ECT The Nation of Israel was not at the last supper

[Right Divider]

He did. He explained it all in the following chapters which you never quote. In fact, STP says 9:15 does not mean what it says. Maybe you do too.

It was meant to be about salvation, and in 1st century Judea it MIGHT have saved Israel (the land) but with Dan 9 in the background, I don't see how.

Therefore everything shifts to the problem of erasing sin and victory over death, which I hope you have in Christ, like I do, because I love the Bible so much through that, I can't sleep some nights.

Right as Israel the land is about to be pulverized, you guys think there was an offer of a restored land--and I mean in the present tense for right then. It is a ridiculous idea. and it is never mentioned going forward.

And unification can be accomplished without land! There is no logical or legal or necessary connection. In christ the two groups have peace, but I see no where in the NT where this is a concern to any one in the telling of the story of Christ.

You have a humanist view of the scripture.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You have a humanist view of the scripture.

Yes. When you study commentaries as opposed to the spiritual words of scripture, it's inevitable.

 

[Interplanner]

that's not humanist. It's normal, historically-aware, non-D'ist reading. Humanist would say God was not involved in Israel's calamity; they simply destroyed themselves.

Of course, relative to D'ism and Judaism, what I say appears humanist.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

that's not humanist. It's normal, historically-aware, non-D'ist reading. Humanist would say God was not involved in Israel's calamity; they simply destroyed themselves.

Of course, relative to D'ism and Judaism, what I say appears humanist.

:chuckle: