ECT How is Paul's message different?

[john w]

When RD writes a paragraph on who the Zealots were and why and when and how, I might try reading one of his posts again.

That 'woopee' remark the other day was worse than all of JohnnyW's vulgarisms.

Still coming onto me, Butch the sodomite, with your cute little "JohnnyW" endearing "happy" talk, eh James 2:3 KJV one? Again, effeminate punk-I'm not interested-I dig chicks, "happy" boy. Save those cute little names for your domestic partner, Butch Basil.

 

[john w]

You might want to do some church history reading John. the doctrines that inspired the Crusades had nothing 'futurist' about them; they were rather in the category of preserving relics etc. and of just general keeping colonies in the Papacy, and resisting the spread of Islam.

There are a few traces of futurism back in the 2nd century, but not much. There is also some sympathetic feeling for the Jews as a race and a nation, that after Bar Kochba in 135 etc., why not just let them live there if they want. After all they are no threat anymore.

What is most important is the INITIAL reaction to the historic fact that the 2nd coming did not take place right after the destruction of Jerusalem in the wake of Jesus' own generation. The only information I can gather about that is that the apostles just believed we should continue taking the Gospel to every nation.

You might want to learn how to quote, and employ proper English, you alleged "scholar."


Deception, irrelevant to your argument, that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?


You laughable fraud, deceiver, and one who, on record, asserts that "God the Father" is a false doctrine, as it is relatively recent, and that the earth is flat.

 

[Interplanner]

You lied-again, Butch. The impending, according to prophecy, death, burial, resurrection, was hid from the 12, prior to its occurrence. They had no clue, he was be crucified, and raised from the dead. You've been shown these scriptural facts, chapter, verse, but you waived your magic wand, deleted/dismissed them.


Why, Butch?

Nope, I explained what denial is.

The death and resurrection are clearly known before, but as pressure to follow zealots increased and Jesus' non-involvement with them increased, the discples were more and more afraid of what would happen to them. They went into denial about it and him. The masses thought 'Christ' was a warrior zealot who would bust Rome; Jesus consistently warned them that that was going to ruin the country and that was not his mission nor was it the new covenant, Jn 12:34.

 

[Interplanner]

You might want to learn how to quote, and employ proper English, you alleged "scholar."


Deception, irrelevant to your argument, that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?


You laughable fraud, deceiver, and one who, on record, asserts that "God the Father" is a false doctrine, as it is relatively recent, and that the earth is flat.

It is from the 16th-18th century. Luther's theses were 1517. The huge mural of the destruction of Jerusalem was painted in late 1700s. George Holford taught about the divinity of Christ based on prediction the destruction of Jerusalem in 1805 in his English intinerary. Handel's MESSIAH oratorio was in that window. After that, many forces impinged on what the Reformation had established, imperfect as it was, and warred against every conception it had established.

 

[john w]

Nope, I explained what denial is.

The death and resurrection are clearly known before, but as pressure to follow zealots increased and Jesus' non-involvement with them increased, the discples were more and more afraid of what would happen to them. They went into denial about it and him. The masses thought 'Christ' was a warrior zealot who would bust Rome; Jesus consistently warned them that that was going to ruin the country and that was not his mission nor was it the new covenant, Jn 12:34.

No, you lied again, Butch. You made up this "death and resurrection are clearly known before" by the 12, prior to its occurrence. You cannot deny, intoxicated demon, that of which you have no knowledge. How did you get so stupid, Butch? Denying something they knew nothing about? You're a clown, moron.The dbr was hid from the 12, prior to its occurrence.




You made up this "they were in denial"-they were clueless-it was hid from them.


1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV "gospel"

Death
Burial
Resurrection

Survey the book...

1.The 12 did not know of the impending dbr-it was hid from them, until later in the Lord's ministry-and yet, prior to them knowing, they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom:"


"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31-32 KJV

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


2. Peter tried to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ's death, and His death was a key component of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, by which we are reconciled:

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" Mt. 16:21-22 KJV

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Mark 8:31-32 KJV


Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. John 18:10 KJV


Peter’s response was to rebuke the Lord Jesus Christ. Today, in this dispensation, when someone rebukes the gospel of Christ, what do we call that someone? Lost.Peter certainly wasn’t “looking forward" to the dbr.


3. Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, the 12 initially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17 KJV

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:11 KJV

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:9-11 KJV

What do we call someone who “believes not” the resurrection? You got it-lost!

" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41 KJV

Therefore, they were not preaching the dbr, "the gospel" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as a basis of justification, at least prior to its occurrence, but they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. They certainly were not "looking forward" to it, and this "didn't fully understand it" jazz is made up-they knew NADA about it, as it was hid from them. They initially denied the resurrection.


Read the above, Butch. Read:

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


Why are you lying?

 

[john w]

It is from the 16th-18th century. Luther's theses were 1517. The huge mural of the destruction of Jerusalem was painted in late 1700s. George Holford taught about the divinity of Christ based on prediction the destruction of Jerusalem in 1805 in his English intinerary. Handel's MESSIAH oratorio was in that window. After that, many forces impinged on what the Reformation had established, imperfect as it was, and warred against every conception it had established.

Deception, irrelevant to your argument, that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?


You laughable fraud, deceiver, and one who, on record, asserts that "God the Father" is a false doctrine, as it is relatively recent, and that the earth is flat.

 

[Interplanner]

No, you lied again, Butch. You made up this "death and resurrection are clearly known before" by the 12, prior to its occurrence. You cannot deny, intoxicated demon, that of which you have no knowledge. How did you get so stupid, Butch? Denying something they knew nothing about? you're a clown, moron.The dbr was hid from the 12, prior to its occurrence.




You made up this "they were in denial"-they were clueless-it was hid from them.


1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV "gospel"

Death
Burial
Resurrection

Survey the book...

1.The 12 did not know of the impending dbr-it was hid from them, until later in the Lord's ministry-and yet, prior to them knowing, they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom:"


"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31-32 KJV

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


2. Peter tried to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ's death, and His death was a key component of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, by which we are reconciled:

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" Mt. 16:21-22 KJV

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Mark 8:31-32 KJV


Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. John 18:10 KJV


Peter’s response was to rebuke the Lord Jesus Christ. Today, in this dispensation, when someone rebukes the gospel of Christ, what do we call that someone? Lost.Peter certainly wasn’t “looking forward" to the dbr.


3. Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, the 12 initially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17 KJV

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:11 KJV

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:9-11 KJV

What do we call someone who “believes not” the resurrection? You got it-lost!

" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41 KJV

Therefore, they were not preaching the dbr, "the gospel" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as a basis of justification, at least prior to its occurrence, but they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. They certainly were not "looking forward" to it, and this "didn't fully understand it" jazz is made up-they knew NADA about it, as it was hid from them. They initially denied the resurrection.


Read the above, Butch. Read:

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


Why are you lying?

'Unless a seed of grain falls to the ground, it produces nothing.'
'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away (atonement) the sins of the world.'
'Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days.'
'A sword will pierce your own soul' Lk 2

yawn

You're doing a game called D'ism. The distinct doctrine of D'ism is the myth that there were 2 programs going and there was a switch someplace during the gospels when Christ gave up on a political kingdom for Israel. The cure for it is not mysterious reading of the Gospels but accepting that the Letter's doctrinal passages are the official interp.

 

[Interplanner]

God does not forgive sins without an atonement price paid. Lk 5:24. He already had authority ON EARTH to forgive sins because he was already going to die. There was no Jewish kingdom option being played out.

 

[Interplanner]

'Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.' Meaning: to be "in" in 1st century zealot-terrorized Judaism, you did not follow a Christ who was going to sacrifice for sins (--JohnB) and not doing anything about Jewish independence.

They knew at the beginning; they became cowards after the Trans.

Go research cowardice. The answer is not your over-thinking and over-reading the gospels.

 

[john w]

'Unless a seed of grain falls to the ground, it produces nothing.'
'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away (atonement) the sins of the world.'
'Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days.'
'A sword will pierce your own soul' Lk 2

yawn

You're doing a game called D'ism. The distinct doctrine of D'ism is the myth that there were 2 programs going and there was a switch someplace during the gospels when Christ gave up on a political kingdom for Israel. The cure for it is not mysterious reading of the Gospels but accepting that the Letter's doctrinal passages are the official interp.

You lied, again, Butch. The lamb was never the sin offering, and the John passage was not about 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.


"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV



"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV


Why are you lying? It was hid from them, demon, as they knew nothing about the impending dbr, prior to its occurence. Even after it occurred, Butch, they denied it. They could not deny it beforehand, however, Butch-you cannot deny something that you do not know.


Why are you lying on this, Butch? Tell all of TOL.

 

[Interplanner]

Lk 9:21: the reason for the warning not tell anyone is because people in Judea thought Christ meant a warrior zealot to bust Rome, God's right hand. They could not believe he was not going to do that. They hadn't listened.

Jn 2 is quite clear. They did know he meant the death and resurrection, but to shuffle everything doctrinally from what Judaism said was not done at that point.

Is that Christ's fault? Nope.

Did he have 'another program'? Nope.

Jn 3: God did not send his son to condemn the world. Trans for the contemporary person in Judaism: God is not ending the world and putting Israel on top of everyone. Instead, the plan always was for the Son to give his life for the world. There is no treating of condemnation without an atoning sacrifice.

 

[john w]

'Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.' Meaning: to be "in" in 1st century zealot-terrorized Judaism, you did not follow a Christ who was going to sacrifice for sins (--JohnB) and not doing anything about Jewish independence.

They knew at the beginning; they became cowards after the Trans.

Go research cowardice. The answer is not your over-thinking and over-reading the gospels.

You lied, again, Butch. The lamb was never the sin offering, John the B had no idea he would die for sins, and the John passage was not about 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.


"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV



"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV


Why are you lying? It was hid from them, demon, as they knew nothing about the impending dbr, prior to its occurence. Even after it occurred, Butch, they denied it. They could not deny it beforehand, however, Butch-you cannot deny something that you do not know.


Why are you lying on this, Butch? Tell all of TOL.

 

[Interplanner]

Jn 5:25: the time is coming and now is, when the dead hear the voice of God and pass from death because there is no more condemnation, because atonement was known to be coming. 'the son can't do anything on his own'--it was the plan all along.

Jn 6:53: unless you eat the flesh and blood of the Son of Man. Do you actually think it was not known? So they did their crass-literal trick. then check v66. Many people left. They knew, but they left.

that's what you are looking for.

don't forget, he wanted to convert zealots especially, that is why he located in Galilee, where many of them were, and why he was known as a Galilean.

 

[Interplanner]

'It was hid from them' was due to their denial. It was perfectly clear what was going to happen. You just press too much on one verse and don't have the big picture.

 

[Interplanner]

Go learn Jn 6:66. It's pretty early, really. But it is the same 'what on earth?' reaction to Jesus. They knew, but they hid themselves in denial.

 

[Interplanner]

Of course, there's always Is 53 and Dan 9 to think about too.

 

[Interplanner]

. The lamb was never the sin offering, John the B had no idea he would die for sins, and the John passage was not about 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.

--The three lies of JohnnyW

 

[Interplanner]

Hmmm, I wonder if they had read Ps 22-24, which goes through suffering and 'valley of the shadow of death' but ends with the gates of God in triumph? Hmmm?

 

[Interplanner]

Maybe what you are wondering is 'when did Jn 2:21 happen--when did they realize the temple he spoke of was his body?' Did he not mean his body the whole time? So what is 'real' about the text? His meaning or their realization of his meaning?

If it is not 'his meaning' then it v21 should be removed from the text. Because he never had that meaning! Do you actually think there was a bonafide offer to miraculously put back the temple?

But instead, it is there and belongs there, because it was what he meant, and what JohnB meant about the lamb the whole time.

 

[Interplanner]

Jn 10:17. Did they not know or were they in denial?

Jn 3:14. Lifting up the Son of Man on a stick. Did they know or did they deny?


You are saying 'you can't deny something you don't know.' Fair enough. But the question about Lk 18 is how did they not know? They knew and denied. They did that as early as Jn 2, and certainly Jn 6.