ECT The Nations and the NHNE

[DAN P]

I don't think our D'ist friends have quite grasped what's going on with the nations and the NHNE. This came up recently in the threads, where the hot question was whether there would be nations in the NHNE.

As you can see from 2 Peter 3, at the end of this age the world is melted down to create the NHNE. This is the final day of judgement. Today's rulers should be giving honor to the enthroned Son, Acts 24:25, out of regard for the judgement to come. For it will be swift and will result in the believers of the Gospel being moved or held for the NHNE, while the rest to judgement. Even if there were 'nations' the NHNE will be in the glorified life of God's righteousness and there is no distinction from this world that matters any more: male, female, married, single, class, race, ethne. Even physical reality is different: God is the temple and Christ is the light, Rev 21, meaning there is no sun.

In this sense, the new Israel (all believers) will be 'over' the nations (that exist in this life)--because unbelievers will be punished.

Hi and in nZech14:16-21 we see NATIONS /ETHNOS !!

There will also be Sacrifices in verse 21 and it is a good read for those who do not believe in the Milleniuum !!

dan p

 

[patrick jane]

There is no difference. Heaven was often a 'safe' way to refer to God in Judaism at that time. These kinds of distinctions are amateur.

Spend your effort sorting out how Gal 3:17 happened. Not these kinds of convenient distinctions made out to be huge mountains.

I think you're misinterpreting Galatians 3:17 KJV - what does it mean to you?

 

[Interplanner]

I think you're misinterpreting Galatians 3:17 KJV - what does it mean to you?

Thanks for asking! Paul was saying that post-exilic Judaism believed (and taught him to think) that the Law superceded the promise to Abraham. And voided it. The way the nations were going to be reached was by getting them to practice it until they were good enough in it to be blessed by God. They would have to be accomplished in all the ceremonies and dietary things and make three trips to Jerusalem each year.

There could not be a promise of justification and Christ's righteousness to all nations to those who believed as was the case of Abraham, or Noah (Heb 11:7) outside the Law.

So Paul is describing what post-exilic Judaism did to the original promise: it voided and switched it. So his sample sermon, delivered by invitation (no 'church issue' to deal with) says the same: that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of all that was promised. Because the resurrection of Christ proves that He accomplished justification from our sins for us, and that he is enthroned. The Promised Gospel definitely supercedes the Law--as they did it. Judaism had that backwards, undoing God's messianic mission.

It helps to remember that Paul is trying to get 'the blessing given to Abraham...to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus...' v14. Voiding and replacing that promise would definitely get in the way of that!

 

[tetelestai]

Thanks for asking! Paul was saying that post-exilic Judaism believed (and taught him to think) that the Law superceded the promise to Abraham. And voided it. The way the nations were going to be reached was by getting them to practice it until they were good enough in it to be blessed by God. They would have to be accomplished in all the ceremonies and dietary things and make three trips to Jerusalem each year.

There could not be a promise of justification and Christ's righteousness to all nations to those who believed as was the case of Abraham, or Noah (Heb 11:7) outside the Law.

So Paul is describing what post-exilic Judaism did to the original promise: it voided and switched it. So his sample sermon, delivered by invitation (no 'church issue' to deal with) says the same: that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of all that was promised. Because the resurrection of Christ proves that He accomplished justification from our sins for us, and that he is enthroned. The Promised Gospel definitely supercedes the Law--as they did it. Judaism had that backwards, undoing God's messianic mission.

It helps to remember that Paul is trying to get 'the blessing given to Abraham...to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus...' v14. Voiding and replacing that promise would definitely get in the way of that!

Yep.

Which is why Paul said:

(Gal 4:28) Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

 

[patrick jane]

Thanks for asking! Paul was saying that post-exilic Judaism believed (and taught him to think) that the Law superceded the promise to Abraham. And voided it. The way the nations were going to be reached was by getting them to practice it until they were good enough in it to be blessed by God. They would have to be accomplished in all the ceremonies and dietary things and make three trips to Jerusalem each year.

There could not be a promise of justification and Christ's righteousness to all nations to those who believed as was the case of Abraham, or Noah (Heb 11:7) outside the Law.

So Paul is describing what post-exilic Judaism did to the original promise: it voided and switched it. So his sample sermon, delivered by invitation (no 'church issue' to deal with) says the same: that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of all that was promised. Because the resurrection of Christ proves that He accomplished justification from our sins for us, and that he is enthroned. The Promised Gospel definitely supercedes the Law--as they did it. Judaism had that backwards, undoing God's messianic mission.

It helps to remember that Paul is trying to get 'the blessing given to Abraham...to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus...' v14. Voiding and replacing that promise would definitely get in the way of that!

The law came 430 years after the covenant?

 

[Danoh]

Yep.

Which is why Paul said:

(Gal 4:28) Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Yes - but Abraham BEFORE he received the sign of circumcision.

When he was in UNcircumcision - even SOME Mads read right past that important distinction.

:doh:

 

[Danoh]

Thanks for asking! Paul was saying that post-exilic Judaism believed (and taught him to think) that the Law superceded the promise to Abraham. And voided it. The way the nations were going to be reached was by getting them to practice it until they were good enough in it to be blessed by God. They would have to be accomplished in all the ceremonies and dietary things and make three trips to Jerusalem each year.

There could not be a promise of justification and Christ's righteousness to all nations to those who believed as was the case of Abraham, or Noah (Heb 11:7) outside the Law.

So Paul is describing what post-exilic Judaism did to the original promise: it voided and switched it. So his sample sermon, delivered by invitation (no 'church issue' to deal with) says the same: that the resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of all that was promised. Because the resurrection of Christ proves that He accomplished justification from our sins for us, and that he is enthroned. The Promised Gospel definitely supercedes the Law--as they did it. Judaism had that backwards, undoing God's messianic mission.

It helps to remember that Paul is trying to get 'the blessing given to Abraham...to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus...' v14. Voiding and replacing that promise would definitely get in the way of that!

Rubbish - for clearly - also built into Paul's understanding is the fact that the Law - having been 400 years after - can not dissanul the UNCONDITIONAL promises (plural) made by God to Abraham, and repeated by Him to both Isaac, and Jacob, concerning a literal, physical, multiplied seed as His agency on the Earth - Israel.

The very Covenant Moses reminded God of when He threatened to wipe out Israel based on their BEHAVIOR.

I suspect God knew you Preterists would screw that up due to your books based incompetence as to the OT you spit on in your endless ignorance.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

And agency dispensing His Law...

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 2:5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

 

[tetelestai]

The law came 430 years after the covenant?

(Ezekiel 4:5) So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel.
(Ezekiel 4:6) and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

390 + 40 = 430

(Exodus 12:40) Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.

390 before Moses, 40 with Moses.

390 + 40 = 430

430 :think:

 

[Interplanner]

Rubbish - for clearly - also built into Paul's understanding is the fact that the Law - having been 400 years after - can not dissanul the UNCONDITIONAL promises (plural) made by God to Abraham, and repeated by Him to both Isaac, and Jacob, concerning a literal, physical, multiplied seed as His agency on the Earth - Israel.

The very Covenant Moses reminded God of when He threatened to wipe out Israel based on their BEHAVIOR.

I suspect God knew you Preterists would screw that up due to your books based incompetence as to the OT you spit on in your endless ignorance.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

And agency dispensing His Law...

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 2:5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Danoh, you are so charge with defensiveness and anger, you can't read clearly:

what your reported here:
- for clearly - also built into Paul's understanding is the fact that the Law - having been 400 years after - can not dissanul the UNCONDITIONAL promises (plural) made by God to Abraham, and repeated by Him to both Isaac, and Jacob,...


...is exactly what I'm saying. Paul as a Christian knew. Judaism, however, did not. That is why when I mention Gal 3:17, I usually ask: who did that? Who did the switch, the replacement? Paul, as you know, was raised in Judaism.

I'm not going to bother with the literalism part, because that is all torn apart by these passages, but can you at least see you thought I was talking about what Paul knew as a Christian, when it was about what Paul was taught in Judaism?

I'm not a masochist and get no joy out of ongoing division, so anytime I can eliminate a division, I will try.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes - but Abraham BEFORE he received the sign of circumcision.

When he was in UNcircumcision - even SOME Mads read right past that important distinction.

:doh:

Danoh,
this is incoherent.

1, Paul is talking about Galatian church members in the 50s AD. You want us to realize that something was true after Abraham received circ. I've looked carefully and found that the Galatian folks were well after. But they weren't told to get circumcised. do you mean that you've been reading this Galatians letter all the time and between the lines you see a brand new argument for Christians to be circ'd?



2, Paul exults in what Abraham had before. Don't you realize that is why this example is used? People can have faith and receive the righteousness of Christ before and apart from that? We are talking about Paul arren't we? Who at the end of the day says that 'neither circ nor uncirc is anything but a new creation that produces the fruit of the Spirit'? Do you actually think that Paul is going to make an entirely different pitch to Gentiles to get circ'd after they have been Christians a while, because they are not REALLY Christians until they've done that, this and another thing? That is theological legalism and that is what the Galatian letter is against.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,
this is incoherent.

1, Paul is talking about Galatian church members in the 50s AD. You want us to realize that something was true after Abraham received circ. I've looked carefully and found that the Galatian folks were well after. But they weren't told to get circumcised. do you mean that you've been reading this Galatians letter all the time and between the lines you see a brand new argument for Christians to be circ'd?



2, Paul exults in what Abraham had before. Don't you realize that is why this example is used? People can have faith and receive the righteousness of Christ before and apart from that? We are talking about Paul arren't we? Who at the end of the day says that 'neither circ nor uncirc is anything but a new creation that produces the fruit of the Spirit'? Do you actually think that Paul is going to make an entirely different pitch to Gentiles to get circ'd after they have been Christians a while, because they are not REALLY Christians until they've done that, this and another thing? That is theological legalism and that is what the Galatian letter is against.

:rotfl:

You read into what I said and then responded to your reading into.

You do that all the time.

Why?

Your reading into Scripture...habit.

As I was addressing a Dispy in my post; I expected said Dispy to get the gist of what I was referring to.

That when Abraham believed God and it was counted for righteousness THAT was BEFORE he was in Circumcision- back when he was in UNcircumcision, in Genesis 15.

And that Paul is applying that event as to his being the SPIRITUAL father of the Uncircumcision who believe.

In contrast, it was AFTER Abraham received the sign of Circumcision in Genesis 17, that he THEN ALSO became the LITERAL Patriarch of the Circumcision (Isaac and Jacob).

THAT is the Two-Fold Aspect I was referring to in THIS case.

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

In his when he was in Uncircumcision and believed is the SPIRITUAL fatherhood of those Gentiles who believe.

Later, he received the sign of Circumcision.

4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

So, he is ony the SPIRITUAL father of only those Gentiles who believe.

In contrast, he is both the PHYSICAL father of the Circumcision, at the same time that he is the only SPIRITUAL father of the Circumcision who believe.

4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

He is the SPIRITUAL father of those Gentiles who believe just as he himself had been UNcircumcision when he first believed.

And he is By Covenant, the SPIRITUAL father of Circumcision who believe.

Both aspects were BEFORE the Law.

The Law did NOT disannul God's promise to Abraham concerning a literal, physical, multiplied seed IN ISAAC and a land that Abraham himself will one day inhabit the Earth with.

 

[Danoh]

As for that other Two-Fold Aspect I also often refer to...

The two different groups are not Jews and Gentiles.

Rather, two different groups comprised of both.

Israel over the Gentiles on the Earth, as God's kingdom of Priests one day, as Prophesied; is one group.

The other is the Body of Christ, comprised of formerly lost Jews and Gentiles (this side of Israel's fall, and temporary setting aside) to reign over the Heavenly host, one day.

Neither are the same.

Neither are a replacement of the other.

And neither are in response to the failure of the other.

Rather, each is in accord with each's respective due time within what turned out - with the raising up of Paul - a Two-Fold Purpose on God's part.

Why Paul?

Why another, one Apostle too many to Israel's Twelve?

Twelve Tribes/Twelve Apostles.

One Body/One Appstle.

 

[tetelestai]

The two different groups are not Jews and Gentiles.

Rather, two different groups comprised of both.

(Eph 2:15) by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,

Since you have Jews and Gentiles in Group #1 and Jews and Gentiles in Group #2, which "out of the two" is Eph 2:15 referring to?

Remember, your fellow MADists STP and heir claim "out of the two" in Eph 2:15 is referring to two kinds of Gentiles.

HINT: notice the phrase "one new humanity" in the verse.

 

[Interplanner]

:rotfl:

You read into what I said and then responded to your reading into.

You do that all the time.

Why?

Your reading into Scripture...habit.

As I was addressing a Dispy in my post; I expected said Dispy to get the gist of what I was referring to.

That when Abraham believed God and it was counted for righteousness THAT was BEFORE he was in Circumcision- back when he was in UNcircumcision, in Genesis 15.

And that Paul is applying that event as to his being the SPIRITUAL father of the Uncircumcision who believe.

In contrast, it was AFTER Abraham received the sign of Circumcision in Genesis 17, that he THEN ALSO became the LITERAL Patriarch of the Circumcision (Isaac and Jacob).

THAT is the Two-Fold Aspect I was referring to in THIS case.

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

In his when he was in Uncircumcision and believed is the SPIRITUAL fatherhood of those Gentiles who believe.

Later, he received the sign of Circumcision.

4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

So, he is ony the SPIRITUAL father of only those Gentiles who believe.

In contrast, he is both the PHYSICAL father of the Circumcision, at the same time that he is the only SPIRITUAL father of the Circumcision who believe.

4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

He is the SPIRITUAL father of those Gentiles who believe just as he himself had been UNcircumcision when he first believed.

And he is By Covenant, the SPIRITUAL father of Circumcision who believe.

Both aspects were BEFORE the Law.

The Law did NOT disannul God's promise to Abraham concerning a literal, physical, multiplied seed IN ISAAC and a land that Abraham himself will one day inhabit the Earth with.

Danoh wrote:
In contrast, it was AFTER Abraham received the sign of Circumcision in Genesis 17, that he THEN ALSO became the LITERAL Patriarch of the Circumcision (Isaac and Jacob).

THAT is the Two-Fold Aspect I was referring to in THIS case.


That is 2P2P which is not what Paul is saying. That is why you have altered Eph 2-3 to mean two other kinds of groups instead of the normal meaning of the two groups, Jew and Gentile.

There is no 2P2P in the Bible.

What you did is start the replacement and voiding of the Promise that Paul was referring to in Gal 3:17, which was the mistake he had to battle and unmake in his generation.

 

[Interplanner]

:rotfl:

You read into what I said and then responded to your reading into.

You do that all the time.

Why?

Your reading into Scripture...habit.

As I was addressing a Dispy in my post; I expected said Dispy to get the gist of what I was referring to.

That when Abraham believed God and it was counted for righteousness THAT was BEFORE he was in Circumcision- back when he was in UNcircumcision, in Genesis 15.

And that Paul is applying that event as to his being the SPIRITUAL father of the Uncircumcision who believe.

In contrast, it was AFTER Abraham received the sign of Circumcision in Genesis 17, that he THEN ALSO became the LITERAL Patriarch of the Circumcision (Isaac and Jacob).

THAT is the Two-Fold Aspect I was referring to in THIS case.

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

In his when he was in Uncircumcision and believed is the SPIRITUAL fatherhood of those Gentiles who believe.

Later, he received the sign of Circumcision.

4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

So, he is ony the SPIRITUAL father of only those Gentiles who believe.

In contrast, he is both the PHYSICAL father of the Circumcision, at the same time that he is the only SPIRITUAL father of the Circumcision who believe.

4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

He is the SPIRITUAL father of those Gentiles who believe just as he himself had been UNcircumcision when he first believed.

And he is By Covenant, the SPIRITUAL father of Circumcision who believe.

Both aspects were BEFORE the Law.

The Law did NOT disannul God's promise to Abraham concerning a literal, physical, multiplied seed IN ISAAC and a land that Abraham himself will one day inhabit the Earth with.

See your last line? Why have you been mocking me for 1.5 years about how 2P2P is a mental illness of mine, or mocking my discrediting of a coming theocracy in Judea? You HAVE been saying and operating with that all this time.

 

[tetelestai]

See your last line? Why have you been mocking me for 1.5 years about how 2P2P is a mental illness of mine, or mocking my discrediting of a coming theocracy in Judea? You HAVE been saying and operating with that all this time.

That's what Darby followers do.

There are parts of Dispensationalism that they are embarrassed about, and don't like to talk about.

However, it's nowhere near the denial and/or embarrassment they have when it comes to discussing Darby inventing Dispensationalism, and the history of Dispensationalism.

 

[Interplanner]

True.

 

[Tambora]

Ezra 3:11 KJV
(11) And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.

 

[Interplanner]

Ezra 3:11 KJV
(11) And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.

Sorry to disappoint but 'forever' is often qualified in the OT. Some cities that were 'destroyed forever' are back in operation in a few centuries...

How does your quote relate to Heb 13 and the city that endures that is not here, after the heavens and earth will be shaken and removed, ch 12?

And again, how does it relate to Malachi's lament that it (the post exile house) seemed as nothing compared to what was?

 

[Tambora]

Sorry to disappoint but 'forever' is often qualified in the OT.

Tell us what 'qualifications' are in that verse that means GOD's mercy toward Israel will not last forever.