Refute to Dr. Stewart....again.

https://rightdivision.com/media-room/lessons/flock-and-fold   

Dr. Stuarts message is interesting, but far from sound doctrine. 

Dr. Stewart pretends that the reconciling of one body where there is neither Jew nor Greek is only a post-Acts 28 truth. That the body of Christ after Acts is not the same as the body of Christ that existed during Acts. 

That is non-sensible. There is only ONE body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, Eph. 4:4) and it existed during Acts. 

Let's see if Dr. Stewart's claims hold up to scripture RIGHTLY divided. 

1.) Is Christ the head of the body of Christ during the Acts period or is that only a post-Acts truth? 

POST-ACTS: Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

ACTS: 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

YES! The body of Christ that existed in Acts has the same relationship to Christ as the body of Christ does after Acts. 


2.) The body of Christ in Acts was made possible by the death of Christ, is that true for the body of Christ during Acts?

POST-ACTS: Ephesians 2:[13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.[14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;[15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;[16] And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

ACTS: 1 Corinthians 10:[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?[17] For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.[18] Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the alter?[19] What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?[20] But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils......[32] Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

So in Acts the Corinthians were the church of God, neither Jew nor Gentile, and it was by partaking of Christ's death. See the "one body" in verse 17 by partaking of Christ and then in verses 18 and 20 the body is contrasted from the Jew and Gentiles. Then of course in verse 32 we have the Jew, Gentile, and church of God statement. Is that not what we saw in Ephesians 2?


3.)  Is the body of Christ in Acts just a metaphor or is it truly a spiritual body of Christ?

POST-ACTS: Ephesians 4:[3] Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

ACTS: 1 Corinthians 6:[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

The passage written during Acts is actually the greatest passage on the body's relation to the head (Christ). The member is actually "one spirit" with Christ. The post-Acts epistles have no such passage as great as 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 on this matter. It is 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:22-32 explained. 


4.) How did the members get in the body? (other than by partaking of Christ)

POST-ACTS: Colossians 2:[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:[11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:[12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.....Colossians 3:[1] If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.[2] Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.[3] For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.....[10] And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:[11] Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

ACTS: 1 Corinthians 12:[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.[13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.[14] For the body is not one member, but many......Galatians 3:[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus......Romans 6:[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

We have spiritual baptisms done in both Acts and post-Acts epistles. Does Dr. Stewart expect us to believe that HOW one gets into the body of Christ was revealed during Acts but the body of Christ itself was revealed AFTER Acts???


5.) Is 1 Corinthians 12 use of the word "body" a metaphor or is it literal? 

 See this post for a very thorough answer http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/hoss-critiques-dr-wayne-stewart-mid.html 

But the obvious answer is "NO". 1 Corinthians 12:12 says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." It says "so also IS" Christ. Paul did not use terms such as "like" or "as". And verse 13 says that the Spirit baptized them into that body, which was Christ. Is Christ a metaphor? Was the relationship that we looked at in 1 Corinthians 6:15-17 a metaphor? I do realize that Paul likens the spiritual body of Christ to the operation and functions of a human body, but there is no reason to believe that the spiritual body of Christ in 1 Corinthians is a metaphor. 


So what the Acts 28 position has done is created TWO BODIES of Christ even though there is only ONE (Eph. 4:4, 1 Cor. 12:12). Which means that the Acts 28 position teaches two Christs which is POLYTHEISM. 

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Manuscript evidence. James White corrects the Hebrew/Greek with the English!

James R. White does not include the books Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the epistle of Barnabas, the shepherd of Hermes, and Clement (1 and 2) in the Bible even though the "oldest and best manuscripts" have them! He is correcting the Hebrew and the Greek and just going with what his English Bible includes!

James R. White's Bible includes 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews 9:15-13:25, and Revelation even though one of the most "authoritative" manuscripts omit them! He has corrected the original Greek with his English text!

Vaticanus (considered one of the most "authoritative" of the "oldest and best manuscripts") omits the books: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews 9:15-13:25, and Revelation.

Vaticanus lacks these verses: Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; Matthew 17:21; 18:11; Matthew 23:14; 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28; Mark 16:9-20; 17:36, 22:43-22:44|44; 5:4, John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 15:34, 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24.

Vaticanus lacks major phrases from these verses: Matthew 5:44, Matthew 10:37, Matthew 15:6, Matthew 20:23, Mark 10:7, Mark 10:19, Luke 9:55-56, Luke 11:4, Luke 23:34, Acts 27:16.

Vaticanus adds these books: Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch.

Another favorite "oldest and best manuscript" is Siniaticus. Siniaticus adds the epistle of Barnabas and the shepherd of Hermes to the New Testament and it adds Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom to the Old Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:26-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17 from the Old Testament. It also omits the following verses from the New Testament: Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 22:43-44, John 5:4, John 16:15, 20:5b-6, John 21:25, Romans 16:24.

Siniaticus also omits major phrases from these verses: Matthew 6:13, Matthew 13:35, Mark 1:1, Luke 23:34.

But Mr. James R. White has not made all of these changes to his Bible....he believes his English text corrects the "oldest and best manuscripts" because he doesn't include all of these changes. He doesn't even use ALL of the text of Siniaticus and Vaticanus.

James R. White is a Ruckmanite! Ruckmanism, Ruckmanism! He believes the English is superior to the Greek! Heresy! It's a cult!

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell  
 

2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13

After the ESV, NIV, NEB, LB, ASV, RSV, etc. called Joseph Christ's "father" in Luke 2:33, made Christ a sinner in Matthew 5:22, called Him "he" instead of "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, called Him a "holy servant" instead of God's "holy child" in Acts 4:27, 30 , and after the NASB said that Christ was "the begotten God" creating two Gods (one begotten and one unbegotten), after all that,the anti-KJB people say that 2 Peter 1:2 and Titus 2:13 are attacks on the deity of Christ. What nerve!

Here's the verse.

KJB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Critics say that the KJB makes this sound like "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" are different and not the same. The critics pretend that this is an awful attack on the deity of Christ. They say that the title "God" should never be separated from "Christ" since they are the same. I disagree, if that is an attack on the deity of Christ than get a load of this.......

Ephesians 1:

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
[2] Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
[17] That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Ephesians 4:

[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ 

​

2 Corinthians 1:2​ Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

​

Galatians 1:

​[1] Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
[3] Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Philippians 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:

[2] To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Colossians 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

 

Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

 

1 Thessalonians 1:

[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

 

2 Thessalonians 1:

[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
[2] Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

[12] That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

1 Timothy 1:

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

 

2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

And the list goes on and on.  That is 26 verses where there is a distinction between the title "God" and the title of "Lord Jesus Christ" (or variant). Did you see 1 Timothy 5:21? By the logic of the critics of the KJB, THAT SHOULD BE a big "no no". But the truth is that ESV, NASB, NIV, LB, GNV, RSV, ASV, Amplified, etc. ALL make distinctions between the title "God" and the name of Christ. Some of these references even put a distinction between the name "God" and the "Father". The KJB critics lied when they said it shouldn't be done. 2 Peter 2:2 is just another verse where the Father is referenced as "God" and Jesus is referenced to as "Lord". That is done dozens of times in the New Testament in any edition of any translation in any language. Why did the KJB critics pick 2 Peter 2:2 out of the dozens of verses just like it? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

 

It is done AGAIN in the very next verse.......

 

2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,   

 

The ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. say the same thing in verse 2. The accusation that the critics make against the KJB in 2 Peter 1:1 are based on the hope that you don't know your Bible too well. Or else you will know that this "attack" on the deity of Christ is actually just a reference to the Father and a reference to the Son as is drastically common. Not to mention that "the righteousness of God and our Saviour" does not mean that they are not the same. 

 

Next up is Titus 2.

 

Titus 2:  

[10] Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
[11] For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
[12] Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
[13] Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 

Titus 3:

[4] But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
[5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
[6] Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

 

Now supposedly the KJB was wrong to call Christ "the great God and our Saviour" in Titus 2:13. I don't see why that is wrong so there isn't anything for me to defend. I am not sure how you could take that statement to mean an attack on the deity of Christ, because it is saying that Christ is our great God and our Saviour. 

 

When you mess with God's Book He messes with your mind. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell 

 

 

Brian Kelson of Acts 28.net (refuted by true right division)

Brian R. Kelson of Acts 28.net in red, me in green. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Did Paul preach to the Body during Acts? 

QUESTIONS When Paul Was preaching to the Jew first and then the gentile was he teaching repent and be baptized or the message pertaining to the body of Christ?

ANSWER There was no church which is His Body during the Acts period because the truth of the present dispensation had not been revealed while Israel remained as God's people.
( Oh really? Well look at 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, 10:16-32, 11:3, and 12:12-27 and you will find that in the Acts period the believers were not Jews and not Gentiles, they were the "church of God", "members of Christ, "joined unto the Lord", "baptized by one Spirit into one body whether we be Jew Gentile", "the body of Christ", and have Christ as their "head". )

Let us go to the one passage the mid acts people love namely 1Cor.15 but we will look at both the opening and close of this great resurrection chapter. (You mean you don't love 1 Corinthians 15?) Before we do, remember the Passover and unleavened Bread Feast given to Israel is mentioned in chapter 5, the supernatural gifts of Pentecost, another Jewish Feasts are found in chapter 12 and here in chapter 15 we have the Feasts of Unleavened Bread (Christ the first fruit) and the Feast of Trumpets. (Here's Kelson's "feast of unleavend bread" in 1 Corinthians 5. 
[6] Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Hmm, and that is Paul teaching them to observe Jewish feasts? I don't think so buddy. 

The only other time "feast" is used in 1 Corinthians is in 10:27, "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake." But that reference is irrelevant to the issue obviously. There is no Passover feast in 1 Corinthians either. There is the communion (The Lord's Supper) but that is a memorial for the church, the body of Christ. See 10:17, " For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." That is a memorial of how they became one body, by partaking of Christ (via Spirit baptism of Romans 6, 1 Corinthians 12, and Galatians 3)

There is also no "feast of trumpets" in 1 Corinthians. You can't find it with a flash light. Paul taught in Acts that his converts were UNDER GRACE and not UNDER THE LAW in Romans 6. How could he teach Jewish feasts if they were not under the law? )


For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; 1Co 15:3-4

Notice all this is according to the Scriptures never hidden in God. Also notice in verse 11 that Paul makes no distinction between the gospel he is preaching and that Peter is preaching because it didn't matter who preached, they believed in the death burial and resurrection of Christ, that is the issue, not whether they were water baptized or not.
(That is the gospel of the grace of God and the way Brian Kelson is belittling it makes me believe he is not saved. Meanwhile Kelson says that water baptism is not an issue between Paul and Peter. However, Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19 make it clear that Peter was SENT TO BAPTIZE and that it was part of the gospel while Paul did not baptize all his converts and he said "CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE". 

Peter said "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized" and Paul said "I thank God I baptized none of you". Peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" and Paul said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved". 

Peter had the gospel of the "circumcision" and Paul had the gospel of the "uncircumcision" according to Galatians 2:7. Some people say that those are not two different gospels but only describing who the gospel is going to be preached to. However, Peter was sent to "every creature" and "all nations" and he preached to Gentiles in Acts 2. When it says that Peter had the gospel of the circumcision it means that he had the gospel aimed at and pertaining to Israel. Paul had a different gospel pertaining to the Gentiles. )

 Now, does the fact that Paul is preaching Christ crucified and calling on all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) mean the dispensation of the grace of God has been revealed or begun to be revealed and the answer to that is NO. (The answer to that is YES. Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace". But Mr. Kelson says that the dispensation of grace hadn't started yet.....????? Not to mention that Paul states in 1 Timothy 1:14-17 that when he was committed his gospel (Acts 9) that he became the pattern for exceeding abundant grace and longsuffering. Not at Acts 28 but Acts 9. Not to mention that Paul was committed grace to lay the foundation for others to build thereupon before Acts 28 according to 1 Corinthians 3:10. ) Lets us look at the resurrection of the believers in 1Cor.15:51-55 which resurrection is at the last Trumpet, the Feast given to Israel; (Where is this feast you keep talking about? Just because there is a trumpet sounded does not mean that a feast is involved. Why don't you just be quite, you're making me hungry.)

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. (Is.25:8) O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?" (Hos.13:14) 1Co 15:51-55
(Note: You did not use a Bible (KJB) you used a perversion.)

This is very clearly the hope of the believers during Acts, the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets and a resurrection to where? (Where was the feast? Was it thanksgiving turkey or Christmas ham?)

Paul quotes Is.25 and Hosea13 and the answer is also very clearly the earth, not heavenly places. Here are the two passages and some snippets from their contexts; (Where did it say ANYTHING about the earth??? This rapture was a MYSTERY BY THE WORD OF THE LORD and is NOT found in ANY OT passage.

1 Corinthians 15:
[51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
[55] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
[56] The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
[57] But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[58] Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:
[13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

There was nothing said about coming to the earth and it was a mystery by the word of the Lord. Not in the OT. There was also nothing about a feast. When you said that Paul quoted the OT all he did was quote a "saying" that would be "brought to pass" about victory over death. You think that means that this wasn't a mystery by the word of the Lord?)   

You shall bring down the noise of foreigners, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of cloud. The shouting of the terrifying ones shall be brought low. And in this mountain Jehovah of Hosts shall make a feast of fat things for all the people, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of refined wine on the lees. And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering which covers all people, and the veil that is woven over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from all faces. And He shall take away from all the earth the rebuke of His people. For Jehovah has spoken. And one shall say in that day, Lo, this is our God. We have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is Jehovah; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation. For the hand of Jehovah shall rest in this mountain, and Moab shall be trampled under Him, even as straw is trampled in the water of a dung pit. And He shall spread out His hands in their midst, as he who swims strokes to swim. And He shall bring down their pride with the skill of His hands. And the fortress of the high fort of your walls He will lay low, bring to the ground, to the dust. Isa 25:5-12
 
And Hosea; O Israel, you have destroyed yourself; but in Me is your help. Where is your king now, that he may save you in all your cities; and your judges of whom you said, Give me a king and rulers? I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My wrath. The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin hidden. The pains of a woman in travail shall come to him. He is an unwise son; for he cannot stand still in the time of the breaking forth of sons. I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, where are your plagues; O Grave, where is your ruin! Repentance shall be hidden from My eyes. Hos 13:9-14

I will be as the dew to Israel; he shall grow as the lily and cast out his roots like Lebanon. His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon. They who dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive like the grain, and grow like the vine. Their scent shall be as the wine of Lebanon. Hos 14:5-7

Then the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall set over themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land. For great shall be the day of Jezreel. Hos 1:11
(And none of that was relevant to the mystery rapture given by the word of the Lord. And get a King James Bible.)

This is the setting of the Acts period as per 1Cor.15. but why not also examine the hope of Romans as found in Roms.15:4-13. Please look up every OT reference Paul uses in that hope section we will see it is also
consistently the earth and the gentiles blessed with Israel, that is not our hope today. Also carefully read Gals.3 to 4:27 where the inheritance for the justified Jew and Gentile was the inheritance given to Abraham by promise. (The promise in Galatians is receiving justification and the Spirit by faith, there is NOTHING about land in the passage. Meanwhile you cited an allegory in Gal. 4:27. 

Galatians 4:
[22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
[23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
[25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
[26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
[27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
[28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
[29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
[30] Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
[31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 

In this ALLEGORY (unwise to try and establish a doctrine based on a figurative passage):

Hagar = the old covenant, the earthly Jerusalem in bondage

Ishmael = those born after the flesh

Sarah = the new covenant, the heavenly Jerusalem which is free

Isaac = those born after the Spirit

 

“mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, WHICH IS AGAR”

 

“But Jerusalem, which is above is free, WHICH IS THE MOTHER OF US ALL” (i.e. Sarah)

 

Paul is not saying that the heavenly Jerusalem is our mother. He is saying that Sarah, who represents the Jerusalem which is above, is our mother. Abraham is “the father of us all” (Rom. 4:16). Abraham is said to be our father in the spiritual sense that we receive righteousness from God by faith as he did. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, is our mother in the spiritual sense that her son, Isaac, represents those that are born after the Spirit. We are not under the new covenant but we are born after the Spirit like those who will be brought under the new covenant. 

 

Nice try Mr. Kelson. )

So did Paul preach repentance during Acts, yes he did, but that doesn't mean our calling had begun. Did Paul baptize Jews during Acts, yes (Verse reference to him baptizing a Jew???) he did but it was Jew first (which is not today) and the hope was the promised made to Israel's fathers (Verse????). Not in any recorded address, or in any letter written during Acts did Paul address a company called the church which is His Body with Christ as Head and blessings in the heavenly places. That company was only revealed to Paul as the company belonging to the present dispensation of the grace of God after Israel was put to one side at Acts 28.

(Are you lying to me? 

1 Corinthians 6:
[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1 Corinthians 10:
[17] For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
[18] Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the alter?
[19] What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
[20] But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

[32] Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 12:
[11] But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
[13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
[14] For the body is not one member, but many.

[27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Y'all come back now, ya heah! ) 

Hope of the body of Christ...

(email I sent to some friends)

As for the hope of the body of Christ, I believe our main hope is to be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and "so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thes. 4:17).

​I don't really see a clear statement that we spend eternity in heaven. Though I do realize that our blessings are said to be "in heavenly places" (Eph. 1:3, Eph. 2:6), but that is "in Christ" . We get raptured pre-trib and so we know we are in heaven for at least 7 years.

I know Christ's kingdom will extend far beyond the earth, but I get the impression that we will be at His side. (1 Cor. 6:2-3, 1 Thes. 4:17, Eph. 1:10, 2 Tim. 2:12, Rom. 8:17, )

Also we are His body and He is our Head, it would make more sense for us to spend eternity primarily in the same place.

Beyond our rapture ("caught up") I doubt that we, nor Christ, will stay in one particular place. I see no need to pin point where our primary habitation will be in eternity because if it was important God would have revealed it to us in the Bible.

Israel does have an earthly hope, but I don't think we have enough scripture on the matter to pin point an exact habitation for the body of Christ in eternity. Ephesians 1:10 seems to imply a fellowship between the new heaven and new earth. 

 

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Herb Evans on "Easter" in Acts 12:4

Here is an article by Dr. Herb Evans on the translation of "pascha" in Acts 12:4 in the KJB.

For my defense of Acts 12:4 see http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-inspired-and-preserved-king-james_15.html  and  http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-acts-124-easter-mistranslation.html

For Dr. Sam Gipp's defense see http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/easter-or-passover-sam-gipp.html 

WHAT ABOUT EASTER IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE? --Herb Evans

. . . where wylt thou that we prepare for the to eate the pashall lambe: and he sayd: into the cite, unto soche a man, and saye to him: the master sayeth my tyme is at hande, I will kepe myne ESTER at the hausse with my disciples. And the disciples dyd as Jesus had apoynted them, and made ready the ESTERLAMBE. — Matt 26; 17-19 (Tyndale Bible)

And the JEWES ESTER was nye at hand, and many went out of the countre up to Jerusalem before ESTER. – John 11:55 (Tyndale Bible)

What about Easter in the King James Bible? Well, here is the crowning point of Bible correcting scholarship, the word "EASTER." Bible Correctors and experts (fellows who used to be spurts) lecture us that the Greek "PASCHA" means "Passover" and that the King James translators mistranslated it in Acts 12:4. Have they finally pinned Astarte, Easter Bunnies, and Easter eggs on King James Onlys? We think not! Bible Correctors have layd (old English spelling for laid) some mighty big "Easter" eggs (or should we say "Pasch eggs" or Passover eggs - Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, Vol. III), in this regard, making "much ado about nothing." Could it be that they did not receive an Easter basket, when they were small fries? Could their real motives, for correcting the KJB, be that they are mad at the Easter Bunny? The word "Easter" was chosen by Tyndale to supply a much needed English word lacking an English word for the Jewish feast. A word for the spring feast, Easter, was available, so Tyndale used it throughout his New Testament. Later, Tyndale "invented" a new word (Passover), which he used in his Old Testament. Subsequent English Bibles used both words (even in expressions like the "Easter lamb"). Tyndale is responsible for both Bible words.

Tyndale's Bible (1525) The first English Bible, from the so-called "original" Greek, translates "PASCHA" --"paschall lamb" in Matthew 26:17, "ester" in the next verse (26:18), and "esterlambe" in the next verse (26:19). Also, it translates it "pascall lambe" in Mark 14:12 and "ester lambe" in Mark 14:14, 16. Then it has the nerve to translate 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ oure esterlambe is offered up for us."

The Great Bible (1539) The old "Great Bible" renders the Greek "PASCHA" - "passeover" in Matthew 26:17, "Easter" in the next verse (26:18), and “passeover” in the following verse (26:19). Huh? Could the passover feast and the Easter feast (spring feast) really be used synonymously? Well, that rendering could still be a fluke. Yet, the "Great Bible" translates "PASCHA” – the "Jewes Easter" AND "Easter" in John 11:55. Hmmmmm!

The Bishop's Bible (1568) And what about the old Bishop's Bible? Well, it translates "PASCHA" - "Easter" twice in John 11:55 and "passeover"in the very next verse (12:1). The 1933 Oxford Dictionary
The Oxford Dictionary, 1933, Oxford University Press, Vol. III) gives the secondary and obsolete definition of "Easter" as the "Jewish passover," citing six quotations from ancient English literature, dating from 971 to 1611, which used the word Easter in reference to the "Jewish Passover."
Evidently, the inferior scholars from Oxford, Cambridge, and West Minster (who were often fluent in several languages) were not troubled by the things, which bother the superior scholars of our time. And what about "Oster (Easter)" and “Osterlamm” (Easter Lamb)” in Martin Luther's German Bible? Could he have made the same mistake as the King James translators before they did. Oh, yes, he too also use pasopffer. Nah! You really wouldn't want to go into that. It gets worse! (Ich nicht Nazi, Ich Polski! Shiessen Sie nicht!) Now, for all those, who are concerned about Astarte, goddess of fertility and her Pagan custom in connection with Easter, the Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English language renders a PASCH-EGG as –an egg stained and presented to young persons, about the time of Easter. So, help yourself in putting the pagan Pascha Passover back into Acts 12:4. And then, Gary, you might ask a native Greek what the word PASCHA means. Don’t be surprised, when he says “EASTER.” You might have Bunny egg on your face.

--by Herb Evans

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Trinitarian Quarterly (Jan. - March 1980)
Tyndale’s New Testament (1525)
The Great Bible New Testament (1540)
The Bishop’s Bible New Testament (1568)
The German Bible of 1899, American Bible Society
German Bible of 1956, Gideon’s Bible Society
Florida Fundamentalist - April 1980, p. 6 Flaming Torch - Jan/Feb/March 1999, p. 23
Flaming Torch - Jan/Feb/March 2003, p. 12

Why I don't trust Siniaticus and Vaticanus

Here is an email I sent a friend of mine. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

The Vaticanus contains the Apocrypha, it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. Siniaticus has a lot of those errors as well, but it also adds "Sheperd of Hermes" and "The Epistle of Barnabas" to the NT.

If those are truly the oldest and best manuscripts than the modern versions would make those changes as well. If those two manuscripts justify getting rid of the last twelve verses of Mark, Rmans 8:1, Acts 8:37, etc. than we should also get rid of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Revelation, etc.

But the modern versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and scholars do NOT get rid of those books and do NOT add the apocrypha which shows their inconsistency and PROVES that they only want to attack the KJB and pure line of texts, they really don't care to follow their "oldest and best manuscripts". 

But James White says in regards to modern scholars and translators that "Their goal is not to corrupt God's Word but to preserve it and accurately pass it on to future generations." So was inserting farts in the text of the NEB an attempt at that? What about when it said that Christ got His hands cutoff?

And in regards to the KJB "But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility." HUMAN PROCESS, White doesn't believe that Satan nor the Holy Spirit guide in Bible translations. However, the Bible says that God preserves it (Ps. 12:6-7), and Satan and man cast doubt on and corrupt the word of God (Gen. 3:1, 2 Cor. 2:17).

 

Also see: 

 

Modern translations, toilets, and passing gas.  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/modern-translations-toilets-and-passing.html

Hoss vs Herb....again! (Part 3)

 Herb Evans vs Hoss Cartwright debate.

 

EVANS: That is like saying that someone is haf pregnant.

HOSS: No it isn't. I was just saying that if a doctrine is only talked about by Paul and Paul says it was a mystery than Paul was probably the first one to understand it. Especially if what other writers say contradicts what Paul says. 

EVANS: My question is not answered.

HOSS: No, water baptism and local churches are not spiritual. There are thousands of local church attending water buptized lost people. But only saved people have been baptized by the Spirit into Christ and are part of the body of Christ. 

Evans: No, they are not the same. The FLOCK is a metaphor for the church just like the term body. Do you deny a local FLOCK in the gospels. Are the terms temple and building symbolism? So you deny that the local church was puchased withj His blood? Is this an invisible universal flock? Was it in heaven and earth.

HOSS: The Spirit does not baptize people into metaphors and we are not members of a metaphor. See the 4 points I sent you. 

 

No, "the" local church was not purchased with Christ's blood. There is no such thing as "the" local church. People were purchased with Christ's blood. Saved people can together be a local church and in that sense that particular local church could rightfully be said to be "purchased with His own blood". But "the" local church doesn't exist. 

EVANS: Still false. There never was a church prior to the tabernacle and/or temple.

HOSS: The KJB defines a church as a congregation (Heb. 2:12 with Ps. 22:22-28) . Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

EVANS: Still FALSE. Serious!

HOSS: Nope.

EVANS: Why not really?

HOSS: Where did it say that somebody could hear about the dispensation given through Paul before Paul got it? Nowhere. 

EVANS: Does that mean that hoone else was dispensed this disapensation and it does not say when or where else it was dispensed. That is your interpolation.

HOSS: The dispensation was given to Paul to usward. Does that answer your question? 

EVANS: I have to admit that John  taught this sacrifice to everyone present and that He also taught about the Holy Spirit.

HOSS: Agreed. So did Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

EVANS: Thait is fine, but this has nothing to do with your mystical body revelation.

HOSS: Then let's start debating local vs mystical church.

EVANS: Despite the wordy double talk and bull, you see Christ and the church relationship one way and the husband and wife another way as well as the fornicator and harlot relationship another way also. Then you do not show what you claim in Acts 8. You don't understand because you do not see the similatity between your reference to EDphesisns 5 and Genesis 2, 29, and 2 Sam 19:13 which I posted you.

HOSS: All I said was that we are joined to Christ and that Christ gave Himself for us and we are joined together as one body. That is the same relationship as a husband and wife.

 EVANS: I could not access this link and neither do I want to; can't you answer in your own words.

HOSS: That is my own words, but it is too long to post in this debate. http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/acts-837-should-it-be-in-authorized.html

EVANS: Plainly, your reply does not establish your claim, and I asked a plain yes or no question.

HOSS: The answer about Ethiopia and all that is no. 

EVANS: Despite your verse manipulation, it does not say that in Eph 5:30 in the mystery of the church and Christ, the verse under question, which we are discussing clearly states part of the mystery of which there is more than one part.

HOSS: I don't understand what you are saying, "clearly states part of the mystery of which there is more than one part" I agree that there is more than one part to the mystery.

EVANS: This is not a contradiction of the mystery but further info of what Paul wrote before in a few words about the mystery of the Gentiles being included in the SAME BODY which means that the Jews were already in that body, whatever it is.  Still you did not post the contents of your reference of Eph 3:6 like you was supposed to, so I guess I had to do it. I don't like that waste of time.

HOSS: No it does not mean that the Jews were in that body. Just because the Gentiles are fellowheirs and of the same body together does not tell us where the Jews are. Ephesians 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel

 

That verse doesn't tell us where the Jews are at. The body is for non-Jews. The unique thing about the body of Christ is that it offers equal standing to heathen Gentiles as it does the Jews. The Jews had their covenants and all that and the Gentiles didn't have anything that wasn't through Israel's kingdom and blessing UNTIL revealed through Paul.  

EVANS: Thanks!

HOSS: Your welcome.

EVANS: And it was the same body that the Jews were already in. Listen if you can't post the contents of your address, I will have to quit. I don't care to have to stop an look up you references; it is a wate of my time. Moreover your reference to Ephesians 2 says BY THE CROSS, something that happened before Paul's conversion in Acts 9.

HOSS: You have no verse that says that the Jews were in a body and then it opened up to Gentiles or that the Jews were even in a body. Also, just because the body of Christ was made possible BY the cross does not mean that it was made AT the cross. 

EVANS: Your pattern is not Paul's pattern. You beyyer get the right pattern rather than intrpolate.

HOSS: Ok. 

EVANS: So, now you are back to verse jumping instead of taking 1 Timothy at face value. The pattern is longsuffering.

HOSS: So what was the longsuffering? Didn't you know that there was longsuffering before Paul?  

EVANS: No, don't change the KJB and quote what it really says above.

HOSS: I didn't. 

EVANS: So Christ is not the foundation or even the FOUNDER; Paul is the founder?  

HOSS: That's not at all what I said. All I said was that according to the grace given to Paul that he, as a wise master builder, laid the foundation and it was others that built on that foundation. (1 Cor. 3:10) Then I supported that with Paul being the pattern in 1 Timothy 1. 

  I Timothy 1:[14] And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.[15] This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.[16] Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 1 Corinthians 3: [10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 

  

EVANS: Yes, you keep repeating an empty claim without substantiation.

HOSS: Hmm, I was going to say the same about you. 

EVANS: Actually, the whole hyper dspensational and MAD theory is ASSUMPTION. Have you ever broken that word ASSUME down and what it makes out of U an me?

HOSS: "Have you ever broken that word ASSUME down and what it makes out of U an me?" Now that is the funniest thing I have read all week. Did you make that up?  

EVANS: No, you only amended them and manipulated them to say what you wanted them to say. Have you ever heard about King James Onlies correcting the KJB?

HOSS: Waite and Cloud? 

EVANS: I don't have to prove that, for I do not believe that it is Christendom or a denomination as you frame it.

HOSS: You do have to prove it, 1 Thessalonians 5:18 "Prove all things..."

EVANS: Thank you.

HOSS: Your welcome.

EVANS: Of course, you think that you have, but where do I find that proof?

HOSS: I email it to you and posted it to my site. http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/4-reasons-to-believe-in-universal.html

EVANS: WELL, I 'll you what. Take a concordance and look at the hundred plus occurences of the word "church." Weed out the plural forms, for the invisible church cannot be plural. Then weed out the WHOLE church references that cannot be the invisible church. Then look up the churches that are at specific locations, jerusalem, etc.,  for they cannot be in heaven. Then see what you have left and tell me which ones are the universal church aqnd why, and I will comment on your evaluation.

 

HOSS: Why would I do that? I proved that the body of Christ is universal/mystical/spiritual/etc and that body is a church. A called out assembly in Christ. The Bible even calls the body a church.

EVANS: You are picking and choosing again. Answer the whole question but not with a question.

HOSS: Ok. NO, nothing can exist without being started.

EVANS: I just wanted to hear it again. 

HOSS: Well ain't dat nice.

Hoss, answer this tomorrow and I will post part Two

How about you answer this first.....http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/4-reasons-to-believe-in-universal.html