ECT Israel is not the BOC

[Right Divider]

I meant none of those things of course. You are just a vapid literalist. I meant all the things the NT says took place in Christ: the enthronement on "David's throne", the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers, the fulfillment of the hope of Israel for which in the 1st century 'they serve God night and day', the enactment of the new covenant so that the nations would hear his Gospel, etc, etc, etc.

You and your magic "in Christ". You try to make it mean what ever you want it to mean.

You are an idiot trying to show everyone how terribly "smart" that you are.

So, unfortunately, the dumbness award goes to you. You are two busy trying to find two gospels, programs, destinies, purposes in the Bible because it supposedly makes it so clear.

No, it LITERALLY does make it so clear. You've just rejected clarity for your fairy tale.

 

[Interplanner]

You and your magic "in Christ". You try to make it mean what ever you want it to mean.

You are an idiot trying to show everyone how terribly "smart" that you are.


No, it LITERALLY does make it so clear. You've just rejected clarify for your fairy tale.

Schitzophrenia or bi-polarity does not bother some people. As soon as you try to make Rom 9's intro say two divergent things about Israel it becomes one of the worst pieces of writing ever known. It must end up saying:

Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ
the race of Israel is not the question
the person in Christ is justified from their sins
there is no expectation of a restored Israel, no mention of it
'in Christ' is a privilege, a status, granted to those who believe he sacrificed for us--which I thought you believed

 

[Right Divider]

Schitzophrenia or bi-polarity does not bother some people. As soon as you try to make Rom 9's intro say two divergent things about Israel it becomes one of the worst pieces of writing ever known. It must end up saying:

Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ
the race of Israel is not the question
the person in Christ is justified from their sins
there is no expectation of a restored Israel, no mention of it
'in Christ' is a privilege, a status, granted to those who believe he sacrificed for us--which I thought you believed

God's plans don't change just because you think that there can only be one plan.

You have accepted a LIE about what the Bible teaches and you hate to hear anyone tell you what it really says.

 

[Interplanner]

God's plans don't change just because you think that there can only be one plan.

You have accepted a LIE about what the Bible teaches and you hate to hear anyone tell you what it really says.

Except that after 40 years I have concluded it does not. Also that it does not have a reason to to do that. That is an insurmountable objection that you cannot overcome.

 

[Interplanner]

Funny how RD does not want to agree on the sacrifice of Christ. What does that tell us?

 

[Interplanner]

For Tam:
"Invisible" would mean conflict-free. Anything that would have been a conflict for Christ to say or do, or for Paul to teach about him, would have impacted Judaism like a one mph wind.

 

[Right Divider]

Except that after 40 years I have concluded it does not.

So after 40 years an idiot concludes his idiocy. Well done!

 

[Right Divider]

Funny how RD does not want to agree on the sacrifice of Christ. What does that tell us?

Another stupid thing said by IP. Well done!

 

[Interplanner]

So after 40 years an idiot concludes his idiocy. Well done![/QUOTE





No reasons.

The reason for the conclusion was that no group believed it until 150 years ago and when they did, it was in consort with Judaism and its anti-NT way of using the OT. Tells you everything.

 

[Interplanner]

Another stupid thing said by IP. Well done!

Why is it good for you to fail to agree? Why is it good for Tam to enjoy people/believers who fail to agree? Tells us what you are like.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So after 40 years an idiot concludes his idiocy. Well done!

40 years of scouring commentaries.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So, unfortunately, the dumbness award goes to you. You are two busy trying to find

:chuckle:

Ironic

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You do not grasp the emotion of Rom 9's opening.

Did you pick this up from watching Daystar?

 

[Right Divider]

Did you pick this up from watching Daystar?

His "Bible" has emoji's just to make sure that the emotions of the originals are not lost on a modern audience.

 

[DAN P]

YOu have no proof that there are nations as such in the BOC, which is the church

Hi and the B O C are members and all " in Christ and also called an EKKLESIA , which means an ASSEMBLY , so guess AGAIN !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Schitzophrenia or bi-polarity does not bother some people. As soon as you try to make Rom 9's intro say two divergent things about Israel it becomes one of the worst pieces of writing ever known. It must end up saying:

Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ
the race of Israel is not the question
the person in Christ is justified from their sins
there is no expectation of a restored Israel, no mention of it
'in Christ' is a privilege, a status, granted to those who believe he sacrificed for us--which I thought you believed

Never mind that Schizophrenia and Bi-Polarity are not the same issue.

That there are "things that differ" between them.

But yours is ever the school of "one size fits all" - the very compulsion of the Schizophrenic.

Rom. 5:8

 

[DAN P]

Never mind that Schizophrenia and Bi-Polarity are not the same issue.

That there are "things that differ" between them.

But yours is ever the school of "one size fits all" - the very compulsion of the Schizophrenic.

Rom. 5:8

Hi Danoh and is Pauline dispensationalism , to you a " one size fits all ." ??

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Hi Danoh and is Pauline dispensationalism , to you a " one size fits all ." ??

dan p

Yes...

...and no.

It depends...

Acts 17:11,12.

 

[DAN P]

Yes...

...and no.

It depends...

Acts 17:11,12.

So , what does YES and NO mean ??

What doe Acts 17:11 and 12 then mean and we know that the BBS uses the verse in their booklet !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

So , what does YES and NO mean ??

What doe Acts 17:11 and 12 then mean and we know that the BBS uses the verse in their booklet !!

dan p

We (you and I) also know they were not always consistent in their application of the three-fold principle in those two passages, there, in Acts 17:11,12.

As for the yes and no; it depends.

In the end, THE Mystery (being THE Very CAPSTONE of Divine Revelation that it is) is meant to function sort of like a Schematic or Template through which one is able to see what goes where anywhere in Scripture.

In that sense, THE Mystery is a one size fits all.

Genesis thru Revelation viewed through the lens of Romans thru Philemon.

So, there is that.

But along with that are the things that differ between Prophecy and Mystery that said Schematic is meant to also allow the seeing of.

Ephesians 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Rom. 5:8