ECT "Ye search the scriptures, because . . .

[Interplanner]

Did he continue to look at it from that respective in the afterwards of his enlightenment?

I'm sorry, sir, but you don't know what Paul is saying or is about. At all. Otherwise, you would NEVER ask that question.

OK, let's start real basic: what is the flashpoint between Paul and Judaism, whether in letters or in Acts? What is the problem after the sermon in Acts 13? (I'm assuming of course that you know there was hostility).

 

[Cross Reference]

I'm sorry, sir, but you don't know what Paul is saying or is about. At all. Otherwise, you would NEVER ask that question.

OK, let's start real basic: what is the flashpoint between Paul and Judaism, whether in letters or in Acts? What is the problem after the sermon in Acts 13? (I'm assuming of course that you know there was hostility).

I don't really care because it has no bearing on what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about either for the Jew or Gentile. Why major on minors?

 

[Interplanner]

I don't really care because it has no bearing on what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about either for the Jew or Gentile. Why major on minors?

It's not that out of reach. So there are Judaizers you see and they want to wring Paul's neck. Are you really going to say that you are not interested? Why does he quote the Isaiah passage to them at the end of the sermon in 13? Why does he say in the hearing in ch 26 that the thing which Israel wants to see fulfilled is fulfilled already in the resurrection? And you are not interested? He says that risking his life!

As for whether it has a bearing on the Gospel...well, it is the Gospel. The event of Christ dying for our sins and justifying us through that event is the Gospel, so there is some kind of vacuum in what you are saying and you need to find out what it is filled with. "I determined to preach nothing except Christ crucified among you"--sounds pretty major to me!

 

[Danoh]

It's not that out of reach. So there are Judaizers you see and they want to wring Paul's neck. Are you really going to say that you are not interested? Why does he quote the Isaiah passage to them at the end of the sermon in 13? Why does he say in the hearing in ch 26 that the thing which Israel wants to see fulfilled is fulfilled already in the resurrection? And you are not interested? He says that risking his life!

As for whether it has a bearing on the Gospel...well, it is the Gospel. The event of Christ dying for our sins and justifying us through that event is the Gospel, so there is some kind of vacuum in what you are saying and you need to find out what it is filled with. "I determined to preach nothing except Christ crucified among you"--sounds pretty major to me!

He quotes the Isaiah passage because he is reminding them of what God had called them unto that He has concluded them unfit towards, seeing as, they have judged themselves unworthy of the eternal life that would have been theirs on His return.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Paul is NOT quoting Isaiah to Israel in Acts 13 as some sort of a statement that he is following THEIR commission - that is YOUR error.

He is pointing out their failure to receive Acts 3's preaching to THEM and its OFFER to blot out of THEIR sin at the Lord's return, which is when the GENTILE aspect of THEIR commission would THEN kick in - AFTER THEIR - ISRAEL'S salvation FIRST.

He is telling them that God has turned from THEIR nation as to THEIR commission and ITS' order.

That He HAS TURNED to the GENTILES not only NOW, but DIRECTLY, rather than THROUGH Israel FIRST.

Paul's is NOT their SAME commission.

THEIRS is YOU FIRST - YOUR rise FIRST - and THEN the Gentiles.

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

When - AFTER His return...

Isaiah 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

In CONTRAST to that, Paul's is an enigma, a seeming riddle or a mystery - the Gentiles' salvation DURING ISRAEL'S Fall.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

 

[Cross Reference]

It's not that out of reach. So there are Judaizers you see and they want to wring Paul's neck. Are you really going to say that you are not interested?

Yes! It is but a nice interesting part of the account of the life of Paul that I was not, nor could be, a part of.

Why does he quote the Isaiah passage to them at the end of the sermon in 13? Why does he say in the hearing in ch 26 that the thing which Israel wants to see fulfilled is fulfilled already in the resurrection? And you are not interested? He says that risking his life!

And? I have already acted on that knowledge.

As for whether it has a bearing on the Gospel...well, it is the Gospel.

You mean it was the gospel rejected by the Jews. I understand that. Lets move on. I am a Gentile. How does their rejection of it affect my relationship with God? Speak of that and give me the opportunity to agree wth you.

The event of Christ dying for our sins and justifying us through that event is the Gospel, so there is some kind of vacuum in what you are saying and you need to find out what it is filled with. "I determined to preach nothing except Christ crucified among you"--sounds pretty major to me!

Yes, it is a major event, one that has already persuaded me to Jesus. Now, what comes next do you think I need to know and if you don't know then let me help you. . .

 

[Cross Reference]

He quotes the Isaiah passage because he is reminding them of what God had called them unto that He has concluded them unfit towards, seeing as, they have judged themselves unworthy of the eternal life that would have been theirs on His return.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Paul is NOT quoting Isaiah to Israel in Acts 13 as some sort of a statement that he is following THEIR commission - that is YOUR error.

He is pointing out their failure to receive Acts 3's preaching to THEM and its OFFER to blot out of THEIR sin at the Lord's return, which is when the GENTILE aspect of THEIR commission would THEN kick in - AFTER THEIR - ISRAEL'S salvation FIRST.

He is telling them that God has turned from THEIR nation as to THEIR commission and ITS' order.

That He HAS TURNED to the GENTILES not only NOW, but DIRECTLY, rather than THROUGH Israel FIRST.

Paul's is NOT their SAME commission.

THEIRS is YOU FIRST - YOUR rise FIRST - and THEN the Gentiles.

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

When - AFTER His return...

Isaiah 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

In CONTRAST to that, Paul's is an enigma, a seeming riddle or a mystery - the Gentiles' salvation DURING ISRAEL'S Fall.

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Couldn't have said/written it better! Most complete.

 

[Interplanner]

Couldn't have said/written it better! Most complete.

Danoh wrote:
He is pointing out their failure to receive Acts 3's preaching to THEM and its OFFER to blot out of THEIR sin at the Lord's return, which is when the GENTILE aspect of THEIR commission would THEN kick in - AFTER THEIR - ISRAEL'S salvation FIRST.

It is nonsense to say this, to speak about things happening thousands of years away as though they were pressing issues. This is what is done to Mt 24's intro, too. He means present issues; D'ists say it is about things thousands of years away. That's irrational.

You have also changed 'salvation' again in to a Judaistic thing. it does not mean this here or in Rom 11 because the quote of Isaiah in Rom 11 tells us that Paul means the same thing (justification from sins) that he has meant all through the debate. It is NEVER about a Judaistic theocracy re-install, therefore salvation is immediately and universally available by faith.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
That He HAS TURNED to the GENTILES not only NOW, but DIRECTLY, rather than THROUGH Israel FIRST.

No, he is and did appeal through Israel first. You think things are water tight 2P2P. You don't know why Peter was given a Greek name. You keep the GEntiles out of Isaiah in Mt 4. You keep the gospel out of Syria in Mt 4. All these thoughts are 2P2P and are mistaken because it is not in the Bible. I will never weary of pointing them out because it does no good for me to say there is no 2P2P unless the specific attempts by you to place them are expressed. So express away.

 

[Interplanner]

Couldn't have said/written it better! Most complete.

It is fatally mistaken because he has changed 'saved' to mean: a Judaistic theocracy restored. If only you guys knew the historic Gospel, you would see what Lk 24 says--everything about Christ mentioned in the prophets has been taught and covered. We do not need the 'professional' help from D'ists and MADhats.

 

[Cross Reference]

It is fatally mistaken because he has changed 'saved' to mean: a Judaistic theocracy restored. If only you guys knew the historic Gospel, you would see what Lk 24 says--everything about Christ mentioned in the prophets has been taught and covered. We do not need the 'professional' help from D'ists and MADhats.

I understand. I see your point. I missed it. My focus was on a different perspective. My bad! Thanks for your headsup rebuke.

Question: How, when, what do you see the "times of refreshing" to be? [Acts 3:19 KJV]

 

[Cross Reference]

Most of it is not individualistic CR. It is about Judaism. There was neo-Judaism in the regions of Little Asia where Paul was writing this, worst case being Colossians. Colossians dealt with many specifics and Ephesians was modeled after it but dropped all the specifics.

Galatians 4:1

“Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [of the flesh]4:5 To redeem them that were under the law [of the flesh] , that we might receive the adoption of sons. 4:6 And because ye are sons [by the new birth from above], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

[emphasis mine]

What part is not individualistic if you consider Paul, I believe, is speaking of the law of the flesh for which the law of Moses addresses and for which Jesus teaches and, by the cross, has provided the way of grace and advocation with God?

If accurate, so much for dispensational teaching and MAD weirdness.

 

[Interplanner]

Galatians 4:1

“Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, [of the flesh]4:5 To redeem them that were under the law [of the flesh] , that we might receive the adoption of sons. 4:6 And because ye are sons [by the new birth from above], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

[emphasis mine]

What part is not individualistic if you consider Paul, I believe, is speaking of the law of the flesh for which the law of Moses addresses and for which Jesus teaches and, by the cross, has provided the way of grace and advocation with God?

If accurate, so much for dispensational teaching and MAD weirdness.

This segment is not about each individual Christian down through time. It is about the arrival of the Gospel in history, a history that was occupied by Judaism, the child-trainer.

 

[Danoh]

It is fatally mistaken because he has changed 'saved' to mean: a Judaistic theocracy restored. If only you guys knew the historic Gospel, you would see what Lk 24 says--everything about Christ mentioned in the prophets has been taught and covered. We do not need the 'professional' help from D'ists and MADhats.

No, we need the "professional" help of a reader of books "about" history you then read into Scripture.

This, even as you and yours continually knock the equally wrong headed Acts 2 Dispys for their own looking to history as to what God is up to.

 

[Cross Reference]

This segment is not about each individual Christian down through time. It is about the arrival of the Gospel in history, a history that was occupied by Judaism, the child-trainer.

Which was a type of Holy Ghost "child training" for YOU to understand how the ways of God are taught the new born ["children", cf John 1:12 KJV only] of Him. Even Jesus was, as "son of man", subjected to the same training.

 

[Interplanner]

No, we need the "professional" help of a reader of books "about" history you then read into Scripture.

This, even as you and yours continually knock the equally wrong headed Acts 2 Dispys for their own looking to history as to what God is up to.

It does not matter when we say a 'new' thing was coming--you could even date it as far back as parts of Isaiah or even Ex 25:40 implying that there was the shadow vs the reality. What matters is what was 'new' about it.

Another line above is very confusing Danoh: you're saying there's something wrong about looking at history to see what God is up to? As far as humanity is concerned, yes, he enacts things in history. He does not do them in a vacuum. I'm not referring to the faith vs sight difference of 2 Cor 3-5. I just mean that I don't see what is wrong with saying Acts 2 as history shows God was launching something.

We know from what Peter used of Joel 2 that it was part of the dramatic events of the last days (of Israel). Some of them could be in the Gospel event and some could be just ahead in the conflagration of the DofJ, but it was definitely saying God was altering things in history.

 

[Cross Reference]

It does not matter when we say a 'new' thing was coming--you could even date it as far back as parts of Isaiah or even Ex 25:40 implying that there was the shadow vs the reality. What matters is what was 'new' about it.

What was new was the reality of the 'shadow'.[duh]

Study the 'shadow' for understanding the reality.

Finish this: "All scripture, in this case meaning OT scripture, was given for . . . "

 

[Interplanner]

What was new was the reality of the 'shadow'.[duh]

Study the 'shadow' for understanding the reality.

Finish this: "All scripture was given for . . . "

Hi CR, just to improve communication: the last two lines above are not in your post. Your post ends with 'duh' about the shadow. Yet when I went to reply, which I am now doing, the last two lines about 'finish 'all scripture...' are there.

As for the last two lines.
You're right. That's what the book of Hebrews does for us. It studies the shadow and show how it is now obsolete in Christ. It seems to be even more than obsolete. Paul calls it the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.' So if you are really into enjoying that kind of thing, hey, go for it.

I don't know what else can be gained from shadow-gazing. In Gal 5 Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, followed by this fascinating line: 'about such there is no law.' That speaks volumes. 'About such...' means 'you don't make laws about these things, they just--grow!' So, why would God go back to 'making laws' when the method of the Spirit is for true care and love to grow? What is all this defending the shadow about, really? Is it an absence of the work of the Spirit of God through the Gospel of God? I trust it is not.

 

[Cross Reference]

Hi CR, just to improve communication: the last two lines above are not in your post. Your post ends with 'duh' about the shadow. Yet when I went to reply, which I am now doing, the last two lines about 'finish 'all scripture...' are there.

As for the last two lines.
You're right. That's what the book of Hebrews does for us. It studies the shadow and show how it is now obsolete in Christ. It seems to be even more than obsolete. Paul calls it the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.' So if you are really into enjoying that kind of thing, hey, go for it.

Wrong word! Fulfilled doesn't make them obsolete.

I don't know what else can be gained from shadow-gazing. In Gal 5 Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, followed by this fascinating line: 'about such there is no law.' That speaks volumes. 'About such...' means 'you don't make laws about these things, they just--grow!' So, why would God go back to 'making laws' when the method of the Spirit is for true care and love to grow? What is all this defending the shadow about, really? Is it an absence of the work of the Spirit of God through the Gospel of God? I trust it is not.

The has been personified. His Name is Jesus Christ. How many times must that fact be brought up in these silly discussions? Learn Jesus Christ until you know Him! Everything in the afterwards in the pursuit of knowing Him becomes incidental.

 

[Interplanner]

Obsolete and dissappearing and weak and miserable are all terms from Paul and Hebrews.

You should get more familiar with your Bible before you make so many declarations.

btw, Hebrews says 'there are no more sacrifices for sins.' Are we talking about the same thing? What old covenant or law are you talking about?

 

[Cross Reference]

Obsolete and dissappearing and weak and miserable are all terms from Paul and Hebrews.

You should get more familiar with your Bible before you make so many declarations.

btw, Hebrews says 'there are no more sacrifices for sins.' Are we talking about the same thing? What old covenant or law are you talking about?

Have you ever considered that it could well have been even the law of the flesh? He fulfilled it in His own which made a way possible, through him, for any who came after Him , to rule over their own? Since it is ever an ongoing issue with man, where is the obsolescence in that it is a necessity for the Christian to function as one?