ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles

john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
Ok, we've confirmed that some Gentiles were given certain ordinances to keep during Acts. These Gentiles are the ones that had turned to God.

So, which Gentiles would have been shut out by these ordinances? Yep, the pagan Gentiles.

If the ordinances were taken away, this would open the door for which Gentiles? Yep, the pagan Gentiles.

This is not difficult.
Click to expand...

Looks like Craigie suffered yet another "death knell," Mayor.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
heir said:
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

The middle wall of partition was broken down "between us". The "between us" is between the "we" who first trusted (Ephesians 1:12 KJV) and the "ye" who also trusted (Ephesians 1:13 KJV). Paul includes himself in the "us" because he is the first (1 Timothy 1:16 KJV) of the "we" of Ephesians 1:12 KJV.
Click to expand...

Indeed, sister.

While the gospel was still to the Jew first, certain ordinances were kept as to not offend the Jews who Paul was trying to reach. When the gospel was no longer to the Jew first, these ordinances were taken away.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
A word or phrase used in one passage does not necessarily mean the same thing in another.

This is why an indepth word study is ever needed.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

That is The Law, dear brother.

The following is one of the very foundational ordinances that Paul is referring to...

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

Circumcision.

:think:
Click to expand...

How am I wrong?

Do a detailed study, break it down for us. Show me where the Acts 15 ordinances WEREN'T delivered to Corinth as commanded.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh and "his" will affirm that Acts is a book of transition, but if we show by the scripture that Paul's ministry was also in transition, we are labelled "almost Acts 28".

Shame on him and "his".
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
john w said:
Looks like Craigie suffered yet another "death knell," Mayor.
Click to expand...

You know what I think I'll do. Go down and pick up a pint of ice cream, go home, take a little nap, then read a few saint john posts. Yep, that's the plan. A little ice cream, home, nap, saint john posts. Ice cream, home......

For the love of Mike, do it, do it.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
musterion said:
@Lon is part preterist and, I believe, thinks Tet and IP are generally stupider than the MADs with whom Lon disagrees on basic principles. He can confirm or deny that for himself though.
Click to expand...

As a partial preterist, I see often, multiple fulfillment in the scriptures. Much of them prophetic concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not sure of God's future plans for Israel. I agree with Paul, we are in a time where God is calling gentiles and Paul said it might cause Israel to be provoked to want Him. The question would be 'how?' Either corporate or individually, depending on how you believe. For me, there is a mystery to it. There is no question God loves Israel. He longed to gather them, He said.

I used to be Dispensational. I never for a moment thought they were unintelligent and they made great biblical reasons for what they believe.

I tend to 'admire' rather than fight with another's eschatology. I'd always rather discuss it those views and understand them.

For me: where we agree about our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, is of incredible importance. I count MAD among my brothers and sisters in Christ first and foremost and wish to show that love to all who are in Christ. I'll sit and learn, as I often do in this section. By 'learn' I may not (probably will stay with what I know) but I actually love these conversations, minus any accusatory. If I could just read scriptures and counter scriptures, it'd help me not have to dig as much :)

On top of that, this is the ECT section. To me, it is supposed to encourage dialogue. My hope for this section was that it'd be more academic. I think it is, but it could use more emphasis.

Genuinely, I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, sometimes cringe at what is said to another, and MAD really takes a pounding, and the rest of the time generally appreciate scripture point and counterpoint that 'seeks' to honor Him.

If I could commend a bit of heat in the kitchen, it would be that: That you love Him so much that you wish to defend Him and His doctrine, whoever you are. The Lord Jesus Christ mellowed His sons of thunder. I don't remember Him rebuking them too much: There is a need to protect and correct.

For Musterion: I do think Covenant Theology and/or Regular Dispensationalism, express overtly over spiritualizing of the text, in these threads, that I've seen. I cannot remember all of them, but a few come to mind where I am not even sure what was said could come from a commentary; It
seems so completely removed from cogent thought, let alone scriptural derivative. Some of my first drafts on TOL can look pretty bad, so I try not to judge. I'm not a concrete sequential thinker as the rest of you and at times, it shows.

His blessings. -Lon
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
You know what I think I'll do. Go down and pick up a pint of ice cream, go home, take a little nap, then read a few saint john posts. Yep, that's the plan. A little ice cream, home, nap, saint john posts. Ice cream, home......

For the love of Mike, do it, do it.
Click to expand...

Once a man has a steady diet of "a pint of ice cream, go home, a little nap, reading a few saint john posts. Yep, that's the plan. A little ice cream, home, nap, saint john posts. Ice cream, home......," followed by cashew fudge or Mr. Cookie Bars, Mayor, every week, it's darn right hard to break the habit!
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
God's Truth said:
Fighting one man's teachings with another man's.
Click to expand...

It's not a man's teaching.

It's an actual stone from the temple. A stone from the wall that the Apostle Paul referenced in Ephesians 2.

How much more proof does heir need, than an actual stone from the middle wall of partition?
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
SaulToPaul said:
So, which Gentiles would have been shut out by these ordinances? Yep, the pagan Gentiles.
Click to expand...

Nope, ALL the Gentiles. Both the pagan Gentiles and the Gentile proselytes.

Any Gentile could go into the Court of Gentiles at the temple. Whether a God fearing Gentile or a pagan Gentile.

However, neither the God fearing Gentile, nor the pagan Gentile could go past the Middle Wall of Partition. If they did, the Jews would kill them. The Romans permitted the Jews to do this.

The partition wall separated the Jew from the Gentile. It didn't matter what kind of Gentile the person was, if they weren't a Jew, they were a Gentile, and they couldn't go past the wall.

It's very simple.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
tetelestai said:
Nope, ALL the Gentiles. Both the pagan Gentiles and the Gentile proselytes.

Any Gentile could go into the Court of Gentiles at the temple. Whether a God fearing Gentile or a pagan Gentile.

However, neither the God fearing Gentile, nor the pagan Gentile could go past the Middle Wall of Partition. If they did, the Jews would kill them. The Romans permitted the Jews to do this.

The partition wall separated the Jew from the Gentile. It didn't matter what kind of Gentile the person was, if they weren't a Jew, they were a Gentile, and they couldn't go past the wall.

It's very simple.
Click to expand...

Read Acts 15 again.
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
tetelestai said:
It's not a man's teaching.

It's an actual stone from the temple. A stone from the wall that the Apostle Paul referenced in Ephesians 2.

How much more proof does heir need, than an actual stone from the middle wall of partition?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Why do you follow the teaching/inventions of men, Craigie, instead of the bible? Well, sweetie? You taught us that.
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
tetelestai said:
It's not a man's teaching.

It's an actual stone from the temple. A stone from the wall that the Apostle Paul referenced in Ephesians 2.

How much more proof does heir need, than an actual stone from the middle wall of partition?
Click to expand...

Are you an ant-Semite, Craigie? Answer the question, Jew hater.

Ooooooops!!! Craigie suffers another deadly, fatal death knell!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Danoh said:
One would think that of all people: one who holds to the Mid-Acts Dispensational Viewpoint that in a way, Acts 17:11-12 is the basis of - one would think such an individual would find it refreshing that a valid point is allowed no matter who or what side makes it.

Titus 1:12-13
Proverbs 27:17.
Eph. 4:16
Click to expand...

One would think.....so why don't you do so?


HYPOCRITE :mock: Danoh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top