ECT 8 Things that sink D'ism

[SaulToPaul 2]

8, The new covenant launched at the last supper is for all people, and is found in the body and blood of Christ, but Christ was saying that much as far back as the beginning of his work anyway, because it is back at the beginning of Genesis. All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land, and totally about the redemption from sin and death that is in Christ Jesus, Heb 8-10. Tam does not realize she is part of a Goebellian effort to snow those facts. No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.

Blatant denial of scripture. Wicked.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land,

Blatant wicked lie. Jeremiah 31.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.


IP the Great still has not told us when he was EVER under the first covenant.
And he never will.

 

[Interplanner]

He also cannot tell the difference between PROMISE (singular) and PROMISES (plural).

You are not the authority. You have to give reasons. It is plain what the two covenants are in the text and that Christ's body and blood for sin was the enactment of the 2nd and that it has nothing to do with the land. It may help Judah and Israel get along, because it can help everyone get along.

The whole of Israel's promises is called the promise. Gal 3 and Acts 13 are alike on that 'tauten' is 'all that was promised' or 'whatever was promised.' All you have to do to know this is to read a Greek commentary on this--if you can't do lexical aid work.

The land does not figure, and everyone in the 1st century knew it was at risk for good, being the 2nd destruction for such evil. Caiaphas knew. Josephus knew. The writer of Hebrews knew. Paul said it twice in Luke 21 and in a Thess statement: the full wrath was to be poured out on the land. With nothing in the future playing a part nor needing to.

 

[Right Divider]

You are not the authority.

Neither are you .... so there.

You have to give reasons.

I often give reasons that you do not understand because of your fairy tale cancellationist brain damage.

It is plain what the two covenants are in the text and that Christ's body and blood for sin was the enactment of the 2nd and that it has nothing to do with the land. It may help Judah and Israel get along, because it can help everyone get along.

It is plain FROM SCRIPTURE that the new covenant is between God and Israel. Just like the old covenant was WITH THEIR FATHERS.

The whole of Israel's promises is called the promise.

No, it is not.

Gal 3 and Acts 13 are alike on that 'tauten' is 'all that was promised' or 'whatever was promised.' All you have to do to know this is to read a Greek commentary on this--if you can't do lexical aid work.

So now I have to be a "Greek commentarian" to understand God Word? No, not true.

The land does not figure, and everyone in the 1st century knew it was at risk for good, being the 2nd destruction for such evil. Caiaphas knew. Josephus knew. The writer of Hebrews knew. Paul said it twice in Luke 21 and in a Thess statement: the full wrath was to be poured out on the land. With nothing in the future playing a part nor needing to.

:mock: Paul said it in Luke?

God said it and I believe it.

Amos 9:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:11) ¶ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: (9:12) That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (9:13) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. (9:14) And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (9:15) And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. ​

According to you, God is a liar.

 

[Interplanner]

Neither are you .... so there.


I often give reasons that you do not understand because of your fairy tale cancellationist brain damage.


It is plain FROM SCRIPTURE that the new covenant is between God and Israel. Just like the old covenant was WITH THEIR FATHERS.


No, it is not.


So now I have to be a "Greek commentarian" to understand God Word? No, not true.


:mock: Paul said it in Luke?

God said it and I believe it.

Amos 9:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:11) ¶ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: (9:12) That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (9:13) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. (9:14) And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (9:15) And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. ​

According to you, God is a liar.

The promise question is not a matter of commentaries, because D'ist commentaries chop it all up into bits and pieces of promises to make sure it all comes out just perfectly literal. It is a grammatical or word choice question. He either meant 'what ever God promised...' or he did not.

The whole point of the sermon, little one, is that beleagured Israel should be ecstatic that Christ has been raised because not only do they get justification from their sins, they get a mission as well! That's what you personally should be excited about. Not the land of Israel which is no where in the sermon, yet all of Israel's identity is wrapped up in Christ.


You don't give reasons. You DICTATE to me that such and such is this or that. I accept nothing you say without reasons.

For ex., there is no proof in Matthew, in either Corinthians or in the last of Hebrews that the new covenant is with Israel. Even your fav passage does not resolve the mess of the 1st covenant with an obedient Israel but with an obedient Christ. He is the covenant for the nation and the light for the gentiles at the same time.

On Paul:
once again you show so little familiarity with basic Bible facts. Luke was not a preacher. He transcribed what Paul taught (Acts 11). He also provided case evidence to a representative (Theophilus) whose job was to explain that Paul was not a zealot (Acts 21), see the intro both Luke and Acts.

So the 2 cases are Lk 21: All of the wrath of God that has been written would fall on that generation. Lk 23 tells us that the babies who were on the crucifixion path of Christ would be adults and see the destruction of their country. There is no way around that timestamp.

2, I Th 2, he says the full wrath of God has come on his people who killed Christ and many of the apostles, and who generally damage all men. It really was an awful generation, by any standard.

But it is a sin in D'ism to read any history, archeology or background so all this is sin to you. You think I'm in sin. You think I'm a humanist. You think I'm a pervert. You even crap on one of the best Jewish archeologists working in Israel until recently, because it is some irrational sin to know anything outside of Scripture that reinforces it. And that is what it is: reinforcement. Not reinforcement of D'ism which is a travesty. But of the Bible.

The main insight to a defensive, negative person is to listen to what they keep accusing others of: its 'fairy tales' and 'made up' in your cases. That's because that's what most of your thinking is. I hope I can help you out of it.

You continue to abuse the official interp of Amos 9 in Acts 15 which says the opposite of what you say on each front, and you are so dismayed. It always was about reaching the Gentiles, because David knew the promise to Abraham was supposed to be about that. He even thought his temple might help in it, in the dedication prayer. He was a bit off, but give him some credit.

I do not accept your interp of something when the NT is ready with what is says. I don't know why you try with your amateur language-hating skills and commentary-hating passion.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are not the authority. You have to give reasons. It is plain what the two covenants are in the text

Then why do you get it wrong? Abrahamic and Mosaic.

 

[Right Divider]

The promise question is not a matter of commentaries, because D'ist commentaries chop it all up into bits and pieces of promises to make sure it all comes out just perfectly literal. It is a grammatical or word choice question. He either meant 'what ever God promised...' or he did not.

Well... it's a darn good thing that I rely on the BIBLE instead of those "D'ist commentaries".... You on the other hand....

 

[Danoh]

Then why do you get it wrong? Abrahamic and Mosaic.

That is all you see in Gal. 3 - just those two?

Yep, you're an Acts 9/28 Hybrid "MAD."

Carry on :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8

 

[Interplanner]

Well... it's a darn good thing that I rely on the BIBLE instead of those "D'ist commentaries".... You on the other hand....

Even if you don't think you rely on them, you do. Not that that settles the grammatical question. the grammatical question should be settled by the overall statement of the sermon, which is clearly nothing about the land ever. It is that Israel should exult in the resurrection of Christ and the mission. Nor is there a 'yeah, but after THAT...' statement, because there doesn't need to be. Nor is it used to 'solve' the issues raised by followers of Judaism in the wake of the sermon.

 

[Right Divider]

Even if you don't think you rely on them, you do. Not that that settles the grammatical question. the grammatical question should be settled by the overall statement of the sermon, which is clearly nothing about the land ever.

As you've been told MANY, MANY times.... the land promise was a GIVEN.... ALL of them understood it and they did not need to repeat it in EVERY passage that IP "thinks" need it.

You are as dumb as a box of rocks.

It is that Israel should exult in the resurrection of Christ and the mission. Nor is there a 'yeah, but after THAT...' statement, because there doesn't need to be. Nor is it used to 'solve' the issues raised by followers of Judaism in the wake of the sermon.

YOU telling us what "needs to be" or "doesn't need to be" is very funny.

God needs to keep His promises or He would be a liar, like you. And God is NOT a liar, like you.

In Christ.

 

[Interplanner]

As you've been told MANY, MANY times.... the land promise was a GIVEN.... ALL of them understood it and they did not need to repeat it in EVERY passage that IP "thinks" need it.

You are as dumb as a box of rocks.


YOU telling us what "needs to be" or "doesn't need to be" is very funny.

God needs to keep His promises or He would be a liar, like you. And God is NOT a liar, like you.

In Christ.

sorry, but you've been shown many, many times that ANYWHERE where the land promise should be repeated to save a guys neck or to factor into an overall message, it is NOT there. That alone is suspicious.

Everyone in the 'room' there knew the destruction of the land was coming, and Agrippa and Caiaphas wanted to prevent it. (Agrippa started a 3rd protective wall around Jerusalem, but died and construction stopped). So you have most of Judaism trying to prevent what Christ said from happening.

Heb 8-10 also knows it is going to be burnt, and does not mention the land. "Israel" and "Judah" can be reconciled without being in the land. The land restoration means the complete operation of the temple and that worship system again, which Hebrews has discarded with finality.

In Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

sorry, but you've been shown many, many times that ANYWHERE where the land promise should be repeated to save a guys neck or to factor into an overall message, it is NOT there. That alone is suspicious.

Vain imagination.

Everyone in the 'room' there knew the destruction of the land was coming, and Agrippa and Caiaphas wanted to prevent it. (Agrippa started a 3rd protective wall around Jerusalem, but died and construction stopped). So you have most of Judaism trying to prevent what Christ said from happening.

I'm curious what UNBELIEVERS actions have to do with BIBLICAL TRUTH..... NOTHING!

Heb 8-10 also knows it is going to be burnt, and does not mention the land. "Israel" and "Judah" can be reconciled without being in the land. The land restoration means the complete operation of the temple and that worship system again, which Hebrews has discarded with finality.

Once AGAIN, your vain imagination wants to make God a liar. God is NOT a liar.... YOU ARE.

In Christ.

God will fulfill ALL of His promises, including this one:

Amos 9:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:11) ¶ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: (9:12) That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (9:13) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. (9:14) And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (9:15) And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. ​

Your "idea" of what "in Christ" means is as twisted as the rest of your vain imaginations.

 

[Interplanner]

Vain imagination.


I'm curious what UNBELIEVERS actions have to do with BIBLICAL TRUTH..... NOTHING!


Once AGAIN, your vain imagination wants to make God a liar. God is NOT a liar.... YOU ARE.


God will fulfill ALL of His promises, including this one:

Amos 9:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(9:11) ¶ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: (9:12) That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (9:13) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. (9:14) And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (9:15) And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. ​

Your "idea" of what "in Christ" means is as twisted as the rest of your vain imaginations.

There are numerous places where you would think the land promise/restoration would be mentioned. It is not.

Unbelieving followers of Judaism. COme on RD, in 1st century Judea, they were around Christ and its not like talking to some LBGT in San Francisco today. Surely you see that. They knew Dan 9. They knew the country was in miserable shape. They lived in fear of rebels since the census, Acts 5. Those leaders of Judaism "have to do with biblical truth" because they were the people being spoken to by Christ. You really do not think about what you are saying, do you?

Once again you abuse Amos 9 against how Acts 15 uses it. You are totally wrong on every level according to Acts 15. Amos 9 was true in Christ and in the Gospel. You are supposed to be a minister of that same Gospel.

 

[Right Divider]

There are numerous places where you would think the land promise/restoration would be mentioned. It is not.

Poor, poor IP. You just cannot accept truth unless it conforms to what YOU think.

Unbelieving followers of Judaism. COme on RD, in 1st century Judea, they were around Christ and its not like talking to some LBGT in San Francisco today. Surely you see that.

IP, there were MANY that were "around Jesus" that REJECTED Him and CRUCIFIED Him.

Your rabid carnal mind just cannot give up your vain "thinking".

They knew Dan 9. They knew the country was in miserable shape. They lived in fear of rebels since the census, Acts 5. Those leaders of Judaism "have to do with biblical truth" because they were the people being spoken to by Christ. You really do not think about what you are saying, do you?

Yes, I do.... but you do not understand even the simplest of facts. Therefore, there is NO way to communicate with you.

Once again you abuse Amos 9 against how Acts 15 uses it. You are totally wrong on every level according to Acts 15. Amos 9 was true in Christ and in the Gospel. You are supposed to be a minister of that same Gospel.

You are just SO wrong ALL of the time.

Acts 15 does NOT CANCEL the PROMISES (including that one). It is YOUR vain and silly "interp" that is WRONG about how Acts 15 "uses it".

Acts 15 has NOTHING to do with confirming or CANCELLING the promises made THROUGHOUT the law and the prophets.

 

[Interplanner]

Poor, poor IP. You just cannot accept truth unless it conforms to what YOU think.


IP, there were MANY that were "around Jesus" that REJECTED Him and CRUCIFIED Him.

Your rabid carnal mind just cannot give up your vain "thinking".


Yes, I do.... but you do not understand even the simplest of facts. Therefore, there is NO way to communicate with you.


You are just SO wrong ALL of the time.

Acts 15 does NOT CANCEL the PROMISES (including that one). It is YOUR vain and silly "interp" that is WRONG about how Acts 15 "uses it".

Acts 15 has NOTHING to do with confirming or CANCELLING the promises made THROUGHOUT the law and the prophets.

Yes Dictator, I submit to your every decree.

 

[Interplanner]

A restored land and worship system is never THE PROOF of the truth of God in the apostles teaching. Never. You are setting yourself up for a collapse.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes Dictator, I submit to your every decree.

Poor, poor IP.

Confused, angry, ... what else?

 

[Right Divider]

A restored land and worship system is never THE PROOF of the truth of God in the apostles teaching. Never. You are setting yourself up for a collapse.

Read it AND believe it....

Zech 14:16-21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:16) ¶ And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:17) And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (14:18) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:19) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:20) ¶ In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. (14:21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. ​

This is what happens AFTER the LORD Jesus Christ returns (Zech 14:4) and AFTER the DAY OF THE LORD (Zech 14:1).

 

[Danoh]

Read it AND believe it....

Zech 14:16-21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:16) ¶ And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:17) And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (14:18) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:19) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (14:20) ¶ In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. (14:21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts. ​

This is what happens AFTER the LORD Jesus Christ returns (Zech 14:4) and AFTER the DAY OF THE LORD (Zech 14:1).

Yep.

Rom. 5:8