ECT The Nation of Israel was not at the last supper

[Interplanner]

Hi and my answer is my defense , that the LAW was still in effect , even UNTIL Paul's time and that did not understand what they were reading and still do not understand what the OT means !!

Verse 16 explains how Jews are saved today or will you explain verse 16 ??

dan p

All people are justified from their sins by faith in what Christ did.

Perhaps you are think 'saved' here means to be enlightened from the darkening of the veil. I understand why you would. The only thing Paul says is that it is in Christ, so those people need to dwell on what is true in Christ rather than in Judaism. What took place in Christ will free them.

 

[DAN P]

All people are justified from their sins by faith in what Christ did.

Perhaps you are think 'saved' here means to be enlightened from the darkening of the veil. I understand why you would. The only thing Paul says is that it is in Christ, so those people need to dwell on what is true in Christ rather than in Judaism. What took place in Christ will free them.

Hi and any one who reads Heb 11 will see how those under the Law were saved !!

As you should know the Greek word saved , save and salvation has many meanings !!

So , explain how a Jew can be saved and be BAPTIZO / PLACED into the B O C as 2 Cor 3:16 is written ??

Is the QUESTION to hard for you an EX-dispensationalist like you ??

Let"s see , don't know how Peter was saved , by Faith or by Law !!

Can not explain how you were saved ??

Can not explain how Paul was saved ??

If you do not answer , you must had a poor teacher !!

dan p

 

[12jtartar]

Interplanner,
I guess that I don't understand what you are talking about! All of the people at the Last Supper were Jews, The Apostles!!! even Jesus was called an Apostle, Hebrews 3:1.
A prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27, told about the time that Jesus, the Messiah, Christ would arrive, and about Jesus being sacrificed at the middle of the last week of years. Then the prophecy would extend for another 3 1/2 years, during which time only Jews could become part of The Christian Congregation. In 37 CE. Cornelius a Roman Centurian became the first gentile to become part of the Christian Congregation. This group was Called Christians at Antioch, Acts 11:26.
God had told Jeremiah to write a prophecy, telling the Jews, His chosen people that He would start another Covenant, that would not be like the Mosaic Law Covenant, that instead of being written on stones it would be written on hearts, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2Corinthians 3:3.
That New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, at the Last Supper, on the night before Jesus died, Luke 22:14-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26. This Covenant superseded the Mosaic Law Covenant, and was a much better Covenant, because it was based on the blood of Jesus instead of the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 9:11-26.
Everyone who was under the Mosaic Covenant was under a curse, because no one could obey it perfectly, and if you broke the law in one thing, you broke the entire Law, James 2:10, Galatians 3:10-14, Acts 15:7-11, John 7:19. If you read Hebrews 8:6-13 you will see why this New Covenant was much better that the Mosaic Law Covenant.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Interplanner,
I guess that I don't understand what you are talking about!

You're in good company. :e4e:

 

[Interplanner]

Interplanner,
I guess that I don't understand what you are talking about! All of the people at the Last Supper were Jews, The Apostles!!! even Jesus was called an Apostle, Hebrews 3:1.
A prophecy at Daniel 9:24-27, told about the time that Jesus, the Messiah, Christ would arrive, and about Jesus being sacrificed at the middle of the last week of years. Then the prophecy would extend for another 3 1/2 years, during which time only Jews could become part of The Christian Congregation. In 37 CE. Cornelius a Roman Centurian became the first gentile to become part of the Christian Congregation. This group was Called Christians at Antioch, Acts 11:26.
God had told Jeremiah to write a prophecy, telling the Jews, His chosen people that He would start another Covenant, that would not be like the Mosaic Law Covenant, that instead of being written on stones it would be written on hearts, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2Corinthians 3:3.
That New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, at the Last Supper, on the night before Jesus died, Luke 22:14-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26. This Covenant superseded the Mosaic Law Covenant, and was a much better Covenant, because it was based on the blood of Jesus instead of the blood of goats and bulls, Hebrews 9:11-26.
Everyone who was under the Mosaic Covenant was under a curse, because no one could obey it perfectly, and if you broke the law in one thing, you broke the entire Law, James 2:10, Galatians 3:10-14, Acts 15:7-11, John 7:19. If you read Hebrews 8:6-13 you will see why this New Covenant was much better that the Mosaic Law Covenant.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We have a lot to agree on. I'm saying many of those same things. It was for all nations. It was not for Israel only, that's why it was not just Israel present.

D'ism is egregious lately here on TOL, dangerously dividing the blood from the body of Christ. They dangerously divide the sacrifice of Christ into bits and pieces for different races, bulwarking the very racism the NT detonates. AND THEY DON'T KNOW IT.

Maybe some day they will say the little toe of Christ was sacrificed for New Zealand, because of the correct physical proportions! They are saying things just that insipid already.

They already say there is nothing in Heb 8-10 for Gentiles, so we're stuck, you and me (they might be "Jews") Oh I forgot that would make them spiritual Jews and that's a dirty use of the word spiritual they don't accept. But they say it anyway. The sacrifice of Christ, and the 2nd coming? Not for Gentiles. Christ dealing with sin? Not for the Gentiles. Dang, it was such a good gospel while it lasted!

 

[Interplanner]

Right.
IP would have folks believe that anything in the OT that is not repeated verbatim in the NT is just not needed.
That's just plain stupidity.

It is never mentioned when speaking of the promises to Israel, to David, about the goal and destiny of Israel, about its fulfilled hope, etc. You guys are sunk in a lie. Even when it would save Paul's neck to say so, like Acts 26.

The pattern of how the NT uses the OT must be followed, not D'ism and its 19th century thoughts. And not its multi-racism.

I read somewhere lately that Tambora called this a mystery age that was not foreseen. No, there are mysteries, but the incoming of the Gentiles was never a mystery and was totally foreseen. The MANNER or CHANNEL--ahhh, now that was a mystery to Judaism in a God-ordained blindness that they must seek out God about, then and now.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is never mentioned when speaking of the promises to Israel, to David, about the goal and destiny of Israel, about its fulfilled hope, etc. You guys are sunk in a lie. Even when it would save Paul's neck to say so, like Acts 26.

The pattern of how the NT uses the OT must be followed, not D'ism and its 19th century thoughts. And not its multi-racism.

I read somewhere lately that Tambora called this a mystery age that was not foreseen. No, there are mysteries, but the incoming of the Gentiles was never a mystery and was totally foreseen. The MANNER or CHANNEL--ahhh, now that was a mystery to Judaism in a God-ordained blindness that they must seek out God about, then and now.

Totally made up. What's wrong with you?

 

[Interplanner]

To Tam,
When a doctrine could have been mentioned over and over and is not, and when there are 2500 allusions or quotes and it is not... It's time to play duck. If it quacks, walks, swims, flaps like a duck, then it's a duck.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

To Tam,
When a doctrine could have been mentioned over and over and is not, and when there are 2500 allusions or quotes and it is not... It's time to play duck. If it quacks, walks, swims, flaps like a duck, then it's a duck.

Heb 8:8 (KJV)

 

[Tambora]

To Tam,
When a doctrine could have been mentioned over and over and is not, and when there are 2500 allusions or quotes and it is not... It's time to play duck. If it quacks, walks, swims, flaps like a duck, then it's a duck.

What a goofy thing to say.
Scripture does not have to be repeated even once for it to be absolutely 100% true.

 

[Tambora]

Heb 8:8 (KJV)

IP cannot stand that scripture gives him the answer point blank.
He is so disappointed that GOD did not spiritualize it away to mean anything besides the house of Judah and the house of Israel.
Replacement theology cannot survive when scripture is taken as written, and thus they are forced to spiritualize what the word of GOD has not.

 

[Interplanner]

IP cannot stand that scripture gives him the answer point blank.
He is so disappointed that GOD did not spiritualize it away to mean anything besides the house of Judah and the house of Israel.
Replacement theology cannot survive when scripture is taken as written, and thus they are forced to spiritualize what the word of GOD has not.

He did. He explained it all in the following chapters which you never quote. In fact, STP says 9:15 does not mean what it says. Maybe you do too.

It was meant to be about salvation, and in 1st century Judea it MIGHT have saved Israel (the land) but with Dan 9 in the background, I don't see how.

Therefore everything shifts to the problem of erasing sin and victory over death, which I hope you have in Christ, like I do, because I love the Bible so much through that, I can't sleep some nights.

Right as Israel the land is about to be pulverized, you guys think there was an offer of a restored land--and I mean in the present tense for right then. It is a ridiculous idea. and it is never mentioned going forward.

And unification can be accomplished without land! There is no logical or legal or necessary connection. In christ the two groups have peace, but I see no where in the NT where this is a concern to any one in the telling of the story of Christ.

 

[Interplanner]

You are not dealing with the right RT problem. It is not the current one. the real problem is the one in Gal 3:17; when you get it right, you won't be concerned about the modern one.

 

[Tambora]

When you replace "the house of Judah and the house of Israel" to something else, you are guilty of replacing scripture itself with your agenda of replacement theology, which is a false theology.

Point blank:

Hebrews 8 KJV
(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:


Still the same.
Didn't change.


Jeremiah 31 KJV
(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:




IP denies it, and wants to lead others to deny it with his multiple threads arguing against scripture and for replacement theology.
He has become obsessed with changing GOD's word and promises into the lies of replacement theology.

 

[Interplanner]

There is no concern about this in the background of the NT. It is never mentioned. Instead the land is going to be scorched.

You do everything you accuse--though the accusations are false anyway. You never deal with 9:15 and you never deal with Gal 3:17.

Show me some place in a gospel narrative where there is excitement that the two houses are about to reunified.

They can do that in Christ, which you know nothing about.

 

[Nang]

Suggested reading:

"The Goldsworthy Trilogy" by Graeme Goldsworthy.

A study of the Old Testament to arrive at proper hermeneutics of the New Testament, that examines the biblical subjects of:

Gospel & Kingdom
Gospel & Wisdom
Gospel in Revelation

 

[Interplanner]

Do you think you have properly handled 9:15? Can you show me where the reconciliation matters one iota in that? Do you think there is some other verse that is central?

Why do you keep blasting about your RT but never deal with the one in Gal 3:17?

More and more, all I find about D'ism is that they have about 5 responses, like a piece of bad software, and nothing else to say.

 

[Danoh]

Do you think you have properly handled 9:15? Can you show me where the reconciliation matters one iota in that? Do you think there is some other verse that is central?

Why do you keep blasting about your RT but never deal with the one in Gal 3:17?

More and more, all I find about D'ism is that they have about 5 responses, like a piece of bad software, and nothing else to say.

So repeatedly asserts the broken record ever playing "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes," by Inter and the Planners.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:8

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

In fact, STP says 9:15 does not mean what it says.

It means EXACTLY what it says.
When were you EVER under the first covenant? Asked this 397 times now. No answer.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

More and more, all I find about D'ism is that they have about 5 responses, like a piece of bad software, and nothing else to say.

'It is written' is always a good response.