TrustAndObey

TLC: What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either. T&O: Whether it makes any difference to you or your thoughts concerning dispensationalism makes zero difference to me. But since there are many in the dispensational view that hold that the Tanakh is not applicable to them or this "age", this is a rather decent verse stating just how applicable the Tanakh is to both Timothy and us today. As it states rather plainly that the "theopneustos" writings are applicable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. And these writings, as the verse prior to this states, were one's Timothy had known from a youth. "Holy" Writings that are able to make one wise unto salvation through trust in the Messiah. I would say that puts quite a bit of cohesion to both what was written of old, and what Paul was writing at the time. At any rate, my response was for waysider who was using the verse to show that Paul was marking his writings as "theopneustos", whereas I don't see that verse supporting it.

I'm not so certain I really favor that "translation"... I think it could be understood a couple other ways... According to "Elliot's Commentaary" it reads: Thus, the emphasis, and the point is not as to marking what is "theopneustos", but that whatever is "theopneustos" has a purpose.. The question of what is "theopneustos" is still left open. Another view from Greek, is that there are 2 things noted.. Both are types of "writings" - (graphe), as in "Every God inspired and profitable writings are for doctrine, for reproof, ....." Again, nothing is being labelled as "theopneustos", but whatever is, along with "other" profitable" writings are once again for a reason...

Maybe I understand your thinking. It's not thought of as seed, except it is with a caveat.. I guess as long as it makes sense to you. While you're right, that seed is seed. But like many words, it has different shades of meaning depending on context, so I'm not so certain I would try and paint everything with such a wide brush as only this one "exception" in historical/looking forward sense. As I would tend to also think that God uses it, like so many other things, in more than one sense at the same time.

You disagree that we have all been called to function as priests.. Would it be because you have a different view of what a priest is? Or because the definition doesn't seem to fit those called of God? And to help clarify, the word priest (kohen in Hebrew) is rooted in the meaning of one who stands sure, as a support for others. Long before Christ, the Roman kings were given the honorific title of the great priest, not solely because they were over all "religious" priests but also because they stood and gave support for the people they ruled. Would you not say that we are called to give support and help to one another? To at times provide surety to those in need?

I've made no boasts or claims of my agricultural knowledge. In fact, in all categories of life, I consider myself unknowledgeable, with "novice" being an overstated title. And yes, John 12:24 does state rather plainly "that a seed dies", only the death of seed wasn't questioned, it was your emphasis on "not remaining".. Since in your words the "seed does not remain", and the "seed" is Christ. Thus my question, so according to you does Christ not remain? Or is Christ not the seed of Abraham?

I'm glad to see you added the prefix "partial" to preterist... As full preterism make no sense to me, so I won't bother you with those questions, since you don't believe it either.. And I can't say I'm a full futurist either... Eschatology as whole is not something I place much thought or diligence into figuring out.

I think I am understanding a bit where you're coming from. But I tend to disagree.. You say that "certain aspects of the law are certainly still in effect" and mention the ten commandments.. But others are not... How does one decide what isn't in effect and which is? Just because the physical temple is rubble at the moment, and Jews refuse to offer sacrifices until it is rebuilt (which I think it will), what actually says the laws requiring them are not in in effect while the "other" laws are? And which ten commandments? You know the list of commandments in the scriptures where it uses the label "ten commandments" (Deut 34) is wholly different than the usual one Christians list.

So in not so many words, you didn't quite grasp my "supposed" clarification of "His gift that is promised"? Seeing that it was my attempt at clarification, and it didn't seem to do that, maybe you can explain what you don't understand.. His gift? Yes, salvation... You understand I don't use the term salvation as being just one event, yes? Not one future event, nor past, nor present. But many events. Understandable?

While there are lots of passages throughout the scriptures that point to a "soon", "at hand", "little while" aspect to the "end times", and I realize those taking them literally from the perspective of a timeline of all history can see it as either failed prophecies or the different "preterist" views. I don't think they "must" be understood that way alone. Much like many prophecies throughout, they had a literal "current" understanding and a future understanding. Call them physical vs spiritual, or whatever depending on the prophecy. But even Haggai 2 talks about the end coming in a short time. Yet that was at least 500 years before the 70AD destruction of the 2nd temple. Half a millennium doesn't sound like a "little while" to me, but in God's perspective, 1 day is as a thousand, yes? I tend to see most of these are they are coming shortly in the perspective of my life's timeline.. Which if we live to 100, that makes it much sooner than 500 years! Very soon. At hand. And well, the end is coming!

The word law is such a diverse topic, used in so many different contexts, that no doubt it at times is just one aspect of a covenant. But I think that it is just too big a topic to add to this discussion that I don't believe would help.. But maybe you're thinking it does? Maybe help guide us a bit into your thinking?

Whether you see 2 or lots of individual ones really isn't so much the point. God says things in so many ways, and the repeats, I think, are just so those who seek Him will always find something that they grasp. Much like all the different forms of Dispensations and Covenant theology.. I don't think any of them or any of us have a corner on understanding the depth of God's plan. But I think we can all agree, God has a plan yes? To me, it's just sad that many think God has different plans that cause division in the end. The us vs them mentality. The church is divided. Jews are divided. God's people are divided. Not because of God, but because we put doctrine where it doesn't belong. God gave it to guide us to Him and to Christ. Not to divide ourselves. We have all been called to function as priests, all been called to serve(minister). The covenants are God's promises we can depend upon. Christ being one of them, the law the other. To squabble over whether that includes God's covenant given to Abraham, to Adam, to David, to Noah, to Jacob, to Moses, makes little difference to me. And you say you see yourself as Abraham's seed in a different sense, would you care to elaborate?

I must not be understanding what you are defining here. "Seed" has always been Christ.. So, what is it again that doesn't remain? Christ? And John 12:24 doesn't refer to seed "not remaining", only to it producing fruit... Actually what I referenced, Ephraim and Judah, Israel and Judah is what the scriptures state. And as usual in the scriptures, just as Abraham's seed, there is a physical truth and there is a spiritual truth. David's son that was prophesied to die, was both a physical and spiritual. His temple, physical and spiritual. This continues from the heavens and earth all the way to the end.

In case no one answered this, Hebrews 8:13 just says, "When He[G-d] said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.".. As it says, it is growing old and ready to disappear [NASB]... That is, the covenant that brings death, the old covenant of the law. So until you find death no longer happening on this earth, you can pretty much guarantee it is still in effect. As the christian writings state, "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;" and "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." The latter describing the 2 covenants using the word law[nomos], since a covenant can not be changed or broken until fulfilled.

If I'm talking in circles for you, then feel free to point out what doesn't make sense..

I'm not sure I would call that "contradictory".. Since the world began, people have been breeding plants and animals for certain traits. That article just shows the progression of THC content in the marijuana plant. That's not even close to what I was talking about. This isn't about breeding, this is about worldwide decline. And I would have no doubt that our "breeding" for certain traits plays into ruining the nutritional value of plants. Whether breeding for brighter reds or more output, as a whole, our organic food is not as healthy as it used to be. And as most point out, it just means we have to eat more fruits and veggies than we used to.. So enjoy that 5kg watermelon! As an aside, in Numbers 13, it talks of them butting down a cluster of grapes and having 2 people carry it on a pole. Now, was that really just one cluster? Were they just being fancy in displaying it? We really don't know.. But seeing that the world record is almost 21lbs for a cluster of grapes, it's not too far to think it could have been a single cluster needing 2 people to carry on a pole.