Re: Repentance

On Jun 11, 2:20=A0pm, w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Bob Felts) wrote:
> <lsend...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 9:44am, w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Bob Felts) wrote:
>
> > I made a lengthy reply to all the previous comments but I don't know
> > if it got posted or not.
>
> Haven't seen it. =A0In case it doesn't show up, could you please
elaborate=

> on what land you think was promised to Abraham: =A0location, basic
> dimensions, that sort of thing.
>
> > My web page brought me back to top of the thread. =A0If it did not get
> > posted, I will not going to type it all out again. =A0However, in a
furt=
her
> > detailed answer to Allis and your point at....
>
> > > > How do you marry this with his explanation of the Church era as
bein=
g
> > > > a "mystery" which had not been revealed prior to Pentecost?
>
> > > So you agree that the Gospel wasn't new?
>
> I see you didn't want to answer this. =A0Why?
>
> > > As for your question, just because something is a mystery doesn't
mean=

> > > that it's new. The "mystery" of the Church is that Gentiles are
joint
> > > heirs with Jews concerning God's promise to Abraham. That certainly
> > > doesn't mean that there were unsaved Gentiles before Pentecost.
>
> > This is NOT what Paul declares.
>
> Try again. =A0The "mystery" is that [some] Gentiles would be fellow
heirs
> with [some] Jews concerning God's promise to Abraham." =A0I think we
agree=

> on what that says; I'm sure we don't agree on how that will play out in
> history.
>
> In any case, just because something is a mystery doesn't mean that it
> was inoperative before the mystery was revealed. =A0Quantum mechanics
> still happened all the time before the early 1900's.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > 2. Was the mystery partially revealed in the OT ?
>
> Of course it was. =A0Do you want the paticular passages?
>
And this you consider a worthy rebuttal?  I spend a couple of hours
paging thru Allis (because you held him up as your champion) to
-rather easily- find inconsistency and flaws in his conclusions and
suppositions.  And you can't even provide a discussion on Eph
parallel passage in Col on the  nature of the "mystery" as defined
and understood in Pauline thought?  Wasn't it you who earlier
complained that I never discussed, only lectured?  Are those
crow feathers sticking out of the corner of your mouth?


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))