ECT Why the NT refers to the promise as one/singular

dodge

dodge

New member
SaulToPaul said:
How about Zechariah 5, "this is wickedness"?
Click to expand...

The wickedness was judged and the result wickedness was dealt with by God.

What is the only remedy for the curse ?


All mankind are liable to the judgment of God; and, wherever sinners are, any where upon the face of the whole earth, the curse of God can and will find them out and seize them. Oh that we could with an eye of faith see the flying roll of God's curse hanging over the guilty world as a thick cloud, not only keeping off the sun-beams of God's favour from them, but big with thunders, lightnings, and storms, ready to destroy them! How welcome then would the tidings of a Saviour be, who came to redeem us from the curse of the law by being himself made a curse for us, and, like the prophet, eating this roll! The vast length and breadth of this roll intimate what a multitude of curses sinners lie exposed to. God will make their plagues wonderful, if they turn not.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
:thumb:
Click to expand...




STP has done more figuring out than anyone I know. His stuff makes your head hurt with total reliance on things once merely hinted in the OT. I'm referring to totally clear declarations by the NT about the OT, which he seldom takes in their plain meaning.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
To STP:
the D'ist system is what is made up.

The use of the NT that I'm referring to is done without pretense or 'figuring out.' Yet when it is quoted to you, you say it is 'made up.' I mean when the plain meaning is quoted. That is your problem and why I have given up direct communication. The D'ist system always protects itself first and then sees what is left over in the Bible.
 
D

Danoh

New member
dodge said:
lol, not even close Danoh.
Click to expand...

Some thoughts, bro.

Unless I am mistaken: only Acts 2 Dispys; Acts 9 Dispys aka MADs; and Acts 9/Acts 28 Hybrids aka supposedly MADs, hold to a PreTrib Rapture of the Body of Christ, followed by a 7 year Tribulation for Israel (at some point after said PreTrib Rapture) prior to the Lord's Return, after said 7 year Tribulation for Israel.

Acts 28 Dispys do not hold to that, and all others within Christianity (Reformed Theology and its' various strains) do not.

Though most Acts 2 Dispys are divided into those who do not believe salvation can be lost, and those who do.

Whether aware of it or not, or whether they come to it on their own, or not; most people will tend to end up holding to one view or another, one one thing or another, that someone long ago systematized.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
To STP:
the D'ist system is what is made up.

The use of the NT that I'm referring to is done without pretense or 'figuring out.' Yet when it is quoted to you, you say it is 'made up.' I mean when the plain meaning is quoted. That is your problem and why I have given up direct communication. The D'ist system always protects itself first and then sees what is left over in the Bible.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
T

Truster

New member
Interplanner said:
'What God promised our fathers...' Acts 13

'you were...foreigners to the covenants of the promise...' Eph 2

'you now share in together in the promise in Christ Jesus.' Eph 3

'that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit.' Gal 3

'you are...heirs according to the promise.' Gal 4



What was promised Israel often gets referred to as singular, reduced down to one thing. That one thing is Christ and His Spirit, which are one. That also automatically means the mission of Christ. To say anything about Christ, on this side of the Gospel event, is to automatically have a mission, because God was in Christ remitting the debt of sins of humanity.

The important thing is that the whole notion of promise to Israel must be seen this was--as it is in Acts. It starts in 1:8, where trying to figure out a civic, theocratic kingdom for Israel is exploded and replaced with the power of the Spirit (as I said, Christ and his Spirit are one).

It continues in 13 where Israel is admonished to preach Christ and is said to be the light of the world in doing so, in Christ. The quote from Isaiah is there because Paul the Christian always taught that there was a new destiny for Israel expressed as early as the exile warnings. The government of this new form of kingdom would be on the shoulders of the Messiah.

It continues in Rom 10, 11 where he prods Israel to be missionaries. He says so. He's trying provoke them. Because in the gifts of Messiah to mankind, says Ps 68, the Lord 'gave the word and there was a multitude of preachers.' That is what Rom 9-11 is about, not a prediction of some separate Davidic theocracy all over again.

It is also found in an afterword in Acts 26 where Paul reflects that 'we did not teach anything beyond what we were permitted from the prophets: that Christ would suffer and the nations would hear his Gospel.'

You will NEVER hear the NT say 'oh, don't forget, there is also a separate land promise thingie out there just for the nation of Israel, two.'

Christ and his mission are the fulfillment of the promise.
Click to expand...

The correct transliteration of the noun epangelia would be pre-evangelism and not promise. Meaning an evangelism previously prepared or evangelised.

They took the correct term evangel and replaced it with gospel and took the pre-evangelism and replaced it with promise. The translators were traitors.

If a word does not exist in the target language then it should be transliterated instead of making up words or taking a word for interpretation purposes.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Truster said:
The correct transliteration of the noun epangelia would be pre-evangelism and not promise. Meaning an evangelism previously prepared or evangelised.

They took the correct term evangel and replaced it with gospel and took the pre-evangelism and replaced it with promise. The translators were traitors.

If a word does not exist in the target language then it should be transliterated instead of making up words or taking a word for interpretation purposes.
Click to expand...




It has more to do with matching the Hebrew from Genesis than with its similarity to 'euangelion'. It's rooted in Septuagint Greek.
 
T

Truster

New member
Interplanner said:
It has more to do with matching the Hebrew from Genesis than with its similarity to 'euangelion'. It's rooted in Septuagint Greek.
Click to expand...

The term gospel only appears in the NT and the word promise in relation to pre-evangel the same. So what are you saying?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Truster said:
The term gospel only appears in the NT and the word promise in relation to pre-evangel the same. So what are you saying?
Click to expand...



The gospel is in Isaiah a few times.

'epangelia' and 'euangelia' are not roots of each other. They are related in terms of before and after, or expectation and fulfillment.

I'm referring to what appears to be a formal Promise (thus the capital P) in Gal 3:17, where the implication of Paul there is that Judaism (that he was raised in ) replaced the Promise with the Law, thus confining it to Israel and to obedience. Since there is no capitalization in the originals (everything is capital), the reader has to go by context. The third term that would be capitalized in Gal 3 would be Gospel, if you were going to capitalize the other two.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The gospel is in Isaiah a few times.

'epangelia' and 'euangelia' are not roots of each other. They are related in terms of before and after, or expectation and fulfillment.

I'm referring to what appears to be a formal Promise (thus the capital P) in Gal 3:17, where the implication of Paul there is that Judaism (that he was raised in ) replaced the Promise with the Law, thus confining it to Israel and to obedience. Since there is no capitalization in the originals (everything is capital), the reader has to go by context. The third term that would be capitalized in Gal 3 would be Gospel, if you were going to capitalize the other two.
Click to expand...

How does the phenomenal turmoil catapult you into this line of thinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top