What and who did Paul preach?

[Right Divider]

We should expect the New Covenant to contradict the Old Covenant, otherwise they're just the same and there's no reason to call them something different.

Just because they are not the same does not mean that they need to CONTRADICT one another.
Make a CASE for that idea (that we should expect a contradiction between Israel's two covenants).

But "contradict" here is just the same as "amend."

No, those two words are NOT the same. That is a FALSE claim.

There are many things which remain the same in the New Covenant, and there are many things which are different.

Duh. What amazing insight!

One thing that remains the same is the TWO parties of the covenant: the LORD and Israel.

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ​

 

[Right Divider]

Right, Jesus said to search the scriptures.
And so did Paul.
Paul was very educated on what the scriptures said.
But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about.

They saw scripture as black & white until Christ showed them the scriptures in living color.

You are making a lot of claims lately without any argument whatsoever.

Where did Jesus say this and what did He say to search for?
Same with Paul.
Be specific.

 

[Right Divider]

But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about.

Please demonstrate some of these "contradictions".

 

[Idolater]

Just because they are not the same does not mean that they need to CONTRADICT one another.

Nobody said they need to, they certainly could be orthogonal to each other.

Make a CASE for that idea (that we should expect a contradiction between Israel's two covenants).

I don't need to make a case when it's so obvious.

No, those two words [contradict and amend] are NOT the same. That is a FALSE claim.

The 21st Amendment amended the Constitution and it contradicted the 18th Amendment.

Duh. What amazing insight!

One thing that remains the same is the TWO parties of the covenant: the LORD and Israel.

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ​

And there are dietary /purity laws in the Old Covenant which are amended out of the New Covenant. The Mass /Eucharist /Lord's Supper replaces temple liturgy. Baptism replaces circumcision. Gentiles are welcomed and fellowheirs. The day of rest is Sunday not Saturday. You know this.

 

[Right Divider]

Nobody said they need to, they certainly could be orthogonal to each other.

YOU said that "we should expect" them to contradict each other:

We should expect the New Covenant to contradict the Old Covenant, otherwise they're just the same and there's no reason to call them something different.

No you not even know what you post?

I don't need to make a case when it's so obvious.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Make a case or continue to be a poser.

The 21st Amendment amended the Constitution and it contradicted the 18th Amendment.

So what. Contradict does NOT mean the same thing as amend.
An "amendment" does NOT have to contradict.

And there are dietary /purity laws in the Old Covenant which are amended out of the New Covenant.

Again, a claim without support. POSER!

The Mass /Eucharist /Lord's Supper replaces temple liturgy.

The Mass is an abomination.

Baptism replaces circumcision.

No, it does NOT! Again, a claim without support! POSER!

Gentiles are welcomed and fellowheirs.

To what? To the RCC road to hell?

The day of rest is Sunday not Saturday.

Nope. Just another claim without support! POSER!

 

[Idolater]

YOU said that "we should expect" them to contradict each other:

As in, we oughtn't be surprised. There is no problem here, except in your own imagination.

No you not even know what you post?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Make a case or continue to be a poser.

I did. You commented on it.

So what. Contradict does NOT mean the same thing as amend.
An "amendment" does NOT have to contradict.

Never said it did.

Again, a claim without support. POSER!

The Mass is an abomination.

No, it does NOT! Again, a claim without support! POSER!

To what? To the RCC road to hell?

Nope. Just another claim without support! POSER!

Why don't you just save time and respond to all my posts with "POSER."

 

[Right Divider]

As in, we oughtn't be surprised. There is no problem here, except in your own imagination.

It's not my imagination that you write and communicate poorly.

I did. You commented on it.

Begging the question is not a response.

Never said it did.

Then why your dumb "example"?

Why don't you just save time and respond to all my posts with "POSER."

Why don't you make an actual argument and quit posing?

 

[Idolater]

Please demonstrate some of these "contradictions".

I would imagine the list would include that the Messiah would be the only begotten Son of God, and that He'd be crucified, die, be buried, and then rise from the dead, if I had to guess. For starters.

 

[Idolater]

It's not my imagination that you write and communicate poorly.

Begging the question is not a response.

Then why your dumb "example"?

Why don't you make an actual argument and quit posing?

Eh, this is why I had to put you on ignore, because we'd just go back and forth like cats and dogs and never accomplish anything. I'll own my half of it, but you're responsible for the other half.

 

[Right Divider]

I would imagine the list would include that the Messiah would be the only begotten Son of God, and that He'd be crucified, die, be buried, and then rise from the dead, if I had to guess. For starters.

None of those things contradict anything written in the OT.
If you would like to actually make a case that they do, please do so.

 

[Right Divider]

Eh, this is why I had to put you on ignore, because we'd just go back and forth like cats and dogs and never accomplish anything. I'll own my half of it, but you're responsible for the other half.

I actually engage in dialog, whereas you simply make unsupported claims.

MAKE A CASE instead of just giving us your useless opinions.

 

[Idolater]

None of those things contradict anything written in the OT.

Nobody said they did.

If you would like to actually make a case that they do, please do so.

Here's what Tam said:

Right, Jesus said to search the scriptures. ... And so did Paul. ... Paul was very educated on what the scriptures said.
But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about. ... They saw scripture as black & white until Christ showed them the scriptures in living color.

You focused in on "contradictions." I provided two big ones. Nobody ---- nobody ---- said anything about the O.T. being contradicted until you did. Read it again.

 

[Right Divider]

Nobody said they did.

What in the world were you trying to say then?

Here's what Tam said:

You focused in on "contradictions." I provided two big ones.

No, you did not. See below.

Nobody ---- nobody ---- said anything about the O.T. being contradicted until you did. Read it again.

This is part of what Tam said: "which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted)"

I'm wondering what some of those things would be? You need to show a scripture that was understood one way and then show how Jesus gave a meaning "which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted)" the previous understanding.

You can do it or Tambora can do it. But someone needs to support that claim with actual evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please demonstrate some of these "contradictions".

I would imagine the list would include that the Messiah would be the only begotten Son of God, and that He'd be crucified, die, be buried, and then rise from the dead, if I had to guess. For starters.

None of those things contradict anything written in the OT.
If you would like to actually make a case that they do, please do so.

Nobody said they did.

Uh.... Hmmm.

You're delusional.

But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about.

@Idolater "Scripture" for the Apostles WAS LITERALLY what we now today call the "OLD TESTAMENT."

Nobody ---- nobody ---- said anything about the O.T. being contradicted until you did. Read it again.

The entire thread is still there for everyone to read, you numbskull.

 

[Right Divider]

Nobody ---- nobody ---- said anything about the O.T. being contradicted until you did.

I never said that the OT was being contradicted.

Read it again.

She made THIS CLAIM:

"But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about."

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

 

[Idolater]

I actually engage in dialog, whereas you simply make unsupported claims.

Tomato tomahto.

MAKE A CASE

Why should I bother? I've been asking Mid Acts Dispenationalists for a while now, to provide a statement of faith or creed that you believe, so that we can actually discuss the actual tenets of your systematic theology. You yourself provided me the Grace Ambassadors web domain, which I examined, and when I asked you about its content you said you wouldn't vouch for it. Someone else recommended I read Bob Enyart's (of happy memory) The Plot. I asked the same question and literally every Mid Acts Dispensationalist refused to vouch for that too. So I'm asking again, for something reasonable, which is what exactly Mid Acts Dispensationalism believes or teaches or even just is. Something which is authoritative Mid Acts Dispensationalism, so that we're all talking about the same thing.

I remind you the entirety of Catholicism as a systematic theology is contained in and expressed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available for free online, along with printed copies. Whatever anybody reads in the Catechism is Catholicism. Whatever Mid Acts Dispensationalism is, I have enough evidence to argue that nobody knows what it is. Certainly none of the self-identifying Mid Acts Dispensationalists on TOL.

 

[Idolater]

View attachment 9355
What in the world were you trying to say then?

No, you did not. See below.

This is part of what Tam said: "which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted)"

I'm wondering what some of those things would be? You need to show a scripture that was understood one way and then show how Jesus gave a meaning "which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted)" the previous understanding.

You can do it or Tambora can do it. But someone needs to support that claim with actual evidence.

Uh.... Hmmm.

You're delusional.



@Idolater "Scripture" for the Apostles WAS LITERALLY what we now today call the "OLD TESTAMENT."



The entire thread is still there for everyone to read, you numbskull.

I never said that the OT was being contradicted.

She made THIS CLAIM:

"But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about."

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

"what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about"

In the case of Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection, neither Paul nor any of the other Apostles thought the prophecies meant this.

In the case of Christ's divinity, neither Paul nor any of the other Apostles thought the prophecies meant this either.

Therefore that the prophecies did mean that Christ would be divine and be crucified and Resurrected contradicted "what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about."

 

[Tambora]

Here's what Tam said:


You focused in on "contradictions." I provided two big ones. Nobody ---- nobody ---- said anything about the O.T. being contradicted until you did. Read it again.

Yeppers.

Right, Jesus said to search the scriptures.
And so did Paul.
Paul was very educated on what the scriptures said.
But just like Jesus' disciples had been guilty of, Paul's expectation of the fulfilment (the actual meaning) of those scriptures were skewed until Christ opened their eyes; which often turned out to be something completely different (and even contradicted) what they had previously thought the actual meaning of those scriptures were really all about.

They saw scripture as black & white until Christ showed them the scriptures in living color.

The only context in which I mentioned contradiction was in the context of what the disciples and Paul had previously thought was the actual meaning of scripture until Christ opened their understanding.
It's right there in my post for all to read.

 

[Right Divider]

Tomato tomahto.

Not at all. Again, you simply show your ignorance.

Why should I bother?

Because otherwise you're just babbling your vain opinions. We don't care about your opinions. We only care if you make a case... make an argument.

I've been asking Mid Acts Dispenationalists for a while now, to provide a statement of faith or creed that you believe, so that we can actually discuss the actual tenets of your systematic theology. You yourself provided me the Grace Ambassadors web domain, which I examined, and when I asked you about its content you said you wouldn't vouch for it.

I never said that I would not "vouch for it". It is quite good. Probably the best on the Internet. You could learn a ton from that site.

That you need a "creed" shows that you do not know what Biblical truth is!

Someone else recommended I read Bob Enyart's (of happy memory) The Plot. I asked the same question and literally every Mid Acts Dispensationalist refused to vouch for that too.

Again, you are stuck on this nonsensical idea that a "creed" establishes Biblical truth. NO, it does NOT! Only the Bible establishes Biblical truth!

So I'm asking again, for something reasonable, which is what exactly Mid Acts Dispensationalism believes or teaches or even just is. Something which is authoritative Mid Acts Dispensationalism, so that we're all talking about the same thing.

ONLY THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY for BIBLICAL TRUTH.

Your RCC creeds are garbage.

I remind you the entirety of Catholicism as a systematic theology is contained in and expressed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available for free online, along with printed copies.

WHO CARES? The RCC is NOT authoritative with regards to BIBLICAL TRUTH!

Whatever anybody reads in the Catechism is Catholicism.

Who cares what "Catholicism is"? It is garbage.

Whatever Mid Acts Dispensationalism is, I have enough evidence to argue that nobody knows what it is. Certainly none of the self-identifying Mid Acts Dispensationalists on TOL.

Thousands of posts on the site have described what Mid Acts Dispensationalism is. That you cannot accept the truth is your own problem. But I expect nothing less from a Cathoholic.

 

[Right Divider]

The only context in which I mentioned contradiction was in the context of what the disciples and Paul had previously thought was the actual meaning of scripture until Christ opened their understanding.
It's right there in my post for all to read.

Again, Tambora... support your claim!

Show where they believed something wrongly and show where they were corrected (particularly Paul).

Otherwise you're just full of hot air.