ECT The Nation of Israel was not at the last supper

[SaulToPaul 2]

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.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

Everyone at the Last Supper was an Israelite to Whom God had made many Promises -- including the New Covenant.

Yours is fake "truth".

But it was a departure from what Judaism thought because it was about the redemption of all those who believe, and it has nothing to do with the race or nation of Israel.

"Israel" is restored, but not the Israel as a race or nation. Those lines are about the mission of the Gospel, and the NT is clear about that, whereas the D'ist position is from silence and from supposed OT 'momentum.'

D'ism is a historical mistake because it is not dialed in to what happened in the IT and NT periods historically. Since those things are 'sins' to know about, it will miss what Dan 9 means and what actually changes when the NT dawns, as found in lines like Jn 4:23-24.

 

[Danoh]

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 crystal clear in Matthew 10, that Jesus is referring to a coming at some point after things proceed into the events described in Acts.

And the events described in Acts take place not only after "His last week in Jerusalem" prior to His DBR, but after.

Obviously, your study approach is skewed.

As clearly as your obviously having read the schematic into Mtt. 10 that you are so clearly erroneously asserting.

As for the rest of your post, you are ever as guilty of ignorantly presuming STP and his pals are up to no good, going in, as they are of presuming that of you.

This too is just one more instance of each side's reading into the other's intention.

Personally, I don't view you as being up to no good in your interpretations, any more than I view them as such.

You are merely incompetent at your chosen task (your purported right understanding of the Scripture).

As incompetent as you both continue to prove yourselves to be at reading anyone's actual intent who does not agree with you on one point or another.

Typical between many a Believer in their "demon under every bush, but our own..." nonsense, that far too many project into their differences with another's understanding, on all sides of the many sided fence that is now "Christianity."

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Right Divider]

But it was a departure from what Judaism thought because it was about the redemption of all those who believe, and it has nothing to do with the race or nation of Israel.

God never limited salvation to just Israel. That does NOT mean that God did NOT make certain promises TO ISRAEL.

You can blather on all day long from your commentaries and it will NOT change that one little tiny bit.

"Israel" is restored, but not the Israel as a race or nation. Those lines are about the mission of the Gospel, and the NT is clear about that, whereas the D'ist position is from silence and from supposed OT 'momentum.'

More Commetarian nonsense.

D'ism is a historical mistake because it is not dialed in to what happened in the IT and NT periods historically. Since those things are 'sins' to know about, it will miss what Dan 9 means and what actually changes when the NT dawns, as found in lines like Jn 4:23-24.

Silly vain babbling.

Christ is destined for a throne in Jerusalem from which He will rule the nation of Israel and the rest of the world, per scripture.

Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​

 

[Nang]

Christ is destined for a throne in Jerusalem from which He will rule the nation of Israel and the rest of the world, per scripture.

Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​

Revelatioon 3:21 does not mention Jerusalem.

In fact, these words were spoken by Christ sitting on His heavenly throne. Revelation 4:2

 

[Right Divider]

Revelatioon 3:21 does not mention Jerusalem.

Not EVERY mention of His throne needs to EXPLICITLY mention its LOCATION.

Your logic is fallacious so it's no wonder that you come to the wrong conclusions.

In fact, these words were spoken by Christ sitting on His heavenly throne. Revelation 4:2

Revelation 3:21 says that Christ is currently sitting with His Father on His Father's throne. It also mentions ANOTHER throne that is Christ's.

Believe it instead of trying to change it.

When a person says MY throne and HIS throne, that is TWO thrones.

 

[Nang]

Not EVERY mention of His throne needs to EXPLICITLY mention its LOCATION.

The close context of the two verses from Revelation reveals the throne is in heaven.

You have NO authority to change the word of God and try to insert or imply earthly Jerusalem into this portion of Holy Scripture.

Very serious sin . . .

Revelation 3:21 says that Christ is currently sitting with His Father on His Father's throne. It also mentions ANOTHER throne that is Christ's.

Believe it instead of trying to change it.

When a person says MY throne and HIS throne, that is TWO thrones.

You are forcing your wrong views upon the Holy Word of God. :nono:

 

[Right Divider]

The close context of the two verses from Revelation reveals the throne is in heaven.

You have NO authority to change the word of God and try to insert or imply earthly Jerusalem into this portion of Holy Scripture.

Very serious sin . . .

My understanding is correct and I have NO fear of your FALSE allegations of sin.

You are forcing your wrong views upon the Holy Word of God. :nono:

So according to you, MINE and HIS are the same thing. :kookoo:

 

[Nang]

My understanding is correct and I have NO fear of your FALSE allegations of sin.


So according to you, MINE and HIS are the same thing. :kookoo:

Your errors not surprisingly lead you into Trinitarian error.

There is only one Godly Authority and Rule. It is equally attributed to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When Jesus speaks of "Mine" and "His," He is declaring His deity and Godly authority over all things in heaven and earth.

 

[jamie]

The close context of the two verses from Revelation reveals the throne is in heaven.

Heaven is not a physical location, it's a spiritual dimension.

Paul says the Father in heaven is above all, and through all, and in you all.

This is where his work is.

 

[Right Divider]

Your errors not surprisingly lead you into Trinitarian error.

There is only one Godly Authority and Rule. It is equally attributed to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When Jesus speaks of "Mine" and "His," He is declaring His deity and Godly authority over all things in heaven and earth.

:rotfl:

This coming from someone that thinks "THEIR FATHERS" means Adam. :kookoo:

 

[Interplanner]

So according to you, MINE and HIS are the same thing. that would be the case in the Trinity, yes. In case you wondered, there is no 2P2P in the Trinity, lol.

Was the Nation of Israel present/represented at the last supper which celebrated the new covenant for all mankind who believe?

 

[Right Divider]

So according to you, MINE and HIS are the same thing. that would be the case in the Trinity, yes. In case you wondered, there is no 2P2P in the Trinity, lol.

Was the Nation of Israel present/represented at the last supper which celebrated the new covenant for all mankind who believe?

:kookoo:

 

[Interplanner]

:kookoo:

No, it is exactly where Tambora's position goes to. They must have been there because it was inaugurated and celebrated.

Find me any reference to the land of Israel for then or now in Heb 9 and 10. Your views are a crock that cannot pass that test. You have no idea what the new covenant is about or what the NT is saying.

I am not aware of any place where you have acknowledged that Christ celebrated the new covenant in his blood in the last supper, which puts you in the category of Hugh Ross on normal days of creation and on the violent waters of the flood.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Jesus is the King of Israel and king of none other.

The Israel of the middle east is born of the flesh, not of the Spirit

They of the middle east are fakes who deny Christ, and love the Christian worlds money and guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL3SZ7KHhDs

LA

 

[Interplanner]

But I'm glad it is there as a constitutional government instead of a Shari'a caliphate.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it is exactly where Tambora's position goes to. They must have been there because it was inaugurated and celebrated.

Find me any reference to the land of Israel for then or now in Heb 9 and 10. Your views are a crock that cannot pass that test. You have no idea what the new covenant is about or what the NT is saying.

I am not aware of any place where you have acknowledged that Christ celebrated the new covenant in his blood in the last supper, which puts you in the category of Hugh Ross on normal days of creation and on the violent waters of the flood.

For the MILLIONTH time, the land promise was already WELL understood and did NOT need to be REPEATED in EVERY passage in scripture.

Your stupid cancellationist premise leaves you unable to understand anything.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

For the MILLIONTH time, the land promise was already WELL understood and did NOT need to be REPEATED in EVERY passage in scripture.

Your stupid cancellationist premise leaves you unable to understand anything.

He refuses to allow OT Israel to inherit the land, as they were promised.
He refuses to allow NT Israel to inherit the City, as they were promised.
He refuses to allow the Body to inherit the heavens, as they were promised.

Satan does not want the entire creation to be inhabited by God's people either. IP is in good company.

 

[Nang]

He refuses to allow OT Israel to inherit the land, as they were promised.
He refuses to allow NT Israel to inherit the City, as they were promised.
He refuses to allow the Body to inherit the heavens, as they were promised.

Satan does not want the entire creation to be inhabited by God's people either. IP is in good company.

None of the MADs have ever given answer to the question as to how national Israel will inherit the land or what will be left of the city of Jerusalem, when this entire world will be destroyed with fire at the Lord's return. II Peter 3:10-12

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

None of the MADs have ever given answer to the question as to how national Israel will inherit the land or what will be left of the city of Jerusalem, when this entire world will be destroyed with fire at the Lord's return. II Peter 3:10-12

What's there to answer?