Daniel's 70th week

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Converts were circumcised, guys like Cornelius were uncircumcised and were Noshides who could not take part in feasts.

True, but Peter's words in Acts 10 indicate he had no concept of a bar to gentiles being saved due to the Seventy Weeks time period. In fact, they seem to indicate the opposite, that God is no respecter of persons, and even gentiles who fear God and live righteously are acceptable to Him.

The very concept of a "Noachide" or "righteous gentile" is proof nobody had any concept of a Seventy Weeks imposed bar against gentile salvation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

... nobody had any concept of a Seventy Weeks imposed bar against gentile salvation.

Which is my whole point here, namely that any bar to gentile salvation isn't due to the Seventy Weeks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I tend to take things quite literally unless given a reason not to and readily admit I could be taking it *too* literally. However, Luke identifies those present as Jews in verse 5, and never seems to stray. I have assumed -- yes, that thing I should know better than to do -- that they were all gathered for Pentecost. Is there any reason gentiles would have been a part of that gathering other than by coincidence? (Legitimately asking because I don't know the answer to that question.)

Also, the footnote in my ESV tells me that the murmuring in Acts 6:1 was being done by Hellenists, or Greek-speaking Jews.

As an aside, if Acts 10 isn't the initial offering of salvation to the gentiles, what purpose did Peter's vision serve?

Exactly, and simple to the point. What on earth was the purpose was the vision of Peter to go to a Noahide. If uncircumcised Romans were already speaking in tongues in Acts 2?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

True, but Peter's words in Acts 10 indicate he had no concept of a bar to gentiles being saved due to the Seventy Weeks time period. In fact, they seem to indicate the opposite, that God is no respecter of persons, and even gentiles who fear God and live righteously are acceptable to Him.

The very concept of a "Noachide" or "righteous gentile" is proof nobody had any concept of a Seventy Weeks imposed bar against gentile salvation.

But still Noahides weren’t converts. To believe that uncircumcised Romans were baptized in Jesus name, tongue talking like Cheetah to Tarzan. All prior to Acts 10 is a bit confusing the point of Acts 10. Uncircumcised Romans were verboten, to have at Passover feast, let alone all the others. When we see Greeks we tend to think of Gentiles in togas. When actually they were Judeans in togas. The New Testament is sent to the Diaspora, then the Diaspora reaches out to the Romans.
We now benefit to vineyards we never planted. Wild branches were grafted into a Judean domestic plant. Not through circumcision of the flesh, but circumcision of the mind.

[Esaias]

Regarding Shavuot:

Deut 16:

10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 11 and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.

God-fearers in the first century and earler were knoen to have participated in the Feasts of Israel, although slightly differently than Israelites (could not eat of the Passover lamb unless circumcised, etc). This is one of the reasons Paul's gentile converts were almost always first reached by him in the synagogues on Sabbath, because they were keeping Sabbath to one extent or another.

So, actually, it is quite possible there were some strangers in Jerusalem during Pentecost there for the Feast who were NOT in fact proselytes.

In any event, keeping a Feast (or not) by either Jew or Greek doesn't really shed much light on whether or not the Seventy Weeks prevented Gentiles from being saved.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Anyway Jussie Smollet has all 16 FELONY counts dropped.
Our country where we currently live is reprobate. A piece of human garbage like Smollett is freed and we are all supposed to take it. Good gravy it’s done.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding Shavuot:

Deut 16:

10 And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God with a tribute of a freewill offering of thine hand, which thou shalt give unto the LORD thy God, according as the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 11 and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.

God-fearers in the first century and earler were knoen to have participated in the Feasts of Israel, although slightly differently than Israelites (could not eat of the Passover lamb unless circumcised, etc). This is one of the reasons Paul's gentile converts were almost always first reached by him in the synagogues on Sabbath, because they were keeping Sabbath to one extent or another.

So, actually, it is quite possible there were some strangers in Jerusalem during Pentecost there for the Feast who were NOT in fact proselytes.

In any event, keeping a Feast (or not) by either Jew or Greek doesn't really shed much light on whether or not the Seventy Weeks prevented Gentiles from being saved.

A Noahide was speaking in tongues and baptized in Acts 2? Then the greater question is why Cornelius? The whole deal with Acts 10 is to show righteous Gentiles being accepted. The wild branch now being understood as accepted.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Exactly, and simple to the point. What on earth was the purpose was the vision of Peter to go to a Noahide. If uncircumcised Romans were already speaking in tongues in Acts 2?

Not sure about anyone else here, but my point has to do with the Seventy Weeks being a bar to any gentile salvation.

Prior to Acts 10, we have Samaritans believing and receiving the Spirit. In fact, prior to the cross we have Samaritans believing in Jesus as the Christ. That they weren't speaking in tongues in John 4 is irrelevent, because even Judeans weren't speaking in tongues at that time. Jesus exclaimed of a Roman that he had more faith than anyone in Israel to that point (Matt 8:10). His remarks concerning the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the leper indicate a general concept, the same as found in Peter's words to Cornelius. That is, righteous gentiles can exist.

Now, entering COVENANT is a whole different matter. The early church did not have a policy in place of actively evangelising gentiles and Samaritans. Yet, Phillip preaches to and converts Samaritans, and the apostles figure they can get the Holy Ghost, too. Probably because Samaritans at least had some religious claim to Jehovah, however tenuous. Meanwhile gentiles (non Samaritan non Judeans) are generally ignored. Until Acts 10 when it is proven to the church that gentiles can not only fear God and hang around the outer court, but can enter Covenant just like Judeans, without having to be circumcised.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

A Noahide was speaking in tongues and baptized in Acts 2? Then the greater question is why Cornelius? The whole deal with Acts 10 is to show righteous Gentiles being accepted. The wild branch now being understood as accepted.

I can see it being possible a Noahide or two were there in Acts ch 2, although I don't think it can be proven. I would in fact think it unlikely such would be baptized since baptism was at that time perceived as a Messianic mikvah of sorts, not really suitable for gentiles. But even if there were some, Acts 10 happened because the church was not actively pursuing gentile converts. Thus, something had to be done. They received the Holy Ghost even before baptism, I think that is a significant piece of the puzzle.

But again, I'm not trying to argue Acts 10 was unneeded, but that any bar to gentile salvation (if such even existed outside of leftover Jewish/Pharisaic prejudices) had no connection to any prohibition instituted by God specifically for the Seventy Weeks..

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

... any prohibition instituted by God specifically for the Seventy Weeks..

Which brings up an interesting point. If gentiles were somehow barred from salvation during and because of the Seventy Weeks, it means no gentile could become a proselyte during the Seventy Weeks. It also means gentiles COULD be "saved" prior to the Seventy Weeks. So God created a 490 year parenthesis in the middle of world history during which He refused salvation to gentiles? Doesn't make any sense at all.