ECT Some lessons from Isaiah

Interplanner

New member
Once we know that the NT has quoted the OT, we are informed to look for something in an OT passage that we might not have seen otherwise.

You are probably familiar with the Phillippians 2 passage about 'every knee will bow.' It is believed to be an early Christian song, and some translations have printed it that way. But v10 is not marked, even by the NIV, as being from Is 45.

In Is 44-45, there are several surprising things. One is the satire on wooden gods. One is the fact that Cyrus is named 170 years in advance as being a tool--a servant, a shepherd--in God's hand to take Israel back to its homeland from captivity. Another is that Israel is destined to be in a mission in which all the ends of the earth will praise God for salvation. There is absolutely no question that God wants all the earth to hear of salvation, and that through Israel, in these sections. These are all as basic facts as those of creation: that God set the heavens and founded the earth.

None of which is a new message: he says God had declared it long ago.

One special emphasis is how this is true in Christ, although only stated as 'in the Lord.' The universal message and appeal to return to God and bow the knee is what introduces this. Those who believe are to confess that 'only in the Lord are righteousness...' and also only in the Lord will anyone 'be found righteous.' That is as advanced as anything Paul ever said. That is, the righteousness is not in the believer, it is in Christ and credited.

So here are some lessons:
1, none of this material is for splicing and chopping into various timeslots. Not at all. It is the shape and direction that the NT will have once Christ arrives.
2, This is perhaps as close as the OT gets to completely 'shaping' what Christ would do and be. Yet it can't quite be seen. It is as though a cloth has been draped over a carving and made to fit very tightly to reveal all the features, but is still covered.
3, there is total concern about and a mission for all nations. That is what was declared in the ancient past, if we understand Genesis properly. But now we know there is a role for Israel in it. Somehow the nations will be taught that God is both righteous and a savior (45:21) which of course is found in the tight 5 words in Rom 3: God the just and justifier.
4, Anyone can see that the land of Israel is relegated. Excuse me, but how do you get to the ends of the earth with this message if there is something necessary about the land of Israel? Ahh, that was one of 1st century Judaism's dilemmas. We know what Christ thought of that! (Mt 23). There are only two options on that one, duh.
5, in the middle of this is the usual 'argument' that Israel has with God. The clay always arguing with the Potter. 45:9. This material is also essential to Paul in Rom 9 and it has to do with correcting a misconception about Israel's destiny. What is it about? What is it supposed to do? Paul debated that til he was exhausted, trying to get them to be the missionaries that are found in Isaiah and elsewhere, Acts 13:48, 28:25+ A modern rabbi says that the Torah has a higher place than the prophets and is one part of Judaism's trinity, while the prophets are not; no wonder why.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Once we know that the NT has quoted the OT, we are informed to look for something in an OT passage that we might not have seen otherwise.

You are probably familiar with the Phillippians 2 passage about 'every knee will bow.' It is believed to be an early Christian song, and some translations have printed it that way. But v10 is not marked, even by the NIV, as being from Is 45.

In Is 44-45, there are several surprising things. One is the satire on wooden gods. One is the fact that Cyrus is named 170 years in advance as being a tool--a servant, a shepherd--in God's hand to take Israel back to its homeland from captivity. Another is that Israel is destined to be in a mission in which all the ends of the earth will praise God for salvation. There is absolutely no question that God wants all the earth to hear of salvation, and that through Israel, in these sections. These are all as basic facts as those of creation: that God set the heavens and founded the earth.

None of which is a new message: he says God had declared it long ago.

One special emphasis is how this is true in Christ, although only stated as 'in the Lord.' The universal message and appeal to return to God and bow the knee is what introduces this. Those who believe are to confess that 'only in the Lord are righteousness...' and also only in the Lord will anyone 'be found righteous.' That is as advanced as anything Paul ever said. That is, the righteousness is not in the believer, it is in Christ and credited.

So here are some lessons:
1, none of this material is for splicing and chopping into various timeslots. Not at all. It is the shape and direction that the NT will have once Christ arrives.
2, This is perhaps as close as the OT gets to completely 'shaping' what Christ would do and be. Yet it can't quite be seen. It is as though a cloth has been draped over a carving and made to fit very tightly to reveal all the features, but is still covered.
3, there is total concern about and a mission for all nations. That is what was declared in the ancient past, if we understand Genesis properly. But now we know there is a role for Israel in it. Somehow the nations will be taught that God is both righteous and a savior (45:21) which of course is found in the tight 5 words in Rom 3: God the just and justifier.
4, Anyone can see that the land of Israel is relegated. Excuse me, but how do you get to the ends of the earth with this message if there is something necessary about the land of Israel? Ahh, that was one of 1st century Judaism's dilemmas. We know what Christ thought of that! (Mt 23). There are only two options on that one, duh.
5, in the middle of this is the usual 'argument' that Israel has with God. The clay always arguing with the Potter. 45:9. This material is also essential to Paul in Rom 9 and it has to do with correcting a misconception about Israel's destiny. What is it about? What is it supposed to do? Paul debated that til he was exhausted, trying to get them to be the missionaries that are found in Isaiah and elsewhere, Acts 13:48, 28:25+ A modern rabbi says that the Torah has a higher place than the prophets and is one part of Judaism's trinity, while the prophets are not; no wonder why.

No one disagrees that God had the salvation of the whole world in mind, Interplanner. The whole idea was to go and "make disciples of all nations".

You seem to have the idea that dispensational teaching denies this obvious fact. It doesn't.

A restored Israel doesn't help accomplish what God was going to accomplish!
How do you know?
 

Danoh

New member
Your above is mostly not a bad assessment of what was to have been Israel's mission.

I'm fine with most of it, as a decent lay out of one aspect of was to have been Israel's "mission" more or less.

It is where you wind up confusing Paul as not only having been about Israel's same mission; but about having also been about attempting to get Israel back on track...that I am at odds with.

Israel's mission did not change.

And Israel's mission was not Paul's mission. Neither in Acts nor in his Epistles - as the Acts 2; the Acts 28; and the Reformed Position each wrongheadedly assert, in one form or another.

It is obvious in your above piece that it is YOUR Reformed solution; the result of their/your obvious reasoning INTO things in their/your obviously attempted solving some of the perplexities you also mention in the above piece.

You ended up having forced a square peg into a round hole, in your attempt at a solution.

It is a recurring pattern common to all who end up confusing Moses and Israel, with Paul and the Body...in one way or another.

The result of an individual having arrived at a solution to a perplexity...that is actually no solution at all - that actually violates the flow of those passages both before, and after, the passage they have concluded they have solved for.

This is why various conclusions should be mutually explored; not turned into the sort of an "us against them...last word on the matter; you're so stupid...my way or the highway..." nonsense that too many end up at by their own fool insistence.

Such is the cult of men - not - the faith of Christ.

Of course, I am talking at you, not with you.

For as TOL proves every day...there is no point attempting to reason with one sided; unreasonable... individuals...
 

TweetyBird

New member
A modern rabbi says that the Torah has a higher place than the prophets and is one part of Judaism's trinity, while the prophets are not; no wonder why.

Correction, The Talmud has a higher place than the prophets and the Law of Moses. The "Torah" according to Rabbinical Talmudic Judaism, are the Law, Prophets, writings including the interpretations and rulings by the Rabbis of the Talmud.Although technically, the "Torah" is the first five books, it is actually the larger scope of writings. All of that has authority over the written Scriptures.

Judaism does not believe in a trinity. They believe God is ONE, not three.
 

Interplanner

New member
Correction, The Talmud has a higher place than the prophets and the Law of Moses. The "Torah" according to Rabbinical Talmudic Judaism, are the Law, Prophets, writings including the interpretations and rulings by the Rabbis of the Talmud.Although technically, the "Torah" is the first five books, it is actually the larger scope of writings. All of that has authority over the written Scriptures.

Judaism does not believe in a trinity. They believe God is ONE, not three.


You don't understand the rabbi. The trinity is God--the land--the Torah. You thought I was talking about the Christian trinity and whether they subscribed. He was saying they have their own.
 

Interplanner

New member
Your above is mostly not a bad assessment of what was to have been Israel's mission.

I'm fine with most of it, as a decent lay out of one aspect of was to have been Israel's "mission" more or less.

It is where you wind up confusing Paul as not only having been about Israel's same mission; but about having also been about attempting to get Israel back on track...that I am at odds with.

Israel's mission did not change.

And Israel's mission was not Paul's mission. Neither in Acts nor in his Epistles - as the Acts 2; the Acts 28; and the Reformed Position each wrongheadedly assert, in one form or another.

It is obvious in your above piece that it is YOUR Reformed solution; the result of their/your obvious reasoning INTO things in their/your obviously attempted solving some of the perplexities you also mention in the above piece.

You ended up having forced a square peg into a round hole, in your attempt at a solution.

It is a recurring pattern common to all who end up confusing Moses and Israel, with Paul and the Body...in one way or another.

The result of an individual having arrived at a solution to a perplexity...that is actually no solution at all - that actually violates the flow of those passages both before, and after, the passage they have concluded they have solved for.

This is why various conclusions should be mutually explored; not turned into the sort of an "us against them...last word on the matter; you're so stupid...my way or the highway..." nonsense that too many end up at by their own fool insistence.

Such is the cult of men - not - the faith of Christ.

Of course, I am talking at you, not with you.

For as TOL proves every day...there is no point attempting to reason with one sided; unreasonable... individuals...



I wish you would stop describing the anecdotal features of your differences and the feelings you get and taking so long to do so. JUST MAKE ONE COUNTER PROPOSITION and be done.
 

Interplanner

New member
A restored Israel will show that GOD keeps His word.
Doubting His word is doubting GOD.


It does not, though. The resurrection does. That's why there is no restore Israel doctrine in Acts but there is the resurrection in 13 and 26, and Paul can't figure out why Israel is spending so much time operating the worship system as though there would be a restoration. He is the source of Luke in 19 and 21 and the total wrath as written was about due to desolate it. With no restoration in mind for levity in any of those passages.

You are imagining things and not paying attention to the NT, which is the final word on the OT.

Definitely superstitious like your footer says!
 

TweetyBird

New member
You don't understand the rabbi. The trinity is God--the land--the Torah. You thought I was talking about the Christian trinity and whether they subscribed. He was saying they have their own.

There is no such thing as a trinity of "God-land-Torah" in Judaism. You are going to have to prove it from actual Jewish writings like the Talmud.
 

Interplanner

New member
There is no such thing as a trinity of "God-land-Torah" in Judaism. You are going to have to prove it from actual Jewish writings like the Talmud.


The person speaking is a modern rabbi, quite conservative and amenable to Christianity, Dennis Prager. I don't think he is Talmud based. But YHWH--e'retz--torah is the trinity that he answers the Christian claim with.
 

TweetyBird

New member
The person speaking is a modern rabbi, quite conservative and amenable to Christianity, Dennis Prager. I don't think he is Talmud based. But YHWH--e'retz--torah is the trinity that he answers the Christian claim with.

There is no such thing as a Jewish Rabbi who has not been trained and studied in the Talmud. They can't undergo a smicha unless they are. You still have not proved that Jews believe Torah-land-God is a trinity. It does not make sense, actually, if one is familiar with Judaism.

You do understand that what Prager stated goes against what Paul said in Eph 2?

ps: The Jews rarely use the YHWH, if ever. So what is Prager teaching you anyway?
 

Danoh

New member
There is no such thing as a Jewish Rabbi who has not been trained and studied in the Talmud. They can't undergo a smicha unless they are. You still have not proved that Jews believe Torah-land-God is a trinity. It does not make sense, actually, if one is familiar with Judaism.

You do understand that what Prager stated goes against what Paul said in Eph 2?

ps: The Jews rarely use the YHWH, if ever. So what is Prager teaching you anyway?

That right there is one of the problems inherent in relying on books and or teachings of another for one's understanding; taking what their writers and or teachers assert as having been not only thoroughly looked into by their writer and or teacher; but properly.

ALL books and or teachers ever present this potentially inherent problem within their pages and or teachings; at one point or another.*

_________________

* As does some; if not much, of what too often passes for sound teaching.

And this is ever a problem - within ALL schools of thought.

The biggest culprit - the onlyist - in all its' strains...

By its' very nature, onlyism, in all its' strains, right off closes off; what might actually be the sound assertion and or finding of someone without the camp; someone able to see a thing simply because said individual is...without the camp.

One without such a camp will see what such a camp cannot and will not.

While one within such a camp will only see said other is without the camp.

Thus, why, to attempt to reason with such...often such a futile attempt.

The crutch that is their onlyism IS there answer.
 
Top