ECT A Question For the Preterists

[Interplanner]

Your def of a lie is that God "has" to finish business with Judaism. But Rom 11 says he owes nothing to anyone.

You think that Messiah can't end like Dan 9: the city and temple pulverized but Messiah succeeding in his work. Yet it does. That is the Christian view.

There is nothing bigger than the Aaronic priesthood in your view. But in Hebrews, the Melchizedekian was way before that and trumps it. Please learn the Bible first and ply theological stacks of cards later.

 

[Right Divider]

You want to be able to criticise for vague and then you are the only person who has ever attempted to have a 'corner' on the term NT that is different from the NT. You're exhausting.

No smarty pants, I don't get to define it and NEITHER do YOU. But you try anyway.

The new covenant as defined in in the Bible CLEARLY Jeremiah 31 and reinterated in Hebrews 8.

Because of the CLEAR language in Jeremiah 31, it is CLEAR that this is a prophecy for and about ISRAEL. This is why you and many other MUST force a new definition of Israel in your "NT".

That fact that you cannot understand this and must REDEFINE these CLEAR terms is the Bible shows that you are no "student of the Bible", but are, in fact, an ENEMY of the Bible.

You are the only person I know who can look at the parable of the vineyard and miss it.

Are you talking about the one in Luke 13:6-9?

You are lazy as a student.

And what would Mr. Redefiner know?

In Luke and Acts you would just think of the times a 2nd coming is mentioned; its all that generation. He/Paul does not have the allowance that Matt has in 24 or Mk 13's parable with 4 options. For Paul it is right away.

What could possibly be vague about 'marana tha'?

When the threat of disinheritance was made, most of them were dis'd. The little remnant of faith continues on in the blessing of the Gospel which is where it was all going.

There is no separate program for the land apart from the Gospel; that is clearly folly and it is also very recent (from the 1900s) and poorly planned out.

So again, you think you have victories and are happy and congratulating yourself, but it is dust and crumbles.

Please show ONE SINGLE POST where I "congratulated myself".

You are a liar and completely illiterate.

P.S. "Little remnant of faith"? :doh:
More made up nonsense..... good work.

 

[Interplanner]

RD:
Because of the CLEAR language in Jeremiah 31, it is CLEAR that this is a prophecy for and about ISRAEL. This is why you and many other MUST force a new definition of Israel in your "NT".


But you don't need clear language of jeremiah, you need clear interp by the apostles, which you ignore. that's why you are totally wrong when compared to Christ and the apostles (AKA the NT). It is the ministry to all nations about God's gift in Christ, in Matt and in 2 Cor 3-5. Obviously. And, THERE ARE NOT 2 NEW COVENANTS.

 

[Interplanner]

Here you are on the previous page congratulating yourself:

We simply believe the Bible AS WRITTEN

(You have a point about 'then' but not about the other things; it 'as written' is not that way in the rest of the NT).


Back to 'we simply believe...': 2P2P is quite a convoluted and inconsistent mess. It is unnatural.

 

[Right Divider]

RD:
Because of the CLEAR language in Jeremiah 31, it is CLEAR that this is a prophecy for and about ISRAEL. This is why you and many other MUST force a new definition of Israel in your "NT".

But you don't need clear language of jeremiah, you need clear interp by the apostles, which you ignore. that's why you are totally wrong when compared to Christ and the apostles (AKA the NT). It is the ministry to all nations about God's gift in Christ, in Matt and in 2 Cor 3-5. Obviously. And, THERE ARE NOT 2 NEW COVENANTS.

Man oh man... you are as dense as a black hole.

No there are not two new covenants and the ONLY new covenant will be between GOD and ISRAEL, just like BOTH Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 state quite CLEARLY.

Tell us more about this "little remnant of faith".... remnant of WHAT?

 

[Right Divider]

Here you are on the previous page congratulating yourself:

We simply believe the Bible AS WRITTEN

(You have a point about 'then' but not about the other things; it 'as written' is not that way in the rest of the NT).

Back to 'we simply believe...': 2P2P is quite a convoluted and inconsistent mess. It is unnatural.

:french:
Yes sir, Mr. Redefiner.

 

[Interplanner]

RD, I don't see where you dealt with your definition of a lie from #181.

 

[Interplanner]

Man oh man... you are as dense as a black hole.

No there are not two new covenants and the ONLY new covenant will be between GOD and ISRAEL, just like BOTH Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 state quite CLEARLY.

Tell us more about this "little remnant of faith".... remnant of WHAT?

First, hebrews is past tense; the new covenant has come. RD is entirely wrong as to the use of hebrews here.
2nd, it was between Christ and God.
3rd, it is for all the world to enjoy.

these things are 'dense' to you but not to those who read the bible a lot.

The remnant always seems little to me, maybe not.

The remnant is those who believe. Paul never was talking about everyone in Israel, but only about those who believe, then and now. Same in Heb 11. You, however, do things by races. You are all or nothing about race. You don't understand the play on the word 'ethne' in Mt 21's vineyard parable, you don't understnad the parable, and a lot of the NT is locked up to you because of those facts.

 

[Right Divider]

First, hebrews is past tense; the new covenant has come. RD is entirely wrong as to the use of hebrews here.
2nd, it was between Christ and God.
3rd, it is for all the world to enjoy.

Please go ahead and PROVIDE the scriptural support for ALL of YOUR opinions.

The initial declaration of the new covenant is what DEFINES it. See Jeremiah 31 (apparently you've never seen it before).

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ​

Please tell us what this means? Not based on your NT "interp", but as those that Jeremiah gave it to would understand it.

Heb 8:6-13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (8:7) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (8:13) In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. ​

When did He "find fault with them" and who are "them"?

these things are 'dense' to you but not to those who read the bible a lot.

The remnant always seems little to me, maybe not.

The remnant is those who believe.

A "remnant" is a REMAINDER of SOMETHING.

What was this remnant a REMAINDER OF? (Hint: Israel).

Paul never was talking about everyone in Israel, but only about those who believe, then and now. Same in Heb 11. You, however, do things by races. You are all or nothing about race. You don't understand the play on the word 'ethne' in Mt 21's vineyard parable, you don't understnad the parable, and a lot of the NT is locked up to you because of those facts.

You are just confused. Still beating up on your straw-man.

You do not understand the parable in Luke 13:6-9.

 

[Interplanner]

The tribe names appear to be right until you get to the NT. Christ, Paul and the universality of Hebrews clears that up.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't accept the interp principle that the initial use defines it. It is what God says it is, if he quotes it in the NT.

That's why Acts 13 on David's promises, not jer 31, is the final.

Not only are you fighting hard for 2P2P, but you don't realize that it is neo-Judaism. You are operating the way Judaism operated. Every heard of CHRISTianity?

 

[Interplanner]

There is nothing to 'quote' about the 3 things about hebrews.

How would it help you to quote the past tense about the new covenant, when you can's see it anyway?

The covenant that was coming needed to be new--not the same arrangement as with Israel before. The solution: do it through Christ and make it for all nations at the same time.

As for you remnant question, Paul meant that those who believed were the remnant that God was working with. In his case, that would be from Israel, but the remannt is also identified from other nations. You just don't know the bible well enough. Rom 9B is the best.

 

[Interplanner]

your lovely cliche 'straw man' does not apply here because over half of what you believe is in Ryrie who pushed all this stuff decades ago and called it 2P2P. It is a recognized belief system, but it is flagrantly wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

The tribe names appear to be right until you get to the NT. Christ, Paul and the universality of Hebrews clears that up.

More of your incoherent babbling.

 

[Interplanner]

More of your incoherent babbling.

Christ and Paul have no truck with tribe issues. It doesn't matter in hebrews because everything Hebrews offers to Jewish believers in christ is also offered to non-Jews. That is the coherent NT, which means it is incoherent to someone mired in 2P2P as you are.

 

[Right Divider]

Christ and Paul have no truck with tribe issues. It doesn't matter in hebrews because everything Hebrews offers to Jewish believers in christ is also offered to non-Jews. That is the coherent NT, which means it is incoherent to someone mired in 2P2P as you are.

More of your incoherent babbling.

 

[Interplanner]

Incoherent babbling: trucks run on oranges.

What I'm saying above is opposed to what you think but far from incoherent.

Christ either mentioned the NC or not.

Paul either mentioned the NC and its ministry or not.

Hebrews offers things to all or not.

You just happen to say 'not.' But that is not incoherent, nor baby burping.

 

[Right Divider]

Incoherent babbling: trucks run on oranges.

What I'm saying above is opposed to what you think but far from incoherent.

Christ either mentioned the NC or not.

I love your consistent VAGUENESS.

Is this what you're talking about?

Matt 26:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
​

Why only for many? Wasn't His blood shed for ALL?

Luke 22:20 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. ​

Why the limitation? Wasn't His blood shed for ALL?

1Tim 2:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
​

Paul says that is for ALL. And when was this DUE TIME?

Paul either mentioned the NC and its ministry or not.

2Cor 3:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


​

No doubt you're going to give us your FALSE INTERP of this SINGULAR reference to the words NEW and TESTAMENT used together one time in all of Paul's THIRTEEN epistles.

No doubt that YOU think that being an "able minister" is somehow putting us under a covenant that the Bible clearly and repeatedly says is with Israel.

No doubt that YOU think that the "NT" is SO important that Paul mentions it ALL OF ONE TIME in ALL of his epistles (where he neglects to actually say that gentiles are UNDER any covenant).

Hebrews offers things to all or not.

Yes, they probably just forgot to name the book "Hebrews and everyone else"

You just happen to say 'not.' But that is not incoherent, nor baby burping.

You need to have your diaper changed.

 

[Interplanner]

I love your consistent VAGUENESS.

Is this what you're talking about?

Matt 26:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
​

Why only for many? Wasn't His blood shed for ALL?

Luke 22:20 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. ​

Why the limitation? Wasn't His blood shed for ALL?

1Tim 2:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
​

Paul says that is for ALL. And when was this DUE TIME?

2Cor 3:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


​

No doubt you're going to give us your FALSE INTERP of this SINGULAR reference to the words NEW and TESTAMENT used together one time in all of Paul's THIRTEEN epistles.

No doubt that YOU think that being an "able minister" is somehow putting us under a covenant that the Bible clearly and repeatedly says is with Israel.

No doubt that YOU think that the "NT" is SO important that Paul mentions it ALL OF ONE TIME in ALL of his epistles (where he neglects to actually say that gentiles are UNDER any covenant).


Yes, they probably just forgot to name the book "Hebrews and everyone else"


You need to have your diaper changed.

These are all ridiculous and your last shows you are a total stranger to Christ.

Everyone knows that 'many' is not a tight theological battle line. It's just that many will refuse, and you only have so many words, so you don't say the complicated thing everytime that "I offered this to everyone but only a few believed." Your take on that is too ridiculous for further comment.

I don't know where testament and covenant were divorced from each other by you guys, but its 'diatheke' and it is way more times than what you said. You are hung up on one translation and think it is all very tightly constructed. Not.

The NT does not 'repeatedly' say it is just with Israel. That is a lie. It is for all mankind. Because the 2nd party of the covenant is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ. And Christ is 'all and is in all' who believe, so it's really with all mankind everywhere.

I don't know who taught you this ugly, niggardly, stingy spirit, but it has to go. Nothing in the NT sounds like you, anywhere. What a crock.

Stop being so fricking literal about things like titles of Hebrews. The first chapter opens showing that he is the last word from God. Does he have to point out for little minds like you that this is the last word for all people on earth, or is it just Israel unless he says for all people on earth. Your conceptions of things are atrocious, and I'm glad you are about the only one who does it this way. It reeks.

You at least had some logic to your answers, which proves mine were not incoherent, but polar opposite. But you always start with a flawed base, as you do in Gal 2's grammar. Completely flawed. so was your link. The question would be whether Christians were believing two gospels in opposition to Judaism, not Judaism's gospel. Foolishness.

 

[Right Divider]

These are all ridiculous and your last shows you are a total stranger to Christ.

So says someone that cannot think straight. I'm not afraid of your feeble assessments. They're as bad as your understanding of the Bible.

Everyone knows that 'many' is not a tight theological battle line.

You always try to sound like a "scholar". You're not, so get over it.

Why does it says that? Why does it not say "shed for ALL". Come one, give us a decent response.

It's just that many will refuse, and you only have so many words,

So His blood was only shed for those that will believe? What are you now, a Calvinist?

Paul said that is was a RANSOM FOR ALL. Is Paul wrong?

so you don't say the complicated thing everytime that "I offered this to everyone but only a few believed." Your take on that is too ridiculous for further comment.

In other words: PUNT!

I don't know where testament and covenant were divorced from each other by you guys, but its 'diatheke' and it is way more times than what you said. You are hung up on one translation and think it is all very tightly constructed. Not.

Please feel free to show ALL NEW DIATHEKE's in Paul's epistles.

The NT does not 'repeatedly' say it is just with Israel. That is a lie. It is for all mankind. Because the 2nd party of the covenant is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ. And Christ is 'all and is in all' who believe, so it's really with all mankind everywhere.

The quote is Hebrews 8 is virtually IDENTICAL to the prophecy in Jeremiah 31. Clearly NO change was made. So that makes you the liar.