The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Like SaulToPaul used to say here, put them all together in the blender and hit puree.
He acknowledged the earliest Church had hierarchy of some form.
You are told to divide the gospel, explicitly to divide the gospel.
If you mean "rightly divide" then no, that wasn't written to me, that was written to Bishop Timothy. If you don't like the translation then call him Elder Timothy or Overseer Timothy but the point is as STP acknowledged, there is a hierarchy of some form.

Confer:

The Holy Spirit made Gentile "elders of the Church" in Ephesus "overseers, to shepherd the Church of God." Acts 20

You explicitly work against it because you are a demon posessed pervert
I want everybody to go to Mass to be in the Real Presence of Christ, and you think demons possess me?


Get real.

You, years ago, said you went to church, Catholicism says goes to church (Mass). Catholicism says don't be homosexual or promiscuous, it says don't consume pornography or have abortions. It says don't covet.

Demon possessed perversion? Get real.
who is here to pull people from the faith by saying the obvious contradictions don't exist. So that those lost but are looking are turned away.
I would just say "on the contrary." I want everybody, but especially current Christians to know Jesus Christ in the flesh, in the Eucharist.
You have not shown what the 12 were preaching when they preached the good news of the kingdom.
What does that mean? I could of course list each quote of each of His Disciples in the Gospels concerning what they were teaching, but this isn't what you mean, what do you mean?
Since the DBR was hidden from them. What were they preaching? Grace?
Luke 4
And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

It doesn't not sound like grace.
Most tend to skip over Acts after chapter 7. Most especially chapter 15 where Peter acknowledges that in the future Israel will be saved as we already are. He explicitly states this, as you know.
So this can mean it's also already been happening.
 
Last edited:

SKC

Member
Why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to be equally as eloquent when Paul wrote his other epistles?
The epistle to the Hebrews would be an in-depth exposition of the finished work of Christ, and His High Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary, and how they superseded the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant. This is a key book of the New Testament.
 

SKC

Member
The likelihood is that you know almost nothing at all about the history of the King James Bible and think that the one you own reads like the one they published in 1611.
You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions about everything. I could probably teach you a thing or two about the King James Bible. But I am not here to argue with you.
 

SKC

Member
Many people could call Timothy OUR brother.
False. Whether you agree or not I have clearly shown FROM SCRIPTURE that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. You can accept it or reject it, but you can't change the fact that ONLY PAUL speaks of "Timothy our brother".

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: (2 Cor 1:1)
Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer (Philemon 1:1)
Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you
. (Heb 13:23).

Paul was the only one who was very closely associated with Timothy, and in fact wrote two epistles to him. In Hebrews he speaks about coming with Timothy, which means that the naysayers do not have a leg to stand on.
 

Right Divider

Body part
False. Whether you agree or not I have clearly shown FROM SCRIPTURE that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. You can accept it or reject it, but you can't change the fact that ONLY PAUL speaks of "Timothy our brother".

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia: (2 Cor 1:1)
Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer (Philemon 1:1)
Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you
. (Heb 13:23).

Paul was the only one who was very closely associated with Timothy, and in fact wrote two epistles to him. In Hebrews he speaks about coming with Timothy, which means that the naysayers do not have a leg to stand on.
You really are blinded by your own ideas.

The FACT that is says OUR brother shows that OTHERS of the OUR group would also be the writer.

As I also said, you have no evidence proving that THIS Timothy is THAT Timothy.

Paul agreed to limit his ministry to the NON-circumcision. That (circumcision) would include the HEBREWS.

The truth is that nobody knows who wrote the book to the HEBREWS.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The epistle to the Hebrews would be an in-depth exposition of the finished work of Christ, and His High Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary, and how they superseded the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant. This is a key book of the New Testament.
Those things are all about the nation of Israel and not about the body of Christ.
The NEW covenant is between the same two parties as the OLD covenant; God and Israel.

Heb 8:7-10 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:7) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The body of Christ is NOT "the house of Israel".
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?
It won't change a single word of the epistle.
I love the book of Hebrews.
It ties the old ways to Jesus, and to His supersession of them.
if you understood Mid Acts Dispensation and how to rightly divide the word of God
you would understand the importance but you don't ,
so it's not important , :carry on:
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
It isn't important to affirmatively know who the author was but it would be a significant problem if it were proven that Paul was the author. It would be heavy, insurmountable, evidence that the New Testament was self-contradictory and therefore false.
I don't know why you see the possible authorship of Hebrews by Paul that way.
Reading Hebrews this morning, I was impressed by the author's attempts to make a case for the NT being better than the OT...to the Jews !
The author's presentation of grace over Law is clearly at the heart of the whole book.
Quite true but it would significantly alter the context.
What contexts are you considering?
I'm not sure "supersede" is quite the right concept to use there but the point is well taken.
There can't be two covenants at the same time.
One eclipsed the other.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is an amazing book that is just filled to overflowing with super-substantive stuff from beginning to end that, while useful for the member of the Body of Christ even to this day, was just utterly indispensable for any Jewish believer who had come to Christ while the previous dispensation was still in effect
Yes, showing the OC's being done away with and the new high-priest's effect is amazing.
as it will be again for those who believe after that Body of Christ is removed and God turns back to Israel.
Where are the believing Jews and Gentiles to be remove to?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Banned
if you understood Mid Acts Dispensation and how to rightly divide the word of God
you would understand the importance but you don't ,
so it's not important , :carry on:
By "divide", I only see the division inherent in MAD.
Two churches instead of just one founded on the "rock" that Jesus is the Son of God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You are making a lot of unfounded assumptions about everything. I could probably teach you a thing or two about the King James Bible. But I am not here to argue with you.
You are a flat our liar and you ignore almost everything anyone says of any substance.

I'm through wasting time on you.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The epistle to the Hebrews would be an in-depth exposition of the finished work of Christ, and His High Priesthood in the heavenly Sanctuary, and how they superseded the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant. This is a key book of the New Testament.
Sure, when taken in the context of Hebrews and their coming national salvation.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I sure you believe that about yourself.

Again, I believe the entire Bible, from Moses to John.

Do you also champion Inerrancy?

No, except in the original manuscripts. What does that have to do with anything in this thread?

I'd rather Believe in the ENTIRE Teaching of Jesus. He is, after all, the Messiah.

Of the Jews under the New Covenant. Are you a Jew under the New Covenant? What tribe are you from?

Note that you've not addressed the verses I posted, so... you obviously can't or you would.

I did. You ignored it.

I'm lying about you saying that there is no Justice of God?

Well, you've obviously gone off the edge into some kind of delusion, so I'll just let it go.

You keep ignoring what I've said.

I said, I'm willing to concede the point, if you can just simply call "the Justice of God" "justice" from here on out.

Then again, .... If their ideas of Justice (or right and wrong) came from the Sin of Adam, how can you trust them?

It didn't come from "the Sin of Adam."

It came from God!

GOD is the one who wrote the law on men's hearts, not Adam!

They came from Sin.

NO. THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY GOD.

Are ALL of their ideas of Justice correct?

Of course not!

But again, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Would that include you stoning a gay person?

God is the one who commanded that people convicted of homosexuality should be stoned, not men.

What of the ideas of Justice held by the gay community?

What about them?

Are those correct as well?

Only if it aligns with what God says.

Do you really see a difference between what I said and what you posted here?

There IS a difference. The Bible says so.


Your mere opinion has no weight.

Jesus established His eternal kingdom in the hearts of all those who submitted to Him as their Lord.

No, He didn't.

His eternal Kingdom is yet future, and will be in a PHYSICAL LOCATION ON EARTH, specifically in the land of Israel.

I know, as you are always referring to Jews only by nation and not by their religion.
Whether it is Judaism or Christianity.

Judaism has nothing to do with this discussion.

Here, let me see if I can clarify this for you.

The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel (the nation).

The New Covenant was made between the same two parties as the old one, between God and Israel.

Israel rejected her Messiah (Acts 7), and so God cut off unbelieving Israel, and turned to work with the Gentiles directly, instead of going through Israel. However, the New Covenant stayed in effect for at least a while, probably years. At some point, God took away access to Him through the New Covenant, and put it on hold until He's done working with the Gentiles.

The dispensation of the grace of God began with Paul. It continues to this day.

The New Covenant makes the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and only Jews and Proselyte Gentiles may enter into that covenant with God.

The dispensation of grace, however, makes NO distinction between Jew and Gentile, for all are one body.

You keep thinking that I'm talking about Jews in the Body of Christ, when I'm not, but rather, I'm talking about Jews under the New Covenant, not members (Jew or Gentile) of the Body of Christ.

I see only one, with joint Israelite and Gentile believers submitted to one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, in the Body of Christ, there is no difference, no distinction to be made, between Jew and Gentile.

You're making a distinction where there is none.

I'm not usually not talking about the Body of Christ when I talk about the Jews, because I'm making the distinction as the New Covenant does.

Take off the blinders for a moment, so that you can get the big picture.

Christianity didn't exist before Jesus established it.

Duh. The problem is that you think Jesus established Christianity long before He actually did.

Is there anything to be gained by knowing who wrote Hebrews?

As Clete pointed out, there would be a significant problem with the Bible if it was revealed that Paul was the author.

"It would be heavy, insurmountable, evidence that the New Testament was self-contradictory and therefore false."

It won't change a single word of the epistle.

But it WOULD invalidate much of the New Testament, as Clete said, because it would be contradictory to what Paul said elsewhere.

It's not "in the way that [I Idolater] think that the Catechism is authoritative," the Catechism is authoritative by any measure of that word. It is authoritative Catholicism.

. . .

I'm not looking for authoritative Bob Enyart though, I'm looking for authoritative MAD, and so if you can tell me that Enyart's book contains authoritative MAD, then it is worth reading. I'm not saying the whole thing must contain nothing but all the positive propositions concerning MAD, but that there are authoritative MAD tenets in the book, and please inform me which ones are the authoritative MAD and which ones are more just Enyart's opinion, however learned they may be.

. . .

"['The Plot'] is second only to the Bible itself [in authority]"

This indicates to me that "The Plot" at least contains authoritative MAD, but your refusal to commit to "The Plot" containing authoritative MAD contrariwise indicates to me that that's not the case. Can you tell me which is it? is "The Plot" authoritative MAD or not? I'm looking for the authoritative narrative or teaching or deposit of doctrine for MAD.

. . .

All I want to know is if "The Plot" contains authoritative MAD tenets or doctrines or teachings. Is "The Plot" the authoritative MAD narrative, as I'm saying the Catechism contains the authoritative Catholic narrative.

. . .

All I need to know whether "The Plot" is worth reading is to know that it is authoritative MAD teaching. If it is, then it's worth reading, and if it's not, then it's not. I want to know, what is MAD. Can "The Plot" tell me the authoritative, definitive MAD narrative?

. . .

Look, I'm not going to argue about this anymore.

I and several other people have given glowing recommendations to you to just read the book.

Either read it or don't.

That's the only way you're going to find out what it says.

btw I'm saying the same about the Catechism that you say about "The Plot," except that the Catechism, because it includes Apostolic Oral Tradition as well as Scriptures, is equal with the Bible in authority.

No, nothing men have written is equal with the Bible in authority. Not even the Plot.

Begging the question that they're shut.

Says the blind man.

There can't be two covenants at the same time.
One eclipsed the other.

Because you say so?

Yes, the Old Covenant was done away with, and then the New Covenant was brought in.

But the New Covenant existed simultaneously with the "Covenant" of Grace.

Where are the believing Jews and Gentiles to be remove to?

Why do you keep making the distinction?

In the Body of Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

The BODY OF CHRIST will be caught up into Heaven.

By "divide", I only see the division inherent in MAD.

That's because you don't divide at all. You just mash everything together and hope it sticks.

Two churches instead of just one founded on the "rock" that Jesus is the Son of God.

Why can't there be two churches founded on the same Rock?
 

SKC

Member
You are a flat our liar and you ignore almost everything anyone says of any substance.
We'll let those who are fair-minded decide whether I am a "flat out liar". Anyone reading my posts will see that that is a foolish and false accusation.
 

SKC

Member
Those things are all about the nation of Israel and not about the body of Christ.
Really? Since when did the finished work of Christ and His High Priesthood in Heaven stop being relevant to the Church -- the Body of Christ? The Hebrew Christians in the first century were an important and integral part of the Body of Christ. Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the Body. (Heb 13:3)

The nation of Israel had already rejected Christ, and these Hebrew Christians were being persecuted and deceived by unbelieving Jews.
 

SKC

Member
Uh, no, it's not.
As a matter of fact several respected commentators agree that Paul is the writer. Here are just three:

ALFORD’S COMMENTARY
On the supposition of the Pauline authorship, some account may be given of it,—viz. that the name of the Apostle was concealed, from the nature of the relations between himself, and those to whom he was writing (see this hypothesis examined in the Prolegomena). And on the idea of Pauline superintendence, it would obviously admit of the same solution.

BENGEL’S COMMENTARY
MANY anonymous writers, though unknown, endeavour to be useful to their readers; but the writer of this Divine Epistle shows, that he was known to those to whom he writes: Hebrews 13:19. And the Apostle Paul is said to be the writer of the epistle, with the general consent of antiquity. Above all, Peter, writing to the elect strangers scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, praises the letters of Paul, which he wrote to them also. But the other epistles of Paul were sent to Gentile converts; this one alone to the Hebrews, although he himself does not call them Hebrews; and in the title, no doubt old, but not prefixed by the hand of Paul, they are with less propriety called Hebrews, instead of Judaico-Hellenistic Christians, to whom we have observed below that he wrote, Hebrews 6:10. Moreover the method and style of Paul may be easily recognised: for he puts the proposition and division before the discussion, Hebrews 2:17.

GILL’S COMMENTATRY
Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's (d); and his name stands in the title of it,
in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Hebrews 1:2 with Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 5:12 with 1 Corinthians 3:1 and Hebrews 12:1 with 1 Corinthians 9:24 and Hebrews 13:7 with 1 Thessalonians 5:11, and Hebrews 13:9 with Ephesians 4:14 and Hebrews 13:18 with 2 Corinthians 1:12 and Hebrews 13:20 with Romans 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Hebrews 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2 Peter 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1 Peter 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Hebrews 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Hebrews 5:11.
 

Rhema

Active member
Please stay on topic.
Sounds just like something I would have said before being convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Whatever that means. But now being convicted, how long will you be in prison? 25 to life?

"The Holy Spirit told me" is the excuse I hear for such utter nonsense; a "reason" to believe the irrational. I wonder if that's why you think the earth is flat.

Rhema
 
Top