musterion
Well-known member
Where?
ECT We are not Israel, but the Body of Christ
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Where?
Actually, I did: neither the issue, nor the answer, start in Ephesians.
That's what I was wondering.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Shame on you Danoh for dividing up the sacrifice of Christ and saying the death was only for Israel. Your post is worthless. If you are uncomfortable with 2P2P in D'ism, say so. Don't do backwards gymnastics for them, and don't pretend like 2P2P is not there, and don't pretend that you can hide in acts 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 D'ism. Worthless comments.
Christ died for Gods Israel, the Heavenly Zion.
Men outside of Christ die for their own sin.
LA
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yep. We must decomplicate these teacings which are so convoluted and confuse the Gospel.
Right Divider
Body part
1Tim 2:5-6 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:5) For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(2:5) For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (2:6) Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
who are the"all".
You need to rightly divide the word by listening to the holy Spirit.
LA
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You Dispies don't know Christ (the man) after the flesh.
You don't get to claim that which you deny.:kookoo:
Interplanner
Well-known member
"After the flesh"? That expression is actually in 2 Cor 5 in a completely different context, where it means what Paul knew about Christ while in Judaism.
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5: 16-19
This is talking about being in the spiritual state of the flesh and being born again of the Spirit in Christ and becoming a new creature or creation. He is contrasting knowing Christ while in the spiritual state of the flesh with knowing him while being born again, transformed as Romans 12: 2 says.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5: 16-19
This is talking about being in the spiritual state of the flesh and being born again of the Spirit in Christ and becoming a new creature or creation. He is contrasting knowing Christ while in the spiritual state of the flesh with knowing him while being born again, transformed as Romans 12: 2 says.
Interplanner
Well-known member
But it does have Judaistic specifics, as the whole letter does. The super-apostles are Judaizers, and are the main opponent. When Paul says he once knew Christ after the flesh, he means before he was a Christian and in Judaism. To know Christ unveiled means to know that God was in Christ transacting our justification. He wasn't just an unusual teacher with miracle powers.
What is the implication of saying that II Corinthians 5: 16-19 "has Judaistic specifics?"
Here is Paul's doctrine on Talmudic Judaism:
"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," Philippians 3: 2-8
The Pharisees knew Christ after the flesh.
"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Matthew 12: 24
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" Luke 5: 21
"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." John 11: 48
The Pharisees of Christ's time thought that the kingdom of God was to be literal and physical. They wanted God to send them a leader who would defeat Roman rule and make Judea an independent Jewish nation again.
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:" Luke 17: 20
The Pharisees were asking about when their literal and physical kingdom would appear, and Christ said the Kingdom of God is not something literal and physical that is easily seen. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18: 36
Here is Paul's doctrine on Talmudic Judaism:
"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6. Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ," Philippians 3: 2-8
The Pharisees knew Christ after the flesh.
"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Matthew 12: 24
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" Luke 5: 21
"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." John 11: 48
The Pharisees of Christ's time thought that the kingdom of God was to be literal and physical. They wanted God to send them a leader who would defeat Roman rule and make Judea an independent Jewish nation again.
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:" Luke 17: 20
The Pharisees were asking about when their literal and physical kingdom would appear, and Christ said the Kingdom of God is not something literal and physical that is easily seen. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18: 36
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, you've covered many of the points. In 2 Corinthians, it would also include being a 'letter of the law' person, and reading the OT in a veiled way, and failing to esteem a teacher because he had the scars of suffering, and to work in a ministry that condemned men.
The Church is the New Israel.
>> http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html
It remains endlessly fascinating to me the FALSE positives the OVER simplification of one passage or another can end one up "seeing" in other passages.
Nice OVER simplification of 2 Cor. 5:16, Lazy; northwye; and Inter...
And as with one who "just knows" their actually loyal significant other is cheating on them - due to the FALSE positive such an indiviual is not only looking at things FROM, but TOO soon - there is no reasoning with you about the ever pressing need to guard one self against such "fool's gold."
"Into the valley of death, rode the six hundred..."
Nice OVER simplification of 2 Cor. 5:16, Lazy; northwye; and Inter...
And as with one who "just knows" their actually loyal significant other is cheating on them - due to the FALSE positive such an indiviual is not only looking at things FROM, but TOO soon - there is no reasoning with you about the ever pressing need to guard one self against such "fool's gold."
"Into the valley of death, rode the six hundred..."
The dialectic is an argument against the absolute truth of scripture, and sometimes scripture is subtle.
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." II Corinthians 5: 16
If you focus only on "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" the more literal meaning in this is that the disciples of Christ knew him when he was alive, but later, after his resurrection, and revelation about him and his teachings through the Word of God, he is known no longer as the same person as when he was in the flesh.
But Paul begins II Corinthians 5: 16 by saying "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:"
And the meanings of this entire text, II Corinthians 5: 16-21, gives meaning to this one sentence, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."
Its about flesh and things of the Spirit. We once knew and valued a man by his flesh, which includes who he is fleshly descended from. And as part of this look into things of the flesh and things of the Spirit, we understand that Christ took on human flesh as a physical descendant of Abraham, in order to fulfill that descent, so that it ends in him. Flesh and Spirit here in this text are about a change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant - where in the Old Covenant things of the flesh were very important, such as being a fleshly descendant of Abraham, and an entire people being fleshly descendants of Abraham.
Yet there was a remnant of Israel in the Old Covenant which was spiritual, but the multitude, as in the religion of the Pharisees, made things of the flesh all important.
Now we know Christ as the redeemer and the savior whose kingdom is not a literal physical kingdom, but is within our inner lives, and Christ the redeemer, who did not sin while in the flesh, was made to be sin for us who believe him, to give us the righteousness of God.
"And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." II Corinthians 5: 15
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." II Corinthians 5: 20-21
But the followers of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S.Chafer somehow teach that in the remaking of Old Covenant Israel, for which things of the flesh were important, into the New Covenant which did away with the things of the flesh as being important - Old Covenant Israel still exists.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal
kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity,
'...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer,
Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp.
315-323..
J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).
By Israel they mean Old Covenant Israel and Israel cannot mean any thng else to them.
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." II Corinthians 5: 16
If you focus only on "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" the more literal meaning in this is that the disciples of Christ knew him when he was alive, but later, after his resurrection, and revelation about him and his teachings through the Word of God, he is known no longer as the same person as when he was in the flesh.
But Paul begins II Corinthians 5: 16 by saying "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh:"
And the meanings of this entire text, II Corinthians 5: 16-21, gives meaning to this one sentence, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."
Its about flesh and things of the Spirit. We once knew and valued a man by his flesh, which includes who he is fleshly descended from. And as part of this look into things of the flesh and things of the Spirit, we understand that Christ took on human flesh as a physical descendant of Abraham, in order to fulfill that descent, so that it ends in him. Flesh and Spirit here in this text are about a change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant - where in the Old Covenant things of the flesh were very important, such as being a fleshly descendant of Abraham, and an entire people being fleshly descendants of Abraham.
Yet there was a remnant of Israel in the Old Covenant which was spiritual, but the multitude, as in the religion of the Pharisees, made things of the flesh all important.
Now we know Christ as the redeemer and the savior whose kingdom is not a literal physical kingdom, but is within our inner lives, and Christ the redeemer, who did not sin while in the flesh, was made to be sin for us who believe him, to give us the righteousness of God.
"And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." II Corinthians 5: 15
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." II Corinthians 5: 20-21
But the followers of John Darby, C.I. Scofield and Lewis S.Chafer somehow teach that in the remaking of Old Covenant Israel, for which things of the flesh were important, into the New Covenant which did away with the things of the flesh as being important - Old Covenant Israel still exists.
"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal
kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity,
'...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer,
Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp.
315-323..
J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).
By Israel they mean Old Covenant Israel and Israel cannot mean any thng else to them.
You'll have to try that malarkey on who it applies to; northwye :chuckle:
Though I hold to a Mid-Acts Perspective; I hold to it "more or less."
I don't allow myself the option of merely choosing sides - as many of all shades and hues on TOL do.
Whomever I agree, or disagree with, on some point or another; it is based on whether or not I conclude their assertion is a valid one.
At times I will agree with you on some point, at others I will not.
And you will know it.
Can you honestly say you are being that objective with one and all?
Few appear able to.
Attempt to read "about" this Acts 9 Dispy in books "about" all you want; you won't find him there.
Fact is, read all the "Dispy" books you want; you are wasting your time - Dispensationslism is not actually found in endless books "about."
Though I hold to a Mid-Acts Perspective; I hold to it "more or less."
I don't allow myself the option of merely choosing sides - as many of all shades and hues on TOL do.
Whomever I agree, or disagree with, on some point or another; it is based on whether or not I conclude their assertion is a valid one.
At times I will agree with you on some point, at others I will not.
And you will know it.
Can you honestly say you are being that objective with one and all?
Few appear able to.
Attempt to read "about" this Acts 9 Dispy in books "about" all you want; you won't find him there.
Fact is, read all the "Dispy" books you want; you are wasting your time - Dispensationslism is not actually found in endless books "about."