ECT The eternal Gospel

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
It doesn't.
Click to expand...

Are you so uninformed that you don't even understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel includes promises in regard to an earthly city (Jer.31:38-40)?

That covenant will cease to exist when the following happens:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved...Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet.3:10-11, 13).​

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest" (Heb.1:10-11).​

Will you really argue that these prophecies have already been fulfilled? I hope so!
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Total nonsense, because we don't read the OT as though the NT did not exist.
Click to expand...

So those who originally received the OT Scriptures did not even understand what is written there since they didn't have the NT then? Of course they did. We should understand what is written in the OT in the same way that those who originally received those Scriptures understood them.

Otherwise, we must throw our reason to the wind and imagine that the LORD did not really mean what He told the OT Jews!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
So those who originally received the OT Scriptures did not even understand what is written there since they didn't have the NT then? Of course they did. We should understand what is written in the OT in the same way that those who originally received those Scriptures understood them.

Otherwise, we must throw our reason to the wind and imagine that the LORD did not really mean what He told the OT Jews!
Click to expand...





No they didn't understand I Pet 1:11 'trying to find out', and we have to factor what Paul said about it in 2 Cor 5. Don't read it 'kata sarka.' If we read it like Paul, we 'don't go beyond the suffering and proclamation of light by Christ to his people and the nations.' (Acts 26:22) WE CHRISTIANS DO NOT GO BEYOND THAT to some imagined future restoration of Judaism in a 'holy' land.

The 'kata sarka' reader says it says Israel so it must be Israel the nation. That is called 'reason.' It is void of Christ and his new creation.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Are you so uninformed that you don't even understand that the New Covenant promised to Israel includes promises in regard to an earthly city (Jer.31:38-40)?

That covenant will cease to exist when the following happens:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved...Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet.3:10-11, 13).​

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest" (Heb.1:10-11).​

Will you really argue that these prophecies have already been fulfilled? I hope so!
Click to expand...





they weren't about the city and they were about Christ and they are fulfilled in him. You can't get through Heb 12:22-28 with your system.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
That's why I listed both OT and NT scripture telling us point blank whom the new covenant was made to.

Israel were the people both the old covenant and new covenant were made to.
Both the OT and NT tell us that point blank.


I didn't put any rule on Hebrews, ding bat.

The whole world needs GOD.
But it was Israel that GOD specifically elected to make the old covenant and the new covenant with.
Both the OT and the NT tells us so.
Jer 31:31
Heb 8:8

Judaism cannot change the promises GOD makes.


Ummmm, I posted both OT and NT.
Here it is again.


Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
(31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:




Hebrews 8:8 KJV
(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:



And "replacement theology" is about CHANGING what scripture says about the house of Judah and the house of Israel into a fictional story with someone else in their place.

And as scripture also plainly tells us, Israel is still the beloved of GOD even though they are enemies of the gospel.

Romans 11:28 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Click to expand...





Yes, they are loved through the Gospel, the one who don't love the Gospel are extirpated, says Acts 3, which is disinheritance with hostility. Go learn your NT and get back to me, OK?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Modern 1990 RT is fake theology.

The real issue is in Gal 3:17 and everything else is fake. Judaism thought they could replace the Promise with the Law and they fought that way in the Great War. They were fried.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
That's why I listed both OT and NT scripture telling us point blank whom the new covenant was made to.

Israel were the people both the old covenant and new covenant were made to.
Both the OT and NT tell us that point blank.


I didn't put any rule on Hebrews, ding bat.

The whole world needs GOD.
But it was Israel that GOD specifically elected to make the old covenant and the new covenant with.
Both the OT and the NT tells us so.
Jer 31:31
Heb 8:8

Judaism cannot change the promises GOD makes.


Ummmm, I posted both OT and NT.
Here it is again.


Jeremiah 31:31 KJV
(31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:




Hebrews 8:8 KJV
(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:



And "replacement theology" is about CHANGING what scripture says about the house of Judah and the house of Israel into a fictional story with someone else in their place.

And as scripture also plainly tells us, Israel is still the beloved of GOD even though they are enemies of the gospel.

Romans 11:28 KJV
(28) As concerning the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies for your [BOC] sakes: but as touching the election, they [Israel] are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Click to expand...





Get every passage about the New Covenant on the table instead of your one and only. that's dishonest. You'll never conclude what you do now.

and the eternal covenant of Heb 13 is NOT something else all over again. The bible is coherent not compartmented. It is the one new covenant that was always there: God in Christ if needed for mankind.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
That's transformational Marxist bible handling sir.

The reason I'm not TM (like you accuse) is that I'm not foisting on the Bible in an unnatural way, like you do. When it comes down to the grind of what a passage is saying in normal English, your literalism is to the wind.

You defy what Acts 2:30 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Gal 3:17 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Eph 3:5-6 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Acts 13 is saying about the whole promised direction Israel in normal grammar.

Because D'ism is a bogus system that one guy thought made Christ-less sense of the Bible. It does--Christlessly.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
That's transformational Marxist bible handling sir.

The reason I'm not TM (like you accuse) is that I'm not foisting on the Bible in an unnatural way, like you do. When it comes down to the grind of what a passage is saying in normal English, your literalism is to the wind.

You defy what Acts 2:30 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Gal 3:17 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Eph 3:5-6 is saying in normal grammar.

You defy what Acts 13 is saying about the whole promised direction Israel in normal grammar.

Because D'ism is a bogus system that one guy thought made Christ-less sense of the Bible. It does--Christlessly.
Click to expand...

Made up.
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SaulToPaul said:
Here's the everlasting gospel,

Rev
14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters
Click to expand...
So much for IP's made up "one gospel". That's certainly not the gospel of our salvation!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
heir said:
So much for IP's made up "one gospel". That's certainly not the gospel of our salvation!
Click to expand...





It doesn't really detail it, and any of those things said in response to it are said many times elsewhere. Your conclusion is to puerile to bother with.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
heir said:
The everlasting gospel cannot and is not the good news of our salvation. Your conclusion that it's all one and the same shows me you haven't a teacher, but a natural man problem (1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV).
Click to expand...





There's only one gospel, and once it is announced, it calls for people to repent. But none of the things it tells people to do are gospel; they are responses. In Rom 2, the kindness of God leads us to repentance. That does not mean repentance is the kindness. Clear up the mirky organization of your mind.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Another example of the where the literalists are literal until it conflicts with D'ism which trumps all grammar and normal meaning. As it does in rom 11, Acts 2, 13, Heb 12, Acts 26, Gal 3. Don't you dare conflict with D'ism!
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Another example of the where the literalists are literal until it conflicts with D'ism which trumps all grammar and normal meaning. As it does in rom 11, Acts 2, 13, Heb 12, Acts 26, Gal 3. Don't you dare conflict with D'ism!
Click to expand...
Another example of a liar telling lies. We have enough examples already IP.

Rom 11:1-5 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. (11:2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, (11:3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (11:4) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal. (11:5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. ​

And yet IP says that God has cast away His people.

Wrong as always. At least you're consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top