The tree is Christ.
The natural branches are Israel.
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
The natural branches are Israel.
I've got a pretty thick skin and a great deal of patients when people actually do make arguments. I don't remember the last time you made an argument and the comment you made about Satan's deception was terrible on at least two fronts. For one thing, it was blatantly insulting but more importantly it was entirely self-defeating because since you make the accusation outside of ANY context (i.e. an actual argument) whatsoever, the exact same accusation applies as equally to your own doctrine as it would mine or anyone else's for that matter. On what basis could you reject the possibility that you aren't the one who's been deceived? Maybe Satan has deceived us all! How would you refute such an accusation? You couldn't! You couldn't do it because it has no rational connection to anything specific. It's a totally meaningless and stupendously insulting waste of time thing to even think, never mind actually say. You should actively guard you mind against such emotionalism. It's the basis upon which every cult is based.
Also, why do you break up my posts and respond with three different posts? It makes it difficult to respond. I've had to recombine our discussion into a single post on more than one occasion. You gotta stop doing that.
Also, why do you ignore the most important parts of my posts? In my last post, I gave a very specific response in regards to Israel's Kingdom and why they didn't receive it. And your response is to continue the discussion as though I never said a word of it.
Have you read Jeremiah 18? Did you know that Paul was making reference to that passage when he wrote Romans 9? Did you know that Romans 9 was Paul's explanation as to why Israel was cut off? Do you even acknowledge that Israel was cut off in the first place?
Conversations have to go in two directions or they become tiresome and boring for one of the parties involved.
What are you talking about?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Interplanner
Well-known member
Israel's cutting off is not that absolute. Look at Paul and the 3000 early believers. What he meant was not strictly race/nation, but generally, they disbelieved.
:chuckle:
The tactic of the cultist - deflect addressing what was presented by introducing some other focus.
At least that is how your above can come off, whether intentional on your part, or not.
I know that was not your intent.
Still, your attempt to persuade me to at least consider what YOU concluded I had failed to there in Romans 11, has failed.
You're forever too busy attempting to persuade others to consider what YOU conclude they hadn't considered the impact of.
Which is fine, but for one ever gaping hole - how very off the very paradigm through which you are looking at these things, is.
You actually believe you are seeing something this Dispy somehow failed to consider.
This grafting in business you brought up has nothing to do with the passages I posted to you prior to your reply.
Not in the same way, at least.
True, the Hybrid faction of MAD does see a connection there similar to your own obvious error.
It is not there in the way you and or such conclude it is.
Get back to what I pointed out.
For all you did was make a lie of the promise of those passages I cited to you.
I believe you did that un-intentionally, but that is what you nevertheless ended up doing.
Romans 11's grafting in is not being depicted in the same manner in the passages I cited to you.
Address them, not this Romans 11 grafting in business you seemingly "deflected" with.
Rom. 5: 6-8.
He is actually caught up in his error on the grafting in that is then followed up with a discussion of, by Paul.
But Paul has actually already shifted focus by the time he goes into the grafting in.
Ten to one, that although turbo did not bring it up, he nevertheless holds that one of the things that Paul is also asserting in Romans 11 is that one can lose one's salvation.
(As does the Hybrid faction within MAD, which is why I mentioned them).
Rom. 5: 6-8.
Interplanner
Well-known member
JohnW,
why do D'ists use Hebrews to support a geographic period of restoration when 11-13 all say that the land was not the promise; the promise was not received back then anyway as land; and that we belong to the living new Jerusalem? Seems they should try some other passage, not Hebrews--assuming "Hebrews" is the race/nation.
why do D'ists use Hebrews to support a geographic period of restoration when 11-13 all say that the land was not the promise; the promise was not received back then anyway as land; and that we belong to the living new Jerusalem? Seems they should try some other passage, not Hebrews--assuming "Hebrews" is the race/nation.
Interplanner
Well-known member
When Jesus said that the Kingdom was at hand, He meant precisely that but it wasn't some invisible, undefinable, unfalsifiable fabrication that the modern church and you think it is. He meant a Kingdom - period. You know, the sort of Kingdom with a King and a thrown and political power and civil laws and a military and all the other things associated with a real Kingdom.
This is the lie of D'ism of course. Anyone who suggested an actual political kingdom in the name of Judaism at the time was found the next day draped from the crossbars for dissidents outside the walls of Jerusalem, ie, crosses.
As for 'deniability' the whole reason Christ said 'blessed is he who does not fall away on account of me' is because the power of God's forgiveness was not the same as the sword.
As usual, D'ists have no background support and no idea what they make such broad claims about. It helps if you let the NT render the OT, but that is a sin to them.
Interplanner
Well-known member
When did Jn 2:21 actually happen? Who knew and when, that he was speaking of his body?
Interplanner
Well-known member
thx to all D'ists who have tried to say that JohnB's Christ was not the sacrificial lamb, but I'll stick with "Hebrews". (I wonder if "Hebrews" meant "believers"?)
God didn't cut off the believers, of course. God cut off Israel, as a nation. Or put another way, He ended the Kingdom Dispensation (a.k.a. Dispensation of Law). There were several consequences to this action; not only did Israel not get their promised Kingdom but in addition to that, one no longer had to be or become a Jew and follow the Law of Moses to be considered a believer (Acts 15 & 22; Galatians 3 & 5; etc).
As for those who believed before God cut off Israel, they remained Jews saved under the Dispensation of Law until their death (Romans 11:29). These are they that the Twelve ministered to in Jerusalem and to whom they wrote their epistles while Paul went to the Gentiles and wrote to the believers under the new Dispensation of Grace (Galatians 2).
Resting in Him,
Clete
popsthebuilder
New member
So the "twelve" isn't also symbolic of all GOD'S people or the Jew being spread throughout the world, or salvation?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Why would the twelve Apostles be symbolic at all? They're actual people.
popsthebuilder
New member
I have found that the vast majority of the bible is slap full of double and triple entendres.
As far as to why; that question I will not try to answer.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
So what if something has multiple meanings? Why not just take scripture at face value, and understand what it's actually saying, instead of trying to always find the hidden meaning first and trying to interpret what it actually says by that? That seems like an extremely backwards approach to understanding the Bible?
The best way to understand the Bible is to get an overview, learn the Plot (so to speak), and then you can unlock the meaning behind the details.
Your method, Pops, always seems to be dive into the details and try to figure out where everything fits that way. I can tell you right now that that approach will leave you confused and ultimately lost. Get an overview first, and the details will, guaranteed, fall into place.
That's why Clete, I, and other MAD-ists are so confident in our understanding of scripture. I mean, sure, could our understanding of Scripture be completely and utterly wrong? OF COURSE! But it is most likely that ours is correct, as it fits the Bible perfectly. We don't have to do Biblical gymnastics, twist words, or reinterpret verses or words to mean something else to make our doctrine fit.
It's literally the "Occam's Razor" of Christian belief systems.
The number twelve is symbolic of government and, as such, has special significance to the nation of Israel.
https://www.levendwater.org/books/numbers/number_in_scripture_bullinger.pdf
popsthebuilder
New member
Who said I ever try to find hidden meaning in anything, but you?
One must know and understand what is plainly written before ever going further. For you to assume I do otherwise or even try to do anything other than read and understand is just assumption.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
I can say the very same of my own understandings or discernment.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Yet the twelve were sent to all people to spread the message to all, and Israel was too spread throughout all the world.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
No, it isn't just assumption. If you insist on crafting a rationally coherent doctrinal system where the plain reading of the text is PRIMARY whenever possible, you will be an Acts 9 Dispensationalist. The fact that you reject Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is proof - and I do mean proof - that you do otherwise.
Now, that doesn't mean you do it on purpose or consciously. In fact, I'm firmly convinced that the vast majority of people are quite completely blind to the way they interpret the bible as they read it. What they understand the bible to mean is what they've been taught to understand rather than what it actually says. The interpretation happens automatically and intuitively rather than consciously and on purpose. For most people, their understanding of scripture has as much or more to do with their doctrinal paradigm than it has to do with specifically what the text actually states.
Clete