Page 8 of 23 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 227

Thread: EON/AION/AIONION "The Eons"

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    I think you should consider those verses in light of the passage in Romans where they are quoted:
    Which is exactly correct, in that the righteousness of faith, inspired also in the giving of the law, is what carries the nation in exile, and ultimately ends it. This is why Romans states that by faith we do not nullify the law, but uphold it.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    I have pointed out your hypocrisy in these kind of statements many times before. You claim that God requires Christians to follow the Law of Moses, all of the Law, every jot and tittle, in spite of what is clearly taught in the NT that we are no longer under the Law. But when I point out all of the things required by the Law that you aren't doing, your only response is to say that you can't do them.

    So you are saying that God requires you to do something that is not just difficult to do but is impossible to do. God never requires someone to do something that is impossible.
    Logically then, if it is impossible to keep,G-d would never have given it. Deut 30, then, in explaining how Israel will be restored and returned in their repentance, will again be able to keep it. So it will be fulfilled in them and then by them, lest we default to the fallacy that G-d can put His righteousness in a person yet is incapable of causing that person to adequately reflect it. Integral with the law is repentance. Repentance is the sinners first keeping of the law. It is not a call for humanly incapable perfection.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    Which is exactly correct, in that the righteousness of faith, inspired also in the giving of the law, is what carries the nation in exile, and ultimately ends it. This is why Romans states that by faith we do not nullify the law, but uphold it.
    There are a couple of things I think we have to consider with regard to Rom 3:31 where it says do we nullify the law or uphold it. First, what "law" is Paul talking about? The answer to that question could probably be discussed at length without coming to an agreement. And second, what does he mean when he says we uphold it?

    If you assume he has the Law of Moses, every jot and tittle, in mind and that is to be followed in every respect, then you would have to conclude that he is being contradictory because in more than one place he says that physical circumcision is not required, even though it is a clear requirement of the Law.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    Logically then, if it is impossible to keep,G-d would never have given it. Deut 30, then, in explaining how Israel will be restored and returned in their repentance, will again be able to keep it. So it will be fulfilled in them and then by them, lest we default to the fallacy that G-d can put His righteousness in a person yet is incapable of causing that person to adequately reflect it. Integral with the law is repentance. Repentance is the sinners first keeping of the law. It is not a call for humanly incapable perfection.
    I don't think it is correct to say that it was impossible for Israel to keep the Law. They were incapable of keeping it. There weren't inherent conditions or circumstances that made it impossible for them to keep it like there are today. And the answer to why God gave them the Law is given in Galatians:

    Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
    Gal 3:20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
    Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
    Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
    Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
    Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
    Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    There are a couple of things I think we have to consider with regard to Rom 3:31 where it says do we nullify the law or uphold it. First, what "law" is Paul talking about? The answer to that question could probably be discussed at length without coming to an agreement. And second, what does he mean when he says we uphold it?

    If you assume he has the Law of Moses, every jot and tittle, in mind and that is to be followed in every respect, then you would have to conclude that he is being contradictory because in more than one place he says that physical circumcision is not required, even though it is a clear requirement of the Law.
    For the "ger"/stranger within the gates, the requirement for circumcision was required in order to keep Passover, indicating that it was not required for every "ger" who sought to draw near. But for all who wished to fully engage in the covenant as given to the People, it was definately required. There was a difference, emphasized in Acts 15, between those who were coming to faith and learning, and born Jews who had been raised in Torah. But one doesn't venture far into Romans, ch 3 to be precise, before seeing a distinct advantage and purpose to circumcision. If one wishes to be included in that, circumcision is of value. To repent of sin and idolotry which apply to gentiles, and share in the world to come, it is not required....because every new believer does not become a Jew. The law of Romans is Torah. If it's not, then your claim above in initially quoting it is also falacious. The "righteousness based on the law" must also refer to something else. You'll be stretching pretty hard to make it something else, save perhaps Sadduceical ordinance, but even that is stretching the context.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    For the "ger"/stranger within the gates, the requirement for circumcision was required in order to keep Passover, indicating that it was not required for every "ger" who sought to draw near. But for all who wished to fully engage in the covenant as given to the People, it was definately required.
    Now you are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist since the cross of Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile but we are all to be one in Christ. There aren't some Gentile believers who haven't been circumcised and are therefore relegated to some second class status.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    The law of Romans is Torah. If it's not, then your claim above in initially quoting it is also falacious.
    Let's see ... Romans mentions a law, the law, the law of works, the law of faith, the law of sin, the law of God, the law of marriage, and the law of the Spirit of life. But you state categorically that each and every reference to "law" must be a reference to "Torah"?
    Last edited by Forty9er; 09-13-2017 at 01:00 PM.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    Now you are trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist since the cross of Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile but we are all to be one in Christ. There aren't some Gentile believers who haven't been circumcised and are therefore relegated to some second class status.
    That is exactly correct, the covenant given to the Jewish people was to serve a restorative, teaching and exemplary role, a blessing to the world, not one of superiority....what you are mentioning in terms of exclusivity and second class status has been a strictly Christian position, never a Jewish one. So you are superimposing a Christian attitude over a Jewish calling...that is unjust. Jews or Christians neither have any advantage or superiority before G-d. But if you deny the significance of the Jewish role, as opposed to that of gentile Christians, or any gentile for that matter, then you need to pick that bone with Paul, and starting with that Romans passage, you'll need to answer just what value, then, circumcision and being a Jew really is if everything having to do with that role defaults to Christians because they believe in Jesus.

    Let's see ... Romans mentions a law, the law, the law of works, the law of faith, the law of sin, the law of God, the law of marriage, and the law of the Spirit of life. But you state categorically that each and every reference to "law" must be a reference to "Torah"?
    Well, let's see, scripture also talks about many other "laws". The law of menstruation, the law of the priesthood, the law of wearing fringes, the law of kosher animals, the law of the festivals, the law of the stranger, the law of kings, the law of planting crops....Should I continue?...thefe are dozens more. Each "law" you mentioned above also corresponds as well with a Torah "law". Each "law" makes up a portion of a body of "law" called "the law", or, Torah. So, yes, absolutely, each law refers to Torah. But, we were talking specifically about the context of this Romans passage, which is pretty clear in what it is talking about.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    That is exactly correct, the covenant given to the Jewish people was to serve a restorative, teaching and exemplary role, a blessing to the world, not one of superiority.
    I don't diminish the role that God gave to Israel. It was to Israel that God gave His Word and it is through Israel that we have a Savior. The things you mention were a part of Israel's role prior to Christ and they will be Israel's role in the future during the Millennium, but those things are not currently Israel's role as a nation because they have been temporarily set aside in God's plan because of unbelief.

    That doesn't mean that Jewish believers individually cannot contribute unique perspectives from their heritage to the Body of Christ but they don't currently have the special identity that the nation of Israel enjoyed previously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    what you are mentioning in terms of exclusivity and second class status has been a strictly Christian position, never a Jewish one. So you are superimposing a Christian attitude over a Jewish calling...that is unjust.
    You are falling back to an old pattern of prejudice by only seeing Christians and Christianity as a monolith and thinking all Christians are responsible for the sins of some. And how is it that you can say that Jews never had a prejudicial attitude toward Gentiles? Have you completely forgotten the vision that God gave to Peter which had to be repeated three times in order for him to even start to understand that God shows no partiality? And I doubt that Peter was alone in having that kind of attitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    Well, let's see, scripture also talks about many other "laws". The law of menstruation, the law of the priesthood, the law of wearing fringes, the law of kosher animals, the law of the festivals, the law of the stranger, the law of kings, the law of planting crops....Should I continue?...thefe are dozens more. Each "law" you mentioned above also corresponds as well with a Torah "law". Each "law" makes up a portion of a body of "law" called "the law", or, Torah. So, yes, absolutely, each law refers to Torah. But, we were talking specifically about the context of this Romans passage, which is pretty clear in what it is talking about.
    Your mind is so closed on this I don't see any point in continuing.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Forty9er View Post
    I don't diminish the role that God gave to Israel. It was to Israel that God gave His Word and it is through Israel that we have a Savior. The things you mention were a part of Israel's role prior to Christ and they will be Israel's role in the future during the Millennium, but those things are not currently Israel's role as a nation because they have been temporarily set aside in God's plan because of unbelief.
    Since Paul speaks in the present tense in Romans 9:4, not past or future, you have your work cut out making that case. And Jesus certainly did not have your view. Romans 15:8-9 states he he affirmed the promises given to the patriarchs to the circumcision while showing mercy on the gentiles. So to one group he affirmed promises, while to the other he showed mercy....that describes very different things....things which affirm Israels role in the present tense. But then in ch 3 and verses 30-31, we see both Jew and gentile as being justified by faith, and resultantly affirming the Torah....both Jew and gentile, present tense. So, by saying it is set aside, even temporarily, then you are indeed diminishing their role.

    That doesn't mean that Jewish believers individually cannot contribute unique perspectives from their heritage to the Body of Christ but they don't currently have the special identity that the nation of Israel enjoyed previously.
    If they have no special identity, then they neither have any special heritage. To which gentiles were the promises given? Jesus was not being fascetious when in Matthew 15 he addressed the gentile woman with a demoniac daughter. He proclaimed that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (meaning the diaspora). But she asked for mercy for herself too, and it was given. But had it not been for the fact that his people were there in exile as well, he'd have had no cause to be among the gentiles. You should be greatful that those lost sheep were lost 49er, else you would not have been found. No special status or identity eh?



    You are falling back to an old pattern of prejudice by only seeing Christians and Christianity as a monolith and thinking all Christians are responsible for the sins of some. And how is it that you can say that Jews never had a prejudicial attitude toward Gentiles? Have you completely forgotten the vision that God gave to Peter which had to be repeated three times in order for him to even start to understand that God shows no partiality? And I doubt that Peter was alone in having that kind of attitude.
    Well, when you use those old arguements, you are placing yourselves among that camp, and making my ability to discern you from that which you deny being a part of. And your use of Peter magnifies my point. Who was Peter associating with when Paul admonished him? It was the sect of the circumcision....Sadducees and hellenized aristocracy. But you are lumping them all together, blaming the sins of some on the whole, just as you claim that I am doing. Paul said that "some, or certain" of his people do not believe. That is far from a sweeping condemnation of a majority. If you will attach the history to the NT record, you would find that the "unbelieving" were the hellenized religious leaders and aristocracy....the sect of the circumcision ( which included some Pharisees too). They were the ones who did not allow any association with "gentiles", which included the diaspora Jews. These represented what Paul explained in expressing that not all who are of Israel are Israel....their viewpoints and doctrones were way out of character, and against Torah. But the Pharisees welcomed the gentiles and diaspora with no requirements to convert. Which is Torah, yet you claim that such a paradigm does not exist. This was a political hotbed. It was very much like the immigration issue we face now. Bringing in diaspora and gentiles to Judea and Judaism was akin to letting Mexican illegals vote. But they were brought into the synagogues and the community (see Acts 15, that acceptance took place, not only among the followers of Jesus) accepted them and taught them, just as Torah says to do with the Ger/ stranger within the gates, and remain uncircumcised.

    Your mind is so closed on this I don't see any point in continuing.
    That is a two way street, 49er. I am open to allowing the NT record to match the historical record. On the other hand, for you the NT record has to match your doctrine. So, whose mind is really closed here? All the laws you quoted are indeed as I said, as was the history I used above both accurate and commonly accepted. Oh,...and would you like to try and make a case that the "the law/torah of christ" was something new? That would be rich.
    Last edited by Wiskey Reb; 09-13-2017 at 11:48 PM.
    There is a great danger that people are taking refuge in magical thinking, which today takes one of four forms: the far right, the far left, religious extremism and aggressive secularism. The far right seeks a return to a golden past that never was. The far left seeks a utopian future that will never be. Religious extremists believe you can bring salvation by force. Aggressive secularists believe that if you get rid of religion there will be peace. -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiskey Reb View Post
    Since Paul speaks in the present tense in Romans 9:4, not past or future, you have your work cut out making that case. And Jesus certainly did not have your view. Romans 15:8-9 states he he affirmed the promises given to the patriarchs to the circumcision while showing mercy on the gentiles. So to one group he affirmed promises, while to the other he showed mercy....that describes very different things....things which affirm Israels role in the present tense. But then in ch 3 and verses 30-31, we see both Jew and gentile as being justified by faith, and resultantly affirming the Torah....both Jew and gentile, present tense. So, by saying it is set aside, even temporarily, then you are indeed diminishing their role.
    You say that Jesus didn't have my view regarding Israel but you are overlooking the obvious. After "great multitudes" of the people had gathered to hear Christ, he only spoke to them in parables. After talking to the multitudes He spoke privately to His disciples:

    Matt 13:10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
    Matt 13:11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
    Matt 13:12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
    Matt 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
    Matt 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“‘You will indeed hear but never understand, ​​​​​​​and you will indeed see but never perceive. ​​​
    Matt 13:15 ​​​​​​​​For this people's heart has grown dull, ​​​​​​​and with their ears they can barely hear, ​​​​​​​and their eyes they have closed, ​​​​​​​lest they should see with their eyes ​​​​​​​and hear with their ears ​​​​​​​and understand with their heart ​​​​​​​and turn, and I would heal them.’ ​​​
    The great multitudes are representative of the nation who are in unbelief and Christ's disciples are representative of the believing remnant. But you don't recognize Israel's blindness but think that Jewish sages, who are in unbelief and blindness because they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah, have the spiritual light that we should listen to.

    This same prophecy from Isaiah regarding the current spiritual blindness of Israel is repeated by Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11. But you seem incapable of recognizing it. And I haven't even mentioned what Christ said regarding the nation in Mat 23:37-39.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •