User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: A bit of a theologic test

  1. #1
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820

    A bit of a theologic test

    Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

    Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

    Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

    The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

    If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

    But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

    I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  2. #2
    Silver Member Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,698
    Thanks
    1,158
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,577 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    246164
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.
    Do not pay much attention to her . . She only shows up once in awhile & does not really know any of us well at all.
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  3. #3
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    Indeed.

    The other R&J family was the Capulets.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  4. #4
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    12,091
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 2,734 Times in 2,036 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1019387
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

    Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

    Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

    The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

    If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

    But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

    I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
    What an OVER relying on the traditions of men confused individual you remain about the most Basic of Operating Principles or Basic Rules of Thumb as Guideline as to this issue...

    The "Judaism" of the Law and the Prophets...

    Ezra 5:8 Be it known unto the king, that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in their hands. 5:9 Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls? 5:10 We asked their names also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them. 5:11 And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up. 5:12 But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon. 5:13 But in the first year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the same king Cyrus made a decree to build this house of God. 5:14 And the vessels also of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the king take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor; 5:15 And said unto him, Take these vessels, go, carry them into the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be builded in his place. 5:16 Then came the same Sheshbazzar, and laid the foundation of the house of God which is in Jerusalem: and since that time even until now hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished. 5:17 Now therefore, if it seem good to the king, let there be search made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king send his pleasure to us concerning this matter.

    The conflict was between that - the Judaism of the Law and the Prophets (that the preaching of the Kingdom had merely been a further a extension of) - and the Judaism the Scribes and the Pharisees had falsely turned the Judaism of the Law and the Prophets into...

    This...

    John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

    In contrast to...

    John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

    And this...

    John 9:28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

    And this contrast...

    John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

    Here that conflict is, again...

    Matthew 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

    Repeatedly, that is the conflict - between two Judaisms...



    Acts 17:11,12

  5. #5
    Silver Member Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    8,350
    Thanks
    1,585
    Thanked 4,563 Times in 3,311 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Indeed.

    The other R&J family was the Capulets.


    You start too many threads.
    So, what?

    believe it!

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ktoyou For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (August 12th, 2017),Tambora (August 14th, 2017)

  7. #6
    Over 4000 post club CherubRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 334 Times in 276 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    84528
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Ktoyou thinks I'm boring, and need a new sound.

    Last month in an evangelistic conversation, I was explaining to a person that the dual miracle or claim of Mk 2's opening scene has a way of providing internal proof of the NT. Here is how:

    Jesus cross-claimed he would raise a paralytic when he claimed to be the Son of God. If the healing had not taken place, THAT would have been the news about Jesus the Flop all through Judea. There is no such news. In less than a few scenes later, the leaders of Judaism find they must stop him, even kill him. We never hear that they debunked anything he did, nor things the masses said he did. The 'problem' is always that he did them.

    The person I was talking to thought they had me cornered because I was saying that if Juliet hadn't taken her life in the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the prior story would fall apart. But he was way too late (anachronistic) with his counter by comparison with the gospel accounts. He would have had to say 'the family conflict between the Montagues and the _____s did not really exist.' Not 'Juliet took her life out of nowhere.' But the family conflict was there and it shapes the whole story of R&J just as the fears of Judaism's leaders shape the story of Christ.

    If the skeptic was right, the debunking of Jesus would have been the story. It is not.

    But I mention this here, because this goes on into the issue between Judaism and the Gospel. If D'ists were right, there should have been no conflict between Judaism and Christ. I keep hearing their loud attempts to affirm massive support for the law by Christ and by Paul, to the point that the conflict between the Gospel and Judaism is nearly non-existent.

    I believe along with all its other mistakes D'ism is mistaken as to what a script writer would call backstory. D'ism is like one of those things you find in a movie that could not have been said or done in the time period in which the story is taking place. They are this way about Rom 11 and they are this way about Heb 9, both of which they think are massive support for Israel in its land and Judaism operating again. As though the letter to Hebrews had said nothing about the end of the previous covenant (treating the new/eternal covenant as a 2nd chance for the 1st to work!), and as though Rom 11 had said nothing about the faith-based community that is the one that will be saved (justified from sin). It is asinine.
    Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

    “You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

    18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

    “The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    ‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

    22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

    23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

    26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

  8. #7
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    794
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 199 Times in 161 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    20079
    "You start too many threads."

    The regular dfispensationalist posters here do outnumber the regular posting defenders of the Gospel of Christ against what is called the Gainsayers in the King James Version for Titus 1: 9.

    The Geneva Bible for Titus 1: 9 says "Holding fast the faithful word according to doctrine, that he also may be able to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and convince them that say against it. " I like this.

    Lets see what the Tyndale New Testament says. "and such as cleveth unto the true word of doctrine that he may be able to exhort with wholesome learning and to improve them that say against it."

    The Geneva Bible tends to follow the Tyndale New Testament in general, while the King James uses Gainsayers for ἀντιλέγω instead of say against.

    Expose and convict them that speak against the Gospel of Christ is in the spirit of becoming bold as Paul and Barnabas became in Acts 13: 45-46 in correcting the contradicting and blaspheming of the Gospel of Christ.

    The dispensationalists who contradict the Gospel of Christ here may gain some confidence in their doctrines and in their dialectic game from outnumbering us. Apparently in the evangelical churches the dispensationalists do outnumber those who defend the Gospel, and may think that this "proves" their doctrines.

    Dispensationalists tend to reject or ignore the doctrine of the remnant. Its the remnant which in our time of apostasy is faithful to Acts 13: 45-46 and Titus 1: 9-11 - not the multitude in the churches.

  9. #8
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    Quote Originally Posted by CherubRam View Post
    Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

    “You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

    18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

    “The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    ‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

    22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

    23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

    26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.




    If they dont read the Bible on their own, why would they read it posted here?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  10. #9
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    Sorry, Ktoyou. I have the passion to teach.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  11. #10
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    26,025
    Thanks
    10,793
    Thanked 13,014 Times in 10,553 Posts

    Blog Entries
    27
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Sorry, Ktoyou. I have the passion to teach.
    Go to bed little buddy, it's movie day on Daystar tomorrow
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:12-13, 14 -



  12. #11
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick jane View Post
    Go to bed little buddy, it's movie day on Daystar tomorrow




    Into your PJs, PJ. it was today. I was working.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  13. #12
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    ...and with your great mental powers, what is the backstory or existing "family conflict" of the gospels that makes or breaks the story?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  14. #13
    TOL Subscriber Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 844 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    185394
    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
    What promise?
    HE IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    487 What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.

    "It's better to have a gun and need it, than not have a gun and not need it." Ricky

  15. #14
    Fiddle Dee Dee Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    40,387
    Thanks
    117,430
    Thanked 34,533 Times in 21,911 Posts

    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147971
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    What promise?
    Don't mention land to IP.
    It infuriates him that GOD promised Israel land.
    And that the new covenant was promised to Israel & Judah infuriates him even more!
    IP is really into replacement theology.

    For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

  16. #15
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 578 Times in 515 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    161820
    Thanks to Tambora, I can put this one away with this outline:

    1, The excitement of Acts 2 was that the 'pouring out of the Spirit' had taken place. This was a gift to Messiah from the Father for Messiah's travail. The same thing is said in Eph 4 about the gifts given to men when captivity was taken captive by Messiah. This pouring out is also right in the middle of 'restoration' prophecy (in Ezekiel for ex) which D'ists think are to be taken so literally. Peter is saying it is fulfilled.

    3, Peter continues to be just as enthused in ch 3 that this age in which Israel first was to be missionaries to the world was underway. Obviously this was underway with an event like Pentecost. But also it was what they had been taught was the promise by Christ (Lk 24, Acts 1). AKA the power of the kingdom that they had asked about. They NOW understood what the kingdom meant. 'Power' (authority to make declarations about things that were established by God's hand) was kingdom vocabulary; Jesus had been made Lord and Christ as David's vision had said, Acts 2:30-31.

    3, This "unlikely" combination of Israel's destiny and the mission outreach through God-enabled gifts is also why Gal 3 says the Spirit is the promise, 3:14, where the grammar is saying that the Spirit is what was promised. This is why we have Peter referring to the Spirit and to the promise of including the nations in Acts 3 at the same time; they really are one manifestation.

    4, Clearly, it has nothing to do with the land of Israel nor dependent on the worship system of Judaism, except as a preparatory illustration. This continues to be the case when Paul says all the same things in Acts 13's official sample sermon, and in his defense in Acts 26 where the hope of Israel is already realized and is the mission of Christ, not the thing they expect to happen by worshiping day and night at the temple. The obtaining of the land through Joshua is now a picture from Israel's past of obtaining rest in Christ from the fear of death through one's sins; remove that doctrine from hebrews and half of it is gone.

    5, D'ism is carnal and materialist, and happy to be so. It is not even remotely aware of the glorious truth as it in Christ. It is as though just a restored land would have resulted in any of this!

    6, D'ism is that way (#5) just when the picture for the land of Israel could not have been worse. Rumors of total scorching by Rome were bouncing off of the mountains and desert stones since 6 AD when a general rebellion was started after the Census, Acts 5:37. "Secular" records tell us about that rebellion and the others, and Dan 8:13 said a "rebellion that desolates" was coming, but it is a 'sin' in D'ism to know such things EVEN WHEN 'SECULAR' HISTORY IS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE.

    7, The new covenant launched at the last supper is for all people, and is found in the body and blood of Christ, but Christ was saying that much as far back as the beginning of his work anyway, because it is back at the beginning of Genesis. All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land, and totally about the redemption from sin and death that is in Christ Jesus, Heb 8-10. Tam does not realize she is part of a Goebellian effort to snow those facts. No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.

    8, There is a RT problem addressed in the NT and we should stick with that, not the 19th century one. It is in Gal 3:17 and the Judaizers had replaced the Promise of the Spirit to Reach the Nations--they had replaced THAT with the Law; or thought the mission to the nations would happen through the Law, Mt 23:15. Paul says someone had replaced the Promise and voided it with the Law; it was his career effort to get that straightened out.

    Tell that to a D'ist and they have no idea what it is about.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us