Curious

[BABerean2]

BABerean2 wrote:

Originally Posted by riverrat

I am just reading scripture in the OT (Jer 31:31-34) and in the NT (Heb 8:8-12). The new covenant is for the nation of Israel. Christ is definitely involved in the new covenant because it takes his blood for sins to be forgiven. The members of the body of Christ also receive forgiveness of sins by Christ's shed blood but as per Eph 1:7 the body receives it by grace and not by a covenant.
​

I am not claiming that Jewish believers are now under the new covenant. They, and Gentile believers, are members of the body of Christ and have no covenant.

If the Hebrew Christians are not under the New Covenant, why is the author of the book of Hebrews explaining to them that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant?



Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

 

[riverrat]

If the Hebrew Christians are not under the New Covenant, why is the author of the book of Hebrews explaining to them that the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant?



Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Because it was but the new is still not in effect at this time. It will begin when Christ returns and sets up the heavenly kingdom here on earth.

 

[Interplanner]

"No covenant" is nonsense. Actually Isaiah says Christ himself was made a covenant for the nations. Everything about the NT is about truth "in Christ" or the "truth as it is in Jesus." It is not trying to be about 'reality' of Israel anymore.

I have never seen 2P2P inflict more damage on the NT than this one statement.

 

[riverrat]

"No covenant" is nonsense. Actually Isaiah says Christ himself was made a covenant for the nations. Everything about the NT is about truth "in Christ" or the "truth as it is in Jesus." It is not trying to be about 'reality' of Israel anymore.

I have never seen 2P2P inflict more damage on the NT than this one statement.

If "no covenant" is nonsense then you are calling scripture nonsense.

Of course the coming Christ was a covenant(promise) to all nations. I never said He wasn't. But the new covenant, which is spiritual, is clearly for the nation of Israel as per Jer 31:31. It is not for the body of Christ.

As I said in another post all your lack of understanding of scripture is based on the fact that you have absolutely no ability to read.

When you criticize one of my posts I know I am right!

 

[BABerean2]

Because it was but the new is still not in effect at this time. It will begin when Christ returns and sets up the heavenly kingdom here on earth.

In the text below the author of Hebrews is applying the covenant to those he was addressing.




Heb 13:18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.
Heb 13:19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Heb 13:22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
Heb 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.


.

 

[riverrat]

In the text below the author of Hebrews is applying the covenant to those he was addressing.




Heb 13:18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.
Heb 13:19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Heb 13:22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
Heb 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.


.

Yes, he is applying the blood of the new covenant to those he was addressing but notice he is not applying the covenant itself to those he was addressing. There is a difference. Again, the body of Christ receives the blood of the new covenant by grace and not by the covenant.

 

[BABerean2]

Yes, he is applying the blood of the new covenant to those he was addressing but notice he is not applying the covenant itself to those he was addressing. There is a difference. Again, the body of Christ receives the blood of the new covenant by grace and not by the covenant.

Brother, if the blood is from the covenant, then the covenant applies to those believers.

If there were no covenant, there would be no blood and vice-versa.

You are attempting to make a distinction that does not exist.




You are twisting the text into a pretzel and then hitting it with an axe.

Have you been talking to that guy from Hawaii 5 Oh ?




.

 

[Danoh]

Brother, if the blood is from the covenant, then the covenant applies to those believers.

If there were no covenant, there would be no blood and vice-versa.

You are attempting to make a distinction that does not exist.




You are twisting the text into a pretzel and then hitting it with an axe.

Have you been talking to that guy from Hawaii 5 Oh ?




.

Lol, BAB2, now that was hilarious - gotta love ya, brother

Here, just so you know the Mid-Acts Perspective on this, which Riverrat appears to agree with, more or less

The blood is not from the covenant, "this is the new testament in my blood" - the blood allows, is the basis of, the new covenant. That is His grace - His blood, and that is the grace His blood allows. A lot of times, many of these issues are two-fold, one member [or aspect] supporting the other, and vice versa.

His blood is the basis of Israel's New Covenant at the time of their yet future "how much more their fulness," Rom. 11.

At the time of said yet future fulness, the Gentiles of that time will come to Israel's rising, Is. 2, etc.

His blood is the basis of both those - of Israel's yet future rising to its fulness, and of those Gentiles then, coming to said rising.

That is on hold, til the fulness of our present, Gentile salvation be come in.

In this present age, Israel as a nation is Uncircumcision, and thus, Lo Ami, not His people - Rom. 2; 9-11.

In this Uncircumcision age, both Jew and Gentile are availed of the grace His blood made possible, not by covenant in this age, but by His grace.

Again, there is the two-fold aspect of His grace. His blood is His grace and His kindness towards us, that allows His grace and His kindness toward us outside of Israel's presently on hold, promised New Covenant.

You may not agree with that, and that's fine. But at least you have had it directly addressed by someone who knows the Mid-Acts position that you can actually engage on these issues, in contrast to a book or youtube video; where the interaction is not often back and forth.

You can post your input for comparison or you can simply gainsay ours, and remain ignorant of what it is you are against.

One of those is being a Berean too, and Stam, or some BBS, or what have you has nothing to do with its qualifier - Acts 17:11 does.

I'll say this much - it is my belief that there is not an idle word in all of Scripture.

To ignore so many in any passage is to assert it contains idle words; words that, ignored, throw off the intended sense of any passage, to the destruction of one's sound understanding, 1 Cor. 3; 2 Peter 3.

Hebrews is written to Hebrews - not no distinction Christians, but Messianic Jews, Acts 1-3. Its chapter two asserts the very same assertion that the first verses in Acts 1 assert - that it is a continuation of all that Christ began both to do and to teach.

And that changed when God put His plan and purpose in Himself and for HIs name as to that nation whom He did foreknow on hold once, more just as prophesied, for that nation's failure to heed its call back to Him once more, at the same time that He began to reveal an UNprophesiedmystery... hid in God," Eph. 3, concerning a Gentile visit during this time of Israel's hardness.

Again, in this age, no nation nor member of any nation, is recognized above another - "but a new creature." That's the issue - is-one-in-His-Son

 

[riverrat]

Lol, BAB2, now that was hilarious - gotta love ya, brother

Here, just so you know the Mid-Acts Perspective on this, which Riverrat appears to agree with, more or less

The blood is not from the covenant, "this is the new testament in my blood" - the blood allows, is the basis of, the new covenant. That is His grace - His blood, and that is the grace His blood allows. A lot of times, many of these issues are two-fold, one member [or aspect] supporting the other, and vice versa.

His blood is the basis of Israel's New Covenant at the time of their yet future "how much more their fulness," Rom. 11.

At the time of said yet future fulness, the Gentiles of that time will come to Israel's rising, Is. 2, etc.

His blood is the basis of both those - of Israel's yet future rising to its fulness, and of those Gentiles then, coming to said rising.

That is on hold, til the fulness of our present, Gentile salvation be come in.

In this present age, Israel as a nation is Uncircumcision, and thus, Lo Ami, not His people - Rom. 2; 9-11.

In this Uncircumcision age, both Jew and Gentile are availed of the grace His blood made possible, not by covenant in this age, but by His grace.

Again, there is the two-fold aspect of His grace. His blood is His grace and His kindness towards us, that allows His grace and His kindness toward us outside of Israel's presently on hold, promised New Covenant.

You may not agree with that, and that's fine. But at least you have had it directly addressed by someone who knows the Mid-Acts position that you can actually engage on these issues, in contrast to a book or youtube video; where the interaction is not often back and forth.

You can post your input for comparison or you can simply gainsay ours, and remain ignorant of what it is you are against.

One of those is being a Berean too, and Stam, or some BBS, or what have you has nothing to do with its qualifier - Acts 17:11 does.

I'll say this much - it is my belief that there is not an idle word in all of Scripture.

To ignore so many in any passage is to assert it contains idle words; words that, ignored, throw off the intended sense of any passage, to the destruction of one's sound understanding, 1 Cor. 3; 2 Peter 3.

Hebrews is written to Hebrews - not no distinction Christians, but Messianic Jews, Acts 1-3. Its chapter two asserts the very same assertion that the first verses in Acts 1 assert - that it is a continuation of all that Christ began both to do and to teach.

And that changed when God put His plan and purpose in Himself and for HIs name as to that nation whom He did foreknow on hold once, more just as prophesied, for that nation's failure to heed its call back to Him once more, at the same time that He began to reveal an UNprophesiedmystery... hid in God," Eph. 3, concerning a Gentile visit during this time of Israel's hardness.

Again, in this age, no nation nor member of any nation, is recognized above another - "but a new creature." That's the issue - is-one-in-His-Son

 

[riverrat]

BABerean2: Actually our difference of opinion on this matter is based on the big picture of how we view scripture. I understand the new covenant based on how God dealt with Israel in the past, how He deals with Israel in the present and how He will deal with Israel in the future. In other words, I look at this in terms of dispensationalism and you do not. We will continue to disagree until one of us changes his mind about dispensationalism.

 

[BABerean2]

BABerean2: Actually our difference of opinion on this matter is based on the big picture of how we view scripture. I understand the new covenant based on how God dealt with Israel in the past, how He deals with Israel in the present and how He will deal with Israel in the future. In other words, I look at this in terms of dispensationalism and you do not. We will continue to disagree until one of us changes his mind about dispensationalism.

You have been talking to Danoh!

No wonder you are having problems understanding the text. You have also taken an axe and "rightly divided" the scripture.

John Darby would be proud of you two guys.


There is a little problem with your "until the times of the gentiles are completed".

You promote the following timeline.


time of gentiles----> pretrib rapture---> God deals again with Israel+gentiles


Talk to Danoh about it and see what you two can work out by putting your heads together.

Sharpen that axe a little, maybe.

If needed, get out Stam's book and take another look at it.

.

 

[Danoh]

You have been talking to Danoh!

No wonder you are having problems understanding the text. You have also taken an axe and "rightly divided" the scripture.

John Darby would be proud of you two guys.


There is a little problem with your "until the times of the gentiles are completed".

You promote the following timeline.


time of gentiles----> pretrib rapture---> God deals again with Israel+gentiles


Talk to Danoh about it and see what you two can work out by putting your heads together.

Sharpen that axe a little, maybe.

If needed, get out Stam's book and take another look at it.

.

Hah, you got that little bit wrong - oh yeah, you understand what we assert enough to have a valid say on it - try that on a debate team - boot you outta there pronto, bub.

Hey, there ya go, change your handle to BUB

Here, slow poke - Israel's prophesied fall - followed by the revelation of the Mystery "hid in God," then the fullness of the Gentiles [spiritually] during Israel's present fall and hardening - and with said fullness, the Pre-Trib Rapture - and then another prophesied Gap as in Acts 3 - then, Daniel's 70th week - and the 2nd prophesied Advent of the Lord - which ends the times of the Gentiles [politically].

The former [the Mystery] began after Israel's prophesied fall, the latter, also prophesied began centuries earlier, with the Babylonian captivity...

Guess which one Daniel knew about, and which one was on his mind, that the angel Gabriel referred to as "that which is noted in the Scripture of truth"?

And guess which one even the angel Gabriel did not know about as it was "hid in God" until Paul?

You are confusing things with what you read into them, which you further confuse by confusing how Mid-Acts Dispensationalism understands this timeline with how Acts Two Dispensationalism does.

So, no, Darby might not be proud of Rivererat and I - Darby was more Matthew 16, we're Acts 9 - the result of further refinement due to a much more consistent application of the Dispensational Hermeneutic - which we are grateful to men like him for...

 

[parousia70]

Hah, you got that little bit wrong - oh yeah, you understand what we assert enough to have a valid say on it - try that on a debate team - boot you outta there pronto, bub.

Hey, there ya go, change your handle to BUB

Here, slow poke - Israel's prophesied fall - then the fullness of the Gentiles

Look! I found A little germ of truth here.

Fullness in scripture is a QUALITY, not a QUANTITY, as you, perhaps unintentionally, just asserted above.

By comparing scripture with scripture we clearly see that "fullness" does not equate with "full number", but rather the fullness of Gods grace:

John 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
(This is especially instructive for us in that "fulness" is considered here to the the opposite of "fall", and in no way can be construed as a numeric value.)

Romans 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The list goes on........

The notion of fulness in the NT carries the idea of totality of Gods blessings and grace, and not a certain number of individuals.

The Gentiles are already FULL PARTAKERS of the grace of God.
The "Fulness of the gentiles" came in some 2000 years ago.

 

[BABerean2]

Hah, you got that little bit wrong - oh yeah, you understand what we assert enough to have a valid say on it - try that on a debate team - boot you outta there pronto, bub.

Hey, there ya go, change your handle to BUB

Here, slow poke - Israel's prophesied fall - followed by the revelation of the Mystery "hid in God," then the fullness of the Gentiles [spiritually] during Israel's present fall and hardening - and with said fullness, the Pre-Trib Rapture - and then another prophesied Gap as in Acts 3 - then, Daniel's 70th week - and the 2nd prophesied Advent of the Lord - which ends the times of the Gentiles [politically].

The former [the Mystery] began after Israel's prophesied fall, the latter, also prophesied began centuries earlier, with the Babylonian captivity...

Guess which one Daniel knew about, and which one was on his mind, that the angel Gabriel referred to as "that which is noted in the Scripture of truth"?

And guess which one even the angel Gabriel did not know about as it was "hid in God" until Paul?

You are confusing things with what you read into them, which you further confuse by confusing how Mid-Acts Dispensationalism understands this timeline with how Acts Two Dispensationalism does.

So, no, Darby might not be proud of Rivererat and I - Darby was more Matthew 16, we're Acts 9 - the result of further refinement due to a much more consistent application of the Dispensational Hermeneutic - which we are grateful to men like him for...

The last time I read Stam's book and pointed out things in the book that were not scriptural, you got mad at me.

First you ignored me and later called my comments on the book a "botch job".

I have "Rightly Divided" not to put either of us through that again...

.

 

[riverrat]

You have been talking to Danoh!

No wonder you are having problems understanding the text. You have also taken an axe and "rightly divided" the scripture.

John Darby would be proud of you two guys.


There is a little problem with your "until the times of the gentiles are completed".

You promote the following timeline.


time of gentiles----> pretrib rapture---> God deals again with Israel+gentiles


Talk to Danoh about it and see what you two can work out by putting your heads together.

Sharpen that axe a little, maybe.

If needed, get out Stam's book and take another look at it.

.

Stop being so nice and tell me how you really feel about dispensationalism.

 

[BABerean2]

Stop being so nice and tell me how you really feel about dispensationalism.

Consider the source that so many of you and yours ridicule and or deny.

Yesterday I listened to Tommy Ice talk about the history of Dispensational Theology on YouTube. He said Darby discovered pretrib while recovering from a riding accident in 1827. The problem is that he has one witness against him. It is John Darby's paper of 1829 written from the perspective of a historicist, amillennial that disproves the story that Ice is now telling.

Some on this forum have told me there was no connection between Darby and Lacunza or Irving. However, this same 1829 Darby paper makes a reference to Irving, Ben-Ezra, and "The Morning Watch" which was the periodical of the Irvingites.

So, sadly the story told by Dispensationalists about the history of their doctrine does not match up to the historical record.



Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
Reflections upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the views advanced in it



Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4RS5pDntQ


.

 

[Danoh]

The last time I read Stam's book and pointed out things in the book that were not scriptural, you got mad at me.

First you ignored me and later called my comments on the book a "botch job".

I have "Rightly Divided" not to put either of us through that again...

.

Nonsense, I never got mad at you, and never have - that is just you once more reading into things and then taking said reading to be what was meant.
What is known as fool's gold...

And I ignored you out of my sense of what you have continued to prove - that your mind is not only stuck where it is, but determined to be.

And yes, yours was a botch job - you quoted the man out of context that your reading into things be what once more ruled both your true intent and your continued misunderstanding.

Not that you'd know what I mean by the following, but, as for the like of Thomas Ice - I am not of their school of thought - they are Acts Two Dispensationalism, which has a mass of yet unresolved holes in it due to their habit of departing from a consistently applied Dispensational Hermeneutic out of the habit of remaining tradition they hold on to and thus, reason through.

In fact, you and yours have that reasoning through traditions in common with them.

But you go right ahead and quote them all need to, as you seem to need to prove you don't know what you are talking about.

I study from the Mid-Acts Perspective - the Body of Christ began with its first member, the Apostle Paul in Acts 9, per 1 Timothy 1, after Israel's fall in Acts 7, per Matthew 12, Romans 2, and 9-11.

That was never Laacunza, Darby, Scofield, Dallas Theological, Ice, you name the persons you throw all into one pot and then spout the foolishness you do about any of this.

This will tickle you - the supposed "church" heretic, Marcion came real close to Mid-Acts! That oughta get you going, lol

Mid-Acts is not Welsh, nor Bullinger, nor anyone else for that matter.

All profound men as to the light they came to in some areas more than others, more or less.

And Mid-Acts is not Stam, Baker, nor O'Hair - three of its greatest exponents - especially, O'Hair.

And Mid-Acts is not that giant among them all, Richard Jordan.

Mid-Acts is Acts 9. Period.

I could care less what you and yours assert otherwise, as your minds are made up. But you have no right to poison others from taking their own look, that your predictable views win the day.

That out of the way [yeah, right ] Now, where's that paintbrush, BAB2, me and Interplanner are coming over to help you paint your house

 

[Danoh]

Look! I found A little germ of truth here.

Fullness in scripture is a QUALITY, not a QUANTITY, as you, perhaps unintentionally, just asserted above.

By comparing scripture with scripture we clearly see that "fullness" does not equate with "full number", but rather the fullness of Gods grace:

John 1:16
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
(This is especially instructive for us in that "fulness" is considered here to the the opposite of "fall", and in no way can be construed as a numeric value.)

Romans 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

The list goes on........

The notion of fulness in the NT carries the idea of totality of Gods blessings and grace, and not a certain number of individuals.

The Gentiles are already FULL PARTAKERS of the grace of God.
The "Fulness of the gentiles" came in some 2000 years ago.

Numeric value assigned to Romans 11:26 is the habit of Matthew 16 and Acts Two Dispensationalism. It is not the view of Mid-Acts [Acts 9] Dispensationalism.

Our view is that it has to do with when something reaches its intended end result, place and time.

Example - Galatians 4:

1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Thus, Romans 11:25 is both referring to when God's mystery visit among the Gentiles reaches its intended fullness - its intended end result, in its intended place and time, as it is o His intent to turn once more after that to His making a short work upon this earth as to Israel, at some point in time after "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Just as the Lord reminded the Twelve as to the Father's intended time as to Israel's yet to come fullness - "It is not for you to know the times nor the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power" or, has determined as to the "place" and time of Israel's fullness when "I will call them my people."

Fulness refers to things reaching a sum up, as when you stop filling a glass with water when its has reached your intended fulness for it, at which point, you get on with the next step in you your plans and purpose, in this case, for that water.

Say, for example, towards filling up some water balloons with that water because BAB2, and Interplanner are outside your window

In God's case as to the above - I mean seeing as most believers are wrong - the Lord does not work in mysterious ways - quite the opposite - He's "revealed the mystery of his will, " Eph. 1:10...

Ephesians 1:

9. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10. That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11. In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12. That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

As a result of that, "when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in" our next glorious stage begins...

Ephesians 2:

7. That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

In short - Amazing Grace...

And none of this comes from any book, or writer, but One, simply through time in that Book - in - light - of - what - took - place - at - Acts 9 - "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now" was "being made manifest, through "preaching... committed unto a new, completely unexpected "Apostle - of the Gentiles," Acts 9 in light of Acts 26, Galatians 1, 1 Timothy 1, and Titus 1.

 

[riverrat]

Consider the source that so many of you and yours ridicule and or deny.

Yesterday I listened to Tommy Ice talk about the history of Dispensational Theology on YouTube. He said Darby discovered pretrib while recovering from a riding accident in 1827. The problem is that he has one witness against him. It is John Darby's paper of 1829 written from the perspective of a historicist, amillennial that disproves the story that Ice is now telling.

Some on this forum have told me there was no connection between Darby and Lacunza or Irving. However, this same 1829 Darby paper makes a reference to Irving, Ben-Ezra, and "The Morning Watch" which was the periodical of the Irvingites.

So, sadly the story told by Dispensationalists about the history of their doctrine does not match up to the historical record.



Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
Reflections upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the views advanced in it



Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4RS5pDntQ


.

You are still being too nice. Come on now. Don't hold back. Let loose. You will feel so much better afterwards.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
God's mystery visit among the Gentiles

I didn't get this answered the other day but now I see that you were using it this way. This is a loss of meaning. The mystery there is that of evil's ability to harden Israel. It has been there from the beginning. Rom 9-11 affirms that, even though it would seem like more Jews would believe with all those backgrounds and opps, they don't, and it does not happen automatically or genetically. Only by faith. The way for Jews to express faith in Paul's time is to join in the mission of the Gospel to the nations, ch 10. So ch 11 spurs them, prods them to do so, but is only optimistic that those who have faith will be saved, not the genepool sector.

You know you are adding the word "visit" and it does not belong.