ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Interplanner]

:rotfl:
Your theology on Israel is not only wrong, it stinks.

That's because it follows what Rom 9 actually says. Not all Israel is Israel, and the group Paul meant was both Jew and Gentile, proved by 4 OT passages.

It is clumsy to throw in the subjective 'stinks' when you don't even know if you are on the right track and won't honestly debate, and won't do anything but congratulate yourself and put others/dissenters down. So go ahead and be clumsy.

 

[Interplanner]

Of course, the whole reason you went that direction is to evade what Heb 9 actually says.

 

[Danoh]

That's because it follows what Rom 9 actually says. Not all Israel is Israel, and the group Paul meant was both Jew and Gentile, proved by 4 OT passages.

It is clumsy to throw in the subjective 'stinks' when you don't even know if you are on the right track and won't honestly debate, and won't do anything but congratulate yourself and put others/dissenters down. So go ahead and be clumsy.

No one said Paul did not mean both believing Jews and Gentiles.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

But just about your every post going back to when you first signed up on TOL has been nothing more than your ever endless claiming that you understand Dispensational assertions, only to repeatedly prove it is your mis-reads into Dispensational assertions that you are going by.

Why people go back and forth with you all day long, day in and day out anymore, is an enigma; for you have long since proven all you are doing is going by your endless mis-reads INTO a thing.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[turbosixx]

Bull. Your intent is to lead me into what you think is some sort of logical condundrum or trap.

I've thought about this stuff my entire adult life. I very likely could argue your doctrine more effectively than you can. I didn't start out as an Acts 9 Dispensationalist and I can guarantee, based on the sorts of things you've said throughout this thread, that you have nothing that will move me an inch from it. If you're attempting to teach me something, you're wasting your time.


You're good at baiting people, I'll give you that.

Why is it that you're unwilling just to tell me what you think he meant and make an argument?

I'm sorry you feel I'm baiting you. Honestly, I ask questions that I see MAD creating. Jesus said Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
I believe with all my heart that is true, then and now. Does MAD believe it's true? It's reasonable to question when someone says that what God says doesn't really mean what it says. Satan convinced Adam and Eve that they would NOT die even though God told them they would die.

What does Jesus mean by saved? Saved from what?

 

[turbosixx]

Have you completely abandoned attempting to see around your paradigm? If so, this is a waste of both of us.

I do try to see around my paradigms but in order to believe bible prophecy is false, I'm going to need some serious proof.

For example, Daniel said of the Roman empire, 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people.

Jesus appeared during the Roman Empire and said the kingdom was at hand. I believe with all my heart he set up his kingdom just as Daniel prophesied, do you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm sorry you feel I'm baiting you. Honestly, I ask questions that I see MAD creating. Jesus said Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
I believe with all my heart that is true, then and now.

And there's your problem.

Does MAD believe it's true?

It was true, for Israel only. One had to become a Jew to enter into a relationship with God, because at that time, God had a corporate relationship with Israel.

However, if you baptize today, it doesn't mean you are saved, it's only a result of your belief, and salvation (and even rest) is given to those who believe. Baptism is no longer required.

It's reasonable to question when someone says that what God says doesn't really mean what it says.

Here's the thing, when God says something, expect that He means what He says. But don't forget to get the context of what He is saying.

If you read a letter written to someone else, in a different era, would it be a good or bad idea to think it was written to you for your own sake?

Satan convinced Adam and Eve that they would NOT die even though God told them they would die.

They did die, even the day they ate of the Tree, yet they lived another 900 years or so.

They died in that they were separated from God.

What does Jesus mean by saved? Saved from what?

Saved from one's sin.

I do try to see around my paradigms but in order to believe bible prophecy is false, I'm going to need some serious proof.

Question 1: What did Paul say about prophecy?
Question 2: What did Peter quote from the prophet Joel, and what did he say about it?

For example, Daniel said of the Roman empire, 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people.

Jesus appeared during the Roman Empire and said the kingdom was at hand. I believe with all my heart he set up his kingdom just as Daniel prophesied, do you?

Question 3: What does Jeremiah say in chapter 18?

 

[Clete]

I'm sorry you feel I'm baiting you. Honestly, I ask questions that I see MAD creating. Jesus said Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
I believe with all my heart that is true, then and now. Does MAD believe it's true?

Of course! This, frankly was a stupid question. Why wouldn't we?

It's reasonable to question when someone says that what God says doesn't really mean what it says.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism doesn't ever say that so what's the problem?

In fact, as I have already argued many times in this discussion, it is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that allow you to simply read the bible and take it for it flatly states. YOU are the one who has to PRETEND that James isn't talking about salvation OR that Paul isn't saying that faith WITHOUT works is what saves you. It is YOU who have to ignore the conditions Jesus placed on the blessings of the Christian life or to force Him to mean something other than what He said about the end times(for example), and to spiritualize virtually everything anyone ever said about the Kingdom of Israel. Without Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, the Bible, the New Testament in particular, is full to the brim with contradiction and confusion when taken to mean what it simply says.

Satan convinced Adam and Eve that they would NOT die even though God told them they would die.

Are you comparing Satan with Jesus or with me? Either way, it's a damn good reason to end the discussion.


It was Eve that Satan deceived. Adam knew better and ate anyway.

Interestingly the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is so directly relevant to this discussion that Bob spent an entire chapter of his book on that EXACT topic.
Do you know what happened to that tree?
The bible begins with two trees. Everyone knows that the Tree of Life ends up in Heaven but not 1% of Christianity knows what happened to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil even though the bible clearly tells us.

What does Jesus mean by saved? Saved from what?

From eternal death, which is to say from the consequences of your sin.

It is not salvation that is different in the Mid-Acts system, it is how it's acquired and maintained.

I do try to see around my paradigms but in order to believe bible prophecy is false, I'm going to need some serious proof.

I've warned you about this sort of stupidity before. I count it now as an intentional lie.

You might be used to dealing with idiots and stupid people that are swayed by such asinine accusations but I am not one of them. If you want to end the discussion permanently you can make this accusation or compare me or the Mid-Acts system to Satan again.

Do not test me. I am not kidding.

For example, Daniel said of the Roman empire, 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people.

To be accurate, Daniel did not say a word about the Roman Empire. We can know that that's what he happened to be referring to but that isn't what Daniel said.

Jesus appeared during the Roman Empire and said the kingdom was at hand. I believe with all my heart he set up his kingdom just as Daniel prophesied, do you?

I don't care what you believe with all your heart.

That's over stated, it's not that I don't care at all what you believe, it's simply that your passion is unpersuasive and is not relevant to the truth. One might believe a lie with all their heart and it's still a lie.

Which is not to say that you're entirely wrong on this point and in fact, it is a great place to show you your paradigm blindness. You began by accusing me of teaching that the bible doesn't mean what it says and yet here you are spiritualizing what both Daniel and Jesus talked about in literal terms.

When Jesus said that the Kingdom was at hand, He meant precisely that but it wasn't some invisible, undefinable, unfalsifiable fabrication that the modern church and you think it is. He meant a Kingdom - period. You know, the sort of Kingdom with a King and a thrown and political power and civil laws and a military and all the other things associated with a real Kingdom.

Jesus came and for three years He was looking for faith and couldn't find hardly any at all. He even asked the Father to cut them off before He was even crucified but the Father said that He would "fertilize" Israel and give it a year and, after that, if there is no fruit, then He would cut them off. (Luke 13).

So, Jesus ascends into Heaven and sends the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). Some time later (likely a year based on Luke 13), Israel has Stephen stoned to death and Jesus is seen standing at God's right hand (i.e. in preparation for judgment) (Acts 7). Israel is thus cut off and God turn's to the Gentiles (Acts 9).

Paul later explains the precise answer to why Israel did not receive their Kingdom and was cut off instead. Just because God promises you a Kingdom doesn't mean you can just do whatever the heck you want and He's still required to give it to you. God can and does change His mind and He is not obligated to give a Kingdom to a people who hate the King! This is what the whole chapter of Jeremiah 18 is all about and it just happens to be the very passage that Paul himself cites as the explanation for why Israel was cut off in Romans 9.

So, when you read something in the bible that doesn't seem to have come true, the key isn't to spiritualize it into meaninglessness.

I'd have liked to expand on that last sentence but I'm flatly out of time - sorry.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

No one said Paul did not mean both believing Jews and Gentiles.

Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

But just about your every post going back to when you first signed up on TOL has been nothing more than your ever endless claiming that you understand Dispensational assertions, only to repeatedly prove it is your mis-reads into Dispensational assertions that you are going by.

Why people go back and forth with you all day long, day in and day out anymore, is an enigma; for you have long since proven all you are doing is going by your endless mis-reads INTO a thing.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

Apparently not, because they are disagreeing.

D'ism fantasizes that 2 programs are there when they are not. The above issue comes up while handling Rom 11. They think the Israel in 11 is the race/nation. But Paul was talking about those who have faith, and has nothing to offer the race/nation as such, for that is not what 'saved' means. It does not mean the restoration of race/nation.

In Heb 8-10, they fix on one verse, yet the entire section (2/3 of which is the official interpretation Jer 31) says that the new covenant is not geographic, not just for Israel, and not future. D'ists fraud all three things. Then, for 3 years, they have never in their responses gone to 2 Cor 3-5, the last supper accounts, the I Cor 11 recollection of the last supper, to illustrate their point, because it is not there.

I invited everyone to view and comment on Daystars' docu-drama Saturday which turned out to be 99% of what these people believed, although told by a guy with his Spirit-led visions. Tam's comment: we don't do 'Spirit-led' visions. So what? 99% of what he said is here each and every day, like a recording.

Thus I am not mis-reading; it is exactly what they are saying. Nor am I mis-reading the passages, as the objective information shows. But D'ism is an infection that needs to be wiped out so that people can see what the Scriptures actually said.

If you can't follow JohhnyW about Jn 2:21, I can't help you. There are only two choices: Jesus was frequently announcing his death and resurrection early in his ministry (hard to do the latter while you are alive!), OR: Jesus offered there to miraculously restore Herod's temple in 3 days. This allows the disciples to record their denial later, but affirms that the sacrificial death was there all along.

I am not mis-reading JohhnyW; he is trained in psych-op tactics to blast anyone who differs with him rather than think for himself. he is just finding that out. And you somehow have a problem with me!

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
go look at the fairy tale thread. I wrote this because of the numerous times RD and JohnW have referred to the concept of truth in Christ as a fairy tale wand that is swung over a text to make it mean something else.

I showed that Acts 2 and Rom 1 both say the resurrection was the declaration that Jesus was now both Lord and Christ as in Ps 2 and 110. "Fairy tale."

I showed that Heb 8-10's new covenant was present-tense, for all mankind, and trans-geographic. "Fairy tale."

I can only conclude that to D'ists the problems of sin and death are fairy tales. How could I conclude otherwise?

 

[Right Divider]

Danoh,
go look at the fairy tale thread. I wrote this because of the numerous times RD and JohnW have referred to the concept of truth in Christ as a fairy tale wand that is swung over a text to make it mean something else.

I showed that Acts 2 and Rom 1 both say the resurrection was the declaration that Jesus was now both Lord and Christ as in Ps 2 and 110. "Fairy tale."

I showed that Heb 8-10's new covenant was present-tense, for all mankind, and trans-geographic. "Fairy tale."

I can only conclude that to D'ists the problems of sin and death are fairy tales. How could I conclude otherwise?

You just KEEP on making FALSE claims that will NOT become true just because you keep repeating them.

 

[turbosixx]

And there's your problem.



It was true, for Israel only. One had to become a Jew to enter into a relationship with God, because at that time, God had a corporate relationship with Israel.

Here's my problem with this line of thinking. First, in the context Jesus says go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation/every creature. That is not just Israel. Second, if we look at all the conversions, those that have any detail show that the believers were baptized. Paul also baptized believers just as Jesus said. Third, as you state later in your reply, those who believe and are baptized are saved from sin. That is what everyone needs saving from. In Romans Paul says both Jew and Greek are under sin. 2,000 years later man needs to be saved from sin.

However, if you baptize today, it doesn't mean you are saved, it's only a result of your belief, and salvation (and even rest) is given to those who believe. Baptism is no longer required.

What does Paul say about being baptized?
Rom. 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

When he says "all of us who", that leaves out everyone who wasn't.

 

[Danoh]

Apparently not, because they are disagreeing.

Again, no one said that did not pertain to both Jews and Gentiles.

D'ism fantasizes that 2 programs are there when they are not. The above issue comes up while handling Rom 11. They think the Israel in 11 is the race/nation. But Paul was talking about those who have faith, and has nothing to offer the race/nation as such, for that is not what 'saved' means. It does not mean the restoration of race/nation.

Again, you reveal you have never understood what ANY strain of Dispensationalism has asserted about that.

Paul goes back and forth in Romas 9-11, between descriptions of unbelieving and believing Israelites and descriptions of believing and unbelieving Gentiles.

In Heb 8-10, they fix on one verse, yet the entire section (2/3 of which is the official interpretation Jer 31) says that the new covenant is not geographic, not just for Israel, and not future.

Must be the reason for why all that focus by the writer of HEBREWS on THEIR history; and on what had THEY had been warned about; and on what THEY had been PROMISED; etc.., etc.

Weird that is - that he follows the very practice in that, of ISRAEL's Prophets, when addressing THEIR Nation; the Lord's; Peter's; Stephen's; Paul's; James'; John's; Jude's...

D'ists fraud all three things.

You're as consistent in that erroneous accusation as those ever erroneously accusing you of intentionally being up to no good.

Then, for 3 years, they have never in their responses gone to 2 Cor 3-5, the last supper accounts, the I Cor 11 recollection of the last supper, to illustrate their point, because it is not there.

I can't speak for them on that; they hold to a view of those things I do not subscribe to.

This is a point you continually fail to keep in mind - that just as there are now various strains of Reformed thought, likewise is the case within Dispensationalism.

There are now some five strains of it - Acts 2; Acts 9; Acts 13; the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid held to by most Dispys on here; and Acts 28.

And while all Dispys do hold to much in common as to our belief of that there are two agencies depicted in Scripture: Israel and the Body; each has their point of departure when it comes to their understanding of many things within the 27 books that comprise the NT.

So, its like you can not simply assert that all Dispys and or all MADs, or what have you, not only disagree with you on your every point, but would spit on you for your different views, whether or not you yourself are spitting on anyone who disagrees with you on one thing or another.

I invited everyone to view and comment on Daystars' docu-drama Saturday which turned out to be 99% of what these people believed, although told by a guy with his Spirit-led visions. Tam's comment: we don't do 'Spirit-led' visions. So what? 99% of what he said is here each and every day, like a recording.

Thus I am not mis-reading; it is exactly what they are saying. Nor am I mis-reading the passages, as the objective information shows. But D'ism is an infection that needs to be wiped out so that people can see what the Scriptures actually said.

If you can't follow JohhnyW about Jn 2:21, I can't help you. There are only two choices: Jesus was frequently announcing his death and resurrection early in his ministry (hard to do the latter while you are alive!), OR: Jesus offered there to miraculously restore Herod's temple in 3 days. This allows the disciples to record their denial later, but affirms that the sacrificial death was there all along.

I am not mis-reading JohhnyW; he is trained in psych-op tactics to blast anyone who differs with him rather than think for himself. he is just finding that out. And you somehow have a problem with me!

Again, I can't speak for them.

I know I have no problem with anyone on here; you included.

I had a choice when I adopted the signature "Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead."

To make it an automatic, or to type out each time I post.

I chose to type out each time I post.

Towards reminding myself each time what my focus towards others is to be as I post to them.

I'm sure you are well aware what the hypocrites on here have often read into ending many of posts - even to them - with Rom. 5: 6-8.

But said Rom. 5:6-8 focus solves for that, as well, each time I encounter it.

While, if anything, I tend to ignore the posts of many who have long since proven all they do is repeat the same old, same old, over and over and over.

Likewise the posts of those who go a multitude of posts basically spitting vile on others in the name of God, in between perhaps a post here and there of any substance worth reading.

And every forum on here, and elsewhere on the internet has such types.

No sense in wasting time on such - even at the expense of a possible gem of an insight here and there.

I know this much, IP, it is the height of foolishness to automatically conclude that anyone who disagrees with one is either up to no good, or has some personal issue with one.

All that does is cloud what is actually there to rightly discern.

I say, stand your ground - until you are fully persuaded in your own mind otherwise.

At the same time, I no longer see a point in possibly being the one to come along to change your mind.

You have long proven you are more than happy in your books based bliss.

There is...no reasoning with such.

You've too many years down that path and its unfortunate results.

In which case; Rom. 14:5 towards you - in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[turbosixx]

Of course! This, frankly was a stupid question. Why wouldn't we?

If I understand you correctly, you believe it was true for Israel at one time but it's not true today. Here's my problem with this line of thinking.
First, in the context Jesus says go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation/every creature. That is not just Israel.
Second, if we look at all the conversions, those that have any detail show that the believers were baptized. Paul also baptized those that believed his gospel just as Jesus said and just like Peter.
Third, as you state later in your reply, those who believe and are baptized are saved from sin. That is what everyone needs saving from. In Romans Paul says both Jew and Greek are under sin. 2,000 years later man needs to be saved from sin.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism doesn't ever say that so what's the problem?

In fact, as I have already argued many times in this discussion, it is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that allow you to simply read the bible and take it for it flatly states. YOU are the one who has to PRETEND that James isn't talking about salvation OR that Paul isn't saying that faith WITHOUT works is what saves you. It is YOU who have to ignore the conditions Jesus placed on the blessings of the Christian life or to force Him to mean something other than what He said about the end times(for example), and to spiritualize virtually everything anyone ever said about the Kingdom of Israel. Without Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, the Bible, the New Testament in particular, is full to the brim with contradiction and confusion when taken to mean what it simply says.

I would love to talk about these but I think we need to stay focused on one thing.

 

[turbosixx]

You know, the sort of Kingdom with a King and a thrown and political power and civil laws and a military and all the other things associated with a real Kingdom.

Jesus described the kingdom many times. In your view, do they look like the gospel/church or the kingdom you just described? If the kingdom you described, could you point one out to me please.

 

[turbosixx]

You might be used to dealing with idiots and stupid people that are swayed by such asinine accusations but I am not one of them. If you want to end the discussion permanently you can make this accusation or compare me or the Mid-Acts system to Satan again.

Do not test me. I am not kidding.

I have no doubt you're more intelligent than myself and I do not mean any disrespect. I'm trying my best to make arguments in simple terms.

 

[Danoh]

Jesus described the kingdom many times. In your view, do they look like the gospel/church or the kingdom you just described? If the kingdom you described, could you point one out to me please.

Your error is in your failure to properly trace out the context in which Christ had said to them "Go ye into all the world..."

Part of which is found in why He said "Beginning at Jerusalem..." in Luke 24.

And that is tied to Isaiah 2: 1-5.

Which is AFTER Isaiah 60:1-3.

Which is tied to, o never mind...

Suffice it to say that all that ended up at Rom. 11:25-29, where it remains...to this day.

Of course, you have figured all that out...erroneously.

You can't be helped.

You've gone too long having sorted out too much in your own mind - in contrast to doing so in light of the WHOLE of Scripture.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Tambora]

You began by accusing me of teaching that the bible doesn't mean what it says and yet here you are spiritualizing what both Daniel and Jesus talked about in literal terms.

When Jesus said that the Kingdom was at hand, He meant precisely that but it wasn't some invisible, undefinable, unfalsifiable fabrication that the modern church and you think it is. He meant a Kingdom - period. You know, the sort of Kingdom with a King and a thrown and political power and civil laws and a military and all the other things associated with a real Kingdom.

Jesus came and for three years He was looking for faith and couldn't find hardly any at all. He even asked the Father to cut them off before He was even crucified but the Father said that He would "fertilize" Israel and give it a year and, after that, if there is no fruit, then He would cut them off. (Luke 13).

So, Jesus ascends into Heaven and sends the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). Some time later (likely a year based on Luke 13), Israel has Stephen stoned to death and Jesus is seen standing at God's right hand (i.e. in preparation for judgment) (Acts 7). Israel is thus cut off and God turn's to the Gentiles (Acts 9).

Paul later explains the precise answer to why Israel did not receive their Kingdom and was cut off instead. Just because God promises you a Kingdom doesn't mean you can just do whatever the heck you want and He's still required to give it to you. God can and does change His mind and He is not obligated to give a Kingdom to a people who hate the King! This is what the whole chapter of Jeremiah 18 is all about and it just happens to be the very passage that Paul himself cites as the explanation for why Israel was cut off in Romans 9.

So, when you read something in the bible that doesn't seem to have come true, the key isn't to spiritualize it into meaninglessness.

Excellent.

I'd have liked to expand on that last sentence but I'm flatly out of time - sorry.

Hope you find the time.

 

[john w]

.

If you can't follow JohhnyW.. .

I am not mis-reading JohhnyW;

The name is John, not Johhny, you sick sodomite, butch cut boy. I told you-save those James 2:3 KJV sick come on's for your domestic partner, you effeminate punk, as I dig chicks, you wimp.

Can you dig it, Butch?

 

[turbosixx]

Suffice it to say that all that ended up at Rom. 11:25-29, where it remains...to this day.

Looking at the context of Romans 11. What do you understand the natural branches and the tree to represent?

 

[Interplanner]

into meaninglessness.

It's not meaningless when the question is why most of the race is not in the christian mission with "us" of v26? The quickest way to destroy meaning is to assume you already know what you don't.