Is a D'ist a dispensationalist? Or as I like to call them: Dispensensationalists.
Luke 18 says nothing about Christ's death for sins. The closest I can get is verses 31 to 34:
Then He took the twelve aside and said to them: "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again." But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.
No, it doesn't.
What was the question?
That's right. :up:
No, it doesn't.
Well, there are numerous gospels, but this would be a weird way to show it. :AMR:
That's right. :up: The passage makes no sense if it were otherwise.
Umm, I would say it is about the restoration of Israel; when it is brought back from being cut off.
You've got eight to go.
Yes, D'ist is a dispensationalist and think that there are two completely separate programs for the two people groups, Christians and Jews.
Lk 18's lines are used to show that the disciples knew nothing of the death of Christ for sin until then. This conflicts with many, many early passages, as well as the 'sign of Jonah.' Or do D'ists think that Jesus meant to die as a zealot the whole time?
re: Rom 11
I'm glad you don't think it means that. Hard to put "all" and "Israel" in the same time frame, considering the 'birth' of the nation is the birth of Jacob, etc. through to today... By 'saved' they mean the restored theocracy, so I hope you don't think that is happening either.
re: the question of Acts 1
There is only one. 'Will the kingdom/monarchy be restored now?' Not only was it not their business, their business was the power that was being conferred to start the mission of the Gospel, and that kingdom as they thought of it is nowhere in the rest of Acts. D'ists think it is 'there' many times!
re Heb 8
I understand one line sounds like it is intra-Israel and just God and Israel, but chs 9-10 do not. Christ as enacted it as the mediator putting it into effect. He was the 2nd party. Those who are 'in Him' recieve the benefits of forgiveness, grace and mercy that were mentioned. It is all there in chs 9-10, and the land promise is not.
'Only to the lost sheep'
Sorry if the ch was wrong. But the saying is said 1000x until nothing else in the account matters, and thinking has stopped.
Lk 9's other gospel
There's nothing weird about demonstrating a non-death, non-propitiatory gospel this way, but it is not true that there is a different gospel. there never was a different one. There was a kingdom connected because God 'reign's through this message, but never another Gospel.
Gal 2's two gospels
there is no such thing. The Greek grammar is clearly that one Gospel was preached to two audiences. This mistake is on the level of Greek grammar. The case or sentence slot is indicated in Greek spellings whereas it is not in English; in English you have to go by other things, factors, context and sense. The sentence is paralleled by the next about the power that worked in both men was the same to two audiences. He means the same thing each time.
Acts 15
James clearly means the Gentiles who believe. There is no other attachment to "this." Only if he was as confused as some modern readers would he suddenly start talking about things X000 years in the future. They were all there to solve the potential fracture and they did solve it. Things X000 years in the future do not solve them. You don't bring them up. There is no future monarchy restoration anyway. It is in Christ now.
The other two came later. "Paul's gospel" automatically means it is different from everything else, and 10
If the monarchy does not happen, God is a "liar." Never mind the kingdome without hands, the kingdom of dan 2, set up by the Lord of Lords and King of Kings etc.
