Comet 3I/ATLAS is not expected to get very close to Earth; the closest it will come is approximately 1.8 astronomical units (about 170 million miles or 270 million kilometers)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3I_ATLAS_animation3.gif
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Hi Skil, I'm getting paid double for this comment because twice nothing is still nothing.
You may be pleased to know that I'm a little closer to finding your "replacement" theology in the Bible after looking all over for it. I had to stop looking for literal "replacement" where one whole is removed and another whole is put in its place, and instead I focused on "replacement" where portions are transplanted to the same whole, and I was able to find some of that. Somehow I suspect it still won't satisfy your proposed Bible interpretation that has been presented as if you have the only truth. But I wanted you to know I was trying.
There is only one covenant people, you are right that the covenant people has been effectively Gentile for nearly 2,000 years, and since it goes all the way back then before Judah was born the covenant people was also all goyim (nations) for over 2,000 years. You seem to have a covenant people that is too small because it excludes all those Hebrews 11 covenanters who wrote the Hebrew part of the Bible. If you were to speak positively about how people got saved from sin before Jesus came, that might advance the discussion, unless it's beyond your pay grade.
u/guywholikesDjtof2024
Yes, you’ve never read the Bible. You’ve admitted that dozens of times.
Supersessionism is the foundation of Christianity. It is itself Christianity. Nothing exists outside of it and never has. Your subhuman dispensationalist heresy—funded by zionists at the start of the 20th century—spits in the face of millennia of written proof of Christian doctrine.
Eat shit, you fucking kike heretic.
Funny how the Bible never uses the words "supersede", "supersession", but a theory that tends to exclude one race of humans from Christian salvation begins to use those words in the last couple hundred years.
Funny how you call me dispensationalist when I reject dispensationalism as usually taught. (Paul did use a word translated "dispensation" for the present age and for the age to come, but that's not dispensationalism it's covenantalism.) You seem to think that because I believe in one covenant I must believe in dispensationalism. No, I believe in what R. C. Sproul called Christian salvation by works, namely, he says, by the works of someone other than me. I grew up with covenant of works and covenant of grace like the back of my hand, and then I realized they were the same thing.
The reason the old covenant is fading is described in Jer. 31:31-34, namely that people broke it. The reason the new covenant lasts is that one man kept it perfectly and shares that obedience with all who will receive it whether they came before or after him. This is not about one superseding another, because they are the same covenant made with different parties, those in Adam, and those in Christ.
Like I said, I agree that in that one covenant olive tree there are many Gentiles "replacing" many Jews. But the tree itself is not replaced, and that's what you seem to mean by "supersession", so as long as people get can that idea from you I simply throw Romans 11 backatcha.
But since you appear incapable of defining supersession or of expositing Scripture, I don't think this off-topic convo will go far.
Funny how repeating the same copied and pasted talking points doesn’t matter when you were already disproven by the Bible itself.
Ever heard of a retronym, subhuman paid jewish shill? No one needed to say “snail mail” until e-mail was created. No one needed to say “supersessionism” until dispensationalism was created. Before your heresy appeared, Christianity was just Christianity.
Nice softball, though. Give me something actually difficult next time.
Literally worshipping it right here and now. Incapable of hiding it. Your account would be banned if you denied it.
Yep, you believe in proven and admitted heresy that Christ Himself denounces. Thanks for playing. You’re unfit to run your boards.
So you’re a supersessionist, got it. Thanks for admitting it.
Neat, so it’s not in effect anymore because the contract was over and done with and Christ created a new one. Thanks for playing.
Thanks for admitting there is a new covenant and that supersessionism is Christian doctrine.
Bible says otherwise. Thanks for playing.
Nope, different terms. You’ve never read the Bible.
No one gives a shit about your strawmen. None of what I have said is my opinion.
Thanks for continuing to use the Bible to disprove your claims.
Zero effort. -15/10; would not be trolled by again.
Posted it directly. Go suck off jews on another website.
I'm not a dispensationalist, my covenant also claims to go all the way back as your "supersession" does. Yet Christianity was never about excluding any race (so exclusion would be something new to it). This is proven by the fact that it was founded by a dozen Jews. In Acts 21:20 there were literal myriads of Torah-observant Jews who believed in Jesus in Jerusalem alone.
If you're saying that my admission that I'm saved by Jesus's works means that I supersede someone, that's the point that I've never followed and that I've asked you about. There was never any salvation except by Jesus's works. Those who were born into the covenant but didn't trust in the works of a Messiah seed of a woman were cutting themselves off from the covenant no matter what era it was. If that were your definition of supersession it'd be fine because (1) it's not literally supersession and (2) it agrees there was only one covenant all along and the new covenant is the unfolding of the old. But the issue is that you've acted as if you have this idea that supersession means racism, as you did in the prior comment above.
The contract with Israel was "who does these things will live by them". Not all Israel broke it according to Jeremiah, only the fathers broke it. Christ kept the same covenant. The newness is a formerly-hidden provision of the old whereby he shares his eternal life as a kinsman-redeemer, which he can do with all who trust him from Adam's era to the present and future. So the old contract (covenant of works between God and all men) was not done with because it is the foundation of the new covenant (covenant of grace between Christ and his brothers). There's no supplanting there.
Not the text. Do you mean "he has made it old"? Was Sproul wrong that we are saved by Christ's obedience to the old covenant and so it's still applicable throughout the present era?
Think about what "exposit" means, fren, when you talk about low effort. If you don't define and defend your position, well of course it's easy to snipe everyone else and then never take criticism for a position because you can keep morphing it behind the scenes. That's so 20th-century Usenet.
I agree that it's new that Christ makes a covenant between one man and many men, and because he's divine we could call this a new covenant between God and many men. But the old covenant stands, even in its fading glory, and the new covenant is just the kinsman-redeemer provision of the old. I asked you what supersedes what so as to take its place and you didn't answer. I suggested that maybe you meant that one tree took the place of another and you said strawman. I gave you the option of saying that some branches took the place of others but you didn't say that even though it would be natural. So, yeah, you don't define and defend, as a general rule; and you act like you're paid to malign those who do.
(But let's see if we can think of a different motive. Maybe there's still some spark in you that believes that a race exists that not only has the power to push back the tide against it but also has enough willpower that it'll get done by the grace of God. Maybe you fight so hard against dispie strawmen because you are belying your own words about there being nobody who will fight, and maybe the fight is your quest. Well then, wouldn't it be natural to conclude that as long as you're fighting for your cause then there remains hope? I always say that, as long as I'm alive, the US Constitution remains alive in me no matter what the rest of the world thinks. It would be silly if your cause were the Cassandra option of being insistent that nobody will ever successfully carry your cause after you; that's a bit nihilist.)