ECT If MAD is False Why Did Paul Make the Distinction in Romans 4:16?

[turbosixx]

I have not "attacked" you, but I have firmly and repeated shown contempt for your very poor doctrine and your now apparently disingenuous "willingness" to learn.

So your signature of a mistake I made quoted and highlighted for everyone to see is an example of the love God wants us to have towards one another. If we have not love we are nothing.

 

[Right Divider]

So your signature of a mistake I made quoted and highlighted for everyone to see is an example of the love God wants us to have towards one another. If we have not love we are nothing.

I can take that out of my signature if you would like.

It was there to make a point about your total confusion. Was is just a mistake? I was convinced that it was you position on the matter. It's been up there for a long time and you're just now complaining about it?

You would just not accept the truth that Paul ADDED something to the 12, proving that Paul received NEW revelation.

Have you now changed your position on that subject?

P.S. It is not loving to tell the truth?

 

[Interplanner]

I will discuss any scripture, if you'll actually quote some instead of chapter blasting.

But my experience with you is that you strain out a point from a verse out of context with everything you touch. That's why I'm here to get you read the big picture. 2P2P decided 100 years ago that it had the big picture, not the NT. That people 'needed' their help to understand the bible, mostly by using the expressions 'rightly dividing' 'all Israel will be saved' 'blessed is he who comes' etc as jingos to manipulate the whole thing.

They look at Eph 2B and 3A and have no idea what they are seeing because all they know is that "2P2P is true" blasted by propagandists.

 

[Interplanner]

Bad "interp".

Because I don't believe in 2 new covenants like you guys do. By best interp. It has to synch with Jesus and with 2 Cor 3-5.

As far as I can tell with you guys, the Gospel of the cross is cheap change; what really matters about the bible is that it predicted a kingdom in israel again 2500 years ago or something. Yet what does Paul say he was determined to know and know nothing else?

 

[Right Divider]

But my experience with you is that you strain out a point from a verse out of context with everything you touch.

You are a blabbering fool. You have NEVER seen me take a scripture out of context.

You have a very ridiculous "theory" of what the Bible teaches based on a whole bunch of man-made nonsense.

That's why I'm here to get you read the big picture. 2P2P decided 100 years ago that it had the big picture, not the NT.

Once again, you have NO IDEA what the NT is.

Please start a NEW thread to describe what YOU believe the "NT" is.

That people 'needed' their help to understand the bible, mostly by using the expressions 'rightly dividing' 'all Israel will be saved' 'blessed is he who comes' etc as jingos to manipulate the whole thing.

They look at Eph 2B and 3A and have no idea what they are seeing because all they know is that "2P2P is true" blasted by propagandists.

:juggle:

 

[Interplanner]

You are a blabbering fool. You have NEVER seen me take a scripture out of context.

You have a very ridiculous "theory" of what the Bible teaches based on a whole bunch of man-made nonsense.


Once again, you have NO IDEA what the NT is.

Please start a NEW thread to describe what YOU believe the "NT" is.


:juggle:

2P2P is just that: man-made nonsense, full of self-destructive exceptions, about which they are in denial.

'All Israel will be saved' is used without context.

'rightly divide' is used without context.

These things have been mentioned all week. You are in denial.

It's pretty ridiculous to say 'no idea what the NT is' at this point. You're just avoiding the collossal mistakes elsewhere.

 

[Right Divider]

Because I don't believe in 2 new covenants like you guys do.

:rotfl:

So there is NO Old/New covenants in the Bible?
:french:

By best interp. It has to synch with Jesus and with 2 Cor 3-5.

CHAPTER BLASTER!!!

What about Genesis -- Revelation?

As far as I can tell with you guys, the Gospel of the cross is cheap change; what really matters about the bible is that it predicted a kingdom in israel again 2500 years ago or something. Yet what does Paul say he was determined to know and know nothing else?

What a COMPLETE MORON.

We are the ones that preach the CROSS AND HIM CRUCIFIED..... NOW!

The kingdom WAS at hand and will YET come, per scripture.

 

[Interplanner]

:rotfl:

So there is NO Old/New covenants in the Bible?
:french:


CHAPTER BLASTER!!!

What about Genesis -- Revelation?


What a COMPLETE MORON.

We are the ones that preach the CROSS AND HIM CRUCIFIED..... NOW!

The kingdom WAS at hand and will YET come, per scripture.

No, it came in power as Acts 1 said. It is not a matter of waiting for a 'kingdom of Israel'. You have not put that together with acts 15 which makes the official declaration that the incoming of the nations to faith is the kingdom of David. You don't handle 'how then is he his son?' properly etc, etc.


There aren't that many passages explicitly on the new covenant, and we have to take the NT interp of it as final. it is here, it is for the salvation of mankind etc. That's even clear from Hebrews. So blasting 'Gen-Rev' does nothing to me; once again, you avoid specifics because of the theories of 2P2P. Man-made.

 

[Right Divider]

2P2P is just that: man-made nonsense, full of self-destructive exceptions, about which they are in denial.

'All Israel will be saved' is used without context.

HERE is the CONTEXT, ignorant one:

Rom 11:26-27 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (11:27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

​

No doubt that this is well beyond your understanding.

'rightly divide' is used without context.

These things have been mentioned all week. You are in denial.

It's pretty ridiculous to say 'no idea what the NT is' at this point. You're just avoiding the collossal mistakes elsewhere.

Please start a NEW thread to describe what YOU believe the "NT" is. Don't leave anything out.

 

[Interplanner]

re Rom 11
he said it was all fulfilled there. The covenant, the Redeemer, the turning away from sin, and the taking away. All Israel are those who believe that.

PS it is in future tense because it is from Isaiah. But Paul was future to Isaiah, too! What a concept! That's why he is saying it is fulfilled and is what they believe.

There is no Davidic theocracy or a hint of it there.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Because I don't believe in 2 new covenants like you guys do.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

re Rom 11
he said it was all fulfilled there. The covenant, the Redeemer, the turning away from sin, and the taking away. All Israel are those who believe that.

PS it is in future tense because it is from Isaiah. But Paul was future to Isaiah, too! What a concept! That's why he is saying it is fulfilled and is what they believe.

There is no Davidic theocracy or a hint of it there.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I want to know how you got into Heb 8:8 (KJV).

:idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

No, it came in power as Acts 1 said.

CHAPTER BLASTER!!!

Quote the PASSAGE and EXPLAIN what you think that it means.

Are you talking about the ascension of the LORD Jesus Christ or the replacement of Judas?

It is not a matter of waiting for a 'kingdom of Israel'.

It's a RESTORED kingdom TO Israel, per scripture.

You have not put that together with acts 15 which makes the official declaration that the incoming of the nations to faith is the kingdom of David. You don't handle 'how then is he his son?' properly etc, etc.

There aren't that many passages explicitly on the new covenant, and we have to take the NT interp of it as final. it is here, it is for the salvation of mankind etc. That's even clear from Hebrews. So blasting 'Gen-Rev' does nothing to me; once again, you avoid specifics because of the theories of 2P2P. Man-made.

Revelation ends with the gentile kings coming to the capital of the kingdom to pay respects, just like Isaiah said that they would.

 

[turbosixx]

I can take that out of my signature if you would like.

It was there to make a point about your total confusion. Was is just a mistake? I was convinced that it was you position on the matter. It's been up there for a long time and you're just now complaining about it?

I understand why you put it up there but is that how you should treat people who are striving to understand truth. If it makes you happy, keep it up.

You would just not accept the truth that Paul ADDED something to the 12, proving that Paul received NEW revelation.
Have you now changed your position on that subject?

I agreed with you that Paul added his commission.

P.S. It is not loving to tell the truth?

Telling the truth is love but telling everyone and highlighting it is not.

 

[Right Divider]

I understand why you put it up there but is that how you should treat people who are striving to understand truth. If it makes you happy, keep it up.

It doesn't make me happy. You were extremely confrontational when we first started and I reacted. We both could have done better.

I agreed with you that Paul added his commission.

Is this new?

Telling the truth is love but telling everyone and highlighting it is not.

I wanted to warn everyone about you. In case someone else ventured into a similar discussion with you. I will remove it.

 

[turbosixx]

It doesn't make me happy. You were extremely confrontational when we first started and I reacted. We both could have done better.

I agree.

Is this new?

Yes

I wanted to warn everyone about you. In case someone else ventured into a similar discussion with you. I will remove it.

Thanks.

I know you don't think I'm willing to learn from others but I really am. I continue to think about my discussions with everyone and try to see it from their point of view. Paul said to take every thought captive and I strive to do so. I know many will be in disbelief when they don't make it in because they fell for one of Satan's schemes. I don't want to be one of those people. There is nothing more important in life than understanding the truth.

 

[Right Divider]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I know you don't think I'm willing to learn from others but I really am.

It's hard to tell with you sometimes. You seem to go to two extremes. I do appreciate when you take the time to look at what I'm saying and I do not disregard what you say. It's just that I've seen so much of what I call "churchianity", which tends to be a cultural rather than dispensational view of scripture. Most of what you were trying to tell me seemed to fit into that mold.

I know that for many word "dispensation" is a dirty word to many, but it's a Biblical word none the less. Many think that simply being Biblical is enough, but God's revelation has changed over time and that makes them a mess (as they try to make it all fit at ALL of the time). Once upon a time, God told Adam to tend the garden and keep it. Later, God told him to get out of the garden and don't come back.

I continue to think about my discussions with everyone and try to see it from their point of view. Paul said to take every thought captive and I strive to do so. I know many will be in disbelief when they don't make it in because they fell for one of Satan's schemes. I don't want to be one of those people. There is nothing more important in life than understanding the truth.

I completely understand and agree.

 

[Interplanner]

RD do you have any sources of the churchianity view that is not D'ist. I hardly ever hear it. I know of one guy on a local Christian station who does not do D'ism and only mentions that occasionally. D'ism and 2P2P are far and away the standard view of the Bible believing church today because of all the Bible versions that plastered their notes in margins and footers, to explain the complications of 2P2P.

 

[turbosixx]

You're welcome.


It's hard to tell with you sometimes. You seem to go to two extremes. I do appreciate when you take the time to look at what I'm saying and I do not disregard what you say. It's just that I've seen so much of what I call "churchianity", which tends to be a cultural rather than dispensational view of scripture. Most of what you were trying to tell me seemed to fit into that mold.

I know that for many word "dispensation" is a dirty word to many, but it's a Biblical word none the less. Many think that simply being Biblical is enough, but God's revelation has changed over time and that makes them a mess (as they try to make it all fit at ALL of the time). Once upon a time, God told Adam to tend the garden and keep it. Later, God told him to get out of the garden and don't come back.


I completely understand and agree.

I've recognized at least one of my problems while working with you. I don't digest what others are saying long enough before I reply. I have since fixed that one.

I don't have a problem with "dispensation". I understand God has dealt with man differently over the years. I just want to be sure I understand where one starts and one ends the same as God does.