EON/AION/AIONION "The Eons"

[Forty9er]

Oddly, He says it's not to hard...

Deu 30:11 “For this command which I am commanding you today, it is not too hard for you, nor is it far off.
Deu 30:12 “It is not in the heavens, to say, ‘Who shall ascend into the heavens for us, and bring it to us, and cause us to hear it, so that we do it?’
Deu 30:13 “Nor is it beyond the sea, to say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and cause us to hear it, so that we do it?’
Deu 30:14 “For the Word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart – to do it.

I think you should consider those verses in light of the passage in Romans where they are quoted:

Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)
Rom 10:7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

[Wiskey Reb]

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.

[Forty9er]

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.

[Wiskey Reb]

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.

[Forty9er]

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.

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"?

[Wiskey Reb]

[QUOTE]

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.

[Forty9er]

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.

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.

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.

[Off-Grid Organics]

Rom 3:31 where it says do we nullify the law or uphold it. First, what "law" is Paul talking about?

Possibly a quick study on the word 'apostasia' (the great falling away) would help. I say quick, because the word is only used twice in the NT...and the context is unmistakable.

[Wiskey Reb]

Possibly a quick study on the word 'apostasia' (the great falling away) would help. I say quick, because the word is only used twice in the NT...and the context is unmistakable.

...And two applicable passages go with the two uses of the word, as well, in that they emphasize circimcision and observance of the Torah in one, and iniquity in the other.

[Off-Grid Organics]

...And two applicable passages, as well, in that they emphasize circimcision and observance of the Torah in one, and iniquity in the other.

Yes sir. And this is a matter of extreme consideration for the often talked about great falling away, but never seems to be precisely defined for what it truly is.