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

Danoh

New member
Did Israel know its Messiah would suffer from its reading of Ps 22, Is 53, Dan 9?

That is ever an interesting question.

Did they know they were supposed to have Him crucified in?

In their obedience, or in their disobedience?

Had that been His expectation?

For on the one hand, one reads...

Luke 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

Was that about their having supposed to have known they were supposed to have Him crucified, or is that about some other issue they were supposed to have known about (I'll go with the latter of those two)?

On the other, one reads...

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Again, was Israel supposed to have known they were supposed to have Him crucified?

Point is, their is appears to be fly in your eye ointment, somewhere, bro.

Rom. 5:8

Prov. 27:17.
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Nope, it was hidden.
How many times do we have to quote Luke 18:31-34 (KJV)?

It was hid from their understanding just as it is hid from their understanding today. Jewish people are taught that the suffering Servant of Isaiah refers to Israel as a nation and not the Messiah Himself. If you think this verse in Luke makes the Gospel a musterion you are wrong. Unless of course you redefine what Paul technically termed musterions.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It was hid from their understanding just as it is hid from their understanding today. Jewish people are taught that the suffering Servant of Isaiah refers to Israel as a nation and not the Messiah Himself. If you think this verse in Luke makes the Gospel a musterion you are wrong. Unless of course you redefine what Paul technically termed musterions.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

34 And they ounderstood none of these things: pand this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
 

Interplanner

New member
It was hid from their understanding just as it is hid from their understanding today. Jewish people are taught that the suffering Servant of Isaiah refers to Israel as a nation and not the Messiah Himself. If you think this verse in Luke makes the Gospel a musterion you are wrong. Unless of course you redefine what Paul technically termed musterions.








Sent from my iPhone using TOL





The record shows it was not hidden until then. D'ism is famous for the narrowest of stances on the narrowest of verses or context. They knew he was the Lamb of God. when it all started, they were saying where else do we go when that's all they knew! But they also had zealot (radical Judaiser) backgrounds. They were also easily distracted by miracles as was the next person. don't forget these were the guys who came back from the first mission of the 70, and thought it would be cool to 'show off' their power by calling down fire on some mistaken people. Jesus said 'don't rejoice that the spirits are subject to you but that your names are written in heaven.' How would that have mattered if it was not clear that he was their sacrificial savior.

So as usual STP is about as wrong headed as a person can get, and uses the narrowest of categories to get there.

What they did from the Confession to the Gospel event was SUPPRESS what they knew. They denied it. Further, its pretty clear that God needed to hide it from them because they wanted a monarchy which is another Judaising mistake also made by STP and the club. Not that they wanted it as historic fact, but that they were supposed to want it. There is everything but an offer of that kind of kingdom there. There was the Lamb of God and the sign of Jonah. And when he made it point blank 3 times that he would die, they obfuscated and were dismissive.

The fact is, you can't deny what you don't already know. It's human nature. D'ism is not very good on human nature; it is too busy with systems of doctrines and doctrinaire-bots speaking one-liners.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
The record shows it was not hidden until then. D'ism is famous for the narrowest of stances on the narrowest of verses or context. They knew he was the Lamb of God. when it all started, they were saying where else do we go when that's all they knew! But they also had zealot (radical Judaiser) backgrounds. They were also easily distracted by miracles as was the next person. don't forget these were the guys who came back from the first mission of the 70, and thought it would be cool to 'show off' their power by calling down fire on some mistaken people. Jesus said 'don't rejoice that the spirits are subject to you but that your names are written in heaven.' How would that have mattered if it was not clear that he was their sacrificial savior.

So as usual STP is about as wrong headed as a person can get, and uses the narrowest of categories to get there.

What they did from the Confession to the Gospel event was SUPPRESS what they knew. They denied it. Further, its pretty clear that God needed to hide it from them because they wanted a monarchy which is another Judaising mistake also made by STP and the club. Not that they wanted it as historic fact, but that they were supposed to want it. There is everything but an offer of that kind of kingdom there. There was the Lamb of God and the sign of Jonah. And when he made it point blank 3 times that he would die, they obfuscated and were dismissive.

The fact is, you can't deny what you don't already know. It's human nature. D'ism is not very good on human nature; it is too busy with systems of doctrines and doctrinaire-bots speaking one-liners.

Made up, Dr. Phil.
 

Interplanner

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


Sent from my iPhone using TOL






The D'ists believe they have license here to say it was total mystery. Not denial. It belongs with their doctrine that the BOC was total mystery. That way they can say that the Judaistic kingdom of israel is merely on hold, suspended and will resume later.

As though the NT was just full of statements qualifying this and that. 'Oh, you mean the other form of the kingdom; oh, I see.'

No, as in Col 1, we were transferred into his kingdom by believing the Gospel and that's all there is going on.

the disciples were rebuked for still trying to 'figure it out' in Acts 1 when in fact the resurrection was the enthronement David foresaw (Acts 2:30), and the 'power' of the kingdom was the power to speak clearly upstream against the educated Judaizers and leaders.

Nearly every instance where the Scripture is clear on these things has been stood on its head to help make D'ism 'work.' 'Without D'ism the Bible is a set of confusing signals' --L.S. Chafer, one of the first professors of D'ism at Dallas.
 

Danoh

New member
The D'ists believe they have license here to say it was total mystery. Not denial. It belongs with their doctrine that the BOC was total mystery. That way they can say that the Judaistic kingdom of israel is merely on hold, suspended and will resume later.

As though the NT was just full of statements qualifying this and that. 'Oh, you mean the other form of the kingdom; oh, I see.'

No, as in Col 1, we were transferred into his kingdom by believing the Gospel and that's all there is going on.

the disciples were rebuked for still trying to 'figure it out' in Acts 1 when in fact the resurrection was the enthronement David foresaw (Acts 2:30), and the 'power' of the kingdom was the power to speak clearly upstream against the educated Judaizers and leaders.

Nearly every instance where the Scripture is clear on these things has been stood on its head to help make D'ism 'work.' 'Without D'ism the Bible is a set of confusing signals' --L.S. Chafer, one of the first professors of D'ism at Dallas.

You haven't been paying attention, IP - (though not all do) most of those who's "Dispensationalism" on here you oppose hold a view on Rom. 16:26 somewhat similar to your own - within their view it refers to a thing that supposedly had been hidden in the OT.

You actually share that incompetence with them :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8
 

Interplanner

New member
re Paul's appeal for prayer to be able to present the mystery fearlessly
Eph 6:19-20

The request is made twice in two verses there.

What would be the fear of making the mystery known? The fear was about the reaction of Judaizers to it. We must go back to 3:6 again to see why.

1, it is 'in the Gospel' that Israel's blessings are shared with Gentiles
2, it is in the Gospel that things embedded or hidden in the OT are made clear
3, it is these same things that tick off Judaizers. They don't want to believe they are embedded in their scripture and, honestly, they don't want to share
4, the spiritual armor is listed because Paul wants to be able to stand on the day of evil. That is when the gathering storm of the Judaizers will 'do its worst' to the Christian believers for these reasons above. But if we don't fight for this, what is there to fight for? We can't go back to a system that divides believers and even pulls them back to Judaism. We can't go back reading the OT without the light of Christ upon things. So Paul is saying he has 'no where to lay his head' and he wants strength to be able to do so.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
re Paul's appeal for prayer to be able to present the mystery fearlessly
Eph 6:19-20

The request is made twice in two verses there.

What would be the fear of making the mystery known? The fear was about the reaction of Judaizers to it. We must go back to 3:6 again to see why.

1, it is 'in the Gospel' that Israel's blessings are shared with Gentiles
2, it is in the Gospel that things embedded or hidden in the OT are made clear
3, it is these same things that tick off Judaizers. They don't want to believe they are embedded in their scripture and, honestly, they don't want to share
4, the spiritual armor is listed because Paul wants to be able to stand on the day of evil. That is when the gathering storm of the Judaizers will 'do its worst' to the Christian believers for these reasons above. But if we don't fight for this, what is there to fight for? We can't go back to a system that divides believers and even pulls them back to Judaism. We can't go back reading the OT without the light of Christ upon things. So Paul is saying he has 'no where to lay his head' and he wants strength to be able to do so.

From which commentary did you glean these pearls?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
From which commentary did you glean these pearls?

Do you ever read books?

I recommend to you: "The Goldsworthy Trilogy" by Graeme Goldsworthy that can help set your mind in good order on the subjects of Kingdom and Gospel truths.

Do yourself a favor . . .
 

Interplanner

New member
The pearls are just from knowing the places in Scripture where Paul/apostles put everything on the table. It certainly was not about a future restoration of the race of Israel in Judea.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Which of your commentaries is a better teacher than the Holy Bible? List them.

Theological books; Christian testimonials; study reference tools (concordances, etc); original language studies; sound church confessions, and creeds are not commentaries.

As long as they are Scriptural, they are God's provision for the edification of His saints.

Our sanctification not only leads us into holy living, but our minds develop to conform to the very mind of Christ, by study of His Word as provided by an available wealth of intelligent Christian scholars.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Theological books; Christian testimonials; study reference tools (concordances, etc); original language studies; sound church confessions, and creeds are not commentaries.

As long as they are Scriptural, they are God's provision for the edification of His saints.

Our sanctification not only leads us into holy living, but our minds develop to conform to the very mind of Christ, by study of His Word as provided by an available wealth of intelligent Christian scholars.

Which of your writings is a better teacher than the Holy Bible? List them.
Which should I read INSTEAD of the Holy Bible?
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Which of your writings is a better teacher than the Holy Bible? List them.
Which should I read INSTEAD of the Holy Bible?
Should isn't the right word, because I'm not looking to pick a fight. But I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ALONG WITH Sacred Scripture (not instead of), the Holy Bible. I'm still Protestant at heart, wrt Sola Scriptura, in that the Bible alone is the authority for truth in matters of faith and morals. I also happen to be a young-earth creationist (six days, and "appearance-of-age"), but that's not a matter of faith or morals wrt the Christian Gospel, so it's not a moral matter to me if people agree or disagree with me on that point. It's definitely what I believe, but it's not authoritative like how that I believe in the Trinity is authoritative, because the Trinity is a matter of faith, and while Sacred Scripture testifies to the Trinity, the Catechism elaborates authoritatively upon Him, in that, Who He (the Trinity) is, is a matter of faith.

Nang might say or think to say, the Westminster catechisms or confession, but then bite their tongue, because that'd crush their testimony that they're Sola Scriptura. I'm genuinely Sola Scriptura, and I don't think that Nang is. I'm open to being proven wrong though.
 

Danoh

New member
Which of your writings is a better teacher than the Holy Bible? List them.
Which should I read INSTEAD of the Holy Bible?

Your Acts 9/Acts 28 hybrid itself is based on the teachings of certain men - you have said so yourself.

By the way, as with the word "sanctified" the word "holy" simply refers to the setting apart of a person, place, or thing for a specific purpose, Acts 13, 1 Tim. 4.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8
 
Last edited:

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Should isn't the right word, because I'm not looking to pick a fight. But I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church ALONG WITH Sacred Scripture (not instead of), the Holy Bible. I'm still Protestant at heart, wrt Sola Scriptura, in that the Bible alone is the authority for truth in matters of faith and morals. I also happen to be a young-earth creationist (six days, and "appearance-of-age"), but that's not a matter of faith or morals wrt the Christian Gospel, so it's not a moral matter to me if people agree or disagree with me on that point. It's definitely what I believe, but it's not authoritative like how that I believe in the Trinity is authoritative, because the Trinity is a matter of faith, and while Sacred Scripture testifies to the Trinity, the Catechism elaborates authoritatively upon Him, in that, Who He (the Trinity) is, is a matter of faith.

Nang might say or think to say, the Westminster catechisms or confession, but then bite their tongue, because that'd crush their testimony that they're Sola Scriptura. I'm genuinely Sola Scriptura, and I don't think that Nang is. I'm open to being proven wrong though.

I hold to Sola Scriptura in that I believe God's Word alone has full and final authority over the faith and practice of Christians.

I am also a Scripturalist who believes the Bible contains all necessary knowledge a sinner needs to understand and trust in the Gospel of Grace and Redemption.

That does not mean that various sources of study helps are to be forbidden. I do not believe it healthy to not take the provisions given to us from God, through His regenerated saints.

Such reading exercise is no more sinful, than listening to a mortal preacher giving a sermon and presenting the Gospel message, if it is done prayerfully and with discernment. Such are God's means to draw men to deeper trust in Jesus Christ.

Although catechisms, confessions, original language studies, etc. do not wield the full authority as do the Holy Scriptures, and contain some human error, they provide a degree of wisdom and protection from false teachings and false preachers, who would desire to rob us of, or misrepresent our beliefs. They are a safe guard, but even still, must be kept in second place to our study of Holy Scripture and scrutinized according to the entire Word of God, in order to be validated.
 

Interplanner

New member
I hold to Sola Scriptura in that I believe God's Word alone has full and final authority over the faith and practice of Christians.

I am also a Scripturalist who believes the Bible contains all necessary knowledge a sinner needs to understand and trust in the Gospel of Grace and Redemption.

That does not mean that various sources of study helps are to be forbidden. I do not believe it healthy to not take the provisions given to us from God, through His regenerated saints.

Such reading exercise is no more sinful, than listening to a mortal preacher giving a sermon and presenting the Gospel message, if it is done prayerfully and with discernment. Such are God's means to draw men to deeper trust in Jesus Christ.

Although catechisms, confessions, original language studies, etc. do not wield the full authority as do the Holy Scriptures, and contain some human error, they provide a degree of wisdom and protection from false teachings and false preachers, who would desire to rob us of, or misrepresent our beliefs. They are a safe guard, but even still, must be kept in second place to our study of Holy Scripture and scrutinized according to the entire Word of God, in order to be validated.





How do you study the Holy Scripture without original language study?
 
Top