ECT They Will Not Receive Thy Testimony: Acts 22: 17-21

[northwye]

They Will Not Receive Thy Testimony: Acts 22: 17-21

Acts 22: 17-21: "And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to
Jerusalem, even
while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of
Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every
synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was
standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of
them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto
the Gentiles."

"Him" is Jesus Christ in verse 18 who spoke to Paul who says he was in a
trance. Trance is Strong's number 1611, ekstasis, "a displacement of
the mind, i.e., bewilderment, ecstasy, ...astonishment, trance."

Paul was not hallucinating. This text describes a rational
conversation that Christ had with Paul, in which Paul was told by
Christ "they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."

Jesus Christ told Paul that the Jews would not hear Paul's testimony
about Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2; 3-4 and the
leavening of the churches of Luke 13: 21 which began in the 19th
century with several Christian cults - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, British Israelite or
Christian Identity theology and dispensationalism - many who claim to
be Christians will not hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They
will only hear that part of the New Testament which agrees with their
cultic theology.

They do not like it when Paul in Romans 2: 28-29 is quoted saying that
the real Jews are not those of the flesh, but those who are Jews
inwardly are the real Jews, and that Revelation 2: 9 says of Christ
that "I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and are
not, but are of the synagogue of Satan" agrees with Romans 2: 28-29.
They do not accept Romans 9: 6-8, that they are not all Israel,which
are of Israel, and that the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of God.

They will not accept Galatians 4: 25-26, that the literal, physical
Jerusalem which is, is in bondage with her children, and that the
Jerusalem which is above is free and is the mother of us all.
Jerusalem stands for Israel.

Above all they will not hear the truth that in Romans 11: 26 when Paul
says "And so all Israel shall be saved" he is not talking about all
physical Israel, the children of the flesh, the outward Jew, those in
bondage to the law , but is saying that after the Cross and after the
Day of Pentecost there is only one saved or elect Israel, the Israel
transformed in Christ and reborn in him.

And - now we are seeing a rise of the Hebrew Roots movement, Sacred
Name Theology and Messianic Judaism, which, along with some of the
cults mentioned above, believe that the Old Covenant teaching that the
physical descendants of Abraham remain the chosen people of God.
These people will not hear any message from the New Testament which is
different from their theology that they are the chosen people, or
that those who claim descent from a tribe of Israel are the chosen
based on genetics.

Matthew 10: 14 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of
your feet."

 

[Interplanner]

North wrote:
Jesus Christ told Paul that the Jews would not hear Paul's testimony
about Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2; 3-4 and the
leavening of the churches of Luke 13: 21 which began in the 19th
century with several Christian cults - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, British Israelite or
Christian Identity theology and dispensationalism - many who claim to
be Christians will not hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They
will only hear that part of the New Testament which agrees with their
cultic theology.




The refusal of Israel generally was the falling away, the 'apostasia' of 2 Th 2:3, NIV: rebellion. The Thess had heard it had already happened; it was very close. They may have thought it happened because I Th 1:16 says the final wrath has already come. See the NIV alternate for 'at last': 'fully.' Ie, he didn't mean the event had happened yet, but knew that God had finally decided to decimate the country; it could happen any time.

The 'sent delusion' of 2 Th 12 reminds me of Rom 1 and has made me think he had the wild lawlessness of Judea in mind, even in Rom 1, rather than Roman culture in general. It has the force of 'God gave them over'. This would make Israel an example to all nations.

 

[northwye]

According to Jeremiah 18: 4-6 God was to remake Old Covenant Israel, and II Kings 21: 13 and Isaiah 29: 16 point to Jeremiah 18: 1-6. As it turned out, God remade Old Covenant Israel in its remnant - in the First Century - seen in Romans 11: 1-5. After the Cross, the Resurrection and the Day of Pentecost the New Covenant was in place and the Old Covenant was taken away, as shown in II Corinthians 3: 7, 11 and Hebrews 10: 9. Any apostasy after the beginning of the New Covenant would be a falling away from sound doctrine happening to those who were in the New Covenant, not to those who had not been in it and did not acknowledge that the Old Covenant was over - if that is what you mean by "The refusal of Israel generally was the falling away, the 'apostasia' of 2 Th 2:3, NIV: rebellion." I think by "Israel" you mean Old Covenant Israel, as would the dispensationalists.

 

[jamie]

British Israelite

British Israelite?

Do you deny that both Peter and Paul are interred in England?

Do you deny that Ephraim consists of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia?

"Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you and kings shall come from your body." (Genesis 35:11)

Ephraim and Manasseh possess Jacob's birthright.

"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel — he was indeed the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph" (1 Chronicles 5:1)

What nations do you believe have Israel's birthright?

 

[Tambora]

Romans 11:28 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

North wrote:
Jesus Christ told Paul that the Jews would not hear Paul's testimony
about Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2; 3-4 and the
leavening of the churches of Luke 13: 21 which began in the 19th
century with several Christian cults - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, British Israelite or
Christian Identity theology and dispensationalism - many who claim to
be Christians will not hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They
will only hear that part of the New Testament which agrees with their
cultic theology.




The refusal of Israel generally was the falling away, the 'apostasia' of 2 Th 2:3, NIV: rebellion. The Thess had heard it had already happened; it was very close. They may have thought it happened because I Th 1:16 says the final wrath has already come. See the NIV alternate for 'at last': 'fully.' Ie, he didn't mean the event had happened yet, but knew that God had finally decided to decimate the country; it could happen any time.

The 'sent delusion' of 2 Th 12 reminds me of Rom 1 and has made me think he had the wild lawlessness of Judea in mind, even in Rom 1, rather than Roman culture in general. It has the force of 'God gave them over'. This would make Israel an example to all nations.

:chuckle:

 

[DAN P]

They Will Not Receive Thy Testimony: Acts 22: 17-21

Acts 22: 17-21: "And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to
Jerusalem, even
while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of
Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every
synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was
standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of
them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto
the Gentiles."

"Him" is Jesus Christ in verse 18 who spoke to Paul who says he was in a
trance. Trance is Strong's number 1611, ekstasis, "a displacement of
the mind, i.e., bewilderment, ecstasy, ...astonishment, trance."

Paul was not hallucinating. This text describes a rational
conversation that Christ had with Paul, in which Paul was told by
Christ "they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."

Jesus Christ told Paul that the Jews would not hear Paul's testimony
about Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2; 3-4 and the
leavening of the churches of Luke 13: 21 which began in the 19th
century with several Christian cults - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, British Israelite or
Christian Identity theology and dispensationalism - many who claim to
be Christians will not hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They
will only hear that part of the New Testament which agrees with their
cultic theology.

They do not like it when Paul in Romans 2: 28-29 is quoted saying that
the real Jews are not those of the flesh, but those who are Jews
inwardly are the real Jews, and that Revelation 2: 9 says of Christ
that "I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and are
not, but are of the synagogue of Satan" agrees with Romans 2: 28-29.
They do not accept Romans 9: 6-8, that they are not all Israel,which
are of Israel, and that the children of the flesh, these are not the
children of God.

They will not accept Galatians 4: 25-26, that the literal, physical
Jerusalem which is, is in bondage with her children, and that the
Jerusalem which is above is free and is the mother of us all.
Jerusalem stands for Israel.

Above all they will not hear the truth that in Romans 11: 26 when Paul
says "And so all Israel shall be saved" he is not talking about all
physical Israel, the children of the flesh, the outward Jew, those in
bondage to the law , but is saying that after the Cross and after the
Day of Pentecost there is only one saved or elect Israel, the Israel
transformed in Christ and reborn in him.

And - now we are seeing a rise of the Hebrew Roots movement, Sacred
Name Theology and Messianic Judaism, which, along with some of the
cults mentioned above, believe that the Old Covenant teaching that the
physical descendants of Abraham remain the chosen people of God.
These people will not hear any message from the New Testament which is
different from their theology that they are the chosen people, or
that those who claim descent from a tribe of Israel are the chosen
based on genetics.

Matthew 10: 14 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of
your feet."

Hi and here I disagree with you and I P concerning 2 Thess 2:1-3 !~

In Verse 1 the context is the Lord Jesus Christ COMING , even our gathering together unto Him !!


In verse 2 , letters were circulating that the DEPARTURE / RAPTURE had already passed and that the Day of the Lord ( is ) close at HAND , no so says Paul !!

In verse 3 it should read , No one should throughly deceive you in not one way because except the DEPARTURE / APOSTASIA should come FIRST / PROTOS , and the man of sin should be revealed , the son of Destruction !!

The whole CONTEXT is the DEPARTURE of the Body of Christ and NOT THE FALLING ALWAY of the EKKLESIA / ASSEMBLY !!

In other words the EKKLESIA / ASSEMBLY must first be DEPARTED then the anti-christ will be revealed !!

It seems to me that there are many who refused to believe what Paul taught is Rom 16:25 and 26 and can NEVER say how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 NOR in Acts 22:17-22 !!

DAN P

 

[northwye]

II Thessalonians 2: 1-4 starts out talking about the second appearing of Christ, and saying that the day will not come - the second appearing of Christ - until after there is an apostasy and ο ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας, o anthropos tes amartios,and the man of sin,the son of perdition, who exalts himself above all that is called God, or is the object of veneration, is to sit down in the temple of God, setting forth himself that he is God.

To make II Thessalonians 2: 1-4 a prophecy which is to be fulfilled in the First Century is an imposition of one Church theology, preterism, on this text, and to claim that II Thessalonians 2: 1-4 is focused upon the dispensationalist pre-tribulation Rapture is to impose another Church theology upon this text. Both Church theologies are false, and its hard to say which one does the most damage to the prophecy.

These Church theologies can confuse the prophecy in II Thessalonians 2: 1-4. Find out what the Reformation Protestant view of this prophecy was - in the commentary of John Gill to become oriented again on what it is about. "....this was one thing that was to precede the coming of Christ...."except there come a falling away first"...and that man of sin be revealed;
who was now hid, though secretly working; by whom is meant not only any particular person or individual..... the son of perdition;
since these are not only the Apollyon, the king of the bottomless pit, the destroyer, the cause of the perdition of thousands of souls, for the souls of men are their wares; but because they are by the righteous judgment of God appointed and consigned to everlasting destruction; the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, will have their portion together in the lake that burns with fire, (Revelation 20:10) the same character as here is given of Judas, the betrayer of Christ, (John 17:12).....Or is an opposer, an adversary of Christ, the antichrist; who opposes him in his kingly office, styling himself the head and spouse of the church, assuming to himself all power in heaven and in earth, taking upon him to dispense with the laws of Christ, and to make new ones; who opposes him in his priestly office, by pretending to offer him up again in the sacrifice of the mass, and by making angels and saints departed, intercessors and advocates; and also in his prophetic office, by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and setting up unwritten traditions before the word of God......so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God;
not in the temple of Jerusalem, which was to be destroyed and never to be rebuilt more, and was destroyed before this man of sin was revealed; but in the church of God, so called, (1 Corinthians 3:16) (2 Corinthians 6:16) the Ethiopic version renders it, "in the house of God"; for antichrist rose up out of, and in the midst of the church; and it was a true church in which he first appeared, and over which he usurped power and authority; though it has been so corrupted by him, as now to be only nominally so; here he sits, and has homage done him by his creatures, as if he was a god."

Gill's comments on the man of sin sitting in the temple of God does acknowledge that I Corinthians 3: 16 and I Corinthians 6: 16, actually 6:19 say the temple of God is now the believer. He does not endorse the literal sitting of the Man of Sin in a Temple in Jerusalem. Also, there is nothing in Gill's commentary about II Thessalonians 2: 1-4 being fulfilled as early as in the First Century AD.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is north playing the dialectic game?

 

[Danoh]

North wrote:
Jesus Christ told Paul that the Jews would not hear Paul's testimony
about Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2; 3-4 and the
leavening of the churches of Luke 13: 21 which began in the 19th
century with several Christian cults - the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Science, British Israelite or
Christian Identity theology and dispensationalism - many who claim to
be Christians will not hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They
will only hear that part of the New Testament which agrees with their
cultic theology.




The refusal of Israel generally was the falling away, the 'apostasia' of 2 Th 2:3, NIV: rebellion. The Thess had heard it had already happened; it was very close. They may have thought it happened because I Th 1:16 says the final wrath has already come. See the NIV alternate for 'at last': 'fully.' Ie, he didn't mean the event had happened yet, but knew that God had finally decided to decimate the country; it could happen any time.

The 'sent delusion' of 2 Th 12 reminds me of Rom 1 and has made me think he had the wild lawlessness of Judea in mind, even in Rom 1, rather than Roman culture in general. It has the force of 'God gave them over'. This would make Israel an example to all nations.

You two are engaging in the very practice you both ignorantly malign the Dispensationalist for.

You are both going back and forth with one another attempting to share with the other each your respective understanding of things that in Scripture, differ from one another.

And in your above, you both actually show some distinctions you each hold to that are very similar to those held by the majority of Pastor-Teachers who hold to a Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

The distinction that in the 1st Century, Israel fell away, and as a result, ended up in the same Uncircumcision state spiritually, per Romans 2, that God had long left the Gentiles in, per Romans 1.

The summary of that being...

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Though yours obviously involves guessing at - as in Interplanner's "God had finally decided to" - as if God somehow finally made up His mind at some last minute, ending up at some sort of said last minute Plan B.

This, despite how often you both erroneously accuse Dispensationalism of holding to some sort of a Plan B - ism.

Nevertheless, we actually hold to other, various distinctions in very similar ways.

But until both sides each end their respective ignorance that the other side is up to no good, the obvious Galatianism both sides (at least on TOL, are each so obviously entrenched in), can only wax worse and worse.

Galatians 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you. 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

That right there is the real issue in all this.

Legalism.

Plain and simple.

Each party forever going on about "the gospel of the grace of God" and yet only proving each's is a gospel the grace of which is conditioned upon who each perceives is of their number, or not.

It is obvious there is no walking in the Spirit in any of that.

So much so, that even to point this out to such - regardless of what side of the many sided fence such are all from - is to set off in such, more of the same obvious animosity, once more.

Obviously, the issues such claim to be standing for are no more than a front for what such actually hold to - a grace-less grace towards anyone such consider not of their number.

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Because Romans 5:8.

 

[Tambora]

Ephraim and Manasseh possess Jacob's birthright.

By grace, not law.
By grace, GOD may have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
GOD can elect anyone not based on merit at all.

By law .....

Deuteronomy 21 KJV
(16) Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
(17) But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.


..... Ruben (his actual 1st son born) was to be given the birthright of double portion, no matter what his preference was.


And of course, Ephraim was not the first or the last to be deemed "firstborn" by GOD.

Jacob/Israel was called firstborn by GOD.
Then, years later, Ephraim was called firstborn by GOD.
Then, years later, David was called firstborn by GOD.



Soooooo, when Ephraim was called firstborn, did that supersede Jacob as firstborn to GOD?
And when David was called firstborn, did that supersede Ephraim as firstborn to GOD?

 

[Danoh]

Is north playing the dialectic game?

Sung to Mel Brooks' "The Inquisition - ta dah, ta dah..." :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

By grace, not law.
By grace, GOD may have mercy on whom He will have mercy.
GOD can elect anyone not based on merit at all.

By law .....

Deuteronomy 21 KJV
(16) Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
(17) But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.


..... Ruben (his actual 1st son born) was to be given the birthright of double portion, no matter what his preference was.


And of course, Ephraim was not the first or the last to be deemed "firstborn" by GOD.

Jacob/Israel was called firstborn by GOD.
Then, years later, Ephraim was called firstborn by GOD.
Then, years later, David was called firstborn by GOD.



Soooooo, when Ephraim was called firstborn, did that supersede Jacob as firstborn to GOD?
And when David was called firstborn, did that supersede Ephraim as firstborn to GOD?

Interesting post.

Jamie's error on that reminds me of the man on this video - he commits a similar error with the word "begotten" ...

And the man in this video is someone who is literally a walking Bible and Koran both, he has so memorized so much of each.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7P3KLZkmI4&app=desktop

Nevertheless, Isaiah 8:20.

And Rom. 5:8.

 

[Tambora]

Interesting post.

What's your take on birthright?

 

[jamie]

..... Ruben (his actual 1st son born) was to be given the birthright of double portion, no matter what his preference was.

"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel — he was indeed the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph" (1 Chronicles 5:1)

Do you reject 1 Chronicles?

Esau was also the firstborn, but he sold his birthright to Jacob.

 

[Tambora]

"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel — he was indeed the firstborn, but because he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph" (1 Chronicles 5:1)

Do you reject 1 Chronicles?

No.
Do you reject Deut 21?

Esau was also the firstborn, but he sold his birthright to Jacob.

Off hand, I can think of 4 instances that the birthright did not fall to the actual 1st born son.
Zarah to Pharez
Esau to Jacob
Reuben to Joseph
Manasseh to Ephraim

So that's at least 4 birthright switch-a-roos in scripture.

 

[Interplanner]

So much for the DNA/descendancy Israel. A good reason for it to be by faith.

 

[jamie]

No.
Do you reject Deut 21?


Off hand, I can think of 4 instances that the birthright did not fall to the actual 1st born son.
Zarah to Pharez
Esau to Jacob
Reuben to Joseph
Manasseh to Ephraim

So that's at least 4 birthright switch-a-roos in scripture.

Jacob's birthright went to the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.

"But his father refused and said, 'I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people and he also shall be great, but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations." (Genesis 48:19)

There was a time when the sun never set on the British empire.

 

[Tambora]

Jacob's birthright went to the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Reuben's birthright went to the sons of Joseph.

1 Chronicles 5:1 KJV
(1) Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

There was a time when the sun never set on the British empire.

Irrelevant.

 

[Tambora]

And of course, Joseph received a double portion.

Genesis 48 KJV
(21) And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers.
(22) Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.