ECT At least it was a (D'ists) logical question!

Danoh

New member
IOW, no answer?

No, my answer went right past you.

Sort of like how one poster on here has yet to figure out that I end many of my posts with the passages I end many of my posts with, simply because that is what I often end many of my posts with :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
No, my answer went right past you.

Sort of like how one poster on here has yet to figure out that I end many of my posts with the passages I end many of my posts with, simply because that is what I often end many of my posts with :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

Looks like your reading things into my post that aint there.

Kinda like that other fella,hunh? :wave:
 

Danoh

New member
What kind of dialectic game was Andy playing as he lost his southern accent when the show went to color?
It's plumb curious.

lol - actually, if you compare the things that differ as to that kind of thing between his accent in the pilot episode on the Danny Thomas show, the first episodes of Andy Griffith, and about a year later, you can hear his accent was changing all along.

That sort of thing happens when one is exposed daily to another, majority accent, and so on.

You'll recall "Mayberry" was actually in Los Angeles, or some such.

I'm reminded of someone who went off to the Military who returned pronouncing "Tuesday" with a sharper emphasis on the "two" sound, and so forth (even their taste in music had changed).

It's the Operating Principle or Governing Rule described as being the dynamic at work in the following passage of Scripture, though not necessarily in the negative aspect of it the passage is describing...

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 

Danoh

New member
I always thought it was odd that Gomer's barracks were just a couple hundred yards from the Courthouse.

Was watching an episode yesterday, where Andy kicked his feet up to his desk to take a nap.

In the middle of the day, without even thinking to lock the door.

'What a wonderful little world...' I thought.

Lol - of course, that didn't last long - Gomer rushed in out of nowhere with some fool emergency :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Was watching an episode yesterday, where Andy kicked his feet up to his desk to take a nap.

In the middle of the day, without even thinking to lock the door.

'What a wonderful little world...' I thought.

Lol - of course, that didn't last long - Gomer rushed in out of nowhere with some fool emergency :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Why can't a temporary casting away not be considered a program?




If you are referring to Rom 11, it does not mean that. It meant to say that Israel was always partly hard/blind because God does not blanket-bless whole races. Judaism thinks He does but that's a separate question.

We know this from 'kai houtos' of 26 (in this way, manner). It has always been a partly hard/blind case, like all other nations, because faith springs up where it will. The hardness until the full number of Gentiles does not guarantee a 2nd round/chance for Judaism after that.

That misconception, and the one about Acts 1's rebuke about their interest in a kingdom for Israel are both the same kind: D'ism assumes itself to be correct and finds 'validation' in these two proof texts, when the contexts are saying quite otherwise. Judaism is the same way about these things.

In Acts 1, the matter is resolved in the power given (which is a kingdom term, but another kind of kingdom). The power given was God's initiative to make them speak clearly and boldly for Christ. Not Israel. Not a 2nd chance for Judaism. Nothing about the land. Only for Christ.

When these two misconceptions are cleared up we can communicate.
 

Danoh

New member
If you are referring to Rom 11, it does not mean that. It meant to say that Israel was always partly hard/blind because God does not blanket-bless whole races. Judaism thinks He does but that's a separate question.

We know this from 'kai houtos' of 26 (in this way, manner). It has always been a partly hard/blind case, like all other nations, because faith springs up where it will. The hardness until the full number of Gentiles does not guarantee a 2nd round/chance for Judaism after that.

That misconception, and the one about Acts 1's rebuke about their interest in a kingdom for Israel are both the same kind: D'ism assumes itself to be correct and finds 'validation' in these two proof texts, when the contexts are saying quite otherwise. Judaism is the same way about these things.

In Acts 1, the matter is resolved in the power given (which is a kingdom term, but another kind of kingdom). The power given was God's initiative to make them speak clearly and boldly for Christ. Not Israel. Not a 2nd chance for Judaism. Nothing about the land. Only for Christ.

When these two misconceptions are cleared up we can communicate.

When you finally understand that two Judaisms are in conflict in Matthew thru Early Acts - THEN - PERHAPS we can BEGIN TO communicate.

One was truly Messianic.

The other only professed being Messianic.

John 1 compared with John 5.

John 8 compared with John 9.

All, in light of Ezra 5 and Malachi 3 and 4...and so on...

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 
Last edited:

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
If you are referring to Rom 11, it does not mean that. It meant to say that Israel was always partly hard/blind because God does not blanket-bless whole races. Judaism thinks He does but that's a separate question.

We know this from 'kai houtos' of 26 (in this way, manner). It has always been a partly hard/blind case, like all other nations, because faith springs up where it will. The hardness until the full number of Gentiles does not guarantee a 2nd round/chance for Judaism after that.

That misconception, and the one about Acts 1's rebuke about their interest in a kingdom for Israel are both the same kind: D'ism assumes itself to be correct and finds 'validation' in these two proof texts, when the contexts are saying quite otherwise. Judaism is the same way about these things.

In Acts 1, the matter is resolved in the power given (which is a kingdom term, but another kind of kingdom). The power given was God's initiative to make them speak clearly and boldly for Christ. Not Israel. Not a 2nd chance for Judaism. Nothing about the land. Only for Christ.

When these two misconceptions are cleared up we can communicate.

If Israel was not temporarily cast away, then God could not have mercy on those that rejected him in Paul's Acts ministry, as well as pagan Gentiles. You do not know what you're talking about.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Acts 1 shifts power from what they thought to another kind of kingdom, just as Mt 21:43 shifts 'people' (ethnei) from what they thought to another kind.
 

Danoh

New member
If Israel was not temporarily cast away, then God could not have mercy on those that rejected him in Paul's Acts ministry, as well as pagan Gentiles. You do not know what you're talking about.

The Mystery was not because Israel fell.

It's focus is not the Earth. Rather, the repopulating of that fallen Heavenly realm (with A New Creature).

Countless Israelites have ended up lost forever, during other times of Israel's various rebellions and God's turn from them.

Unbelieving Israel fell and was headed for hell, but for The Mystery.

But the Mystery was/is not an answer to Israel's fall.

Daniel's 70th Week is/will be.

Acts 17:11,12
 
Top