ECT The Gospel Proper

Status
Not open for further replies.

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Abraham believed that he would have a son. When that didn't happen for a while, they figured maybe it wasn't through Sarai.

Gen. 16:2 And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

That wasn't God's plan and God set him straight.
Gen. 17:17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

The promise was to his offspring, singular, which is Christ as Paul tells us.

Which promise?
 

Rosenritter

New member
I'm not alleging a contradiction, but if I were to follow your's and Turbo's reasoning, I'd have to.

So, you think that when GOD made promises concerning Abram/Abraham's seed(plural), He didn't mean what He said?

Do you think that Paul, in Galatians 3, is redacting all of the words 'seed(plural)in Gen 12-22 and changing the meanings to seed(singular)?

If so, what gives Paul the authority to redact GOD's word?

That looks like a claim of contradiction to me. "Redacting?" So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate the alleged contradiction. Right now that claim is unsubstantiated.

Search on "seeds" in entire bible: 5 verses found. Deu 22:9, Mat 13:4, Mat 13:32, Mark 4:31, Gal 3:16. No "seeds" found in Gen 12-22.

Galatians 3:16 KJV
(16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I'm not able to guess further as to what you meant. Please demonstrate?
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member

That looks like a claim of contradiction to me. "Redacting?" So I'm waiting for you to demonstrate the alleged contradiction. Right now that claim is unsubstantiated.

Search on "seeds" in entire bible: 5 verses found. Deu 22:9, Mat 13:4, Mat 13:32, Mark 4:31, Gal 3:16. No "seeds" found in Gen 12-22.

Galatians 3:16 KJV
(16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I'm not able to guess further as to what you meant. Please demonstrate?

It is evident you and turbbo have not only missed Paul's actual point in Gal 3:16, but Steko's point in his post, as well.

But it has equally been evident throughout that you both hold to a "one size fits all" going in - so you can't really be expected to properly understand neither Paul's nor Steko's actually intended point.

Try Romans 4, for starters - in light of Romans 11:25.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:6-8, in each our stead.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I would suggest let the bible define sin. Words like "evil things" and "rebelled" against God are subjective. Many who practice sin do not feel they are doing evil things or rebelling against God.

1 Jn. 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

This argument works as well against your position as it does for it...

"Many who practice evil things and rebel against God do not feel they are sinning."

You act as if the bible never uses the terms "evil" or "rebellion".

If you think that the definition of the term 'sin' is so cut and dried, I suggest you might want to rethink that. There are some who think it impossible for a Christian to "sin". Of course these folks have a very particular definition of the word "sin" but it isn't a frivolous one. They can argue their position from scripture quite well.

But, regardless of how you define sin, if you've done evil deeds, you have rebelled against God and are in need of a savior. And acknowledging that need due to that cause is a necessary step in getting saved.

Clete
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Then by that standard the baptism itself does nothing.
I think that's putting it a bit pessimistically, or skeptically. Consider an example of Catholic parents with bona fide Christian faith, who go on to rear their baptized child into the faith, so that somewhere before their confirmation, which depends upon them reaching the age of reason, and confessing the Christian creed, they do come to believe the authentic Christian faith, and believe the Gospel. Perhaps the baptism 'does nothing' in one sense, a pessimistic, skeptical sense, but what do you think denies this hypothetical family from having their infant child baptized?
The earlier ceremony (baptism of the infant) was not reflecting the faith of the one being baptized. But if the confirmation (the confession of belief) is of faith then I do see the value.
I see the value in encouraging the child's parents, in part because it is public, and in part because of the tradition of godparents. It puts a burden upon them, that I don't think is a bad burden to lay upon Christian parents.
 

Danoh

New member
Respective members of the body of Christ are the church in this dispensation, not a bunch of clowns, in clown suits, as the Roman Catholic Organization(my emphasis)spins, lies, about.

What the politics and superstition of the RCC will get ya...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/705266953/Survivors-of-1958-school-fire-haunted-by-memories.html

92 little ones and three nuns lost their lives that horrific day - 92 little ones - destroying the faith of an entire, close knit neighborhood.

Some video footage:

https://news.wttw.com/2018/11/29/angels-too-soon-remembers-tragedy-our-lady-angels
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Respective members of the body of Christ are the church
Correct.
in this dispensation
The priestly dispensation of the Apostles, "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost" (Romans 15:16 KJV). That's the Eucharist. Celebrated from the start (Acts 2:42 KJV). 1st Corinthians chapter 11.
, not a bunch of clowns, in clown suits, as the Roman Catholic Organization(my emphasis)spins, lies, about.
Better than, in nothing but their jock straps. :D
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Correct.
The priestly dispensation of the Apostles, "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost" (Romans 15:16 KJV). That's the Eucharist. Celebrated from the start (Acts 2:42 KJV). 1st Corinthians chapter 11.
Better than, in nothing but their jock straps. :D
No such thing as this "wafer god," "eating Jesus" doctrine of demons.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
.
The priestly dispensation of the Apostles,

No such thing. The only priests recognized by the LORD God, in times past, on earth,is the Levitical priesthood, and that will be recognized, in the future, on earth, is the "kingdom of priests," comprised of the believing remnant of the nation Israel, whom Catholics, and others, satanically attempt to replace.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Great. So, tell those Catholic clowns, in clown suits, and that "The Magesterium," that I can teach as well/better than they, in this dispensation.
The Apostles including Paul taught more, than what is preserved for us in Scripture. That's what Paul wrote. Does anybody know what else they taught? Yes, the bishops do. The Body of Christ's bishops; the magisterium.

But even that aside. The bishops are biblical. The Apostles including Paul instituted the office of Bishop. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus bishops. And he instructed them about consecrating new bishops themselves, thus showing that the office was to continue even once the Apostles departed this life.

And it has.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No such thing. The only priests recognized by the LORD God, in times past, on earth,is the Levitical priesthood, and that will be recognized, in the future, on earth, is the "kingdom of priests," comprised of the believing remnant of the nation Israel, whom Catholics, and others, satanically attempt to replace.
Didn't He recognize Melchizedek, before, you know, this 'Levi,' even existed?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
The Apostles including Paul taught more, than what is preserved for us in Scripture. That's what Paul wrote.




1. Chapter, verse.

2. And? Chapter, verse, that asserts that the LORD God appointed mystics, like in the RCO, to "teach" us, anything, as pertaining to life, death, not based upon the objective words of the book.


3. Why do you deceitfully equate objective revelation, given by objective words, with illumination/understanding/interpretation/"being taught?"
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Didn't He recognize Melchizedek, before, you know, this 'Levi,' even existed?

Sober up.

Tell us this is referring to the RCO frauddulent "priests," and not the Levitical priesthood, and the kingdom of priests.


Go ahead.

Exodus 19:6 KJV and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


Matthew 8:4 KJV And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.


How does that "Jesus" taste? Do you "eat Jesus" with "Ripple" wine?Hmmmmmm.....Good cracker....
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Yeah? Tell 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

The old reliable "cite a few verses in isolation trick," and then deny that a cup is the new testament, in deceit.


Do you spread jam jelly on your wafer "god?" Hmmmmm.............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top