ECT If MAD is False Why Did Paul Make the Distinction in Romans 4:16?

Danoh

New member
In Philippians 3, Paul is contrasting between those of the circumcision (sons of Jacob) at Philippi who not only were not Believers, and were out to do evil against those sons of Jacob like Paul, who were (Believers).

Philippians 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

They of the Circumcision (Israelites) who Believed, were said to be those of their nation who worshipped God in the spirit; who did not rest in the mere fact that they were descendents of Abraham.

John 5:41 I receive not honour from men. 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

As seen in the above, such had also been the distinction between the two kinds of Isralites back when the issue had been keeping the Law.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

The difference had been which of the two worshipped God in the spirit - that, is, not merely outwardly, as pleasing men (to impress one another) but as pleasing God.

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 2:18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Merely keeping the Law was not enough.

The heart attitude from within which a Jew kept the Law had also been an issue - as pleasing men, or God.

Note: In Romans 2, verses 26-27 are mentioned by Paul from within the context of the issue he is relating in Romans 1:18-3:20.
 

Right Divider

Body part
That doesn't say descendant of Jacob, it just says who are Israelites. I know Jacob was named Israel but if we read further we can get more insight on who really is an Israelite.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
I know that this is another favorite myth of churchianity, but Paul is NOT including others as Israelite's.

He is EXCLUDING UNBELIEVING members of the nation from the nation..

The "true" Israel are the BELIEVING Israelite's.

Break away from the MYTHS and accept the Word of God.
 

turbosixx

New member
I know that this is another favorite myth of churchianity, but Paul is NOT including others as Israelite's.

He is EXCLUDING UNBELIEVING members of the nation from the nation..

The "true" Israel are the BELIEVING Israelite's.

Break away from the MYTHS and accept the Word of God.

I have evidence it's others what do you have it's not?
 

Right Divider

Body part
For someone who CLAIMS to know their bible, you sure do make a lot of excuses and insults. Doesn't look like someone who is confident.
For some who claims to know their Bible:
  • You use fallacious "logic".
  • You look like someone who is way TOO confident in their own ignorance.
  • One of you previous posts was SO illogical and funny that it made my signature.
  • Congratulations!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
How is this relevant?

Here are a few more.
Jn. 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.

4:41 And many more believed because of his word.

8:30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

10:42 And many believed in him there.

11:45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him,

The reason he was killed is because people were believing in Him.
Jn. 11:48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."
And your point is?

The fig tree did not produce the fruit desired.

This is revelation from Paul.
Phil. 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
Gal. 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Isn't this what makes someone an Israelite?
No, because Abraham isn't Jacob.
 

turbosixx

New member
For some who claims to know their Bible:
  • You use fallacious "logic".
  • You look like someone who is way TOO confident in their own ignorance.
  • One of you previous posts was SO illogical and funny that it made my signature.
  • Congratulations!

I'm still thinking about this and I admit I could be wrong. Since you see my error, can you tell me what you see Paul adding?

I still see them giving fellowship. The more I read it the more I see the fellowship as an equal. I used the NIV here because it's easier to read. Right after "on the contrary" we see "they recognized". I think they finally realized Paul was on their level because God was working through him just as he was through them.


6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I'm still thinking about this and I admit I could be wrong. Since you see my error, can you tell me what you see Paul adding?

I still see them giving fellowship. The more I read it the more I see the fellowship as an equal. I used the NIV here because it's easier to read. Right after "on the contrary" we see "they recognized". I think they finally realized Paul was on their level because God was working through him just as he was through them.
What Paul added was the commission that Christ gave him, which is NOT the same one that Christ gave the 12.

When they recognized that (the gospel of the uncircumcision was given to Paul), that is when they gave the right hand of fellowship and agreed to keep their ministries separate.

The idea that Paul was called to teach ONLY AND EXACTLY what the 12 were teaching and "just" to two different people groups is absurd.

Paul was not "on their level". Paul was commissioned with NEW revelation that they did not have.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
The NIV is an absolute piece of trash.

But note that even in the NIV, Paul calls it the "grace given to me" and not US.

If, indeed, it was identical then that would be the proper thing to say.

Paul constantly singles himself out as someone that received something given to him personally.

But churchianity makes excuse for that and pushes the myth instead.
 

Jamie Gigliotti

New member
:AMR:


They surely do not. The blind running around claiming they can see. The seeing-eye dogs have glaucoma.

"At hand" meant it was ready, at that moment.

It amazes me that you think God is incapable of changing His mind if His conditions aren't met. You do know the story of Jonah and Nineveh, don't you?


The conditions are that Israel recognize the Messiah. he proof they didn't is that they were cut off and the Gentiles were brought in without the law to provoke Israel to jealousy.


One group of faith and the other of the Law. Looks like two different paths to me. Both following Jesus.

Do you know the Greek word for dispensation? The word Paul actually used?

οἰκονομία

Strong's Definition

From G3623; administration (of a household or estate); specifically a (religious) “economy”: - dispensation, stewardship.



It comes from the word οἰκονόμος meaning:

Strong's Definition

From G3624 and the base of G3551; a house distributor (that is, manager), or overseer, that is, an employee in that capacity; by extension a fiscal agent (treasurer); figuratively a preacher (of the Gospel): - chamberlain, governor, steward.



In turn coming from the words οἶκος meaning:

Strong's Definition

Of uncertain affinity; a dwelling (more or less extensive, literally or figuratively); by implication a family (more or less related, literally or figuratively): - home, house (-hold), temple.

...and νόμος meaning:


Strong's Definition

From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): - law.

So, dispensation essentially means "house law," or "house rules." The dispensation of grace is new house rules.






And that Scripture would be?

Or is your argument simply that He said it would be, so it must have been even though the Bible never explicitly says that it was?


You don't think God will implement a theocracy during the millenial reign of Christ?


Then exegete the passages for us and show us the agreement. Show us how they are in agreement.


Is the one baptism with water, as John baptized, or with the Spirit and fire, as John said Jesus would baptize?

If it is water then it cannot be with the Spirit and fire...

Jesus changed everything for Jews and Gentiles alike.

""In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people..."" Acts 2:17

"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."" Acts 2:38

Grace for forgiveness of sins. Grace for the gift the Spirit. All underserved favor. Amazing Grace!! Grace from the beginning till the end.

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law..." Galatians 3:2 ???
 

turbosixx

New member
What Paul added was the commission that Christ gave him,

That makes sense. Thanks



which is NOT the same one that Christ gave the 12.

When they recognized that (the gospel of the uncircumcision was given to Paul), that is when they gave the right hand of fellowship and agreed to keep their ministries separate.

The idea that Paul was called to teach ONLY AND EXACTLY what the 12 were teaching and "just" to two different people groups is absurd.

Paul was not "on their level". Paul was commissioned with NEW revelation that they did not have.

The NIV is an absolute piece of trash.

But note that even in the NIV, Paul calls it the "grace given to me" and not US.

If, indeed, it was identical then that would be the proper thing to say.

Paul constantly singles himself out as someone that received something given to him personally.

But churchianity makes excuse for that and pushes the myth instead.

What do you see that's different in Paul's message?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Jesus changed everything for Jews and Gentiles alike.

""In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people..."" Acts 2:17

"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."" Acts 2:38

Grace for forgiveness of sins. Grace for the gift the Spirit. All underserved favor. Amazing Grace!! Grace from the beginning till the end.

"I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law..." Galatians 3:2 ???
If one is not baptized can they be saved by grace?
 

Right Divider

Body part
That makes sense. Thanks
You're welcome.

What do you see that's different in Paul's message?
Paul was called as the apostle of the gentiles and given the dispensation of the grace of God.
Israel was promised a kingdom (and a land) that Paul could not participate in because of his unbelief and blaspheme.

Paul's gospel declared that gentiles can receive God's blessings apart from Israel. You will not find that anywhere in prophecy.
Prophecy declares that the gentiles will be blessed through Israel. Israel is currently fallen, but will be restored when God is ready.

  • Isn't it strange that there is no mention in the Bible of Jesus using the word "grace" even once during His earthly ministry to Israel?
  • Paul uses the word constantly (20 verses in Romans alone).
  • The word "grace" doesn't even appear in Matthew or Mark.
  • "Grace" appears only once in Luke and does not refer to God's grace to believers.
  • Only 3 verses in John.
There are so many clear differences in the ministries of the 12 and the one, but most people go with the group and believe a story that is just not in the Bible.
 

turbosixx

New member
Paul's gospel declared that gentiles can receive God's blessings apart from Israel. You will not find that anywhere in prophecy.

Prophecy declares that the gentiles will be blessed through Israel. Israel is currently fallen, but will be restored when God is ready.

Could you expand upon these two points?
Thanks
 

Right Divider

Body part
Could you expand upon these two points?
Thanks

  • Paul's gospel declared that gentiles can receive God's blessings apart from Israel. You will not find that anywhere in prophecy.
Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

You fill not find that anywhere in prophecy.

  • Prophecy declares that the gentiles will be blessed through Israel. Israel is currently fallen, but will be restored when God is ready.
Acts 3:24-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:24) Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. (3:25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. (3:26) Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

That is what Peter told Israel on the day of Pentecost.

This is also why I showed you the matching passages in Isaiah 60 and Revelation 21 where the nations serve Israel.

The whole world is to be blessed through Israel and will also bless Israel when God restores them and destroys the kingdoms of this world.
 

turbosixx

New member
  • Paul's gospel declared that gentiles can receive God's blessings apart from Israel. You will not find that anywhere in prophecy.
Rom 11:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

You fill not find that anywhere in prophecy.

This is what I see if we keep reading. The Gentiles being "wild" branches are grafted into the cultivated tree with the other natural branches who were "not" broken off. Who do you see as the tree and branches?



  • Prophecy declares that the gentiles will be blessed through Israel. Israel is currently fallen, but will be restored when God is ready.
Acts 3:24-26 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:24) Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. (3:25) Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. (3:26) Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

That is what Peter told Israel on the day of Pentecost.

I don't believe the "seed" is Israel but Jesus. If you will notice it's singular. Here we are told Jesus is the seed,one, not many.
Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Paul uses Abraham here to identify as an Israelite.

Rom. 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
No, he didn't. He identified as both. Ishmael was not an Israelite, though he was a descendant of Abraham. The same goes for Esau.

Paul identified as an Israelite because he was actually one. Physically. He was a Benjamite. But he was in the new dispensation that had been given to him, and thus not as the Israelites who were under the New Covenant like Peter.

So, if you're not a descendant of any of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel then you are not an Israelite. Unless you have made yourself one as a proselyte. But since none of the dispensations God had with Israel as a nation are currently running that's not possible.
 
Last edited:

turbosixx

New member
No, he didn't. He identified as both. Ishmael was not an Israelite, though he was a descendant of Abraham. The same goes for Esau.

Paul identified as an Israelite because he was actually one. Physically. He was a Benjamite. But he was in the new dispensation that had been given to him, and thus not as the Israelites who were under the New Covenant like Peter.

So, if you're not a descendant of any of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel then you are not an Israelite. Unless you have made yourself one as a proselyte. But since none of the dispensations God had with Israel as a nation that's not possible.

I see what you mean. An Israelite is a descendant Abraham through Jacob. I knew all that but just never thought about it that way. I guess because in the NT Abraham and Isaac are talked about most and Jacob is rarely mentioned without including them.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Lighthouse wrote:
But he was in the new dispensation that had been given to him, and thus not as the Israelites who were under the New Covenant like Peter.

There we have it folks: the bogus thesis. 2P2P. It is not found or supported by anything in the NT. It is fraught with misunderstanding, all to try to keep 2P2P alive. From a person who does not think that 2P2P 'runs' D'ism.
 
Top