ECT And now MAD says the prophets did not know of grace coming

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
As for the stupidity of 'when did the prophets say grace was coming?' (I can't really believe someone would ask that): 2 Cor 6:1+ (based on what just got said in ch 5...). It's a quote from Isaiah about a whole age that was coming... A whole time period.

I PETER 1:10: the prophets spoke of the grace that was coming...

You need to stop posting until you actually know your Bible. This MAD stuff is perpetuated by the self-perception of 'authority' by just being able to post on the internet.

Oh, all this is prob that 'mystery' doctrine done wrong. The mystery is not the mission to the nations. It is that that mission would be powered by the Gospel, not the Law. Eph 3:5. The Law divides and does not share unless there is total practice and proselytization. The Gospel offers inheritance in Christ alone.

Why do you continuously start new threads without engaging the people who particpate in the thread you started the day before?

That's not the way discussion forums are supposed to work.
 

DAN P

New member
Interplanner;479539 I PETER 1:10: the prophets spoke of the grace that was coming... /QUOTE said:
Hi and then explain 1 Peter 1:10 IF you can ?

If you walk away , THEN you can not !!

Or you can tell us HOW WERE YOU SAVED ??

This last question should be a SOFT BALL for you , or run from this thread !!

dan p
 

Danoh

New member
I don't know how many times before I was 45 (prob 10), but then after a traumatic event at 45, it would be about 60 since then. Which explains why so little of the glommed on MAD theology makes sense. I'm not less but more, acquainted.

I knew a guy once; who like some of the Muslims, and Buddhists, Hindus, et al, that I have known, each having memorized each's entire version of their faith's "bible"; had memorized the entire KJV.

And he spoke in KJV English. His every word was KJV.

I'd spent hours with him, at times; just going toe to toe with him; verse after verse after verse.

No matter where I'd turn to in Scripture; he would recite the entire chapter, each time.

And yet, he believed in a works salvation; no Trinity; and some other ideas foreign to Scripture.

One of his beliefs was that Adam and Eve had had the entire Bible...

And, that it is all actually written in Hebrew, but when one is saved; one understands it in KJV English.

He was a real character. He would go down to the local Christian bookstore and simply slaughter anyone who got into it with him about one doctrine or another they were merely parroting.

Used to crack me up; the frustration of various believers upon their failed attempts at crossing swords with him without much of a sword on their end.

I told him one day 'You know...you are a heretic through and through; but one I ever find a worthwhile challenge to my own understanding on one thing or another, lol'

His reply?

"Prove me..."

Lol - I often felt as if I were a chatacter in Miller's "The Crucible."

One day, he pulled a Philip in Acts 8 and I never saw him again :chuckle:
 

Interplanner

New member
Do you believe what you read, or try to figure out "what it really means"?


I try to find out what the self-organizing passages of the NT say it really means. Besides, how difficult is it, really, to see that there is no restored kingdom offer in the NT? It is a non-topic.

Those self-organizing passages are the ones that make the widest, most sweeping remarks about what it all means, and have at least a paragraph, not just one-liners:
Gal 3-4
Rom 4-5
Rom 9-11
Heb 8-10
Acts 13 and 26
2 Cor 3-5
 

Interplanner

New member
Interplanner;479539 I PETER 1:10: the prophets spoke of the grace that was coming... /QUOTE said:
Hi and then explain 1 Peter 1:10 IF you can ?

If you walk away , THEN you can not !!

Or you can tell us HOW WERE YOU SAVED ??

This last question should be a SOFT BALL for you , or run from this thread !!

dan p



lol, I'm the one saying it is quite clear that grace was known! Pay attention to the title of the thread!
 

Danoh

New member
I try to find out what the self-organizing passages of the NT say it really means. Besides, how difficult is it, really, to see that there is no restored kingdom offer in the NT? It is a non-topic.

Those self-organizing passages are the ones that make the widest, most sweeping remarks about what it all means, and have at least a paragraph, not just one-liners:
Gal 3-4
Rom 4-5
Rom 9-11
Heb 8-10
Acts 13 and 26
2 Cor 3-5

Problem is, your understanding of some passages as self-organizing (itself a silly statement on your part) is your skewed understanding of them as such.

You are like a man proud he has done his taxes just right....in accordance with the laws of his land - unaware he relied on a tax code that is no longer valid.

Worse, no amount of pointing it out to him avails.

You are forever stuck in Reformed errors...
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I try to find out what the self-organizing passages of the NT say it really means. Besides, how difficult is it, really, to see that there is no restored kingdom offer in the NT? It is a non-topic.

It's in the prophets, which is scripture.
The "NT" is concerned with the City and the Heavenlies.
There is nothing in the "NT" that wipes out land promises.

Be a believer.
 

Interplanner

New member
It's in the prophets, which is scripture.
The "NT" is concerned with the City and the Heavenlies.
There is nothing in the "NT" that wipes out land promises.

Be a believer.

Can you show any? It is the assumption of the NT that 'the old order of things will not be remembered' Is 65:17.

There is no specific indication in the NT that anything will 'revert' back to another episode of Judaism, and there is no theological reason IN THE LETTER TO HEBREWS why it would do so. Hebrews is more pronounced about the complete change of scheme. I think because of the concerns of the audience, which other non-Jews would not have had.
 
Last edited:

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Can you show any? It is the assumption of the NT that 'the old order of things will not be remembered' Is 65:17.

There is no specific indication in the NT that anything will 'revert' back to another episode of Judaism, and there is theological reason IN THE LETTER TO HEBREWS why it would do so. Hebrews is more pronounced about the complete change of scheme. I think because of the concerns of the audience, which other non-Jews would not have had.

:chuckle:
 

Interplanner

New member
Btw, there is a negative missing in the sentence about the theological reasons. Obviously. I'll edit that.


It is extremely odd to me that people would totally miss that Hebrews has this function of explaining the setting aside (8:8, 10, 10:9) but the 2P2P friends try so hard to 'make' it say that it is 1, only for Jewish Christians (there is no such material in the Christian age) and 2, about the land of Judea, when it makes such a steady description of the coming Jerusalem above of heaven. (This necessarily contrasts with the one on earth just as it does in Gal 4; "we do not have a kingdom here.")

This is in a letter that explained that the Melchizedek priesthood was there before the Law, and Moses and Aaron, so there is no big deal appealing to it, or learning that Christ is that kind of priest!
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It is extremely odd to me that people would totally miss that Hebrews has this function of explaining the setting aside (8:8, 10, 10:9) but the 2P2P friends try so hard to 'make' it say that it is 1, only for Jewish Christians (there is no such material in the Christian age) and 2, about the land of Judea, when it makes such a steady description of the coming Jerusalem above of heaven. (This necessarily contrasts with the one on earth just as it does in Gal 4; "we do not have a kingdom here.")

This is in a letter that explained that the Melchizedek priesthood was there before the Law, and Moses and Aaron, so there is no big deal appealing to it, or learning that Christ is that kind of priest!

One verse sends you back to the drawing board.
Hebrews 8:8 (KJV).

You aren't included.
 

Interplanner

New member
One verse sends you back to the drawing board.
Hebrews 8:8 (KJV).

You aren't included.


Sorry it should be 8:7 throughout (there are other refs to v8 by mistake).

Where is the list of people Paul excluded from the new covenant over in 2 cor 3-5? Nada. Oh, now your 2P2P wiring is going to tell me that the new covenant in Matt, in 2 Cor and here are three different ones, I get it!

But that wasnt' the point. the point was that setting aside was referred to 3x. Clear and unambiguous.

And I don't know if you are bright enough to realize this but anything benefiting the Jewish believer in Hebrews IS THE SAME THING BENEFITING THE NON-JEWISH BELIEVER!!! What miserable fractures and divisions you think up!
 

Danoh

New member
I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm not stupid either.

I follow and understand 99% of the posts on TOL.

But, I only understand about 20% of IP's posts.

Am I the only one? :idunno:

I understand his posts just fine.

Just a matter of noting any writer's recurrent patterns...and then following them.

And his follow...a consistent pattern.

All writer's words and or writings...do.

Including yours and mine...

Including...the Apostle Paul's :)
 

Danoh

New member
Sorry it should be 8:7 throughout (there are other refs to v8 by mistake).

Where is the list of people Paul excluded from the new covenant over in 2 cor 3-5? Nada. Oh, now your 2P2P wiring is going to tell me that the new covenant in Matt, in 2 Cor and here are three different ones, I get it!

...

No.

You do not "get it."

Be it one, or two, or three, or however many...
 
Top