A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2012, 05:08 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ST, I'm disappointed at your response.

These conclusions I have shared with you are the product of many years study....and I'm giving you the benefit of that, and you simply dismiss it as something i've read somewhere.

Always sorry to disappoint, but as far as I can see, what has been posted so far seems more like a negative campaign ad.



(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm not "dancing around' anything...I'm questioning and explaining the very origin of Christian theology, and you quite clearly simply don't understand or are dismissing the points I am making.
The topic is the New Covenant, not "Your ideas" as to the origin of Christian Theology.

Scripture presents the origin of Christian Theology, and despite the "ideas" presented, Christian Theology predates Paul's conversion, as Christians can trace the covenant relationship they have with God to it's beginning with promise...in the Old Testament.


(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Digest this...Yeshua, if he ever existed, knew nothing of a "new covenant." His surviving followers, 20 or 30 years later, dismissed Paul's "new covenant" as heresy and nonsense. It was only circa 140 CE, when Paul's letters resurfaced, in Rome, in the hands of a character named Marcion, that the people who would eventually create a new religion, Christianity, took any notice of them.

Are you not sure whether Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure or not?

Again a reminder, this discussion is to focus on what scripture teaches, not what man teaches. The "ideas" presented thus far are clearly an attempt to discredit Christianity through the use of "ideas " that are not presented in scripture.

The followers of Christ accepted the validity of Paul's Apostleship and doctrine.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Now, ST, if you are going to contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion about scripture, you need to do some reading around these issues. This is not hard ....just use google. A whole new world will open up for you.

You suggest that I google, lol.

This is what I mean about the claim to know scripture better than Christians, you say that, then quote men.

I will admit you do better in the one post, actually including scripture.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please do not try to belittle my ideas, because you are, in fact, only demonstrating your own ignorance.

I do what I can...lol.

(29-05-2012 12:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, no more "god blesses' please. While I know you mean well, it is patronising to someone who has absolutely no belief in imaginary friends.

Tell you what, I will forego my usual ending if you will forego your foul language.

Deal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:18 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(28-05-2012 06:40 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Okay, have to get going, but I thought I might help you out on your google search, so here are a few things to look for answers to:

1-The establishment of the New Covenant did not originate with Paul.

2- The New Covenant was promised by God Himself.

3-Christians are partakers of the New Covenant, whereas Israel has yet to be brought into it. This will happen when her judgment is complete, which will be when the Seventieth Week comes to it's conclusion.

4-God specifically listed blessings that would be associated with the New Covenant.

5-Christ referred to the New Covenant specifically.

Okay, that should be enough. Really, look into it. even if you choose to view this as myth, it is a fascinating study.

God bless.
Re..."1-The establishment of the New Covenant did not originate with Paul."


Yes it did. The term "the New Covenant, " as understood by Christians, is first mentioned by Paul. The phrase is used in one place in the OT, in Jeremiah, but that is not a reference to what Christians mean.

The New Covenant as understood by Christians...is the same New Covenant promised by God Himself to the Houses of Israel and Judah.

Here is a verse to consider:


Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.






(29-05-2012 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re..."The New Covenant was promised by God Himself."

St, if you think God talks to us, maybe you should be posting on a Christian forum where people will believe you?

Hey, as is my custom here, I do not discuss scripture specificly against the will of any. You made the claim of being a bible expert, you took discussion in this direction.

No-one that believes the Bible is God's word...does not believe that God speaks to men.

Now do you want to have this conversation or not? If you do, then stick to the topic, which is the New Covenant. Forego your campaign against Paul using man's commentary...and look at the scripture itself. So far the only scripture you have provided...has nothing to do with the New Covenant. To say "My ideas" are...well, just not interested in your ideas.

(29-05-2012 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "God specifically listed blessings that would be associated with the New Covenant."

see above

There is nothing there...lol.

(29-05-2012 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re "Christ referred to the New Covenant specifically."

No! Somebody familiar with Paul's ideas wore in Yeshua's name.


One verse:

Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



We can start there, if that is acceptable.

Have a nice day. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:51 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 05:18 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  The New Covenant as understood by Christians...is the same New Covenant promised by God Himself to the Houses of Israel and Judah.

Here is a verse to consider:


Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)


28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Not to be a party pooper, but you really shouldn't quote the KJV.

NASB
28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

"New" isn't in the Greek.

The original Greek.

The Greek word.

The language simply refers to a covenant.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I was gonna say that KC.

Instead I'll add that I think what Mark is attempting to do is show that the words written contain no value because of their history.
Also I wouldn't personally flame the guys bible history knowledge. I'm not his biggest fan but he's fairly well versed on biblical history.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mark.

Also I think Bucky makes an interesting point in that the description of the New covenant should be laid out clearly.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 09:13 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I was gonna say that KC.


Instead I'll add that I think what Mark is attempting to do is show that the words written contain no value because of their history.

Hello lucradis, could you expand on this a bit? I am curious as to how the posts came across to you.



(29-05-2012 09:13 AM)lucradis Wrote:  Also I think Bucky makes an interesting point in that the description of the New covenant should be laid out clearly.


I think he said the Old, if I remember correctly. Headed to that post now.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:37 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I wasn't referring to a specific post but the general Idea of what I was getting from his posts. If you got something else that's your perspective. Besides I might be entirely wrong as to Marks intent. He will have to clarify that.

As for BB, I believe he stated one must be clarified before the other can be defined. I wasn't quoting him exactly then or now. I rarely do that. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I just live with it.
I'm wrong all the time.
What I wrote is the gist of what I got from what he wrote.

Mostly I'm just here for the good reading so if you like you can ignore my posts completely whenever you feel it's necessary or detrimental to the conversation. I won't mind haha.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 04:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-05-2012 04:54 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Discussion of the First Covenant is definitely an important part of this issue, and will certainly come up. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter.
God bless.


Please tell me, what your understanding is, of :

a. who the parties were,

Be glad to, but first let me ask for clarification: do you mean the parties concerned in the First Covenant (or, Old Covenant as it can be properly called) only? My answer will be directed under that assumption, but since this is a discussion primarily concerning the New, you can let me know if I have misread this.

Concerning the First Covenant, strictly speaking, there were two parties: God, and Israel. This does not negate the fact that proselytes were accepted, or mean that God showed mercy upon Israel only.


(29-05-2012 04:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  b. what the "covenant" was,

This would be answered differently by differently people, but since you ask my view, here it is (lol):

The first (saying first a lot in therse posts, aren't I? lol) thing I would mention is that the First Covenant, while standing alone in it's detail and practice, doesn't mean that it eiher negates or interferes with God's intentions for man, primarily the promises He has made for the redemption of man.

For example, whne the Abrahamic Covenant was instituted, the First Covenant, in my view, was one more step toward the eventual goal of fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, rather than some off the wall rabbit trail that some suppose. All that just to say, God promised a land to the descendants of Abraham, that was in part fulfilled when Israel was created and brought into the land. Just wanted to mention that in brief before going into "what the Covenant was."

In short, the First Covenant, called "the law" in many places, has to be tied, in my view, to the progressive nature of God's redemption of mankind. Israel was created a nation, fulfilling (and again, in part, for there is yet fulfillment ahead for Israel, as well as the redeemed of mankind in the eternal sense) brought into covenant relationship with God that she might be a witness nation unto the world, and was in this time given the oracles of God, the word of God, that they might be light in a world that had in large part turned away from God. While the law seems severe to many, "Don't do this, don't do that," we are told that God's commandments are not grievous. And forgive me for this rabbit trail but, if we look at some of the things that occur in this world, we can look at them and say, "How do people do that?" No different for those under law, for they were raised in a society where certain things were expected, and certain things were not. Similarly, we are shocked when a school shooting occurs (though we are getting more used to such events these days) because it is an abnormal event that is denounced by most. But take a culture in which hatred is bred in people from birth for another nation: it is normal for them, and even cheered and glorified, when one of their own strap on a bomb and detonate it in a marketplace.

Okay, again, sorry for the rabbit trail: if we look at the Covenants as a whole, we see them working toward the eventual Covenant relationship with God which is eternal, yet begins in the temporal world while we are alive. In it's specific relation to the Nation of Israel herself, Paul tells us what the Covenant was intended to do:


Galatians 3:24

King James Version (KJV)

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.



All of the Covenants have in view this eventual goal: that we might know Christ. That we might be justified by faith in Christ.

The First Covenant was meant to accomplish a few thigns which worked toward that end, which is, to show man his sin, and to lead him to Christ. When man looked at the standard which was set in the law, it should have been clear to him, if he were honest...that he could not accomplish that which the law required.

So where would that bring you? It would bring you to a point like it did for the man that beat upon his breast and said, "God b merciful to me a sinner." While the other man said, "I am glad I am not like this man." The first man went awaay...justified. Why? Because the law showed him his falling short of the standard which the law set, and it drove him to faith in God. He looked to God for mercy, rather than the religious fellow that felt he had fulfilled the law perfectly, boy wasn't God glad he was around...lol.

Okay, just a few thoughts concerning the law, the First Covenant, and what it was. I hope this discussion develops, and if it does, we will be able to better look at what scripture has to say concerning...what it was. And the key word here is...was.

(29-05-2012 04:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  c. when it was made, d. why it was made.

BB, I catch a lot of static for being longwinded, and I hope I haven't gone too long on this. "When it was made, why it was made," are questions we can get to as we discuss this further. If you are looking for an exact date, as with any ancient material we all, no matter the issue, have to place a little faith that the information we have is accurate. The timelines I have looked at place it at about ca. 1445.

I touched on the "why" above, yet it would be better to look at the subject itself, which will give the why. And in doing this it will make it a little clearer than the hastily typed and probably rabbit trail laden and often vague intro I have written above...lol.

Thanks for joining in.

God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 05:53 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 05:37 PM)lucradis Wrote:  I wasn't referring to a specific post but the general Idea of what I was getting from his posts. If you got something else that's your perspective. Besides I might be entirely wrong as to Marks intent. He will have to clarify that.

As for BB, I believe he stated one must be clarified before the other can be defined. I wasn't quoting him exactly then or now. I rarely do that. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I just live with it.
I'm wrong all the time.
What I wrote is the gist of what I got from what he wrote.

Mostly I'm just here for the good reading so if you like you can ignore my posts completely whenever you feel it's necessary or detrimental to the conversation. I won't mind haha.

Actually, you have been an enjoyable member of the discussion. No intentions of ignoring you, lucradis.
God bless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 06:02 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(29-05-2012 09:13 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I was gonna say that KC.

Instead I'll add that I think what Mark is attempting to do is show that the words written contain no value because of their history.
Also I wouldn't personally flame the guys bible history knowledge. I'm not his biggest fan but he's fairly well versed on biblical history.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mark.

Also I think Bucky makes an interesting point in that the description of the New covenant should be laid out clearly.


That's right Lucradis. Although I'm not necessarily saying that they contain no value...I'm suggesting we look at who wrote them, when and why as the first step in assessing their value. I think ST wants to launch into a discussion based on the assumption that the bible is the word of god. I've upset him because I refuse to accept that premise without question.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: