ECT The Curse Declared by Paul

[Interplanner]

The strongest curse Paul declared was regarding other gospels.

Yet here at TOL we have a club of people championing every other gospel they can find except what he preached. Doesn't matter how unified he was with Peter. doesn't matter what grammar rules they break, or what Greek grammar rules they break. It doesn't matter to them that Paul had some 15 letters to allow for other gospels but does not. It doesn't even matter that he is saying he preached the same thing as Peter to a different group, generally.

The club does not further true, honest Biblical study. It degrades it.

 

[daqq]

The strongest curse Paul declared was regarding other gospels.

Yet here at TOL we have a club of people championing every other gospel they can find except what he preached. Doesn't matter how unified he was with Peter. doesn't matter what grammar rules they break, or what Greek grammar rules they break. It doesn't matter to them that Paul had some 15 letters to allow for other gospels but does not. It doesn't even matter that he is saying he preached the same thing as Peter to a different group, generally.

The club does not further true, honest Biblical study. It degrades it.

So then, do you therefore agree that you yourself are being grafted into the olive tree of the all Israel of the Father? (the Father is the Husbandman or Planter). Were you or are you willing to become one of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" so as to be grafted in to that olive tree of the Father? There is no "house of the Gentiles", for as far as the eye can see, and Paul clearly receives his Romans 11 olive tree analogy from Jeremiah 11, (Jer 11:16, 17), which only consists of the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The strongest curse Paul declared was regarding other gospels.

Yet here at TOL we have a club of people championing every other gospel they can find except what he preached. Doesn't matter how unified he was with Peter. doesn't matter what grammar rules they break, or what Greek grammar rules they break. It doesn't matter to them that Paul had some 15 letters to allow for other gospels but does not. It doesn't even matter that he is saying he preached the same thing as Peter to a different group, generally.

The club does not further true, honest Biblical study. It degrades it.

Poor IP. Put down the commentaries.
Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The club does not further true, honest Biblical study. It degrades it.

Your idea of true honest Biblical study is by reading commentaries, isn't it?


john w: "Fess up."

 

[musterion]

I'm surprised IP hasn't written his own commentary.

 

[Interplanner]

So then, do you therefore agree that you yourself are being grafted into the olive tree of the all Israel of the Father? (the Father is the Husbandman or Planter). Were you or are you willing to become one of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" so as to be grafted in to that olive tree of the Father? There is no "house of the Gentiles", for as far as the eye can see, and Paul clearly receives his Romans 11 olive tree analogy from Jeremiah 11, (Jer 11:16, 17), which only consists of the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

In a letter to unify Jew and Gentile believers, he does not mean intra-Israel problems. Your club only causes headaches with comments like above.

"I am speaking to you Gentiles...to arouse my people to jealousy."

Do you all have collective ADD or something?

 

[Interplanner]

I'm surprised IP hasn't written his own commentary.

There is nothing wrong with writing commentaries; there is everything wrong with pulverizing passages like the Daqq comments above, in commentaries or on TOL.

'Historical-grammatical context' means you remember why he said 'I'm talking to you Gentiles...' before you say stupid things about Rom 11 like it only has to do with intra-Israel issues which are never on the mind of the apostles, except for the line quoted in Heb from Jer which has been shown to be for all the world anyway.

 

[musterion]

There is nothing wrong with writing commentaries

Where is yours?

 

[Interplanner]

I have some:

THE GOSPEL I NEVER KNEW--Romans, objectivity and political correctness
THE COVENANT REVOLUTION--Luke-Acts and the Jewish Revolt of 66-72 AD

I don't know why they show up at Amazon but I can sell you an e.copy of GINK.

 

[musterion]

THE GOSPEL I NEVER KNEW

You could not have come up with a better title.

 

[Interplanner]

You could not have come up with a better title.

You see, the thing I totally don't understand about your club here, Must, is that you operate entirely on sound-bytes instead of on real content, ideas and propositions. You just saw a line, a title of a book, and thought that is what 'sound-byte' I think. I know exactly what you are thinking. But it is not what the book is about. The book is about how the subjectivity of modern times has found a home in the church, and how a fascination with sound-byte events in modern Israel has created a pseudo-objectivity layer along with it, but neither are what the NT is talking about.

If I had not heard a couple teachers explain what objectivity is and that the Gospel was objective, I would been mindless stuck in that stuff myself. The objective meaning of Romans in the arena of ideas is the gospel that I never would have known in futurist, Dispensationalist, subjective, Bible-based Christianity.

To get to an understanding of objectivity, you have to go back to someone like Dr. Schaeffer and find out what the modern mainstream has been trying to do to meaning itself. For ex., the CNN reporter who said 'the whole idea of faith is that it has nothing to do with facts.' That was said in the 90s but Schaeffer had covered it 20 years earlier in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, and said it would tsunami our culture and in his invaluable little hiking-rescue story at the back, called "Faith vs 'Faith'".

Your club finds a few sound-bytes of NT theology and thinks , well there it is. There's going to be another setup of the kingdom/monarchy of Israel and Judaism because of that or those prophecies. The NT be damned.

In reality, the NT is a total purging of categories, so that Christ can form in our thinking. It is the Gospel event that defines and shapes all once it arrives.

Like my other thread says this morning: the new covenant is different (God and Christ) and is here;
it is inextricably involved in the mission to the nations, because it is MESSAGE to declare
it is the fulfillment of what the OT was hoping for.

None of those thoughts are on the sound-byte level. They are found from years of contact with the actual, historical-grammatical meaning of the texts.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yet here at TOL we have a club of people championing every other gospel they can find except what he preached.

On TOL we have some people who say that only one gospel ever existed and that the gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 is the same gospel which declares that Christ died for our sins. But they do not have an intelligent answer as to how the Twelve could have been preaching that gospel then since at that time they didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).

As someone else said previously, you can't cure stupidity!

 

[musterion]

You see, the thing I totally don't understand about your club here, Must, is that you operate entirely on sound-bytes instead of on real content, ideas and propositions. You just saw a line, a title of a book, and thought that is what 'sound-byte' I think. I know exactly what you are thinking. But it is not what the book is about. The book is about how the subjectivity of modern times has found a home in the church, and how a fascination with sound-byte events in modern Israel has created a pseudo-objectivity layer along with it, but neither are what the NT is talking about.

If I had not heard a couple teachers explain what objectivity is and that the Gospel was objective, I would been mindless stuck in that stuff myself. The objective meaning of Romans in the arena of ideas is the gospel that I never would have known in futurist, Dispensationalist, subjective, Bible-based Christianity.

To get to an understanding of objectivity, you have to go back to someone like Dr. Schaeffer and find out what the modern mainstream has been trying to do to meaning itself. For ex., the CNN reporter who said 'the whole idea of faith is that it has nothing to do with facts.' That was said in the 90s but Schaeffer had covered it 20 years earlier in HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT, and said it would tsunami our culture and in his invaluable little hiking-rescue story at the back, called "Faith vs 'Faith'".

Your club finds a few sound-bytes of NT theology and thinks , well there it is. There's going to be another setup of the kingdom/monarchy of Israel and Judaism because of that or those prophecies. The NT be damned.

In reality, the NT is a total purging of categories, so that Christ can form in our thinking. It is the Gospel event that defines and shapes all once it arrives.

Like my other thread says this morning: the new covenant is different (God and Christ) and is here;
it is inextricably involved in the mission to the nations, because it is MESSAGE to declare
it is the fulfillment of what the OT was hoping for.

None of those thoughts are on the sound-byte level. They are found from years of contact with the actual, historical-grammatical meaning of the texts.

I stopped reading after the first two lines. Would you like to know why?

1. I'm not Danoh.

2. Because what I said is true. You reject the saving Gospel of the grace of God as the sole means of forgiveness and justification today. So nothing else you say in any Bible subject makes the slightest bit of difference.

Can you understand this much about those of us who think that way? We hold to contradictory gospels. So either you are saved and we're not, or vice versa. That being so, nothing else matters.

Can you not see that?

 

[Interplanner]

I stopped reading after the first two lines. Would you like to know why?

1. I'm not Danoh.

2. Because what I said is true. You reject the saving Gospel of the grace of God as the sole means of forgiveness and justification today. So nothing else you say in any Bible subject makes the slightest bit of difference.

Can you understand this much about those of us who think that way? We hold to contradictory gospels. So either you are saved and we're not, or vice versa. That being so, nothing else matters.

Can you not see that?

what does not being Danoh have to do with anything? You scoffed my title without even knowing what the book says.

You must have a major memory malfunction. I keep talking about justification, about God being in Christ, balancing the debt of mankind's sin in Christ etc. You don't know what you are talking about on that.

The book criticised 'the gospel of the changed life'. Not because lives are not supposed to change, but because of cause and effect being reversed. When the effect is the good news, it will collapse and be misused and be diluted to all kinds of change-live stories. It's human nature.

I don't believe you are lost. I believe you are cursed for championing several gospels. I think you have the correct WITH 6 others.

 

[daqq]

In a letter to unify Jew and Gentile believers, he does not mean intra-Israel problems. Your club only causes headaches with comments like above.

"I am speaking to you Gentiles...to arouse my people to jealousy."

Do you all have collective ADD or something?

There is nothing wrong with writing commentaries; there is everything wrong with pulverizing passages like the Daqq comments above, in commentaries or on TOL.

'Historical-grammatical context' means you remember why he said 'I'm talking to you Gentiles...' before you say stupid things about Rom 11 like it only has to do with intra-Israel issues which are never on the mind of the apostles, except for the line quoted in Heb from Jer which has been shown to be for all the world anyway.

I guess that is the difference between people like you, J Shug who says I must be from another planet for believing such things, and the Canaanite woman from Tyre who was no doubt eventually grafted in by faith and was even used in fulfillment of prophecy, (Isa 23:17-18, Acts 21:3-6).

 

[Interplanner]

I guess that is the difference between people like you, J Shug who says I must be from another planet for believing such things, and the Canaanite woman from Tyre who was no doubt eventually grafted in by faith and was even used in fulfillment of prophecy, (Isa 23:17-18, Acts 21:3-6).

I'm sorry, where do we disagree?

 

[DAN P]

The strongest curse Paul declared was regarding other gospels.

Yet here at TOL we have a club of people championing every other gospel they can find except what he preached. Doesn't matter how unified he was with Peter. doesn't matter what grammar rules they break, or what Greek grammar rules they break. It doesn't matter to them that Paul had some 15 letters to allow for other gospels but does not. It doesn't even matter that he is saying he preached the same thing as Peter to a different group, generally.

The club does not further true, honest Biblical study. It degrades it.

Hi and I hold to 14 letters !!

Paul broke with Judaism as written in Acts 21:21 !!

And in Heb 6:1-3 are to forsake BAPTISMS !!

In verse 6 there is NO REPENTANCE !!

Of course the biggest CURSE is found in Gal 5:4 , YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE which you have FALLEN from God's FAVOR !!

Gal 1:8 and 9 you are ACCUSED as many will rather follow the earthly Jesus and the Law of Moses !!

Your LOSS will be at the BEAM SEAT as Paul wrote in 1 Cor 3:10_15 !!

Looks like you LOSE , BIG TIME !!

dan p