|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 16:56:53 GMT -6
If Gentiles weren't allowed to inherit the promises, how do explain Ruth and Rahab and other Gentiles who God welcomed into Israel? Who did Ruth marry? Did Ruth marry and become a Jew through her marriage? Rahab's Father's household likely converted in order to stay, if I'm not mistaken... I'll have to review those chapters. Rahab's grandchild is Boaz, who is a child of the tribe of Israel, so a conversion must have occurred because Ruth married Boaz (the kinsman redeemer) who is also the grandparents of Jesus Christ (not sure how far up the line though LOL). |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 24, 2018 17:34:34 GMT -6
My point would be that they had faith in the God of Israel, and even though they were Gentiles they we're included - before marriage and before circumcision.
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 17:49:10 GMT -6
Now, you want to hear something interesting with the Acts 10 vision?
This is just a theory of mine, not to be taken as anything important. But it's something I find very fascinating.
I find it extremely interesting that the animals described in the vision Peter had bare a striking similarity to the Bulls and animals vision in the book of Enoch.
It's almost like an extension of or off shoot of that vision Enoch had with the White Bull at the end representing what many think is Jesus Christ.
Parts of Enoch were found with the dead sea scrolls, so they are at least 100 years before the birth of Christ.
And Jude quoted the book of Enoch directly in the Bible.
This is just my own personal theory. I don't know of anybody else that has come up with this, I'll give them credit if they did...
In this vision Enoch had,
I can't remember if it started with a bull representing Adam or Noah, but...
I think it starts with a bull that had 3 bulls (red, black, and white) [Noah and his 3 sons] and goes on to many animals of various kinds, birds, bears, etc...
But the bulls seem to align with Abraham, Moses, etc... all the way down to Christ the last White Bull.
That's the understanding anyway, but I think the other animals in Enoch's vision, not the bulls, but the birds, bears, etc are like that of Peter's vision in Acts 20, unclean people!.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 17:51:23 GMT -6
My point would be that they had faith in the God of Israel, and even though they were Gentiles they we're included - before marriage and before circumcision. Rahab had faith, yes. And works which justified her! Remember, Israel was about to kill her, thus proving my point. Ruth was covered by Boaz in marriage. Ruth married into the tribe. (I absolutely love Chuck Missler's teaching of the book of Ruth !) |
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Dec 24, 2018 18:33:26 GMT -6
I am chomping at the bit like a newly broke colt. Will be responding as one as if in the crowd at the feeding of the 5000..
Blessed Merry Glories for the current celebration agreements of the Godly Infant King (baby Jesus) for this world, and Maranatha to those unblinded..
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 18:47:33 GMT -6
Blessed Merry Glories for the current celebration agreements of the Godly Infant King (baby Jesus) for this world, and Maranatha to those unblinded.. What did I just read? Oh, Merry Christmas HAHA Nice. |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Dec 24, 2018 18:49:49 GMT -6
USCG - when Peter saw the vision in Acts 11 have you considered that was God showing him that he was seeing things incorrectly rather than changing or starting a new/different dispensation? If Peter was "requiring" the law of circumcision or any other could it be that God was showing him the error of his way? I am not in trouble?  I was so worried because as you know I go out on a limb sometimes. I think you are right about Peter not understanding this point of the Gospel. Circumcision does not provide salvation whereas circumcision of the heart does. Because, it brings the individual to Christ and his ways. Thus, it is not the circumcision but the heart that matters and this was the case with Paul and his gospel message. It is the heart not the absence of the foreskin that brings salvation to the soul. I do not know why the children of Israel did not understand this. But they were a hard people even at Moses' time, and it took the Lord shaking the mountain with his voice and scaring them into submission to get them to stop their rebellion. If we were there with our current understanding we would have bowed our heads in submission and the whole loud voice thing would not have been necessary. The bottom line is that belief in Christ is Salvation; nothing more. Not circumcision, not baptism, not works, no, not anything but our belief. And when we die we do not take our circumcision, nor our baptism, nor our works, but our belief in Christ and that is salvation. However, it is natural that these other things follow. But first and foremost is our personal relationship with Christ. He is not purchased with our actions but our hearts. |
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Dec 24, 2018 19:16:06 GMT -6
@usgvet I have a question for you, not as moderator, so you kow, but as me, barbio sheep raiser girl, barely making an income in ranching, yet belive I am walking in Faith, daily.. What does the Holy Spirit say to you on the matter of rightly dividing the Truth of the WORD?
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 19:24:37 GMT -6
USCG - when Peter saw the vision in Acts 11 have you considered that was God showing him that he was seeing things incorrectly rather than changing or starting a new/different dispensation? If Peter was "requiring" the law of circumcision or any other could it be that God was showing him the error of his way? I am not in trouble? I was so worried because as you know I go out on a limb sometimes. I think you are right about Peter not understanding this point of the Gospel. Circumcision does not provide salvation whereas circumcision of the heart does. Because, it brings the individual to Christ and his ways. Thus, it is not the circumcision but the heart that matters and this was the case with Paul and his gospel message. It is the heart not the absence of the foreskin that brings salvation to the soul. I do not know why the children of Israel did not understand this. But they were a hard people even at Moses' time, and it took the Lord shaking the mountain with his voice and scaring them into submission to get them to stop their rebellion. If we were there with our current understanding we would have bowed our heads in submission and the whole loud voice thing would not have been necessary. The bottom line is that belief in Christ is Salvation; nothing more. Not circumcision, not baptism, not works, no, not anything but our belief. And when we die we do not take our circumcision, nor our baptism, nor our works, but our belief in Christ and that is salvation. However, it is natural that these other things follow. But first and foremost is our personal relationship with Christ. He is not purchased with our actions but our hearts. Beautifully put. I love it. That's what Paul wrote. James, though, creates a paradox with Paul with sinning against the law of liberty in James 2 (the law of Faith in Romans 3). "Right Dividers" apply Paul to the Church age and all other books to the other dispensations meant for the Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 20:06:33 GMT -6
@usgvet I have a question for you, not as moderator, so you kow, but as me, barbio sheep raiser girl, barely making an income in ranching, yet belive I am walking in Faith, daily.. What does the Holy Spirit say to you on the matter of rightly dividing the Truth of the WORD? Well, it's a verse in the Bible. That means it's important. As for those that attest to "Rightly Dividing" as a concept to understand the Word of God, I think some teachers are extreme in being dogmatic on the KJV Only. I only learned about rightly dividing a year or so ago, and hadn't put much thought into it. I agreed with what I saw. I didn't see anything scripturally wrong with it. I had already come to the conclusion that the Bible was structured properly by King James and "Right Dividers" follow along with it. The New Testament was rightly ordered the way it was as a book of epistles: All of the Gospels first (Faith + Works), then Acts (transition from faith+works to Faith Alone), followed by all of Paul's letters (Faith alone for the Church age), then the books dealing with Jewish believers outside of the Church Age meant for after the rapture (Faith + Works again [Hebrews thru Revelation]). I came to the same conclusions without even being a party to the RD group. I personally use the concept of "Right Division" by understanding the non-Pauline Books are meant for the Jews. They were literally written TO the Jews. Where Paul was writing TO the gentiles. Paul even flat out tells you he is the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul, James, Peter even state that Paul is to be sent to the Gentiles while "they" to the Jews. Only recently did it become a huge topic lately when I saw the article on UnSealed basically calling "Right Division" un-Godly. I was like Why? RD is just a tool to me. Others slammed "Right Dividers" as un-Christian. I couldn't believe what I was seeing in the comments of that article. This was all new to me. I came here to discuss why RD was being called un-Christian. It blew up in my face it seems in this discussion, but I've been holding on. LOL. :-D I fall into the concept that tools are for learning, we are only human. Right Division could be wrong, sure, but it's the ONLY thing I have found that deals with the paradox of (James 2 vs Paul's Romans 3) sinning against the law of liberty after you have become a believer in Christ. Being guilty with sinning against the law of liberty makes you guilty of ALL SIN! With Paul's "law of Faith" there is no more sin, it was nailed to the cross. This is a paradox in my humble opinion! You can't logically be in both cases at the same time. All other methods to deal with James and Paul make assumptions that I can't rely on, this includes the teachings of the late Dr. Chuck Missler of whom I have nothing but respect for. I can only rely on what I can read in the Bible and what the Holy Spirit shows me. No partiality! "Rightly Diving" argues that the Book of James was meant for Jewish believers after the Rapture, along with the other books that don't begin with the word "Paul". I see nothing wrong with that. The audiences were physically penned in each epistle. That's it. I feel like I've poured my heart out into this thread for the past few days. To me it's just a tool, but one that is very important. I've heavily argued my point throughout this discussion thread. I don't condemn "Right Division" other than being dogmatic on the KJV. If there are other problems with RD, tell me, and I'll tell you what I can as I am lead by the Holy Spirit. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 24, 2018 21:00:41 GMT -6
I understand why they divide the New Testament the way they do, but I think their conclusions are wrong. It has always only been faith plus nothing.
I also think calling "Right Dividers" ungodly or unChristian is wrong. I didn't see that in the article. (II didn't read the comments) But it is just as wrong for "Right Dividers" to call non-right dividers unbelievers, etc. (Which I have not seen you do. I thank you for your thoughts and how you have responded to all of us. It has been a thought provoking discussion.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 24, 2018 21:06:23 GMT -6
So...what do we do with the parts not written to us?
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Dec 24, 2018 21:32:28 GMT -6
So...what do we do with the parts not written to us? Study them. I've found nothing but joy knowing all my sins are nailed to the cross without having to make assumptions trying turn a bunch of works+faith books into a faith only books. That should never need to be done. Most people shouldn't have to figure out things like that in God's Word. It should be absolutely straight forward and make common since. If Jesus says " don't go to the Gentiles, only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" it should be pretty easy to understand, yep, don't go to the gentiles, go to the Jews... Got It! Or if a letter was written to the Jews, that's pretty easy to understand it wasn't written to me. Got it! When a letter is written to me, and other people agree that it should be to me then I think it should be pretty easy to believe those letters are directly for me to apply to my life. The whole Word is written for me to study because it helps me understand why things were said or done to both Jew and Gentile, but not all of it was written to me as the intended audience. If I get a letter addressed to my wife to show up at a doctor's appointment, I don't go show up at her appointment... |
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Dec 24, 2018 21:33:00 GMT -6
So...what do we do with the parts not written to us? That's my question too, because, you know...2 Timothy 3:14 - 17. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Dec 24, 2018 21:38:15 GMT -6
So...what do we do with the parts not written to us? That's my question too, because, you know...2 Timothy 3:14 - 17. Right? That's exactly what I was thinking of |
|
I was so worried because as you know I go out on a limb sometimes.