ECT Rom 15 as one of the key self-organizing chapters

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The chapter makes it very clear what is going on with the promises to the fathers and the incoming of the believers from all nations. It has great OT quotes to underwrite this.

It then does one other thing that we should all pay attention to: a defining of spiritual and physical blessings. The definitions should close the usual modern frackas.

1, spiritual in this chapter ("Israel's spiritual blessings") are justification in Christ, fellowship in Christ, etc. He does not mean a false, unnatural, artificial way of reading the OT or thinking about one of its passages.

2, physical blessings is the relief gifts of money and then food during a famine that affected the whole eastern Mediterranean, Acts __. There is nothing beyond this practical matter that would lead us to think he meant anything about a restored theocracy in Judea. Yet it is in a chapter which is all about the "promises to the fathers" and the Psalms about the age in which the nations would believe the same Gospel which had been planted in Israel!

Once again the very chapter that you would think would mention or clarify or allow for a restored theocracy in Judea, according to D'ism and MAD, has nothing that starts that direction.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
The chapter makes it very clear what is going on with the promises to the fathers and the incoming of the believers from all nations. It has great OT quotes to underwrite this.

It then does one other thing that we should all pay attention to: a defining of spiritual and physical blessings. The definitions should close the usual modern frackas.

1, spiritual in this chapter ("Israel's spiritual blessings") are justification in Christ, fellowship in Christ, etc. He does not mean a false, unnatural, artificial way of reading the OT or thinking about one of its passages.

2, physical blessings is the relief gifts of money and then food during a famine that affected the whole eastern Mediterranean, Acts __. There is nothing beyond this practical matter that would lead us to think he meant anything about a restored theocracy in Judea. Yet it is in a chapter which is all about the "promises to the fathers" and the Psalms about the age in which the nations would believe the same Gospel which had been planted in Israel!

Once again the very chapter that you would think would mention or clarify or allow for a restored theocracy in Judea, according to D'ism and MAD, has nothing that starts that direction.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Believe the prophets.
Paul is not concerned with the kingdom on the earth.
Click to expand...


I just realized I may have missed your admission here: you're right. But it is not a matter of 'not concerned'. There just isn't any as you know it or are thinking.

Now the kingdom of God, made without human hands (Dan 2), that's different. That is at work all through the world. But as incomplete at Heb 2 says. We don't see everything subject to him yet.

If you could just learn how to communicate clearly, you wouldn't mean two totally different things right where it is most vital.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Nah!
Click to expand...


There is definitely two ways of reading them. In 2 Cor 5, it is 'in Christ' (unveiled) vs 'kata sarka' (the veiled ordinary way).

It can easily take a year to truly see what is going on in the NT quotes of the OT.

And then there is Acts 26, where Paul limits the meaning of the prophets to 'the coming, and death of Christ, and the preaching of that among the nations.' Paul said he dared not go beyond that. No theocracy; no restored kindom, as Judaism understood it.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There is definitely two ways of reading them. In 2 Cor 5, it is 'in Christ' (unveiled) vs 'kata sarka' (the veiled ordinary way).

It can easily take a year to truly see what is going on in the NT quotes of the OT.

And then there is Acts 26, where Paul limits the meaning of the prophets to 'the coming, and death of Christ, and the preaching of that among the nations.' Paul said he dared not go beyond that. No theocracy; no restored kindom, as Judaism understood it.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:

Paul wasn't concerned with the land.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
:chuckle:

Paul wasn't concerned with the land.
Click to expand...



So here is what I mean about you and talking. We might be agreeing! You don't explain yourself. You don't realize you just said something that is a milimeter from a landmine!

He wasn't concerned with the land because that concern is completely gone and over with!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Show me 'concern with the land' in Hebrews--the letter to the Hebrews, where we should expect it right? Or Acts 26's hearing.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Hebrews is concerned with the City. How is it with all of your education that you cannot tell the difference between land and a city?
Click to expand...


You can't distinguish them in Judaism at all.

the whole thing is to be renewed in the NHNE and it will 'feel' like the things that are already true in Christ in eph 2-4. The stage or purpose that Judaism served will be forgotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top