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:
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.)
Sure thing.
Cool, so you can’t read.
The old one, which has been fulfilled and is no longer law. To clarify.
The new one. Which is explicitly Christian law, defining Christianity as distinct from all other beliefs. To clarify.
“The thing that supersedes isn’t supersession!” ~ the mentally ill
Cool, so there were two covenants, just as the Bible itself says. Got it.
Strawman. You won’t be able to redirect the conversation.
The one He explicitly held fulfilled and thereafter created a new one; got it, yeah.
So hidden that it’s explicitly stated in the Bible as being new.
Except Jesus said otherwise, so you’re not even pretending to cover up your lies anymore.
Just removal and replacement with a new one; that’s a totally different concept!
Already posted the text.
Think about what
I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT
and
NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT MADE BY THEIR FATHERS
mean, heretic.
“The Bible says so.” ~ my position
You have nothing.
[muffled hand rubbing in the distance]
20th century jewsnet, you mean.
Cool, so there’s a new covenant. Thanks for continuing to publicly humiliate yourself.
Not according to Christ, who has damned you to hell for eternity.
The Bible explains.
You have no power over me. You’re not the arbiter of truth or the moderator of reality. You gave no options. I don’t give a fuck about your opinions. You directly contradict the contents of the Bible. You’re irrelevant.
Directly cited and sourced everything I said.
Keeping people from falling for your jewish lies.
“Directly quoting dispensationalist beliefs is a strawman!” ~ the mentally ill
You would willingly burn every copy of the Constitution and erase its words from everyone’s mind if given the chance. That’s neither here nor there. Your attempts at redirection aren’t working.
You're making progress. A little history. In the 2nd century the church developed two eschatological views, mill and amill. In the 17th century existing tension in the mill view split it into premill and postmill. In the 19th century we had the clever feint you're surely familiar with where premill split into covenantal and dispensational (often but not always demarcated as posttrib and pretrib). That's the four accepted views of eschatology. I'm a covenantal premill, which is very different from a dispie premill. Perhaps you have some other standard like "everyone who disagrees with me is a dispie" but that's not how it works, especially when Paul uses the word dispensation but not supersession. (But it doesn't necessarily mean what the dispies say it means.) If you believe in the present age and the coming age, you believe in what Paul calls the dispensation of grace and the dispensation of fullness of time, and vice versa; but that doesn't create six-seven dispensations.
It was never law in the sense that we could be saved by keeping it, which is the error legalists make. It remains law in the sense that Christ kept and is still keeping it, because he said he doesn't abolish it, and fulfill doesn't mean that it stops being law. Paul says we (continue to) uphold the law. There's no Scripture about God's law ceasing to be law, but there's plenty about it continuing as long as heaven and earth do.
No, I framed that to refer to people cutting off from the covenant in any generation because before Christ came they were saved the same way, by believing in the seed of the woman to come. So too they were cut off the same way before and after. People try to make up what "Christian law" could mean but what they ultimately end up with resembles Noachite law, which Acts 15 implies is the law of all men, and also resembles the Ten Words. But "love your neighbor as yourself" for instance is Mosaic law. If today we think keeping the "Christian law" gets us into heaven, we're legalists again, and poor ones too because our law is so much cheaper than the Mosaic law. But if we just follow Jesus out of gratitude, then the true Christian law is revealed as whatever he says, and we don't fault those who start to take on more principles of the Mosaic law if they choose to do so freely (or those who don't, Romans 14) because Moses is still taught every week (Acts 15) so people can learn it as they please if they don't become legalists.
Not in evidence.
Yes, there's a sense in which God's covenant with Christ is the same as God's covenant with Israel, and there's a sense in which Christ's covenant with those in him is different from Adam's covenant with those in him. Both senses are essential.
Not in evidence.
I already cited you your Jer. 31:31-34. What I referred to as a hidden provision was the kinsman redeemer in the Mosaic law, which is the new covenant between Christ and those in him. What Jeremiah reveals is that God will write the law on the hearts (law remains), but he doesn't reveal the mechanism how people will be redeemed and cleansed for this to happen, and Jesus reveals the mechanism is adoption by him under the kinsman redeemer provision.
Not in evidence.
There's no evidence the old covenant is removed, as it remains fulfilled by Christ and is the ground of the righteousness he shares, and is now written on our hearts. There's no evidence the new covenant between Christ and men replaces this, because it adds provisions of grace. Perhaps you're afraid I'm saying that if the old covenant stands then we're bound to act all Mosaic, but that's the same flaw the legalists used ever since Moses wrote it. Instead, just as Israel was, we are freed by the new covenant unfolding so that we can keep whatever laws God in Christ puts on our hearts.
The rest of your comments are wild strawmen about your imagination of what I think so need no further elaboration.
Summary: (1) Yes, the new covenant in Christ is not the old covenant in Adam. At the same time the covenant between God and Israel is the same as the covenant between God and Christ because Christ is a member of Israel, born under the law. You act as if the first is logically incompatible with the second, but they're both in the text. (2) You act like the old covenant is gone when Scripture (like your own Heb. 8) says it's fading but not gone (compare 2 Cor. 3), and Jesus says it's not abolished. (3) You act like the new covenant is a replacement when Scripture never uses that but treats it as a supplement ("not like"). You could act like a student of truth and cease to preclude all questions dismissively, and say, yes, it might be logically possible that Christ kept the same covenant given to Israel, that Scripture doesn't say or imply the old covenant is gone, and that Scripture doesn't say or imply the new covenant is a replacement or supersession. But instead of even opening your mind to the logical possibility, you seem to have some deep need, possibly monetary, to fight that at every turn because you think my adherence to the initial millennial view in the face of crazy dispies is somehow your enemy. Like I said, your fighting is good, as it proves the deeper point that white men will be victorious by the grace of God; and it might also come to us understanding each other on the covenants too. Have you read Palmer Robertson? He might agree with you quite a bit, we could use him as a resource.