ECT An unintended compliment from an opponent of dispensationalism

[Interplanner]

False about what Musterion?

Is it a D'ist habit to assassinate a person's character and then not show up to take credit?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is it a D'ist habit to assassinate a person's character and then not show up to take credit?

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar

 

[Interplanner]

False about what Musterion?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

False about what Musterion?

Conversely, truth is magnified and amplified when we, as Cornfield said, revert back to the enlightened ideas of NHNE event and forsake the red dirt promises.

 

[Lighthouse]

From the current Berean Bible Institute newsletter, quoted in its entirety.



Yep, an unintended compliment if ever there was one.

Agreed.

The Law ,in it's purity, will be executed by the LORD and his priests during that time, just as prophesied.

*its

 

[Interplanner]

Agreed.



*its

that is the opposite of what Hebrews says. I believe D'ism to be as irrational as the secular social scientist who says "male and female genders are just social constructs to be overthrown." You want me to believe that Hebrews is only for Jews. Then you want me to believe that the new covenant is only for Jews. then, even though no one can miss that the new covenant in Christ is about the replacement of Judaism's worship and sacrifice system, I am supposed to believe that Hebrews is not for me AND (above) that every thing in the law will be practiced exactly.

D'ism is therefore fundamentally irrational and made up.

We are supposed to learn from it when things are shadows of Christ and when the reality of Christ has come. It has.

 

[JudgeRightly]

IP... I know I've asked this before and never got an answer, but...

What is the full title of Hebrews?

Just open your Bible to Hebrews, read the full title, and then state it in your response to this part of my post.

Still waiting for an answer to this.

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,”and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. - 1 Peter 2:4-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Peter2:4-10&version=NKJV

I'm not sure what goes through your head when reading this passage, but the phrases "chosen by God," "elect," "chosen generation," "holy nation," and "His own special people," just scream Israel. Especially "holy nation," because the only nation called "God's people" throughout the entire Bible is the nation of Israel, and the Body of Christ is NOT a nation. SO, that means that Peter is not writing to the Body of Christ, but to the nation of Israel.

See what happens when you don't rightly divide?

JRs post is silly because all of these things are used about all believers.

Is the Body of Christ a nation?

In Cor Paul said Christ our passover is sacrificed let us keep the feast. He was the Paschal; they were not doing the ceremony like over in Jerusalem.

Your whole pack of lemmings has no idea what the passage is doing or saying.

I could understand if you meant Jewish Christians, but even then the whole force of the NT is on the unity of all believers, not the separation. But you said NATION. It is definitely not that.

Is the Body of Christ a nation?

btw, the same living temple that Paul mentioned in Eph 2 and Rom 12 is in the Peter passage so that whole fairy tale (that Paul does not do such things) is in the huge D'ist trash heap of mucked up passage and references.

Does this sound like Paul is talking to the same group of people that Peter is talking to?

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. - Ephesians 2:11-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians2:11-13&version=NKJV

When is the last time you read through Ephesians? It's quite clear that Paul isn't talking to Israel.

JR, read Eph 1, which was circulated almost everywhere there was a church, and you'll find election and choosing and you'll also find everything Israel had shared with Gentiles IN CHRIST.

I think you need to reread Ephesians. Get an overview of what it's saying, and then try to make that argument.

That is the opposite of what Hebrews says. I believe D'ism to be as irrational as the secular social scientist who says "male and female genders are just social constructs to be overthrown." You want me to believe that Hebrews is only for Jews.

INTERPLANNER!

What is the full title of Hebrews?

Then you want me to believe that the new covenant is only for Jews.

Interplanner!

What does this verse say?

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— - Jeremiah 31:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah31:31&version=NKJV

What does this passage say?

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the L ord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — - Hebrews 8:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews8:7-8&version=NKJV

then, even though no one can miss that the new covenant in Christ is about the replacement of Judaism's worship and sacrifice system, I am supposed to believe that Hebrews is not for me AND (above) that every thing in the law will be practiced exactly.

IP!

What is the full title of Hebrews?

D'ism is therefore fundamentally irrational and made up.

Only if you reject what scripture says.

We are supposed to learn from it when things are shadows of Christ and when the reality of Christ has come. It has.

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[Interplanner]

Still waiting for an answer to this.





Is the Body of Christ a nation?



Is the Body of Christ a nation?



Does this sound like Paul is talking to the same group of people that Peter is talking to?

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. - Ephesians 2:11-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians2:11-13&version=NKJV

When is the last time you read through Ephesians? It's quite clear that Paul isn't talking to Israel.



I think you need to reread Ephesians. Get an overview of what it's saying, and then try to make that argument.



INTERPLANNER!

What is the full title of Hebrews?



Interplanner!

What does this verse say?

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— - Jeremiah 31:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah31:31&version=NKJV

What does this passage say?

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the L ord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — - Hebrews 8:7-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews8:7-8&version=NKJV



IP!

What is the full title of Hebrews?



Only if you reject what scripture says.



What is that even supposed to mean?

The full title is PROS EBRAIOUS. It was not necessarily in the original text.

How can you possibly do Hebrews or Paul, and not know what shadow-to-reality means? That alone disqualifies you from comment.

The 'fault' of the 1st is solved by the body of Him who is the 2nd. It is in Christ that God accomplishes what the 1st could not do. It has nothing to do with the land of Israel, though it may heal a tribal rift with those who are Jewish--unless they are pugnacious.

The question 'what does the Scripture say?' must include details on 'what does the NT say about an OT passage?' otherwise, there is no point.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The full title is PROS EBRAIOUS. It was not necessarily in the original text.

What does Πρὸς Έβραίους translate to?

Literally: "To the Hebrews".

How can you possibly do Hebrews or Paul, and not know what shadow-to-reality means? That alone disqualifies you from comment.

So because I have no idea what you're saying, I'm disqualified from making a comment about scripture? Right.

The 'fault' of the 1st is solved by the body of Him who is the 2nd.

IP. What does Jeremiah 31:31-40 and Hebrews 8:7-13 say?

It is in Christ that God accomplishes what the 1st could not do. It has nothing to do with the land of Israel, though it may heal a tribal rift with those who are Jewish--unless they are pugnacious.

The question 'what does the Scripture say?' must include details on 'what does the NT say about an OT passage?' otherwise, there is no point.

Seems pretty clear to me that you reject what scripture blatantly says in favor of your own interpretation.

You know what the Bible says about that?

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” - Romans 3:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:4&version=NKJV

 

[Interplanner]

What does Πρὸς Έβραίους translate to?

Literally: "To the Hebrews".



So because I have no idea what you're saying, I'm disqualified from making a comment about scripture? Right.



IP. What does Jeremiah 31:31-40 and Hebrews 8:7-13 say?



Seems pretty clear to me that you reject what scripture blatantly says in favor of your own interpretation.

You know what the Bible says about that?

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” - Romans 3:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:4&version=NKJV

The title would have been to Hebrew Christians. That's why there is the danger of shrinking back. Aside from some paticulars about what would happen in Judea, the same warnings matter to all Christians. Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever.

The chs 9-10 set up the shadow to reality in Christ progression. Yes, if you missed that, and STP, RD etc have, then you don't know what the book is saying.

The same thing is taught in Col 2 around the neo-Judaism there, and in Gal 4 about the Judaistic gospel there.
The mistaken teachers wanted to pull people back to the mere copies, the shadows, instead of the reality of Christ.

It's like missing the Constitution while claiming to know America.

Haven't you read the thread on the ranking of Angels, Priests, Covenants in Hebrews.

And then there is the problem of who is a true Jew, a true seed of Abraham, since being in Christ defines that. Please don't tell me you are not familiar with that doctine!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

that is the opposite of what Hebrews says. I believe D'ism to be as irrational as the secular social scientist who says "male and female genders are just social constructs to be overthrown." You want me to believe that Hebrews is only for Jews. Then you want me to believe that the new covenant is only for Jews. then, even though no one can miss that the new covenant in Christ is about the replacement of Judaism's worship and sacrifice system, I am supposed to believe that Hebrews is not for me AND (above) that every thing in the law will be practiced exactly.

D'ism is therefore fundamentally irrational and made up.

We are supposed to learn from it when things are shadows of Christ and when the reality of Christ has come. It has.

Made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How can you possibly do Hebrews or Paul, and not know what shadow-to-reality means? That alone disqualifies you from comment.

Pompous, arrogant, and yet still constantly wrong.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The full title is PROS EBRAIOUS. It was not necessarily in the original text.

:chuckle:

 

[musterion]

I saw Pros Ebraious win the third run at Alameda. Lost $20.

 

[Interplanner]

What does Πρὸς Έβραίους translate to?

Literally: "To the Hebrews".



So because I have no idea what you're saying, I'm disqualified from making a comment about scripture? Right.



IP. What does Jeremiah 31:31-40 and Hebrews 8:7-13 say?



Seems pretty clear to me that you reject what scripture blatantly says in favor of your own interpretation.

You know what the Bible says about that?

Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.” - Romans 3:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:4&version=NKJV

The D'ists here reject the NT interp every day, usually calling it non-sensical, phantom, non-material, "in Christ" nonsense. Get that? "In Christ" is nonsense to them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The title would have been to Hebrew Christians.

The title is "The Epistle to the Hebrews," or more literally, "To the Hebrews."

It is not "The Epistle to the Hebrew Christians."

Have you read Hebrews recently? It's written as if the author is talking to the Hebrews, using examples from their history, things that they would understand (such as the law).

That's why there is the danger of shrinking back. Aside from some particulars about what would happen in Judea, the same warnings matter to all Christians. Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever.

The chs 9-10 set up the shadow to reality in Christ progression. Yes, if you missed that, and STP, RD etc have, then you don't know what the book is saying.

The same thing is taught in Col 2 around the neo-Judaism there, and in Gal 4 about the Judaistic gospel there.
The mistaken teachers wanted to pull people back to the mere copies, the shadows, instead of the reality of Christ.

It's like missing the Constitution while claiming to know America.

Haven't you read the thread on the ranking of Angels, Priests, Covenants in Hebrews.

And then there is the problem of who is a true Jew, a true seed of Abraham, since being in Christ defines that. Please don't tell me you are not familiar with that doctine!

A Jew is someone who is either born of the lineage of Abraham (who is required to be circumcised) or one who places himself under the covenant of circumcision.

The D'ists here reject the NT interp every day, usually calling it non-sensical, phantom, non-material, "in Christ" nonsense. Get that? "In Christ" is nonsense to them.

Sounds like you're trying to poison the well, IP. Please don't.

IP, if the title of a book (or letter) is To the Hebrews, then wouldn't you expect that the intended audience is the Hebrews, regardless of what is said in it?

Have you ever read someone else's mail? If so, do you react to something that is said in it as if you were that person? Or do you react with the understanding that what was said was not intended for you?

Hopefully the latter. If so, then why would you read a letter, written to the Hebrews, as if it was addressed to you, a gentile?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The D'ists here reject the NT interp every day, usually calling it non-sensical, phantom, non-material, "in Christ" nonsense. Get that? "In Christ" is nonsense to them.

I have a few questions for you, IP.

Do you know and understand the difference between Jew and Gentile?

Do you know and understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ?

Do you know and understand the difference between Law and Grace?

Are you aware that Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 show two separate covenants with Abraham?

 

[Interplanner]

The title is "The Epistle to the Hebrews," or more literally, "To the Hebrews."

It is not "The Epistle to the Hebrew Christians."

Have you read Hebrews recently? It's written as if the author is talking to the Hebrews, using examples from their history, things that they would understand (such as the law).



A Jew is someone who is either born of the lineage of Abraham (who is required to be circumcised) or one who places himself under the covenant of circumcision.



Sounds like you're trying to poison the well, IP. Please don't.

IP, if the title of a book (or letter) is To the Hebrews, then wouldn't you expect that the intended audience is the Hebrews, regardless of what is said in it?

Have you ever read someone else's mail? If so, do you react to something that is said in it as if you were that person? Or do you react with the understanding that what was said was not intended for you?

Hopefully the latter. If so, then why would you read a letter, written to the Hebrews, as if it was addressed to you, a gentile?

On Jews, you have to take Rom 2 into consideration.

On Hebrews, hey, wonder of wonders, it has the same wonderful OT passages and savior that I know! Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today , forever.

Having a master's level NT background, I also know that you are supposed to know the material! It's got material on the new covenant which is for all people who believe.

 

[Interplanner]

I have a few questions for you, IP.

Do you know and understand the difference between Jew and Gentile?

Do you know and understand the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ?

Do you know and understand the difference between Law and Grace?

Are you aware that Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 show two separate covenants with Abraham?

Yes, Jew and Gentile are different race(s) and until Messiah reminded everyone that faith in Christ for justification was what mattered, Judaism made a big deal out of the race difference. Post exile Judaism (intertestament) made a huge deal out of it, and that is what Paul grew up in, and was raised to correct. It was his career work to correct it. The critical question would be: what was Abraham the moment before he believed? Persian!

Yes on Israel and Christians. One is a race. D'ism believes promises that Judaism thought were to the race are valid going forward after Christ. The other is faith-based, faith-defined. If you have faith in Christ's sacrifice for justification from your sins, you are a Christian. They have some overlap, like the first several thousand who believed. And Paul. Then many others were non Jews. Then in Rom 9:26, using 4 OT quotes, Paul shows that God's people/community are both. The NT resounds with that.

The Law gives a person the idea they can obligated God to help them. Grace is the other way around. It is a gift first, and it compels a person to honor and obey the Giver. So at the end of Rom 11, 'who can say God owes them?' No one, neither Jew nor Gentile.

I don't take up the difference of those covenants in Genesis because the NT does not put any significance to it. Abraham was circumcised after he had already believed for his justification. We have to go back to that point with Paul in Gal 3 to sort it out.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The D'ists here reject the NT interp every day, usually calling it non-sensical, phantom, non-material, "in Christ" nonsense. Get that? "In Christ" is nonsense to them.

:chuckle:

No, we do not use that kind of commentary speak.