ECT Tet and IP: so what's the bottom line, really?

[Right Divider]

Allegorical? Are you not sure of the definition?

Yes, I know what an allegory is. I guess that you think that the entire Bible is one big allegory.

There is only one throne in Heaven, not 13 of them. So Jesus must not have been speaking literally, but as the other verses show, that the saints will judge - the apostles are also saints.

Because YOU say so? There is NO reason to believe that He did not mean what He said. Are the twelve tribes figurative also?

You don't just get to make claims without some proof.

No, that is not recorded anywhere in Scripture that the 12 twelve apostles represent each of the 12 tribes. There were not twelve tribes - there were actually 14 tribes.

So you think that Jesus didn't know how many tribes there are? What a loonie.

Paul did not have to qualify per Acts 1, because Jesus chose Him specifically and uniquely Himself, as I showed you in numerous texts.

Neither did Barnabas have to qualify per Acts 1. He was chosen by the Holy Spirit to be an apostle just like the Bible says. As I have shown you from the Bible.

I am not fighting the Word of God. Per Acts 1, an apostle had to be witness of Christ's resurrection and with Him during the days before Pentecost.

That qualification was SPECIFIC to the REPLACEMENT of the TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes.

Paul does not have to be part of those qualifications because he was singled out by Christ Himself.

I agree.... that still does NOT exclude Barnabas from being an apostle JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS that he is.

Acts 14:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:14) [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
​

Your argument is against scripture. It's just as CLEAR and PLAIN as it can be.

• The Bible says that Barnabas and Paul are apostles (Acts 14:14)
• TweetyBird says that Barnabas is not an apostle.
• The Bible WINS!
• Barnabas is an apostle.

You are obfuscating. Once again, you objected to me stating that some of the apostles doubted that Jesus arose at His ascension, so I posted Matt and Mark to prove to you that some doubted at His ascension. I even quoted YOUR post word for word.

I still have NO idea why you think that is important.

 

[TweetyBird]

Yes, I know what an allegory is. I guess that you think that the entire Bible is one big allegory.


Because YOU say so? There is NO reason to believe that He did not mean what He said. Are the twelve tribes figurative also?

No sense in getting in a bunch. I was referring to being in Christ - where there is no Jew or Gentile. The NT refers to saints judging. To mean, the apostles represent the body of saints. I believe that the thrones are not literal, because there is no mention of 13 thrones at judgment, only one.

So you think that Jesus didn't know how many tribes there are? What a loonie.

You had stated that the apostles were one each from one of the twelve tribes, but there is no verse which states this. With Dan and Ephraim gone, it would not be possible anyway.

Neither did Barnabas have to qualify per Acts 1. He was chosen by the Holy Spirit to be an apostle just like the Bible says. As I have shown you from the Bible.

The problem is no text to prove that Barnabas was an apostle. The text I provided called him a prophet and teacher. With Paul, there are several texts to prove that Jesus called him to be an apostle.

That qualification was SPECIFIC to the REPLACEMENT of the TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes.

That is not what Acts 1 states. There is no verse that says each one of the 12 apostles were from one of the 12 tribes.

There were the qualifications:

1) Acts 1:2 until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2) verse 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

I agree.... that still does NOT exclude Barnabas from being an apostle JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS that he is.

Acts 14:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:14) [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
​

Your argument is against scripture. It's just as CLEAR and PLAIN as it can be.

• 
  
  Barnabas does not fit the qualifications to be an apostle. There were only 12 apostles according to Acts 1. That Paul was chosen by Jesus Himself, was the only exception. There were no other apostles. So which 12 apostles are going to be on a throne if Barnabas of the tribe of Levi is an apostle? Now you have 14 men, but 16 different tribes that you think that 14 apostles are from. Which 12 are going to reign on thrones?
  
  

  I still have NO idea why you think that is important.

  
  You told me to prove what I said. So I did. Why do you keep dumping it back in my lap - because I proved you wrong?

 

[tetelestai]

You are simply glomming 2P2P on to things where you can, and it is artificial and foreign.

2P2P didn't exist before Darby.

Wrong Divider is a Darby follower, therefore Wrong Divider desperately tries to make the Bible fit his 2P2P/Dispensationalism.

 

[Right Divider]

No sense in getting in a bunch. I was referring to being in Christ - where there is no Jew or Gentile.

Not until God revealed the dispensation of the grace of God to and though Paul do we find salvation in a body where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek.

The NT refers to saints judging.

The new covenant is between God and Israel, just like the OLD one was.

Jer 31:31-37 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (31:35) ¶ Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: (31:36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. (31:37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. ​

So clear and simple that even a child can understand it.

To mean, the apostles represent the body of saints. I believe that the thrones are not literal, because there is no mention of 13 thrones at judgment, only one.

Talk about fallacious logic. You've got the tail wagging the dog. You're mixing apples and planets.

Why are the twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones ONLY judging the twelve tribes?

You had stated that the apostles were one each from one of the twelve tribes, but there is no verse which states this. With Dan and Ephraim gone, it would not be possible anyway.

I have NEVER said that there was ONE-TO-ONE correlation between apostles and tribes. I simply repeat and believe what the scripture says, that the twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. So clear; so simple.

The problem is no text to prove that Barnabas was an apostle. The text I provided called him a prophet and teacher. With Paul, there are several texts to prove that Jesus called him to be an apostle.

That is blatantly FALSE. I've shown you SEVERAL TIMES the SCRIPTURE that calls him an apostle. Read it and BELIEVE it.

Acts 14:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:14) [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
​

Maybe English is not your first language, but when a sentence NAMES TWO people and calls THEM APOSTLES, that is just what it means.

So which is it? Are you dumb or are you a liar.

Also note that Paul was also a teacher, etc. etc.

1Tim 2:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. ​

That is not what Acts 1 states. There is no verse that says each one of the 12 apostles were from one of the 12 tribes.

Once again, I've never claimed that there is a one-to-one correlation between apostles and tribes. The scripture quoting the Lord Jesus Christ says that there are twelve apostles to sit on twelve thrones judging twelve tribes. Just a plain as day.

There were the qualifications:

1) Acts 1:2 until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

2) verse 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Barnabas does not fit the qualifications to be an apostle. There were only 12 apostles according to Acts 1. That Paul was chosen by Jesus Himself, was the only exception. There were no other apostles. So which 12 apostles are going to be on a throne if Barnabas of the tribe of Levi is an apostle? Now you have 14 men, but 16 different tribes that you think that 14 apostles are from. Which 12 are going to reign on thrones?

The twelve that Jesus said would, with the replacement of Judas with Mattias. Why is Bible reading so hard for you?

Acts 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. ​

Acts 2:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:14) ¶ But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: ​

Twelve apostles right there. See it?

Once again, you're either stupid or a liar. The BIBLE calls Barnabas an apostle in Acts 14:14.

And ONCE AGAIN, those qualifications in Acts 1 were ONLY relevant for the REPLACEMENT of Judas Iscariot. They are NOT some eternal apostle qualifications.

Jesus was also an apostle (Heb 3:1).

The book of Revelation chapters 7 and 21 also identify twelve tribes; are you going to argue with that as well?

 

[Right Divider]

2P2P didn't exist before Darby.

Wrong Divider is a Darby follower, therefore Wrong Divider desperately tries to make the Bible fit his 2P2P/Dispensationalism.

It's funny that you guys keep repeating YOUR invented 2P2P.... really funny.

All of Gods plans allow all people, just so you know.

 

[TweetyBird]

Not until God revealed the dispensation of the grace of God to and though Paul do we find salvation in a body where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek.

The Gospels mention it and then God showed it personally and graphically to Peter. Acts 10.

The new covenant is between God and Israel, just like the OLD one was.

Jer 31:31-37 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (31:35) ¶ Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: (31:36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. (31:37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. ​

So clear and simple that even a child can understand it.

The shed blood of Jesus is the New Covenant. Then Peter was given an up close and personal view in Acts 10, 11.

Why are the twelve apostles sitting on twelve thrones ONLY judging the twelve tribes?

Which 12 apostles and which twelve tribes?

According to Josh 14 - Ephraim and Manasseh are called tribes. Neither Dan nor Ephraim are listed as tribes in Rev 7. Manasseh is added to the list of tribes in Rev 7. Which list of 12 do you think will represent 12 thrones?


Gen 49
1) Asher
2) Benjamin
3) Dan
4) Gad
5) Issachar
6) Joseph
7) Judah
8) Levi
9) Naphtali
10) Reuben
11) Simeon
12) Zebulon

Rev 7

1) Asher
2) Benjamin
3) Gad
4) Issachar
5) Joseph
6) Judah
7) Levi
8) Manasseh
9) Naphtali
10) Reuben
11) Simeon
12) Zebulon




Rev 4 states that there are 24 thrones, not 12. Actually Rev states this more than once.

Maybe English is not your first language, but when a sentence NAMES TWO people and calls THEM APOSTLES, that is just what it means.

So which is it? Are you dumb or are you a liar.

Barnabas was with Paul who was an apostle. Barnabas does not meet the qualifications of Acts 1. They only threw lots for one more apostle to replace Judas. Who do you think they replaced Barnabas with?

Why do you suppose, if Barnabas was actually an apostle why the people did not stone him along with Paul? Very curious.

Also note that Paul was also a teacher, etc. etc.

1Tim 2:7 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:7) Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. ​

Yes Paul was a teacher, but please note, it also states clearly that Paul was an apostle, which we know through his testimony as a unique apostle called out by Christ. We have no such information about Barnabas other than an minor reference which applies to him being with Paul. Those who witnessed the miracles would lump Barnabas with Paul because they traveled together. It was not factually true. There is no other reference to him as an apostle. Every time the apostles are mentioned after Pentecost, it is just the 12, and Paul, not Barnabas.

The twelve that Jesus said would, with the replacement of Judas with Mattias. Why is Bible reading so hard for you?

Acts 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. ​

Acts 2:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:14) ¶ But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all [ye] that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: ​

Twelve apostles right there. See it?

Not 13, as you now number the apostles, not including Paul.

And ONCE AGAIN, those qualifications in Acts 1 were ONLY relevant for the REPLACEMENT of Judas Iscariot. They are NOT some eternal apostle qualifications.

If, as you keep insisting, that there are 12 apostles to judge from 12 thrones, you have a math problem, because you have added one more to that number. And, interestingly, Jesus added Paul, so that makes 14 according to your math. So are two thrones going to double up?

Jesus was also an apostle (Heb 3:1).

THE Apostle and Chief CornerStone. The others are not Jesus.

The book of Revelation chapters 7 and 21 also identify twelve tribes; are you going to argue with that as well?

Rev 21 says 12 gates and 12 foundations, but does not list who the tribes are. The list in Rev 7 does not agree with Gen 49.


Rev 11 says 24 thrones:

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats [thrones - G2362
θρόνος thronos], fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, God showed it to Peter. Acts 10.

Two points, neither of which you'll understand.

1. Peter is NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God
2. Paul was called in Acts 9.

The shed blood of Jesus is the New Covenant. Then Peter was given an up close and personal view in Acts 10, 11.

Some silly comments there. The blood is NOT the covenant. Where to you learn this nonsense, because it's certainly not in the Bible.

I notice that you COMPLETELY ignore God's explanation in Jeremiah (which is quoted EXACTLY in Hebrews).

Which 12 apostles and which twelve tribes?

You certainly are deaf, dumb and blind. I've shown you SEVERAL TIMES which TWELVE apostles, but you don't read it.

According to Josh 14 - Ephraim and Manasseh are called tribes. Neither Dan nor Ephraim are listed as tribes in Rev 7. Manasseh is added to the list of tribes in Rev 7. Which list of 12 do you think will represent 12 thrones?

Whichever twelve that God decides and it appears that will be the twelve described in Revelation. It's funny that you think that this is a problem for God.

Rev 4 states that there are 24 thrones, not 12. Actually Rev states this more than once.

I can see that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Try again:

Rev 4:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:10) The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, (4:11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. ​

The word THRONE is SINGULAR and the four and twenty are NOT sitting on IT!

This is just more of your trying to deny the truth.

Barnabas was with Paul who was an apostle. Barnabas does not meet the qualifications of Acts 1. They only threw lots for one more apostle to replace Judas. Who do you think they replaced Barnabas with?

Now you've gone completely insane.

• The requirements for Judas' replacement are in Acts 1.
• Matthais was the chosen replacement.
• Barnabas is declared an apostle by SCRIPTURE in Acts 14:14
• You have a problem that you don't agree with SCRIPTURE.
• Where do you get "Who do you think they replaced Barnabas with?"

Yes Paul was a teacher, but please note, it also states clearly that Paul was an apostle, which we know through his testimony as a unique apostle called out by Christ. We have no such information about Barnabas other than an minor reference which applies to him being with Paul.

Ok, now you've made it CLEAR that you are a LIAR.

APOSTLES, BARNABAS AND PAUL!!!! Acts 14:14!!!

"minor reference".... so some scripture is to be ignored if it doesn't fit your fantasy.... got it.

Those who witnessed the miracles would lump Barnabas with Paul because they traveled together. It was not factually true. There is no other reference to him as an apostle. Every time the apostles are mentioned after Pentecost, it is just the 12, and Paul, not Barnabas.

You are certainly in tight with your father, the devil. Just keep repeating the lie.

Not 13, as you now number the apostles, not including Paul.

You forgot Jesus, that would make 14 (but there are more than that too).

Heb 3:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; ​

If, as you keep insisting, that there are 12 apostles to judge from 12 thrones, you have a math problem, because you have added one more to that number. And, interestingly, Jesus added Paul, so that makes 14 according to your math. So are two thrones going to double up?

Once again, there are DIFFERENT apostles for DIFFERENT purposes. Does what God does cause you problems?

There are TWELVE apostles of the Lamb..... These are the one that will rule Israel with Christ in His kingdom.

Rev 21:12-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:12) And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (21:13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
​

So clear that even a child can understand, but not a child of the devil such as yourself.

THE Apostle. The others are not Jesus.

Really? What a genius!

Rev 21 says 12 gates and 12 foundations, but does not list who the tribes are. The list in Rev 7 does not agree with Gen 49.

So?

Rev 11 says 24 thrones:

16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats [thrones - G2362
θρόνος thronos], fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

Twelve apostles on twelve thrones and twenty-four elder on twenty-four thrones, and this is a problem?

Please feel free to explain how these TWO DIFFERENT sets of thrones is somehow a problem for the TWELVE apostles sitting on THEIR TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

These feeble attempts are just so amazingly childish that I surprised that you got through the 1st grade (if you actually did).

 

[Interplanner]

Two points, neither of which you'll understand.

1. Peter is NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God
2. Paul was called in Acts 9.

Some silly comments there. The blood is NOT the covenant. Where to you learn this nonsense, because it's certainly not in the Bible.

I notice that you COMPLETELY ignore God's explanation in Jeremiah (which is quoted EXACTLY in Hebrews).


You certainly are deaf, dumb and blind. I've shown you SEVERAL TIMES which TWELVE apostles, but you don't read it.


Whichever twelve that God decides and it appears that will be the twelve described in Revelation. It's funny that you think that this is a problem for God.


I can see that reading comprehension is not one of your strengths. Try again:

Rev 4:10-11 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:10) The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, (4:11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. ​

The word THRONE is SINGULAR and the four and twenty are NOT sitting on IT!

This is just more of your trying to deny the truth.


Now you've gone completely insane.

• The requirements for Judas' replacement are in Acts 1.
• Matthais was the chosen replacement.
• Barnabas is declared an apostle by SCRIPTURE in Acts 14:14
• You have a problem that you don't agree with SCRIPTURE.
• Where do you get "Who do you think they replaced Barnabas with?"

Ok, now you've made it CLEAR that you are a LIAR.

APOSTLES, BARNABAS AND PAUL!!!! Acts 14:14!!!

"minor reference".... so some scripture is to be ignored if it doesn't fit your fantasy.... got it.


You are certainly in tight with your father, the devil. Just keep repeating the lie.


You forgot Jesus, that would make 14 (but there are more than that too).

Heb 3:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; ​

Once again, there are DIFFERENT apostle for DIFFERENT purposes. Does that God does cause you problems?

There are TWELVE apostles of the Lamb..... These are the one that will rule Israel with Christ in His kingdom.

Rev 21:12-14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:12) And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (21:13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
​

So clear that even a child can understand, but not a child of the devil such as yourself.


Really? What a genius!


So?


Twelve apostles on twelve thrones and twenty-four elder on twenty-four thrones, and this is a problem?

Please feel free to explain how these TWO DIFFERENT sets of thrones is somehow a problem for the TWELVE apostles sitting on THEIR TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

These feeble attempts are just so amazingly childish that I surprised that you got through the 1st grade (if you actually did).

re your last paragraphs: how did you miss the fact that the thrones are not in Israel? The vision is the NHNE after all of this old creation has been dismissed and vaporized. There is no 'earth' there is no Israel--unless you mean all believers. There is no marriage, no gender, etc. It is not exactly a remake of Gen 1.


By the way, Peter was preaching grace because the summary line of the young church as they listened to the apostles was that great grace was upon them all. Grace was the promise of Abraham that would bless the whole world.

Maybe you just need to back up and know what grace is. They (Israel) had failed miserably and they were being offered forgiveness. What's not grace about that?

2P2P is a totally unnatural glomming of ideas onto the NT that don't belong.

 

[Right Divider]

re your last paragraphs: how did you miss the fact that the thrones are not in Israel? The vision is the NHNE after all of this old creation has been dismissed and vaporized. There is no 'earth' there is no Israel--unless you mean all believers. There is no marriage, no gender, etc. It is not exactly a remake of Gen 1.

You need to see a doctor. You're a double-minded person....

New heaven and NEW EARTH.... "no earth".... your usual confusion.

By the way, Peter was preaching grace because the summary line of the young church as they listened to the apostles was that great grace was upon them all. Grace was the promise of Abraham that would bless the whole world.

"great grace" is NOT the same as the dispensation of the grace of God.

Maybe you just need to back up and know what grace is. They (Israel) had failed miserably and they were being offered forgiveness. What's not grace about that?

Not ALL grace is the SAME grace. I know that this is confusing for someone like you.

When Noah "found grace" was that God reconciling Himself to His enemies by the death of His Son?

2P2P is a totally unnatural glomming of ideas onto the NT that don't belong.

Your "idea" of what the new covenant is is the unnatural perversion of God's Word.

 

[tetelestai]

It's funny that you guys keep repeating YOUR invented 2P2P.... really funny.

2P2P describes Dispensationalism.

No one other than Dispensationalists (Darby followers) believe in 2P2P.

Some Darby followers like STP and heir believe in 3P3P.

You're right, 2P2P is invented. It was invented by John Nelson Darby.

And because you are a Darby follower, you adhere to 2P2P.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Some Darby followers like STP and heir believe in 3P3P.

Why don't you? :chuckle:
You can see land, the city, and heaven in your Bible.

 

[tetelestai]

Why don't you? :chuckle:
You can see land, the city, and heaven in your Bible.

Why can't you see that every land promise was already fulfilled?

Abraham looked for a better promise

(Heb 11:16) Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

In the above verse, country and city are not two different things.

There is one kingdom, it's in heaven.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why can't you see that every land promise was already fulfilled?

:chuckle:

Why don't you want God's people on the earth, in the city, and in heaven?

Why do you want a partial kingdom?

 

[tetelestai]

Why don't you want God's people on the earth, in the city, and in heaven?

Because that's not what the Bible says.

You only claim this nonsense because your agenda is to make Darby's false teachings fit the Bible.

Why do you want a partial kingdom?

It's not a partial kingdom, it's THE kingdom.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Because that's not what the Bible says.

:chuckle:

It's in your Bible.
Why don't you want the 2nd Adam to subdue all things on the earth, and have dominion?

 

[tetelestai]

:chuckle:

It's in your Bible.
Why don't you want the 2nd Adam to subdue all things on the earth, and have dominion?

Christ Jesus has dominion of the earth right now.

(Eph 1:22) And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Before Paul said what he did in verse 22, he also said:

(Eph 1:21) not only in the present age but also in the one to come....

The "age to come" began in 70AD.

Which means, all things are under His feet, and that He is the head over everything right now.

Why do you deny these things Paul said, and make it a future event that hasn't happened yet?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Christ Jesus has dominion of the earth right now.

Why hasn't it been subdued?

 

[Interplanner]

Why hasn't it been subdued?

Hebrews doesn't tell us. Nor does Ps 2 tell us why he is made Lord and sits, yet 'why do the nations rage...?' as prayed in Acts 4. IT JUST IS. We get to 'taste' the powers of the coming age (Heb 6) but not consume. Keeps us hungry...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hebrews doesn't tell us. Nor does Ps 2 tell us why he is made Lord and sits, yet 'why do the nations rage...?' as prayed in Acts 4. IT JUST IS. We get to 'taste' the powers of the coming age (Heb 6) but not consume. Keeps us hungry...

Why doesn't Tet want the earth to ever be subdued and ruled righteously?
Satan doesn't either.

 

[Right Divider]

2P2P describes Dispensationalism.

No one other than Dispensationalists (Darby followers) believe in 2P2P.

Some Darby followers like STP and heir believe in 3P3P.

You're right, 2P2P is invented. It was invented by John Nelson Darby.

And because you are a Darby follower, you adhere to 2P2P.

You continue to show you stupidity at every opportunity.

God has 2 plans and ONE people: believers.

God chose Israel for His plans on earth, this does NOT exclude believing gentiles. They simply have different roles in the kingdom.
God chose believers regardless of race, sex, etc. for His plans for the heavenly realm and He calls this the body of Christ.
One day God joins them both in Christ (Eph 1:10, you probably don't like that because it says "dispensation").

Your ignorance of these things is your own problem.