ECT If MAD is False What Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Mean for Us?

[musterion]

Yes, it's very easy to use your presumptions to view history.

Seriously...he's Catholic. Don't know if you saw it, but he said so yesterday. Just so you know you're arguing with Rome, not him.

 

[Right Divider]

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman...

God obviously has different ordained times for different things, but my point was that God waited for thousands of years for the moment Paul calls the "fullness of time" (fullness as it relates to God's plan to send Christ).

The original question was "why did God wait the years between Acts 1 and Acts 10 to reach the Gentiles?"

No, that was not the question. The question is why Jesus didn't let know that He was no longer putting Israel first. Gentiles were always allowed to join with Israel. That goes back to the day that they left Egypt.

Exod 12:43-51 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:43) ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: (12:44) But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. (12:45) A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. (12:46) In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. (12:47) All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. (12:48) And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (12:49) One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (12:50) Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. (12:51) And it came to pass the selfsame day, [that] the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies. ​

 

[Right Divider]

So you think he was just warning them to stay out of the light when the Jews arrested him so that they would not get arrested also???

He also said "in the world you will have tribulation".

This gets crazier and crazier

The setting aside of Israel is temporary, just like Paul says in Romans.

 

[Right Divider]

Seriously...he's Catholic. Don't know if you saw it, but he said so yesterday. Just so you know you're arguing with Rome, not him.

Thanks, that make a lot more sense....

 

[Danoh]

The cure for heresies like MADism is a simple history lesson :wave2:

A history lesson then; from your very idol...

“The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail, increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the unchangeable Creator of mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are acceptably worshipping Him.”

- Letter 138: Letter to Marcellinus, Sec. 5; Letters of Augustine, 3rd Div. AD 412

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102138.htm

In other words - "things that are different...are not...the same."

 

[Danoh]

Nope. I simply made the observation that it would have been harder for the gospel to spread if Jesus would have came 200 years earlier. That is simple, historical fact.

I added my opinion that God came at a precise moment deliberately. I don't think that God came when he did by accident


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Yep.

Never mind the very astonishing things He is said to have accomplished in the six days accounted in Genesis one...alone.

Never mind the...

O, never mind - you're too entrenched in your own ideas about this, that, the other :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Is it a violation of TOL rules to use large font ?

You just will not accept the obvious !

You're right...

For it is obvious...you...remain as married to your obviously erroneous approach to studying a thing out as you obviously were...your very first post :chuckle:

 

[SimpleMan77]

The setting aside of Israel is temporary, just like Paul says in Romans.

Who said anything about the setting aside of Israel?

I said that Jesus predicted that the disciples would be persecuted because He was. Jesus knew out of the gate that Jerusalem as a whole would never accept His truth. That's why He said "if they hate me they'll hate you".

You said that the prophesied persecution was temporary. Jesus never thought the Jews as a nation would accept His representatives. He told them point blank that they wouldn't.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Absolutely not.

Luke 23:34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(23:34) ¶ Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. ​

Jesus was not done with them yet.


Your timeline for His ministry is a bit out of whack.

Jesus didn't even send them OUT to START at Jerusalem until after His resurrection.

He was not done with anyone who would respond to the Gospel, but as a nation, he was done with them.

My timeline is exactly right. Jesus reached for them as a nation for 3 full years, and in the fourth year he had this to say.

Matthew 23:37-39
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

At this point they had rejected Him as a nation, and He rejected them.

This is in the 4th year of His ministry (as foretold by the fig tree parable).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

Who said anything about the setting aside of Israel?

I said that Jesus predicted that the disciples would be persecuted because He was. Jesus knew out of the gate that Jerusalem as a whole would never accept His truth. That's why He said "if they hate me they'll hate you".

You said that the prophesied persecution was temporary. Jesus never thought the Jews as a nation would accept His representatives. He told them point blank that they wouldn't.

And that is all temporary.

Rom 11:26-28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (11:28) As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. ​

We are currently in the dispensation of the grace of God where anyone regardless of anything can be saved by God's grace through faith. It was not always like that and it will come to an end someday when God restores Israel to their place as the head of the nations with Christ as King on His throne in the new Jerusalem.

 

[Right Divider]

He was not done with anyone who would respond to the Gospel, but as a nation, he was done with them.

Nonsense. The Bible says otherwise.

Rom 11:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. (11:2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, ​

My timeline is exactly right. Jesus reached for them as a nation for 3 full years, and in the fourth year he had this to say.

Matthew 23:37-39
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

At this point they had rejected Him as a nation, and He rejected them.

This is in the 4th year of His ministry (as foretold by the fig tree parable).

Once again your math is way off.

Jesus STILL told His Father to forgive them AT THE CROSS. That doesn't sound like giving up to me.

Peter still preached to THEM after the cross.

Get a new story. Your RCC takeover is null and void.

 

[Right Divider]

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman...

Why do you CHOP that verse?

Gal 4:4-5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
​

Who were "them that were under the law"?

God obviously has different ordained times for different things, but my point was that God waited for thousands of years for the moment Paul calls the "fullness of time" (fullness as it relates to God's plan to send Christ).

Send Christ to whom?

John 1:11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
​

The original question was "why did God wait the years between Acts 1 and Acts 10 to reach the Gentiles?"

I answered with a statement and a question: "we don't know why-why did God wait thousands of years to send Jesus?"

One day he may tell us all about his timeline, and why he did the things he did at the precise moment that he did them.

He tells most all of it in that Bible.

 

[whitestone]

He was not done with anyone who would respond to the Gospel, but as a nation, he was done with them.

My timeline is exactly right. Jesus reached for them as a nation for 3 full years, and in the fourth year he had this to say.

Matthew 23:37-39
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

At this point they had rejected Him as a nation, and He rejected them.

This is in the 4th year of His ministry (as foretold by the fig tree parable).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Matthew 23:39 KJV "till you say",,,

 

[Interplanner]

Matthew 23:39 KJV "till you say",,,

You don't understand Whitestone that that expression gets used 2 chapters later in the entry. So what he meant was that ANYONE who would sing that Psalm to him was in his kingdom and mission.

This is one of two lines where D'ism thinks Jesus is predicting the future, the other being Rom 11. Instead, in both cases he is making the distinction stronger between believer and non-b. There is no return to a 'program' with the ethne Jews. No place is that clear in the NT, and no place does it show when it would have 'saved the day' for Paul or another apostle.

 

[Right Divider]

You don't understand Whitestone that that expression gets used 2 chapters later in the entry. So what he meant was that ANYONE who would sing that Psalm to him was in his kingdom and mission.

This is one of two lines where D'ism thinks Jesus is predicting the future, the other being Rom 11. Instead, in both cases he is making the distinction stronger between believer and non-b. There is no return to a 'program' with the ethne Jews. No place is that clear in the NT, and no place does it show when it would have 'saved the day' for Paul or another apostle.

Does "restful/peaceful" still mean TOXIC too?

 

[whitestone]

You don't understand Whitestone that that expression gets used 2 chapters later in the entry. So what he meant was that ANYONE who would sing that Psalm to him was in his kingdom and mission.

This is one of two lines where D'ism thinks Jesus is predicting the future, the other being Rom 11. Instead, in both cases he is making the distinction stronger between believer and non-b. There is no return to a 'program' with the ethne Jews. No place is that clear in the NT, and no place does it show when it would have 'saved the day' for Paul or another apostle.

then again there’s that word setting there ,strongs #302 "av" An meaning what indicative mood,could be ect.? then again there’s the problem with the reluctance of who, the Pharisees to refer to him as king/the one coming? Luke 19:39 KJV ,,,But that word av it's in Matthew but not in Luke...

 

[SimpleMan77]

If MAD is False What Does Hebrews 6:4-6 Mean for Us?

Things that are different are NOT the same!

Matthew 19:16-17 KJV vs. Romans 3:21-22 KJV

Acts 10:35 KJV vs. Titus 3:5 KJV

Hebrews 3:14 KJV vs Ephesians 3:6 KJV

James 2:20 KJV vs Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV

Didn't have time to address these supposed discrepancies between Paul and the other writers earlier, but didn't want to fail to set the record straight. These are not contradictions.

Matthew 19:16-17 vs Romans 3:21-22
Jesus was still operating under the law at that point (before Calvary). The cross changed that.

Acts 10:35 KJV vs. Titus 3:5 KJV
Peter didn't mean that whoever worked righteousness would be saved, only accepted. God accepted Cornelius's sacrifice, and The angel told him that Peter would come tell him words whereby him and his family could be saved. Peter said Cornelius was unsaved, but accepted before the Gospel. God accepted his sincerity by allowing him to hear a saving Gospel, then purifying his heart through faith.

Hebrews 3:14 KJV vs Ephesians 3:6 KJV
Paul said we could lose our "saved" status through sin. We are only saved if we don't choose to stop following Jesus. In 1 Cor 5 there is a story of a saint who was fornicating with His father's wife, and Paul plainly says he had lost his salvation. You can only be saved if you hold fast as Paul and Hebrews both agree.

James 2:20 KJV vs Ephesians 2:8-9
My favorite. James is teaching on the subject of love, and says that unless we show love, our words of love don't matter. Paul agrees!!

Paul says this: Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

The availing faith is "faith which WORKETH by love". All other faith is dead and useless.

What do you know? Exactly the point James made. In his words, "faith without works is dead"!


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Matthew 23:39 KJV "till you say",,,

On an individual basis, Paul said when they turn to the Lord the bail is removed from their eyes, and they see the glory of God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Why do you CHOP that verse?

Gal 4:4-5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:4) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (4:5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
​

I live every part of that verse. I stopped where I did because I was challenged to prove that Paul, anywhere in the Bible, had stated that the "fullness of time" had come when Jesus was born.

It was stated unequivocally that Paul had never used that term, and I proved he had.

I haven't seen the "I'm sorry, I was wrong" yet.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

I live every part of that verse. I stopped where I did because I was challenged to prove that Paul, anywhere in the Bible, had stated that the "fullness of time" had come when Jesus was born.

It was stated unequivocally that Paul had never used that term, and I proved he had.

I haven't seen the "I'm sorry, I was wrong" yet.

You were not challenged to prove Paul said it. I was asking which one your where talking about about. And NO it was NOT "stated unequivocally that Paul had never used that term". That's just you making things up to inflate your ego.

That one is actually in the KJV as "the fullness of the time". I thought that you might be referring to Eph 1:10 ("the fullness of times"). I was just making sure that I knew what you were talking about.

You won't see an apology, since there is nothing apologize for. You're just confused again.