ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[beloved57]

Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom

Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom

The next word to consider is the word called, or the called as per rom 9:

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The greek word is

kaleō

This word is more than a bare invite, but a summons, its a call that summons some to partake of the redemption they have in Christ Jesus.

Websters states:

An effectual call is something more than the outward message of the Word of God to men. It is internal, and is the result of the enlightening and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit (John 16:14; Acts 26: 18; John 6:44), effectually drawing men to Christ, and disposing and enabling them to receive the truth (John 6:45; Acts 16:14; Eph. 1:17).

Lets look at some scriptures :

acts 2:

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

as many as denotes a definite fixed number of persons to be called

rom 1:

6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

rom 8:

28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

1 cor 1:

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.[see rom 9:24]

1 tim 6:

12Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

gal 1:

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

[Not all are called by God's Grace]

acts 13:

2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

1 pet 5:

10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

1 thess 2:

12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto [into] his kingdom and glory.

This call brings us into His Kingdom much like it calls us out of darkness into light 1 pet 2:

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Again, this call denotes more than a invite, but its an authoritative summons, its effectual an effects a desired end.

heb 9:

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

2 tim 1:

9Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

All thus called are saved or being saved as per 1 cor 1:

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Its plain that Paul identifies the saved vs 18 with the are called vs 24

Jude 1:

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

This preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, these are kingdom Truths that promote the Sovereignty of God in salvation.

 

[godrulz]

I have read Ironside's articles on the subject. Quote all of his early and late teaching instead of a few sentences out of context of all that he taught. He does not support MAD as you know. Our beef is post-cross issues, not the distinction between pre and post-cross (though Jesus obviously was looking ahead and giving revelation that was not just applicable to Jews before the cross; God did not come to earth just to give a bit of truth for a few Jews in the first century; He was transitioning from Old to New and giving universal truths that were more fully fleshed out by Paul after the cross).

Jesus was revealed as the Lamb of God who takes away sin early in His ministry. This is the foundation of the gospel (Jn. 1). He also revealed His death and resurrection, core Pauline gospel truth, early on (Jn. 2). Jn. 3 then calls us to faith in Him alone, apart from works. His anticipatory teaching is not divorced from Paul's fleshing out of it after the actual death/resurr. (cf. Acts 2 has all the elements of His person and work before Paul converted; the gospel is based on the reality of Christ/cross which predates Paul and is independent of him).

Nick M neg rep: Are you prepared to call hundreds of millions of blood-bought believers a 'satanic piece of trash' for pointing to Scripture that contradicts MAD, your pet heresy? You have made MAD the gospel, a sect, a cult. This tells me you don't know about the gospel, but add to it (though you are saved because He honors your faith and core truth, not your lack of theological perfection).

So, like Jesus and Paul, I call people to faith in Christ alone through grace apart from works (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 10:9-10; I Cor. 15:1-4). This Jesus is God, Lord, Savior, King. Disagreeing with your hyper-disp error is not a denial of the person and work of Christ. We are both Pauline. I just don't buy your post-cross two gospel theory because it is a denial of His finished work. I do recognize the eschatological, corporate differences between Israel and Church (so you must be really MAD at Covenantalists who love Jesus).

I am not a spawn of Satan, but you are clearly an idiot, a theological gnat.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I just don't buy your post-cross two gospel theory because it is a denial of His finished work.

You repeat this over and over and then you refuse to defend what you say. Again, I will repeat what I said before to you.

It is "good news" or gospel that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Especially to the Jews who understood the meaning of the terms "Christ" and "son of God."

It is also "good news" or gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

How does the first gospel mentioned here deny the finished work of the Lord Jesus?

Of course I do not expect an answer and I am sure that you will continue to make your false statement ad nausaum even though you refuse to even defend what you say.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You repeat this over and over and then you refuse to defend what you say. Again, I will repeat what I said before to you.

It is "good news" or gospel that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Especially to the Jews who understood the meaning of the terms "Christ" and "son of God."

It is also "good news" or gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

How does the first gospel mentioned here deny the finished work of the Lord Jesus?

Of course I do not expect an answer and I am sure that you will continue to make your false statement ad nausaum even though you refuse to even defend what you say.

It has been shown to godrulz that the twelve preached the exact same message before the cross as they did in early Acts after the cross. And, godrulz simply will not believe it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus was revealed as the Lamb of God who takes away sin early in His ministry. This is the foundation of the gospel (Jn. 1).

You prove your ignorance of the Scriptures over and over. From the tense of the word the reference is not to the Cross:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29).

The Greek word translated "taketh away" is in the "present" tense and not the "future" tense.

Sir Robert Anderson writes that "This is not translation merely, it savours of exegesis. 'Who beareth the sin of the world' is what the Baptist said. His words were not a prophecy of what Christ would accomplish by His death, but a statement of what He was in His life. Mark the present tense, 'Who is bearing'. And while the word used in 1 Peter 2:24, and in kindred passages, is a sacrificial term, we have here an ordinary word for lifting and carrying burdens. When the Lord sighed in healing the deaf mute by the Sea of Galilee Mark 7:34, and when He groaned and wept at the grave of Lazarus, He took upon Himself, as it were, the infirmities and sorrows which He relieved, and made them His own" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews, [Kregel Publications, 1978], p.52).

Noted Bible expositor Alfred Edersheim writes: "That the view here given is that of the N.T...appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St. John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b]" (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971], Book 3, Chapter XIV, p.488).

You should really learn the significance of the tenses before you blunder again.

 

[godrulz]

You repeat this over and over and then you refuse to defend what you say. Again, I will repeat what I said before to you.

It is "good news" or gospel that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Especially to the Jews who understood the meaning of the terms "Christ" and "son of God."

It is also "good news" or gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

How does the first gospel mentioned here deny the finished work of the Lord Jesus?

Of course I do not expect an answer and I am sure that you will continue to make your false statement ad nausaum even though you refuse to even defend what you say.

Jesus, Peter, Paul, John did not divorce the person/identity and work of Christ. They go hand in hand as you would know if you dealt with pseudo-Christian cults or world religions. Two gospels post-cross is arbitrary.

Neo-MAD says that Paul=grace/faith, but circ gospel=faith + works. This is the Judaizer heresy, a false gospel (vs true Petrine/Johannine one), a denial of grace/faith/finished work because it is adding works as a condition. Rom. 4-5 shows it is about grace/faith, even in the OT.

If you don't agree with neo-MAD (you have your Anderson permutation), then you should distance yourself from it and make the same accusation that I am making.

You keep saying I don't explain. I have. Does it occur to you that you may miss some posts/threads or that disagreeing with me is not the same as me not responding at all?

The Lamb of God taking away sins points to the cross. Sin is dealt with by shedding blood, not walking through the desert. The statement stands regardless of the verb tense. LIkewise, Jn. 2 talks about his resurrection, even though it was yet future. Jn. 3 talks about faith in Him alone, just as Paul preached. Nick called me satanic trash for stating the obvious that few disagre with.

 

[godrulz]

It has been shown to godrulz that the twelve preached the exact same message before the cross as they did in early Acts after the cross. And, godrulz simply will not believe it.

If this is true, then so did Paul. You have proof texted out of context, not proven anything. When you get the right view of regeneration/resurrection, then you may have some credibility to talk.

 

[Nang]

I always show context, and I exegete passages.

So when are you going to deal with emphasis you place on Peter's words that Paul writings were "hard to understand" according to the context of II Peter and when are you going to actually exegete chapter 3 as you said you could?

Peter writes his second epistle approximately 40 years after Pentecost. Paul's ministy is going strong and we do not see Peter actively converting new believers.

Upon what basis do you make this assumption? What does Peter's ministry at this particular point have to do with the content of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Again, if they have been teaching the same message for many years, Peter should clear on Paul's teachings. However, he says Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

It is pure assumption and stated opinion on your part that Peter is telling the believers that he is confused. Peter was not confused about Paul's message, for both disciples preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit who anointed and indwelt both men.

The statement was not a personal confession of confusion over Paul's writings, but a statement made to the audience of believers who had been harrassed by unbelieving scoffers and told that the promises of God were tardy. Peter's statement is easily understood if the context of his remarks is retained.

If Peter and Paul are teaching the same message, why does Paul find it necessary to communicate the gospel he is teaching to them? Shouldn't they already know?

Here you take liberty with the passage to speak in generalities, rather than explaining the specifics of Peter's teachings and exhortations. These Jews were believers of the (sole) Gospel of Jesus Christ, but their concern was regarding the second coming of Christ, which they believed to be imminent. Peter is simply giving them explanations for the fact that Jesus had not yet returned as soon as they had anticipated. Which reasons being: Christ would be "longsuffering" in order to work salvation for all His future church.

The believers Peter addressed were not all of God's flock. There were to be more saved in the future, and Christ would not return until His church is complete. To rest in this explanation required faith on the parts of the Jewish Christians; just like Abraham exhibited faith and willingness to wait for the promises he received by covenant from God Himself.

If Peter, James, John, etc... preached the same "gospel" that Paul preached, then why did Paul need to communicate "privately' to the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem church?

Frankly, that situation has nothing to do with the teaching of Peter in his second epistle. It is only a red herring thrown out to muddy the waters. It is no explanation or excuse for saying Paul taught a different gospel than Peter, at all!

Why do "the Pharisees who believe" argue that circumcision and law keeping are necessary?

Another red herring question that has nothing to do with understanding Peter's second epistle.

This is SO typical of dispie teachings. There is never a clear answer or exegesis given, but rather the tactic of confusion is employed and inappropriate facts and details are thrown out to distract from the clear and plain teachings of Holy Scripture at hand for discussion.

II Peter Chapter 3 consists of Peter reminding the Jewish believers of warnings from the Holy Prophets and the Apostles of unbelieving scoffers who would come into the midst of the church to do harm to their faith.

Peter gives explanation for Christ's delay in returning (which was hard for these believers to understand), but there is further explanation for Peter speaking of things that are hard to understand, and it has nothing to do with a difference between Peter and Paul. It has to do with the scoffers:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. " II Peter 3:16

The natural, unbelieving man cannot discern the truths of God, for the teachings must be spiritually discerned and these scoffers were bereft of the Holy Spirit. (II Corinthians 2:14)

Because the scoffers did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, and scoffed at His ever returning to this world, revealed these promises of the second coming were too "hard for them to understand" for these were spiritual promises that only born again believers can hold to by faith, alone.

Frankly, I have met too many dispensationalists who also prove to be "unlearned and unstable," who also take the clear and plains words of Holy Scripture and "wrest" God's Word "to their own destruction!"

In my opinion, dispies who say there is more than one Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ are no better than these "unlearned and unstable" scoffers, who were raised up by the enemy to harrass the true church of God.

Dispensationalists cause nothing but theological confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.

Nang

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus, Peter, Paul, John did not divorce the person/identity and work of Christ.

The Apostle Peter preached a gospel whereby people were saved, and that sermon can be found beginning at Acts 2:14 and it continued uninterrupted until Acts 2:26.

That gospel said nothing about the finished work of Christ, but yet men who believed that gospel were saved right then and there.

How do you explain that?

 

[notreligus]

I thought that the subject was whether or not Paul preached a different gospel. Evidently you could find nothing wrong about what I said in my latest post so you decided to just change the subject!

If you say so. I was addressing what you said. You just don't want to see it.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

So when are you going to deal with emphasis you place on Peter's words that Paul writings were "hard to understand" according to the context of II Peter and when are you going to actually exegete chapter 3 as you said you could?

Seriously? You're asking me to deal with plain English and even more plain Greek? What is so difficult to understand about what Peter says? Once again, Peter's own words support what I believe...

2 Peter 3:16a as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,

How much more plain could it be? As far as my exegesis of chapter 3, I have no problem supporting my claims. Is this the appropriate forum to do so, or should we start another thread? I'll let you decide... Then you ask,

Upon what basis do you make this assumption? What does Peter's ministry at this particular point have to do with the content of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Um, history... And the Bible... The feast of weeks recorded in Acts 2 took place the same year as Christ's death, A.D. 31. The Book of 2 Peter was written toward the end of Peter’s life. Since Peter was martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero, his death must have occurred prior to A.D. 68. He very likely wrote 2 Peter between A.D. 65 and 68. Therefore, Peter writes his second epistle about 34 - 37 years after Pentecost.

The point once again is... Almost 40 years after Pentecost, Peter says Paul's epistles are difficult to understand. Once again... If Peter and Paul have been preaching the same message, why does Peter say Paul's epistles are hard to understand?

=nang]It is pure assumption and stated opinion on your part that Peter is telling the believers that he is confused.

No assumption here... Peter says it himself...

2 Peter 3:16a as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,

Peter was not confused about Paul's message, for both disciples preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit who anointed and indwelt both men.

I agree that Peter and Paul are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, the messages are different, for different groups of people, who have different hopes...

The statement was not a personal confession of confusion over Paul's writings,

Huh? Are we reading the same passage?

2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,

"...in which..." In what? "...all his epistles..." Whose epistles? "PAUL'S Epistles..."

...but a statement made to the audience of believers who had been harrassed by unbelieving scoffers and told that the promises of God were tardy. Peter's statement is easily understood if the context of his remarks is retained.

Yes it is... Peter says Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

Here you take liberty with the passage to speak in generalities, rather than explaining the specifics of Peter's teachings and exhortations. These Jews were believers of the (sole) Gospel of Jesus Christ, but their concern was regarding the second coming of Christ, which they believed to be imminent. Peter is simply giving them explanations for the fact that Jesus had not yet returned as soon as they had anticipated. Which reasons being: Christ would be "longsuffering" in order to work salvation for all His future church.

Um, you went off topic here. My question referred back to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. I asked why Paul had communicate the message he was preaching in private to the leaders of the church.

Frankly, that situation has nothing to do with the teaching of Peter in his second epistle. It is only a red herring thrown out to muddy the waters. It is no explanation or excuse for saying Paul taught a different gospel than Peter, at all!

So, instead of responding to my question, you call it a red herring. My question is relevant to the discussion. You are the one who claims that Peter and Paul are preaching the same message. I'm simply asking why Paul had to communicate his message privately to those of reputation. This question helps clarify 2 Peter 3. Paul had to communicate privately because his message was different than Peter's. Peter affirms that Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

Another red herring question that has nothing to do with understanding Peter's second epistle.

Again, answer the question! Where did the "Pharisees who believe" get the idea that newly converted Gentiles needed circumcision and the law? This lends even more credibility to the fact that Paul communicated his new gospel in private to the leaders of the church.

This is SO typical of dispie teachings. There is never a clear answer or exegesis given, but rather the tactic of confusion is employed and inappropriate facts and details are thrown out to distract from the clear and plain teachings of Holy Scripture at hand for discussion.

Ahhhh... Now for the ad hominem attacks... I asked simple questions... You are the one who can't answer them and calls the red herrings...

II Peter Chapter 3 consists of Peter reminding the Jewish believers of warnings from the Holy Prophets and the Apostles of unbelieving scoffers who would come into the midst of the church to do harm to their faith.

Agreed.

Peter gives explanation for Christ's delay in returning (which was hard for these believers to understand),

So you agree that Peter was expecting Christ to return very soon? You must agree with me since you correctly state that Peter is explaining the reason for the delay of His return.

...but there is further explanation for Peter speaking of things that are hard to understand, and it has nothing to do with a difference between Peter and Paul. It has to do with the scoffers:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. " II Peter 3:16

Yes. Peter says Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

The natural, unbelieving man cannot discern the truths of God, for the teachings must be spiritually discerned and these scoffers were bereft of the Holy Spirit. (II Corinthians 2:14)

Wrong again... Unfortunately another discussion or we'll never stay on track...

Because the scoffers did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, and scoffed at His ever returning to this world, revealed these promises of the second coming were too "hard for them to understand" for these were spiritual promises that only born again believers can hold to by faith, alone.

No, Peter says Paul's epistles are hard to understand.

Frankly, I have met too many dispensationalists who also prove to be "unlearned and unstable," who also take the clear and plains words of Holy Scripture and "wrest" God's Word "to their own destruction!"

More ad homenim... Nice.

In my opinion, dispies who say there is more than one Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ are no better than these "unlearned and unstable" scoffers, who were raised up by the enemy to harrass the true church of God.

Less opinion, more facts please...

Dispensationalists cause nothing but theological confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
Nang

Ahhhh, but the very nature of your Theological system does make God the author of confusion. You believe that God foreknows and predestines everything... Even this discussion... Therefore, you are forced to argue that God authored me to be confused, since you have the Truth... Right?

Please feel free to answer the three questions I outlined in my previous post.

God bless,

--Jeremy

 

[Nang]

The Apostle Peter preached a gospel whereby people were saved, and that sermon can be found beginning at Acts 2:14 and it continued uninterrupted until Acts 2:26.

That gospel said nothing about the finished work of Christ, but yet men who believed that gospel were saved right then and there.

How do you explain that?

"Christ crucified" is not the finished work of the Son of God and thus, the Gospel of Grace?

C'mon!!!

Peter preached the only Gospel that saves! So did Paul! So did every other man of faith from the beginning of time.

(The denial of the gospel is sickening, IMO.) :vomit:

 

[Nang]

Seriously? You're asking me to deal with plain English and even more plain Greek? What is so difficult to understand about what Peter says? Once again, Peter's own words support what I believe...

You said you would and could exegete II Peter Chapter 3.

Are you backing down and refusing to do so?

 

[Nang]

As far as my exegesis of chapter 3, I have no problem supporting my claims.

A proper and honest exegesis of II Peter Chapter 3 should have nothing to do with personal "claims."

That is the point.

Can you really exegete Chapter 3 intellectually apart and emotionally divorced from your presupposed theories and claims?

That is the question . . .

 

[Nang]

I agree that Peter and Paul are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, the messages are different, for different groups of people, who have different hopes...

Glad you agree that the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is controlled and guided by the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ. But saying "the messages are different" and are contingent upon different human "hopes," totally contradicts with what you claim you agree, and is completely wrong.

Never is the good news of Christ preached, to tickle the ears and serve the hopes of a variety of sinners. That is pure nonsense, if not blasphemy.

Spiritually dead men do not and cannot "hope" in anything. The power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is nothing less than the means of God to raise dead souls to everlasting life!

God forbid that He would fashion His salvation according to the corrupted hopes of dead men.

Nang

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

You said you would and could exegete II Peter Chapter 3.

Are you backing down and refusing to do so?

Never. Do you even read my posts? I asked you another simple question... I asked if this was the proper forum to discuss the entirety of 2 Peter 3, or if we should start another thread... Talk about Red Herring!

A proper and honest exegesis of II Peter Chapter 3 should have nothing to do with personal "claims."

That is the point.

Can you really exegete Chapter 3 intellectually apart and emotionally divorced from your presupposed theories and claims?

That is the question . . .

Yes. That is the answer. Can you be honest, answer simple questions without obfuscation, and take of your covenant colored glasses?

That is the question...

BTW, are you going to respond to my points above and my previous 3 questions?

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Glad you agree that the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is controlled and guided by the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ. But saying "the messages are different" and are contingent upon different human "hopes," totally contradicts with what you claim you agree, and is completely wrong.

Never is the good news of Christ preached, to tickle the ears and serve the hopes of a variety of sinners. That is pure nonsense, if not blasphemy.

Spiritually dead men do not and cannot "hope" in anything. The power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is nothing less than the means of God to raise dead souls to everlasting life!

God forbid that He would fashion His salvation according to the corrupted hopes of dead men.

Nang

Do you realize you made 6 distinct claims and failed to provide a Scriptural basis for any of it?

The "hope" is not of men... The hope is Heavenly! The nation of Israel's hope is to inherit their kingdom on Earth. The body of Christ, with Paul as our Apostle and Christ as our head, is looking forward to the rapture and our position above the heavenlies.

I realize I didn't provide Scripture for my claims above... I'm playing by nang's rules...

--Jeremy

 

[Nang]

BTW, are you going to respond to my points above and my previous 3 questions?

I already responded, here.

 

[Nang]

Do you realize you made 6 distinct claims and failed to provide a Scriptural basis for any of it?

List the six things you refer to, please . . .

 

[Nang]

The "hope" is not of men... The hope is Heavenly!

That is nothing close to what you claimed when you posted and said that the Gospel is supposedly fashioned to fit different human hopes:

"different groups of people, who have different hopes..."

What kind of bible teacher are you? You cannot even substantiate your own words, let alone remain consistent in argument and presentation of your own words!

Bah . . .