Right Divider
Body part
No, I'm just reading the text and believing it.
:french:
Poor confused IP.
ECT What's New (Covenant)?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
No.
You are each believing each your understanding of it.
It just so happens that one of the two understandings is sound, or matches the passage's intended meaning.
And it does because it is based on much more than one Greek word.
It is based on the Berean test.
But you are each believing your understanding.
One of which happens to be the sound one...
Acts 17:11, 12.
You have yet to show you know who the two groups are that MADe are actually referring to.
Acts 17: 11, 12.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Then why do the literalists not see what the NT means by spirituality? It means maturity. It says to be under the law is to be under a child trainer, to operate on the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.'
I'd say I'm the one who knows that spiritual is not the opposite of literal, but you don't know that the opposite of spiritual is infantile, juvenile.
"'Here am I; I have come to do your will.' He sets aside the first to establish the second." Obviously the will was the Gospel of Christ, not something Israel will do.
No, you "argue" that literal=not spiritual-on record.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That means 'when the D'ist wanders around in OT prophecy and does not shape things in Christ as the NT does 1000x, then the literalism of the D'ist has become carnal, a veiled viewing of the OT. The extremists of the 1st century did the same thing and believed they would be able to vanquish Rome.
The graphics here at TOL are a jumble.
No, you "argue" that literal=not spiritual,="carnal,"on record, as "the days of literalism are over," and thus Genesis 1:1 KJV is not "spiritual," it is "carnal,"
and the cross of Christ is not "spiritual," ="carnal".............
Demon-on record...
The graphics here at TOL are a jumble.[/QUOTE]
Interplanner
Well-known member
[/QUOTE]
You are an ignorant and inattentive know-it-all.
What I have on record is countless examples of the NT not going in the most literal direction it could because it was saying a text was about Christ. "In your Seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed" as we are told is about Christ. But the literal sense would have been the race.
In Heb 10 you have 'I have come to do your will.' Nothing literally about the previous covenant, or any covenant. But the writer used it to explain that the new covenant was what Christ did, and it is done, and it sets aside the previous, and it is called/identified as the new covenant. So the only thing you can do with your system is violate the NT, which you do.
Your comments about Gen 1 and the cross are too stupid and far from this 'what's new (covenant') topic. I have no mystical view of the oak and caste iron cross of Christ at Golgotha. But it is the atonement for our sins, isn't it?
'In the beginning' implies that there were things already there, because earth/human history began and is not eternal. The Hebrew expressions that follow in v2 are also properly rendered that the earth already was in that murky condition. That is the ordinary meaning of the text. I have also shown that the first line is not action in the account, but a title, of which there are 10-15 examples in Genesis. That's why 'already formless and void' is not out of place.
Took you how long, on the net, to GOOG/Bing, that cliche, punk?
Translation: Psycho babble, "too stupid" Forest Interloper, humanism,speculation,"Oprah-ism, as you "argue" that literal=not spiritual,="carnal,"on record, as "the days of literalism are over," and thus Genesis 1:1 KJV is not "spiritual," it is "carnal," and the cross of Christ is not "spiritual," ="carnal".............
Demon-on record...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Oh, the irony...
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are trying to say you are correct without any demonstration that you are correct. Instead your 'power' resides in your ability to ridicule. How logical is that? "I'm correct because I can write 3 lines about how you are ridiculous."
I call something ridiculous AFTER demonstration, not before. Like my previous post this morning that the sentence structure of Gal 2:8 shows you what 2:7 is saying. There are neither two Gods nor two Gospels.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
What you have to figure out STP is why your pet cartoon system has your Israel on earth while the letter to the on earth Hebrews in 12:22 has the fellowship not on earth, like the cloud, above, like Gal 4. And no view that it ever would be on earth because this earth will be shaken and destroyed.
Maybe it's not the "Hebrews" as you know it, as in so many places in the NT. But you'd rather send another ironic cartoon than actually deal with that or with 'those who call themselves Jews but are not.' Rev 2, 3.
There is no theological reason, now that we have Rom 2, 3, why there needs to be a separate reign of Israel under Christ on this earth as a conclusion to the story of justice and judgement of the Bible. That's why there is none in 2 Peter 3.
Maybe it's not the "Hebrews" as you know it, as in so many places in the NT. But you'd rather send another ironic cartoon than actually deal with that or with 'those who call themselves Jews but are not.' Rev 2, 3.
There is no theological reason, now that we have Rom 2, 3, why there needs to be a separate reign of Israel under Christ on this earth as a conclusion to the story of justice and judgement of the Bible. That's why there is none in 2 Peter 3.
Right Divider
Body part
You're quite the double-talker.... one time you're screaming NHNE and the next you're "no earth".
Make up your mind!
Again, Corky....No, no, no...You are being a bad clown, as you take logic way too literally, and the words "God," and "Gospel," and Galatia is merely an allegory.
Remember, Corky: Let's focus on "The Mission."
How did I do?
Those are just 2 of my many "super powers," Corky, as I focus, like a laser beam, on:
"The Mission."
Interplanner
Well-known member
There's a new one. Duh. See Heb 12 about the removing of what was created. That covers the land of Israel, Judaism and this earth all in one swoop.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Again, Corky....No, no, no...You are being a bad clown, as you take logic way too literally, and the words "God," and "Gospel," and Galatia is merely an allegory.
Remember, Corky: Let's focus on "The Mission."
How did I do?
Communication lesson for boy Johnny:
the ball is red; it is not blue.
This communicates objective facts and distinctions.
Communication by boy John:
You IP are an idiot for not liking blue balls; a clown; a circus manager.
And, since you have trouble with literal, why do people imagine some other enthronement when David said he saw Christ enthroned in the Resurrection in Acts 2:30?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Why do you say that's in the Resurrection?
We see prophets, judges, and kings being raised up in the OT.
Deuteronomy 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Judges 2:16 Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
Judges 2:16 Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.