ECT What is the true root objection to MAD?

[tetelestai]

So do you think that the following verses pertain only to the southern two tribes?

Yes.

But remember, some Israelites from the 10 Northern tribes left the Northern Nation of Israel for Judah to become Jews before the Assyrians invaded the Northern Nation of Israel.

However, the vast majority of Israelites from the 10 Northern tribes were taken away by the Assyrians, scattered amongst the nations, told they were not a people, were divorced by God, and told God would have no mercy upon them. These Israelites were NEVER Jews. They were as numerous as the sand of the sea.

It was these "lost sheep" that Jesus was sent to.

 

[dreadknought]

Tet has dodged this for years


Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Ezekiel 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Flat out denies it.

Your worried about Tet denying what? Perhpaps there should be a inquiery on MAD's Trinitarian orthodoxy?

 

[steko]

:dizzy:

 

[dreadknought]

:dizzy:

:nono:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Your worried about Tet denying what? Perhpaps there should be a inquiery on MAD's Trinitarian orthodoxy?

I'm vehemently not a MAD, but...

First of all... Having been a stringent Berean regarding Theology Proper for over a decade, and reading every Patristic writing extant; why are those who reject the Latin and Eastern traditions of the apostolic and catholic Church with her Ecumenical Councils even concerned about the minutiae of the Trinity doctrine.

And secondly... Few are actually concerned with such minutiae; instead most aren't actual Trinitarians at all, not knowing the foundations of the Trinity doctrine beyond a few short English sentences as a nebulous creedal statement.

And I always find it odd that non-orthodox Protestants refer to Orthodoxy in such a manner.

I'd be interested in reading a thread if you started one to exegete and clearly outline the historical Trinity doctrine. But only if it's not vague and conceptual with English terms only, which would defeat the purpose.

 

[patrick jane]

again, on a real basic level. if i never heard the word "trinity" and just appeared on earth with good understanding of any human language, i would still see the God, Christ, Holy Spirit. i can't explain why people fixate on the word trinity, triune or anything like that. maybe it's a way to start a basic understanding of God and Jesus and hence, Christianity. i really think alot of "doctrines" become "denominations", because somebody found a great way to explain Christ and understand The Bible. unfortunately, it's a problem for many. you can read and study everything ever written, and every possible Theology Proper thing and memorize it for a thousand decades, in a thousand languages. eastern, western, north and south. i'm sure if something more credible than the testimony Jesus and the people of that time, we would have heard about it. orthodoxy isn't necessarily correct. in fact, maybe more questionable with heirarchy and titles and status. i think the best discussions you can have are with yourself if you'd like to stay away from vague conceptual english terms ONLY, defeating everything we strive for. personally, i don't get vehement about "doctrines", based on criticizm from"others". i know you're stringent about words and definitions, but sometimes boring english just works. i heard there are more 'descriptive" english words than any other. i dunno oh, i almost forgot, this is mainly for PPS -

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nope, that's not what I think, nor did I ever say that.

All 12 tribes were Israelites.

What I said was the Israelites from the 10 Northern tribes were never called Jews.

Was "Jesus" sent to the twelve, which were Jews? Were they not lost and in need of a saviour?


Please explain,


Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I do believe the verse.

So, you believe that these people will dwell in the land wherein their fathers dwelt? For ever?

That's what it says.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

C'mon, you can't be serious?

Look up the Hebrew word "Shinar" (found in verse 11), and you will see it is referring to Babylon.

Zech 5 was fulfilled when the Jews were removed from Judah, and taken captive to Babylon.

What was her base?

How do you know this isn't referring to Mystery, Babylon the Great?

I thought you said Christ Jesus fulfilled all of the prophets? So this one has a literal earthly fulfillment, but Ezekiel 37 doesn't?
How do you decide?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is David literally going to be God's prince forever, ?

What does it say? My servant David shall be their prince.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They won't touch it.

Any question that is problematic for Darby's teachings is avoided at all cost by them.

They're only interested in telling non-Darby followers that they don't know how to rightly divide.

How would our definition of "in Christ" or "put on Christ" in any way destroy dispensationalism? Please explain.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The land is the OT type of the Kingdom.

Made up.

"the land wherein your fathers dwelt, for ever"

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

again, on a real basic level. if i never heard the word "trinity" and just appeared on earth with good understanding of any human language, i would still see the God, Christ, Holy Spirit. i can't explain why people fixate on the word trinity, triune or anything like that. maybe it's a way to start a basic understanding of God and Jesus and hence, Christianity. i really think alot of "doctrines" become "denominations", because somebody found a great way to explain Christ and understand The Bible. unfortunately, it's a problem for many. you can read and study everything ever written, and every possible Theology Proper thing and memorize it for a thousand decades, in a thousand languages. eastern, western, north and south. i'm sure if something more credible than the testimony Jesus and the people of that time, we would have heard about it. orthodoxy isn't necessarily correct. in fact, maybe more questionable with heirarchy and titles and status. i think the best discussions you can have are with yourself if you'd like to stay away from vague conceptual english terms ONLY, defeating everything we strive for. personally, i don't get vehement about "doctrines", based on criticizm from"others". i know you're stringent about words and definitions, but sometimes boring english just works. i heard there are more 'descriptive" english words than any other. i dunno oh, i almost forgot, this is mainly for PPS -

What you can't and don't realize is that with every word above you've illustrated my points. You're an authority unto yourself according to Satan's devices.

And the reason there are more "descriptive" (NOT definitive) English words than any other language is because it's nearly the lowest-context language in the history of mankind. If you understood what that means, you wouldn't think or say anything you think and say.

Theology Proper matters, just like every fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. Denominations are largely because of low-context languages and their affect on thought.

You say "God, Christ, and Holy Spirit" as though the latter two aren't the first. That's yet another example that words have meaning, and careless use of them misrepresents truth quite easily.

That's why Satan has used the God-sent confusion of Babel to culture-sculpt human history, and to dismantle the Church from within.

You still don't know what you don't know. And language is the foundation for thought as expression. Maybe you should realize that Satan wants to corrupt the source of creation that was delegated to man, who is in God's image. Logos.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

How would our definition of "in Christ" or "put on Christ" in any way destroy dispensationalism? Please explain.

Meanwhile... I've been cordially asking for you and other MADs to provide insight regarding what "in Christ" and "put on Christ" means from the MAD perspective.

I affirm the finished work of Christ. There is not one thing man can do to obtain, attain, maintain, or retain salvation.

I just want to know how MADs represent the above types of expressions in scripture. And I'm unsure why that would be such a difficulty.

What do "in Christ" and "put on Christ" mean? It seems the literalist MAD view is frought with metaphoric selectivity of such themes and expressions from scripture. Could you (or a MAD peer) please clarify?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Meanwhile... I've been cordially asking for you and other MADs to provide insight regarding what "in Christ" and "put on Christ" means from the MAD perspective.

I affirm the finished work of Christ. There is not one thing man can do to obtain, attain, maintain, or retain salvation.

I just want to know how MADs represent the above types of expressions in scripture. And I'm unsure why that would be such a difficulty.

What do "in Christ" and "put on Christ" mean? It seems the literalist MAD view is frought with metaphoric selectivity of such themes and expressions from scripture. Could you (or a MAD peer) please clarify?

In short, to be in Christ is to be a new creature having been identified in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

In short, to put on Christ is to live in the present on this earth as if you have already been resurrected.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What I said was the Israelites from the 10 Northern tribes were never called Jews.

Per Tet,

A Gentile who was circumcised could be called a Jew, but an actual circumcised Israelite could not be called a Jew.

Interesting.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In short, to be in Christ is to be a new creature having been identified in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

In short, to put on Christ is to live in the present on this earth as if you have already been resurrected.

Thank you for responding.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Was "Jesus" sent to the twelve, which were Jews? Were they not lost and in need of a saviour?


Please explain,


Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

99 to 1 that Tet avoids this.

 

[tetelestai]

but an actual circumcised Israelite could not be called a Jew.

You do know that the first time the word "Jews" is used in the KJV the circumcised Israelites from the Northern Nation of Israel were at war against the Jews.

It wasn't Jews at war against Jews, it was Israelites at war against Jews.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find the Israelites from the House of Israel referred to as "Jews".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Nowhere in the Bible will you find the Israelites from the House of Israel referred to as "Jews".

So, a Gentile could be called a Jew, but not an actual Israelite??