 NKJV - You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
Romans 11:20 NKJV - Well [said]. Because of unbelief (Lack of faith, not lack of works)

Correct.

they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
Romans 11:21 NKJV - For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
(The Romans can be cut off, too, so it can't be about salvation--that true believers that have been grafted in are now in danger of being cut off.)

What is being said here is that direct access to God can be cut off, and God can go back to working with and through Israel. Indeed, it is not about salvation, at least not directly. The direct access is available to all gentiles, believer and unbeliever alike.

Romans 11:22 NKJV - Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in [His] goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
Romans 11:23 NKJV - And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans 11:24 NKJV - For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches], be grafted into their own olive tree?
Romans 11:25 NKJV - For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Because Paul talked about the middle wall of partition being broken down between the Jews and Gentiles, such that the Gentile become fellow heirs with the Jews.
Ephesians 2:14 NKJV - For He Himself is our peace, who has made both (both what? Both churches?) one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,

Both groups, Jew and Gentile. All now have access to God directly, rather than strictly through Israel's religious laws and customs.

Or that He revealed that Gentiles can belong to the first one, since the natural branches were broken off.

Gentiles had access to God, but they had to go through Israel, either as a Gentile, or by becoming a proselyte Jew.

The natural branches were, as you correctly identified, broken off because of their unbelief.

As the wild branch, we in the Body of Christ should not grow haughty because we now have access to Christ.

I appreciate that distinction.

Agreed, whether it is one or two, Jesus is the foundation:
1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV - For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I've shown that it is what Paul teaches. You disagree, and that's ok--it's good to talk through our disagreements so that we all come to the best understanding.

The laughy faces are scorn, for not believing the same thing. Yet you (and others) have not presented a strong enough case, in light of scripture that speaks of the two groups becoming one. If those groups are two churches, that's fine, I guess, but Paul spoke of the two as if they were part of the same thing (see citations above).

Yes, both groups are part of the overarching Kingdom of God.

The kingdom of Israel is one that Christ Himself will rule over. But that kingdom does not encompass the rest of the world.

The Kingdom of God does, however. It includes both Israel and the Body of Christ.

Some hold that Jesus and Paul both taught that there were multiple churches--that there was a church in Jerusalem, and one in Antioch, and one in Ephesus, and one at Corinth, etc. (and they reject the idea that there is a universal church, although they just call it something different, they call it "the Kingdom of God"). But I think you are saying there was a universal Jewish church and a universal Pauline church. Scripture can easily be read, with no contradictions, in such a way, including Paul's letters, that those two groups were part of a single Christian church, with the "mystery" being that Gentiles would be invited into it (and Jews would be excluded from it if they didn't believe). Jesus taught this. Paul taught this.

Paul says "we" (the Body of Christ) "are all of one body":

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - New King James Version

Unity and Diversity in One Body - For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink...

www.biblegateway.com

In that context, the different "churches" in different physical locations are just that, local groups of the Body of Christ,

Note that by "Jew and Greek" here, Paul is not talking about Israel, which are those under the New Covenant, but rather Jews who have been saved under Paul's dispensation of grace. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

--

If I missed anything, please let me know.

 

[Right Divider]

As the wild branch, we in the Body of Christ should not grow haughty because we now have access to Christ.

The body of Christ is NOT "a wild branch" grafted into anything.

We are a NEW creature.

 

[Nick M]

I understand you think Paul introduced a new church, but that doesn't jive with the Gentiles being grafted into the thing the Jews had been cut off from.

Gentiles are not grafted in to Paul's church, that is correct.

Paul's audience was gentiles that were already grafted in. They are called Jew. And he is ready to share the gospel with them. People like Cornelius and the Centurion. Edit: I am adding in the reference. Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 1 and 2, where talks about who they are. Gentiles with faith that are called Jew.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

I might have a harvest among you also, even as among the other Gentiles.

I am ready to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast in God.

 

[Nick M]

The body of Christ is NOT "a wild branch" grafted into anything.

If we were, it would be an existing church.

 

[Nick M]

God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands.

Make yourself familiar withe books of Moses. Specifically the first 5 books of the Bible.

 

[Derf]

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God and Israel.

That did not change with Paul.

The cut-off branches are unbelieving Israel. They will be grafted back in again, upon the fullness of the Gentiles having come in.



Sorry, what? That makes no sense.

Jesus said He will build His church on the Petra, which refers to Himself, not Petros, Peter.



Yes, the first church was "founded" in the wilderness.

The grafting is done onto Christ.



The Olive Tree in this analogy is Christ.



Correct.



What is being said here is that direct access to God can be cut off, and God can go back to working with and through Israel. Indeed, it is not about salvation, at least not directly. The direct access is available to all gentiles, believer and unbeliever alike.



Both groups, Jew and Gentile. All now have access to God directly, rather than strictly through Israel's religious laws and customs.



Gentiles had access to God, but they had to go through Israel, either as a Gentile, or by becoming a proselyte Jew.

The natural branches were, as you correctly identified, broken off because of their unbelief.

As the wild branch, we in the Body of Christ should not grow haughty because we now have access to Christ.



Yes, both groups are part of the overarching Kingdom of God.

The kingdom of Israel is one that Christ Himself will rule over. But that kingdom does not encompass the rest of the world.

The Kingdom of God does, however. It includes both Israel and the Body of Christ.



Paul says "we" (the Body of Christ) "are all of one body":

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - New King James Version

Unity and Diversity in One Body - For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink...

www.biblegateway.com

In that context, the different "churches" in different physical locations are just that, local groups of the Body of Christ,

Note that by "Jew and Greek" here, Paul is not talking about Israel, which are those under the New Covenant, but rather Jews who have been saved under Paul's dispensation of grace. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

--

If I missed anything, please let me know.

Bump so I remember to reply.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The body of Christ is NOT "a wild branch" grafted into anything.

We are a NEW creature.

I always get this part wrong! :doh:

 

[Derf]

I always get this part wrong! :doh:

Can you explain this? Is it because MAD says they were Jewish proselytes before Paul had a chance to have some fruit among them?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The body of Christ is NOT "a wild branch" grafted into anything.

We are a NEW creature.

I always get this part wrong! :doh:

Can you explain this? Is it because MAD says they were Jewish proselytes before Paul had a chance to have some fruit among them?

RD?

 

[Right Divider]

RD?

Rom 11:20-21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: (11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. ​

​

That cannot be referring to the body of Christ!

 

[Derf]

Rom 11:20-21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: (11:21) For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. ​

​

That cannot be referring to the body of Christ!

Why not? If it tells us something about the body of Christ, we should listen, not just assume it doesn't apply. This us what we say againat traditional theists when they take passages that say God learns something and say it cannot mean what it says.

In other words, our theological system should be driven by scripture, not the other way around.

 

[Nick M]

Is it because MAD says they were Jewish proselytes before Paul had a chance to have some fruit among them?

Read the text.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

I might have a harvest among you also, even as among the other Gentiles.

I am ready to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast in God.

 

[Derf]

Read the text.

Ok, that makes some sense. Then these are circumcised proselytes. Are they believers in Christ already?
Romans 1:6 KJV — Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

If they are believers in Christ, circumcised so that they are Gentiles, but Jews, Then they must be Kingdom of Israel believers, right? Then how can Paul be faithful to his promise not to go to the circumcised? Isn't this letter a full-on rejection of that promise?
Galatians 2:9 KJV — And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[Nick M]

Ok, that makes some sense. Then these are circumcised proselytes. Are they believers in Christ already?

Maybe. But they don't know Paul's gospel of grace. The content of his letter to them is the answer to any question. Acts is a transition. It is not all at once. Luke records in Acts as Paul has to stand in front of Agrippa and give an account or be executed that the Lord Jesus Christ said

Things I will yet reveal to you.

Paul went into the synagogues and preached that Jesus is the Messiah. "Consider the source" is a logical fallacy, but a very powerful tool of persuasion. Belief in Jesus as the messiah is not a belief in Paul's gospel of the exchanged life.

 

[Nick M]

I have spent the last year carpet bombing in their comments what Paul said. As well as the overall storyline and the plot twist, as the late Bob Enyart called it, of the New Testament. We are not grafted in, but I have no other problem with what he is telling Jews in Israel.

 

[Derf]

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the Old Covenant: God and Israel.

Ok

That did not change with Paul.

It might have. Ephesians 2 talks about a "middle wall of partition" that is broken down between two groups of people. Let's talk about who those people are.
Ephesians 2:12 KJV - That at that time ye {Gentile believers, I think we both agree} were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel {still Gentile believers, and it makes sense that Gentiles were not part of the commonwealth of Israel}, and strangers from the covenants of promise {also Gentile believer} , having no hope, and without God in the world {this is what the foregoing means: that Gentiles were without hope and without God}:
Ephesians 2:13 KJV - But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
{the situation has changed now because of Jesus Christ. Gentiles can be "in" Christ and they are no longer those things described in vs 12: 1. without Christ, 2. aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 3. strangers from the covenants of promise, 4. without hope and without God. The word "commonwealth" is alternatively translated "citizenship", which was not open to Gentiles. Yes, they could become proselytes, but that really meant they were becoming Jews}
Ephesians 2:14 KJV - For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
{so now these two groups have been made one, Gentiles and those who are citizens of Israel, who have the covenants of promise, who have hope and who have God. The next verse tells us what previous kept the two groups apart, the law of commandments}
Ephesians 2:15 KJV - Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Ephesians 2:16 KJV - And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
There's the key: that Christ might reconcile BOTH unto GOD in one body by the cross. The "one body" is not Christ's body on the cross, but the body that is now made up of the ones who were part of the commonwealth of Israel and those that weren't. This body, I think we'll agree, is referred to elsewhere by Paul as "the body of Christ", or the church. Now, if there is still some kind of alienation between the two groups that are now one group, then Christ did not accomplish reconciliation into one group.

The cut-off branches are unbelieving Israel. They will be grafted back in again, upon the fullness of the Gentiles having come in.



Sorry, what? That makes no sense.

Jesus said He will build His church on the Petra, which refers to Himself, not Petros, Peter.

We are in agreement here. Peter's confession is pointing out what the confession is, and Christ is agreeing with him and saying that confession is what He will build His church on--that Christ is the son of the living God.

Yes, the first church was "founded" in the wilderness.

The grafting is done onto Christ.

And the cutting off is done from off Christ, right?

The Olive Tree in this analogy is Christ.



Correct.



What is being said here is that direct access to God can be cut off,

So when Paul is saying someone can be cut off from Christ, they must no longer be "saved" if they were at one time "in Christ", right? So this cutting off is not of the Gentiles as a group, nor even, I think, of the Romans as a group, but of individuals within the Roman community. The King James retains the plural and singular "you" by using "you" and "ye" for plural and "thou" and "thee" for singular. Paul uses the singular for the verses about being grafted in and being cut off. Which makes it sound like the issue is not that the Gentiles' (as a group) access will by removed, but that individual Gentiles' access will be removed

and God can go back to working with and through Israel. Indeed, it is not about salvation, at least not directly. The direct access is available to all gentiles, believer and unbeliever alike.



Both groups, Jew and Gentile. All now have access to God directly, rather than strictly through Israel's religious laws and customs.



Gentiles had access to God, but they had to go through Israel, either as a Gentile, or by becoming a proselyte Jew.

The natural branches were, as you correctly identified, broken off because of their unbelief.

As the wild branch, we in the Body of Christ should not grow haughty because we now have access to Christ.

Is it a singular "wild branch"? I don't see that in the text, but that a single believer can be broken off. And if Christ is the olive tree, then being broken off from the olive tree, the believer would no longer be "in Christ" (how could he be?), and therefore he would not be saved. So it does seem very much a salvation issue.

Yes, both groups are part of the overarching Kingdom of God.

The kingdom of Israel is one that Christ Himself will rule over. But that kingdom does not encompass the rest of the world.

The Kingdom of God does, however. It includes both Israel and the Body of Christ.

Paul doesn't talk about a "kingdom of Israel" using those terms anywhere that I was able to find. But he does talk about the commonwealth or citizenry of Israel, which Gentiles became a part of in Eph 2 (above).

Paul says "we" (the Body of Christ) "are all of one body":

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 - New King James Version

Unity and Diversity in One Body - For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink...

www.biblegateway.com

In that context, the different "churches" in different physical locations are just that, local groups of the Body of Christ,

Ok,

Note that by "Jew and Greek" here, Paul is not talking about Israel, which are those under the New Covenant, but rather Jews who have been saved under Paul's dispensation of grace. (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

And yet Paul speaks in Romans of the wild olive tree being grafted into the thing that was in Ephesians termed the "commnwealth" of Israel.

--

If I missed anything, please let me know.

Did you answer my question about whether there are 2 "universal" churches? One of Israel and one of the body of Christ?

 

[Right Divider]

Paul doesn't talk about a "kingdom of Israel" using those terms anywhere that I was able to find. But he does talk about the commonwealth or citizenry of Israel, which Gentiles became a part of in Eph 2 (above).

Complete and utter baloney.

Israel was FALLEN... why would anyone want to be joined to that?

You seriously could not be more full of crap.

Eph 2:11-22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (2:12) 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: (2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; (2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; (2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; (2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. ​

We are "made nigh by the BLOOD"... not by becoming some part of Israel. That sort of hogwash makes be sick and that nonsense borders on blaspheme!

Fellowcitizens of the household of God and NOT in the "commonwealth of FALLEN Israel"

Did you answer my question about whether there are 2 "universal" churches? One of Israel and one of the body of Christ?

They are NOT "universal" as they are part of TWO DIFFERENT (and conflicting) dispensations of God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You seriously could not be more full of crap.

A little bit of grace would be appreciated here, RD.

 

[Right Divider]

A little bit of grace would be appreciated here, RD.

Understood, but I've grown increasing tired of Derf's anti-Pauline, anti-God views. He makes a mockery of God's Word.

 

[Derf]

Understood, but I've grown increasing tired of Derf's anti-Pauline, anti-God views. He makes a mockery of God's Word.

I notice "anti-Pauline" comes before "anti-God" in your tirade. Is that significant?