:chuckle:
ECT Messianic R. Jeslow ID's the other 'gospel' in Galatians
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
He wasn't. It was being offered right then. This is another proof that P&P were on the same page about justification, so that when you go compare Acts 13's sample sermon, justification from sins (struck from our record) is the promise to Israel, the same thing Peter was trying to say.
The NT is profoundly unified.
2P2P is irrationally divided and dividing.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
You're the guy with 3 separate heavens, locations, places for three different peoples.
By the way, I was just thinking about that, and some of my fav believers are not in my group, so I've quit my subscription, so that I can be in the other two groups. Thanks for any admin permissions you can secure for me with your secret knowledge on that.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is worthless, and there is no such distinction. Why do you deny being a divider and divisive? Here are you doing it like a professional.
For one thing, the 'land' is not eternal. It is gone at the end of this age, and the NHNE is made.
2nd, Paul said we believers (did you know there were Gentiles in Galatia? oooooh, don't you get the creeps just thinking about that?) are part of the city above.
All your conceptions and categories are wrong on all elementary levels because of the infection of 2P2P.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Ezekiel 37
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Why won't you believe?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You made that up.
The Galatians were set free, and in that sense the New Jerusalem was their mother.
THAT IS what it says.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
All your conceptions and categories are wrong on all elementary levels because of the infection of 1P1P.
saint john w the great: "So there."
Exactly.
Not only did they not yet know that Jesus would die and be raised, but they were also told not to tell anyone He was the Christ.
Not to mention that Peter was opposed to Jesus saying He must suffer and die.
Matthew 16:20-22 KJV
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
(21) 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.
(22) Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
(21) 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.
(22) Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
If Peter knew that the suffering and death of Jesus would result in the salvation of man, he would not have opposed the mission Jesus was sent to do.
Luke 9 proves that the gospel they were proclaiming at the time is not the same gospel we proclaim today.
Paul includes himself in that "mother of us all" statement.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yep, he was free, and an heir according to the promise.
Lol - at least that is a statement from you; not one of your often open ended questions :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Huh?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sarah, New Jerusalem: mothers of the free
Paul's comparing the Law and the promise, he isn't saying that the Body of Christ has their inheritance in the New Jerusalem. :chuckle:
Paul's comparing the Law and the promise, he isn't saying that the Body of Christ has their inheritance in the New Jerusalem. :chuckle:
Mother of us all - as she was the mother of Christ (and they, as members of the Body are in Him and she is His mother).
He is using anology as a distinction in much the same way he distinguishes between physical sons of Abraham who are also spiritual sons as Isaac was, and spiritual sons of Abraham when he was in Uncircumcision, or...a Gentile.
His point is that they have no business buying into the false idea that they are not sons of God just because the Law and circumcision do not apply to them - as both they and the Israel of God are...of God.
That both are the result of Christ - and HIS spiritual mother was the New Jerusalem, just as physical, or Jerusalem which then was, was HIS physical mother.
He is basically re-presenting the two groups OF GOD (Israel of God/Body of Christ) he will later describe in Romans 4 from another angle (Abraham in Uncircumcision/Circumcision).
Welch; the 28ers; Moore - are wrong, STP - put away their writings, bro.
Sincerely,
Eph. 4:16.
Right Divider
Body part
Where do you get this idea?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yep, the City is the Lamb's wife, not mother.