Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[Idolater]

Israel the Nation was a typical people, the Church the Body of Christ is antitype Israel, all the promises to Israel typical are fulfilled spiritually to the Church, through Christ.

But you didn't address my point. The Apostles established the institution of Church pastors, known as bishops, elders, overseers. This office (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1) has never ceased to exist, even through all the tumult the Church experienced, at e.g. Nicaea, in e.g. AD 1054, or e.g. the Reformation, the office of a bishop has remained constant.

What is your justification for abandoning this Apostolic office? It's at least in the neighborhood if not equal to the extraordinary claim that the 'everlasting covenant' was 'put on hold', meaning it requires extraordinary evidence to sustain the claim that the office of a bishop has ceased to be valid.

 

[Right Divider]

But you didn't address my point. The Apostles established the institution of Church pastors, known as bishops, elders, overseers. This office (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1) has never ceased to exist, even through all the tumult the Church experienced, at e.g. Nicaea, in e.g. AD 1054, or e.g. the Reformation, the office of a bishop has remained constant.

That was only Paul, that other different apostle. The TWELVE apostles were for the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.
Israel already had a religious hierarchy established by God.

What is your justification for abandoning this Apostolic office?

What is your justification for mashing together two things that are different?

It's at least in the neighborhood if not equal to the extraordinary claim that the 'everlasting covenant' was 'put on hold', meaning it requires extraordinary evidence to sustain the claim that the office of a bishop has ceased to be valid.

Again, the new and everlasting covenant has NOT begun. Therefore, your point is pointless.

 

[beloved57]

But you didn't address my point. The Apostles established the institution of Church pastors, known as bishops, elders, overseers. This office (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1) has never ceased to exist, even through all the tumult the Church experienced, at e.g. Nicaea, in e.g. AD 1054, or e.g. the Reformation, the office of a bishop has remained constant.

What is your justification for abandoning this Apostolic office? It's at least in the neighborhood if not equal to the extraordinary claim that the 'everlasting covenant' was 'put on hold', meaning it requires extraordinary evidence to sustain the claim that the office of a bishop has ceased to be valid.

You lost me. Nothing is on hold, the promises of God to Israel are fulfilled in and through the Church, the Body of Christ !

 

[Idolater]

You lost me. Nothing is on hold, the promises of God to Israel are fulfilled in and through the Church, the Body of Christ !

For 1500 years all Christians worshiped God with the assistance of men holding the office of bishop (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1). In the New Testament Titus and Timothy were examples of men who held this office. Even after the Schism of 1054, both the western and eastern Church continued to cultivate the institution of the office.

But the Reformation brought with it an abandonment of the office of a bishop. No Protestant traditions, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Baptist, have bishops.

What is your justification for the abandonment of this Apostolic institution? Was there some prophet who came and declared on behalf of God that His people the Church should leave the men holding the office that the Apostles themselves established? And that has persisted ceaselessly since the Apostolic era?

Apologies if I'm still not clarifying well enough, let me know and I'll try again a different way.

 

[beloved57]

For 1500 years all Christians worshiped God with the assistance of men holding the office of bishop (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1). In the New Testament Titus and Timothy were examples of men who held this office. Even after the Schism of 1054, both the western and eastern Church continued to cultivate the institution of the offiec.

But the Reformation brought with it an abandonment of the office of a bishop. No Protestant traditions, whether Lutheran or Calvinist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Baptist, have bishops.

What is your justification for the abandonment of this Apostolic institution? Was there some prophet who came and declared on behalf of God that His people the Church should leave the men holding the office that the Apostles themselves established? And that has persisted ceaselessly since the Apostolic era?

Apologies if I'm still not clarifying well enough, let me know and I'll try again a different way.

Im sorry, the Church is doing fine as it is, the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

 

[Idolater]

Im sorry, the Church is doing fine as it is, the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

I'm sorry, this seems cavalier as far as I'm concerned.

 

[beloved57]

I'm sorry, this seems cavalier as far as I'm concerned.

The Church is fine, and in these last days God is calling His people out of organized religion. The Doctrine of Christ being preached is the preeminence, not bishops and deacons and all that. 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.

 

[Derf]

Please confirm this with scripture. It's just NOT there.

NOWHERE in Acts 10 can you find Peter declaring the Jesus died for Cornelius' sins on the cross.

Is Acts 10 the only scripture we look to for Peter’s version of the gospel?

what about this: Acts 2:38 (KJV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If he preached this to the Jews, which is the same that Paul preached to the Gentiles, why would Peter come up with a different gospel for Gentiles?

Even better is a comparison of Peter’s message to Cornelius vs Paul’s message to the Philippian jailer:
Acts 10:43 (KJV) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 16:30-31 (KJV) 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Isn’t “receive remission of sins through belief in His name” the same as “Jesus died for your sins” (which Paul didn’t deem necessary to tell the jailer, at least in the revealed conversation)?

If there is "only one gospel"... why would they need to "switch to the grace gospel"?

Good catch! My wording was poor, but I was trying to say they had a hard time embracing the idea that the old restrictions didn’t apply. Peter’s vision of the sheets shows us Peter wasn’t ready yet, and needed prodding.

 

[Right Divider]

Is Acts 10 the only scripture we look to for Peter’s version of the gospel?

Please don't ignore all the other things that I said about Acts 10 and Cornelius. This was NOT the preaching of the cross NOR the preaching of the gospel of the grace of God.

These two are DIFFERENT and CONTRADICTORY:

Act 10:35 KJV But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Tit 3:5 KJV Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

what about this: Acts 2:38 (KJV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What about it? Peter was preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel.

Act 2:14 KJV But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:22 KJV Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

In Acts 2 Peter clearly is NOT preaching the GOOD NEWS of the CROSS, He is preaching the BAD NEWS that Israel had murdered their messiah.

Act 2:37 KJV Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Do you think that the GOOD NEWS of the grace of God, that Christ had died for their sins, "pricked them in their heart"? NO, it was the BAD NEWS that THEY had MURDERED their messiah.

If he preached this to the Jews, which is the same that Paul preached to the Gentiles, why would Peter come up with a different gospel for Gentiles?

Even better is a comparison of Peter’s message to Cornelius vs Paul’s message to the Philippian jailer:
Acts 10:43 (KJV) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 16:30-31 (KJV) 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Did you notice that Paul did NOT include baptism, which was REQUIRED in the gospel that the TWELVE were to preach?

Mar 16:16-18 KJV He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Isn’t “receive remission of sins through belief in His name” the same as “Jesus died for your sins” (which Paul didn’t deem necessary to tell the jailer, at least in the revealed conversation)?

Are you trying to say this with a straight face?
NO, most adamantly NO! "through belief in His name" is most definitely NOT the same as "believing that Jesus died for your sin"!

Good catch! My wording was poor, but I was trying to say they had a hard time embracing the idea that the old restrictions didn’t apply. Peter’s vision of the sheets shows us Peter wasn’t ready yet, and needed prodding.

So all those years of Christ's teaching him and those additional FORTY DAYS of kingdom training were a complete failure? Is Christ a bad teacher? Or is there something else going on here.... YES, there is something ELSE going on here.

 

[Derf]

Please don't ignore all the other things that I said about Acts 10 and Cornelius. This was NOT the preaching of the cross NOR the preaching of the gospel of the grace of God.

These two are DIFFERENT and CONTRADICTORY:

You say they are. I showed that they weren’t.

What about it? Peter was preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel.
In Acts 2 Peter clearly is NOT preaching the GOOD NEWS of the CROSS, He is preaching the BAD NEWS that Israel had murdered their messiah.

Of course they needed to hear the bad news of their sin before hearing the good news of the gospel. Just like Gentiles need to hear the bad news of their sins before they know they need a savior.

1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV)
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Did you notice that Paul did NOT include baptism, which was REQUIRED in the gospel that the TWELVE were to preach?

You’re probably right—the jailer just decided he needed to be baptized without Paul saying anything about it:
Acts 16:33 (KJV) And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Are you trying to say this with a straight face?
NO, most adamantly NO! "through belief in His name" is most definitely NOT the same as "believing that Jesus died for your sin"!

Then Paul was preaching the kingdom gospel to the Phillipian jailer?
Acts 16:31 (KJV) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Just because it isn’t in the scriptures in both the Peter and Paul stories doesn’t mean they didn’t tell them.

On the other hand, “remission of sin through belief in His name” is most certainly the same as “believe that Jesus died for your sins”.

So all those years of Christ's teaching him and those additional FORTY DAYS of kingdom training were a complete failure? Is Christ a bad teacher? Or is there something else going on here.... YES, there is something ELSE going on here.

There may be something else going on, but it isn’t a different gospel.

The problem wouldn’t be one of Jesus being a bad teacher, but of the disciples being bad learners. Do you remember that Jesus told them many times He would die, and be raised on the third day? Yet they didn’t believe Him, until it happened. Are you saying Jesus was a bad teacher in that respect?

 

[Stripe]

If you 'pause' an everlasting video, it ceases to be an everlasting video. Or more accurately it never was one.

Sounds overly pedantic to me.

 

[Right Divider]

You say they are. I showed that they weren’t.

Stop posturing. You did no such thing.

Again... these are NOT the same and no amount your repeating this will change that:

Act 10:35 KJV But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Tit 3:5 KJV Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If you cannot see the difference there, you are completely blind.

Of course they needed to hear the bad news of their sin before hearing the good news of the gospel. Just like Gentiles need to hear the bad news of their sins before they know they need a savior.

And YET Peter did NOT give them the GOOD NEWS of the cross. Please QUOTE the part where Peter does so.

1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV)
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

You’re probably right—the jailer just decided he needed to be baptized without Paul saying anything about it:
Acts 16:33 (KJV) And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

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.

Eph 4:4-6 KJV There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

THIS is the ONE BAPTISM that Paul is referring to:

1Co 12:12-13 KJV For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You are lost in your false paradigm.

Then Paul was preaching the kingdom gospel to the Phillipian jailer?
Acts 16:31 (KJV) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Just because it isn’t in the scriptures in both the Peter and Paul stories doesn’t mean they didn’t tell them.

The argument from silence is a fallacy.

On the other hand, “remission of sin through belief in His name” is most certainly the same as “believe that Jesus died for your sins”.

Again, NO IT ISN'T. You are lying to protect your pet paradigm.
Through belief IN HIS NAME is NOT the same as belief that He died for your sins.

There may be something else going on, but it isn’t a different gospel.

There are MANY gospels in the Bible.

The problem wouldn’t be one of Jesus being a bad teacher, but of the disciples being bad learners. Do you remember that Jesus told them many times He would die, and be raised on the third day? Yet they didn’t believe Him, until it happened. Are you saying Jesus was a bad teacher in that respect?

I'm saying that you are wrong. They full well understood their mission and the Acts 10 story is a departure from that mission. That is why it required a special revelation AND why it came AFTER Paul's calling in Acts 9.

Jesus sent the twelve to ISRAEL.

Mat 15:24 KJV But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Joh 20:21 KJV Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

In Peter's speech to Cornelius, Peter confirms his mission to Israel:

Act 10:42 KJV 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.

The term "the people" refers to ISRAEL.

They (the twelve) were to convert their nation before going to the gentiles. But their nation rejected them and Christ.

Again I point you to THEIR agreement with Paul that they would NOT go to the gentiles.

Gal 2:6-9 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; (8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I guess that your excuse will be that they were still ignorant of their mission.

 

[Derf]

If you 'pause' an everlasting video, it ceases to be an everlasting video. Or more accurately it never was one.

I’m not convinced.

Genesis 13:15 (KJV) For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

There weren’t any conditions placed on this, and God letter confirmed it as a covenant by walking between the halves by Himself. Yet He “paused” the covenant when the Jews were taken away to Babylon for 70 years.

 

[Idolater]

I’m not convinced.

Genesis 13:15 (KJV) For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

There weren’t any conditions placed on this, and God letter confirmed it as a covenant by walking between the halves by Himself. Yet He “paused” the covenant when the Jews were taken away to Babylon for 70 years.

Do you call that a pause in the promise of the coming of Christ also, or is it just of the land portion of the promise? Our high priest's own sacrifice of His flesh and blood offered upon the altar of the cross and acceptable to God the Father almighty, is an eternal liturgy, it is not ever paused or 'put on hold'. Even in times of pestilence (pandemic, plague) our helpers the ministerial priesthood still preside over our sacrifice (the ministerial priest (we, by contrast, are called 'common' or 'universal' priests) always says "that your sacrifice and mine might be acceptable" every Mass) on our behalf, so that it is truly everlasting in that sacramental regard as well, continually embodying and making present to us His priests and Church, who can partake of the divine nature in participating in the distribution of the consecrated and sacrificed bread and wine gifts, the eternal ('from the foundation of the world', cf. Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:4, 1st Peter 1:20) reality of His offering on the altar of the cross.

 

[Idolater]

Sounds overly pedantic to me.

Thank you.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you call that a pause in the promise of the coming of Christ also, or is it just of the land portion of the promise? Our high priest's own sacrifice of His flesh and blood offered upon the altar of the cross and acceptable to God the Father almighty, is an eternal liturgy, it is not ever paused or 'put on hold'. Even in times of pestilence (pandemic, plague) our helpers the ministerial priesthood still preside over our sacrifice (the ministerial priest (we, by contrast, are called 'common' or 'universal' priests) always says "that your sacrifice and mine might be acceptable" every Mass) on our behalf, so that it is truly everlasting in that sacramental regard as well, continually embodying and making present to us His priests and Church, who can partake of the divine nature in participating in the distribution of the consecrated and sacrificed bread and wine gifts, the eternal ('from the foundation of the world', cf. Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:4, 1st Peter 1:20) reality of His offering on the altar of the cross.

Repeatedly "sacrificing" for sins is an abomination to God.

Heb 9:26-28 KJV For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[Idolater]

Repeatedly "sacrificing" for sins is an abomination to God.

Good thing it's just one eternal sacrifice then.

 

[Derf]

Do you call that a pause in the promise of the coming of Christ also, or is it just of the land portion of the promise? Our high priest's own sacrifice of His flesh and blood offered upon the altar of the cross and acceptable to God the Father almighty, is an eternal liturgy, it is not ever paused or 'put on hold'. Even in times of pestilence (pandemic, plague) our helpers the ministerial priesthood still preside over our sacrifice (the ministerial priest (we, by contrast, are called 'common' or 'universal' priests) always says "that your sacrifice and mine might be acceptable" every Mass) on our behalf, so that it is truly everlasting in that sacramental regard as well, continually embodying and making present to us His priests and Church, who can partake of the divine nature in participating in the distribution of the consecrated and sacrificed bread and wine gifts, the eternal ('from the foundation of the world', cf. Revelation 13:8, Ephesians 1:4, 1st Peter 1:20) reality of His offering on the altar of the cross.

It’s an example of a covenant that was in effect, then put on hold, or “paused”, then in effect again (then put on hold again in 70 AD, then in effect again as of 1948). That is to say, the nation of Israel, the beneficiary of the covenant, ceases to receive the benefit of it for a time. That doesn’t mean the covenant ceased to be, but even after it was implemented in Joshua’s time, the fulfillment requires permanence, which didn’t/hasn’t happen/ed because of the nation’s sin.

ministerial priest (we, by contrast, are called 'common' or 'universal' priests)

Or not priests at all, if there’s no function.

Preventing the common priests from participating in the execution of the office makes them not priests. This isn’t a complaint against just the Catholic Church, but many others as well.

 

[Idolater]

It’s an example of a covenant that was in effect, then put on hold, or “paused”, then in effect again (then put on hold again in 70 AD, then in effect again as of 1948). That is to say, the nation of Israel, the beneficiary of the covenant, ceases to receive the benefit of it for a time. That doesn’t mean the covenant ceased to be, but even after it was implemented in Joshua’s time, the fulfillment requires permanence, which didn’t/hasn’t happen/ed because of the nation’s sin.

Is a promise and a covenant the same, and if not how are they different? And the liturgy that has not resumed because there is no temple in Jerusalem right now, is this part of a covenant or a promise?

Or not priests at all, if there’s no function.

Priests partake of their altar.

Preventing the common priests from participating in the execution of the office makes them not priests. This isn’t a complaint against just the Catholic Church, but many others as well.

Priests partake of their altar.

 

[Derf]

Is a promise and a covenant the same, and if not how are they different? And the liturgy that has not resumed because there is no temple in Jerusalem right now, is this part of a covenant or a promise?

Priests partake of their altar.

Priests partake of their altar.

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

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