ECT The Definition of Musterion and why the Gospel was not a Mystery

Interplanner

New member
Not that the work of the cross was not revealed in the OT. Obviously.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL





Yes, the work of the cross is clearly in the OT. And Rom 1 reminds us it was promised beforehand through the prophets. In rom 3 it is the permanent establishment of justice that was expected.

This makes the problem of the disciples something else--not a theological thing that was always there, but a reaction to the reality of His death, once it was said to be that close on the horizon. They really had the problem found in Jn 6:62 where they had temporarily blocked from their minds that he was going to soon be enthroned again--'where he was before' (not a Zionist-Davidic throne). They really had the problem of being rejected by all those people who deserted there. They really had the problem of close associates telling Jesus he needed to 'show himself to the world' (7:4), in their carnal way of proceeding.

So the passive expression in Luke is very important; God was hiding this from them until later. They had absorbed all they could and were close to losing it, at that point (in Luke).
 

Danoh

New member
How do you study the Holy Scripture without original language study?

Good point - VERY FEW MADS have not gone into the Greek on passages like Gal. 2:7-9; 2 Tim. 2:15; etc.

VERY FEW.

Stam did. Baker did. O'Hair did. Kurth does. Jordan does. Kirkwood did. And so on.

Though it's need drops off with time due to familiarity "by reason of use" it remains an important resource in the process of getting at the fuller sense of any word, phrase, or passage.

Nehemia 8:8, 12.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Yes, the work of the cross is clearly in the OT. And Rom 1 reminds us it was promised beforehand through the prophets. In rom 3 it is the permanent establishment of justice that was expected.

This makes the problem of the disciples something else--not a theological thing that was always there, but a reaction to the reality of His death, once it was said to be that close on the horizon. They really had the problem found in Jn 6:62 where they had temporarily blocked from their minds that he was going to soon be enthroned again--'where he was before' (not a Zionist-Davidic throne). They really had the problem of being rejected by all those people who deserted there. They really had the problem of close associates telling Jesus he needed to 'show himself to the world' (7:4), in their carnal way of proceeding.

So the passive expression in Luke is very important; God was hiding this from them until later. They had absorbed all they could and were close to losing it, at that point (in Luke).

Rationalization, humanism, unbelief on your part.
 

Danoh

New member
Correction: Nehemiah.

Rubbish.

Two of my Jewish friends each have a child named Nehemia - without the h at the end.

It can go either way.

But while you're at it, you might try your ever obvious double standard on your pals - some of their grammar and spelling is consistently terrible.

You're simply too entrenched in it to see what I am saying is a fact.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Yes, the work of the cross is clearly in the OT.

Absolutely, hidden in the OT, until God revealed it.

FYI- Satan is smarter than you. Do you think the LORD wanted Satan to know that the cross would be his ultimate undoing?

THINK!
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
So the passive expression in Luke is very important; God was hiding this from them until later. They had absorbed all they could and were close to losing it, at that point (in Luke).

:chuckle:

Thanks for weighing in, Dr. Phil.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
That is just your poor handling of key "doctrinal" passages.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

Nah. It was hidden in plain sight. The hidden wisdom of God...

Do you think Satan knew the prophecies? How could he not know they would bring about his demise?
 

Interplanner

New member
Some might not think the equipment of the cross was known in OT times. But the fact of suffering by the Seed was known since the day after the revolt of mankind. You might say: 'intense but not total suffering' was understood, the sharpest being in Is 53.

But of course, literalism will now take over and muck up the picture by saying it has to have said 'cross' THE WORD, THE EXACT WORD..
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Some might not think the equipment of the cross was known in OT times. But the fact of suffering by the Seed was known since the day after the revolt of mankind. You might say: 'intense but not total suffering' was understood, the sharpest being in Is 53.

But of course, literalism will now take over and muck up the picture by saying it has to have said 'cross' THE WORD, THE EXACT WORD..

Psalm 22 was the most personal revelation of the cross . . .
 

Danoh

New member
Psalm 22 was the most personal revelation of the cross . . .

It is also obvious in the answer the Angel Gabriel gives the Israelite Prophet Daniel, in Daniel 9, that there was an understanding of a coming Messiah who would be cut off from the land of the living for the sins of His People.

The Lord Himself expected the Twelve to have understood from the Law and the Prophets of His coming death for their sins and resurrection thereafter, and often mentioned this very thing to them.

Thus, His Words to them that "THIS is my Blood of THE New Covenant shed for you..."

Their problem was they were simple men - often focused more on the petty concerns of this world.

Just as Paul later, when he had in his possession the once hidden wisdom of God given unto him to share, he found he could not speak unto the Corinthians about it due to their "yet carnal" focus.

This would make for an interesting thread in itself - actual Scriptural evidence of what exactly was known about the Cross, when.

Of course, too many on too many sides are far too married to their own conclusions.

It is what it is.

In which case, thank God for Rom. 5:8.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nah. It was hidden in plain sight. The hidden wisdom of God...

Do you think Satan knew the prophecies? How could he not know they would bring about his demise?

Satan was not left ignorant of his eventual demise. God personally revealed his punishment and fate in Genesis 3:14-15.
 

Interplanner

New member
I don't do STP on 'hidden in plain sight' when referring to the OT. He's about as confused as it gets.

The whole problem starts with a movement that says the Bible is a confusing mess that 'needs' their fix. That's what stands behind the literal readers that defy so much of the NT. That created an RT so they'd have more support because now, man, they really had a clear enemy.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I don't do STP on 'hidden in plain sight' when referring to the OT. He's about as confused as it gets.

The whole problem starts with a movement that says the Bible is a confusing mess that 'needs' their fix. That's what stands behind the literal readers that defy so much of the NT. That created an RT so they'd have more support because now, man, they really had a clear enemy.

made up
 

Danoh

New member
Satan was not left ignorant of his eventual demise. God personally revealed his punishment and fate in Genesis 3:14-15.

Their argument (STP's and company) is that the means of said demise was hidden in the OT.

Fact is, that is not what 1 Cor. 2 is talking about.

In this, they have unwittingly ended up using the approach IP is arguing for - emphasizing one word over another within a passage; with it's result.

It changes the meaning intended by a passage - from the meaning it had intended, to what one thinks it is referring to.

In this, theirs is the exact approach of the Acts 28ers.

It is not the approach of Mid-Acts.

Theirs is a hybrid of both the Mid-Acts and the Acts 28 Positions, with it's result - some other view held by neither.

An even more...erroneous one.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
 
Top