ECT What Kind of Death?

[musterion]

There Peter was addressing Israel as a nation which was composed of both believers and nonbelievers. Then after Israel as a nation refused to believe then that "nation" was set aside.

Yes, and the entire nations, from the leadership down, had to repent. They didn't.

And after that Paul states that both Jewish believers and Gentile believers were baptized into the Body (1 Jn.12:13).

First, did he say Jewish BELIEVERS and Gentile BELIEVERS? Or did he say Jews and Gentiles?

What was done to incorporate the Body was done by his received gospel of grace, not by the already known gospel of the Kingdom.

And that's John's reference there, not Paul's. Not sure why it's there.

And the Hebrew epistles demonstrate that the Jews who received those epistles were waiting for an imminent appearing of the Lord Jesus. And by your own words it will be those in the Body who will experience that coming.

You're being obtuse. IF the Hebrew letters were written before the cutting off of Israel, then what they could have been awaiting with hope was Acts 3:21, which is not the rapture.

Besides if they were waiting for the appearance of the Lord Jesus which is found after the abomination of desolation is set up then that appearance could not be described as being imminent, which means it can happen at any time.

I'd have to look into that.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First, did he say Jewish BELIEVERS and Gentile BELIEVERS? Or did he say Jews and Gentiles?

He said both Jews and Gentiles were baptized into the Body and common sense dictates that all of them were believers.

What was done to incorporate the Body was done by his received gospel of grace, not by the already known gospel of the Kingdom.

The following words of Peter are in regard to the gospel of grace:

"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).​

Being redeemed is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace (Ro.3:24). And the following words of Peter are not in regard to the kingom gospel:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (2 Pet.2:24).​

In fact, J.C. O'Hair wanted nothing to do with the teaching that the epistles of Peter and James are not for this age, as witnessed by his words here:

"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).​

Your ideas come straight from what O'Hair calls "Bullingerism," better known to us as Acts 28 Dispensationalism.

You're being obtuse. IF the Hebrew letters were written before the cutting off of Israel, then what they could have been awaiting with hope was Acts 3:21, which is not the rapture.

I never said that the Hebrew epistles were written before the setting aside of Israel. Do you think that what is found in the following verses is for the Jews who lived before Israel was set aside?:

"For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did...By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament" (Heb.7:18-19,22).​

Cornelius Stam, the founder of the Berean Bible Society, wrote that the author of Hebrews "exhorts them to leave, finally and fully, the religion of Judaism with its shadows, for Christianity, with its substance and reality" (Stam, The Epistle to the Hebrews, [Berean Literature Foundation, 1991], 69).

Sir Robert Anderson wrote that "the distinctive sin with which the Epistle deals is unbelief, and unbelief that savours of apostasy, a going back to Judaism by those who had accepted Christ as the fulfillment of that divine religion...the Epistle to the Hebrews sought to teach him that as a partaker of a heavenly calling, he had to do with heavenly realities, of which the glories of his national cult were but types and shadows...nothing but the revelation of something higher and more glorious could ever wean him from his devotion to the national religion" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews, [Kregel Publications, 1978], p. 114,124).

 

[musterion]

Do you believe the circumcision epistles, doctrinally, "weigh" as much for us as Paul's do?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you believe the circumcision epistles, doctrinally, "weigh" as much for us as Paul's do?

Since they are all addressed to those in the Body of Christ then they are of equal weight. The main difference is that the Hebrew epistles were written originally to those with a knowledge of the OT so what is said in those epistles contain more things from the OT than did Paul in his epistles.now that the doctrine found in the Hebrew epistles are for members of the Body of Christ?

If not, why not?

Are you convinced

 

[musterion]

Since [you assume] they are all addressed to those in the Body of Christ then they are of equal weight. The main difference is that the Hebrew epistles were written originally to those with a knowledge of the OT so what is said in those epistles contain more things from the OT than did Paul in his epistles.

That's pretty much the Acts 2 dispensational view. It means Paul's distinctive ministry and doctrine is neutralized. If his letters weigh the same as Peter, James and John's letters as far as our walk and practice go, then Paul has GOT to be harmonized with them one way or the other. That's also the Acts 2 dispensational view.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That's pretty much the Acts 2 dispensational view. It means Paul's distinctive ministry and doctrine is neutralized. If his letters weigh the same as Peter, James and John's letters as far as our walk and practice go, then Paul has GOT to be harmonized with them one way or the other. That's also the Acts 2 dispensational view.

Your ideas about the Hebrew epistles are the same as the Acts 28 crowd. Neither Sir Robert Anderson nor J.C. O'Hair nor Cornelius Stam believed that the doctrine found in the Hebrew epistles are NOT for those in the Body of Christ. Let's go back to what you said earlier and perhaps this time you will actually address what I said:

What was done to incorporate the Body was done by his received gospel of grace, not by the already known gospel of the Kingdom.

The following words of Peter are in regard to the gospel of grace:

"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).​

Being redeemed is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace (Ro.3:24). And the following words of Peter are not in regard to the kingdom gospel:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (2 Pet.2:24).​

Do you still maintain that what Peter said in his first epistle was in regard to the Kingdom gospel?

 

[musterion]

Your ideas about the Hebrew epistles are the same as the Acts 28 crowd. Neither Sir Robert Anderson nor J.C. O'Hair nor Cornelius Stam believed that the doctrine found in the Hebrew epistles are NOT for those in the Body of Christ. Let's go back to what you said earlier and perhaps this time you will actually address what I said:



The following words of Peter are in regard to the gospel of grace:

"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).​

Being redeemed is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace (Ro.3:24). And the following words of Peter are not in regard to the kingdom gospel:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (2 Pet.2:24).​

Do you still maintain that what Peter said in his first epistle is in regard to the Kingdom gospel?

I say again.

What you presented is straight up Acts 2 dispensationalism, exactly what I believed when I was an IFB and, before that, a warm and fuzzy evangellyfish. Exact same doctrine.

Which makes you MAD...how?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Exact same doctrine.

You are wrong. It is not the exact same doctrine. I don't believe that the Body of Christ began at Acts 2 like they believe. I don't believe that the present dispensation of grace began at Acts 2 like they do. i believe that it started with Paul.

But in the long run what really matters is what the Scriptures reveal about those epistles. You say that only "some" of the first century Jewish believers were members of the body of Christ and the others were not.

What determined why some of the Jews were in the Body and others not?

By the way, I still think of you as being a warm and fuzzy evangellyfish.

 

[musterion]

If you believe Peter's doctrine weighs the same as Paul's and they were all body members before Paul was, then you may as well believe the Body started in Acts 2. You've made no difference of it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you believe Peter's doctrine weighs the same as Paul's and they were all body members before Paul was, then you may as well believe the Body started in Acts 2. You've made no difference of it.

You have yet to give any Scripture which demonstrates that only some of the first century Jewish believers were baptized into the Body of Christ and others were not. You obviously believe that is true so what evidence can you give from the Bible which lead you to that conclusion?

In his introduction to the first epistle to the church at Corinth we read that Paul's words were addressed not only to that church but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor.1:2).

That means that what he said in the following verse is addressed to all the first century believers in every place:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

All the believers in every place in the first century were baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ. How is it possible that only "some" of the Jewish believers were baptized into the Body as you believe?

I still await your proof from the Bible that indicates that only some of them were baptized into the Body of Christ despite Paul's words to the contrary.

 

[DAN P]

Let's look at the gospel mentioned in Romans 1:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures)" (Ro.1:2).​

The gospel of which Paul spoke of there was a gospel which was according to prophecy. The gospel spoken of in the following passage is described as being kept secret sincethe world began:

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began" (Ro.16:25).​

Do you not see two different and distinct gospels mentioned here?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7).​

Hi and there are 2 gospels in Gal 2:7 !!


#1 Paul was entrusted with the gospel of THE UN-CIRCUMCISION !!

Notice that the Greek article ( THE ) is used which points to \a specific gospel called THE UN-CIRCUMCISION , which is to the Gentiles , in verse 8 !!

And Peters is not called a gospel in Gal 2:7 , IT is called CALLED , THE CIRCUMCISION , to Jews only !!

There is also a gospel in Gal 3:8 and another in Rev 14:6-7 !!

Can you see a GOSPEL IN Rom 5:14 as death reigned from Adam to Moses , what do you say it is ??

dan p

 

[musterion]

You have yet to give any Scripture which demonstrates that only some of the first century Jewish believers were baptized into the Body of Christ and others were not. You obviously believe that is true so what evidence can you give from the Bible which lead you to that conclusion?

I'm one who believes the Body began with Paul. It's odd that if the Body existed before Paul's salvation, the 12 didn't say anything about it and DEFINITELY did not act as if it were the case.

In his introduction to the first epistle to the church at Corinth we read that Paul's words were addressed not only to that church but also to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor.1:2).

Yes...according to Paul's gospel.

That means that what he said in the following verse is addressed to all the first century believers in every place:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

Yes...according to Paul's gospel.

All the believers in every place in the first century were baptized by one Spirit into the Body of Christ. How is it possible that only "some" of the Jewish believers were baptized into the Body as you believe?

Answer: depends on who was following Christ acc. to Rom 1:3, and who according to Rom 16:25.

I still await your proof from the Bible that indicates that only some of them were baptized into the Body of Christ despite Paul's words to the contrary.

"In Christ," I believe, does include everyone as far back as Moses. But "in Christ" does not equal "in the Body of Christ," an organism evidently specific to this dispensation.

For your position to be true, the Body of Christ would have go back far beyond just the 12. It would go back to the dawn of man by including everyone who believed what God said at any given point, for 99% of which time the Body (assuming it existed) was NOT Jew/Gentile by grace though faith, which is exactly what Paul said it is.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes...according to Paul's gospel.

The following words of Peter are in regard to Paul's gospel, the gospel of grace:

"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).​

Being redeemed is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace (Ro.3:24). And the following words of Peter are not in regard to the kingdom gospel:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (2 Pet.2:24).​

You still have not given any evidence from the Scriptures that only some of the believing Jews were baptized into the Body of Christ.

"In Christ," I believe, does include everyone as far back as Moses.

Please show me where it is used that way in regard to the OT saints.

 

[DAN P]

The following is not the kingdom gospel, is it?:

"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).​

Hi Jerry and that group of people are those , who received TRADITIONS from the Fathers , ARE !!

The context are the traditions from your Father's are Jewish fathers !!

Not from Gentiles , sorry !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hi Jerry and that group of people are those , who received TRADITIONS from the Fathers , ARE !!

The context are the traditions from your Father's are Jewish fathers !!

Not from Gentiles , sorry !!

The subject I was discussing is the fact that the gospel of Paul, the gospel of grace, was preached to those who received Peter's epistle:

"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).​

Does that not speak of the gospel of grace?

Or is it the gospel of the kingdom?

 

[musterion]

The following words of Peter are in regard to Paul's gospel, the gospel of grace:

"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).
​

Being redeemed is the heart and soul of the gospel of grace (Ro.3:24). And the following words of Peter are not in regard to the kingdom gospel:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed" (2 Pet.2:24).​

​

Whose sins is Peter mainly talking about there?

Israel's, Isaiah 53:4-5, to be the holy priest nation, 1 Peter 2:5, 9.

The Body of Christ is not a priest nation.

​

You still have not given any evidence from the Scriptures that only some of the believing Jews were baptized into the Body of Christ.

You ignored what I said about depending on which aspect of Christ they believed. Paul distinguishes between two -- the one that came before, the one that came after.

Please show me where it is used that way in regard to the OT saints.

Acts 26:6, Rom 15:8, Gal 3:8.

Now show where the reality of being a member of Christ's body was recognized in the four Gospels.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You ignored what I said about depending on which aspect of Christ they believed. Paul distinguishes between two -- the one that came before, the one that came after.

So do you deny that what they believed was in regard to the Christ which came after:

"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).​

"In Christ," I believe, does include everyone as far back as Moses.

Would you show me where it is used in regard those in the OT?

 

[DAN P]

The subject I was discussing is the fact that the gospel of Paul, the gospel of grace, was preached to those who received Peter's epistle:

"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).​

Does that not speak of the gospel of grace?

Or is it the gospel of the kingdom?

Hi and Peter NEVER preached the MYSTERY and never did but Acts 15:11 says that Paul had an influence on Peter in reading 2 Peter 3:15 and 16 !!

dan p

 

[musterion]

So do you deny that what they believed was in regard to the Christ which came after:

"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).
​

Would you show me where it is used in regard those in the OT?

You're ignoring much of what I post in response to yours. You're boring and less than honest now, Jerry.

 

[DAN P]

Hi Jerry and Christ is pictured as a LAMB by all the Jews as and ATONEMENT and Sacrifice through out Time until Paul began to preach the MYSTERY !!

Read Hew 9:15 as Jesus blood PAID for all those in Israel who used ANIMAL to atone for their sins that were COVERED by animals on the alter !!

dan p