The Gospel often preached by Judaism

[praise_yeshua]

Gal 2:11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Justified by Faith
Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

I ask that you read again the words I posted above. Let these words "soak" into your spirit. There is a very real problem within Christianity today that has existed from the very inception of the Church of Jerusalem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning the position of anyone in Christ. However, it is essential that we recognize the facts associated with early Christianity as practiced within the pillar of the Church of Jerusalem.

There was a resistance that existed among converted Jews to including Gentiles EQUALLY in fellowship with the "Beloved" of Christ. That resistance was not only at a "layman/member" perspective but was prevalent within the leadership of the Church at Jerusalem. Which included Peter and James "The Just". Which is easily identifiable in the words you've read above.

Just "imagine" if Paul had not been there? Even Barnabas was "filled with the hypocrisy". (Not casting a stone. I'm not without guilt myself).

If you're a student of early church history, you will know that the church at Rome was not started by Paul. Even though Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles", he did not start the church at Rome. In fact, we have no idea who did. We do know that it did not start through the evangelism lead by the Church at Jerusalem. Do you know why we know..... Because the Church at Jerusalem initially refused to embrace Gentiles with the Gospel. We know it from the words above and from the Scriptures from the book of Acts....

Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

How much time do you believe passed from Acts 1 to Acts 11? Best estimates are around 10 to 15 years. Some time during that time, someone that was converted to Christ (possibly during the ministry of Christ Himself) planted the seeds of Christianity in Rome. There have been many claims made that Peter started the church in Rome but is a preposterous thought that someone Paul knew...... wouldn't have been recognized in his letter to Rome. We know Christianity spread through Samaria by Phillip. Not an apostle. Phillip. There is no necessity to believe the church at Rome was started by Peter. It far more likely that it was started much earlier. Jesus Himself "passed the torch" to that "dirty" sinning women at the well in John 4

Joh 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
Joh 4:30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

However, Peter, James and the apostles reluctantly embraced Gentiles. Even when they did, they treated them much differently.

I make these points to show just how Jewish converts at Jerusalem treated Gentiles. Even today Jewish converts are often treated as being superior. I feel confident that some of you that read this have no problem identifying with such theology. You believe "Jews are first".

Just how is that "gospel" working for you?

 

[Rockson]

I make these points to show just how Jewish converts at Jerusalem treated Gentiles. Even today Jewish converts are often treated as being superior.

Well back in the early chruch days they were progressing out of wrong ideas that God only loved the Jews. To the Jew first was only meant to mean they were choosen to be a lighthouse nation and people to the world but God didn't love them any more. So why do you say even today Jewish converts are treated superior. Who in your opinion is doing this?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well back in the early chruch days they were progressing out of wrong ideas that God only loved the Jews. To the Jew first was only meant to mean they were choosen to be a lighthouse nation and people to the world but God didn't love them any more. So why do you say even today Jewish converts are treated superior. Who in your opinion is doing this?

Especially, Dispensationalists. There are others.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well back in the early chruch days they were progressing out of wrong ideas that God only loved the Jews. To the Jew first was only meant to mean they were choosen to be a lighthouse nation and people to the world but God didn't love them any more. So why do you say even today Jewish converts are treated superior. Who in your opinion is doing this?

Also, would you agree that most every Christian group embellishes the successes of the Church at Jerusalem?

 

[Rockson]

Also, would you agree that most every Christian group embellishes the successes of the Church at Jerusalem?

Are you talking about things like we read in Acts 4? Well the church in those early days should have perhaps good success at a few things. They were in the hub of activty in which all things had taken place. That certainly is not that way today though.

How many do you hear talking about how the church or the body of Christ is exceling in Israel. Granted we want them to do well for we're all ONE body of Christ and we're all advancing the Kingdom of God together but no I don't see any exclusive attention brought on Jewish converts today.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you talking about things like we read in Acts 4? Well the church in those early days should have perhaps good success at a few things. They were in the hub of activty in which all things had taken place. That certainly is not that way today though.

No. I mentioned this in the OP. The Church of Jerusalem rejected Gentiles in the preaching of the Gospel. They did this for at least 10 to 15 years after the Resurrection. It took others to establish various Gentile churchs throughout the world. This was not lead by the apostles and men of Jerusalem. That is a HUGE failure in the Church of Jerusalem.

Something to add and consider.....

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

Same man. Same command. I'm glad God is good at repeating Himself. I know that I need Him to repeat things to me. I believe we need to realize that there are mistakes in the early church that need never be repeated.

In other threads in this forum, I believe you can see those who believe that Jewish tradition is preferred to the Unity of the Gospel message.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

In the context of timing, just when did Eph 2:14/15 take place and when did the church of Jerusalem embrace that fact?

How many do you hear talking about how the church or the body of Christ is exceling in Israel. Granted we want them to do well for we're all ONE body of Christ and we're all advancing the Kingdom of God together but no I don't see any exclusive attention brought on Jewish converts today.

I've seen it for many many years. The Doctrinal teaching of Dispensationalism is rooted in to "the Jew first" theology. I'm not boasting against the branches. I'm recognize the "root" is more important than any of us. All men equal. Christ exalted above all.

 

[Soyeong]

Gal 2:11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Gal 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Justified by Faith
Gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

I ask that you read again the words I posted above. Let these words "soak" into your spirit. There is a very real problem within Christianity today that has existed from the very inception of the Church of Jerusalem. Don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning the position of anyone in Christ. However, it is essential that we recognize the facts associated with early Christianity as practiced within the pillar of the Church of Jerusalem.

There was a resistance that existed among converted Jews to including Gentiles EQUALLY in fellowship with the "Beloved" of Christ. That resistance was not only at a "layman/member" perspective but was prevalent within the leadership of the Church at Jerusalem. Which included Peter and James "The Just". Which is easily identifiable in the words you've read above.

Just "imagine" if Paul had not been there? Even Barnabas was "filled with the hypocrisy". (Not casting a stone. I'm not without guilt myself).

If you're a student of early church history, you will know that the church at Rome was not started by Paul. Even though Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles", he did not start the church at Rome. In fact, we have no idea who did. We do know that it did not start through the evangelism lead by the Church at Jerusalem. Do you know why we know..... Because the Church at Jerusalem initially refused to embrace Gentiles with the Gospel. We know it from the words above and from the Scriptures from the book of Acts....

Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

How much time do you believe passed from Acts 1 to Acts 11? Best estimates are around 10 to 15 years. Some time during that time, someone that was converted to Christ (possibly during the ministry of Christ Himself) planted the seeds of Christianity in Rome. There have been many claims made that Peter started the church in Rome but is a preposterous thought that someone Paul knew...... wouldn't have been recognized in his letter to Rome. We know Christianity spread through Samaria by Phillip. Not an apostle. Phillip. There is no necessity to believe the church at Rome was started by Peter. It far more likely that it was started much earlier. Jesus Himself "passed the torch" to that "dirty" sinning women at the well in John 4

Joh 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
Joh 4:30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.

However, Peter, James and the apostles reluctantly embraced Gentiles. Even when they did, they treated them much differently.

I make these points to show just how Jewish converts at Jerusalem treated Gentiles. Even today Jewish converts are often treated as being superior. I feel confident that some of you that read this have no problem identifying with such theology. You believe "Jews are first".

Just how is that "gospel" working for you

It is a reasonable possibility that the church in Rome consisted only of Jewish believers until the inclusion of Gentile believers until after Acts 10. The inclusion of Gentiles has always been part of the plan (Hosea 2:23), though Jews have had a long history of being persecuted by Gentiles, so it is certainly understandable why some Jews had to overcome negative prejudices towards Gentiles. We can all be part of the same body that have different roles without considering one part to be superior towards the other. The High Priest was not superior to other Jews because of their position, but they were servant of all. God chose Jews to be a light to the nations, so the Gospel went out first to the Jews and then to the nations so that Jews could fulfill that role (Romans 1:16), but that has nothing to do with Jews being superior to Gentiles. Likewise, in Romans 2:9-11, the Jew being first has nothing to do with superiority.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It is a reasonable possibility that the church in Rome consisted only of Jewish believers

Ah... More of that "Jew's first" theology. You seem to endless apply your preference contrary to evidence.

until the inclusion of Gentile believers until after Acts 10. The inclusion of Gentiles has always been part of the plan (Hosea 2:23)

"how large a part of the plan"? You got to go first? Right? Priviledge? Rank? As I have been saying, your false theology produce this false perspective you have that carries all the way through your theology.

Abraham wasn't a Jew. He was a descendent of Adam. The "Father" of us all. You need to revisit your theology.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

though Jews have had a long history of being persecuted by Gentiles, so it is certainly understandable why some Jews had to overcome negative prejudices towards Gentiles

Who hasn't been persecuted? Why are you focusing on your own bias? Your theology again.... is "Jew first". It comes out in most every line you write.

We can all be part of the same body that have different roles without considering one part to be superior towards the other. The High Priest was not superior to other Jews because of their position, but they were servant of all.

I bet you've never dealt with the OP of this thread before. When have you rightfully recognized the failure of early Christian Jews to seek out their brothers in the Gentiles?

The High Priest? The same High Priest that called for the death of Jesus Christ? The same High Priest that had Paul and the other apostles beaten?

What about OUR Great High Priest Jesus Christ that actually.... changed things? Did you forget Him?

God chose Jews to be a light to the nations, so the Gospel went out first to the Jews and then to the nations so that Jews could fulfill that role (Romans 1:16), but that has nothing to do with Jews being superior to Gentiles. Likewise, in Romans 2:9-11, the Jew being first has nothing to do with superiority..

How did that work out? 10 plus years before any Jew from the Church at Jerusalem sought out any Gentiles. Even then, they acted hypocritical toward their fellowmen. You know the descendents of Adam?

Your comments remind me of

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Question for you? If YOU would have been there would YOU have called for the death of the prophets?

 

[Rockson]

No. I mentioned this in the OP. The Church of Jerusalem rejected Gentiles in the preaching of the Gospel. They did this for at least 10 to 15 years after the Resurrection. It took others to establish various Gentile churchs throughout the world. This was not lead by the apostles and men of Jerusalem. That is a HUGE failure in the Church of Jerusalem.

Could be. We don't know that though. There is individual callings as well. Paul received direct revelation he was to go to the Gentiles. And keep in mind Jesus said starting at Jerusalem and every town and city they were to preach and establish the church or the gospel going forth. When do saints feel it's time to reach out beyond their town or region. Their mind could always be telling them that they haven't reached everyone in their Jerusalem yet, and when I say their Jerusalem I mean whatever a person's local place is.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

In the context of timing, just when did Eph 2:14/15 take place and when did the church of Jerusalem embrace that fact?

When Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius in Acts 10 he was called up on the carpet (as they say) to the church in Jerusalem on just why he did this. They accepted then that it was clear.....the Gentiles were eligible for salvation as well as they.

 

[Soyeong]

Ah... More of that "Jew's first" theology. You seem to endless apply your preference contrary to evidence.

Acts 10 marks the point that Gentiles were included, so churches consisting of Jews until that point.

"how large a part of the plan"? You got to go first? Right? Priviledge? Rank? As I have been saying, your false theology produce this false perspective you have that carries all the way through your theology.

Abraham wasn't a Jew. He was a descendent of Adam. The "Father" of us all. You need to revisit your theology.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

The plan is to restore the word and involves Jews as being a light to the nations. This has nothing to do with rights, privileges, or tank. As I have been saying, you keep making up stuff about what I believe. I never claimed that Abraham was a Jew, so that is not contrary to my theology.

Who hasn't been persecuted? Why are you focusing on your own bias? Your theology again.... is "Jew first". It comes out in most every line you write.

I didn't suggest that anyone hasn't been persecuted or say anything about my own bias. The reality is that Jews have had a long history of being persecuted by Gentiles and that helps us to understand why Jews have had to overcome prejudices towards Gentiles. Please remove the chip form your should and stop making up things about what I believe.

I bet you've never dealt with the OP of this thread before. When have you rightfully recognized the failure of early Christian Jews to seek out their brothers in the Gentiles?

The High Priest? The same High Priest that called for the death of Jesus Christ? The same High Priest that had Paul and the other apostles beaten?

What about OUR Great High Priest Jesus Christ that actually.... changed things? Did you forget Him?

Yes, I was previously aware that Jews were slow to spread the Gospel to Gentiles. In Acts 2, they had a community that was desirable to be part of, so it is understandable why they wanted to remain part of it instead of going out into the world to make disciples and why it took persecution for them to go out into the world. Even today, many churches want to go back to being like the Acts 2 community.

The High Priest was corrupt at that time. No, I did not forget him. You're missing my point about the High Priest not being superior to other Jews.

How did that work out? 10 plus years before any Jew from the Church at Jerusalem sought out any Gentiles. Even then, they acted hypocritical toward their fellowmen. You know the descendents of Adam?

Your comments remind me of

Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Question for you? If YOU would have been there would YOU have called for the death of the prophets?

I said nothing along those lines in what you quoted, so it's not clear to me why my comments reminded you of those verses.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Could be. We don't know that though. There is individual callings as well. Paul received direct revelation he was to go to the Gentiles. And keep in mind Jesus said starting at Jerusalem and every town and city they were to preach and establish the church or the gospel going forth. When do saints feel it's time to reach out beyond their town or region. Their mind could always be telling them that they haven't reached everyone in their Jerusalem yet, and when I say their Jerusalem I mean whatever a person's local place is.

Jerusalem was covered at the Day of Pentecost. Many left and spread the Gospel around them. The Church at Jerusalem didn't. Paul was called later to accomplish what the Church at Jerusalem refused to do. God has always worked this way, man after man, prophet after prophet. Some were more successful than others. Some listened more than others. We can't ignore this.

When Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius in Acts 10 he was called up on the carpet (as they say) to the church in Jerusalem on just why he did this. They accepted then that it was clear.....the Gentiles were eligible for salvation as well as they.

Gentiles were eligible from the Advent of Jesus Christ. He brought freedom from His first breath culminating in the Resurrection. Jesus converted Samaritans. The Jews of His day could not fathom the Grace of God toward such sinners.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Acts 10 marks the point that Gentiles were included, so churches consisting of Jews until that point.

So you are Dispensationalist? You converted rather quickly. Dispensationalist make that false claim as well. Peter was wrong. God had to remind Peter to feed His sheep. Gentiles and all. You can't justify the sin of Peter with your false theology.

Are Samaritans Jews?

The plan is to restore the word and involves Jews as being a light to the nations. This has nothing to do with rights, privileges, or tank. As I have been saying, you keep making up stuff about what I believe. I never claimed that Abraham was a Jew, so that is not contrary to my theology.

Good time to ask......What is a Jew? He is a Jew is one inwardly. It has everything to do with blood. Just not the blood you think it does. The Blood of Jesus Christ alone. The Only heir of Abraham.

I didn't suggest that anyone hasn't been persecuted or say anything about my own bias. The reality is that Jews have had a long history of being persecuted by Gentiles and that helps us to understand why Jews have had to overcome prejudices towards Gentiles. Please remove the chip form your should and stop making up things about what I believe.

You didn't mention any other "race" being persecuted. I wonder why? You drew attention to what your focus is upon. That showed your bias.

Yes, I was previously aware that Jews were slow to spread the Gospel to Gentiles. In Acts 2, they had a community that was desirable to be part of, so it is understandable why they wanted to remain part of it instead of going out into the world to make disciples and why it took persecution for them to go out into the world. Even today, many churches want to go back to being like the Acts 2 community.

It didn't stop others. You're making excuses for their inaction. That is what we do as human beings. We justify or mistakes. We all do it.

The High Priest was corrupt at that time. No, I did not forget him. You're missing my point about the High Priest not being superior to other Jews.

That is your false claim. That is how it has always been. Name a blameless and holy High Priest. Go for it. I named the ONLY ONE. Jesus Christ. You're not putting Christ FIRST...... You're putting others first.

I said nothing along those lines in what you quoted, so it's not clear to me why my comments reminded you of those verses.

I asked you a question. Would you have called for the death of the prophets if you'd had been there? That is the connection. You're avoiding answering the question.

 

[Rockson]

Jerusalem was covered at the Day of Pentecost. Many left and spread the Gospel around them. The Church at Jerusalem didn't.

Guess it depends on what you mean covered. 3000 were saved at the Day of Pentecost and many of them were Jews FROM all parts of the world.

How is it then that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,c 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”Acts 2: 10,11

So there by the way is where the church of Rome probably came from. Jews from Rome who went to the Passover.

Paul was called later to accomplish what the Church at Jerusalem refused to do.

So seems you're really down on the early church in the Jerusalem region. In some future time we'll see I guess how God holds everyone accountable towards what they should have done. Perhaps we wouldn't have done better ourselves?

Some listened more than others. We can't ignore this.

So what exactly is the point. Am I now to think and mediate on just what a bunch of failures some of them were? Again what's your point? Not to have any positive thought towards any of them?

Gentiles were eligible from the Advent of Jesus Christ. He brought freedom from His first breath culminating in the Resurrection. Jesus converted Samaritans.

The Samaritans were half breed Jews though and while they considered it a mystery why Jesus would have anything to do with Samaritans they could fall back on at least they were half Jewish.

 

[Soyeong]

So you are Dispensationalist? You converted rather quickly. Dispensationalist make that false claim as well. Peter was wrong. God had to remind Peter to feed His sheep. Gentiles and all. You can't justify the sin of Peter with your false theology.

No, I strongly oppose the premise of Dispensationalism, though that doesn't mean that there is nothing that it teaches that I agree with. Someone does not need to be a Dispensationalist to think that Acts 10 marks when Gentiles were included. In Matthew 15:23, Jesus said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, so telling Peter to feed his sheep would not refer to those who are not Israelites.

Are Samaritans Jews?

That depend on how you define it.

Good time to ask......What is a Jew? He is a Jew is one inwardly. It has everything to do with blood. Just not the blood you think it does. The Blood of Jesus Christ alone. The Only heir of Abraham.

Some consider "Jew" to refer to "someone from the tribe of Judah", though that can also refer to the southern Kingdom of Judah, which would also include tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and it is also used to broadening refer to someone who is from one of the tribes of Israel. In Romans 2:25-29, a Jew is not just someone who is physically circumcised, but who also lives in obedience to the Torah. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied in fulfillment of the promise is not through having many physical descendants, but through turning people from their wickedness and teaching them to do the same works as Abraham in obedience to God's law.

You didn't mention any other "race" being persecuted. I wonder why? You drew attention to what your focus is upon. That showed your bias.

It's obvious that people other than Jews have been persecuted, so that didn't need to be stated. We were specifically speaking about the way that Jews saw Gentiles, so I specifically spoke about a reason for why that is.

It didn't stop others. You're making excuses for their inaction. That is what we do as human beings. We justify or mistakes. We all do it.

I didn't make any excuses to justify their inaction, but rather I spoke about understanding why it happened.

That is your false claim. That is how it has always been. Name a blameless and holy High Priest. Go for it. I named the ONLY ONE. Jesus Christ. You're not putting Christ FIRST...... You're putting others first.

That is not a false claim, but an historical reality. You are going off on a tangent that is missing the point that I was making. I said nothing about not putting Christ first or putting others first.

I asked you a question. Would you have called for the death of the prophets if you'd had been there? That is the connection. You're avoiding answering the question.

You're going off on another tangent that is unrelated to what I said. I don't know what I would have done differently if I were born into a different set of circumstance. Moreover, Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, not denying the truth of anyone who claims that they would have done differently. Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees as being hypocrites, so Jesus was not the one one to do that, nor was he in disagreement with all Pharisees. For example, in regard to the debate between Shammai and Hillel, Jesus was virtually in complete agreement with Hillel.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Guess it depends on what you mean covered. 3000 were saved at the Day of Pentecost and many of them were Jews FROM all parts of the world.

What impact did Phillip have? What impact did Paul have? We read about a few men in the Scripture but God had untold numbers at His disposal to spread the Gospel to every living creature. A few men's mistakes didn't stop God's work from taking place.

How is it then that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,c 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”Acts 2: 10,11

So there by the way is where the church of Rome probably came from. Jews from Rome who went to the Passover.

We can't know this for certain. However, we can know that the Church at Jerusalem resisted the work of God for the Gentiles. This was sinful. Sinful actions of the apostles there.

So seems you're really down on the early church in the Jerusalem region. In some future time we'll see I guess how God holds everyone accountable towards what they should have done. Perhaps we wouldn't have done better ourselves?

Never said otherwise and there is no reason to imply I'm "down" on anyone. I'm recognizing facts. Every man has problems with sin. Everyone. The problem we have here is the embellishment of apostolic authority. I don't care if it is an apostle or not. There is no reason to accept the sinful actions of anyone as being authority. It doesn't matter who they are. Rank in the Church of God is only for edification. Sin does not edify anything.

So what exactly is the point. Am I now to think and mediate on just what a bunch of failures some of them were? Again what's your point? Not to have any positive thought towards any of them?

Not to repeat their sinful actions and to treat everyone equally in the Body of Christ. I don't see how you've "missed" what I've repeatedly stated.

The Samaritans were half breed Jews though and while they considered it a mystery why Jesus would have anything to do with Samaritans they could fall back on at least they were half Jewish.

No. That is false. They broke the law of God in not marrying among Gentiles and becoming Gentiles themselves. They were Gentiles. Which is why JEWS rejected them. Not that there really is a clean pedigree for any Jew today. There isn't. They've all married among Gentiles and soiled their family lineages. They are just pretenders.

There is a reason Paul appealed to being from the Tribe of Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin was primarily the only tribe that had abstained from breaking God's law to marry among the Gentiles. You know.... "A Hebrew of Hebrews".

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, I strongly oppose the premise of Dispensationalism, though that doesn't mean that there is nothing that it teaches that I agree with.

You have admit you don't know the doctrine and you can't know it in just a few days time. You don't know enough to actually know much about it at all.

Someone does not need to be a Dispensationalist to think that Acts 10 marks when Gentiles were included. In Matthew 15:23, Jesus said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, so telling Peter to feed his sheep would not refer to those who are not Israelites.

False doctrine. You don't get to define who Christ was sent to and who He wasn't. Again. You are showing your false Gospel that Jews are preferred first when it is only CHRIST that is preferred first.

I've asked you to tell me what Christ means to you and thus far, I haven't seen you do it. I'd say it is safe to conclude you definitely don't find it important enough to put Him first in your theology. You do openly sin. You're definitely not keeping the law you claim to keep.

Since you prefer Peter and believe he is the one that open the Kingdom to Gentiles....why do you not listen to your preferred apostle?

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

[praise_yeshua]

Some consider "Jew" to refer to "someone from the tribe of Judah", though that can also refer to the southern Kingdom of Judah, which would also include tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and it is also used to broadening refer to someone who is from one of the tribes of Israel. In Romans 2:25-29, a Jew is not just someone who is physically circumcised, but who also lives in obedience to the Torah. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied in fulfillment of the promise is not through having many physical descendants, but through turning people from their wickedness and teaching them to do the same works as Abraham in obedience to God's law.

How can you possibly claim that Paul keep the law defined in the Torah. In fact, we know that he didn't. I'm growing tired of you ignoring most of what I say to only deal with the what you prefer to address.

Here is proof that Paul did not keep the law you demand be keep.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

 

[Soyeong]

You have admit you don't know the doctrine and you can't know it in just a few days time. You don't know enough to actually know much about it at all.

I did not admit that, so you are again falsely trying to put words in my mouth. I have interacted with many Dispensationalists, so I have a sufficient understanding of what they teach, and I oppose much of it.

False doctrine. You don't get to define who Christ was sent to and who He wasn't. Again. You are showing your false Gospel that Jews are preferred first when it is only CHRIST that is preferred first.

The explain why it is false rather than just claiming it. Defining who Jesus considered to be his sheep helps us to correctly understand what he was instructing Peter to do by telling him to feed his sheep. In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus sent his disciples to go to Jews first by instructing them to God to the lost sheep of Israel and to not go to the Gentiles. Again, this has nothing to do with preferring Jews to Gentiles.

I've asked you to tell me what Christ means to you and thus far, I haven't seen you do it. I'd say it is safe to conclude you definitely don't find it important enough to put Him first in your theology. You do openly sin. You're definitely not keeping the law you claim to keep.

I've told you that Christ is Lord and Savior. You really enjoy putting words in my mouth, don't you? This sort of response from you is exactly why I am correct to say that you have a chip on your shoulder.

Since you prefer Peter and believe he is the one that open the Kingdom to Gentiles....why do you not listen to your preferred apostle?

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I said nothing about preferring Peter or about not listening to him.

 

[Soyeong]

How can you possibly claim that Paul keep the law defined in the Torah. In fact, we know that he didn't. I'm growing tired of you ignoring most of what I say to only deal with the what you prefer to address.

Here is proof that Paul did not keep the law you demand be keep.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

In Acts 23:6, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, which is a Torah observant sect Judaism. In Acts 24:14, Paul said that he worshiped the God of his fathers, believing everything written in the Law and the Prophets. In Acts 21:20-26, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Torah and in order to show that they continued to live in obedience to it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In Acts 23:6, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, which is a Torah observant sect Judaism. In Acts 24:14, Paul said that he worshiped the God of his fathers, believing everything written in the Law and the Prophets. In Acts 21:20-26, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Torah and in order to show that they continued to live in obedience to it.

He was a Pharisee. He abandoned being a Pharisee.

Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Paul hated the fact that he has sinned in KILLING BELIEVERS...

Gal 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

There is no doubt you have faith in the law. Paul did too. He abandoned such nonsense.

Again, by the law of the Pharisee Paul killed believers. Paul KILLED believers. Paul KILLED believers. He claimed blamelessness in the law because the law of the Pharisee approved of his actions.

Which is why I asked if you still believe in stoning children who curse father and mother. Thus far, all you have done is deflect from the answer. You want to live by the same law that demands your death.