Who’s it to?

glorydaz

Well-known member
Then you appear to be in conflict with yourself Glory. Luke records the establishment of the Eucharist that Christ instituted with the Eleven at the Last Supper. This is not Old Covenant, Mosaic Law. And it is new. And the Lord says, "This is the New Testament".

So promoting Luke to this supposed high priest Theophilus, is the New Covenant, it's contained in Luke. In Acts 13 (while it's already quite long), there's no reason to think that basically the whole Gospel of Luke isn't also implied in that speech or sermon Paul spoke to his audience.

(I can read Acts 13 in a few minutes, but Paul was elaborating for a whole morning and afternoon probably, Luke just wrote down the main points of what Paul actually said to them those days, not every single word.)

Paul told them the New Covenant (remember Luke is included by implication in Acts 13) justifies and that the Old Covenant can't justify. This has to be the same thing Peter preached to Israel, otherwise it would run afoul of Paul's cursing of any 'Gospel' in conflict with his own, which we just saw in Acts 13, at least does not promote following the Mosaic law as if it justifies. He contradicts that idea unequivocally.
No, the New Covenant is, like the Old, with the Jews. It was offered to the Jews, but they rejected their King when He came, and now it's in the future.

Heb. 8:10-11
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

During this age of grace, we are under a totally different dispensation. Neither covenant claimed the law justified, and Paul merely agrees with that. It is faith that justifies, and it's always been faith that justifies. Look at Abraham.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
No, the New Covenant is, like the Old, with the Jews. It was offered to the Jews, but they rejected their King when He came, and now it's in the future.

Heb. 8:10-11
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

During this age of grace, we are under a totally different dispensation. Neither covenant claimed the law justified, and Paul merely agrees with that. It is faith that justifies, and it's always been faith that justifies. Look at Abraham.
I'm sure glad I could be "grafted onto that branch".
The NT is surely a dispensation of grace, but grace has been dispensed since the time of Noah. (Gen 6:8)
The NT is a post-Mosaic Law dispensation.
The OT Law taught us how really wicked sin is, and the NT showed us how to be free of that wickedness.
It is written..."Was then that which is good, (Law), made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; (Mosaic Law), that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Rom 7:13)
Thanks be to God !
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I'm sure glad I could be "grafted onto that branch".

No wonder you think you can be cut off.
The NT is surely a dispensation of grace, but grace has been dispensed since the time of Noah. (Gen 6:8)
Nope. The covenants are with Israel.
The NT is a post-Mosaic Law dispensation.

New and better, but not here yet. The law is written on the heart and mind of the Jews when the Kingdom comes in.
The New Covenant does not come into effect until the Kingdom comes here on earth.
The OT Law taught us how really wicked sin is, and the NT showed us how to be free of that wickedness.
It is written..."Was then that which is good, (Law), made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working deeeath in me by that which is good; (Mosaic Law), that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." (Rom 7:13)
Thanks be to God !
Yep, you can quote the Bible. That's commendable.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
No wonder you think you can be cut off.
I base "my" belief on what Paul wrote..."For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." (Rom 11:21)
Nope. The covenants are with Israel.
They are not all Israel that say they are Israel.
I have been made one with every other person who has been baptized into Christ Jesus, both Jew and Gentile.
We are one with God.
Just as it is written..."So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." (Rom 12:5)
One Father, one seed...one covenant with all.
New and better, but not here yet.
Grace has been written of and available to men since the time of Noah. (Gen 6:8)
The law is written on the heart and mind of the Jews when the Kingdom comes in.
The New Covenant does not come into effect until the Kingdom comes here on earth.
"GOOD NEWS"!!!
The kingdom is here now.
We are it !
It is written..."But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matt 12:28)
And..."Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matt 21:43)
It isn't possible to take something away if hasn't already been given.
Yep, you can quote the Bible. That's commendable.
It was well worth the studying, as it has allowed me to do as the Lord wishes here on earth in His kingdom.
I am given the chance almost daily to illustrate both the life and the death of my Lord Jesus Christ.
It is an opportunity given to all men, regardless of national heritage.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
... "GOOD NEWS"!!!
The kingdom is here now.
We are it ! ...
And all the Saints in heaven, we are altogether the kingdom, us being the kingdom in seed form. "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is [already!] in heaven," we pray every Mass.

Come back to Mass.
 

Derf

Well-known member
And all the Saints in heaven, we are altogether the kingdom, us being the kingdom in seed form. "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is [already!] in heaven," we pray every Mass.

Come back to Mass.
I drove through Boston once. Does that count?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
And all the Saints in heaven, we are altogether the kingdom, us being the kingdom in seed form. "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is [already!] in heaven," we pray every Mass.

Come back to Mass.
Guess what?
His prayers were answered already, and you can quirt repeating them.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Yes He did, and like Jesus' prayers, yours will be answered. (If it is His will)
There is no need to keep praying for something that was granted 2000 years ago.
His sacrificial death is everlasting, eternal, perpetual. We remember that every Mass.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
His sacrificial death is everlasting, eternal, perpetual. We remember that every Mass.
Do you remember Matt 5:48 at every mass?
It is written..."Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
How about 1 Cor 15:34..."Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."
How about 2 Tim 2:19..."Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Do you remember Matt 5:48 at every mass?
It is written..."Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
How about 1 Cor 15:34..."Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."
How about 2 Tim 2:19..."Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
Are you under the wrong impression that Catholicism approves of sin, even grave sinning?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
This is all very interesting, but pretty far off topic.
Sorry, I went with the flow.

As to the OP, I believe the letters were sent to churches, whether Jewish of Gentile isn't really important, as the whole congregation was Christian.
All are one, "in Christ".
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Sorry, I went with the flow.

As to the OP, I believe the letters were sent to churches, whether Jewish of Gentile isn't really important, as the whole congregation was Christian.
All are one, "in Christ".
Have we established yet that whether Luke & Acts were addressed to Theophilus the Jerusalem high priest (who is a believer, or whom Luke hopes will come to believe), or not, either way, the New Covenant is what's preached in Acts, and that even if Luke & Acts are addressed to Gentiles, this still kills MAD? (Because why is Paul sending the Gospel of Luke to Gentiles? ) The New Covenant is what's preached from early Acts, and Paul preached the New Covenant in Acts 13 and afterward. The New Covenant's established in Luke, dedicated with the Lord's own blood. Acts is the story of how His Apostles began promoting and promulgating the New Covenant, which took a vision to convince Peter also was with Gentiles, and took Paul being told by God that he would preach the New Covenant to Gentiles, combined with Paul resisting God's call to preach the New Covenant to the Gentiles, and his attempt to preach the New Covenant to his own ethnic identity group instead, but he failed at it, so he finally accepted what Peter had accepted, that the New Covenant really is with Gentiles too.

It's interesting to think about what would have happened if Israel and the Jews did accept Jesus as their Messiah instead of what happened. I don't mean before the death, burial and resurrection, but afterward. If Israelites and Jews believed upon Christ after His Resurrection, accepting Him as if He was the literal King David returned, what would it have looked like? It would include their comprehension of Him as the "Lamb of God".

It's interesting because even though there were many Israelites and Jews who did not believe in Him, and the Church has always been a very Gentile group, the very earliest Church (the Apostolic era) was led by a lot of Jewish people, a great majority, including all twelve of the Twelve Apostles.

So there was a lot of Jewish influence in the early Church. But the thing is that when you examine the things that Paul talked about in his letters, you find him endorsing and approving and promoting all sorts of "Catholic" practices and traditions. Paul's point was that Gentiles are equal. In the Church, Gentiles are equal. This is Paul's influence. It's also Peter's, but it's also Paul's.

And regarding the OP I don't have any reason to think that the Apostle John didn't also accept, endorse, approve and promote that Gentiles are equal in the Church and a party to the New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Have we established yet that whether Luke & Acts were addressed to Theophilus the Jerusalem high priest (who is a believer, or whom Luke hopes will come to believe), or not, either way, the New Covenant is what's preached in Acts, and that even if Luke & Acts are addressed to Gentiles, this still kills MAD? (Because why is Paul sending the Gospel of Luke to Gentiles? ) The New Covenant is what's preached from early Acts, and Paul preached the New Covenant in Acts 13 and afterward. The New Covenant's established in Luke, dedicated with the Lord's own blood. Acts is the story of how His Apostles began promoting and promulgating the New Covenant, which took a vision to convince Peter also was with Gentiles, and took Paul being told by God that he would preach the New Covenant to Gentiles, combined with Paul resisting God's call to preach the New Covenant to the Gentiles, and his attempt to preach the New Covenant to his own ethnic identity group instead, but he failed at it, so he finally accepted what Peter had accepted, that the New Covenant really is with Gentiles too.

It's interesting to think about what would have happened if Israel and the Jews did accept Jesus as their Messiah instead of what happened. I don't mean before the death, burial and resurrection, but afterward. If Israelites and Jews believed upon Christ after His Resurrection, accepting Him as if He was the literal King David returned, what would it have looked like? It would include their comprehension of Him as the "Lamb of God".

It's interesting because even though there were many Israelites and Jews who did not believe in Him, and the Church has always been a very Gentile group, the very earliest Church (the Apostolic era) was led by a lot of Jewish people, a great majority, including all twelve of the Twelve Apostles.

So there was a lot of Jewish influence in the early Church. But the thing is that when you examine the things that Paul talked about in his letters, you find him endorsing and approving and promoting all sorts of "Catholic" practices and traditions. Paul's point was that Gentiles are equal. In the Church, Gentiles are equal. This is Paul's influence. It's also Peter's, but it's also Paul's.

And regarding the OP I don't have any reason to think that the Apostle John didn't also accept, endorse, approve and promote that Gentiles are equal in the Church and a party to the New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
All believing "branches", (Jewish or Greek), get their life from the same "root".
We all glorify God, by our obedient walks in Christ.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Have we established yet that whether Luke & Acts were addressed to Theophilus the Jerusalem high priest (who is a believer, or whom Luke hopes will come to believe), or not, either way, the New Covenant is what's preached in Acts, and that even if Luke & Acts are addressed to Gentiles, this still kills MAD? (Because why is Paul sending the Gospel of Luke to Gentiles? ) The New Covenant is what's preached from early Acts, and Paul preached the New Covenant in Acts 13 and afterward. The New Covenant's established in Luke, dedicated with the Lord's own blood. Acts is the story of how His Apostles began promoting and promulgating the New Covenant, which took a vision to convince Peter also was with Gentiles, and took Paul being told by God that he would preach the New Covenant to Gentiles, combined with Paul resisting God's call to preach the New Covenant to the Gentiles, and his attempt to preach the New Covenant to his own ethnic identity group instead, but he failed at it, so he finally accepted what Peter had accepted, that the New Covenant really is with Gentiles too.

It's interesting to think about what would have happened if Israel and the Jews did accept Jesus as their Messiah instead of what happened. I don't mean before the death, burial and resurrection, but afterward. If Israelites and Jews believed upon Christ after His Resurrection, accepting Him as if He was the literal King David returned, what would it have looked like? It would include their comprehension of Him as the "Lamb of God".

It's interesting because even though there were many Israelites and Jews who did not believe in Him, and the Church has always been a very Gentile group, the very earliest Church (the Apostolic era) was led by a lot of Jewish people, a great majority, including all twelve of the Twelve Apostles.

So there was a lot of Jewish influence in the early Church. But the thing is that when you examine the things that Paul talked about in his letters, you find him endorsing and approving and promoting all sorts of "Catholic" practices and traditions. Paul's point was that Gentiles are equal. In the Church, Gentiles are equal. This is Paul's influence. It's also Peter's, but it's also Paul's.

And regarding the OP I don't have any reason to think that the Apostle John didn't also accept, endorse, approve and promote that Gentiles are equal in the Church and a party to the New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
And Paul says the Gentiles are brought into something that used to be uniquely Jewish.
Ephesians 2:11-13 (KJV) 11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
And Paul says the Gentiles are brought into something that used to be uniquely Jewish.
Ephesians 2:11-13 (KJV) 11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Right, that last sentence has it as I've been saying, "strangers from the covenants" followed by "But now".

"[But now you're no longer "strangers from the covenants"]" (namely, the New Covenant).

It's consistent with Acts 13.
 
Top