ECT Sermon on the Mount- Interplanner's View

[Danoh]

RD fumbled:
In the new covenant, Israel with keep the law with God's Spirit in them. Eze 37


That's true but its about anyone who does. God's new covenant is with all who have faith and is in effect now. That's why Rom 2 sounds the way it does about 'gentiles who do not know the law but do the things of the law'

Nope, at that point in Romans, the Apostle Paul is still laying out how things had functioned prior to the Cross of Christ he will get into only after he has finished laying both how things had functioned prior to said Cross, all the way back to Genesis 11, and how man was proven hopeless throughout by said, prior standards, or expectations of understanding and obedience.

You remain clueless to the actual flow of thought within Paul's narrative, there, in Romans 1:18 thru 3:20 - which is an interruption of what he was talking about in 1:17 (which he will return to in 3:21).

1:18 thru 3:20 are a glimpse into the Pending Wrath of God that man deserves, and why.

It serves as a contrast to the Grace of God in His Son and to His Glory that man is now being temporarily offered and that has temporarily interrupted said Pending Wrath.

Said Pending Wrath will be unleashed after this Mystery Age of Grace is over - at which point, man will be back at Romans 1:18-3:20.

That is to say, at last, man will head toward the final hours of God's Pending Wrath, which is what 2 Thessalonians 2 is a description of - a return to...where things left off at the Romans 3:20 - time to pay the Piper...

In Romans 1:18 thru 3:20, the Apostle Paul first goes into the Wrath of God that man has all along been headed towards, and how he ended up that way.

He will then touch on the Glory of God's Mystery Grace's delaying impact on said Wrath, here and there throughout Romans, and then go into it a bit more in Romans 9-11.

But it...does not...fit...your 70AD...notions...anymore than your notions on Romans 2 fits your need for your narrative...so you solved for it through the lens of your narrative...rather than through the Scripture on all this...

Makes absolute sense...to you...but that is why...not...because your resulting quagemire is actually sound...

You must be working on a new screenplay version of the Peter Fonda classic "Fighting Mad" :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 towards you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

RD fumbled:
In the new covenant, Israel with keep the law with God's Spirit in them. Eze 37


That's true but its about anyone who does. God's new covenant is with all who have faith and is in effect now. That's why Rom 2 sounds the way it does about 'gentiles who do not know the law but do the things of the law'

You don't know anyone that God is causing to walk in his statutes, and do them.

 

[Interplanner]

You don't know anyone that God is causing to walk in his statutes, and do them.

Are you in meltdown? What a stupid remark. And, how on earth would you know? If you mean ceremonial or dietary laws, no, not personally. But I know Messianic Jews who are and they say I am 2nd class because I'm not learning them.

 

[Wick Stick]

It's a common tactic used by anti-MAD people to attempt to claim "the higher ground" and I'm not falling for it.

Saying what you mean isn't a moral high ground. At least, it shouldn't be.

If you're not preaching Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, then you're preaching Him wrong. Romans 16:25

I stopped preaching anything at all several years back.
I couldn't find much value in speaking to the smile-and-nod crowd, or arguing with the occasional virulent defender-of-the-faith.

I was using the term JEW in the sense that it refers to ALL of Israel.

And I was letting you know that is an error.

When Paul says "neither Jew nor Greek", he is NOT talking about only the tribe of Judah.

He's speaking to those who identify themselves as nationally and culturally Jewish. That group doesn't include much of the House of Israel.

In the new covenant, Israel with keep the law with God's Spirit in them. Eze 37

Ezekiel 37 doesn't say anything about the law.

Nonsense. You don't even know what a proselyte is.

Clearly, one of us could use a bit more education.

 

[Danoh]

Saying what you mean isn't a moral high ground. At least, it shouldn't be.

I stopped preaching anything at all several years back.
I couldn't find much value in speaking to the smile-and-nod crowd, or arguing with the occasional virulent defender-of-the-faith.

And I was letting you know that is an error.

He's speaking to those who identify themselves as nationally and culturally Jewish. That group doesn't include much of the House of Israel.

Ezekiel 37 doesn't say anything about the law.


Clearly, one of us could use a bit more education.

Yep, Wick - in this EVERY son of Abraham is made "a prosylite."

In fact, an animal sacrifice as a purification ritual was performed before said child was presented unto the Lord.

Nice "distinction" bro. :thumb:

 

[Danoh]

You don't know anyone that God is causing to walk in his statutes, and do them.

Nope He is not - for outside of the built-in power of the (now completed or fully filled) Word Itself - when rightly divided - there is no longer any form of supernatural intervention - which has always actually been...a Dispensational issue.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yep, Wick - in this EVERY son of Abraham is made "a prosylite."

In fact, an animal sacrifice as a purification ritual was performed before said child was presented unto the Lord.

Nice "distinction" bro. :thumb:

I'm having trouble following this... is there a word missing in the first sentence, perhaps?

 

[Danoh]

I'm having trouble following this... is there a word missing in the first sentence, perhaps?

I'm curious - what word is it you are perceiving might be missing?

Thanks

 

[Wick Stick]

I'm curious - what word is it you are perceiving might be missing?
Thanks

You said >> Yep, Wick - in this EVERY son of Abraham is made "a prosylite."

I'm not quite sure what word is intended, but in this sentence, "in this ___." This verse? This thread? This covenant? This dictionary? Lots of things could go there.

 

[Danoh]

You said >> Yep, Wick - in this EVERY son of Abraham is made "a prosylite."

I'm not quite sure what word is intended, but in this sentence, "in this ___." This verse? This thread? This covenant? This dictionary? Lots of things could go there.

"In this," as in "in (agreement with) this" that you had stated about the fuller sense of the word "prosylite."

 

[Wick Stick]

"In this," as in "in (agreement with) this" that you had stated about the fuller sense of the word "prosylite."

Ok, got it. Sorry to be dense.

 

[Danoh]

Ok, got it. Sorry to be dense.

Didn't mean it that way...

Still - feel free to point mine out to me, when it is my turn - and publicly please - Prob. 27:17.

Cause Romans 5:8

 

[Right Divider]

Ezekiel 37 doesn't say anything about the law.

Of course it does.

Ezek 37:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(37:24) And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. ​

You don't understand what "observe my statutes" means?

Clearly, one of us could use a bit more education.

That one of us is you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Are you in meltdown? What a stupid remark. And, how on earth would you know? If you mean ceremonial or dietary laws, no, not personally. But I know Messianic Jews who are and they say I am 2nd class because I'm not learning them.

Which statutes would Ezekiel have been referring to?

 

[Danoh]

Are you in meltdown? What a stupid remark. And, how on earth would you know? If you mean ceremonial or dietary laws, no, not personally. But I know Messianic Jews who are and they say I am 2nd class because I'm not learning them.

In this, you are just as incompetent at it's proper understanding as said MJs have continued to prove to be.

Yours is your version of both their failure, and that of some within Mid-Acts, at properly understanding one passage or another within Acts 15.

Each due to faulty study approach.

That, and arrogance, when such is pointed out to each.

Leaving the need for the lens of Romans 5:8 towards each.

 

[Danoh]

Which statutes would Ezekiel have been referring to?

Yep - it is clear in Jeremiah 31, and elsewhere in their Prophets, that He is referring to "which my covenant they brake" - the Law Daniel also reiterates in his prayer, in Daniel 9.

And those Prophecies concerning that New Covenant that would enable them to keep The Law...go back to Moses.

And contrast to The Mystery first revealed through and to, and preached by Paul - none of that was Unexpected - "THIS IS THE new testament in my blood..."

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yep - it is clear in Jeremiah 31, and elsewhere in their Prophets, that He is referring to "which my covenant they brake" - the Law Daniel also reiterates in his prayer, in Daniel 9.

And those Prophecies concerning that New Covenant that would enable them to keep The Law...go back to Moses.

And contrast to The Mystery first revealed through and to, and preached by Paul - none of that was Unexpected - "THIS IS THE new testament in my blood..."

Thou hast well said.

 

[Interplanner]

You were juxtaposing 'all those who are "following Paul as He follows Jesus," I am first and foremost a follower of Jesus.'


If you are following Jesus in His earthly ministry to Israel, then you are following a Jew under the law who taught His fellow Jews under the law to follow the law.

Right, the one who would rebuild the destroyed temple in 3 days before it was even destroyed.

 

[Right Divider]

Right, the one who would rebuild the destroyed temple in 3 days before it was even destroyed.

Another pointless post from the "real writer and grammar scholar".

You are trying to claim that Jesus was NOT a Jew? Or that He was NOT under the law?

 

[Interplanner]

Another pointless post from the "real writer and grammar scholar".

You are trying to claim that Jesus was NOT a Jew? Or that He was NOT under the law?

He was Lord of the Sabbath. He was not "under" it.

There is no bearing on being a Jew.