ECT "It is not through the Law that Abraham recieved the promise..." Rom 4

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
What is fascinating about this is its demonstration once again there is no 2P2P. Why would Paul have to say this? Because many in Judaism believed the inheritance would come through the institution or program or observance of the law. Those are the people among whom the Gospel took place. They were immersed in thinking there had to be a total program for their people in Judaism. They even thought the NHNE was going to come about through the institution of the law--their regard for it, their keeping it, their worship system, which of course means a land and theocracy etc. that's why Acts 26 says what it does: they are seeking 'the hope of israel' through their worship system day and night, but it had already arrived in the resurrection for justification for men's sins. Peter 'lapsed' back in to it when pressured by them, because he grew up in it too. How could God do everything through Christ when all his nation believed it had to be in and through the law?

Gal 4 says the law served a different reason than the promised mission, and its supervision of them was no longer needed. That is a completely different read of things than what MAD offers.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Meaning what? Emotions are not reasons. The mission generated by the Promise to Abraham was offered to Israel, not a theocratic state.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Meaning what? Emotions are not reasons. The mission generated by the Promise to Abraham was offered to Israel, not a theocratic state.
Click to expand...

If frustration with such an obtuse individual - you - is an emotion; than yeah :doh:

You haven't a clue as to difference in "missions."

You are too busy rereading your 1P1P into things...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
If frustration with such an obtuse individual - you - is an emotion; than yeah :doh:

You haven't a clue as to difference in "missions."

You are too busy rereading your 1P1P into things...
Click to expand...


well there's 1P1P all through the "plain meaning" of the verses of the NT. It's people who read Gal 1 and justify gobs of gospels that drive me nuts. Throw some cartoons at them. actually, it's the ones who lecture me about plain meaning!

Once again, do we use the NT to interp the OT or not? That's what blows 2P2P out of the water.

As with prophecy, the ordinary language kata sarka may make the OT appear to support a 2P2P mission. 'Kata sarka' is therefore the "clue" I don't have, as you say. But not in Christ, where the veil is taken away, and the verses of Rom 10's mid section are the NT quoting the OT in Christ, which is--last I checked--who we are. (I say that because of the guy here who finally outed his superiority of Israel 'in God's created order' doctrine--he borrowed his word choice from Herr Goebbels).
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
well there's 1P1P all through the "plain meaning" of the verses of the NT.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:

I see people seated in Christ far ABOVE all heavens.
I see people going into a City that comes DOWN from heaven.

That's 2.

And the meek shall inherit the earth.

That's 3.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
:chuckle:

I see people seated in Christ far ABOVE all heavens.
I see people going into a City that comes DOWN from heaven.

That's 2.

And the meek shall inherit the earth.

That's 3.
Click to expand...



You've forgotten that the city above finally descends in the NHNE, where God and Christ are the temple and the light (recalculate that!). That's one.

The Matt 5 declaration was that those who do not fight in the Jewish war of liberation would have the land of Israel. It was an appeal to all people in Israel. It was disregarded. That is the only way the land of Israel would have been left alone. It could have been, but the odds? Very low.

That's one. It is all one, a unity. Not a fractured mess.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Watch it STP...IP has a dog whistle...next thing ya know, Ol Blue will be all over you...:chuckle:
Click to expand...

Yes sir, I see.



I wonder if IP would call the old testament temple a fractured mess?
It was one unit, but had 3 general sections.

Much the same way, the Kingdom of God is one unit, but has at least 3 inheritances.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Yes sir, I see.



I wonder if IP would call the old testament temple a fractured mess?
It was one unit, but had 3 general sections.

Much the same way, the Kingdom of God is one unit, but has at least 3 inheritances.
Click to expand...



By comparison with the living temple (Eph 2B), yes the old covenant's temple was fractured at best.

Your inheritance doctrine is not in Eph 2B-3A. (That section, if you are unware, is the resolution of the Gospel community compared to all the fractures and divisions that exist without it, in Judaism).
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
By comparison with the living temple (Eph 2B), yes the old covenant's temple was fractured at best.

Your inheritance doctrine is not in Eph 2B-3A. (That section, if you are unware, is the resolution of the Gospel community compared to all the fractures and divisions that exist without it, in Judaism).
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
By comparison with the living temple (Eph 2B), yes the old covenant's temple was fractured at best.
Click to expand...

Heb 8
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Heb 8
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Click to expand...



Oh, and I suppose there was a women's and gentiles section up there, lol! And then varying sections for rabbis, scribes, etc., ad nauseum.

It says everything that you can't bring yourself to see what Eph 2B-3A say.

The other day, Danoh said the NT is interp'd by the OT as well as the OT by the NT. But this cannot be. "The Seed was Christ" was not many people. It has to stop there. You can't go back and forth and there is no 2P2P. That is the mentality of the NT.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Oh, and I suppose there was a women's and gentiles section up there, lol! And then varying sections for rabbis, scribes, etc., ad nauseum.

It says everything that you can't bring yourself to see what Eph 2B-3A say.

The other day, Danoh said the NT is interp'd by the OT as well as the OT by the NT. But this cannot be. "The Seed was Christ" was not many people. It has to stop there. You can't go back and forth and there is no 2P2P. That is the mentality of the NT.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:

IP the skeptic

Become IP the believer
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
:chuckle:

IP the skeptic

Become IP the believer
Click to expand...


Over at a messianic church, one of the principle doctrines on their doc statement is that you HAVE to believe that the land of Israel is divine. That's right up there with justification by Christ, and the trinity. Actually, the MJ trinity might be closer to Judaism than they know: God--land--torah.

You won't find this in the NT, in the apostles. You don't find it in the letter to Hebrews.

What Paul said in this line in Rom 4 busts up the trinity of Judaism, because the law is not needed. That is what I was trying to get the reader to see. There was a promise to all nations back through Abraham, and that promise was the Seed and that Seed was not many people but Christ, so that all nations can recieve God's blessings pivotally, and the blessing was the Spirit (Gal 3:2, 14), and the work of the Spirit (as a total package) is the mission of God.

None of this comes through the law nor was of any concern in the law. It was added to help that particular people get ready for Christ at that particular time, like a governess/child-trainer is needed to move a child through adolescence. It's supervision is no longer needed.

Gal 3:17 says all this was switched and replaced by Judaism. Judaism made the law a permanent player and institution and that includes the theocratic kingdom expectation.

That is why everything about Acts is a transition from concerns about a theocratic kingdom for Israel to the whole world wide mission of God. Otherwise, Paul could never have said what he did in Acts 13's sermon or at Acts 26's hearing.

I'm most definitely a believer in these things. You are now meddling with the definition of a believer.
 
D

Danoh

New member
There is ever a fine line between believing a thing, and what it is that one thinks one is believing.

In this - EVERYONE - is "a believer."

Question is - what are they believing about what they are believing in.

There is ever a key, important difference, between "simple" and "oversimplied" (or "simplistic").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top