ECT He shall save His people from their sins

[Right Divider]

I don't know where you get your doctrine from the NT when there are passages such as Acts 13:47 with all the context that goes into them. With all the statements by Paul about why he was raised to go to the nations. Those believers are the 'Israel' that was supposed to reach the nations, because it is not about restoring the land. And, notice what happened to the land in the same generation.

That you must mythologize the scripture is clear.
That you do not take God at His word is clear.
That you don't listen to even the simplest of facts is clear.

 

[Danoh]

I don't know where you get your doctrine from the NT when there are passages such as Acts 13:47 with all the context that goes into them. With all the statements by Paul about why he was raised to go to the nations. Those believers are the 'Israel' that was supposed to reach the nations, because it is not about restoring the land. And, notice what happened to the land in the same generation.

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. 12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

 

[Interplanner]

That you must mythologize the scripture is clear.
That you do not take God at His word is clear.
That you don't listen to even the simplest of facts is clear.

I think you are a failure on all three of those things.

The plainest meaning of the apostles themselves about 'Israel' reaching the nations is the mission work that went all over the known world. that is why Jesus launched with the 70, which became about 220 by the time Pentecost happened. The Gospel has no place in your thinking and has been disenfranchised by Israel the nation.

 

[heir]

The Lord has ever accepted those who fear Him from all nations.

To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved Ephesians 1:4-6 KJV, Titus 3:4-7 KJV) not by fearing God and working righteousness (Acts 10:35 KJV). Do you see the difference?

 

[Interplanner]

The things the 'nations' did was still faith. That is what mattered. You may see certain actions and try to distill down if they were the right ones, but God saw faith. As he did several times in the gospel accounts when Jesus said, 'I've haven't seen faith like this anywhere in Israel.'

 

[musterion]

"We can have too much education. All of the education in the world does not necessarily make a person wise. Never in history have men had more knowledge and less wisdom than we have today. There are millions of clever people in the world, and most of them are too clever to come to Christ. We can have too much education. Many a young person goes off to college to sit at the feet of diabolically clever, humanistic professors who systematically strip him of his faith and throw him back into the world as an educated moron, hopelessly adrift; without spiritual anchor, compass, or rudder; and driven before the winds of this godless age."

John Phillips

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think you are a failure on all three of those things.

The irony...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't know where you get your doctrine from the NT when there are passages such as Acts 13:47 with all the context that goes into them. With all the statements by Paul about why he was raised to go to the nations. Those believers are the 'Israel' that was supposed to reach the nations, because it is not about restoring the land. And, notice what happened to the land in the same generation.

Made up, as usual.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think you are a failure on all three of those things.

The plainest meaning of the apostles themselves about 'Israel' reaching the nations is the mission work that went all over the known world. that is why Jesus launched with the 70, which became about 220 by the time Pentecost happened. The Gospel has no place in your thinking and has been disenfranchised by Israel the nation.

Matthew 10:23 (KJV)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

John Phillips

:up:

Example: Satan is brilliant, but full of unbelief (like IP)

 

[Right Divider]

I think you are a failure on all three of those things.

Of course you would say that. You are wrong about everything.

The plainest meaning of the apostles themselves about 'Israel' reaching the nations is the mission work that went all over the known world. that is why Jesus launched with the 70, which became about 220 by the time Pentecost happened. The Gospel has no place in your thinking and has been disenfranchised by Israel the nation.

I believe ALL of the gospels.

 

[Interplanner]

Of course you would say that. You are wrong about everything.


I believe ALL of the gospels.

There are 4 literary docs called gospels. I'm referring to the one gospel preached by Christ and the apostles (though hid from them when they realized it wasn't about a miracle-monarchy in Israel) that has nothing to do with your theological complications.

No one is wrong or right about everything. Hopefully you will have the maturity to see that and not find your identity in putting down before you even think.

 

[Right Divider]

There are 4 literary docs called gospels. I'm referring to the one gospel preached by Christ and the apostles (though hid from them when they realized it wasn't about a miracle-monarchy in Israel) that has nothing to do with your theological complications.

I was not talking about "literary docs". I was talking about the many gospels throughout scripture.

No one is wrong or right about everything. Hopefully you will have the maturity to see that and not find your identity in putting down before you even think.

You have shown yourself to be so consistently wrong that I was using a generalization. A real writer and grammar scholar would understand that.

 

[Interplanner]

I was not talking about "literary docs". I was talking about the many gospels throughout scripture.


You have shown yourself to be so consistently wrong that I was using a generalization. A real writer and grammar scholar would understand that.

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

More humanism and rationalization from Dr. Phil.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered.

Humanism, rationalization, unbelief.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

He did not say there was just one existing gospel, to the Galatians. You made that up.

 

[Right Divider]

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

I never claimed to be a grammar scholar, but thanks anyway.

The numerous uses of "the gospel OF" clearly and unambiguously shows that there are multiple gospels.

It's so simple that even a grammar scholar should be able to understand it.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

You always use the funniest terminology.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

That is because the church which is His body is not Israel. Israel has promises of a land and a kingdom in that land. The churches place is seated in heaven.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

Another piece of silliness.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You always use the funniest terminology.

A tell tale sign of commentary worshipers.

 

[dodge]

He did not say there was just one existing gospel, to the Galatians. You made that up.

Looks like one gospel .


Gal 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.