The Gospels and the Mystery

[MeowFlower]

Good question. Well, if we look at this, we will see Jesus prophesying what was to come, but not in totality:

Luke 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

This fits like a glove the ministry of Jesus, in that He sought to bring Israel into faith in Him as Messiah, and after some three years, they were unfruitful, and so the Father spoke to give them one more year, and if they are not fruitful with faith, they should be cut off. The stoning of Stephen a year after the ascension of Christ was that point at which the Lord cut down that fig tree (Israel) because of their continued rejection of Christ as Messiah.

This brought about a pause to the prophetic program of the Lord and the ushering in of the dispensation of grace, whereby Gentiles could be brought into salvation apart from and in spite of Israel, which also included believing Jews.

It was the Lord's plan all along:

1 Corinthians 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Who were/are those princes? They were/are the prince demons who orchestrated the crucifixion of Christ Jesus.

Curious.
Blood sealed covenants. The blood of Jesus sealed the new covenant.

If not for being crucified how would that have been accomplished by Jesus.?
Who took the sins of the world upon himself on the cross and for all that means. (cursed is anyone hanged on a tree)

So, all of this being in the Lord's knowledge, and His contingency plan hidden in Him until revealed to Paul, nothing went astray from the Lord's plan all along. Why He planned things this way, we have hints about that too from scripture, but that is a longer discussion.



He completed HIs Gospel mission precisely as He knew it would play out. Nothing caught Him by surprise, and never will. That's what adds to the confusion in your question.

Yet,Saul,also called Paul, was hunting down and executing Jews who believed the Gospel.

Ahh, ok. No, I left CFC for good because of a severe pride issue within one of the moderators. I never was a moderator there.

MM

OK,thank you.

 

[MeowFlower]

I never did say Peter never spoke to any of the Gentiles, but we ALSO know that Paul had to rebuke Peter for his hypocrisy among the Gentiles. So, if Peter were such a giant in building the Gospel among the Gentiles, I sure can't find such a voluminous constellation of Churches mentioned anywhere that were planted by him compared to those of Paul. Perhaps the Lord forgot to have that included in the NT?

MM

Matthew 16:18

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It looks like ad hominem is also a part of your forte' like some other here. Attacking even the spirit of another, that just makes no sense as to why you would go there. That's an evil, wicked thing to launch against another, and speaks loud volumes to your not wanting to keep the conversation fixated strictly upon the topics. I will place you on ignore along with all the others of that stripe.

MM

Sorry I'm immune to that kind of guilt tripping.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Which ones? The Acts 2 dispensationalists? The Acts 9 dispensationalists? Or the Acts 28 dispensationalists? Or, are they not all 'hyper' according to the view of the others???

Amen.

Are there that many flavors now?

 

[GWH]

I guess you ignored the smiley face following my joke, and you seem to ignore Scripture that many of us have been sharing that teach there is only one Gospel and one Kingdom in which we serve God every day of the week. Capice?

I looked at an earlier post and discovered something that might help MM, who said that Paul's description of the Gospel in 1 CR 15:1-4 said that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, but that Peter's Kingdom Gospel made no mention anywhere for having to believe in these three elements.

Actually, Peter's description is found in Acts 2:22-24, where he speaks of Jesus as working miracles, dying on the cross, and being raised from the dead.

MM also said that Paul never stated the requirement for baptism for remissions of sins not for salvation, as though those are two different things, but Paul himself was baptized per ACTS 9:18, and Peter recognized baptism with the Holy Spirit per ACTS 11:16.

In Corinth Paul preached to Jews and Greeks, baptizing many who believed per ACTS 18:1-8. In ACTS 19:4-10 Paul officiated over rebaptizing believers who had a deficient understanding of the Gospel and then preached about the kingdom of God to both Jews and Greeks in Asia.

And then we have Paul's references to being buried with Christ in baptism in RM 6:4 and CL 2:12. IOW, we have a history of Paul instituting water baptism for remission of sins as representing baptism with the Holy Spirit.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Only one Rightly Divided question remains for me:

I have decided to follow Jesus?

Amen.

 

[Musicmaster]

Which ones? The Acts 2 dispensationalists? The Acts 9 dispensationalists? Or the Acts 28 dispensationalists? Or, are they not all 'hyper' according to the view of the others???

Amen.

Some people out there never seem to feel secure in their lives if they don't have some sort of label to try and slap onto others. Such seems to help them to feel superior somehow, although it appears more like a mental and spiritual illness than anything else.

Welcome, GRACE_ambassador.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Matthew 16:18

Which interpretation of that verse do you stand upon?

What's your meaning in pointing to that one?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Curious.
Blood sealed covenants. The blood of Jesus sealed the new covenant.

Let's look at what scripture says:

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

We today are partakers of an inheritance, the right of which was sealed in His Blood:

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

The covenants made with Israel were for Israel, not all of mankind.

If not for being crucified how would that have been accomplished by Jesus.?
Who took the sins of the world upon himself on the cross and for all that means. (cursed is anyone hanged on a tree)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. Nobody suggested that it could be anyone but Christ Jesus.

Yet,Saul,also called Paul, was hunting down and executing Jews who believed the Gospel.

Yes, and he was also converted. Moses was a murderer, and the Lord used him, just as Paul was a murderer, and the Lord used him.

So, if I may ask, what's your point?

MM

 

[MeowFlower]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:18&version=HHH

Matthew 16:18
As your name is, you are: Petros - a rock; On this rock I will build you
communal, and all the forces of Saul will not overcome it.

 

[MeowFlower]

Let's look at what scripture says:

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

We today are partakers of an inheritance, the right of which was sealed in His Blood:

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

The covenants made with Israel were for Israel, not all of mankind.



I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. Nobody suggested that it could be anyone but Christ Jesus.



Yes, and he was also converted. Moses was a murderer, and the Lord used him, just as Paul was a murderer, and the Lord used him.

So, if I may ask, what's your point?

MM

I did look at what the Scripture says. Thanks.

 

[Musicmaster]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:18&version=HHH

Matthew 16:18
As your name is, you are: Petros - a rock; On this rock I will build you
communal, and all the forces of Saul will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is an age old argument that has been raging for over a century.

Jesus initially addresses Peter as (petros) the pebble, or rock (like one that one can throw), and then He moves on to a (petra) which is a very large stone that no man can throw like a pebble, like a cliff edge or large stone. The Church is therefore much larger than any man, and Peter did not die for the Church, and placing a mere man in the place of Christ as it's foundation, that's very roman catholic and pagan. The Greek is much too clear for such a simplistic corruption in language and scope of meaning.

Failing to observe the differences is willful in nature, and I'm hoping you will see that in the clarity of the language rather than the weaknesses of the English wording the translators chose.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I did look at what the Scripture says. Thanks.

I was pointing out that "covenant" is not the word Jesus used in the passing of that cup. Covenants were established ONLY with Israel, not the body of Christ under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I was pointing out that "covenant" is not the word Jesus used in the passing of that cup. Covenants were established ONLY with Israel, not the body of Christ under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

The Greek word means covenant. The word "testament" derives from the Latin translation of Greek "covenant". The 11 disciples were Israel with whom Christ cut the new covenant.

 

[MeowFlower]

I was pointing out that "covenant" is not the word Jesus used in the passing of that cup. Covenants were established ONLY with Israel, not the body of Christ under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

We are in the Covenant because there is no Jew or Gentile He rew or Greek. We are all one in Christ.

 

[MeowFlower]

Matthew 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is an age old argument that has been raging for over a century.

Jesus initially addresses Peter as (petros) the pebble, or rock (like one that one can throw), and then He moves on to a (petra) which is a very large stone that no man can throw like a pebble, like a cliff edge or large stone. The Church is therefore much larger than any man, and Peter did not die for the Church, and placing a mere man in the place of Christ as it's foundation, that's very roman catholic and pagan. The Greek is much too clear for such a simplistic corruption in language and scope of meaning.

Failing to observe the differences is willful in nature, and I'm hoping you will see that in the clarity of the language rather than the weaknesses of the English wording the translators chose.

MM

I'm not Roman Catholic. I know the church referred to is the whole of believers as the body of Christ. I hope you will not continue to imagine those you reply to are ignorant of Hermeneutics.

 

[Musicmaster]

We are in the Covenant because there is no Jew or Gentile He rew or Greek. We are all one in Christ.

That is true, but up to a point. Carrying that too far would destroy the family, for it's also written that there is "no male nor female" in Christ. So, when we are talking about Covenants made with ONLY Israel, that too is a distinction that remains distinct from the reality of salvation, which is what it means to be in Christ. In other words, the Lord makes no distinctions when it comes to His invitation to salvation, for it is written in His word that He desires that ALL mankind come to salvation.

So, forcing the phenomenon of being in Christ for salvation over onto Covenants, that's simply false. In the family, there is male and female, with the male being the head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the Church. The Lord established covenants, therefore, ONLY with Israel, just as the Lord places the mantle of authority over the family ONLY upon the shoulders of the husband. Granted, there are some men out there who are not real men, and therefore allow their wives to rule over them in the family and women in their churches. Doctrinal teaching authority is one of those things where some try to force the "in Christ" non-distinctives, and that is anti-Bible, which is anti-God with them having fashioned a god after their own image of what THEY think their god should be like.

A false god can save nobody...pure and simple.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I'm not Roman Catholic. I know the church referred to is the whole of believers as the body of Christ. I hope you will not continue to imagine those you reply to are ignorant of Hermeneutics.

Not at all. No. I did not mean for you to think that. You see, ignorance of hermeneutics is usually demonstrated openly so that nobody has to assume anything about those who violate the most basic realities conveyed within scripture as a wholistic body of doctrines clearly taught in word and demonstrated through actions. When some come along and claim the Bible says one thing when it says something else, and/or they convey a doctrinal stance that violates the comparative stand the Lord has taken that is contrary, THEN it can be seen that they do not understand hermeneutical rules for interpretation. I'm a Systematic Theologian in the way that I understand scripture rather than to take verses in isolation, as is the practice of some who try and pit the word of God against itself and as a battering ram against the beliefs of others. I try to engage in dialogue others who may disagree on some points with me, and that's why I ask questions in various ways to try and arrive at the basis for the beliefs that some have.

Some out there, however (not saying you are of this stripe), have no greater weapons of intellect in their arsenal than to perpetrate ad hominem attacks against the character and even the spiritual condition of those they deem their opponents. As pathetic as that is, it speaks loud volumes to the weaknesses in their theology.

I hope that clarifies my sentiments and thinking for your understanding.

MM

 

[MeowFlower]

That is true, but up to a point. Carrying that too far would destroy the family, for it's also written that there is "no male nor female" in Christ. So, when we are talking about Covenants made with ONLY Israel, that too is a distinction that remains distinct from the reality of salvation, which is what it means to be in Christ. In other words, the Lord makes no distinctions when it comes to His invitation to salvation, for it is written in His word that He desires that ALL mankind come to salvation.

So, forcing the phenomenon of being in Christ for salvation over onto Covenants, that's simply false. In the family, there is male and female, with the male being the head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the Church. The Lord established covenants, therefore, ONLY with Israel, just as the Lord places the mantle of authority over the family ONLY upon the shoulders of the husband. Granted, there are some men out there who are not real men, and therefore allow their wives to rule over them in the family and women in their churches. Doctrinal teaching authority is one of those things where some try to force the "in Christ" non-distinctives, and that is anti-Bible, which is anti-God with them having fashioned a god after their own image of what THEY think their god should be like.

A false god can save nobody...pure and simple.

MM

True.

The Gospel of Jesus the Christ is the new Covenant that embraces all who are called to believe. Which is why the barriers you refer to,Jew,Gentile,Greek,male,female, are dissolved and we are now all one,in Christ.

Jeremiah 31.

Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
2. And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3.And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”


I don't think we can forget that Abraham was a Gentile who was chosen to be the ancestor of the Jewish people.

 

[Musicmaster]

True.

The Gospel of Jesus the Christ is the new Covenant that embraces all who are called to believe. Which is why the barriers you refer to,Jew,Gentile,Greek,male,female, are dissolved and we are now all one,in Christ.

Jeremiah 31.

Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
2. And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3.And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”


I don't think we can forget that Abraham was a Gentile who was chosen to be the ancestor of the Jewish people.

Abraham became the progenitor Semite. As an Israeli I am a descendant of his. Being in Christ does not erase that. The Lord is still going to deal with the genetic Israelites in the tribulation, and give to them the New Jerusalem as their dwelling place, as well as the ancient Israelites throughout the centuries past who were loyal unto the Lord in obedience to His Law, and who were of faith.

If you want to call it a covenant, then you're free to do so, but words mean things, and subjective use of those words do not in any way change the reality of scriptural language and meaning.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

MM