ECT What's New (Covenant)?

[SaulToPaul 2]

There's a new one. Duh. See Heb 12 about the removing of what was created. That covers the land of Israel, Judaism and this earth all in one swoop.

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

There's a new one. Duh. See Heb 12 about the removing of what was created. That covers the land of Israel, Judaism and this earth all in one swoop.

CHAPTER BLASTER is back in action boys and girls!

• Give chapter and verses!
• The new heaven and the new earth come AFTER the 1000 year reign. [Rev 21:1]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL on the gates. [Rev 21:12]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the LAMB on the foundations. [Rev 21:14]
• The NEW Jerusalem is ON the NEW earth. [Rev 21:1-2]

Why are simple things so hard for you to understand?

 

[Interplanner]

boys and girls

That's what I've been saying the whole time.

The child-trainer version of the Bible is D'ism. Only in Christ is adulthood and maturity.

Why is it so hard, RD, for you to find the whole drift or pulse or excitement of a chapter? There's actually more than just v22 to the end, but I'll let you find that for yourself. The Bible is not a wall of sticky notes of individual lines that we string together. Nor is Romans a "Romans Road" string that we as humans put together.

I got to a "Bible study" sometimes, and the arrogant fool does nothing but read one line of the text and string together 10 others totally foreign to the context. I wish people would do that with Das Kapital!!! We'd all be free-market patriots!

Why is it so hard for you to understand there is a new earth coming, meaning, this one is burnt? That NHNE does not recognize countries as we know them, got it. The "Israel of God" of Gal 6, Rev 2, 3, Rom 9 is not a nation or race or country. It is believers, as heb 12 says.

 

[Right Divider]

boys and girls

That's what I've been saying the whole time.

The child-trainer version of the Bible is D'ism. Only in Christ is adulthood and maturity.

Why is it so hard, RD, for you to find the whole drift or pulse or excitement of a chapter? There's actually more than just v22 to the end, but I'll let you find that for yourself. The Bible is not a wall of sticky notes of individual lines that we string together. Nor is Romans a "Romans Road" string that we as humans put together.

I got to a "Bible study" sometimes, and the arrogant fool does nothing but read one line of the text and string together 10 others totally foreign to the context. I wish people would do that with Das Kapital!!! We'd all be free-market patriots!

Why is it so hard for you to understand there is a new earth coming, meaning, this one is burnt? That NHNE does not recognize countries as we know them, got it. The "Israel of God" of Gal 6, Rev 2, 3, Rom 9 is not a nation or race or country. It is believers, as heb 12 says.

• The new heaven and the new earth come AFTER the 1000 year reign. [Rev 21:1]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL on the gates. [Rev 21:12]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the LAMB on the foundations. [Rev 21:14]
• The NEW Jerusalem is ON the NEW earth. [Rev 21:1-2]

Just give SPECIFIC verses from the scripture that make your point. How hard is that from one that supposedly has so much Bible knowledge?

And ADDRESS those bullet points instead of IGNORING them.

 

[john w]

Communication lesson for boy Johnny:
the ball is red; it is not blue.

Boy Johnny, you quip? Feel better about your "man"hood, lacking confidence, do you, sweetie? Weighty, loser. I hear you are quite the feminine type, from others. True, Corky? Make that Corky-ette. Yes...

This communicates objective facts and distinctions.


You IP are an idiot for not liking blue balls; a clown; a circus manager.

And, since you have trouble with literal, why do people imagine some other enthronement when David said he saw Christ enthroned in the Resurrection in Acts 2:30?

IP idiot, you emotionally cry? Oh, you're a techie, ITT type of guy, eh? You have a slide rule, and make big bucks, and watch "The Bang Theory," do you, Corky-ette? Weighty.

David's throne was never said to be in the third heaven, punk. Clueless re. Acts 2:30 KJV, due to 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV. Poor weasel.

Get saved, embarrassing clown-ette.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Just give SPECIFIC verses from the scripture that make your point.

IP is the great Bible theorist and generalizer. He doesn't deal in specifics.

 

[Interplanner]

• The new heaven and the new earth come AFTER the 1000 year reign. [Rev 21:1]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL on the gates. [Rev 21:12]
• The NEW Jerusalem has the NAMES of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the LAMB on the foundations. [Rev 21:14]
• The NEW Jerusalem is ON the NEW earth. [Rev 21:1-2]

Just give SPECIFIC verses from the scripture that make your point. How hard is that from one that supposedly has so much Bible knowledge?

And ADDRESS those bullet points instead of IGNORING them.

They have been addressed for 2 years now. Where is your brain?

You are assuming there is 1000 year Christ over Judaism reign on this earth before the NHNE. Instead, the NT meant Christ's reign now, Acts 2:30, 31, (and tons of others).

Btw, we do not disagree that the new Jerusalem is on the NHNE, nor that it has an "Israel" but I don't know if it is the exact same corporeality as we have now, because God is the light and Christ is the temple. There are specific verses on that in the Rev, but you don't have any memory or brain so I don't see the point in telling you of them.

 

[Interplanner]

IP is the great Bible theorist and generalizer. He doesn't deal in specifics.

You fool, go find any of my posts and you will see they are totally specific-driven. Some of them are lists of examples and citations in the 10s.

You are simply dishonest and enabled in it by your pals here.

 

[Right Divider]

They have been addressed for 2 years now. Where is your brain?

You are assuming there is 1000 year Christ over Judaism reign on this earth before the NHNE. Instead, the NT meant Christ's reign now, Acts 2:30, 31, (and tons of others).

Yes, we know... you've been making the same false claims for 2 years now.

Btw, we do not disagree that the new Jerusalem is on the NHNE, nor that it has an "Israel" but I don't know if it is the exact same corporeality as we have now, because God is the light and Christ is the temple. There are specific verses on that in the Rev, but you don't have any memory or brain so I don't see the point in telling you of them.

Pretending that I'm the ignorance one will not work. We all know better.

:mock: 'An "Israel"'

The Israel in Rev 21 has tribes, twelve of them!

 

[Tambora]

Yes, we know... you've been making the same false claims for 2 years now.


Pretending that I'm the ignorance one will not work. We all know better.

:mock: 'An "Israel"'

The Israel in Rev 21 has tribes, twelve of them!

Yeppers.
The vast majority of scripture is about the history of Israel and it's 12 tribes.
But when it comes to the NT mentioning Israel (the 12 tribes), IP declares it cannot possibly be talking about THAT Israel with 12 tribes.
The majority of scripture puts it right under his nose, and he refuses to acknowledge it.

 

[Interplanner]

Yeppers.
The vast majority of scripture is about the history of Israel and it's 12 tribes.
But when it comes to the NT mentioning Israel (the 12 tribes), IP declares it cannot possibly be talking about THAT Israel with 12 tribes.
The majority of scripture puts it right under his nose, and he refuses to acknowledge it.

There's 2 in rom 2,
there's the new creation in Gal 6,
There's 'those who call themselves Jews but are not' in Rev 2, 3,
there's 'we are God's house' replacing the old covenant house in Heb 3 (the mistake of that being that it is in 'Hebrews' where it does not belong--unless of course--could it be--there's another kind of 'Hebrews'??? Hmmmm.)

But in the D'ist straitjacket of RD, those four passages are not 'specific' scriptures, lol. It's so much better to rip them out of the total argument being advanced and just disect them in english, lol.

 

[Interplanner]

"The majority of scripture"???

Anywhere where the nation/race matters, the NT doesn't care. Acts 13, 26, Mt 21's new 'ethnos' etc, etc, etc.

The question for the Bible is: when the issue actually comes up and the friction of the two elements rubs, what does it say? Referring of course to the heaviest part of Hebrews. Not imaginative imagery like Rev 21, which RD has been stuck on for 3 months now. You have to have years of listening to the Bible to know when it is spot-on a topic vs just a fleeting remark.

D'ism is a cult that thought the Bible didn't make sense without 2 programs, so it wrote tons of notes (not background research) to show where it thought the might 2ndy program was seeping through, and since then everyone is stuck in its anti-backgrounded, disjointed confusion.

 

[Right Divider]

There's 2 in rom 2,
there's the new creation in Gal 6,
There's 'those who call themselves Jews but are not' in Rev 2, 3,
there's 'we are God's house' replacing the old covenant house in Heb 3 (the mistake of that being that it is in 'Hebrews' where it does not belong--unless of course--could it be--there's another kind of 'Hebrews'??? Hmmmm.)

But in the D'ist straitjacket of RD, those four passages are not 'specific' scriptures, lol. It's so much better to rip them out of the total argument being advanced and just disect them in english, lol.

:french:

 

[Right Divider]

"The majority of scripture"???

Anywhere where the nation/race matters, the NT doesn't care. Acts 13, 26, Mt 21's new 'ethnos' etc, etc, etc.

The question for the Bible is: when the issue actually comes up and the friction of the two elements rubs, what does it say? Referring of course to the heaviest part of Hebrews. Not imaginative imagery like Rev 21, which RD has been stuck on for 3 months now. You have to have years of listening to the Bible to know when it is spot-on a topic vs just a fleeting remark.

D'ism is a cult that thought the Bible didn't make sense without 2 programs, so it wrote tons of notes (not background research) to show where it thought the might 2ndy program was seeping through, and since then everyone is stuck in its anti-backgrounded, disjointed confusion.

The cult of the furious fiction writer is the worst.

 

[Tambora]

There's 2 in rom 2,
there's the new creation in Gal 6,
There's 'those who call themselves Jews but are not' in Rev 2, 3,
there's 'we are God's house' replacing the old covenant house in Heb 3 (the mistake of that being that it is in 'Hebrews' where it does not belong--unless of course--could it be--there's another kind of 'Hebrews'??? Hmmmm.)

All the continued history of Israel.
Can't be the BOC because the BOC is a completely new and separate entity from Israel.
The Israel that fell, was blinded in part, that was scattered, and promised to be united again with their restored kingdom.
None of that related to the BOC because the BOC never fell, was never scattered, and has no need of a restoration.


What you teach is replacement theology, an error many make.

 

[Interplanner]

All the continued history of Israel.
Can't be the BOC because the BOC is a completely new and separate entity from Israel.
The Israel that fell, was blinded in part, that was scattered, and promised to be united again with their restored kingdom.
None of that related to the BOC because the BOC never fell, was never scattered, and has no need of a restoration.


What you teach is replacement theology, an error many make.

They call themselves Jews but are not because there is a different Jews, Rom 2 and all of the above cited.

The whole point of Ephesians which you in rebellion against is the unification of God's work, not further division, which was a Judaic misunderstanding after the exile.

Your definition of RT is upside down because you have not started with the Bible for that, just you don't on almost everything. Gal 3:17. There is nothing else to say about it. Judaism did the replacing and voiding. Use the words, expressions? Yes, but not the meaning that is actually there.

The whole point of the spirituality of the letter of Hebrews is that that BOC is not new, just like Acts 15 said it was not new. You should get rid of the expression. Those were believers the letter of Hebrews was referring to in the distant past, waiting for the same salvation that came in Christ that we need, not the land and not concerned about the land.

 

[john w]

They call themselves Jews but are not because there is a different Jews, Rom 2 and all of the above cited.

The whole point of Ephesians which you in rebellion against is the unification of God's work, not further division, which was a Judaic misunderstanding after the exile.

Your definition of RT is upside down because you have not started with the Bible for that, just you don't on almost everything. Gal 3:17. There is nothing else to say about it. Judaism did the replacing and voiding. Use the words, expressions? Yes, but not the meaning that is actually there.

The whole point of the spirituality of the letter of Hebrews is that that BOC is not new, just like Acts 15 said it was not new. You should get rid of the expression. Those were believers the letter of Hebrews was referring to in the distant past, waiting for the same salvation that came in Christ that we need, not the land and not concerned about the land.

No, no, no, little mutt, as your citing Jews, the Bible, Hebrews, Judaism, the BOC, spirituality, is way too literal!!! Don't you know? The days of literalism are over, and you "should get rid of the expression "Jews, the Bible, Hebrews, Judaism, the BOC, spirituality!!!!"


Remember, "spiritual contortionist:"

Focus on The....

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The whole point of the spirituality of the letter of Hebrews is that that BOC is not new, just like Acts 15 said it was not new. You should get rid of the expression. Those were believers the letter of Hebrews was referring to in the distant past, waiting for the same salvation that came in Christ that we need, not the land and not concerned about the land.

Mainstream propaganda. Do you work for CNN?

 

[Interplanner]

No, no, no, little mutt, as your citing Jews, the Bible, Hebrews, Judaism, the BOC, spirituality, is way too literal!!! Don't you know? The days of literalism are over, and you "should get rid of the expression "Jews, the Bible, Hebrews, Judaism, the BOC, spirituality!!!!"


Remember, "spiritual contortionist:"

Focus on The....

What are you saying? Hint: don't use the same expressions and sense of humor over again.

 

[Interplanner]

Mainstream propaganda. Do you work for CNN?

There is no place where the NT confines itself to just one expression for Christians, just like it does NOT confine and tradmark the 'Great Tribulation'. If you know what either are about, you are not dependent on 'exact wording.' That's why you can go to Heb 3 and see the house of God and realize that he is already setting aside what Judaism thought was the house of God for the house of God that believes. that is why you would not be race-based.