Why do you say 'now'?
That was 'then' and BTW you left out 4/5ths of your marching orders, if.... they are indeed yours.
The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
That was 'then' and BTW you left out 4/5ths of your marching orders, if.... they are indeed yours.
Please stop breaking up your responses to my posts into multiple replies. It's a form of flooding, which is against the rules.
You're confused, and in your confusion, you've conflated two different things.
There IS an objective standard. That standard is God.
Whether humans agree on that standard is another matter entirely. Doesn't change the fact that there is one.
Talk about a self-defeating argument!
Do you not realize that you violate your very own standard?
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Either there IS an objective standard which makes you wrong, or there isn't, and we can just safely ignore what you say as "your subjective opinion."
Thinking God's thoughts after Him seems like a good idea, no?
Why do you ignore the rest of the Bible?
Why would you ask that?
Or do you think that your single testimony is enough to establish a matter?
So why the need to say "the Justice of God"?
Why not just say "justice"?
Sounds like obfuscation to me.
Hence "Justice is just justice."
An objective thing.
1) Is something (like justice) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?
Supra.
It really isn't. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with it.
1) I wasn't talking to you.
2) Saying it doesn't make it so.
3) I used the wrong word. The phrase should be "Exceptions prove the rule."
You're confused, and in your confusion, you've conflated two different things.
There IS an objective standard. That standard is God.
Whether humans agree on that standard is another matter entirely. Doesn't change the fact that there is one.
Talk about a self-defeating argument!
Do you not realize that you violate your very own standard?
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Either there IS an objective standard which makes you wrong, or there isn't, and we can just safely ignore what you say as "your subjective opinion."
Thinking God's thoughts after Him seems like a good idea, no?
Why do you ignore the rest of the Bible?
Why would you ask that?
Or do you think that your single testimony is enough to establish a matter?
So why the need to say "the Justice of God"?
Why not just say "justice"?
Sounds like obfuscation to me.
Hence "Justice is just justice."
An objective thing.
1) Is something (like justice) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?
Supra.
It really isn't. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with it.
1) I wasn't talking to you.
2) Saying it doesn't make it so.
3) I used the wrong word. The phrase should be "Exceptions prove the rule."
If my house was on fire and I could only save one item it would be The Plot. It's filled with my notes but also contains my scripture index I created for it.
MAD was just as world-view transforming for me as was Open Theism.
Nicely done.
It makes me glad to be part of the un-Israelite world that later got grafted in.
It makes me consider Eph 2:12-14..."That at that time, (verse 11's past), ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;"
Right you are.
I had to edit your question in order to respond...
Rom 6:7, for one..."For he that is dead is freed from sin."
Grafted into what?
It is written..."For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;" (Rom 11:16-17)
In the simile, the branch we Gentiles were grafted onto is the branch of Israel that is faithful to Jesus.
It really brings to life the words of Paul in Eph 2:11-16..."Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:"
In a different simile, Christ is indeed the Branch.
I did just post that, "we Gentiles were grafted onto is the branch of Israel".
Jesus was/is faithful to Himself, and He was of Israel, so I see no disharmony in that.
The root of the tree which is Jesus.
It is the root (Jesus) that gives life to the whole tree which has branches of all nations.
You were asked what we were grafted into.
In the context of the question, "Branch of Israel" means Israel, because ISRAEL was the branch that was cut off.
Jesus is the one we are grafted into. How can Jesus be cut off from Himself?
Irrelevant.
Right Divider
Body part
With regards to an intelligent discussion, Hoping is hopeless.
Where there's life, there's hope.
Just the unbelieving Israelites were cut off.
Then the believing Gentiles were grafted on.
Amen, and, Jesus wasn't cut off.
Open your mind.
Jesus is the Israel the Gentiles were grafted onto.
Unbelieving Israel (the natural branch) was cut off (of Jesus).
Then the Gentiles (the wild branch) was grafted on (to Jesus).
No.
Jesus is not Israel, neither unbelieving Israel, nor the Remnant that did believe, not in this context.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, here.
Yes, yes, I know the relationship between Matthew 2 and Hosea 11. But this is this, and that is that.
Mashing things together doesn't help anyone.
Everything in its proper context.
In the context of Jesus and his family coming out of Egypt, Israel (the nation) was a type of Christ, in that Jesus coming out of Egypt was foreshadowed by Israel coming out of Egypt.
But in the context of the cutting off of Israel in Romans 11, that typology doesn't apply here, and you err by trying to apply it here.
In this context, Jesus is the trunk of the natural olive tree, and gentiles come from a wild olive tree.
Israel is the branch on the natural tree.
The unbelieving portion of Israel was cut off, and left a remnant of believers, like when you cut a branch off a tree, it leaves a remnant.
The gentile believers were grafted onto the root of Jesus, not onto the remnant (verse 17: "grafted in among them").
Did you catch that?
The gentiles "were grafted in among them," the "them" being..... You guessed it! ... Israel!
Which means the Gentiles weren't grafted onto Israel. They were grafted in AMONG Israel, ONTO CHRIST!
Which, necessarily means that, in this context, Jesus is not Israel, and Israel is not Jesus.
Correcto !
So what you just posted above is an error?
That "the Gentiles were grafted onto Jesus"?
I am sorry you can't see it the way I see it.
Despite your agreement with what I posted.
To make such a case with a difference between "into" and "among" makes so little sense.
I meant what I said. If you can't see it, that's your problem, not mine.
You don't just get to dismiss what the Bible says because it doesn't comport to your theology, Hoping.
Words mean things. If you don't like what they mean, because it doesn't fit your beliefs, then the problem is you, not scripture.
You agreed with what I posted and then disagreed with it.
Agreed.
Agreed, but the same rules apply to everyone else too.
Because context matters.
You're trying to mix contexts, and it doesn't work.
Something that I explained to you in post #315.
The context of what I posted was correct.
Gentiles are grafted into Israel, who is Christ .
You changed the subject.
But it doesn't matter, as we do agree that the Gentile believers were grafted into/onto the believing Israel.
All believes are now in one body.
Christ's body.