When did the Body of Christ begin?

[joelkaki]

When do you believe the body of Christ began? Pentecost? Acts 9? Genesis 3:15? Let's have some good wholesome debate on this.




Joel

[joelkaki]

No takers?

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Throw me a bone Joel...Where are you coming from?

To answer your question..... Acts 9

[joelkaki]

I believe in Covenant theology, thus I believe that that all who have ever believed in the Messiah, whether in the OT or the NT, are part of the body of Christ.

Thanks for answering. Are you prepared to defend your position?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

<---- Straps on the 'ol boxing gloves...:argh:

Of course... I hope you are as well...

I would hope that we can have a fruitful dialogue. I am new here, and my experiences on other forums have been both positive and negative. I would ask only that all of our claims be supported by Scripture. I would ask you to keep me in check as well, and if I make a statement that I may believe is common knowledge without using Scripture, please call me on it. I guess the most logical place to start is:


What do you want to know, sir?

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

Thanks for your gracious attitude. I agree that everything should be supported by Scripture.

I guess I will start out by simply asking a few questions (which I am pretty sure I know the answer to):

1. Is there only one way of salvation, namely faith in Christ?
2. Are those in the OT who had faith in Christ saved?


Thanks,

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I also thank you for your gracious attitude...

You asked,
1. Is there only one way of salvation, namely faith in Christ?The short answer is yes... The long answer is a bit more difficult. I don't want to get hung up on semantics... I believe that there is a difference between the "method" and the "means" of salvation.

The "means" is always the same. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent that saves all men who are in a position of salvation. The blood is the agent that washes away sin for all mankind.

The "method" is a bit different. I will address this more in your second question. You asked,
2. Are those in the OT who had faith in Christ saved?I would ask you to show an OT Saint "had faith in Christ." For example, we see in Genesis 15:5,6;
The New King James Version

Genesis 15
15:5
Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
15:6
And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.The point here is, Abram did not "trust in Christ," but believed what God asked him to believe to be in a position of salvation. God asked Abram to "believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky." Abram "believed God, and was accounted righteousness."

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. To address the "method," we see a few things. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for the sin of the world. Man must have faith to believe in God. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith. This is the "method" of salvation. If man believes what God tells him, and in some cases does physical acts that God asks by faith, the "means" of salvation, or the saving blood of Christ is applied to that person.

Yet another example: What did Noah need to believe to be saved? Noah did not believe that "Christ would die on the cross for Noah's sins and be raised from the dead," but Noah believed that if he did what God asked (build an ark for the saving of his soul), he would be in a right standing with God. God looked at Noah's faithfulness and applied the future blood of Christ to him. Again, i ask for Scripture to support an OT Saint who believed that Jesus Christ would die on the cross for his personal sins, and be raised from the dead. More on this later...

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

jEr, at least we agree that the means is always the same.
Obviously we will not see a statement saying that someone in the OT believed in CHRIST, for he had not yet come. However, I believe it was more than what you said. Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah. (Hebrews 11:39-40). Hebrews 11:39-40 clearly tells us that they were not made perfect apart from us.

Now, I should have phrased the question like this, so please answer this one if you don't mind:

Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,
jEr, at least we agree that the means is always the same.Good. We agree that the blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can make man righteous, and give man access to the heavenlies. Next you say,
Obviously we will not see a statement saying that someone in the OT believed in CHRIST, for he had not yet come.That was my point. I really appreciate the fact that you recognize that. Most people do not. Next you say,
However, I believe it was more than what you said. Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.Wow, this is getting scary. I agree again! :thumb: Finally, you ask,
Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?Of course He did. That takes us back to the "means" of salvation. The blood of Christ cleanses sin for every believer from Adam to eternity. I would again say that the "method" is very different, however. The same blood that saves you and me saved Noah when he built his ark, and Abram when he was out counting the stars. God looked forward to the cross and applied the future blood of Christ to them. Now, I have a question for you... You said,
Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.Is belief in Jesus Christ as Messiah part of the "method" of salvation for today? In other words, if you are sharing the gospel with someone, do you tell them they have to believe that Jesus is their Messiah to be saved? If so, why? If not, why not? Take care brother...

In Christ, --jER

[smilax]

There has always been only one gospel.

Galatians iii, 8: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

The things in the Old Testament pointed to the promise of Messiah, and in that sense, they believed in Him. (Faith is about loyalty, not mental belief.) Remember that in the Jewish mind, that which was promised was as good as something already there. That's why Hebrew has no future tense. That's why we "are saved" when our eschatological salvation is yet future. And that's why our Lord's Saviorship was already a reality for the Old Testament saints.

Solus Christus.

(Of course, people have to understand more specifics today because of progressive revelation coupled with progressive responsibility.)

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Christ die for the sins of the saved people in the OT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course He did. That takes us back to the "means" of salvation. The blood of Christ cleanses sin for every believer from Adam to eternity. I would again say that the "method" is very different, however. The same blood that saves you and me saved Noah when he built his ark, and Abram when he was out counting the stars. God looked forward to the cross and applied the future blood of Christ to them. Now, I have a question for you... You said,

OK, good, so Christ did die for the sins of the people in the OT. Now this thread is about when the body of Christ began. OK, this is what I am getting at--"For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; [i]AND HE IS THE SAVIOR OF THE BODY[i/]... Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS CHRIST HIMSELF ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER."(Eph 5:23, 25)

So Christ is the Savior of the body, the church. Now, if we know he gave himself for those in the OT, and He is the Savior of those in the OT, then how is it that they could not be part of the body? They are. The only difference between us and them is that they looked forward to Christ while we look back to him. They are not made perfect apart from us. (Hebrews 11:39-40)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvation in the OT was based on faith in the coming Messiah, the Seed of the woman. (Genesis 3:15; John 8:58). Those in the OT believed the promises of God, the major one being the Messiah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is belief in Jesus Christ as Messiah part of the "method" of salvation for today? In other words, if you are sharing the gospel with someone, do you tell them they have to believe that Jesus is their Messiah to be saved? If so, why? If not, why not? Take care brother...

In Christ, --jER

I'm not sure I totally agree with your method thing, but I'll try to answer. I do not usually include something about the Messiah when I share the gospel. If someone comes to faith in him, they are essentially trusting him as the Messiah. Most people today would not understand unless you took a bit of time to explain it to them what the Messiah is, what it means, etc. A Jewish person should, but not all we witness to are Jews. 1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that. I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

smilax,

You say,
There has always been only one gospel.I am a bit disappointed since you claim to have an epignosis of Koine Greek. What does "the gospel," or to euangelion, literally mean? GOOD NEWS!

What would you say is the "always has been only one good news" of the Bible then? Let me ask you this... What was the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15:6? We know that Abram was quite old, and was childless. He is hoping for a son to carry on his lineage. Let's see what he asks God, and what God's response is...
The New King James Version

Genesis 15
15:1
After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."
15:2
But Abram said, "Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?"
15:3
Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!"
15:4
And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
15:5
Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
15:6
And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.Again, Abram desired a male heir for his house. The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.". God is promising Abram that He will indeed have a son, and from that son will come many descendants. What is Abram's response? And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You see, the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15 was to believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky. When he believed that, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram. Now, let me ask you this... Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous? Of course not. As Joel has already rightly stated, the Gospel / Good News for us in the body of Christ is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
15:3
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
15:4
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,Now I ask, is this what you need to believe to be saved? Of course it is. This is the Gospel / Good News for the body of Christ. On that same note, where did Abram need to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? He didn't. As I stated before, the blood of Christ saves Abram, just as it saves you and me, but God asks man to show that true saving faith in different ways.

Answer this please... Do you agree that belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount for our salvation? I'll wait for your answer and go from there...

I would like to address one more portion of your post... You said,
That's why we "are saved" when our eschatological salvation is yet future.I agree that members of His body are eternally secure. I would bet that my reasons for this are totally different than yours. Let's save that discussion for another day...:read: However, with your previous comment in mind, how would you address 1 Peter 1:8b,9?
The New King James Version

1 Peter 1
1:8b
Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
1:9
receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).
The New King James Version

Titus 3
3:5
not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, In closing, I truly appreciate your gracious attitude, and your knowledge of the Scriptures. I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same "gospel" that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed? Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of "Good News" for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?

In Christ, --jER

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I follow your line of reasoning, and I wish it were that simple. I would like to change gears a bit, and ask you a couple of questions to lay some groundwork. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,
1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that. But then you say,
I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.Now, let's pretend that you and I are Paul and Silas imprisioned in Philippi. After the great earthquake, the Philippian Jailer runs in and says,
New King James Version
Acts 16
16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"How would you answer? Isn't it interesting that Paul never preaches that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved? You rightly share the gospel by responding with belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, we need to consider Christ's own words. Jesus Christ warned the Pharisees and Jewish people that they needed to believe that He was their Messiah or they would die in their sins.
The New King James Version

John 8
8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."You see, this takes us back to the "method" of salvation. God asks man to show his faith in different ways. God asks Israel to believe that Jesus Christ is their Messiah. He is their promised King! However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah. The body of Christ is asked to believe that He died on a cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. Isn't it interesting that no one other than the Apostle Paul teaches belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection for salvation? It is the cornerstone of Christianity, and most Christians do not realize that no one outside the body of Christ was asked by God to believe in His death, burial and resurrection. As a matter of fact, let's look at what happens when Christ tries to allude to His death...
The New King James Version

Matthew 16
16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
16:22
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." The point here is, Peter did not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Peter did, however, believe that Jesus was his promised Messiah. Just something to think about...

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

Joel,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I follow your line of reasoning, and I wish it were that simple. I would like to change gears a bit, and ask you a couple of questions to lay some groundwork. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor 15:3-4 tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins and rose again, so I believe we must believe that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then you say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't really thought about whether you must believe that He is the Messiah or not though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's pretend that you and I are Paul and Silas imprisioned in Philippi. After the great earthquake, the Philippian Jailer runs in and says,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New King James Version
Acts 16
16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you answer? Isn't it interesting that Paul never preaches that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved? You rightly share the gospel by responding with belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. However, we need to consider Christ's own words. Jesus Christ warned the Pharisees and Jewish people that they needed to believe that He was their Messiah or they would die in their sins.

Ah, but how did Paul answer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." You have no way of knowing what all else Paul may have said to him. I think that this short reply given to us by Scripture indicates that the Philippian jailer had prior knowledge of Jesus Christ, or else the response "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" would make no sense. Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later. Thus Jesus said more than just that he was the Messiah.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

John 8
8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, this takes us back to the "method" of salvation. God asks man to show his faith in different ways. God asks Israel to believe that Jesus Christ is their Messiah. He is their promised King! However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah. The body of Christ is asked to believe that He died on a cross for our sins and was raised from the dead. Isn't it interesting that no one other than the Apostle Paul teaches belief in the Death, Burial and Resurrection for salvation? It is the cornerstone of Christianity, and most Christians do not realize that no one outside the body of Christ was asked by God to believe in His death, burial and resurrection. As a matter of fact, let's look at what happens when Christ tries to allude to His death...

So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah? I believe he most certainly is our Messiah. You say "no one outside the body of Christ". You didn't go back far enough to lay the groundwork, for I don't believe anyone who has believed in Christ (whether before or after him) is outside of the Body of Christ. Abraham looked ahead to Christ's day (John 8:58) while we look back. You need to answer my arguments before the rest of this can really be discussed.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 16
16:21
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
16:22
Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
16:23
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point here is, Peter did not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Peter did, however, believe that Jesus was his promised Messiah. Just something to think about...

In Christ, --

But Peter later believed in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.


Joel

[joelkaki]

As Joel has already rightly stated, the Gospel / Good News for us in the body of Christ is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.


Nobody misunderstand me; I don't think the Body of Christ is merely a NT organism. It exists through the promise of the Messiah, for belief in that is central (Gen 3:15).


Joel

[joelkaki]

I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same "gospel" that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed? Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of "Good News" for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?


I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark, or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.


Joel

[joelkaki]

It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).


Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation." Salvation, no matter what time period, not matter what race, no matter anything, is purely by faith, never works. (Eph 2:8,9)


Joel

[joelkaki]

Again, Abram desired a male heir for his house. The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be.". God is promising Abram that He will indeed have a son, and from that son will come many descendants. What is Abram's response? And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

You see, the Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram in Genesis 15 was to believe that his seed would be like the stars of the sky. When he believed that, God applied the future blood of Christ to Abram. Now, let me ask you this... Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous? Of course not.

I believe your fundamental mistake here is in Galatians 3:8, for it says THE gospel. Not A gospel, A good news, but THE Gospel. THE Gospel was preached before to Abraham, for he believed in the coming Messiah. Revelation is progressive-in the OT they had animal sacrifices, which obviously we no longer observe since the ultimate sacrifice has come. Now, before Christ came, they believed simply in the coming Messiah, but the more fully revealed revelation of God is that the Messiah was Christ, who died and rose again, and we must look back and believe that. The only difference being they looked forward while we look back. It was not a different gospel. It was THE Gospel, yet not as fully revealed.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
I believe your fundamental mistake here is in Galatians 3:8, for it says THE gospel. Not A gospel, A good news, but THE Gospel. THE Gospel was preached before to Abraham, for he believed in the coming Messiah. Revelation is progressive-in the OT they had animal sacrifices, which obviously we no longer observe since the ultimate sacrifice has come. Now, before Christ came, they believed simply in the coming Messiah, but the more fully revealed revelation of God is that the Messiah was Christ, who died and rose again, and we must look back and believe that. The only difference being they looked forward while we look back. It was not a different gospel. It was THE Gospel, yet not as fully revealed.


Joel
Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word "THE" isn't written there in the Greek? :)

Besides which, someone can easily say "the gospel" if there is more than one. I can refer to "the car," even though there are two cars. Nothing wrong with this. For clarification, see Galatians 2:7. Paul explicitly says there are two gospels.

A literal translation of this verse says that Paul was tasked with preaching "the gospel of the Uncircumcision," while Peter on the other hand was tasked with preaching "the gospel of the Circumcision."

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel. But if that's true, then Paul's words in this verse don't make the least bit of sense. It would be like saying:

"I am tasked with teaching the Constitution of the United States, whereas Bob is tasked with teaching the Constitution of the U.S."

Would that make sense? Of course not; it would be preposterous to say that. Illogical. So why do people believe that's how Paul wrote? Paul was an educated man who communicated very carefully and effectively. And there are no mistaking his words here.

[joelkaki]

Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word "THE" isn't written there in the Greek?


Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for "the" in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel

[jpholding]

RightIdea:
The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel

I don't suppose you'd get the idea that:

1) The Gospel to the Circumcision started from the framework of, "The old covenant may now be dropped."
2) The Gospel to the Uncircumcision started from the framework of the sort Paul preached to the Areopagus.

Since each party was experiencing a different sort of Bad News, it seems more likely that the "Two Gospels" means that the Good News was framed differently for each, resulting in overlapping content only upon essentials for salvation.

Yo?

[bar Jonah]

jpholding:


I don't suppose you'd get the idea that:

1) The Gospel to the Circumcision started from the framework of, &quot;The old covenant may now be dropped.&quot;
2) The Gospel to the Uncircumcision started from the framework of the sort Paul preached to the Areopagus.

Since each party was experiencing a different sort of Bad News, it seems more likely that the &quot;Two Gospels&quot; means that the Good News was framed differently for each, resulting in overlapping content only upon essentials for salvation.

Yo?
So you'd agree they taught different messages? Or the same message just taught differently?

Teaching the Constitution in a different way is not the same as teaching about a different Constitution. You say the Twelve taught the same message, just framed differently, I assume. So, then, why is Paul the only one in the epistles who teaches a message of salvation for unbelievers? Why are the epistles of "Peter and Co." only centered around how to live a righteous life? Since we know they went to separate groups of people, "and never the twain shall meet," it seems to me that the congregations of the Twelve were seriously short-changed.

Paul's letters to the Galatians and Romans hold the most critically important soteriological teaching in the entire Bible. But the followers of Peter and Co. never receive it? James' letter to the scattered tribes" is clearly an extremely important teaching -- that we are not justified by faith alone but by works also. But this is conspicuously absent in Paul's teachings to his followers?

Looks to me like it was a terrible idea for them to go their separate ways.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for &quot;the&quot; in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel
Thank you for the concession. Usually someone doesn't specifically concede a point like that. I respect that. :)

And don't worry... naturally, no one expects you to change your theological bent based on that one point.

[jpholding]

Hi ho,

So you'd agree they taught different messages? Or the same message just taught differently?

The latter. Bear in mind that "gospel" (euanggelion) was not yet a proper noun at this time.

So, then, why is Paul the only one in the epistles who teaches a message of salvation for unbelievers?

Not that I agree, but in what context in the other epistles need to offer such a message? Bear in mind (again) all of the epistles were written to people already believers in the message of salvation and hardly needed it repeated. Thus your objection:

it seems to me that the congregations of the Twelve were seriously short-changed.

...misses the mark.

Paul's letters to the Galatians and Romans hold the most critically important soteriological teaching in the entire Bible.

And if Rome and Galatia had not had issues related to soteriology happen in their church, we may never have heard a peep about it in the Epistles. Meanwhile does that not leave more letters of Paul than not that say nothing about it, by far?

teaching -- that we are not justified by faith alone but by works also. But this is conspicuously absent in Paul's teachings to his followers?

Not really. The teach the same thing:

http://www.tektonics.org/jamesvspaul.html

If you wish to discuss it further.

[joelkaki]

The Gospel of the Uncircumcision
The Gospel of the Circumcision

Two gospels for two groups of people. Of course, you will argue that these are really the same gospel. But if that's true, then Paul's words in this verse don't make the least bit of sense. It would be like saying:

"I am tasked with teaching the Constitution of the United States, whereas Bob is tasked with teaching the Constitution of the U.S."

Would that make sense? Of course not; it would be preposterous to say that. Illogical. So why do people believe that's how Paul wrote? Paul was an educated man who communicated very carefully and effectively. And there are no mistaking his words here.

Could you give us the respective references for "gospel of the uncircumcision" and "gospel of the circumcision"? I need to see the context to make sure of all of this, but is not quite possible that what is meant is that Paul's special mission was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter focused more on going to the Jews?


Joel

[bar Jonah]

JP, please answer the following question directly:

Are we justified by works?

(And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a "yes or no question.") :)

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Could you give us the respective references for &quot;gospel of the uncircumcision&quot; and &quot;gospel of the circumcision&quot;? I need to see the context to make sure of all of this, but is not quite possible that what is meant is that Paul's special mission was to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter focused more on going to the Jews?

Joel
Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.

[smilax]

Act9_12Out:
I am a bit disappointed since you claim to have an epignosis of Koine Greek.I did?
The Gospel / Good News that was preached to Abram here is, &quot;Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.&quot;Galatians iii, 16-17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

There is most definitely a Christological reference here.
Do you also need to believe that your seed will be like the stars of the sky in order to be counted righteous?Ah, see the problem? You and I are working on different definitions of "believe." Pulling from my Young's Literal Concordance:

To believe:
1. aman, to remain steadfast.

And from Strong's lexicon, same word:

1. to support, confirm, be faithful
1. a. (Qal)
1. a. 1. to support, confirm, be faithful, uphold, nourish
1. a. 1. a. foster-father (subst.)
1. a. 1. b. foster-mother, nurse
1. a. 1. c. pillars, supporters of the door
1. b. (Niphal)
1. b. 1. to be established, be faithful, be carried, make firm
1. b. 1. a. to be carried by a nurse
1. b. 1. b. made firm, sure, lasting
1. b. 1. c. confirmed, established, sure
1. b. 1. d. verified, confirmed
1. b. 1. e. reliable, faithful, trusty
1. c. (Hiphil)
1. c. 1. to stand firm, to trust, to be certain, to believe in
1. c. 1. a. stand firm
1. c. 1. b. trust, believe

(Excuse the messy formatting.)

Does this refer to mental belief? By no means! Faith is loyalty. Pistis is used for both faith and faithfulness, and, really, what's the difference? In the Old Testament, people were saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by God (specifically Christ, though they didn't know it, because the Trinity was not yet revealed; as John i, 18 states, the Father is declared by the Son) alone. It is not mental belief in God's promise that saved Abraham, but his commitment to God. And likewise, we must take up our cross to follow Him.
Answer this please... Do you agree that belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is paramount for our salvation? I'll wait for your answer and go from there...Absolutely.
I agree that members of His body are eternally secure. I would bet that my reasons for this are totally different than yours. Let's save that discussion for another day...:read:No problem. Just so you know, I hold to perseverance of the saints.
However, with your previous comment in mind, how would you address 1 Peter 1:8b,9?It works perfectly with my model. I don't see salvation as a single moment, but God's preservation. Those who persevere will be preserved. Faith in itself is not a one-shot moment of mental belief.
It seems that circumcision believers had to hang in there, and continue working for their salvation. At the end of their faith, they receive their salvation. However, members of the body of Christ are saved (presently).See http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=397 for my position on this. I have no doubt that perseverance is necessary. As Matthew xxiv, 13 states, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." And I view Peter's exhortation no differently than I do Paul's in Philippians ii, 12.
I humbly ask again, did you get saved by believing the same &quot;gospel&quot; that Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc... believed?If you define "believe" correctly.
Or, do you agree that God sometimes has different types of &quot;Good News&quot; for man, and asks man to show their faith to Him in different ways?As I noted at the end, progressive revelation is a reality. Perhaps the outworking is different, yes, and perhaps the specific things to believe (in the mental sense) differ over time, but the gospel, fundamentally, is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

And to answer again the question of this thread regarding the body of Christ: as Galatians iii, 7 states, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Every believer, then, is part of this body, whether Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, or Paul. I sense that most of the debate is semantic, and that the issue really lies elsewhere, namely in your dispensational presuppositions and my rejection (at least in part) thereof. Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad this has been so civil thus far.
RightIdea:
And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a "yes or no question."Well, the word "justified" right there is confusing and a possible equivocation. Are you referring to forensic declaration before God, or vindicating exhibition before men? The former, no; the latter, yes. Dikaioo can mean both depending on context.

And before Holding gets a chance, here's the link he'll want to post: http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html.

[GrayPilgrim]

Smilax:
I sense that most of the debate is semantic, and that the issue really lies elsewhere, namely in your dispensational presuppositions and my rejection (at least in part) thereof.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. IMHO, in the eternal state there will be and is no distinction. All are saved in/by the Name of Christ Jesus and His finished work on the cross. The only reason that I would point ot a distinction is a fulfilment of the Land Promise of Gen 15. However, this promise only holds sway in this life for those descended from Abraham who believe in Christ. That is the geenration alive when Christ returns will receive the promises of the New Covenant along with the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. Notice, I do not believe that there is a distinction for those who have gone on before or will go on, and after the Mill. is over there will continue to be no distinction.

So as you can tell for me the OT is detrminative of my view and that's why on NT passages I don't generally differ too much from the preterist take. To me it all boils down to the covenants and God inextricably tieing his fidelity to their fulfillment and administration.

GP

[jpholding]

RightIdea:
JP, please answer the following question directly:

Are we justified by works?

(And just to avoid confusion or equivocation, the above question is what students of rhetoric techically refer to as a &quot;yes or no question.&quot;) :)

..is that the question is misplaced and based on a false dichotomy between faith and works that the ancients would never have entertained as we do in the Western world. Therefore neither yes nor no can answer adequately or correctly. You may as well ask, "Is the sky green or red?" and expect a direct answer.

For convenience I would only offer

http://www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html

Note esp. what I say about Semitic Totality.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Perfect JP. Thank you.

Dear Right Idea..... And I do have some things to say about the Greek in the "two gospels".. I have to dig up my material on that. And I sure wish Jaltus would offer a word or two on that. From my understanding the Greek necessarily implies no such thing.

[joelkaki]

Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.


I'm not debating whether the Greek says "of" or "to". Rather what I am saying is that "of" could still have reference to the fact that He was to the circumcision, etc.

Another reason I think what you are saying is inaccurate is Galatians 6:15--"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." I don't think we can say that there was a different gospel for the circumcision and the uncircumcision, for there is no difference. (Romans 10:12).

DeeDee, I don't think the Greek implies anything either way.


Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Joel:

Thanks, I am going to check it out. I really have to dig out that material I had on that once. I get so caught up in the preterism aspect that this kind of stuff kind of falls to the wayside, because I have figured out that preterism is the achille's heel to this whole sheebang, so I go that route to disprove it.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Many translations say something such as that it was Paul's job to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter's job to preach to the Jews. But if you look at the Greek text, it really refers to what I described above.


I'm not debating whether the Greek says &quot;of&quot; or &quot;to&quot;. Rather what I am saying is that &quot;of&quot; could still have reference to the fact that He was to the circumcision, etc.

Another reason I think what you are saying is inaccurate is Galatians 6:15--&quot;For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.&quot; I don't think we can say that there was a different gospel for the circumcision and the uncircumcision, for there is no difference. (Romans 10:12).

DeeDee, I don't think the Greek implies anything either way.

Joel
Oy.. . Joel, as I've said many times, that reference in Galatians 6:15 is the new gospel via Paul -- after Israel is cut off and the dispensation of the apostolic church is ended. Before Paul, circumcision was necessary. Are we to say the Twelve lived with Jesus three years, soaked up His teaching every single day, and yet were so moronic enough that they mistakenly thought circumcision was absolutely necessary for salvation? I find that extremely insulting to the Twelve.

[joelkaki]

Oy.. . Joel, as I've said many times, that reference in Galatians 6:15 is the new gospel via Paul -- after Israel is cut off and the dispensation of the apostolic church is ended. Before Paul, circumcision was necessary. Are we to say the Twelve lived with Jesus three years, soaked up His teaching every single day, and yet were so moronic enough that they mistakenly thought circumcision was absolutely necessary for salvation? I find that extremely insulting to the Twelve.

Gal 6:15 tells us that IN CHRIST neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. Surely you don't think that there is any way to be saved apart from being in Christ? If there is no other way than being in Christ, then nowhere does circumcision or uncircumcision avail anything.
Are you saying that the Twelve thought circumcision was necessary for salvation?


Joel

[joelkaki]

DeeDee, I understand why you take the preterist route. I know less about that than I do this side of the issue, although I know enough to agree wholeheartedly. Dispensationalism's core is in my opinion its doctrine of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the church, and thus I take that approach.

Joel

[Jaltus]

Galatians 2:7 is quite the interesting construct in Greek. The main verb (of the second clause, not the main clause) is a perfect passive, with Paul as the subject (I was entrusted with). The direct object is "the gospel," but it is the modifiers of the DO that are interesting.

You see, "of the uncircumcision" modifies gospel entrusted, not gospel preaching (which some translations erroniously provide).

Nearly all would agree that this is a rare genetive of advantage (some might say it is a genetive of direction, but it amounts to the same thing), translated as "I was entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles" instead of the gospel "of the Gentiles" which is much too non-descript.

You see the problem with it being a gospel only for the Gentiles, is that there is only one gospel mentioned in the sentence. Grammatically, this is not a problem, since you can supply the word "gospel" for the next phrase. However, if it were meant as a different thing, Paul would in fact supply the word again. As it is, the contrast is set between Peter and Paul, along with circumcision and uncircumcision. There are not two different gospels, there are two different appointments to two different men to save two different groups.

The translation is then something like this:

I was entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles, as Peter for the Jews.

(obviously I replaced circumcision with Jews and uncircumcision with Gentiles)

[joelkaki]

Very interesting and enlightening.

Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you Jaltus.. that is what the information that I had buried in my documents said, but you have confirmed my recollection. Thank you.

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
Very interesting and enlightening.

Joel
Yes, if you begin with the presupposition that dispensationalism can't possibly be true. And that presupposition acts as a filter for anyone who reads the verse; that should go without saying.

[joelkaki]

I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism is not true.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Acts912out, are you planning on answering my argument? Do you want to continue the discussion? I understand if you are just be too busy or something.


Joel

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism is not true.

Joel
I'm sorry, Joel, but this is an utterly fallacious statement that has no value in the discussion.

I started with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and have thereby concluded that dispensationalism IS true.

So what? That doesn't get us anywhere at all. So what's your point?

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I had lots of family things going on this weekend.

I will try to address each of your posts... You said
Ah, but how did Paul answer? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." You have no way of knowing what all else Paul may have said to him. I think that this short reply given to us by Scripture indicates that the Philippian jailer had prior knowledge of Jesus Christ, or else the response "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" The fact that the Philippian jailer had a prior knowledge of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. I think we can indeed know what Paul preached to the Philippian jailer and his household. Paul's message remains consistent throughout his epistles. Shortly after the events in Acts 16, Paul travels to Thessalonica and preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Acts 17:3). Next, Paul goes to Berea and then to Athens. Paul reasons with the philosophers "in the midst of the Aeropagus" (Acts 17:22). He seems to hold his own during the debate, and again preaches the death, burial and resurrection (Acts 17:31-33). He is "mocked" because of the resurrection, and then goes on to Corinth. We know for sure that the central theme of the gospel that Paul preaches is the death, burial and ressurection (1 Cor 15:1-4). So, I believe that we can indeed know that Paul preached the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to the Philippian jailer and his household. I would ask that you show me anywhere in Scripture where Paul teaches belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah for salvation. Next you say,
Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later.Please show me where Jesus requires belief in His death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You are right, Peter later believes in the resurrection after it happens. Please show me that Peter believed in the resurrection for salvation. Next you say,
So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah?No to both questions. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah for the nation of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-16). Again, they needed to believe that He was their Messiah for salvation (John 8:24). You continue,
You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.Ephesians 5:23-25 has nothing to do with salvation. Ephesians 5:23-25 speaks to the issue of the Christian life after one is saved. Paul is admonishing us jerky men to focus on loving God, and through His power, attempt to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. We, as sinful human beings, fail miserably, and do not treat our wives the way they deserve to be treated. Only through the power of God can we come close to loving our wives and avoid becoming part of the 50% who end in divorce. Paul expresses this same idea in Colossians 3:18,19. Next you said,
I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark,A couple of things here... Noah was saved because he did what God asked hime to do by faith. If Noah had rejected God, and refused to build the ark, then he would have died physically and spiritually. I would offer a couple of proof texts that say Noah was saved by building the ark-
The New King James Version

Hebrews 11
11:7
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

2 Peter 2
2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

1 Peter 3
3:20b
...when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.You continue,
or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.I already showed that Abram was accounted righteousness for his belief that his seed would be like the stars of the sky (Gen 15:1-6). You did not respond to that, and have not shown that Abram/Abraham or any other OT Saint believed that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins in the future. Again, OT Saints believed God, and did whatever He asked of them by faith. If they did what God asked them to do by faith, then God applied the future blood of Christ to their account. Concerning 1 Peter 1:9, you say,
Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation."Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You did not answer 1 Peter 1:9, and I would like to offer a few more from the many...
The New King James Version

Matthew 24
24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

2 Peter 1
1:10
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
1:11
for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*An interesting note here... Why do the elect need to "make their call and election sure?" If they are diligent, an entrance "will be supplied" (future tense) into the kingdom.

Revelation 3
3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

What if they don't overcome? Their names will be blotted out of the Book of Life.You then reference Ephesians 2:8,9. I agree, the body of Christ does not need to show their faith by doing works. The body is asked only to believe in the death, burial and resurrection by faith. I would also like to offer James 2:14-26. I've heard all the pad answers for this passage, and would like to offer a few things to consider and to be answered. James 2:14b is literally, Can the faith save him?" The implied answer from the grammatical construct is NO! Faith alone cannot save according to James. James, writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (The dispersion of James 1:1), is a circumcision believer. The context of James 1:22-25 and James 2:8-12 clearly shows that James is instructing the circumcision believers to do works of the law to be saved.

Again Joel, thank you for your time and your eagerness to discuss...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Hi smilax,

Thanks for your thoughts. The point of the "epignosis" was because you have used greek many times here. I was not trying to be disrespectful in any way. You said,
Galatians iii, 16-17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."I think you are right. The discussion hinges on semantics. I agree, Abram/Abraham is the father of us all. He is the father of the circumcision and the uncircumcision (Romans 4:11,12). The point I'm beating to death :bonk: is that I believe that God asks man to show faith in different ways to have the blood of Christ credited to his account. In retrospect, Paul equates the true seed to be Jesus Christ. I agree. However, the discussion is, "What did Abram/Abraham need to believe in order to have the future blood of Christ accounted to him?" The reality is that Jesus Christ is the true "seed" but, Abraham did not have an experential knowledge of our Lord. He believed that God would give him a son, and in return, God applied the yet future blood of Christ on his behalf. Next you say,
Ah, see the problem? You and I are working on different definitions of "believe."When I use the relative term "believe," I am referring to what a person needs to have knowledge of in order to be in a position of salvation. You continue,
Does this refer to mental belief? By no means! Faith is loyalty. Pistis is used for both faith and faithfulness, and, really, what's the difference? In the Old Testament, people were saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by God (specifically Christ, though they didn't know it,Another semantical problem. I agree that OT Saints were saved by God's grace, however, they had to show their faith in different ways. Let me ask you this... Can a person be saved today without believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? I hope you will say "No." That's the point. God asks us to show our faith by putting trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Just as He asked OT Saints to show their faith by putting trust in the physical acts God asked them to do (ie - circumcision). When I asked if you thought the death, burial and resurrection was paramount for salvation, I knew you would agree. I would like to follow up by asking if belief in the death, burial and resurrection is essential for all mankind throughout all time. I would ask that you please show any reference outside of the Pauline Epistles that show belief in the death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You continue,
Just so you know, I hold to perseverance of the saints.I figured as much!:)
It works perfectly with my model. I don't see salvation as a single moment, but God's preservation. Those who persevere will be preserved. Faith in itself is not a one-shot moment of mental belief.I ask that you check my comments concerning 2 Peter 1:10,11 and Revelation 3:5 in my previous post to Joel. You say,
I have no doubt that perseverance is necessary. As Matthew xxiv, 13 states, "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." And I view Peter's exhortation no differently than I do Paul's in Philippians ii, 12.I agree where Matthew is concerned, but disagree with the Philippians passage. In light of Philippians 1:6,
The New King James Version

Philippians 1
1:6
being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;When we believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation, God begins that work of salvation in us.
The New King James Version

Philippians 2
2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.God works our salvation in us, and we are called to work out our salvation in an outward fashion. God wants us to focus on loving Him, and do things that are motivated by the Holy Spirit who lives within us. In essence, Philippians 2:12 is referring to the Christian Life after we are saved. Next you say,
As I noted at the end, progressive revelation is a reality. Perhaps the outworking is different, yes, and perhaps the specific things to believe (in the mental sense) differ over time, but the gospel, fundamentally, is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.When we define our terms, I agree. You conclude with,
And to answer again the question of this thread regarding the body of Christ: as Galatians iii, 7 states, "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Every believer, then, is part of this body, whether Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, or Paul. I'm sorry, but I disagree. We know that the twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel in their promised earthly kingdom (Matt 19:28). Where does this leave Paul? Reigning "above the heavenlies" with the body of Christ (Philippians 3:20).
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad this has been so civil thus far.No, thank you.

In Christ, Jeremy Finkenbinder

[joelkaki]

RightIdea, I was responding to your post that I was seeing things through an anti dispy lense, and thus thought what Jaltus said was enlightening. My essential point was that I didn't just start out with the presupposition that there was no possible way for disp to be true, and worked around it as best as I could. I did start with the Bible, and decided that disp was not true. Now obviously I do not think of things in the dispy way, but that is not because I am trying to be distinctly antidispy but rather because I am trying to be biblical.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Acts 912out, I will get back to all of your post, but for now I need to make this point:

You have yet to offer any evidence that the body of Christ BEGAN at any certain point IN THE NT. These other issues we are discussing will flow from that understanding. I think we need to get back to the core issue, and provide Biblical evidence for the "starting point" of the body of Christ.



Joel

[joelkaki]

I'm going to work on your post in bite size chunks.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did prophecy his own death, and did require belief in that. Peter would obviously have believed in the death and resurrection later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show me where Jesus requires belief in His death, burial and resurrection for salvation. You are right, Peter later believes in the resurrection after it happens. Please show me that Peter believed in the resurrection for salvation. Next you say,

I was not saying that Jesus said, "You must believe that I died , rose again, etc." What I was saying is that the disciples did need to believe that he rose again. For instance, when he appeared to them, Thomas doubted, but he showed them the holes in his hands, feet, side. He was declaring by all that that he had been raised from the dead, and they were to believe that. I was not saying that before Christ died, he said that people would have to believe in it. Please show me that Peter believed in something else for salvation. He even speaks of Christ's resurrection in Acts chapter 2. I'll come back to that point later.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we do not need to believe that He is the Messiah? So Christ is not our Messiah?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No to both questions. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah for the nation of Israel (2 Sam 7:12-16). Again, they needed to believe that He was their Messiah for salvation (John 8:24).

I believe that He is our Messiah. Messiah, if I am not mistaken, means "anointed one" and also if I am not mistaken, so does "Christ." So if we are saying that he is the Christ, then we are also saying that He is the Messiah.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,
You have yet to offer any evidence that the body of Christ BEGAN at any certain point IN THE NT.You never asked...:rofl: No, seriously, this is the crux of the issue. I will present my position on this, however, I am looking forward to your response to Paul and the Philippian Jailer, the fact that God asked Noah to show his faith by building an ark for salvation and the passages that show endurance for salvation for circumcision believers. Now, let's get started... In order to establish my position, I need to let you know again where I'm coming from. Again, I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves all saved persons. Please keep in mind our previous discussions on "means" and "method" as we continue. Without going through all the dispensations, I will address the NT in general.

We see that the gospels open with John the Baptist's ministry. John was preaching "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The method of salvation at the opening of the gospels included going out to John's baptism by faith. This stays consistent throughout Christ's earthly ministry. Again, Christ was sent "for the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt 15:24). He was the minister to the circumcision. Christ is the first person to be baptized with and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. The method of salvation here includes water baptism for salvation.

After the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, we see that the circumcision believers are expecting the earthly kingdom to be restored (Acts 1:6). About 10 days later on the day of Pentecost, we see that Peter addresses the Jews exclusively. Peter quotes a tribulation setting prophecy from Joel, and commands water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38). This method of salvation remains consistent until God raises up the Apostle Paul. I have covered a lot of information that I believe is common knowledge. Before I get into the specifics of Paul's conversion, I would like to make sure we are on the same page. I'm not asking that you agree, I just want you to offer any rebuttal to the above points that I have not provided Scripture for. Please ask specific questions concerning the above points, and we'll go from there.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to think about what I argued from Eph 5:23-25.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ephesians 5:23-25 has nothing to do with salvation. Ephesians 5:23-25 speaks to the issue of the Christian life after one is saved. Paul is admonishing us jerky men to focus on loving God, and through His power, attempt to love our wives just as Christ loved the church. We, as sinful human beings, fail miserably, and do not treat our wives the way they deserve to be treated. Only through the power of God can we come close to loving our wives and avoid becoming part of the 50% who end in divorce. Paul expresses this same idea in Colossians 3:18,19. Next you said,

Nothing to do with salvation? "He is the Savior of the body..." That sounds like salvation. Christ is the Savior of his body, he saves the church. You are kind of missing my point here. Christ gave himself for the church. He died for the church. He is the Savior of that body. Now, if He is the Savior of those faithful in the OT, and if he died for them, I see no reason to exclude them from being included in the body.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe that Noah was merely saved by believing God to take care of him in building the ark,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of things here... Noah was saved because he did what God asked hime to do by faith. If Noah had rejected God, and refused to build the ark, then he would have died physically and spiritually. I would offer a couple of proof texts that say Noah was saved by building the ark-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Hebrews 11
11:7
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

2 Peter 2
2:5
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

1 Peter 3
3:20b
...when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salvation there is referring to physical mostly I think, but that is not the point anyway. I don't believe it was merely that. I think there had to be belief in the one promise of the seed in Genesis 3:15. They looked ahead to that Seed. Now, sure God used the Ark for Noah to show his faith, but I don't think you can say that they did not have to look ahead to the promised Seed. I know this concept is difficult for us as humans to understand, but I believe it is what Scripture says, "...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:4) Central to salvation in the OT was "drinking" of the future Christ. Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day and was glad. (John8:56). Christ had not yet come, but they had to believe that He would come, because revelation is progressive, and he had not been fully revealed.


You continue,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or in Abraham believing he would have a numerous seed. I believe that they were saved by believing in the ultimate seed, who is Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I already showed that Abram was accounted righteousness for his belief that his seed would be like the stars of the sky (Gen 15:1-6). You did not respond to that, and have not shown that Abram/Abraham or any other OT Saint believed that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins in the future.

I do not believe that they had to believe that Jesus Christ would die for their personal sins, for revelation is progressive, and that was not fully revealed. However, I believe that they had to look ahead to the Messiah, the Seed of the Woman, in faith relying upon God that He would come. (Genesis 3:15; 1 Corinthians 10:4). Yes I get what you are saying with the Genesis 15, but if you look at Galatians 3:16, it says that it was really to the one Seed. Abraham was saved by believing in Christ as his SEED. The way that all nations would be blessed was through the one Seed, for he is the Savior of all types of men, Jew and Gentile alike.


Again, OT Saints believed God, and did whatever He asked of them by faith. If they did what God asked them to do by faith, then God applied the future blood of Christ to their account. Concerning 1 Peter 1:9, you say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very dangerous territory there. No one must "continue working for their salvation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You did not answer 1 Peter 1:9, and I would like to offer a few more from the many...

I do not see how 1 Peter 1:9 supports that idea at all anyway. The end of our faith, the result of our faith, is the salvation of our souls. When you see a verse like that, you need to check out the context, too. Look at verse 4:

4 to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

The inheritance was incorruptible and reserved. They couldn't lose it for not working for their salvation. Verse 5 caps the whole thing. It wasn't focused on man working for his salvation. Such could never happen. "who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation..." God keeps us in faith. We don't work for our salvation. Sure, good works are the result of our salvation (Eph 2:10), but never part of salvation, no matter what race or time period.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 24
24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

2 Peter 1
1:10
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
1:11
for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*An interesting note here... Why do the elect need to "make their call and election sure?" If they are diligent, an entrance "will be supplied" (future tense) into the kingdom.

Revelation 3
3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

What if they don't overcome? Their names will be blotted out of the Book of Life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then reference Ephesians 2:8,9. I agree, the body of Christ does not need to show their faith by doing works. The body is asked only to believe in the death, burial and resurrection by faith. I would also like to offer James 2:14-26. I've heard all the pad answers for this passage, and would like to offer a few things to consider and to be answered. James 2:14b is literally, Can the faith save him?" The implied answer from the grammatical construct is NO! Faith alone cannot save according to James. James, writing to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad" (The dispersion of James 1:1), is a circumcision believer. The context of James 1:22-25 and James 2:8-12 clearly shows that James is instructing the circumcision believers to do works of the law to be saved.

The fundamental reason we will not agree here, is that I don't see a distinction between the body of Christ and other believers, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Faith without works is dead. It doesn't do anything. But works still do not save. Works "justify" faith. They show us that our faith is alive, so that if you do not have works, then it is unlikely that you have faith, but it is still the faith that saves. Again, I have seen no evidence Scripturally for the term "circumcision believer." Please provide some. So are you saying by that that no Jew could ever be in the body of Christ? "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20). NO FLESH! That means no matter what time period, no matter what race, NO FLESH! No flesh can be justified by works of the law.
If someone does not endure to the end, then they are not saved, but as 1 John 2:19 tells us, that means they never truly had faith anyway. "19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." If they had been of us, they would have stayed. If someone is truly saved, they will endure to the end, because they are kept by the power of God. (1 Pet 1:5).



Again Joel, thank you for your time and your eagerness to discuss...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

Thank you also. It has been a very good one so far.
Still, I need some hard core Biblical evidence that the Body of Christ began at some point in the NT.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

In order to establish the beginning of the body of Christ in the NT, we must first agree as to what the body of Christ is. I think this will be difficult from reading the previous discussions from both of us. I have attempted to show that I believe that body of Christ is a separate, distinct entity in God's eyes. I believe it is a body of believers that is separate and distinct form the nation of Israel. I believe that the two groups (Israel & the body) have two separate hopes which both have to do with Christ. Now, I know you disagree, and that's fine. That's what makes the discussion fun.

I will try to ask pointed questions and go from there... The first question is, "Do you believe that the Bible shows the body and believing Israel to be two separate groups?" Now, I know your answer thus far has been "No!" but I would like to offer the following verses. Please address each passage...
The New King James Version

Galatians 6
6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.You know that I believe that by the time Paul writes Galatians, he has an experential knowledge of the mystery that is the body of Christ. Paul understands that believing Israel showed their faith by keeping the law, being water baptized, circumcised, etc... Paul's letter to the Galatians stems from Judiazers from James coming to Galatia after Paul leaves Galatia and perverting the gospel of grace that Paul preached to them (Gal 1:1-12). Paul is admonishing the Galatians to stick to the message that he taught, and not to turn back again to the circumcision message that James, Peter, John, etc. are teaching. Paul tell the Galatians that circumcision is not important in the body of Christ (Gal 6:15) and wishes that peace and mercy be upon those who believe that circumcision is no longer profitable (body of Christ believers) and "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers. Next, we see that Paul refers to the church that is Israel as "the church of God" contrasted with the "body of Christ."
The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 10
10:32
Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, Again, Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers (Israel & the body). Now, Paul is not the only one who makes this distinction. James recognizes it as well. Paul goes to James in Jerusalem (Acts 15:8) and tells James about the message he is teaching. The circumcision believers who are with James are confused and say,
The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:21
but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
21:22
What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.What does James have to say about this matter?
The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
21:25
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."James affirms that believing Israel should continue to keep the law and the customs of Moses by faith, but concerning the Gentiles who believe (the body of Christ) they should observe no such thing... This is consistent with the decision James makes initially in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.
The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."Acts 21 is a direct result of this meeting in Acts 15. Who is the we? Isreal... Who is the "them" and "those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God?" The body of Christ.

Again, thanks for the discussion...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I don't have time to answer your post right now, but about the Messiah thing:

I was correct. Check out John 1:41. Christ is the Greek version of Messiah. So if we must believe that Jesus is the Christ, that is saying in a different language that he is our Messiah.(Both mean anointed one)


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I never disagreed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah / King of Israel. The context of our discussion is whether or not we, as members of the body must believe that He is Messiah to be saved.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

But you would agree that we must believe in Jesus CHRIST, correct? We have to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, right? If you say yes, then we must also believe that He is the Messiah, for they are essentially one and the same. If he is our Christ, he is also our Messiah.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

Remember when this discussion started? I asked you, when you share the gospel with someone, if you included the fact that Jesus Christ was the Messiah? You said that you hadn't really thought about it. Now, I ask. if you now believe that we must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved, then are you saying that the majority of mainstream Christianity has it all wrong? This seems to be a totally new idea to you... Obviously, the church you attend does not teach that, or you would have believed it before. The point again is, what is necessary for salvation today? What must one believe to be saved? Now, I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah for Israel, but do I absolutely have to believe this to be saved? I would say, "No way..."

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Look, I am not really saying one way or the other. I was just putting the "Christ-Messiah" thing out there for consideration. I mean, if Christ is the same thing is Messiah, and we must believe he is the Christ, then it would follow that we must believe he is the Messiah. Must it be included in the gospel message? I don't think so, but a proper and complete understanding of Christ would have to be that he is the Messiah, so that fact should be taught in churches.

But back to the actual topic of this thread. I have still not seen any evidence that the body of Christ started at some point in the NT.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,
...and we must believe he is the Christ...I'll wait to let you know what I think about this statement. However, I would ask that you show from Scripture that we must believe He is the Christ to be saved. I'll wait to hear from you.... You continue,
But back to the actual topic of this thread. I have still not seen any evidence that the body of Christ started at some point in the NT.As I requested before, there are a few loose ends that need to be cleared up before we can proceed. Please see the above post referring to "means" and "methods" of salvation, and the post discussing two groups of believers. I will also wait to discuss your findings concerning Mark 16...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9,

you would agree we have to believe in Jesus CHRIST, right? I think Scripture is abundantly clear that we believe in Jesus CHRIST, not just Jesus. If we believe in Jesus CHRIST, then I think you would be hard pressed to prove that we must believe in Jesus Christ, but not that he is the Christ.

As I requested before, there are a few loose ends that need to be cleared up before we can proceed. Please see the above post referring to "means" and "methods" of salvation, and the post discussing two groups of believers. I will also wait to discuss your findings concerning Mark 16...

I believe I answered all of your former posts, so what are you wanting me to do with that post? I believe I already answered that. Mark 16 was on another thread, and I don't think it is essential to this debate.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I think we are majoring in minors here. Yes I believe Jesus Christ is the Christ, Messiah, King, Lord, Way, Truth, Life, Savior, etc... The point of this discussion is, what must a person believe about Jesus Christ to be saved? You have yet to provide a definitive answer on this issue. You say things like "we should" or "if He is this, then He must be this." Like I said before, I never disagreed about who Christ is. Again, what is essential for salvation? Next you say,
I believe I answered all of your former posts, so what are you wanting me to do with that post?I am referring specifically to my post on 021303 at 2:39 am (Post #15395) and concerning my post on 021403 at 11:26 am (Post # 16219) You said,
I don't have time to answer your post right now, but about the Messiah thing:Again, I need to know if you agree with the points I made on 021303 so that we can move on. I would also like to hear what you have to say about the two groups of believers I spoke of on 021403.

Thanks for your time...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, I am not going to make a blanket statement at this point about that. I do not feel it is essential to this discussion, and thus think it maybe should have its own thread. I will still post some more on it though. Do you believe we must believe in Jesus CHRIST? If so, then mustn't we also believe that he is the Christ?

I'm going back and looking at those other posts.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Hmmm, sorry, I could have sworn I dealt with those posts...I guess not. I'll go through them and respond, though.


Joel

[joelkaki]

You never asked... No, seriously, this is the crux of the issue. I will present my position on this, however, I am looking forward to your response to Paul and the Philippian Jailer, the fact that God asked Noah to show his faith by building an ark for salvation and the passages that show endurance for salvation for circumcision believers. Now, let's get started... In order to establish my position, I need to let you know again where I'm coming from. Again, I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves all saved persons. Please keep in mind our previous discussions on "means" and "method" as we continue. Without going through all the dispensations, I will address the NT in general.

We see that the gospels open with John the Baptist's ministry. John was preaching "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." The method of salvation at the opening of the gospels included going out to John's baptism by faith. This stays consistent throughout Christ's earthly ministry. Again, Christ was sent "for the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matt 15:24). He was the minister to the circumcision. Christ is the first person to be baptized with and have the indwelling Holy Spirit. The method of salvation here includes water baptism for salvation.

I must vehemently disagree. Water Baptism was never required for salvation. "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20) That is not specific to a time period--no flesh is pretty conclusive. NO FLESH--that means no flesh. Not a single person has been, is, or will be justified by works of the law. Sure, they went out to John's baptism, but the baptism did nothing towards their salvation. Baptism is a symbol of what happens on the inside--cleansing.


After the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, we see that the circumcision believers are expecting the earthly kingdom to be restored (Acts 1:6). About 10 days later on the day of Pentecost, we see that Peter addresses the Jews exclusively. Peter quotes a tribulation setting prophecy from Joel, and commands water baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38).

"Tribulation setting prophecy" Hmmm, then the tribulation was in Acts 2?? That Joel prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2. "Commands water baptism for salvation"???I don't see that anywhere. Baptism is a matter of obedience, not salvation, in any age--"By works of the law shall NO FLESH be justified." (Rom 3:20). By the way, something interesting to note is that Paul, immediately after his conversion, was baptized. Was he then following this "circumcision gospel"? No, because there really wasn't one. Why would Paul have been baptized, though? Was that part of his salvation also? Not to mention, if the "method" changed with Paul, why did he "immediately" baptize the Philippians jailer and his family? There is a huge tension in your system here. The fact must remain that baptism is a matter of obedience, showing outwardly your identification with Christ, not a matter of salvation --No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.


This method of salvation remains consistent until God raises up the Apostle Paul. I have covered a lot of information that I believe is common knowledge. Before I get into the specifics of Paul's conversion, I would like to make sure we are on the same page. I'm not asking that you agree, I just want you to offer any rebuttal to the above points that I have not provided Scripture for. Please ask specific questions concerning the above points, and we'll go from there.

In Christ, --Jeremy

Woops, I guess I kind of went on to Paul's conversion and a few things prematurely--didn't remember you said that. I still need to see some evidence that the church started somewhere in the NT.

Jeol

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I guess I haven't been clear thus far. Again, I thought I had established that I believe that the blood of Christ is the agent that saves. Man must have faith, and God sometimes asks man to show saving faith in different ways. You said,
I must vehemently disagree. Water Baptism was never required for salvation.God asked man to show faith by being water baptized. Was the water some magical thing that gave man access to heaven? No way! The point again is, God asked man to show faith by being baptized. It was definitely part of their salvation message. You continue,
"By works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Romans 3:20) That is not specific to a time period--no flesh is pretty conclusive. NO FLESH--that means no flesh. Not a single person has been, is, or will be justified by works of the law.I agree. They are justified by the finished work on the cross. How does man have access to that saving blood? By doing what God asks them to do by faith. John the Baptist's ministry was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." What do you think that means Joel? Could a man have access to the blood of Jesus Christ if they refused baptism? The Bible says "No!"
The New King James Version

Luke 7
7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.Check the word for "will" here. It is God's boule will. God's determined will. God's will was not thwarted, but rather, they rejected it for themselves, not having been baptized. You continue,
Sure, they went out to John's baptism, but the baptism did nothing towards their salvation.Again I ask, what then is a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" You continue,
Baptism is a symbol of what happens on the inside--cleansing.Where does the Bible say that? You continue,
"Tribulation setting prophecy" Hmmm, then the tribulation was in Acts 2??The tribulation started in Acts 2. I partially agree when you say,
That Joel prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2.The Joel prophecy was partially fulfilled. The Spirit was poured out on the believing Jews who were there (Acts 2:5-10, 14, 22, 30) Verses 19-21 were not fulfilled. They refer to a time at the end of the seven year tribulation. You comment on Acts 2:38,
"Commands water baptism for salvation"???I don't see that anywhere.Let's read it...
The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:38
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.Again, this is how God asked man to show his faith. You continue,
Baptism is a matter of obedience, not salvation, in any age--What verse was that again? You say concerning Paul,
By the way, something interesting to note is that Paul, immediately after his conversion, was baptized. Was he then following this "circumcision gospel"?We're finally making some progress. Keep this in mind when we start discussing Pauls conversion. If there is anything you want answered right away, just ask a specific question. I'll be happy to respond. For now, humor me as we continue discussing events leading up to Paul's conversion.:yipee: As a side note, notice that the Ethiopian eunich also recognized that he needed to be water baptized to show his faith to God (Acts 8:36,38 - there is textual criticism on verse 37 - verse 37 is not in the original).

Thanks for your patience with me and your willingness to discuss. I promise, we will get to the things you're asking for...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Ok, here's my response to the other one:

Joel,

In order to establish the beginning of the body of Christ in the NT, we must first agree as to what the body of Christ is. I think this will be difficult from reading the previous discussions from both of us. I have attempted to show that I believe that body of Christ is a separate, distinct entity in God's eyes. I believe it is a body of believers that is separate and distinct form the nation of Israel. I believe that the two groups (Israel & the body) have two separate hopes which both have to do with Christ. Now, I know you disagree, and that's fine. That's what makes the discussion fun.

First let me clear up something. I do not in any way believe that there is no distinction between the Body of Christ now and national Israel. They are most certainly distinct. Physical Israel is completely distinct from the church because it is unbelieving. What I believe is that believing Jews are included in the body of Christ. I believe the "Church" (the group of God's people we see today called the church--Here specifically referring to the "church" during this present time) to be the continuation of "Israel" (the group of God's people seen in the OT). Israel was the visible form of God's one people in the OT, while the church is the visible form of God's people in the NT, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. There is only one people of God, but the outward manifestation of that has changed--once national Israel, now the church. Israel foreshadowed the true Israel.
Now, I have yet to see any evidence that national Israel is a separate distinct entity in God's eyes. Nor have I seen evidence that they have different hopes.


I will try to ask pointed questions and go from there... The first question is, "Do you believe that the Bible shows the body and believing Israel to be two separate groups?" Now, I know your answer thus far has been "No!" but I would like to offer the following verses. Please address each passage...

I believe that believing Israel is part of the body.


The New King James Version

Galatians 6
6:16
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

You know that I believe that by the time Paul writes Galatians, he has an experential knowledge of the mystery that is the body of Christ.

I disagree that the body of Christ was the mystery. That Gentiles would be in the same body with equal status with Jews was the mystery (and even this mystery was partially revealed in the OT).


Paul understands that believing Israel showed their faith by keeping the law, being water baptized, circumcised, etc... Paul's letter to the Galatians stems from Judiazers from James coming to Galatia after Paul leaves Galatia and perverting the gospel of grace that Paul preached to them (Gal 1:1-12). Paul is admonishing the Galatians to stick to the message that he taught, and not to turn back again to the circumcision message that James, Peter, John, etc. are teaching.

I disagree that James, Peter, John, etc taught a "circumcision message" other than Paul's.


Paul tell the Galatians that circumcision is not important in the body of Christ (Gal 6:15) and wishes that peace and mercy be upon those who believe that circumcision is no longer profitable (body of Christ believers) and "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers.

I'm afraid I do not see such a distinction. As I am sure you are aware, "kai" can, and is sometimes, be translated "even." I believe that is the proper rendering of it in this text. Notice that it says nothing about the "Body of Christ" believers. It says "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. " Would you agree that there is no possibility of salvation outside of being in Christ? I believe those who walk according to this rule are the Israel of God ("And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God." The text actually makes more sense that way, for if circumcision avails nothing, then why would there be a group of the circumcision that is special in God's eyes over those of the uncircumcision.) I do not believe he draws such a distinction. Christ broke down the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile AT HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS, not at Acts9. Gentiles were brought near by his blood shed on the cross.


Next, we see that Paul refers to the church that is Israel as "the church of God" contrasted with the "body of Christ."

Where is believing Israel contrasted with the body of Christ?


The New King James Version

1 Corinthians 15
15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 10
10:32
Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,


Again, Paul draws a distinction between the two groups of believers (Israel & the body).

I am afraid I see no such distinction. How can you say that the "church of God" is any other than the body of Christ? Are you saying that "Jews " and "Greeks" here refers to believing Jews and Gentiles? I would definitely disagree with that. I don't think that is an argument you can hold up. How can you say that 1 Cor 15:9 refers to any other than the body of Christ?
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct, that Paul taught a different gospel for those believing in Christ after Acts 9 than did the other apostles. So those saved before Acts 9 would have had to have been circumcised. So what happens to Gentiles saved before Acts 9? Were they required to be circumcised? Are they part of another group of people? How many peoples of God does that make now?


Now, Paul is not the only one who makes this distinction. James recognizes it as well. Paul goes to James in Jerusalem (Acts 15:8) and tells James about the message he is teaching. The circumcision believers who are with James are confused and says


The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:21
but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
21:22
What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

What does James have to say about this matter?


The New King James Version

Acts 21
21:24
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
21:25
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."


James affirms that believing Israel should continue to keep the law and the customs of Moses by faith, but concerning the Gentiles who believe (the body of Christ)

Here is where I believe you make a fatal mistake. You equate Gentiles with the body of Christ. Certainly they are part of the body of Christ, but they are not the sole makeup of it. Jews and Gentiles are of the same body (Ephesians 3:1--6). Believing Jews and Gentiles together make up the body of Christ.


they should observe no such thing... This is consistent with the decision James makes initially in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.


The New King James Version

Acts 15
15:19
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God.
15:20
but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
15:21
For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


Acts 21 is a direct result of this meeting in Acts 15. Who is the we? Isreal... Who is the "them" and "those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God?" The body of Christ.

Again, thanks for the discussion...

In Christ, --Jeremy

Again, I don't believe you can simply equate "Body of Christ" with " believing Gentiles." Believing Jews and Gentiles together make up the body of Christ. I will have more to say about ACts 15 and 21 soon, but I believe because of that fatal mistake, the rest falls to pieces. I hope I dealt with this adequately for the time being.
I have answered every one of your posts, and I have yet to see a Scripture passage clearly differentiating between "the body of Christ" and believing Israel, and I have not seen a Scripture passage indicating that the body of Christ began at some point IN THE NT.


Joel

[doogieduff]

Joel

You should make a new user name for your friend instead of typing his things under your name! :thumb:

[joelkaki]

Uh, that was just part of his post. He was writing to me.:smile:

Joel

[PastorPenn]

02-08-2003 @ 08:14 AM
joelkaki:

Joel, with all due respect, surely you can't be serious. Surely you realize the word &quot;THE&quot; isn't written there in the Greek?


Sorry, my mistake--very dumb thing for me to do. I didn't even check the Greek before I posted. RightIdea is right, there is no Greek word for &quot;the&quot; in the Greek. That does not mean I agree with everything you have said, though.

Joel :read:

Sorry to break into the middle of this thread, but for the record, here is a transliteration and literal translation of Galatians 2:7
from the Majority Text- Hodges and Farstad, 2nd Edition.

alla tounantion, idontes hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion tes
But (strong adversitive) on the other hand, when they saw that having been entrusted the gospel of the

akrobustias kathos Petros tes peritomes
uncircumcision even as Peter the circumcision.

There is a definite article before gospel (euaggelion), uncircumcision (akrobustias), and before circumcision
(peritomes). Koine Greek uses a definite article. When there is no definite article, or anarthrous noun, the author usually is stressing quality. cf. John 1:1b " kai Theos en ho Logos". And the Word was divine(quality) not "and the Word was a God" as the JW's believe. We can supply an indefinite article in the translation when context demands, otherwise, the quality of the noun is indicated. But, I digress, the verse in question has three definite articles in two noun cases: accusative and genitive.

Now I know that you are thinking, who gives a care? :argue: Speaking for all Greek Geeks everywhere, Greek is a wonderful language but dangerous in the wrong hands. Like guns, never point one at someone since it may be loaded!

[joelkaki]

The Joel prophecy was partially fulfilled. The Spirit was poured out on the believing Jews who were there (Acts 2:5-10, 14, 22, 30) Verses 19-21 were not fulfilled. They refer to a time at the end of the seven year tribulation. You comment on Acts 2:38,


On what basis do you claim that. It clearly says "THIS IS THAT"


Joel

[joelkaki]

God asked man to show faith by being water baptized. Was the water some magical thing that gave man access to heaven? No way! The point again is, God asked man to show faith by being baptized. It was definitely part of their salvation message.


Jesus would disagree, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." (John 6:47).

No mention of water baptism. The one believing will have everlasting life.


Joel

[joelkaki]

I agree. They are justified by the finished work on the cross. How does man have access to that saving blood? By doing what God asks them to do by faith. John the Baptist's ministry was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." What do you think that means Joel? Could a man have access to the blood of Jesus Christ if they refused baptism? The Bible says "No!"

Jesus said that if one believes, he will have everlasting life(which would mean that he had access to the blood of Jesus.--John 6:47). If water baptism was also required for salvation, then Jesus was either mistaken or a liar. Now of course, those who believed would have wanted to be baptized also. So those believing would also be baptized. But the baptism was not part of the salvation. Jesus said that he who believes will be saved.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Jesus and Paul taught the same message, "He who believes in Him is not condemned..." (John 3:18). "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus..."(Romans 8:1) No difference. Neither required water baptism. Same gospel message.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You ask,
On what basis do you claim that. It clearly says "THIS IS THAT"I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit changes Joel's prophecy from...
The New King James Version

Joel 2
2:28
"And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.to...
The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.We agree that Peter's statement of This is that is definitely referring to Joel's tribulation, last days prophecy. The reason I say it was partially fulfilled is because these things happened,
The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
2:18
And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy.However, these things did not...
2:19
I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
2:20
The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.'We see when we read Matthew 24:29 that the events described in Acts 2:19-21 will take place at the end of the tribulation...
Matthew 24
24:29
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I hope you realize you have taken John 6:47 out of it's context and have made it a pretext. You say,
Jesus said that if one believes, he will have everlasting life(which would mean that he had access to the blood of Jesus.--John 6:47).If it's that simple, why is there so much dissention in the church today? You continue,
If water baptism was also required for salvation, then Jesus was either mistaken or a liar.By your line of reasoning, you make John's entire ministry as the forerunner a lie. He was preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. You also make Peter's glorious sermon on the day of Pentecost a lie. Peter commanded baptism for salvation in Acts 2:38. I find it convenient that you fail to address John's ministry, Acts 2:38 and the fact that the lawyers and pharisees rejected God's boule counsel, by not being baptized by John (Luke 7:30). I know you hold tight to your beliefs, as do I, but I remember your comments about my lack of exegesis. I ask that you exegete the above passages. You continue,
Now of course, those who believed would have wanted to be baptized also. So those believing would also be baptized.Again, what passage was that? Scripture Please! You continue,
But the baptism was not part of the salvation.You need to address Mark 1:1-5, Luke 7:30 and Acts 2:38...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You say,
Jesus and Paul taught the same messageReally? How about these? Jesus said,
The New King James Version

Matthew 6
6:14
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
6:15
But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The New King James Version

Mark 11
11:25
"And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.Seems that Jesus also requires that a person forgives so that he will be forgiven. Let's see what Paul has to say on this subject...
The New King James Version

Ephesians 4
4:32
And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.

The New King James Version

Colossians 3
3:13
bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also. It seems that Paul taught to forgive because we have been forgiven. Sounds like a pretty dramatic difference to me...

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

I will admit that my defense of my position on John's baptism, Acts 2:38, etc, right now seems very weak. But there is a reason for that. I don't think this is the core issue we need to be addressing right now. This is not my starting point. See, I believe there is only one People of God through all ages, and you believe there to be a strong dichotomy between Israel and the church. The title of this thread is "When did the church begin?", and I believe that that is the core issue that must be addressed before we can consider these other issues. What I believe about these issues rests somewhat of my understanding of the foundational matter of Israel and the church, so I believe we need to get back to that before I can really develop my argument on these points. So once again, I say that I have yet to see any evidence that the Body of Christ began at some point in the NT.


Joel

[joelkaki]

You say,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus and Paul taught the same message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? How about these? Jesus said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Matthew 6
6:14
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
6:15
But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

The New King James Version

Mark 11
11:25
"And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems that Jesus also requires that a person forgives so that he will be forgiven. Let's see what Paul has to say on this subject...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Ephesians 4
4:32
And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.

The New King James Version

Colossians 3
3:13
bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that Paul taught to forgive because we have been forgiven. Sounds like a pretty dramatic difference to me...

--Jeremy

You took my statement somewhat out of context. I was saying they had the same message about condemnation/salvation. Jesus said that he who believes is not condemned. And Paul said the same thing. I was not referring to every issue addressed by Jesus and Paul. The message for escaping condemnation was to believe in Christ.

Joel

[joelkaki]

You ask,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On what basis do you claim that. It clearly says "THIS IS THAT"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree wholeheartedly. Peter, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit changes Joel's prophecy from...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Joel 2
2:28
"And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree that Peter's statement of This is that is definitely referring to Joel's tribulation, last days prophecy. The reason I say it was partially fulfilled is because these things happened,

You agree then that the time that Peter was speaking was called the last days?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New King James Version

Acts 2
2:17
'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
2:18
And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, these things did not...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:19
I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
2:20
The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord.
2:21
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We see when we read Matthew 24:29 that the events described in Acts 2:19-21 will take place at the end of the tribulation...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 24
24:29
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Jeremy


Those things happened within the generation to whom Jesus ws speaking. However, I don't want to get caught up on these points. We need to get back to addressing the issue of when the body of Christ began. I have yet to see any reason to believe that it began at some point in the NT.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Just to clarify something on your beliefs:

Do you believe that believing Jews today are part of the body of Christ?


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You said,
You took my statement somewhat out of context. I was saying they had the same message about condemnation/salvation.The verses I contrasted most certainly addressed condemnation/salvation. A pointed question concerning the verses I offered... Why does Christ say that one must forgive in order to be forgiven, yet Paul states that we should forgive because we have been forgiven? That sounds like salvation/condemnation to me... You continue,
Jesus said that he who believes is not condemned. And Paul said the same thing.Agreed... However, too bad it's not that simple. The point, which I've stated over and over, is God asks man to show faith in different ways. In other words, there are different ways of "believing" in God. Again, when man shows faith in the way God asks him, the same blood of Christ is the only agent that can clense from sin. You continue,
I was not referring to every issue addressed by Jesus and Paul.So you agree that there are differences between the message Paul preached and the message Jesus Christ preached? You continue,
The message for escaping condemnation was to believe in Christ.Ahhh... There's the rub... On the surface, we agree. However, how does God ask man to show that saving faith is the issue on the table.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You ask,
You agree then that the time that Peter was speaking was called the last days?Yes. You continue,
Those things happened within the generation to whom Jesus ws speaking. However, I don't want to get caught up on these points.You know I disagree. There is no Biblical or Historical evidence to support your claims.. You continue,
We need to get back to addressing the issue of when the body of Christ began. I have yet to see any reason to believe that it began at some point in the NT.I agree. Howver, in order to establish this point, we need to recognize that God asks man to show faith in different ways...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You ask,
Just to clarify something on your beliefs:

Do you believe that believing Jews today are part of the body of Christ?Sounds like a loaded question... :thumb:

We must be careful to define our terms... If a Jewish person trusts in Christ today, they become members of the body of Christ. In the body, "there is no Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, male nor female..." Therefore, I don't believe the term "believing Jew" would be accurate for the body of Christ. However, in previous dispensations, ethnic Jews that believed became members of the church that is Israel. Gentiles who belived in previous dispensations became proselytes and practiced Judaism. They also became members of the church that is Isreal.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, would you say that those Jews that believed before Acts 9 were part of "the church that is Israel"? What dispensation do you believe was immediately before the present one? Sorry for these questions, but I don't want to misrepresent your views, so I am double checking everything.

I do not think that we need to see that God asks man to show his faith in different ways first. That is an issue that flows from the central question. You are reasoning from the outside in, and I think we need to reason from the inside out. So, again, I ask for evidence that the body of Christ began at any point in the NT.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

Joel, it is our view that the present dispensation wasn't God's original plan regarding the post-resurrection world. Israel was supposed to be reunited with her bridegroom (Jesus) so that Israel would be a light to the rest of the world in regards to the gospel, and so on. And this relationship with her bridegroom included the covenant with God that the OT says would never, ever come to an end.

You and other Covies talk about the new covenant replacing the old covenant. But scripture tells us that old covenant NEVER will come to an end.

Numbers 25:13
and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel."'

Isaiah 59:21
"As for Me," says the LORD, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants' descendants," says the LORD, "from this time and forevermore."

[joelkaki]

Joel, it is our view that the present dispensation wasn't God's original plan regarding the post-resurrection world. Israel was supposed to be reunited with her bridegroom (Jesus) so that Israel would be a light to the rest of the world in regards to the gospel, and so on. And this relationship with her bridegroom included the covenant with God that the OT says would never, ever come to an end.

You and other Covies talk about the new covenant replacing the old covenant. But scripture tells us that old covenant NEVER will come to an end.

Numbers 25:13
and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel."'

Isaiah 59:21
"As for Me," says the LORD, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants' descendants," says the LORD, "from this time and forevermore."

The Old Covenant, with its types and shadows, can no longer have any validity, for Christ fulfilled all those types and shadows. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We will never return to the types and shadows, because the fulfillment of them has already come.

Joel

[bar Jonah]

03-03-2003 @ 08:30 PM
joelkaki:

The Old Covenant, with its types and shadows, can no longer have any validity, for Christ fulfilled all those types and shadows. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We will never return to the types and shadows, because the fulfillment of them has already come.

Joel
Ah, so when God said His covenant with Israel was permanent, forever, unending... was He just kidding? Or is He a liar?

[joelkaki]

No, but there are abundant instances in the OT where God required obedience from Israel in the Covenant. When they broke that off, they essential broke off their covenant with God, and he sent them into captivity in one place or another usually. When this escalated to the point that they rejected the very Son of God, which was what all that had come before looked forward to, the covenant was broken completely. It was not an unconditional covenant.

What about Hebrews 8 where it says that the Old Covenant is obsolete?

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You ask,
Acts9, would you say that those Jews that believed before Acts 9 were part of "the church that is Israel"?Anyone who believed before Acts 9 was a member of the church that is Israel. Again, if a gentile wanted to become a believer at that time, they needed to proselyte to Judaism in order to show their faith. They were ethnic gentiles who were now religious Jews. You continue,
What dispensation do you believe was immediately before the present one?Kingdom Offered From the day of Pentecost forward, the kingdom was being offered to Israel. If they had accepted Christ, God would have restored the kingdom. They were in expectation of their earthly kingdom after His death, burial and resurrection (Acts 1:1-6). However, they rejected Christ, and at the stoning of Stephen, Jesus Christ stood in judgement over the nation of Israel. Shortly after, God raised up the Apostle Paul with the mystery of the body of Christ. Israel was no longer God's special, chosen and sanctified people. They had stumbled and fallen, but their fall was only temporary (Romans 11). God will again be dealing with Israel after the tribulation. You continue,
I do not think that we need to see that God asks man to show his faith in different ways first. That is an issue that flows from the central question.I disagree. We must recognize that God deals with man in different ways in order to understand the beginning of the body of Christ. Again, God asked man to show faith in different ways in order to have access to the one true means of salvation, the blood of Christ. You say,
So, again, I ask for evidence that the body of Christ began at any point in the NT.In order to establish this point, we must first understand what the "method" of salvation was in the early part of the book of Acts, and how it changed. It is very important to understand that God asks man to show faith in different ways to have access to the blood...

In Christ, --Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Quote:
Acts9, would you say that those Jews that believed before Acts 9 were part of "the church that is Israel"?

Anyone who believed before Acts 9 was a member of the church that is Israel. Again, if a gentile wanted to become a believer at that time, they needed to proselyte to Judaism in order to show their faith. They were ethnic gentiles who were now religious Jews. You continue,

Please provide Biblical evidence for the phrase, "The church that is Israel."

Joel

[joelkaki]

Kingdom Offered From the day of Pentecost forward, the kingdom was being offered to Israel. If they had accepted Christ, God would have restored the kingdom. They were in expectation of their earthly kingdom after His death, burial and resurrection (Acts 1:1-6). However, they rejected Christ, and at the stoning of Stephen, Jesus Christ stood in judgement over the nation of Israel. Shortly after, God raised up the Apostle Paul with the mystery of the body of Christ. Israel was no longer God's special, chosen and sanctified people. They had stumbled and fallen, but their fall was only temporary (Romans 11). God will again be dealing with Israel after the tribulation. You continue,

Hmm, I haven't seen anywhere in the early chapters of Acts where the kingdom was being offered. What about the 3,000 (presumably) Jews who accepted Christ in Acts 2?

Joel

[joelkaki]

God will again be dealing with Israel after the tribulation.

Biblical support for such a statement is lacking. Please provide some.


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

joel,

You say,
Please provide Biblical evidence for the phrase, "The church that is Israel."I find it humorous that you ask me to provide this evidence after I have explained it in length earlier. You are very good at obfuscation. You are a defender of "Spiritual Israel" and have never proved that. Since you ask, here's another proof text for the church that is Israel.
Acts 7
7:38
This is he who was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us,Now I ask, who was in the wilderness? Israel. Who is the "church in the wilderness? Israel. You continue,
Hmm, I haven't seen anywhere in the early chapters of Acts where the kingdom was being offered. What about the 3,000 (presumably) Jews who accepted Christ in Acts 2?What does this have to do with the topic? The believers who witnessed Christ ascend into heaven were expecting the Earthly Kingdom to be established.
Acts 1
1:1
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
1:2
until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,
1:3
to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.Christ is telling them about the promised Kingdom for 40 days.
1:4
And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
1:6
Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"What is their hope? To have their Eathly Kingdom restored. What is Christ's response?
1:7
And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."Christ is referring to 10 days later at Pentecost. Blood atonement has been fulfilled, and God is offering the Kingdom to Israel. An angel who is there with them tells them about Christ's return at the end of the Tribulation to establish His Millenial Kingdom on earth.
1:9
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
1:10
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
1:11
who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."After the day of Pentecost, you have agreed that Peter's statement of "this is that" is referring to Joel's end times prophecy concerning the Tribulation. After the day of Pentecost, there are still offerings of the Kingdom to Israel.
Acts 3
3:19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
3:20
and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
3:21
whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.What are the "times of refreshing?" Christ's establishment of His millenial kingdom after the trials of the Tribulation. Christ does not return until the end of the Tribulation to begin "the restoration af all things." However, Israel rejected God at the stoning of Stephen. Jesus Christ stands in judgement over Israel.
Acts 7 r
7:51
"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.7:52
Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,
7:53
who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it."
7:54
When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.Israel has rejected God once again. Isn't it interesting that Acts 7:55,56 are the only verses that show Christ standing at the right hand of the Father? The significance here is that Christ is standing in judgement over the nation of Israel, just as the Father is shown to do many times in the OT.
7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
7:56
and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"Christ sets Israel aside and shortly after, raises up the Apostle Paul with the mystery of the body of Christ. There you have it. You have asked numerous times for evidence that the body of Christ started in the NT. God set Israel aside and raised up Paul with the unprophecied mystery of the body of Christ where ther is no Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female. We are all equal now.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[bar Jonah]

Outstanding, Jeremy. Thank you.

[joelkaki]

I'm still going to get back with you on this, you'll just have to give me a chance.

Joel

[joelkaki]

joel,

You say,“ Please provide Biblical evidence for the phrase, "The church that is Israel." ”

I find it humorous that you ask me to provide this evidence after I have explained it in length earlier. You are very good at obfuscation.

And I find it humorous that you would say that, for I refuted your explanation earlier, which you never responded to.


You are a defender of "Spiritual Israel" and have never proved that. Since you ask, here's another proof text for the church that is Israel.“ Acts 7
7:38
This is he who was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, ”

Now I ask, who was in the wilderness? Israel. Who is the "church in the wilderness? Israel. You continue,“ Hmm, I haven't seen anywhere in the early chapters of Acts where the kingdom was being offered. What about the 3,000 (presumably) Jews who accepted Christ in Acts 2? ”

What does this have to do with the topic? The believers who witnessed Christ ascend into heaven were expecting the Earthly Kingdom to be established.“ Acts 1
1:1
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
1:2
until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,
1:3
to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ”

So was Paul similarly offering the kingdom in Acts 28:31? "(30)Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, (31) preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things..." Paul was preaching the kingdom of God so was he offering the kingdom then too? Not to mention, Jesus never mentions a physical kingdom once, not even once. In fact, he says exactly the opposite--"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36). Sure, some may have expected an earthly kingdom. But such an expectation was unfounded, since Christ clearly said that his kingdom is not of this world.

Christ is telling them about the promised Kingdom for 40 days.“[/B]

I agree. But that promised kingdom is not earthly. "MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD." And if it is, then that is also what Paul was preaching in Acts 28.


1:4
And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
1:6
Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" ”

What is their hope? To have their Eathly Kingdom restored. What is Christ's response?“ 1:7
And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." ”

Christ is referring to 10 days later at Pentecost. Blood atonement has been fulfilled, and God is offering the Kingdom to Israel. An angel who is there with them tells them about Christ's return at the end of the Tribulation to establish His Millenial Kingdom on
earth.“

Funny, I don't see anything about a Tribulation or a millennial kingdom there. But Peter tells us in Acts 2 that Jesus is already on the throne of David--"THIS JESUS GOD HAS RAISED UP."


1:9
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
1:10
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
1:11
who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." ”

After the day of Pentecost, you have agreed that Peter's statement of "this is that" is referring to Joel's end times prophecy concerning the Tribulation. After the day of Pentecost, there are still offerings of the Kingdom to Israel.“

I said that "this is that" refers to Joel's prophecy. I did not say it had anything at all to do with the tribulation. I still have not seen the kingdom offered. Jesus was certainly preaching the kingdom to them, but so was Paul in Acts 28.


Acts 3
3:19
Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
3:20
and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
3:21
whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. ”

What are the "times of refreshing?" Christ's establishment of His millenial kingdom after the trials of the Tribulation. Christ does not return until the end of the Tribulation to begin "the restoration af all things." However, Israel rejected God at the stoning of Stephen. Jesus Christ stands in judgement over Israel.“

Funny, 1 Cor 15 doesn't mention anything about a Tribulation in between Christ's coming and the end.



Acts 7 r
7:51
"You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.7:52
Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,
7:53
who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it."
7:54
When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. ”

Israel has rejected God once again. Isn't it interesting that Acts 7:55,56 are the only verses that show Christ standing at the right hand of the Father? The significance here is that Christ is standing in judgement over the nation of Israel, just as the Father is shown to do many times in the OT.“ 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
7:56
and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" ”

Christ sets Israel aside and shortly after, raises up the Apostle Paul with the mystery of the body of Christ. There you have it. You have asked numerous times for evidence that the body of Christ started in the NT. God set Israel aside and raised up Paul with the unprophecied mystery of the body of Christ where ther is no Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, nor male nor female. We are all equal now.


That is some pretty scanty evidence if you ask me. I'm going to be presenting some more evidence for my view soon, and I would like you to actually refute my position, not just go off onto your own position again.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Oh, and BTW, how would you define the body of Christ?(one sentence--does it have anything to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit)


Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I will be waiting for your evidence, and I'll be sure to address each of your points. I would have expected the same from you, but... I do want to address one of your points... You said,
Funny, I don't see anything about a Tribulation or a millennial kingdom there. But Peter tells us in Acts 2 that Jesus is already on the throne of David--"THIS JESUS GOD HAS RAISED UP."I guess that didn't mean that God raised Him from the dead then... I will be waiting...

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

“ Funny, I don't see anything about a Tribulation or a millennial kingdom there. But Peter tells us in Acts 2 that Jesus is already on the throne of David--"THIS JESUS GOD HAS RAISED UP." ”

I guess that didn't mean that God raised Him from the dead then... I will be waiting...

If we just saw that verse, we might could say that. But look at vs 30-33.

Acts 2
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

David knew that God would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne.


31 he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

David, knowing that Christ would be seated on his throne, SPAKE OF THE RESURRECTION.


32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

David knew that Christ would be raised up to sit on his throne, and then Peter tells us that this Jesus God has raised up.

It is very clear. Christ was raised up to sit on David's throne at his resurrection and ascension.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I guess I missed your point... Oh well... I will continue to wait...

[Act9_12Out]

joel,

A quick response... Luke 1:32 says that God "will give Him the throne of His father David" -- that sounds like something to happen in the future rather than in the interim before the kingdom is established. Isaiah 9:7 says that "there will be no end to the increase of His rule or of His peace upon the throne of David and over his kingdom..." This is in the immediate context of Messiah's birth in the preceding text, but does not necessitate that His being seated on David's throne begins at that time. I would say that Messiah assumes the throne of David at the commencement of the millennium. As King over the world, He is no doubt enthroned in heaven, but the Davidic throne I would see as strictly upon earth.

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

But Acts 2 tells us that Jesus was raised up on David's throne back in the 1st century. The NT interprets the OT.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

You have yet to address the fulfillment of the kingdom. Are the 12 already resurrected and seated on 12 thrones? I believe this will happen during Christ's earthly reign of the Davidic kingdom.


Matthew 19
19:28
And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

A couple of things here... Christ says that He will sit upon the throne in the regeneration. Are we already in "the regeneration?" Secondly, Christ says "when" He sits on His throne, the 12 Apostles will also sit on 12 thrones. Is this also a reality? I doubt it. We see that this happens after the satanic rebellion, the Great White Throne Judgement, and after the New Heavens and the New Earth come down from God.


Revelation 21
21:12
It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
21:13
There were three gates on the east and three gates on the north and three gates on the south and three gates on the west.
21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Again, is this a current reality? I doubt it...

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[joelkaki]

Acts9, sorry I am taking so long on getting back with you, but I've been on some other threads, and had a lot of stuff to do at home, so I haven't had time, but I will be getting back with you soon.

Joel

[Apollos]

A9O12 -

What are you saying ?

Is Jesus Crhist KING of anything right now??? Is He "King of kings" ?? Or do you have Him in some kind of post resurrection "exile" ??

Also, would you please correlate your thoughts on Matthew 19 and Revelation 21. What is YOUR correlation between the "12 thrones" the Apostles will sit on with the "12 gates" and "12 foundations" of the wall there ??

Establish a connection between the two passages for us, okay??

[Act9_12Out]

Joel,

I will be waiting for your reply. One more thing... You said,


Funny, 1 Cor 15 doesn't mention anything about a Tribulation in between Christ's coming and the end.

Why is it that you say we should take the last half of Paul's statement literally when it comes to chronology, and not the first? Let's take a look at the reference.


1 Corinthians 15
15:23
But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
15:24
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

Why is it that you feel we must take the resurrection of believers, and then comes the end literally, but fail to address the at least 2,000 year gap between Christ the firstfruits and the resurrection of believers? If there is a 2,000 + year gap in Paul's chronology between Christ's resurrection and those who are Christ's at His coming, then there could most definitely be a 1,000 year and 7 year gap between the resurrection of believers and the end.

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Apollos,

You ask,


Is Jesus Crhist KING of anything right now??? Is He "King of kings" ?? Or do you have Him in some kind of post resurrection "exile" ??

Of course He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords right now. The point is, He is not currently reigning in His promised earthly kingdom. He is the King of a future kingdom. You continue,


Also, would you please correlate your thoughts on Matthew 19 and Revelation 21. What is YOUR correlation between the "12 thrones" the Apostles will sit on with the "12 gates" and "12 foundations" of the wall there ??

Establish a connection between the two passages for us, okay??

Um, ok... The point was that the 12 Apostles would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel with Christ when He sits on His throne in the regeneration. The correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21 is showing the importance of the 12 Apostles in the promised earthly kingdom. There are 12 gates with the names of the 12 tribes of Israel written on them. The 12 foundations with the 12 Apostles names are also in the future earthly kingdom. This is something that is limited to the 12 Apostles. They definitely have positions of authority in the future earthly kingdom. Now Apollos, I ask you, if Christ is currently reigning over the Davidic kingdom, are the 12 Apostles currently reigning with Him?

--Jeremy

[Apollos]

A9O12 –

Last time I asked – Is Jesus Crhist KING of anything right now??? Is He "King of kings" ?? Or do you have Him in some kind of post resurrection "exile" ?? Your response was:


Of course He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords right now. The point is, He is not currently reigning in His promised earthly kingdom. He is the King of a future kingdom.
Lol!! You have Jesus in “exile” just as I thought. If Jesus is “not currently reigning”, then Jesus is not King… of anything!!! You need to accept the consequences of your beliefs –OR- realize that they are skewed and need to be re-aligned with plain scripture !!
I then asked – Also, would you please correlate your thoughts on Matthew 19 and Revelation 21. What is YOUR correlation between the "12 thrones" the Apostles will sit on with the "12 gates" and "12 foundations" of the wall there ?? Your response was:

Um, ok... The point was that the 12 Apostles would sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel with Christ when He sits on His throne in the regeneration. The correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21 is showing the importance of the 12 Apostles in the promised earthly kingdom. There are 12 gates with the names of the 12 tribes of Israel written on them. The 12 foundations with the 12 Apostles names are also in the future earthly kingdom. This is something that is limited to the 12 Apostles. They definitely have positions of authority in the future earthly kingdom. Now Apollos, I ask you, if Christ is currently reigning over the Davidic kingdom, are the 12 Apostles currently reigning with Him?
First I would say you did not establish your correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21. You begged the question by saying “The correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21 is showing the importance of the 12 Apostles in the promised earthly kingdom.” What you needed to SHOW HOW they correlated those ideas and not just say they did correlate them and just go on. Establish what the apostles sitting on thrones means and what the 12 gates and 12 foundations represented, and then how these two verse correlate. This you did not do.

However, you did manage to show me that you take all of this literally and/or physically, and not metaphorically as it it presented in both passages.

Acts 2 tells us Jesus was raised up and IS sitting on His Father’s throne…

Act 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. ASV

And A9O12 – if you do not know what “Lord” means, please look it up!

The “thrones” refer to the authority that was given to the 12 Apostles by Jesus Christ. The 12 Apostles will “judge” the 12 tribes of Israel through the witness and the word that they gave unto the 12 tribes. These things are not literal, but will in actuality happen.

The 12 gates with the 12 tribes names on them I bleive are showing the access to eternal rest that was made possible through the Jewish nation, as in “salvation if of [through] the Jews”. The Savious came through the Jewish nation, and therefore access to salvation was made possible through that nations, presented here in Revelation 21 as the “12 tribes”.

The 12 foundations show the authority and/or the under support given by the 12 Apostles in the revelation & furthering of the gospel message to the world and the resulting salvation gained thereby.

Now, as to this “future earthly kingdom” that disposes Christ as King right now…
Where do you find that stuff ??!!

[Act9_12Out]

Apollos,

You say,


Lol!! You have Jesus in “exile” just as I thought. If Jesus is “not currently reigning”, then Jesus is not King… of anything!!! You need to accept the consequences of your beliefs –OR- realize that they are skewed and need to be re-aligned with plain scripture !!

Ah, here's the problem. You joined this discussion 8 pages into it. I have already established many points, and I assumed that you understood what I believed. My mistake. Jesus Christ is most definitely the Messiah / King / Lord for the nation of Israel. He will reign over Israel in the future knigdom. Positionally, He is King over Israel, but He is not currently reigning. Let me ask this... What do you think He's reigning over? An empty kingdom? You mock that I say He is not currently reigning, but I agree that He is King over Israel. My point is, even you would agree that He does not have the promised "kingdom of priests" in His kingdom yet, for they have not yet been resurrected. Again, do you have Christ reigning over an empty kingdom? To quote you, "LOL!"

What is Christ today? He is the head of the church, which is His body. He is the Savior of the Body of Christ. He is currently active in filling up the church, His body (For more on this, please see my response to Dee-Dee on the "Location of Christ's Reign" thread). You continue,


First I would say you did not establish your correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21. You begged the question by saying “The correlation between Matthew 19 and Revelation 21 is showing the importance of the 12 Apostles in the promised earthly kingdom.” What you needed to SHOW HOW they correlated those ideas and not just say they did correlate them and just go on. Establish what the apostles sitting on thrones means and what the 12 gates and 12 foundations represented, and then how these two verse correlate. This you did not do.

I stand by the fact that it most definitely shows the importance and authority the 12 Apostles will have in the resurrection and kingdom. The 12 gates represent the 12 tribes of Israel (Rev 21:12,13). Each tribe literally has their own gate to pass through. However, you say,


However, you did manage to show me that you take all of this literally and/or physically, and not metaphorically as it it presented in both passages.

Ah, the old, "it doesn't really mean what it says, but I'll tell you what it means spiritually," argument. You comment on the 12 gates...


The 12 gates with the 12 tribes names on them I bleive are showing the access to eternal rest that was made possible through the Jewish nation, as in “salvation if of [through] the Jews”. The Savious came through the Jewish nation, and therefore access to salvation was made possible through that nations, presented here in Revelation 21 as the “12 tribes”.

Sorry, this is literal. The Savior came through a specific tribe, Judah. The tribe of Judah also has their own gate. The passage does not "represent" anything (more on this in a minute..) The 12 foundations show exacly that... 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostles. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the Jewish congregation, and the Apostles are literally the 12 foundations. Your comments,


The 12 foundations show the authority and/or the under support given by the 12 Apostles in the revelation & furthering of the gospel message to the world and the resulting salvation gained thereby.

I don't disagree, but I dislike the "Spiritual" twist you've thrown on the passage. It's not needed here, take the passage at face value. There are 12 literal gates for the 12 specific tribes. There are 12 foundations for each of the 12 specific Apostles. So, as for your metaphors...:frustrated: Let's look at this honestly... Do you really not take this passage literally?

*Apollos said,


However, you did manage to show me that you take all of this literally and/or physically, and not metaphorically as it it presented in both passages.

*However, Scripture says,


Revelation 21
21:15
And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall.
21:16
The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.
21:17
Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel.

This kingdom sounds pretty specific to me. Why would God go through all the trouble to describe it if we should take His descriptions and words metaphorically?

As to your citation of Acts 2, the context is very important. What is Peter trying to convey here? The Jews who rejected Christ and crucified Him were "cut to the heart" at the end of Peter's sermon because Jesus was the Christ. They did not believe that He was, and Peter affirmed this. They were "cut to the heart." The point is, God was dealing with Israel He was offering the kingdom to them. Had they not rejected His offer after Acts 2, God would have currently restored the kingdom to them. Christ is most definitely seated at the right hand of the Father as the King over Israel, but does not have his literal "kingdom" yet. Therefore, my original question stands...

Are the 12 already resurrected and seated on 12 thrones? I believe this will happen during Christ's earthly reign of the Davidic kingdom.


Matthew 19
19:28
And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ”

A couple of things here... Christ says that He will sit upon the throne in the regeneration. Are we already in "the regeneration?" Secondly, Christ says "when" He sits on His throne, the 12 Apostles will also sit on 12 thrones. Is this also a reality? I doubt it.

No metaphors here Apollos... Did Christ mean "when" He was seated on His throne that the 12 would also be sated on their thrones or not?

--Jeremy

[Apollos]

A9O12 –

I apologize for the delay in responding. I am sure you know how “it” is.

Even though you have “established” many points prior, I probably would question many of them, especially if they were not properly answered, but you do have a point in that I have started –8- pages into this discussion.

But whether or not you see it, you still have Jesus in exile.

Jesus Christ is most definitely the Messiah / King / Lord for the nation of Israel. He will reign over Israel in the future kingdom. Positionally, He is King over Israel, but He is not currently reigning.
Jeremy, what a bad “position” for you to be in AND to put Jesus in. If Jesus is NOT reigning now, He is NOT King regardless of “positioning”. You are still trying to have you errant theology “cake” and explain it too. You cannot have it both ways. I suggest you reconcile your theology to the simple & plain passages that are without question! Jesus IS King, so allow Him to rule !!

Where is this “empty kingdom” you refer to?? A King can have as small or large a kingdom as He may have, and that kingdom can “expand” in many ways all the time. The saved are added to it all the time and it grows daily! It is your false notions of an earthly kingdom that prevents you from seeing what the kingdom is and where it is. I will say more about this in a moment.

The Savior came through a specific tribe, Judah. The tribe of Judah also has their own gate.
Jesus credits the nation in John 4:22, not just His tribe. But if you are correct, you will have to give some plausible reason for there being –12- gates and not just one!!

Now I asked you about correlating Matthew 19 and Revelation 21 for me. You responded:


I do not see any reason to ask you again to “make the connection” between these two passages. You obviously assume something here that does not exist and you cannot explain it. There passages may “show” something important but I guess however important it is, we will not get an explanation.

Then you say…
[quote]Ah, the old, "it [Matthew 19:28] doesn't really mean what it says, but I'll tell you what it means spiritually," argument.
I believe this to be “figurative” (not metaphorical as I said last time – sorry) language, much like Revelation. And yes, these types of arguments do exist – literal vs. figurative. But let’s consider some other things that Jesus said –

-Knock and is shall be opened unto you. Was this a literal door??
–-Unless you are born again... Did you think this was a literal re-birth through the womb ??
---And upon this rock I will build my church. Was the church built upon a literal rock ??

So instead of debating a handful of passages that could be literal/figurative, let’s do what I mentioned earlier and take a few passages that are not questioned and build upon them – that is, let’s go from the simple and expand to the more complex remembering that the simpler passages cannot be contradicted by the more complex.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

What does this mean – “not of this world” ??? (If you previously answered this, then cut & paste for me.)

Colossians 1:12 - who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;
13 who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
14 in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins… ASV

Jeremy, what kingdom is this that the saints are placed into ???

Rev. 1:6 - … and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

John is very clear in the first chapter. Where is this kingdom and why do you have Christ in exile??

Rev 1:9 - I John, your brother and partaker with you in tribulation and kingdom…

Well ??? Where is this kingdom ??? (And now back to Acts 2…)


Act 2:25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Point #1 – Christ was resurrected and is on God’s right hand – He shall not be moved!

Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Point #2 – Christ was raised to sit on the THRONE !

Act 2:33 - Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.

Point #3 – Jesus is (now) by the right hand of God exalted !
Act 2:34 - For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.

Point #4 – Christ shall sit on God’s right hand UNTIL God makes Christ’s enemies the footstool of thy feet.

Then Paul tells us...

1Co 15:24 - Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

Point #5 – Christ must reign UNTIL God makes Christ’s enemies the footstool of thy feet.

Conclusion: Christ was raised to sit upon the throne, at God’s right hand exalted. Christ shall not be moved and he must sit there – He must REIGN there UNTIL God defeats and destroys all of His enemies! THEN the kingdom will be delivered up to God !!!

The 12 Apostles, where ere they may be at this time, will not change these facts!

Jesus is King now. His kingdom is all the saved from Pentecost forward. The King has all that He needs to have a kingdom.
+Jesus has a law – the NT.
+Jesus has subjects – all the blood redeemed sinners from Pentecost (Acts 2) forward.
+And Jesus has a territory – all over the entire world where Christians are faithful to Him !!

The foulest heresy of those that believe in a coming earthly kingdom is that they de-throne Jesus Christ NOW from the throne at the right hand of God where He is ruling NOW!!

[Hitch]

The foulest heresy of those that believe in a coming earthly kingdom is that they de-throne Jesus Christ NOW from the throne at the right hand of God where He is ruling NOW!!

I disagree.

The most foul is the 'rejected kingdom offer,church as Plan B' ( Jesus is a failure, God cant implement his own plans and men decide history not the Ancient of Days ) nonsense, but only because its first in line.

Fine work

Take care


Hitch

[Jacob]

04-06-2003 @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=56312#post56312)
Apollos:

A9O12 –

I apologize for the delay in responding. I am sure you know how “it” is.

Even though you have “established” many points prior, I probably would question many of them, especially if they were not properly answered, but you do have a point in that I have started –8- pages into this discussion.

But whether or not you see it, you still have Jesus in exile.

Jeremy, what a bad “position” for you to be in AND to put Jesus in. If Jesus is NOT reigning now, He is NOT King regardless of “positioning”. You are still trying to have you errant theology “cake” and explain it too. You cannot have it both ways. I suggest you reconcile your theology to the simple &amp; plain passages that are without question! Jesus IS King, so allow Him to rule !!

Where is this “empty kingdom” you refer to?? A King can have as small or large a kingdom as He may have, and that kingdom can “expand” in many ways all the time. The saved are added to it all the time and it grows daily! It is your false notions of an earthly kingdom that prevents you from seeing what the kingdom is and where it is. I will say more about this in a moment.

...

The foulest heresy of those that believe in a coming earthly kingdom is that they de-throne Jesus Christ NOW from the throne at the right hand of God where He is ruling NOW!!


Although I'm rather new to this board, I'm not new to these arguments.

First, the crying of "heresy" is nice grandstanding, but lousy for persuading any but the weak of mind. The charge of heresy should be used for issues which change the gospel or basic truths about God. So, has Jeremy actually claimed that Christ is not seated at the right hand of God, or is this just the grandstanding arguments I've seen often times with many others?

I don't know Jeremy, and I have no need to defend him. My response is to the charge that Christ is dethroned by those who see that the Kingdom is not fully realized in our universe. Of course Christ has full authority over everything. No one disagrees.

But you should show that the OT promises of the Kingdom, with all it's implications, is fullfilled, and then I can disagree with Jeremy. Until then I ask you to explain how the passages describing a restored creation living in total peace & submission to Christ has been fullfilled? Whether or not Christ is "on the throne", He is not excercising His authority. But this is barely different than any time since creation began.

He is Lord of all, and will complete the establishement of His Kingdom when He pleases.

Jacob

[Jacob]

04-06-2003 @ 05:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=56617#post56617)
Hitch:


I disagree.

The most foul is the 'rejected kingdom offer,church as Plan B' ( Jesus is a failure, God cant implement his own plans and men decide history not the Ancient of Days ) nonsense, but only because its first in line.

Fine work

Take care


Hitch


Gee, this is more foul than belief that:
- Jesus is not God?
- Jesus was just a good moral teacher?
- Jesus' blood is not enough to redeem us?
- Jesus didn't really die?
- Jesus is only a prophet, and second to Mohammed?
- All faiths lead to God?
- All that matters is that you're sincere?
- Man can repent & trust God without God's help?
- etc.....

Yeah, right. Fine Job. More grandstanding.

Jacob

[Apollos]

Hey Jacob –


I'm not new to these arguments.You probably aren’t. But do you ever answer them? I noticed that in your 2 posts here not one scripture was referenced.


…the crying of "heresy" is nice grandstanding…Grandstanding?? Did you miss the scriptural discussion that went before my “cry of heresy”?? You certainly did not make any attempt to answer it. Would you like to answer that now… or will YOU continue to just… grandstand ??!! (Or would “stone-walling” describe your actions better?)

Start with the rather plain and simple passages I presented above, and then perhaps we can work our way back to all the OT kingdom passages you desire. But the kingdom NEVER was intended to be a utopia here on earth as many errantly suppose, and Jesus DID establish the kingdom !! It seems because you do not know what the kingdom “looks” like, you cannot “see” it !

I have no problem calling any teaching that de-thrones the Lord a heresy, which is what those definitely do who say there is no kingdom now! Taking Christ off the throne is serious stuff! Taking away His kingdom means He is NOT a King now ! And by saying, “He is Lord of all” rings hollow, and saying, “Of course Christ has full authority over everything.” does not change the consequences of your beliefs.

You and Jeremy, wherever you may think Christ is “sitting” right now, have Him de-throned and de-activated !! You don’t seem to want to accept the consequences of your beliefs and face up to the scriptures contradicted by such a position as yours!

You have found yourself in Row 1, Seat 1……….. in the grandstands of heresy !

[Jacob]

Apollos,

Of course if you start with the New Testament, and then use your conclusions to interpret the Old Testament, you will come to different conclusions than if you started (as you should) with the Old Testament.

Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations.

David looked to a future time when everything would be subject to Christ, recognizing that He was currently Lord over all. That's my position.

Psa 145:10 All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You.
Psa 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power;
Psa 145:12 To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom.
Psa 145:13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
Psa 145:20 The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.

David recognized that the Kingdom is everlasting, even when wicked men were not subject to Christ. That's my position.

Isa 9:1 But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
Isa 9:2 The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them.
Isa 9:3 You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Isa 9:4 For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.
Isa 9:5 For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
Isa 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Isaiah recognized that the promise of the Kingdom included relief from oppression and war. That's my position.

Dan 2:44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
Dan 4:3 "How great are His signs And how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom And His dominion is from generation to generation.
Dan 6:26 "I make a decree that in all the dominion of my kingdom men are to fear and tremble before the God of Daniel; For He is the living God and enduring forever, And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, And His dominion will be forever.
Dan 7:13-14 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
Dan 7:27 'Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.'

Daniel recognized that the Kingdom, though everlasting, would be set up in the future. This kingdom would crush all other kingdoms. In the Kingdom of God everyone submits to Christ. That's my position.

Mat 6:10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.

Just as Jesus taught us to pray, the kingdom has not fully come on earth as it has in heaven. That's my position.

Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

That many are not in the Kingdom. That's my position.

Mat 13:31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
Mat 13:32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."

The Kingdom is growing, and does not encompass all of creation. That's my position.

Mar 11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"

That the Kingdom is coming - signifying that it is not here (in it's fullness). That's my position.

Luk 11:2 And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

That we should pray for the coming of the Kingdom. That's my position.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, …but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

That the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world. That's my position.

Perhaps most interestingly is the fact that the Gospel is most often defined, in the NT, as the "Gospel of the Kingdom". Tie this to Jesus' words in Mt 11.

Mat 11:2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples
Mat 11:3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
Mat 11:4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.

That the gospel of the Kingdom has intrinsic social dimensions. That's my position.

So...

I don't see the OT promises for the Kingdom fullfilled. I see Jesus teaching that the Kingdom is here, but still future. I see Jesus saying that the Kingdom is tied to social well being. If our current situation is the full fullfillment of the Kingdom, then most passages about the Kingdom make no sense.

Jacob.

PS. I do know what the kingdom looks like. I do see it. I am simply being biblical in recognizing that it is not fully established. Did I make up for my lack of verses?

PPS. I'll leave that front row seat for those who falsely accuse the brethren, seeking dissention and discord among believers. Your table is ready.

[Apollos]

Jacob –

A thoughtful reply was yours (& I appreciate your appeal to scripture), but it still de-thrones the King of Kings, because you do not recognize that the kingdom is here. You must think that John and Jesus were both wrong when they announced that the kingdom “was at hand”.

I take note that you still did not attempt to answer my previous post, especially the reasoning from Acts 2. I used Acts 2 because it is the same reasoning that Peter and the 11 used on that day of Pentecost to convince the Jews gathered there that Jesus was resurrected by the power of God and set Jesus upon the throne of David. David did look to the future when everything would be subject to Christ, and David also saw that Jesus would sit upon the throne at the right hand of God.

The NT passages I presented are just too plain to miss that the kingdom is here. As also happened in Acts 2, NT events were used to explain OT passages, such as in Acts 2:16. Today NT passages are used to explain what the old were saying with greater clarity. The OT passages are great pointing out the kingdom would come, but after Pentecost in Acts 2 the kingdom is spoken of as in existence – Col. 1:12, Rev. 1:9. I believe that Jesus did in fact give Peter (but not only Peter) the “keys to the kingdom” – Matthew 16:19.

Neither of us question that the kingdom would be everlasting, so we can move on. But recognize in Daniel 2:44 that the kingdom “that would never be destroyed” would be established in the time of the Roman Empire. You are nearly 2,000 years behind.

Yes Jesus taught us to pray for the kingdom to come (Mk 6:10), and yes it was coming (Mk 11:10), because it had not YET come at that time. But the Christ being resurrected to sit upon the throne ESTABLISHED the kingdom and we no longer need to pray for it – the kingdom CAME – Hebrews 12:28 !

That there are not many in the kingdom is great filler for your post. And while I agree, it does not help us establish WHEN it arrived!

I am puzzled you agree that His kingdom is “not of this world”, seeing you want a kingdom OF this world by placing His kingdom on this ball of dirt! It ain’t so! Do you have a passage for this “earthly” kingdom to come ??

Are there social implications for His kingdom? You bet!! All that are in the kingdom are “born of God”, and as such are, in the likeness of the King, resurrected to walk in newness of life, having put off the old man of sin. Their “social” behavior is to be like and live like their King.

If you do not see the OT promises fulfilled, it is because you are looking for a fulfillment outside the boundaries of what that kingdom was to be and what has been revealed about it. We may agree in part that the kingdom has not yet received its “full fulfillment”, but that will come when Jesus, after reigning on the throne (which is at the right hand of God), will deliver the kingdom up to God. But no mistake, it is established now and Jesus reigns now!

As for that “table that’s ready”, there is no need to save a seat for me. Not only do I not like the menu, I don’t eat there. Besides, it appears my King is not welcome there. I will eat at His table!

[Jacob]

04-25-2003 @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78591#post78591)
Apollos:

Jacob –

A thoughtful reply was yours (&amp; I appreciate your appeal to scripture), but it still de-thrones the King of Kings, because you do not recognize that the kingdom is here. You must think that John and Jesus were both wrong when they announced that the kingdom “was at hand”.
I recognize that the Kingdom is here. I also recognize that the Kingdom is not fully recognized here.

I take note that you still did not attempt to answer my previous post, especially the reasoning from Acts 2. I used Acts 2 because it is the same reasoning that Peter and the 11 used on that day of Pentecost to convince the Jews gathered there that Jesus was resurrected by the power of God and set Jesus upon the throne of David. David did look to the future when everything would be subject to Christ, and David also saw that Jesus would sit upon the throne at the right hand of God.
I see the partial fullfillment of the prophecy in Acts 2:30ff. I believe there will be a further, more literal fullfillment of it as well.

The NT passages I presented are just too plain to miss that the kingdom is here. As also happened in Acts 2, NT events were used to explain OT passages, such as in Acts 2:16. Today NT passages are used to explain what the old were saying with greater clarity. The OT passages are great pointing out the kingdom would come, but after Pentecost in Acts 2 the kingdom is spoken of as in existence – Col. 1:12, Rev. 1:9. I believe that Jesus did in fact give Peter (but not only Peter) the “keys to the kingdom” – Matthew 16:19.

Neither of us question that the kingdom would be everlasting, so we can move on. But recognize in Daniel 2:44 that the kingdom “that would never be destroyed” would be established in the time of the Roman Empire. You are nearly 2,000 years behind.
The Kingdom is everlasting. It is also eternal:

2Pe 1:11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

Look to Matthew 13 for the Kingdom Parables. Consider that the kingdom is seen as a work in process, begun, but not completed.

I see ththe Kingdom shown in scripture as "truly established, but not fully established".



Yes Jesus taught us to pray for the kingdom to come (Mk 6:10), and yes it was coming (Mk 11:10), because it had not YET come at that time. But the Christ being resurrected to sit upon the throne ESTABLISHED the kingdom and we no longer need to pray for it – the kingdom CAME – Hebrews 12:28 !
Are you suggesting that parts of the Gospels are not for today! :shocked: (hee hee)...

But seriously, you seem to suggest that only part of the Lord's prayer is applicable for today. Or do you think that we don't need to pray "Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven." This appears to be intimately tied to the Kingdom, in this prayer.

Mat 6:10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.

How do you resolve this conflict in Kingdom establishment?



That there are not many in the kingdom is great filler for your post. And while I agree, it does not help us establish WHEN it arrived!

I am puzzled you agree that His kingdom is “not of this world”, seeing you want a kingdom OF this world by placing His kingdom on this ball of dirt! It ain’t so! Do you have a passage for this “earthly” kingdom to come ??

Of course this is the crux of the issue. When you see the Davidic Covenant in Samuel & Chronicles, you only see the spiritual dimension. I see both the physical & the spiritual dimension. That being said, I won't repeat those passages, but I refer to them as supporting my position. There, in the context of a physical throne, a physical temple, a physical kingdom consisting of physical people, in a physical land (on this "ball of dirt"), we have reference to "building a house" for the Lord and establishing a throne. I see later passages (NT) as clarifying that this includes the spiritual, but you say they erase any reference to the physical.

I find that difficult to logically accept.

But here's two NT passages suggesting the physical dimension of the future state of the Kingdom:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Rev 21:2 & 10 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.

If this "ball of dirt" is not significant in the future, then why, when creating the "new heavens", does he bother creating the "new earth"?


Are there social implications for His kingdom? You bet!! All that are in the kingdom are “born of God”, and as such are, in the likeness of the King, resurrected to walk in newness of life, having put off the old man of sin. Their “social” behavior is to be like and live like their King.

If you do not see the OT promises fulfilled, it is because you are looking for a fulfillment outside the boundaries of what that kingdom was to be and what has been revealed about it. We may agree in part that the kingdom has not yet received its “full fulfillment”, but that will come when Jesus, after reigning on the throne (which is at the right hand of God), will deliver the kingdom up to God. But no mistake, it is established now and Jesus reigns now!

As stated earlier, we agree that the kingdom is established. We disagree about the use of the term "establish" for the start of that future time when the kingdom will begin toencompass an earthly rule. I don't see that establishment as having happened.


As for that “table that’s ready”, there is no need to save a seat for me. Not only do I not like the menu, I don’t eat there. Besides, it appears my King is not welcome there. I will eat at His table!

I missed the significance of this last reference...

So, was God dethroned before Christ was resurrected? We're debating about the current seating arrangements of the King of Kings, but ignoring the significance of your accusation when applied to those times prior to the resurrection. In the OT, was God "enthroned", or "dethroned"? Would it have been heresy for an OT saint to suggest that God's Kingdom had not fully been established? If so, then why have any prophecies concerning it's coming? If not, then it appears that you would see a greater "change in dispensation" between the OT saints and the NT saints than you do between the current age and the "age to come".

So, was God dethroned before the resurrection, when Christ took David's throne?

Jacob

[Apollos]

Jacob –

I apologize for my very tardy reply. Between having too much on-the-job travel lately and the formal debate I am currently involved with about miraculous spiritual gifts NOT being for the church today (I am winning !! :lol:), I have been busy. I thank you in advance for your patience.

You said:
I recognize that the Kingdom is here. I also recognize that the Kingdom is not fully recognized here.I need you to explain to me what is not fully realized about the kingdom. You and I have two different views of the kingdom and I am trying to understand your view better. There either is –or- there is not a kingdom now. Jesus is King now, or He is not.

What is it that leads you to believe that the prophesy in Acts 2 is only partially fulfilled? Peter tells us “this is that” as to what was prophesied By Joel. Since you do not think that it was just that some things prophesied would be fulfilled in a short time (within the time framework of the NT) –then- what do you think are the things yet to come to past?


Consider that the kingdom is seen as a work in process, begun, but not completed.From the foundation of the world God planned the kingdom, but Matthew 13, the Lord praying for it to come, and other passages BEFORE it arrived will all have that same “pre-kingdom” reference. But as I noted previously, AFTER Acts 2, the Kingdom is spoken of as a reality. You still have not addressed those scriptures specifically. Why is that ???

As far as praying, we need to pray for the things that are, how shall I say it, “applicable”, this in accordance with God’s will. It was God’s will that the Kingdom come, as it was “at hand”. The cousins John and Jesus could not have been wrong!
(Jesus said in John 14:16 that He would pray for the Comforter to come to the apostles. That need and that event has come and gone, so there is no need to pray for that today is there? Therefore, the Kingdom having now come, there is no need to pray for it now!)


I see the Kingdom shown in scripture as "truly established, but not fully established".
Jacob, what does this mean??? It sounds like you are attempting to dwell in some middle-of-the-road position so you do not have to explain your position! Is there a kingdom or not?? Is Jesus King or not?? Jesus is NOT King if there is no Kingdom!

There, in the context of a physical throne, a physical temple, a physical kingdom consisting of physical people, in a physical land (on this "ball of dirt"), we have reference to "building a house" for the Lord and establishing a throne. I see later passages (NT) as clarifying that this includes the spiritual, but you say they erase any reference to the physical.
It may be that you are limiting God. I would think God more than capable of establishing a spiritual throne & spiritual kingdom, just as He once did a physical throne & kingdom. It appears that because God’s way is not what man expected (or that God’s way is often not what man desires – cf. 1Sam. 8:7), man has trouble accepting it!

Logically, this is easy to accept. Perceptionally, it can be difficult – for man!
<<<*>>>

About Matt. 19:28 – You have returned to a passage I have already commented on above. But I will make an extra comment before referring you back to my “more easily understood” passages above that you are yet to address.

You assume the 12 thrones (if they are literal) are upon this earth, and, you assume the “new earth” of Rev. 21:1 (not verse 2&10 as cited by you) is what… a re-make of this old one? There is nothing to indicate that either of these ideas are correct if that is what you assume.

The “new earth”, I believe, in indicative of a new dwelling place for man since this “earth”, which will be destroyed by fire, had been his dwelling place before then.


So, was God dethroned before the resurrection, when Christ took David's throne? Good question! The throne has always belonged to God and He may give it to whomever it pleases Him to give it to. Perhaps even more importantly to our discussion, God may place that throne wherever He desires !!!

There are several passages about God’s throne, such as 1Chrn.29:23, 1 Kings 1:46, & 2:12 that tell us the thrones was David’s, or Solomon’s, or the Lord’s, and references to who sat upon that throne. But the throne was always God’s, because it was He that selected who would sit upon it. God was always in control and never was “de-throned”.

In Matthew 28:18 we read that ALL AUTHORITY in both heaven and on earth had been given to ONE person. That was Jesus Christ!

To truly make Jesus “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” Jesus was given ALL authority everywhere. After this was done, we know (Acts 2) that Jesus was placed at the “right hand of God” to reign from His father David’s throne. God selected the person for, and the place of, the throne !!! These events took place according to the prophesies of God, according to His plan.

The say that there is no kingdom now, actually not only DE-thrones Christ, but it removes from Christ ALL authority now. Because if Christ is not exercising the authority that was given Him, that authority is ineffectual !!! This is yet another ramification of the false belief that the kingdom is still in the future and that there is no Kingdom today!!


As stated earlier, we agree that the kingdom is established. We disagree about the use of the term "establish" for the start of that future time when the kingdom will begin to encompass an earthly rule. I don't see that establishment as having happened.This is precisely why I need you to explain some of the things that you believe to me, as requested above. We need dialogue to see where we differ & why. I hope you will do this, as I see nothing in scripture about a future kingdom.

Allow me to finish with another of those more easily understood passages that is without doubt as to its meaning…

Mark 9:1 – “ Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” ASV

I do not know anyone this old myself, if the kingdom, in fact, did not come.

Could Jesus have been wrong… again??? (cf. Mark 1:15)

[Jacob]

Today @ 08:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92285#post92285)
Apollos:
I need you to explain to me what is not fully realized about the kingdom.

The Lion lying down with the lamb, & other physical dimensions of the kingdom.



There either is –or- there is not a kingdom now. Jesus is King now, or He is not.


We agree that there is a kingdom now, and that Jesus is King.



What is it that leads you to believe that the prophesy in Acts 2 is only partially fulfilled? Peter tells us “this is that” as to what was prophesied By Joel. Since you do not think that it was just that some things prophesied would be fulfilled in a short time (within the time framework of the NT) –then- what do you think are the things yet to come to past?

Perhaps Act 2:20 'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME.

Peter was specifically speaking of the "tongues speaking" which was going on. I doubt that he, at that time, expected there to be a 2000 year wait for Christ's return.




From the foundation of the world God planned the kingdom, but Matthew 13, the Lord praying for it to come, and other passages BEFORE it arrived will all have that same “pre-kingdom” reference. But as I noted previously, AFTER Acts 2, the Kingdom is spoken of as a reality. You still have not addressed those scriptures specifically. Why is that ???

I agree that the kingdom is a present spiritual reality. I deny that it will continue to simply be a spiritual kingdom (though the spiritual is more foundational & significant than the material).



As far as praying, we need to pray for the things that are, how shall I say it, “applicable”, this in accordance with God’s will. It was God’s will that the Kingdom come, as it was “at hand”. The cousins John and Jesus could not have been wrong!
(Jesus said in John 14:16 that He would pray for the Comforter to come to the apostles. That need and that event has come and gone, so there is no need to pray for that today is there? Therefore, the Kingdom having now come, there is no need to pray for it now!)

When the Spirit first came, was there no additional need for the Spirit to come in broader ways? First to the believing Jews, then, later, to Gentile converts to Judaism, then to Gentiles who never converted to Judaism. The "expansion", or stepwise nature of the Spirit's coming does indeed reflect the Kingdom's coming - in steps.

Regarding the Lord's prayer... are you suggesting that part of it is not for us to pray today? Are you suggesting that the Kingdom exists today "on earth as it is in heaven"?


It sounds like you are attempting to dwell in some middle-of-the-road position so you do not have to explain your position! Is there a kingdom or not?? Is Jesus King or not?? Jesus is NOT King if there is no Kingdom!
Let's not accuse each other of bad motives... If I have a "middle of the road position", it is because I don't see scripture supporting either extreme. You are trying to get me to agree with an extreme, and are sounding frustrated that I'm not buying it. As I said above, Jesus is King - but let's not ignore what the epistles tell us about Satan:
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

How is it that they were seated with Christ, yet Satan is not crushed under their feet?


It may be that you are limiting God. I would think God more than capable of establishing a spiritual throne &amp; spiritual kingdom, just as He once did a physical throne &amp; kingdom. It appears that because God’s way is not what man expected (or that God’s way is often not what man desires – cf. 1Sam. 8:7), man has trouble accepting it!

I place no limitations on God, but perhaps you do by seeing only the spiritual dimension of the kingdom. The only thing I have trouble accepting the the Kingdom is "fully here in all senses" and yet the societal dimension of it has not come to pass.


About Matt. 19:28 – You have returned to a passage I have already commented on above. But I will make an extra comment before referring you back to my “more easily understood” passages above that you are yet to address.

You assume the 12 thrones (if they are literal) are upon this earth, and, you assume the “new earth” of Rev. 21:1 (not verse 2&amp;10 as cited by you) is what… a re-make of this old one? There is nothing to indicate that either of these ideas are correct if that is what you assume.

There is nothing to assume that "new earth" in Rev 21 refers to anything other than a "new earth". What is there to indicate that it does not refer to a physical earth? What is the difference between it and the "new heaven" if not that there will indeed be a new "earth"?


The “new earth”, I believe, in indicative of a new dwelling place for man since this “earth”, which will be destroyed by fire, had been his dwelling place before then.

I agree that there will be a new dwelling place for man... a new earth:
Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
Rev 21:4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

There are several passages about God’s throne, such as 1Chrn.29:23, 1 Kings 1:46, &amp; 2:12 that tell us the thrones was David’s, or Solomon’s, or the Lord’s, and references to who sat upon that throne. But the throne was always God’s, because
it was He that selected who would sit upon it. God was always in control and never was “de-throned”.

This muddies the issue. Is there no clear distinction between the throne of God in heaven and the throne of David on earth? The Calvinist agrees with you, even to the point that God decided to split the kingdom & place corrupt kings on the throne. But to equate this throne with God's throne is not supported in scripture (except when fully fullfilled, in the future).


In Matthew 28:18 we read that ALL AUTHORITY in both heaven and on earth had been given to ONE person. That was Jesus Christ!

Yes it was. But somehow he has yet to fully excercise that authority.


The say that there is no kingdom now,...

I never said there is no kingdom now.


Mark 9:1[/b] – “ Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” [/color] ASV

I do not know anyone this old myself, if the kingdom, in fact, did not come.

Could Jesus have been wrong… again??? (cf. Mark 1:15)


You again present an "either/or" approach to understanding this. The correct approach is "now/but not fully".

Jacob

[Apollos]

Hey Jacob –

I am finding it quite difficult to get you out of the middle-of-the-road, both in your answers and your theological position. You really don’t offer much in the way of explaining why you believe what you do, although I was trying to pry it out of you.
I am sorry I do not understand your position better. All I am getting from you is that you are saying the same thing over and over in a slightly different way each time. (Maybe if you didn’t give so little time to reply, you could get your thoughts explained better?)

You remarked about “physical dimensions” (from Isaiah 11:6 I believe) of the kingdom. I do not believe this is literal, but figurative of the nature of the coming kingdom. So let’s return to a more easily understood passage approach to the kingdom, as I had started out with Jeremy back on 04/06/03 – post #108, page –7- of this thread – which you are yet to reply to directly. How do you reconcile your thoughts of the “physical dimensions” of the kingdom with John 18:36, a more easily understood passage??
<<<*>>>

No, we never did agree that there is a kingdom now and that Jesus is King now. You have both of these in “suspense”! Your theology does not really believe in the kingdom now & does not allow Jesus to be King now. While you claim both in view of the scriptures I have presented that prove such, you do not want to accept the implications of your theology. For all the double-speak you give it, you are telling me the kingdom is NOT here yet, & therefore you de-throne Christ now! “Your” kingdom is in preparation (“in the oven” ???) and “your” king is in stasis.

I provided Colossians 1:13, a more easily understood passage, which tells us that Christians had already been placed/were being placed into the kingdom NOW, but your kingdom is still “under construction”. How do you reconcile to this passage?
<<<*>>>

In Acts 2:20, Peter said ”this is that”. If you think Peter is talking about tongue speaking, I hope next time you will provide more information about why you believe this than you did about why the kingdom is “on the tarmack” ready to take off, but hasn’t.

Part of “this is that” also refers to that day (Pentecost) being the “glorious day of the Lord”.
That is why Peter said what he did about the prophesy of Joel there – “this IS that”!!
This is too easily understood to be missed!


I agree that the kingdom is a present spiritual reality. I deny that it will continue to simply be a spiritual kingdom… WHY?

The "expansion", or stepwise nature of the Spirit's coming does indeed reflect the Kingdom's coming - in steps. HOW?


Are you suggesting that the Kingdom exists today "on earth as it is in heaven"?Lol! Jesus prayed thy “WILL” be done on earth as in heaven. How do you shift gears to throw the kingdom in there? But yes, the kingdom is here. As I have already said above, all that is needed for a kingdom is in existence: King / Law / Subjects / Territory. Nothing is lacking. Your “now/not fully” approach does not apply to this realization. It either IS - or it ISN’T ! It IS !

Mark 9:1 – The kingdom came – with power! It did not limp in! Maybe you should tell me in which ways the kingdom IS here – according to you, okay?
<<<*>>>

I was not accusing you of bad motives. I merely pointed out that your position (or at least your explanation) is in the “middle-of-the-road”, meaning you cannot really tell me where the kingdom is or what status it has. It is as if the kingdom is some mystical, etherical realm that one cannot really know about and put his finger on. Your depiction of it has the kingdom of God floating about aimlessly, empty, without use, until it lands on earth sometime in the future. Tell me something supported by scripture(s) about the current condition of the kingdom today !!! Just what scripture(s) do you have that are so Unextreme – do you really have any? (What does Romans 16:20 have to do with any of this??)


The only thing I have trouble accepting the the Kingdom is "fully here in all senses" and yet the societal dimension of it has not come to pass.
I believe I know what you are meaning by saying “societal dimensions”, but then we would get into the literal-figurative struggle of those passages. Why not attempt to answer the “easy” ones I have already posted. Then perhaps we can go from there.

We got into this struggle over Matthew 19:28, on which you assumed the thrones would be on earth. This went unsupported by you. You then went on to Rev.21:1 about the “new earth”, and remarked there is nothing to indicate this is not physical. Okay, is there anything to indicate that it IS physical. Given the book, I would say “figurative” more than likely the probable use, but then, let’s return to more easily understood passages!
<<<*>>>

As to the throne issue, I probably could have explained myself better. I want to give this some thought, so I will get back to you with more. But I do not believe this is a matter of taking God, the supreme ruler of the universe off His throne. We are talking about the throne of a kingdom that God set up for someone else to rule upon. God did not “step-down”.
<<<*>>

I used Matthew 28:18 to show – Christ was given all authority.
You said, “Yes it was. But somehow he has yet to fully excercise that authority.

“Somehow” ??? Lol! How is that? Can you explain it ??? What is holding the King back… besides your theology ??? This is as if we have half a King with half a kingdom!

[Jacob]

Today @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93456#post93456)
Apollos:

Hey Jacob –

I am finding it quite difficult to get you out of the middle-of-the-road, both in your answers and your theological position. You really don’t offer much in the way of explaining why you believe what you do, although I was trying to pry it out of you.
No, you're trying to goad me out of a position which is not easily attacked by you. So sad...

All I am getting from you is that you are saying the same thing over and over in a slightly different way each time. (Maybe if you didn’t give so little time to reply, you could get your thoughts explained better?)
It is truly the rare individual that can't comprehend something when it's stated multiple times in different ways. My thoughts are clearly detailed (maybe if you were not looking to force me into the "enemy camp" you would quit goading me).

You remarked about “physical dimensions” (from Isaiah 11:6 I believe) of the kingdom. I do not believe this is literal, but figurative of the nature of the coming kingdom.

That you don't believe Is 11:6 to be about "physical dimension" of the kingdom, proves nothing. How about some hermeneutical or logical reason to avoid the obvious meaning of the text?

So let’s return to a more easily understood passage approach to the kingdom, as I had started out with Jeremy back on 04/06/03 – post #108, page –7- of this thread – which you are yet to reply to directly. How do you reconcile your thoughts of the “physical dimensions” of the kingdom with John 18:36, a more easily understood passage??
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;
Jesus is being elusive & somewhat cryptic in his responses to Pilate, and you call this a "more easily understood passage" :no: His kingdom is not primarily physical - which is what I've stated all along.


No, we never did agree that there is a kingdom now and that Jesus is King now. You have both of these in “suspense”! Your theology does not really believe in the kingdom now &amp; does not allow Jesus to be King now.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.... Can you do anything besides mistate the theolgoical position of others.


I provided Colossians 1:13, a more easily understood passage, which tells us that Christians had already been placed/were being placed into the kingdom NOW, but your kingdom is still “under construction”. How do you reconcile to this passage?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;

Col 1:13 just says that God has " rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" Fits perfectly with theology.... But, why do we need to be transferred to His kingdom if it's already fully "here & now"? I guess you have some reconciling to do...


In Acts 2:20, Peter said ”this is that”.

Uh... he said that in verse 16, the immediate context being...


If you think Peter is talking about tongue speaking, I hope next time you will provide more information about why you believe this than you did about why the kingdom is “on the tarmack” ready to take off, but hasn’t.

... verses 2-15 which are talking about the apostles speaking in tongues and being accused of being drunk... Every passage must be interpreted in context.


Part of “this is that” also refers to that day (Pentecost) being the “glorious day of the Lord”.
That is why Peter said what he did about the prophesy of Joel there – “this IS that”!!
This is too easily understood to be missed!

Right, and how do you see "'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD" fully fullfilled at that time?


Lol! Jesus prayed thy “WILL” be done on earth as in heaven. How do you shift gears to throw the kingdom in there?

Uh... it's in the preceeding verses ... "Thy kingdom come"... Context, it's really important in interpreting scripture. Try it.


Mark 9:1[/color] – The kingdom came – with power! It did not limp in! Maybe you should tell me in which ways the kingdom IS here – according to you, okay?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;

I've said it several times, and you just won't believe me... The Spiritual dimension of the kingdom is here. How many times do I have to state that for you to acknowledge it.


I was not accusing you of bad motives. I merely pointed out that your position (or at least your explanation) is in the “middle-of-the-road”, meaning you cannot really tell me where the kingdom is or what status it has.

Which is very important to you, beyond the clarity provided by scripture.


It is as if the kingdom is some mystical, etherical realm that one cannot really know about and put his finger on. Your depiction of it has the kingdom of God floating about aimlessly, empty, without use, until it lands on earth sometime in the future.

A totally distorted misrepresentation, quite demeaning & insulting ... but if that's the level you have to resort to, you must be getting desperate...


does Romans 16:20 have to do with any of this??)

Puttin' on the blinders again?


I believe I know what you are meaning by saying “societal dimensions”, but then we would get into the literal-figurative struggle of those passages. Why not attempt to answer the “easy” ones I have already posted. Then perhaps we can go from there.
We got into this struggle over Matthew 19:28, on which you assumed the thrones would be on earth. This went unsupported by you. You then went on to Rev.21:1 about the “new earth”, and remarked there is nothing to indicate this is not physical. Okay, is there anything to indicate that it IS physical. Given the book, I would say “figurative” more than likely the probable use, but then, let’s return to more easily understood passages!
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;

Right, the "easy" passages are the ones that, ripped from their context, support your views. The "difficult" passages are the ones where the intrepter needs to ignore the obvious meaning and spiritualize the passage in order to understand the "true" meaning (almost a gnostic approach to truth finding).


I used Matthew 28:18 to show – Christ was given all authority.
You said, “Yes it was. But somehow he has yet to fully excercise that authority.

“Somehow” ??? Lol! How is that? Can you explain it ??? What is holding the King back… besides your theology ??? This is as if we have half a King with half a kingdom!
I don't have to explain it, you do. Explain how the King is ruling over everything, fully in every sense, and yet the subjects are mostly in rebellion?

Jacob

[Apollos]

Hey Jacob -

That was rather a rude and pedantic reply, but I can understand the frustration for someone who cannot articulate their beliefs.

Anyway, I will answer you anyway, after I make my next post in the Spiritual Gifts Debate.

Try to get a little anger management therapy in between now and then.............

[Jacob]

Today @ 06:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95806#post95806)
Apollos:

Hey Jacob -

That was rather a rude and pedantic reply, but I can understand the frustration for someone who cannot articulate their beliefs.

Anyway, I will answer you anyway, after I make my next post in the Spiritual Gifts Debate.

Try to get a little anger management therapy in between now and then.............


Just rising to your level Apollos. If you start a spitting match, don't whine when you get spit on.


Jacob

P.S. The start of the Spitting:

You really don’t offer much in the way of explaining why you believe what you do, although I was trying to pry it out of you.

All I am getting from you is that you are saying the same thing over and over in a slightly different way each time. (Maybe if you didn’t give so little time to reply, you could get your thoughts explained better?)

For all the double-speak you give it, you are telling me ...

It is as if the kingdom is some mystical, etherical realm that one cannot really know about and put his finger on. Your depiction of it has the kingdom of God floating about aimlessly, empty, without use, until it lands on earth sometime in the future.


“Somehow” ??? Lol! How is that? Can you explain it ??? What is holding the King back… besides your theology ???

[Apollos]

Lol !!!

[Solly]

>whistle< new moderator looks by to see if everything's alright.

Carry on chaps.

[Apollos]

Hey Solly -

:shrug:

(Thanks for stopping by.

You might get "slobbered" on though... lol!)

[Apollos]

The Kingdom established…

Preached “at hand…”

By John – Matthew 3:2
By Jesus – Mark 1:5
By the 12 – Matthew 10
By the 70 – Luke 10

Imminent while Jesus was on earth:

Mark 9:1
Luke 9:27
Luke 12:31-32

The Nature of the kingdom:

John 18:36 – Spiritual – not physical
Romans 14:17
1 Corinthians 4:20
Luke 17:20f

Spoken of as in existence after Pentecost:

Acts 8:12
Acts 20:25
Acts 28:23-31
Colossians 1:13
1 Thessalonians 2:12
Hebrews 12:22-28

Point of interest…

The Lords’ Supper – do you partake? If so, have you stopped to think that the “supper” is to be in the kingdom? Luke 22:16-18, 29f.

Those who believe the kingdom has not come – “it is not possible for you to take the Lord’s supper!”

Do you accept the consequences of your beliefs???

[Jacob]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98683#post98683)
Apollos:
Point of interest…

The Lords’ Supper – do you partake? If so, have you stopped to think that the “supper” is to be in the kingdom? Luke 22:16-18, 29f.

Those who believe the kingdom has not come – “it is not possible for you to take the Lord’s supper!”

Do you accept the consequences of your beliefs???

That might be a correct application, for someone who believes the Kingdom has not come in either it's spiritual or physical dimensions. But first to understand your thinking...

Are you referring to the reference in v.30?

Luk 22:29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you
Luk 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Note that Jesus had been granted a kingdom, but your other references show that it is not spoken of as being "in existence" until later in Acts.

Are they already judging the twelve tribes of Israel? Were they judging these tribes while they were alive on earth?

Were they at this "table" while on earth, or not until they died & were in heaven? If we're already "at His table", with Him, why do we eat it "in remembrance"?

Luk 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Jacob

[Apollos]

Jacob –

It looks like it is going to be one of those – “I’ll ask all the questions – YOU give all the answers” queries. Okay…. for now.


That might be a correct application, for someone who believes the Kingdom has not come in either it's spiritual or physical dimensions. After all of your posts, I still do not know what you believe. What “physical” dimensions do you refer to here ???

Reference scriptures: (from Jacob – version unknown)
Luke 22:29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you
Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Note that Jesus had been granted a kingdom, but your other references show that it is not spoken of as being "in existence" until later in Acts.

At this point in time, the kingdom had not yet come. The “granted kingdom”, or as the KJV and ASV render it “appointed kingdom”, is spoken of here in prospect. (An “appointment” is a time & place in the future that is to be kept.) The kingdom had been “appointed”, but it was yet to be kept. Perhaps a “clearer” version of the NT would be of assistance to your understanding, or a simple word study. But after Acts 2, the kingdom IS spoken of as in existence – not before.

The “table” spoken of here in verse 30 is the “table” that would exist when the kingdom came. Note in verse 16 & 18 that Jesus said He would not be partaking again of the supper until the kingdom had come. If the kingdom has not come, then there is no communion with the Lord. This is done “in remembrance” (vs. 19, 1 Cor.11:23-26) of the Lord’s death, the death it took to make this communion possible! When we partake, we PROCLAIM His death for us !!!

Here the supper is “instituted” by the Lord (my preference is Matthew 26:26-29). Later, after the kingdom had come (Acts 2) we see that it was observed by the Apostles and Christians – Acts 2:42, 20:7, 1 Cor. 10&11.)

(Another point for consideration: Seeing that the Corinthians were partaking of the supper, and that Paul gave instructions in 1 Corinthians 10 & 11 for partaking of the supper properly, it is a proper conclusion that the kingdom did come.)


Are they already judging the twelve tribes of Israel? Were they judging these tribes while they were alive on earth?
The “judgment” of the 12 tribes effectively started on Pentecost in Acts 2 when the testament of Christ (or gospel) began to be preached to Jews from all over the world (all 12 tribes) who had gathered there for that Day (cf. John 12:48) (Don’t forget that Jesus said He would give Peter the “keys” to the kingdom – and I don’t believe He meant Peter only – in Matthew 16:19. “Keys” are a sign of authority as are thrones, and Peter by preaching the soul-saving gospel this day “turned” those keys to allow Jews from all over the world into the kingdom!)

The “thrones” mentioned here refer to positions of authority that the 12 occupied as Apostles in the early church. The teachings of the 12 (all truth – John 16:13) went forth into all the world, first in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the world – Acts 1:8. These 12 served to build upon the foundation upon which the church would become the spiritual institution Christ had died for – Acts 20:28!

Therefore, in reference to the kingdom we see that we have the Apostles “turning the keys” to open the doors of the kingdom. They began to “judge” the 12 tribes from their authoritative positions(“thrones”) in the early church. And the supper of the Lord, which was to be exclusive to the kingdom, had widespread practice by the Apostles and Christians. You know, I believe what Jesus said even more now…

The kingdom would come before some there died !!! (cf. Mk. 9:1)

[Jacob]

05-16-2003 @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98946#post98946)
Apollos:

Jacob –

After all of your posts, I still do not know what you believe. What “physical” dimensions do you refer to here ???



Back on 4/23, in this thread, I posted:



Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations.

David looked to a future time when everything would be subject to Christ, recognizing that He was currently Lord over all. That's my position.

Psa 145:10 All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You.
Psa 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power;
Psa 145:12 To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom.
Psa 145:13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
Psa 145:20 The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.

David recognized that the Kingdom is everlasting, even when wicked men were not subject to Christ. That's my position.

Isa 9:1 But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
Isa 9:2 The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them.
Isa 9:3 You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Isa 9:4 For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.
Isa 9:5 For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
Isa 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Isaiah recognized that the promise of the Kingdom included relief from oppression and war. That's my position.

Dan 2:44 "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
Dan 4:3 "How great are His signs And how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom And His dominion is from generation to generation.
Dan 6:26 "I make a decree that in all the dominion of my kingdom men are to fear and tremble before the God of Daniel; For He is the living God and enduring forever, And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, And His dominion will be forever.
Dan 7:13-14 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.
Dan 7:27 'Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.'

Daniel recognized that the Kingdom, though everlasting, would be set up in the future. This kingdom would crush all other kingdoms. In the Kingdom of God everyone submits to Christ. That's my position.

Mat 6:10 'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.

Just as Jesus taught us to pray, the kingdom has not fully come on earth as it has in heaven. That's my position.

Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

That many are not in the Kingdom. That's my position.

Mat 13:31 He presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field;
Mat 13:32 and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and NEST IN ITS BRANCHES."

The Kingdom is growing, and does not encompass all of creation. That's my position.

Mar 11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!"

That the Kingdom is coming - signifying that it is not here (in it's fullness). That's my position.

Luk 11:2 And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come.

That we should pray for the coming of the Kingdom. That's my position.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, …but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

That the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world. That's my position.

Perhaps most interestingly is the fact that the Gospel is most often defined, in the NT, as the "Gospel of the Kingdom". Tie this to Jesus' words in Mt 11.

Mat 11:2 Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples
Mat 11:3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
Mat 11:4 Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see:
Mat 11:5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.

That the gospel of the Kingdom has intrinsic social dimensions. That's my position.

So...

I don't see the OT promises for the Kingdom fullfilled. I see Jesus teaching that the Kingdom is here, but still future. I see Jesus saying that the Kingdom is tied to social well being. If our current situation is the full fullfillment of the Kingdom, then most passages about the Kingdom make no sense.

Jacob.

PS. I do know what the kingdom looks like. I do see it. I am simply being biblical in recognizing that it is not fully established. Did I make up for my lack of verses?

I see the Kingdom as fully "in force" when there's no war, no hostility between animals, no-one suffering from hunger or poverty, no blindness, no deafness, the dead are raised, where everyone & everything submits to Christ. And I trust in the Sovereign of the universe to pick the time to bring the rest of creation into submission to Him.

Perhaps the difference we have is more one of submission than of authority. I see no problem with recognizing Christ as rightfully Lord of all, but limiting the "kingdom" to those areas which have become submitted to Him. Contrary to your accusation, that this dethrones Christ (as those our beliefs could diminish God), this recognizes Him as the right ruler, though the absent ruler. I see a future time when He will fully rule, with all creation subjected to His authority. If you prefer this time, when people & creation "groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now," then you prefer rebellion to Christ over submission to Christ.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
Rom 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Are you redeemed?
Is Christ in authority over you?

Are you awaiting redemption?
Will Christ's authority be more fully excercised over you?

Jacob

[Jacob]

05-16-2003 @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98946#post98946)
Apollos:

Reference scriptures: (from Jacob – version unknown)
Luke 22:29 and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you
Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


NASB, almost always...



The “table” spoken of here in verse 30 is the “table” that would exist when the kingdom came.


And what precisely is that table? For that matter, where is that table? I think this is a reasonable question, since you are one who holds that identifying the location of Christ's throne as an issue worthy of debate and, it appears to me, division. So, what is the location of the Table of Christ in the Kingdom?




Note in verse 16 &amp; 18 that Jesus said He would not be partaking again of the supper until the kingdom had come. If the kingdom has not come, then there is no communion with the Lord.


That conlcusion is beyond what the passage teaches. For if that is true, then we only have common-union (aka communion) with the Lord while partaking in the eucharist. That would suggest that imprisoned saints, or those living in isolation, cannot have communion with the Lord.



This is done “in remembrance” (vs. 19, 1 Cor.11:23-26) of the Lord’s death, the death it took to make this communion possible! When we partake, we PROCLAIM His death for us !!!

It appears that you consider that the Kingdom is purely spiritual, and the table is purely non-physical. Is the meal (bread & wine -- communion) also purely non-physical? I don't see how anyone can objectively divine which parts of these verses refer to the physical, and which refer to the purely spiritual, without an obvious reason for these hermeneutical gymnastics. Could you elaborate on your exegesis.



Here the supper is “instituted” by the Lord (my preference is Matthew 26:26-29). Later, after the kingdom had come (Acts 2) we see that it was observed by the Apostles and Christians – Acts 2:42, 20:7, 1 Cor. 10&amp;11.)

(Another point for consideration: Seeing that the Corinthians were partaking of the supper, and that Paul gave instructions in 1 Corinthians 10 &amp; 11 for partaking of the supper properly, it is a proper conclusion that the kingdom did come.)


The spiritual dimension of the kingdom has come. It came at Pentecost. On that we agree.



The “judgment” of the 12 tribes effectively started on Pentecost in Acts 2 when the testament of Christ (or gospel) began to be preached to Jews from all over the world (all 12 tribes) who had gathered there for that Day (cf. John 12:48) (Don’t forget that Jesus said He would give Peter the “keys” to the kingdom – and I don’t believe He meant Peter only – in Matthew 16:19. “Keys” are a sign of authority as are thrones, and Peter by preaching the soul-saving gospel this day “turned” those keys to allow Jews from all over the world into the kingdom!)


How did you come to this conclusion? Yes, there are some symbols of authority in both cases ("keys" & "thrones"). But those who sit on thrones seldom need keys. In fact, sitting on a throne is a position of RULING authority (as the passage says, "judging"), while holding keys refers to a position of MANAGERIAL authority ("keys" held by apostle = "one sent with a message = messenger). Do you have any other passages to support lumping these together, erasing the obvious "jump" in figures of speech and types of authority?



The “thrones” mentioned here refer to positions of authority that the 12 occupied as Apostles in the early church. The teachings of the 12 (all truth – John 16:13) went forth into all the world, first in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the world – Acts 1:8. These 12 served to build upon the foundation upon which the church would become the spiritual institution Christ had died for – Acts 20:28!


How does ruling/judging the 12 tribes of Israel, relate to their authority over the church? When Christ spoke these words, there was no church. When Christ said this, the Apostles could not have understood it, if your interpretation is true. They had problems understanding even the basic nature of the church well beyond Pentecost.



Therefore, in reference to the kingdom we see that we have the Apostles “turning the keys” to open the doors of the kingdom. They began to “judge” the 12 tribes from their authoritative positions(“thrones”) in the early church. And the supper of the Lord, which was to be exclusive to the kingdom, had widespread practice by the Apostles and Christians. You know, I believe what Jesus said even more now…

The kingdom would come before some there died !!! (cf. Mk. 9:1)

Again, how does authority in the church translate to ruling/judging over the 12 tribes of Israel?

I see a blurring of the physical & the spiritual. Consider these related verses (all NASB):

From the same passage. Note that Christ refers to "fruit of the vine", not a spiritual communion.
Luk 22:18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."

Note Matthew's version (19:28-29) Where is Christ's throne? -- In heaven, right? In the same verse, with no change in context, where are the 12 thrones? In heaven? Physical thrones on earth? Or are they only symbols of the authority to preach the gospel? How can one's hermeneutic allow this to be true, and Christ's throne to still REALLY reside in heaven today?
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mat 19:29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

Spiritualizing these thrones, but not Christ's, also makes one ponder the meaning (if there is one) of the promise to "everyone who has left houses or brothers ... ... will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life"? Can this promise be understood normally? Is this talking about relationships, or is this something else, that might mean anything?

Jacob

[Apollos]

Jacob-

Why do you think that when someone such as myself questions the beliefs of another, and wants earnestly to “come to a knowledge of the truth” on all matters as best that he can through examination and study, you perceive that as divisive?

This is a discussion forum. If you do not want to discuss your beliefs, that is fine, but it makes me wonder why you are here if you do not want to “talk things over”.
<<<*>>>

Allow me to just take the hit for it, but to me your posts have been rather vague. I perceive them mostly as attempts to mitigate clearer truths and clearer passages that tell man today that Jesus is King of kings, and that the kingdom was established. I still perceive your position as one of agreeing with the plainer passages that these two things are so, BUT not “in the fullest” sense, as to allow more to come - the physical part.

It is this “position” of "not fully realized" that allows you to yet anticipate a physical kingdom on earth and an earthly rule of Christ, YET at this same time allowing you to say the kingdom has come, in some fashion - partially.

I read your post of 4/23, you needed not to cut&paste it. You could have referred back to it. There is nothing there that indicates there will be an earthly kingdom or rule, you assume it will be a physical thing. But the kingdom IS spiritual as is His reign! (Although we are a physical people, He reigns over and controls the spiritual part – heart & mind, which in turn controls the physical.) A spiritual reign controls both spiritual & physical.

This is then why I posted my post of 04/06/03 – post #108 this thread. Instead of debating all the prophetic, figurative passages that speak in reference to the kingdom, why not take the simple and plain passages that should not be in dispute. This Jacob, you have refused to do. You just have not addressed the passages in this post #108. Now just WHY is that?
<<<*>>>

NASB... That’s fine, just so we know.
<<<*>>>


The “table” spoken of here in verse 30 is the “table” that would exist when the kingdom came. The “table”, used by metonymy, is the supper (unleavened bread & fruit of the vine) instituted by the Lord and offered by local churches upon the first day of the week for all Christians to do “in remembrance” of the Lord’s death.

Jesus said He would not partake of this “communion” again until the kingdom had come.

What do you think that “table” is Jacob?
<<<*>>>


That conlcusion is beyond what the passage teaches. For if that is true, then we only have common-union (aka communion) with the Lord while partaking in the eucharist.
Your reasoning is inductive here Jacob. I concluded ONLY what the passage teaches. Jesus plainly states that He would not partake of that supper again until the kingdom had come. On the other hand, you assumed for some reason that comm.-union with Jesus is possible ONLY through the supper. I never said such & this is faulty!


It appears that you consider that the Kingdom is purely spiritual, and the table is purely non-physical. Is the meal (bread & wine -- communion) also purely non-physical? I don't see how anyone can objectively divine which parts of these verses refer to the physical, and which refer to the purely spiritual, without an obvious reason for these hermeneutical gymnastics.
Let me slow down so you can keep up. There is a truism that many theologians do not pay attention to. And that is God accomplishes the spiritual through the physical. This is true because God has to work through the physical to accomplish such.

Take man as the best example. To save man, God (spiritual) became man (physical). God’s plan from the creation of the world would be to work through the physical realm to save man by the blood of Christ. Man could not transcend to the spiritual realm, so God came to man through the physical realm. The end result – by the literal, physical shedding of blood, man’s spiritual soul would be saved.

In the supper, physical elements (unleavened bread by example & fruit of the vine) are used in remembering and proclaiming the Lord’s death, until He comes! In this supper, a spiritual “communion” takes place between the Lord & fellow saints. These physical elements accomplish a spiritual objective – we remember His sacrifice for us knowing we also proclaim that death until He comes again! Really, it takes little effort to keep these “gymnastics” in proper perspective – and it helps if you view them from a spiritual vantage point, and not from a physical one.

How do you view the Lord’s supper Jacob? Are you partaking???


From the same passage. Note that Christ refers to "fruit of the vine", not a spiritual communion.
Luk 22:18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." Jacob, look up “synecdoche”. If that does not work, ask yourself, What “fruit of the vine” is Jesus talking about ???


The spiritual dimension of the kingdom has come. It came at Pentecost. On that we agree.
Perhaps some progress is being made here. The kingdom is ONLY spiritual in nature, although the subjects of the kingdom are the physical beings (men & women) on earth now that have been “bought” by His blood and follow His will. If these people were not “spiritual” in their living, there would be no kingdom, as it is there willingness to follow the spiritual King and His spiritual law that make them subjects in the kingdom.


How did you come to this conclusion? (on Matthew 16:19) I am still looking for common ground with you Jacob. Why should we get bogged down in figurative and metaphorical language if we cannot agree on plainer passages – things you are yet to answer, but you continue to ask questions to “expand” our discussion base. You need to provide more answers before we can go forward!


Note Matthew's version (19:28-29) Where is Christ's throne? -- In heaven, right? In the same verse, with no change in context, where are the 12 thrones? In heaven? Physical thrones on earth?
Why does the thought of thrones upon the earth come to mind? Is the “regeneration” a physical realm? Does this passage teach this? Are you expecting a physical earthly kingdom? If so, why?


Spiritualizing these thrones, but not Christ's…
Is Christ’s throne mentioned in this particular passage (Mt19:28f)?? Can a direct comparison be made between the thrones? Do you have some way to tie this passage to another somewhere?? Can you show that ???

[Jacob]

05-25-2003 @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107489#post107489)
Apollos:

Jacob-

Why do you think that when someone such as myself questions the beliefs of another, and wants earnestly to “come to a knowledge of the truth” on all matters as best that he can through examination and study, you perceive that as divisive?

This is a discussion forum. If you do not want to discuss your beliefs, that is fine, but it makes me wonder why you are here if you do not want to “talk things over”.
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;


Apollos,

I do wish to talk things over. Question all you wish. But meaningful or constructive dialogue is seldom accomplished when one party begins calling the other a heretic.

From Apollo's post #108:



The foulest heresy of those that believe in a coming earthly kingdom is that they de-throne Jesus Christ NOW from the throne at the right hand of God where He is ruling NOW!!


So my beliefs (or rather, your mis-characterization of my beliefs) are a foul heresy.

From Apollo's post # 112



You and Jeremy, wherever you may think Christ is “sitting” right now, have Him de-throned and de-activated !! You don’t seem to want to accept the consequences of your beliefs and face up to the scriptures contradicted by such a position as yours!

You have found yourself in Row 1, Seat 1……….. in the grandstands of heresy !


Now I'm not just any old heretic, but the arch-heretic of all time. I guess I won't be invited over for a cup of tea now that this bit of helpful truth has been revealed...

It's not the desire "to come to a knowledge of the truth" that is divisive. It is the catagorizing those who disagree as heretics that is divisive. Or do you not see heresy as a reason for division?

Jacob

[Jacob]

05-25-2003 @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107489#post107489)
Apollos:

I read your post of 4/23, you needed not to cut&amp;paste it. You could have referred back to it. There is nothing there that indicates there will be an earthly kingdom or rule, you assume it will be a physical thing. But the kingdom IS spiritual as is His reign! (Although we are a physical people, He reigns over and controls the spiritual part – heart &amp; mind, which in turn controls the physical.) A spiritual reign controls both spiritual &amp; physical.


The burden of proof lies on you to show why the physical / societal promises of these passages can be "spiritualized", and I believe trivialized, to dismiss their clear promises of universal peace & health & harmony.




This is then why I posted my post of 04/06/03 – post #108 this thread. Instead of debating all the prophetic, figurative passages that speak in reference to the kingdom, why not take the simple and plain passages that should not be in dispute. This Jacob, you have refused to do. You just have not addressed the passages in this post #108. Now just WHY is that?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;


Now this is just the pot callin' the kettle black... You asked for passages, & I gave them. Then you dismiss my passages, saying that they're not clear, insisting instead that we need to start with your passages. The passages I cited are quite clear, unless you're trying to support an unbiblical position. Go back and show why, or how, you justify spiritualizing the passages I quoted. Your passages in post #108 are relevant, but only if taken in the context of the earlier, very clear, Old Testatment passages cited.

But I did reply to your passages. You just didn't like the answers.




The “table”, used by metonymy, is the supper (unleavened bread &amp; fruit of the vine) instituted by the Lord and offered by local churches upon the first day of the week for all Christians to do “in remembrance” of the Lord’s death.

Jesus said He would not partake of this “communion” again until the kingdom had come.

What do you think that “table” is Jacob?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;


I'm not the one that makes a big deal about the literal location of Christ's throne. You are. Then you use this passage (Luke 22:29-30) in post #125 to suggest that following my belief would lead to an inability to take the Lord's supper. Your argument assumes that this "table" = communion during this age.

If I understand correctly, you believe that this passage refers solely to a current spiritual table in a current solely spiritual kingdom -- which you insist is fully complete in every way, shape, manner, & form.

I see this particular table being manifest in the future. The rememberance of the Lord's supper is for now, but there is a future time when this supper will be in His full presence.




Your reasoning is inductive here Jacob. I concluded ONLY what the passage teaches. Jesus plainly states that He would not partake of that supper again until the kingdom had come. On the other hand, you assumed for some reason that comm.-union with Jesus is possible ONLY through the supper. I never said such &amp; this is faulty!


I made that "jump" to show how your position is not consistent with the passage.

You blended then future "table" with the then current "supper". Verses 29-30 speak in terms of one time-frame.
(1) The Father granted Christ a Kingdom.
(2) The Apostles were granted to eat & drink at the table in His kingdom.
(3) The Apostles were granted to sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Obviously, they were partaking of the Lord's supper before His death, but what is granted was to be in their future. There is also the hurdle of figuring out whether these things were granted only to the apostles, or to all believers. There is no grammatical distinction between what was granted to those who would sit on the thrones and those who would sit at the table. This indicates that these were for the same people, the apostles. This is no problem for me, since I don't confuse this table with the rememberance of the Lord's supper.

If the table refers to the rememberance of the Lord's supper, then it was either (1) only for the Apostles to remember the Lord's supper, or (2) for all believers to sit on the thrones judging Israel.

Are you sitting on a throne judging Israel? Where is this throne located (if the location of a throne matters)?



Really, it takes little effort to keep these “gymnastics” in proper perspective – and it helps if you view them from a spiritual vantage point, and not from a physical one.


How do you view the Lord’s supper Jacob? Are you partaking???



I referred to your hermeneutical gymnastics of changing between literal & spiritualized hermeneutics. You avoided the issue by this discourse on the use of the physical to accomplish the spiritual. Still, you use these mystical hermeneutics to arrive at your conclusions, while I don't need to distort the text to arrive at the same conclusion.




Jacob, look up “synecdoche”. If that does not work, ask yourself, What “fruit of the vine” is Jesus talking about ???


I entertain the possibility that Jesus was talking about a future time when He would share a physical meal with his Disciples. Some think that this would be trivial. I'd love to be a simple fly on the wall of such an occassion.



Perhaps some progress is being made here. The kingdom is ONLY spiritual in nature, although the subjects of the kingdom are the physical beings (men &amp; women) on earth now that have been “bought” by His blood and follow His will. If these people were not “spiritual” in their living, there would be no kingdom, as it is there willingness to follow the spiritual King and His spiritual law that make them subjects in the kingdom.


I like the picture of believers being the current spiritual & physical manifestation of the kingdom. I'd say that the kingdom is currently most-only spiritual in nature. The King's authority is over everything, but He has not brought everything into conformity. The believer's life, here in this age, is likened to the pains of childbirth. We are brought into spiritual conformity/submission, which is manifest in our physical conformity/submission.




I am still looking for common ground with you Jacob. Why should we get bogged down in figurative and metaphorical language if we cannot agree on plainer passages – things you are yet to answer, but you continue to ask questions to “expand” our discussion base. You need to provide more answers before we can go forward!



Apollos, I think our basic disagreement is over the nature of the passages which you call figurative. If those passages are rightly spiritualized, then we should begin with the passages you claim are clearer. But they were revealed first, so I think they are the context that define the meaning of your "clearer" passages.





Why does the thought of thrones upon the earth come to mind? Is the “regeneration” a physical realm? Does this passage teach this? Are you expecting a physical earthly kingdom? If so, why?


Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Regeneration is spiritual. I am expecting a physical earthly manifestation of the same kingdom. Because of passages re-cited in the next post.




Is Christ’s throne mentioned in this particular passage (Mt19:28f)?? Can a direct comparison be made between the thrones? Do you have some way to tie this passage to another somewhere?? Can you show that ???

Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Is this "the throne", or will Christ sit on the throne in the future. I don't know. I do know that most of the societel / physical promises have yet to be manifest.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Apollos,

This is a friendlier edit of an earlier response to your post #108. The quoted sections are from your post #118, which refers back to #108.



"So let’s return to a more easily understood passage approach to the kingdom, as I had started out with Jeremy back on 04/06/03 – post #108, page –7- of this thread – which you are yet to reply to directly. How do you reconcile your thoughts of the “physical dimensions” of the kingdom with John 18:36, a more easily understood passage??
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt; ”


Jesus is being elusive & somewhat cryptic in his responses to Pilate. This is hardly a "more easily understood passage." His kingdom is not primarily physical - which is what I've stated all along.



“ I provided Colossians 1:13, a more easily understood passage, which tells us that Christians had already been placed/were being placed into the kingdom NOW, but your kingdom is still “under construction”. How do you reconcile to this passage?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt; ”



Col 1:13 just says that God has " rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" Fits perfectly with my theology.... But, why do we need to be transferred to His kingdom if it's already fully "here & now"? I think that you're the one who needs to reconcile this passage with your beliefs.



“ In Acts 2:20, Peter said ”this is that”. ”

“ If you think Peter is talking about tongue speaking, I hope next time you will provide more information about why you believe this than you did about why the kingdom is “on the tarmack” ready to take off, but hasn’t. ”


The context is verses 2-15 which are talking about the apostles speaking in tongues and being accused of being drunk. Yes, he was speaking about talking in tongues.



“Part of “this is that” also refers to that day (Pentecost) being the “glorious day of the Lord”.
That is why Peter said what he did about the prophesy of Joel there – “this IS that”!!
This is too easily understood to be missed!”


How do you see "'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD" fully fullfilled at that time? Your position is only "easily understood" if you ignore parts of these passages.



“ Lol! Jesus prayed thy “WILL” be done on earth as in heaven. How do you shift gears to throw the kingdom in there? ”


In the preceeding verses, Jesus is speaking about the kingdom ... "Thy kingdom come"... The context supports my understanding of the passage.



“Mark 9:1[/color] – The kingdom came – with power! It did not limp in! Maybe you should tell me in which ways the kingdom IS here – according to you, okay?
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt; ”



I've said it several times, and you just won't believe me... The spiritual dimension of the kingdom is here -- almost fully in believers walking by the Spirit.



“ does Romans 16:20 have to do with any of this??) ”


It wasn't in my thinking, but it may well be relevant.




“ I believe I know what you are meaning by saying “societal dimensions”, but then we would get into the literal-figurative struggle of those passages. Why not attempt to answer the “easy” ones I have already posted. Then perhaps we can go from there.
We got into this struggle over Matthew 19:28, on which you assumed the thrones would be on earth. This went unsupported by you. You then went on to Rev.21:1 about the “new earth”, and remarked there is nothing to indicate this is not physical. Okay, is there anything to indicate that it IS physical. Given the book, I would say “figurative” more than likely the probable use, but then, let’s return to more easily understood passages!
&lt;&lt;&lt;*&gt;&gt;&gt;
”


It is convenient for you to suggest that the "easy" passages are the ones that, apart from their context, support your views, and the "difficult" passages are the ones where one must adopt an allegorical interpretation to support your views. This hermeneutical discrepancy is the basis for our disagreement.



“ I used Matthew 28:18 to show – Christ was given all authority.
You said, “Yes it was. But somehow he has yet to fully excercise that authority.

“Somehow” ??? Lol! How is that? Can you explain it ??? What is holding the King back… besides your theology ??? This is as if we have half a King with half a kingdom! ”


I don't have to explain it, you do. Explain how the King is ruling over everything, fully in every sense, and yet the subjects are mostly in rebellion?

Jacob

[johnnybanano]

My apologies if this seems to disrupt the flow of the thread. I just stumbled on to this thread and noticed a few things way back that I am going to comment on. If these items have already been resolved or I am echoing the words others have already posted, forgive me and ignore this. Otherwise, I hope that this serves as a worthy contribution.



02-07-2003 @ 06:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=10994#post10994)
Act9_12Out:

Isn't it interesting that Paul never preaches that one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah to be saved? You rightly share the gospel by responding with belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

What does it mean to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?
I would say that it means that you believe that Jesus is the appointed one of God who was prophesied in the Old Testament. But appointed for what? Both Acts and Joel agree that the means of salvation has always been the same.



Acts9_12Out:

The "means" is always the same. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent that saves all men who are in a position of salvation. The blood is the agent that washes away sin for all mankind.




joelkaki:

jEr, at least we agree that the means is always the same.


So if this means of salvation has always been the same and has existed since the fall of man, or perhaps even before if God foreknew that He would have to come up w/ a way to bring mankind back to him, then Jesus, if he was the "Messiah" was obviously the "appointed one", appointed for the means by which Fallen Man would be reconciled to God. It may very well be true that Jesus was the King of the Jews, but he is also the King of all, He is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He does not(will not) rule just the Jews, but all men. Is he not then the King of the Gentiles as well? If so, when then should the Gentiles not be expected to recongnize Jesus as their King if the Jews are to recognize him as their king?

You might say, "But Paul didn't preach that Gentiles had to accept Jesus as their king in order to be saved."

Well, that's saying a lot more than it would seem to say at first glance. First, let's determine what we mean when we say that the Gentiles didn't have to accept Jesus as their king or messiah. I would ask how the Gentiles would be saved if they didn't accept this. If Jesus was the "appointed one" to bring salvation to the whole world(See Jn 3:17), then he is in fact the "Messiah" to the whole world, not just the Jews.

You might now say, but just because the truth is that Jesus is the Messiah to the whole world doesn't mean that the whole world has to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They need only believe in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Well, what does it mean to believe in his DBR? How could one believe that Jesus DBR would save them if they didn't also believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Jesus is the Messiah because he was appointed to take away the sin of the world.(Jn. 1:29) If one believes that Jesus was the one who took away his/her sin through His DBR, then that person inherently proclaims Jesus as his/her savior. That person may not literally say, "Jesus is the Messiah," or "Jesus is the Christ" but the only way that they would believe in His DBR and at the same time NOT believe that He was the Messiah would be out of ignorance, not out of denial. I do not believe that a person can accept and believe in the DBR of Jesus and, at the same time, deny that Jesus is the Messiah.


02-07-2003 @ 06:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=10994#post10994)
Act9_12Out:

However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah.


Perhaps not explicitly, but the belief in Jesus DBR implies the belief in him as the Messiah.



The point here is, Peter did not believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.


I take it that you get this from the passage when Jesus rebukes Peter. In this passage you are absolutely right, I don't believe that he believes in Jesus DBR. However, I can all but guarentee you that after Peter saw Jesus resurrected from the dead, all that Jesus had said about his resurrection which Peter previously denies, he now believes and trusts that his salvation is because of it.



Peter did, however, believe that Jesus was his promised Messiah. Just something to think about...


You are right, it is just that he didn't believe that his resurrection would happen until he saw Jesus resurrected.

All of these comments are made in humble respect of the knowledge of everyone here.

Love and Respect

[charles]

Act9_12Out:

However, the body of Christ is never asked to believe that He is Messiah.
”


What can I say? The body of Christ, the body of the Messiah.
The revelation of Peter in Acts 2 is without a doubt the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah. The Messiah is first revealed to the body of Christ in Acts 2. This is a fact. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of ISRAEL know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both LORD and MESSIAH.
Now I believe without a doubt Peter is speaking about the same Jesus who rose from the dead. I find it interesting that you ask the question? Who do you believe the first body of believers of Christ were? V.38 be baptized in the name of Jesus CHRIST. Again the body of believers are to believe Jesus to be the Christ. Paul teaches this in all his letters. Be baptized in Jesus Christ, they being the body of Christ.
Charles

[Rev John Hansen]

"The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it" - you could say that was the start of the church of God. However, it would also be accurate to state that the church was fully organized and set in order on the day of Pentecost, about A.D. 33, Sincerely, John