The physical descendants of the acient nation of Israel.

[Biblewriter]

Stick to the discussion Doug, not cartoons of it.

I do not find the type of doctrine BW purports in the NT itself. I find it in "experts" commenting on the OT and saying that's where we "prove" the Bible. Which is not found in 9 except by very strained explanation and some dismissals. (BW does not do the OT texts there in 9B at all, that I know of.)

If you had actually bothered to read what I posted, instead of simply reacting emotionally to it, you would know that I indeed dealt with them at length.

 

[Interplanner]

If you can't put it in a line or two, do you really know it?

Can you paste your best paragraph here? Giving you a whopping 100% more time on it! How long has this gone on BW? Every day I summarize what the material says in a couple lines. But you can't summarize what you are trying to say about 9B for months now?

 

[ebedmelech]

And this is the reason that those who deny the plainly stated scriptures annot ever learn. They are so certain that their interpretations of the meanings of some scriptures are correct, that they cannot even be bothered with carefully studying the actual statements of the many more scriptures that clearly show that these interpretations are incorrect.

Look in the mirror brother. Don't EVEN go there! You ought the "dispensation farm" for the most part Biblewriter, and you've been it it alot of years...so don't act like PRIDE isn't a factor.

Paul withstood Peter to the face...that's what I'm doing with you and your view...only it's "virtual".

 

[Biblewriter]

Look in the mirror brother. Don't EVEN go there! You ought the "dispensation farm" for the most part Biblewriter, and you've been it it alot of years...so don't act like PRIDE isn't a factor.

Paul withstood Peter to the face...that's what I'm doing with you and your view...only it's "virtual".

And that is what I am doing with you.

The difference between us is that you quote scriptures that you claim mean something different from what they actually say, while I quote scriptures that actually say the very opposite of your interpretations.

And that is why I say that your position is one of unbelief. You are attributing greater authority to your interpretations of the meanings of some scriptures than to the actual statements of many other scriptures.

 

[Interplanner]

Do you think you don't BW? I don't recognize a lot of things when I read the NT compared to yours. You seriously derail Rom 9, so you might fix that. You think it is about "dispensational theology issues" when it is about explaining why Jews don't believe automatically. You look for "unfinished business that will be resolved in the future" when its own resolution is present tense.

 

[Douggg]

Stick to the discussion Doug, not cartoons of it.

I do not find the type of doctrine BW purports in the NT itself. I find it in "experts" commenting on the OT and saying that's where we "prove" the Bible. Which is not found in 9 except by very strained explanation and some dismissals. (BW does not do the OT texts there in 9B at all, that I know of.)

People cannot read your mind, Inter.


See this, Petey? Miss Crabtree is teaching us how to write effective communications where others can understand the points we are trying to make. She says people cannot read our minds, and we have to spell everything out when we communicate - especially when engaged in bible discussions.

 

[Interplanner]

Apparently you can, because you can send cartoons about it.

1, BW = Biblewriter, a nationally published futurist and dispensationalist.

I'll go real, real slow: does that help?

 

[ebedmelech]

And that is what I am doing with you.

The difference between us is that you quote scriptures that you claim mean something different from what they actually say, while I quote scriptures that actually say the very opposite of your interpretations.

Absolutely not! The difference is I don't approach scripture imposing what I think on it. I allow the scripture to speak to me.

Typical of this of late between us...is what Romans 9 is saying. You go the total opposite of what Paul communicates. No need to do it again though. The threads exist and are there for members to see.

And that is why I say that your position is one of unbelief. You are attributing greater authority to your interpretations of the meanings of some scriptures than to the actual statements of many other scriptures.

You can categorize me any way you wish...but at the end of the day WHO are you? Do you sit on the right hamd of God? Obviously not...therefore what you think is of NO consequence to me Biblewriter.

I "attribute" to scripture what I believe the Holy Spirit revealed to the writer to me, not what "dispensational theology" teaches. I test all things and hold fast to what I believe to be the truth of scripture.

It is the Lord Jesus I serve, it is His word I read...and He will judge me on how I believed His word...so what you TRY to attribute to me is "null and void".

You walk your way...and I'll walk mine. Let the Lord do the rest.

 

[Douggg]

Apparently you can, because you can send cartoons about it.

1, BW = Biblewriter, a nationally published futurist and dispensationalist.

I'll go real, real slow: does that help?

Miss Crabtree says that's not the problem. It is that you don't communicate clearly because you don't copy and paste the bible passage and highlight the text in bold or some color - and then explain why that particular text supports your position, in your posts.

Miss Crabtree says you are going to have to go to summer school if you keep it up.

 

[Interplanner]

How about you read each chapter mentioned 10x? Just read them for their own sake and problems and hopes and emotions and sense and dreams? You are "operating" from a platform of futurism without out knowing it.

 

[Old Timer]

Said the futurist..

 

[Biblewriter]

Do you think you don't BW? I don't recognize a lot of things when I read the NT compared to yours. You seriously derail Rom 9, so you might fix that. You think it is about "dispensational theology issues" when it is about explaining why Jews don't believe automatically. You look for "unfinished business that will be resolved in the future" when its own resolution is present tense.

You can continue to claim that is what about. But that will not make that what it is about.

 

[riverrat]

You can continue to claim that is what about. But that will not make that what it is about.

Remember that planner is our leader. We must follow his lead and learn to integrate scripture to understand it.

 

[Interplanner]

1, the word has not failed. There are many exceptions to the descendants all through history. Why don't more of them believe? (cp 3:1,2).
2, it is about what is fulfilled in his present time: all the believers who have come from the nations are part of the people, and loved one and sons of the living God. where is the future in that? Where is the futurism?

that is Rom 9A, B. Show otherwise.

 

[Biblewriter]

1, the word has not failed. There are many exceptions to the descendants all through history. Why don't more of them believe? (cp 3:1,2).
2, it is about what is fulfilled in his present time: all the believers who have come from the nations are part of the people, and loved one and sons of the living God. where is the future in that? Where is the futurism?

that is Rom 9A, B. Show otherwise.

I have already clearly shown otherwise, and you have refused to even admit that I have done it.

 

[Interplanner]

Then show that #2 is wrong! You are just impossible, BW. Just say why it is wrong in a couple lines. Don't just say "It can't possibly even imply that" Say why those exact OT passages cannot mean what Paul says they mean in brief lines before and after. Is that really so wrong? So impossible? So difficult? So humiliating? What is your problem?

I am only asking you to correlate the quotes with Paul's explanations. I know that is hard ground for you because you need 100s of pages of futurism. But I won't take it. It has to be an approximate paraphrase of what Paul already said they mean. And you know that.

#1 is "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people' and Paul says it is about "us" not only from the Jews but from the nations. Go:

 

[Douggg]

Don't just say "It can't possibly even imply that" Say why those exact OT passages cannot mean what Paul says they mean in brief lines before and after.

Ahah! my generic complaint in so many of these posts, exactly.

 

[Interplanner]

So...do #1 Doug. Your cartoons are worthless otherwise.

 

[Douggg]

So...do #1 Doug.

Because, inter, the times of the gentiles have not been fulfilled.

 

[Interplanner]

What are you "becausing" Doug? All I can see is: you can't tell me (nor can BW) why Paul summarizes those OT quotes because 'the times of the Gentiles are not fulfilled'?

That's like trying to get a vacuum to work by consulting a computer manual.

Those (and many OT passages) are fulfilled as he said because that is the whole drift of the NT going forward. It is a repudiation of 2P2P.