Galatian Conundrums

well...that is quite a lot to chew on honestly. What do you mean by the "kingdom program"?

I'll admit that the things you are presenting would take me a bit of time to respond to, I'd have to probably take an hour or so to formulate a decent response. I can say that those verses about the mountain of the Lord I have not made up my mind on. Usually I get to a place where I have inspiration, I have an opposing process and I sort of hold two views in mind until I can be certain of either source. As well as a general background leading...be patient, some things I don't think will make sense to me until they unfold a bit.

It's amazing to me what happens by being patient and sort of just "hiding it in my heart" something like a time lock. Pretty confident that's the Lord's timing at work.



So, I'll just say that reading those again only bring up the New heaven and the new earth or perhaps the millenial reign. Still seem like something in the future, as his kingdom is not of this world. Strong spiritual factor with a marginal physicality. Leastways that's my current understanding.


In regards to your final question, I think it's the same reason why very few gentile believers have a burden for Jewish ministry, specifically to them. I'm not sure what church background you come from but you have to dig to find it in America. It's here, just seemingly in the background. They will take the foreground...I'm just not sure when. Just because someone predominantly preaches to "their own" doesn't mean anything necessarily. It seems more or less neutral to me and that the humanity of the disciples was potentially coming into play.

Unfortunately it's a complicated topic for me to explain where I'm coming from, it's like talking about algebra when I'm in pre-algebra. I'm beginning to get the idea but I haven't fully grasped it. What you have related is of use to me regardless though...it brings up rather dark notions and so I think your personal understanding contrasts a bit with my own walk. Not to say that there aren't areas we can agree though. Can I ask what sparked your own personal study in this regard? @Guojing

The Gospel of the Kingdom, as I have mentioned several times in this thread, as well as in others, is for the Jews only.

Luke 1
67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Acts 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Both the Luke and Acts account are speaking of the same thing, which is how Jesus came as a promise from God to the Jews, to be their King, their Messiah, their redeemer. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

No problem, thanks for taking an interest.

To answer your last question, I worship in a church where the Senior Pastor is (probably still) an Acts 2 dispensationalist.

He had a sermon where he explained why Ananias and Sapphira, that infamous duo in Acts 5, were actually not believers. As I reflected after the sermon, I don't find it very convincing.

At the same time, I used to, like a few others here, try to reconcile Paul with James, and debate with people who insisted that works are also required for salvation.

My senior pastor use the "horizontal vs vertical perspective", saying that Paul was talking about justification before God (vertical) which is faith only, but James was talking about justification before man (horizontal), which requires works.

That to me is fine but again, I felt a "disturbance in the Force" because it involves mental gymnastics and assuming that James was such a bad communicator that he needed us to explain what he really meant. Needless to say, it felt very unconvincing.

It was these 2 episodes that sparked my own personal study into this. I now find the Mid Acts dispensationalist position the most convincing to me.

I now really enjoy reading both the OT and NT, and especially of course Paul's epistles, knowing that I can understand them literally, without doing the mental gymnastics I used to in the past.

Zechariah's Prophecy in Luke 1:67-80 and Peters warning in Act 3:22-26 about the danger of rejecting Jesus has already been fulfilled with the birth of Jesus.

false.
i don't care what your human teacher says.


if His kingdom is for Jews only, how is that His servants in His kingdom would fight to prevent Him being delivered to the Jews, if it were even a kingdom of this world?

Yeah but the fact that sojourners were grafted in makes it less clear for me personally. As well as Melchizedek and what he represents and to whom. I have heard it preached in a few ways but I don't want to denude so I'll hang up for the night. I have a bit of duality at present...which isn't always productive. Ty for a different perspective.

Think of the promise to the Jews as a "physical" kingdom in Jerusalem where Jesus will reign as a King.

The promise of the Kingdom now to all of us, under the Gospel of Grace, is no longer physical like to the Jews, but a heavenly kingdom instead (Ephesians 1:2 )

Because the Jewish nation rejected their King, Jesus is now seated on his Father's throne in heaven.

He was supposed to come and sit on David's throne in Jerusalem instead, which will now happen only after the Tribulation ends, and the 1000 year millennial reign begins.

You mean when Jesus was born, he was already rejected by the Jews? Is that really what you are saying?

The Jews rejected Jesus AFTER his birth, and nationally they still do. You are talking about his SECOND coming not His first. Jews skip that.

I feel sorry for all Jews who have rejected Him down the ages and still do. I hope you believe and have accepted him as your Lord and Saviour?

They rejected his offer of the Kingdom after he started preaching to them at the age of 30. You have a bizarre concept of time when you use the term 'birth'.

But do you recall Jesus at the cross asking the Father to forgive them because they know not what they have done?

God agreed and gave them a one year extension, as stated by Jesus in Luke 13:8.

They rejected Jesus and they still do even after the 4th year. I am so glad I do not believe as the Jews do.

From this 1 year extension period after the Crucifixion, the foundation for Mid acts dispensationalism can be seen.

When Jesus comes the NEXT time he will say to you "depart from e for I never knew you."

Pity, I was trying to be cordial and constructive in this discussion despite the trolling that you have been doing.

Oh well, you cannot control how others respond.

You are a nice person, but if this was my forum, I would not allow teaching that could cause a person to loose their salvation.

Fascinating, what teaching do you think I was doing that, in your opinion, could "cause a person to lose their salvation"?

Anything that takes away from the deity of Jesus.

Which part I stated actually made you thought that way?