turbosixx
New member
There you go with your misread of Romans 2 again :chuckle:
What makes man a Jew or Gentile?
There you go with your misread of Romans 2 again :chuckle:
The New covenant was between God and Christ.
I've told him to burn his "books about the Bible" and get a Bible on a number of occasions.You really need to get yourself a Bible and read it. There you will read that the New Covenant is between the Lord and the house of Israel and the house of Judah:
"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" (Jer.31:31).
You think that you are an expert on these matters but you prove over and over that you do not even know the most elementary things about this.
At this point we are talking about the WHO and not the WHAT.
Until you believe that, there is NO point in going any further about WHAT it is.
Just because forgiveness of Israel's sins is part of their covenant does NOT mean that it's the ONLY way that God will forgive sins.
His blood ALSO works WITHOUT a covenant for US, the BODY OF CHRIST.
Once AGAIN, the blood is NOT LIMITED to Israel's covenant.
Note how Paul said "by the blood of Christ" and NOT by any covenant.
Eph 2:13 (AKJV/PCE)(2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Get away from the false teachers that are leading you to confusion and believe the Bible.]
The New Jerusalem is a CITY that comes DOWN from heaven. It is called the BRIDE OF THE LAMB.
So, apparently, you think that the LAMB is going to marry HIMSELF; or marry a covenant.
Once again, you cannot think a logical thought. You are just plain dumb.Then you are just talking to the air if you can't explain what you think that covenant is.
You must actually enjoy being WRONG.It's the ONLY way that God forgives sins. Without the shed blood of Christ, one is dead in their sins.
NO, He did NOT. That is a FALSE claim that you have made REPEATEDLY.Jesus said His blood is IN the new covenant. There is no forgiveness of sins without a covenant.
FALSE.... AGAIN.Jesus blood is limited to the New Covenant. It's applied exactly the same.
No covenant mentioned there.It's the exact same covenant for both Jew and Gentile.
Eph 2
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: 17 and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 for through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father
False again. You are consistently WRONG.I read the Bible. It's very clear that those in Christ are in His New Covenant.
You do not understand the point that Paul is making here. That figures.Paul calls the old covenant, Hagar and the new covenant, The New Jerusalem who is free, and we are her children. We are the heirs of Christ. Do the math.
Gal 4
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Once again, you cannot think a logical thought. You are just plain dumb.
I have shown you REPEATEDLY..... WHO the parties involved in the new covenant are. And yet YOU cannot believe the Bible.
You must actually enjoy being WRONG.
The shed blood of Christ on the cross is NOT limited as you claim that it is and the BIBLE shows that; but you refer to remain in your proud ignorance. So be it.
NO, He did NOT. That is a FALSE claim that you have made REPEATEDLY.
There is NO SCRIPTURE to support your claim. If there is, SHOW IT.
FALSE.... AGAIN.
No covenant mentioned there.
False again. You are consistently WRONG.
You do not understand the point that Paul is making here. That figures.
You are overthinking things
So it is very difficult for you to see the plain meaning.
No, it is not.You are getting worse RD, unhinged. Mt 26:28 is the new covenant.
Then WHY do you bring it up?Some of the manuscripts have the word 'new' there, too, but it doesn't matter.
:rotfl:He ate this again in his resurrected body on earth. (That's what the rest of that meant).
You are overthinking things and don't realize that 2P2P is a fantasy that wants to attach itself to the NT but cannot.
So it is very difficult for you to see the plain meaning.
Once again, you cannot think a logical thought. You are just plain dumb.
I have shown you REPEATEDLY..... WHO the parties involved in the new covenant are. And yet YOU cannot believe the Bible.
You must actually enjoy being WRONG.
The shed blood of Christ on the cross is NOT limited as you claim that it is and the BIBLE shows that; but you refer to remain in your proud ignorance. So be it.
NO, He did NOT. That is a FALSE claim that you have made REPEATEDLY.
There is NO SCRIPTURE to support your claim. If there is, SHOW IT.
Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
Which gospel?Paul was given the mystery of the Gospel - that Gentiles were included.
He ate this again in his resurrected body on earth. (That's what the rest of that meant).
I'd like to see that.
Where is it?
Proof of that would change the whole dispensational perspective.
I'd like to see that.
Where is it?
Proof of that would change the whole dispensational perspective.
Wouldn't he have said 'except Christ' in Jn 21:15?
Lk 24:43.
You really need to read the Bible 10x more than you post here. Yes, it will change your D'ism by implosion. D'ism dangles from so few passages, a little puff against drives its hornets mad.
Wouldn't he have said 'except Christ' in Jn 21:15?
Lk 24:43.
You really need to read the Bible 10x more than you post here. Yes, it will change your D'ism by implosion. D'ism dangles from so few passages, a little puff against drives its hornets mad.
:rotfl: ...and you think simply eating some sort of food is what He was referring to?
It's you who needs to read more and understand what's being said.
I ran across the argument over thirty years ago with the Stone-Campbell Church of Christ.
They were trying to convince me that whenever believers partook of the wine/juice and the bread that Christ was also partaking of that ordinance with them, thus fulfilling that the Church was the Kingdom.
This is one of the points that through my careful study of scripture convinced me that the Kingdom promised to the nation of Israel was yet to come. Now, with 37 years of study no argument has convinced me otherwise.
Your arguments carry no weight and are a laughing stock to those who rightly divide the Word of Truth on this forum.
The reason that you're obsessed with disproving the dispensational paradigm just might be your subconscious fear that it might be true and your emotions just can't stand it.
Why else would you start thread after thread on the same subject?
This prophecy is about Israel and there has never been a time when nations have run to Israel because the Lord has glorified that nation. This is showing that the nation of Israel will be the agency to bring the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Lord.
But the Apostle Paul states in no uncertain terms that it is through Israel's fall that salvation has come to the Gentiles:
"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Ro.11:11-12).
Here we can see that the Gentiles are now being brought to the knowledge of the Lord due to Israel's fall.
But according to prophecy when the nation of Israel will be glorified then she will serve as the agent to bring the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Lord. Since that has never happened then the fulfillment of that prophecy remains in the future.
And of course you have no place for its fulfillment in your eschatology so you assert that it has already happened.
What a joke!
The physical nation of Israel,Abrahams descendants according to the flesh, they are not the children of God Rom 9:8 so like any others, they are the children of the devil, and the only promises to them is hell. Ps 9:17
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
Scripture PLEASE.And...most of the first missionaries (the 70 etc) who were launched on Pentecost day were Jewish.
Scripture PLEASE.
ALWAYS quote the exact passage that you're talking about so we can check your "facts".
And not just a whole chapter either.
This prophecy is about Israel and there has never been a time when nations have run to Israel because the Lord has glorified that nation. This is showing that the nation of Israel will be the agency to bring the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Lord.
But the Apostle Paul states in no uncertain terms that it is through Israel's fall that salvation has come to the Gentiles:
"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Ro.11:11-12).
Here we can see that the Gentiles are now being brought to the knowledge of the Lord due to Israel's fall.
But according to prophecy when the nation of Israel will be glorified then she will serve as the agent to bring the Gentiles to the knowledge of the Lord. Since that has never happened then the fulfillment of that prophecy remains in the future.
And of course you have no place for its fulfillment in your eschatology so you assert that it has already happened.
What a joke!