ECT Back again to the Prager mistake which D'ism follows (identity vs behavior)

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Made up. You misquote and chapter blast.
Who taught you how to do that?
Click to expand...





What you call blasting is actually providing time and context for you to see that the issue has been thoroughly covered in a section, but you prefer a D'ist prooftext like Rom 11:26 or Mt 25:33 instead. You cannot and never have and prob never will provide a summary of what Gal 3-4 is saying. Because it detonates 2 programs. And the restored Israel you worship is never mentioned even though everything we need to know about the promises and the inheritance are there. Your system is a fraud.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Of which I quote 10x the amount you do.

Back to the OP:
Prager said: "I would apply this (behavior vs identity) to Judaism, but it does not apply." The problem: he welcomes a homosexual for his orientation/identity THE SAME WAY he treats his Judaism as an identity!!! Apart from behavior!

I don't know or care what happens to an "identity" when behavior is the question!!! As far as I'm concerned, identity/orientation is an entirely fraudulent modern conception. TOL readers will probably agree on that about homosexuality, but the D'ists will operate the same way Prager is about Judaism for Judaism's fraudulent reason: that it is an identity.

Now look at the NT telling us that the believer has a new self or identity in Christ which 'kills' or 'puts to death' the behavior of the flesh. See where this is going? We DO have an new identity apart from race, gender, class, and it causes right behavior, which is still the question that matters. We can never just say we have an identity without actions.

So, how many ways can Judaism be wrong, and D'ism still follow along with it?
Click to expand...





The STPs of TOL need to figure out where they differ from Prager the Judaist and homosexuality-identity validator. It is the same mode, mentality.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There is nada, zero, where the NT Gospel says you must believe in a future Israel restoration to be saved, in which saved = justification from sins.
Click to expand...

You may believe the gospel, 1 Cor 15:1-4, and you may very well be saved.
But the majority of the words in the holy Bible, you dismiss through unbelief.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Hardly. One cannot read the entirety of Galatians, with the book of Acts in his other hand, and fail to see the two programs.
Click to expand...




What you are doing is intellectually dishonest. You have to give reasons. Stop admiring yourself.

There is a difference between saying there are two programs and saying: there are two programs run by God.
3:17 is showing that Judaism replaced the Promise with the Law. So yes, there were two. But that is NOT WHAT YOU MEANT. You meant they were both valid. and you think one is 'unfinished' and 'needs restoration.' That is the fraud. You think the race of Israel is just as valid as the spiritual-alive 'Israel of God' that follows the new creation rule. It is a fraud to say they are unified.

So once again you think you are thinking, or think you are talking, but you miss the question that is the edge here.

That is why you are incapable of writing out an actual paragraph about these things.

Self-congratulation? Yes. "I won before we raced!" But not a real discussion. Where you know the real questions.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
You can have your Acts 22 incident with James if you want, but I think Paul was just trying to get himself (or God told him he would be) to the attention of the Roman admin.

"Not even Titus, a Greek, was compelled to get circ'd" in Gal 2 is all we need know that there was no confusing 2 programming going on, and there was no land interest. There is nothing at the council in Acts 15 that will help you with 2 God-ordained programs, so don't bother, and your past treatments of the Amos quote are a mess. You go through the whole event and at the end, I don't think you know why they met or why Gal 2 was written. And then there is the stupid 2 gospels business that I won't reply to either.

Acts 26 confirms there was ONE program and Judaism thinks there was a 2nd in a delusion and is trying to see it fulfilled day and night, MISTAKENLY. The One Program was Christ the new sacrifice and temple in One. The resurrection was the offending proof that justification from sins was thereby provided in Christ by God, which is what Acts 13 was saying was the culminating promise, which you don't think was there either.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The belief that there are two programs means you have to go back with tiny scissors and tweezers all through Isaiah and split every reference.

It means that when 26 says the city's walls are Salvation and its gates Praise, that there are chunks of granite around the place that you are supposed to be able to find and that is where or how the temple will be built. That is what a Christian archeology documentary thinks.

So tonight on Chr TV when "Prophecy Connection"'s host stands on the Mount of Olives and says "This is where heaven and earth will unite" and that we can photograph the Jerusalem that Isiaah 62 is talking about, he means the same non-Christocentric thing; there are two programs and nothing positive is said about the photographic Jerusalem. But please send money so these broadcasts can continue. The world needs to hear these prophecies and we need money.

But it is not about that Jerusalem. The NT says so. And something happenend to the geographic one.

We know this as one ex. from Gal 4:27. The one city is slavery and barren. The other is free and copious, all defined in the previous verse. So now, NOW, we know what Isaiah 54 was saying with that picture. This repeats over and over in the NT and it never gives a specific about the geographic.

That's what the 'simple' words of the Bible mean.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
But I explain myself, and you don't because your dishonesty shows up.


anyway, the question of the OP is not answered:

Will we accept a system that is based on identity for some (Jews, homosexuals) and behavior for the rest? God forbid, and Rom 11:11-24 say so.

The difference between us STP is that in your Biblical education you seemed to have missed the teacher who showed that yes, it is possible to compact each NT letter down in to one statement--after each paragraph and section has been done. That was a guy who constantly taught the big picture and oddly enough was at Multnomah U. Wilkerson, I think. He did outside seminars on the same thing in which he got people to be able to orally summarize the entire Bible in about 3 lines. It is a very important skill.

and our pal chafer or /Darby would never have said the Bible doesn't make sense if he'd had that opportunity. He'd see the Bible is self-organizing in a few passages.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
But I explain myself, and you don't because your dishonesty shows up.


anyway, the question of the OP is not answered:

Will we accept a system that is based on identity for some (Jews, homosexuals) and behavior for the rest? God forbid, and Rom 11:11-24 say so.

The difference between us STP is that in your Biblical education you seemed to have missed the teacher who showed that yes, it is possible to compact each NT letter down in to one statement--after each paragraph and section has been done. That was a guy who constantly taught the big picture and oddly enough was at Multnomah U. Wilkerson, I think. He did outside seminars on the same thing in which he got people to be able to orally summarize the entire Bible in about 3 lines. It is a very important skill.

and our pal chafer or /Darby would never have said the Bible doesn't make sense if he'd had that opportunity. He'd see the Bible is self-organizing in a few passages.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
you all were given 3 days to catch Pragers exchanges with the homosexual editor at Town Hall, then DP's solo hour on the same question about the race of Israel.

As a rabbi and conservative and identity-based thinker about Israel , he exempted Israel from questions about its behavior. "I would apply the ruLe of behavior to Judaism, but it doesnt apply" he said after saying the same thing of the homosexual conservative. The identity wins. "A Jew who is an atheist is still a Jew, but a Christian who is an atheist has forsaken their distinction."

If you can't hear the old covenant mindset in that you have no idea what your NT is saying, which is why your use of Hebrews (!!!) is an incessant disaster:

You are hooked on one verse, 8:8.
You are totally disobedient to the unifiying and oneness of 12:22-24, ruining it just yesterday.
you are totally defiant of the ch 11 declaration that the believers spoken of in ch 11 never found the land promised because it was heaven. NEVER ON THIS EARTH!!! The end of the chapter clearly says they recieved what was promised along with us, which is Christ. Just like Acts 13.

I will never take your word on the OT. I will only take the NT saying what the OT means. Like that.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
you all were given 3 days to catch Pragers exchanges with the homosexual editor at Town Hall, then DP's solo hour on the same question about the race of Israel.

As a rabbi and conservative and identity-based thinker about Israel , he exempted Israel from questions about its behavior. "I would apply the ruLe of behavior to Judaism, but it doesnt apply" he said after saying the same thing of the homosexual conservative. The identity wins. "A Jew who is an atheist is still a Jew, but a Christian who is an atheist has forsaken their distinction."

If you can't hear the old covenant mindset in that you have no idea what your NT is saying, which is why your use of Hebrews (!!!) is an incessant disaster:

You are hooked on one verse, 8:8.
You are totally disobedient to the unifiying and oneness of 12:22-24, ruining it just yesterday.
you are totally defiant of the ch 11 declaration that the believers spoken of in ch 11 never found the land promised because it was heaven. NEVER ON THIS EARTH!!! The end of the chapter clearly says they recieved what was promised along with us, which is Christ. Just like Acts 13.

I will never take your word on the OT. I will only take the NT saying what the OT means. Like that.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You are hooked on one verse, 8:8.
You are totally disobedient to the unifiying and oneness of 12:22-24, ruining it just yesterday.
Click to expand...

Hebrews
12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


I don't see you in here. You cannot inherit the new Jerusalem, no matter how badly you want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top