ECT What is better about D'ism?

T

Truster

New member
musterion said:
Yes there is.



This was written before the unveiling of this dispensation of grace and has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the coming Kingdom wherein He will rule the earth. Things that are different are not the same. Try to grasp it.
Click to expand...

You asked for a scripture and I provided one of many. Now you need understanding and wisdom. I can't give sight to the judicially blind...
 
T

Truster

New member
musterion said:
You're addled. The psalm you cited says nothing about a covenant between God and Gentiles.
Click to expand...

It is in the Son that the redeemed receive their inheritance and all the benefits attached. We* are joint heirs with the Eternal Son and so the provisions made by the Father unto the Son are also unto the redeemed.

We* The redeemed, regenerate and repentant sinners.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
Covenant = at least one party is obligated to uphold the terms of the deal.

Israel, alone, are the covenant people. God has no covenant with we Gentiles, and Gentiles are not in any sense Israel. We were written off at Babel and were without hope ever since, aliens from the covenants He made with His people.

But since Israel does not exist (as such) today, no one today - Jew nor Gentile - has any access to God via the New Covenant anymore than anyone has access via the Old Covenant. Grace via the Cross is the only way for all.

Today, God is not obligated to anyone for anything EXCEPT His promised gift of the saving Gospel of grace. That doesn't involve a covenant and doesn't need to. Accept it and get over it.
Click to expand...





He's not doing that anymore Must. Covenants with all other people are over. That is why Christ was made a covenant for the people and 2 things happen because of that:

1, it is better because there is no more reminder of sins; the problem is solved only in Christ
2, everyone who is in Christ gains all of that, and has that message for the world. That is why through Christ, they become a light to the nations (and to the unbelieving part of the race of Israel).

Nothing in the NT sounds like what you just said.

The very fact that the nations were without a covenant was also inferior. So the new covenant is superior because of that; Christ is how those nations share in it; how can you dare take that feature and throw it into the trashbin of history with failed things humans have tried?

You defy all the celebration and present tense of the NT about the new covenant. So knock it off about the 'deal with it' crap. You don't know anything on this except the delusions of D'ism.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The new covenant is his grace. That is why to say it has nothing to do with others is nonsense in light of the fact that everything in Hebrews is about the arrival of his grace in the new covenant, to cover our sins.

What you wrote is the most anti-Christian thing I've heard to date.

It's there because you refuse to define 'better' the way the text does.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
Chapter and verse on that.

And since your reading comprehension suffers, notice I said God has no covenant today with Jews nor Gentiles.
Click to expand...


Is 42:6-9: the new things are declared before they "spring into being." You are missing all that.

Heb 13:20 is the same eternal covenant, because his blood was required for it. Christ did not 'suffer many times since the creation of the world' (9:26; why is he even talking about that!) We know that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. It can't be eternal with a human party unless that party is the Man-God Christ Jesus as a representative; which he was.

Because of the similarity to Is 49:6 it is interesting to see that 'you' in both lines there is singular again. The Servant (one person) becomes the covenant and the light to the nations. That is probably the best one-line summary of the NT. It shows how many passages in Isaiah are NOT about Israel as such. This is what Rom 15:8 is saying about the Servant.

There is more to that as well. He is a Servant, not just of God but TO the Jews, getting accomplished what they could not. This fulfills promises to the fathers, helping the nations glorify God for his mercy. He is to be preached as the Lord of all nations for this, 15:12 (Is 11:10).
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
If you would define 'better' as Hebrews does, you would not be making D'ism's mistakes in which things revert backward to Judaism.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The new covenant is his grace. That is why to say it has nothing to do with others is nonsense in light of the fact that everything in Hebrews is about the arrival of his grace in the new covenant, to cover our sins.

What you wrote is the most anti-Christian thing I've heard to date.

It's there because you refuse to define 'better' the way the text does.
Click to expand...

Made up, as usual.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
He's not doing that anymore Must. Covenants with all other people are over. That is why Christ was made a covenant for the people and 2 things happen because of that:

1, it is better because there is no more reminder of sins; the problem is solved only in Christ
2, everyone who is in Christ gains all of that, and has that message for the world. That is why through Christ, they become a light to the nations (and to the unbelieving part of the race of Israel).

Nothing in the NT sounds like what you just said.

The very fact that the nations were without a covenant was also inferior. So the new covenant is superior because of that; Christ is how those nations share in it; how can you dare take that feature and throw it into the trashbin of history with failed things humans have tried?

You defy all the celebration and present tense of the NT about the new covenant. So knock it off about the 'deal with it' crap. You don't know anything on this except the delusions of D'ism.
Click to expand...

Fantasy Island Commentary Club tidbit...
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Acts 1 is definitely a rebuke and the correction to their misconception is that a royal or kingdom power is given to them. I don't think you have any imagination or sense of puns in the original.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, Jesus told them that it was a matter of time.

Interplanner said:
There is nothing else in Acts that would support your type of kingdom, theirs.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.
Luke 22:24-30 (KJV)​
(22:24) And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. (22:25) And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. (22:26) But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. (22:27) For whether [is] greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? [is] not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. (22:28) Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. (22:29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

THAT is the KINGDOM that Christ told them would come and WILL COME.

THEY understood PERFECTLY; YOU do NOT!

Interplanner said:
You have to care about Judaism.
Click to expand...
No, I do not.

Interplanner said:
Not caring to know what was there misses all that Mt 5-7 said. It misses all that Mt 23 said. It misses all that Gal 3, Phil 3 said. Paul was raised in Judaism and later referred to it with such slights as 'the weak and miserable principles of the world' and many other discreditations.

There was a conflict with Judaism. It cost lives. You have to know it and know the conflict before you go any further.

You are the most disqualified contributor here, saying both of these things in one post.
Click to expand...
No, that "honor" goes to the "real writer" and "grammar scholar".
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
The restoration of Israel's kingdom is not a given. That's why Hag 2 says the restoration looked so diminutive, setting up what would come in Christ.

There is no need to revisit the topic. The zealots tried and were decimated. There is nothing in the NT that lingers to hope for it. Acts 26's defense, Paul says they keep hoping for it, but it is already in the resurrection of Christ.
Click to expand...
Quit replying to the SAME post TWICE!
 
T

Truster

New member
PS

"Who shall lay anything to the charge of Elohim's elect? It is Elohim that justifieth".


Please note "inverted commas" signifies scripture. You might not recognise it, but you should be able to find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top