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:
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.
Held fulfilled. Contract’s over. Christ explicitly went outside it, repeatedly, as shown in the gospels, because He had already held it fulfilled and it had no power over him. Either you’re saying Christ sinned or you admit the Old Covenant is no longer law and was not kept from the coming of Jesus.
POP QUIZ: When you submit your last payment on a loan under the terms of the agreement, do you
It’s not a hard question.
No Christian has ever upheld it, then. Or maybe you’re just mentally ill and there is, directly from Christ Himself.
Directly stated by God.
[citation needed]
Already posted. Enjoy hell.
Bible say so.
Bible says so.
You’re shitting your pants in fear of actual Christianity, yeah.
Expressly not, as Christ Himself said and acted.
Thanks for admitting there’s a new covenant. Argument over. You’ve conceded the point.
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.
“OY VEY YOU’RE BEING “LEGALISTIC” BY SAYING DISPENSATIONALISM IS BAD ALSO WATCH ME BE THE MOST TALMUDIC KIKE IMAGINABLE AS I PILPUL MY WAY AROUND IGNORING WHAT THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SAYS!”
Amazing, really.
The text which says the first is done and the second is law, you mean?
Fulfilled, yeah. It’s gone. Personal opinions don’t matter. There are a few people damned to hell for eternity who still try to follow it while waiting for the Messiah (who has already come), so if that’s how you want to shit the bed over your pedantry, feel free. There are, in fact, a “fading” number of “jews” who still obey just the old rules. They’re irrelevant to objective reality.
Explicitly said it.
Fulfilled, yeah. Words have definitions.
…but He didn’t.
…but it does.
…but it does.
Because there is no debate about matters of objective truth. I’m not going to waste my time with someone who says, “But what if 2+2=17?”
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.
You’re the eternal enemy of Christ, yeah.
Never said a word about it.
Not in evidence. You're templating a contractual termination view over the situation without it being present.
This would be a valid argument if Jesus broke Mosaic law. However, look at the details (especially Matthew 5) and every time you find he strengthened Mosaic law and disputed traditions that had been added to the law just like anyone had a right to question extratextual tradition. So, it happens in Christianity that some people have held that Christ broke the Mosaic law several times, but that's not mainstream Christianity and isn't in the text. He fulfilled the Mosaic law perfectly and that is the ground of the rewards of eternal life he shares. Maybe you're not saying he broke the law, which would annul your own salvation; maybe you're saying that he deemed that we fulfilled the law. But the reason for this is that he took us into himself as kinsman-redeemer under the law and legally ascribed his fulfillment to us, which means that we are (still today) deemed to have fulfilled the Mosaic law, if that's the meaning you're going after. The standard hasn't changed.
Jesus never stopped keeping the law, just because he kept it unto death! He's not lawless today, but in terms of laws that apply until death that obedience is complete because of Romans 7:1 ff. But it's not like he's stopped loving neighbor as self or loving the Father with all heart, mind, and strength. It's not like the Mosaic law is all complete at death; it says it is for the spiritual realm as well. The point is that we serve in newness of spirit (7:6, i.e. obey the law of Christ).
Correct. Just as before Christ, the righteous are saved only by faith (Habakkuk), and never by upholding the law, except for Christ himself who purchased salvation by upholding it.
My first request for evidence was for what you say God "directly stated" about something superseding something. I pointed out there is no text that says anything was superseded or replaced in whole, even as Romans 11 and the vinedresser parable can speak about some of the people being replaced politically by others; but you haven't said you meant that replacement. There is no text saying the new covenant supplants the old, it was always the new covenant supplements the old. So if you mean "the old is fading so the new effectively supplants it", well, that's not in the text and you don't act like that's what you mean. You argue supersession is directly implied but you can't show from the text why your inference is better than others.
My second request for evidence was about your saying I can't read, apparently meaning something like my invoking Christianity as not being racist was somehow insensitive to your full meaning. Well, bypassing for now the degree to which you have responsibility for your words being clear, if you want to say you do have evidence that I'm not taking your meaning, spell it out. When I said your supersession "tends to exclude one race of humans from Christian salvation" and you said Christianity was Christianity before dispensationalism, you imply that excluding a race is right. What is your evidence that I didn't read that implication rightly?
My third request for evidence was about Jesus saying the contract was done with, and you said asked and answered. Well, that seems to mean only your complete Hebrews 8 (which was not by Jesus unless you mean he inspires all Scripture, which is facile). But Hebrews 8 says there is already a priesthood (note, present tense, still appropriate for the Messianic author and those myriads of Torah-observant Messianics) and Jesus has a second and better priesthood, not a replacement. The point of the earthly is to reflect the heavenly, just as Paul says that Sabbaths are (present tense) a reflect of things yet to come, Col. 2:16-17. So, just as Christians rest weekly to point to the future as well as the past, so the second temple pointed to the future and past both, and that continued to be true after Jesus rose. The text literally says the new covenant is "established" in a better "place", so it contradicts the idea of replacement as if established upon the same promises without change. It cannot be the same place because the old had not vanished away at the time of the writing of Hebrews; rather, that is an eschatological reference. So, when you repeat "Bible says" removal and replacement, the fact that that is never said, and you present no evidence that it is logically implied, begs the question. The evidence is that the "place" is different because that place is "upon better promises" when the former place still stood.
I have said nothing against some Jewish branches being broken off and Gentile branches being grafted in, but you imply more than that. You imply it's "actual" that Jesus contradicted Moses but he affirmed Moses and the right of Pharisees to interpret Moses. You imply that something changed as if the thing that many Gentiles (and many Jews) received was on a different basis than the thing that Old Testament believers received: the basis is the same, the only difference is the new expansion, just as at other times of expanding the meaning of the covenant. I used to think folks in the OT earned righteousness by their works, but that was a widespread misunderstanding and what my church actually tried to teach me was that they were saved by belief in the Messiah to come just as Hebrews 11 says many times. So I'm unaware what dictum of "actual" Christianity you think I reject.
You call it a pilpul that "the covenant between God and Israel is the same as the covenant between God and Christ". Well, that's based on the point that Christ was Israelite and was expected to keep the Mosaic covenant like all descendants of those at Sinai. So let's redirect that one to whether Christ broke the Mosaic law: now I know what has been said to that effect, so rather than go over it between us I'd prefer to know your concern that pushes you to that tendency. What is it you're trying to preserve as a picture of Christianity? Is it a people who don't "have to" do anything that got started after Christ and didn't exist before then? Because then I'd ask how people got saved before Christ, and I'd ask how Romans 14 says we should treat people who, knowing they don't have to, still desire to keep some Mosaic laws for themselves out of Christian liberty, fully convinced in their own minds, without being legalist or imposing their own vows upon any others?
But Hebrews 8 doesn't say the first is done or the second is law. It says the first is antiquated and the second involves laws being written in the heart. Now if you want to say Paul says he's under the law to (or of) Christ, then the question becomes what is that law and why is it different from the faith that Habakkuk said the righteous were saved by in his day? So even if we said the second covenant is the law of Christ in the heart, its place is different (stone versus flesh) and it is testified and exemplified by the first, meaning the first still has power to foreshadow today as Col. 2:16-17 says.
Thank you for establishing a positive proposition! It's an eschatological question whether the Jewish people will fade or not, so I don't argue that. If we did Romans 11 you'd see that we don't get to exclude physical Israel from all Israel being saved, as there's no other consistent interpretation, but if you don't see that ever happening then that's a blind spot about the future and we have time to find out. To the rest, yes, there are many legalists (more Christians and Muslims than Jews) who try to obey some Mosaic rules for salvation, which is what I infer you mean; and as long as they do they are damned thereby, although this is reversible. But the realization that keeping the Law could be a voluntary response out of gratitude to the one who kept it and shared that perfection, without seeking any reward for one's imperfect keeping, occurred among the (Messianic) Jews as they wrote the NT. So as an evangelist to a difficult people I hold out hope that it can happen organically again. But that goes to our usual discussion about your hopelessness, which I say is belied by your fighting spirit.
He says it's not in Matt. 5:17 ESV. You're taking his statement of "fulfilled" and interpreting it as "abolished" contrary to his own words. You explicitly give "definition" of "fulfilled" as "replacement" but that is not its meaning. Now it's an interesting study to review his word for abolish, "kataluo", and the other word translated abolish, "katargeo", and review what is abolished and what is not said to be; it would be interesting to find what "fulfilled" covenants look like in Scripture; but I don't elaborate for now because you don't seem interested in learning from the Scriptures as you constantly have presented them as if they mean only what you say and your view is incapable of improvement. That's not Christian devotional reading.
Last, you accuse me of dispensationalism, I explained I have the classic millennial view as it branched separately into premillennialism without accepting dispensationalism, so that's why it got brought up. If you are willing to stop accusing me of being dispie then that passes. But I still don't see why you accuse me of being an enemy of Christ when I'm only an enemy of error.
The convo is pretty good this time, we can take as much time as you're willing and we might get closer. We'll eventually need something beyond your sticking to what you think the Bible says when it doesn't. You've presented as someone who is willing to take the Bible literally on everything it teaches, so are you willing to work through Scriptures and just confess what they say literally? I ask because you haven't seemed to confess Scripture for yourself, you've only confessed your summary of Scripture; but if we were to work through literal texts and agree on them that might be a path forward. For instance, does Col. 2:16-17 KJV literally say that meat, drink, holyday, new moon, and sabbath days are a shadow of things to come (even after the cross)? Because that would imply they were also a shadow of things to come before the cross.
Verse?
But you seem pretty legalistic on that people still have to follow the 613 Laws.
So do you know these are facts or don't you? Are these facts or just a "logical possibility"??
Thanks for asking Guy!
I said "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." I accepted separately here that Romans 7 says there are earthly laws only applicable until death, so let me portion that out. The spiritual component of the Mosaic law, to love neighbor as self, to love God with heart, mind, and strength, and in fact to show this love by spiritual application of any of the 613 traditional commands (e.g. not to cause someone to stumble who is in the category of blind), would be something that it'd be obvious Jesus didn't stop doing, the evidence being that he remains holy. But I didn't mean to imply that the Mosaic law with its many different ranges of application to time and person has totally the same character after someone has died. For instance, Jesus only got circumcised once and that fulfilled that command completely; but he retains his spiritual separation unto God thereby forever.
I haven't pressed this form of expressing the point into texts. A quick check shows that Rom. 7:14 emphasizes "the law is spiritual" as I glean from Matthew 5-7; Rom. 4:16 implies Jesus is still a man "of the law", Rom. 10:4 has "Christ is the end [telos, goal] of the law", and Rom. 13:10 "love is the fulfilling of the law" (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 1:25, 2:12) seems to cement the point.
No, I don't teach this, that would be legalism the same as anyone teaching any set of laws for salvation would be. "Have to" implies required for salvation. But we've already been saved by the physical keeping of the law being imputed to us; so now we "get to" keep the law of Christ (or to Christ), whatever he says goes, 1 Cor. 9:21. According to Romans 14, the person who decides he wants to keep more laws, who does so out of conviction and gratitude without any legalistic hope of payment, is to be accepted just as the one who does not so decide. So it's not a requirement, it's an option among expressions of Christianity among the nations. (Incidentally, less than half of the 613 laws can be kept literally in the absence of a temple, so Rabbinical Judaism has always taught that those laws don't matter as long as Jews say the right words in lieu and hope for the rebuilding; that's an annulment of more than half of Moses. But our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and so I have already kept all 613 laws because I did so in Christ since he gave that life of obedience to me. So we have a benefit over those who count the 613 scrupulously.)
The old covenant was never about legalism, but always about obeying in faith and gratitude for salvation (e.g. from Egypt). Legalists were never saved, but David was saved by faith and not works. Hebrews 11 says the righteous were all saved by faith the same as we, and Habakkuk 2:4, quoted 3 times in NT, shows that the righteous understood this embryonically.
I believe it's fact that Jesus kept all of the 613 commands insofar as he had part in carrying out their application (e.g. some commands are primarily upon women and so the man's part is only to ensure the command is fulfilled by the woman). Skil seems to think otherwise, so I commend my belief to him as a possibility to be considered. I have lots of evidence but we would need to start with what he's willing to accept and to define, so the question of openness to possibility needs to come early in the discussion.
Does that help explain?