- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,10:03) Georg said: Quote I quoted this post because of what you said here; I read through your next post half way because that's all I could stomach of all the nonsense you wrote.
I don't even know why I bother to answer you at all; you don't believe the scriptures; you tell me that's not what they mean; what's the purpose of me giving you scriptures? What's the purpose for scriptures? what did Paul write to timothy?Georg,
You didn't finish my post because you can't refute it! Paul used the word “truly” in reference to the gospel having gone out to the ends of the earth (land). Here it is again:
18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes TRULY, their voice went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
There it is Georg! Paul said “TRULY!” He said that their voice and their words “TRULY” went out through ALL the earth and the ends of the world.
Paul is talking about the preaching of the gospel. By the time Paul wrote Romans which was about 25 years after the “great commission” the gospel had reached the ends of the land (Palestine).
Your excuse that you can't stomach what I posted is nothing but a kop out. And if you think that I am going to answer your new points without you first giving me the satisfaction of answering mine then think again sir!
I answered your argument from Isaiah 11. You are bound by the rules of debate to reply to mine. You can't just discard them and give me a new set of points to answer. No way Bub!
People are expecting you to answer. I will be glad to answer your new points AFTER you go back and answer my post. If you do not answer then you lose by default.
***************And how dare you say that I don't believe the Bible when you deny that Jesus reigns as King and Lord now. What nerve!******************
I spent a lot of time on that post and you want me to spend more time answering your new points without giving me any satisfaction? What world are you living in?
Your statement that Christ does not reign at all now turns my stomach too. But I don't use that as an excuse to not answer you.
Now you go back and answer my post. THEN I will be glad to answer your points. If you don't answer that post then you lose by default!
thinker
I guess, YOU'RE THE WINNER!Quote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 02 2010,10:39) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,10:03) Georg said: Quote I quoted this post because of what you said here; I read through your next post half way because that's all I could stomach of all the nonsense you wrote.
I don't even know why I bother to answer you at all; you don't believe the scriptures; you tell me that's not what they mean; what's the purpose of me giving you scriptures? What's the purpose for scriptures? what did Paul write to timothy?Georg,
You didn't finish my post because you can't refute it! Paul used the word “truly” in reference to the gospel having gone out to the ends of the earth (land). Here it is again:
18But I say, Have they not heard? Yes TRULY, their voice went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
There it is Georg! Paul said “TRULY!” He said that their voice and their words “TRULY” went out through ALL the earth and the ends of the world.
Paul is talking about the preaching of the gospel. By the time Paul wrote Romans which was about 25 years after the “great commission” the gospel had reached the ends of the land (Palestine).
Your excuse that you can't stomach what I posted is nothing but a kop out. And if you think that I am going to answer your new points without you first giving me the satisfaction of answering mine then think again sir!
I answered your argument from Isaiah 11. You are bound by the rules of debate to reply to mine. You can't just discard them and give me a new set of points to answer. No way Bub!
People are expecting you to answer. I will be glad to answer your new points AFTER you go back and answer my post. If you do not answer then you lose by default.
***************And how dare you say that I don't believe the Bible when you deny that Jesus reigns as King and Lord now. What nerve!******************
I spent a lot of time on that post and you want me to spend more time answering your new points without giving me any satisfaction? What world are you living in?
Your statement that Christ does not reign at all now turns my stomach too. But I don't use that as an excuse to not answer you.
Now you go back and answer my post. THEN I will be glad to answer your points. If you don't answer that post then you lose by default!
thinker
I guess, YOU'RE THE WINNER!
Georg,Great! So your theory that the new covenant is future has not yet been proven.
Jesus Christ is the Testator of a new covenant which is presently in effect. The new covenant cannot be future because Paul said that he and the apostles were the ADMINISTRATORS of the new covenant:
…who also made us sufficient as administrators of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
You have in effect conceded that the expression “for the earth (or land) shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord” does not prove your theory. For the Hebrew word “earth” would be better translated as “land” meaning the land of Israel. I would welcome it if you employed another line of reasoning which you think shows that the new covenant is still future.
thinker
thinker
I did not expect to prove it to “you”.
((administrators of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit))
I have always said, “a” new covenant. The old covenant was the “law of Moses”, read the book of Leviticus it tells all what was in that covenant; that was done away, the letter of the law;
((for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.))
((“for the earth (or land) shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord” does not prove your theory.))
Do you think Jesus will only teach the Israelites? is the rest of the world filled with the knowledge already like you?
Rather then looking for a different meanings of a word that the Bible gives you, you should try to understand what is being taught.
If I were to employ another line of reasoning, I would have to change my name too, and I don't like “thinker”.Georg
Quote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 02 2010,11:28) thinker I did not expect to prove it to “you”.
((administrators of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit))
I have always said, “a” new covenant. The old covenant was the “law of Moses”, read the book of Leviticus it tells all what was in that covenant; that was done away, the letter of the law;
((for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.))
((“for the earth (or land) shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord” does not prove your theory.))
Do you think Jesus will only teach the Israelites? is the rest of the world filled with the knowledge already like you?
Rather then looking for a different meanings of a word that the Bible gives you, you should try to understand what is being taught.
If I were to employ another line of reasoning, I would have to change my name too, and I don't like “thinker”.Georg
Georg,I was not saying that Jesus would teach only Israelites. I had said in the post that turned your stomach that Gentiles were included. But the geographical scope was restricted to Israel. Here is what I said:
Acts 13:47: For so hath the Lord commanded US, saying, I have set YOU to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Note: Paul said that they themselves were chosen to reach the ends of the earth (the LAND of Israel) with the gospel. The difference here is that gentiles are now included. But the geographical scope is Israel nonetheless.
Had you read the post entirely you would not be asking this question. The expression “the ends of the earth” in Acts 13:47 refers to the gospel going out throughout all of Palestine. This was fulfilled by the apostles.
Mankind has brought the gospel to all continents since then. But it is not a fulfillment of prophecy. All prophecy in reference to the “whole land being filled with the knowledge of the Lord” has been fulfilled.
One more thing. Paul gave instructions to the Church at Corinth as to how to observe the Lord's supper. He directly qouted Jesus who said, “This is the NEW covenant in my blood.” So how can you say that the new covenant is future?
You said that you are not thethinker. You got that right!
thinker
thinker
Have you ever considered running for political office?
((Acts 13:47: For so hath the Lord commanded US, saying, I have set YOU to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Note: Paul said that they themselves were chosen to reach the ends of the earth (the LAND of Israel) with the gospel. The difference here is that gentiles are now included. But the geographical scope is Israel nonetheless.))
Do you really consider that the “ends of the earth”, is only Israel? are you John McIntyre? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.
Are you forgetting that Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles?Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Look at the letters Paul wrote, see if you can find those places in Palestine.
You mentioned the church in Corinth, have you looked lately where that is?
Yes, “the new covenant in my BLOOD”, it is a covenant by sacrifice, by death; what do you think these scriptures mean?Psa 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
Psa 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.Are you familiar with the history of Rome? how they persecuted the Christians, tortured them, put them in an arena with wild beasts, etc.?
You would not have want to live then, and neither would I.
In the millennium we will not be under a covenant “BY BLOOD”; the truth, and nothing but the truth, will be taught, and it will not be a matter of “can not” understand, it will be a matter of “will not” understand.Act 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which “will not” hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
That includes every body here.
Georg
Hi Georg,
You have yet to show from scripture that the millenial time will be characterised by education of the masses.Georg said;
Quote Do you really consider that the “ends of the earth”, is only Israel? are you John McIntyre? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.
Are you forgetting that Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles?
Georg,
It means “the ends of the LAND” (or Israel). Paul clearly said that they were chosen to bring the word to “the ends of the land” and that this was fulfilled when the Gentiles came into salvation. Paul quoted a prophecy from Isaiah saying that it had reference to THEM:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the land.’”There it is sir! Paul said that Isaiah's prophecy had reference to THEM. Yet you shift Isaiah's prophecies to some future “millennium” when it actually applied to the apostles preaching ministry. There is no biblical evidence at all the the entire globe will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. The “ends of the earth” meant the “ends of the LAND” (or Israel).
Georg:
Quote Look at the letters Paul wrote, see if you can find those places in Palestine.
I simply meant that the prophecies referred to the world that was then known and not the entire terrestrial globe. Sorry if I was confusing.Paul said that the gospel had produced fruit in “all the world” (Colossians 1:6), and that it had been preached to “every creature under heaven” (1:23).
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth” (land).
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”[a] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:“ Their voice[/i] has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.” Rom. 10:16-18It's clear Georg! The voice of the apostles had reached “to all the earth” (land) and their word to the “ends of the world” (that was then known).
The prophecy in Isaiah 11 has reference to the universal spread of the word in the world that was then known.
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth (or land).
Paul said “TRULY” Georg! There is no prophecy anywhere in the Bible which says that this entire terrestrial ball will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.
Your remarks about the new covenant make no sense.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 03 2010,06:58) Hi Georg,
You have yet to show from scripture that the millenial time will be characterised by education of the masses.
NickIt doesn't make sense Jesus dying for the whole world, and then not given them the opportunity to get to know him and obey him.
It also doesn't make sense to resurrect the dead “AFTER” the millennium, when Satan will be loosed again to deceive the world again; what chances do the dead have, who never heard about Jesus then?Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
You know this scripture, that name is “JESUS”; like I said, how can they be saved not even knowing that name.
I don't need any other scriptures to tell me that, that is what the millennium is for. What else would it be for?Georg
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,08:36) Georg said; Quote Do you really consider that the “ends of the earth”, is only Israel? are you John McIntyre? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.
Are you forgetting that Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles?
Georg,
It means “the ends of the LAND” (or Israel). Paul clearly said that they were chosen to bring the word to “the ends of the land” and that this was fulfilled when the Gentiles came into salvation. Paul quoted a prophecy from Isaiah saying that it had reference to THEM:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the land.’”There it is sir! Paul said that Isaiah's prophecy had reference to THEM. Yet you shift Isaiah's prophecies to some future “millennium” when it actually applied to the apostles preaching ministry. There is no biblical evidence at all the the entire globe will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. The “ends of the earth” meant the “ends of the LAND” (or Israel).
Georg:
Quote Look at the letters Paul wrote, see if you can find those places in Palestine.
I simply meant that the prophecies referred to the world that was then known and not the entire terrestrial globe. Sorry if I was confusing.Paul said that the gospel had produced fruit in “all the world” (Colossians 1:6), and that it had been preached to “every creature under heaven” (1:23).
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth” (land).
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”[a] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:“ Their voice[/i] has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.” Rom. 10:16-18It's clear Georg! The voice of the apostles had reached “to all the earth” (land) and their word to the “ends of the world” (that was then known).
The prophecy in Isaiah 11 has reference to the universal spread of the word in the world that was then known.
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth (or land).
Paul said “TRULY” Georg! There is no prophecy anywhere in the Bible which says that this entire terrestrial ball will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.
Your remarks about the new covenant make no sense.
thinker
thinkerIs that the reason you ignored the fact that Paul was the apostle “FOR” the Gentiles?
Did he preach in Palestine, or were where the churches he raised? You mentioned Corinth, did you forget that city is “NOT” in Palestine?
Why do you insist on being wrong? don't you realise you loose all credibility, if you have any left?
You're an educated man, why do you want to stick to “YOUR” ideas? get with the truth!Georg
Quote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 03 2010,12:39) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 03 2010,06:58) Hi Georg,
You have yet to show from scripture that the millenial time will be characterised by education of the masses.
NickIt doesn't make sense Jesus dying for the whole world, and then not given them the opportunity to get to know him and obey him.
It also doesn't make sense to resurrect the dead “AFTER” the millennium, when Satan will be loosed again to deceive the world again; what chances do the dead have, who never heard about Jesus then?Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
You know this scripture, that name is “JESUS”; like I said, how can they be saved not even knowing that name.
I don't need any other scriptures to tell me that, that is what the millennium is for. What else would it be for?Georg
For NickQuote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 03 2010,12:46) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,08:36) Georg said; Quote Do you really consider that the “ends of the earth”, is only Israel? are you John McIntyre? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.
Are you forgetting that Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles?
Georg,
It means “the ends of the LAND” (or Israel). Paul clearly said that they were chosen to bring the word to “the ends of the land” and that this was fulfilled when the Gentiles came into salvation. Paul quoted a prophecy from Isaiah saying that it had reference to THEM:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the land.’”There it is sir! Paul said that Isaiah's prophecy had reference to THEM. Yet you shift Isaiah's prophecies to some future “millennium” when it actually applied to the apostles preaching ministry. There is no biblical evidence at all the the entire globe will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. The “ends of the earth” meant the “ends of the LAND” (or Israel).
Georg:
Quote Look at the letters Paul wrote, see if you can find those places in Palestine.
I simply meant that the prophecies referred to the world that was then known and not the entire terrestrial globe. Sorry if I was confusing.Paul said that the gospel had produced fruit in “all the world” (Colossians 1:6), and that it had been preached to “every creature under heaven” (1:23).
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth” (land).
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”[a] 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:“ Their voice[/i] has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.” Rom. 10:16-18It's clear Georg! The voice of the apostles had reached “to all the earth” (land) and their word to the “ends of the world” (that was then known).
The prophecy in Isaiah 11 has reference to the universal spread of the word in the world that was then known.
Paul said that the word had “TRULY” been preached to the ends of the earth (or land).
Paul said “TRULY” Georg! There is no prophecy anywhere in the Bible which says that this entire terrestrial ball will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.
Your remarks about the new covenant make no sense.
thinker
thinkerIs that the reason you ignored the fact that Paul was the apostle “FOR” the Gentiles?
Did he preach in Palestine, or were where the churches he raised? You mentioned Corinth, did you forget that city is “NOT” in Palestine?
Why do you insist on being wrong? don't you realise you loose all credibility, if you have any left?
You're an educated man, why do you want to stick to “YOUR” ideas? get with the truth!Georg
For thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
