Did Christ die for all men?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
heir
TOL Subscriber
No. The Body of Christ does not replace Israel. If that's what you mean. They have a future Hebrews 8:8-12 KJV
heir
TOL Subscriber
We're not Israel or graffed in. We are a new creature in Christ not a born again nation of priests!
heir
TOL Subscriber
Us as in we members of the church which is His Body, the Body of Christ.
Sonnet
New member
Indeed - as you said Romans 11:25
heir
TOL Subscriber
Right. We cannot be Israel when they look forward to the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19-21 KJV) while we in the Body of Christ look back to the cross having already received the atonement (Romans 5:11 KJV). Things that are different are not the same!
Sonnet
New member
Which includes Jews.
Ben Masada
New member
Now, Sonnet, would you be so kind as to share with me a quote from the Prophets where they speak about Jesus and asked Pilate to crucify Jesus? I'll be honored if you comply with my request. Since you can't I apologize for having asked you for what you cannot provide. At least, it will serve you good not to mention what you cannot provide.
Sonnet
New member
? Peter is talking to unbelievers.
Also, Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet
New member
Romans 3:27-30
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Ben Masada
New member
I read both of them. They don't have any thing to do with Jesus. Please, don't forget this very important note. You come from outside of the Tanach claiming what you see in the Tanach about Jesus. I am from inside the Tanach saying that I don't find any thing at all about Jesus in the Tanach. For this single reason only, you need to show nominal evidences. You can't. Who is wrong of the two of us? This is no different from the Buddhist who comes in between us and say, "Both are wrong. It is neither Jesus or Israel; it is Buddha. Would you say he was right? No. That's the point I am making here.
The point with Zechariah 12:10 happened when the Jews returned from their 70 years exile in Babylon and stopped by Jerusalem and the Lord let upon them the Spirit of grace and they were reminded of the Ten Tribes that had to be rejected in an endless sacrifice so that those of Judah be the happy Tribe of the 12 now back home while Israel out that forever in Assyria.
Isaiah 53 is about the Suffering Servant Israel aka the Ten Tribes when it was rejected by the Lord according to Psalm 78:67-69 so that Judah remained as the happy ones in the whole Land of Israel. If you read Isaiah 41:8,9 and 44:1,2,21 Israel is identified as the Suffering Servant. Then, if you read Psalm 44:11-24, whatever in Isaiah 53 is in the singular as in "he", it is in the plural in that Psalm to prove that Isaiah is talking about Israel.
Now, if you want to break down the verses in Isaiah 53 and ask me any thing by the verses you choose, I'll tell you what it is talking about.
Sonnet
New member
Thanks. Will come back to you.
Ben Masada
New member
That's the same as to say: There is neither Jew nor Gentiles but Christians. That's too convenient. Is is called Replacement Theology. Then who decided this, Paul? Nice try! At least Jesus decided something else when he even forbade his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. (Matthew 10:5,6)
Sonnet
New member
I do not subscribe to replacement theology. Romans 11:25.
csuguy
Well-known member
As always, your reading comprehension needs work Lon. Sonnet wasn't asking personal questions about me, she asked people to respond to what I had asserted:
Furthermore, Dispensationalism makes God entirely unjust - showing partiality to the Gentiles, who have little to no requirements on them for their salvation, whereas everything is demanded from the Jews. This is sinful and unscriptural.
If you'd like to respond to what Sonnet was actually querying about, feel free to reply to the topic rather than continue making personal attacks.
First off - see above. You jumped the gun making personal attacks on me without reason - Sonnet never questioned who I was or my background.
Second off - given your unwarranted personal attacks, I was perfectly in line responding to those attacks and giving Sonnet a more balanced view of the personal dynamics on the board between you and I.
Thirdly - you are quite sensitive about being talked about for one who just gave a random, unwarranted post attacking my character. If you don't like it, then consider not rushing in to attack me so that I don't need to expound upon our personal dynamics.
See, I chalk this up to your inability to 'logic' well nor see correctly. You have a cultists myopia, delusion. This has been said by a lot more than myself. Find anyone but a cultist who has the same view you have of me. :nono: Won't find one. Why do you suppose? :think: It will all be evident BUT to a cultist/heretic/maverick. Something in your psyche doesn't work quite right. Dialogue in this case is good. He can see our conversation and pick up the bits and pieces he needs. If he had need to know a bit more about me, this confrontation provides that as well.
More random personal attacks. For anyone following this: we see here another common tactic from Lon. Rather than bolster his own authority or his position through the authority of others, he instead seeks to diminish the other person - often referring to them as cultists and then attacking them as if that's what they were. A strawman tactic in essence. I am no cultist, and have only attended your standard Trinitarian churches. But because I break from what Lon considers essential, I must therefore have been raised in a cult.
Uh - when he goes emailing my professors and then holding onto said emails for years so that he can pull them out at any time to attack me - usually when I'm speaking with someone else - yes that is pretty creepy, stalker-esque activity right there. But you enjoy the personal attacks against me, so you jump on the band-wagon without a second thought.
One will better judge a person by listening to what they have to say rather than listening to the constant, random, and often senseless personal attacks from their enemies - as we see in your post here. Furthermore, Sonnet didn't request personal information about me either - yet that doesn't stop you from taking the opportunity to attack me.
I'm no more unorthodox than you Lon - last time I checked you were a Protestant. And Protestants started off as individuals standing up to corruption in Catholicism. Furthermore, if you are following a given path simply to follow others - chances are you are in error. You are on the wide path.
Neither of which you really addressed beyond saying you don't know much about the topic.
csuguy
Well-known member
First off, you should look at how other translations render this verse, as that will help you understand what is being said better. KJV-onlyists always find themselves in these kinds of errors. Here is the NASB translation of those verses:
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel [d]to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [e]to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship [f]to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, [g]James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right [h]hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
"I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [entrusted with the gospel] to the circumcised" - the rendering correctly communicates that there is a single Gospel. If you doubt this better, modern translation - then go look at the Greek.
Furthermore, both Peter and Paul shared the gospel to both the circumcised and uncircumcised. In every city he went to, Paul's habit was to first go to the synagogues and preach to the Jews. Only after they rejected him did he then go out to the gentiles. And while Peter and the disciples primarily went to the Jews, they also recognized - even before Paul came along - that the Gospel was intended for the Gentile as well.
Acts 10:45-48 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Acts 15:7-9 ... Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:7-9 ... Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.