ECT Jerry's 'unaware of death' theory flops in John

[God's Truth]

Interesting thoughts, GT, you might have supported them stronger by Heb 11.

Where do you think I failed, IP? As if I never used Hebrews 11.

Get it out and explain better. Your great sentence structure is limited in words and sentences.

Why would anyone fault another for using scriptures and explaining things further than what you are used to?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, infected with zealot Judaism, they would have tried to stop that. And Peter did try. And they told him 'this will never happen to you.'

You are unaware of what is actually happening in the account because you have found a prooftext to what you thought was THE question of the account. That is how D'ism creates fools. They have the wrong questions.

The layers of zealot Judaism in them prevented the sacrificial Gospel from actually sinking in. All they heard was 'kingdom, thrones, power, Israel uber alles'.

Rationalization, humanism, as usual.

 

[Interplanner]

Where do you think I failed, IP? As if I never used Hebrews 11.

Get it out and explain better. Your great sentence structure is limited in words and sentences.

Why would anyone fault another for using scriptures and explaining things further than what you are used to?

I simply meant that Heb 11 was spot-on to showing that God always has his remnant, while most of those others were a bit extraneous.

 

[God's Truth]

I simply meant that Heb 11 was spot-on to showing that God always has his remnant, while most of those others were a bit extraneous.

Can't you be glad for scripture before Hebrews? How do you get the scriptures I gave were irrelevant?

No way is that the truth. Don't show yourself to be hard as your opponents.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Am I misreading this, or do some think that the only two choices are:
First choice: There are two gospels (one that Jesus is the Christ, and the other that Jesus died to give us salvation)
Second choice: There is only the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection (which the apostles knew from the beginning)
This is like taking the opening scene of a movie and the end result of a movie and saying those are the only two choices for the plot.
Jesus came under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. In other words, he started with the law and over the space of 3 1/2 years slowly transitioned his followers to the final message. He slowly revealed more and more throughout his ministry, and the disciples were commanded to preach the level of revelation that they had.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Interplanner]

Can't you be glad for scripture before Hebrews? How do you get the scriptures I gave were irrelevant?

No way is that the truth. Don't show yourself to be hard as your opponents.

Actually, Rom 11 opening paragraph is the official one on the remnant doctrine. But heb 11 ends with the dividing line between 2 kinds of people, too. I'm just saying some of your selection would take a few steps of explanation to get back to the remnant question.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, Rom 11 opening paragraph is the official one on the remnant doctrine. But heb 11 ends with the dividing line between 2 kinds of people, too. I'm just saying some of your selection would take a few steps of explanation to get back to the remnant question.

Spoken like a true Commentarian.

 

[Danoh]

Spoken like a true Commentarian.

Lol - more like Cemeterian.

 

[Interplanner]

Spoken like a true Commentarian.

Do you have an obsession that finds things that are not there? Do you know a better one-stop text about the remnant? There is no commentary, RD, it is the 'plain meaning'. It is just that this 'plain meaning' is not D'ist so you reject it and smear the messenger.

There are more fulfilling hobbies to pursue.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you have an obsession that finds things that are not there? Do you know a better one-stop text about the remnant? There is no commentary, RD, it is the 'plain meaning'. It is just that this 'plain meaning' is not D'ist so you reject it and smear the messenger.

There are more fulfilling hobbies to pursue.

It is EXACTLY this type of "thinking" that is YOUR problem.

You like to try to impose your humanist thinking on the Word of God.

Instead you need to take it AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Jer 31:31 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
​

• Simple
• Clear
• Unambiguous

 

[Interplanner]

It is EXACTLY this type of "thinking" that is YOUR problem.

You like to try to impose your humanist thinking on the Word of God.

Instead you need to take it AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Jer 31:31 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
​

• Simple
• Clear
• Unambiguous

Actually it needs the NT to interp, because the prophets searched intently in those passages to see the times and features of Messiah but could not quite see it. You know this but you are in denial. It was after-Christ that it was clear; well, he did try while he was ministering too. You have it backwards on clarity. Because you don't do NT theology.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually it needs the NT to interp, because the prophets searched intently in those passages to see the times and features of Messiah but could not quite sit it. You know this but you are in denial. It was after-Christ that it was clear; well, he did try while he was ministering too. You have it backwards on clarity. Because you don't do NT theology.

The new covenant is NOT synonymous with the new testament, no matter how hard you try to confuse the two.

 

[God's Truth]

Am I misreading this, or do some think that the only two choices are:
First choice: There are two gospels (one that Jesus is the Christ, and the other that Jesus died to give us salvation)
Second choice: There is only the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection (which the apostles knew from the beginning)
This is like taking the opening scene of a movie and the end result of a movie and saying those are the only two choices for the plot.
Jesus came under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. In other words, he started with the law and over the space of 3 1/2 years slowly transitioned his followers to the final message. He slowly revealed more and more throughout his ministry, and the disciples were commanded to preach the level of revelation that they had.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

No, you are not misreading this; however, you are probably disappointed to read about these strange doctrines by Christians who are so intelligent and normal.

 

[Interplanner]

The new covenant is NOT synonymous with the new testament, no matter how hard you try to confuse the two.

I do that deliberately because other features of NT theology conflict with what you are doing. You are totally unaware of what has taken place in Christ and how it answers the yearnings of the 2nd half of Isaiah. The land of israel will not answer that. They aren't identical, but the overlap is substantial.

 

[Interplanner]

The new covenant is NOT synonymous with the new testament, no matter how hard you try to confuse the two.

That's deliberate. They are not identical but the overlap is substantial. A land of Israel restoration will never answer the yearnings of the 2nd half of Isaiah.

"It is too small a thing for you to restore my people; I will make you a light to the nations." God speaking to the Servant, about the Gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

It is EXACTLY this type of "thinking" that is YOUR problem.

You like to try to impose your humanist thinking on the Word of God.

Instead you need to take it AS IT IS WRITTEN.

Jer 31:31 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
​

• Simple
• Clear
• Unambiguous

The Rom 11 intro is one stop meaning: simple

clear

unambiguous.

It stays on that topic for a paragraph, too, instead of being a proof-text.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Because you don't do NT theology.

Pompous.

 

[Right Divider]

That's deliberate. They are not identical but the overlap is substantial. A land of Israel restoration will never answer the yearnings of the 2nd half of Isaiah.

"It is too small a thing for you to restore my people; I will make you a light to the nations." God speaking to the Servant, about the Gospel.

Isa 60:21 (KJV)​

(60:21) Thy people also [shall be] all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. ​

 

[God's Truth]

Isa 60:21 (KJV)​

(60:21) Thy people also [shall be] all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. ​

The Old Testament is about earthly things that are prophetic about what was coming in the New Testament, and that is prophecies fulfilled and things which are spiritual.

 

[Tambora]

The Old Testament is about earthly things that are prophetic about what was coming in the New Testament, and that is prophecies fulfilled and things which are spiritual.

No.
The OT prophesied a literal physical Messiah.
And that prophesy was to be fulfilled in a literal physical manner.

To spiritualize away the literal promises of GOD to Israel is to deny a literal physical Messiah.
Not to mention that it makes GOD an oath breaker.