Nang
TOL Subscriber
Really?
God promises either death or life.
Old Covenant condemns.
New Covenant saves.
There is nothing more in the Bible that can add to or refute these two promises of God that will determine the fate of all men.
ECT The Nation of Israel was not at the last supper
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Really?
God promises either death or life.
Old Covenant condemns.
New Covenant saves.
There is nothing more in the Bible that can add to or refute these two promises of God that will determine the fate of all men.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Has anyone ever taught you that unsubstantiated denial is not substantive argument?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The Holy Bible tells us who both are made with. Just believe it even when it disagrees with your SOF.
Right Divider
Body part
False dilemma!
You claim that EVERYTHING is based on THOSE TWO covenants. You are WRONG and you will ALWAYS be wrong as long as you make that FALSE claim.
Right Divider
Body part
That is HILARIOUS.
Has anyone ever taught you that unsubstantiated claims are unsubstantiated claims?
Right Divider
Body part
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The creeds and SOF sound really pious and educated, masterminded by the enemy.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What is the basis of the Gospel, but God's two Covenant promises?
If you cannot see this, you are not proclaiming the Gospel message. You are just breathing out hot air and wasting your life.
Right Divider
Body part
Perhaps we can get a real writer and grammar scholar to help us draft a really sweet SOF. :think:
Right Divider
Body part
The gospel of the grace of God is based on Christ's death, burial and resurrection. It's simple, clear and scriptural, but you reject it
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The Gospel foundation is Divine Promise, and Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection is the perfect and saving fulfillment of that Promise.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
See, this sounds really pious but it's a vague generalization that doesn't really mean anything when you try to analyze it.
Right Divider
Body part
You love your Story. That is Probably why you feel the Need to use such Capitalization.
Yours is fake "truth".
Right Divider
Body part
Everyone at the Last Supper was an Israelite to Whom God had made many Promises -- including the New Covenant.
Yours is fake "truth".
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is easier for you to deny, than to examine, analyze, and be blessed, I see.
Lazy . . .
Right Divider
Body part
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It's a made up generalization. Why not just say what scripture says?
Let's look at it another way...
The Gospel foundation is NOT Divine Promise, and Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection is NOT the perfect and saving fulfillment of that Promise.
Kind of brings out your obvious point.
You and I may not agree on the specifics, here and there, nang, but your above was well stated, as is.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
Interplanner
Well-known member
I didn't realize that Mt 10:23 was the latest in 'wobbly' particular favorite verses of D'ism that 'solve' everything. But it is.
it is for one instance about the 70. The 70 did not finish getting to all of Israel, and the 'coming' of the Son of Man took place--his widest and most public appearance and proclamations, like the last week in Jerusalem.
But the whole method of D'ism is exposed by STP's childish and isolated quote. That's how D'ism 'gets someplace'. So I guess now there are about 4 verses on which the stack of cards stands--a couple lines from Rom 11, Heb 8, Mt 23 and now Mt 10:23.
What I was referring to before being so rudely bludgeoned by STP's hermeneutics which never sit still and listen to what is actually being said, is that the disciples would 'do greater things than these' Jn 14 or 15. That they would and did reach the ends of the earth. That they turned the world upside down, Acts 22.
D'ism has once again proven that it has nothing worth saying, and it puts out one contradiction after another, because it is very much like Hugh Ross doing the plain meaning--unless the plain meaning conflicts with his underlying and apparently unconscious assumptions.
The reality question that remains for D'ists is 'when they do a communion remembrance, do they think the nation of Israel is present each time--like it was at the original?'
The grace of God in the Gospel is what was being promised all along. Abraham saw Christ's day. The scriptures preached the Gospel to Abraham in advance. But they have to be understood in Christ.
it is for one instance about the 70. The 70 did not finish getting to all of Israel, and the 'coming' of the Son of Man took place--his widest and most public appearance and proclamations, like the last week in Jerusalem.
But the whole method of D'ism is exposed by STP's childish and isolated quote. That's how D'ism 'gets someplace'. So I guess now there are about 4 verses on which the stack of cards stands--a couple lines from Rom 11, Heb 8, Mt 23 and now Mt 10:23.
What I was referring to before being so rudely bludgeoned by STP's hermeneutics which never sit still and listen to what is actually being said, is that the disciples would 'do greater things than these' Jn 14 or 15. That they would and did reach the ends of the earth. That they turned the world upside down, Acts 22.
D'ism has once again proven that it has nothing worth saying, and it puts out one contradiction after another, because it is very much like Hugh Ross doing the plain meaning--unless the plain meaning conflicts with his underlying and apparently unconscious assumptions.
The reality question that remains for D'ists is 'when they do a communion remembrance, do they think the nation of Israel is present each time--like it was at the original?'
The grace of God in the Gospel is what was being promised all along. Abraham saw Christ's day. The scriptures preached the Gospel to Abraham in advance. But they have to be understood in Christ.
- Status