ECT A Question For the Preterists

[Interplanner]

RD wrote:
If you think that the heathen rage now, just wait until He returns to establish His kingdom.


See that? that's the kind of thing that proves you are totally out of step with the apostles. That was exactly what was going on. You guys sail off to a future to try to make 2P2P make sense, when the apostles were talking/praying about what was going on then. Then you invent a silly 'spiritual' meaning problem to avoid what was going on then, and now.

You have all these 'oh that saying has to do with X000 years in the future, not with what is going on right then,' even when there is an actual graphic case of it going on! It's tricks and fantasy. All 2P2P is that way. it is never what the NT says. The NT quotes of the OT. It is what YOU think the OT says. You don't accept Christ and the apostles on those passages, which never mean what you say.

 

[Right Divider]

RD wrote:
If you think that the heathen rage now, just wait until He returns to establish His kingdom.

Why can't the great and super smart IP, quote me?

See that? that's the kind of thing that proves you are totally out of step with the apostles. That was exactly what was going on. You guys sail off to a future to try to make 2P2P make sense, when the apostles were talking/praying about what was going on then. Then you invent a silly 'spiritual' meaning problem to avoid what was going on then, and now.

Nope.... it means that I understand the ENTIRE Bible and that I actually know what the NEW COVENANT is, unlike you that do not.

You have all these 'oh that saying has to do with X000 years in the future, not with what is going on right then,' even when there is an actual graphic case of it going on! It's tricks and fantasy. All 2P2P is that way. it is never what the NT says. The NT quotes of the OT. It is what YOU think the OT says. You don't accept Christ and the apostles on those passages, which never mean what you say.

I accept it ALL. You try to cancel much of it.

 

[Interplanner]

Why can't the great and super smart IP, quote me?


Nope.... it means that I understand the ENTIRE Bible and that I actually know what the NEW COVENANT is, unlike you that do not.


I accept it ALL. You try to cancel much of it.

I don't know what your quote problem is, except to evade that you are stuck. That is a quote, copied and pasted. What problem?

You deny what the new covenant is in Jesus, in I Cor 10 and in 2 Cor 3-5. But you think you 'know' it. Then you don't know that you deprive Hebrews to us believers. That's your normal.

You are at odds with the apostles all over the place. that's why you are here fighting me. If I show what they say you say something profound like 'that's not the NT.' For ex, on acts 2:30+ when David defines enthronement.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know what your quote problem is, except to evade that you are stuck. That is a quote, copied and pasted. What problem?

If you quote properly, I will get a notification so that I can respond to you. Otherwise, I may or may not miss it. Did you not know this?

You deny what the new covenant is in Jesus, in I Cor 10 and in 2 Cor 3-5. But you think you 'know' it. Then you don't know that you deprive Hebrews to us believers. That's your normal.

No, I know from the Bible EXACTLY what the new covenant is. Therefore, I do not confuse the heck out of it like you do.

You are at odds with the apostles all over the place. that's why you are here fighting me. If I show what they say you say something profound like 'that's not the NT.' For ex, on acts 2:30+ when David defines enthronement.

The 12 apostles did NOT know about the NEW revelation given to Paul AFTER the Acts 1-5 period. Too bad you're so "smart" that you cannot understand simple things.

 

[Interplanner]

If you quote properly, I will get a notification so that I can respond to you. Otherwise, I may or may not miss it. Did you not know this?


No, I know from the Bible EXACTLY what the new covenant is. Therefore, I do not confuse the heck out of it like you do.


The 12 apostles did NOT know about the NEW revelation given to Paul AFTER the Acts 1-5 period. Too bad you're so "smart" that you cannot understand simple things.

No I don't consider internet-savvy to be 'knowledge.'

The new covenant was with Christ on our behalf to save as many of mankind as would believe. There is no other or second aspect to it. It is new because there is no human party that can mess it up, except the human party Christ who was perfect in his job about it.

The apostles knew that the mission was coming, that it was for the whole earth, that it was apart from the law, etc. that is not mystery. The mystery is that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Gospel, bringing the gift of the Spirit which is to spread the message to all nations. They are not fulfilled in the law, in Judaism, in events in Judea, nada.

The born-with Judaism did darken the apostles all the time, including Peter way after Pentecost. Such is life. Narrative is not doctrine, it just is.

You are trying to make doctrine out of the narrative of events as they happened in Acts , instead of from the apostle's teaching.

 

[Right Divider]

No I don't consider internet-savvy to be 'knowledge.'

• There is knowledge that is not in the Bible, show off!
• I'm NOT talking about being "internet-savvy", just about things in this forum.
• I'm talking about having some respect for others.
• But you'd rather be rude and ignorant, that figures.

The new covenant was with Christ on our behalf to save as many of mankind as would believe. There is no other or second aspect to it. It is new because there is no human party that can mess it up, except the human party Christ who was perfect in his job about it.

Since you don't have a Bible, here you go:

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.

​

Heb 8:8-13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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. ​

The apostles knew that the mission was coming, that it was for the whole earth, that it was apart from the law, etc. that is not mystery. The mystery is that the promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Gospel, bringing the gift of the Spirit which is to spread the message to all nations. They are not fulfilled in the law, in Judaism, in events in Judea, nada.

Everything happens just as God said that it will, including Jeremiah 31 (as confirmed by Hebrews 8).

The born-with Judaism did darken the apostles all the time, including Peter way after Pentecost. Such is life. Narrative is not doctrine, it just is.

Good call. Acts 13 is narrative and not doctrine.

You are trying to make doctrine out of the narrative of events as they happened in Acts , instead of from the apostle's teaching.

No, I know SOUND doctrine that you reject.

 

[Interplanner]

• There is knowledge that is not in the Bible, show off!
• I'm NOT talking about being "internet-savvy", just about things in this forum.
• I'm talking about having some respect for others.
• But you'd rather be rude and ignorant, that figures.

Since you don't have a Bible, here you go:

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.

​

Heb 8:8-13 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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. ​

Everything happens just as God said that it will, including Jeremiah 31 (as confirmed by Hebrews 8).


Good call. Acts 13 is narrative and not doctrine.


No, I know SOUND doctrine that you reject.

Thank you for saying heb 8 confirmed that the new covenant is up and running, as you should. btw, is there some reason why you never mention Christ, I Cor 10 or 2 Cor 3-5. I mean, this whole time you have never said anything about them. suspicious at least.


Once again, you don't understand about Acts 13 or narrative. Narrative is what happened traveling to get to Pisidian Antioch. Doctrine is what Paul said in the sermon as his custom in Acts 13. but you have no useful categories in your thinking which is why you do 2P2P.

I'm glad you see that Peter made Judaism-born mistakes in the narrative. He was not subscribing to another gospel. Good.


Your new covenant thingie is not sound, of course, because for months now you have not dealt with Jesus, I Cor 10 or 2 cor 3-5 on it, out of fear 2P2P might collapse (it will).

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you for saying heb 8 confirmed that the new covenant is up and running, as you should. btw, is there some reason why you never mention Christ, I Cor 10 or 2 Cor 3-5. I mean, this whole time you have never said anything about them. suspicious at least.

Oh the childish just can't stop being childish.

Hebrews 8 does NOT "confirm that the new covenant it up and running". But it does confirm these things:

• The covenant will be with the houses of Israel and Judah. Hebrews 8:8
• The covenant is with the descendants of the ones taken out of Egypt (Israel). Hebrews 8:9
• The two houses of Israel and Judah will be joined. Hebrews 8:10 (see Ezekiel 37)
• Nobody will be teaching "know the Lord", for they shall ALL know Him. Hebrews 8:11

Once again, you don't understand about Acts 13 or narrative. Narrative is what happened traveling to get to Pisidian Antioch. Doctrine is what Paul said in the sermon as his custom in Acts 13. but you have no useful categories in your thinking which is why you do 2P2P.

Of course I understand it and you don't. You use the lack of reiteration of ALL things taught before as a FALLACIOUS "reason" to discard what you don't want in your "story".

I'm glad you see that Peter made Judaism-born mistakes in the narrative. He was not subscribing to another gospel. Good.

I have no idea what new FALLACIOUS argument that you're trying to make here.

Your new covenant thingie is not sound, of course, because for months now you have not dealt with Jesus, I Cor 10 or 2 cor 3-5 on it, out of fear 2P2P might collapse (it will).

"My new covenant thingie" is the one found in the BIBLE.

 

[Interplanner]

Oh the childish just can't stop being childish.

Hebrews 8 does NOT "confirm that the new covenant it up and running". But it does confirm these things:

• The covenant will be with the houses of Israel and Judah. Hebrews 8:8
• The covenant is with the descendants of the ones taken out of Egypt (Israel). Hebrews 8:9
• The two houses of Israel and Judah will be joined. Hebrews 8:10 (see Ezekiel 37)
• Nobody will be teaching "know the Lord", for they shall ALL know Him. Hebrews 8:11

Of course I understand it and you don't. You use the lack of reiteration of ALL things taught before as a FALLACIOUS "reason" to discard what you don't want in your "story".


I have no idea what new FALLACIOUS argument that you're trying to make here.


"My new covenant thingie" is the one found in the BIBLE.

It's great that the new covenant unites those two tribes, but it does so much more. It is new because it was between Christ for us and God.

The SPirit of God that teaches is why we dont' need (Judaism's) teachers. Like I Jn 2:27. The Spirit was always said to come with the new covenant, to be poured out. That's in the Bible, what a concept.

Your bible does not seem to include christ on the new covenant, nor either Corinthians, which is why you read Hebrews as though it was Judaism all over again. Not.


re Acts 13
its the one that lays out Israel's history and destiny which is that it supposed to be missionaries of the Gospel to all nations. It says that everything promised to the fathers is fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ.

That's why you don't comment ON it you just comment on ME ABOUT it.

re Peter
he relapsed to Judaism. He didn't have another gospel, ever. There isn't another one,as the 2P2Ps imagine.

 

[Right Divider]

It's great that the new covenant unites those two tribes, but it does so much more. It is new because it was between Christ for us and God.

There are TWELVE tribes, dingleberrry. There are two HOUSES.

Our local "expert interper" at work again! Good job.

 

[Interplanner]

There are TWELVE tribes, dingleberrry. There are two HOUSES.

Our local "expert interper" at work again! Good job.

That's not what he's talking about; if you would read the other 75% of the passages in the apostles on that, You would not be making your mistake.

 

[Right Divider]

That's not what he's talking about; if you would read the other 75% of the passages in the apostles on that, You would not be making your mistake.

I showed you the TWO passages in the Bible where God declares that He will make a new covenant with the HOUSES of Israel and Judah that they would be JOINED into one.

YOU said:

It's great that the new covenant unites those two tribes, but it does so much more.

Once again showing that you are greatly confused.

 

[Interplanner]

Your right about one thing, the two tribe names mean the whole, but that's not all that happens. we know from Romans that there are Gentiles who are called not a people etc who are brought in.

in short, it is not a new repeat of the old covenant. Everything is new.

You continue for a year now to ignore Jesus last supper, I cor 10 and 2 Cor 3-5 because your passion is the land promise instead of the grace of God for all mankind and that mission.

Why would Christ shed blood for a land promise? Hmmm. Talk about confused and clue-denying.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Your right

You're.

 

[Right Divider]

You're.

Dude! Never correct a "real writer and grammar scholar"!

 

[Tambora]

Your right about one thing, the two tribe names mean the whole, but that's not all that happens. we know from Romans that there are Gentiles who are called not a people etc who are brought in.

Paul uses many of the promises to Israel to describe.
Not as a replacement, but showing that GOD does things for different groups that are very similar in to how He did things for others.
So, JUST AS God called out a people (Israel) from among the world population to be His for a purpose, God also can call out another group (the BOC) from among the world population for another purpose and still maintain His promises to His group of Israel.

in short, it is not a new repeat of the old covenant. Everything is new.

Sure, there are some new things.
But the old law and prophets have to be completely fulfilled in every single minute detail concerning Israel, which has not happened.
Meanwhile, God can deal with His new (not replaced) special called out group (the BOC) and will fulfill all promises made to them just as surely as we can count on Him fulfilling all promises made to Israel.

You continue for a year now to ignore Jesus last supper, I cor 10 and 2 Cor 3-5 because your passion is the land promise instead of the grace of God for all mankind and that mission.

Has not been ignored at all.
Both have been discussed many times.
The promises God made to the BOC are not the same promises God made to Israel.
God will fulfill the promises He makes to whom He promises them to.

Why would Christ shed blood for a land promise? Hmmm. Talk about confused and clue-denying.

Hebrews 9.

 

[Tambora]

Dude! Never correct a "real writer and grammar scholar"!

That never gets old!

 

[Right Divider]

Paul uses many of the promises to Israel to describe.
Not as a replacement, but showing that GOD does things for different groups that are very similar in to how He did things for others.
So, JUST AS God called out a people (Israel) from among the world population to be His for a purpose, God also can call out another group (the BOC) from among the world population for another purpose and still maintain His promises to His group of Israel.

Sure, there are some new things.
But the old law and prophets have to be completely fulfilled in every single minute detail concerning Israel, which has not happened.
Meanwhile, God can deal with His new (not replaced) special called out group (the BOC) and will fulfill all promises made to them just as surely as we can count on Him fulfilling all promises made to Israel.

Has not been ignored at all.
Both have been discussed many times.
The promises God made to the BOC are not the same promises God made to Israel.
God will fulfill the promises He makes to whom He promises them to.

Hebrews 9.

Excellent post Tam. :thumb:

 

[Tambora]

Excellent post Tam. :thumb:

I'm just ridding on your coattails, brother!
Along with a few others here that proclaim that GOD keeps His word.

 

[Right Divider]

Your right about one thing, the two tribe names mean the whole, but that's not all that happens. we know from Romans that there are Gentiles who are called not a people etc who are brought in.

There is no tribe of ISRAEL, oh clueless one.