Paul's Gospel

[Hiddenthings]

I've already seen it and you were not there. The Gospel is to each in his or her appointed times, times appointed of the Father, and thus it is with the Bema following Acts 2, otherwise you make Paul a liar to his own congregations.

Again, the kingdom of Elohim does not come with ocular-physical observation: for the kingdom of Elohim is within you.

Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

And from a passage which you have already referenced:

Luke 19:11-28 KJV
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately [parachrema, immediately in full wealth or full glory] appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, [the Resurrection] and to return [Acts 2].
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, [Acts 2] then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, [the Bema] to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Were the servants called before the Master to give an account all at the same time???
No, they were not, for the Gospel is personal and individual, to each in his or her own appointed times:

Then came the first.......
Then came the second.......
Then came another.......
And on, and on, and on, until it is YOUR turn to be called up by the Master to give an account for what you have done with what he left you with to occupy, barter, and trade with, while he was as if away in a far journey.

He himself also teaches that he is not going to be seen by the world, (who hate him), when he returns:

John 14:15-23 KJV
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.



The above is all according to the eyes and mind of the natural man: I've already seen a thousand or more variations of it from a thousand or more other dispensationists and hyper dispy's.

So, do you believe the Kingdom of God is solely an internal, spiritual reality within believers, and not a physical manifestation of that Kingdom?

 

[Hiddenthings]

The above is all according to the eyes and mind of the natural man: I've already seen a thousand or more variations of it from a thousand or more other dispensationists and hyper dispy's.

It seems like you're unable to explain or apply Micah's prophecy, which often happens when one focuses only on parts of the Word rather than embracing its entirety. I still hope to see you there dak!...but a lot of your understanding will need to change, if the Lord wants you to take part in coming events.

 

[nedsk]

@dak

The relationship between Christ and the Ecclesia (the Church) is often portrayed in Scripture as a marriage (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:29–33).

2 Corinthians 11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

Ephesians 5:29–33 No one ever hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he (Jesus) is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, “I will tell of your name (God's Name) to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation, I will sing your praise.” Hebrews 2:11-12

In Revelation 19 Papal Rome has just been symbolized as an unfaithful prostitute, it’s fitting that the ecclesia is now depicted as a pure bride the wife of the Lamb celebrating a joyful union.

At this time, Christ and the ecclesia will be fully united as one, just as Jesus prayed in John 17:21. This “marriage of the Lamb” fulfills the symbolic pattern set in Eden, when Adam was put into a deep sleep so that a bride (Eve) could be formed from his own body (Genesis 2:23–24). Eve was called “woman” because she was taken out of man.

In the same way, the Bride of Christ is formed from him, his people and will find its full completion in their glorious union with him. Just as the ecclesia is called to be one with Christ now, it will be fully one with him in the age to come.

“And his wife has made herself ready”

It is the responsibility of the Bride to prepare herself to be pleasing to her Groom. She can only do this by obeying the guidance he has given her (Ephesians 5:25–26). The beauty of her character is reflected in the imagery of the wedding in Psalm 45, where she is described as “all glorious within” (verse 13), showing that her inner qualities, as well as her outward conduct, are pleasing to her Groom.

The noble traits of the Bride are also described in Proverbs 31:10–21, where she is portrayed as a virtuous woman, diligent, wise, and worthy of praise.

It's funny you mention a marriage where the two become one flesh. Mark 10:7-9. Jesus offers his flesh for the life of the world and tells us unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we have no life within us. We become one with Jesus when we do as he commands, eat my flesh and drink my blood, for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed John 6:55 (KJV)

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak

You made these changes some of which we have corrected but the "shocker" was your thinking Sarah took part in the Mosaic Covenant.


I mean, we can agree to disagree on which mountain, that's no big deal! We both know our hope is anchored beyond the veil, and it's coming with Christ (born from above realised on earth), which is an easy point to settle. But to suggest that the Bride is saved through the Mosaic covenant really puts you outside the scope of Christ's work.

Are you sure you don't want to correct that?

You have Law over Grace through the Promises

Sarai represents the Abrahamic covenant, and faith was necessary to bring forth the promised seed (Gal 3:23). It's important to note that later, "through faith, Sara herself received strength to conceive" (Heb 11:11). However, typically speaking, "faith had not yet come" (Gal. 3:23).

Galatians 3:23 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law (Mosaic), imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed."

Out of all the discussions I've had in this forum, this is by far the most incorrect someone has been.

So let's put this back to reflect truth:

 

[Hiddenthings]

Being born in Zion means that sonship in Christ is a result of divine intervention, not human effort.

Galatians 4:26 says, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is the mother of us all." As it is written, "Rejoice, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; break forth and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband." (Isaiah 54:1)

Just as Isaac was born through God's direct intervention, so too, we, are children of promise. There are no natural-born children of the Abrahamic covenant; all are born again from above through the Word and by faith.

 

[dak]

@dak

You made these changes some of which we have corrected but the "shocker" was your thinking Sarah took part in the Mosaic Covenant.

View attachment 68240
I mean, we can agree to disagree on which mountain, that's no big deal! We both know our hope is anchored beyond the veil, and it's coming with Christ (born from above realised on earth), which is an easy point to settle. But to suggest that the Bride is saved through the Mosaic covenant really puts you outside the scope of Christ's work.

Are you sure you don't want to correct that?

You have Law over Grace through the Promises

Sarai represents the Abrahamic covenant, and faith was necessary to bring forth the promised seed (Gal 3:23). It's important to note that later, "through faith, Sara herself received strength to conceive" (Heb 11:11). However, typically speaking, "faith had not yet come" (Gal. 3:23).

Galatians 3:23 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law (Mosaic), imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed."

Out of all the discussions I've had in this forum, this is by far the most incorrect someone has been.

So let's put this back to reflect truth:

View attachment 68243

Neither was Yerushalem yet chosen by the Father to place His name there in the time of Abraham, and not even in the time of Mosheh. You are imposing your paradigm upon a scripture allegory. Moreover the Abrahamic covenant, including circumcision, was folded into the Torah even though circumcision was first given to Abraham. Yes, the Abrahamic covenant came first, but that doesn't mean the Torah is now obsolete or done away with just because you and your favorite teachers scramble the words and teachings of Paul to your own detriment.

Moreover you must ignore the background context Paul quotes from in Gal 4:27, which you did indeed do, even after it was shown and expounded to you: and now you are floundering at trying to rehash everything that has already been addressed. There is no use in me trying to go over it all again with you because I know you will still reject anything that counters your beliefs, even if it is scripture.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Neither was Yerushalem yet chosen by the Father to place His name there in the time of Abraham, and not even in the time of Mosheh. You are imposing your paradigm upon a scripture allegory. Moreover the Abrahamic covenant, including circumcision, was folded into the Torah even though circumcision was first given to Abraham. Yes, the Abrahamic covenant came first, but that doesn't mean the Torah is now obsolete or done away with just because you and your favorite teachers scramble the words and teachings of Paul to your own detriment.

Moreover you must ignore the background context Paul quotes from in Gal 4:27, which you did indeed do, even after it was shown and expounded to you: and now you are floundering at trying to rehash everything that has already been addressed. There is no use in me trying to go over it all again with you because I know you will still reject anything that counters your beliefs, even if it is scripture.

Wow, you are really lost dak...I mean lost in the strongest sense!

"Having canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." Col 2:14

THE WRITTEN CODE: The Greek word cheirographon refers to a handwritten document, specifically, a note of indebtedness, like an autograph or signed acknowledgment of debt. This connects closely with Jesus’ parable of the servant’s debts in Matthew 18:23–25, where sin is symbolically portrayed as debt. It also echoes the ritual in Numbers 5:17, where curses under the Law were written down during a trial of jealousy, another link to written condemnation.

HE TOOK IT AWAY, NAILING IT TO THE CROSS: God’s method for dealing with the consequences of Adam’s sin reveals both His righteousness and His consistency. Without abolishing the fundamental law of sin and death, He gave the Mosaic Law as a stepping stone toward redemption. This Law prepared the way for its own resolution, by directing all its demands toward Jesus, who fulfilled it perfectly and in every detail.

In full obedience, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice under the very system that pronounced curses, and thus came under its condemnation, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Galatians 3:13). That a perfectly righteous man could be cursed by the Law proved its ultimate inadequacy and justified its removal through Christ’s death.

This is a powerful example of how one law can be counteracted by another, similar to the principle seen in the Persian legal system: When Mordecai was unable to revoke the first decree for the Jews’ destruction, he issued a new one empowering them to defend themselves, nullifying the intended harm. In the same way, the Mosaic Law, which was described as a burden too heavy to bear, has been overridden. Its final consequences have been cancelled for those who are redeemed in Christ, and a new, better covenant has taken its place.

 

[dak]

Being born in Zion means that sonship in Christ is a result of divine intervention, not human effort.

That's the Pharisee understanding of the Torah which is of the natural mind of the natural man. If you do not walk pleasing unto the Father you walk according to the flesh, in death: and that is according to Paul in another passage already quoted.

Galatians 4:26 says, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is the mother of us all." As it is written, "Rejoice, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; break forth and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband." (Isaiah 54:1)

Yeah, restudy the background context where Yerushalem is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle of the Torah, which did not exist in the time o9f Abraham then believ the Testimony of tyhe Master to Nikodemus and go back into tyhe womb of your mother and relearn everything: for the Pharisee way is carnal, natural, outward, and engenders physical "works of the law" which bring the adherent into bondage to the physical.

Just as Isaac was born through God's direct intervention, so too, we, are children of promise. There are no natural-born children of the Abrahamic covenant; all are born again from above through the Word and by faith.

The belief/faith accounted unto Abraham in the statement of Gen 15:6 was not actually fulfilled (or complete) until Abraham was tested and overcame in Gen 22.

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's the Pharisee understanding of the Torah which is of the natural mind of the natural man. If you do not walk pleasing unto the Father you walk according to the flesh, in death: and that is according to Paul in another passage already quoted.

Just words here with no meaning or substance!

Yeah, restudy the background context where Yerushalem is likened to the Mishkan-Tabernacle of the Torah, which did not exist in the time o9f Abraham then believ the Testimony of tyhe Master to Nikodemus and go back into tyhe womb of your mother and relearn everything: for the Pharisee way is carnal, natural, outward, and engenders physical "works of the law" which bring the adherent into bondage to the physical.

Those who are born of the Spirit are not born of the Law

The belief/faith accounted unto Abraham in the statement of Gen 15:6 was not actually fulfilled (or complete) until Abraham was tested and overcame in Gen 22.

Children born above are still born of Faith not Law - I've never in all my time heard such ignorance!

 

[dak]

Wow, you are really lost dak...I mean lost in the strongest sense!

"Having canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." Col 2:14

More scrambling of Paul's words: the Torah is never called dogma in the scripture, so guess again because your interpretation is wrong.

THE WRITTEN CODE: The Greek word cheirographon refers to a handwritten document, specifically, a note of indebtedness, like an autograph or signed acknowledgment of debt. This connects closely with Jesus’ parable of the servant’s debts in Matthew 18:23–25, where sin is symbolically portrayed as debt. It also echoes the ritual in Numbers 5:17, where curses under the Law were written down during a trial of jealousy, another link to written condemnation.

Handwritten dogmas of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees, Chief Priests, and Scribes.
Thanks for proving what I just said about your floundering, (and flailing), you are all over the place.

HE TOOK IT AWAY, NAILING IT TO THE CROSS: God’s method for dealing with the consequences of Adam’s sin reveals both His righteousness and His consistency. Without abolishing the fundamental law of sin and death, He gave the Mosaic Law as a stepping stone toward redemption. This Law prepared the way for its own resolution, by directing all its demands toward Jesus, who fulfilled it perfectly and in every detail.

Amen, otherwise we would still be obligated to honor such things as the Talmud, Sanhedrin rulings, and Pharisaic dogmas.

 

[dak]

Just words here with no meaning or substance!

Those who are born of the Spirit are not born of the Law

Children born above are still born of Faith not Law - I've never in all my time heard such ignorance!

So you also do not believe Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, when he says that the Torah contains Living Oracles: why should that be any surprise to me at this point?

 

[Hiddenthings]

So you also do not believe Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, when he says that the Torah contains Living Oracles: why should that be any surprise to me at this point?

With all due respect, Dak, you've lost the plot if you believe the Gospel saves through the Torah or the Law. Honestly, you could spend a thousand years straining at nats, and still never convince anyone with that message!

"Who received the lively oracles to give unto us"

The Greek phrase logia zonta translates to "living utterances" (Rotherham). Significantly, Stephen points out that these were not revealed at Jerusalem, but at Sinai, a crucial detail in his argument.

He contrasts the living Word revealed in Christ (John 1:14) with the words passed down by the forefathers, who themselves were dead (John 6:49). This emphasizes that true life comes not through tradition, but through the Word made flesh. (1 Peter 1:3; 2:5).

Dak, if you don't understand the context of Stephens words you should not quote them!

 

[Hiddenthings]

So you also do not believe Stephen, being full of the Holy Spirit, when he says that the Torah contains Living Oracles: why should that be any surprise to me at this point?

It’s truly unfortunate that you speak with such confidence, even quoting Scripture, yet seem to miss the core of Stephen’s argument. Time and again, it’s clear that you need to be re-taught the true Gospel of God, because the version you currently hold to lacks the power and truth of the one revealed in Scripture.

 

[dak]

It’s truly unfortunate that you speak with such confidence, even quoting Scripture, yet seem to miss the core of Stephen’s argument. Time and again, it’s clear that you need to be re-taught the true Gospel of God, because the version you currently hold to lacks the power and truth of the one revealed in Scripture.

With all due respect, Dak, you've lost the plot if you believe the Gospel saves through the Torah or the Law. Honestly, you could spend a thousand years straining at nats, and still never convince anyone with that message!

"Who received the lively oracles to give unto us"

The Greek phrase logia zonta translates to "living utterances" (Rotherham). Significantly, Stephen points out that these were not revealed at Jerusalem, but at Sinai, a crucial detail in his argument.

He contrasts the living Word revealed in Christ (John 1:14) with the words passed down by the forefathers, who themselves were dead (John 6:49). This emphasizes that true life comes not through tradition, but through the Word made flesh. (1 Peter 1:3; 2:5).

Dak, if you don't understand the context of Stephens words you should not quote them!

Lying about the statement so you can say I don't understand and judge me as totally lost?
I leave that between you and the real Judge.

Acts 7:35-40 LSV (Literal Standard Version)
35 This Moses, whom they refused, saying, Who set you a ruler and a judge? This one God sent [as] a ruler and a redeemer, by the hand of [the] Messenger who appeared to him in the bush;
36 this one brought them forth, having done wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years;
37 this is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel: The LORD your God will raise up to you a Prophet out of your brothers, like to me, Him will you hear.
38 This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the Messenger who is speaking to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers who received the living oracles to give to us;
39 to whom our fathers did not wish to become obedient, but thrusted away, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt,
40 saying to Aaron, Make to us gods who will go on before us, for this Moses, who brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, we have not known what has happened to him.

Your interpretation of the passage is an exercise in buffoonery: you are not capable of simply reading a passage for what it says without inserting your narrative into it.

 

[Hiddenthings]

37 this is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel: The LORD your God will raise up to you a Prophet out of your brothers, like to me, Him will you hear.
38 This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the Messenger who is speaking to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers who received the living oracles to give to us;

You're doing it again, Dak—are you slow to learn?

You highlight text but offer no real understanding of what you're quoting. There's nothing in what you posted that teaches salvation comes through the Law or Torah.

So what exactly is your point?

The context is that the Law came not via Jerusalem their beloved city! But via Sinai 500 kilometers away!

Acts 7:39 "To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt.

Just as they later rejected Christ (Luke 4:29). Despite living in the prosperity of the Promised Land, they remained just as hard-hearted as their ancestors had been during the trials of the wilderness. In fact, Stephen implies that his generation bore even greater guilt, because they rejected truth while enjoying its blessings.

Can you see the irony in this dak? You are doing exactly what they did!

Are you blind?

 

[dak]

You're doing it again, Dak—are you slow to learn?

You highlight text but offer no real understanding of what you're quoting. There's nothing in what you posted that teaches salvation comes through the Law or Torah.

I never said that was the case: you pinned it on me and went on the slay your own strawman. That's not my problem but yours.

The context is that the Law came not via Jerusalem their beloved city! But via Sinai 500 kilometers away!

The context I quoted says nothing about Yerushalem.

Acts 7:39 "To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt.

Just as they later rejected Christ (Luke 4:29).

That's curious: why would you reference Luke 4:29, which was at Nazareth, when we have Gospel accounts full of their rejections and especially in the Passion narratives?

Despite living in the prosperity of the Promised Land, they remained just as hard-hearted as their ancestors had been during the trials of the wilderness. In fact, Stephen implies that his generation bore even greater guilt, because they rejected truth while enjoying its blessings.

Agreed.

Can you see the irony in this dak? You are doing exactly what they did!

Are you blind?

More lying. Who taught you to lie about people you've never met just because they do not agree with your interpretations of the scripture on an internet forum? Are you really going to force me to just start ignoring and reporting you?

 

[Hiddenthings]

I never said that was the case: you pinned it on me and went on the slay your own strawman. That's not my problem but yours.

The context I quoted says nothing about Yerushalem.

That's curious: why would you reference Luke 4:29, which was at Nazareth, when we have Gospel accounts full of their rejections and especially in the Passion narratives?

Agreed.

More lying. Who taught you to lie about people you've never met just because they do not agree with your interpretations of the scripture on an internet forum? Are you really going to force me to just start ignoring and reporting you?

Read back over your reply and show me one piece of evidence that support's your "salvation came by the Mosaic Covenant (Sarah???)"

Your replies are getting weaker and weaker.

"saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’" Verse 40!

You lack faith in the Abrahamic Covenant in the same way they lacked faith in Moses. 2 Cor. 4:18; cp. Lk 18:8

This still stands and Acts 7 and the lack of your exposition has done nothing to change it:

 

[Hiddenthings]

@dak, the irony in your belief is you want to side with the flesh and not the Spirit.

Galatians 4:21 "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?"

It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman, one by the free woman. The son by the bondwoman was born according to flesh, the son by the free woman through promise.

The Judaizers reasoned that Isaac was born after Abraham was circumcised, proving that circumcision was essential, and so was the law related to it.

Paul says Ishmael was conceived by a slave-woman by the will of flesh, but Isaac was born of a free-woman by promise, by the spirit, by faith in God.

Why do you cling to the Law dak? You have not once explained this in any meaningful way?

 

[dak]

Read back over your reply and show me one piece of evidence that support's your "salvation came by the Mosaic Covenant (Sarah???)"

Your replies are getting weaker and weaker.

Read back and show me where I ever said any such thing.
Your straw man is dead and now you are forced to lie.

You lack faith in the Abrahamic Covenant in the same way they lacked faith in Moses. 2 Cor. 4:18; cp. Lk 18:8

More false accusations. I apply every covenant to myself in the Master: each covenant has its purpose, and they overlap, and nothing is done away with, or sidelined, or superseded, or abolished. In fact all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanne, so the Torah was not even fully operational and functional until the new Spirit foretold in the Prophet Ezekiel was complete, which was when the Master himself said so, ("It is Finished", meaning his Testimony, the new Spirit of the renewed covenant).

 

[dak]

@dak, the irony in your belief is you want to side with the flesh and not the Spirit.

More falsehood because you do not believe Paul when he says that the Torah is spiritual in Rom 7:14. You've already proven that you are incapable of understanding much of anything that is spiritual in the scripture, and that's because you still follow Pharisaic outward, physical, natural minded beliefs in most everything concerning the Torah, no doubt including animal sacrifices and everything else, which mindset leads to death, as not only Paul but even Mosheh himself warns about and tells you that he has set both life and death before you: therefore choose Life. It is not my fault or problem that you have allowed yourself to be deceived by teachers of dogmas and doctrines of men.