Discerning the difference.

[Arial]

Israel agreed to keep the covenant of the law.

Yes they did agree, but they failed to keep their agreement. Covenant broken. The terms of a Biblical covenant between God and man, are established by God and Him alone. There is no negotiation of the terms, and agreement on the the negotiated terms. That is what I was saying.

Some covenants are unilateral and some are bilateral.

It would save you a lot of time if you read an entire post before you jumped in to put forth your intelligence. That way you wouldn't simply repeat what I said as though I didn't say it.

The first quote is a bilateral covenant; the second is unilateral.

Yes. And? I know what they are. I said as much.

Reconciliation requires both parties agree to reconcile.

In our world. But mankind being reconciled to God was done for us by Jesus. The faith necessary for this to be applied to an individual is given by God. Eph 2

Grace must be received.

Very many simply reject God and will not accept the gift of grace.

If grace is contingent on something, it is no longer grace. Rom 11:6; Rom 3:27,28; Rom 4: 4-5. And before you say accepting is not a work, every form of that word as well as chose or chosing is a verb. A verb is a word used to describe an action or a state of being. In the case of accept or chose something that action generates from within us. Eph 2: 8,9 clearly tells us that the faith to believe the gospel of salvation is given by God and not generated from within us. This is what I believe the Bible says and in many places. Whether you believe that or not, is none of my business and not for me to try and change, and I am not going to argue with you over this either. Being contentious seems to be your main purpose. It isn't mine.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes they did agree, but they failed to keep their agreement. Covenant broken.

No kidding.

The terms of a Biblical covenant between God and man, are established by God and Him alone. There is no negotiation of the terms, and agreement on the the negotiated terms. That is what I was saying.

And yet they agreed on the terms. Or did God force them into the covenant?

It would save you a lot of time if you read an entire post before you jumped in to put forth your intelligence. That way you wouldn't simply repeat what I said as though I didn't say it.

I read it. Is there someone wrong with what I said?

Yes. And? I know what they are. I said as much.

Super.

In our world. But mankind being reconciled to God was done for us by Jesus.

Yes, that is ONE side of the reconciliation. Note that Paul tells them to BE RECONCILED to God. That is THEIR "job".

The faith necessary for this to be applied to an individual is given by God. Eph 2

So are you one of the folks that believe that humans are nothing but God's puppets?

If grace is contingent on something, it is no longer grace. Rom 11:6; Rom 3:27,28; Rom 4: 4-5.

Those verses do NOT say what you are trying to make them say. They simply say that WORKS are not involved.

If there was NOTHING to be done to receive God's grace, then everyone would be saved.

And before you say accepting is not a work, every form of that word as well as chose or chosing is a verb. A verb is a word used to describe an action or a state of being. In the case of accept or chose something that action generates from within us. Eph 2: 8,9 clearly tells us that the faith to believe the gospel of salvation is given by God and not generated from within us. This is what I believe the Bible says and in many places. Whether you believe that or not, is none of my business and not for me to try and change, and I am not going to argue with you over this either. Being contentious seems to be your main purpose. It isn't mine.

Again, are humans just God's robots?

 

[Arial]

And yet they agreed on the terms. Or did God force them into the covenant?

For crying out loud, pay attention to what you are reading! The subject is not terms or agreement----the subject is negotiation between the two parties on what the terms will be.

I read it. Is there someone wrong with what I said?

Then why did you simply repeat what I had already said as though you needed to enlighten me on those things?

Yes, that is ONE side of the reconciliation. Note that Paul tells them to BE RECONCILED to God. That is THEIR "job".

In human only terms it takes both parties to form a reconciliation. There are not two sides who need to agree to bring reconciliation when it comes to us being reconciled to God. We are speaking of God who is Creator, and He has not offended us, we have offended Him. 2 Cor 5:18-19 Now all things are of God who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them,---- This reconciliation in the Bible is in respect to restoring a right relationship between man and God. How do you propose that we do that?

So are you one of the folks that believe that humans are nothing but God's puppets?

No. As far as I know there aren't any of "those folks". There are people who can't see it any other way in their own heads if there salvation isn't a result of them instead of God.

Those verses do NOT say what you are trying to make them say. They simply say that WORKS are not involved.

If there was NOTHING to be done to receive God's grace, then everyone would be saved.

I think it is very clear what they say, especially, when you combine the whole of the Bible and the very things God says about Himself from "Let there be" to the last words in Revelation. He shows us who He is, and He shows us who we are in comparison, and He shows us the futility "all is vanity under the sun", of our attempts to save ourselves through our choices or actions. And He shows us that our only hope is if He Himself rescues us and then He does just that. There is no other place in the Bible where God leaves the results of His purposes and plans in the hands of fallen humanity. They are the ones who need Him to do it in the first place. So it is unreasonable to think at that final crucial point of His own Son dying on the cross to save many, raising Him from the dead, accepting the sacrifice of His own shed blood that He made, and Christ's returning to the Father; that at this most painful, magnanimous, glorious, step in redemption, God would step back and place its effectiveness into the hands of creatures who are helpless. That Jesus would do all He did to rescue a people and then step back and say rescue yourselves.

Again, are humans just God's robots?

It is not my problem if you see God's great grace and mercy in giving new birth from above to an individual, softening their heart so that when they hear the good news they believe it (faith), as being a robot. But it is a very ungrateful attitude. Even if you don't believe it.

 

[Right Divider]

For crying out loud, pay attention to what you are reading! The subject is not terms or agreement----the subject is negotiation between the two parties on what the terms will be.

I was not arguing against that.

In human only terms it takes both parties to form a reconciliation.

Where did you find this information? (HINT: I know that you just made it up).

There are not two sides who need to agree to bring reconciliation when it comes to us being reconciled to God. We are speaking of God who is Creator, and He has not offended us, we have offended Him. 2 Cor 5:18-19 Now all things are of God who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them,---- This reconciliation in the Bible is in respect to restoring a right relationship between man and God. How do you propose that we do that?

By trusting Christ like Paul says... and being reconciled to God like Paul recommends. Paul says BE YE RECONCILED.... how do we BE that?

No. As far as I know there aren't any of "those folks".

Of course there are... many Calvinists claim that God controls EVERYTHING, including every single human action.
There are many posts here from them claiming just that.

There are people who can't see it any other way in their own heads if there salvation isn't a result of them instead of God.

Too bad for those people.

I think it is very clear what they say, especially, when you combine the whole of the Bible and the very things God says about Himself from "Let there be" to the last words in Revelation. He shows us who He is, and He shows us who we are in comparison, and He shows us the futility "all is vanity under the sun", of our attempts to save ourselves through our choices or actions. And He shows us that our only hope is if He Himself rescues us and then He does just that. There is no other place in the Bible where God leaves the results of His purposes and plans in the hands of fallen humanity. They are the ones who need Him to do it in the first place. So it is unreasonable to think at that final crucial point of His own Son dying on the cross to save many, raising Him from the dead, accepting the sacrifice of His own shed blood that He made, and Christ's returning to the Father; that at this most painful, magnanimous, glorious, step in redemption, God would step back and place its effectiveness into the hands of creatures who are helpless. That Jesus would do all He did to rescue a people and then step back and say rescue yourselves.

Again, you make it sound like humans are puppets. Of course God saves us, but He does not force it upon anyone.

It is not my problem if you see God's great grace and mercy in giving new birth from above to an individual, softening their heart so that when they hear the good news they believe it (faith), as being a robot. But it is a very ungrateful attitude. Even if you don't believe it.

You lie about me. You should stop, it's a sin against God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

On the priesthood of Christ: Heb 7:23-28; 9:11; 10:10-14
On the priesthood of the body of Christ: 1 Peter 2:5-9

1) This is begging the question, a logical fallacy.
2) The fallacy is exposed when you read 1 Peter 1:1-2, which CANNOT be talking about the Body of Christ, and which, when read, CLEARLY is talking about the people of the law, the chosen nation, the laws of which nation required the sprinkling of blood for certain things:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. - 1 Peter 1:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter1:1-2&version=NKJV

That's not the Body of Christ, therefore, the prooftext you claim supports the idea of a priesthood for the Body of Christ, does not.

On what do you base the statement that the book of Hebrews is not directed at the body of Christ?

Open your physical Bible (a Bible app isn't useful here) to "The Epistle to the Hebrews." What's the full title of the book? (Hint: I just told you)

Does that answer your question?

At the time it was written, its purpose may have been primarily to clarify to Jewish believers (I say this because it uses extensive references to the ceremonial law, showing how it points to Christ and is fulfilled in Christ.)

So you have the title of the book, the book contains extensive references to the ceremonial laws of the Jews, and you're still going to argue that it was written to the Body of Christ, which has no such laws, and which references would NOT be understood by any gentiles of the time?

Talk about "I reject your reality and substitute my own..."

But Christians today have both OT and NT

So what?

--- and the NT reveals much of what was only shadowed in the OT. Therefore it is for the body of Christ.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It was one of the most eye opening books I read as a new Christian, explaining and making the connection of the OT to the NT. As well as the purpose of what we read historically in the old testament.

Just because there's a connection between the writings directed at Jews in the New Testament, and the Old Testament, doesn't mean that Hebrews was written to the Body of Christ.

I never said Paul wrote the book of Hebrews and I don't know what that has to do with anything.

It has A LOT to do with what we're talking about.

If Paul wrote Hebrews, then your argument would be valid.

But since at the very least we know it wasn't Paul, despite not knowing exactly who it was, there is a VERY clear delineation between what Paul wrote about, and what Peter, James, John, Jude, and the author of Hebrews wrote about.

I conceded nothing. I still believe as I do. I merely acknowledged that God knows more than I do.

Which is basically you saying nothing at all important.

It does not say the new covenant is put on hold.

It does. Not verbatim, but it's a clear indication.

The very nation God made a new covenant with has rejected Him, and so He cuts them off in their unbelief, and starts working with the Gentiles, something unheard of before, a mystery, so to speak, and tells us that unbelieving Israel will be grafted back in again when "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

I recommend going and reading Acts. From 1:1 to 28:31.

Pay attention to the three Ananiases.

They indicate the current (at the time written about them) state of Israel.

Read the parable of the barren fig tree, and recognize that Christ came for three years, ascended, and then it was about a year after His ascension that Paul was saved.

Read Romans.

Heck, just read the whole New Testament from Matthew 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, and get an overview of what had happened. (My recommendation is to do this, and then read Bob Enyart's The Plot: An Overview of the Bible is the Key to it's Details.)

It is talking about a partial hardening of heart within Israel and tell us why.

Yes it does. And the scriptures I mentioned above explained what happened as a result.

And when all the Gentiles who believe are brought in, then a remnant of Israel will also be saved. A remnant is, even now----those who believe. Before the"end of days" more will be. But when Paul says all Israel will be saved he cannot possible mean the entire nation of Israel

Because you say so?

because he has already said a remnant will be.

What does Paul say in Romans 11:11-32?

Question:
Has God cast away unbelieving Israel, never to work with her ever again?

And he cannot possible mean every ethnic Jew (and there are more in NYC right now than in Israel), because he has already said a remnant will be saved.

So what? Cannot God also graft back in unbelieving Israel?

What does Paul say in Romans?

I see him making it clear that God has not abandoned Israel and replaced them in His love with Gentiles.

And which portion of Israel is Paul talking about? Is he talking about the remnant? Or about the part that was cut off for their unbelief?

He was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles. He carried the gospel outside Israel where they mostly were---thus his travels. That is not making a separation of any kind.

As RD pointed out, there's a very clear separation between what Paul did and what the Twelve did.

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. - Galatians 2:7-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7-9&version=NKJV

Not in the gospel and not in Jew and Gentile. It is called my gospel because it is the gospel that he was given, that he believes, that he teaches. It is not another gospel. In fact he says if any preach a gospel different from the one he preaches that is a different gospel.

If that were the case, then why didn't ANY of the other Twelve Apostles call their gospel "my gospel"?

Paul called it "my gospel" because his gospel was different than theirs, and he was making the distinction clear.

Hmmmm. Acts 10:42-44 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that He who was ordained b God to be Judge of the living and the dead.43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.

"Commanded"
"Judge"
"Prophets"
"Remission [and not forgiveness] of sins"

None of these things have anything to do with the Body of Christ, but rather with laws.

Sounds like he is preaching the gospel of the grace of God to me.

You might want to clean out your ears then.

"Remission of sins" is not "forgiveness of sins."

(He was speaking to Gentiles btw).

So?

And something else to keep in mind, not exactly the same things were covered or in exactly the same way, everytime an apostles spoke or wrote. The truth remained the same but not all things were covered all at once all the time.

Rather, Paul's gospel was progressively revealed to him by God, and as time went on, he gained a much better grasp of what his gospel entailed, and what made it different from the gospel given to the Twelve by Christ.

You may be misunderstanding what I mean by progressively. We live in the realm of time. A beginning, a middle and and end. Though God is outside of time, and not bound by it, His interactions with us, the things He does that take place in the realm of time, have a beginning, a middle and an end. A past, a present, a future. So these things move forward step by step. . . . That is what I mean (not the miracle thing, that was a rabbit trail) by progressive. Step by step is how it appears and plays out in our world, rather than all at once. The plan however with God is eternal, and does not change. The progress is the way in which it plays out in our world.

Once again, begging the question, and scripture doesn't support the idea that God is outside of time.

See https://kgov.com/time and the corresponding TOL thread about this topic.

(What to us look like genuine miracles, the sun standing still. the sun moving backwards, instant full restoration of a body that has been dead for four days or three, are times when God steps in "outside of time." They are not miracles to God.)

So God cannot, in time, temporarily halt the rotation of the earth, or reverse it's spin? He cannot, in time, fully restore a dead man's body?

Miracles are that which cannot be explained by the laws of the physical universe, which are effected by an external (super-natural) Entity (the Being we call God).

 

[Arial]

1) This is begging the question, a logical fallacy.
2) The fallacy is exposed when you read 1 Peter 1:1-2, which CANNOT be talking about the Body of Christ, and which, when read, CLEARLY is talking about the people of the law, the chosen nation, the laws of which nation required the sprinkling of blood for certain things:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. - 1 Peter 1:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter1:1-2&version=NKJV

That's not the Body of Christ, therefore, the prooftext you claim supports the idea of a priesthood for the Body of Christ, does not.

I am breaking up your manuscript of a post because I need to spend some time and space on many of your statements, and then we would have a tome. Very unpleasant on a forum.

To begin with you beg the question of a logical fallacy when you assume that by the Dispersion that it is referring only to Jews. If you have a good study Bible, to make a more concise yet condensed study than lengthy historical texts, one that has a thorough introduction to chapters and offers the various views, on such things as date and occasion, genre and literary features, characteristics and themes etc. some of these misconceptions can be cleared up before we even begin reading the book.

The letter is addressed to Christians, whatever their ethnic background---in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia. Do you really suppose that it was to Jews only. It was to the pilgrims of the body of Christ, Christians, who were dispersed to all these places because of persecution. Peter was a Jew. His use of the designation dispersion is a direct and natural comparison to the dispersion of the Jews as a result of the Babylonian exile. There are statements in the letter that indicate there were many Gentile believers to whom this letter was also addressed. 1:18 "aimless conduc received by tradition from your fathers" is hardly fitting for Jews. The sins listed in 4:3 were more typical of Gentiles than the Jewish people.

In 1 Pet 2:9-10 Peter applies OT terms for Israel to the church. This asserts the continuation of true Israel in Christ (God's people, Jew and Gentile alike)the one people of God. This is not a proof text. It is a text that tells us something.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes they did agree, but they failed to keep their agreement. Covenant broken. The terms of a Biblical covenant between God and man, are established by God and Him alone. There is no negotiation of the terms, and agreement on the the negotiated terms. That is what I was saying.

It would save you a lot of time if you read an entire post before you jumped in to put forth your intelligence. That way you wouldn't simply repeat what I said as though I didn't say it.

Yes. And? I know what they are. I said as much.

In our world. But mankind being reconciled to God was done for us by Jesus. The faith necessary for this to be applied to an individual is given by God. Eph 2

If grace is contingent on something, it is no longer grace. Rom 11:6; Rom 3:27,28; Rom 4: 4-5. And before you say accepting is not a work, every form of that word as well as chose or chosing is a verb. A verb is a word used to describe an action or a state of being. In the case of accept or chose something that action generates from within us. Eph 2: 8,9 clearly tells us that the faith to believe the gospel of salvation is given by God and not generated from within us. This is what I believe the Bible says and in many places. Whether you believe that or not, is none of my business and not for me to try and change, and I am not going to argue with you over this either. Being contentious seems to be your main purpose. It isn't mine.

Works are physical...believing is not.

And at least one of God's covenants with Israel was an eternal covenant He said He would NEVER break. Sounds physical to me.

Judges 2:1
And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

 

[glorydaz]

You may be misunderstanding what I mean by progressively. We live in the realm of time. A beginning, a middle and and end. Though God is outside of time, and not bound by it, His interactions with us, the things He does that take place in the realm of time, have a beginning, a middle and an end. A past, a present, a future. So these things move forward step by step. (What to us look like genuine miracles, the sun standing still. the sun moving backwards, instant full restoration of a body that has been dead for four days or three, are times when God steps in "outside of time." They are not miracles to God.) That is what I mean (not the miracle thing, that was a rabbit trail) by progressive. Step by step is how it appears and plays out in our world, rather than all at once. The plan however with God is eternal, and does not change. The progress is the way in which it plays out in our world.

So you're not saying there were no miracles, are you? God didn't really part the red sea, for example?

The way in which God deals with His covenant people remains the same. Much of what we see in the Psalms shows us God's care of His covenant people, new covenant or old. David knew this and that is why He asked God for everything he needed. He knew God is the source. But some of the promises are specific to Israel the people, that concern the possession and productivity of the land, and are not a part of the new covenant. I think however that you are concerned here with the promised restoration of Israel in the sense that you see this occurring in the 1000 year reign. I do not read this the same way dispensationalists do. And therefore I do not see the fulfillment of that promise to Israel the same as you do. But that is a complicated thing to work through. It can't be isolated in a few sentences or a few quotations, but would take a complete work of interpretation of the entire book, simply because of the type of literature Revelation is.

Well, God was very strict, so I'm not sure I'm seeing the comparison. Of course God was dealing with Israel as a physical nation.

Covenant in the Bible is similar to a contract but differs in that there is no negotiation and agreement between the parties. It is more like a treaty a conquering king would make with those he conquered. The king would lay out all the things he would do and all the things they must do in order for the treaty to remain binding.

The covenant of redemption (grace, faith) is a different type of covenant, called unilateral. One party (God) makes promises to the other party (in this case believers, all those in Christ through faith) and binds Himself to keep the covenant, with no stipulations placed on those in the covenant.

Okay

When you say "God goes back to the law in Revelation while dealing with people" you will need to tell me exactly what scriptures you are referring to.

Looks like reinstatement of the law to me.

• Revelation 12:17
  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
  
  
• Revelation 14:12
  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
  
  
• Revelation 22:14
  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[glorydaz]

It is not my problem if you see God's great grace and mercy in giving new birth from above to an individual, softening their heart so that when they hear the good news they believe it (faith), as being a robot. But it is a very ungrateful attitude. Even if you don't believe it.

If God softens everyone's heart, why don't they all believe it? Surely they have a choice to believe that good news or not?

 

[Arial]

If God softens everyone's heart, why don't they all believe it? Surely they have a choice to believe that good news or not?

He doesn't soften everyone's heart, according to scripture, John 3:3,5-8 Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born from above'. 8 The wind blows wherever it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
John 6:44; John 6:29

 

[Right Divider]

I am breaking up your manuscript of a post because I need to spend some time and space on many of your statements, and then we would have a tome. Very unpleasant on a forum.

To begin with you beg the question of a logical fallacy when you assume that by the Dispersion that it is referring only to Jews. If you have a good study Bible, to make a more concise yet condensed study than lengthy historical texts, one that has a thorough introduction to chapters and offers the various views, on such things as date and occasion, genre and literary features, characteristics and themes etc. some of these misconceptions can be cleared up before we even begin reading the book.

The letter is addressed to Christians, whatever their ethnic background---in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia.

Peter was writing to those that were STRANGERS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT those places.

1Pet 1:1 (KJV)
(1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Do you really suppose that it was to Jews only.

Yes... read more carefully.

1Pet 2:12 (KJV)
(2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

It was to the pilgrims of the body of Christ, Christians, who were dispersed to all these places because of persecution.

No, it was the twelve tribes of Israel scattered into gentile lands.

Peter was a Jew. His use of the designation dispersion is a direct and natural comparison to the dispersion of the Jews as a result of the Babylonian exile.

Indeed. Same people, different dispersion.

There are statements in the letter that indicate there were many Gentile believers to whom this letter was also addressed. 1:18 "aimless conduc received by tradition from your fathers" is hardly fitting for Jews. The sins listed in 4:3 were more typical of Gentiles than the Jewish people.

Begging the question. Note the WE in verse 3. Peter is talking to HIS people.

In 1 Pet 2:9-10 Peter applies OT terms for Israel to the church.

Again, begging the question.

This asserts the continuation of true Israel in Christ (God's people, Jew and Gentile alike)the one people of God. This is not a proof text. It is a text that tells us something.

Blinded by your own theory.

 

[Arial]

Peter was writing to those that were STRANGERS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT those places.

Not strangers necessarily, I'm sure some were, but pilgrims, is a better translation as it somewhat alleviates you chosen usage of strangers, Peter could have meant any number of things and probably meant more than one application. For example Phil 3:17-21. Those who belong to Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are pilgrims on this earth.

Yes... read more carefully.

Unnecessary and unproductive response.

No, it was the twelve tribes of Israel scattered into gentile lands.

There were Jews there because of the dispersion to be sure, but that does not mean Peter was speaking to only Jews. Why do you keep separating Jew and Gentile when scripture makes it clear that Jesus made of the two one? The body of Christ is made up of all believers, why do you tear it limb from limb?

Indeed. Same people, different dispersion.

Where does it say that?

Begging the question. Note the WE in verse 3. Peter is talking to HIS people.

I don't see a "we" in that verse. I see an "us", and the "us" is v 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with His blood: Peter is writing to (not speaking) to Christ's people, whoever they may be.

Blinded by your own theory.

An unnecessary and and unproductive response.

Galatians 5:13-15 For you brethren hve been called to liberty, only do not use this liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 16 But if you bit and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another. It is a natural human tendency when we hear something like that to say to ourselves, "Oh that's the other guy, not me." Be on guard. The devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking those he may devour. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier of the brethren, and He does that as we hear His instruction that is given in His word and submit to that rather than those fleshly desire so crouching at the door, that are at war with our spirit.

 

[Right Divider]

Not strangers necessarily, ...

My Bible says strangers, so I'll just go with that.

I'm sure some were, but pilgrims, is a better translation as it somewhat alleviates you chosen usage of strangers, Peter could have meant any number of things and probably meant more than one application. For example Phil 3:17-21. Those who belong to Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are pilgrims on this earth.

Peter agreed NOT to go to the gentiles and yet you think that he's writing to them.

You find it very easy to falsely equate just any old scripture with this. It's a common tactic.

Unnecessary and unproductive response.

No, just true.

There were Jews there because of the dispersion to be sure, but that does not mean Peter was speaking to only Jews.

Peter, James and John agreed to restrict their ministry to the circumcision. Gal 2:9

Why do you keep separating Jew and Gentile when scripture makes it clear that Jesus made of the two one?

ONE in the body of Christ... that does NOT mean that God's plans cannot be two-fold.

The body of Christ is made up of all believers, why do you tear it limb from limb?

Supra

Where does it say that?

Same place that you got yours.

I don't see a "we" in that verse. I see an "us", and the "us" is v 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with His blood: Peter is writing to (not speaking) to Christ's people, whoever they may be.

The "chosen" that Peter refers to is the chosen people of Israel.

An unnecessary and and unproductive response.

Just true.

Galatians 5:13-15 For you brethren hve been called to liberty, only do not use this liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 16 But if you bit and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another. It is a natural human tendency when we hear something like that to say to ourselves, "Oh that's the other guy, not me." Be on guard. The devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking those he may devour. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifier of the brethren, and He does that as we hear His instruction that is given in His word and submit to that rather than those fleshly desire so crouching at the door, that are at war with our spirit.

Twelve apostles (Peter is one of the TWELVE) that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter, James and John agreed to restrict their ministry to the circumcision. James also writes to the TWELVE tribes. James 1:1

 

[Arial]

So you're not saying there were no miracles, are you? God didn't really part the red sea, for example?

No that is not what I am saying. They were miracles from our position, they were not miracles from God's position. Nothing controls Him and He is bound (restricted) by anything, certainly not time and space. I do not understand why it was so difficult to see that is what I was saying.

Well, God was very strict, so I'm not sure I'm seeing the comparison. Of course God was dealing with Israel as a physical nation.

I do not even see how this connects to the post it is responding to.

• Revelation 12:17
  And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
  
  
• Revelation 14:12
  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
  
  
• Revelation 22:14
  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

God telling us to keep His commandments is not new. He has always told us to and always will tell us to. It is the law with its sacrifices and and ceremonies that were abolished when what they shadowed was fulfilled in Christ. Not His commandments. So this is not reinstating those things. Truthfully to begin the sacrifices after Christ life, death, resurrection, ascension, culminating in His great and final victory over evil, would be akin to sacrificing Christ all over again as it says in Hebrews. Especially while He is serving as earthly king over the Jews as dispensationalists say.

But I am not one to bite and devour within the house of God with my brothers and sisters in Christ. We are told not to do that. (Not accusing you of anything, it is just the place this thread went the minute I disagreed with a couple of people.) It is one thing for that to happen with unbelievers---not right---but it is easy to get entangled in it as they come to attack the doctrines of Christianity, and they come in their own authority with no intention of submitting to God, and they come without the Holy Spirit to teach and sanctify them. Christian's do have have the Holy Spirit and they have the Book that is for us to teach, guide, strengthen, comfort and sanctify. We have no business treating each other the same way they treat us. What is being debated in this thread does not pertain to salvation but is only differing ways of viewing things that should not be fought over or defended tooth and nail. We have individual liberty in those places that aren't doctrinal and do not change the gospel of salvation. There are ways of discussing these things without fighting and name calling, and put downs. You personally have not done this, so I am not saying that, but if you are following the thread you can see that it is being done and I put this here, because I am not responding to any more of their posts to me. You and I are doing pretty good so far.

 

[Right Divider]

God telling us to keep His commandments is not new. He has always told us to and always will tell us to.

Who is US?

Exod 31:12-18 (KJV)
(31:12) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it [is] a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that [ye] may know that I [am] the LORD that doth sanctify you. (31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. (31:17) It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (31:18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Some of the commandments were give to a specific people: Israel.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am breaking up your manuscript of a post

I don't mind if you break up my post.

I DO mind if you ignore key points that I make within that post.

because I need to spend some time and space on many of your statements,

I, for one, am not in any hurry. Take your time to respond. I can wait.

and then we would have a tome.

I'm what you call a "heavy hitter" here on TOL. Get me going on a topic, and my posts can very quickly exceed the character limit.

It's a sign that I'm enjoying having the conversation, because I'm putting the time and effort into putting together such a post.

So get used to long posts.

Very unpleasant on a forum.

A forum is the best place for such long posts, especially a forum like TOL where the goal is centered around finding out the truth of matters. Lengthy posts indeed.

But if you're that scared of long posts, definitely don't go read the Battle Royale threads on TOL. There's a couple of doozies in there.

To begin with you beg the question of a logical fallacy

"Begging the question" IS the logical fallacy.

when you assume that by the Dispersion that it is referring only to Jews.

Except I'm not begging the question.

The context excludes anyone but Jews from being the addressees:

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”​

Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,

“The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,”​

and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”​

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. - 1 Peter 2:4-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter2:4-12&version=NKJV

Nation... His own special people... who once were not a people but are now the people of God... mercy... among the Gentiles...

None of these things have any significance to Gentiles or the Body of Christ, but they are ALL things that have to do with Israel.

1) Israel is a nation, God's chosen (special) people, who once were not a people (the nation of Israel didn't exist before God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (AKA Israel)) but are now the people of God (Israel is "the people of God").

2) Mercy is only relevant when there is a punishment that someone deserves, but the judge has decided to not punish them. It has everything to do with the people of the law, Israel. Grace isn't mentioned here in this passage, because grace has very little to do with laws, and it's for people who don't deserve anything to receive something as a free gift.

3) You don't talk to people who are Gentiles and say to them while they are on a pilgrimage, "while you are among the gentiles..."

What's more, I quoted Galatians 2:7-9 in my previous post to you for a reason, that reason being that Peter and the others agreed to only go to the circumcision (again, another term that describes Israel), while Paul agreed to go only to the Gentiles.

By the way, something else to note: NOT ONCE IN ANY OF PAUL'S WRITINGS does he use the term priest or priesthood. If Peter and Paul are talking about the same group of people, then why wouldn't they use similar language? (Hint: They would use similar language.) Instead, Peter and Paul refer to the people they write to differently, and talk about Jews (in the case of Paul) and Gentiles (in the case of Peter, et al) as a group other than the one he considers himself a part of. In other words, there are two distinct groups of believers in the New Testament. Jews and proselytes (with a distinction between Jews and Gentiles), and believers in the Body of Christ (in which no distinction is made between Jew or Gentile).

If you have a good study Bible, to make a more concise yet condensed study than lengthy historical texts, one that has a thorough introduction to chapters and offers the various views, on such things as date and occasion, genre and literary features, characteristics and themes etc. some of these misconceptions can be cleared up before we even begin reading the book.

Why would I read someone's opinions on what scripture says when I can just read the Bible plainly?

I'm not saying there wouldn't be any value in reading such things as you suggest, but if I want to understand the basics, let's start with scripture, not man's opinions about it.

The letter is addressed to Christians, whatever their ethnic background---in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia.

More question begging.

What verse 1 says is "pilgrims of the dispersion." It does not say "Christians." The authors of the Bible are very particular in how they word things. There's a reason for not calling them "Christians." The most likely reason (and the one that fits the rest of scripture the most) is that they were not members of the Body of Christ, but Jews who had gone on a pilgrimage throughout the world.

Do you really suppose that it was to Jews only.

See reasons 1, 2, and 3 above under where I quote 1 Peter 2:4-12 for why we KNOW it was directed at Jewish believers.

It was to the pilgrims of the body of Christ, Christians,

More question begging without evidence.

who were dispersed to all these places because of persecution.

What persecution were members of the Body of Christ suffering that would cause them to scatter throughout the world?

On the other hand, do you think there might be historical evidence of Jews being scattered due to some reason?

Peter was a Jew. His use of the designation dispersion is a direct and natural comparison to the dispersion of the Jews as a result of the Babylonian exile.

Which is something that Gentiles of that time would likely have no understanding about. Why use a term that has no relation to anything to do with the people you're talking to?

A diaspora (/daɪˈæspərə/ dye-AS-pər-ə) is a scattered population whose origin lies in a separate geographic locale. Historically, the word diaspora was used to refer to the mass dispersion of a population from its indigenous territories, specifically the dispersion of Jews. Whilst the word was originally used to describe the forced displacement of certain peoples, "diasporas" is now generally used to describe those who identify with a "homeland", but live outside of it.

Diaspora - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The people scattered abroad identify with their homeland of Israel, from whence Peter is writing, but live outside of Israel (as indicated by 1 Peter 1:1).

You do realize that the very "dispersion of the Jews as a result of the Babylonian exile" is the one Peter is referring to by calling them "diaspora," right? They're the descendants of those who were dispersed as a result of the Babylonian exile. Ever heard of the term "synecdoche"?

There are statements in the letter that indicate there were many Gentile believers to whom this letter was also addressed.

There have always been Gentiles who have converted and become proselytes. So what?

1:18 "aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers" is hardly fitting for Jews.

Which is referring to the ancestors of, you guessed it, the Jews.

The sins listed in 4:3 were more typical of Gentiles than the Jewish people.

So what? The fact that he refers to the Gentiles at all, and comparing himself and the group he's talking to TO the Gentiles should tell you that the people he's talking to, including himself, ARE NOT GENTILES!

For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. - 1 Peter 4:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter4:3&version=NKJV

"In doing the will of the Gentiles" is saying the same thing as "doing as the Gentiles do."

In 1 Pet 2:9-10 Peter applies OT terms for Israel to the church.

Israel was called a church LOOOONG before the Body of Christ was ever called the church.

Jesus:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew16:18&version=NKJV

Also Jesus:
But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matthew 15:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:24&version=NKJV

This asserts the continuation of true Israel in Christ (God's people, Jew and Gentile alike)the one people of God. This is not a proof text. It is a text that tells us something.

The only thing being asserted here are your a priori beliefs, and they are being asserted without sufficient evidence.

who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with His blood:

Chosen... Sanctified... to be obedient . . . and sprinkled with His blood...

All terms and phrases that have SPECIFIC RELEVANCE to ISRAEL, and which have NO RELEVANCE AT ALL to Gentiles...

 

[glorydaz]

Oh dear. Small bites are so much easier to digest.

 

[glorydaz]

He doesn't soften everyone's heart, according to scripture, John 3:3,5-8 Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born from above'. 8 The wind blows wherever it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
John 6:44; John 6:29

That says nothing about softening someone's heart.

 

[glorydaz]

No that is not what I am saying. They were miracles from our position, they were not miracles from God's position. Nothing controls Him and He is bound (restricted) by anything, certainly not time and space. I do not understand why it was so difficult to see that is what I was saying.

Well, I'm a pretty concrete thinker. So, maybe a separate thread on miracles would be good.

I do not even see how this connects to the post it is responding to.

Me neither. It just popped out, I guess.

God telling us to keep His commandments is not new. He has always told us to and always will tell us to.

Well, He gave Adam and Eve one commandment. Noah was told to build the ark. Oh, and Noah had his conscience with the laws of God written on his heart. So, if you're talking about our conscience when you say this, then I would agree. Otherwise, God is telling the Jews to keep His commandments.

It is the law with its sacrifices and and ceremonies that were abolished when what they shadowed was fulfilled in Christ. Not His commandments. So this is not reinstating those things.

The Law is the commandments. The sacrifices and ceremonies were simply a temporary means of covering sins when the Law was broken.

Truthfully to begin the sacrifices after Christ life, death, resurrection, ascension, culminating in His great and final victory over evil, would be akin to sacrificing Christ all over again as it says in Hebrews. Especially while He is serving as earthly king over the Jews as dispensationalists say.

Beyond my paygrade.

But I am not one to bite and devour within the house of God with my brothers and sisters in Christ. We are told not to do that. (Not accusing you of anything, it is just the place this thread went the minute I disagreed with a couple of people.) It is one thing for that to happen with unbelievers---not right---but it is easy to get entangled in it as they come to attack the doctrines of Christianity, and they come in their own authority with no intention of submitting to God, and they come without the Holy Spirit to teach and sanctify them. Christian's do have have the Holy Spirit and they have the Book that is for us to teach, guide, strengthen, comfort and sanctify. We have no business treating each other the same way they treat us. What is being debated in this thread does not pertain to salvation but is only differing ways of viewing things that should not be fought over or defended tooth and nail. We have individual liberty in those places that aren't doctrinal and do not change the gospel of salvation. There are ways of discussing these things without fighting and name calling, and put downs. You personally have not done this, so I am not saying that, but if you are following the thread you can see that it is being done and I put this here, because I am not responding to any more of their posts to me. You and I are doing pretty good so far.

To be honest, as I've been reading along, I see some people who are excited to share what they see in the word of God and, to be totally honest, I see it from you as well as them. It takes a lot of humbling for those who are excited about the Lord to discuss....especially when they first get together. Pray and see if I might be correct about that.

 

[Arial]

That says nothing about softening someone's heart.

What do you consider being given a new heart of flesh and removing the heart of stone-----this being done by God----to be?