ECT What is better about D'ism?

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
You're missing the big picture. Ok, so maybe my understanding of the grammar, and therefore my point was bad, but your position does not fit with the overall message of the Bible, with Jeremiah 18, where Israel is warned that their disobedience will bring wrath upon them, Matthew 15, where Jesus makes it clear that he was sent only to the Jews, Luke 13, which explains that Jesus came to the Jews for three years, and wanted to cut them off, but the Holy Spirit said to wait one more year, and if Israel repented and turned to God, then He could continue with his plan, but if not, He could cut them off, Romans 11, which explains that Israel was cut off, and the Body of Christ was grafted in, and Galatians 2, that Peter and the other Apostles would go only to the Jews, and Paul to the world.

God's plan was to either A) reach the world through Israel, or B) reach the world in spite of Israel. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the latter, which resulted in God cutting off Israel.



What next line? Who is saying there are two Gods at work? There is only one God, the God of the Jews, and of the Gentiles also.
Click to expand...





Sorry but that can't possibly be a complete study of the 'big picture' when Gal 3-4, Rom 3-4, 2 Cor 3-5, Acts 13 and 26, Rom 9-11, 15, 16 are invested on the subject.

'Only to Israel' is one small line from one small incident which, by the way, ended up complimenting that Syrian person for their faith! Big picture?

Get rid of the idea of God attaching to one group pitted against another. Yes, we have to refer to how a group is doing (making generalizations), but he has never been a one-group God. The very first promise marking off Israel is actually the best proof: their purpose was to bring forth the Seed that would bless the whole world.

As for the grammar, the next line is the next verse after your proof text. The same one God was at work in both ministries. The sentence is structured the same. So in the Gospel verse: there is one Gospel preached to one group by one guy and the same Gospel preached to the other group. Otherwise he would have written: we had the tasks (plural) of preaching Gospels (plural)...

But of course I'm sure you know that did not end up being the case anyway! Peter's recollection in Acts 15 is that he, Peter, went to the Gentiles! At least for a while. So, yeah, if a person has a gift for getting through to one culture over another, go ahead. They switched targets later. But it is not a doctrine in which God has one message for one and message B for another. Because only 20 verses earlier in Galatians, Paul cursed anyone who taught a different Gospel, and the issue in ch 3 is the addition of circumcision to Christ alone, or ANYTHING to Christ alone for justification and therefore fellowship--because after all, his concern was about shunning others in Christ.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
No that is a misunderstanding of the grammar. This has been debunked over the past 2 years here, just go find one of the many discussions. "of the circ" and "of the uncirc" are not direct objects in the sentences; they are indirect. In fact, the singular Gospel is single because of how the verb is constructed. If the two Gospel people were right, it would be translated: 'the tasks of preaching the Gospels...'

This kind of grammar mistake is typical of the amateur and ignorant basis put together by D'ism to try to preserve 'two peoples, two programs.'

The next line is the best clue: there are not two Gods at work in the two groups.
Click to expand...

Why did Paul almost IMMEDIATELY break the "agreement" in Acts 15, then, as he preached to Jews in the synagogues Acts 17-20?

You do not know what you are talking about (as usual).
 
D

Danoh

New member
JudgeRightly said:
You're missing the big picture. Ok, so maybe my understanding of the grammar, and therefore my point was bad, but your position does not fit with the overall message of the Bible, with Jeremiah 18, where Israel is warned that their disobedience will bring wrath upon them, Matthew 15, where Jesus makes it clear that he was sent only to the Jews, Luke 13, which explains that Jesus came to the Jews for three years, and wanted to cut them off, but the Holy Spirit said to wait one more year, and if Israel repented and turned to God, then He could continue with his plan, but if not, He could cut them off, Romans 11, which explains that Israel was cut off, and the Body of Christ was grafted in, and Galatians 2, that Peter and the other Apostles would go only to the Jews, and Paul to the world.

God's plan was to either A) reach the world through Israel, or B) reach the world in spite of Israel. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the latter, which resulted in God cutting off Israel.

This kind of grammar mistake is typical of the amateur and ignorant basis put together by D'ism to try to preserve 'two peoples, two programs.'

The next line is the best clue: there are not two Gods at work in the two groups.
Click to expand...

What next line? Who is saying there are two Gods at work? There is only one God, the God of the Jews, and of the Gentiles also.
Click to expand...

Some thoughts...

What God is doing today is neither a replacement of, nor because Israel failed.

Rather, it is something He had planned on - also doing - but during - Israel's fall and - temporary - setting aside.

And the grafting in is not of the Body, but of the Gentiles.

All Gentiles.

God in Christ reconciling - the world - unto Himself.

But it's be ye reconciled, is temporary.

All Gentiles are now - temporarily - in the position of access the nation Israel alone had been in possession of - but that that nation temporarily lost - a position of direct access to salvation.

And Gentiles now includes individual Israelitesas also, as their nation: Israel - was concluded Uncircumcision with the Gentiles, Acts 7; Rom. 2; Rom. 3; Rom. 9-11.

But access to, and possession of salvation, are not the same.

Access in this age, is by Grace, but possession is by Faith.

Israel's access in their age, as a nation, was and will be, by Covenant.

But their possession as a nation was also by Faith, John 1; John 5; John 8.

But that is now on hold - once more, Rom. 9 and Rom. 11.

Thus, the warning to - the Gentiles - because God is not through with Israel as His Covenant nation, and when He resumes His dealings with that nation in His Prophesied Wrath prior to His Prophesied Blessing of them, Isaiah 2 - the Gentile's direct access by Grace through Faith will be cut off.

Those cut off will be those who did not avail themselves of said access by Faith.

They will have to endure the Wrath to come.

Or end up lost during this age, if they have died during this age having not believed.

When this offer is cut off, things will go back to where they were just before Rom. 3:20, which leads into the events described in 2 Thess. 2, and the Lord's return unto Zion, at last.

The access to possession by faith today being...

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The ever so wonderous...Rom. 5:8
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
But what did he mean in 9:26 about saved? It is something we are waiting for now. There won't be any more sacrifices for sins, so its not that. It's the kingdom and city that are above which we shall join.

In that generation, it meant the NHNE more meaningfully or necessarily than it does today because their land/country was about to burn.
Click to expand...


Hi and where is the Greek word for SAVED / SOZO appear in Heb 9:26 , for the message in verse 26 concerns Israel and there sacrifices and keep suffering by Israels sacrifice , but , the verb HATH APPEARED / PHAREROO is in the Greek PERFECT TENSE , PASSIVE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!

The PERFECT GTENSE means Jesus can never die again for sins as John 19:30 said " IT IS FINISHED "

There are 2 more verbs , one is in MUST / DE , The IMPERFECT TENSE and on HAVE SUFFERED / PASCHO in the Aorist tense , BUT you know that !!

dan p
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi and where is the Greek word for SAVED / SOZO appear in Heb 9:26 , for the message in verse 26 concerns Israel and there sacrifices and keep suffering by Israels sacrifice , but , the verb HATH APPEARED / PHAREROO is in the Greek PERFECT TENSE , PASSIVE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!

The PERFECT GTENSE means Jesus can never die again for sins as John 19:30 said " IT IS FINISHED "

There are 2 more verbs , one is in MUST / DE , The IMPERFECT TENSE and on HAVED SUFFERED / PASCHO in the Aorist tense , BUT you know that !!

dan p
Click to expand...





There are no parsing questions here, Dan. it is simply what 'salvation' would mean here. It was being waited for, possibly soon, and was not another atonement/bearing of sin.
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There are no parsing questions here, Dan. it is simply what 'salvation' would mean here. It was being waited for, possibly soon, and was not another atonement/bearing of sin.
Click to expand...


Hi and I have to stand on what the verse says and not opinions !!

dan p
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There are no parsing questions here, Dan. it is simply what 'salvation' would mean here. It was being waited for, possibly soon, and was not another atonement/bearing of sin.
Click to expand...

If you believed Leviticus, you would know that the blotting out of Israel's sins is at the LORD's second coming.
But since you value commentaries over scripture, you do not know this truth.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I'm not sure where, but the most egregious departure from NT truth that I've heard is that there is not yet something that would justify Israel from its sins. I think that is called crapping on Christ's cross. I really don't know any other topic in the sermons of Acts 2-3 other than his grace was greater than the death of Christ at the hands of Israel.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
I'm not sure where, but the most egregious departure from NT truth that I've heard is that there is not yet something that would justify Israel from its sins...
Click to expand...

VERY FEW MADs outside of TOL hold to that.

VERY FEW.

In fact, some on here do not either.

But other than Jerry, or possibly DanP, the pal thing takes precedence.

Rom. 5:8
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
IP, question for you, bit of a change in direction:

How many gospels are there in the Bible?
Click to expand...





There is just one that occupies the NT. As for the return from exile, yes, that was good news, but even while saying so Isaiah went on to mention the Gospel that would be preached to the poor and it was separate from the return from exile. It was the best thing about the return, paradoxically.

I have been through the two gospel nonsense for 2 years here. The ones about the kingdom and the ones about the uncirc'd. They are nonsense. Much of it is people working in English and not realizing Greek case system.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
You're missing the big picture. Ok, so maybe my understanding of the grammar, and therefore my point was bad, but your position does not fit with the overall message of the Bible, with Jeremiah 18, where Israel is warned that their disobedience will bring wrath upon them, Matthew 15, where Jesus makes it clear that he was sent only to the Jews, Luke 13, which explains that Jesus came to the Jews for three years, and wanted to cut them off, but the Holy Spirit said to wait one more year, and if Israel repented and turned to God, then He could continue with his plan, but if not, He could cut them off, Romans 11, which explains that Israel was cut off, and the Body of Christ was grafted in, and Galatians 2, that Peter and the other Apostles would go only to the Jews, and Paul to the world.

God's plan was to either A) reach the world through Israel, or B) reach the world in spite of Israel. Unfortunately, it turned out to be the latter, which resulted in God cutting off Israel.



What next line? Who is saying there are two Gods at work? There is only one God, the God of the Jews, and of the Gentiles also.
Click to expand...




If you do the 'gospel' grammar the way you do (two gospels) you will have to say then that there are two gods at work. you betta fixya gramma.

God cut off unbelievers from the tree. Most of Israel thought they were branches on the tree by race. They are not. You have to produce.

Jesus sent only to the Jews? and then he compliments that woman on having more faith than people in Israel! What a God-mix up he is!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
I'm not sure where, but the most egregious departure from NT truth that I've heard is that there is not yet something that would justify Israel from its sins. I think that is called crapping on Christ's cross. I really don't know any other topic in the sermons of Acts 2-3 other than his grace was greater than the death of Christ at the hands of Israel.
Click to expand...

the LORD has not yet roared out of Zion to "take away" their sins
Believe your Bible
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I don't know that the OP ever got answered, because it always seems to be the agenda of D'ism to divert and evade from the question:

if the new covenant is better things that have come, what is "better" in the same sense about D'ism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top