ECT Establishing their own righteousness, Rom 9; historian Foerster on Pharisaism

[Interplanner]

"What was new about Jesus' preaching was the fact that this divine rule would not be brought about by repentance but that the summons to repentance flowed from the immanence of the divine rule. It was exactly the reverse of what the Jews thought right up to the great War and after."
--W. Foerster, FROM THE EXILE TO CHRIST, Fortress, 1964, p110.

Like its doctrine about the race, Judaism had replaced the correct theology of the grace of the Gospel with a performance that was awarded by God. The zealots were simply the most extreme and politically active way of expressing this. That's why Paul refers in the bridge of chs 9-10 to 'zeal without knowledge'--he is describing the historical situation in front of him.

NT preaching, including Christ, said the reign of God was here, therefore repent and follow. Judaism, both generations, tried to see it happen as reward for their purity, and they meant a state government out of Jerusalem.

 

[Danoh]

"What was new about Jesus' preaching was the fact that this divine rule would not be brought about by repentance but that the summons to repentance flowed from the immanence of the divine rule. It was exactly the reverse of what the Jews thought right up to the great War and after."
--W. Foerster, FROM THE EXILE TO CHRIST, Fortress, 1964, p110.

Like its doctrine about the race, Judaism had replaced the correct theology of the grace of the Gospel with a performance that was awarded by God. The zealots were simply the most extreme and politically active way of expressing this. That's why Paul refers in the bridge of chs 9-10 to 'zeal without knowledge'--he is describing the historical situation in front of him.

NT preaching, including Christ, said the reign of God was here, therefore repent and follow. Judaism, both generations, tried to see it happen as reward for their purity, and they meant a state government out of Jerusalem.

More of your books based parroting.

Exactly why you every now and then insist one put a thing in one's own words, in contrast to the practice depicted in Scripture itself - quoting the Scripture.

IP, you are attempting to reach the wrong people on here.

What you need to do is find a forum where the books based parroting of men (which for far too many, often goes for knowing the Scripture itself) is welcomed with a hearty amen.

I move you vote yourself off the island. :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Rom. 5: 6-8 towards ya.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

NT preaching, including Christ, said the reign of God was here,

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

That was critical to their preaching. It was here and the person listening was to obey. In Judaism, the person listening to the Law was to obey, SO THAT the kingdom would come as a response from God. The cause/effect is exactly as positioned by the NT.

On the presence of the kingdom, Mt 4:17 (totally apart from whether anyone responds).
10:7
11:11 how can this be said if it is not a present reality?
11:12
12:28 " " " "

You don't know the Bible and sound like you are in charge of it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That was critical to their preaching. It was here and the person listening was to obey. In Judaism, the person listening to the Law was to obey, SO THAT the kingdom would come as a response from God. The cause/effect is exactly as positioned by the NT.

On the presence of the kingdom, Mt 4:17 (totally apart from whether anyone responds).
10:7
11:11 how can this be said if it is not a present reality?
11:12
12:28 " " " "

You don't know the Bible and sound like you are in charge of it.

You do not know anyone who follows Matthew 5-7.

 

[Interplanner]

You do not know anyone who follows Matthew 5-7.

Sound bytes in, sound bytes out.
"The New Covenant precedes the Old" means it is the Eternal Covenant. Eternal precedes Old. Heb 13.
You never connect the dots. No one under Mt 5-7. ??? So what? I don't know anyone under Pharisaism (of that time) now, either.
I have no idea what you mean.

Sentences are to paragraphs what words are to sentences. But you only give me one sentence at a time! It's like post after post after post is:

blue!

trouble!

excitement?

 

[Right Divider]

Sound bytes in, sound bytes out.
"The New Covenant precedes the Old" means it is the Eternal Covenant. Eternal precedes Old. Heb 13.
You never connect the dots. No one under Mt 5-7. ??? So what? I don't know anyone under Pharisaism (of that time) now, either.
I have no idea what you mean.

Sentences are to paragraphs what words are to sentences. But you only give me one sentence at a time! It's like post after post after post is:

blue!

trouble!

excitement?

Heb 8:8-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ​

Still not going away...

 

[Interplanner]

Heb 8:8-12 (AKJV/PCE)​

(8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ​

Still not going away...

It's eternal, because God planned before time that they would do the new one, the Gospel. That's another reason it has nothing to do with territory. It is what Christ accomplished in the Gospel as He said and 2 Cor 5 said.

 

[Right Divider]

It's eternal, because God planned before time that they would do the new one, the Gospel. That's another reason it has nothing to do with territory. It is what Christ accomplished in the Gospel as He said and 2 Cor 5 said.

You are just so completely oblivious to truth.

 

[Interplanner]

You are just so completely oblivious to truth.

But you are oblivious to what the NT says was actually true about the OT. How exactly do you 'lay' a "Stone" which is a person in Zion, when Zion is above, is unshakeable, is where 'saints who have died' have already gone to (Mt 27), etc, etc, etc. The Child Is 11 was excited about is the Gospel because Gen 3 was finally happening, going to happen on the heels of the totally mistaken direction Israel had taken up to that point. It was Judaism that voided the promise and replaced a covenant that preceded it by 430 years, Gal 3:17. The "multitude" is not the remnant, and never has been.

 

[Right Divider]

But you are oblivious to what the NT says was actually true about the OT.

I am oblivious to your fairy tale version, you fiction writer.

How exactly do you 'lay' a "Stone" which is a person in Zion, when Zion is above, is unshakeable, is where 'saints who have died' have already gone to (Mt 27), etc, etc, etc. The Child Is 11 was excited about is the Gospel because Gen 3 was finally happening, going to happen on the heels of the totally mistaken direction Israel had taken up to that point. It was Judaism that voided the promise and replaced a covenant that preceded it by 430 years, Gal 3:17. The "multitude" is not the remnant, and never has been.

The Bible says that a remnant will be gathered from the four winds and I believe it. (Matthew 24:31, Isaiah 11)

We are more than a thousand years away from the NHNE.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sound bytes in, sound bytes out.
"The New Covenant precedes the Old" means it is the Eternal Covenant. Eternal precedes Old. Heb 13.
You never connect the dots. No one under Mt 5-7. ??? So what? I don't know anyone under Pharisaism (of that time) now, either.
I have no idea what you mean.

Sentences are to paragraphs what words are to sentences. But you only give me one sentence at a time! It's like post after post after post is:

blue!

trouble!

excitement?

You do not know anyone who follows Matthew 5-7.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's eternal,

Behold, the days come when I WILL MAKE....

 

[Interplanner]

I am oblivious to your fairy tale version, you fiction writer.


The Bible says that a remnant will be gathered from the four winds and I believe it. (Matthew 24:31, Isaiah 11)

We are more than a thousand years away from the NHNE.

How do you lay a stone in Zion when the stone is a person, and when Jerusalem is in a covenant with death?

On the remnant, there are many more verses than that one. I'm talking about the remnant vs the multitude pretty much all through Israel's history; cp I Cor 10.

We are definitely more than 1000 years from that because you can build things on something that doesn't exist! Rev21:1: the first earth had passed away.

 

[Interplanner]

You do not know anyone who follows Matthew 5-7.

Your point being? Stop blocking your own communication.

 

[Interplanner]

Behold, the days come when I WILL MAKE....

...as in put into effect on earth to deal with the mess of the old one. Are you the only one who does not know that the Lamb was considered slain since the foundation of the world, I Pet 1:20. ? When Is 9 gives so much detail about him 700 earth years ahead of time, when was he being the way Is 9 says he was? Only for 33 years in the 1st century?

Jn 17:24. God honored Christ for being the Gospel before the world was created.

That is why a "new" covenant is not new in the earthen sense, it was already there before this risk was taken, called mankind. that is also why it is not about the land of Israel. That is also why it was for all nations from the very beginning.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

...as in put into effect on earth to deal with the mess of the old one. Are you the only one who does not know that the Lamb was considered slain since the foundation of the world, I Pet 1:20. ? When Is 9 gives so much detail about him 700 earth years ahead of time, when was he being the way Is 9 says he was? Only for 33 years in the 1st century?

Jn 17:24. God honored Christ for being the Gospel before the world was created.

That is why a "new" covenant is not new in the earthen sense, it was already there before this risk was taken, called mankind. that is also why it is not about the land of Israel. That is also why it was for all nations from the very beginning.

All speculation...

 

[Interplanner]

All speculation...

I don't take you seriously because you won't write out your thoughts completely. You just want to dictate, and you do that one concept at a time like Acts 13's offer was only for certain people.

If you are going to answer the assertions, write out your view in a complete paragraph. Write out an interp of I Pet 1 or Jn 17. The problem: you will soon see there is no speculation about it. It is people like you with your chain of proof texts who are speculation. You are shocked to wake up each morning and find out that we don't need Chafer and Ryrie's system after all. The Bible is unified and makes sense on its own without them.

 

[Right Divider]

How do you lay a stone in Zion when the stone is a person, and when Jerusalem is in a covenant with death?

How is it that the "real writer and grammar scholar" does not understand figures of speech?

On the remnant, there are many more verses than that one.

Really? I'm shocked.

I'm talking about the remnant vs the multitude pretty much all through Israel's history; cp I Cor 10.

So?

We are definitely more than 1000 years from that because you can build things on something that doesn't exist! Rev21:1: the first earth had passed away.

Fiction.

 

[Right Divider]

All speculation...

... and fiction.