Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matthew 26:28

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cntrysner
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    If you are so careless as to put your sentences together without regard for the conventions of English grammar, no one will take you seriously.

    Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on you. Maybe it was past your bedtime.
    Maybe I was displaying your form of eisegesis.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by Cntrysner View Post
    GA said..There were exceptions: Abraham, Moses, etc. So when I say it is important to have a Godly, or heavenly, perspective I mean to point out that the good news of grace by faith in Christ was not new to the Godhead; it was new to the world in general.

    You are superimposing the latter over the former when it comes to the understanding of man yet God knew.

    It's a was mystery...
    If you are so careless as to put your sentences together without regard for the conventions of English grammar, no one will take you seriously.

    Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on you. Maybe it was past your bedtime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
    That is because it is confused and taken way out of context.
    That was pretty much my take on it too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cntrysner
    replied
    GA said..There were exceptions: Abraham, Moses, etc. So when I say it is important to have a Godly, or heavenly, perspective I mean to point out that the good news of grace by faith in Christ was not new to the Godhead; it was new to the world in general.[/QUOTE]

    You are superimposing the latter over the former when it comes to the understanding of man yet God knew.

    It's a was mystery...
    Last edited by Cntrysner; July 15th, 2019, 05:05 PM. Reason: .

    Leave a comment:


  • Ktoyou
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds confused.
    That is because it is confused and taken way out of context.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cntrysner
    replied
    Let me get this straight...there is no difference between a covenant and a testament or is just lost in translation? The question is to all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Thank you for finally answering the question.
    No, you did not answer the question about the apostles until now. If you can find, in your replies, where you did and point me to it, I will apologize for not seeing it.

    Next question: will this include Judas?
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Understood.

    So one of the 12 people that Jesus included in this: Luk 22:30KJV is no longer invited to eat with Jesus and one that He did not include in the statement is now invited in his place.
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Hi RD.
    HI GA.

    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    I never misunderstood your position on the replacement of Judas or the Bible's account of it.
    We do not disagree on the circumstances of later replacement.
    Based on the previous posts of yours, it certainly seemed like you disagree that Judas was properly replaced.

    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    What we were talking about had nothing to do with Judas being replaced or not. You were the one who changed the discussion into that.
    See above... YOU were the one that brought Judas into the discussion... not me.

    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    We were talking about your insistence on the words of Jesus being exactly fulfilled as spoken; especially with regard to the phrase "the fruit of the vine". Your futurism demands that eating and drinking with the apostles after the resurrection has not taken place. Hence you force yourself to believe that Jesus drank water only with them on those occasions.
    Again, you lie about me and what I was saying. Your "pastism" requires that Jesus drank wine after His resurrection. Scripture says no such thing.... you are using one of your MANY fallacious arguments. Scripture does NOT document Jesus drinking wine after His resurrection, you must ASSUME that He did to support your fairy tale.

    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Although we did not discuss it, I would imagine you would also believe that Jesus did not eat the same type of food with them as He did at the Passover meal as that would also violate your interpretation.
    Rabbit trail...

    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    But when it comes to adhering to the words of Jesus for other purposes, your exegetical approach is quite different. He deliberately addressed specific people; yet you let that slide. My point was that you are not consistent when it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth. I left off that discussion because I knew that a discerning person would be able to see your inconsistent behaviour.
    Sorry GA, but you're just plain wrong and that is easy for anyone to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    GA, you get some things barely right but ignore the details of God's plans. His earthly kingdom will come just like the scripture says that it will.
    The body of Christ fulfills another role that you cannot see because of this fairy tale story that you keep pushing.

    Do you now understand the replacement of Judas? http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5345397
    Hi RD.


    I never misunderstood your position on the replacement of Judas or the Bible's account of it.
    We do not disagree on the circumstances of later replacement.


    What we were talking about had nothing to do with Judas being replaced or not. You were the one who changed the discussion into that.
    We were talking about your insistence on the words of Jesus being exactly fulfilled as spoken; especially with regard to the phrase "the fruit of the vine". Your futurism demands that eating and drinking with the apostles after the resurrection has not taken place. Hence you force yourself to believe that Jesus drank water only with them on those occasions.


    Although we did not discuss it, I would imagine you would also believe that Jesus did not eat the same type of food with them as He did at the Passover meal as that would also violate your interpretation.


    But when it comes to adhering to the words of Jesus for other purposes, your exegetical approach is quite different. He deliberately addressed specific people; yet you let that slide. My point was that you are not consistent when it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth. I left off that discussion because I knew that a discerning person would be able to see your inconsistent behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Thank you for replying coherently and with reasonable arguments.
    I thought you were just being flippant like so many others. My apologies.

    There are many references to God's plan of redemption by Jesus' blood being in the mind of God before creation. This certifies it as God's one and only over-arching plan. And God is not restricted by time as we are.

    As you have pointed out, the first testament, the physical testament of the worldly sanctuary, requiring gifts and washings and animals, etc. were shadows of things to come as noted in Heb 9:9KJV. These things testified, not to a testament to come, but to the true testament already in effect.

    It is exactly because the things of the first testament were shadows, visual aids, figures of the true testament, that we know that the true testament of salvation by Christ's blood was God's plan from the beginning. Heb. 9:24KJV

    The gospel of the true testament has been preached since creation (Gen 3:15KJV) But it fell, generally, on deaf ears. They could not hear it because of sin. There were exceptions: Abraham, Moses, etc. So when I say it is important to have a Godly, or heavenly, perspective I mean to point out that the good news of grace by faith in Christ was not new to the Godhead; it was new to the world in general.
    GA, you get some things barely right but ignore the details of God's plans. His earthly kingdom will come just like the scripture says that it will.
    The body of Christ fulfills another role that you cannot see because of this fairy tale story that you keep pushing.

    Do you now understand the replacement of Judas? http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5345397

    Leave a comment:


  • George Affleck
    replied
    Originally posted by Cntrysner View Post
    Heb 9:15 And 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.
    Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
    Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

    But you said..."It is new to the world in that it had not been heard before, not because it was not in effect" which is obviously wrong according to scripture.
    Thank you for replying coherently and with reasonable arguments.
    I thought you were just being flippant like so many others. My apologies.

    There are many references to God's plan of redemption by Jesus' blood being in the mind of God before creation. This certifies it as God's one and only over-arching plan. And God is not restricted by time as we are.

    As you have pointed out, the first testament, the physical testament of the worldly sanctuary, requiring gifts and washings and animals, etc. were shadows of things to come as noted in Heb 9:9KJV. These things testified, not to a testament to come, but to the true testament already in effect.

    It is exactly because the things of the first testament were shadows, visual aids, figures of the true testament, that we know that the true testament of salvation by Christ's blood was God's plan from the beginning. Heb. 9:24KJV

    The gospel of the true testament has been preached since creation (Gen 3:15KJV) But it fell, generally, on deaf ears. They could not hear it because of sin. There were exceptions: Abraham, Moses, etc. So when I say it is important to have a Godly, or heavenly, perspective I mean to point out that the good news of grace by faith in Christ was not new to the Godhead; it was new to the world in general.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cntrysner
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Ok - so your opinion trumps scripture.
    Got it.
    Heb 9:15 And 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.
    Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
    Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

    But you said..."It is new to the world in that it had not been heard before, not because it was not in effect" which is obviously wrong according to scripture.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    That's a personal opinion that you believe to be true based on subjective reasoning.
    God's will is being done on earth. There is good and there is evil. And it is all being dealt with, second by second, according to God's perfect redemptive plan. He uses the evil to heap coals of judgement on the heads of those who participate in evil. And He uses the good to accumulate an exceeding and eternal weight of glory for those who participate in good.

    No kingdom on earth is without those two things. When we reach heaven, the evil is left behind and only the good remains.
    You believe a fairy take GA.

    Please start taking the Bible seriously.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
    Untrue.

    Rom 3:22KJV
    Rom 10:12KJV
    You are taking those completely out of CONTEXT. They have NOTHING to do with the old and new covenants.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Cntrysner View Post
    How can you say that His body is unrelated to His (God's) covenants.
    Because that's the fact.

    Originally posted by Cntrysner View Post
    Christ is the fulfillment of the covenants of God. Therefore must be related at least in someway.
    You are a Bible masher that is not paying close attention to what God says that He is doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Cntrysner View Post
    That prayer was for those that believed in an earthly kingdom but I to can can say it if I believe in a Spiritual kingdom on earth in Christ for all who believe in Him. I am incorruptible in Christ Jesus and set at the right hand of God in His kingdom in Christ. Christ is the embodiment of God's kingdom and is in all that believe in Him on this earth. I in Him and He in me right now. You can't see it because it is a Spiritual kingdom and the glorified Christ is it's head. Maybe you just don't like the word "kingdom" when it refers to His body.
    You're just making things up.

    That prayer was given to the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
    That will happen when the Lord returns to establish His kingdom on the earth.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X