Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[Idolater]

I don’t think the land covenant and the Mosaic law are the same thing.

Do you think they're related or just independent? And do you think that Acts 13:32-33 concerns either of them, or something else?

The people who aren’t priests partake as well. What’s the difference?

I'm unfamiliar. I'm not just talking about the Torah and the order of Aaron, but also other religions featuring priests and sacrifices and altars. Only the priests partake of the altar. The rest of the people present the gifts, the priests offer, and only the priests eat or drink of the altar (where applicable, not when it's a holocaust of course).

I could be wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

Good thing it's just one eternal sacrifice then.

Then why do you attempt to do it over and over.

The "sacrifice of the mass" is an abomination to God.

 

[Idolater]

Then why do you attempt to do it over and over.

When the eternal meets the temporal, that's exactly what it looks like. Endless. 'Over and over'. Everlasting.

The "sacrifice of the mass" is an abomination to God.

Dispensationalism is an abomination to God then.

'Turnabout is fair play.'

 

[Right Divider]

When the eternal meets the temporal, that's exactly what it looks like. Endless. 'Over and over'. Everlasting.

That is made-up nonsense.

Dispensationalism is an abomination to God then.

Nope, God dispenses different instructions to different people at different times.
It's simply what the Bible teaches.

'Turnabout is fair play.'

Nonsensical on your part.

 

[Derf]

Do you think they're related or just independent? And do you think that Acts 13:32-33 concerns either of them, or something else?

Of course they’re related. But Acts 13:32-33 is about the defeat of death promised in the Garden, (God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again) so it applies to the Jews and Gentiles, alike, whereas the land promise to Abraham was to provide a place for his descendants to bring to manifestation the Son of God through Abraham, and possibly as a reward for such an important task.

I'm unfamiliar. I'm not just talking about the Torah and the order of Aaron, but also other religions featuring priests and sacrifices and altars. Only the priests partake of the altar. The rest of the people present the gifts, the priests offer, and only the priests eat or drink of the altar (where applicable, not when it's a holocaust of course).

I don’t know much about other religions, but Christian churches seem to like potlucks, so they are all feeding each other.
Some of the sacrifices were eaten by the giver in the OT, shared with the priest. Again, the priest has some kind of duties, not just as a consumer of sacrifices. I think the churches where the congregation participates more are more in keeping with the NT church.

I could be wrong.

Me too. So let’s be sure to consult the best source to make sure.

 

[Idolater]

That is made-up nonsense.

It's just syntactically correct.

Nope, God dispenses different instructions to different people at different times.
It's simply what the Bible teaches.

And if Paul taught Catholicism, then Dispensationalism is Catholicism with extra steps.

Nonsensical on your part.

It's a platitude. Like 'water's wet.'

 

[Idolater]

Of course they’re related. But Acts 13:32-33 is about the defeat of death promised in the Garden, (God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again) so it applies to the Jews and Gentiles, alike, whereas the land promise to Abraham was to provide a place for his descendants to bring to manifestation the Son of God through Abraham, and possibly as a reward for such an important task.

It would make sense if somehow the remnant of the polity of Israel converted to Christ as high priest of the Most High God, that then the reward could commence. And that until then, it cannot. Because of them.

Noting of course that even when Christ became flesh, the polity was divided between Judah /Jews, and Samaritans (the kingdom of Israel). The New Covenant was to be made with both. It's curious that Christ excluded Samaritans from His ministry. Like His was not strictly speaking the coming New Covenant, at least not in its entirety. Because otherwise He would have gone to both Jews and to Samaritans.

I don’t know much about other religions

Me either, but I know this: They sacrificed offerings on altars to idols. The idols were objects, they either represented a deity who wasn't present, or they came to be identified with that deity, but the main point is the sacrifices on the altars.

All this involves priests.

The idolatry stamped out by Muhammad (SAW) and the Muslims was the last of what remained then in the whole area of that part of the world. It's largely now unheard of, that anybody's making any sacrifices to any deity upon any altar, that's a very distinct situation in the history of the world.

, but Christian churches seem to like potlucks, so they are all feeding each other.

That's a Puritan tradition. At least as far as I'm concerned, 'Puritan' means basically Catholic in every invisible way, and anti-Catholic in every visible way.

Some of the sacrifices were eaten by the giver in the OT, shared with the priest.

I'm curious to know these particular circumstances where this occurred and was prescribed.

Again, the priest has some kind of duties, not just as a consumer of sacrifices. I think the churches where the congregation participates more are more in keeping with the NT church.

Catholics 'do stuff':

For Noncatholics: Coming to Mass

Hypothetically, if you were to come to Mass, here is what you will see and an explanation. First of all remember that Catholics are all priests, and we are coming to Mass to celebrate our liturgy together. Liturgy is work; priestly work, and while we are all priests equally (Galations 3:28)...

theologyonline.com

Also we understand that Paul is writing to us (not just 'for us'):
Romans 6
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

2nd Corinthians 5:15
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

Ephesians 2:10
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 5
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Romans 12:1
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Me too. So let’s be sure to consult the best source to make sure.

I'm sure we will.

 

[Right Divider]

It's just syntactically correct.

No, it is a doctrine of demons.

And if Paul taught Catholicism, then Dispensationalism is Catholicism with extra steps.

Paul did NOT "teach Catholicism". Paul taught that Catholicism is wrong.
Paul was given an authority that was completely distinct from the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
Paul was NOT under the authority of your "first Pope" nor any other human.
Paul was given his mission and his authority directly from the RISEN and ASCENDED Lord Jesus Christ.

It's a platitude. Like 'water's wet.'

 

[Idolater]

The Church is fine, and in these last days God is calling His people out of organized religion.

The notion of 'organized religion' is the fruit of the idea of the poison tree that there is more than one Church.

The Doctrine of Christ being preached is the preeminence, not bishops and deacons and all that.

That's a false dichotomy, as in Scripture they are all part of the same 'package'.

What is your Doctrine of Christ, who He is, what He has done, for whom He did it. What did His Death accomplish ? Thats the concern for the Church friend.

Again you're now implying a false dichotomy, but the answer to your questions is voluminous, I'll try to summarize:

He is the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, proceeds from Him, and He is adored and glorified.

He is our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

 

[Derf]

Again... these are NOT the same and no amount your repeating this will change that:
If you cannot see the difference there, you are completely blind.
And YET Peter did NOT give them the GOOD NEWS of the cross. Please QUOTE the part where Peter does so.

I did, but you rejected it. I can’t do more for you, except try one more time:

Acts 10:39-43 (KJV) 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

This is what he preached to Cornelius, after he admitted that God must also think of the Gentiles as clean (from the sheets dream).

Note the lack of water in that passage. We cannot say that it's WATER baptism. Paul says that, in the BODY OF CHRIST, there is ONE baptism and it is NOT water baptism.

You’re kidding, right? What exactly did the jailer wash their stripes with?

The argument from silence is a fallacy.

Then since there IS water in the passage, but NO Holy Spirit, your argument from silence is duly noted.

Jesus sent the twelve to ISRAEL.

To Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, (half-breed Israelites at best), and the ends of the earth, in that order. That WHOSOEVER believes in Him…

 

[Right Divider]

I did, but you rejected it. I can’t do more for you, except try one more time:

Acts 10:39-43 (KJV) 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Again, your blinders do not allow you to see the truth.

SLEW AND HANGED on a tree is NOT expressing GOOD NEWS. It is a MURDER INDICTMENT!
Yes, it does mention His resurrection. But none of that is the GOOD NEWS of the CROSS per Paul.
From verse 43:

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Again, THROUGHT HIS NAME is NOT the same as BY HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS.

This is what he preached to Cornelius, after he admitted that God must also think of the Gentiles as clean (from the sheets dream).

While on earth, why did Jesus never mention "that God must also think of the Gentiles as clean."?
While on earth Jesus would barely even speak to gentiles.

Mat 15:21-28 KJV Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. (22) And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. (23) But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. (24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. (26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. (27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. (28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Why was her faith great? Because she humbled herself (a gentile) to the nation of Israel (verse 27). She admitted that she was a dog in relation to "the children" (which, like Jesus calling Israel "the people", "the children" refers to the children of Israel).

To Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, (half-breed Israelites at best), and the ends of the earth, in that order. That WHOSOEVER believes in Him…

Both programs allowed Jews and gentiles, but one program (the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the circumcision) placed ISRAEL in an elevated position above the gentiles.
In the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the uncircumcision) there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. So nobody has an elevated position.

Another difference that is invisible to you due to your blindness.

 

[Derf]

Again, your blinders do not allow you to see the truth.

I guess that can be true of almost anyone.

SLEW AND HANGED on a tree is NOT expressing GOOD NEWS. It is a MURDER INDICTMENT!
Yes, it does mention His resurrection. But none of that is the GOOD NEWS of the CROSS per Paul.
From verse 43:
Again, THROUGHT HIS NAME is NOT the same as BY HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS.

So you like to think of the gospel as a formula that you have to express in exactly the same way every time for it to be effective? Shall we return to the Phillipian Jailer story, where Paul said nothing (at least from the text we have) about the cross?
[Act 16:31 KJV] 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Remember that Peter described Jesus' death on the cross to Cornelius, which Paul did not. If you're looking for formula, Peter teaches the gospel of grace to Cornelius better than Paul does to the Jailer.

What about Paul's other presentations of his gospel?
Here's the crux of the one he gave in Athens (no cross mentioned):
[Act 17:31 KJV] 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Seems like the resurrection was the important part in that presentation, not just Jesus' resurrection, but the assurance that because of His resurrection all men will be resurrected. Which Jesus taught as well:
[Jhn 5:28-29 KJV] 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Here's Peter, from Paul's visit to Jerusalem, to clear up the issue about circumcision:
[Act 15:9, 11 KJV] 9 And put no difference between us and them (Jew and Gentile), purifying their hearts by faith. ... 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

While on earth, why did Jesus never mention "that God must also think of the Gentiles as clean."?
While on earth Jesus would barely even speak to gentiles.

Ask the apostles. They'll tell you:

[Act 15:16-17 KJV] 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The tabernacle of David (the phrase seems to refer to Jesus Christ, and probably His body being resurrected, but perhaps also to the nation of Israel) indicates that the primary focus of Jesus' earthly ministry was to the Jews, "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called"

Jesus, as attested by a Gentile, was a man under authority (Matt 8:9, Luke 7:1), meaning He could say to one "Go" and he would go, and to another "Come" and he would come. A good commander would not skip the process of training those officers in His immediate command and jumping right to the much larger numbers of common soldiers. Rather, he would send those of lower rank out to give the commands to the next rank, and so on down to the common soldiers.

This isn't because Jesus couldn't go to the common soldier, but because He could be more effective sending others, who would send others, and so on. In case you were wondering, this was the other "great faith" declaration Jesus made, and it showed the plan in a nutshell--that the Jews would take the word about Jesus to the Gentiles.
[Luk 7:10 KJV] 10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

Why was her faith great? Because she humbled herself (a gentile) to the nation of Israel (verse 27). She admitted that she was a dog in relation to "the children" (which, like Jesus calling Israel "the people", "the children" refers to the children of Israel).

And?

Both programs allowed Jews and gentiles, but one program (the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the circumcision) placed ISRAEL in an elevated position above the gentiles.
In the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the uncircumcision) there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. So nobody has an elevated position.

Another difference that is invisible to you due to your blindness.

If there was a benefit ("elevated position") to being part of Israel, then Paul seems remiss in not giving the Gentiles and Jews under his tutelage all of the necessary information to achieved the benefit. Paul's gospel, then, must be incomplete. But he argues vociferously against that, calling it "another gospel"
[Gal 1:6-7 KJV] 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Not only that, but those that preach another gospel, like Peter according to you, should be accursed:
[Gal 1:8-9 KJV] 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Notice he emphasizes it by repetition and comparison: Even if "we" (Paul and his partners in ministry), or an angel from heaven, or ANY MAN (that would include Peter) preach any other gospel, let him [Peter] be accursed. Are you serious that you think Paul was calling for curses on Peter and the other apostles? Even if you don't think that, Paul at least demolishes the idea that Gentiles can gain a more "elevated" position by following the law along with Peter.

Blindness indeed!

 

[Right Divider]

I guess that can be true of almost anyone.

Can be... but it's clearly true for you, as this thread has clearly demonstrated.

So you like to think of the gospel as a formula that you have to express in exactly the same way every time for it to be effective?

No, I don't and it is quite dishonest of you to say that.

Peter was BLAMING them for MURDER of the messiah. Anyone without your bias can see that.

Nowhere... NOWHERE in that passage can you find Peter explaining the GOOD NEWS that Christ died for their sins on the cross.

Shall we return to the Phillipian Jailer story, where Paul said nothing (at least from the text we have) about the cross?
[Act 16:31 KJV] 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Remember that Peter described Jesus' death on the cross to Cornelius, which Paul did not. If you're looking for formula, Peter teaches the gospel of grace to Cornelius better than Paul does to the Jailer.

Duped or dishonest, I do not know. But either way, you are lying.

Act 10:39-43 KJV And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; (41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. (43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Again... NO MENTION of trusting in Christ FOR HIS DEATH for those sins.

AGAIN "through his name whosoever believeth in him".

The FOCUS is DIFFERENT between what Peter and Paul teach.

What about Paul's other presentations of his gospel?
Here's the crux of the one he gave in Athens (no cross mentioned):
[Act 17:31 KJV] 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Again.... AUDIENCE and CONTEXT!.

Paul was preaching to people that did not have a clue about God. So he does NOT just SKIP ahead to the DETAILS of the CHRIST.

These incredibly ignorant people had an alter TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Seems like the resurrection was the important part in that presentation, not just Jesus' resurrection, but the assurance that because of His resurrection all men will be resurrected. Which Jesus taught as well:
[Jhn 5:28-29 KJV] 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The resurrection is vitally important and irrelevant to our topic. The death and resurrection of Christ was in prophecy.... it is NOT the mystery of Christ that Paul preached.

Here's Peter, from Paul's visit to Jerusalem, to clear up the issue about circumcision:
[Act 15:9, 11 KJV] 9 And put no difference between us and them (Jew and Gentile), purifying their hearts by faith. ... 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 15 is MANY YEARS after Acts 9 and 10. Peter had MANY interactions with PAUL between those two times. PAUL taught Peter and the others MANY THINGS.

Gal 2:6-7 KJV But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

They did not "add" to Paul... but contrariwise, Paul added to them.

Ask the apostles. They'll tell you:

[Act 15:16-17 KJV] 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The tabernacle of David (the phrase seems to refer to Jesus Christ, and probably His body being resurrected, but perhaps also to the nation of Israel) indicates that the primary focus of Jesus' earthly ministry was to the Jews, "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called"

Again, you don't understand the different between Israel and subsurvient gentiles VS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK.

Jesus, as attested by a Gentile, was a man under authority (Matt 8:9), meaning He could say to one "Go" and he would go, and to another "Come" and he would come. A good commander would not skip the process of training those officers in His immediate command and jumping right to the much larger numbers of common soldiers. Rather, he would send those of lower rank out to give the commands to the next rank, and so on down to the common soldiers.

You're trying to distract from the gentile that Jesus would not even TALK TO until she shows her faith by humbling herself to ISRAEL.

If there was a benefit ("elevated position") to being part of Israel, then Paul seems remiss in not giving the Gentiles and Jews under his tutelage all of the necessary information to achieved the benefit.

I'm seriously beginning to think that you are brain dead and your finger are just typing on their own.

You simply cannot even understand the simple things that I'm telling you.

• GOD's PROGRAM for Israel on the earth.
  Israel above the gentiles (Rev 21 show that this will be in effect after new heaven and near earth, see also Isaiah 60)
  Gentiles blessed by blessing Israel (Gen 12:1-4)
• GOD'S PROGRAM since the fall of Israel and the calling of Paul.
  ONE BODY of NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK

Paul's gospel, then, must be incomplete.

Paul knew MORE than anyone else, as Jesus gave him additional revelation.

Act 20:27 KJV For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Col 1:25-29 KJV Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; (26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: (27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (28) Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: (29) Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

But he argues vociferously against that, calling it "another gospel"
[Gal 1:6-7 KJV] 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The ANOTHER GOSPEL that Paul is talking about is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM/CIRCUMCISION.

Not only that, but those that preach another gospel, like Peter according to you, should be accursed:
[Gal 1:8-9 KJV] 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Please read my blog about that passage: https://theologyonline.com/threads/another-gospel-in-galatians-1.52439/

Here it is in case you don't follow links:

Many claim that Galatians 1 precludes multiple gospels. But it's simply them ignoring context as is too typical of many.

Gal 1:6-9 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (1:7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (1:8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (1:9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

There is a specific audience involved here. Once you take that into account, there is no problem at all.

Notice he emphasizes it by repetition and comparison: Even if "we" (Paul and his partners in ministry), or an angel from heaven, or ANY MAN (that would include Peter) preach any other gospel, let him [Peter] be accursed. Are you serious that you think Paul was calling for curses on Peter and the other apostles?

If they tried to preach the "wrong gospel" to those who had already received the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD, YES!

Even if you don't think that, Paul at least demolishes the idea that Gentiles can gain a more "elevated" position by following the law along with Peter.

Who said 'that Gentiles can gain a more "elevated" position by following the law along with Peter'?
Are you being dishonest? I certainly never said any such thing.

Blindness indeed!

You are blind indeed and confirm it with every post that you make.

 

[Derf]

John (i.e. the John or wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation) was never the pastor of a Gentile church, in Ephesus or anywhere else and the churches he wrote to in Revelation were NOT gentile churches.

Those are big claims. Do you make those claims with scriptural support that you can share with me?

I ask you! Tell me on what basis could you ever be persuaded to let go of ANY precept that currently exists in your dogma?

Why? Would that change the target of your posts, to only shoot at those that I might be persuaded by? You seem to think little of your persuasive powers. Should I think the same?

 

[Derf]

Peter was BLAMING them for MURDER of the messiah. Anyone without your bias can see that.

Nowhere... NOWHERE in that passage can you find Peter explaining the GOOD NEWS that Christ died for their sins on the cross.

Maybe you don't understand the gospel. Maybe the good news Peter was preaching to Cornelius was that he could be resurrected, which included the remission of sins. Do you think Cornelius was unaware that Jesus couldn't actually be resurrected unless He first had died? I mean, you seem to think little of my intelligence, and perhaps it's not such a stretch that you think little of others' intelligence as well.

I do not know.

I appreciate your admission.

Again... NO MENTION of trusting in Christ FOR HIS DEATH for those sins.

AGAIN "through his name whosoever believeth in him".

The FOCUS is DIFFERENT between what Peter and Paul teach.

Again...Perhaps you have a wrong gospel in your focus. Let's try again with what Paul preached.
[1Co 1:2 KJV] 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Do you think the Corinthians could call upon the name of Jesus Christ without actually believing in Him? Yet, Paul seems to think their calling on Him and believing in Him made them "saints", whether Jew or Greek. Why would you think Cornelius needs to believe something else?

Again.... AUDIENCE and CONTEXT!.

Paul was preaching to people that do know have a clue about God. So he does NOT just SKIP ahead to the DETAILS of the CHRIST.

These incredibly ignorant people have an alter TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Yet, Paul NEVER made it to the details of Christ's death on the cross at all? They were SO ignorant that Paul couldn't even tell them the fundamental part of the gospel? But I'll go with that for a moment. If Paul thought those Gentiles were so ignorant that he couldn't even tell them, "Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins," why do you put so much stock in Cornelius's knowledge, such that you KNOW Peter didn't also leave that out for the same reason? Your reasoning is inconsistent.

The resurrection is vitally important and irrelevant to our topic. The death and resurrection of Christ was in prophecy.... it is NOT the mystery of Christ that Paul preached.

It's part of the context. Why was context so important three sentences earlier in your post, but now it's irrelevant??

Acts 15 is MANY YEARS after Acts 9 and 10. Peter had MANY interactions with PAUL between those two times. PAUL taught Peter and the others MANY THINGS.

Why is this relevant? I thought you said Jesus was a good teacher, and Peter and crew didn't need to learn anything else to preach their gospel of the kingdom, and that Peter agreed not to ever preach the gospel of grace. What did Peter need to learn from Paul??

Again, you don't understand the different between Israel and subsurvient gentiles VS NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK.
You're trying to distract from the gentile that Jesus would not even TALK TO until she shows her faith by humbling herself to ISRAEL.

You're the one that says those converted by Peter would be joining through the kingdom gospel, which he is bound to preach, even though you say Peter knew about Paul's gospel and that it was better for the Gentiles (no subservience).

I'm seriously beginning to think that you are brain dead and your finger are just typing on their own.

I think you are saying that I have more intelligence in my one finger...

You simply cannot even understand the simple things that I'm telling you.

• GOD's PROGRAM for Israel on the earth.
  Israel above the gentiles (Rev 21 show that this will be in effect after new heaven and near earth, see also Isaiah 60)
  Gentiles blessed by blessing Israel (Gen 12:1-4)
• GOD'S PROGRAM since the fall of Israel and the calling of Paul.
  ONE BODY of NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK

Maybe you're not as good a teacher as you think.

The ANOTHER GOSPEL that Paul is talking about is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM/CIRCUMCISION.

Yes, that's what I thought you were saying, although the text doesn't only address the kingdom/circumcision gospel, but ANY other gospel. And Paul says those who teach it (to the Galatians, at least) should be accursed.

It they tried to preach the "wrong gospel" to those who had already received the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD, YES!

Who said 'that Gentiles can gain a more "elevated" position by following the law along with Peter'?
Are you being dishonest? I certainly never said any such thing.

You said this:

Both programs allowed Jews and gentiles, but one program (the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of the circumcision) placed ISRAEL in an elevated position above the gentiles.
In the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the uncircumcision) there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. So nobody has an elevated position.

So Gentile Christians converted to Judaism would be regarded as Jews, and not Gentiles, so they would achieve an elevated position with Peter's gospel compared to Paul's gospel, according to you.
Plus you previously said Peter and his disciples would have to do what Jesus said, which included following the law. And you said Peter only offered the gospel of the kingdom/circumcision to Cornelius, even though Paul's gospel of grace was already available when Peter talked to Cornelius.

But I think that's the problem with your two-gospel theory. It makes the apostles and Paul competitors. besides hiding the real good news that the Jews and Gentiles are both saved by grace, which Peter acknowledged:
[Act 15:11 KJV] 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Jews) shall be saved, even as they (Gentiles).

Sounds like Peter was preaching the gospel of grace.

 

[Idolater]

...Sounds like Peter was preaching the gospel of grace.

Acts 28
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you don't understand the gospel.

WHICH GOSPEL do you think that I don't understand? You don't even know that there are many gospels in the Bible. Since you cannot even tell the difference between the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision, you're in no position to judge anyone else's gospel knowledge.

Maybe the good news Peter was preaching to Cornelius was that he could be resurrected, which included the remission of sins.

So now you're not even sure what the GOODS NEWS is?

Do you think Cornelius was unaware that Jesus couldn't actually be resurrected unless He first had died? I mean, you seem to think little of my intelligence, and perhaps it's not such a stretch that you think little of others' intelligence as well.

You're punching at the air now. At that time, neither Peter nor Cornelius knew the gospel that Paul preached.

I appreciate your admission.

So which is it? duped or dishonest?

Again...Perhaps you have a wrong gospel in your focus.

So are you admitting that there are multiple gospels?

You said this:
So Gentile Christians converted to Judaism would be regarded as Jews, and not Gentiles, so they would achieve an elevated position with Peter's gospel compared to Paul's gospel, according to you.

Please QUOTE the post where I said that. I don't recall saying any such thing.

Plus you previously said Peter and his disciples would have to do what Jesus said, which included following the law.

You think that they shouldn't do what Jesus told them, including the FACT that Jesus had always told them to keep the law?

And you said Peter only offered the gospel of the kingdom/circumcision to Cornelius, even though Paul's gospel of grace was already available when Peter talked to Cornelius.

I never said that Peter offered the gospel of the CIRCUMCSION to a gentile.

But I think that's the problem with your two-gospel theory.

There are MANY GOSPELS in the Bible, not just your strawman "two-gospel theory".
They are all there PLAINLY in the Bible, why can't you see them? (oh, that's right... blinders).

It makes the apostles and Paul competitors.

Nonsense... another of your many strawmen.

besides hiding the real good news that the Jews and Gentiles are both saved by grace, which Peter acknowledged:
[Act 15:11 KJV] 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we (Jews) shall be saved, even as they (Gentiles).

Sounds like Peter was preaching the gospel of grace.

Nope. That's just your continued blindness fooling you again.

P.S AGAIN, remember that Acts 15 was MANY, MANY YEARS after Paul was called. Paul did NOT keep his gospel a secret during that time.

 

[Right Divider]

Acts 28
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God

The kingdom of God that Paul was preaching was NOT the same "gospel of the kingdom" that Christ sent His apostles to preach to Israel.

At the time that Christ sent the TWELVE to preach the gospel of the kingdom, they did NOT even know that Christ had to DIE.

Mar 9:30-32 KJV And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. (31) For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. (32) But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

 

[Idolater]

The kingdom of God that Paul was preaching was NOT the same "gospel of the kingdom" that Christ sent His apostles to preach to Israel.

At the time that Christ sent the TWELVE to preach the gospel of the kingdom, they did NOT even know that Christ had to DIE.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:4

 

[Right Divider]

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:4

That is a very dumb and irrelevant comment.