Featured The Israel of God

He confuses the heavenly birth with the clothing with power from on high, which is commonly a dispie error:

49 And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high. Lu 24

 

Brother Darrell C, after reading your response to the questions directed to yourself, based upon Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:13-15, and that which followed (see original response) texts, I could not locate in your latest response your direct reply to the questions (now Bolded and Highlighted in Blue above), though it is possible I may have simply missed it/them, and if so, please direct me to those answers in your latest reply, and I will consider them immediately, for the questions are most easily answered in the affirmative or negative, simply based upon what they (the texts cited) themselves state.

Before continuing to any other portions of Scripture, I must know if you are in harmony with those texts as cited. Those texts combined, declare Jesus Christ, Himself, to be Israel, and those which followed Him as His children. If I may ask you again, more directly and yet kindly, charitably, Do you believe that to be so, according to the Scripture, or no? if No, why no. If yes, I will continue to the next points in Revelation, etc.

 

It would be easy to do with his posts because they are always so long and drawn out.

 

Ditto. Although he claims to not be a dispie, this is another common dispie belief, the Church is just a 'paragraph'. It makes me cringe also.

 

You are quite welcome to present a Biblical Basis for regeneration prior to establishment of the New Covenant, and show where the Promise was already being fulfilled in the Old Testament, but I can assure you, regeneration is not even seen in the Disciples of Christ, much less the Old Testament Saints.

He also commanded that men believe in His death, burial, and Resurrection...

...show me one person that did.

Show me one person privy to the revelation of the Gospel of Christ, contrary to the Biblical Teaching that the Gospel was not yet revealed.

So you are suggesting that Isaac was born physically...born again?

The context does not deal with Isaac's regeneration, but rather speaks of the fact that Isaac was born according to the will of the Spirit of God. That is what "born after the Spirit" is a reference to.

Again, we cannot impose fulfillment of the Promises of God prior to them being bestowed:


Hebrews 11:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.



Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


Furthermore, eternal life is accomplished only one way, and that is through faith in Christ, and specifically faith that He died for us. That eternal life is bestowed through the very indwelling of God...which did not begin until Pentecost.

Consider:


John 7:38-39

King James Version (KJV)

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


But as I said, you are welcome to present a Biblical Basis for this view. Some great men of God hold to this view and I can understand, in part at least, why one would want to believe it.

And also, let me know if you are okay with men posting this on another forum (my own), as I like to document discussions on certain subjects.


God bless.

 

Of course not, lol, it is you in error imposing an understanding that Abraham received the Mystery of the Gospel, when in view we see that the Gospel of Christ is written into the Abrahamic Covenant, just as it is written into Genesis 3:15.

Doesn't mean it was revealed.

Christ spoke of it openly, yet it was rejected...by His own disciples:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


By reason of the Holy Spirit in us (not with us, as He was with the Old Testament Saint (including the disciples of Christ)) we can understand and see the Gospel of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures.

They could not.

Their understanding was temporal, unregenerate, and that is apparent in their attitudes towards Christ when He spoke of His death.

Would you, my friend, have been despondent and sought to keep Christ from the Cross? Would you have abandoned Him...as they did?

It was not until they were regenerate (which again is accomplished primarily by reason of the eternal indwelling of God) that they were willing to die for Christ. Prior to that...they not only abandoned Christ but...we see Peter deny he even knew Christ.

Not the actions of a born again believer.

On the contrary...show me where the Children of Israel in the Wilderness were commanded to believe on Christ?

They were under the Covenant of Law, which Covenant they broke, which is why God promised the New Covenant to begin with.

Give it some thought.

And let me know if you are willing to have your posts duplicated on another forum, that I might document the conversation, This one is one of the discussions of greatest importance to me, because misunderstanding this leads to misunderstanding a great many things.

God bless.

 

Never said that. What I said was that no-one was regenerate.

There is a difference, you know.

Old Testament Saints were very much saved, in the capacity that salvation was revealed to them. By faith they attained remission of sins, justification, and relationship with God.

But you aren't seriously going to equate remission of sins, justification, and relationship with God found under the New Covenant and that found under other Covenantal Economies, are you?

Consider that even though atonement was received by offering up sacrifice, it still did not remove the penalty of sin, or in other words...remission of sins was incomplete. The Writer of Hebrews makes this clear, as well as the fact that the sacrifice of Christ does indeed remove the penalty of sins by which no other sacrifice need be offered.

No Old Testament Saint received that remission through sacrifice of animals.


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.




\In view is the perfecting of the Saint in regards to remission of sins. This is accomplished, as the Writer stresses often in the Book, only through relationship with God under the New Covenant, which offers up Christ, not animals. He will go on in ch.11 to point out that the Old Testament Saint did not receive the promises contained in the promise of the New Covenant.

They died in faith, were saved in the eternal perspective, but still had to have their sins atoned for, which is precisely what Christ's offering of Himself did:


Hebrews 9:13-15

King James Version (KJV)

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


"For this cause..."

The point is that there was a need for the New Covenant to be established, not because the First Covenant (Covenant of Law) was faulty, but because the adherents were. God found fault with them, not the Covenant itself.

So unless we separate the New Birth from salvation found under the New Covenant, and create doctrine which has men receiving the promise before it is bestowed, we are forced to fall into agreement with the Word of God and acknowledge the magnitude of Christ's Work.


God bless.

 

Perhaps Romans chapters 9-11 are "missing" from some Bibles?

 

First, I am not a Dispensationalist, I am a Christian Bible Student, born again, and claim no group or theology system.

Only the Word of God.

Secondly, who is confused is usually made clear as this discussion unfolds.

The fact that you ascribe physical birth as regeneration is the first clue you have given to the reading audience.

In Luke we see nothing different than that spoken of by Christ in Acts 1:


Acts 1:4-8

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


The disciples are not yet Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Note that Christ states this event as the Promise of the Father. Again, I would remind you that a promise, if fulfilled, is no longer a promise, but a reality.

That reality is still promise here.

Christ reiterates the prophecy of John the Baptist, and if we look at John's teaching we see that in view is judgment. Only two judgments are given, salvation, and damnation.

Yet some write into this, as you have done, that John speaks of three results: salvation, damnation, and empowerment. In our current text the Lord equates John's teaching to the Promise of the Father, and reminds them He Himself has taught them (cf. John 14-16, for example) about this promise. That He speaks of the disciples being empowered by the Baptism with the Holy Ghost does not justify reading empowerment into the above, whereby many err, creating a false dichotomy among believers, the saved and...the really saved, lol.

The unregenerate and without understanding condition of the disciples, whose hearts are yet expectant of temporal salvation, is seen in their question:


6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


The Lord could have said "What? I just told you that in a few days you will be receiving the Promise of the Father...and you talk to me about an earthly kingdom?"

But He doesn't, because He above all knew they had no capacity for understanding, and would not...until they were Baptized with the Spirit and by reason of that Baptism understand all that He had taught them.

And that is exactly what happened, isn't it?


7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


The A-millennial should take note the Lord does not, as they do, write off the promises of God to Israel.

There is time and season for that Kingdom, but it was not for them, or us, to know.

Instead, He tells them what they do need to know, and what Kingdom is going to be established:


8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Note that receiving the Spirit and empowerment are clearly distinguished. The empowerment is a result of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

And we can look to the many various teachings of the New Testament that dogmatically assert that the Gospel of Christ was a mystery, that this mystery was revealed through the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit began after Christ's Ascension (and not a minute before).

The external ministries of the Spirit, which even the disciples partook of, are not to be confused with the Promised Indwelling of God:


John 14:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not to be confused with the filling of the Spirit. Old Testament Saints were filled with the Spirit, and it is this reason the disciples were able to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. But they were promised the eternal indwelling, which coincides with regeneration. Eternal Life is not a substance the Lord has a container of in Heaven which He pours out into the believer that places His faith in Christ.

He is eternal life, and bestows this life to those He comes to:


John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all said to indwell the believer:


John 14:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


When we fail to recognize that Christ's Work brought about that which did not take place before, and in fact that Work was promised, then we do injustice to the magnitude of Salvation in Christ and all that He has wrought.


God bless.

 

All of this has been addressed. I have made it clear that we have to maintain everything in it's context. There is a physical Israel, and a True Israel, neither being negated from reality by varying application and context.

Did God bring physical Israel out of Egypt? Did God apply the quote to Christ coming out of Egypt?

Actually you must know if I am in harmony with your view of what the texts mean, lol.

There is no question I am not in contention with any text you have provided.

In post#100 I said...

Christ is the "true" for which Israel stands as a picture, which I view to represent the provision of God given to men. So in that sense we can say "Christ is the True Israel," providing we do not negate the physical Israel.

The fact that both Israel and Christ came out of Egypt does not negate the reality of both events, which are separate, and speak of separate people. The "Israel of God" is of course true believers, however, that does not negate physical Israel's role in the past, nor her role in the future.

Hope that answers the question.

And that is a conclusion I see as misleading. There is still National Israel, who were the People of God, a Witness Nation created that pictures the Church. That the Church has been established in no way denies Israel as the People of God, nor God's promises to her, which are fulfilled in the New Covenant. We must keep in mind that most of the Old Testament is temporal in nature, the spiritual truths contained in the New being revealed at their proper time.

Here is another passage testifying to this truth:


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)

25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


As I said before, study of this mystery is a great beginning to understanding the temporal versus the eternal, which knowledge we have access to, though the Old Testament Saint did not.

So which is it?

As I said, depending on the text, context, and teaching...both are true.

But we don't make Christ "Israel" in the sense that believers are excluded. Under Old Testament Economies, one did not have to be Israel by heritage to have faith in God or be obedient to the revelation He had provided at that point.

For this very reason we again see justification to disregard a teaching that the Church was found in the Old Testament.

Understand?

In Christ the twain are made one, which is independent of the fact that true believers have existed among Gentiles since day one. Okay, day six.

There were no Hebrews, no Jews, prior to the creation of Israel the Witness Nation. The first Jew was a...Gentile.

Understand? And I'm not being a smart-aleck, lol, I am really trying to get this point across. This is the first point of contention I took with your post, and the premise of the thread as I have understood you teaching it.

Yes, no, sometimes...

We have to be contextually specific. If the above has not answered the question yet, let me know.

In John 15 the Lord teaches "I am the True Vine." Israel is the contrasted vine. Israel is the vine the Lord brought out of Egypt...


Psalm 80:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.


...the general premise pointing to the provision of God in establishing Israel. Israel came to embrace a temporal and fleshly understanding of being that vine, distorting and negating the fact that the provision was of God, and looking to themselves as representing that provision. The same mentality is seen in those guilty of that which Paul rebukes in 1 Corinthians: some feel their denomination is the source of blessing...rather than the result.

Understand?

Take your time. Better to hash this out so we both understand each other. Until we do that, there is no progression, though we throw much Scripture at each other, lol.

Let me just say that we have to understand the distinction between the source and the result of the provision of God. For Israel, being of Israel was thought to be the provision for relationship with and to God. But the provision for relationship to God has always been, and always be God Himself.

When Christ said "I am the True Vine," what He was telling the disciples was basically, "Heretofore you have trusted that you receive relationship with God by being of Israel." Hereafter know...I am the True source of relationship to and with God. Being Jew benefits no-one apart from me.

Abide in me."

Was Peter abiding in Christ when he denied Christ? For that matter, even after Peter was born again, was he teaching the Galatians the meaning of abiding in the True Vine when he played the hypocrite? Making a distinction, as did the circumcision, between Gentile and Jewish believers.

In Romans 11 we have the same imagery, a tree. Those in the tree, or, in relationship with God through the provision of God, called branches. In John 15, those branches that produced no fruit, thus evidencing they were not part of the True Vine (and this speaks to a future time when those branches were actually cut out), are cut out. Those that are in the True Vine are said to bear fruit, the implication being that true branches will not fail to bear fruit (which is substantiated by numerous teachings of Christ, evil trees/good tree, wheat/tares, et cetera).

It boils down to genuine salvation, and the provision for that salvation. Christ does not equate Himself to Israel, the beneficiaries of the grace of God, but declares Himself the source of the provision.

Again, hope this better explains my position, and that we might move on. But, however long it takes to wrangle this issue, that is okay with me.


God bless.

 

You are quite welcome to present a Biblical Basis that God has changed, and that Christ is NOT the same today, yesterday, yea, and forever.

There's nothing 'new' about the 'new covenant'. The 'new covenant' IS the 'eternal covenant', and the way God has ALWAYS worked. The 'new' covenant is 'new' only because the first was made old:

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old..... Heb 8:13

The mysteries of it simply had not been revealed before. The 'old' law covenant had been ADDED, thereby casting a shadow of the eternal covenant that lay behind it, and then it was REMOVED while the 'new' covenant REMAINED:

19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3

12 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12

...and I can assure you that the OT Saints were no better than us and required the same 'heart change' that we do.

 

You sure make chop suey of the scriptures like a dispy.

We're done. My attention span is not long enough to read your posts.

 

Seriously?

Okay, so animal sacrifice is still a valid means by which one can receive remission of sins.

Christ is only promised in the Old Testament, my friend, but He does not come until He takes on the flesh of man.

And before going into a dissertation concerning Christ foretold in the Old Testament, I will remind you we distinguish between the Eternal Son of God and the Eternal Son of God leaving Heaven, taking on human flesh, and dying for the sins of the world.

Then it should not be called the New Covenant.

You can take that up with the Lord when you arrive in glory, my friend.

Me, I'll maintain what the Word actually states.

You actually give Scripture that denies your statement in your very response.

But has not always bestowed.

The New Covenant was ratified by the blood (death) of Christ.

The Old (First Covenant) was abrogated by the New.

Denying that means you consider yourself still under (the Covenant of) Law, violating the very command of Scripture.

Thought it wasn't new?

If the New Covenant isn't new, then we are not new creatures. There will be no new Heaven and earth. The Lord wasn't actually talking about putting wine into new bottles.

Well, I guess new means different things to different people...

And I agree, the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law, was made old, or, do you also hold to the fact that old doesn't mean old, even though it means old, as you do with "new."

Actually, it is the mystery that was not revealed to men:


Romans 16:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:


1 Corinthians 2:7

King James Version (KJV)

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:


Ephesians 3:2-4

King James Version (KJV)

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)


Ephesians 3:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,


Colossians 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)

25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:



You will not find even a disciple of Christ trusting in Christ's death, how then do you feel there are other Old(er, lol) Testament Saints who did?

Notice that Paul makes it clear that the Law was temporary, which means it would end? Notice that the promise is not said to be fulfilled, but through Christ?

Now how is it that you impose these promises being fulfilled before hand into Scripture?

I would recommend study of Hebrews. It will help you avoid posts like these.

That was the very point given to you in the last post, which you ignored in great detail, lol.

Primarily because it would force you to abandon your quest to substantiate our doctrine.

Go ahead, equate animal sacrifice and the atonement received with Christ. That is exactly what you are doing.


God bless.

 

Lunch is served, my friend.

Pity. It's a great discussion.

God bless.

 

Animal sacrifice NEVER WAS a valid means by which one can receive remission of sins.

4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Heb 10

Now you're sounding like a HYPER-Dispy.

 

Sorry, brother Darrell C, it (the questions and texts of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:13-15, etc, dealing with "fulfilled" in Christ Jesus) was not addressed from my perspective, though I know you have put a lot of time and effort into many words in your reply, which from this position, did not help to clarify your answer to my questions to you for me, but brought even more to the table which needs to now be addressed in addition to the questions and texts at hand even all before, from this perspective, that they were properly answered, iow, a yes or no would have sufficed, and we could have then continued with other materials.

As of this moment, when you reply by bringing forth many more Scriptures, which from this perspective (based upon Scripture itself, Isaiah 8:20, 28:10, etc) are being isolated and incorrectly applied, in both definition (Scriptural) and context, I cannot but wonder, who hath taught you these things.

I do not understand your explanation(s) brother Darrell C, for whatever so far has been said by yourself, does not align to the Scripture on several points. It/they (your replies) makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever from the Scriptural standpoint, and this not to be rude, nor crass toward you in any way whatever, but a simple stating of my present thinking in regards your answers/replies.

Since the Scriptures declare that:

2 Corinthians 1:20 - For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Since "all" "the promises of God" are "in him" (Jesus Christ), "yea" (yes) and "in him" (Jesus Christ), "Amen" (Yes, truly), can any other receive them outside of Him? They cannot.

The promises made were to the "seed" says Paul:

Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Indeed, for He (Jesus) was the "seed" from Genesis 3:15, onward.

"Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18; and they do not even have an "altar" anymore, nor Highpriest, etc), according to Scripture "the flesh profiteth nothing" (John 6:63), and "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6).

Their house (no longer was it the Father's or Jesus' house) is left forever desolate, the axe was laid to the tree, and as the figless tree, acursed, never more again to bear fruit, and that which they had was taken from them and given to another, who would bear fruit.

Romans 9:6 - Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Notice carefully the words of Jesus, for not all who were physically Jew, were actually Abraham's children, for Abraham may be their ancestor physically, but Abraham was the Father of the Faithful/believing, even as it is written...:

John 8:39 - They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:40 - But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

John 8:41 - Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.

John 8:42 - Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 8:43 - Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.

John 8:44 - Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

Yes, the scriptures make it plain that there were TWO ISRAELS, Jews outwardly vs. Jews inwardly; Israel after the flesh vs. the children of promise. The scriptures also plainly defines the 'real Israel':

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

OB, I'm finding your selection of proof texts so far to be sound.

 

:thumbsup: AMEN!