ECT The NT on Isaiah 40-66

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
So like the Washington Times reporter who got 1100 retweets of his mistaken picture of Trump tossing a ballcap back to a boy on July 4, the D'ist gang has a bunch of posts already about the PERSON instead of the TOPIC. That tells us who they are and what they are about!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Is this going to be yet another lame attempt of IP trying to convince folks that the NT says the OT is untrue?
Click to expand...





Fulfilled in Christ is not "untrue." You have no idea what things were like in the 1st century do you? Or Dan 9? Or why even the things mentioned in Isaiah went beyond the land--like the one express verse that it was too small a thing to 'restore the fortunes.'

It makes so much more sense to believe D'ism and its categories than the passage!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Fulfilled in Christ is not "untrue." You have no idea what things were like in the 1st century do you? Or Dan 9? Or why even the things mentioned in Isaiah went beyond the land--like the one express verse that it was too small a thing to 'restore the fortunes.'

It makes so much more sense to believe D'ism and its categories than the passage!
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
So like the Washington Times reporter who got 1100 retweets of his mistaken picture of Trump tossing a ballcap back to a boy on July 4, the D'ist gang has a bunch of posts already about the PERSON instead of the TOPIC. That tells us who they are and what they are about!
Click to expand...

It remains ever fascinating observing the dynamic at work within how some on here ever at odds with one another over each their version of "not for us" triple exclamation point, at the same time such jointly support someone as corrupt his entire business life, as a Donald Trump.

The pattern behind their positive agreement towards such a corrupt individual, actually the very pattern that so often has them so at odds with one another, over each their supposed "doctrinal"..."not for us."

That fleshly dynamic so readily apparent throughout the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is obviously alive...and well...in such.

:think:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Fulfilled in Christ is not "untrue." You have no idea what things were like in the 1st century do you? Or Dan 9? Or why even the things mentioned in Isaiah went beyond the land--like the one express verse that it was too small a thing to 'restore the fortunes.'

It makes so much more sense to believe D'ism and its categories than the passage!
Click to expand...

When did God restore the years the locust had eaten?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
What's old is new again. Never went out of style.
Click to expand...




The really odd thing about STP using this soundbyte is that western 'Little Asia' was full of Judaizers, as found in Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians and Philippians. Talk about being out of touch. What Paul meant was that all Judaizers have left him. He did not mean D'ism was correct and everyone had left that. That is a ridiculous position.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
What's old is new again. Never went out of style.
Click to expand...





If Must means the old covenant is new again, I know of no more arrogant defiance of Hebrews. Is there any wonder why people think homosexuality is normal when you can do this with old and new covenants? Hey and let's murder people for God while we are at it. D'ism does not submit to the Bible.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The really odd thing about STP using this soundbyte is that western 'Little Asia' was full of Judaizers, as found in Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians and Philippians. Talk about being out of touch. What Paul meant was that all Judaizers have left him. He did not mean D'ism was correct and everyone had left that. That is a ridiculous position.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:

You won't have access to commentaries at the Judgment Seat.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I don't know what the confusion is about the covenant for the nations. It can't mean anything else but Christ. Why is this shocking, confusing, surprising?

In Hebrew poetry, there is a lot of parallel lines, hence, 'Hebrew parallelism'. Is 42:6 is one of those. He is a covenant for the nations / a light to the Gentiles. There is nothing mysterious or secret or kabbalic about it. There is no secret Sabbath knowledge that matters, except for Hebrews's Sabbath which is God's rest for us in Christ (justification from sins).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top