Search results

How the Jews ended up saved seemed to be equally mysterious, since the 12 took so long to grasp the idea of Jesus's DBR. But I agree it's probably not their salvation, but their incorporation into the same group as the Jews.

Ever wonder why John deals so much with loving the brethren in his epistles? If he was writing to a church the had both Jew and gentile believers, as is obvious from 3rd John, and we know there was conflict even between Hellenic and "regular" Jews when the seven (deacons) were chosen, then you...

Who is the "you", and why is that a mystery? Isn't it that the Gentiles would become a people of God? Wasn't that enacted through Paul?

Tongue planted firmly in cheek. 😉

Paul didn’t “preach” the mystery, he enacted the mystery.

That’s what resurrection is referring to: entering into life.

You can remain effeminate if you want to...

Like this: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV) 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers...

Do you think the birth of Isaac was about the resurrection? I do. The birth of Jesus, was it about the resurrection? Absolutely! Why else did he become a man except to die for our sins so that we could live forever in our new bodies...after resurrection.

I don’t think one has to be opposed to mid-Acts dispensationalism to be opposed to the idea that Peter and Paul preached different gospels.

If he did, then it shows it’s about the resurrection.

But you didn’t answer my question. Why was His birth “good tidings”? Here’s another, from your other post: Just because a new person starts proclaiming good news doesn’t mean it’s new good news. Then the different gospels are all tied together around this same point—Jesus’s death and...

Why was His birth “good tidings”?

But the Christ is inherently part of the kingdom restoration. As such, if he left himself out of the gospel of the kingdom, it’s as bad as leaving the death and resurrection out of the gospel of grace, in my mind.

It’s not that they didn’t believe, rather that they didn’t understand. This should be comforting for those on at least one side of this debate, as they were (and we can be, too) still “in Christ” without fully understanding it.

Me, too.

You do realize that Paul went first to the synagogue in the next place he went after that statement of his. No, he didn’t wait for the Jews to seek him, him went first to them, as was his custom. And not just then, but even after the council in Jerusalem, Paul continued to go to the Jews first...

How could it be end of story before they realized Christ had to die? Listen, I’m not sure about whether one might call what they preached prior to Jesus’ death a different gospel—I might be able to go along with that. But once they understood the death and resurrection was part of the plan, it...

But he never stopped preaching his gospel to Jews. And if @Right Divider is correct about the agreement, he should have stopped, while John and Peter never should have written to Gentile churches in the body of Christ. But they did.

It does have to be a similar level if you withhold one from a group that could benefit by it, in order to only give them the other, which you’ve just admitted is less beneficial to them.