What say you? Is the Bride the same as the body of Christ?

[Hoping]

He wasn't a murderer,

It isn't written that he killed anyone but it is written..."Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities." (Acts 26:10-11)
He was part of the killings if not the killer himself.

Barnabas saw through him.

After his conversion.

There are few times in the bible when Mankinds are saved into the afterlife.

None.
None have been judged yet.

Most people wake from the dead, and are not Enoch or the Early Church which got the second coming.

Early and late church will get the second coming.

 

[JudgeRightly]

All believers are Christians.

All believers in the current dispensation are Christians.

Neither point bears any weight.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Paul went to a place where believers were being called Christians before Paul was called one.

See my point about New York being established before it was called New York in Post #133.

Correct, they are both called Christians now.
But you say Jesus is coming back early for Gentile believers and not Jewish believers.
It doesn't make sense.

Because I never said that at all.

Christ is returning to rapture Christians, which are neither Jew nor Greek, among other things.

Jews who became believers prior to Paul's conversion have nothing to do with that, because they were believers of a different dispensation, called the New Covenant.

Acts 11:26, where believers of every ilk were first referred to as Christians

Supra, RE: New York.

Yet 3000 were already in Christ from the day of Pentecost.

Addressed below.

How many in Antioch" Samaria? Ethiopia? Joppa?
All before Paul's conversion.

All members of the New Covenant. Not Paul's gospel of the grace of God.

You have taken a hyperbole statement and turned it into a doctrine.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Paul was, by his own account, the worst sinner before his conversion,

Not in dispute.

and that is the intent of his account, that none are too bad to be accepted in repentance and baptism/conversion.

Paul, not me, calls himself the first to be shown all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who ARE GOING TO believe on Christ for everlasting life.

Not as a pattern for those who believed the New Covenant.

However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. - 1 Timothy 1:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:16&version=NKJV

Fine, but look at the context and the reality if the timing.

You think I'm not?

You see some difference between believing on Christ and being in Christ?
I don't

I see a difference between believing Christ is the promised Messiah and believing in Him for eternal life.

Acts 2:41..."Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
Rom 6:3..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
There were folks "in Christ" from the first day of the dispensation of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is no "in Christ" in Acts 2:41. Don't read something into the text that isn't there.

Sorry, your "new" version of scripture leads you astray.

New?

I literally quoted the Greek. How is that "new"?

"Diaspora" is the word used in the original Greek, Hoping!

1¶Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου Γαλατίας Καππαδοκίας Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας

διασπορᾶς = diasporas = dispersion

Seemingly, it is addressed to "you who believe" (verse 7)

So you think his audience changed between verse 1 of chapter 1, and verse 7 of chapter 2?

He's talking to the Remnant, those who believed Christ is the Messiah!

The Jews have been the people of God since Abraham received the promises.
The Gentiles?
Not so much.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Step back a little:

"Gentiles" have existed since Adam.

Israel did not exist until God picked out Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Israel was once not a people, but now is, and are now the people of God, whereas before, there was no "people of God."

That's what Peter is talking about.

If that is the way you see it, so be it.

"The way I see it" has nothing to do with it.

Objectively, Israel is "the Elect Lady," a nation, one that has a priesthood. The Body of Christ does not, and the only way to say that the Body of Christ DOES have a priesthood is to mash the scriptures together and try to make them fit when it is clear that they do not.

But I take the words to heart like they are addressed to me.

Reading other people's mail is a bad as if it were addressed to you will only result in confusion.

Including Jews.

No, the Remnant Jews have their own dispensation. Also, there is currently no member of the Remnant alive today, in case that wasn't blatantly obvious.

In the Body of Christ, there is "neither Jew nor Greek."

Interesting, as many here seem to think Jesus is coming back early for them.

Supra.

I feel that Ananias of Damascus, and at least 3000 others were in Christ before Paul.

Nope.

A believing Jew, to be sure, but not a member of the Body of Christ, as there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ.

I see it differently.

That's nice. You're wrong though.

As we know Paul wasn't the "first" believer or Christian, your point is moot.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

And i have given you evidence to the contrary.

He was the first in line for destruction, however.

Supra.

 

[Arial]

Nonsense. I guess God was pretty silly to make sure we have the Bible today.


You don't see it because you're blind to the basic Gospel of salvation.

And you're so filled with pride, that you cling to your blindness like it's a security blanket.
All we can do is put the truth out there, and you're free to reject it.

Resorting to insults again I see.

 

[Arial]

But it WAS written FOR us.

I KNOW this. That was a statement of irony. If Hebrews is only for the Hebrews because it says it is a letter to the Hebrews, and only for those who will be alive in this imaginary Tribulation; why then do you not say Ephesians is only for the people in Ephesias, Timothy only for Timothy, Philippians only for the church at Philippi, Corinthians only for the people at Corinth, Romans only for those in Rome etc---and only for those who would be raptured before the tribulation---since they too were expecting Christ's imminent return?

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's false.

I see what you are saying a scripture is saying, and see that it is false because I see what is actually being said. And what is actually being said does not contradict the entire redemption and work and purpose of Jesus coming as one of us, whereas what you say it means does.

Says the one reading scripture with her own indoctrination, reading her own beliefs into the scripture.

Not all indoctrination is wrong by the strict definition of the word. It is your indoctrination that is because it makes a mockery of God's word, not to mention the purpose of the Son coming as one of us to redeem a people for God. Laying down His very life to do so.

People who run when confronted with ideas that oppose their worldview are called cowards.

People who call someone a coward because they won't continue repeating the same thing over and over thinking they will get a different result, are bullies, and bullies are cowards.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If Hebrews is only for the Hebrews because it says it is a letter to the Hebrews,

Hebrews was written to *gasp* the Hebrews. It was not written to the Body of Christ. Yes, we in the Body of Christ can learn from it, but we MUST understand that we're reading someone else's mail!

and only for those who will be alive in this imaginary Tribulation;

There's nothing "imaginary" about the time that Jesus spoke of.

Also, just as Paul's Epistles are a guidebook for Christians (with the understanding that they were written TO the people he said they were written to), so too are Peter's, James', John's, Jude's, and the author's of Hebrews, Epistles a guidebook for Israel in the coming Great Tribulation.

Why then do you not say Ephesians is only for the people in Ephesias, Timothy only for Timothy, Philippians only for the church at Philippi, Corinthians only for the people at Corinth, Romans only for those in Rome etc---

Because they're not FOR only them.

Ephesians was written TO the Christians in Ephesus.
Timothy was TO Timothy.
Galatians was TO the Christians in Galatia.
etc...

But they were FOR the edification of Christians, specifically those whom they were written TO, yet we also in rest of the Body of Christ can benefit from reading them, as Paul writes:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Timothy3:16-17&version=NKJV

There's even scriptures that tell those it was written to to SHARE the letters written to them with other believers elsewhere!

and only for those who would be raptured before the tribulation---since they too were expecting Christ's imminent return?


I see what you are saying a scripture is saying, and see that it is false

Saying it doesn't make it so.

because I see what is actually being said.

No, you don't.

And what is actually being said does not contradict the entire redemption and work and purpose of Jesus coming as one of us, whereas what you say it means does.

No idea what you're talking about.

Not all indoctrination is wrong by the strict definition of the word.

Never said it was.

It is your indoctrination that is

Because you say so?

because it makes a mockery of God's word,

PROVE IT.

You won't.

not to mention the purpose of the Son coming as one of us to redeem a people for God. Laying down His very life to do so.

Not in dispute...

People who call someone a coward because they won't continue repeating the same thing over and over thinking they will get a different result, are bullies, and bullies are cowards.

I call you a coward because you refuse to engage in the discussion after making claims, because you refuse to back up those claims with actual arguments.

You must think Christ was a bully and therefore a coward, for calling the pharisees snakes and whited sepulchres.

 

[Arial]

Hebrews was written to *gasp* the Hebrews. It was not written to the Body of Christ. Yes, we in the Body of Christ can learn from it, but we MUST understand that we're reading someone else's mail!

You have erroneously separated what Jesus came to do and did-----the Body of Christ and Israel----join the two as one. By making the book of Hebrews and the non-Paul writings separate in purpose and audience, saying they are not to the Gentiles also, you miss what is being taught and replace it with what is not taught but fits into what you choose to believe. You actually are buying into the same misunderstanding of Messiah that the majority of the Jews had. That He would come to restore the land and kingdom to Israel. And not only that, but bring this about by making them return in the (also mythical) literal 1000 years, to being under the law, animal sacrifices and all. I understand that it is an honest misunderstanding, but that borders on the blasphemous. Even the book of Hebrews points that out.

There's nothing "imaginary" about the time that Jesus spoke of.

No. What is imaginary is your interpretation of the time that Jesus spoke of. I also understand that this rapture thing is hard to let go of because it is an escape from maybe being put in a position of denying Christ and worshiping the Beast just to feed yourself and your family. It would perhaps change your cry of "come Lord Jesus come" to "Don't come Jesus while I am still living"?

Also, just as Paul's Epistles are a guidebook for Christians (with the understanding that they were written TO the people he said they were written to), so too are Peter's, James', John's, Jude's, and the author's of Hebrews, Epistles a guidebook for Israel in the coming Great Tribulation.

Covered above.

Because they're not FOR only them.

Ephesians was written TO the Christians in Ephesus.
Timothy was TO Timothy.
Galatians was TO the Christians in Galatia.
etc...

But they were FOR the edification of Christians, specifically those whom they were written TO, yet we also in rest of the Body of Christ can benefit from reading them, as Paul writes:

You also make too great a distinction between to and for, a bigger one than actually exists. The result of doing so becomes evident in the false teaching that comes out of it.

There's even scriptures that tell those it was written to to SHARE the letters written to them with other believers elsewhere!

And?

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Back attcha.

No, you don't.

Oh but I do.

No idea what you're talking about.

That actually doesn't surprise me at all.

Because you say so?

No, because scripture says so.

 

[Arial]

PROVE IT.

You won't.

I actually have. Many times over. But you can only hear yourself, and therefore you miss it. Give me a specific thing to prove and I will give it a go.

I call you a coward because you refuse to engage in the discussion after making claims, because you refuse to back up those claims with actual arguments.

This is a lie. Not only is it a lie but it is the textbook method of attack of someone who has had their claims refuted soundly and with scriptures, and they have nowhere else to go.

You must think Christ was a bully and therefore a coward, for calling the pharisees snakes and whited sepulchres.

Jesus was never a bully or a coward. Are you equating yourself with Him now? We were talking about you. He had authority and wisdom and knowledge necessary to make that pronouncement. All you have is the way in which you treat all who don't agree with you religious beliefs---with the actions and words of a bully. When I decide to not engage with someone anymore it is because it has become nothing more that a den of vipers, and I don't choose to wallow among them---especially when it serves no positive purpose but is only an enticement to sin right along with them.

 

[Right Divider]

You have erroneously separated what Jesus came to do and did-----the Body of Christ and Israel----join the two as one. By making the book of Hebrews and the non-Paul writings separate in purpose and audience, saying they are not to the Gentiles also, you miss what is being taught and replace it with what is not taught but fits into what you choose to believe. You actually are buying into the same misunderstanding of Messiah that the majority of the Jews had. That He would come to restore the land and kingdom to Israel. And not only that, but bring this about by making them return in the (also mythical) literal 1000 years, to being under the law, animal sacrifices and all. I understand that it is an honest misunderstanding, but that borders on the blasphemous. Even the book of Hebrews points that out.

Your confusion is immense and apparently permanent.

The gospel of the kingdom was about the coming kingdom that God had promised to Israel throughout Genesis to Malachi.

It is also confirmed throughout the so-called books of the NT.

Luke 1:30-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:30) And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. (1:31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (1:32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (1:33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

The throne of David is over the earthly kingdom of Israel (i.e,. the house of Jacob).

The "little flock" will be given this kingdom.

Luke 12:32 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:32) Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Guess where they get it from...

Matt 21:42-45 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? (21:43) Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (21:44) And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (21:45) And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

 

[Arial]

Your confusion is immense and apparently permanent.

The gospel of the kingdom was about the coming kingdom what God had promised to Israel throughout Genesis to Malachi.

That was, and apparently still is, a misunderstanding of who Messiah is and what He was going to do. Of thinking that the kingdom of God is physical Israel only and always. There is spiritual Israel and natural Israel. Gal 6:15-16; Romans 9:6-8; Eph 2:11-14; Gal 3:26-29

The throne of David is over the earthly kingdom of Israel (i.e,. the house of Jacob).

Act 2:29-33; Heb 1:8. This promise concerning the throne of David speaks of his spiritual throne. Christ sits on it now.

Guess where they get it from...

Matt 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

 

[Right Divider]

That was, and apparently still is, a misunderstanding of who Messiah is and what He was going to do. Of thinking that the kingdom of God is physical Israel only and always. There is spiritual Israel and natural Israel. Gal 6:15-16; Romans 9:6-8; Eph 2:11-14; Gal 3:26-29

Act 2:29-33; Heb 1:8. This promise concerning the throne of David speaks of his spiritual throne. Christ sits on it now.

Matt 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

You are blind as can be. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Hoping]

All believers in the current dispensation are Christians.

And when did the old dispensation end and a new one begin?
At the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
There were no believers in a risen Christ before there was a risen Christ.
There were no believers "in Christ" before we could be baptized "into Christ and into His death and burial", (Rom 6:3-7)

Christ is returning to rapture Christians, which are neither Jew nor Greek, among other things.

Got a verse or two that says He is leaving some behind at the end of days?

Jews who became believers prior to Paul's conversion have nothing to do with that, because they were believers of a different dispensation, called the New Covenant.

Grace has been available since Noah in Gen 6.
The old covenant ended at the cross, and every believer is part of the new covenant.
It is written..."By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." (Heb 7:22)

All members of the New Covenant. Not Paul's gospel of the grace of God.

If it isn't by the Law, it is the NC.
The grace of God has existed since the time of Noah.
Paul just wrote of it, he didn't start it.
Had he started it, we would be giving Paul glory for our salvation.

Paul, not me, calls himself the first to be shown all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who ARE GOING TO believe on Christ for everlasting life.

The pattern was that no sin could alienate one from repentance from sin.

However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. - 1 Timothy 1:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:16&version=NKJV

Your POV must terribly hurt Stephen, who was "in Christ" years before Paul.

I see a difference between believing Christ is the promised Messiah and believing in Him for eternal life.

Why?

There is no "in Christ" in Acts 2:41. Don't read something into the text that isn't there.

I supplied the Romans 6 text too.
Our baptism, using water, is into Christ and into His death and burial...just as Paul wrote in Rom 6:3-6.
That is in addition to the remission of sins we receive. (Acts 2:38)

New?

New, relative to the KJV which has been around for 500 years or so.

So you think his audience changed between verse 1 of chapter 1, and verse 7 of chapter 2?

Not at all, as he is addressing believers, of which I am one.
As you keep saying, there is no Jew or Greek anymore.
Just believers and unbelievers.

He's talking to the Remnant, those who believed Christ is the Messiah!

That would be me and you...isn't it?

You're missing the forest for the trees.
Step back a little:
"Gentiles" have existed since Adam.

So, obviously sons of Adam and brothers to Abraham.

Israel did not exist until God picked out Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Israel was once not a people, but now is, and are now the people of God, whereas before, there was no "people of God."
That's what Peter is talking about.

Do you ignore everything written to the NT, NC, Jews?
I don't, as we are all one now. (Eph 2:14-16)

Objectively, Israel is "the Elect Lady," a nation, one that has a priesthood. The Body of Christ does not, and the only way to say that the Body of Christ DOES have a priesthood is to mash the scriptures together and try to make them fit when it is clear that they do not.

The whole church, Jew and Gentile, has elected to be in Christ.
Your divisiveness is showing again.

Reading other people's mail is a bad as if it were addressed to you will only result in confusion.

Why?
Do the Jews have more duties, more rewards, more dangers, more temptations, than anyone who is not Jewish?
You cheat yourself out of many exhortations, warnings and admonitions with your divisiveness.

No, the Remnant Jews have their own dispensation. Also, there is currently no member of the Remnant alive today, in case that wasn't blatantly obvious.
In the Body of Christ, there is "neither Jew nor Greek."

You keep rocking back and forth between the "chasm of difference" and the "all are one" POV.
According to you, "the Jews have their own dispensation, but there are no more Jews"...Can't you see the self-defeating error of such incongruence?
Is that a trait of the doctrine you present?

A believing Jew, to be sure, but not a member of the Body of Christ, as there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ.

Nobody is in the body of Christ?
I am in the body of Christ. !

 

[glorydaz]

Resorting to insults again I see.

When the shoe fits you need to wear it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And when did the old dispensation end and a new one begin?
At the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Wrong.

The New Covenant (between ISRAEL and God, same as the OLD Covenant) began with Christ's death. (Hebrews 9:16-22)

The Gospel of the Grace of God began with Paul in Acts 9. (1 Timothy 1:16)

There were no believers in a risen Christ before there was a risen Christ.

Duh.

There were no believers "in Christ" before we could be baptized "into Christ and into His death and burial", (Rom 6:3-7)

And?

Got a verse or two that says He is leaving some behind at the end of days?

Where did I say that members of the Body of Christ would be left behind?

Grace has been available since Noah in Gen 6.

Because you say so?

The old covenant ended at the cross,

One of the few things you've gotten right so far.

and every believer is part of the new covenant.

WRONG.

Every believer between the cross and Paul's conversion is part of the New Covenant.

It is written..."By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." (Heb 7:22)

Yes, I agree. That "better testament" being the New Covenant.

If it isn't by the Law, it is the NC.

The New Covenant is made up of Law. Jesus taught the law for three years, then after His resurrection, He told the Twelve to "go and teach everything I've commanded you." They did that for about a year, and didn't bear any fruit (parable of the barren fig tree), so God cut off unbelieving Israel and grafted in the Body of Christ.

The grace of God has existed since the time of Noah.

Because you say so?

Paul just wrote of it, he didn't start it.

Because you say so?

Had he started it, we would be giving Paul glory for our salvation.

Why, when grace is given by God?

The pattern was that no sin could alienate one from repentance from sin.

No.

The pattern was that anyone, even the worst sinners, could come to God directly, without a need for a covenant relationship, without the need to become a part of Israel, and ask for forgiveness.

Your POV must terribly hurt Stephen, who was "in Christ" years before Paul.

Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew under the New Covenant, not a member of the Body of Christ.

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch,whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. - Acts 6:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts6:1-7&version=NKJV

Notice that one of the men chosen for service was a PROSELYTE (a Gentile who converted). Ergo, no "neither Jew nor Greek" here).

Why?

Because there is a difference between the two.

I supplied the Romans 6 text too.

Addressed below.

Our baptism, using water,

Water baptisms were things done by Israel, and were not limited to humans.

We are baptized directly into Christ the moment we believe. Water baptism is not necessary.

is into Christ and into His death and burial...just as Paul wrote in Rom 6:3-6.

There is no water in Romans 6.

That is in addition to the remission of sins we receive. (Acts 2:38)

Remission is not forgiveness.

We have forgiveness of sins in the Body of Christ. Those under the New Covenant had remission, so long as they kept the New Covenant.

New, relative to the KJV which has been around for 500 years or so.

Again, the GREEK has "diaspora" which literally means "dispersion."

Not at all, as he is addressing believers,

No, he was addressing members of the Diaspora, Jews who had been dispersed.

of which I am one.

No, you're not a member of the Diaspora.

As you keep saying, there is no Jew or Greek

There IS in the New Covenant, of which there were members still alive back when Peter was writing his letters.

anymore.

Not "anymore." Just in the Body of Christ.

Just believers and unbelievers.

Under the dispensation of the grace of God, yes.

That would be me and you...isn't it?

No, we are not the "Remnant."

We are the Body, Israel is the Bride | KGOV.com

kgov.com

So, obviously sons of Adam and brothers to Abraham.

I'm not sure where you were going with this...

Do you ignore everything written to the NT, NC, Jews?

I don't ignore anything in the Bible.

I don't,

You ignore quite a lot, actually.

as we are all one now. (Eph 2:14-16)

The Body of Christ is one.

But the Body of Christ is not Israel, the Remnant, etc.

The whole church, Jew and Gentile, has elected to be in Christ.

Chapter verse.

Your divisiveness is showing again.

I am divisive because Paul tells us to rightly divide.

You, on the other hand, just mash everything together and call it a day.

Why?
Do the Jews have more duties, more rewards, more dangers, more temptations, than anyone who is not Jewish?

The Jews have the Law. Paul says if you keep the law, you're cursed.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” - Galatians 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:10&version=NKJV

We in the Body of Christ are FREE from the law, because we are dead to it.

You cheat yourself out of many exhortations, warnings and admonitions with your divisiveness.

I'm going to stick with what Paul said and not try to keep the law, because it's a curse.

You keep rocking back and forth between the "chasm of difference" and the "all are one" POV.

My position is consistent. The problem you're having is that I'm able to recognize the difference between the Body of Christ and Israel, and able to divide up what scripture says regarding the dispensations given to each.

You see that as "rocking back and forth."

You need a paradigm shift.

According to you, "the Jews have their own dispensation, but there are no more Jews"...

If that's what you think I said, then you need to read more carefully.

The Jews (Israel) DO have their own dispensation, their own "oikonomia," house rules. It's called the New Covenant. The New Covenant was made SPECIFICALLY between God and Israel. Gentiles may join in, but they must become proselytes. In the New Covenant, there IS Jew and there is Gentile.

But in the BODY OF CHRIST (under the dispensation of the gospel of the grace of God), there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Can't you see the self-defeating error of such incongruence?

I see the error of what you think I'm saying, yes. And I agree that such a statement would be self-defeating.

The problem is that what you think I said, is in fact not what I'm saying.

Is that a trait of the doctrine you present?

Supra.

Nobody is in the body of Christ?

How in the world do you get that "nobody is in the Body of Christ" from "[Stephen was] A believing Jew, to be sure, but not a member of the Body of Christ, as there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ"?

I seriously can't grasp how your brain jumped to that conclusion.

I am in the body of Christ!

You seem to think that you are under the New Covenant as well, despite it being ONLY for Jews and proselytes.

 

[Hoping]

Wrong.
The New Covenant (between ISRAEL and God, same as the OLD Covenant) began with Christ's death. (Hebrews 9:16-22)
The Gospel of the Grace of God began with Paul in Acts 9. (1 Timothy 1:16)
Duh.
And?
Where did I say that members of the Body of Christ would be left behind?
Because you say so?
One of the few things you've gotten right so far.
WRONG.
Every believer between the cross and Paul's conversion is part of the New Covenant.
Yes, I agree. That "better testament" being the New Covenant.
The New Covenant is made up of Law. Jesus taught the law for three years, then after His resurrection, He told the Twelve to "go and teach everything I've commanded you." They did that for about a year, and didn't bear any fruit (parable of the barren fig tree), so God cut off unbelieving Israel and grafted in the Body of Christ.
Because you say so?
Because you say so?
Why, when grace is given by God?
No.
The pattern was that anyone, even the worst sinners, could come to God directly, without a need for a covenant relationship, without the need to become a part of Israel, and ask for forgiveness.
Stephen was a Hellenistic Jew under the New Covenant, not a member of the Body of Christ.
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch,whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. - Acts 6:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts6:1-7&version=NKJV
Notice that one of the men chosen for service was a PROSELYTE (a Gentile who converted). Ergo, no "neither Jew nor Greek" here).
Because there is a difference between the two.
Addressed below.
Water baptisms were things done by Israel, and were not limited to humans.
We are baptized directly into Christ the moment we believe. Water baptism is not necessary.
There is no water in Romans 6.
Remission is not forgiveness.
We have forgiveness of sins in the Body of Christ. Those under the New Covenant had remission, so long as they kept the New Covenant.
Again, the GREEK has "diaspora" which literally means "dispersion."
No, he was addressing members of the Diaspora, Jews who had been dispersed.
No, you're not a member of the Diaspora.
There IS in the New Covenant, of which there were members still alive back when Peter was writing his letters.
Not "anymore." Just in the Body of Christ.
Under the dispensation of the grace of God, yes.
No, we are not the "Remnant."

We are the Body, Israel is the Bride | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I'm not sure where you were going with this...
I don't ignore anything in the Bible.
You ignore quite a lot, actually.
The Body of Christ is one.
But the Body of Christ is not Israel, the Remnant, etc.
Chapter verse.
I am divisive because Paul tells us to rightly divide.
You, on the other hand, just mash everything together and call it a day.
The Jews have the Law. Paul says if you keep the law, you're cursed.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” - Galatians 3:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:10&version=NKJV
We in the Body of Christ are FREE from the law, because we are dead to it.
I'm going to stick with what Paul said and not try to keep the law, because it's a curse.
My position is consistent. The problem you're having is that I'm able to recognize the difference between the Body of Christ and Israel, and able to divide up what scripture says regarding the dispensations given to each.
You see that as "rocking back and forth."
You need a paradigm shift.
If that's what you think I said, then you need to read more carefully.
The Jews (Israel) DO have their own dispensation, their own "oikonomia," house rules. It's called the New Covenant. The New Covenant was made SPECIFICALLY between God and Israel. Gentiles may join in, but they must become proselytes. In the New Covenant, there IS Jew and there is Gentile.
But in the BODY OF CHRIST (under the dispensation of the gospel of the grace of God), there is neither Jew nor Gentile.
I see the error of what you think I'm saying, yes. And I agree that such a statement would be self-defeating.
The problem is that what you think I said, is in fact not what I'm saying.
Supra.
How in the world do you get that "nobody is in the Body of Christ" from "[Stephen was] A believing Jew, to be sure, but not a member of the Body of Christ, as there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ"?
I seriously can't grasp how your brain jumped to that conclusion.
You seem to think that you are under the New Covenant as well, despite it being ONLY for Jews and proselytes.

I don't know how you reconcile Paul's writings on grace eclipsing the NC/NT?
They are the same thing.
With the end of the Law, there was only one other covenant/testimony men could do/use for salvation.
Repent of sin, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins past, and endure faithfully until His return.
Peter preached it on the day of Pentecost, and Paul preached it everywhere he went.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know how you reconcile Paul's writings on grace eclipsing the NC/NT?
They are the same thing.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and I have spent the past several posts over the last several pages of this thread explaining WHY THEY ARE NOT!

Why did you ignore everything I just said?

With the end of the Law,

The law never ended.

Christ is the end of the law TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE, but to those who do not, the law remains! The law is a tutor to bring them to Christ! It cannot be a tutor if it no longer is in effect!

there was only one other covenant/testimony men could do/use for salvation.

WRONG. There was the Old Covenant, then the New Covenant. Both were made with Israel.

Then God cut off unbelieving Israel, and turned to working with the Gentiles through Paul, revealing the gospel of grace, which has very little if anything to do with Israel, which was a mystery kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Repent of sin, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins past, and endure faithfully until His return.

"Repent and forgive so that you may be forgiven" is law, not grace.

"Baptize" is law, not grace.

Remission of sins is not forgiveness of sins.

"Endure to the end" is law, not grace.

Peter preached it on the day of Pentecost, and Paul preached it everywhere he went.

Wrong. Paul taught "you are forgiven, therefore forgive."

Paul taught "I have not come to baptize."

Paul taught that Christ forgives those who come humbly, not remission of sins.

Paul taught we are saved already.

Romans 4:5 is the antithesis of James 2:24.

 

[Hoping]

Saying it doesn't make it so, and I have spent the past several posts over the last several pages of this thread explaining WHY THEY ARE NOT!
Why did you ignore everything I just said?

It just doesn't make sense.

The law never ended.
Christ is the end of the law TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE, but to those who do not, the law remains! The law is a tutor to bring them to Christ! It cannot be a tutor if it no longer is in effect!

The Law ended for those who are dead to the Law.
It is part of the divine nature of the reborn now.

WRONG. There was the Old Covenant, then the New Covenant. Both were made with Israel.

You keep saying there is no longer a separation between Jew and Gentile.
But then use it as a reason for differentiating between what is required for each sect.
You have actually created your own version of the law.

Then God cut off unbelieving Israel, and turned to working with the Gentiles through Paul, revealing the gospel of grace, which has very little if anything to do with Israel, which was a mystery kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Why don't you think the "gospel of grace" benefits Jewish believers too?
I mean, Paul was a Jew!

"Repent and forgive so that you may be forgiven" is law, not grace.

Do you think a man can be a "Christian" with hate in his heart?
I know he can't be.

"Baptize" is law, not grace.

If baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is Law, Paul preached Law to the twelve at Ephesus.
And to Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas...not to mention the "many" at Corinth. (Acts 18:8)

Remission of sins is not forgiveness of sins.

What is remission then?

"Endure to the end" is law, not grace.

It was an observation by our Lord Jesus Christ, and not to be dismissed because of the "season" it was spoken. (Matt 10:22)

Wrong. Paul taught "you are forgiven, therefore forgive."

At Antioch in Pisidia Paul preached..."Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:" (Acts 13:38), and the Gentiles..."And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath."
Paul's preaching was to both Jew and Greek.

Paul taught "I have not come to baptize."

If one examines the context of that few words one realizes that Paul wanted to take step one before going to steps two and three.
He is addressing the horrible possibility that some would say he had baptized in his own name.
And he did list some of the folks he did baptize too.

Paul taught that Christ forgives those who come humbly, not remission of sins.

As the dictionary defines "remission" as "forgiveness" or "pardon", the example you supply is the same as mine but you refuse to equate them.

Paul taught we are saved already.

Paul wrote..."For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom 8:24)
We don't have something we are still hoping for.

Romans 4:5 is the antithesis of James 2:24.

The two verses refer to two very different things.
Rom 4 refers to the works of the Law, (and inefficacy of salvation thereby).
James 2 refers to the results of the grace of God in the hearts of the faithful.
The proof of our faith.

 

[beloved57]

That was, and apparently still is, a misunderstanding of who Messiah is and what He was going to do. Of thinking that the kingdom of God is physical Israel only and always. There is spiritual Israel and natural Israel. Gal 6:15-16; Romans 9:6-8; Eph 2:11-14; Gal 3:26-29

Act 2:29-33; Heb 1:8. This promise concerning the throne of David speaks of his spiritual throne. Christ sits on it now.


Matt 21:43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Amen also the parable of the fig tree shows that natural israel has been discarded permanently from her national privileges she had and squndered away Matt 21:19

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Anyone with understanding knows Jesus is speaking about earthly national israel !

 

[Arial]

Amen also the parable of the fig tree shows that natural israel has been discarded permanently from her national privileges she had and squndered away Matt 21:19

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Anyone with understanding knows Jesus is speaking about earthly national israel !

Excellent point!

 

[Hoping]

Amen also the parable of the fig tree shows that natural israel has been discarded permanently from her national privileges she had and squndered away Matt 21:19

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Anyone with understanding knows Jesus is speaking about earthly national israel !

Though I don't consider it a parable, but history, I had never looked at it like you see it before.
Thanks.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It just doesn't make sense.

Try reading it slower. It might help.

The Law ended for those who are dead to the Law.

I literally just said that, Hoping!

And then I said something else which EVERY SINGLE PERSON who I have this conversation with COMPLETELY IGNORES! It's like their eyes glaze over the moment they finish reading about Christians, and completely miss the part about NON-Christians, whom the law is NOT ended for!

Do you acknowledge, Hoping, that those who are NOT dead to the law, are still under the law? Or are you going to say that because we Christians are no longer under the law, therefore no one is?

It is part of the divine nature of the reborn now.

1) "Reborn" has nothing to do with Christians.
2) Christians are not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about NON-believers still being under the law.

You keep saying there is no longer a separation between Jew and Gentile.

In the Body of Christ, yes.

But then use it as a reason for differentiating between what is required for each sect.

There is a difference between the Gospel of the New Covenant, and the Gospel of the Grace of God.

You have actually created your own version of the law.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why don't you think the "gospel of grace" benefits Jewish believers too?

You're still not getting it.

Jewish believers under the NEW COVENANT were (they all died centuries ago) not under the Gospel of Grace.

Jewish believers under the Gospel of Grace are no longer Jews, they are simply members of the Body of Christ.

I mean, Paul was a Jew!

Yes he was.

Do you think a man can be a "Christian" with hate in his heart?

Hate? In what way is not forgiving someone who has not repented "hate"?

Or do you think that repentance is superfluous, completely unnecessary, to be forgiven?

I know he can't be.

Then you're wrong.

If baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is Law, Paul preached Law to the twelve at Ephesus.

Man, talk about missing the point!

Baptisms were a requirement of the law for Israel, and they didn't just baptize themselves, they baptized their couches, their homes, and plenty of other things. Yes, with water.

Baptism under the Gospel of Grace is NOT a work, because WE aren't the ones doing it, it happens automatically the moment we believe, and there's no water required nor involved.

That's why I said "baptize" (as a command) was law. Commanding someone to baptize makes it a law.

And to Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas...not to mention the "many" at Corinth. (Acts 18:8)

@Right Divider

What is remission then?

You don't know what remission means?

It's a diminution of the seriousness or intensity of disease or pain; a temporary recovery.

For those in the New Covenant, it means that the seriousness of their sin nature (the "disease") is diminished, while it isn't fully eliminated. A "temporary recovery" indeed.

It was an observation by our Lord Jesus Christ, and not to be dismissed because of the "season" it was spoken. (Matt 10:22)

Jesus' entire message was to *gasp* the lost sheep of the House of Israel. "Endure to the end" is, by definition, a command, something that must be done in order to achieve salvation. That makes it law, not grace. And it is SPECIFICALLY telling Israel that they will have to endure because of the coming Tribulation.

At Antioch in Pisidia Paul preached..."Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:" (Acts 13:38), and the Gentiles..."And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath."
Paul's preaching was to both Jew and Greek.

Yep. And?

If one examines the context of that few words one realizes that Paul wanted to take step one before going to steps two and three.
He is addressing the horrible possibility that some would say he had baptized in his own name.

Even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that he stated, specifically:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. - 1 Corinthians 1:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians1:17&version=NKJV

And he did list some of the folks he did baptize too.

And then he states that there weren't any others that he could think of that he baptized. You'd think that if baptism was so important for the Body of Christ, he would have done it more, or at the very least, given more names than that!

As the dictionary defines "remission" as "forgiveness" or "pardon",

It does so wrongly, based on the common belief that remission means forgiveness.

I provided the definition of remission above.

Here is the definition for "forgive". Compare the two:

to stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for (an offense, flaw, or mistake); to pardon

Do you see the difference?

In theology, remission is a reduction of the effects of sin, while forgiveness is a complete pardoning of (a) sin.

the example you supply is the same as mine but you refuse to equate them.

Because they are different concepts.

Paul wrote..."For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom 8:24)
We don't have something we are still hoping for.

I'm pretty sure I explained the difference between the meaning of "hope" back then and the meaning of "hope" today, but if I haven't, let me do so again:

Back in Paul's time, "hope" had a more certain connotation to it. It was an expectation of something that WILL be.

Today, it's not so much of an expectation as it is a desire for something that might be.

The two verses refer to two very different things.
Rom 4 refers to the works of the Law, (and inefficacy of salvation thereby).
James 2 refers to the results of the grace of God in the hearts of the faithful.
The proof of our faith.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and there is nothing in either verse to be able to say such.

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” - Romans 4:1-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans4:1-8&version=NKJV

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God.You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. - James 2:14-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James2:14-26&version=NKJV

Here's another set of verses that are the antithesis of each other:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. - Acts 10:34-35 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts10:34-35&version=NKJV
VS
But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. - Titus 3:4-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus3:4-7&version=NKJV