Was Judas present when Christ instituted Communion?

Page 6 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last »
This post has 185 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:17 AM

David, you remind me of another Paul—Ron Paul—who also is off the wall about half the time.  It must run in the family.  Compare what you wrote to what Eric wrote.  You use an affected style with your ersatz name for Jesus and your spelling of torah with a double "a".  The point is that you attempt to present yourself as hebraic while Eric is the real deal though he doesn't use your affectations.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:23 AM

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:26 AM

David Paul:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Actually, Constable is quoting Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:30 AM

George Somsel:

David, you remind me of another Paul—Ron Paul—who also is off the wall about half the time.  It must run in the family.  Compare what you wrote to what Eric wrote.  You use an affected style with your ersatz name for Jesus and your spelling of torah with a double "a".  The point is that you attempt to present yourself as hebraic while Eric is the real deal though he doesn't use your affectations.

Smile

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:30 AM

Indifferent

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:30 AM

Fruchtenbaum is wrong about plenty.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:32 AM

David Paul:

Fruchtenbaum is wrong about plenty.

Well, well!  At last we agree on something.  Fruchtenbaum's problem is that he went to Dallas.

EDIT:  I should note that in this case I would agree with Constable and hence with the fruit tree.

RE-EDIT:  BTW:  Fruchtenbaum is another who is the real deal—born a Jew, but a Christian by choice.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:33 AM

Joshua G:

Indifferent

LOL...I've been waiting for that to come along. But like George, you dodged the question...

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:34 AM

David Paul:

Fruchtenbaum is wrong about plenty.

Why is your interpretation better than his?

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:35 AM

David Paul:

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

What tribe are you apart of David?

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:38 AM

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:40 AM

David Paul:

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

Was Ruth a Hebrew?

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:43 AM

David Paul:

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

As every schoolboy knows, she was of the tribe of Moab.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:47 AM

Joshua G:

David Paul:

That will be for YHWH to decide.

My turn to ask a question. What tribe was Ruth a part of?

Was Ruth a Hebrew?

She was after she was grafted in. Any time aliens chose to enter into covenant, whichever land they settled in became the tribe they were part of. Ruth was Jewish because she entered into Judah with Naomi. She crossed the Jordan and passed into the land, thus passing from death into life. When she vowed "your people will be my people and your God my God", she became a Jewish Hebrew.

My turn. Who is the New Covenant made with? Jer. 31:31 is a hint. Where do you fit in?

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:48 AM

David Paul:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Any gate he jolly well pleases.  If you will note, in Re 7 there are TWO groups:  the twelve tribes of Israel numbering 144,000 (fictive and symbolic number) and the innumerable multitude.  One is the Jews (Israelites) and the other is the Church.  The text distinguishes the groups.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 1499
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 1:56 AM

David Paul:

She was after she was grafted in. Any time aliens chose to enter into covenant, whichever land they settled in became the tribe they were part of. Ruth was Jewish because she entered into Judah with Naomi. She crossed the Jordan and passed into the land, thus passing from death into life. When she vowed "your people will be my people and your God my God", she became a Jewish Hebrew.

My turn. Who is the New Covenant made with? Jer. 31:31 is a hint. Where do you fit in?

I found this to be interesting:

Jeremiah explicitly presents the parties to the covenant: the Lord, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. Notice that the covenant brings to mind the cleavage of the nation into two kingdoms, but notice also that both parts of the nation are included. The whole covenant is for the whole nation. Significantly, the new covenant will be with God’s chosen people, as was the old. It could not be made with the church because no former (old) covenant had been made with her.

Does this mean that believers today have no part in this new covenant? Surely not, for the same death of Christ that implemented the new covenant for Israel does so for all sinners for all time. The testimony of the entire NT is too clear on this point to be misunderstood. Because Israel rejected the covenant in the first advent, Gentiles availed themselves of its provisions (cf. Rom 9:30–33); and Israel will yet ratify it at the climax of her history (cf. Zech 12:10–13:1). Thus it is correct to say that all believers in Christ are by virtue of this covenant grafted into the stock of Abraham (cf. Rom 11:16–24).

Frank E. Gaebelein, Geoffrey W. Grogan, Charles L. Feinberg et al., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 6: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 575.

 

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 2:05 AM

George Somsel:

David Paul:

Constable is wrong.

Assuming he isn't though, which gate will he be entering? Rev. 21:12

Any gate he jolly well pleases.  If you will note, in Re 7 there are TWO groups:  the twelve tribes of Israel numbering 144,000 (fictive and symbolic number) and the innumerable multitude.  One is the Jews (Israelites) and the other is the Church.  The text distinguishes the groups.

 

Is that so? What makes you think that these two descriptions are describing two separate groups? You will say, as you essentially said above in the bold text, that it is obvious. However, it is not. I am fairly certain that it is simply two different ways of describing the same group of people. I will let you pooh-pooh that idea whiel I respond to Y'hohshu`a's comment.

Posts 4772
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 2:26 AM

Joshua G:

Does this mean that believers today have no part in this new covenant? Surely not, for the same death of Christ that implemented the new covenant for Israel does so for all sinners for all time. The testimony of the entire NT is too clear on this point to be misunderstood. Because Israel rejected the covenant in the first advent, Gentiles availed themselves of its provisions (cf. Rom 9:30–33); and Israel will yet ratify it at the climax of her history (cf. Zech 12:10–13:1). Thus it is correct to say that all believers in Christ are by virtue of this covenant grafted into the stock of Abraham (cf. Rom 11:16–24).

Frank E. Gaebelein, Geoffrey W. Grogan, Charles L. Feinberg et al., The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 6: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 575.

All the evidence that I find indicates that the is no such thing as "the Church" as perceived in the standard Christian understanding. There is the qaahaal and the `eidhaah, words meaning assembly and congregation, the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek ekklesia, both of which refer to Israel. So-called NT believers, if they are Hebrew and therefore pass from death to life (the definition of "Hebrew"), are all part of the "remnant". The remnant is described in the prophets as being both Israelite and Gentile, but the Gentiles are absorbed into Israel (just like Ruth was) and become True Israel. The Israel of the OT, by and large, are not really Israel because they never were "yaashaar" (upright) which is the root word of Israel. They were rather called crooked and corrupt children or false sons. See Deut. 32:4-5 for yaashaar and "not his children", and Isa. 1:2-4 for "false sons".

An example of what I am talking about from the NT is Mt. 15:21-28, where Yeishuu`a says "I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"(!) (ref. Jer. 31:31 again). When the gentile woman expressed faith and He then says your daughter has been healed, He is effectively calling her a daughter of Abraham. She is therefore highly likely a member of one of the twelve tribes as a result.

The really interesting question is, considering His initial response to her, if He is only sent to Israel, why on earth is He waaaaay up in the region of Tyre and Sidon? Those two cities are on the way to absolutely NOTHING that would be on His just-proclaimed itinerary. The answer is staring us in the face: to establish that aliens can (as was always the case) still become partakers in the covenant with Israel. They don't remain Gentiles, THEY BECOME ISRAEL. Read again Mt. 15:24

It may not be "orthodox", but it does solve this (Ezek. 44:9) particular millennial temple problem for Constable, George, et. al.

But be careful...George says I'm not the real deal. Surprise LOLOL

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 6:31 AM

David Paul:
Is that so? What makes you think that these two descriptions are describing two separate groups? You will say, as you essentially said above in the bold text, that it is obvious. However, it is not. I am fairly certain that it is simply two different ways of describing the same group of people. I will let you pooh-pooh that idea whiel I respond to Y'hohshu`a's comment.

Whose comment?  Never heard of him. 

Why are they two separate groups of people?  One is said to consist of 144,000 specifically designated to be 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel while the other is an innumerable multitude.  I should think that even you would be able to see that they are not only descriptions of different groups but that they are incompatible in their description.  Perhaps though I am giving you too much credit. 

There is a reason why they are thus described.  The period when salvation was of the Jews is ended and their number is complete.  That is why they can be specified as 144,000.  The second group is said to be innumerable because the Church continues to grow and its number is not yet complete.  It is not to be understood, however, that the number of Jews is only 144,000.  It could be 1,440,000.  The point is that the number is complete and therefore known. 

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 9 2012 6:46 AM

David Paul:

All the evidence that I find indicates that the is no such thing as "the Church" as perceived in the standard Christian understanding. There is the qaahaal and the `eidhaah, words meaning assembly and congregation, the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek ekklesia, both of which refer to Israel. So-called NT believers, if they are Hebrew and therefore pass from death to life (the definition of "Hebrew"), are all part of the "remnant". The remnant is described in the prophets as being both Israelite and Gentile, but the Gentiles are absorbed into Israel (just like Ruth was) and become True Israel. The Israel of the OT, by and large, are not really Israel because they never were "yaashaar" (upright) which is the root word of Israel. They were rather called crooked and corrupt children or false sons. See Deut. 32:4-5 for yaashaar and "not his children", and Isa. 1:2-4 for "false sons".

No such thing as the Church, but only the qaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaal ?  (Why don't you simply write קָהָל if you really want to use Hebrew?  Use REAL Hebrew, not some phoney mishmash.  Also, only those who really don't know Hebrew use Strong's (Yes, I visited your website.  Pretty silly)  Did you never read of the ἐκκλησία?  The word is used regarding communal gatherings such as the citizens of a particular location (I say this to prevent an old misconception that it signified "the called out ones.").  I would suggest that you go back to school and REALLY learn Greek and Hebrew plus read some theology.  I'm afraid you are seriously mal-educated.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Page 6 of 10 (186 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last » | RSS