ECT Preterist, please give your understanding to. . . .

[Danoh]

Oh, good, seriously. The concept that Christ's own life of righteousness (his faithfulness) is what has saved us is seriously missing today. yes the KJV is best on that, but there is no other difference that I see.

IOW: Paul is not a believer because he is keeping the parts of Judaism's law or ceremonies that they want him to keep. He is a believer and is fair to Gentiles because of what Christ accomplished; Christ was 100% faithful in his obedience and that is what saves a person and that is what is offered to all mankind for their acceptance with God.

I do know a couple other spots like that where the NIV is weakened a bit. It is definitely not a 'new age' or 'new world order' document.

Do you think the KJV brings out the counter-imperial nuances that N. T. Wright speaks of? he says that Romans contains several things that topple the role of Roman authority (even with ch 13A!). One ex., the 'epitagen' (royal decree) of the end of 16 is the same term as used around the empire for Caesar's decrees. Paul seized on it and said God has now made the OT and the prophets clear by bringing in all these Gentiles.

You see, in the church community at Rome, Paul was saying "Claudius may have evicted all the Jews" (Acts 18:2) "but it was actually God directing things, because then the church at Rome became solidified even though it was only Gentiles. So God's edict or decree that the OT and the prophets were all about incoming Gentiles (Rom 16:26) is especially true in Rome! Hopefully all nations will believe and obey."

Caesar would boil if he heard that. So would leaders of Judaism who often had administrative positions in Roman cities. Because they wanted the nations to obey their law. Paul said the Gospel was how God was reaching the nations.

Given your view, it is not odd that you agree with heir on the sense of Romans 16:26's "scriptures of the prophets."

Just goes to show how reading one's view into a passage can keep one from seeing what the passage is actually talking about.

For, in that passage "prophets" is actually an adjective, not a noun.

Paul is referring to his own writings, Rom. 15:15; 1 Cor. 2:7, 12, 13; 1 Cor. 14:37, etc.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, it is the same thing as was said in Eph 3A. It was embedded there, hidden by the place of the Law in Judaism's trinity, but now in Christ it is clear.

You're really striking out.

 

[Danoh]

Nope, it is the same thing as was said in Eph 3A. It was embedded there, hidden by the place of the Law in Judaism's trinity, but now in Christ it is clear.

You're really striking out.

Like I said; given your view; going into the passage...

 

[Interplanner]

Eph 3A is not referring to Paul's writings! It's men in other generations who had the scriptures.

I don't know of any objective thing that will let you class Paul's own writings with the prophets, for ex., in Lk 24 Moses and the prophets or Acts 26.

the only thing hidden was that all things promised would come into being through the Gospel, not the Law as Judaism thought and as they assumed was the material to take on their missions to the other nations.

Pentecost is much more supernatural and upstaging than just the tongue/language miracle. It knocks out what Judaism thought was the mission so badly, it would never catch up.

 

[Interplanner]

the "writings" was sometimes used in place of the prophets if the author was identified. History, Psalms and Prophets were called writings as opposed to Torah, which was Law. (The Judaism's trinity again). The writings were not "divine."

Your adjective find does not mean what you suppose.

 

[Danoh]

Yeah, sure; Inter. Must be why Paul refers to Isaiah 28:11 as "the Law" in 1 Cor. 14:21.

 

[Interplanner]

sometimes the whole thing was. Not everyone in Judaism believed the trinity. It is not exact science. There are exceptions all over, like the 4 gospels as written records.

But in, for ex, Acts 26, its Moses and the Prophets.

It's minor, though, to your saying that Paul was referring to his own other writings in Eph 3A or Rom 16 when it was referring to people in earlier generations! Can't be Paul.

 

[Cross Reference]

Oh, good, seriously. The concept that Christ's own life of righteousness (his faithfulness) is what has saved us is seriously missing today. yes the KJV is best on that, but there is no other difference that I see.

IOW: Paul is not a believer because he is keeping the parts of Judaism's law or ceremonies that they want him to keep. He is a believer and is fair to Gentiles because of what Christ accomplished; Christ was 100% faithful in his obedience and that is what saves a person and that is what is offered to all mankind for their acceptance with God.

I do know a couple other spots like that where the NIV is weakened a bit. It is definitely not a 'new age' or 'new world order' document.

I didn't say it was a new age document but that was used by the new age "theologians" to support their doctrine.

Do you think the KJV brings out the counter-imperial nuances that N. T. Wright speaks of? he says that Romans contains several things that topple the role of Roman authority (even with ch 13A!). One ex., the 'epitagen' (royal decree) of the end of 16 is the same term as used around the empire for Caesar's decrees. Paul seized on it and said God has now made the OT and the prophets clear by bringing in all these Gentiles.

You see, in the church community at Rome, Paul was saying "Claudius may have evicted all the Jews" (Acts 18:2) "but it was actually God directing things, because then the church at Rome became solidified even though it was only Gentiles. So God's edict or decree that the OT and the prophets were all about incoming Gentiles (Rom 16:26) is especially true in Rome! Hopefully all nations will believe and obey."

Caesar would boil if he heard that. So would leaders of Judaism who often had administrative positions in Roman cities. Because they wanted the nations to obey their law. Paul said the Gospel was how God was reaching the nations.

I have no interest in those things that only foster discourse.

OMT and the reason the KJV excels is that many of it's scriptures might contain 2-3 truths requiring Spiritual insight, while in the modern versions, only one is advanced. They decide for you.

 

[Cross Reference]

Per the KJV this is what can be understood from Paul when reading Gal 2:20:

"Many of us who call ourselves Christians are not devoted to Jesus Christ. No man on earth has this passionate love to the Lord Jesus unless the Holy Ghost has imparted it to him. We may admire Him, we may respect Him and reverence Him, but we cannot love Him. The only Lover of the Lord Jesus is the Holy Ghost, and He sheds abroad the very love of God in our hearts. . . ." MUHH 0702 Oswald Chambers.

 

[Interplanner]

Chambers does pretty good, but he doesn't know much about what Judaism was like. That is the 'history-first' angle that must be worked through. Chambers thinks everything that is said is a discipleship issue or personal growth issue. Sometimes they are comments about actual historic things and what they were actually like.

See for ex. Gal and Col on the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.' That is about Judaism. It is not about our weak nature or about the secular world. It is about the Judaism that Paul grew up in and which was attempting to make a comeback in areas where he ministered in Little Asia, as neo-Judaism. He grieved at the wolves that were waiting for his absence to pounce on his sheep (Acts 20's farewell to the Ephesian elders), etc.

Now I understand a bit more where you are coming from. It will help in your study if you realize that many things about the NT are actually speaking about exact things going on at that time. It is not always just a sermon about holiness or spiritual insight.

btw, why stop at KJV? Why not just learn Greek?

 

[Interplanner]

"Things that only foster discourse." What if the thing reveals a complete change about what Paul did and why? Are you afraid to declare that this world belongs to the enthroned Christ? That's not a discourse; it is a declaration of war on secularism and its idols.

If Paul says the promises to the fathers were fulfilled in the Gospel and resurrection of Christ, then there's a change in the way we are to understand those things. There must have been and must be something wrong with direct reading the OT and we need the apostles's interp before we are done with the job.

 

[Cross Reference]

Chambers does pretty good, but he doesn't know much about what Judaism was like. That is the 'history-first' angle that must be worked through. Chambers thinks everything that is said is a discipleship issue or personal growth issue. Sometimes they are comments about actual historic things and what they were actually like.

Perhaps but, he was born again and lived by the faith of the son of God and his writings are second only to the scriptures.

 

[Cross Reference]

Chambers does pretty good, but he doesn't know much about what Judaism was like. That is the 'history-first' angle that must be worked through. Chambers thinks everything that is said is a discipleship issue or personal growth issue. Sometimes they are comments about actual historic things and what they were actually like.

See for ex. Gal and Col on the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.' That is about Judaism. It is not about our weak nature or about the secular world. It is about the Judaism that Paul grew up in and which was attempting to make a comeback in areas where he ministered in Little Asia, as neo-Judaism. He grieved at the wolves that were waiting for his absence to pounce on his sheep (Acts 20's farewell to the Ephesian elders), etc.

Now I understand a bit more where you are coming from. It will help in your study if you realize that many things about the NT are actually speaking about exact things going on at that time. It is not always just a sermon about holiness or spiritual insight.

btw, why stop at KJV? Why not just learn Greek?

Which version; interpretation of? Coptic or Signatured?

 

[Cross Reference]

"Things that only foster discourse." What if the thing reveals a complete change about what Paul did and why? Are you afraid to declare that this world belongs to the enthroned Christ? That's not a discourse; it is a declaration of war on secularism and its idols.

What you can't "see" is that your idol is the secular Greek interpretation of the scripture.

If Paul says the promises to the fathers were fulfilled in the Gospel and resurrection of Christ, then there's a change in the way we are to understand those things. There must have been and must be something wrong with direct reading the OT and we need the apostles's interp before we are done with the job.

That's secular reasoning; nonsense! If you really believed that then you need to be obedient to the words of Jesus Christ and tarry for understanding this: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." John 16:13-15 (KJV)

Show the need for studying Judaism or for studying the Greek when it is by the Holy Spirit that understanding can only come and will not unless imparted as the only means for "gifting it"??

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,
I think your MAD is unknowable. I know of no concise summary statement about it like there is for 2P2P.

See post #1 below, for a basic on it:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58704

 

[Interplanner]

Because everyone who was there, before and after being Christians, grew up in that Judaism and spoke to it. Gal 1. No "secular" Greeks show up except as bits and pieces in Jesus' ministry. The NT message is primarily one of detangling from Judaism.

I guess Acts 13:32+ is just secular. Darn. I really enjoy it!

The Spirit and the Word are one: Eph 5:18 and Col 3:16 with the same results. We are to love God with all our mind.

 

[Cross Reference]

Because everyone who was there, before and after being Christians, grew up in that Judaism and spoke to it. Gal 1. No "secular" Greeks show up except as bits and pieces in Jesus' ministry. The NT message is primarily one of detangling from Judaism.

I guess Acts 13:32+ is just secular. Darn. I really enjoy it!

The Spirit and the Word are one: Eph 5:18 and Col 3:16 with the same results. We are to love God with all our mind.

Not enough but, with the whole heart, soul, AND mind, AND with all our strength! In other words, we are to abandon our lives to Him! To compromise this is to exclude yourself from His manifest presence. __ where no sin is allowed! Sortta like being kicked out of the kingdom.

The consuming fire of God has to be applied where the sin in one's life has been concentrated and that is always where we compromise away the life of Christ.

 

[Interplanner]

See post #1 below, for a basic on it:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58704

Both of these items are mistaken. I stopped there:
"Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry."


It is 2P2P and it confuses what was hidden per Eph 3 and Rom 16. What was hidden was that the Gospel was the thing to be taken to the nations. Judaism thought it was the Law. Paul showed that it was the Gospel after all. The "promises" don't come about in the plain, ordinary sense as written. They are in Christ. That also was hidden/embedded.

The main reason this material is mad is bc of Eph 3:10. The intention of un-hiding what was hidden to those with the 'veil' was now, Paul's now. Ie, it has succeeded. The transcultural church is unified and is now demonstrating to the super-human forces that God is victor. If this stated purpose and fulfillment was not there, your guy might have a point.

 

[Danoh]

Both of these items are mistaken. I stopped there:
"Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry."


It is 2P2P and it confuses what was hidden per Eph 3 and Rom 16. What was hidden was that the Gospel was the thing to be taken to the nations. Judaism thought it was the Law. Paul showed that it was the Gospel after all. The "promises" don't come about in the plain, ordinary sense as written. They are in Christ. That also was hidden/embedded.

The main reason this material is mad is bc of Eph 3:10. The intention of un-hiding what was hidden to those with the 'veil' was now, Paul's now. Ie, it has succeeded. The transcultural church is unified and is now demonstrating to the super-human forces that God is victor. If this stated purpose and fulfillment was not there, your guy might have a point.

"I stopped there," huh...

You harp on and on about Judaism's tradition against what you have concluded was going on, only to engage its practice whenever you read something you know nothing of.

Acts 22: 22. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Though I would have worded Randy's words on that thread as "God; having known since before the world began, that Israel would fall; had planned to unveil another aspect of His will; that He had kept hid in Himself from ages and from generations." But I am sure that is what Randy meant.

And Eph. 3:10 asserts - at least in my KJB - that this mystery was now being made known by the church unto principalities and powers in heavenly places.

Why? Because the Mystery concerns those fallen powers and principalities in heavenly places. Ephesians 1:10 b; Ephesians 6:12.

It is you who read 2 Corinthians 3:14-15's "vail" into that.

You "stopped" at the vail on your own eyes.

 

[Cross Reference]

Both of these items are mistaken. I stopped there:
"Because the masses still rejected Him, God put a halt to the prophesied timeline of delivering the kingdom to them. He relegated the chosen nation to the status of the disobedient Gentile nations, thus putting ALL people in the same boat (as opposed to Israel being the preeminent nation).
Upon doing so, God called out Paul to be the "apostle to the Gentiles", delivering the "gospel of the uncircumcision" - a message that was different in many ways from that which was previously delivered by those apostles that Jesus chose during His earthly ministry."


It is 2P2P and it confuses what was hidden per Eph 3 and Rom 16. What was hidden was that the Gospel was the thing to be taken to the nations. Judaism thought it was the Law. Paul showed that it was the Gospel after all. The "promises" don't come about in the plain, ordinary sense as written. They are in Christ. That also was hidden/embedded.

The main reason this material is mad is bc of Eph 3:10. The intention of un-hiding what was hidden to those with the 'veil' was now, Paul's now. Ie, it has succeeded. The transcultural church is unified and is now demonstrating to the super-human forces that God is victor. If this stated purpose and fulfillment was not there, your guy might have a point.

I have never read such a hard to follow, speculative, convoluted, account of things. However, such is the fabrications of a secular mind.